Month: June 2024

The movies talked about here in the title are “High Noon”, and “Shane”. I have to compare and contrast the attitude of the movies “High Noon” and “Shane” regarding guns. But first, a little bit of what each movie is about.

“High Noon” was a western classic film made in 1952. According to Google, “Former marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is preparing to leave the small town of Hadleyville, New Mexico, with his new bride, Amy (Grace Kelly), when he learns that local criminal Frank Miller has been set free and is coming to seek revenge on the marshal who turned him in. When he starts recruiting deputies to fight Miller, Kane is discouraged to find that the people of Hadleyville turn cowardly when the time comes for a showdown, and he must face Miller and his cronies alone.”

“Shane” was another western classic film made in 1953. According to Google, “Enigmatic gunslinger Shane (Alan Ladd) rides into a small Wyoming town with hopes of quietly settling down as a farmhand. Taking a job on homesteader Joe Starrett’s (Van Heflin) farm, Shane is drawn into a battle between the townsfolk and ruthless cattle baron Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer). Shane’s growing attraction to Starrett’s wife, Marian (Jean Arthur), and his fondness for their son Joey (Brandon de Wilde), who idolizes Shane, force Shane to realize that he must thwart Ryker’s plan.”

Each of these movies has a different attitude towards guns. Like many other western movies, both of these movies’ climax’s ends with a gunfight. In “High Noon”, Kane fights the gang alone, but Amy, Kane’s wife, decides to help her husband by shooting of of the henchmen and giving Kane a clear shot to Miller’s head, which kills him. Because the townspeople did not fight the gang out of their own fear, Kane leaves the town with Amy without another word. In “Shane”, a final confrontation is inevitable as Ryker invites Joe to negotiate with him. However, Ryker plans to double-cross Joe and kill him. A former henchman warns Joe and Shane that Ryker plans to kill them. After that, Joe and Shane fight over who should go to the meeting. Shane wins, and kills Ryker, plus three of his henchmen. However, he leaves the town, knowing he cannot stay after killing four men.

In these movies, both men, Shane and Kane, do not want to use violence, but they believe it is necessary to maintain, or even restore, the safety of the towns. Kane was a former marshal, so his job was to use occasional violence to defend himself and others. Whereas Shane, being a former gunfighter, he did not want to hurt anyone, but he could not let the gang bully the townspeople away from their land. Both movies present guns as a tool that, in the right hands, can be used to help people. However, in the wrong hands, it can be used to hurt people. We need to use guns as a tool to protect people, never to hurt them.

Tax-funded education includes public schools, because they get money from the government. The private schools, however, are not tax-funded. They do not get money from the government.

What does it mean to be bureaucratic? According to the Dictionary, it is “relating to the business of running an organization, or government.” According to Wikipedia, “Bureaucracy is a system of organization where decisions are made by a body of non-elected officials. Historically, a bureaucracy was a government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials.” Non-elected officials are officials who were not voted into ‘office’. For example, if you became the boss of a company, you have not been elected to take that position, but now you are an official, which is someone in an organization or government who practices authority.

Is tax-funded education inherently bureaucratic? Being tax-funded basically means that it is state-funded. Have you ever heard of the quote “He who pays the piper calls the tune”? It is like that for tax-funded schools too. The state funds the schools, so the state decides what is taught in public schools. That means that the state basically controls the public school system. The government teaches in the school that the government has supreme authority and the public must do everything it says. Government education restraints freedom, even though we think we live in a free country. Reality is that the public should decide what to do with tax money, but because of the teachings they were taught in school, they are deprived of that liberty.

 Tax-funded education is inherently bureaucratic. And the fact that people think they are free, when indeed, freedom is lacked due to the government education people were taught when they were kids, is destroying the country. To a kid, education is everything. And if the government cannot give kids the education they need, but the education the government wants, kids will grow up thinking the government is everything. They will think that life without the government will be chaotic. There are people like that today. Government education is destroying kid’s lives. Thankfully, there are private schools that are not tax-funded, and homeschooling is always an option.

Is it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers?

 Let me tell you from my experience. When I am watching a movie, I am usually expecting things that I like. If there are movies with things or themes that I do not like, I usually will not watch it again. But, if there is a movie with a lot of themes and things that I do like (action, suspense, thriller, comedy, for example), I will watch it again. I am also usually very involved in the movie if I really like it. That is called being manipulated. You are involved in the movie. When I am involved in a movie, or I am being manipulated by the movie, I usually will not want it to stop, and I will want to watch it again. That is what the authors, or movie directors, want. They want the audience to love their movie, so they try to add things to the movie that they think that people will like. They want to manipulate you so that you will love there movie the best. If someone makes a movie that nobody likes, nobody will want to watch it again, and directors do not want that to happen.

It is relatively easy to manipulate movie viewers. The viewers can see what is happening very easily. There are almost no confusing parts by the end of most movies. The viewers like to see what is happening instead of imagining it, like in a book. Nowadays, people do not like to use their imagination unless they have to. Movies do not require a lot of imagination like when you are reading a book.
When you read a book, you need to use your imagination. Books use a lot of words to explain, lets say the setting. While in a movie, you can see the setting and you know what it looks like. Maybe the book does not explain something very well and you think “Wait, what happened?” It is not as easy for authors to manipulate book readers than it is to manipulate movie viewers.
Now, I like to read books probably more than movies, but not a lot of people are like that. I bet that most Americans prefer to watch a movie than those who prefer to read a book. It all comes down to manipulation. Manipulation determines how long people will be interested in a book or movie, or even if they will read or watch it again. But, manipulation is different is different for every person. Somebody might like an action thriller, another might like a comedy. So they might have different opinions about a movie or a book than the other person. However, another big reason that people like movies more than books is music. Music can sway a person’s emotions more than anything else in a movie. Books do not have that. Like when I read a book, I sometimes imagine music playing in my head for different parts. My final deduction is that it is definitely easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers than book readers.