Movie project stuff

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/childs1/OutlineSecond%20Red%20Scare_files/image003.gif

https://highlandcoldwar8.wikispaces.com/file/view/McCarthyPic3.gif

http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/centennial/images/54_McCarthy.jpg

http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/centennial/images/47_RedScare.jpg

http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/redscare/IMAGES_LG/Our_Flag.gif

http://www.craphound.com/images/red_rape_cvr.jpg

http://www.atomicplatters.com/images/rediceberg_cvr_510.jpg

http://hti.osu.edu/opper/mediaserver/RedScare_54.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CjQl5EAPz84/RjjNC6wD5lI/AAAAAAAABZM/zzY0N2hrY30/s400/433-44.jpg

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Comparative-Media-Studies/CMS-876Spring-2005/507969AD-93DD-4A50-91EE-1B10A83F83DF/0/chp_uspropaganda.jpg

http://www.assumption.edu/users/McClymer/his261/Boosting_him_Up.jpg

http://www.assumption.edu/users/McClymer/his261/RedFlagSteel.gif

Seminar Reflection

Write a 1/2 page to 1 page (double spaced) seminar reflection and post it to your blog. What was said? By whom? What questions or issues were answered or addressed? What questions or issues remain? What did the movie, text, and discussions make you think about?

I think this seminar did not go smoothly a lot of the time. Most of the time people were just arguing randomly and I don't think that they really understood what they were arguing about. However, there were some interesting points brought up. I thought it was really interesting how Sarai said that ignorance was a really big theme in this movie. She gave the example of how the media didn't really understand what they were reporting about; it was all just based on false assumptions and same thing with the every day people.

Another thing I found interesting was how Michael compared Klattu to a dictator and how he was peacefully threatening Earth. Then I connected this to Hobbes' idea of how people live in peace out of fear of death. That was how he was trying to get the United States to listen to him and that's how he succeeded.

Overall the seminar was just okay for me. I didn't feel extremely interested in it, only because people were yelling too much.

Pictures

http://www.rrr.org.au/assets/flying-saucer-steals-homeplate-in-washington-baseball-park-the-day-the-earth-stood-still-1951-directed-by-robert-wise-picture-courtesy-20th-century-fox.jpg

http://www.wetcircuit.com/wp-content/myfotos/dayearthstoodstill/DayEarthStoodStill00.png

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/1robots-gal-gort.jpg

The Day the Earth Stood Still

How did the text help you look at the film differently? Do you agree with the author of the handout?

When the author was talking about the movie, I agreed with him at certain points. He stated that, "the threat of violence is essential to the smooth running of the rational state. I didn't really agree with that statement because if I understand it correctly he is saying we are irrational unless there is the threat of death. I personally don' t think that is the case because usually it is the opposite, and we are more irrational when faced with violence. However, he did say that in the movie "individualism is merely irrational selfishness." That I do agree with. I think that when Hellen's boyfriend was going to rat out Klattu, he was only thinking for himself and not the world as a whole. In this movie, the people were extremely selfish and I think that is sometimes the case in real life too. He also said that "science in general isn't bad, but it is when used in an irrational and irresponsible maner." I agree with that too because we have to respect the technology we have and not take advantage of it. It is potentially dangerous and I agree that we need to take care of it very well.

Seminar Reflection

Write a 1/2 page to 1 page (double spaced) seminar reflection and post it to your blog. What was said? By whom? What questions or issues were answered or addressed? What questions or issues remain? What did the movie, text, and discussions make you think about?

During this seminar we discussed many topics. Some of the topics that we discussed were how the movie was critical of the liberal point of view, negotiation, what role the media played in the movie, and populism. I found the discussion on the role of the media, pretty interesting. We talked about whether or not it is appropriate to inform the nation of the findings. I personally believe that the way they went about the media in the movie was correct. I thought it was appropriate for them the inform the nation after they looked into "the thing" more in depth. If we inform the public about something scary without providing any evidence about it, they will be very scared. But, after we look into it more and can provide more information, then it is appropriate to let the public know.

I kind of disagree with this movie, because I kind of think that we need to try to negotiate with the enemy before we bring violence to it. I do think that since it was kind of a life or death situation it was appropriate to take action, but if they had approached the situation differently in the first place things would have panned out better.

The issue to me that still remains is who does "the thing" really represent.

"The Thing"

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/film/gallery/2008/oct/07/1/phthing630-2239.jpg

http://www.scifimoviepage.com/images/thingfrom.jpg

http://varifrank.com/archives/TheThingFromAnotherPlanet.jpg

The Thing

What does the film say about the role of scientific elites in society? Why? What scenes demonstrate this?

The film, to me, seemed to show how the military and the scientists both believe their way is better. I think that the scientists are seen as the stuck up people who seem to think they know it all. They seem to show it this way in order to show the conflict between the military and themselves. In the movie one of the scenes that shows it is where the military man finds out about the plasma plants and how they fight over them. I think that the scientists attitude toward the alien is a little odd. I don't really understand how they treat it normally if it's supposed to represent the soviets.

Pictures #3

http://davidszondy.com/future/Dystopias/bodsnatch.gif

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0238.jpg

http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/films/invasion56/inv11.jpg

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/images/19/pod.jpg

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/2009/03/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers.jpg

http://www.shotgunreviews.com/new/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/invasion4.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews25/a%20invasion%20of%20the%20body%20snatchers/de%20ws%20invasion%20of%20the%20body%20snatchers%202043.jpg

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

In Invasion of the Body Snatchers I noticed that one of the cold war anxieties presented was fear against communism and conformity. The main Doctor was really scared to conform to the society he was being pressed to join. Also with the pods they were able to control everything and that has some principals of communism.

The movie is related to the Red Scare and McCarthyism because it is showing that communism is a really scary thing. The doctor was scared of communism and so was McCarthy. I do believe that McCarthy was a bit paranoid though because you cannot go around falsly accusing people about being communist. The movie also relates to Spy Cases because in the movie they thought the doctor was the bad guy because he wasn't acting like everyone else. 

McCarthyism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Doctor Strangelove

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/DrStrangelove2.jpg

http://mcrui2mq.umwblogs.org/files/2008/10/drstrangelove-war-room.jpg


http://blog.calgarypubliclibrary.com/blogs/movie_maniacs/dr_strangelove_large_06.jpg

Seminar Reflection

In this seminar we discussed many things. A few of the more important things we discussed were what deterrence is and how do fear and paranoia play a role in the films and in the articles.

We determined that deterrence is "the policy of preventing an attack, because if the enemy attacks we will attack back and destroy them." I think that this is an important factor in the possibility of the nuclear war because its saying that if you attack us, you're basically going to be blown off the map. We discussed the fact that this is basically just used as a way to scare the other people from attacking you out of fear of death. It related to the movie Fail Safe because when the president of the United States "accidentally" attacked Moskow but then in order to not get a worse strike he bombed New York.

We also talked about fear and paranoia and how they relate in the movies. In Dr. Strangelove, the general thought that Russia was poisoning his water and so he bombed Russia. This seems more like paranoia because he wasn't certain that they were poisoning him. Both movies show more paranoia to justify their ideas than fear because it seems like there is never a rational think to support their ideas.

I am still wondering why people would come up with nuclear wars, when it is just going to kill millions if not billions of people. Is getting rid of communism really worth killing half the population over?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/images/gal_aow_nuclear.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/03C4113EE223C51/orig.jpg

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/nuclear_explosion.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Victim_of_Atomic_Bomb_004.jpg

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/WasItNecToDropTheBomb/images/Victim-of-Atomic-Bomb.jpg

http://whyfiles.org/020radiation/images/mushroom.jpg

http://videodetective.com/photos/387/016256_27.jpg

Fail Safe

I think that the president in fail safe did not respond the right way. I think that he should have agreed with the professor and attacked. He only killed off his own men in order to postponed the bombing of Russia but that didn't help at all. The president should have listened because then he wouldn't have had to be in that tough position and the bombing would be done and Russia wouldn't really be able to retaliate. I think he also should not have negotiated with the Russians because it only made his decision harder on himself. The negotiation seemed like it was unrealistic too because a president would have never done that in real life.

I think i would like to learn more about the ideas that went into the decisions we did make in the cold war.

On Thermonuclear War

Herman Kahn:
He was an intellectual whose job it was to think. He studied many things and wrote books. He created a book based on Nuclear war called: On Thermonuclear War which described his complex ideas about it.

My reactions and opinions on some of the main topics in the article:

"Will the survivors envy the dead?"
Kahn seems to think that the survivors of the attack will not envy the dead. I think this makes an excellent question. People certainly won't be able to live their lives like before, but i do not believe that will make them wish they were dead. I think it really depends on how hard people suffer. I guess they could potentially feel guilty. Such as after the holocaust many people felt guilty that the lives of over eleven million people died and they didn't so it is possible that the survivors could envy the dead.

Not giving up Europe to Soviet Russia vs. Birth Defects.
I think that ultimatly if we had given up Europe we would have been in a lot more trouble that had we endured the radiation and the rate of defects gone up. Unfortunatly birth defects can be a sad thing but had communism spread where would we be now? Also with all the polution currently in the air the birth defect rate is increasing.

Nuclear War: It's terrible but we will get over it.
This is a harsh statement! It is basically saying that yeah we will loose millions of lives but, we will get over it. I think that it is terrible and that why are we or did we result to this. Why are we leaving our earth like this for future generations and when will we stop? I think that we need to not just recognize that it is/was horrible but that it has a HUGE permanant effect on us!