Author: czahn

One of the major themes that have developed from this class this semester for me is the idea that many of the events that occurred are just a part of a cycle that occurs every few decades in societies. As changes occur, there are reactions to the changes, and that oftentimes can lead to conflict. This happens again and again and again, the question that begs to be asked is, how do we change that? The answer, I think, is that we can’t but more importantly, we shouldn’t. Activists such as Tom Hayden and others are so important to the process of society. The work they do, fighting for what they believe in, no matter what that is, is what makes human interaction so great. We can all believe differently, discuss them, and oftentimes disagree, but hopefully, bring about progress.

            The texts that were discussed this year all show that belief. Every text highlighted characters or real people being passionate about what they believe in and allowing their life to go with how their passion guides them. This is especially important today when social media and the interconnectedness of society makes it so that someone with a passion really can make a change with that. 

            However, it is clear from the texts and society today there is another aspect to the societal cycle that is a lack of civil discourse that comes too few and far between in arguments online or in-person. There is so much anger, so much division today, but that was evident in Trial of the Chicago Eight and Martin Luther King’s works. Some things, it seems, have not changed, and as I said, I don’t think they will. In some ways that is good, in other ways, that is bad, but it is just the world we live in. 

This past week, I had the opportunity to watch the movie The Trial of the Chicago 7 on Netflix. Although I felt it was a well-made movie, I was disappointed with some of the character portrayals, and I think some of my disappointment has to do with the themes of the book. The book, at its essence, is I think about the Court and government’s poor treatment of the defendants, particularly Bobby Seale. Although I feel the movie gets it right in reference to Judge Hoffman, I felt that the movie fell short with respect to lead prosecutor Richard Schultz. In the movie, Schultz at times gives off an air of sympathy towards the defendants, especially in contrast to the feelings of DA Foran. However, the book really displays no such feelings. At one point in the book, Hayden outlines a short speech Seale gave to his supporters in the courtroom before Judge Hoffman had arrived. In Hayden’s account, much of what he said was fairly harmless. He speaks about their right to self-defense from the marshals in the courtroom, but he asks his followers to leave if they are asked to leave, to not resist their authority. However, as Hayden puts it, Schultz claimed when Judge Hoffman entered that “minutes before this court was in session, the defendant Seale was addressing his followers back there about an attack by them on this court.” This does not portray a sympathetic response to the defendants. However, it is understandable to question the credence of an account my Hayden, he has some reason to have bias after all. Yet, even Schultz himself has recently made clear his feelings of the defendants. In fact, in a piece written by the Chicago Tribune about the movie that was released this past Monday the 19^th, the article states that Schultz “thought that he was falsely portrayed as somehow embarrassed by the whole prosecution when in reality, ‘it was precisely the opposite.’”. I know that the movie is made this way for Hollywood to be exciting and intriguing; however, I feel that it lets the government off the hook. Just as we have read about in the Revolutionary Suicide and other texts, the government and their prosecutors most definitely played a role in the poor treatment of these defendants and other civil rights activists of this time.  

Watching Mickybo & Me and reading Mojo Mickybo has given me the most enlightening insight into the relationships that developed, or didn’t develop, between those on different sides of the “bridge” in Northern Ireland during the 68′ era. Throughout the class so far, it is hard to try and imagine and understand how people could be molded since they were quite little to have contempt for those who believe a different form of the same religion, even if it involved much more than just religion. It’s hard to imagine myself as a 10 or 12 year-old worrying about anything other than the next backyard baseball game with the neighborhood kids. However, this is the environment that children of this era in Northern Ireland lived in constantly.

There are multiple particularly important scenes in Mickybo & Me that I felt illustrated this point exactly. The first time that Mojo travels to Mickybo’s home, Mickybo’s mom asks Mojo, “Are your parents okay with you being here?”. It is clear that Mojo’s presence comes as quite a surprise to Mickybo’s mom. In contrast, a different poignant scene plays out towards the end of the movie after Mickybo’s dad has died. Mickybo, seemingly ignorant to his previous relationship with Mojo, has now joined with Gank and Fuckface in terrorizing Mojo for allegedly stealing Mickybo’s bike. In the scene, I found Mickybo to be quite unsettled, and I would guess this may be the first time where pressure from his community has affected his personal relationships. Even though he knows Mojo has not stolen his bike, I think he is learning that the truth does not matter, the only thing that does is a respect for his community.

After both watching the movie and reading the play, I stumbled across the short summary on the back of my version of the play. The last sentence reads, “The play unsentimentally portrays a kind of innocence betrayed by communal hatred”. “Communal hatred” is what led Mickybo to push Mojo away. I would venture to say that “communal hatred” or some form of communal pressure is what led “The Committee” to push away Teddy in The Informer. This idea has been prevalent in every signal piece we have discussed, a “you vs. us” mentality that trumped any other feelings, but led to dangerous tension and conflict.

The thing has surprised me the most about this week when talking about The Informer and Uptight is how important the theme or message is to writers and directors. Although I enjoy movies, I would not even attempt to claim to be a movie aficionado. So, during my research for the presentation and looking at correspondence between the writers, I was surprised, maybe naively, at how important the true message is. In addition, in our discussion during class, I realized that I had never dived so deep into the connections between different works of digital art. I’d like to think that I can understand the minute differences between works such as The Informer and Uptight, but I know that I was not as informed as I wanted to be on the importance of these minute details. Because of this, I think I learned a lot about the connection between the films; however, I think I learned even more on how to properly critique and connect digital multimedia. I look forward to doing my research not only on what small details writers and directors wish for the audience to see, but I also want to learn why they do this. From examples such as John Ford with The Informer, it is clear that the why is most directly affected by the opinions and lives of the writers, a fascinating connection I have never really considered. I think that this realization can really enrich the movie-watching process. Furthermore, by being interested in these small details, more coherent dialogue can be formed on how movies today and in the past address social, racial, and economic issues present in society. Although these discussions should certainly address texts and events happening in real-time, movies can be a way to work on issues while also enjoying a well-made movie. Although I still wouldn’t call myself a movie aficionado – and I don’t ever think I will be – this week made me appreciate movies more than I ever had before. 

During the first week, while still in-person, we spoke as a class about what “American Exceptionalism” really is. Since then, I have continued to mull over that idea. As we talked about, most people believe that the USA has the best opportunities available, regardless of their political beliefs. It is not wrong to think that, it is just what we grew up with and likely what we learned in school in one way or another. It is who we are as Americans.

However, I think it also makes us numb to what happens around us. When I found this class, I was probably like most other students in being very surprised that connections could be found between the events in Ireland and the events in the US. Even more, I did not see how a whole class could rest on these connections. However, we learned from Geoff Brown and Sam Lord that much of their ideas and drive came from seeing the civil rights movement. Leaders of the movement in the US even traveled to England and Ireland to speak about their experiences. Yet, this makes me think of the likely many times that this has happened, where a foreign event has been shaped by an American event or vice versa. Do we as Americans spend too much time thinking about what has happened here and not enough time thinking about who we are affecting and who has affected us? The answer, likely to be influenced by subjectivity, is not easily answered definitively. I hope, in this class, that I might find my own answer, even if just on a small scale with respect to 1968. I also hope that I will be led to continue to broaden my horizons in my knowledge of the connectivity of worldly movements and events.