Lam: Patriot Games & The Devil's Own

The Irish Cause

                Patriot Games and Devil's Own both portray the Irish independence struggle, almost in a somewhat negative light. Harrison Ford plays the protagonist in both films, and basically both protagonists play towards Harrison Ford's typical character archetypes. Meanwhile, the antagonist of each film is different. In Patriot Games, the protagonist is shown to be a rage filled person seeking only revenge, while in Devil's Own, the antagonist played by Brad Pitt is shown to be a good-hearted person only doing what he deemed necessary in order to further a cause that was much bigger than he was. However, both antagonists displayed character traits in which the audience could feel sympathetic for, such as the death of their brothers.

                Firstly, I felt that these two films were very unfair towards portraying both sides, American and Irish, in a fair manner, often focusing on the American perspective. By making the protagonist of each film be an American, it already slants our view as an audience towards supporting the American point of view. In both films, many scenes of the Irish Republican army killing innocent civilians or police officers were shown. This influences our thinking in that it portrays them as evil, such as the plot to kill the royal family (Pfeiffer 200). One of the most impactful ways in which the films frame our attitudes toward the antagonists is by making the protagonists be law enforcement officers.

                In Patriot Games, one scene that illustrates the film's pushing of the audience against the Irish occurred when the three officers who were disarmed after the drawbridge explosions were shot in cold blood. This was a very unnecessary move in my opinion, but by shooting the three officers even after they were helpless forced the audience to believe that the Irish are truly the bad guys. Throughout the entire scene, it was dark and took place at night. Additionally, the dialogue was very short and quiet, indicating they were evil. The Irish could have left those three officers alive and not shot them, but at that time, it really showed the audience the rage and evil inside the antagonists' hearts in killing for a reason outside their cause. This scene proved their renegade status, thus pushing the audience to believe that these people only acted on their own and seemingly tried to save face for the Irish in general.

                In Devil's Own, the very ending scene where Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt have a shootout in the boat captain framed the audience's attitude towards the antagonists implicitly. In this film, the very beginning portrays the Irish to be evil by killing police officers, but what the film artfully does is develop Brad Pitt's character very well. It forces us to sympathize with his cause in contrast to the first film. The final scene of this film sums up that sympathizing feeling and turns all disposition against the Irish into one for the character. In the last scene, the character proxemics plays an important role in that the beginning of the gun fight the two are distant but eventually at the conclusion, the two come into an almost intimate character proxemic, symbolizing that the antagonist realized the error of his ways and ultimately redeemed himself at the end.

Lam: Presumed Innocent

A microcosm

                Contrary to Harrison Ford's previous films, in Presumed Innocent, he is finally given the chance to bring out a darker and more humane side in his character. Harrison Ford is often portrayed as a hero, but in this film, Harrison Ford plays Rusty Sabich (Harrison Ford), a character who keeps the audience on their toes wondering if he truly committed the murder or not. Even Pfeiffer mentioned that this was like revealing Harrison Ford's dark nature, which in retrospect is similar to a reflection of actual human life in that no human is perfect and that no human does not have a dark side (Pfeiffer 185). There are several scenes that show how Rusty's presumption of innocence is undermined by the other characters. The characters who stick out the most in undermining Rusty are Lipanzer, his wife, and his boss.

                Towards the end of the film, Rusty confronts Lipanzer about the missing beer glass. On this boat scene, Lipanzer reveals that he had the missing beer glass, and during this scene, the lighting is very low key with light only showing on the two characters' faces. Additionally, the camera angle is neutral, which still makes the audience wonder about Rusty's innocence. Lipanzer undermines his innocence by admitting that Carolyn was bad news. The camera angle was neutral for Lipanzer but looking up towards Rusty. This is slanted against Rusty in that it indicates that Rusty might be above the law, and this is accented when Rusty suggests that it would have been okay to murder Carolyn because she was a bad person. Continually throughout this entire scene, we see both the scene setting, mis en scene, and dialogue play against Rusty and suggest that he is not innocent.

                If we were to contrast the above scene with the scene where Rusty confronts his wife at the kitchen table about the murder, we can still notice the camera angle pointing up towards Rusty, but this time, it is indicating his innocence despite his wife's actions to undermine his innocence, particularly by not admitting to the crime sooner to him or the proper authorities. This scene also acts as a nice microcosm to the entire film because in the end, his wife was the one who undermined not just Rusty but everyone involved in this case. Honestly, I was surprised the murderer was his own wife, and up until this point in the film, the film did an excellent job of swaying the audience back and forth between believing or disbelieving Rusty's innocence. Finally, his boss undermined Rusty's innocence the most directly of any character. His boss lied under oath in order to oppose Rusty in court. This undermining directly impacted the plot's events and showed where his loyalties really lied.

Lam: The Fugitive

The Flee

                The Fugitive is an interesting 1990's chase crime film featuring Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones as the main protagonist and antagonist. Contrary to Ford's other films, Ford's character Richard Kimble is put high on a pedastal and kicked down continuously. The normally heroic Ford takes quite the opposite turn in portraying a desperate man who was stripped of everything, including money, love, and freedom. As Pfeiffer also iterates, invoking feelings of sympathy and empathy in the audience was key to this drama film (Pfeiffer 212).

                One of the most important scenes of this carnage is actually the post-carnage event of Kimble (Harrison Ford) running away afterwards. Why would he even run away in the first place? Many may cite fear as the biggest factor and pushing force, but yes, while acknowledging that there is fear inherent in this action, he mostly wanted to escape a bad situation in order to regroup and prove his innocence. As other characters in the film said, everyone acknowledged the fact that Richard Kimble was too smart. If one were to follow his thought process, he transformed from being a vasculocardiac surgeon to being a private detective. However, it was extremely interesting to see him display his medical knowledge, and the fact that this was the profession given to his character helped the audience understand his humanity and thus his innocence. Many people look upon doctors and physicians with scorn and envy, but often, these people never stop to think about the difficulty that these physicians went through in order to get to where they are that warrants such a high salary. However, by taking this away from his character, Kimble was forced to start over, and the train wreck deux ex machina was the catalyst for this reset.

                I would like to focus on the flee of Kimble that occurs before the chase begins. Again, I would like to pose the question of why Kimble would even run in the first place. If he were to stay and wait for help, he would have most likely continued on to prison and never get the chance to prove his innocence. His fleeing is a big gamble, but it was his only chance and choice at the time if he wanted to prove his innocence. Therefore, by fleeing, this reinforces his innocence because he had something to prove, if not to the marshalls and police then at least to himself. The forest then represented freedom and the chance to prove his innocence while the train wreck's calamity represented the chaos and impending doom of his death sentence. This connection is important because in addition to Kimble's actions, the setting also helps show off his innocence. The flee is an important, if not one of the most important, aspects to displaying his innocence.

Lam: Mosquito Coast

The Fallen Hero

                Harrison Ford usually plays the hero in his films or even a rogue-turned hero. Over his career, this is the character archetype that he has developed into. In Mosquito Coast, one can actually argue that he is a sort of fallen hero. Even though Allie (Harrison Ford) degenerates into fanaticism that eventually leads to almost destroying his own family, I would still argue that he plays the part of the fallen hero. Maybe because of his usual archetype as a rogue or lead hero, this film was a very complicated and ambitious film from an artistic point of view (Pfeiffer 159).

                In the very first act of the film, the audience can see Allie take the first step towards fanaticism when he decides to not show up for work on the asparagus farm. Allie instead acts very rebelliously and tries to convince his boss that his invention is worth the time that he took off from work. Here, he shows his first step towards fanaticism in his inventions and actually causes harm to another person in order to achieve his invention. This harm may not be physical harm, but instead, Allie is harming his farmer boss's business and harvest.

                In the second act of the film, Allie's step towards fanaticism comes when his invention Fatboy explodes and kills the three marauders inside. At this point, his colony of Geronimo also gets destroyed in the process. He began showing signs of fanaticism with his fear of the three marauders invading his colony, but he truly did not cross the line until Allie threw away his moral convictions and resigned to inflicting harm on the three marauders. Allie originally intended for the three to simply go to sleep and become frozen, which indicates to the audience that Allie did not really intend to kill the three. However, due their actual deaths, Allie finally crossed the threshold into a point of no return. This event sparked a fuse in Allie to rebuild his colony elsewhere and cross into fanaticism by eventually lying to his own family about America being blown up and destroyed.

                In the last act of the film, Allie's final step towards fanaticism becomes realized when he burns declines to travel downstream towards Hatty's home and chooses to travel upstream instead. This act of defiance harmed the family because they all wanted to return to civilization. Another instance of true fanaticism was when Allie burned down the church due to pure hatred of the Reverend. This is important because he did not care about anyone's well-being anymore and chose to only satisfy himself. He truly became obsessed with himself and his way of thinking, and Allie did not stop until there was no one standing in his way. Overall, Allie truly stepped into chaotic fanaticism and almost did not redeem himself until the very end right before his death.

Lam: Witness

                John Book (Harrison Ford) undergoes quite a few changes throughout the film, but he maintains one very key quality of his character that becomes very key to understanding his character more thoroughly. John Book most dominantly changes his view on community from always being a "lone wolf" type character archetype to one that embraces the community. Even though John Book had a partner in the police force and a sister, Book very quickly abandons his partner in order to do what he believes is right and abandons his sister with no information on his whereabouts, probably the best choice of action in order to protect her. However, after John Book lived with the Amish for an extended period of time, he began to feel the very close sense of community, especially during the raising of the barn together with the whole town/communities.

                Another change that he underwent was learning to control his anger and will to fight aggresively. This is exhibited in the scene when John Book, Eli, Daniel, and the school children returned home but were picked on by the bullies. Many argue that he lost his temper and fought against the Amish's pacifist ways, but in fact, Book warned the bully that he was "making a mistake." If this were his past self, he would not have stopped at first, so he showed a renewed control over his emotions. This shows that he adapted some of the Amish thinking into his own character (Pfeiffer 151).

                One other change that he underwent was his outlook on love. Before, his sister hinted that he was always single, but he fell in love with Rachel. As I mentioned previously, Book's character is often seen as a lone wolf type of character. However, it was interesting to watch his transformation into a renewed human being and show that opposite to the violent side that he first exhibitied in the beginning of the film, he also has a softer side that was able to be cultivated.

                 However, the one thing that Book does not change about himself is his morality of defending the weak. This is important to understanding him because it is his biggest leftover detail from the "English" world. It essentially shows that he did not completely turn to the Amish ways overall. Using the same scene mentioned earlier, it demonstrated one of Book's stronger points in the film but also his lowest point in the film. This overall develops his character more because it shows that even the hero is flawed and may not always be able to overcome the last obstacle that ties him back to his old world. However, John Book's character comes very close and overall undergoes a great deal of character development.

Lam: Blade Runner Comparison

Which Blade Runner Version is Best?

                I feel that the Director's Cut does not really change the meaning of the film too much. All of the main themes were still prevalent in the film, but the biggest change was most likely the medium that these themes were presented. Taking out the voice overs really forced the audience to think more deeply about the film instead of being spoon-fed all of the information, and eventually losing all of the mystery of figuring out events in the film. This was echoed by the staff in which the subtleties of the film were possibly destroyed by the narration (Pfeiffer 124). These subtleties were what made the film more enticing, in my opinion.

                I personally think Ridley Scott thought that it was necessary to change the film because as a filmmaker, he wanted to probably reach the audience through film techniques and communicate through them instead of being straight up told the details of the film. This almost seems insulting to a filmmaker in that one can surmise that the filmmaker might be so bad that a narration was needed to communicate the main themes. Additionally, the narration was poorly done by Harrison Ford, and in order to improve the film, only two options remained: either delete the narration out completely or have Harrison Ford redo the voice over with possibly different dialogue in order to allow more focus to shift towards the film techniques. This deletion of the voice over narration is the most essential difference in the 1991 film, but also the deletion of the final ending scene was just as impactful. The ending scene seemed like an unnecessary ending, and in my opinion, took away from the mystique of the film. By leaving the ending at the elevator door closing scene in the film, it accentuated the close of the film and left room for wonder.

                In my opinion, the 1991 Director's Cut rendition communicated the film's thematic messages more inherently to the audience. I say inherently because if a person more organically learns a concept, it gets embedded in a deeper part of the brain. This is similar to hands-on interactive learning versus learning from a lecture. Therefore, if the audience is told via narration of information that could be subliminally learned, then the audience will not have as strong as a reaction that they could. Ironically, the audience would not be able to empathize too well with the film and its characters or even develop along with the characters. To have a more effective result from the film, a filmmaker needs to get the audience invested in the characters or the plot. The characters and plot were very well thought out, but the execution eventually ended up poorly. 

Lam: Blade Runner and the Voiceover

Blade Runner (1982) and the Role of the Voiceover

                In Blade Runner (1982), I feel that the voice over played almost no purpose. However, the producer severely underestimated the audience and almost insults the audience by essentially telling them that they need a narrator to tell them the story or else they would never understand the film. The director, actor Harrison Ford, and original creator expressed that they did not want a voice over (Pfeiffer 120). Therefore, Harrison Ford narrated the part poorly in an attempt to sway the producer from using the narrative. However, the producer intended the purpose of the voiceover to inform the audience on background information that supposedly could not be attained via the context of the film.

                Viewers do learn a few facts in the beginning of the film, but one can argue that these facts are almost erroneous and not exactly needed. One scene in particular where a voiceover was employed was during a panning of the settings of the city. Harrison Ford's character narrated during this pan and enlightened the audience about the language that was being spoken. He explained that the language was the language of the little people and was a mish-mash of Spanish, French, Japanese, and several other languages. One could argue that this fact is erroneous because all of the dialogue in the film was in English. Also, the settings definitely indicated a Japanese area using signs, but even if the audience could not distinguish Japanese from other Asian languages, which is often the case, audience members could still most likely recognize that the language was of Asian descent. The narrative at the end of the film also felt rather unnecessary as the audience does not learn anything new. The last narrative was basically a repetition of what Roy said at his time of death. If the producer was worried that the audience would not understand that Deckard also finally understood Roy's final words, then putting the ending in would help. The voiceover made the final scene just ridiculous and almost unreal and unnecessary.

                The thematic messages of the film were portrayed very well without the need for a voiceover. All of the thematic messages could have been understood via the settings, the dialogue, or the actions of the actors and actresses. Having a voiceover convey thematic messages would be terribly underwhelming to the audience because if the audience learns everything via a voiceover, then the audience does not even get the chance to become invested into the film and organically learn through the film about its thematic messages. Again, a film contains so many other aspects that could do the same job as a voiceover does. Even in the beginning of the film during the on-screen text, if the producer really doubted the audience's intelligence, this would have been a better place to provide more information-- not via a very badly done and lackasadical voiceover.

Lam: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull -- A Parody

               Surprisingly, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had many parodies in the film that referenced back to both Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The references made to Raiders of the Lost Ark generally were related to Marion, while the references made to the Last Crusade were related to Henry Jones, Senior or the concept of the father. Among all of the references in the film, I feel the most prominent one is a mirror of a scene from the Last Crusade. During the scene when Indiana and Henry Senior escape the Nazis by motorcycle, Indiana laughs as they evade the Nazis, but Henry Senior scowls at him. This same scene is mirrored in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when Mutt and Indiana evade the Russians on motorcycle again. Almost the exact same screenplay was used for that scene. However, it does include one major difference. This difference is the knowledge of the father figure. In Last Crusade, Indiana knew that Henry Senior was his father but chose to not to acknowledge him. Meanwhile, in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Indiana, at this point of the film, does not have the knowledge that he is anyone's, let alone Mutt's, father.

                This scene is a parody because it induces a mocking tone or pokes fun at a scene in a prior film and usually proves to be ironic. In this case, the situation is ironic because Henry Senior was a very serious and stout man who did not like Indiana's recklessness and his excitement and joy that came from the reckless behavior. Now, many years down the line, Indiana has aged and reached the age where "life stops giving you things and starts taking them away." After experiencing the loss of his father and Marcus Brody, Indiana finally becomes the father figure. This is partially what makes the scene so ironic. It is that Indiana has both become the father spiritually and physically with the introduction of Mutt's character. Mutt seems to be a more reckless version of young Indiana, perhaps due to the genes from both his mother Marion, a very fiery woman, and Indiana, an also very reckless man. In this scene, Mutt portrays the new reincarnated Indiana, but with even more vigor. Indiana does not exactly scowl at Mutt but instead gives him a glare. At the same time, you notice that it seems that Indiana even realizes that this was how he was when he was Mutt's age. The feeling did not seem to be one of contempt but one of reluctant acceptance that kids will be kids. Indiana takes this position until he learns that Mutt is actually his son. This parody almost seems as if the Indiana Jones franchise has run out of ideas with only the development of a son figure as the last chapter to Indiana Jones's life (Pfeiffer 176).

Lam: Developing Character Depth

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

A Closer Look at Indie's Character Development and Depth

                In the Last Crusade, I believe that the opening scenes tremendously added to Indiana Jones's character development. I wholly agree that the two prior films did not present a backstory to Indiana and only offered insight to who he was. The question of how he came about persisted until this third film where the entire opening sequence was fully dedicated towards provided a character history. I believe that character depth appeals towards the audience's emotions. The more that a character appeals towards emotions, the better the character will be remembered. If the character has a weak backstory that does not appeal to the audience, then the audience will not likely pay much attention to the character. However, if the backstory is strong and developed, then the character will be better remembered and ultimately contributes towards the depth of the character. Pfeiffer iterated that Indiana Jones was just a daring adventurer that seemed to just jump into our lives without any context, and that the character really needed a backstory to contribute towards his depth (Pfeiffer 114).

                Three main elements are presented in the opening scenes. The snake scene, lion whip scene, and fedora scene each gave Indiana a depth towards his character in explaining what made him who he is and gave the audience insight towards how he felt emotionally in certain situations. Originally, Indiana was not afraid of snakes when he and his friend first scouted out the cave where the treasure hunters were. However, when Indiana fell into the snake pit he developed a pathological fear of snakes that references back to Raiders of the Lost Ark when he went to retrieve the Ark. It significantly contributed to telling the audience how this fear of snakes developed as a child. 

The whip that he uses in the lion's den was what saved his life, so it was significant as it symbolized throughout all three films how he relied on his trusty tool to get out of any situation. Finally, the fidora essentially marked the beginning of Indiana's adventure in life, and it symbolizes his journey through life and thirst for adventure. Without this scene, audience members would ask, "Why a fedora?" It is a perplexing question that many may just take for face-value that it just adds to his physical appearance only, but by adding an emotional and historical reference to the fedora, it adds another layer of depth into Indiana Jones as a character. In essence, it makes his stories and adventures more believable if the backstory shows that Indiana started out growing up just like any other kid on the block. This is where the audience can finally connect with the character.

Overall, character depth was achieved, but personally, I believe that he could use even more character development despite what was already achieved.

Lam: Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark: 

The Transformation from a Mercenary to an Indentured Knight

                Indiana Jones's evolution from a mercenary to an indentured knight occurs within Raiders of the Lost Ark, but this evolution in this particular film can also be viewed as a microcosm of Indiana Jones over the course of the original three films. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, however, the scene in particular where Indiana Jones becomes an indentured knight occurs in the image of the scene above. In this scene, Indiana just received news that the government decided to enlist his services to reach the Ark before the Nazi enemies do.

                This scene happens midway through the first half of the film, and the scenes leading up to this scene show stark contrast between Indiana Jones, the archaeologist, and Dr. Indiana Jones, the university professor. In the opening portion of this film, Indiana Jones acts as a mercenary and attempts to retrieve the golden idol in South America. This scene in particular shows off his recklessness as a character and his recklessness to pillage the cave of this idol. His motives for claiming this idol were fame and fortune. However, he understood the necessity for the idol to be placed in a museum. So at this particular moment, he acknowledges his sense of duty as an archaeologist, and in a sense, he already begins to answer towards an authority. This only gets overshadowed by his reckless, bold behavior, so he maintains his mercenary status. The next major scene shows Dr. Indiana Jones, his alter ego, teaching a class at a seemingly prestigious university. This indicated that Dr. Jones already achieved fortune by becoming a staff member of the university. Again, he begins to hint that he is giving into a greater authority, and this authority is personified as the university president (principal?). Dr. Jones works under him, and as a result, this indicates the progression from mercenary to indentured knight. By submitting to a higher academic authority, Dr. Jones fulfills the first half of the definition of an indentured knight -- indentured. He does not start his quest to become a knight until he reverts back to his other alter-ego of Indiana Jones after meeting with the government officials in the auditorium. Essentially, the first two opening scenes show the audience both sides of Dr. Indiana Jones and attempts to slowly inch him closer towards being an indentured knight. Ford even admitted to his character having several different sides, and specifically stated that his character was not a hero but was a person who did many brave things (Pfieffer 115). When Dr. Jones hears word of his appointment to this mission at his home, he begins packing his signature jacket and whip. It is at this instant that he accepted the job and agreed to work under the political entity. 

Lam: The Star Wars Trilogy

Two Heroes

                Luke and Han both serve as a hero in the Star Wars trilogy in my opinion. Luke obviously is the contemplative hero by taking the more spiritual side of the hero, while Han is the civic hero who stays within the confines of the society. By evaluating three steps in the hero's journey, one can find that both Luke and Han fulfill the steps but in different ways. The three steps to be evaluated will be the departure's call to adventure, the initiation's road of trials, and the return's rescue from without.

                Firstly, let us evaluate the Call to Adventure. In the departure, Luke's call to adventure was both a physical and mystical sense. At first, he is hesitant to leave his home planet, but upon seeing his family's home and his family destroyed, Luke was left with nowhere else to go. However, Obi-Wan Kenobi also offered him the extra incentive of learning the ways of the Force if he left. In a way, destiny summoned the hero via Obi-Wan Kenobi (Pfeiffer 58). However, Han's call to adventure is different as he leaves for different incentives. The original incentive for Han was money, something that is very linked to society. Everyone in society uses money, but very few used the Force.

                Secondly, we can evaluate the Road of Trials. It may seem very evident for Luke that his road of trials came in the Episode V, when Luke underwent Yoda's training in order to attain mastery of the Force. However, if one were to search for Han's road of trials, it can be argued that it is a little more difficult. I believe that Han's road of trials comes when he finally gets turned in to Jabba the Hut. His capture and inprisonment are both manifestations of society's confines of money. Meanwhile, Luke's road of trials is obviously a spiritual one.

                Lastly, the Rescue from Without is evident for both Luke and Han in Episode V and VI. Luke's rescue occured after his first encounter with Darth Vader and was hanging on the pole, in which Leia proceeded to rescue him. Leia's natural intuition with the Force and the world saved Luke, thus again symbolizing the supernatural context. Meanwhile, Han's rescue from without occurs on a more physical and societal level when Luke and Leia come to rescue him from Jabba the Hut.

                Luke and Han both become a hero in the trilogy, but the means and context by which both do so differ and makes an excellent side-by-side analysis between the contemplative and civic hero.

Lam: Star Wars Episodes V and VI, The Dark Side

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

The Dark Side

                The Dark Side has the ultimate attraction of power and security for weak beings. Because these people feel weak, they feel that they must become stronger in order to live a fulfilling life. The Dark Side draws from emotions that are relatively easy to invoke, such as anger, rage, hatred, fear, aggression, and passion. To appease these emotions, users of the Dark Side seek attention and recognition that they are the most powerful beings and asserts their strength over others. Even during production, Lucas leaked a keyword about the film: "revenge," which pointed towards the Dark Side's reference and overall theme in the final movie (Pfeiffer 133).

                In particular for Luke, I believe it is worthy to note that Darth Vader offered the chance for Luke to join forces with him, thus giving both a mutual feeling of family. Luke has always longed to know about his father, and inherently, Darth Vader almost gives off the feeling that he also wanted to bond with his son by extending an offer to Luke to finish his training for him. In Episode V, Darth Vader tempted him for a slight moment before Luke decided to jump off the railing after having his hand cut off by Darth Vader. Luke sensed compassion in Darth Vader, and this ultimately saved him. Darth Vader had many chances to strike down Luke, but Darth Vader kept attempting to turn him towards the Dark Side instead of destroy him.

                In Episode VI, the Emperor also extends an offer for Luke to strike him down in his anger. Here, we see Luke conflict within himself and ultimately does give into the Dark Side for a brief moment when he force-pulls the lightsaber into his hand and tries to strike down the Emperor, only to be blocked by Darth Vader's lightsaber. Momentarily, Luke succumbs to the Dark Side in a furious attack on Darth Vader after his provoking comments about Leia in an epic battle scene where Luke overpowers and defeats Darth Vader. In Luke's first strike, it can be noted he takes the attack stance of the Ataru lightsaber fighting style. Ultimately, Luke remembers the compassion in Darth Vader after noticing that he cut off his hand, just as his father did to him previously.

                Most accounts of the temptations of the Dark Side occur from the standpoint of converting a good character to the Dark Side. However, Darth Vader shows an internal struggle with the Dark Side at the very end when the Emperor was in the process of killing Luke. If Vader gave into the Dark Side at that point, Luke would have died. Darth Vader would have remained as the right-hand man for the Emperor, and this would have been the temptation. However, he also toyed with the notion of the Light Side, in which his soul would have been redeemed. Ultimately, the good inside of him wins out, even at the cost of his own life. 

Darth Vader's internal conflict as noted by his head tilting down in this close-up.

Lam: Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Blog

  A Microcosm of a Hero's Journey

              George Lucas's Star Wars: A New Hope can be perceived to be a microcosm of Campbell's definition of a hero's journey. It is obvious that the Departure of the journey is emphasized in the film, but there is evidence to suggest that there is an Initiation and Return stage as well, even though they might not be as highlighted as the Departure in the film. However, instead of focusing on the obvious, I would like to focus on the Initiation stage. The Initiation stage includes the "Road of Trials," the "Meeting with the Goddess," "Woman as the Temptress," "Atonement with the Father," "Apotheosis," and  "The Ultimate Boon" (Campbell).

                "The Road of Trials" is prevalent throughout the film from when Luke began his training with a lightsaber aboard the Millenium Falcon until the final destruction of the Death Star. Ben Kenobi served as his guide and upon Kenobi's death at the hands of Vader, Ben Kenobi became an agent of supernatural help in guiding Luke during his final run into the crevice of the Death Star. Luke also began to become aware of the Force and his aptitude for it. Luke's "Meeting with the Goddess" is not exactly an orthodox one in that Leia takes the role of the Goddess. Through their escape out of the Death Star, there are many scenes that consist of only Luke and Leia, and this may have been intentionally done to hint towards a romance developing between Luke and Leia, though at this point the love may be unrequited. In this film, it lacked the "Woman as the Temptress" aspect to its Initiation stage. However, it can be surmised that this part of the Initiation is being saved for its subsequent sequels. 

The "Atonement with the Father" aspect can be viewed as a metaphor in this film. Campbell references to God as "the Father," but in this film's case, the Force appears to be the replacement for the father figure as it is omnipotent and consists of all of the universe. At this point, we can refer back to the Millenium Falcon training from Ben Kenobi. In this scene, Ben teaches Luke how to not use his eyes to deflect the shot by trusting within the Force. Luke begins to abandon his old ways of perceiving the world and in turn begins to feel the Force and rely on its power. Later on, the "Apotheosis" aspect appears but not within the hero Luke. Instead, this step appears in Ben Kenobi when he faced Darth Vader in a lightsaber duel. Ben disappeared before the final strike from Vader, and becomes an everlasting being in-tune with the Force. This can be viewed as a foreshadow towards Luke's own "Apotheosis" in a later sequel. "The Ultimate Boon" appears within Luke in the form of his ability as a pilot. He trusts his instincts and deals the final blow to the Death Star. In this scene, he breathes a sigh of relief, but with that sigh, he also gained confidence and illuminated both himself and Han Solo as well.

                Though these pieces of the film may seem subtle, they definitely consitute as evidence that the Initiation stage was acheived in the hero's journey. While this is the first of three films in the series, it makes sense that the overall goal is to achieve the Departure stage, but as I mentioned earlier, this first film can act as a microcosm for the rest of the series in which the second movie becomes the Initiation stage, and the third movie becomes the Return stage. Ford was one of the few supporters of this franchise, and despite difficult working conditions, the studio began becoming impatient, thus possibly forcing Lucas to include glimpses of the Initiation stage into the film where the Departure was emphasized (Pfeiffer 71-72).

Lam: Hanover Street Blog

What is a Hero?

                Sellenger saw Halloran as the embodiment of the values that made up a "hero." He used an example regarding the boy who went ice skating but fell into the water. Then, Sellenger pointed out that Halloran would be the boy who dives straight into the water to save the boy. Meanwhile, Sellenger would be the boy who offers his coat to the boy. He then surmises that Halloran would be on the front page of the newspaper acting modestly while Sellenger would receive no recognition. In his example, Sellenger brought up several inherent traits or qualities of a hero without actually stating them. These traits or qualities included bravery, courage, modesty, strength, compassion, valor, and timeliness. I would like to point out the lack of the trait of honesty in the above list that qualifies a hero. I excluded this quality because in my opinion, honesty is not a necessary trait in order to be considered a hero. As seen in the film, Halloran served as the film's hero and was dishonest about his love affair with Margaret. At any time upon discovering Sellenger's wife's identity, Halloran could have been honest and revealed the affair, but instead, he chose a passive approach and chose not to speak about it unless Sellenger would inquire about it, which at this point in the film Sellenger would have had no reason to question Halloran's integrity. I believe Halloran fits Sellinger's idea of a hero because throughout the film, Halloran exhibits all of the aforementioned traits or qualities.

                Halloran was not the only hero of the film, however. Sellinger may have been the antagonist of the film, one who causes a conflict against the protagonist, but his transformation over the second half of the film may have been even more dynamic than Halloran's. I would argue that Halloran was always the hero throughout the film from the very beginning but did not reveal his heroic qualities until deemed necessary, which was the scene of my image above. Instead, Halloran helped Sellenger transform into a hero. There were several instances in which this happened, but one of the most important scenes in the film was during the image above. When the German Nazi was about to discover Halloran's true identity, Halloran took the initiative to reveal his heroic qualities. At this point, as noted by Pfeiffer, it became evident that Ford did not want to take on this role as Halloran, but if he was going to, he wanted to portray the character in his own way. The brief punch from Ford almost foreshadowed the type of actor he was to become in the future. However, this single punch forced Sellenger's hand to transform into a hero or else the mission would be compromised. Sellenger attempted to perform the mission using his strength -- intelligence. However, intelligence in the film was passed off as a non-heroic quality. Therefore, the synergy between the two pushed Sellenger into the direction of becoming a hero himself. At the same token, it is also worthy to note that if Sellenger had never asked Halloran for his help on the mission in the first place, then Halloran would not have been able to reveal his heroic qualities past their plane crash escape.

                In the final action sequence of the film involving Sellenger and Halloran escaping across the mine from the Nazi squad, heroism as a theme becomes very embraced. It displayed the zenith of the heroic qualities of both characters. When Sellenger is shot across the bridge, he first urged Halloran to escape to safety on his own. This act showed off all of the aforementioned qualities of a hero in Sellenger, but when Halloran returned to save him, he displayed all of his heroic qualities as well. In the final action sequences, the quality of compassion was dominant. Sellenger was being compassionate by telling Halloran to escape on his own, while Halloran was also being compassionate by returning for Sellenger.

                Overall, this was  fairly decent film, even though I can see where many critiques could come from. It was a good balance of the romantic story and spy story, but it was clearly divided into two halves. The film would have been better served if the two stories were better interwoven.