Category: 12th Grade English

In this past year of American Literature, I have been learning about books and movies, both of which are American literature. I have also learned about the differences of each from each other. In this essay, I will explain what each of them are in, hopefully, my simplest terms, and explain what I like or do not like about each.

Personally, I love to read, sometimes even more than watching movies. In books, you have to imagine what is happening because you can not see what is happening. In movies, all you do is watch and listen. You see things and you hear things. No imagination involved. However, books explain things more clearly. In movies, you have to see for yourself. Now, most people like seeing things happen rather than imagining it for themselves because it is easier, and it is. However, I like to use my imagination. Books are better at explaining things. For example, a book says when a person is sad, happy, depressed, etc. Books also show what people are thinking. Movies can not do that. People have to say it for you to understand it. Now, you may be able to tell a person’s emotions from their facial expression or their actions, but you can not tell what they are thinking unless somebody says it. However, if there is like an animal or plant that the book is trying to describe, I do find it a little hard to try to think of what it may look like in my mind, whereas in a movie, you can see what it looks like. You sight is the most powerful of your senses, so it is no wonder people would rather see things happen then use their imagination and imagine it for themselves. I have a huge imagination, so it is no problem for me to imagine what is happening in a book. However, there is the problem of unrecognizable words. Some words you do not know and some words are hard to pronounce. However, you could go get the dictionary to figure out what they mean. But whose gonna want to read through a dictionary to find out what a word means while you are reading a good book? Not me. However, in movies you do not read (unless during subtitles or a sign or whatever). You just mainly watch and listen, which is easy. Also, one of my favorite parts about movies is the music. Music plays a huge factor in movies, and that just makes people like it more. Sometimes when I am reading, I imagine music playing in the background while a particular scene is playing out in the book. Music is definitely a big part of why people like movies and not books.

These are the biggest points I think are associated with the differences between movies and books. Personally, I like some books better than movies, and some movies better than books. I kind of depends on what I am watching or reading. I am sure it is the same for you too.

Quiz Show did not tell the truth about key historical figures. Did this break the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’? First, a quick summary of the movie:

Queens-born Herbie Stempel (John Turturro) becomes an unlikely hero after winning on America’s beloved game show, “Twenty One.” When the network decides to bring in a more telegenic contestant, the WASP-ish Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), Stempel takes aim at the show, announcing that the game is rigged. Congressional investigator Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow) is brought in to examine the claim that winners were given the answers. Goodwin wrote the book on which this true story is based.

Quiz Show did not tell the truth about key historical figures. Did this break the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’? What does it mean to bear false witness? Now, we cannot take this out of context, so lets see what bearing false witness means in the Bible, which is where this verse (Exodus 16:20) is found. What does it mean to bear false witness according to the Bible? To bear false witness in the Bible means to give an untrue testimony. It basically means to lie. If the movie Quiz Show did not tell the truth about key historical figures, would that count as bearing false witness? I would say that if it is not the truth, it is a lie. The question literally says ‘did not tell the truth’. That means that the movie lied about key historical figures. Now, some people might see this as not lying because it’s just a movie and it is not real. However, several movies lie about a lot of things in the real world. Sometimes it is important to the story, that they just changed it or made something up for the movie to make sense, but if it is not the truth, it is a lie. Some people call these lies harmless, the more common term I think is a white lie. But it does not matter if it is the smallest lie, or even if you twist the truth, they are still lies. Quiz Show did not tell the truth about historical key figures, so yes, I think this breaks the commandment ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’. Quiz Show lied about key historical figures. Some people might say that it is fine, that people know the truth about them so the lie does not matter, but what about those that do not know the truth? Are they just going to go on with life thinking that this lie is the truth? Many people think that if it is in a movie, it is probably a lie, but it might be the truth, so if they do not know if it is a lie or the truth, they forget about it. But what of those people that believe that it is the truth? I do not know about them, but what I do know is that lies are wrong. Quiz Show lied about key historical figures, and that was wrong.

The two movies that this title is talking about are “Tender Mercies” and “Driving Miss Daisy”. In what ways are both of these movies about grace: gifts unearned by the recipient? Here is a quick summary of each movie:

 Tender Mercies: According to Google, Down-on-his-luck country singer Mac Sledge (Robert Duvall) has nowhere to turn when he wakes up in a motel, short on cash. So he takes a job from Rosa Lee (Tess Harper), the kindly widow who runs the place. Mac begins to fall for Rosa, who helps him confront his drinking, and also finds an unexpected bond with Rosa’s young son (Allan Hubbard). When the opportunity for a career comeback surfaces, Mac must choose between his new life and the life he let slip through his hands.

Driving Miss Daisy: According to Google, Daisy Werthan (Jessica Tandy), an elderly Jewish widow living in Atlanta, is determined to maintain her independence. However, when she crashes her car, her son, Boolie (Dan Aykroyd), arranges for her to have a chauffeur, an African-American driver named Hoke Colburn (Morgan Freeman). Daisy and Hoke’s relationship gets off to a rocky start, but they gradually form a close friendship over the years, one that transcends racial prejudices and social conventions.

In Tender Mercies, when Mac is given a job from Rosa, Rosa is giving Mac grace, since she has barely any money anyway. She is giving him grace by giving him a job. She also gives him grace by helping him control his drinking problem. This movie shows that grace can change lives, just like it did here.

In Driving Miss Daisy, Daisy is a ‘grumpy old person’. She thinks she does not need any help, but her friends keep giving her grace, even when she is mean to them. And in the end, she is no longer a grumpy old person. She is now a kind old lady. This movie shows that grace can turn a mean person into a kind person, given the right amount of time. In this movie, it took years!

Now, I know that these are fiction movies, and that they may not not ever happen in real life. And they may not, but grace exists in everything. Grace means giving someone something that they do not deserve. In Tender Mercies, Rosa gives Mac a job that he absolutely does not deserve. And in Driving Miss Daisy, Hoke and Daisy’s son gives Daisy grace by being kind to her, even if she is not kind in return. And in both of these movies, grace ultimately changes these people’s lives. And grace does change lives. Sometimes it’s showing grace to a stranger whom you may only see once, and sometimes it’s showing grace to a sibling you see every day. Either way, grace can change lives. And these movies (despite being fiction) are perfect examples of what grace can do to someone’s life. We are to give grace to everyone, just as Jesus died on the cross for us, even though we did not deserve it, and now He’s alive and preparing a place for those who believe in Him. Now that’s grace!

The movies referred to here are “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “In the Heat of the Night”. I think what the title is saying is as an observer is I am a part of the audience. You know, I am watching the movie, following along with it, etc. But what does the title mean by a participant? I do not think it has anything to do with me helping to make the movie. I am not entirely sure what my teacher means by participant, so I am going to guess based on my best judgement. I think that it means that I watch the movie, I follow along, but I also feel what the character feels, I am watching it intently, not wanting to miss a single detail, being drawn into the movie, I think you know what I mean. I get both of these “feelings” whenever I watch a movie, which one I get depends on the movie I watch. Before I answer the question “To what extent was I pulled into each movie as a participant rather than as an observer?”, I want to give you a quick hint of the plot line of these movies. First is “To Kill a  Mockingbird”, and next will be “In the Heat of the Night”.

First, “To Kill a Mockingbird” According to Google, “Scout Finch (Mary Badham), 6,and her older brother, Jem (Phillip Alford), live in sleepy Maycomb, Ala., spending much of their time with their friend Dill (John Megna) and spying on their reclusive and mysterious neighbor, Boo Radley (Robert Duvall). When Atticus (Gregory Peck), their widowed father and a respected lawyer, defends a black man named Tom Robinson (Brock Peters) against fabricated rape charges, the trial and tangent events expose the children to evils of racism and stereotyping.”

Second, “In the Heat of the Night” According to Google, “African-American Philadelphia police detective Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) is arrested on suspicion of murder by Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger), the racist police chief of tiny Sparta, Mississippi. After Tibbs proves not only his own innocence but that of another man, he joins forces with Gillespie to track down the real killer. Their investigation takes them through every social level of the town, with Tibbs making enemies as well as unlikely friends as he hunts for the truth.”

To what extent was I pulled into each movie as a participant rather than as an observer? You know, I am not really the kind of person who is easily pulled into old movies, like these. These movies were interesting, but I did not really feel like a participant. I was just watching them, making me an observer, but I did not feel like a participant. Some other people might feel like a participant when  they watch these movies, but not me. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 as observer and 10 as participant, I felt like a 3. Other people will have different opinions, but mine is I did not feel like a participant, only an observer.

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.

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.

The films I am talking about in the title are “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” and “Stagecoach”. Are there any characteristic features of Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? Are there any characteristic features of John Wayne in “Stagecoach” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? These two people were famous actors of Hollywood’s Golden Age. They were both gifted actors, but that is not the only reason why they became so famous stars. they each also had different characteristics which made them stand out on the screen.

Jimmy Stewart was born in a small town town in Pennsylvania. This town is also where he grew up. When he was older, he wanted to attend the United States Naval Academy. However, his father insisted him to attend Princeton University instead, which he did. It was there that he majored in architecture. It was while he was in Princeton, however, that he became involved in Princeton’s drama and music clubs. He eventually decided to pursue acting rather than architecture. After graduating from Princeton, Stewart joined the University Players. This was a summer stock company for college students. It was here that he met his lifelong friend and fellow actor, James Fonda. After that summer, the two of them moved to New York City to further pursue their careers. Stewart found a few small Broadway roles between 1932 and 1934, before Fonda found success in film and moved to Hollywood. Stewart eventually stared the leading role in romantic comedy “Next Time We Love”. HE then partnered up for the first time with director Frank Capra in “You Can’t Take It With You” in 1938. They also partnered for other classics, including “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Stewart excelled in the roles where he played honest men in times of trial and hardships because he was an honest, good-hearted man who lived a mostly clean lifestyle. Because of this, he could convey a bit of relatability to the audience, as his characters struggled with life, but eventually decide to do the right thing, which any person would do or want to do in a similar situation.

John Wayne was born in 1907 in Iowa. However, was raised mainly in California. He was rejected from the United States Naval Academy. He also attended USC on a football scholarship, however, he lost the scholarship due to a bodysurfing accident. He was forced to find employment after that. Wayne found work acting for Fox Films in small parts. This lead to his first leading role in “The Big Trail” in 1930. This film was a huge flop, but it did raise Wayne’s profile, nevertheless. He appeared in several B movies, which mainly included westerns. He appeared in so many B movies that he eventually lost count himself! In 1939, Wayne’s career took a major turn when he was cast as the second billed star in “Stagecoach”, directed by John Ford. Wayne’s acting ability allowed him to play ultimately good men that many other men in the audience could connect with. Being able to connect with the audience while being a “giant” while he was onscreen was rare, and it allowed him to become an American legend.

Would You rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? There are pros and cons to both. Let me explain:

First, watching a movie in a theater:

Pros: You get to watch a movie on a huge screen with surround sound. That is a big one. Plus, you get to enjoy the movie in comfortable seats. You get to enjoy the full force of the movie while enjoying yourself. And there are no annoying distractions to deal with. No phones, no children, no nothing. You also get to eat popcorn, which is a classic movie theater snack (or so I think).

Cons: The title of the essay says ‘alone in a theater’. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to watch a movie with other people I love. I like to share enjoyable moments with friends and family. Also, I will assume that ‘if they cost the same’ does not count for gas. You need gas for a car to drive to the theater, unless you live close to one so that you can walk. Also, you have to dress up for a movie theater, but some people like to dress up. And I do not mean dress up like a tuxedo or dress, just normal clothes. You wouldn’t go to a theater in PJ’s, would you?

Second, watching a movie online:

Pros: You can dress in whatever you want for it. You are not going anywhere. You’re just at home, enjoying yourself. You also get to chose what you eat and drink while you watch it. You can make noise, laugh, whatever you want. It’s your house. No one tells you what to do. And you do not have to go anywhere to see the movie. You get to stay home and watch it.

Cons: It is a small screen you have to watch it on, with no surround sound. And there can be many distractions. Children, calls, door bell, you have to pause the movie for all of these things, or at least I do. These things are annoying, but I think you know this already. And once again, the title says ‘alone… online’. You are, once again, alone. I like to enjoy a good movie with people I love, wherever that movie may be.

Assessment: Depending on all of these pros and cons (I do not think that I covered it all, you may have thought of things that I have not thought of), I think that I would like to see a movie in a theater rather than online. It mainly has to do with the giant screen and surround sound though. However, I would still like to watch a movie in a theater, but if there were people involved, and I had to chose between online with them or in a theater by myself, I would rather watch it with them online. But I would like to watch a movie in a theater with my friends. I would like to do that most.

What was The Birth of a Nation? According to Wikipedia, this movie was “…a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith…” What was the goal for this movie? According to pbslearningmedia.org, “The film is considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. Thomas Dixon, who wrote the book The Clansman, on which The Birth of a Nation was based, reveled in its success. “The real purpose of my film was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life.”“

Why was this movie, “The Birth of a Nation”, the first blockbuster? First I need to answer this question: what is a blockbuster in terms of movies? According to Oxford Reference, “A film with an extremely high *production and *marketing budget that attains considerable commercial success. The term ‘blockbuster’ derives from the word used to describe large-scale bombs used in World War II.” And this movie was considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. That means people really liked it. According to The Guardian, “Most of all, the audiences of 1915 were dazzled by feature-length movies that could legitimately be called blockbusters, notably the record-breaking, notorious The Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith’s racist romance of America’s Reconstruction era following the civil war.” People really like movies, especially The Birth of a Nation.

Why did people like The Birth of a Nation? This movie portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as the saviors of the South from the freedpeople, who were showed as being vicious and brutal beings. Apparently, Woodrow Wilson praised the movie. He made it the first movie to ever be showed at the White House. This movie was an incredible success. However, some people challenged the portrayal of African Americans and tried to have the movie banned and censored, but they were unsuccessful in their attempt. According to Facing History & Ourselves, “African American writer James Weldon Johnson wrote in 1915 that The Birth of a Nation did “incalculable harm” to Black Americans by creating a justification for prejudice, racism, and discrimination for decades to follow.”

Why was this movie so popular? According to Wikipedia, “Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film’s success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S. In response to the film’s depictions of black people and Civil War history, African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested.” The author of the book The Clansman (the book the movie is based on), Thomas Dixon, wrote: “My object is to teach the North, the young North, what it has never known—the awful suffering of the white man during the dreadful Reconstruction period. I believe that Almighty God anointed the white men of the South by their suffering during that time . . . to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.”

This movie was popular nationwide and has captivated the minds of white audiences, but angered the blacks. This movie was a great blockbuster, but that does not mean that is was a good movie.

What is “Philip Dru”? “Philip Dru” is a book written anonymously by Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” “Philip Dru” was a political novel published in 1912. According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is a very quick summary: Philip Dru was a man who joined the military. He was a military genius, but he lost his sight while in a desert. He won a military competition against other military generals, soldiers, etc., held every five years, in his mid twenties. He was a military genius. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused. He then went into politics. He discussed several issues in the book. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government because it had become too corrupt. In the end of the book, he eventually becomes the dictator of America.

Is the novel, “Philip Dru”, a defense of liberty? What is liberty? According to the Dictionary, “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.” Liberty is the state of being free from the oppressiveness of people in government or in authority or power over you. Meaning that these people cannot stop you from doing what you want to do. They cannot stop you from freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Our three God-given rights are life, property, and liberty. That is the purpose of the government. To protect our rights. However, the government can over-reach its power. Like imposing taxes. The government makes us pay our hard earned money to them. That is a complete violation of our God-given right to property. Plus, the government just waste the tax money they ‘steal’ from us. They just give it to other government funded businesses, or they just waste it on useless things. And when the government slacks, crimes are not dealt with, the country falls into chaos. Laws are necessary for a nation to run smoothly, I think you can relate to that. However, when one person is making decisions for an entire country based on their own judgement and worldviews, the nation will fall into chaos. One man can become corrupt. Philip Dru was a dictator and made decisions based on his judgement in the book. One man cannot possibly make decisions that work for the whole nation. That is why America has different forms of government (legislative, judicial, executive), to make sure that not one person is running a country, but a group of people, making decisions for the people based on the best interests of the people. The government was made not by the people, but for the people.

That is why I think that the novel “Philip Dru” is not a defense of liberty. Having one man in charge of everything is a terrible idea.