Category: Movie Analysis

The HBO movie, ‘Wit’, follows the heart-wrenching story of academic scholar Vivian Bearing as she undergoes an intensive chemotherapy regimen to combat her stage four ovarian cancer diagnosis. The film chronicles Vivian’s patient experience in the hospital setting as she undergoes treatment. Throughout the course of the movie, we see Vivian slowly stripped of her identity as an English scholar and intelligent professor. With every progressing scene, she settles more into the role of the patient as she grows sicker and more helpless. In addition to a grim diagnosis, the majority of Vivian’s hospital experience is soiled by nursing staff and doctors that exhibit little compassion towards her. To some of the lab techs and nursing staff, it seems that she is more of a patient than a person. Many are task-oriented and their lack of desire to know or understand Vivian is communicated with their silence. Even to the doctors, she seems to be just research—simply a patient that they will gather data from. Repeatedly they ask her how she’s feeling, but their questions and responses lack true empathy. Her primary nurse, Susie, is the only healthcare provider in the film that seems to express empathy and care for Vivian. It’s disheartening to watch a human life be treated so carelessly, but a story such as this demonstrates the need for compassion and good therapeutic communication between healthcare providers and their patients. In the next few paragraphs, some examples of non-therapeutic communication from the movie will be discussed, as well as alternative ways situations and conversations could have been handled.

Patient Interaction: Scene One

The first instance of non-therapeutic communication was in the opening scene of the movie where we first met Dr. Kelekian and Vivian Bearing. Dr. Kelekian and Vivian are seated at his desk when he first breaks the news to her that she has cancer. During the conversation, Vivian’s facial expressions suggest that she is experiencing confusion, frustration, and perhaps a bit of shock. Dr. Kelekian then goes on to describe how fast her cancer is spreading and how aggressive the treatment is that her cancer would require. He follows this by stating, “Better not teach next semester” (Bosanquet & Nichols, 2001). This is non-therapeutic communication because he is advising Vivian and thus undermining her freedom to make her own choices and solve her own problem (Edwards, 2019). A more therapeutic technique may have been to say something like, “Vivian, if you were to decide to seek treatment for your diagnosis, the medication you would be receiving is very intense and may affect your ability to continue to teach during treatment. How would you feel about that? Do you have any questions?”. This would be offering reality and asking open questions so that Vivian would be able to think through her options and verbalize her feelings or concerns (Edwards, 2019).

Patient Interaction: Scene Two

A second scene in this movie that displays poor therapeutic communication is early in the film when Vivian waits in a room with a medical technician to undergo a CT scan. We see no introduction or friendliness shown by the tech. After ensuring she had the correct information, the tech quickly exits the room and starts the CT scan without explaining what would happen next or walking Vivian through the procedure—both of which seemed to leave Vivian feeling confused and likely helpless. When the CT scan concludes and the tech returns to the room, she asks Vivian coldly, “Where’s your wheelchair?” (Bosanquet & Nichols, 2001). Vivian replies that she doesn’t know. The CT tech responds, “Well how are you going to get out of here?” (Bosanquet & Nichols, 2001). The tech ends the conversation by saying, “I guess I got to go get you a new wheelchair” (Bosanquet & Nichols, 2001). This kind of communication was probing and seemed to be more an interrogation (Edwards, 2019). It seemed to make Vivian feel like she was an inconvenience, and that somehow, it was her fault that her wheelchair was not in the room. Vivian even says something about being an inconvenience towards the end of the scene. The tech could have solved the problem herself and figured out a wheelchair situation while using an open question when interacting with Vivian to see how the patient feels about being left alone while she retrieves a chair (Edwards, 2019). “Oh, I see that your wheelchair is gone. No trouble. How would you feel about waiting here a moment while I go and get you a chair?”.

Patient Interaction: Scene Three

A third scene in this movie that displays the use of non-therapeutic communication is when Vivian is in isolation after receiving another full dose of chemotherapy. Isolation, even though it was for her own good, likely made Vivian feel lonely. She already wasn’t receiving visitors during her stay in the hospital, and isolation precautions limited her interaction with even the hospital staff. As we see Vivian lying in bed, Dr. Kelekian soon enters the room, does a quick follow up, and leaves. Dr. Jason enters the room next. Without introduction, he begins flipping through the contents of her charts and abruptly begins complaining about how he doesn’t have time for the task. This probably makes Vivian feel unimportant and like she is being an inconvenience once again. After sputtering off something about checking I/O’s, Jason says, “Professor Bearing how are you feeling today?” (Bosanquet & Nichols, 2001). Vivian replies, “Fine, just shaking sometimes from the chills”. Jason replies to Vivian by saying, “IV should kick it anytime now. No problem. Listen, I got to go. Keep pushing the fluids, okay?” (Bosanquet & Nichols, 2001). He then quickly exits the room. Jason’s reply to Vivian’s concern for chills in non-therapeutic. He is reassuring her that her IV will kick in and help and is belittling her concern—both of which communicate a lack of understanding of Vivian’s concerns and displays no compassion (Edwards, 2019). It is like he is not really listening to her. A more appropriate therapeutic response would have been to empathize with Vivian, and maybe even focus in on her concern about chills with asking an open question (Edwards, 2019). He should have said something like, “I understand that chills can be very uncomfortable. Is there something I can do for you to help you to feel better? Would you like a warm blanket?”. Dr. Jason also could have used active listening to show concern. To use active listening, he could have walked to her bedside, and sat down with her, or placed his hand on her hand and showed a facial expression of compassion (Edwards, 2019). Any of these therapeutic techniques would have been good choices.

Self-Evaluation and Plan

After viewing this movie, I see the essential nature for good therapeutic communication skills between healthcare professionals and patients. Though Vivian’s case was terminal, maybe she would have felt a little less confused, scared, and isolated in the last few months of her life if more of the healthcare professionals around her had shown compassion and treated her with more dignity. In the future when I am a practicing RN, I want my patients to trust me and feel safe with me. I want to be intentional in the way that I communicate with them, so they feel understood and genuinely cared for. I would never want a patient of mine to feel like they are just a number, or an inconvenience. It would break my heart for a patient to feel that way or have any experience similar to the main character in this film. I think that sometimes healthcare workers can become task oriented and lose heart for what they’re doing. To us, it may just be another day at work, but to our patients it’s often the worst day or experience of their lives. I feel like it’s just so important to be sensitive and aware of that fact. To fight for that, I want to develop better therapeutic communication skills. I feel like I am better at some of these skills than others. After working in a healthcare setting for a few years, I have learned to empathize with my patients and their families, as well as communicate clearly when it comes to restating and clarifying information. I plan to continue to implement and practice these skills this semester while I work at the hospital. I also plan to learn through gaining experience with patients in clinicals throughout this program. I think that these experiences will help me to develop better therapeutic communication skills and enable me to be the best nurse that I can be when I graduate.

References

1. Bosanquet, S. (Producer), & Nichols, M. (Director). (2001). Wit [Motion picture on DVD]. United States: HBO Home Video.
2. Edwards, A. (2019). Communication in the Context of the Nurse-Client Relationship [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from (http://sole.hsc.wvu.edu/Site/4121/File?InstanceID=779526).

Before I dive into the actual analysis of ‘Thank You for Smoking’ the movie, I’d like to start with how this movie has changed my perception towards public relation professionals and their ability to use a model communication called persuasion as their secret weapon. ‘Thank You for Smoking’ is I think by far the best movie that explains this particular theory in a splendid way. It is well known to the people of the world – including the active smokers, that smoking is a not-so-good behavior to have. People who smoke know exactly that smoking is bad for their health but yet, they still smoke (Martin, 2019). From this movie, I got to watch and learn through the main character on how he can transmit one message and one message only even there are numbers of people and groups tries to debate him, his techniques and skills of negotiation and not to mention his eagerness to explore more about it; it’s what I like the most from this movie. His skill and technique in turning and twisting issues around, smudging the distinctions between negotiation and argument is masterful, clever and classy.

In the simplest way, persuasion means trying to influence the way someone thinks or behaves. According to persuasion theory, the communication process consists of a three-phase model (communication – attitudes – behavior), and the concept underlying persuasion is that information that’s transmitted through a message of communication is provided to influence the intended receivers’ behaviors (McLeod, 2018). Along with that, persuasion is can also be used to reducing the resistance of the targeted market. When an audience opposition to the communicator’s view is moderate it is possible to move an audience from a negative position to a neutral one (McLeod, 2018). This one particular purpose of persuasion is often executed by asking only to accept the validity of the communicator’s opinion, even if the audience doesn’t endorse it (Hogg, 20015).

This movie has done such a great job on explicitly explain how persuasion theory, which is amazingly delivered through Aaron Eckhart acting, can change people’s behavior without changing their mind. And this is where I find myself admire the art of persuasion. According to one of the four theoretical approaches of persuasion theories which is attitude-behavior approaches, one of the underlying assumptions about the link between attitudes and behavior is that of consistency (Schrader & Lawless, 2004). This means that we often or usually expect the behavior of a person to be consistent with the attitudes that they hold.

The principle of this approaches reflects the idea that people are rational and attempt to behave rationally at all times and that a person’s behavior should be consistent with their attitudes (Schrader & Lawless, 2004). And while this principle might be very convincing, it is also clear that people do not always follow it. Sometimes, behaving in seemingly quite illogical ways; for example, drugs using and smoking cigarettes and knowing that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease. The core of this movie messages is Nick Naylor has used this approach repeatedly every time he becomes the spokesperson for his company Big Tobacco. Even though people try to shove the fact that smoking caused cancer and other deadly diseases, Nick seems to tackle all of this statement by admitting that it is a true fact that his company might be selling the number one cause of lungs cancer, but yet his skill and technique in turning and twisting issues around, smudging the distinctions between negotiation and argument is masterful.

Correlated to the theories that are learned in strategic communication research and planning, Naylor’s technique strives to exclude the frontal attack since he is fully aware that any direct argument that point-blank support smoking will not be welcomed by his audience. Instead, he skillfully fails to deal with the issue and conversely diverts the center of attention to an individuals’ libertarian principle concerning the right to make an informed and personal decision to smoke. He is boldly admitting the real fact and speaks out the truth in a charming honesty, stating that it is indeed consuming tobacco is harmful to public health. And at the same time, he has successfully talked his way out and ensuring the public that all is well and even remind them to also count in another factor fact that also should be incorporated with this issue which is; when someone is smoking, the activity and all of the possible outcome from it is their personal choice

This movie is again well related to one of the cognitive processing models called the heuristic-systematic model (HSM). This model is a model of communication introduced by Shelly Chaiken and it’s trying to explain how human communication can not only receive the message but also be affected by it (persuade). In this movie, Naylor even tried to bargain with the one that has a big influence on smoking behavior, the face of Marlboro. He was well aware that if this man speaks to the public especially to those who actively smoke, it will affect his company. HSM also assumes that some groups of people are ‘cognitive misers’ which means that they might be unwilling to engage in highly active, conscious processing of persuasive message content unless it is really necessary (Steginga, K. 2004). Although to be honest, this particular message isn’t my favorite part of this movie, but I think it is still doing a fine job on trying to visualize on how strong an influencer opinion can be to their audience.

In conclusion, Naylor passion, character and imagery sum up his qualities that are necessary to carry out a successful communication campaign. He combines strategies that aim at concealing the truth from the audience, but are cautionary in nature. As such, the free will that Naylor creates, entice individuals to make a choice that is in favor with tobacco smoking. Consumers are assumed to be rational and as such, they make informed and satisfactory decisions. The decisions are guided by personal judgment and knowledge. The film brings an indication that individuals are fed with the communication and they are left to make evaluation of the information that is available. As a result, media on a day-to-day basis execute their role in persuading audience to buy their idea. All in all, when ethos is incorporated with pathos together with imagery the audience, especially the American people, is well attended for, hence they are persuaded. The film also employed the ELM and EPPM frameworks in order to understand the process of persuasion. The film also capture audience feeling that they understand the mass media is playing with their insecurity and vanity, however they sound so attractive. As a result, audience feels like smoking as a tribute to buy their right to choose.

References

1. Hogg, M., & Vaughan, G. (2005). Introduction to Social Psychology. Social Psychology (4th edition). London: Prentice-Hall.
2. McLeod, S. A. (2018). Attitudes and Behavior. Retrieved 29 March from https://www.simplypsychology.org/attitudes.html
3. ‘Rhetorical Analysis: Thank You for Smoking’. Portfolio, 10 Dec. 2009. Retrieved 29 March from rsmith14eportfolio.wordpress.com/rhetorical-analysis-thank-you-for-smoking/
4. Sang, Yoonmo. (2019, March 29). Persuasion Theories II. Lecture. Presentation presented at the lecturing of Strategic Communication Research and Planning in Canberra, Australia.
5. Schrader, P.G. & Lawless, Kimberly. (2004). The Knowledge, Attitudes, & Behaviors Approach How to Evaluate Performance and Learning in Complex Environments. Performance Improvement.
6. Steginga, K.; Occhipinti, S. (2004). ‘The Application of the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model to Treatment Decision Making about Prostate Cancer’. Med Decis Making. 24 (6): 573–583. doi:10.1177/0272989X04271044. PMID 15534339.

Introduction

The movie “Pearl Harbor,” directed by Michael Bay and released in 2001, is a historical epic that portrays the events surrounding the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. While the film received mixed reviews from critics, it remains an important cinematic representation of a pivotal moment in American history. This research paper will delve into various aspects of the movie, including its historical accuracy, portrayal of characters and relationships, and its impact on popular culture.

Historical Accuracy

One of the primary considerations when analyzing a historical film is its accuracy in depicting real events. While “Pearl Harbor” is a fictionalized account, it incorporates significant historical elements. The movie captures the surprise and devastation of the attack accurately, highlighting the destructive power of the Japanese assault. The portrayal of the attack itself is visually stunning, recreating the chaos and destruction experienced during the actual event. However, some critics argue that the film took artistic liberties with the timing and sequence of certain events, and the love triangle plotline overshadowed the historical accuracy of the story.

Portrayal of Characters and Relationships

“Pearl Harbor” places a strong emphasis on character relationships, particularly the love triangle between Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck), Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett), and Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale). While the romantic storyline adds a personal element to the narrative, it has drawn criticism for diverting attention from the historical context. Nevertheless, the film does highlight the camaraderie and bravery of the soldiers stationed at Pearl Harbor, portraying their dedication and sacrifice during the attack. The performances of the main cast members bring depth and emotion to their respective roles, immersing viewers in the lives of these characters during a time of immense turmoil.

Impact on Popular Culture

“Pearl Harbor” had a significant impact on popular culture, introducing a new generation to the events of December 7, 1941. The film’s box office success and widespread distribution ensured that millions of viewers were exposed to this chapter of history. Its release sparked renewed interest in World War II, leading to increased discussion and research on the topic. The movie’s portrayal of heroism and sacrifice resonated with audiences, reminding them of the bravery exhibited by those involved in the actual events. Additionally, the film’s soundtrack, composed by Hans Zimmer, became popular and evoked emotions associated with the film’s themes.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite its commercial success, “Pearl Harbor” received mixed reviews from critics. Some praised its visual effects, action sequences, and emotional impact, while others criticized its historical inaccuracies and heavy focus on the romantic plotline. The film’s length and pacing were also points of contention for many viewers. However, it is essential to recognize that “Pearl Harbor” aimed to entertain as well as educate, balancing historical events with a compelling narrative. While it may not satisfy historians seeking strict accuracy, it remains a cinematic experience that captures the essence of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Conclusion

“Pearl Harbor” is a cinematic portrayal of a significant event in American history that continues to captivate audiences with its blend of action, romance, and tragedy. While it takes creative liberties and emphasizes fictionalized relationships, it effectively conveys the devastating impact of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the resilience of those who lived through it. The film’s historical inaccuracies should be acknowledged, but it also serves as a gateway for viewers to explore and engage with the broader historical context. Despite the criticism it has faced, “Pearl Harbor” remains a notable film that keeps the memory of the attack alive and sparks important conversations about the complexities of historical representation in popular culture.

Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 2001: A Space Odyssey is the story of the discovery of a strange monolith on the moon that prompts a space mission to the planet Saturn. Adapted from a film of the same name the author had also written the screenplay for, the story has been regarded as one of the most culturally and aesthetically significant works.

The author, Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008), was for many years part of the ‘Big Three’ of science fiction, which included Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov. It is clear in A Space Odyssey that he is a big proponent and avid populariser of space travel, as shown by his attention to detail and scientific accuracy in many of his works, especially this one. His love for exploration also shines in the story of A Space Odyssey, as in real life, he discovered the underwater ruins of an old Sri Lankan temple complex.

Strangely enough, the story begins with something one would not expect to be in a sci-fi story – The discovery of the aforementioned monolith takes place during the time when men were still not quite distinguishable from apes. During the first arc, Arthur C. Clarke demonstrates his writing skills, building quite the realistic, believable world of the man-ape protagonist, his surroundings, and the simple, instinctual thoughts running through his primitive brain.

As far out from the planet Earth as the story travels, the technology in this somewhat utopian future remains quite grounded in reality. Well-advised in science, Arthur C. Clarke has been considered one of the most significant writers of the ‘hard science fiction’ genre, a derivative of sci-fi concerned with scientific accuracy and logic. The ideas put into his story are way ahead of his time, considering when the story was written The construction of space stations, which although in the real world at the time of the book’s publishing was still a few years away from the first ever space station being built. It had been only eight years after the first man was launched into space, and already a trip all the way to Saturn through plausible means had already been conceived. One of the main characters is even a spaceship’s onboard AI, the famous HAL-9000, during a decade that had just begun with the replacement of vacuum tubes, and before UNIX was even a thing. Deep hibernation is featured as a method to shorten the lengthy duration for the perception of those aboard the spaceship, with the computer and a few chosen astronauts taking care of the vehicle as it approaches its destination.

One of the most prolific, almost philosophical ideas featured in 2001: A Space Odyssey is the theme of the transcension of humans past their physical bodies. Almost like a prophet, Arthur C. Clarke speaks of the discarding of flesh, surpassing a physical body placing our minds into artificial ones, and eventually transcending past that into what the author describes as god-like beings.

Speaking of AI earlier, Arthur C. Clarke also prophesizes the uprising of A. I am against its human creators, although this is not a new idea by the time this novel was published. The malfunction of HAL 9000, however, is not through the stereotypical plot development of A. I gaining sentience and turning against its masters simply because it views itself as superior, instead through gaining sentience itself, it has become a flawed being that causes errors and commits sins.

It is quite amazing how half a century later, a story written during the dawn of space travel continues to stay relevant to readers up to this day. As not only an author but a futurist and populariser of space travel, Arthur C. Clarke has managed to inspire those to look towards a unity of man and technology for the purpose of a promising future.

The movie I chose for the film response paper is ‘The Breakfast Club’ written by John Hughes. This movie was famous and relevant because it allowed teens everywhere to relate to at least one of these characters. This movie is a dramatic comedy that is destined to make people laugh, cry, and angry all brought together in one film. This movie had great humor along with love. ‘The Breakfast Club’ is full of comedy, drama, and mostly rebellion. These four high school students represent every cliché in the 1980s school life. These four students will soon realize that they each have something in common. Each of the kid’s parents don ‘t treat them fairly or don‘t even notice them. It is ironic at first, because they think that they have figure each person out and they know everything about them. But soon into the movie they quickly realize they are all too similar. This movie takes place in a high school in Shermer, Illinois. ‘The Breakfast Club’ is based on a group of high school kids from completely different backgrounds and social groups that wound up in Saturday detention. The movie classifies these individuals as ‘the brain’, ‘the athlete’, ‘the basket case’, ‘the princess’, and ‘the criminal’. They all had one goal in mind; to not grow up to be like their parents. They are all dropped off by their parents (except Bender) and are assigned to write an essay titled ’Who we think we are’. Despite the differences, the group is able to triumph and work together to get through the difficult detention time and instead of making enemies, they become friends. During this movie they go through five different stages in the Tuckman model to complete the process of going from enemies to friends.

The forming stage is based on each student ending up in detention for various reasons, but their behavior is driven by acceptance. For example, Brian stops making walrus sounds when he notices Bender giving him a weird look. Also, they judge each other when they first meet by asking each other why they ended up in detention, what cliques they belong to, what clubs they are in, etc. They also formed by avoiding conflict, like when the principal asks them to raise their hands they comply (sarcastically).

The next stage is storming (the stage if conflict and obstacles) which the students seemed to partake in quite a bit during the movie. Whether it be challenging one another or objecting to ideas and/or beliefs of other group members. For example, Bender tends to confront the other members of the group quite often. He tends to try to be the ‘alpha’. Confrontations do occur, and the social circles they come from have a role in how they handle the situations.

In the norming stage is important because this is the stage where they begin to appreciate and accept one another. They somewhat give up their own ideas to agree with others. They tend to call each other out and stick up for one another or try to make light of the situations they catch themselves in. For example, when Bender and Andrew are arguing, Claire makes fun of them. Also, the others stick up for Claire when Bender makes jokes about her lipstick. The scene that comes to mind for acceptance is the smoking scene where they dump out the items in their purses and wallets to learn more about one another. This allowed for a better understanding for one another.

The performing stage is when the group focuses on completing their essays, therefore, they are forced to share stories and ideas with one another in hopes of successfully completing their essay while making the best of the detention stay. At this stage they no longer care as much about status and/or hierarchy. The true beginning of the performing stage is when they are able to share personal things after being unable to talk to each other at all. They share these things in hopes of gaining a better friendship and trust of one another. At first, I thought the whole movie would be about the students striving to finish their essays, but on the flipside, the purpose is actually a desire to understand one another by being more open-minded.

Lastly, the adjourning stage is the final stage where the group disperses and goes their separate ways. They leave detention as friends, but joke that they will all go back to the people that they were when they came in. For example, Claire and Andy will be popular still, and Bender will be the outcast.

Each group member had an important role in the Tuckman model:

1. Bender: Opinion giver, dominator. He is not afraid to voice his opinion and he promotes ideas that benefit himself in some way.
2. Claire: Opinion seeker, encourage. Makes others feel worthy, inclusive, seeks approval or opinions of others before making a decision.
3. Allison: Summarizer, encourager. Does not speak throughout most of the movie, very submissive, tries to promote change in the group by displaying her ‘weird’ behavior.
4. Brian: Clarifier, mediator, info seeker. Tries to be the peacemaker of the group. Example: “Guys let’s all calm down!”. Discusses the actual purpose of the essay to the principal at the end of the movie.
5. Andy: Gatekeeper, dominator. Fights to be the dominant group member, acts like the tough ‘jock’ guy, does not display many signs of weakness.

In conclusion, despite their differences in the beginning when they entered detention together, trusting and advising one another allowed them to put their differences aside and gain a strong friendship. As stated on the website Weebly, they were able to write the dreaded paper that they longed to finish by saying: “You see us as you want to see us: in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is: a brain…And an athlete…And a basket case…A princess…And a criminal. Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, The Breakfast Club” (2019).

References

1. The Breakfast Clubbers. (n.d.). Retrieved from weeby: https://thebreakfastclubberss.weebly.com/conclusion.html

Introduction

The movie “Pearl Harbor,” directed by Michael Bay and released in 2001, is a historical epic that portrays the events surrounding the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. While the film received mixed reviews from critics, it remains an important cinematic representation of a pivotal moment in American history. This research paper will delve into various aspects of the movie, including its historical accuracy, portrayal of characters and relationships, and its impact on popular culture.

Historical Accuracy

One of the primary considerations when analyzing a historical film is its accuracy in depicting real events. While “Pearl Harbor” is a fictionalized account, it incorporates significant historical elements. The movie captures the surprise and devastation of the attack accurately, highlighting the destructive power of the Japanese assault. The portrayal of the attack itself is visually stunning, recreating the chaos and destruction experienced during the actual event. However, some critics argue that the film took artistic liberties with the timing and sequence of certain events, and the love triangle plotline overshadowed the historical accuracy of the story.

Portrayal of Characters and Relationships

“Pearl Harbor” places a strong emphasis on character relationships, particularly the love triangle between Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck), Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett), and Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale). While the romantic storyline adds a personal element to the narrative, it has drawn criticism for diverting attention from the historical context. Nevertheless, the film does highlight the camaraderie and bravery of the soldiers stationed at Pearl Harbor, portraying their dedication and sacrifice during the attack. The performances of the main cast members bring depth and emotion to their respective roles, immersing viewers in the lives of these characters during a time of immense turmoil.

Impact on Popular Culture

“Pearl Harbor” had a significant impact on popular culture, introducing a new generation to the events of December 7, 1941. The film’s box office success and widespread distribution ensured that millions of viewers were exposed to this chapter of history. Its release sparked renewed interest in World War II, leading to increased discussion and research on the topic. The movie’s portrayal of heroism and sacrifice resonated with audiences, reminding them of the bravery exhibited by those involved in the actual events. Additionally, the film’s soundtrack, composed by Hans Zimmer, became popular and evoked emotions associated with the film’s themes.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite its commercial success, “Pearl Harbor” received mixed reviews from critics. Some praised its visual effects, action sequences, and emotional impact, while others criticized its historical inaccuracies and heavy focus on the romantic plotline. The film’s length and pacing were also points of contention for many viewers. However, it is essential to recognize that “Pearl Harbor” aimed to entertain as well as educate, balancing historical events with a compelling narrative. While it may not satisfy historians seeking strict accuracy, it remains a cinematic experience that captures the essence of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Conclusion

“Pearl Harbor” is a cinematic portrayal of a significant event in American history that continues to captivate audiences with its blend of action, romance, and tragedy. While it takes creative liberties and emphasizes fictionalized relationships, it effectively conveys the devastating impact of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the resilience of those who lived through it. The film’s historical inaccuracies should be acknowledged, but it also serves as a gateway for viewers to explore and engage with the broader historical context. Despite the criticism it has faced, “Pearl Harbor” remains a notable film that keeps the memory of the attack alive and sparks important conversations about the complexities of historical representation in popular culture.

Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 2001: A Space Odyssey is the story of the discovery of a strange monolith on the moon that prompts a space mission to the planet Saturn. Adapted from a film of the same name the author had also written the screenplay for, the story has been regarded as one of the most culturally and aesthetically significant works.

The author, Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008), was for many years part of the ‘Big Three’ of science fiction, which included Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov. It is clear in A Space Odyssey that he is a big proponent and avid populariser of space travel, as shown by his attention to detail and scientific accuracy in many of his works, especially this one. His love for exploration also shines in the story of A Space Odyssey, as in real life, he discovered the underwater ruins of an old Sri Lankan temple complex.

Strangely enough, the story begins with something one would not expect to be in a sci-fi story – The discovery of the aforementioned monolith takes place during the time when men were still not quite distinguishable from apes. During the first arc, Arthur C. Clarke demonstrates his writing skills, building quite the realistic, believable world of the man-ape protagonist, his surroundings, and the simple, instinctual thoughts running through his primitive brain.

As far out from the planet Earth as the story travels, the technology in this somewhat utopian future remains quite grounded in reality. Well-advised in science, Arthur C. Clarke has been considered one of the most significant writers of the ‘hard science fiction’ genre, a derivative of sci-fi concerned with scientific accuracy and logic. The ideas put into his story are way ahead of his time, considering when the story was written The construction of space stations, which although in the real world at the time of the book’s publishing was still a few years away from the first ever space station being built. It had been only eight years after the first man was launched into space, and already a trip all the way to Saturn through plausible means had already been conceived. One of the main characters is even a spaceship’s onboard AI, the famous HAL-9000, during a decade that had just begun with the replacement of vacuum tubes, and before UNIX was even a thing. Deep hibernation is featured as a method to shorten the lengthy duration for the perception of those aboard the spaceship, with the computer and a few chosen astronauts taking care of the vehicle as it approaches its destination.

One of the most prolific, almost philosophical ideas featured in 2001: A Space Odyssey is the theme of the transcension of humans past their physical bodies. Almost like a prophet, Arthur C. Clarke speaks of the discarding of flesh, surpassing a physical body placing our minds into artificial ones, and eventually transcending past that into what the author describes as god-like beings.

Speaking of AI earlier, Arthur C. Clarke also prophesizes the uprising of A. I am against its human creators, although this is not a new idea by the time this novel was published. The malfunction of HAL 9000, however, is not through the stereotypical plot development of A. I gaining sentience and turning against its masters simply because it views itself as superior, instead through gaining sentience itself, it has become a flawed being that causes errors and commits sins.

It is quite amazing how half a century later, a story written during the dawn of space travel continues to stay relevant to readers up to this day. As not only an author but a futurist and populariser of space travel, Arthur C. Clarke has managed to inspire those to look towards a unity of man and technology for the purpose of a promising future.

The movie I chose for the film response paper is ‘The Breakfast Club’ written by John Hughes. This movie was famous and relevant because it allowed teens everywhere to relate to at least one of these characters. This movie is a dramatic comedy that is destined to make people laugh, cry, and angry all brought together in one film. This movie had great humor along with love. ‘The Breakfast Club’ is full of comedy, drama, and mostly rebellion. These four high school students represent every cliché in the 1980s school life. These four students will soon realize that they each have something in common. Each of the kid’s parents don ‘t treat them fairly or don‘t even notice them. It is ironic at first, because they think that they have figure each person out and they know everything about them. But soon into the movie they quickly realize they are all too similar. This movie takes place in a high school in Shermer, Illinois. ‘The Breakfast Club’ is based on a group of high school kids from completely different backgrounds and social groups that wound up in Saturday detention. The movie classifies these individuals as ‘the brain’, ‘the athlete’, ‘the basket case’, ‘the princess’, and ‘the criminal’. They all had one goal in mind; to not grow up to be like their parents. They are all dropped off by their parents (except Bender) and are assigned to write an essay titled ’Who we think we are’. Despite the differences, the group is able to triumph and work together to get through the difficult detention time and instead of making enemies, they become friends. During this movie they go through five different stages in the Tuckman model to complete the process of going from enemies to friends.

The forming stage is based on each student ending up in detention for various reasons, but their behavior is driven by acceptance. For example, Brian stops making walrus sounds when he notices Bender giving him a weird look. Also, they judge each other when they first meet by asking each other why they ended up in detention, what cliques they belong to, what clubs they are in, etc. They also formed by avoiding conflict, like when the principal asks them to raise their hands they comply (sarcastically).

The next stage is storming (the stage if conflict and obstacles) which the students seemed to partake in quite a bit during the movie. Whether it be challenging one another or objecting to ideas and/or beliefs of other group members. For example, Bender tends to confront the other members of the group quite often. He tends to try to be the ‘alpha’. Confrontations do occur, and the social circles they come from have a role in how they handle the situations.

In the norming stage is important because this is the stage where they begin to appreciate and accept one another. They somewhat give up their own ideas to agree with others. They tend to call each other out and stick up for one another or try to make light of the situations they catch themselves in. For example, when Bender and Andrew are arguing, Claire makes fun of them. Also, the others stick up for Claire when Bender makes jokes about her lipstick. The scene that comes to mind for acceptance is the smoking scene where they dump out the items in their purses and wallets to learn more about one another. This allowed for a better understanding for one another.

The performing stage is when the group focuses on completing their essays, therefore, they are forced to share stories and ideas with one another in hopes of successfully completing their essay while making the best of the detention stay. At this stage they no longer care as much about status and/or hierarchy. The true beginning of the performing stage is when they are able to share personal things after being unable to talk to each other at all. They share these things in hopes of gaining a better friendship and trust of one another. At first, I thought the whole movie would be about the students striving to finish their essays, but on the flipside, the purpose is actually a desire to understand one another by being more open-minded.

Lastly, the adjourning stage is the final stage where the group disperses and goes their separate ways. They leave detention as friends, but joke that they will all go back to the people that they were when they came in. For example, Claire and Andy will be popular still, and Bender will be the outcast.

Each group member had an important role in the Tuckman model:

1. Bender: Opinion giver, dominator. He is not afraid to voice his opinion and he promotes ideas that benefit himself in some way.
2. Claire: Opinion seeker, encourage. Makes others feel worthy, inclusive, seeks approval or opinions of others before making a decision.
3. Allison: Summarizer, encourager. Does not speak throughout most of the movie, very submissive, tries to promote change in the group by displaying her ‘weird’ behavior.
4. Brian: Clarifier, mediator, info seeker. Tries to be the peacemaker of the group. Example: “Guys let’s all calm down!”. Discusses the actual purpose of the essay to the principal at the end of the movie.
5. Andy: Gatekeeper, dominator. Fights to be the dominant group member, acts like the tough ‘jock’ guy, does not display many signs of weakness.

In conclusion, despite their differences in the beginning when they entered detention together, trusting and advising one another allowed them to put their differences aside and gain a strong friendship. As stated on the website Weebly, they were able to write the dreaded paper that they longed to finish by saying: “You see us as you want to see us: in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is: a brain…And an athlete…And a basket case…A princess…And a criminal. Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, The Breakfast Club” (2019).

References

1. The Breakfast Clubbers. (n.d.). Retrieved from weeby: https://thebreakfastclubberss.weebly.com/conclusion.html

The movie ‘V for Vendetta’ is based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. It’s a dystopian political thriller, set up in the year 2032, in England. The protagonist named V is trying to instigate a revolution against the ruling government. V convinces a young girl Evey played by Natalie Portman, to join his mission. This dystopian England is ruled by the fascist Norsefire government whose leaders have used unethical means to ascend to and gain power. The three recurring organizational behavior theories present in this movie are: Machiavellianism, high-power distance from Hofstede’s framework and utilitarianism.

Machiavellianism

A Machiavellian is a pragmatic individual who maintains emotional distance and believes that the end is justified by its means. Some traits of a Machiavellian include manipulation, emotional distance and indifference to morality. Almost all antagonists in this movie hold the aforementioned traits. Made evident by their self-serving actions which were to render them power and wealth at the cost of many others’ demises.

Peter Creedy, the head of Chancellor Sutler’s Fingermen and the main antagonist in V for Vendetta, perfectly aligns with the definition of a Machiavellian. Creedy was easily the most diabolical of all the power-hungry antagonists shown in this movie, due to the heinous measures he took to ascend to a higher political rank. His manipulative capabilities were made evident near the end of the movie when he blamed terrorists for the 100,000 deaths caused by the bio-engineered plague that he was responsible for. His intentions to do so were to gain voters and political power which he actualized as this catastrophe made the head of the Finger-men and one of the richest men in the country. To ensure his and his party’s dominance, he would kidnap, detain and murder individuals who would criticize the Norsefire regime. Creedy assassinated Chancellor Sutler once he’d served Creedy’s purpose, reinforcing that Creedy was the true power while the Chancellor was just a political face. Even V describes Creedy as “a man seemingly without a conscience, for whom the ends always justify the means” (‘V for Vendetta’, 2005).

Another Machiavellian in this movie was Chancellor Sutler. In his efforts to ascend to power he attempted to create bio-weapons by experimenting on people in Larkhill Resettlement Camp.

Manipulation can also be seen by the BTN Host Peter Lewis Prothero, who, as the Voice of London, would transmit propaganda and false information to keep the public docile. His charisma made him adept at persuasion, helping him keep the Norsefire party in power.

High-Power Distance

Power distance is one of the five values from Hofstede’s framework for assessing culture. It constitutes of the extent to which a collection of people accepts that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally. The two extents are: low-power distance and high-power distance. The extent of high-power distance follows that the presumed society has an extremely unequal distribution of power between those with wealth and those without wealth (Robbins et al).

High-power distance seemed to be the crux of the society portrayed in ‘V for Vendetta’. The English were led by a fascist named Chancellor Sutler. Who ascended to power following a brutal and mysterious war that destroyed much of the planet. In his supposed efforts to ‘purify’ society, Chancellor Sutler executes all homosexuals, Jews, Afro-British, Leftists, and Pakistanis.

There was no freedom of thought or expression in this dystopian society as possessing art or having any expressive artefacts from the pre-dictatorship era could cost a citizen their life. Additionally, random audio sweeps behest Chancellor Sutler deter freedom of thought and speech. Furthermore, all media, especially television are controlled by the Chancellor through his head of propaganda, Roger Dascombe. While doing the Chancellor’s bidding, Dascombe reframes all news in the favor of the Norsefire regime.

Those who express negative sentiments about the Norsefire regime, face harsh consequences. An example of this can be seen when Dietrich, a bold evening show host, dares to televise a satirical segment about the Norsefire regime. As a consequence, he is brutally abused by Fingermen and later killed after a Koran and other contraband are recovered from this house.

Lastly, prior to V’s final attack at the Parliament, Chancellor Sutler threatens his citizens to not side with V, by saying, “The security of this nation depends on complete and total compliance, tonight any protestor, any instigator or agitator will be made an example of” (‘V for Vendetta’, 2005).

Utilitarianism

The theory of utilitarianism follows that right is determined from wrong by focusing on the outcome, rather than the ethical aspect of an action or a choice (Robbins et al). The movie, ‘V For Vendetta’ takes a bleak look at the society and politics of England in 2032. The world is in turmoil due to a nuclear war. England is ruled by a fascist party and struggling to survive.

Norsefire had established concentration camps, a few years ago, and imprisoned whom the government considered dangerous or disruptive. The main character, V, belonged to one such camp named Larkhill Camp. He was injected with an experimental hormone drug that killed all the other patients but him. After that incident, V turned into a faceless man who dons a Guy Fawkes mask. Guy Fawkes was part of the Gunpowder Treason Plot in 1605 and wanted to blow up the parliament of that era.

V pursues two goals in the story: revenge on the people who imprisoned and experimented on him at the camp and bringing down the fascist government. Throughout the movie plot, V had mainly displayed good utilitarian ideals and moral standing. Most of the actions he performed in the movie were to help people and to benefit the whole society. He somehow managed to attach his personal vendetta with a bigger goal to achieve the greater good.

Throughout the movie, V claimed to be an ‘idea’, which was ‘more than flesh’. It followed that ideas were untouchable and so by hiding behind the mask he created a new persona. This allowed him to convey the bigger picture of his plan into the minds of people. Just before the day of the revolution, he sent every citizen the Guy Fawkes mask which they were to wear to support him overthrowing the government.

In one part of the story, V tortured another character by the name Evey through his fabricated interrogations. During this, he helped her learn that she must protect her ideals more than her physical body. Emphasizing that one’s belief defines them more than their physical existence does. Evey had completely transformed herself till the end of the story and was able to connect with V’s idea of utilitarianism. During the climax, when she was asked who V was, she replied: “… And he was my father, and my mother, my brother, my friend. He was you, and me. He was all of us” (‘V for Vendetta’, 2005)

The fascist government had created harsh rules that restricted people to think freely and know what true happiness was like. The government controlled the country by setting up cameras, imposing curfews and by listening to its citizens’ private conversations. V had hoped that by destroying parliament buildings, society would have a chance to stand up against the government and be able to freely share their beliefs once again.

He knew he would not survive to see the revolution he planned for so long. He left the final decision to destroy the parliament buildings on Evey. He realized that it was not his decision to make but rather it was Evey’s, as she belonged to the future of the country. The police officer, Mr. Finch, who had tried to capture V, eventually also agreed with V’s ideology and let Evey continue with the destruction of the parliament buildings.

Conclusion

The three theories discussed in this paper are only some of the numerous organizational behavior theories observed in this movie. Creedy’s Machiavellianism tendencies allowed him to achieve power through unethical means and wield his power against the English. Throughout the movie Creedy and his deputies use false information to manipulate the English citizens. Furthermore, due to a high-power distance between the government and the people of the country, the citizens wouldn’t question Creedy’s motives and actions. V’s belief on utilitarianism led him to believe that the ends were important regardless of how they were achieved. Throughout the movie, V committed murderers of ministers and also of innocent security personnel concluding the movie by blowing down the parliament.

Sources

1. Robbins, Stephen P., et al. Organisational Behaviour. Pearson United States, 2011.
2. McTeigue, James, director. V For Vendetta. Warner Bros Pictures, 2005.