FINAL COMPARISON ESSAY

Nigel Tan

1102H12805

Fall 2011

Final Comparison Essay

                Al Pacino was one of the great actors of the late 70’s. During this time, he was the powerful man that most male figures look up to and want to be. Among his great movies, were the Godfather II and Scarface. In both of these movies, he portrayed the role of a leader in an underground and black market businesses. But, in each of these movies, he portrayed each character very differently in the aspects of how his character involves himself with his family, his business, and his love life.

                In the Godfather II, Al Pacino portrayed the character of Michael Corleone, heir to the Corleone Empire that was built by his father Vito Corleone.  Vito Corleone has always been a man with strong family values. He would never let any harm come to his family and would do everything in his power for their benefit. Michael Corleone on the other hand, was raised to do the same. But, his ability to do so deteriorated as he took over the family business. Michael Corleone’s family in the beginning of the movie was very united and had close ties. Michael had 2 beautiful children with his beloved wife Kay. His sister, Connie, who was recently divorced, came to request for Michael’s approval to marry a new man. Michael did not agree with this due to the fact that she had just gotten out of a marriage just recently. Michael quoted “The ink on your divorce isn’t dry yet, and you’re getting married?”. He instinctively treated his sister, Connie as how his late father would have treated her. Michael disapproved and insisted that she did not go with this man. Michael insisted she stayed on his estate with the rest of the family. He would do anything that would benefit the family. But, as the movie developed, so did Michael Corleone’s character. He got in too deep into his business that it consumed him. He develops the thought that his family was the business. He had his very own blood related brother killed because he had double crossed him. The destruction of Michael’s character was too much to handle for his wife Kay. She could not live with him any longer and could not bear the thought of bringing another one of his children to this earth. She wanted the entire business to end and had an abortion to eliminate her child in carriage. Michael was furious when he found out what had happened that he had physically assaulted his wife Kay. At that very moment, a loss of a child had destroyed the family values his father raised him to have. This was the downfall of Michael Corleone’s family values.

                Tony Montana, is the main character of the movie Scarface which was also portrayed by the actor Al Pacino. He too, had similar family traits with Michael Corleone. He had a sister he loved dearly and a wife who were both destroyed because of his actions. Tony Montana in Scarface met his sister and mother 5 years after the war against communism in Cuba. When he visited, he was amazed at his sister’s beauty, he was almost mesmerized. In the movie, he treats her almost the same as Michael Corleone would, but instead of how Michael treated his sister, it was the same as how Michael treated his wife. As much as Tony had loved his sister dearly, he did the exact same as Michael to his wife, he slapped her. He slapped her because she was standing above Tony and thinks that she is independent enough to do what she wants in life. You could say that Freud’s theory of the id could be applied here. He instinctively treated his sister as an item more than a person. And item that he owns. During the uprising of his empire, he proposed to Elvira who was previously the mistress to Tony’s former boss. As Tony became more and more successful, his love between Elvira grew more and more distant. Later in the movie, Tony starts verbally assaulting his wife by calling her a junkie. He pushes it even more and says “Her womb is so polluted, that I can’t even have a kid with her.”. This would most probably be because during his uprising, he has never had any difficulties that stopped him. And now, the only thing that is letting him complete his perfect life, is an element of that perfect life itself. As for a brother, he did not have an actual brother, but his best friend represents the brother he did not have. He worked closely with him in his rise to the top, but when he reached his peak, he treated him like a horrible business partner. Tony murdered him later in the movie because he took Tony’s sister’s hand in marriage without reconciling with him first. Tony at this point was in such a rage that he lost control of his id and allowed himself to do everything by instinct and without any thought. The most obvious part of the movie where we can truly see Tony’s family values is when he was hired to assassinate a man, but pulled out because killing him would involve killing the rest of his family as well. We can conclude that based on family traits, both characters Tony Montana’s and Michael Corleone’s family values were destroyed by their urge for a more successful business. This makes a lot of sense, seeing that in our modern day lifestyle, money is put before anything else. These two movies by Al Pacino may be a sign that family values are the only thing keeping us somewhat human.

                Speaking of business, both personas played by Al Pacino also had their very different way of running their businesses. Tony Montana, the main character of the film Scarface, ruled his business with an iron fist. He did not take any advice throughout the movie and did everything out of pure guts. He barely had any thought on most of his actions, which would later be the cause of his destruction. And even after his destruction, he has never had any regret throughout the entire film. Tony Montana came to America with nothing and grew into one of the biggest cocaine distributers in America. He came to America with nothing but the bare ability to speak English. He climbed the ladder of success quickly, but alone. He started off as a mere soldier in crime organization. But his cockiness and street smarts help him climb and reach the top of the ladder much faster than anybody else. When hired to transport Marijuana for his superiors, Tony was offered the commission of five hundred dollars. Tony knew that five hundred was mere peanuts for the risk that he is taking. Tony stood up to his superiors and thinks highly of himself as somewhat a more superior human being than them.  Tony portrays that he is a more important part of the world compared to anybody else.  He shows this with the extremely high end security that he had installed in his estate. Even when sent by his superior to purchase cocaine from Columbia, he stood up to the drug overlord and spoke to him in a disrespectful manner. Tony quoted “I’ve never fucked anybody over in my life, didn’t have it coming to me, you got that? All I have in this world is my balls and my word, and I don’t break em’ for no one. You understand?” What he said was actually quite true; he has nothing in this world, only his balls and his word.  He especially did not have anybody he could trust. He was never afraid to show his true colours to the world. Even in the beginning of the movie, he killed a man in public. It is also ironic, that the reason he came to America is to remove himself from a communist country, but instead built an entire communist system empire for himself.

                As for Michael Corleone, he does the very exact opposite of Tony Montana. He rules his entire empire systematically and silently. Like the Roman Empire, he has ranks for the people working under him. For example the Capos (or known as Caporegime) and the Soldiers. This organized system helped Michael manage his empire more sufficiently and silently compared to Tony’s dictatorship system. He made connections with a lot of external parties and through his respective way of doing business.  Unlike Tony Montana, Michael inherited the family business from his late father Vito Corleone who built up the business just as Tony Montana did. He also had a consigliore which was an advisor to Michael. Michael Corleone would rarely get his hands dirty and do jobs and hits himself. Instead he would have somebody else do it for him. Unlike Tony Montana, Michael was a very more intelligent in running his business. He would dig out information himself and find suitable ways to settle his problems. He shows this when he tries to uncover who hired assassins to gun him down in his very own home. He eventually narrows it down to two candidates. In deciding between these two candidates, he decides to eliminate both of them which are far better and safer choices. Michael does not show his true colours to anybody outside the business and is well respected by the society. He covers up his crimes by making generous contributions to charities. Michael also keeps a close eye on his friends and is cautious. Late in the movie, we see Michael questioning his consigliore, Tom about his future plans. This expresses the saying that you should always keep an eye on your enemy, but a closer eye on your friends. For both Michael and Tony, their businesses were their lives which later destroy them. It destroys their family, their reputation, and themselves.

                In the early parts of The Godfather II, Michael showed much affection and love towards Kay. He respected Kay and did everything to ensure that she was unharmed. It came to a point that he would disallow her to leave the estate premises for her own safety. Through his entire life, he has never laid a hand on a lady. But, as business became a bigger issue, and the business started to take over Michael’s life, Kay became worried and upset. She hated the life she was in and she could not imagine having another child to heir the Corleone Empire. She got an abortion to attempt to stop the business from continuing. Michael’s inner id reacted to this as a part of him was hurt or killed. He instinctively leaped forward and slapped Kay. With that slap, he destroyed his relationship with Kay which he took so long to build. Just like Tony Montana’s business, it was built and destroyed by Michael’s id.

                 Unlike Michael, Tony was the more sexually active characters of Al Pacino. Tony had fallen for Elvira at first glance. He knew nothing about her, but wanted to have her. He instinctively was attracted to her but we are never sure why. Could it have been the male gaze towards Elvira’s beautiful back? We can only assume that his id was the cause of the attraction between him and Elvira. Unlike Michael towards Kay, Tony had never shown much respect for Elvira. He had always forced himself on her even if she refused him. He lets his sexuality take control and forced a kiss to Elvira even tho she was the mistress of his boss at that time. He later proposed to Elvira and got married, but it is when they get married that they start falling apart. Both of them were using each other for self benefits. She needed him for money, and he needed her for sex. Their relationship from husband to wife has now become mistress and master. Tony bursts out into a rage and verbally abuses Elvira. She could not take it and left him right after that. We never see her in the movie then after. We can see the similarities in both movies, but how they treat women differ over time.

                In conclusion, Al Pacino was able to portray two extremely different characters based on their psychology, in the same form of which both of them are underground overlords. Both these movies show that businesses will ruin ties between families. And the id is a source that is to be reckoned with. It is the id, based on Freud’s theory that is the part of our mind that is unconsciously acting along with instinct. This leads to actions that are uncontrollable and may cause devastating results.

ET 23: PARIS BURNING IN MALAYSIA

Dear Film Censorship Board of Malaysia,

   As you and I know, Paris is Burning has been banned in Malaysia. This letter's intentions are mainly to appeal for the removal of the ban that has been applied on Paris is Burning.

Paris is Burning has been removed based on the sexuality of the movie and how it would affect the society of our country. As much as the board is concerned about whether or not people will look into becoming transsexuals themselves, the board should know that a person's sexuality is not based on "trend" or media. It is solely given to them when they are born.

With the introduction of 1 Malaysia, why is not possible for the government to unite all diversities of people including those of different sexuality, instead of trying to just unite those of different races. The 1 Malaysia goal can be more easily accomplished if unity of all sexuality in our country is made. This is mainly because there are transsexuals within all ethnics in Malaysia. According to researches made by Lynn Conway¹, in 2000, surveys show that there are approximately 50000 Malaysians who are transsexuals. This is a significant number which is constantly growing with respect to our total population and cannot be avoided. What will our government do with this large number of people, are they going to send every single one of them for rehabilitation or deportation? I don't think so.

According to the Syariah court, being a transsexual is a sin for the Islamic religion. But, this should not affect the general law. Just because a few religions disapproves on this activity, this should not affect those who do not follow those specific religions. Where as in countries like America and Thailand, transsexuals are recognize as the third gender. The transsexuals in America and Thailand also receive equal rights than any other citizen. If their government can allow such a thing. Why is our country's law based highly on the Islamic laws?

In recent news, if a person is diagnosed as mentally unstable, he or she can be excused for murder. If we can allow criminals with mental dysfunction to live after committing  homicide, how is it that we cannot allow transsexuals to just be themselves and cause no harm to others ?

I hope, with my points, the board will have a better understanding of why transsexuals are how they are, and  accept their community as any other community in our country. I sincerely hope you will reconsider the ban that has been placed on the film Burning in Paris.

Nigel Tan
Film Student of ADP



Work Cited.
¹ - Conway Lynn (http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/MalaysianTS.html)

Re-Write ET17: Hitchcock Crop Duster

   Hitchcock was famous for using suspense in his movies, but what brings out suspense? Hitchcock planned out every scene before he shoots it. And for today, we will be referring to his famous Crop Duster scene.

   He starts of this scene with a beautiful establishing shot using an almost aerial like. The mis-en-scené in this particular scene is the gives the viewer the feel that he or she is in a land that is not escape-able. It may be an open space, but is it really? Agoraphobia, is the fear of being in open spaces, we may not realize it, but this fear is in most of us. The idea that we will be deserted from civilization could sometimes be far worse than being trapped in a locked up cell. Anyway, back to the mis-en-scené of the sequence, Hitchcock planed out using the fields of maize because it gives the viewer of "never-ending-ness" point of view. The maize crops also gives an entertaining feel to the audience. Imagine watching a this sequence in a barren desert, it would be impossible to escape a plane, the crops would have also been a clue to the audience that it would be a place that is possible to hide in a situation.

 
   The next shot I am going to elaborate on, is the long distant shots of the two sides of the road. These two sides of the road seems never ending, as we lose sight of vehicles passing by eventually. Sound also played an important part in this shot, because the sound of the cars passing by and going, will let the viewer know the distance the car can travel away from Thornhill. I somehow love the way Hitchcock used sound in this scene, this is because the sound of only the car, makes me feel I myself am alone. Silence may be the best tool for mis-en-scené because it allows the viewer to experience the film with their ears and not only their eyes. Take modern day 4D movies for example. A viewer does not only experience a film with his or her eyes, but also their sense of smell and touch. With silence, the viewers sense of sound becomes a clean empty canvas for the director.


   The following scene, is the use of the plane. The plane constantly hovers around the field for no apparent reason. We only find out that the plane was in-fact Mr.Thornhill's assailant. Hitchcock puts into account the angles he uses to get that "We're doomed" feeling while looking at the plane. He takes a shot of the plane coming towards the screen while Carey Grant drops and faces us. This gives us the experience that the plane flew over us. He does this multiple times with Carey Grant facing different directions and with different elements around him. One of which, was the scene where bullets were shot from the plane and shot towards Mr.Thornhill but missed. It may have missed, but it hit the dirt and gravel on the floor which bounced up. This gives viewers the feel that they themselves are on the floor. The sound in this particular sequence of shots, if extremely important. It is also so well made, that people are able to experience this movie without the need for sight. We could close our eyes, and still hear the plane come and go, the distance the plane is from us, the bullets fired by the plane, everything.


   The next shot I will be elaborating, could be the shot that sets the bar to both sound and sight. The shot that I am talking about, is when Carey Grant goes into the field of crops. He hides withing the crops which are already dead and withering. The mis-en-scené used in this shot was the use of dead crops, dirt, and dust. The
dirt is darker than the gravel he is previously on, this shows that he is in a plowed field. The crops were important, because it shows viewers the barrenness of the land. The state of the land is so dry, that the crops are withered and rattle when a plane flies over them. The dust gives the appearance that Mr.Thornhill is lost withing the presence of smoke and is unsure of his sight. The dust also removes our sight of Mr.Thornhill and probably vice versa.


   The combination of these shots and audio put together gives the viewer a constant stream of entertainment. The sound is almost never cut off, and the shots match with the sound of ambiance of the film. It was a very wise choice for Hitchcock to align his shots in sequence of  Establishing shot, POV, Establishing, and POV and so on. This gives us a feel of being both Mr.Thornhill and God(in lack of a better term).


   In the editing in this sequence, Hitchcock uses a lot of Cutaways with the alternating views. But also the occasional use of Cross-cutting. He uses alot of cutaways at the beginning before the plane tries to assassinate him, and he uses alot of cross-cutting while the plane chases after him.





PS: I know I won't get a good grade on this, cause I am not fully satisfied, but I'm just not to sure what I'm missing. Something makes me feel that this is incomplete. But since I lack the time for a re-write, this will have to do for now. Cheers :). Thanks for taking time to read this Rey.

ET 17: HITCHCOCK CROP DUSTER STORYBOARD

 


   I would like to start of with the establishing shot at the beginning of the scene where he arrives at a field that never ends. For miles and miles there is nothing but barren sand and crops. It puts the viewer in a place where people have the fear of being in open spaces, or also known as Agoraphobia. As he leaves the bus, he looks towards his left and right and sees only a car or two. This shows that he is in a different world compared to his normal lifestyle of a busy metropolis-like city. Other shots that I liked, were the low angle shots used in this film, as he was being hunted down by the airplane, he constantly fell towards the floor and the low-angle shot was taken. It puts the viewer into a place that they themselves fell towards the ground and avoided the plane. It also gives the impression that there is only that much space between Thornhill and the plane. I felt with a bird's eye view of from the plane would have made a great addition to the sequence, but that is only my opinion.


   Secondly, I liked the way Hitchcock used the sound to express the incoming airplane. As the sound of the airplane became clearer and louder, we have the sense that the plane is approaching, and we have the sense that the airplane is flying away when the sound fades. This shows that we do not need our sense of sight to predict the cause of something. Instead, we can also rely on our other senses the assume and interpret occurrences. Our sense of hearing can also draw images and plots in our head. The background music that is played later on builds up the suspense in our minds. We know as the music becomes faster, the nearer we are to the climax of the scene.


   The Mise-en-scené of Carey Grant's costume portrayed a rich man in an barren land, lost from his quick hustle and bustle like lifestyle. His suit finally gets messed up and covered in dirt and dust at the end of the scene. Dirt, was added  to Carey Grant's costume to make the scene more believable. This enforces Poetic Faith ( quote Chairman Rey) which is the suspension of disbelief during a film. Another part that I want to discuss about in this film, is the choice of using color. Hitchcock could have easily made the entire movie black and white and it would have been as entertaining. But, the colors did something that black and white could not do well ( not impossible ), which is elaborating on distance and temperature of climate.






Personal Blog:
  I wrote this ET today because I felt out of touch with my film class. It may be short, but It's just something to put me back on track. Soon I'll have to do my comparison essay. I'm thinking Scarface VS Godfather (Unsure of which part tho).

ET 11: BRINGING UP BABY: THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES

Bringing up Baby

Directed by: Howard Hawks

 

   I would like to start of by saying that this was a beautifully written movie. The script was amazing and the puns were hilarious. Cary Grant, a.k.a Archibald Alexander Leach in his time, was the image of a handsome and successful man, the image EVERYMAN wanted to be. But, in this film, his role as Dr.David Huxley, was the total opposite. He had a boring 9 to 5 job, he had no sex life, he had no social life. His life, was his work. The life all men hate and despise. Having such a man play such a role makes people believe, and have faith, that anything is possible. I personally felt that this film might have been to embrace women's right in the recent 1920 women's movement. It removes the idea of men being the dominant gender and shows the side of men we never usually see in society. Katharine Hepburn on the other hand, shows the wild side of a woman, she shows that not all woman are as holy, sacred and pure as we think they are. She is practically an Id in this film and only acts with instincts. Many people my disagree, but I still think that she is very unintelligent. People may interpret that she is only doing such things to get the attention of Dr.Huxley, but I believe that her intentions to sway Dr.Huxley only came after/during the dinner event. 

   The other side characters in this film include Ms.Elizabeth Random(May Robson) and Constable Slocum(Walter Catlett). These two were portrayed as the constants in the film. I say constants, because the persona's of the characters were very sexist. The man, Constable Slocum, was the Alpha Male of the town and calls the shots. He decides who goes to jail, and who is wrong. The female on the other hand, Ms.Elizabeth Random, is portrayed as the humble, respectable, well-mannered woman of the town. These roles are almost a Victorian concept of society.

   The plot of this film is very nicely done. I especially love how the movie ended at the museum which is also where the movie began. The hidden messages of the the story incorporated well with the comedy. Trapped within a dead cage, a lifeless being. Then, a spark of life came, Susan. The person who destroyed his world, destroyed his life's work, ruined his life, but gave him freedom in return. It was a bitter sweet story. But as most of us know, all comedies end with happy endings. The fact that the leopard's name was Baby, showed an obvious sign that it represented a ,yes, you've guessed it, a baby. It shows how most movies work nowadays with the saying "we make a pretty good team". They worked together more like a family instead of parters, each with their priorities but still helping one another.

   The comedy in this movie was extremely entertaining. It was one joke after another, after another. It's funny now, and probably ten times funnier during it's time. The type of comedy they used was screwball comedy, but I enjoyed how the irony destroyed his world. The fact that all the misadventures David had with Susan to save the life he hated so much. The fact that the woman he was annoyed at was the source to achieving his objective. I love all of this. But what really kept me all the way through this movie, was the puns. Random puns, I'M GAY ! What a way to introduce yourself to someone who's name had Random in it.

    Probably one of my best experiences in FILM101, and plenty more to come.


IT'S HOLLYWOOD BABY !

ET6: PROPAGANDA, REALISM, TRIUMPH AND POTEMKIN

I would like to first credit the directors on making such fantastic films. I would also like to state that I had to redo my entire essay because my retarded computer crashed, thus this is the second time writing this essay.

Today's Battle !

Triumph of the Will
directed by: Leni Riefenstahl

VS

Battleship Potemkin
directed by: Sergei Eisenstein

CROUD

   I would like to start of with my favorite element in both movies which is the crowds of the movie. In Triumph of the Will, men we're perfect, discipline and respectful. They showed great discipline and responsibility when ordered to line up in an entire field. I feel that people would want the same experience and honor thus wanting to join their leader. They also experienced organization and fun within the camps. Men would happily enjoy helping out fellow brethren have baths and such. Even the children showed perfection. They were all blond with blue eyes and everyone of them flawless. The image of Hitler's nation. This would be one of the best examples of a propaganda film because it shows not only why you should join the nation, but also what you are joining the nation for. A perfect use of crowd if I do say so myself. In fact, I had the feeling of joining the nation as well after watching this film, and I think my fellow audience members would agree.

   In Battleship Potemkin, the amount of people used was a real eye-opener ! There was so many people involved. They showed the large number of moving people unlike Triumph of the Will where people are formal and more used as a prop instead of a part of the film. People in this movie suffer and also enjoy the benefits of freedom. To start of, the crew of the battleship was treated so poorly that they stated 'Even the POW's in Japan are treated better'. This shows how much suffering is to be put up with by people who follow a single leader or organization. Eventually, after fighting for their rights and taking over the ship, they indulge in the sweetness of  victory and freedom. This shows a great deal of propaganda aspects. People are willing to fight under a different power to get a better life. Later in the movie, we see that a huge crowd of people come to mourn the loss of a single soldier. This eventually lead to a revolution of the people. They have had enough and want to be treated right! They stand up for one another and show co-operation! This is a perfect way for propagandas to target rallies(not naming any specific CLEAN rallies)

WOMEN

   Women back then were very different from our modern time women. They were treated more like companions and a person to go to after a long-days-work. In Triumph of the Will, there was not much use of women in the film except for an exception for a single lady who allows Hitler to kiss her baby. But other than that single scene, the presence of women was nowhere to be found. Women were seen as less valuable in the nation than men because of their limited uses towards their leader. Maybe because having women in warfare will not please the people. It is also quite ironic that the presence of women was absent, but the director of this entire film was a women herself. It sometimes boggles my mind.

   Women were used much more in the movie Battleship Potemkin. Even tho they were absent in the scenes of the battleship, they hold a very important part in the society. They were the mothers who would go the distance or die trying. These parts were shown in scenes in Part 4: The Steps of Odessa. There was a scene where a mother would die trying to save her son, and there is another scene where a mother would give up her life taking care of her baby. Even to the extent of taking bullets for their children. Their death would play a big part in propaganda because their loss tells the audience's conscious to call for justice. A single life loss is a single seed of hate planted in a man's heart.

   Overall, In both movies I found that the presence and absence of women played their own parts in reaching out to the people through proper propaganda. It shows that men still have respect for women no matter what the circumstances.

 

 

FLAGS & SYMBOLS 

   Flags and symbols play a big part in propaganda films because it simplifies all, if not most of the reasons you fight under that symbol. Even in history, flags and symbols represent a unity between people for a single cause. Even back in medieval times, men would ride to war with the crest of their king. Is it any different from now?

   In Triumph of the Will, a single logo known by everyone as the Swastika (Nazi Symbol) is used for the purpose of showing their allegiance to their leader. They are prepared to die for him and will do whatever he commands them to. I also chose symbols because in Triumph of the Will, I noticed that they also had an idol. It was an idol of an eagle. This idol symbolizes bravery and is used very frequently in historical and present logos and flags.

   In Battleship Potemkin, only 2 flags manipulated the movie, which is the flag before the takeover of the battleship and a single white flag. The white flag symbolizes freedom of the people and also an uprising. This was what I interpreted in the film. A large amount of variety of flags were put up on the departure of the battleship. This probably means that the people are united as one.

   In conclusion, flags are a representative of causes and ideology of people.

FACES

   Finally, we come down to the most emotional part of silent films, The Face! The face is one of the most important elements of a silent film, according to me anyway, second to the body. It brings out the emotions you (the audience) and also the character.

   In Triumph of the Will, the men at the camp were enjoying themselves and showed happiness. This expression shows how great it would be to be working along side these similar people. The audience will feel the urge to join in the action and thus another element of propaganda is born. Hitler's strict and monotonous face shows how serious this event is and how important this revolution is to him. It also shows people the need to respect such a man. Even in films like The Godfather, emotion is a weakness. People who show less emotion are more highly respected. Thus, the nation respects Hitler as their leader.

   In Battleship Potemkin, the faces were one of the most important element of it's film, It showed authority, depression, fear, anger, rage and many other emotions. Especially since there were no voices in this film. Most of the emotion of the face was set at the key scene which was the at the attack at the steps of Odessa. The citizens were so afraid by the retaliation of Tsar. Imagine without these facial expression, this movie would have very much less meaning. It would just be another version of Night and Fog. A massacre. These emotions that are released by the faces give hope to the audience and also gives them a sense of relativity. Towards those who are suffering.

ET 1: YOURSELF AS AUDIENCE

Night & Fog   by Alain Resnais   ( Wed, 24AUG, 2011)

   As I watched this film, I expected a movie based on war and it's short-comings. I expected something like the suffering that came with a war. But this was an entirely different experience. As the movie started, I predicted a lot of people were going to be involved. I felt a sense of guilt as they were loaded like animals into the tiny train carriages and later loaded into the concentration camp. I started to rock my chair back and fourth. I did this probably because of having the thought of being in such a cramp space with hundreds of others. This is probably because of my sense of claustrophobia. I needed to move.


   As I watched the film, I also watched how the people in the camps lived. I felt so fortunate to be free and to have choices in life. The people in the camp were forced to work to live. Some chose death instead of life within the camp walls. Could you imagine what that must've felt like? The thought of death being a better option. Hell may just be the best definition I can give for a place like that.

   As the film proceeded, there came a point that the corpses were used for various matters. I was extremely disgusted and amazed at the same time. To think that people would have the idea of using a human body for such a thing. I felt so ashamed and useless as a human being. Having the thought of being disposable. That feeling might be the most painful part of the film that I have witnessed. The thought of using human soap and human haired cloth was extremely uncomfortable. I almost wanted to leave the room, but the urge to know what happens next kept me in my seat. I looked around to see what my fellow friends reactions were and saw the same disgusted face I had. I then chuckled and thought to myself "We're going through this for a good grade". And turned to watch the film once again.

   As the film came close to the end, I thought to myself " Why didn't the people rebel? Why didn't anybody do anything about it?". The bodies of the victims were left with barely any flesh, just skin and bones. The way the allied units handled them with a bull-dozer made me feel angry that they have barely any respect to those who died in the camp. As the narrator announced that 9 million people were involved, I imagine the entire state of Selangor to be in one of those camps. 9 million innocent lives wasted just like that ? It's no wonder the Germans hate Hitler.

   As the movie ended, I was speechless. I could not even think of a question. In my mind I was just thinking "Oh Fuck ! That was horrible !" I felt freedom after watching that movie. I immediately walked to the car and could feel the beautiful windy air. I though of the inmates who would dream to feel this once again. I got into my car and rolled down the window and heard the birds chirping. I thought to myself, life is pretty damn amazing. The film made me realize how important life is and that we should value every moment of it. There is no time to be shy or arrogant. I felt so free and happy. I was almost near the exit when I realized I had a meeting to attend and responsibilities to attend to.


NigelTMY...