Hall: Patriot Games vs. Devils Own

Patriot Games and The Devil's Own put forth different opinions within their plots, concerning the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the I.R.A.). The Patriot Games, "boldly presented the I.R.A. in an unflattering light" (Pfeiffer 202). Whereas Harrison Ford is reported as commenting, "The film was pretty unabashed in its admiration for the I.R.A. and all things Irish" (Pfeiffer 234). These opposing interpretations of the I.R.A.'s struggle against the Catholic Nationalists for Ireland's independence from the United Kingdom reflect the different ways in which the antagonists are portrayed within the two films. The level of villainy associated with the actions of the antagonists in each film, are also affected by the different character's portrayals and incentives. 

In Patriot Games, the I.R.A. itself is not necessarily the antagonizing forces within the film. However, it is a radical faction originally tied to the I.R.A. that attempts the attack on Lord William Holmes (Fox). While it is rather evident during a conversation between a member of the I.R.A. and Kevion O'Donnell (Bergin) that the other "brigade commanders" think that direct attacks upon the royals and ruling class. The fact that these people associate themselves with the purpose of the I.R.A. is damning to the I.R.A.'s image. 

This splinter I.R.A. group is first introduced when they attempt to assassinate the family of the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This terrorist attempt is directly opposed to the value that American's place with the idea of a family and immediately creates a condemning image of evil within the audiences' mind. The most integral member of this faction is Sean Miller (Bean). He is directly involved with the attempt and watches the protagonist, Jack Ryan (Harrison) kill his little brother. This sets into action a feud between Ryan and Miller. 

The only redeemable aspects of Sean's situation is the audience's understanding of Sean's obvious feelings of being repressed by the United Kingdom (demonstrated when his is struck by a bad-mouthing detective) and general empathy towards his grief at the loss of his brother. Sean possess the qualities of loyalty to country and family, passion, and determination, but these qualities, usually admired by the American audience, are diminished and transformed into damning qualities that only serve to promote Sean's vilification. These qualities are what lead him to directly engage with violence towards the film's protagonist, Jack Ryan (Ford). The extremism of Sean's actions and his desire to kill the pregnant wife and child of Jack (two potential victims whose death would be the epitome of evil in America), expel feelings of empathy towards him, since his drive to destroy is now incited by a personal, specific desire for revenge.

Sean's damning intent is first voiced at his trial. Sean is dressed in dark somber clothes. Jack is also dressed in a dark blazer but his shirt is a light blue and there is light shining off his head (perhaps interpretational as a semblance of a halo designating righteousness). His face is a contrast of shadows and light throughout the film, culminating in almost complete shadow before his outburst at Jack. This enhancement of shadows demonstrate's Sean's growing intent to extract revenge. In the beginning of the courtroom scene, Jack and Sean are both off screen center with more social proximities between themselves and the camera. As the scene continues, the camera zooms slowly closer and closer to personal proximates and individual head shots of the antagonist and protagonist. This also increases the intensity of the situation, allowing the audience to grasp the vengeful nature that Sean will encompass throughout the movie. 

Contrasting Patriot Games, The Devil's Own puts forth a completely different introduction to the controversy between the nationalist and loyalist controversy. The antagonist, Francis "Frankie" McGuire (Pitt), is shown as a young boy enjoying an idyllic existence with his father. This is brought abruptly to an end when the father is shot down in front of Frankie and his family, because of his Irish republican sympathies. This scene in contrast to the opening scene of Frankie as an adult, causes the audience to view the I.R.A. as a group attempting to defend their country and take back their rights (a cause that the American audience can definitely get behind). This proposed idea of I.R.A. intentions, is reflected onto Frankie. Empathy towards Frankie is also more pronounced than in Patriot Games, as the audience is more inclined to empathize with a small child and that child's need to defend the beliefs that instigated his father's murder. Unlike the character of Sean Miller, Frankie does not specifically fight for revenge, he fights for a cause bigger than himself.

Despite the positive opinion that Frankie generates as an individual throughout the film, the actions that he takes to further his country's cause are not conducive to American ethics. This is prominently displayed through a reflection of the protagonist's, Tom O'Meara (Ford), code of ethics. Tom and his family becomes somewhat of a surrogate for what Frankie lost in the beginning of the film. Tom and Frankie's burgeoning relationship and the personal scenes which display Frankie's capacity for love, are starkly different from the scenes portraying Sean Miller as an individual whose only capacity is for anger, grief, and immorality. 

This scene demonstrates this sharp contrast: the close up camera proxemics of the frame, and the intimate proxemics of the characters demonstrate a close familiarity, trust, and happiness. Tom is the more dominant character within the frame because of his central location within it. His position seems to envelop his partner, Eddie (Blades), and Frankie within his protection and incorporate them into his world. The bright lighting of this shot enhances the idea of happiness, and good will. Nobody's face is contrasted in darkness and the equal plane and front facing shot point to them as possible equals. This analysis pertains more to Frankie and Tom than Eddie. Eddie is the only one dressed in somewhat dark colors, and the angle of the camera almost seems to denote a small distance from Tom despite their proximity. This could be foreshadowing to his later betrayal of Tom's trust and Tom's decision to protect him. Patriot Games does not demonstrate any scenes such as this one, constricting our ability to relate to Sean. The Devil's Own abundance of such scenes allows us to place Frankie in an additional reality, separate from the violence. 

Hall: Presumed Innocent

Rusty Sabich's (Harrison Ford) opening lines foreshadow the role that the audience will find themselves playing in Presumed Innocent, "I'm a prosecutor. I'm part of the business of accusing, judging and punishing. I explore the evidence of a crime and determine who is charged, who is brought to this room to be tried before his peers. I present my evidence to the jury and they deliberate upon it. They must determine what really happened. If they cannot, we will not know whether the accused deserves to be freed or should be punished. If they cannot find the truth, what is our hope of justice?" The audience throughout the film will find themselves as interpreters of whether or not Rusty is actually innocent. Although the audience wants to believe in his innocence, there are several scenes which hint to Rusty as being the killer of Carolyn Polhemus (Greta Scacchi). “The vulnerability of his character allows Ford to make mistakes and show weaknesses that would be unthinkable for make of the characters he had portrayed in the past. While we want to believe he is innocent of his lover’s murder and that he has truly rehabilitated himself as a family man, there is some doubt among the audience that he may not be quite what he seems” (Pfeiffer 187). The audience has no confirmation of Rusty's innocence even after he is acquitted (the viewer is aware that this acquittal is simply because of the Judge's involvement with bribery).  
One of the first times in which Rusty's innocence is questioned is after he ensures that his friend Detective Dan Libranzer (John Spencer) replaces Detective Greer (Tucker Smallwood) who is originally in charge of the case. This could just be seen as a personal choice until it is later revealed that Rusty has had an affair with the victim. Rusty manipulates his friendship with the detective and persuades Libranzer to leave out the phone records that point to a relationship between him and Carolyn.
Another scene which points to Rusty as a suspect is when it is discovered that not only did Rusty have an affair with Carolyn but the relationship also ended badly. Carolyn was unhappy with Rusty's lack of ambition. Once she realized that this was the case she abruptly dumps him. Rusty is surprised and extremely angered by this decision. He repeatedly calls her and tries to convince her to be with him again.
The final scene in which Rusty's innocence is put into question is when he holds up a hammer with blood and hair attached to it. With no expression he goes into the house and starts to wash the hammer. This is the climax off the audience's fear that he has indeed done the deed. Rusty has the murder weapon. Soon after the fear of confirmed guilt penetrates our psyche, Rusty's wife, Barbara (Bonnie Bedila), admits to carefully calculating Carolyn's demise. Seen below is Rusty finding out the truth. The close up, intimate proxemics and tight framing indicate that Rusty is trapped by what he is found out. He can do nothing with the new information he has been told. He is caged by the situation. The lighting, half light and half dark, upon the dominant (his face) also shows that although the audience has finally discovered his innocence, he was always not totally innocent in the murder. His absence and affair, drove his wife to her mental breakdown. As he says, "I reached for Carolyn, and set off that insane mix of rage and lunacy that led one human being to kill another. There was a crime. There was a victim. And there is punishment."

Hall: Fugitive

The first scene of The Fugitive in which Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) is introduced, is directly after the first scattered shots of a woman being attacked. Shortly after police cars, lights, and a official tired looking gentleman going down the stairs is portrayed; because of the introductory scenes it can safely be assumed that this is a detective investigating the attack of the woman. He enters what looks like a living room where a obviously distraught man holds his face in his hands. The white t-shirt of this upset man is covered in blood. The preluding circumstances point to this as the potential killer. All that is initially known is what is projected from the news anchor's voice. As we watch this man covered in blood be escorted from his home, the reporter's voice relates that this is Richard Kimble, whose wife, Helen (Sela Ward), was found murdered in their home earlier that evening. 

The resulting trial after these initial scenes does not promote any sort of solid conclusion of evidence either. The only profession of evidence that is given is when Kimble insists that he came home to find his wife being attacked by a one handed man. This outburst and Kimble's expressions throughout the ordeal are all we have to assume innocence. It is purposely not revealed until later in the film that Kimble is indeed innocent, it is left for the audience to make the inital verdict.

The train scene is the first opportunity of the audience to gauge Kimble's innocence not simply by the decleration of his words but also by his actions. Kimble and other prisoners are being transported to death row when the other prisoners attempt an escape. One of the inmates feigns a seizure, when a gaurd approaches him to give aid, the inmate stabs the gaurd with a homemade shank. Chaos promptly ensues with the eventual death of the driver. One of the officers enlists Kimble's integrity to save the life of the gaurd who was stabbed. Unfortunately right when Kimble is about to help, a train begins its approach, signaling that the bus has unfortunately crashed into the middle of the train tracks. 

When the officer realizes this, he immediately bolts away, putting his own safety over that of his partner. Kimble, who has no responsibility to the dying man, refuses to leave him. Despite a resulting injury that he sustains, Kimble manages to save himself and the gaurd, just in the knick of time. This invoking of sympathy and empathy towards Kimble was crucial to the film (Pfeiffer 212). American audiences love a selfless, handsome hero. To many, self sacrifice and a obvious compassion for others, is proof of innocence. This scene is crucial because it is the first time the audience really starts to find themselves rooting for Kimble and his struggle to prove his innocence and remain a fugitive, despite the tentative evidence that he may not be guilty. 

Hall: The Thing To Fear Most is Fanaticism

This was a refreshing role to see Harrison Ford play. I feel like one of the common criticisms expressed, regarding Ford's abilities as an actor, is the idea that he is able to play only a certain  archetype. This common idea of Ford as a rougish hero abounding with acidic remarks is challenged in Mosquito Coast. As Pfiffer remarks, his character, Allie Fox, is "a good father and a bad father. He’s a monster, a clown, a fool, a genius” (157). Throughout the film, Allie Fox descends further and further into the depths of fanaticism and insanity. 
In the first act, Allie's fanaticism is displayed in his initial tirade to his young son, Charlie. In this long, critical speech, he deplores American consumerism and, subsequently, the American dream. He makes his first fanatic prediction of a nuclear war caused by American greed and crime. Throughout the film, Allie is constantly spouting his beliefs about the negligence, and selfish desire of American capitalism. He believes American has descended into a cesspool of commercialization, partly caused by the undermining of American product. Allie believes that American companies' proclivity to endorse foreign products has led to fewer job opportunities for the American worker, leading to the ultimate decline of America. He acts upon his dissension with the American dream when he goes to a hardware store and refuses to purchase the product when he learns that it was made in Japan. He instead treks to a garbage dump to acquire the materials himself, rather than deviating from what he thinks is the "American way." His temper tantrum at the store demonstrates his growing fanatical reasonings and his fixed belief that he is the only one who knows what is going on.

In the second act Allie is happily continuing on his rants concerning American tyranny. He has found an even bigger, more receptive audience in the limited-English speaking natives of Mosquito Coast. Throughout this act, Allie is seen transcending deeper and deeper into his own illusions and delusions. He endeavors to create a utopia for himself and his family but uses his family and the native people as slaves to create his own ideas and desires. 

I think the beginnings of his descent into true fanaticism is shown after he constructs his massive, towering ice machine, "Fat Boy." Allie is initially proud of his accomplishment, but after things seem to be working out too well he decides that he has to take on a new challenge. He sees himself as the savior and bringer of civilization to these "savage" peoples and reiterates constantly that the foundation of civilization is ice. After hearing about native people up in the hills who have had limited contact with outsiders, Allie embarks upon a mission to bring these people his new creation. The entire journey up the hill, he verbally abuses his own sons and throws a fit when it turns out that the ice has melted (no surprise in the jungle heat). He can not deal with the idea that he may be wrong in his ideas or that anyone elses thoughts may be relevant. Classic fanaticism. 

In act three, the man reaches his pinnacle of "straight crazy." His family is on the edge of starvation, they have been floating down the river on a raft, in pursuit of whatever crockpot scheme he has cooked up next. They think they have found their salvation when they reach a settlement, but these hopes are quickly dashed when it turns out to be Allies' archenemy, the missionary. Despite his family's obvious suffering he refuses to ask for aid, instead sneaking into the church late at night and burning it down as 'revenge' for some personal grievance known only to him. 

Hall: witness

John Book's world is turned topsy turvy when he finds out his trusted confidant, police chief, and former partner has gone rogue and entered the world of 'dirty' cops. He becomes, in some sense, trapped in the world of the Amish when he receives a debilitating injury and is forced to accept help or die. I think this shows the first change in Book's character. When he is first introduced in Witness he is portrayed as an impulsive, think first ask questions later, kinda guy. He definitely sees himself as a lone wolf; a person who does not need or ask for the help of others. The audience can see through this guise, but the important thing is that Book, himself, is not able to admit to this. It is only once he is completely at the mercy of the kindness and communal sense of the Amish people that he is forced to recognize the importance of community. Book must change to not only recognize the importance of communal help, understanding, and generosity in humanity, but also as a trait or characteristic that he wants to be and is a part of. I'm not saying that the portrayal of chaotic city and idyllic Amish life is completely off the reservation, but I do think this movie makes great effort to show the isolation of Book's city life and the community of Book's Amish life for a reason. Book must embrace the idea that no man is an island (despite how some might interpret Simon and Garfunkle). This is one of the most significant changes I saw in his personality and one that is emphasized throughout the movie.

Delving further into Book's relationship with others, at the same time his sense of community changes, he also learns that there are different reasons to respect others. He is definitely seen as having a moral code in the beginning of the movie (reinforced by his sister's assertion that her brother could never do anything illegal), but this does not extend to acceptance of the way in which others live. This is seen in his initial treatment of Rachel and Samuel, and even in the way that he treats his own sister. Respect is definitely a part of the Amish code, by entering their world, he has to learn that there are other ways to live and other ways to do things (one of the ways he shows this respect is in his relinquishing of his gun to Rachel in the beginning of the movie). This is a key element to the film, which is reinforced in the end when Book uses empathy instead of violence to stop the murderous police chief.
This is another way that Book changes. He learns to practice some sort of restraint and contemplation in his actions. At first he is incredibly impulsive, but Book learns how to think about his actions, this is seen in his relationship with Rachel and in how he doesn't immediately beat the impudent towny up. However, in this respect he does not change enough. Although he has developed a new contemplative aspect to his personality, it is this inability to completely show restraint and appreciate that there are always alternatives to violence that causes his intended murderers to find him in the Amish community. He is still unable to control his temper. This scene illicits an internal groan at the same time that you want Book to do something about the rudeness of the towny.

Hall: Director's Cut, Hands Down.

As previously discussed in the previous blog, the Blade Runner producers added the voice over when the film received poor reviews in the initial sneak previews. They thought the film was too confusing for the common American people and they wanted the audience to simultaneously find Ford's character more relatable and the plot easier to follow. They went against Scott's purposeful decision to film Blade Runner in the style of a film noir, but without the customary detective voice over. The resulting film went against the director's desired intent. When this happens, it is extremely evident that elements of the film will get lost to the wayside, including the director's overarching message and dream for the flim. 
Okay, so at this point it is clear that the producer's desire for simplification of the film detracted from Scott's real motivations, "confusion was exactly what he hoped to create" (Pfeiffer 124). I really like this quote and think it not only plays into what Scott wanted to create but also what Dick endeavored to create in his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. If an idea(s) confuses you, the hopefully natural inclination is to think about them. This leads to a new interpretation and a closer look at what an artist is trying to convey. Both mediums seem to be seeking a response cultivated from careful thought. They don't want to simply hand over answers about the worlds they have created, they want the audience to think about the questions they pose and get confused, realize that answers (if even obtainable) are not easy to come by.  
THe lack of the voice over in the director's cut, allowed the audeince to develop  personal feeling behind scenes such as Roy's death and allowed them to come to their own conclusions regarding the affinity or lack there of when it came to the emotion of and emotion concerning the Blade Runner's androids. 
This commonality of confusion is why I thought that the director's cut was a much more faithful translation of Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.At some points during the original film, it is even harder to discern the difference between androids and humans to the point where (like in the novel) it is difficult to know whether Deckard himself is an android or a human. 
Ridley Scott adds to this with the addition and extension of certain scenes, such as the addition of dream scenes involving a unicorn. The addition of these scenes simultaneously contributes to the confusion, and possibly lends itself to a greater level of interpretation.One of the most crucial differences between the two is the differences between the ending. In the 1982 version, Rick Deckard and Rachel are seen driving off into the sunshine, a lush green landscape around them. This is what detracts most from the commonality between the novel and the film. The earth is supposed to be deslotate and a wasteland, yet a couple miles outside of the city there is fertile land? I don't think so. The director's cut version is a lot more similar to the novel in that you aren't given the satisfaction of a happy ending, things are left off rather suddenly without any clear resolution. The misdirection of both the novel and of the director's cut is why I think the 1991 version is much more effective. 

Hall: Blade Runner

Ridley Scott originally intended the film to be in the style of film noir, but he rejected the use of the classic detective voice over (a trademark of the genre). In an American television interview he stated that voice overs sometimes worked but that they didn't work in Blade Runner (Chapman). Despite Scott's active objections to voice overs, the studio insisted that they be added when Blade Runner recieved poor reception at sneak previews. The studio executives thought that the film was too confusing for the American people. They wanted the audience to simultaneously find Ford's character more relatable and the plot easier to follow. This desire for simplification of the film detracted from Scott's real motivations, "confusion was exactly what he hoped to create" (Pfeiffer 124). When a film ends up going against the director's desired intent, I think this automatically indicates that elements of the film will get lost to the wayside. 
I will admit that the voice over does something of its job in terms of telling the reader what is going on, but it is extremely repetitive at times. This repetitive quality of the voice over, sometimes detracts from the thematic message, a major example of this would be Roy Baty's death scene. After Roy's final monologue about the transience of time and memories, Rick Deckard's voice is heard proclaiming his relatibility to Roy's fear of death etc. This completely detracted from the feeling behind Roy's death and failed to allow the audience to come to their own conclusions regarding the affinity or lack there of when it came to the Blade Runner's androids. 

                             

This is why I don't think the voice over was effective in helping to convey the thematic messages of the film or the book. Both mediums seem to be seeking a response cultivated from careful thought. They don't want to simply hand over answers about the worlds they have created, they want the audience to think about the questions they pose and get confused, realize that answers (if even obtainable) are not easy to come by. The first time I ever saw this film, it was actually the director's cut. Watching the 1982 version, was considerably more boring and less evocative than the first time I viewed it. The confusion in the director's version of Blade Runner allows the film to be a more faithful translation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. At some points during the original film, it is even harder to discern the difference between androids and humans to the point where (like in the novel) it is difficult to know whether Deckard himself is an android or a human. 

When researching opinons regarding the voice over track of the 1982 version of Blade Runner it becomes quickly evident that almost no one involved in the film liked the new product. "Like" is a rather diplomatic word when describing what seems to be the mutual hatred of Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, and even the film's producers. Despite his objections, Ford was contractually obligated to record the voice over (Pfiffer 124). Harrison Ford's reading, however, was so uninspired and unenthusiastic, many team members continue to believe to this day that Ford, "consciously or not, did an uninspired reading of it in the hopes it wouldn't be used" (Chapman). I like to believe that Harrison's dull monotone was completely on purpose. 

Oh and the happy ending was complete bullcrap too. It is true that audience members are more likely to respond to a film that results in a happy ending, but when this sacrifices the films intentions and artistry, it is complete baloney. 

Works Cited

Chapman, Murry. "BLADE RUNNER Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)."BLADE RUNNER 

             Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). FAQS, 1992-1995. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

Pfeiffer, Lee, and Michael Lewis. The Films of Harrison Ford. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Pub. Group, 

             1996. Print.

Hall: Androids Dreaming

"Irans attention is never properly directed towards Rick, as one might believe with them being married and all. Rather she exists in her own little world, a world consisting of her compassion for Wilbur Mercer, the Penfield organ and first the sheep, then the goat and lastly the toad. Her compassion, representative for the rest of humanity, towards the animals seems to be rather fleeting. Although she seems at first crushed over the loss of the goat, her attention immediately moves onto the toad as soon as Rick walks in the door with it. And here it’s worth noting that the toad is synthetic, contrary to the real goat” Heilemann 6). 

To some degree, I agree with Michael's assessment of Iran's behavior, but I find his overall interpretation to be rather limited. While Iran definitely exists within a rather alienated world, I think she, like Rick Deckard, is trying to escape this world of simulation in the pursuit of reality. That is, a more tangible, hopefully comprehensive reality. The reality of World War Terminus is a confusing mixture of synthetic, organic, and mechanic. 

Iran’s unhappiness with her “own little world” can be seen in the first chapter and first scene of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (Heilemann 6). The scene begins with a discussion between her and Rick, and their usage of the Penfield mood organ. While Rick seems extremely comfortable with letting the mood organ dictate his emotions and keep him in a more serene place of self-fulfillment, Iran seems to fight against the mood organ as a method of happiness or good will. She outlines her unhappiness with the organ and her (almost rebellious) decision to program a twice-monthly mood of despair and depression.

"I don't feel like dialing anything at all now," Iran said.

 "Then dial 3," he said.

"I can't dial a setting that stimulates my cerebral cortex into wanting to dial! If I don't want to dial, I don't want to dial that most of all, because then I will want to dial, and wanting to dial is right now the most alien drive I can imagine; I just want to sit here on the bed and stare at the floor" (Dick 3).

It is only after Rick’s incessant pestering that she invoke the powers of the mood organ, that she finally gives in and allows him to administer dial 594 “pleased acknowledgment of husband's superior wisdom in all matters” (Dick 3).

By the way, it is incredibly creepy to me that 594 is a dial on the mood organ, dial 888 is also a bit disconcerting (“the desire to watch TV, no matter what’s on it”), but I find that a bit more funny than unsettling.

This first scene also refutes Heilemann’s claim of Iran’s diminutive empathy with her resentment towards Rick and his profession. Although it can be argued that she is simply badgering and goading him to start a fight, she seems to at least have some empathy towards the androids her husband professionally retires.

"You're worse," his wife said, her eyes still shut. "You're a murderer hired by the cops.  "I've never killed a human being in my life." His irritability had risen, now; had become outright hostility.  Iran said, "Just those poor andys."

I also don’t agree with Heilemann’s evaluation of Iran’s compassion as “fleeting” (6). This may be the case, but I do not think he reinforced this idea with adequate proof or argument. While he notes that the toad is synthetic, contrary to the real goat,” he forgets to mention that the sheep was also synthetic. It is unknown whether she really did mourn the sheep when it first died, or what connection she really had to it, since it is implied that Rick was the primary caretaker. Perhaps she did not have a strong connection to the sheep because of this. Also since they have had the electric sheep for about a year, perhaps she did grieve for sometime after the sheep died. They only possessed the goat for a couple of hours before Rachel dispatched it to the great Mercer in the sky, so it would have been hard for her to actually establish a lasting emotional connection towards the animal. So his statement regarding her “fleeting” empathy towards the animals, as a “lack of emotion” is erroneous without proper evidence that this is an inability that connotes cold behavior (Heilemann 6).

Works Cited 

Dick, Phillip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballantine, 1996. Print. 

Heilemann, Michael. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner" Print.

Hall: Crusading

In the first two movies, Indiana is portrayed as a rather static character, although his motives develop. He is always a ball-busting, treasure-seeking, thrill-hunting, spontaneously erratic, hot adventure man. What Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade brings to the table, is a dynamic understanding of how and why Indian Jones is the way he is and the reason for his usually protean motivations. I use the word protean in describing his motivations because repeatedly throughout the films, Indian sets forth on his quest for the purpose of attainment, glory, and reward but in the end realizes a different motivation (Temple of Doom and his return of the stone for the villages prosperity, Raiders of the Lost Ark and his realization of Marion's worth and meaning). 
I particularly enjoyed the opening scene in which Indiana comes across treasure seekers uncovering the golden cross of Coronado. His attempts to wrestle away the cross from these 'baddies' reinforces what we've seen of Indian's lifelong fascination and love for artifacts. As well as his desire to attain such things, not simply for their monetary benefits, but also to see them in their rightful place, "they belong in a museum!" This adolescence drive and resourcefulness also fortifies our opinion of Indiana because it shows us that this desire and passion is not a recent development in Indian's character. 
While I didn't think the explanation of Indiana's hat and whip were completely necessary in showing the development of the character, it did become a nice tidbit once explained. One thing I thought about while writing this blog was the inclination of male figures to reward younger males when they feel that the younger male has done something of worth. They show their approval by placing their hat upon the younger male's head. This action is seen repeatedly throughout films, especially when it comes to figures admired in our society such as policemen and fireman. While a treasure seeker is not the most 'straight and narrow' epitome of admiration, we tend to still glorify such thrill seekers. I've don't think I've seen this type of exchange between women, which makes me wonder why this is such a meaningful display between men. 
 As Pfeiffer and Lewis commented “. . .the opportunity to learn something more about the character.  The device of introducing his father played by Sean Connery was a stroke of genius,” (Pfeiffer & Lewis 175).  I agree with this statement completely as the introduction of Jones Sr. allowed the audience to understand Jones' motivations and personality through his daddy issues. His impulsive behavior, search for fact instead of truth, mistrust of authority all relate to his relationship with his father. I think this was one of my favorite Indiana movies because it showed true character development and gave a whole new dynamic to who and why Indian is a sexy, whip-carrying, artifact-loving beast. It also needs be to said that Sean Connery was brilliantly casted as Indiana's father. Who else could have played Indiana's father but James Bond?

Hall: Han Solo Alone

The true embodiment of Joseph Campbell's 'hero' is not a question of either or when it comes to Lucas’ characters, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. It is only when both of these hero's paths are evaluated that Campbell's definition of the hero’s journey becomes realized. They both go through different ways of defeating the power of the Dark Side. Luke directly combats the dark side and his feelings of anger when he fights his father Darth Vader. Han Solo has to deal with his selfish tendencies and his proclivity for distrust. 

I do believe that Luke Skywalker is the main hero in the Star Wars Trilogy. He is depicted going through most of what Joseph Campbell defines as the “hero’s Journey.” However, what Luke lacks is what is discussed in the short essay “The Civic Hero and the Contemplative Hero,” he lacks the capacity as a romantic hero. He is the contemplative hero, who reaches his goal through an inner look at his self and the principles he has been taught by the Supernatural Aid. I also don’t think his character made such a radical change when comparing it the change found within Han Solo. Throughout the movie, although he does go through the difficulties of resisting the Dark Force and the allure of a relationship with his father, I found him still to be a rather static character. Always trying to do the right thing, save his friends no matter what, use the force etc. This might just be my distaste for what I find to be an overly earnest Mark Hamill, but I was never surprised by any of Luke Skywalker’s actions. So I’m going to argue Han Solo as the embodiment of the hero. 

Han Solo is the quintessential loner who rejects the company of everyone but his sidekick, Chewbacca the Wookie. When Han is first encountered he is the epitome of selfishness and is motivated only by rewards and his resolve to save his own skin. In Episode IV the hen the Millennium Falcon is first captured by Imperial forces, Han’s only prerogative is to save his own skin. He only agrees to assist in helping Princess Leia when he is told that she is rich and there will be great reward if she is saved. This is a constant strain in the first movie in the trilogy, but his development towards heroism is first displayed when he comes back to help Luke destroy the first Death Star, even despite his claim that “what’s good a reward, if you ain’t around to use it”. As Pfeiffer and Lewis mention, in the second film is when we really get “to know him better” as a hero and a truly viable character (105). Despite his loudly proclaimed convictions that he should just take care of himself and depend on no one, he constantly puts himself into danger for his new found friends. An example of this would be in the beginning of Episode V when he first puts off his plans to leave the rebel base in order to search for Luke and his later decision to take Leia with him when they flee the base because of the approaching Death Star. He eventually learns to accept his place as “civic hero,” learning to “negotiate that world, to overcome the temptations of the world, and finally serve the world in a leadership capacity.” He is the hero who in this movie experiences what Campbell calls the “ultimate adventure.” The meeting of the goddess, who in this film is Leia the “brave leader” leader of the rebel movement, and winning her love, is the final test of talent. Campbell says that this represents the “hero’s total mastery of life.” Basically, Han is ‘winning.’

Hall: Star Wars: A New Hope

Star Wars: A New Hope depicts only the first two parts of the “hero’s journey” which Campbell describes in varying stages, “Departure,” and “Initiation.” Actually, A New Hope doesn’t even make it through the entire stage of initiation. I would argue the main entirety of the movie is wrapped up in the first part of the initiation which is the “Road of Trials.” It can be argued that Luke does go through the step of the “Meeting with the Goddess” when he meets Princess Leia. However, I think this is debatable because although he does meet the women who becomes the object of his affections, this is supposed to be a stage which “is the final test of the talent of the hero to win the boon of love.” The main two actions scenes in this movie, the rescuing of Leia, and the end of the movie with the destruction of the Death Star, are part of the “multitude of preliminary victories.” This is part of the succession of trials which the hero must go through.

Luke receives his “Call to Adventure” through two of the ways that Campbell mentions in The Hero With a Thousand Faces. When the movie introduces Luke into the plot, it becomes immediately apparent that he wants off of Tatooine. He pesters his uncle to allow him to attend the pilot academy, which most of his friends have already attended. “The Call may be a sensation on the part of the hero that something is lacking in his or her life and that he or she most search for what is missing” (Campbell). Luke’s aunt expresses this when she says “Luke’s just not a farmer, Owen. He has too much of his father in him.” This comment also alludes to one of Campbell’s “Characteristics of the Hero,” that although Luke is of “lowly birth, he may have “a high birthright he is unaware of.” Later it is discovered that he is the son of a Jedi knight, although the exact details are revealed in the later movies.

The other Call that I believe relates to Luke is, “The initiate may go willingly or may be forced by circumstance to go on the quest.” Although at first the possibility of Luke going on the quest relates to his desire to leave and his belief he was meant for something more (“Hey Biggs! I told you I’d make it some day”), once the Imperial troops destroy his home and family he no longer has anything to tie him to Tatooine. His family has been taken from him. THis also takes away his initial inclination to refuse his “summons” or “call” saying that he still needed for harvest. WIth his family gone, he no longer has any excuse to not continue upon his destiny and must follow the “Supernatural Aid,” who in this case is Obi-Wan. The weathered old Jedi knight “acts as an adviser to Luke and his friends in their seemingly hopeless battle against Darth Vader” (Pfeiffer and Lewis 68). Obi-Wan Kenobi not only shows Luke his path, but he also provides Luke with the knowledge of the force and the ways of the Jedi which are skills he needs in order to destroy the Death Star.

They continue upon the next step of the stage of departure, “Crossing of the First Threshold” when they leave Tatooine and head to t for the next step of preparation to fulfill their objective of returning R2D2 to Princess Leia’s father on Alderann. It is here that they hire Han Solo to take them to Alderann. The next steps of their journey become steps in the next stage of “Initiation. If Star Wars is based on his portrayal of Cambpell’s journey of a hero, where I’m confused is where the “Belly of the Whale” step of the “Initiation” comes in. Would love to hear any opinions that might shed some light.

Hall: Hanover Street Blog

Hanover Street seemed to have potential with the opening scene depicting a mildly corny, but entertaining, tête-à-tête between the two main characters, Lt. David Halloran and Nurse Margaret. Once they entered the coffee shop, however, it became evident the script was going to be a myriad of cheesy lines and unrealistic dialogues. Despite the simplicity of this unfortunate screenplay, within the plots of espionage and romance, there is a poignant question of the definition of bravery and what it means to be courageous.

When Harrison Ford’s character, Halloran, is first introduced, he is depicted as a man who is courage is centered on recklessness. A bomber airplane pilot, he has no fear going into hazardous terrain. Pfeiffer and Lewis comment upon this, saying: “He is courageous only because his loneliness prevents him from having a fear of death" (Pfeiffer 95). He is brave because he has nothing to live for, nothing he cares about. This is a type of courage that is best termed ‘bravado.’ It is not a false courage, but it is a courage somewhat meaningless. He displays his mettle by taking risky missions for the thrill and back talking to those in command, as depicted in the first mission we see Halloran embark on. This derring-do inclined behavior changes once he and Margaret meet. Over tea, they fall in love. As Pfeiffer and Lewis so aptly put it, "Suffice it to say that from this point, the couple shares more than crumpets" (Pfeiffer 95). Now that he has love, his life suddenly has meaning. Halloran is no longer comfortable with risking his life unnecessarily.

Halloran’s initial man-of-action conduct is what Sellinger thinks connotes bravery. To Sellinger, a hero is someone who automatically acts, jumping into the fray. He sees himself as “not that special . . . so damn ordinary.” To realize his dreams of being “dashing” and “exciting” to his wife, he decides to take the leap and go on a secret espionage operation. During this mission, Sellinger’s views on bravery are truly expressed when he says, “The only men who are brave are the frightened men. Men who aren’t frightened aren’t brave they’re insane. You’re only brave if you have something to lose and you still try.” Sellinger’s dream of heroism is realized when, with the help of Halloran, he manages to complete his mission and successfully shed off his previous self-professed normalcy.

At first Halloran does not encompass this definition of courageousness, but his courage develops through the film. His love of Margaret cultivates his heroism, allowing him to grow as a person. He displays his heroic qualities when he risks his own life, despite his fear, for the husband of the woman he loves. However, it is in the last moment of the film, when he ends the affair, that he truly encompasses his new role as ‘hero.