Title Page | Overview | Documents | Surveys | Exercises
Clips | Profiles | Results | Reflections | References
@2006 Ed Gallagher, Professor of English, Lehigh Lab Fellow. Lehigh University.
Copyright, Terms of Use and Privacy Policy applicable to this site.

Some Examples of Five Eyes' Posts

A place to start when looking for models for thinking about how to serve

key aspects of each type of post are bolded

some observations

These real student examples are actually from courses subsequent to the one that was the subject of the project. These examples are not "perfect." They are ones in which the students were "on track" and are meant to be suggestive of the way to approach each eye. They are best thought of, perhaps, as the basis for discussion rather than imitation. Also, they were all written before I started raising consciousness about writing socially, so the principles of writing socially should be factored in to any discussion of these examples as models.

Hypothesize

H-1)  My task was to watch this film and discuss what I think the film [High Noon] is 'about'.  The main point that I think the director was trying to get across was a comment on the negative aspect of how people can get very narrow sighted about a situation when they don't think that it affects them at all.

At the begining of the film there are people who are constantly praising Kane for the job he did cleaning the town up, making it a place that one could raise a family.  The people of the town loved him for what he did, or at least they appeared to.  Kane came back to the town to stop Miller from coming after him and his wife.  He figured that the people he had helped would back him up and help him in his time of need.  The reaction of the town did not surprise me too much.  They figured that Miller was just coming back for Kane, so it wasen't there problem.  This sort of atitude is a very natural reaction.  Most people are not going to put their life on the line for something that they don't think will affect or involve them at all.  The problem with this is that it did affect them, just because Miller was coming back for Kane specifically does not mean that they wheren't involved.

Even with Kane, and some of the other citizens, pointing out how things would change the second Miller came back they didn't care.  They where all happy just hoping for the best and living with the consiquences.  Even the people who agreed with Kane where still talked into backing down from fighting on his side.  Despite all this Kane still stands and fights when he could have gone on with his new wife to another town where he probably could have obtained help from the Marshal there.  This seemed to be a constant ideal throughout the whole movie.  People only caring about themselves while someone who has helped them in the past is in trouble.

H-2)  On the surface I would say that this movie [Ulzana's Raid] was made for typical, obvious reasons.  It exemplifies the Classic Western tale of bad indians vs. good white men/americans.  As is to be expected, the white men, though hurt, end up winning the battle.  I'm sure that this idea invokes pride and patriotism in all who watch it - a positive idea to be sending to Americans in the 1970's.  However, i think that the issues go much much deeper than that.  It is definitely true that Indians are portrayed as savage monsters in this movie.  Yet questions are constantly raised throughout the film as to why they are like this.  I think that by even having characters in the movie ask that question, forces the audience to consider it for themselves.  Kenitay explains that Apaches (or Indians in general) have always been like that and that the killings are about taking power and making yourself stronger.  When I thought about it this way I realised that perhaps by killing the white men so savagely, the Indians are trying to reclaim the power that they lost when they were robbed of their land and forced to submit to the "Americans".  By raising this question in the movie, the director is presenting the Indians as savage yet is also implying that perhaps we are part of the cause for their savagery.

H-3)  I believe there are several meanings behind the work of High Noon.  First, the movie was made in the fifties at the height of McCarthyism.  A review of the literature states that the director, several years after the movie came out, admitted that High Noon was about Hollywood’s surrender to McCarthyism.  Kane’s story reflects the story of those who were blacklisted in Hollywood, who took a stand before the House of Un-American Activities Committee and refused to name names.  The literature about High Noon creates the perception that High Noon was made by leftists on the receiving end of the blacklist, who felt betrayed and embattled.  This interpretation did not surface until several years after the movie was released.  I think there is another meaning behind High Noon.  I think High Noon is about the conflict between personal responsibility and the needs of the community.  High Noon reveals a growing shift in American cultural norms during the time it was made.  It exposes the ambiguity about morals, and what seems to be an increasing doubt that moral action is possible within the American community.  High Noon suggests that middle class America, or what is sometimes referred to as “the center”, have lost their willingness and the nerve to defend themselves against a threat to their very existence.  There is one individual, Will Kane, who has retained a clear moral vision to face this threat alone.  I think the director meant to criticize the center and its failure to support the courageous moral individual who risks all to defend a community unworthy of that defense.

H-4)  Ben Franklin’s “An Edict by the King of Prussia” appeared as a humorous newspaper article and was used to make the British realize the many ways that they were wronging the colonists.  The article had the King of Prussia making outrageous claims towards Britain.  These claims were made to parallel those of Britain towards the colonists.  As one gets further in the article it becomes more and more apparent that the purpose of it is to allow England to see the colonist’s situation indirectly.  This is done through numerous examples.  Franklin traces back the lineage of Prussia and asserts that they should be getting royalties from all of the lands that were originally traceable to them.  He also says that transferring wool and manufacturing hats are illegal and heavy fines apply if caught.  These are blatantly inane laws made to mirror similar taxes that the colonists endured.  Lastly Franklin states, “All persons on this island are cautioned not to oppose in any wise the execution of this our edict…such opposition being High Treason.”  With this hilarious article Franklin clearly delivers his message to Britain without using hostile words.

H-5) I think the movie “Shane” is about the struggle between American ideality vs. reality.  In this country we all have an idealistic “American” image as to how we should behave and look.  This perfectly moral beautiful heroic image is represented by Shane.  Imagery and style are used to frame Shane an idealistic superhuman.  We all strive for the image that Shane portrays.  However, reality restrains us from attaining this perfect image.  In this movie, the Starretts represent reality.  Our day to day lives force us to live in reality with the Starretts, while at the same time we continually strive for the unattainable ideals that Shane embodies.  If in fact we do finally become the idealistic person we all want to be, we would no longer fit into reality.  In fact we would probably try to do everything we could to fit back into reality as Shane attempted to do.  This movie represents this message very well in that Shane, who is ideal in every way and someone who we all wish we could be, is actually “an outsider to the locus of family-community-progress which the Starrets, embody” (Albright).  He desperately wants to fit back into reality, but in the end accepts that this is not realistic.

"Analyze

A-1)  whats up guys, the movie [The Wild Bunch] to me seemed very drawn out and boring through parts, consequently i found myself having a hard time paying attention.  But anyway i did pick up on a few things that the director did throughout the film that gave many of the scenes more meaning.  The first thing that comes to mind when i think of the film is the opening scene where the kids are putting the scorpions in the pile of red ants and watching it die.  From that point i think the whole tone of the movie was being set.  I think the director was using that scene to foreshadow what was going to be happening in the film.  Another thing that stuck out in my mind was the use of slow motion during many of the fight scenes.  This was the first film where the fight scenes actually could draw you in and almost get you to side with one of the groups.  I think the director took this approach to make you feel like you were more involved with each of the characters.  The way the camera zoomed in on many of their faces during pivitol parts of the film really brought you into the mid of each individual character.  For example the one scene where this is obvious is the scene with the baby crying and the prostitutes.  We see a look on one of the characters' faces which gives us insight into the change that is occuring in his mind.  Some of these ideas may seem far fetched but these were the impressions i got when i was watching the film.

A-2)  -Hey all, this is my take on the director's decisions

Personally, this is the best film [High Noon] we've seen thus far and a lot of that has to do with the choices the director made.  The obvious portrayal he wanted was for everyone to feel for Will Cain when he is foresaken by the cowardice of the townspeople.  The entire first section of the movie is devoted to showing how everyone fears the Williams', Pierce, and Colby and the rest of the film shows how the townspeople abandon the man who made their town decent in his true time of need. The bellhop at the hotel starts the ball rolling and then it's a downward spiral for Cain.  The showdowns in the saloon and church are also done very well.  People are for and against helping Cain but, noone gets up when he leaves, even the man who directs the speeches and appears to be his good friend.

Their town's cowardice is especially shown in two specific scenes.  The first is when Cain goes to his friends house and his so-called friend has his wife lie for him.  A true coward.  The second is the look on everyone's faces during the amazingly done suspenseful scene when Cain is writing his will.  Every face seems to say at the same time "Why didn't I help him?...I let him die after all he did for us...".

Also, the constant return to the seemingly neverending railroad tracks and the three impatient men is a great symbol of Cain's impending doom.  It truly conveyed the suspense of the moment and the short amount of time it all occurred in.

The most powerful and well done scene, which is one of the most fitting endings to any film I have ever watched, was the throwing of the star into the ground.  He threw it in their faces in pure disgust.  The blatent defiance was perfect.  He saves the town from lawlessness for a second time when he isn't even marshall and he stands alone when he does it.

A-3)  The real moral of this movie [The Searchers], if you would call it that, is that just blindly hating people for race or sex is foolish and dangerous.  Ethan realizes that his niece has acclimated and assimilated to her captors and this is absolutely tears him apart and so his hatred turns towards his niece.  The director uses Ethans half brother as a tool to makes his point.  Ethan hates Indians and so he hates the idea that a half Indian is going to help him but this only shows us that being an Indian or a White Westerner doesn't mean anything because Martin is helping Ethan and Debbie is assimilating to her captors.

A-4)  The hypothesis that this movie is about knowledge and how we come to acquire and interpret that knowledge can be supported in various scenes and with in various characters through out the movie.  The characters and the relationships between the characters in the movie are very confusing.  For instance, early in the movie we soon notice a certain relationship between Ethan and Martha, however we are uncertain of what it is and when it occurred.  Several times they are seen exchanging glances and a few times Ethan kisses Martha on the forehead.  When Ethan returns home to the burning house, the first name he yells is Martha, not his brother’s name of whom he is related to and grew up with.  The audience is left to make assumptions as to what Ethan and Martha’s relationship was.  They are left to perceive what happened between the two in the past.  Another example of a confusing relationship is the one between Marty and Ethan.  Ethan is very rude to Marty right off the bat although we do know that Ethan found Marty (supposedly) as a baby, stranded somewhere.  However, we do not know what accounts for Ethan’s disavowal of his rescue of Marty.  Then at one point in the movie Ethan begins to confide in Marty, saying “There is something I want you to know”.  However, Ethan is unable to finish his statement and again the audience is left guessing as to what Ethan was going to say.  Is Ethan Marty’s father?  What was Ethan going to say?  Later Ethan recognizes Marty’s mothers scalp in Scar’s tent.  Why, if she had been just a casual acquaintance, does he immediately recognize it after tall these years?  Again, Ford never tells us that Ethan is Marty’s father; he just gives the audience hints that it might be the case.

A-5)  Sex and Violence seem to be reoccurring intertwined themes in Unforgiven.  It seems the women’s role in this film is to control the men and expose their myths, undercutting the typical western.  It is the women’s action in offering the reward that defines the plot and controls much of the action.  By manipulating the men, the women reveal how easily men are prone to violence.  The film places marriage to a good woman as a prime means of achieving order and curbing male excess.  Both Claudia (Munny’s wife) and Sally (Ned’s wife) have transformed their husbands from killers into farmers.  Ned and Munny’s ability to kill is probably related to their differing expenditure of sexual energy.  Ned is married to a woman.  Munny is married, but has lost his woman.  In fact, Ned is the only man in the film with a wife that is living.  He is also the one who is probably the most active sexually and he is the least violent character in the movie.  He is the only one who makes the decision to return home and forego violence.  We also see the connection between sexuality and violence when Quick Mike attacks Delilah because she inadvertently giggles at his teensy little penis.  He has been embarrassed sexually by a woman and becomes violent by cutting her face.  In addition, the name “Quick” Mike suggests a comment on his sexual prowess.  The name “Little” Bill invites us to relate his violence to an overcompensating denial of male inadequacy.  He does not have a wife or any woman in the film.  Perhaps his lack of female companionship is at the root of his compulsive violence.  There is also a link between male genitals and firearms when Little Bill explains to Beauchamp that Corky Corcoran was known as “Two gun” not because he wore tow pistols, but because he had a penis that was so big it was longer than the barrel on the gun he carried. 

Synthesize

S-1)  I am having a tough time finding many direct and obvious connections between Ulzana's Raid and Hell's Hinges.  Ulzaza'a Raid was filmed 60 years later and focuses mainly on the relationship between the white man and the Indians on the frontier, whereas Hell's Hingles takes place in a lawless town, so finding parallels between them is a little difficult.  However I was able to see a similarity regarding religion.  Both films seemed to focus on the fact that on the frontier, where people have separated and regressed from civilization, there is no room for religion. In both Hell's Hinges and Ulzana's raid we see a young man, one who is an actual priest, the other who is a son of a priest attempt to incorporate religion into life on the frontier.  Lt. Debuin, who has a priest for a father, believes early on in the movie that all the Apache need is to be given a chance, and that Christianity may be the key to stopping the feud between the two races.  However, it is not long before he realizes that nothing will help stop the fighting.  Throughout the book and even at the end he is still trying to incorporate Christianity into the frontier, telling McIntosh that being left to die is, "Not Christian," and McIntosh says, "You're right Lt.....it's not.  In Hell's Hinges we see the same rejection of Christianity, it is just much more obvious and a much larger part of the plot.  But both movies make it pretty clear that the frontier is not ready for religion.

S-2)  It seems to me that the people in the films we are watching are getting progressively worse.  In Shane everyone except the villains were good people who were only trying to live their lives.  Even the villains of the movie had a clear purpose which could be understood.  In MDC the people were not good wholesome people but they were good at heart and in the end all acted like it.  The villains didn’t have a clear reason for killing except to steal but they were the only ones who were truly bad.  However, in this movie [High Noon] the people turned their back on someone who gave them their town.  Without Kane the town would be lawless and “not fit to raise children.”  This does not prevent them from turning their back on him when he needed them the most.  I have more respect for the villains then I do for the townspeople. 

All three movies we have seen so far have shown how one person can change a town and vice versa.  In Shane he saves the homesteaders from the ranchers thus freeing them from having to live in fear that they will lose their land.  In MDC Wyatt changes the town for the better by “removing” the Claytons.  In High Noon Ben Miller was able to change the town for the worse just by coming back.  It went from a seemingly close knit, good place to live, to one where people were willing to stab each other in the back. 

S-3)  I thought The Searchers was a very strange movie.  It was very different from the western movies we had watched previously.  Every western has to have a hero and this hero usually possesses generic qualities that fit to the western genre.  Isolated, moral, good looking, ideal etc.  In the beginning of the film, and even when the film was over, I thought the hero was Ethan.  He arrived alone out of no where, he separated himself from the other characters, he was fearless and almost always knew what to when.  However, after reviewing the literature and thinking about the movie a bit more, I thought that Marty could have also been the hero in the movie.  He was the one that actually risked his life to save Debbie when no one else was willing to do it.  He was the moral character, stead fast and relentless in his beliefs and his mission to save Debbie.  Ethan was portrayed as immoral in the movie.  His language and the way he treated people was not typical or expected of a western hero.  The previous movies all had a hero that possessed a high moral persona.  Shane was extremely moral, Wyatt Earp, always did the right thing.  Will Kane did the moral thing and defended his town against Miller’s evil rule.  Ethan however, seemed to feud with his brother, with Marty and with the Captain.  He used racial slurs and spoke his mind in a direct almost rude way.  He didn’t seem to care for anyone except himself and he was even accused of murder by many.  Marty was the moral character.  He influenced Ethan’s way of thinking.  I think Marty was the true hero of the story.  Marty however, is incorporated into the society of the film.  At the end he gets Laurie and lives happily ever after as a homesteader.  It is Ethan who is alone again at the end of the movie.  He is the loner and not incorporated into society.  And so it is he who is probably thought of as the hero in this film. 

S-4)  When reading a slave narrative, the focus is primarily on a slave’s trials and tribulations, and their desire to escape slavery.  However, in George Fitzhugh’s Southern Thought, the southern slave owner’s perspective is the focus.  Instead of arguing the validity or actively apologizing, Fitzhugh sets out to defend the southern slave owner’s perspective of slavery.  Although sympathy primarily rests with the slaves, the argument of the merits of slavery is no longer one-sided.  The ability to envision slavery from both sides, although they are stark opposites, causes the arguments made in such essays as Henry Highland Garnet’s, “An Address to the Slaves of the United States of America, Buffalo, N.Y., 1843,” far less one-dimensional.  The slave owners enter into each argument Garnet makes.  Slave owners want to hold on to what they know and are comfortable with, while slaves are fighting for anything, but what they know.  Because slavery was overthrown, the perspective today focuses on the injustices committed to those who were enslaved.  The slave owners are perceived as wrong and even evil at times.  The story of slavery is currently told primarily from one perspective.  Forgetting, discounting, or sheltering the other perspective, whether the perspective is right or wrong, partially invalidates the slave’s stories.   Although the greater injustice lies with the slaves, the feelings and troubles of the slave owners must also come into play.  People forget that by correcting an injustice, many people were hurt. Fitzhugh allows the slaveholder’s feelings not to be overlooked.   Southern Thought impassions the reader not only to take in to account how the changes suggested by Garnet will positively affect the slaves, but also to realize the ramifications Garnet’s changes will have on the slave owners and the South.

S-5)  High Noon seems to be almost un-American compared to My Darling Clementine and Shane.  Unlike the previous two films (Shane and Clementine), High Noon incorporates its hero into society.  Kane actually gets married.  He is on track to becoming a citizen.  This is different from Shane and Clementine where the hero does not get the girl or get married.  Earp and Shane remain above everyone in the town.  Because of Kane’s closeness to civilization, I think the town has lost some faith in his ability to meet the challenge of Miller.  He loses the support of the town.  I think this film is also a bit un-American because Kane is portrayed as not in control of the situation.  Can you imagine a western hero not in control?  There are several times where Kane is shown with beads of sweat, worried looks, and one time he is caught by Harvey in the barn thinking about taking a horse and riding out of town.  In Shane and Clementine both hero’s were in control of every situation.  At no time did it seem they were worried about anything.  Finally, High Noon seems to be a bit un-American because it lacks the picturesque scenery that is so common among westerns.  The scenery in High Noon is very stark and real.  In Shane and in Clementine the scenery was very ideal to what America thinks of when they picture the west.  I think the very stark scenery plays to the fact that Kane is a very real hero.

Internalize

I-1)  I've been having a tough time thinking how to internalize this film [The Wild Bunch].  i'd say it is my favorite so far, but it's hard to pull anything from it that i can relate to.  the world isn't passing me by like it was the outlaws, and i'm not getting too old to do what i do.  i guess maybe the relationship between thornton and pike can be related to having a sports rival who is also your friend.  i grew up playing tennis with a group of guys in my neighbor hood, we all learned and practiced together until highschool when a few went to private schools and the rest of us to the public high school.  up until that point we had competed on the same team for our club, and now we were on rival teams.  it's a weird range of emotions that you go through when you are up against a friend and old partner.  you still want to win, but there is that friendship that makes you feel like you wouldn't mind loosing to him.  it's a different level than just mutual respect for a worthy opponent, it's somebody that you truly know. these emotions between pike and thornton made an interesting chase.  thornton was chasing pike, but he would have much rather been riding with him.  just like i was going to play my hardest to win, but would have rather been on the same team playing a common rival.

I-2)  A development that i think we may all at some level may be able to relate to was the development of young officer Deduin, ( which i will now refer to as "D").  When he first begins his search for Ulzana he is young and naive and wants to believe that everyone has an underlying goodness to them.  But through the course of the plot he begins to mature and make controversial decisions, one could even say he becomes a little reckless.  He begins to think that all Indians can't be trusted; he associates people of a same group as having the same motives and feelings.  When he finally understands in the end and accepts Kenitay as man and begins to listen and not be so hot headed he has finally come full circle.  In a way we have all done this and acted like this.  This type of sequence has come up numerous times in everyone's life.  Take college for example, most of us when we got here were naive, we had no idea what was going on and had no idea what to expect.  But then we begin to settle in and by the time we are sophomores we feel we know everything there is to know about how the school works and that all teachers are out to get us and that the administration is out to ruin the school, i mean we have all had our suspicions.  Because of this many of us, at least i know i have, jumped to quick conclusions and made decisions that in retrospect were pretty dumb.  But now as we begin to get even older and begin to mature a little more we realize things.  We realize that things really aren't that bad and that people aren't all the same and that trusting people and not flying off and ranting and raving about little things is probably the better way to handle situations.  Though it may be a far stretch to relate these two things, i think it is not hard to argue that D goes through a maturation process as do all of us.

I-3)  Ann Eliza Bleeker describes her forced flee from her home and the tragic loss of her child in “Written in the Retreat from Burgoyne.”  This dreadfully sad piece, written in prose and verse, is a mother’s firsthand account of the grief of war and how it claimed the life of her daughter Abella.  “Comfort I wish’d not for, I lov’d my grief.”  Bleeker is not able to be reconciled, even by her friends, of this tragic and unbearable loss.  It is awful to lose a loved one.  Not being a parent, I can only imagine the agony of burying your child.  I can, however, unfortunately tie this feeling to one that I witnessed in my junior year of high school.  My classmate was killed by a drunk driver.  It was awful, and his family was a wreck.  I remember Matt’s parents coming to our school for an assembly for our SADD (Students Against Drinking and Driving) Club.  They opened the floor for questions, and were talking about how it helps sometimes to think of Matt during good times.  I raised my hand and asked his mother what she thinks brings her the most comfort, in hope that some of us, who also missed him very much, could follow her example.  I’ll never forget what she said.  “Nothing helps,” she replied bluntly.  “My son is dead, and I’m supposed to accept it and feel better, but I never will.  I think about how he was taken from me everyday.”  I was floored.  Almost ashamed that I had asked the wrong question, I realized that there was no answer.  There is no cure for a mother’s grief.

I-4)  Unforgiven is a powerful movie.  It may be hard to relate with in this day and age... or maybe not.  Munny's character actually reminded me of an ex-boyfriend.   He had been to jail several times for violent acts that he performed while under various influences (bad friends, drugs, alcohol) and basically was headed nowhere.  He did not even have his high school diploma at age 20.  However, he cleaned up his act, got a GED and is now working and taking classes at his local Community College.  This turn around reminded me of Munny's character.  However, when old friends would call my ex and ask for favors, usually involving money, he sometimes gave in.  I was personally let down when Munny decided to go with the Schofield Kid and Ned (as well as when Ned decided to go) because it reminded me of my ex's weakness.  There are other ways to make money than by dishonest deeds, no matter how familiar they are for you, and what may start as a small 'favor' may turn into a mess as it did for Munny and Ned.  I think this movie is a Western version of the modern day punk gone good for love gone bad again for money.  It happens often.

I-5)  Internalizing is probably the hardest “eye” for me to do but I’ll give it a try.  The idea about killing being a good thing or even fun was shown throughout the movie [Unforgiven].  The Schofield Kid was the best example of this.  He bragged about how many people he killed and was normally smiling or beaming with pride when he talked about his “killings”.  You’re probably asking yourself how does this related to me?  While I haven’t killed anyone, I was in the Army where we trained to do it on a fairly regular basis.  The base I was stationed at Ft. Irwin, (the National Training Center) is probably the largest desert combat training area in the world.  After a while you forget what you are training to do there and it becomes fun (think a really big game of laser tag).  There was a contrast however between people like myself who has never seen combat and people like my boss who was in the original desert storm (and who was over in Iraq this past year).  They realized what we were doing and what it meant as many of the people in the movie eventually saw, while us Schofield Kids were just having fun prior to Sept 11th.

Criticize

C-1)  I'd like to focus on the way that Ulzana's raid ended.  The ending was different than most movies I have seen.  It had no winners and no losers and no real hero's but I liked the way the movie was different than other movies.  It made me think that the director was trying to prove a point about the violence of war.  I think many movies glorify war.  Ulzana’s raid shows the brutality of war with losers on both side.  One of the reasons why Ulzana’s raid isn’t on the top 30 westerns list is ["because"] it is not the type of fan friendly western with the hero riding off into the sunset.  I’m still not sure exactly of what the movie was trying to portray.  It probably was related to the Vietnam War and for the time period it was made it brought to light some of the realities of war and ["because of"] that is why I feel the ending was very good.

C-2)  Hey ya'll

I've really been catching a lot of flack from my group members for my perspective on this movie [The Searchers].  My main critique of this film was how Scar and Martin, the only two Indians with lines in the movie, where played by white people.  Scar is the whitest Indian I've ever seen, he has blue eyes for crying out loud, just because you put war paint on your face and feathers on your head doesn't mean you pass off as an Indian.

Ok, with that being said let me tell you how that affected the movie for me.  Many people in my group have been trying to tell me that the movie tries to address its racial issues in one way or another.  And I must say that my group’s claims that the film is trying to deconstruct racism were insightful and I see where they and Ford where trying to come from.

But to me the movie looses all credibility and relevance by having these white actors play Indians.  For example, throughout the movie we see the dehumanizing of Indians mainly through the main character of Ethan. He shoots the one Indians eyes out, he massacres buffalo so the Indians won't have food, he tries to kill Debbie because she has been "tainted", and so on.  Now, the movie has a chance to be powerful and moving through the character of Martin for, as we know he is the compassionate character in the movie and defends the lives of the innocent.  The problem is that Ford fails to convey Ethan's ignorance and racial issues of the movie by having Martin played by a white guy.  Lets say they make Martin look just a bit Native (make him a half breed).  To me that would have lent a lot more reverence to his character for it would have juxtaposed the racist Anglo-Saxon views of Ethan's character with that of the compassionate (half) Indian views of Marty who becomes, what many people posted as, the true hero by movies end.

The fact that Scar and Marty are played by white men only further reinforces Ethan's dehumanizing view of Indians that the movie presents.  To me it’s the equivalent of black face actors.  I see what Ford was trying to do, and I don't think this movie was trying to come off racist.  But for reasons listed above, it came across that way to me.  Trying to pass off white guys as Indians makes the movie's loose all of its relevance no matter what the message may be.

C-3)  Everybody,

There was one part of the movie that I really thought was a great part and really worked well for the film and that was the part when Martin and Ethan were trading with the Indians and Martin bought himself a wife, even though he had no idea and he thought he had gotten himself a blanket.  This scene worked well with the film because [emphasis added] it really added some humor to the film, which until this part had been very serious and totally focused on the search for Debbie and the others.  I really believed that it broke up the intensity within the movie for a few moments, which is a strategy that is used in many films.  Also, I thought this scene worked extremely well because [emphasis added] throughout the whole movie there was a very high level of racism and in this scene it was kind of funnny to see how a peaceful interaction between the Indians and the men turned out in a way the men never expected.  It was very useful because [emphasis added] it broke up the intense racism and the intensity of the search at the time with some humor, while also providing some insight into the barriers that seperate the white man from the Indians, such as language and culture.

C-4)  Edward’s narrative, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is not an effective way to promote religious practice and participation. ["because"] Edward’s condescending words and tone are the opposite of what true religion is all about.  Edwards states, “Men’s hands can not be strong when God rises up...the strongest have no power to resist Him…He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it” (642).  Edwards communicates that there are only two options in life: obey God or stray and be damned forever.  He attacks his fellow Christians saying, “O sinner…you hang by a slender thread with the flames of divine wrath flashing about…” (647).  Edwards’s words convey such ugly images of hell that it is a turn off to religion as a whole. His method to use fear to get a point across does not reinforce people’s faith in God but only serves to fan the flames of insecurity that his listeners may have.  Edwards portrays himself as all knowing when he states, “And you, children, who are unconverted, do you know that you are going down to hell?”.  Rather than drawing people in toward the comfort and compassion of God, he alienates his audience and does not offer anything but empty threats about the vengeful wrath of God.  Edwards is the only apparent evil in this essay.

C-5)  Thus far, High Noon has been my favorite Western.  I have decided to criticize the end of the movie where Amy shoots one of Miller's men in the back, contributing to Kane's victory.  I think this scene is suspenseful, adding to the anticipation the audience has been feeling throughout the movie.  We still do not know whether Kane will live or die and he is in a tough situation, outnumbered by men and guns.  Maybe without his wife, Kane would have been victorious anyways, but the movie would not have had to same outcome.  In the end, Kane leaves his badge in the dust at the Mayor's feet and rides off to start a new life with his young wife.  He has finished his duty as Marshal by ending Miller's lawless rule for good.  Kane has also realized that the town is unloyal to him, but this scene shows that his wife is loyal.  She was the only one willing to pick up a gun and fight for him.  I believe there is an underlying message in this scene about the power of love and "sticking together."  I do not think (though possible) that Kane would have survived without Amy's interference and he definately would not have much to move on with.  This scene contributes to the movie by ["because of"] building suspense, proving Amy's loyalty, and leaving Kane satisfied and ready to move on.  Without it, the movie would not have been as affective and enjoyable.