RICHARD GRAY (rgray@scotlandonsunday.com)

IF LITERATURE is food for the
 mind, then a poem is a banquet, according to research by Scottish scientists
 which shows poetry is better for the brain than prose.

Psychologists at Dundee
and St Andrews universities claim the work of poets such as Lord
Byron exercise the mind more than a novel by Jane Austen. By monitoring the way
different forms of text are read, they found poetry generated far more eye
 movement which is associated with deeper thought.

Subjects were found to read
 poems slowly, concentrating and re-reading individual lines more than they did with 
prose. Preliminary studies using brain-imaging technology also showed greater
 levels of cerebral activity when people listened to poems being read aloud. Dr
Jane Stabler, a literature expert at St Andrews University and a member of the research group, believes poetry 
may stir latent preferences in the brain for rhythm and rhymes that develop
 during childhood. She claims the intense imagery woven through poems, and 
techniques used by poets to unsettle their readers, force them to think more
 carefully about each line. “There seems to be an almost immediate
 recognition that this is a different sort of language that needs to be 
approached in a way that will be more attentive to the density of words in
 poetry,” she said. “It may be because readers are trying to hear the 
words or recreate the imaginary event the poet has provided a script for.
” Also, children seem to be born with a love of rhyme and rhythm. Then
 something happens and by the time we see them in the first year at university
 many of them are almost frightened of poetry and clamouring to study the
 contemporary novel.”

To study readers’ reactions,
 the research group focused an infrared beam on the pupils of their eyes to
 detect minute movements as they read.

They found poetry produced 
all the standard psychological indications associated with intellectual
 difficulty, such as slow deliberate movement, re-reading sections and long
 pauses. Even when they used identical content but displayed it in both a poem
 format and a prose format, they discovered readers found the poem form the more
 difficult to understand. Stabler said: “When readers decide that something
 is a poem, they read in a different way. As literary critics we would like to 
think that this is a more thoughtful way, more receptive to the text’s richness
 and complexity, but in psychological terms it is the same sort of reading
 produced by a dyslexic reader who finds reading difficult. “We focused on
 poetry that disturbs or unsettles readers like the work of Lord Byron. “We
 found that his stanza form in Don Juan does make subjects read more quickly
 than readers focusing on the rhymes of an elegy in a similar metre.”

Stabler believes those
 reading other poets, such as Robert Burns, would show similar increases in
 brain activity.

The group hopes to use
 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans to watch how the brain reacts as people 
listen to poetry and prose. Early results suggest a larger area of the brain
 lights up in the scans upon hearing poetry by Byron than prose by Austen. The 
research has profound implications for the way English literature is taught in
 schools, and Stabler believes they should consider placing greater emphasis on 
teaching youngsters poetry.

Both rhythm and rhyme have been found to be
 intricately linked with making and recalling memories. Stabler asked: “If 
poetry helps to stir memory, might it be useful in the treatment of age-related
 or injury related memory problems?” Dr Martin Fischer, an experimental
 psychologist at Dundee University involved in the project, claims the findings could 
also form the basis for producing new techniques for helping dyslexic children.
 He said: “It certainly has implications for children who have certain
 difficulties, like in dyslexia where a rhyming deficiency could be compensated
 for by exposing them to more poetry.” Members of the literary world have
 welcomed the research and insist it underlines the importance poetry has played 
in literature.

Bestselling crime novelist Ian Rankin said too many people felt
 intimidated by poetry without realising it was designed to be challenging. He
 said: “Novels first began as a form of poetry where story telling was used
 to pass tales from one generation to the next. This was done with rhythm and
 rhyme as it made the stories easier to remember. “We are even seeing that
 today with song lyrics – the only way rap artists can remember all those lyrics
 is because they have rhythm and rhyme. “Not many people pick up books of 
poetry anymore to read. You have to wonder if people find them too hard. “
Edwin Morgan, the nation’s official Makar, the Scottish equivalent of the poet
 laureate, added: “Writing poetry is almost a physical experience as well
 as mental. Children are rarely worried about extracting too much meaning from
 poems, but they seem to get a much deeper experience from it.”

James McTeigue‘s 2005 film “V for Vendetta” staring Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman tries to bring Alan Moore’s comic book character to the big screen. Though his ideas come together well in one hundred thirty two minutes, they maybe a bit too much for your typical movie goer to absorb in such a short period of time. However, I feel it is a must-see movie for all Americans, not just because of its action and amazing plot twist, but for the symbolic undertones and call for change.

The film traces V’s rise to power as he puts together his plan to change the state of his country. Several events force V and Natalie Portman’s character, Evey, together. Throughout the film you see his skill of manipulation and how he grooms her to be his successor to carry on his ideas.

Through the course of the film we get a closer idea of who V really is. Though we never find out his true identity, the back drop of the film reveals how V became the “humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate.” The more and more we uncover, we see just how the nation came upon its chaotic state and our curiosity behind V’s motives are satisfied. Through the myriad of events-the blowing up of buildings, kidnapping, shooting, stabbing, biological experimentation and vicious harangues from a hostile Hitleresque leader, we too are drawn into the movie. Perhaps this movie is more entertaining than I led you to believe, but I’ll let you be the judge.

I will tell you however, that the movie serves well as an ingenious and masterfully woven quilt of social commentary. From the social issue of the fear of homosexuals, to the political issues of government leaders abusing their power and even biological research on human beings, the film causes us to question the current and possible future state of our nation. In the opening dialogue from on England’s BTN news anchors Prothero, he mentions that “the former United States” has in his eyes become “Ulcered Sphincter of Arse-erica.” You immediately want to ask yourself, “how did we get to such a state?” I feel that McTeigue is deliberately making a warning to us. The events depicted in V for Vendetta, mirror those of a post 9/11 United States and are a possible omen.

The theme that the media plays a major role as a mass influencer is clearly seen in the film. The fact that there is only one news station shows that there is no objectivity. The station is “coincidentally” run by Dascomb, one of Chancellor Adam Sutler’s minions, this shows how the government plays an even bigger role in what the masses can and can’t know.  With his quote “our job is to report the news, not fabricate it… that’s the government’s job,” Dascomb is illustrating this theme even further.

            Another theme that is displayed well in the film is that nothing is a coincidence. As the plot unfolds before us, we see just how each and every character is connected. We also see how, the story, given the social troubles and woes, could happen, just about anywhere. During their initial meeting V states that he, like God doesn’t “play with dice and doesn’t believe in coincidences.” The dialogue in the movie is a little stressed as it goes on further to use the word “coincidence”.  As the story of V’s life is finally coming together, the officer, Dominic even goes so far as to say that the “coincidences are making him sick”, at this point in the movie I was quite frankly sick of them too. However, visually the film makes up for it with a scene on the eve of V’s big night where, with the symbolic help of red and black dominioes in the shape of a “V”, we see the connection of each us and how together we can reach a goal.

            Another theme in the film is that change comes through violence. Whether you totally agree or disagree with this thought,  McTeigue emphasis is clearly shown through the film. He does acknowledge that there maybe some people who disagree, so he tries to gain sympathy on V’s behalf, by telling us that V’s motives are partialy in rememberance of Vallerie. By using an innocent woman who wanted nothing more but want to be with her lover, as a motivation, it is clearly a ploy to gain sympathy. However, McTeigue is unappoligeitc about the violent ends V goes to, to reach change. He even opts to justify them with a voice over from Malcom X during the ending credits that talks about using violence in self-defense.  That’s what V’s character lived for; defending himself against a harsh and oppressor government.

            The theme of governmental manipulation was also played out well in the film. McTeigue chose to show us, the possible negative events they may come into play in America,  if we don’t do something about the government. Censorship, invasion of privacy, and fear tactics were heavily emphasised in the film. We saw how Detrich’s show had to have an  approved script or it wouldn’t air, and also that there were phone taps and investigators listening in on people’s conversations. Deranged with power Chancellor Adam Sutler  want s  “everyone to remember why they need” the governemnt. He did everything in his power to make absolutely sure of this and in the process created complete and utter chaos. By pumping fear into the land with man-made virsuses, curfews, surveillance to “protect” national security, and terror all over the news media, he slowly created a weakend and fearful yet, obedient nation. It was also a nation with people ‘s rights clearly being violated. By manipulating the people into fear and obedince he had complete control of the land. The film showed us the theme that the government can abuse it’s power and destroy a country and everything it once stood for.

One element of the film that was poorly done and clearly just for Hollywood, was the “love” Evey had for V. It wasn’t unnecessary to help bring the story along nor do I feel that it made the story any better. In fact, I feel that it slowed the movie down and caused confusion as to Evey’s true motives for her final actions in the film. I’d like to think that her “love” for him played a minimal part in her decision and that she chose to do what she did because of her own convicitons. The two seemed a bit off beat on screen when Evey’s feelings of “love” came into play. She seemed indecisive as to how she really felt. Her indesiciveness made her acting during these scences terrible and the whole idea of love between them unbelivable. It was clearly a request from Hollywood and didn’t fit in with the tone of the film.

            The sound for the film was rather dull, aside from the appropriate ending song. “Street Fighting Man,” from the Rolling Stones couldn’t have been a better choice to embody V’s character because that is exactly what V was.

            The cinematography in the film was well done. The editing technique that simulatnetously showed V and Evey’s characters after they experienced their change, showed us that they had a lot in common and that Evey was just starting her journey as a future defender of justice. In on of the most action packed scences of the film, we visually marvel at how well V’s sword training pays off. McTeigue’s choice of using actual footage of past riots and protests further showed us the possiblity that current day America could become the future England in his film.

The parellels of events in V for Vendetta definitely raise several questions and I feel that was McTeigue’s ulitmate goal. From the wide spread hysteria due to war, terror, and disease, to the conversion of a peaceful country into a totalitarian regime, the film makes us wonder if America could be next. V for Vendetta asks you what are you going to do as a citizen? V’s quote, “People should not fear their government. The government should fear its people,” sums up the movie in a nutshell.  Throughout the film V was on a quest to put fear back into the government for what they did to him and England as a whole. I would highly recommend this film for those who take an interest in social and political issues, but even more so for the average Joe. V for Vendetta will definitely stir some people emotions, and that is ultimately the goal of the film.

Brittney Werts

In this movie we have a model hero Hugo Weaving who is playing “V” and Natalie Portman who is playing Evey. The movie is taking place in the early future in United Kingdom. Vendetta is a very mad to the political system in England. He wants some change in the system and he will do whatever it takes. He meets with the Natalie Portman who is a very cute televisionist and pulls her with him. Vendetta’s first goal is try to reach British citizens and show them how and why government lied to them about important issues in England.  In this point an inspector Stephan Rea is authorized to find out who is Vendetta by president.

              In the beginning of the movie I was very curious why James McTeigue who was also the first assistant of “The Matrix Reloaded” and The Matrix Revolutions” filmed this movie in the United Kingdom instead of United States.  Even though, United Kingdom and United States have same political view United Kingdom a lot more sensitive about Homeland security and terrorist attack. For Instance, while more than 30 million illegal people working in the United States in the United Kingdom it is almost impossible. And secondly; If you don’t have  a valid  U.K visa you can not even use the England‘s airport for transit service. For other European countries you are not required to have a transit visa but for England. To obtain a visa from U.K is more difficult than to obtain from other EU counties either. Therefore, The United Kingdom does not welcome immigrants or any kind of people which England might get hurt. I believe James tried to point out that United Kingdom is getting discriminator about immigrants. According to him, a Muslim might be a possible terrorist who can be cause of another terrorist attack in England.              In 9th of September in 2001 a group of Muslim people killed thousands of human in the

World Trade Center. There are more than eight hundred million Muslims in this World and If we compare the Muslims who are called terrorists and killed innocent civilians are inconsiderable percent of Muslim society. So, Muslim terrorists are very small group in this Muslim society but all terrorist attacks have been linked to all Muslims. Aldof Hitler and Radovan Karadzic killed thousands of innocent people because of their religion. Nobody linked these genocides to Christianity. James strongly highlights that one day in England it will be hard to define your self as a Muslim.  Muslims will not be in the society and will be pointed as malicious people. In one of the scenes Vendetta illustrates to watcher how it is hard to have a Qua ran in the house after the televisionist is killed because of the holy book.               But, this motion picture fails if we consider about a love story. Natalie doesn’t fall in love with f Vendetta but she demands to know what the behind of the mask looks like. At the end of the movie conversations between V and Evey could be more excited. I don’t think anybody who watched the film liked the scene that Evey said “I love you and I want to be with you” This was the poorest scene and couldn’t deliver a true love story.  Evey’s performance is on the top and I think we will see her again with another film.

              As a result, V for Vendetta is a decent film that everyone will enjoy with it. However, it is not like other movies that you don’t forget for several months or several years. There are some decent scenes in this movie and excellent visual effects. It will take you to

United Kingdom and show how they will discriminate Muslims one day. Vendetta summarizes how it is hard to live in a Christian country as a Muslim after the terror attack in 9.11. In After watching the movie you are absolutely will compare the political views of the United States and United Kingdom. (3.5 stars out of 5)

Ozzy  G-

Based on David Lloyd’s graphic novel of the same name, V for Vendetta is a movie that most people would want to see.  Set some time in the future in totalitarian England and its focal point is a self-determined man known as V (Weaving) who plans to bring down the Parliament.  Directed by James McTeigue an unforgettable narrative full of mystery, and action that will leave the viewer staggered with special effects. 

In the film, the main character named V plots to destroy the English Parliament Building, minutes into the movie V says, “Remember, remember the 5th of November, the gun powder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder treason should ever be forgot.”  A local woman who works at a television station, Evey played by Natalie Portman gets wedged in the revolution with V.  The relationship that Evey develops with V represents one half of the plot of the movie; they have a bitter-sweet love story. 

This film has two plots which is liberty and revenge but centered on love.  Years ago, V was part of a human test for biochemical warfare testing.  The facility had been bombed on November 5^th, date is no coincidence.  V escapes alive but scared for life and with avenges. V constantly uses the anniversary of Guy Fawkes’ attempted revolution for his revenge. V carefully kills everyone involved in Larkhill, the facility where he and others were experimented on the year after he bombed the Old Bailey.

Mentioned previously the film contains two plots that make for a good action packed thriller, and warm love scenes. Merging the two together could not have been easy for the writer. It also makes vital political statements which add to the intensity of the film.  The movie was released in 2006, which I think was the director’s subtle way of highlighting the War on Iraq, which is still going on today.

The love scenes are somewhat out of place.  V tortures Evey and gives her physical and mental strength; this is what makes there relationship stronger—very strange and unrealistic. Tortured by V unwittingly Evey discovers that V does have what it takes to carry out this revolution.  It teaches us an important life lesson that we all need other people at time to help us our most difficult problems.

The movie distorts social reality because as the viewer you know that this love story would never take place in the society we live in.  V can almost be considered a stalker in some sense.  Evey in the beginning of the film was a very timid woman who then later turns into this “hardcore” female because of V.  I thought that was interesting the way they transitioned her character into something else.  As far as the political aspect, would we as Americans go against our government? I find that hard to believe that we could take a stand as the people in the movie did against England.

V as both the hero and the villain in this movie; he explains the brilliance behind his plans.  He also explains his hidden agendas, not once in this movie do you see give up his fights for this cause that is so dear to his heart.  The fact that he is filled with revenge is what keeps him going but is also what kills him.

V for Vendetta was engaging but unrealistic. The intention of this movie is to arouse the mind of the viewer.  Although there were a couple scenes that were too long, and complexed maybe that would have taken away from the film without them.  It showed that every action has a reaction.  If you turn your head for one moment you could miss a large portion of the movie.  It is worth is merit the two hours and twelve minutes, just to view the revolution and the point the V tries to make that “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”  I definitely recommend this movie.

Martine E. Antoine

            While 2006’s V for Vendetta may sound promising- A politically critical thriller with a talented cast set in the not too distant future- it ends up having set the bar a bit too high for itself. Instead of being a provocative, exciting think movie, it ends up being a jumble of themes and ideas the filmmakers just couldn’t sort out.

Based on the graphic novel by English writer Alan Moore, the film takes place in 2038 London, where a George Orwell-esque society is under the rule of Dictator Adam Sutler (John Hurt, Hellboy.) Suddenly, out of the shadows comes a masked Hugo Weaving (Lord of the Rings), saving the character of Evey (Natalie Portman, Closer) but ultimately not being able to salvage the film.

We soon learn that Weaving’s ‘V’, who wears a mask meant to symbolize 1600s revolutionary Guy Fawkes, is bent on revenge on the movie’s government and a new future for London. Evey soon finds herself embroiled in his plan. While the politically-interested might be intrigued by the similarities in the film to today’s government ( the film’s version of London bears a color-coded curfew system that seems to mirror the United States’ own color-coded threat level system) they will be forced to squirm through the seemingly inappropriate pseudo-romance between the Portman and Weaving characters.

While the political aspect of the film may be interesting, an intelligent piece is morphed in to a loud propaganda-like mess. Speeches are made and images are shown targeting terrorists, real and accused, as well as the United States, who is made out to be a villain in the movie, as the viewer finds out America’s war spreading overseas was the reason for the state of England in the film’s universe. The solemn, harsh environment that is meant to be depicted is made gratuitous by scenes of a young girl being shot, unholy priests and hate crimes. The viewer is no longer sympathetic for the people of the movie’s version of London, but uncomfortable.

           Portman, baffled as to what kind of movie she finds herself in.

Also making the audience uncomfortable is the thriller movie’s uneven punctuation by saccharine ‘love’ scenes, which, regardless of their significance in the graphic novel, seem to have been emphasized by Hollywood to appeal to the female chick-flick viewing dynamic. V and Evey share cheesy dances and embraces, and this only adds to the mystery of what kind of character Evey is meant to be portrayed as in the first place. Is she a strong female, brave as she helps set V’s plan in motion, or a weak and naïve one, as she is shown tortured, and apparently falling for a masked man. The hardened female with her head shaved that we see develop throughout the film becomes softened as she returns to vulnerable girl we are introduced to back in the start. This confusing characterization pendulum continues to swing back and forth for the remainder of the time.

            Another story is the one following the detectives being played by Stephen Rea (Breakfast on Pluto) and Rupert Graves (the Forsyte Saga.) While their attempt to unravel the mystery behind V is intriguing at times, it is also another parable to keep up with. Instead of having a gracefully intricate plot, V for Vendetta is tiresome to follow. The stories jump around and by the time the viewer has rejoined one of the many characters again, they may have forgotten exactly who they were watching and why. The payoff for the confusion and mystery after a puzzling array of crimes, coincidences and courtships comes frustratingly late in to the film.

            Music is another weak point. As the Old Bailey, London’s housing for Criminal Court is blown up by V early on in to the film, Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture is blared over the city’s intercom system. But the musical choice seems hollow, as the fantastical elements of the film are outweighed by the ‘reality’ of it. In another head-scratch-inducing move, the soundtrack was made overly eclectic by its featuring of bass-y techno beats, the Rolling Stones, and indie (hipster) favorite songstress, Cat Power.

           What may be considered the strong points are the acceptable acting performances by the able cast. Weaving delivers some of V’s monologues with a curiously entrancing quality, while Stephen Fry (Wilde) plays a friend of Evey’s, likable enough to endear the viewer to the people living under Sutler’s harsh rule.

            Also redeeming is the climactic fight scene, stylized to their liking by the Wachowski brothers- the minds behind the Matrix trilogy. While many of today’s movies feature shoot-outs, this scene contains actual fighting on the part of V. And while some of the casualties here are almost humorously grotesque, it is one of the most entertaining and visually stimulating episodes.

            Early on, V prompts us to “remember the idea, not the man.” But since the idea of revolution, which V preaches, is no new idea, perhaps the filmmakers should have passed, and let award-winning author Moore (who was ultimately disgusted with the film to the extent that his name appears nowhere in the credits) have his book left alone.

-Amy Eiferman

Although many of the action scenes are over the top and filled with explosions and violence, many of the loves scenes in the movie seem to be very artificial like they were placed in there just to keep us moving from dramatic scene to action scene.  These love scenes between Eve and V are artificial are artificial at best due to the both of the characters distraught backgrounds and necessity for each other.  I see V’s need for a replacement incase he meets his own end as well a need for interaction due to at least 20 years of being alone.  Eve on the other hand has a need for any parental roles such in case a father figure or someone who would give strength to her so she could stand up for herself.

The film is a very controversial one dealing with hot button issues that we face today.  The issue of giving up rights for the safety of a country is what many feel has happened today in America with the Patriot Act.  Another is the take over of the country by the conservative party in England which happened in the United States with the Republican Party and presidents such as Ronald Regan and George W Bush.  A problem that seems to face V for Vendetta is that the movie draws it source material from a comic written by Alan Moore at least 20 years ago.  I see the director and the writers trying to make the story relevant to today by trying to use England as America without going as far as saying “this is the United States”.  It seems when you try to fit something established like the comic and put it into a movie setting the story itself becomes molded to fit some aspects of Hollywood such as a love story and political idealism.  This seems to be the reason why Alan Moore has taken his name off most of the films that have been based off of his comics. 

The St Mary’s incident represents that kind of controversy, it was an act perpetrated by the government to put a political party into office.  The main idea was to create a virus that would kill many human lives and allow the government to come and save the day so they could be elected into office in November.  Since the blame of the attack is on terrorism its showing that it may reference atrocities that have happened in the Untied States such as 9/11.  Although no clear link is made in the film to it many of the events afterward creating a culture of fear many believe has happened in the United States of America under the Bush administration.  They also make show how the pharmaceutical company is hand and hand in the government and how much of a killing they made of selling the antis dote to the virus.  This is another clear example of showing how the government is hand in hand with big business.

One thing is for certain is that V for Vendetta separates itself from most comic book movies by delivering its hart hitting story as well as revolutionary ideals played out by deep characters.  Hugo Weaving who played Agent Smith in the Matrix films plays V a man who wares a Guy Fawkes mask and who uses violence to stir the masses and return freedoms to the people at any cost.  Although he is hidden by a mask we feel the emotions of a tortured soul that cries out for freedom.  Many scenes in the movie show his expertise in martial arts as well as his veracious verbose vocabulary.  V seems to represent anarchy in a political system that has oppressed its people.  He goes as far as saying “people should not be afraid of their government, their government should be afraid of the people”.  He has seen first hand the freedoms that have been destroyed by the government as well as the atrocities they have committed and believes that it must be held accountable.  We are never truly sure who V is at the end of the film which was a good choice that is unlike other movies of the genre. 

The character of Eve is played by Natalie Portman a young girl living in an oppressive world that seems to have been beaten in the opening scenes of the movie.  Eve has a childhood filled with tragedy due to the death of her brother in the St Mary’s epidemic as well as the death of her radical parents by the government for standing up.  She is very scared since this happened and hopes for the day when she can be as strong as her parents and stand up. Soon she is introduced to V she becomes enthralled in his radical ideals and works with him even though most of his plans become too violent for her to go through. One scene in the movie shows Eve being put through the torture that V faced earlier in life; although she hated V for it she seems freed by the rain in the end and is no longer afraid of the future.  The character of Eve never needs to know the identity of V because he stands for so much more than a man in a mask but ideals that she has coveted for many years.

Without a villain V for Vendetta would not succeed as well as it did and with High Chancellor Adam Sutler played by John Hurt we are given that villain. He is the antithesis to V and older man who hides from the public underground although his face is broadcast everywhere.  He uses fear mongering that keeps any kind of opposition to his regime underground and weak.   He institutes his values and judgments on everyone leading to arrests known as black bagging where people are dragged away never to return again.  The fear mongering of Adam Sutler’s administration is a clear stab at the Bush administration and the measures they will use to keep us safe from terrorism at any cost. Sutler believes that if the terrorist known as V is destroyed he can keep any type of change from occurring in the country.  What Sutler doesn’t realize is that what V believes in can never be destroyed “Ideas are bullet proof and can not be destroyed”.  Sutler and his administration fall to V and their infighting among themselves mainly due to Mr Creedy’s greed.

V for Vendetta succeeds as a movie that serves as model for a future that may or may not be true.  The movie ends at a point where we are guessing what happens next or if the natural order will be restored.  At points V for Vendetta can be a little drawn out but distances itself from other comic book movies by having a solid story that serves as a political piece against totalitarianism.  As we leave the film we can hear quotes by Malcolm X preaching about being able to fight back against those who attack against us.  Another quote by Gloria Steinem tells of a world order that is not based on race or sex.  These two quotes echo what happens in the film and help the viewer come out of the film with a better understanding of what the director was trying to get across.

-Matt Fischofer

                                                A review by Mary Kate Leibman

Thrilling and daring, V for Vendetta is more than just a movie based on a comic; it is the catalyst for intense political debate.  The film will keep you on the edge of your seat, and not because of fancy CGI and stunts.  Produced by the Wachowski brothers (responsible for the Matrix trilogy) the film outdoes the success of the Matrix by far.  It is brilliant in the way it entwines two separate stories into one intense plot.  It is a film which takes us into the realms of a completely new world: one in which our freedoms have been stripped, and America is no more.

Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and directed by James McTeigue, the story revolves around Evey (played by the multi-talented Natalie Portman), a slave who works at the government-run TV station.  She is introduced to us as a quiet, shy, obedient citizen of the current British Totalitarian government set in the near future.  After being out after the government appointed curfew, Evey is approached by the government police who attempt to rape and attack her.  It is here that we are introduced to V, the masked avenger who sets out to kill off the key members of the totalitarian British state.  He rescues Evey from her attackers, and takes her to the rooftop where he blows up the Old Bailey.

V explains that the destruction of the Bailey must happen in order to remember the 5^th of November.  The 5^th of November, 1605 is when revolutionary Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Parliament.  V states that on the next year of this date, he will assure Parliament’s destruction.  Here starts the revolution, as the impressionable Evey bites into V’s plan hook, line, and sinker. 

Throughout the movie, the filmmakers make an artistic attempt to tie in symbolic undertones to parallel today’s government with the totalitarian regime in Britain.  For the politically savvy, the allusions to today’s fear-based politics in the Bush administration are hard to ignore. 

High Chancellor Suttler, played with chilling detail by John Hurt, is what many consider to be today’s Bush.  He stands in front of a screen telling his cronies that the people need to believe that they are endangered.  Somehow, one can’t deny this is exactly how Bush was re-elected, playing the terrorist card.

What is more is that terrorism plays a key role in this film.  And no, they are not from the mid-east either.  Anarchy was the key theme in the graphic novel, which the film was based on.  V is the anarchist in this movie. He is labeled a terrorist in the movie. And a massive manhunt ensues to try and find him and bring him to government style justice.

V was the unfortunate victim of a fire in a government testing facility.  He underwent cruel experiments and was exposed to viruses that would eventually wipe out a 3^rd of Britain.

It is no wonder that the viewer is supposed to sympathize with the terrorist.  It is the real genius in this movie the way we as viewers sympathize with the terrorist.  Ultimately, regardless of political ideals, the filmmakers have us questioning government.

With strong symbolic ties to the current administration, the makers of this movie have us realizing that the government is just as lethal as the terrorists who challenge it.  Though exaggerated in this movie, the producers want us to believe the government is the real threat.

Treating V like a hero and giving him a cause glorifies his stance as a revolutionary.  Much like the play Wicked, it toys with our notion of what is good and evil.  More so, it has us questioning why people do evil things (or what is considered to be evil). 

After the connections have been established through symbolism, we start to see clever ploys that attempt to inject more criticism of government.  The filmmakers allude that the American military are terrorists, and government profits off of other’s misfortunes.

Brilliantly disguised in a heroic tale of revenge, V for Vendetta really comes across as a tool of propaganda for certain leftist beliefs (of which some are true).

On the other hand, the movie focuses on the manipulation of Evey, and how convincing V can be.  He manipulates her into his cause by having her face her fears.  Facing her past, Evey is able to rationalize V’s killing spree of government officials.

The cinematography also plays with the emotions more than your average film.  As it is supposed to be; a movie is supposed to externalize the internal.  Using brilliant color schemes to reflect certain feelings, the film will make you feel as cold as the blue tone of night, and as warm as the yellow of the day.  Frequently, the lighting will change drastically, so much so, that you feel the change of emotion in the pit of your stomach.  At certain points, the film takes on a “noir” feel to it, using shadows to create edgy effects of suspense right out of a 40s horror flick. All in all the film combines artistic cinematography to illuminate the emotions of the viewer.

Though a genius political thriller, the film never strays from its action packed roots.  Sorry Matrix fans, no dodging bullets here just plain old Zorro style sword fights.  With V’s charming side to him, it seems as if you are watching something out of The Count of Monte Crisco (V’s favorite movie).

Almost perfect, the movie does have some definite weaknesses.  In fact, the film is very confusing.  The filmmakers try to reach too many different audiences with stories, sub-stories, and a smattering of symbolism.  On one hand we have the intricate relationship between V and Evey.  Love story, not exactly, but Hollywood would want you to think so.  We have the tackling of major current events to reach the politically intellectual viewers.  With the amount of symbolism they use, it becomes tiring trying to piece it all together.  In the end one tires because their brain feels like it has exhausted it’s self into a state of paralysis; where the only thing that will make you function again is a trip to the bathroom (a well needed diversion from a drawn out film).

Overall, this movie was a creative way to insert political viewpoints as an undertone to a dystopia that some think is possible.  Though extremely exaggerated, the film tells us what can happen to our future if we are not careful now.  The message this film sends makes it the most politically charged movie of the past decade.  So, if you are in for another comic book film filled with explosions and drawn out fights, this is not your movie.  If you are in for a rewarding, intellectually intriguing work of art, then enjoy what is arguably one of the best films I have seen in a while.

       Led by director James McTeigue, V for Vendetta is overflowing with action and  adventure, made to keep you on your toes. The 2006 flick is somewhat complex, but its political and romantic storylines are interesting and entertaining. Together Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving will stop at nothing until the people of London, understand the deceitfulness, lies, and hardship the English parliament has caused them.

“Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot”

    The movie starts of with this quote, and practically throughout the entire film, we can see re-enactment on what happened on the 5^th of November, when a man named Guy Fawkes brought the gunpowder into the tunnels, in an attempt to blow it up he was caught, and executed. This takes place at the very beginning of the movie.

     I saw this film twice: once in class and a second time at home. I’ve got to admit that I got much more out of this film seeing it a second time. At first, the film seemed long, boring, and way to complicated.

    V for Vendetta is set in London that has been taken over by a fascist mean and manipulative dictatorship. This government survives on the fears of its citizens to keep them in order. The story follows a young woman named Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) who meets the so called terrorist V (Hugo Weaving) in an alley,  as he plans to bring down the fascist government with madness ,sabotage and the assinations of important vital members of parliament.  He believes this will in fact “change” government.

    The movie begins as Evey, (Natalie Portman) is rescued by V from a group of men in a dark alley, just as they were about to rape her. V, then takes Evey away to see his “show” on the rooftops,  little does she know, she is about to witness the demolition of The Old Bailey, London’s town symbol. V is sure that blowing up buildings can fix parliaments problems. V makes a promise that, after the destruction of The Old Bailey building, that on the next November the 5th, he will continue in the footsteps of Guy Fawkes and blow up Parliament.

   The government in V for Vendetta can be compared to Nazi Germany, with its flag symbols and many evil dictators. To me, V for Vendetta is a film based on “the right” What does a government really do if they are  never questioned; if citizens just accept everything they tell us or do. Although this movie is obviously fake it makes us think about our own “problems” with society and the government that leads us.

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”- V.

   On the other hand V for Vendetta is a just a movie that should have of made you think? As it made me think.  Which I believe was exact intent of the film, to make you think.  People need to decide for themselves: Is V a hero or terrorist? Is what he’s doing right or wrong?

    I believe Natalie Portman’s performance as Evey is very well played out. Basically, she starts out as an unsure young woman, somewhat frightened of life. Throughout the course of the film, she gains an inner strength and is shaped into a person very mush  like V. She becomes a strong, confident, and direct force focused on changing the world for the better, and no longer burdened by fear.

   Chancellor Sutler, the “leader” of the government on the other hand is mean, manipulative, and runs a corrupt government. He only appears on the television during the movie. Sutler, whom I believe is more like the modern day Hitler, believes in a total dictatorship. Sutler, who was the leader in the so called nuclear “war” years ago , was held responsible for ruining and killing the lives of innocent immigrants, muslims, and homosexuals,  sending them to concentration camps. These crimes against humanity were unknown to the citizens of London.

    However, it is V who stands out, although his face is very well hidden by a Guy Fawkes mask the entire movie .He is a very intellectual man whose signature musical interests throughout the film include Beethoven’s 5^th symphony. I found myself rooting for the guy and his cause, although he is a “terrorist.” It makes someone reconsider exactly what a terrorist is?

    The movie also emphasizes some romantic aspects as well. One between Valerie and Ruth, two lesbian’s lovers torn away by the government and eventually killed. And the other with  Evey and V. In my opinion their relationship is not one of sexual feelings, but more of a kinship between two individuals who feel, love and act very similar. Evey grows to love V, because he makes her see who she really is. Fearless. She admitted to V that her fear has taken over her and when he takes it away, well that opens a new window in her life.

    While the middle and the end of the movie are somewhat slow, it has its times where it picks up and gets good, but not too much. The last part of the film comes through with the visuals and action sequences that are actually, in my opinion really good. Audiences should definitely be prepared to be entertained, but also do a little bit of thinking too.

     I also like the interesting use of music. The music used over the scene of the Old Bailey courthouse being destroyed, is great and adds the entire effect to the moment . As a huge fan of the stones I especially loved the song being played in the ending credits “Street Fighting Man” which is a very political song about anti-war. Also, the music that comes out of V’s jukebox is wonderful stuff. I really love the tune that they eventually dance to “Cry Me a River”, because all this point it shows the kind of love V has for Evey, and how he is longing to share a dance with someone.

     In the end, V succeeds in his attempts to blow up Parliament, but not without cost. Evey is forced to lay V’s lifeless body into the stack of explosives inside a train that is to be sent under Parliament. This train is then wired to explode under Parliament, and therefore, ignite the revolution V dreamed about.

–Raquel Ortega

8/1/08                                                                                                                     Prof. King

            Eric Arthur Blair (Born June, 25^th 1903 – January 21^st 1950) was an English journalist, political essayist and novelist who wrote under the pseudonym George Orwell.  He is most famous for two novels critical of totalitarianism, Nineteen Eighty – Four and Animal Farm (a satire of Stalinism).

            Eric Arthur Blair was born in Motihari, Bengal Presidency, British India.  His mother Ida Mabel Blair took her from a three-month visit to England his father Richard Blair did not enter his son’s life until he was nine years old.  Blair described his family as “lower-upper-middle-class.”  His work at St. Cyprian’s School in Eastbourne, Sussex earned him scholarships to Wellington and Eton.  After a term at Wellington College, Blair transferred to Eton College where he was relatively happy because the school allowed students much independence.

            Blair joined the Indian Imperial Police in October 1922 because his parents could not afford to send him to Oxbridge without another scholarship.  He moved to Moulmein where his grandmother lived in April 1926 and at the end of that year went on to Katha where he contracted Dengue Fever in 1927.  In view of his illness he was allowed to go home in July and he reappraised his life and resigned from the Indian Imperial Police with the intention of becoming a writer.

            He moved to London and started his exploratory expeditions to the poorer parts of London and recorded his experiences of the low life for use in “The Spike”, his first published essay, and the latter half of his first book, Down and Out in Paris and London (1933). 

            In spring of 1928, he moved to Paris, where the comparatively low cost of living and bohemian lifestyle offered an attraction for many aspiring writers.  He worked on novels but was more successful as a journalist.  He published articles in Monde, G. R.’s Weekly and Le Progres Civique.  In August 1929 he sent a copy of “The Spike” to The Adelphi magazine in London and it was accepted for publication.  In December, after a year and three quotes in Paris, he returned to England.

            Orwell did his leg and home-work as a social reporter: he gained entry to many houses in Waigon to see how people lived; took systematic notes of housing conditions and wages earned; and spent days in the local public library consulting public health records and reports on mine working conditions.  The Road to Wigan Pier’s second half was a long essay of his upbringing, and the development of his political conscience, including a denunciation of the Left’s irresponsible elements. 

            In December 1936, Orwell went to Spain as a fighter for the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War that was provoked by Francisco Franco’s Fascist uprising.  In conversation with Philip Mairet, editor of New English Weekly, Orwell said: “This Fascism…somebody’s got to stop it.  Fortuitously, Orwell joined the POUM (Partido Obrero de Unification Marxista), a revolutionary communist party, rather than the Communist International Brigades, but his experiences much increased his sympathies for the POUM, making him a life-long anti-Stalinist and firm believer in what he termed Democratic Socialism, socialism with free debate and elections. 

            I asked one of my classmates Matthew Fischofer if he thought Orwell’s criticism of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin damaged the socialist cause but he said, “No, because Stalin wasn’t true socialism.  He was a dictator with one ruling class that stood above everybody else.  Still there is a negative connotation of Socialism in this country, such as the Obama bashing for his support of socialized medicine.” 

            After the Spanish Ordeal, Orwell’s formation ended; his finest writing, best essays, and great fame lay ahead.  In 1941, Orwell worked for BBC’s Eastern Service, supervising Indian broadcasts meant to stimulate India’s war participation against the approaching.  Japanese army.  Despite the good salary, he resigned from the BBC in September 1943, and in November became literary editor of the left wing weekly magazine Tribune. 

            I asked Mr. Fischofer, during his employment at the BBC, Orwell became familiar with the methods of Nazi propaganda.  Do you think if he were around to watch TV today would he feel anything has changed significantly?  Fischofer said, “I think we still use the propaganda used by the Nazis.  Bringing the fear out of people is a good motivator.  Propaganda has snowballed.  People are to busy living their own little lives and when they hear it they take it too emotionally.”  

            In 1944, Orwell finished the anti-Stalinist allegory Animal Farm to critical and popular success.  With Animal Farm at the printers, with wars end in view, Orwell’s desire to be in the thick of the action quickened.  David Astor asked him to be the Observer was correspondent reporting the liberation of France and the earl occupation of Germany.  He had a baby later that year and also lost wife in the spring of 1945 during an operation to remove a tumor. 

            For the next for years he mixed journalistic work – mainly for the Tribune, The Observer and The Manchester Evening News, though he also contributed to many small-circulation political and literary magazines – with writing his best-known work, Nineteen Eighty-Four, which was published in 1949.  The book was originally supposed to be named 1980 but due to the illness it was changed to 1982 then 1984.           

            I asked Fischofer in 1984 Oceania is in perpetual war.  The enemy regularly changes but the state is always at war.  Do you think what Orwell is trying to say is that mankind will always find a reason to go to war?  Is peace a possibility?  He said, “There’s always going to be a power struggle, it depends if blood is going to be shed.  People strive for peace but they don’t get it.  Everyone really just wants for their own good.”  We were in agreement on the latter point. 

            Orwell died in London of tuberculosis at the age of 46.  When Orwell wrote “Down and Out in Paris and London” a semi-autobiographical account of his experiences in both cities this was a prime example of how journalism shaped his literary work.  Orwell said of the experience, “At present I do not feel that I have seen more than the fringe of poverty. Still I can point to one or two things I have definitely learned by being hard up. I shall never again think that all tramps are drunken scoundrels, nor expect a beggar to be grateful when I give him a penny, nor be surprised if men out of work lack energy, nor subscribe to the Salvation Army, nor pawn my clothes, nor refuse a handbill, nor enjoy a meal at a smart restaurant. That is a beginning.”  Orwell, in my opinion, most likely turned to journalism from literature because he found it easier to get work and found the work he was doing important.  John McNair (1887-1868), quotes him: “He said that this [writing a book] was quite secondary, and his main reason for coming was to fight against Fascism.” 

            Orwell, in my opinion, was a journalist at heart before he was an essayist or a novelist.  He did an extensive amount of work that was primarily journalist material and his two most famous books were so political they could be considered works of journalism too.  Animal Farm was an allegory in which animals play roles of the Bolshevik revolutionaries and Nineteen Eighty-Four a novel about life under a futuristic authoritarian regime in the year 1984.  Both describe how a society’s ideologies can be manipulated and twisted by those in positions of social and political power, including how a utopian society is made impossible by the corrupting nature of the very power necessary to create it. 

            I thought Nineteen Eighty-Four with its concept of the Big Brother is the most realistic example of how Orwell’s work is important today.  I asked Fischofer if he thought the concept of Big Brother in which people are always being watched and under constant surveillance all the time is a valid prediction from Orwell?  Does the Patriot Act prove this theory?  He said, “Absolutely, when people are afraid of something they will look to anything for security.  The more freedom you have, the less security you have.  Free will gives them a choice of failure.  They always wanted a Patriot Act in Congress but I haven’t heard of anyone being tried for it.” 

V for Vendetta , originally written by Allen Moore and David Lloyd takes place sometime after 2020. It is post a major war between England and the United States. The release of this movie in 2006 takes a stab at America. President Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and years later America is still wondering where they are. Still we recruit soldiers to go over to Iraq and risk there lives every minute, every hour and every day. Britain used a similar tactic creating a virus and distributing it to three major water supplies killing thousands of its citizens. There is commentary on the war on terror.

He is known to the people in charge as code V. V is framed as a terrorist who continues to throw oppositions towards the government. He goes against everything the government and its party stands for because they are corrupt and deceitful. To the people he is known not as a hero, but as a force of justice they have been waiting for. V stands by the people and believes that, “people should not fear the government, the government should fear the people.” It is extremely easy to see injustices and not do anything, but V does not leave that option open.

The British run their country as a totalitarian society as indicated by the curfew, control of the media, and the image of the high chancellor Adam Sutler. The chancellor’s image is always very large and overwhelming to the human eye, and this is where the fear of those in power takes place. The government uses fear as a tactic because they believe it leads to an obedient society.

There is a parallel between the Count of Monte Cristo and V for Vendetta in revenge being the key emotion. Revenge becomes an obsession in both pieces. In the Count of Monte Cristo, Dantes acquires power and wealth; he disguises himself as he seeks out all who helped imprison him. In V for Vendetta, V seeks out those who led to his creation at the Lock hill camp. That is when V finds out that force requires opposite force and without it there would be no way to take those in power down. “Violence can be used for good. “Revenge is best served cold” (Christiana).

The overall film is white and black except for flowers and fire. The film gives power to both beautiful and dark things. The role of music is both powerful and used constructively. Although banned because it is said to cause emotion, music rings throughout the speakers when V is up to his antics for new world order. The actions are echoed by the music’s huge crescendo were followed by the bombing of Parliament and the Lady Justice. Music is also used at the end of the movie when the songs “street fighting man” by the Rollins Stones and Malcolm X’s in the end- “Violence in self defense” are played.

Two themes that play out in the film are: the power of love to change people in the world and the power of ideas to change the world. V is the male lead who is known as the terrorist in the film who wants fairness, justice, and freedom for Britain. When did that become a bad thing? V’s house consisted of preserved arts and artifacts from around the world. Evey who plays the female lead works for a television company named BTN whose slogan is, “this is BTN, we merely report, not fabricate it, that’s the government’s job” referring to the news. The media’s role in the British society is huge because those in power use the media as an instrument for controlling ideas instead of expressing free ideas. Evey is completely aware of the injustices that play throughout the media. She explains how she can tell when a broadcaster is lying with the action of rapid eye blinking. Her parent’s became revolutionaries when their son dies at Saint Mary’s for undisclosed reasons. They were later killed because they were seen as a threat to the “progressing” Britain. The film doesn’t succeed as a romantic love story because V wanted Evey to be with him but could not let go of the revenge.  However, the movie does succeed as a story about the love of humanity because in the process of attaining revenge, V helps the British people open their eyes.

Another theme is the power of ideas to change the world.  V says, ”beneath this mask there’s an idea, ideas are bullet proof.” V knew of the corruptions of the high chancellor Adam Sutler, Mc Creedy and other members of the government. They were the cause of what he had become. They were the same people who were controlling the media, using slogans to brainwash the people, and implementing curfew. V ultimately takes action against the corruptions of their repressed society. V takes action by destroying the Lady Justice which symbolized justice on the 5^th of November, a date with historical significance dating back four hundred years ago. A year later he destroys Parliament, a symbol of the government, which indicated that change is needed. Evey takes action by pushing the lever sending the explosives towards Parliament. The inspector, Mr. Finch takes action by uncovering the truth while searching for the faceless terrorist V, which then leads him to not shoot Evey. They choose to fight against the regime that placed fear in their hearts.

How dare the president of a country say that fear is the best tool to keep his country in order? The Chancellor strikes against anything or anyone to gain control. Chancellor Sutler discriminates against anything he does not like. He is one minded and runs his society like that way. There is no loyalty. In the situation of Mc Creedy, next in line to the “thrown,” he shoots the Chancellor with no remorse in a deal he makes with V to spare his own life. Yes, this can be considered a film about revenge but it’s learned throughout the film that violence can be used as a means of justice.

-belfort

In the futuristic drama “V for Vendetta”, director James McTeigue brilliantly brings to life the crisply written screenplay of the very talented Wachowski Brothers.   Set in totalitarian England at some unspecified time in the future, the film focuses on one mysterious mans plan to bring down the government.

            The character of V, cleverly played by the Australian actor Hugo Weaving, is a counter hero because he is attempting to organize a revolution against an oppressive British government that is full of corruption and deceit.  Hiding behind a gothic like mask, V conceals his identity from all the other characters and from the audience.

            Despite the title and the seductive nature of V’s violent personality, the film is really at bottom, a love story in it own way.   These love interests is a woman named Evey, who abducted by V and held in captivity for about three years.  When she is first captured, Evey, played by Natalie Portman, is a gentle and reserved British citizen who is unaware of the atrocities committed by the corrupt British government.  By the time she has survived her captivity, Evey has come to realize that her appearance of being a respectful citizen is just a disguise that covers her evil nature.  They fall in love when her evil nature connects to his evil nature making them perfect for each other.

            Once V and Evey “commit” to each other, his plot to blow up parliament on November 5^th, Guy Fawkes Day, can proceed.  Evey, along with thousands of others, have now joined V’s masked army of rebels.  Each of V’s “soldiers” is wearing a duplicate of the mask worn by V.  The plan is for V’s “army” to march toward Parliament.  In the meantime, an underground train filled with explosives is ready to be sent to a location directly under parliament.  The ending of the film, which will remain a secret, will surprise even the most experienced film viewer.

            V for Vendetta is filled with many symbolic references and traditional themes.  When the masked army marches in unison towards parliament, the film viewer cannot help but be reminded of the famous scene in Shakespeare’s Macbeth when ten thousand members of the English army and the Scottish rebels each cut down a branch of a tree and use it as a disguise to attack Macbeth’s castle.  In both Macbeth and V for Vendetta, rebels are trying to overthrow an oppressive government.  The Wachowski Brothers evidently evidently know their Shakespeare.

            The film also borrows thematically from another very famous futuristic story about an oppressive British Government.   George Orwell’s classic novel entitled 1984 is the story of Winston Smith who secretly tries to connect with a young woman who he thinks will join him in trying to go against “Big Brother”, which is the main branch of the totalitarian government.  Like “V for Vendetta”, Orwell’s novel about a world in which the majority of citizens have lost their rights is really a love story.  In both the novel and the film, one theme becomes clear: love cannot survive when individuals are not free to be who they are.

            Despite its political timeliness and despite its top-notch acting, the film fails in certain areas.  One problem lies in its complicated plot.  At times, the viewer struggles to follow all the ins and outs of the character’s motivations.  For example, V himself evidently has a personal grudge or “vendetta” towards the government.  What that personal grudge or vendetta is, is never made clear to the audience.  Also, the film is thematically dark because its backdrop is an oppressive government filled with corruption.  At times, this thematic darkness spills over into a visual darkness that clouds a scene and makes it hard for the viewer to distinguish characters and props. 

            The cinematography of the film was very effective.  For example, in one scene, V hurls his sword at the “bad government officials.”  Through an effective use of slow motion cinematography, the director captures the anger of V and his passion to execute those forces he feels have betrayed him and the rest of the world.  As that sword tumbles through air, the viewer has no doubt that it will find its mark a few times over. 

            The most interesting characters in the film are V himself and Evey.  V is a fascinating character because he never really changes his personality throughout the film.  He is intent from the very start on destroying the British government. V never really allows anything or any person to distract him from succeeding in his goal to overthrow parliament.  V easily seduces the audience because we feel sorry for him and then we feel empowered by him.  His one soft spot is his feelings for Evey.  Yet even his attachment to her is seen as less important than his passion to destroy the government.   To the audience, V is a very interesting character type because of his commitment to one goal.  Evey on the other hand undergoes a character change.  She moves from being an obedient citizen to a rebel.  Evey is a beautiful looking woman who falls in love with an obsessed man.  She never even sees who that person really is physically behind the mask.  However, Evey like the audience falls in love with V’s character and personality.  Like many of us, we would like to think that we see beneath the outward appearance of someone and appreciate more the inner person.

            All in all, “V for Vendetta” is a film definitely worth seeing.  If you are disgusted with the present political state of affairs, and you feel there may be hope for change, “V for Vendetta” is the film for you.   Although the extreme measures V goes through to overthrow the government are probably not the measures that a modern American audience would use to show their dissatisfaction with the government, the spirit of V’s rebellion is something that most Americans can identify with. 

            I would give this movie an overall rating of a 4. 

- Jared Albaum 

In one of the opening scenes of V For Vendetta, Natalie Portman’s character Evey asks, “Are you like…a crazy person?” of Hugo Weaving’s V” Viewers need not worry, for the filmmakers certainly were a bit crazy themselves. V For Vendetta, while subjected to the Wachowski brother’s signature treatment, is definitely a film worth the two hours.

While the movie is set in the year 2038, the British government has been taken control of by a totalitarian named Adam Sutler, the leader of the Norsefire party. Later on in the movie, V explains, “Fear became the ultimate tool of this government.” It is through this fear along with numerous forms of propaganda, complete control of the media, use of curfews, violent operations, discrimination, executions, and constant surveillance and spying that the government retains its control over citizens.

When V For Vendetta begins, it is prefaced with Evey Hammond telling the story of Guy Fawkes. He was a revolutionary who had been caught in an attempt to bomb the Parliament building on November 5^th in the 16^th century. It is only minutes later when this date takes on even further meaning when the eccentric V bombs the Old Bailey while broadcasting Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture through the government’s own emergency loudspeakers.

The movie then goes on to document V executing a plot of both revenge and freedom from oppression. It is discovered that V had been a human test subject for biochemical warfare testing years prior to when the movie opens. This testing facility had been bombed and V had escaped with his life and his anger. Not surprisingly, the date of this bombing was November 5^th. V consistently uses the anniversary of Guy Fawkes’ attempted revolution to exact his revenge. In the year after he bombed the Old Bailey, V makes careful work of killing everyone involved in the running of Larkhill, the facility where he and others were experimented on.

During all of this, he garners the attention of the public and delivers messages of truth and freedom. Slowly but surely, V gains the trust of the citizenry. The public opinion of him becomes far better than that of the ruling regime. This is exactly what V had planned.

The best aspect of the film has to be the idea of manipulation. Throughout the film, the filmmakers depicted manipulation as a tool of both good and evil. Even V acknowledges this notion when he quotes Evey’s father in saying, “Artists use lies to tell the truth.” He goes on to explain, “Yes, I created a lie. But because you believed it, you found something true about yourself.”

On the other hand, the government in this film uses tools of manipulation for its own agenda. While broadcasting a false news story to make the destruction of the Old Bailey seem like a planned government project, Sutler’s man Dascomb remarks, “This is the BTN. Our job is to report the news, not fabricate it. That’s the government’s job.” It becomes difficult to differentiate which entity is which. In one of the later scenes of the movie, V explains the situation to Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea) by saying, “Fear became the ultimate tool of this government.”

This is, of course, the main message of the film. In a pirate broadcast to the British public, V reminds the public of the wrongdoings of the government and then offers up the blame by saying, “If you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.”

The influence of the government is also witnessed when Dominic, Finch’s assistant, says, “He’s a terrorist, you can’t expect him to act like you and me.” Finch is quick to correct him by saying, “Some part of him’s human.”

V’s use of alliteration is another success of this film. Phrases like “censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission” flow like rivers and are memorable, and therefore more powerful. This is a show of writing talent and Weaving’s delivery of these lines is impeccable.

One problem in the film is the lack of consistency; not in the plot but in the production. In the two scenes where V and Evey are on the rooftop of V’s hideout, there is an overwhelming hair light. This makes the scene feel awkward as it gives it a surreal feeling in a place that should be more real. Either the moon is much brighter in 2038 or someone forgot their light meter. The look would have been much more acceptable had the filmmakers continued it throughout the film, but alas no such look was achieved on any consistent basis.

Something else that is a bit distracting is the “futuristic-retro” look of the film. The special effects give the film a futuristic look, reminiscent of The Matrix at times. This comes as no surprise, but thankfully is not overbearing. In the flashback of a woman who had been in charge of Larkhill, the production causes the scene to have a 1950s wartime look. While it is understandable that the filmmakers want to note how far in the past this event was, it creates a rift in the timeline of the story.

The soundtrack of the film seemed to have been chosen by a catholic group. While the instrumental music selected for effect added momentum and suspense, V’s music taste is that of slow jazz accompanied by female vocals. He is seen listening to both Julie London’s old time “Cry Me A River” as well as modern day Cat Power’s version of Lou Reed’s “I Found A Reason.” The soundtrack also entertains such artists as Boots Randolph, Zakk Wylde’s Black Label Society, and Antony and the Johnsons. The Rolling Stones begin the credits with their song “Street Fighting Man.” This variation in music is a bit odd and at times out of place.

The existence of a love story between Evey and V is questionable at best. While they do share one or two moments of intimacy, such as when they kiss just before V leaves to face certain death, there is doubt as to whether or not it is the typical Hollywood romance that viewers might be used to. This love shared seems to be more of a bond which is formed between people who share a common situation; it is created when people share the same plight.

While Hugo Weaving (Transformers, Lord Of The Rings) is becoming more recognized for his voice, he is able to employ an enticing accent. Even behind the Guy Fawkes mask, his voice remains sharp and articulate throughout the film. Weaving’s line delivery is both inspired and attention grabbing, which makes him a perfect fit for his role. Also fitting for their roles are Tim Pigott-Smith and John Hurt as Creedy and Adam Sutler, respectively. Pigott-Smith delivers a chilling performance as Sutler’s right hand man, “a man seemingly without a conscience,” as V tells Chief Inspector Finch. Hurt portrays a control obsessed Sutler without missing a beat. Like Weaving, Hurt’s voice is the most fitting part of his character.

The character of Evey Hammond is played excellently by an emotional Natalie Portman. While her character may be a bit confused as to her intentions, Portman does an impressive job of making the best out of an iffy part in the script. Stephen Rea’s Chief Inspector Finch is one of the most convincing characters in the whole movie. He achieves this with a quiet concern always on his face and the constant impression that there is more going on in his mind than he lets out. Viewers will connect the most with Finch as he is the most accessible due to his more humanistic nature and understanding.

In all of this, there are a few roles that missed the mark a bit. Ben Miles’ performance as Dascomb had a good start but fell off as the movie went on. In a scene inside a television studio, he seems almost out of place and begins to overact as he tries to think up a plan. This happens again as he ponders how to cover up V’s murder of a prominent Norsefire party member. It appears as though Miles was thinking more about his body language than about his character’s plans.

Through and through, this movie was made with the intent of stimulating the mind of the viewer. Although it may seem over-intellectualized and out of reach in certain places, the message of responsibility rings through loud and clear. A few scenes did seem to go on just a bit too long, however the film would probably lack without them. “I suddenly had this feeling that everything was connected. It was like I could see the whole thing, one long chain of events,” says Finch. That is exactly what this movie is, one long chain. If it were missing just a single piece, it would be incomplete. All in all, V For Vendetta is worth the two hours…even if only once, just to bear witness to a revolution.

ENG 215

V for Vendetta is an action packed thriller staring Natalie Portman (Evey), Hugo Weaving (V), and directed by James McTeigue. This story is a modern interpretation of the story of Guy Fawkes. Fawkes was member of the Roman Catholic Revolutionaries from England, and he planned to carry out a plot to destroy the English Parliament Building in 1605. This plot is similar to the plot that V plans to carry out against a fictional totalitarian regime that has taken over the British Government (Britannica.com).

In the film, the main character named V battles a totalitarian regime and conspires to destroy the English Parliament Building. A local reporter named Evey gets caught up in the revolution, and suddenly her life crosses paths with V. Evey’s relationship with V represents one half of the plot of the movie. This portion of the plot is a classic love story with a twist. Through weaving together many different genres, the director of V for Vendetta has created a rather interesting film that never fails to disappoint.

As mentioned earlier this film contains two main plots. The two plots combine into a love story that is wound around an action packed thriller, and this makes for a movie that is filled with plenty of unnecessary violence and warm love scenes. Delicately weaving these two genres together is by no means an easy task. Not only does V for Vendetta successfully combine two genres that are polar opposites; it makes important political statements which add to the intellectual depth of the film.

One of the strongest attributes of this movie is its ability to make political statements. This movie gives its viewers many reasons for denying totalitarianism, and all types of oppressive governments. Many viewers many only notice the action sequence and the at times subtle love story. However, for those of us with an imagination there exists more to this movie. This movie seems to make the case against the American occupation of Iraq. In the movie, the fictitious totalitarian regime uses fear to control the population. This is similar to the American war on terrorism in which President Bush used the treat of weapons of mass destruction to convince American’s to support a war that was unnecessary. It should be noted that this movie was released in 2006, which could give credence to the fact that the director was trying to subtly disapprove of the American occupation of Iraq.

The love scenes in the movie often at times seem out of place, and serve to distract the viewer from some of the subtle political statements. The love story develops between the two main characters, V and Evey. This relationship starts off as one that is necessary for their mutual survival. However, after a few scenes the relationship becomes a loving relationship. In the film, V is forced to torture Evey in order to increase her mental and physical strength. This is one of the tensest parts of the movie: Evey Hammond: “You got to me? You did this to me? You cut my hair? You tortured me? You tortured me! Why”?
V: “You said you wanted to live without fear. I wish there’d been an easier way, but there wasn’t”.

After being tortured and refusing to turn V into the authorities Evey gains the strength of character to confront the many things in her life that have been tormenting her. V also learns from Evey that during the most difficult of times he possesses the strength to carry on with the revolution. Even though the love story is at many times out of place, it teaches us an important life lesson that sometimes we need other people to help us tackle our most challenging life problems.

V for Vendetta is a movie that has many positive qualities that are evident as you watch the movie. The special effects in this movie are phenomenal, and keep the viewer thoroughly entertained. The scene where the English Parliament Building is blown up is an excellent example of special effects being used well in this movie. The color emanating from the screen lit up the room with a wide array of vivid colors.

In addition to making political statements this movie makes social statements as well. Two openly gay characters named Valerie and Gordon Dietrich play an important role in the movie. Both characters are persecuted for being gay in the movie by the evil Norsefire government. This movie aims to combat stereotypes of homosexuals by making their characters play pivotal roles in the movie. Gordon and Valerie are depicted as being some of the most heroic characters in the movie. Gordon refuses to give up his Koran and eventually dies for having illegal written materials. The Koran is more than just a religious book; it serves as a symbol of Gordon’s refusal to give up his personal freedom. Valerie shows strength in the movie by writing her autobiography in a jail cell. This autobiography written by Valerie inspires V to carry on with the revolution when he is confronted with significant obstacles, and thus Valerie’s strength was able to give strength to V.

This movie is an extremely good action film; however it does have some areas that need improvement. With a running time of over two hours this movie is extremely long for the action genre. Consequently, the movie seems to drag at the end, and this made the viewer wonder when the movie was going to finish. The script of this movie is another area that needs work. At times one feels as if the script is restricting the creativity and acting ability of the cast, especially Natalie Portman, who many consider to the one of the best actresses of her generation.

V for Vendetta is an excellent example of an action movie that works outside the normal conventions of the genre. The movie makes important political and social statements that add intellectual depth to the movie. The aforementioned factors combine with stellar graphics, and top notch acting to create a cinema masterpiece that will serve as a standard for many years to come. This is an excellent movie and it received a rating of 9 out of 10 stars. Do yourself a favor and see this movie, “remember, remember the fifth of November”.

Works Cited

“Guy Fawkes: A Biography.” Britanica. 7 Aug. 2008 <http://http://www.britannia.com/history/g-fawkes.html>.

  The year is 2038 and Britain has never looked darker. The world is on the brink of total anarchy. Britain is holding on to control with a tyrannical fist led by the Norsefire government that  resembles that of George Orwell’s book entitled 1984. The United States is referred to by TV personality Gordon Deitrich (Stephen Fry) as a Leper colony that is now a wasteland of ungodly behavior. A strict curfew for all citizens is under full effect at night and the corrupt secret police known as the Fingermen roam the streets in search of victims. It seems as if all hope for freedom and normalcy is lost save for the actions of one man known as V (Hugo Weaving). V appears in like a shadow in all black with an assortment of weaponry ranging from knives to explosive charges. On his face is a mask of Guy Fox a revolutionary from the year 1605 who was behind the plot to blow up the Parliament building. It is when he saves Evey(Natalie Portman) a civilian who has gone out past curfew that this movie kicks off what is to become the beginning of a Sci Fi   adventure into the dark world of our hero and unsuspecting heroine. Together they set out to topple what has become a towering tyranny built on fear and corruption.

  The world we are introduced to is one where individual thought and radical beliefs are outlawed. “I’ve witnessed firsthand the power of ideas, I’ve seen people killed by them.” Evey speaks this line in the opening narration that shows a scene depicting the arrest of Guy Fox that is to set the tone of what is taking place four hundred years before and is mirrored in the society that is present in the film. The words spoken over the TV broadcast of Gordon Deitrich, ironically a closet homosexual who lives in fear of those he represents, encompasses the overall feeling of brainwashing that is taking place on all levels. Speakers line streets and announce messages controlled by the government to all citizens. Fear is the main tool used by the Norsefire government in their method of control. Fear of imprisonment or violence has taken over the lives of the people and V uses very public displays of rebellion as his method to fight his underground guerilla style war. 

  The film is centered around the fifth of november which is known as a day of remembrance for the actions of Guy Fox. V seeks to undertake the same cause as Guy Fox and strike terror into the government with the help of the citizens of Britain. “Remember, remember, the fifth of November,The gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why gunpowder treason, should ever be forgot.” This powerful poem is spoken by V in an attempt to inspire those who will listen and impose upon those that will not listen . As the film progresses the character of Evey takes a stronger role as does that of the rebellion and builds to a climactic ending that is not only built upon the magic of hollywood but the superior quality of the writers and producers involved that enable the film to step out of the confines of action and high budget effects and reach a new standard in the Sci Fi genre.

  The movie flows well and at times is almost too much to take in. The special effects especially the scene in which an explosion set to classical music combined with fireworks was quite a sight to behold. The watchowski brothers used their trade mark style of action fight scenes to tie together the story-line. The cast was well chosen and the part of V played by Hugo Weaving allows the mind to wonder at the man behind the mask. The technology present and set design are nicely done as well. Not knowing what to expect this movie unfolded with a story line that was engaging and thought provoking. The action scenes are well timed and full of martial arts.

  The movie was also interesting due to the fact that instead of the usual action movies that take place in America it is set in Britain. This adds to a certain mystery for they do not reveal the exact situation of what has befallen America or the rest of the world for that matter. The costumes are very well done and the outfit of V lends to the mystery of this movie. The director did a good job of showing the scale and level to which the governmental corruption reached. The systems of response and action of them are set to mirror what is going on in todays society. The media, police and people are convincing in the set up of allowing us into the world that is run on fear. 

  Their are some flaws in the production aspect that while the movie is well written it drags at times. I cant help but think that at times there is too much mystery involved in the characters and it takes from the ability to identify with them. The reasons behind how this world came to be  are never fully explained and this needed to be elaborated on. The original graphic novels seem to have been crowded into one motion picture and the adventure aspect lacks due to the finality that is expected towards the end. 

  The technology is interesting but while the scenes in which normal families are depicted watching flat screen TV’s in normal surroundings does not coincide with how they do not have simple things such as butter. They hint continually at a black list of music and art that is not allowed but never explain why this extreme governmental conditioning is at this level of intensity. The movie is hard to believe at times especially since they were able to capture V on camera many times but not follow those images to his secret dwelling. After all they would’ve been able to track him by his use of electricity and utilities he uses as all homes are supposedly monitored. There is also the fact that V seems to have endless resources but there is never a clear indication of outside help. 

  The cast was well chosen and Hugo Weaving played his part well despite the mystery of the mask. Natalie Portman was convincing as quiet type with a past although her English accent  was a bit unbelievable at times. Stephen Rea fit the role of the inspector with a troubled conscience convincingly and was quite possibly the best of the actors in this film. John Hurt lent his presence as the chancellor with the over bearing menace of power excellently. 

  All things considered V for Vendetta was entertaining although somewhat unrealistic. It felt as though it was trying too hard to tie in with todays society pertaining to governmental oversight and infringements of democracy.  It try’s explain the need for people to not simply follow the leader and take matters of unchecked governmental power more seriously. At a time where phone taps and suspicion are present in real society this movie seeks to cash in on the current events of todays world. The references to media control attempt to mirror our own systems of news reporting and shows the power of propaganda and the evil that may rise from the lack of individual thought.  – Laura Kordowski

On the heels of The Matrix, the Wachowski brothers and Agent Smith released

The film is set in London, in the not-too-distant future. A totalitarian government has used fear to manipulate the British population into giving up all control, as a new position of “High Chancellor” is created and privacy is simply eliminated. The protagonist, V, played by Hugo Weaving is the result of the government looking for a cure to a deadly virus by human experimentation. V was one of the few survivors of an explosion at the detention center where he was held. His experiences in this prison fueled his personal vendetta against certain individuals of the government as well as everything they stand for. “What was done to me was monstrous. – V And they created a monster. – Evey”. Thus, he becomes V, a terrorist to few, a freedom fighter to many.

During V’s first attack he rescues a young woman, Evey Hammond (Portman) from the secret police. Evey is accused of being an accomplice, prompting V to bring her under his wing and empower her to live without fear. The first attack was on November 5th, the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605. This was the failed attempt by Guy Fawkes, among other catholic extremists, to blow up the Parliament building. V uses this date to inspire a revolution for a very different cause.

Much of the film is dedicated to outlying threads of story-line that serve to further expose the viewer of conditions in this society. Some of these are more effective than others, but overall they provide a great background to the central conflict between V and the government. This can be best appreciated with multiple viewings, as at first these secondary conflicts distract from the core of the film.

One of the things that made this film work so well was the sound. The sound effects, as well as the selections of music were impeccable. For instance, V’s swords always made this perfect sound when moving, and the explosions sounded truly triumphant with Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture behind them. Also, several songs were used within the environment of V that were effective in creating a mood of peaceful antiquity in his home.

The writing, courtesy of the Wachowski brothers, was superb. Specifically the use of completely different vocabularies by different characters. Evey spoke with the vocabulary of an average women in her early twenties, meanwhile V utilized a much larger vocabulary to get his point across. This worked very well by helping to separate V from the government in both mind and action.

Throughout the film, the backgrounds of several secondary characters are revealed in order to expose the motives behind their actions. Several secondary themes arise from the backgrounds, which can be confusing; however, they are all relevant to both the core conflict as well as the central theme; that, “ideas are bulletproof”, and thus, we must all live without fear to protect our freedoms.

At the climax of V’s work, and the culmination of the film, the viewer is thrown into The Rolling Stones’ “Street Fighting Man”, a direct parallel to V and what he stands for. Some of the ways in which the film exposes its messages will be missed by many. Especially the parallels to the use of fear by both the government in the film as well as many governments today, including our own. Much, if not all of this will be grasped by the more politically aware viewer upon the first, or sometimes second viewing. However, the Wachowski Brothers are careful to be sure that the average American can walk away with a thorough understanding of the central revolutionary plot and its themes.

- Brian Rubinton

The deadline has passed for the most recent class assignment.  DO NOT attempt to post a late assignment. It will not be accepted.

While many pieces of the literature examined by students every year have become dated and irrelevant, there are some that still stir these minds. One example of the latter would be the work of George Orwell. Creator of some of the most artfully critical examinations of government, his views and critiques can still be felt by those opposed to modern day workings.

George Orwell was not always George Orwell, however. He was born Eric Arthur Blair in 1903, in Motihari, Bengal, India. His father worked in the British Civil Service, as Britain still retained power over India at the time. When he was one year old, his mother brought him back to England, where they lived a live that Blair went on to describe as “upper middle class”, according to the 1950 New York Times piece “ Moving Up with George Orwell”.

For his education, he attended Henley-on-Thames, followed by St. Cyprian’s in Sussex, England. For college, he attended Wellington for a short time, followed by Eton College, where he achieved King’s Scholar status. Also during his time at Eton, he was taught by none other than Aldus Huxley, author of dystopia novel Brave New World, and hallucinogenic drug enthusiast.

Following school, he enlisted in the Indian Imperial Police in 1922. Blair would go on to draw from his encounters to pen several pieces. One of these is the essay, Shooting an Elephant, during which he refers to a time when a crowd pressured him in to killing an elephant he had deemed “docile.”

After the Police, he returned to Europe, living in London, and then Paris, where he had his articles published frequently in several magazines.

But what Blair saw and felt transferred in to more than just essays and articles. Some of the best examples of these are perhaps his most famous work- the novels Animal Farm and 1984. Both of these are strong examples of political commentary. As Animal Farm and 1984 were published in 1944 and 1949 respectively, they were introduced in times during which much of the world was gripped by suffocative government, namely Stalinism and totalitarianism.

“On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood.”

The animals in the book include pigs, dogs, sheep and horses- most of whom are obvious representative to the leaders, parties, and various social classes and of the time.

1984 depicts, among other things, a society severely monitored by the government. The book spawned several terms that would hold a place in language, including ‘Big Brother’, which usually refers to a privacy invasion by those of higher rankings. It also spawned ‘Orwellian’; a lack of freedom by dishonesty (as is exhibited in Animal Farm.)

But how does what Blair felt and wrote relate to the world today? Would he have written similar pieces?

College student Brian Rubinton rattled off a list of issues he felt Blair would have written about in today’s times.

“ Healthcare, poverty, social problems… Imperialism…”

Rubinton wondered if he would still use a pen name today.

“ It was a security thing. He wrote a lot of pieces that criticized the government and society… He talked about how people were spending more on cigarettes than on books. Companies could come after him.”

But since Rubinton can list so many similarities between the novel 1984 and today’s time, we might guess that the pen name would have also been used in this day and age for writings concerning touchy topics.

“ There’s propaganda. Meanings of words changes. Since 9/11, people see more. We thought we were untouchable, but words like terrorist and bombs are familiar [to people.] But at the same time, some words are prevented. And our government is similar. They use fear to control people. Look at anthrax- They wanted us to duct tape out windows.”

When the Orwellian ideas came up, Rubinton mentioned how many schoolbooks have been altered to remove sensitive history topics.

“ That’s another example of the government controlling us. Editing textbooks ( parts about Vietnam) is wrong.”

Student Adam Michaelson sees another similarity fear-wise when bringing up the country’s color-coded threat-level system.

“ He would see those as scare tactics. A device to control the masses by means of intimidation.”

Michaelson feels Blair would write a similar pieces today. In 1945, Blair wrote an essay entitled “You and the Atom Bomb”, which was published in the Tribune on October 19^th. Here, he accused the world’s people of being on the brink of blowing up one another by the means of atomic bombs.

“ His fears would probably be worse.” Michaelson said. “ His concerns would probably be amplified. Between recent terrorist attacks and the government’s actions, sending off the army and the bombings now… The war bypassed the U.N!”

So as some literature becomes outdated, the works of George Orwell speak in loud volumes to citizens today. While amount of similarities might be unfortunate, Blair’s writings can be utilized as an engaging history lesson, but also as a warning of society potential returns to previous situations.

-Amy Eiferman

Suggested readings-

The Collected Journalisms, Essays and Letters of George Orwell, Volume I
The Collected Journalisms, Essays and Letters of George Orwell, Volumes II
The Collected Journalisms, Essays and Letters of George Orwell, Volumes III
The Collected Journalisms, Essays and Letters of George Orwell, Volumes IV

Sources

Wikipedia
Encyclopedia Britannica

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html

At the tender age of nine, Mailer wrote Invasion From Mars, a 250-page-story that he kept in his notebooks. A few years later in 1939, he graduated from Boys High School and won entrance into Harvard University at the age of sixteen. Leaving Brooklyn, where he was raised, he headed off to Cambridge, Massachusetts for the next four years. During this time Mailer would study aeronautical engineering until he’d receive is B.S. of Science with honors. While at Harvard, Mailer participated in Story Magazine’s annual college writing contest for students. His story “Greatest Thing in the World,” won and became the impetus that would change his adolescent hobby into a life long career.

In 1944 Mailer was inducted into the U.S. Army where he served as a gunnery sargent in the South Pacific during World War II. In 1946, he was discharged and took up a few classes at the Sorbonne in Paris. Over a fifteen month period there, Mailer reflected on his experiences in Leyte, Luzon, and Japan during the war. His vivid memories of the war, were portrayed in The Naked and the Dead (1948), who’s “triumphant release made him an overnight international celebrity” at the age of twenty-five.

Mailer’s huge unexpected success from The Naked and the Dead, catapulted him into the public eye and set the bar higher than usual for his next novel. Living in Hollywood, he wrote about the McCarthy Era and social tension in his 1951 novel Barbary Shore. Unfortunately critic’s expectations hadn’t been met, and they chalked Mailer up to be nothing more than an “one book wonder.”

Distraught because of the bad reviews and divorce from his wife, Mailer left Hollywood. He soon settled down with actress Adele Morales in Greenwich Village and the two were later married.

Their marriage took a turn for the worst after Mailer sunk into a deep depression. His third book, The Deer Park also flopped and he became increasingly violent and turned to drugs and alcohol. Contrary to popular belief that Mailer habitually beat his wives, there is only one known and documented case. After an all night party in Manhattan Mailer, grew violent and stabbed his second wife Morales with a “dirty three-inch penknife.”

During the 1960′s Mailer found a new purpose and shifted his focus to depict the rising counter-culture. He became a “New Journalist” who used novel writing techniques to depict real events and people’s lives. In his 1968 Pulitzer Prize Winning novel, Armies of the Night, he reminisces over his participation in the historical demonstration at the Pentagon in 1967. He along with Noam Chomsky and a slew of other celebrities were arrested for their radical views and dissent for the Vietnam War.

“Any war that requires the suspension of reason as a necessity for support is a bad war.”

(Armies of the Night)

When asked whether she agreed with Mailer’s quote about war, Nassau Community College student Laura, simply said “NO.” In my opinion the quote paralles the Vietnam War with our current war in Iraq and I agree with Mailer, that if a war looses it’s original purpose, it shouldn’t continue to be fought. Laura and I, are just some of the many people who don’t know where to stand when it comes to Mailers views. In the 1960′s there were many people who didn’t agree with Mailer’s political views, but that didn’t stop him from his quest to speak his mind.

Mailer continued to write about the sexual revolution, social upheaval, drugs and violence, in the Village Voice, which he named and co-founded in 1955. He used it as a means to give the public an alternate view. Mailer was a modern day citizen journalist who gave the people the facts about racial tension and anti-war movements in his underground weekly magazine.

Opposed to conformity he spoke out against “The Man” in Esquire and Commentary magazines. He condemned his conformist peers by saying: “There is no greater impotence in all the world like knowing you are right and that the wave of the world is wrong, yet the wave crashes upon you.”

(Armies of the Night)

When asked about this quote and its application to the modern media, Nassau Community College Professor Amy King said, “There should be a lot more citizen journalists and fewer sell-outs.”

Much like citizen journalists, Mailer felt he was obligated to give truth to the people. He decided to take his political ambitions a step further and ran for the Mayor of New York City in 1969. Though he used the catchy slogan – “No More Bullshit”, Mailer’s campaign as Independent Candidate was unsuccessful, yet he stil managed to obtain 5% of the vote.

Practicing objectivity, Mailer covered both the Republican and Democratic Conventions as a journalist. In 1963 he wrote The Presidential Papers based on the Kennedy Administration.

Moving on from Politics, Mailer focused on a new subject of controversy_ The Feminist
Movement. In Prisioner of Sex (1971), he discussed female inferiority when dealing with reality. Author Kate Millett, labeled him a male chauvinist in her book, Sexual Politics. The critics agreed.

Following Prisoner of Sex, the critics thought the sun was setting or Mailer’s career, but he proved them wrong with yet another brilliant novel- The Executioner’s Song. Norman Mailer’s 1979 one thousand page “true life novel” depicted the life and death of Utah murderer Gary Gilmer. Gilmer was executed by firing squad on January 7, 1977 and Mailer’s telling of these events, won him his second Puliter Prize. It was later turned into a film staring Tommy Lee Jones.

Norman Mailer’s earlier experiences with screen and play writing for works such as, The Deer Park (1955), didn’t go so well. However with the success of The Executioner’s Song, Mailer’s interest in the cinema was revived. In 1984, he wrote the detective story, “Tough Guys Don’t Dance” and later directed the film version.

Later in his life, Mailer again experienced unease with the state of American politics so he sought for truth and visited the Soviet Union. He said that the Soviet Union wasn’t the “evil empire” America preached it to be, but instead a “poor, third world country.”

Bestselling Harlot’s Ghost was a tale of C.I.A. agent which grew out of Mailer’s research of the KGB during his stay in Russia. While also in Russia Mailer discovered previously unreleased documents and used them as background for Oswald’s Tale (1995). These never before seen secret documents help Mailer write about J.F.K.’s alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.

As a retrospective of the events and people that helped shape American History, Mailer’s 1998 collection, The Time of Our Times paints a portrait of America through celebrites and major events. It is Mailer’s own collection of works where he touches on several controversial issues at once.

In his later years Mailer choose to stick to fiction, but still remained controversial.
Mailer profiled the lives of Jesus and a young Hitler in The Gospel According to the Son (1997) and Castle in the Forest (2002).

After Two Pulitzer Prizes, four feature films, over forty books, dozens of essays and poems, we can conclude that Norman Mailer had a lengthy career. He was always at the center of controversy for his writings on vast cultural taboo subjects. Whether he was respected or renounced for his writings he was always courageous. He sought for truth and to give the people alternative views. He loved writing and exercised his freedom of speech. Though he may have been labeled as controversial, Norman Mailer spoke his mind and gave the literary world six decades of some of the best writings it has ever seen.

–Brittney Werts

There are many writers who have lived fulfilling the lives of others through their art, but often can not find the needed fulfillment in themselves. Journalist and literature writer, Ernest Hemingway wrote for the love of language that expressed a moment in time or perhaps even a dream. The fusion of non-fiction and fiction were joined together in an effort to make works of lasting value. This concept became quite controversial with readers wanting the facts compared to readers wanting a story.

Hemingway describes an unhappy childhood as his best early training for becoming a writer. This perhaps can be why he developed a serious condition of depression that lead to his ultimate fatal suicide in 1961. His wife Mary Hemingway always denied the incident claiming it was from a “gun cleaning accident.” Although the world was struck with shock that in actuality his life was taken from his own hands. There were no journalists at his funeral from his request which could be because of dislike towards that form of writing. Later in his life he referred to himself as “an old newsman’ because of his experience writing for newspapers and magazines.

One of his reports written about the impact of the Canadian liquor laws on American culture is rather surprising considering he was also an avid drinker during his career. On one occasion Hemingway recalls seeing a “slack lipped white faced kid being supported on either side by two scared looking boys of his own age in an alley outside a theater in Detroit.” Seeing this he considered was an eye opener for people talking about liquor being “good”

Drinking was a way of life for him, although writing was the core of his existence. When his ability faltered, he felt no reason to continue. Part of this deterioration, was because of the medication he was prescribed to beat his battle with depression. Yet this was a no win situation when the medication would cease his depression but cause problems with his inspiration and simple thought. And on the other hand, if he wasn’t medicated he felt no reason to carry on in a life that he felt had been lived to the fullest extent and no hope. In other words he was simply tired and weary with both ways of either curing himself or not.

Hemingway was a personable person and had a way of making other people feel worthy except himself. On one of his many travels he stopped to buy a melon from a vendor on the road in Aljconte. There were a couple of small ruffians who put their hands out begging for a few pesetas. Hemingway simply took a ballpoint pen and sheet of paper and handed it to one of them. He than said, “take this maestro, with it you can make your own fortune.” He had learned a lot from many gypsy women and used that majestic knowledge to read the palms of other people’s hands. When seeing a negative future in someone’s life he wouldn’t use his mentality of having a fatalistic view but instead said “que sera, que sera”, meaning what happens will happen.

Ernest Hemingway was most influenced by his coverage of wars ranging from his time as a journalist covering the Spanish civil war as well as being wounded while serving an ambulance driver and pilot in the world wars. This undoubtedly led to great inspirations when witnessing the horrors of mankind as well as the bonding experience of man during times of great conflict. In one piece entitled “A New Kind Of War,” Hemingway recalls staying in hotel witnessing the battles of the Spanish

Civil War. He notes how the people fighting were of a different sort, not caring for medals or government payment and fighting for what they believed to be just. On how a regular man from Pittsburg named Raven who had no previous military background and being driven by the need to help others was wounded horribly and honorably while undertaking a mission that required extreme bravery. Hemingway did not believe the man who lay helplessly on a cot in the hotel now turned makeshift hospital when he was told of the man facing multiple foes with military training. Rather he believed that the man was only telling a tale of how he would like to have been remembered in battle than the truth. It was only later when Hemingway would speak with the commanding troop leader, a man who like Raven was driven by tales of injustice to leave his home in England and take up arms for the Spanish people confirmed the wounding of the simple non hero like Raven who lay dying in the next room.

It was experiences such as the one written about in his journalistic pieces that would drive Hemingway to write such stories as “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” and “A Farwell to Arms.” These novels made his name as a master of literature become possible. It is also quite possible that this man would not have become the legend that he is today had he not witnessed the brutality of man first hand.

Ernest Hemingway was also quite fond of writing down his memoirs that were an account of his adventurous travels abroad. In “The Green Hills of Africa,” an autobiography that would detail his hunting expeditions abroad, Hemingway would give readers a great insight into his mind and thoughts on a whole range of subjects. It was ironically the very gun that he would use in these expeditions that he would take his own life with. His memoirs sometime would seem to extreme and almost unbelievable and questioned as being works of fiction.

When George Plimpton questioned him in a Paris review interview about “The Green Hills of Africa’ ” To Have and Have Not,” and “Across the River and Into the Trees,” as novels Hemingway straightened him out by saying “No that is not true, “The Green Hills of Africa” is not a novel but was written in an attempt to write an absolutely true book to see whether the shape of a country and the patterns of a months action could if truly presented compete with a work of the imagination.”

Trevor Attias a nursing student at Borough of Manhattan Community College as well as an avid polo player who has recently returned from life as an Army Medic in Afghanistan spoke on how he believes that Hemingway was correct to chronicle the different sentiments of war. “The reality of war is not always soldiers on different sides of the line; it is common people for whatever be the case doing things that are quite uncommon.” ”In Afghanistan we didn’t know who the enemy was because they went without uniforms and were common civilians.” Hemingway often wrote on this subject especially in his work entitled “For Whom the Bell Tolls.”

Laura Kordowski

Bibliography

Running with the Bulls, My Years with the Hemingway’s – Valerie Hemingway –

BY-LINE-Ernest Hemingway edited by William White

Hemingway’s Art of Non-Fiction- Ronald Weber

History repeats itself; however, its key players do not. George Orwell is the pen name of Eric Arthur Blair, who was born 25 June 1903 in India while it was a British colony. He is considered one of the great authors, as well as investigative journalists of the twentieth century.

Orwell is best known for two of his novels; Animal Farm and 1984. These novels are famous for their contradictions. He explained in his essay Why I Write, “Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried…to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole.” Furthermore, 21-year-old Amy Eiferman explains that his work is “detailed but not tedious.”

Born a poet and author, Orwell’s life after childhood is infused with political inspiration. After failing to maintain his grades and receive a scholarship to Oxford University, Orwell joined the Indian Imperial Police, while India was still a British colony. He chose to be stationed in Burma, where his grandmother lived.

Throughout his five year career as an officer Orwell was exposed to the horrors of British colonial rule. In his essay, Shooting An Elephant, Orwell detailed some of the horrors he saw, “The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos—all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt.”

My personal exposure to Orwell’s work prior to this article was only to his novels. I had no idea that he was also an excellent journalist, known for his reactions to society’s shortcomings. The topics Orwell wrote of ranged from social habits, to prejudices, and to politics. In Books v. Cigarettes Orwell comments on the fact that the average British adult spends more on cigarettes or alcohol than on books. A simple observation trying to explain the lack of reading by the British population.

Another one of his essays, Boys’ Weeklies, describes a particularly relevant issue in today’s world; the failure of the press to inform the public of the truth.

“The stories are stories of what purports to be public-school life, and the schools (Greyfriars in the Magnet and St Jim’s in the Gem) are represented as ancient and fashionable foundations of the type of Eton or Winchester. All the leading characters are fourth-form boys aged fourteen or fifteen, older or younger boys only appearing in very minor parts. Like Sexton Blake and Nelson Lee, these boys continue week after week and year after year, never growing any older. Very occasionally a new boy arrives or a minor character drops out, but in at any rate the last twenty-five years the personnel has barely altered. All the principal characters in both papers—Bob Cherry, Tom Merry, Harry Wharton, Johnny Bull, Billy Bunter and the rest of them—were at Greyfriars or St Jim’s long before the Great War, exactly the same age as at present, having much the same kind of adventures and talking almost exactly the same dialect. And not only the characters but the whole atmosphere of both Gem and Magnet has been preserved unchanged, partly by means of very elaborate stylization. The stories in the Magnet are signed ‘Frank Richards’ and those in the Gem, ‘Martin Clifford’, but a series lasting thirty years could hardly be the work of the same person every week.”

Take a minute to compare a newspaper from the United States, such as Newsday, and one from another country, such as The Guardian. The type of stories in one are likely to vary dramatically from the stories in the other. One may contain more criticisms of the government, more negative stories, and overall be less entertaining to the reader.

Much of Orwell’s work is relevant today. “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” He learned fairly early that by recognizing his political bias, he can utilize it to send a message to his readers. Orwell explained one of the four great motives for writing, as political purpose, which is the “desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.”

More than fifty years after Orwell’s death, the political agenda being pushed in his works cannot be applied to today word-for-word, yet they are still inspirations to millions of people. But why? In his last novel, 1984, Orwell describes a totalitarian state in which the upper class maintains complete control over its populations actions as well as thoughts. Via a language called “Newspeak,” Big Brother maintains control of thoughts by slowly eliminating certain emotions and ideas from existence. How can a person notice bias in the news, when that word has not been used in an unknown number of years and has been completely erased from all documents and records? As Orwell wrote in 1984, “If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”

Our government today certainly does not use methods as extreme as those in 1984; however, why did our President suggest buying duct tape in case of a biological attack? Would it be effective in protecting the air in a house from this deadly toxin, or, would it scare Americans into buying duct tape and distract them from the failures of a war abroad?

Many long for someone to expose the lies being fed to people all over the world. Eiferman explained that there is “no expectation [for officials] to tell the truth.” Orwell once said, “I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention.” His story, and his work, must be known of not only to inspire the current generation, but to keep the spirit of true journalism and storytelling alive forever.

Limited Bibliography:

Essays

• The Spike
• A Hanging
• Down The Mine
• Boys’ Weeklies
• Anti-Semitism in Britain
• Books v. Cigarettes
• Politics and The English Language
• Notes on Nationalism

Novels

• Burmese Days
• Animal Farm
• 1984

The George Orwell Web Source

- Brian Rubinton

Dorothea Lange was a photojournalist in the early and mid-nineteenth century. Her work, unlike that of millions of other people, directly affected the state of the nation.

While Lange grew up in Hoboken, New Jersey, she learned the art of photography in New York City. After learning the art of photography in Manhattan, she relocated to the west coast where she settled in San Francisco. She opened a portrait studio and ran that until the Depression hit. It was outside of this studio that she photographed “White Angel Breadline” in 1932. Lange then set out to photograph the conditions of the country and society’s downfall.

Working for the Resettlement Administration, a government organization, Lange went through California on an assignment to photograph the condition of migrant farm workers. The intent of this trip was to both document the accounts and to garner the support of the American public for government relief programs.

Photojournalists of today and tomorrow will forever be able to draw influence from Dorothea Lange. Her keen eye for composition and her intuition for capturing moments are inspirational and are also key elements in succeeding as a photographer. Apart from just being able to produce great images, Lange was an excellent documentarian. When out in the field photographing, Lange kept notebooks of her so-called “field reports.” These were concise and accurate accounts of her subjects and any relevant information.

This desire for accuracy and truth is part of why Dorothea Lange was (and is) truly amazing. Her work reflects her dedication and talent. In her 1939 publication An American Exodus: A Record Of Human Erosion, she and Paul S. Taylor, her husband, illustrated the hardships of the unemployed Americans during and after the Depression. Taylor was a sociologist and economist who was able to detail the conditions and causes for the strife highlighted by Lange’s photographs.

When presented with the photograph entitled “Migrant Mother,” Jared Auslander, a recent college graduate, studies the image for a minute before saying, “As an image it’s beautiful…I want to know what’s going on.” After learning that the mother in the photograph is only thirty-two years old and she and her family have only been surviving on “frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields and the birds that the children killed,” Auslander is even further moved by the photograph.

Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange

This seems to be the standard reaction for Generation Y…to view the photograph with some nagging suspicion of an underlying meaning. We are not only looking at images but looking for their context. When asked whether or not she found the following photograph visually pleasing, Amy Eiferman was quick to ask, “What is this a picture of?” Photographs have become more and more tools of documentation. While there is still creative and artistic freedom, photojournalists must make sure to be fair and accurate.

Whether or not there is some deeper message in every photograph taken, photojournalists must be constantly wary of this. While a photograph can have a profound impact on the world, it is the caption and accuracy of that information which determines whether that impact is positive or negative. As witnessed in tabloids and celebrity gossip columns, photographs can be taken in ways to mislead the viewer or misrepresent the truth.

Dorothea Lange set out to simply document the truth as it stood. Her photographs told the stories of migrant workers during the depression, Japanese detainees in internment camps, and many more. She photographed without bias, documenting both success and failures of government programs and ideas.

When asked how the photographs of today’s news struck her, Amy Eiferman said, “Photos today are very straightforward.” This fits right in line with the sense that news photographs are carefully selected as to deliver the intended message. It is not often that a photograph in a news publication is interpreted in many differing viewpoints.

Lange actually ran into censorship while working for the government during World War II. She was sent on assignment by the War Relocation Authority to create photographs in Japanese neighborhoods, processing centers, and internment camps. Because of her work which tackled the issues of civil rights and fair treatment, the government censored many of her photographs. These censored images went unseen by the public eye until the 1970s…well after the end of the war.

Photographers, like journalists, must be wary of their subject and the context in which they present it. Dorothea Lange showed no hesitation in shedding light on a controversial issue involving her employer; in this case, the government of the United States. This sets the bar at enormous heights. Photojournalists must be unwavering in their attempts to convey the truth with photography.

With the attention spans of today’s audience, it seems that photographs are becoming a single frame within a video. This becomes even more apparent with the new use of slideshows for all types of photography. Many news sites now employ the use of narrated slideshows in the place of articles or video. Other outlets use slideshows to allow viewers to browse through sets of photographs on their own accord. The AP has a daily photo gallery slideshow which has the top journalistic photographs of each day. These images are all aesthetically appealing and, for the most part, accounts of a newsworthy event.

Even in such a day and age, the photograph must be able to stand on its own. The still photograph is hesitant to be left behind.

In a commentary on his website Naturephotographers.net, Jim Erhardt writes, “Steve McCurry’s image of the Afghan girl on the June 1985 cover of National Geographic Magazine is one that most of us will never forget…A single frame of 35mm film, it is without a doubt one of the most powerful and compelling images of modern times.”

And that single frame, that one shot…that’s what photojournalists have learned to try for everytime.

-adam michaelson

more ->

Publications_

• An American Exodus: A Record Of Human Erosion
• Dorothea Lange: Photographs Of A Lifetime
• Impounded: Dorothea Lange and the Censored Images of Japanese American Internment
• Restless Spirit: The Life and Work of Dorothea Lange
• Dorothea Lange’s Ireland
• Women of New Mexico: Depression Era Images
• Aperture Magazine

Sources/Links/Etc_

• http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/wcf/wcf0013.html
• http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/128_migm.html
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92656801
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange
• http://www.bookrags.com/biography/dorothea-lange/

Hunter was no exception to this in his first book about the Hells Angels he put himself into the biker gang when many Americans feared them due to the crimes they committed. The NY Times was impressed with what Thompson did stating he entered “a world most of us would never dare encounter:” Many of his non-fiction writing went noticed and Hunter even appeared in Rolling Stone magazine.

Another important part of Thompson was his use of drugs which is talked about in much of his articles and is one of the substances he uses in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas the film as well as the book. One could make the case that Hunter’s drug use made him more creative and lead to many of the great books and articles that are out today. Although Amy had a disdain for drugs she said that many musicians have used drugs for creativity but shouldnt be a free pass to do drugs. John and Cathy both agreed that drug use was wrong and that there should be no excuse for using them.

One of his books Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas would go on to be a famous movie starring Johnny Depp as Thompson in his persona Raoul Duke. One of Thompson key ideas is that he uses many different names when writing for articles for Rolling stone or any other magazine. The film today has become a cult classic among many persons although it did not recieve good reviews from the critics while it was in theaters.

During his time at Rolling Stone Hunter amassed a bunch of articles together and wrote about the 1972 political campaign which was intitled Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72. At this time in history there was a huge counter culture that clashed with the administration of Richard Nixon and the norms of society. If there was one man Hunter hated it would have to be Richard Nixon stating “For years I’ve regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad”.

One of the main focus of the book and the articles were on the campaign of George McGovern the democratic challenger to Nixon in 1972. He was the antithesis to Nixon and was in support of amnesty of those who left the country due to dodging the draft, a lax drug policy, on top of a pro life sentiment. This was used against McGovern in a campaign strategy by Nixon by referring to McGovern’s campaign as the three A’s amnesty, abortion, and acid. Thompson actually liked McGovern but could see the writing on the wall, Thompson was never a fan of the politician but did appreciate what McGovern was standing for which was the opposite of Nixon.

Today is another story although Thompson is dead we have another presidential race that mimics 72 in the fact that one candidate represents the past administration while the other represents a change in American politics. Barack Obama is a young fresh face in american polotics a junior senator from the state of Illinois going against John McCain a senior senator from Arizona who was a war hero from vietnam. The fact that McCain represents an old administration that is vastly unpopular it is easy to draw reference to Nixon, while many of the liberal positions of Barack can be compared to McGovern (McGovern today has endoresed Barack for president).

This point in American history we are at a point were the republicans once again have lost a large source of power and the country will soon make a shift to the other side of the political fence. The campaign of Obama has shaken the country and people are asking the question if he represents the new ideas of the young and the hopes of tommorow. The question is asked can he win? Will the nation be ready for an African American president? John was asked this question and responded with an overwhelming ” there is no way he can loose because of the money he is racking in and the failures of the Bush administration”. Cathy had another response believing that many Americans wouldnt vote for Barack due to the race issue. Amy on the other hand agreed with John and said that Barack would win in the fall.

Thompson showed much contempt for he Bush administration towards the end of his life and would say that Bush might even be worse than Nixon himself. It would be anyone’s guess if Thompson would have supported Obama. Many believe that Obama is the anti-thesis to Bush administration and that would he would be the politican that Thompson would suupport.

Books By Thompson
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream
Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72
Hell’s Angels” The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs

-Matt Fischofer

 Willa Cather was born on December 7, 1873, in Back Creek, Virginia. She was an American author, writer and teacher. Cather was noted for her books about immigrants and their struggle to make a living in the Midwest during the 1800’s.She became famously known for her works in My Antonia, O Pioneers!, and The Song of the Lark.When Cather was nine year old, her family relocated from Virginia to Nebraska. She spent the majority of her child life there. The small town Red Cloud was mostly an immigrant town with more “foreigners” than “Americans.” Since Cather wrote novels about individuals and immigrant groups who had not been written about before,  people will find her characters “individualized” and true-to-life. At first, Cather did not like the small rural town, but became to love all the land and people around her, this eventually became some of the many inspirations of her books.

“I was little and homesick and lonely…So the country and I had it out together and by the end of the first autumn the shaggy grass country had gripped me with a passion that I have never been able to shake. It has been the happiness and curse of my life.”

           In the quote, Cather describes her loneliness as a child. She quickly recalls it being a time in her life where she was sad and “homesick”, but later realizes how the meadows of Nebraska changed her life forever.

           After, graduating from Red Cloud High School in 1890, she went on to continue her education at the University of Nebraska. But Cather’s passion wasn’t always writing. At first she wanted to study medicine, however when one of her stories was published in the school newspaper, she developed a great adoration for literature. In college, Willa spent time editing the school magazine and publishing articles and play reviews in the local papers. In 1892 she published her short story “Peter” in a Boston magazine, a story that later became part of her novel My Antonia. After graduating in 1895, she returned to Red Cloud where she was offered a position editing Home Monthly in Pittsburgh.

From about, 1901-1906 Cather went on to become a High School teacher. She latter received a job working for one of New York’s finest magazines, McClure’s Magazine. There she became the managing editor. After working as a journalist in New York, she published one of her most famous novels O Pioneers!  The novel tells the story of a Swedish immigrant family. After the main character, a young girl inherits the farmland after her father passes; she is devoted to making the farm a reasonable and workable place for prairie families to live. In 1912, Cather relinquished her editorial duties at McClure’s, and stared traveling and writing full time.

Her travels set an inspiration for one of her novels, The Song of the Lark. There a theme of journey appeared. In the novel, a young girl leaves her small rural town in pursuit of becoming a famous opera singer. My Antonia, a story about her life in Nebraska, was a tale about land and immigrant pioneers.

Willa Cather once said, “she understood the coming change between cultures, she saw immigrant children moving away from the culture of their parents and into a kind of uneasy Americanism”

John Giangrasso, 25, says “nowadays some kids get caught up in “materialistic” objects and really forget where they come from, but always find their way back”

My Antonia is among Cather’s finest work, but according to A negative review of Willa Cather: Writing at the Frontier by Alice Hall Petry critics point out that her male characters often have female attitudes and interests. From an early age, Cather was troubled by her sexual identity. She preferred to dress in men’s clothing and as a teenager she began signing her name William Cather, Jr. Cather also was active in community theater productions and often took male roles. In My Antonia the main character Jim Burden grows up with a fear of sex and only in fantasy he allows a half-naked woman to smother him with kisses. The original of Antonia was Annie Pavelka, who Cather met as a child and maintained a lifelong friendship.

Willa Cather’s literary heritage is a complex one. She is most well known for her subject matter. It was new in early American literature to write about the immigrants who arrived in the United States. However, there is a uniquely American tradition of writing that Cather succeeds to. According to Willa Cather: A Literary Life by James Woodress, he terms Cathers literature as a form of “regionalism in contemporary literary criticism.” Regionalism is a kind of fiction that pays close attention to place, especially the land, in the lives of characters.

Cather thought of her fiction as doing something new, but doing it out of the materials of the past. She is definitely known as a part of the “legacy of past writers” as her influences in her fiction writing.

Cather is most known for her novels, but she was a short story craftsperson as well. One of her more popular story is Old Mrs. Harris, it was told to be her best. Among her collections of short stories are Youth and the Bright Medusa and Obscure Destinies.

Willa Cather stated in her later years about Nebraska: “that country was the happiness and the curse”of her life. She admired the pioneers who struggled to make a better life for themselves and their families. She loved the trees and the wildflowers, especially the sunflowers along the roads which she wrote always “seemed the roads to freedom.” She also believed that the tree’s lives were connected with pioneers and that no place in the world grew more beautiful flowers than Nebraska. Which is why many people say Cathers work as a literary author was simplistic, romantic, and all-in-all very natural.

According to sources, Willa Cather was a life-long lesbian, although she hid it for many years. Cather’s closest relationship was with her lifetime companion, an editor by the name of Edith Lewis. The two lived together in Greenwich Village for forty years, until their deaths. They arranged to be buried together when they died.

All in all, readers can now get a sense of how Cather dedicated herself to writing, and the struggle she went through, just to hide her sexual identity. She had a lifelong passion for writing. Her literature is definately well respected for its naturalistic and simple demeanor.

Bibliography:

Bennett, Mildred R. The World of Willa Cather. New York: Dodd Mead, and Co., 1951.

Woodress, James Willa Cather: A Literary Life. U of Nebraska Press, 1989.

A negative review of Willa Cather: Writing at the Frontier. Alice Hall Petry.

Click below to see chronology timelines of Willa Cather:

     http://cather.unl.edu/life/chronology.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/cather_w_timeline_flash.html

–Raquel Ortega

By Ryan Hendricks

Journalists are in many respects the watchdogs of our modern society. Many journalists often have successful careers in both fiction and non-fiction writing. George Orwell has had a successful career bridging the worlds of fiction and non-fiction. He is the author of many non-fiction essays that are critical of government, as well as fiction novels such as Animal Farm, 1984, and Burmese Days. Orwell through his mastery of literary mediums was able to impact the world around him.

“George Orwell is one of my favorite authors,” said Mary-Kate Leibman. Many people are unaware that George Orwell is the pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair. Mr. Blair was born in 1903 in eastern India, and was the son of a colonial civil servant. He eventually returned to England to pursue an English education of high quality and distinction. After attending several boarding schools he eventually received a scholarship to Wellington College, and after only a semester there transferred to Eton College where he would finish is degree. While at Eton College Mr. Blair’s grades took a downward turn, and he was unable to receive another scholarship. This made it financially impossible for Blair to educate himself any further, and he was forced to take a civil service examination to enter the Indian Imperial Police. He eventually passed a civil service examination, and was sent to Burma to begin his service.

In 1922, he sailed on board SS Herefordshire via the Suez Canal and Ceylon to join the Imperial Indian Police in Burma. Once in Burma Mr. Blair began to train to become a police officer, and after joining the ranks he had considerable responsibilities. His time in Burma inspired him to become a writer, and he chronicled his adventures in Burma in the novel Burmese Days, and the essays “A Hanging” and “Shooting an Elephant”.

Burmese Days recounts the days that Mr. Blair spent living in Burma working as a police officer during the 1920’s. From reading this novel one can easily see the immense affect that living in Burma had on a young Mr. Blair. The novel deals with racial prejudices of the European governing elite, and how the local population deals with these prejudices. An example of this is when the European Club in Burma is forced to elect a native member. Through showing the struggles of the native population one can infer that Mr. Blair was against imperialism and all associated with it.

Evidence of Burma influencing Mr. Blair can be inferred from his early essays “A Hanging” and “Shooting an Elephant”. In “A Hanging”, Mr. Blair writes about the execution of a Burmese man. This execution forces Mr. Blair to consider the impacts of totalitarianism on native populations. In “Shooting an Elephant”, Mr. Blair writes about the responsibility he has to carry out the will of the crown, and at the same time treat the Burmese people with dignity and respect.

After leaving Burma in 1927, Mr. Blair began to write professionally, and spent the next 13 years writing. During the Spanish Civil War Mr. Blair fought on the side of the Republicans against the Fascist Army of Francisco Franco. This experience impacted Mr. Blair in the sense that it turned him against all totalitarianism. It was not until about 1940 or so that Mr. Blair came into his own as a writer, and as stanch citric of Stalinism and Totalitarian governments. During the World War Two years he was a propaganda writer the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). After this period in his life he wrote one of his most famous novels called Animal Farm, which is a satire of Stalinism. This book shows the hypocrisy associated with the Russian Revolution. In the beginning of the revolution equity was the utmost concern, however after only a few years the main tenants of the revolution were abandoned and corruption began to take root.

Towards the end of his life Mr. Blair began to wonder where our world would be many years from now. 1984, serves as Mr. Blair’s final work and most important critique of totalitarianism. Written in 1949, it is a fictional novel that depicts a world under a totalitarian regime in the year 1984. The story through the character of Winston Smith shows the oppression that occurs to people living under totalitarian regimes. 1984 in many respects is similar to Animal Farm; they both deal with issues such as class distinctions and a corrupted revolution.

Through reading the novels of Eric Arthur Blair, more commonly known as George Orwell, the reader can see how certain events in the author’s life played a role in the art that he crafted. As mentioned earlier the time that Mr. Blair spent in both Burma and Spain had an immense impact on his writing. These two events perhaps more than others influenced the view that Mr. Blair would portray in his works. It is most interesting that his most influential works Animal Farm, 1984, and Burmese Days all deal with the issues surrounding totalitarianism in some aspect or another. Mr. Blair writing from experience was able to create powerful novels that helped shape the social and political consciousness of generations to come.

Suggest Readings:

Novels

• Burmese Days (1934)
• A Clergyman’s Daughter (1935)
• Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936)
• Coming Up for Air (1939)
• Animal Farm (1945)
• Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)

Books based on personal experiences

• Down and Out in Paris and London (1933)
• The Road to Wigan Pier (1937)
• Homage to Catalonia (1938)

Essays

• “The Spike” (1931)
• “A Nice Cup of Tea” (1946)
• “A Hanging” (1931)
• “Shooting an Elephant” (1936)
• “Charles Dickens” (1939)
• “Boys’ Weeklies” (1940)
• “Inside the Whale” (1940)
• “The Lion and The Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius” (1941)
• “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)
• “The Art of Donald McGill” (1941)
• “Looking Back on the Spanish War” (1943)
• “W. B. Yeats” (1943)
• “Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dali” (1944)
• “Arthur Koestler” (1944)
• “Notes on Nationalism” (1945)
• “How the Poor Die” (1946)
• “Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver’s Travels” (1946)
• “Politics and the English Language” (1946)
• “Second Thoughts on James Burnham” (1946)
• “Decline of the English Murder” (1946)
• “Some Thoughts on the Common Toad” (1946)
• “A Good Word for the Vicar of Bray” (1946)
• “In Defence of P. G. Wodehouse” (1946)
• “Why I Write” (1946)
• “The Prevention of Literature” (1946)
• “Such, Such Were the Joys” (1946)
• “Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool” (1947)
• “Reflections on Gandhi” (1949)
• “Bookshop Memories” (1936)
• “The Moon Under Water” (1946)
• “Rudyard Kipling” (1942)
• “Raffles and Miss Blandish” (1944)

Poems

• “Romance”
• “A Little Poem”
• “Awake! Young Men of England”
• “Kitchener”
• “Our Minds are Married, But we are Too Young”
• “The Pagan”
• “The Lesser Evil”
• “Poem from Burma”

Bibliography

“George Orwell.” BBC. 3 Aug. 2008 <http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/orwell_george.shtml>.

Orwell, George, and Erich Fromm. 1984. New York: Signet Classics, 1950.

Orwell, George. Burmese Days. New York: Harvest Books, 1974.

Orwell, George. “Http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/shootelephant.htm.” Shooting an Elephant. 1935. 3 Aug. 2008 <http://http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/shootelephant.htm>.

Orwell, George. “Http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/888/.” A hanging. <http://http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/888/>.

Orwell, George, Russell Baker, and C. M. Woodhouse. Animal Farm. New York: Signet Classics, 1996.