In reading over your posts, I was particularly struck by what Cori wrote. To wit:
I believe that what happened to Adams was terrible, but I agree with Christian that this does not happen everyday. If there was a movie made about this, it shows that this was a big deal that it does not happen very often. I agree that it would be terrible if an innocent person was sitting in jail for something they did not commit, but it is difficult for people to be right all the time. Everyone makes mistakes, including the people working in law enforcement. As Jim and Elizabeth said, you have to have faith in the system and I believe that. The system has to work because if it didn’t there would be some other type of system that would exist with flaws. Also, the people following the system have the ability to change the system if it doesn’t work, so I think that we need to have faith in the system. I agree with everyone that this situation was terrible, but I also think that since a movie was made about it, it was a unique situation.
What I appreciate about this post is Cori's grappling with the ethical and social ramifications of what happened to Randall Adams. We have to have faith in the system--it is the system, after all, and the implications of it being imperfect are terrifying. Adams spending, what, 12 years in prison? 2 years waiting to be executed? And if this happened to him, who else has it happened to? And have innocent people been executed?
So take a look here. Just take 15 minutes or so to browse this sight. Look at some of the cases. Look at the reasons for why these cases happen. They actually support much of what Elizabeth talked about. What do you think?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Thin Blue Line. How The System Works.
I apologize for the lateness of this entry. We appreciate you guys hanging in there for this different sort of film. It's different even for a documentary, though the devices Errol Morris first used here, dramatizations primarily, are old hat now--watch America's Most Wanted sometime. Watch fellow documentary filmmakers talk about the influence this movie had.
This story would be a comedy if wasn't true. Randall Adams was convicted for a crime he didn't commit. He did spend 2 years on death row. And David Harris kept committing crime after crime and no one took him seriously.
So, as we asked in class,and in the context of our conversation with Jim and Elizabeth, what is your reaction to this horror story? And do you think this could ever happen to you? Why or why not?
This story would be a comedy if wasn't true. Randall Adams was convicted for a crime he didn't commit. He did spend 2 years on death row. And David Harris kept committing crime after crime and no one took him seriously.
So, as we asked in class,and in the context of our conversation with Jim and Elizabeth, what is your reaction to this horror story? And do you think this could ever happen to you? Why or why not?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Elizabeth and Jim
Two people I wouldn't mind being: Elizabeth the death penalty defense attorney and Jim, the former FBI agent, now federal prosecutor. So: what struck you about them? Just give your general reaction and/or one thing about each of them that stayed with you, and why.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
"If I'm Wrong, Then God Forgive Me."
Kelly here answers a question that we have come back to several times this short term. What happens when you cross the line and you are wrong? In Kelly's case, what if he had given Luis Hernandez "the worst beating of his life" and Hernandez didn't commit the crime? Again, we know Hernandez did, but the scenario leaves open the distinct possibility/probability that Kelly would beat an innocent man. So: what did you think of what Kelly did? For this one: forget that Hernandez is guilty. That's not the point. Would you condone Kelly's actions? Think too about how Kelly manipulates his suspect into the position of having to confess or get beaten. What do you think of Kelly's actions in this situation?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Homicide: Bop Gun.
A pretty intense episode, don't you think? Just to remind you...
One of its strengths, I think, is that you never can quite tell what it's about, or who's it about, or how we are supposed to feel about the characters, cops and criminals. So: address one of the following questions.
1. Detective Garner expressed no sympathy for perps, criminals. Did you have any sympathy for the criminals here? Why or why not?
2. Ellison, played by Robin Williams, demands Felton be taken off the case after he hears Beau and the others making fun of him. This is followed by Gee, the Lt., saying, "[[Felton's] not going to feel what you feel. None of us are...You need him to solve your murder, not to grieve." It's possible Giardello is just covering for his insensitive, jerky detective. Or else, he doesn't disapprove of Felton and the others' behavior. Make a case for the way the detectives behave in this scene. And does it make them bad human beings?
3. What's the role of race in this episode?
4. Howard can't let go of believing that Vaughn Perkins didn't do the killing. But he did. And at the end she seems...what? And why would she feel this way?
One of its strengths, I think, is that you never can quite tell what it's about, or who's it about, or how we are supposed to feel about the characters, cops and criminals. So: address one of the following questions.
1. Detective Garner expressed no sympathy for perps, criminals. Did you have any sympathy for the criminals here? Why or why not?
2. Ellison, played by Robin Williams, demands Felton be taken off the case after he hears Beau and the others making fun of him. This is followed by Gee, the Lt., saying, "[[Felton's] not going to feel what you feel. None of us are...You need him to solve your murder, not to grieve." It's possible Giardello is just covering for his insensitive, jerky detective. Or else, he doesn't disapprove of Felton and the others' behavior. Make a case for the way the detectives behave in this scene. And does it make them bad human beings?
3. What's the role of race in this episode?
4. Howard can't let go of believing that Vaughn Perkins didn't do the killing. But he did. And at the end she seems...what? And why would she feel this way?
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Real Thing
So what do you all think about Detectives Harris and Garner? Did you enjoy this couple hours? And further: what did they help clarify or illuminate or add to or confuse about what we've been talking about and watching?
For the record: we loved them. This was better than last year. And I somehow think that if Detective Garner stopped any of us for a traffic violation, she wouldn't let us go with just a warning.
Discuss!
For the record: we loved them. This was better than last year. And I somehow think that if Detective Garner stopped any of us for a traffic violation, she wouldn't let us go with just a warning.
Discuss!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Rush
Maybe Christian is right: showing this movie to 6th graders (not that he said 6th graders) would make all of them think, oh, 147 times before they would ever consider taking drugs. For example:
Yet the film itself has a deeply ambiguous take on drugs, as we talked about in class (not that it is espousing taking them). It is also ambiguous about its protagonists Jim and Kristen in their roles as undercover police. They can walk away from this job anytime, but they don't: and I don't get the idea that they are moral crusaders against narcotics, like their captain. Something else is at play here. So write about one of the following questions in a couple hundred words.
1. Why is the film called "Rush"?
2. Can Jim and Kristen conceivably do their job without getting snared in a morally complicated position?
3. How do you feel about these two? How much responsibility do they need to take or should take concerning their ever more problematic actions?
Yet the film itself has a deeply ambiguous take on drugs, as we talked about in class (not that it is espousing taking them). It is also ambiguous about its protagonists Jim and Kristen in their roles as undercover police. They can walk away from this job anytime, but they don't: and I don't get the idea that they are moral crusaders against narcotics, like their captain. Something else is at play here. So write about one of the following questions in a couple hundred words.
1. Why is the film called "Rush"?
2. Can Jim and Kristen conceivably do their job without getting snared in a morally complicated position?
3. How do you feel about these two? How much responsibility do they need to take or should take concerning their ever more problematic actions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)