A Review of Room

Room by Emma Donoghue is an excellent book. It keeps readers captivated all throughout the story about what will happen to our main characters, and establishes an emotional link between the reader and the characters. It also offers an insightful look into reality. Often times, we hear stories about how someone get rescued from a kidnapping and Room does an excellent job of putting us in the place of the victim. You find that you want to keep reading and reading until you are finished. 

Throughout the book, I found that I had a hard time staying in the boundaries of our reading assignments. I often felt like I wanted to keep reading on ahead. Everytime I read this book, Donoghue kept on leading me on. I wanted to know what happened to our main characters, Jack and Ma. I think a perfect example of this is the escape from the shed. I found it really difficult to stop halfway into the escape section. After Ma and Jack's plan A failed, I wanted to know if they came up with a plan b. Room is just filled with cliffhangers and really just drags you into it. On top of that, it also offers a really interesting perspective of a kidnapping victim.

For me personally, I found the dynamic of Jack and Ma really interesting. Since I have never really experienced growing up/living in a kidnapping situation, I really didn't have an idea of what to expect. I found the concept of raising a kid in extraordinary circumstances was really interesting as well as very tragic. Even though Ma was stuck in Room, she still did an excellent job of raising Jack. I also felt that adapting to society after being stuck in Room for years was also a really interesting scenario. Often times, in kidnapping stories, you hear a lot about how it happened and the escape, but not about the victim returning to society. Room talks a lot about the return to society, and this really is an interesting look that hooks audiences. 

Overall, I felt that this was a 5 out of 5 stars. It is through the combination of writing a unique perspective from the victim and writing about extraordinary circumstances as well as the constant suspense that makes this book my favorite of 2016.     

Shading and Colors in the Persepolis Film

The Film Persepolis was a really nice animated film. It was captivating and really entertaining. What I really liked about the film though, was the coloring and shading of different scenes.

Persepolis first starts out as a color film. In the beginning, Marji is seen in an airport full of color. However, soon after, as she begins to reflect on her childhood, the film suddenly turns to black and white. This has two effects on the movie. It first lets us know that the film is like a flashback. Often times in animation, we see scenes turn black and white to reflect something that happened in the past. In the animation, It really gives Marji a chance to narrate, as she reflects within her flashback of the past. If it was like a standard animation film, we wouldn't really be able to hear her thoughts. Often times, in regular films, if a character suddenly get a thought, we won't know it until they say it out loud to someone else. However, in Persepolis, by basing much of the film as a reflection (by having color scenes in the beginning and middle before turning to black and white), the directors give an excuse to have Marji say her thoughts out loud without having to talk to another character. This keeps the film really true to the book in that we can know the thoughts of both Marji in the book, and Marji in the film.

I also really like the shading in the film. It really emphasizes the mood of Marji and the events occurring within the film. When Marji was really happy and life was good, the scenes tended to be brighter. For example, in the film, when Marji reunited with her family, the whole film became really white and bright, symbolizing her happiness. However, in Vienna, when she slept on the streets, the whole film became dark. All of the people and scenes became almost pitch black, symbolizing her depression. This can be compared to explosions in movies. Often times, in a modern film, when the director wants to show thrilling scenes, he/she will put in explosions. The reflects the mood of the movie by showing that the characters are pumped up and ready for battle. Just like in the color Persepolis, explosions symbolize how the characters are feeling. It shows them being hyped up. However, in Persepolis, rather that having lots of explosions like in Michael Bay films, they prefer to use more color to show thrilling moods.

Overall, I really loved the film. It is the combination of shading and color that really makes this film one of the most visually pleasing animation films that I have ever seen.

The Effect of Faces in Persepolis

Often times, when we read books, we rely on the text to tell us what each character is experiencing. A lot of times, we have to infer what our character is feeling through their thoughts and actions as well as the thought and actions of others. Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi is a different kind of book. Rather than having a lot of text, its main emphasis is the usage of pictures. Because of this, we must look at the pictures to get a better understanding of what happens in the book. In particular, we must pay attention to the faces of the people in the book to understand what really occurs in Persepolis.

In the book, there are many different kinds of faces. Some of the more common ones are the faces that are smiling as well as some that look really sad. These faces really let us know what the main character, Marji, is feeling, as well as telling us the influences others had on her. For example, on page 69, in the scene where Marji meets her uncle Anoosh in prison, it is their facial expressions that really tell us what they feel. Just looking at the tears rolling down Marji’s face is enough to tell us just how sad she really is. The same applies to Anoosh as well. You can tell by the grim yet semi smiling face that he is really sad about leaving Marji, yet he is still trying to be strong for her sake. The words on the page don’t really emphasize these emotions, it is the touching images that do. Those images make us feel much more empathy for the characters since we can visualize their expressions.

All in all, I really like the style the book is created in. I think that writing this book like a graphic novel was an excellent idea. It really drives in the emotions the characters were feeling. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. I think that saying is very appropriate to use here. No amount of text would be able to paint the emotions we see from the faces in Persepolis.

Unfair Trial, or Just Jury?

From a reader’s point of view, we think that Jefferson is innocent. The reason is that the book leans us towards his side. We mostly get Jefferson's side of the story and we know that the all-white jury is likely stacked against him. This makes us empathize with Jefferson due to the unfairness of it all. However, we shouldn’t just so quickly write off the verdict as unfair. We should also look at the evidence from the jury’s point of view.

The evidence of the incident at the store is pretty clear cut since no one tries to refute it. You have two people, Brother and Bear who start causing trouble. They are both trying to buy alcohol, except neither of them have enough money. Bear, who is clearly drunk, starts to act against the warnings that the store owner, Mr. Grope, has given him. Of course, a confrontation, and then a shootout begins and by the end of it, only Jefferson is alive at the store. Then, Jefferson “snatched a bottle off the shelf, wrung off the cap, and turned up the bottle, all in one continuous motion” and took money from the cash register. These actions sort of make him seem shady. Also, there were two witness who saw Jefferson. They saw him with “the money stuffed inside his jacket pocket, the half bottle of whiskey clutched in his hand…” This gives the prosecution and idea for what happened inside.

If I was the jury, I probably would think Jefferson robbed the store. You have three dead men in the store and another man drinking whiskey and with money in his pocket. You also have two men who claimed they saw the same man drinking with money in their pocket from the register inside. For me, if the defense didn’t deny this evidence, what happened inside the store would be pretty clear cut to me. I would think that someone just robbed a store and was drinking in celebration. I wouldn’t think that Jefferson’s story about how he acted dumb and was in the wrong place at the wrong time was true. I would think that he committed murder of the first degree. This shows us that when we are approaching A Lesson Before Dying, we should do it with an open mind, so that we get both perspectives rather than just one. 

Split Screen Movies

I think that using the split screen effect on the film of As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner was a really great idea. It really shows the confusing narrative of the book and shows how the overall story was told by multiple narrators.

As I Lay Dying is a really confusing book. The overarching plot isn't really straightforward. You have to infer a lot of things by reading from the perspective of multiple characters. This makes it really difficult to make a movie on the book. Since there are so many narrators, you can't really make a single view film and hope to capture all of the narration from each character. Instead, I think that James Franco did a really nice job with how he developed the film. Rather than a typical single view movie, he created a split screen movie. This allows us to get different perspectives and reactions to the events that happen in the book. For example, it allows us to get different views towards Addie on her deathbed. The split screen view allows us to see though different character's eyes as events play out, just like how we can see through the eyes of the characters in the book.

My only issue with the split screen view is that sometimes it can be a little hard to follow. Since I read the book, I can use my previous knowledge and apply that to watching the movie. I can follow the different scenes as they play out. However, to an ordinary person who hasn't read As I Lay Dying, the split screen view will be really confusing. This is because there are different scenes and timelines happening from both screens. One screen will feature a character doing something while another screen will have a different character doing something else at a different time. This makes things really confusing since we are used to have a single overall view during most movies.

Overall, I still thought that the split screen view of the movie was really nice. Even though it does make things a little confusing, I still think that it captures the style that As I Lay Dying was written in. 

Monstrous Greed

               

The movie “O Brother, Where Art Thou” by the Coen Brothers is based on the book “The Odyssey” by Homer. This means that the movie should have a lot of similarities with the book. However, as I was watching the movie, I noticed a really big difference between the movie and the book. This big difference is in the monsters. Rather than the movie monsters trying to kill the main heroes, they decided to go after money.

              

  In “The Odyssey”, there are a bunch of monsters known as the Sirens. According to Homer, “The high, thrilling song of the Sirens will transfix him, lolling there in their meadow, round them heaps of corpse rotting away, rags of skin shriveling on their bones…” This shows that the Sirens in Homer’s epic are a bunch monsters who attract men to their deaths. However, the Sirens in “O Brother, Where Art Thou” are different. Instead of attracting the protagonists and killing them, the Sirens actually turn one of them over to the authorities for money. This shows that in the movie, the Sirens are motivated more by greed than a desire to kill.

               

Another example of the greed that the monsters have is the cyclops Polyphemus. In “The Odyssey” Homer depicts Polyphemus as a man eating monster. He writes that Polyphemus “Lunged out with his hands toward my men, and snatching two at once, rapping them on the ground he knocked them dead like pups- their brains gushed out all over, soaked the floor- and ripping them limb from limb to fix his mean he bolted them down like a mountain lion.” This is another example of one of Homer’s monsters being blood thirsty. Homer’s Polyphemus just murdered and ate two men. In contrast, the Coen brother’s Polyphemus isn’t so violent. Instead he is super greedy and desires money. Instead of murdering the Protagonists of the movie, he knocks them out and takes their money. This shows that the monsters in the film are more interested in monetary gain than killing.

               

Overall, I felt that this was an interesting difference between the film and the book. I felt that this is the Coen brother’s interpretation of what it means to be a monster in modern America. Perhaps, they based their monsters on what they felt reflected the time period they were in. In the end, this interesting difference does give a lot of material for the brain to think about and we may be able to analyze this further and be able to come up with a reason for why they did this.

The Idea of the One Personal Hero

              

  When talk about growing up, we tend to think a lot about the influences that helped make us who we are. A lot times, the idea of the one singular personal hero comes up. For me, I disagree with the idea of having just one personal hero. I believe that it isn’t just one influence that makes you who you are. It is a mixture and combination of a ton of influences that make you into the person you are today.

               

  A lot of times, we are expected to have just that one personal hero. A lot of colleges will ask “who is that one person that influenced your entire life”. The truth is, there really isn’t. In reality, the things I have learned don’t just all come from one person. They come from everywhere. I’ve been influenced by countless numbers of people. I’ve learned things from my friends, parents, and teachers. All these people can’t fit into the idea of simply having one hero; there’s just too many of them. The problem with having one person influence you is that you will develop a close minded thought process. One influence leads to you having one set of beliefs without being exposed to any other possible ideas or beliefs. However, having many different heroes can lead to you being far more open minded. If you are exposed to many different thoughts and ideas, you will probably think more before you choose a belief.

              

  Overall, I feel that the statement of having one personal hero is incorrect. It isn’t just one person who influences you, it’s the combination of heroes from all over your life that helps shape who you over. If I didn’t have all heroes I had/have now, I would be a completely different person. 

The Fine Line Between Hero and Vigilante

In myths and legends, there tend to be a distinguishable difference between the hero and the villain. Often times, the hero has some “noble” duty he must perform while the villain is trying his/her best to make the hero fail. However, in real life, this is not the case. Often times, there is a very fine line between criminal actions and justly cause. This gray area is known as vigilantism.

A fine example of vigilantism is Kyle in Victory Lap. I felt that what he did was a little too excessive. Yes, he did save a girl from potentially being raped and murdered. However, I felt that crushing the man’s head was way too overboard and almost takes away the heroism of Kyle’s act. The reason is that he hit the man twice. After the first knock to the head, Kyle simply should have just gotten up and restrained him. From my personal experience, getting a severe knock to the head tends to temporarily disable said victim. This would have given Kyle time secure the man and call 911. Instead, he decided to crack the potential murderer’s head out rather than waiting for the authorities arrive. This act not only lead to an unnecessary death, but also traumatized the girl for life. In the text, George Saunders (the author of Victory Lap) writes, “For months afterward she had nightmares in which Kyle brought the rock down”. This shows that Kyle was the direct cause of her damaged mental state after the incident.

In my opinion, it is that excessive force that made Kyle appear like a vigilante to me. Even though he did save a girl’s life (from a villain), he ended up murdering someone who I felt didn’t need to die. Yes, the man did deserve to get punished, but he didn’t need to die a violent death. Also, the fact that Kyle got a rush from hitting someone in the head also makes me feel like Kyle is a vigilante. The thoughts that are going through Kyles mind, “Yes! Score! It was fun!”, makes me feel a little disgusted. It is one thing to save a person’s life by hurting someone else. It is another thing to get a rush from the pain of the initial aggressor.  I firmly believe that if this exact case were to happen in real life, Kyle would not be hailed as a hero. In fact, I think that the authorities would even have a few words with him and his parents about the use of excessive force.  Even though Kyle did get pumped up from some else’s pain and used excessive force, at the end of the day, he still saved a life. However, it is the excessive force and rush that turns Kyle from a hero to a vigilante.