Purpura 1
Anna-Maria Purpura
Professor: Luke Vasileiou
ENG 103
May 24, 2011
There are many aspects between real-life in New York City in the 1950s and a movie called Rear Window. One of the ways you can tell this movie is filmed in New York City is because of the apartments. The apartments are very close in distance, because the man in the movie can see into the apartment a crossed from his. Not only because of the distance between the two buildings but also because of the distance between the windows. You can even see multiple apartments at once. Another reason is the skyscrapers in the beginning of the movie when they scan down to show you the main characters apartment. Not just that but there’s also taxi’s driving passed the rear apartment. Also the same street being crowded which you can tell from the alleyway on the side of the buildings.
With all the information I have gathered, I have come to find out this movie does depict how it really was in the 1950s in New York City, except for a minor difference. The people in the movie and in real-life both share similar attributes of lifestyles. There were many similarities that I will provide the information for, between the things in the movie and the things in reality. Although, there was one difference but nothing big
Purpura 2
enough to say the majority of the movie does not depict how reality was in the 1950s. This movie was filmed in California, but the director Alfred Hitchcock had to make the town somewhere in New York City because of the way the apartments were. So that the viewers can assume the movie was really filmed in New York City. Even though other states had started to get apartment buildings, the windows and buildings weren’t as close as they were in the movie.
When it comes to employment there were many help wanted ads. There are many different wages for the various job listings. They list it by week, month, year, and hour. Hourly wages listed range from $1.10 to $3 an hour. Weekly listings were ranged from $20 dollars a week to $200. There weren’t many jobs that listed wages per month but with the listings it would range around $250 per month. Salesmen made between $6,000 to $10,000 dollars a year (“Classified Ad 7”), and photographers made about $10,000 to $15,000 a year (which is roughly $5.00 - $7.50 an hour).(” Classified Ad 40”)
In Greenwich Village during the 1950s the apartments that were a close match to the main characters apartment in the movie costs $124 for three rooms, which included a fireplace, and an overlooking garden (“Classified Ad 3”). The apartments that are similar to the ones in the movie vary in price anywhere from $110 a month to $145 dollars a month (“Classified Ad 20”). The apartments had lower ceilings and the sizes were smaller because it lacked closets and extra rooms. The encyclopedia of New York City states that the apartments in the 1950s were for the people who were considered middle-class ("Apartments" 39-40). In the movie by the wages they were making and
Purpura 3
the items they really could afford in their house, I would presume that they were either high-class or in between middle and high class. This was really the only difference I was able to find when it came to reality in the movie versus the 1950s.
When it came to women of the 1950’s they were still at the point of being housewives. Around this time the women were marrying younger, they started to date at a younger age as well. If the women were married, they would clean and cook for their husbands. The way they dressed was silk blouses and slim skirts that stopped at the knee with pearl jewelry, for when they just walked around the house. When they were to go out at night they would wear more flowing skirts that went down to their ankles. One key point to their style of dress was to wear any type of clothing that emphasized their curves, belts included. Fashions for men were just a simple suit and dress shoes and a simple wristwatch.
The popular music they played on radios at this time was pop, country and r&b. Although television watching was taking over radio listening. Television became a big hit in the 1950s where it became more popular and was selling more commonly. They had television programs that were broadcasting different kinds of shows especially stories that were based off of radio programs. Toys for children that were getting popular were hula hoops, toy guns, holsters, silly putty, and slinkies. In the movie you see a little girl playing hopscotch.
Purpura 4
In the Encyclopedia of New York City it states that between 1952 and 1955 the homicides that occurred were 4.3 percent out of 100,000 residents ("Crime" 297-298). Rather low then the past and upcoming years. It later states that most of the crime was formed in Harlem anyways. So since the crime was not around that bad around Greenwich Village that could explain how the people in most of the apartments had their windows open. Everyone in the apartment building had no shame and didn’t mind having the shades open at all times. There isn’t a “perfect town anywhere in the world, so even if Lars did kill his wife (which you’ll have to watch the movie for) it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary.
In the movie Rear Window they don’t really scan the city for you, it is a simple movie where you see only Jeff’s apartment, the apartments a crossed from his and the little alley way on the side of both buildings. In this movie, other than the main characters you can see the inside of about seven apartments. In this movie we are taken into an apartment in Greenwich Village in New York City in a movie called Rear Window. A man that lives in this apartment is named L.B. Jeffries, ‘Jeff’ for short. He is a photographer yet had to take some time off because he had broken his left leg. The magazine photographer confined to his mediocre apartment, which consisted of about three rooms. It overlooked a garden, along with all of the apartments to his rear.
He became bored in his home and couldn’t help but look out his window, he couldn’t take his eyes off of “Miss Torso”, the woman exercising in shorts (sometimes topless) with the windows and shades wide open. There is where he starts watching all
Purpura 5
the people in their apartments, in the building behind his. A musician with a huge piano in his living room, a lonely woman who pretends to have dinner with other people, a woman who you don’t see often other than to sunbathe in the backyard, newlyweds in the apartment to the side of his, a man who tends to the garden, and the salesman/murderer along with the bedridden wife.
While obsessively watching the building next door he spots a couple (Lars Thorwald – The wife’s name is unknown) and some weird things occur in the process. He sees that the wife may be faking her sickness and that the husband is hiding something from her. You see them argue. A few days later Jeff starts to analyze the actions of this man, Jeff has become convinced that this man has killed his wife. Because one day Jeff notices the wife is not in the house anymore. She could have gone away but then he observes more closely at this apartment giving it more of his attention. A freight truck comes to pick up a large trunk from his house. The shades get closed every so often. Jeff’s girlfriend whose name is Lisa suggests that maybe the woman went away but then Jeff and Lisa notice the husband with his wife’s purse and he is pulling the contents out of it. The contents in her alligator purse were a gold bracelet watch, her pearl necklace and her wedding ring. Lisa than states a woman would never leave without their wedding ring. When the next day comes Jeff sees that he has a suitcase, newspaper covered knives, and rope. Now he is completely convinced he has murdered his wife and tries to get the police to catch him.
Purpura 6
When it comes to Jeff, his career is a photographer. In the 1950s he would be making at least $200 a week (if he worked 40 hours). That would mean he got $800 dollars a month. His apartment type costs around $124 a month (“Classified Ad 3”). From what we see in his apartment he doesn’t have many things. When looking through other peoples apartments he looks at them from binoculars which cost $3.95 to $32.50 (“Display Ad 167” & “Display Ad 153”). One of the main things he owns is a 35mm camera, in which he uses to keep Lars away from attacking him. In the 1950s 35mm cameras cost anywhere from $19.50 to $199.00 depending on what features you wanted the camera to do (“Display Ad 24”).
Now if the man got $800 dollars and paid his rent he would have $676.00 dollars to spend. He would definitely be able to afford the camera and many other things. Along with eating exquisite candle lit dinners with wine and lobster tails. To go along with the exquisite dinner he had fancy dinner clothes which would cost about $5.49. (“Display Ad 22”) In the beginning of the movie you see his camera is broken, at this price and at the wages he makes like in my statistics above he would be able to buy another one.
The murderer Lars Thorwald is a salesman. As a salesman he would make around $1,200 a month. He lives in a studio apartment, which would be cheaper than the apartment that Jeff lived in. He doesn’t have much in his house so you can tell he seems to be a pretty simple man. He just has a lot of paintings around his house which would cost him anywhere from $5.00 to $100 (“Display Ad 22”). Lars also had numerous amounts of house lamps in his house, which could cost him $6.95 but only $4.95 on
Purpura 7
sale (“Display Ad 60”). For his line of work as a salesman he used what looked like a stainless steel briefcase to hold his products and that would cost him about
He is seen with suitcases when packing to leave, the ones similar to the one he has is either $27.50 or $32.50 (“Display Ad 35”). When Jeff was putting together the pieces that Lars had killed his wife there were partly from Lars getting having a number of items. A trunk, rope, big knives, and he had her purse and the contents in the purse were a gold bracelet watch, pearls and her wedding ring. For the knives they were $1.00 post-paid, so he might not have had to pay until after he uses it (to make sure it did the job) - (“Display Ad 264”). The rope was sold at a store called Johnsons fair for 1¢ per foot. At J. Jacobs rope cost $3.00 for 100 feet or $8.25 for 300 feet (Display Ad 153”). The other items costs were pearls anywhere from $14.95 to $150 dollars (“Display Ad 82”). Her alligator purse costing $200 more or less and her bracelet watch for $1105 which you could catch on sale and her wedding ring which may have been a diamond ring would have cost her (or the husband) 6,000 dollars (“Display Ad 76”). The husband did make what Jeff expressed to be a rather large amount of long distance phone calls which costs him about $2.00 at most (depends where he calls) for 3 minutes, which he didn’t ever call for much time anyways (“Display Ad 178”). So even if Lars did pay $120 dollars for rent, almost as much as Jeff makes, he would have 1,080 dollars left to spend. Which is a lot more money than Jeff has left over and Lars lives less elegantly as him. He would definitely be able to afford and financially take care of his sick wife.
Purpura 8
The women in the movie all had similar fashions, which were like Miss Torso, dresses, heels and pearls. In the 1950s they were known to be housewives, tending to their husbands; cooking, cleaning, always in dresses. Whether it’s daytime, cocktail, or evening dresses. When it comes to the clothing the women wear, the dresses would be anywhere between $35 to $155 dollars. (“Display Ad 5”) The pearl jewelry was just as expensive costing from $14.95 to $150 dollars (“Display Ad 82”). The shoes would be $23.95 if not a little more expensive for fancier shoes, for the less fancier the cheaper they would be (“Display Ad 93“).Also the women would often go to the salon and get a fancy hair-dos, depending on what you wanted it would cost roughly from $3.00 to $25.00 (“Display Ad 22”). The men always dressed up as well, in their suits, which would be around $90 to $175 depending on the design and brand (“Display Ad 5”). Their ties weren’t much, they only cost $1.50 but when they were on sale it would usually cost 69¢. (”Display Ad 13”)
Most of the apartments in the movie had alcohol in them, if not numerous bottles. Alcohol in the 1950s cost $3.44 - $5.59 if not more expensive (“Display Ad 13”). This is one of the main items almost every character had, and the ones that did have it, had a lot! One of the items is a piano which is in the musician’s apartment, he plays on it often but from the distance I am unable to tell what the brand is but I have found an article where it says you can buy one for $475 or rent it at $8.00 a month (“Display Ad 82”). There are other items seen in the movie. A woman was sitting on her lawn chair in her backyard. That would cost her about $14.88 for the chair. (“Display Ad 167”) A man was listening to his phonograph which would cost him $98.95 (“Display Ad “). On a rainy day
Purpura 9
you see people pass through the street seen by the alleyway, in the 1950s raincoats cost somewhere between $5.75 - $16.50 depending on which brand or kind of coat (“Display Ad 82” & “Display Ad 153”). There were many sales that went on daily. With all the sales there was and with the careers these tenants had, I do believe they were able to afford all of the above and more.
Out of all of this information it shows that New York City portrayed in the movie was more than less how life and peoples lifestyles were in the 1950s. The way people lived having windows open when there wasn’t much crime. It shows us how many different people could be living giving a few good view points, whether it a married couple or single people living. It even matched how they could afford their apartments and the items in their apartments on the wages they received along with the rent they had to pay. I can tell you this much, I was I was living like they were back then…having that much allowance to spend on anything I wanted – whether it be for alcohol and elegant dinners like Jeff, or simple paintings and lamps around the house like Lars.
Cited Works:
"Apartments." Encyclopedia of New York City. Yale University, United States: R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1995. Print.
"Classified Ad 3 -- No Title." New York Times 24 Aug. 1953, Print.
"Classified Ad 7 -- No Title." New York Times 20 Jul. 1954, Print.
"Classified Ad 20 -- No Title." New York Times 17 Oct. 1954, Print.
"Classified Ad 40 -- No Title." New York Times 14 Nov. 1954, Print.
"Crime." Encyclopedia of New York City. Yale University, United States: R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1995. Print.
"Display Ad 5 -- No Title." New York Times 30 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 13 -- No Title." New York Times 27 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 22 -- No Title." New York Times 29 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 24 -- No Title." New York Times 30 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 35 -- No Title." New York Times 8 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 60 -- No Title." New York Times 24 Jan. 1954, Print.
“Display Ad 76 -- No Title.” New York Times 3 Jan. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 82 -- No Title." New York Times 8 Jun. 1952, Print.
"Display Ad 93 -- No Title." New York Times 21 Mar. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 153 -- No Title." New York Times 23 Mar. 1952, Print.
"Display Ad 167 -- No Title." New York Times 18 May. 1952, Print.
“Display Ad 178 -- No Title.” New York Times 15 Aug. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 264 -- No Title." New York Times 10 Oct. 1954, Print.
Pendergast. U X L American decades. 6. Detroit: Detroit : UXL, c2003, 1995. Print.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Blog 9
Purpura 1
Anna-Maria Purpura
Professor: Louis Lucca
HUC 130
March 24th, 2011
Television has a large influence on society. It affects almost everyone in every aspect of their life, with everything that they do. However there is not enough evidence to prove that television makes a person violent. For someone to say that people will become criminals from watching too much violent television is like saying all smokers will get lung cancer. It is not a fact but it is a possibility. Television itself does not make a person become violent. I believe TV does have a contribution in some of the violence that has gone on in the world, as well as today. When it comes to television and violence, the repercussion of watching too much television especially when it’s violent can make one more violent but not create the violent person.
Many children watch television. A child can easily be influenced and tend to imitate things that they see. Children are like sponges, they absorb everything that is in their environment. I found a few aspects of a study called “The Bobo Doll” experiment. In an article called “Reel to Real?” written by Hugh Westrup, and in a YouTube video called “Albert Bandura, Social Learning and his Bobo Doll experiment”. A psychologist named, Albert Bandura from Stanford University did a study (in the 1960’s) called the
Purpura 2
“Bobo Doll” experiment. He conducted his study with two groups of children. One group was experimental – where they did certain tasks with the children to get the children’s natural reactions towards each task. The other group is controlled – where they control what the children see in order to see how they react without any influence.
The experimental group watched a short film of a woman being abusive to a blow-up doll called “Bobo”. In this short video they showed a woman and the Bobo doll in a room together where the woman started to punch and kick the doll around while yelling at it, for no reason. The women than picked up a toy hammer and started striking the inflatable doll with it. The kids from the experimental group were then put in a room with a doll that looks similar to the one in the video that they had just seen along with an assortment of toys. When the kids entered the room they started to punch, kick and scream at the doll, imitating the woman in the video. They again repeated her behavior by picking up the toy hammer and striking the doll. Not only did they mimic the woman but they also picked up a toy gun and began to use it on the doll, which wasn’t even shown in the video.
In this study Bandura even brought in a live clown to see what the children in the experimental group would do, and they even started to hit and abuse the clown. These children felt no difference in abusing an inflatable doll and a living person. He called it the “monkey see, monkey do”. (Albert Bandura, Social Learning and his Bobo Doll Experiment”) While the children from the controlled group who didn’t watch the video.
Purpura 3
Were put into a similar room and didn’t do anything to the doll. They just left the doll alone. A child will do almost anything it sees and finds interesting. If a kid grows up watching a lot of violent television they may just grow up being violent. If a child watches many horrific scenes in different TV shows, they can become terrified of something completely fictional. According to the website “Abelard” children who watch violence on television there are three major effects violence can have on a child. A child “may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Children may be more fearful of the world around them. Children may [also] be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others.” ("Abelard Teaching") Some children may even grow older still believing in mythical monsters. It depends on what kind of personality the child obtains and part of its upbringing.
If the child has a family the mother may curse, the father may throw objects, and the sibling may even smoke – that child might grow up and do those exact things as well. Just because a child might want to do certain things doesn’t mean it will grow up doing those things. Television can be very addicting for anyone of any age. With all the kinds of shows available to our viewing capacity, it has endless entertainment such as shows with reality, or fantasy, games, shopping, work-outs, psychics, anything you can think of. Growing into a world of fiction through a TV set can affect a child, but just because it’s a factor doesn’t mean it’s the real problem that causes crime.
Purpura 4
A child grows up with many different people in its life, people with different backgrounds and ways of life. If that child is brought up around a person who believes in something when another person doesn’t, the child will then have to decide which it wants to do and which it doesn’t. When kids get older they try out different things in order to see if it’s something they like or dislike doing. Along with knowing what’s right or wrong, accordingly to how the parents bring them up.
In the same article another man by the name of Brandon Centerwall came to a similar conclusion in the 1990’s. Centerwall believes that since the television was invented, the violent acts have gotten worse. He stated, “The murder rate in the United States rose sharply ten years after TV became popular.” (Westrup 10) I am sure that television wasn’t the only evil during those times. There have been a lot of things that are bad in the world. I don’t see how television could be on the top of that list of things that influenced people to commit violent acts.
“Reel to Real?” also talks against television being the factor to violence. Jonathan Freedman (a psychologist) says, “The rise in U.S. murders ten years after the introduction of television can be interpreted differently.” (Westrup 10) Which I agree with, nobody knows what was going on through the lives of the ones committing the crimes. Everybody has hardships and people deal with things differently, I just can’t see how TV is to blame for someone’s criminal acts. For the majority a person who commits a crime knows right from wrong. They should also know that television is not a reality and that they should not repeat what is on it. Freedman explains that the population was
Purpura 5
exploding due to the baby boom. He states, “The boom produced a large amount of young men, and young men are [known] to carry out most violent crimes.” (Westrup 10) Now if Centerwall’s and Freedman’s studies are accurate that would mean woman don’t watch as much violence as men.
On the Ripon College website there is a link to a page titled, “Media Violence and Media Influence” where it gives us statistics of television and the violence on it. An “average child sees approximately 1000 murders, rapes, or assaults on TV per year” (Petersik) with that statistic it would be common sense that near half of those children are female. If a child sees that much violence on television, an adult must have seen even more. That would mean an adult has watched more than 1,000 violent acts and at least half of them would be female, if not more. “57% of all TV shows contain some violent content”. (Petersik) More than half of the TV shows people watch have some act of violence in it. Men, children and woman are all watching a large amount of violence. If the crime was really because of television, woman would do more crimes. This does not need a statistic because even when we look at the news and they are talking about criminals, the majorities are men.
With children these days being brought up by television, who knows how the TV will influence a child. That is why parents should be with them, especially when they watch TV to tell them what is good or bad. Because statistics say, “54% of children have TV in their bedroom “, (Petersik) and that “46% of violence takes place in cartoons”. (Petersik) If children are watching these shows, they can start to believe that it’s more
Purpura 6
reality than fiction. If they start to believe that it is something that really happens, they might think they can get away with some of those acts. When kids are young, it is the time they have to learn to distinguish the different between real and fake. When they take in what they see and learn, to put it to use. Cartoons are what almost all children watch. In television shows statistics say, “Perpetrators not punished 73% of the time”. (Petersik) That is what they view on their own television sets! When children are brought up by television sets they tend to imitate what they see in cartoons and other shows. If a child grows up watching that much violence, of course there may be a chance that child will become violent. I believe it takes more than just a television show or multiple shows they grow up on to make them commit such acts of violence.
These men might have gotten some kind of result, but neither of them did a deeper research on the children. Until Leonard Eron and Rowell Huesmann, both psychologists, teamed up and followed viewing habits of 800 children who were 6-10 year-olds in the Chicago area. This information that I have gotten is from the websites; Abelard and American Psychology Association (APA), where they found out that the children who watched violent TV acted aggressive. Out of the 800 kids they viewed, they only went back to 329 of them. They went back all of those students 11 and 22 years later.
In the beginning of the study, they found out which violent television shows the children watched most. Eron and Rowell also wanted to see if their behavior was as aggressive as the characters in their favorite TV show. They even found out if the
Purpura 7
children thought these violent acts were real or fictional. When the psychologists returned to those same children now in their 20’s, they asked them about their favorite television shows now and how their behavior was and if they were still aggressive. Not to mention they also obtained their criminal record along with violations they may have received. They had found that the ones who had watched more violent television had grown up and were even more aggressive, especially compared to the student who had watched less violent TV. The men and woman who had become more aggressive had admitted to pushing around their spouse or people during the time of growing up, along with committing crimes and getting moving traffic violations. The research subjects, who watched less violent television, did not have as much aggression problems and didn’t commit any crimes.
In the article “Reel to Real?” there was another study conducted. A man named William Belson, who is a researcher, studied the behavior of 1,500 teenage boys. Belson broke the boys into four different groups, out of those groups one group watched each category, ‘very high’, ‘high’, ‘moderate’, and ‘low’ amounts of violent television. He gathered that, “the boys who watched ‘very high’ levels of violent TV were half as aggressive as the boys who watched ‘high’ amounts.” (Westrup 10) With this research you can see that the ones who watch the highest weren’t the highest in violence that it differs by person and how they are, not by the amount of violence they watch.
With the research that has been conducted in all of these studies, it is easy to see that the amount of violence seen on a television set does not determine the amount
Purpura 8
of violent behavior you will show. However there are too many factors that go into a human being and childhood to decipher what causes violence that can go into the studies being conducted. No one (other than the children) can really know why they acted the way they did in such studies. There are both negatives and positives aspects to watching television. Television is like a tool. You can use it to have an awareness of the disasters that are happening around the world, as well as political aspects, nature, senseless entertainment and more. Another thing you can do with television is that you can use it to escape from the realities of the world and to relax and enjoy the comforts of your own home. Another possibility is that you can become obsessed with television. For instance let’s take a knife. A knife is also a tool. You can kill with a knife, or you can use it to help you cut a sandwich. It’s all in how you choose to use it. Anyone can watch a television program, and think it is cool or they may want to try something like it. They may hate someone and by watching a TV show it could persuade them to do something violent towards that person. Yet it doesn’t always mean they will.
Purpura 9
Cited Works:
"Albert Bandura, Social Learning and his Bobo Doll experiment." YouTube. Web. 22 Apr 2011. .
"Childhood Exposure to Media Violence Predicts Young Adult Aggressive Behavior, According to a New 15-Year Study." Press Releases. American Psychology Association, 09 Mar 2003. Web. 24 Apr 2011. .
"Children and Television Violence." Abelard Teaching. Abelard, 1999-2008. Web. 24 Apr 2011. .
Petersik, Timothy. "Ripon College." Media Violence and Media Influence. J. Timothy Petersik, n.d. Web. 22 Apr 2011. .
Westrup, Hugh. “Reel to Real?.” Weekly Reader / Current Science. 17 Mar. 2000: 10. Print.
Anna-Maria Purpura
Professor: Louis Lucca
HUC 130
March 24th, 2011
Television has a large influence on society. It affects almost everyone in every aspect of their life, with everything that they do. However there is not enough evidence to prove that television makes a person violent. For someone to say that people will become criminals from watching too much violent television is like saying all smokers will get lung cancer. It is not a fact but it is a possibility. Television itself does not make a person become violent. I believe TV does have a contribution in some of the violence that has gone on in the world, as well as today. When it comes to television and violence, the repercussion of watching too much television especially when it’s violent can make one more violent but not create the violent person.
Many children watch television. A child can easily be influenced and tend to imitate things that they see. Children are like sponges, they absorb everything that is in their environment. I found a few aspects of a study called “The Bobo Doll” experiment. In an article called “Reel to Real?” written by Hugh Westrup, and in a YouTube video called “Albert Bandura, Social Learning and his Bobo Doll experiment”. A psychologist named, Albert Bandura from Stanford University did a study (in the 1960’s) called the
Purpura 2
“Bobo Doll” experiment. He conducted his study with two groups of children. One group was experimental – where they did certain tasks with the children to get the children’s natural reactions towards each task. The other group is controlled – where they control what the children see in order to see how they react without any influence.
The experimental group watched a short film of a woman being abusive to a blow-up doll called “Bobo”. In this short video they showed a woman and the Bobo doll in a room together where the woman started to punch and kick the doll around while yelling at it, for no reason. The women than picked up a toy hammer and started striking the inflatable doll with it. The kids from the experimental group were then put in a room with a doll that looks similar to the one in the video that they had just seen along with an assortment of toys. When the kids entered the room they started to punch, kick and scream at the doll, imitating the woman in the video. They again repeated her behavior by picking up the toy hammer and striking the doll. Not only did they mimic the woman but they also picked up a toy gun and began to use it on the doll, which wasn’t even shown in the video.
In this study Bandura even brought in a live clown to see what the children in the experimental group would do, and they even started to hit and abuse the clown. These children felt no difference in abusing an inflatable doll and a living person. He called it the “monkey see, monkey do”. (Albert Bandura, Social Learning and his Bobo Doll Experiment”) While the children from the controlled group who didn’t watch the video.
Purpura 3
Were put into a similar room and didn’t do anything to the doll. They just left the doll alone. A child will do almost anything it sees and finds interesting. If a kid grows up watching a lot of violent television they may just grow up being violent. If a child watches many horrific scenes in different TV shows, they can become terrified of something completely fictional. According to the website “Abelard” children who watch violence on television there are three major effects violence can have on a child. A child “may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Children may be more fearful of the world around them. Children may [also] be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others.” ("Abelard Teaching") Some children may even grow older still believing in mythical monsters. It depends on what kind of personality the child obtains and part of its upbringing.
If the child has a family the mother may curse, the father may throw objects, and the sibling may even smoke – that child might grow up and do those exact things as well. Just because a child might want to do certain things doesn’t mean it will grow up doing those things. Television can be very addicting for anyone of any age. With all the kinds of shows available to our viewing capacity, it has endless entertainment such as shows with reality, or fantasy, games, shopping, work-outs, psychics, anything you can think of. Growing into a world of fiction through a TV set can affect a child, but just because it’s a factor doesn’t mean it’s the real problem that causes crime.
Purpura 4
A child grows up with many different people in its life, people with different backgrounds and ways of life. If that child is brought up around a person who believes in something when another person doesn’t, the child will then have to decide which it wants to do and which it doesn’t. When kids get older they try out different things in order to see if it’s something they like or dislike doing. Along with knowing what’s right or wrong, accordingly to how the parents bring them up.
In the same article another man by the name of Brandon Centerwall came to a similar conclusion in the 1990’s. Centerwall believes that since the television was invented, the violent acts have gotten worse. He stated, “The murder rate in the United States rose sharply ten years after TV became popular.” (Westrup 10) I am sure that television wasn’t the only evil during those times. There have been a lot of things that are bad in the world. I don’t see how television could be on the top of that list of things that influenced people to commit violent acts.
“Reel to Real?” also talks against television being the factor to violence. Jonathan Freedman (a psychologist) says, “The rise in U.S. murders ten years after the introduction of television can be interpreted differently.” (Westrup 10) Which I agree with, nobody knows what was going on through the lives of the ones committing the crimes. Everybody has hardships and people deal with things differently, I just can’t see how TV is to blame for someone’s criminal acts. For the majority a person who commits a crime knows right from wrong. They should also know that television is not a reality and that they should not repeat what is on it. Freedman explains that the population was
Purpura 5
exploding due to the baby boom. He states, “The boom produced a large amount of young men, and young men are [known] to carry out most violent crimes.” (Westrup 10) Now if Centerwall’s and Freedman’s studies are accurate that would mean woman don’t watch as much violence as men.
On the Ripon College website there is a link to a page titled, “Media Violence and Media Influence” where it gives us statistics of television and the violence on it. An “average child sees approximately 1000 murders, rapes, or assaults on TV per year” (Petersik) with that statistic it would be common sense that near half of those children are female. If a child sees that much violence on television, an adult must have seen even more. That would mean an adult has watched more than 1,000 violent acts and at least half of them would be female, if not more. “57% of all TV shows contain some violent content”. (Petersik) More than half of the TV shows people watch have some act of violence in it. Men, children and woman are all watching a large amount of violence. If the crime was really because of television, woman would do more crimes. This does not need a statistic because even when we look at the news and they are talking about criminals, the majorities are men.
With children these days being brought up by television, who knows how the TV will influence a child. That is why parents should be with them, especially when they watch TV to tell them what is good or bad. Because statistics say, “54% of children have TV in their bedroom “, (Petersik) and that “46% of violence takes place in cartoons”. (Petersik) If children are watching these shows, they can start to believe that it’s more
Purpura 6
reality than fiction. If they start to believe that it is something that really happens, they might think they can get away with some of those acts. When kids are young, it is the time they have to learn to distinguish the different between real and fake. When they take in what they see and learn, to put it to use. Cartoons are what almost all children watch. In television shows statistics say, “Perpetrators not punished 73% of the time”. (Petersik) That is what they view on their own television sets! When children are brought up by television sets they tend to imitate what they see in cartoons and other shows. If a child grows up watching that much violence, of course there may be a chance that child will become violent. I believe it takes more than just a television show or multiple shows they grow up on to make them commit such acts of violence.
These men might have gotten some kind of result, but neither of them did a deeper research on the children. Until Leonard Eron and Rowell Huesmann, both psychologists, teamed up and followed viewing habits of 800 children who were 6-10 year-olds in the Chicago area. This information that I have gotten is from the websites; Abelard and American Psychology Association (APA), where they found out that the children who watched violent TV acted aggressive. Out of the 800 kids they viewed, they only went back to 329 of them. They went back all of those students 11 and 22 years later.
In the beginning of the study, they found out which violent television shows the children watched most. Eron and Rowell also wanted to see if their behavior was as aggressive as the characters in their favorite TV show. They even found out if the
Purpura 7
children thought these violent acts were real or fictional. When the psychologists returned to those same children now in their 20’s, they asked them about their favorite television shows now and how their behavior was and if they were still aggressive. Not to mention they also obtained their criminal record along with violations they may have received. They had found that the ones who had watched more violent television had grown up and were even more aggressive, especially compared to the student who had watched less violent TV. The men and woman who had become more aggressive had admitted to pushing around their spouse or people during the time of growing up, along with committing crimes and getting moving traffic violations. The research subjects, who watched less violent television, did not have as much aggression problems and didn’t commit any crimes.
In the article “Reel to Real?” there was another study conducted. A man named William Belson, who is a researcher, studied the behavior of 1,500 teenage boys. Belson broke the boys into four different groups, out of those groups one group watched each category, ‘very high’, ‘high’, ‘moderate’, and ‘low’ amounts of violent television. He gathered that, “the boys who watched ‘very high’ levels of violent TV were half as aggressive as the boys who watched ‘high’ amounts.” (Westrup 10) With this research you can see that the ones who watch the highest weren’t the highest in violence that it differs by person and how they are, not by the amount of violence they watch.
With the research that has been conducted in all of these studies, it is easy to see that the amount of violence seen on a television set does not determine the amount
Purpura 8
of violent behavior you will show. However there are too many factors that go into a human being and childhood to decipher what causes violence that can go into the studies being conducted. No one (other than the children) can really know why they acted the way they did in such studies. There are both negatives and positives aspects to watching television. Television is like a tool. You can use it to have an awareness of the disasters that are happening around the world, as well as political aspects, nature, senseless entertainment and more. Another thing you can do with television is that you can use it to escape from the realities of the world and to relax and enjoy the comforts of your own home. Another possibility is that you can become obsessed with television. For instance let’s take a knife. A knife is also a tool. You can kill with a knife, or you can use it to help you cut a sandwich. It’s all in how you choose to use it. Anyone can watch a television program, and think it is cool or they may want to try something like it. They may hate someone and by watching a TV show it could persuade them to do something violent towards that person. Yet it doesn’t always mean they will.
Purpura 9
Cited Works:
"Albert Bandura, Social Learning and his Bobo Doll experiment." YouTube. Web. 22 Apr 2011. .
"Childhood Exposure to Media Violence Predicts Young Adult Aggressive Behavior, According to a New 15-Year Study." Press Releases. American Psychology Association, 09 Mar 2003. Web. 24 Apr 2011. .
"Children and Television Violence." Abelard Teaching. Abelard, 1999-2008. Web. 24 Apr 2011. .
Petersik, Timothy. "Ripon College." Media Violence and Media Influence. J. Timothy Petersik, n.d. Web. 22 Apr 2011. .
Westrup, Hugh. “Reel to Real?.” Weekly Reader / Current Science. 17 Mar. 2000: 10. Print.
Blog 19
I am not sure if I really learned much from doing the archives project. It was definitely a challenge for me to do it. I wouldn’t say it was a waste because even though I did not learn anything from it, it helped me do something that was challenging that I wouldn’t normally do. I did not do perfect on the essay but at least I tried and finished it to the best of my ability.
The introduction by the archives project? I am not sure what you mean by that. If you mean the way you introduced it, than it was really confusing. I don’t normally follow the news so I had no idea about anything that was going on through this particular assignment.
I would say it was much much more difficult than the Major Research Essay. There were many reasons why. One of the reasons was, I had no idea about planned shrinkage and all the things they had talked about what was happening in the arhive papers. When I love the movie Rear Window. I knew what I was going to do, it was a little difficult at first but definitely not as hard as the archives. Not only that but the fact that we could only get the source from the archives room. I am not sure if I would have found much information on the internet but the information in the archives I felt wasn’t enough to help me write the paper, maybe if it was a page or two. The subject of the archives I wasn’t interested in like I was the one about the movie Rear Window. I know I am not a perfect writer but I do know that I tend to write a little better when it is on a subject I like better.
The introduction by the archives project? I am not sure what you mean by that. If you mean the way you introduced it, than it was really confusing. I don’t normally follow the news so I had no idea about anything that was going on through this particular assignment.
I would say it was much much more difficult than the Major Research Essay. There were many reasons why. One of the reasons was, I had no idea about planned shrinkage and all the things they had talked about what was happening in the arhive papers. When I love the movie Rear Window. I knew what I was going to do, it was a little difficult at first but definitely not as hard as the archives. Not only that but the fact that we could only get the source from the archives room. I am not sure if I would have found much information on the internet but the information in the archives I felt wasn’t enough to help me write the paper, maybe if it was a page or two. The subject of the archives I wasn’t interested in like I was the one about the movie Rear Window. I know I am not a perfect writer but I do know that I tend to write a little better when it is on a subject I like better.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Blog 18
When I was doing the draft of my major research paper I had started with watching the movie and taking notes on what I thought was important. Once I did that I had gone to the library to look through some encyclopedia books where I found some of the information I am using. When I did that, I had looked on the computer through the library for old newspaper articles. I would say that is the most difficult of the project. Since I couldn’t find any books with prices of what stuff had cost back then I had to look through ‘display ads’ on the site.
Once I found the display ads to be good price references, I searched for display ad since there was no way I could shorten the search to how I wanted it. So I have been looking through each display ad from January 1st 1954 to December 31st 1954. After I did a predominant amount of research through that, I watched the movie again to see what I had missed. That is when I started to start on the paper. I switched back and forth from my notes to my research.
I knew I had to get cited works that weren’t from the web so the library was the next best idea. They had told me about the website online to look up newspaper articles. I had tried to go to the archives but the guy wasn’t there and then the time had gotten away from me so I couldn’t go. I really would have liked the web because they have a lot of good sites but its okay I was able to find things such as old newspaper articles via the web. I just had to turn them into ‘print’ cited works.
I don’t have the full complete draft yet, so to my knowledge I am not sure I used something from the class lessons. I was more free-writing. I still have work to do and I have what I want in there set-up and then I will go over and edit it, along with the conference I will have with you.
Once I found the display ads to be good price references, I searched for display ad since there was no way I could shorten the search to how I wanted it. So I have been looking through each display ad from January 1st 1954 to December 31st 1954. After I did a predominant amount of research through that, I watched the movie again to see what I had missed. That is when I started to start on the paper. I switched back and forth from my notes to my research.
I knew I had to get cited works that weren’t from the web so the library was the next best idea. They had told me about the website online to look up newspaper articles. I had tried to go to the archives but the guy wasn’t there and then the time had gotten away from me so I couldn’t go. I really would have liked the web because they have a lot of good sites but its okay I was able to find things such as old newspaper articles via the web. I just had to turn them into ‘print’ cited works.
I don’t have the full complete draft yet, so to my knowledge I am not sure I used something from the class lessons. I was more free-writing. I still have work to do and I have what I want in there set-up and then I will go over and edit it, along with the conference I will have with you.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Draft of MAJOR Research Paper
Purpura 1
Anna-Maria Purpura
Professor: Luke Vasileiou
ENG 103
May 24, 2011
There are many aspects between real-life in New York City in the 1950s and a movie called Rear Window where there are similarities. One of the ways you can tell this movie is filmed in New York City is because of the apartments. The apartments are very close in distance, because the man in the movie can see into the apartment a crossed from his. Not only because of the distance between the two buildings but also because of the distance between the windows. You can even see multiple apartments at once. Another reason is the skyscrapers in the beginning of the movie when they scan down to show you the main characters apartment. Not only that but there’s also taxi’s driving passed the rear apartment. Also by the same street being crowded. With all the information I have gathered, I have come to find out this movie does depict how it really was in the 1950s in New York City, except for a few minor differences. The people in the movie and in real-life both share similar attributes of lifestyles.
When it comes to employment there were many help wanted ads. There are many different wages for the various job listings. They list it by week, month, year, and hour. Hourly wages listed range from $1.10 to $3 an hour. You can even get paid anywhere from $20 dollars a week to $200 a week. There weren’t many jobs that listed wages per month but with the listings it would range around $250 per month. Salesmen made between $6,000 to $10,000 dollars a year. Weekly wages for a salesman could be between $300 to $600 dollars, and Photographers made about $10,000 to $15,000 a year (which is roughly $5.00 - $7.50 an hour).
In Greenwich Village during the 1950s the apartments that were a close match to the main characters apartment in the movie costs $124 for three rooms, which included a fireplace, and an overlooking garden. The apartments that are similar to the ones in movie vary in price anywhere from $85 a month to $145 dollars a month. The encyclopedia of New York City states that the apartments in the 1950s were for the people who were considered middle-class. According to American Decades 1950-1959 the apartments had lower ceilings and the sizes were smaller because it lacked closets and extra rooms.
When it came to women of the 1950’s they were still at the point of being housewives. Around this time the women were marrying younger, they started to date at a younger age as well. If the women were married, they would clean and cook for their husbands. The way they dressed was silk blouses and slim skirts that stopped at the knee with pearl jewelry, just when they were around the house. When they were to go out at night they would wear more flowing skirts that went down to their ankles. Any type of clothing that emphasized their curves. Fashions for men were just a simple suit and dress shoes.
The popular music they played on radios at this time was pop, country and r&b. Although television watching was taking over radio listening. Television became a big hit in the 1950s where it became more popular and was selling more commonly. Toys for children that were getting popular were hula hoops, toy guns, holsters, silly putty, and slinkies. In the encyclopedia of New York City it states that between 1952 and 1955 the homicides that occurred were 4.3 percent out of 100,000 residents. Rather low then the past and upcoming years. It later states that most of the crime was formed in Harlem.
3. We are taken into an apartment in Greenwich Village in New York City in a movie called Rear Window. A man that lives in this apartment is named L.B. Jeffries, ‘Jeff’ for short, and he has broken his left leg. A magazine photographer confined in his mediocre apartment. He can’t help but look out his window. There is where he starts watching all the people in their apartments, in the building behind his. While obsessively watching the building next door he spots a couple (Lars Thorwald & bedridden wife), and some weird things occur in the process. Jeff realized the wife is no longer in the apartment. He starts to watch the husband and what is going on in that apartment. He starts to analyze the actions of this man and becomes convinced that this man has killed his wife. This movie was filmed in California, but the director Alfred Hitchcock had to make the town somewhere in New York City because of the way the apartments were.
4. In the movie Rear Window they don’t really scan the city for you, it is a simple movie where you see only Jeff’s apartment, the apartments a crossed from his and the little alley way on the side of both buildings. In this movie, other than the main characters you can see the inside of about seven apartments. That is how we know these apartment buildings stand in New York City, for the fact that you can see into so many apartments, from one window of an apartment next to the other.
When it comes to Jeff, he is a photographer. In the 1950s he would be making at least $200 a week (if he worked 40 hours). That would mean he got $800 dollars a month. His apartment type costs around $124 a month. From what we see in his apartment he doesn’t have many things. When looking through other peoples apartments he looks at them from binoculars which cost $32.50. One of the main things he owns is a 35mm camera, in which he uses to keep Lars away from attacking him. In the 1950s 35mm cameras cost anywhere from $19.50 to $199.00 depending on what features you wanted the camera to do. Now if the man got $800 dollars and paid his rent he would have $676.00 dollars to spend. He would definitely be able to afford the camera and many other things. Along with eating exquisite candle lit dinners with wine and lobster tails.
The murderer Lars Thorwald is a salesman. As a salesman he would make around $1,200 a month. He lives in a studio apartment, which would be cheaper than the apartment that Jeff lived in. He doesn’t have much in his house so you can tell he seems to be a pretty simple man. He is seen with suitcases when packing to leave, which costs about $4.95.
Some of the items seen in the movie are: lawn chairs at $14.88, a phonograph around $200 dollars, and fancy hair-dos depending on what you wanted from $3.00 to $25.00. There were many sales that went on daily. With all the sales there was and with the careers these tenants had, I do believe they were able to afford all of the above and more. On a rainy day you see people pass through the street seen by the alleyway, in the 1950s raincoats cost somewhere between $7.95 - $16.50 depending on which brand or kind of coat.
Cited Works:
"Classified Ad 3 -- No Title." New York Times 24 Aug. 1953, Print.
"Classified Ad 7 -- No Title." New York Times 20 Jul 1954, Print.
"Classified Ad 20 -- No Title." New York Times 17 Oct. 1954, Print.
"Classified Ad 40 -- No Title." New York Times 14 Nov. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 3 -- No Title." New York Times 30 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 22 -- No Title." New York Times 29 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 24 -- No Title." New York Times 30 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 153 -- No Title." New York Times 23 Mar. 1952, Print.
"Display Ad 167 -- No Title." New York Times 18 May 1952, Print.
"Display Ad 692 -- No Title." New York Times 15 Apr. 1952, Print.
*Note: The sites that I have added I got from the web, because the books I’ve been looking through don’t have actual prices… I still have the web cited works and I will put them in the paper. You had just said you don’t want websites as resources so I turned them into ‘print’ cited works, if they are not correct, let me know and I will put the ‘web’ cited works.
Ps. This is not a full draft but I do have most of the rest of the information I am going to add to finish it. I just have to organize it and research a few more things.
Anna-Maria Purpura
Professor: Luke Vasileiou
ENG 103
May 24, 2011
There are many aspects between real-life in New York City in the 1950s and a movie called Rear Window where there are similarities. One of the ways you can tell this movie is filmed in New York City is because of the apartments. The apartments are very close in distance, because the man in the movie can see into the apartment a crossed from his. Not only because of the distance between the two buildings but also because of the distance between the windows. You can even see multiple apartments at once. Another reason is the skyscrapers in the beginning of the movie when they scan down to show you the main characters apartment. Not only that but there’s also taxi’s driving passed the rear apartment. Also by the same street being crowded. With all the information I have gathered, I have come to find out this movie does depict how it really was in the 1950s in New York City, except for a few minor differences. The people in the movie and in real-life both share similar attributes of lifestyles.
When it comes to employment there were many help wanted ads. There are many different wages for the various job listings. They list it by week, month, year, and hour. Hourly wages listed range from $1.10 to $3 an hour. You can even get paid anywhere from $20 dollars a week to $200 a week. There weren’t many jobs that listed wages per month but with the listings it would range around $250 per month. Salesmen made between $6,000 to $10,000 dollars a year. Weekly wages for a salesman could be between $300 to $600 dollars, and Photographers made about $10,000 to $15,000 a year (which is roughly $5.00 - $7.50 an hour).
In Greenwich Village during the 1950s the apartments that were a close match to the main characters apartment in the movie costs $124 for three rooms, which included a fireplace, and an overlooking garden. The apartments that are similar to the ones in movie vary in price anywhere from $85 a month to $145 dollars a month. The encyclopedia of New York City states that the apartments in the 1950s were for the people who were considered middle-class. According to American Decades 1950-1959 the apartments had lower ceilings and the sizes were smaller because it lacked closets and extra rooms.
When it came to women of the 1950’s they were still at the point of being housewives. Around this time the women were marrying younger, they started to date at a younger age as well. If the women were married, they would clean and cook for their husbands. The way they dressed was silk blouses and slim skirts that stopped at the knee with pearl jewelry, just when they were around the house. When they were to go out at night they would wear more flowing skirts that went down to their ankles. Any type of clothing that emphasized their curves. Fashions for men were just a simple suit and dress shoes.
The popular music they played on radios at this time was pop, country and r&b. Although television watching was taking over radio listening. Television became a big hit in the 1950s where it became more popular and was selling more commonly. Toys for children that were getting popular were hula hoops, toy guns, holsters, silly putty, and slinkies. In the encyclopedia of New York City it states that between 1952 and 1955 the homicides that occurred were 4.3 percent out of 100,000 residents. Rather low then the past and upcoming years. It later states that most of the crime was formed in Harlem.
3. We are taken into an apartment in Greenwich Village in New York City in a movie called Rear Window. A man that lives in this apartment is named L.B. Jeffries, ‘Jeff’ for short, and he has broken his left leg. A magazine photographer confined in his mediocre apartment. He can’t help but look out his window. There is where he starts watching all the people in their apartments, in the building behind his. While obsessively watching the building next door he spots a couple (Lars Thorwald & bedridden wife), and some weird things occur in the process. Jeff realized the wife is no longer in the apartment. He starts to watch the husband and what is going on in that apartment. He starts to analyze the actions of this man and becomes convinced that this man has killed his wife. This movie was filmed in California, but the director Alfred Hitchcock had to make the town somewhere in New York City because of the way the apartments were.
4. In the movie Rear Window they don’t really scan the city for you, it is a simple movie where you see only Jeff’s apartment, the apartments a crossed from his and the little alley way on the side of both buildings. In this movie, other than the main characters you can see the inside of about seven apartments. That is how we know these apartment buildings stand in New York City, for the fact that you can see into so many apartments, from one window of an apartment next to the other.
When it comes to Jeff, he is a photographer. In the 1950s he would be making at least $200 a week (if he worked 40 hours). That would mean he got $800 dollars a month. His apartment type costs around $124 a month. From what we see in his apartment he doesn’t have many things. When looking through other peoples apartments he looks at them from binoculars which cost $32.50. One of the main things he owns is a 35mm camera, in which he uses to keep Lars away from attacking him. In the 1950s 35mm cameras cost anywhere from $19.50 to $199.00 depending on what features you wanted the camera to do. Now if the man got $800 dollars and paid his rent he would have $676.00 dollars to spend. He would definitely be able to afford the camera and many other things. Along with eating exquisite candle lit dinners with wine and lobster tails.
The murderer Lars Thorwald is a salesman. As a salesman he would make around $1,200 a month. He lives in a studio apartment, which would be cheaper than the apartment that Jeff lived in. He doesn’t have much in his house so you can tell he seems to be a pretty simple man. He is seen with suitcases when packing to leave, which costs about $4.95.
Some of the items seen in the movie are: lawn chairs at $14.88, a phonograph around $200 dollars, and fancy hair-dos depending on what you wanted from $3.00 to $25.00. There were many sales that went on daily. With all the sales there was and with the careers these tenants had, I do believe they were able to afford all of the above and more. On a rainy day you see people pass through the street seen by the alleyway, in the 1950s raincoats cost somewhere between $7.95 - $16.50 depending on which brand or kind of coat.
Cited Works:
"Classified Ad 3 -- No Title." New York Times 24 Aug. 1953, Print.
"Classified Ad 7 -- No Title." New York Times 20 Jul 1954, Print.
"Classified Ad 20 -- No Title." New York Times 17 Oct. 1954, Print.
"Classified Ad 40 -- No Title." New York Times 14 Nov. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 3 -- No Title." New York Times 30 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 22 -- No Title." New York Times 29 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 24 -- No Title." New York Times 30 Dec. 1954, Print.
"Display Ad 153 -- No Title." New York Times 23 Mar. 1952, Print.
"Display Ad 167 -- No Title." New York Times 18 May 1952, Print.
"Display Ad 692 -- No Title." New York Times 15 Apr. 1952, Print.
*Note: The sites that I have added I got from the web, because the books I’ve been looking through don’t have actual prices… I still have the web cited works and I will put them in the paper. You had just said you don’t want websites as resources so I turned them into ‘print’ cited works, if they are not correct, let me know and I will put the ‘web’ cited works.
Ps. This is not a full draft but I do have most of the rest of the information I am going to add to finish it. I just have to organize it and research a few more things.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Blog 17
The movie Minority Report and the two passages Free Will and Determinism in the world of minority report and Oedipus the King all share a common discussion, if humans have free will when they know the future. Humans do have free will. It is their choice to find out about their future and it is also their choice to try to change whatever their future sentence may be. There are many different examples of knowing the future and deciding what to do about it in the movie and two passages.
In the movie a man named John Anderton works for the ‘precrime’ police. He is to stop people from murdering before it happens, with the help of three different humans with special powers (‘precogs’) to see murders being committed before they actually happen. They later find that the two of the three precogs thought one way of the murder and the other one thought another, later finding out that the one precog was seeing the correct murder. In the beginning of the movie the precrime police bust into an apartment of a man who they believe will murder his wife for cheating on him. They arrest him for the ‘future murder’ of killing his wife. John Anderton and the people who arrested the man don’t even know for a fact if he was really going to kill his wife.
While watching more of the movie you will see John Anderton with the more accurate precog. It has come to this part because the precogs had foreseen Anderton murdering a man, he didn’t even know. When he arrives to the place where he is supposed to murder this man, the precog tells John, he has a choice and doesn’t need to kill the man. He chooses to not kill the man. Right there you see that he did have free will, when the current events seemed to be his destiny in murdering a man.
In the passage called Free Will and Determinism in the world of minority report, they talk about how the only way to have free will is to have “two things: alternative possibilities and self-control.” It mentions how robots don’t have free will because they don’t have alternative possibilities, but when it comes to humans they almost always have alternative possibilities. They even have self-control it’s just their choice whether they practice it or not. If people were to be in a situation whether life or death, for example if someone is trying to shoot them and the only escape is to jump off a bridge into water, it’s his choice in which to make.
No matter if you get yourself in the situation or the situation comes to you, you always have a choice in the matter what to make. Like we mentioned in class, addiction can get out of control. When it comes to addiction, we have a choice to start it, than to keep going back to it, once we hit the addiction it’s your choice not to go to rehab. You may not want to stop or go to rehab but that doesn’t mean you don’t have free will. You might not like either choice that’s set upon you but you still have one, showing that people do have free will.
In the story of Oedipus and the King it starts out by Oedipus’ father going to an Oracle to find out the future about his soon to be born son Oedipus. The Oracle tells him that Oedipus will kill him, his father. With that the father goes to have him killed but the servant sends him away. There was no way to tell if he could stop Oedipus from killing him or not. So Oedipus grows up in a faraway land, to be nowhere near his father. The passage explains when Oedipus grows up he also goes to the Oracle to find out about his future. He hears the same thing his father had heard, that he will kill his father and because he does not know that he is ‘adopted’ he runs away to the land he was born to avoid killing his father. He enters the land he was born in and events occur in which he kills his real father. With these series of events it was all choice. He might not have known who his real father was but he chose not to stay where he was and make sure he did not kill the father he thought was his real father. That’s also when self-control would come into the picture, if he were to stay with the man he thought was his father. He would make sure that anger didn’t overpower him and kill the man, but because he tried to avoid it, it ended up coming true anyways.
People always have free will. With all the scenarios it’s uncertain if these things were to have happened, if they did things differently and if they weren’t so cautious, the previous events might not have come in play. When people know the future and they are not happy with it they try to change it and that’s what makes them achieve what was told to them. Even if you don’t know the future things may all fall into place or turn out bad depending on the choices you make. So when it boils down everyone has a choice in everything they choose to do. Which means that everyone has free will.
In the movie a man named John Anderton works for the ‘precrime’ police. He is to stop people from murdering before it happens, with the help of three different humans with special powers (‘precogs’) to see murders being committed before they actually happen. They later find that the two of the three precogs thought one way of the murder and the other one thought another, later finding out that the one precog was seeing the correct murder. In the beginning of the movie the precrime police bust into an apartment of a man who they believe will murder his wife for cheating on him. They arrest him for the ‘future murder’ of killing his wife. John Anderton and the people who arrested the man don’t even know for a fact if he was really going to kill his wife.
While watching more of the movie you will see John Anderton with the more accurate precog. It has come to this part because the precogs had foreseen Anderton murdering a man, he didn’t even know. When he arrives to the place where he is supposed to murder this man, the precog tells John, he has a choice and doesn’t need to kill the man. He chooses to not kill the man. Right there you see that he did have free will, when the current events seemed to be his destiny in murdering a man.
In the passage called Free Will and Determinism in the world of minority report, they talk about how the only way to have free will is to have “two things: alternative possibilities and self-control.” It mentions how robots don’t have free will because they don’t have alternative possibilities, but when it comes to humans they almost always have alternative possibilities. They even have self-control it’s just their choice whether they practice it or not. If people were to be in a situation whether life or death, for example if someone is trying to shoot them and the only escape is to jump off a bridge into water, it’s his choice in which to make.
No matter if you get yourself in the situation or the situation comes to you, you always have a choice in the matter what to make. Like we mentioned in class, addiction can get out of control. When it comes to addiction, we have a choice to start it, than to keep going back to it, once we hit the addiction it’s your choice not to go to rehab. You may not want to stop or go to rehab but that doesn’t mean you don’t have free will. You might not like either choice that’s set upon you but you still have one, showing that people do have free will.
In the story of Oedipus and the King it starts out by Oedipus’ father going to an Oracle to find out the future about his soon to be born son Oedipus. The Oracle tells him that Oedipus will kill him, his father. With that the father goes to have him killed but the servant sends him away. There was no way to tell if he could stop Oedipus from killing him or not. So Oedipus grows up in a faraway land, to be nowhere near his father. The passage explains when Oedipus grows up he also goes to the Oracle to find out about his future. He hears the same thing his father had heard, that he will kill his father and because he does not know that he is ‘adopted’ he runs away to the land he was born to avoid killing his father. He enters the land he was born in and events occur in which he kills his real father. With these series of events it was all choice. He might not have known who his real father was but he chose not to stay where he was and make sure he did not kill the father he thought was his real father. That’s also when self-control would come into the picture, if he were to stay with the man he thought was his father. He would make sure that anger didn’t overpower him and kill the man, but because he tried to avoid it, it ended up coming true anyways.
People always have free will. With all the scenarios it’s uncertain if these things were to have happened, if they did things differently and if they weren’t so cautious, the previous events might not have come in play. When people know the future and they are not happy with it they try to change it and that’s what makes them achieve what was told to them. Even if you don’t know the future things may all fall into place or turn out bad depending on the choices you make. So when it boils down everyone has a choice in everything they choose to do. Which means that everyone has free will.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Blog 16
The movie I have chosen Rear Window is about a man who is stuck in a wheelchair and decides to spend his time looking out his window. When looking out the window he starts to spy on what people are doing. While looking out his window he watches many different people live their lives. When people come over to his house he constantly talks about what he sees. He starts watching this man and his wife. After watching them for awhile he realizes the wife is no longer in the apartment and that the man is acting suspicious. He puts all the clues together and tries to figure out what happened. So he keeps on spying on the apartment they live in and tries to see for sure if he did indeed kill his wife.
I cannot really say how the movie relates to NYC for the fact that it is filmed with one kind of view in such a small area. I wouldn’t be able to say that it is definitely based around a New York area or not because it doesn’t show the city at all. I would have to base everything on characters, their actions and objects alone.
In this movie we do not really see NYC. In Rear Window New York City is not shown at all. One of the characters is a young woman who is a dancer. She gets dressed up in her dress, heeled shoes and pearl jewelry and goes out. If she does not go out she has a little get together in her apartment. Another man who has a piano in his living room also has parties in his apartment. It portrays a lot of city aspects in the movie, such as the ‘night life’ and people are always walking around outside. There are little things like seeing children playing hopscotch on the sidewalk. You see the reflection of street lights on. The men are always dressed up in suits. There is a character that is a woman who plants and sun-bathes in her backyard. There isn’t even a lot of communication between people who live in the same building.
I cannot really say how the movie relates to NYC for the fact that it is filmed with one kind of view in such a small area. I wouldn’t be able to say that it is definitely based around a New York area or not because it doesn’t show the city at all. I would have to base everything on characters, their actions and objects alone.
In this movie we do not really see NYC. In Rear Window New York City is not shown at all. One of the characters is a young woman who is a dancer. She gets dressed up in her dress, heeled shoes and pearl jewelry and goes out. If she does not go out she has a little get together in her apartment. Another man who has a piano in his living room also has parties in his apartment. It portrays a lot of city aspects in the movie, such as the ‘night life’ and people are always walking around outside. There are little things like seeing children playing hopscotch on the sidewalk. You see the reflection of street lights on. The men are always dressed up in suits. There is a character that is a woman who plants and sun-bathes in her backyard. There isn’t even a lot of communication between people who live in the same building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)