Faucheaux -Human Trafficking

Though often overlooked, there are many forms of slavery still current in the world today. A majority of the films made about modern day slavery focus on the trafficking and enslavement of women for the sex trade. Sex trafficking is viewed as more scandalous and attention grabbing than issues such as migrant workers. 

The film, Human Trafficking explores the extensive international network of the sex trafficking industry. The movie revolves around four intersecting character story lines. A sixteen-year-old girl from the Ukraine named Nadia  thought she was getting her big break as an international supermodel and left for New York without the permission of her protective father. Helena was a single mother from Russia who was under the impression that she was dating her abductor, she left for a weekend getaway and never came home to her little Ivanka. Twelve-year-old American tourist, Annie Gray, is abducted in Manila, Philippines while shopping with her mother. Kate Morozov is an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent with emotional involvement in the issue of sex trafficking, she struggles to expose the worldwide network that has enslaved these girls. 

Most of the young women that are abducted into sex trafficking are international, however the greatest market for this heinous industry is the United States. According to the film, even the “business” that takes place in other countries is to the advantage of American “customers”.

The U.S. Department of State released a Trafficking in Humans Report in 2007 which stated that "Sex trafficking would not exist without the demand for commercial sex flourishing around the world. The U.S. Government adopted a strong position against prostitution in a December 2002 policy decision, which states that prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in persons. Prostitution and related activities—including pimping and patronizing or maintaining brothels—encourage the growth of modern-day slavery by providing a façade behind which traffickers for sexual exploitation operate. Where prostitution is tolerated, there is a greater demand for human trafficking victims and nearly always an increase in the number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex slavery. Few women seek out or choose to be in prostitution, and most are desperate to leave it. A 2003 scientific study in the Journal of Trauma Practice found that 89 percent of women in prostitution want to escape prostitution but had no other options for survival." 

Faucheaux -District 9

District 9, a Neill Blomkamp film, tells the story of a prawn-like alien race which has inhabited a militarized refugee camp in Johannesburg, South Africa for nearly 30 years. Now in the year 2010, The Multi-National United corporation is to evict the population. Field operative named Wikus Van Der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is in charge of relocating 1.8 million aliens to a new camp, District 10. Wikus serves an eviction notice to Christopher the prawn and searches his shack, he is squirted with a black chemical that has taken Christopher twenty years to make. Christopher is very knowledgeable about alien technology. After being taken to the hospital and being harvested for biological testing, Wikus escapes from the MNU and finds refuge in District 9 with Christopher and his son. Throughout the film, the side effects of the chemical grow more and more and at the end of the movie, it is insinuated that Wikus is now an alien. 

I believe that the political focus of District 9 is mainly racism and exploitation. The aliens wanted to return to their homes but are exploited by our governments for their highly advanced biological weaponry and forced to live in slums. 

Wikus’ story reminds me of Saint Paul of Tarsus. Saul was a persecutor of Christians until he was knocked off of his donkey one day and became blinded. He said Jesus spoke to him and after that was converted to a Christian himself. Wikus begins as a “persecutor” of the aliens, someone with authority over them. Throughout the film he transitions from an authority figure to just another prawn. 

The film opens and closes with series of interviews and news broadcasts which providing human opinions on the events surrounding the aliens. I think that the interviews are an important part of the film because they make the situations seem realistic.

Faucheaux -Ides of March

In The Ides Of March, our main character, Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is a deputy campaign manager for Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) who is sitting pretty for the Presidency in the midst of the Ohio primary campaign. Stephen is a fresh face in the business of politics, he is idealistic, somewhat naive, and extremely good at his job. So good in fact, that the opposing candidate's campaign manager, Tom (Paul Giamatti) asks to meet with Stephen and offers him a job on his staff. Stephen neglects to tell his boss, Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman) about the meeting until it is too late. Paul leaks the info about the meeting to Ida, a journalist for the New York Times, who tries to blackmail Stephen for a quote on the story. Stephen also uncovers a dirty little secret of the Governor’s that could sink his political career; he cheated on his wife by sleeping with an intern named Molly. Molly (Evan Rachel Wood), who was sleeping with Stephen as well, was pregnant with Morris’ child, had an abortion funded by Stephen, and committed suicide for fear of the story getting out. Stephen plans to use this information to sabotage Morris’ campaign after he is fired for being untrustworthy, but he cannot get a job working for the opposing candidate now. So Stephen resolves to blackmail Morris using this information, getting Morris to fire Paul and hire him as the new head campaign manager.

The Ides of March shows a great deal about the media’s influence on politics. I believe that this was the main political focus of the film. Towards the beginning of the movie, Stephen and Paul meet with Ida Horowicz. She is the journalist who represents the main media struggle in the film. When Ida threatens to throw Stephen’s “traitor” story on the front page of the Times, he says to her in his childlike hurt, “I thought you were my friend.” She replies callously that they are not friends, it’s all business and politics. 

The movie closes with Ida coming after Steve for a story again, “Hey Steve. I'm still your friend, right?” Stephen replies “You're my best friend, Ida.”

The film illustrates the well known notion that politics is an ugly business and no politician is the perfect saint they pretend to be. Even the “good guys” like Morris. I find it humorous that Stephen accuses Molly of being naive, he implies that she is too sweet to play in the “big leagues” if she thinks it’s okay to make a mistake as big as she has. Stephen too has his weak moments and is quite naive as he is so shocked to find out that his perfect Mr. President is only human after all. He convicts Morris of committing the greatest sin in the history of politics; sleeping with the intern. Nice to meet you Mr. Clinton.

Faucheaux -Restrepo

Nobody can win a war in Afghanistan, 
they just get tired and leave . 
Is that the message of the Oscar nominated documentary Restrepo? When the film ends, the fighting is still going on even though soldiers we’ve met get to come back home. Maybe our good intentions will never amount to a good outcome?

That could very well be one of the many underlying points that I believe this movie illustrates. The ambiguities of this film and the obscurity of its intended message can leave the viewer wondering exactly what they’ve just been told, and perhaps even confused about their own opinion of the United States’ war in Afghanistan. What the viewer does get, is a powerful movie that allows you to experience the life of a soldier in combat from a front row seat. We watch these men form a family, we see how they handle life in a foreign country amongst enemies and how they cope with the grief of losing a brother in the clutches of war. This emotional aspect of the film allows us to sympathize with the soldiers, to picture them as our brothers, uncles and friends that may be in their shoes. But there is still a doubt of why they are there, whether or not they should even be there. These young men were only boys when they boarded the plane that would take them to war. At the rate we’re going, people who weren’t even born when 9/11 occurred could be fighting this war.

One thing shown in the film that really vexed me was the way that the elders and the allies of the Korengal Valley were dealt with by some of the American soldiers. In one of his earliest interviews, Captain Dan Kearney tells us that he did absolutely no research on Korengal Valley because he wanted to go in there with an open mind, all he knew was that it was considered one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan. Throughout the course of the movie, he met often with the elders of the valley. His lack of knowledge of the history, the culture, and the language of the valley aided him none in his attempt to communicate and neither did his demeanor. His ignorance came off as arrogance, his arrogance came off as chauvinism, and he threw around more than a few “F” words. I don’t know about you, but I would consider this an inappropriate time to cuss. Because the people you’re speaking to don’t know the language, its all right to represent the United States that way? No disrespect to the captain, I am positive that he only did what he thought was best at the time and most likely did not realize that he was coming off as an inexperienced and callous man. The bottom line is, whoever was in the position which requires speaking to the locals and having meetings with the elders should have been trained as a diplomat and definitely should have learned the language.

Faucheaux -Extraordinary Rendition

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, and insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...will attempt to torture information out of any possible threat to the United States of America?

Rendition, a film directed by Gavin Hood, shows the political and the emotional aspects of torturing “enemies” of the United States. Following a suicide bombing (in an unnamed country) in which an American CIA agent is killed, Egyptian chemical engineer named Anwar El-Ibrahimi is seized by the CIA (in an American airport wile he is on his way home to his American wife and son). His wife investigates his whereabouts as he is subjected to torture and interrogation for being suspected of assisting a terrorist. Douglas Freeman is a CIA analyst who must take over the duties of the killed American, which include overseeing the torture of El-Ibrahimi.

I am against the use of torture to gain information from suspected terrorists. Torture is ethically and constitutionally wrong, obviously I am not the only person who has this belief or torturing wouldn’t be outsourced from the United States and would not be done in such a secretive manner.
I believe that torture has proved to be ineffective in comparison to other forms of obtaining information. When information is gained from torturing, there’s no guarantee that the information will be useful, or even legitimate.
When a person’s mind and body are under that much stress, guilty or innocent, they will say whatever they think you want to hear just to get some respite. In the film, El-Ibrahimi flat out asks Douglas Freeman what the interrogators want to hear, “Tell me what to say and I'll say it.”


When Anwar reaches his breaking point, he makes up a confession on the spot. At this point he has presumed that he will never make it out of the situation alive and confesses to crimes he didn’t commit just so he can be left alone. When asked for the names of his cooperators, he lists the first realistic sounding names that come to mind (the names of Egyptian Soccer players) and claims that he aided the terrorists for a payment of 40 grand (bear in mind, he is a chemical engineer who makes 200 thousand a year). “Why would somebody who makes $200,000 a year risk his life and his family for $40,000?”

There has been controversy over the classification of water boarding as a torture method. The argument was made that it is not torture because the physical and mental suffering produced by this method of forced cooperation was not severe enough. To me, water boarding is torture. “Torture” is defined as inflicting pain or anxiety on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. In water boarding, water is poured over the covered face of a restrained captive, causing the sensation of drowning. Because the person cannot actually drown this way, it shouldn’t be considered torture? Call me crazy, but at the very least, water boarding is psychological torture.

I felt dehumanized just watching the torture scenes in this movie from the safety of my cushioned seat. I can’t even begin to imagine the effect that torture has on the people involved.

Faucheaux -Social Networking

The Social Network explains in great detail the series of events surrounding the development of Facebook. Our main character, the boy genius  called Mark Zuckerberg (apparently played with spot on accuracy by Jesse Eisenberg), is a socially handicapped Harvard undergraduate who is ironically obsessed with social status.

Much of the story is told through the two law suits that are made against Mark. One is his former best friend, Eduardo Saverin, after Mark deceitfully cheated him out of the company. The other is made by the Winklevoss twins who claim that Mark stole their idea after they approached him about creating a social website especially for Harvard. 

I believe that, though subtle, there is a political agenda regarding corporations, business ethics, and privacy.

Obviously, “social networking” has become a HUGE thing. There are countless websites geared toward social interaction and many sites that existed before the craze have now added a feature that allows you to communicate with your online friends or share information with them. These networks have become a part of life (especially but not specifically for the younger generation) that are in some ways unimaginable to live without. For many, these sites are their main source of interaction with other people. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Google Plus... the list goes on and on.

Faucheaux -Movie Presidents

Michael Douglass, Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Jack Lemmon, Bill Pullman; all these men have played fictional United States presidents. The presidential characters they’ve portrayed fit a relatively consistent description. I’ll call this profile “The Movie President”. 

“The Movie President” is is a man (or Geena Davis) who is eloquent and educated. He is a father figure, usually a family man, and attractive. I mean, who wants the leader of the free world to be an uggo? And obviously Movie President is wonderful with connecting to the American people, is “honest” and has wonderful leadership skills. “Movie President” is a man of the people. 

The West Wing’s President Jed Bartlett, played by Martin Sheen, is another fictional president who fits this profile precisely. In The West Wing pilot episode, we only meet the president in the last few minutes of the show. However, it is apparent that he is a perfect Movie President. He shows no political stand. Instead it seems that he rules with an ethical backbone. It is mentioned earlier in the show that President Jed belongs to the Democratic party, but that this does not stop him “from fulfilling his role as a moral leader.” He is a husband who speaks of his wife kindly, a protective grandpa, and he is unpretentious.

While I agree that these movie characters would make good presidents, this is just not reality. 

In the 21st century, politicians are “career politicians.” Their decisions are usually not made based on the wellbeing of the common people, but instead on how to steal another term. The promises they keep are usually not those made to the voters during election campaigns, but instead the promises made to endorsers and people with the funds to get them elected. People do not lead according to morals and ethics but according to political affiliation and nonsense parties.

I believe that it is possible for present day presidents to make good on their promises to the people (if their promises are realistic and not propaganda) and to be a humanly, successful president. But it will take individuals who are willing to go against the grain.

Faucheaux- Perceptions of Socialism

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, socialism is defined as a system of society or as a political theory in which there is no private property and the government administers the means of production and distribution of goods.

The Merriam-Webster children’s and English learner’s dictionaries define socialism as a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

The meaning of the term “socialism” is often misconstrued. Usually due to the slant of one’s personal political opinions or because they are swayed by the views of others. These pictures seen below, found in a Google image search of the word "socialism", illustrate some of the numerous common views on socialism.

Extreme Fear?

These three pictures show an attitude of extreme fear toward the application of socialism as a political system in the Uited States by comparison to the extreme tactics used by dictators in other countries. For example, Hitler and Karl Marx, considered the father of socialism. 

Thieves and Murderers?

These images show a point of view in which socialists stand for “stealing” from those with more money in order to give it to the less wealthy. They also show more fear of socialism for different reasons. One image depicts socialism as Satan choking prosperity while another warns against a government that is too powerful. To me this photo poses an interesting question; if our government supplies us with everything we have, and we do not truly earn nor own anything for ourselves, how easily can it all be taken away?

Pretty Lies and Dead End Theories?

These pictures tell us that the promise of a better socialist society may just be a pretty picture painted by those who could benefit from it, but it would never actually work for the society as a whole. The plan sounds nice but... The cartoon shows our country being hypnotized by the shiny, happy promises made by socialism. We are told to blindly trust the government and all the while we are being strangled by it.

Or are we just lying to ourselves?

The above are some of the more pro-socialism images found. They suggest that those people who are opposed to socialism are just being childish, hypocritical, and difficult by saying that we already have socialist elements in our government.

Faucheaux- For the Love of Capitlism

Michael Moore is a rather infamous American film maker from Flint, Michigan. His most well known documentaries are Sicko, Roger&Me, Fahrenheit 9/11, and TV series The Awful Truth. In the usual Moore style, his 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story inquires what price the American people are willing to pay for their love of capitalism? 

Beginning with a comparison between us and the Roman Empire, we are taken on a tour of the very roots of “American greed.” On to wistful flashbacks of post World War II United States, the good ole days when there was no global competition from distraught Germany or Japan and the middle class was established as a comfy family where mother could quit her wartime Rosie job and father had a reliable retirement package in his pocket for safekeeping. Followed by speeches from Jimmy Carter warning against the dangers of "self-indulgence and consumption" and from Ronald Regan "turning the bull loose" for free enterprise.

A series of interviews are conducted for Moore’s investigation of "Dead Peasant” insurance policies. These are life insurance policies taken out on a company’s rank-and-file, or common employees with the company listed as the beneficiary. This means that the company receives the insurance benefits when the employee dies. 

Moore shows the effects of these policies from a very emotional point of view, interviewing the families and widowed spouses of deceased employees who were left in difficult situations when their loved one passed away.

The film shows many examples of foreclosure and families being put out of their homes, in some instances showing neighbors having a protest or giving the people sent to see the eviction through a hard time just for doing their job. There is also a clip Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur encouraging Americans to be squatters in their own homes, not to vacate, but to stand their ground.

The film then shows the 2008 presidential election where labeling Barack Obama as a Socialist backfired for his opponents. Once again with the flare for dramatics, Moore shows scenes of crying and cheering Obama supporters as he is elected as the 44th president of the United States. Moore expresses his optimism that the election of Barack Obama would bring much needed change to the country, I wonder if Moore is satisfied with the first term.

Moore shows the initiation of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, saying that it could have been the saving grace of the nation and protected us from the effects of capitalism. But before the bill is put into action Roosevelt passes away, leaving self-seeking politicians to form an unhealthy relationship with Wall Street and corporations. The middle class is left with diminishing employment and billions of dollars are put at the disposal of the banks and the insurance companies. 

Towards the end of the film, Moore says that we will never be the country that FDR wanted us to be, instead we are this... and shows scenes of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. To me this is a very inappropriate comparison. While there were many man-contributed mistakes that led to the amount of devastation caused by Katrina, there is no accuracy in attributing scenes of people sitting on their rooftops surrounded by fifteen feet of water to capitalism. 
No matter how you spin it, this scene was added simply for dramatic effect and Moore should have more confidence in his audience. We are capable of comprehending a message without having to add inaccurate details for theatrics.

There are good points made by this film, but I feel like it can be an insult to American viewer’s intelligence when things are blown out of proportion just for the sake of pointing fingers. This is just another example of how dangerous slanted media can be to people who soak up every word that is told to them.  Watch the movie but form your own opinions of it carefully.

Moore, after attempting a humorous citizen’s arrest of the Wall Street executives, concludes that “Capitalism is an evil which can only be eliminated, a better system is that of democracy. Rule by the people, not by money.”

Faucheaux-Traffic

The Steven Soderbergh film Traffic follows three intersecting story lines, all dealing with the narcotics industry in Mexico and the United States.

The first plot follows Mexican police officer Javier Rodriguez Rodriguez and his partner Manolo as they are hired by General Salazar to assist him in bringing down the Obregón Cartel in Tijuana. After helping to greatly cripple that cartel, Javier discovers that Salazar is working for the rival cartel of the Obregón brothers. Salazar’s section of the Mexican “anti-drug campaign” is a dupe. Manolo tries to sell this information to the Drug Enforcement Administration, but is found out by Salazar and killed. Javier decides to reveal the truth about Salazar’s alignment to the DEA and, instead of payment, requests for electricity to be run to his neighborhood baseball field. Salazar is arrested and dies in prison and Javier watches the children play baseball at night in their newly lit field. 

In the United States, undercover DEA agents Montel Gordon and his partner Ray Castro arrest Eddie, a drug dealer who pleads immunity and rats out his boss, Carlos Ayala. Carlos is the big distributer in the United States for the Obregón Cartel. When he is arrested, his wife Helena learns of his real profession for the first time. When the lofty lifestyle she has become so accustomed to begins falling to pieces, she goes to great lengths to have Eddie assassinated. The first man she hires unintentionally kills agent Castro instead. Eventually she does have Eddie killed, and without him to testify, Carlos is released. Angry at this and the death of his partner, agent Gordon plants a bug in the Ayala home.

Ohio judge Robert Wakefield is appointed as the new drug czar for the Office of National Drug Control. After she has a little run in with the law, Wakefield finds out that his "honor roll" daughter, Caroline, is a cocaine addict. When he goes to a colleague to get her record expunged, his associate asks if he has ever had a conversation with Caroline about what exactly she has been experimenting with. Wakefield replies “no” and then goes off to investigate the drug detecting activities of the U.S. border instead of going home and talking to his daughter. As the highest authority in the anti-drug initiative, Wakefield’s reaction to finding out about his Caroline’s habit is to ground her indefinitely, and with no real support from her parents, she eventually runs away and prostitutes herself to procure money for drugs. After tracking down and rescuing his semiconscious daughter from a sleazy hotel, Wakefield finds himself at a press conference, unable to continue his speech about his plan for the war on drugs. He walks out of the press conference and resolves to accompany Caroline to her Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

This movie shows that differences in the standard of living turns drug trafficking from a frowned upon but socially accepted norm in the United States into a way of life that is above the law in Mexico.

With the Mexican drug cartels, the criminal activity of drugs is a business; it is a corporation that just so happens to be illegal. The expendable employees and the product loss are figured in already, it makes no dent in the industry. The law does not get in their way, they have more money than the law. There is a definite imbalance of power. The local government and the police have no control and no real authority. At the beginning of the movie, two men moving a truckload of drugs are pulled over by Javier and Manolo. As the officers walk towards the truck, one of the men says, “oh, it’s just the police.”

The main implication of the film is that the war against drugs is not an easy one to win, but the fight must keep going. The ending to each of the story lines gives a message of hope:

Javier watching the kids playing baseball rather than being involved in street gangs and crime, shows that, given the chance, new generations can dig themselves out of the rut that their families and communities have burrowed into.

The microphone that Gordon plants is a symbol of not giving up after defeat. At a world wide, or even on a national level, the “war on drugs” may never end. But never underestimate the significance of little victories.

Wakefield’s acceptance of his daughter’s addiction shows the importance of dialogue between generations on issues such as this. It also shows that the war on drugs mainly needs to be fought on a more personal level. When it comes to your own family, the war waged on drugs is up to you, not the government. 

Faucheaux-American History X

This week’s film, American History X, is one that I have seen many times. Every time I’ve watched it, I’ve noticed something new about it or discovered another subtlety that I have overlooked. It’s intense and deals with touchy subjects. Just like with every movie, there are different opinions of this film and the messages that it portrays. The difference with American History X is the delicate subject matter that it deals with, and deals with quite abruptly. Some think the movie gives a wonderful lesson on the dangers of prejudice, others view the film as too controversial and think that the movie itself is dangerous. I think that it is up to the individual viewer to decide what they get out of the film. In my opinion it’s a powerful movie with an overall positive message, although perhaps not executed perfectly. While watching, I definitely notice details that I would want to change to make certain elements more prominent and to make interpretation of the movie less variable. 

For example, the strict stereotypical look and behavior of the characters. While effective dramatically, the extreme image of the white “skinheads” with their swastika tattoos versus the extreme image of the black gang members can make it seem like the issues that the movie deals with don’t apply in scenarios that take place other than the hoodlum infested streets of Venice Beach, California. In this way, any viewer can pass the buck. 

The movie opens with ocean scenes, which we see again near the end of the film showing little boys playing in the water. To me, the changing waves in these scenes represent the changing of people. The later scene also shows the innocence of the brothers, Danny and Derek Vinyard, as children and the relationship between them. Even at a young age, Derek was an example for Danny to follow.

The movie is a series of flashbacks and flash forwards, filmed in black and white as well as in color, that tell the story of the Vinyard family and the role prejudice plays in their lives. A majority of the flashback scenes are shown in black and white, with the exception of Derek’s flashback to the scene with the kids playing in the waves, while the scenes taking place in the present are in color.

When the movie begins, Danny reveals to us that Derek has been in prison for three years after killing black men that were trying to break into his car. Immediately we see the passionately angry and prejudiced Derek, a killer who is all fury and no remorse, and when we meet Danny, he is well set on his way down the very same path.

In the present day scenes, Derek’s point of view has changed, but he is fundamentally the same person. He is still a controlling and violently natured man, but he is uncertain about the issues that he has fervently stood for throughout the majority of his life. He now sees how hypocritical his fellow skinheads are, he has been made aware of his actions and has finally realized the extent of the damage he caused in his family’s life.

How did this epiphany come about? While in prison, Derek became a victim at the hands of people just like himself and his defender was a person just like all those that he had been hating and tormenting.

During the whole film, there are a lot of tight shots and close ups that frame the characters from their hairline to their chin. This gives a very personal view of the facial expressions of the actors, in particular the adolescents. We can see very clearly their reactions and can almost read the interpretation of their experiences as they are happening. For example, the look on the face of Danny’s shooter shows that he didn’t realize what he was doing until after he did it. He, like Danny, was also under the influence of an older role model.

In my favorite scene, which also includes a lot of tight camera shots, Danny remembers a time when his father was still alive and tells how he believes that the prejudice plaguing his family began with dear old dad. After chastising Derek for reading the “black books” assigned to him in school, the father preaches about the “evils” of affirmative action. What I like about this scene is that it reveals so much about Danny’s character. We see Danny longing to be included as his father delivers his gospel to Derek, who is taking in every word. As the elder son, Derek wants to please his father by imitating him, where as Danny is more skeptical. When the camera goes back to a close up of his face, we can see Danny recognizing the weakness (prejudice) in his father, he sees the flaws in his words. This stunned look of disappointment is almost the same look Danny gives when he witnesses Derek stomping a man’s face in on their front lawn. When the dad is killed, Derek becomes Danny’s father figure and it’s his turn to imitate.

A more subtle topic brought up in American History X is the flawed American legal system. Derek was convicted of two counts of voluntary manslaughter and was let out of prison after serving three years. The black man that Derek worked with in prison was arrested for stealing a television and assaulting an officer (he dropped the TV on the officer's foot, the officer said he threw it at him) and got six years. The movie makes the point that the justice system is harder on minorities. 

Faucheaux-Good Night and Good Luck

In the film Good Night and Good Luck, directed by George Clooney, we join journalist Edward Murrow in his struggle to bring light to the injustice of the investigation and conviction of communists in the ‘50s. The main struggle of the film is Murrow trying to show Americans how unconstitutional Senator McCarthy’s methods of convicting communists were. Murrow was not denying the threat of communism and saying that McCarthy shouldn't have been investigating it, he was simply saying that the way in which it was being done was unjust. His purpose was to educate, and to have people want  to be educated about the actions of their government. 

I believe that fear is a very strong theme in this movie. It is ironic to me that we Americans feel fear towards outside threats to the nation as well as towards our own government. It seems to me that most fear directed toward the United States government is in response to its manner of protecting American citizens.

With the government’s “you’re either with us or against us” attitude, prevalent in the ‘50s as well as today in 2011, we can see a kind of control through intimidation. Government institutions like the Patriot Act undermine our basic constitutional rights for the sake of our national security. Undoubtedly, protecting the people of the United States is an important responsibility of the government, however overlooking the rights of the people in order to do so, sometimes to no avail, is counter productive. The personal liberties of Americans do not have to be compromised in exchange for protection from the government. 

Good Night and Good Luck also spurs thoughts on the role of the media, namely television, in our society. In the film, Murrow proclaims “We have a built in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information; our mass media reflects this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses, and recognize that television, in the main, is being use to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture, too late.” A television show meant purely for entertainment is not evil, but we can’t allow ourselves to become completely distracted. Media should be intelligent and educating. Another quote from Edward R. Murrow, “Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East.”

Faucheaux- The Responsibility of Being “Good”

In today’s world, the word “good” has become vague and overused. But what does it take to be a truly good and moral person? In the Vicente Amorim film Good, our main character, John Halder seems to be an insecure and almost passive man. 

When we first meet Halder, we see that he is uncomfortable with the policies of the Nazi party and learn that he disagrees with their ideology. However, he never really speaks his mind or stands up against them. Halder is pushed into joining the Nazi party and starts adhering to their ways simply to save his job as a professor. But as the story progresses, he fights the conformity less and less until he finds himself a Nazi officer in the middle of the vey concentration camp where his once good friend Maurice was persecuted.

The main moral dilemma of the movie is Halder’s relationship with his longtime friend Maurice who is Jewish. Maurice believes that he and Halder are on the same page when it comes to being against the Nazis, but soon finds out just how quickly Halder sells out his beliefs. The pivotal point in their relationship is when Maurice begs Halder to help him escape to France and Halder is faced with a huge decision. Does he have the guts to risk his own life to help his friend? It turns out that he does, but his decision making was too little, too late and he was unable to help Maurice escape. Halder, however, does not accept responsibility for the effects his decisions cause throughout the movie. In fact, when he discovers that Maurice was picked up by the Gestapo, he blames his wife for turning in his friend.

So is Halder really a bad person? Ultimately the judgment lies with the viewer. What we do know about John Halder is that he is a submissive man. Even if he disagrees, he will go along with the power to keep from getting himself into trouble or causing conflict. He avoids calling attention to himself at all cost. At times he even seems to be devoid of his own morals. He is not a proactively evil person, but he does nothing to stop the evil going on around him. 

It is practical that this is a common trait of people living in Germany in the ‘30s and ‘40s who did not necessarily agree with Nazi ethics, but in reality we all know someone like this. Maybe we are like this ourselves at times.

If you don’t stand up for what is good, does that make you bad?

Hailey Faucheaux -About

Here’s some background information; my name is Hailey Faucheaux. I’m the oldest child in my family. I am from New Orleans, Louisiana and I am Cajun French and Irish. I'm proud of my heritage, I love my city and I believe it’s the best place in the world to call home. Growing up in the New Orleans area, I’ve always been influenced by different types of art, especially music. From jazz and a cappella street musicians to punk rock and Johnny Cash, I’ve experienced it all and I love it all. I am currently a Visual Arts major at Loyola University New Orleans. My ambition of the moment is to do special effects work in the film industry. I love creating characters and defining their look. The first scary movie I ever watched as a child was the original Nightmare on Elm Street, I think that's what kicked off my obsession with horror films and sketching monsters.

I'm inspired by all kinds of movies and the way that they make people reflect on their lives and the world around them. I'm fascinated by the thought that a powerful film can have an impact on a person’s opinion and change the way they see things. My favorite movies are Rob Reiner’s Stand by Me and Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous.

My list of role models include people such as Gilda Radner, Billie Holiday and JPII. 

My general outlook on life was most simply put into words in this quote by Red Skeleton, "If by chance someday you're sad or not feeling well and you should remember some little thing I've said or done and it brings back a smile to your face or a chuckle to your heart, then my purpose as your clown has been fulfilled."