Page 1


Struggles and Triumphs: How Eventually Everyone’s Goose Gets Cooked

Justin Jasiulevicius Karen Redding English 1102 29 April 2012


English 1102 Struggles and Triumphs: How Eventually Everyone’s Goose Gets Cooked Table of Contents Analytical Cover Letter……………………………………… Quality Comparison…………………………………………. Least Successful Paper…………………………………. Most Successful paper…………………………………. “What’s the Difference?”……………………………… Revision Samples……………………………………………. Least Successful Paper (with mark up)……………….. Least Successful Paper (new final)……………………. Most Successful Paper (with mark up)………………… Most Successful paper (new final)…………………….. Free Choice Essay (with mark up)…………………….. Free Choice Essay (new final) ………………………….


April 28, 2012 Karen Redding, M.A. Assistant Professor, English/Reading Interim Writing Tutor, Fall 2011 Gainesville State College, Oconee Office 547, Library 1201 Bishop Farms Parkway Watkinsville, GA 30677 Dear Mrs. Redding My name is Justin Jasiulevicius, I am a sophomore at Gainesville State College. This semester has been filled with many struggles and triumphs, so much so I have decided to name my portfolio after them. Much development as a writer has manifested itself through these struggles over the semester. The fist aspect that comes to mind is the struggle I have faced with grammar and the passive voice. Beginning the semester I found myself in a deep rut of grammatical errors and passive tense. Throughout the whole semester I have lost many of my points due to picky rules and careless misspelling of words. As I review my past work I can see that this is still a problem but has improved over the semester. In my least successful essay, Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh, the Anton’s Chigurh’s name is misspelled multiple times, even in the heading. Problems like these are disastrous to any writer. The progresses I have made in identifying them this semester have been tremendous. My over use of “to be” verbs was an issue that I had never looked at before. Looking back at my previous writing in Calvin and Hobbes I see instances where my paper is littered with “is” and “was”. In an excerpt, “The irony of course is that this is the exact opposite of what most people think as far as individuality goes.” (Jasiulevicius, Calvin and Hobbes) Coming into this semester I had a sense of confidence concerning this class. My previous experiences with writing left me with the impression that I had nothing to improve upon. After revisiting my past essays I can definitely see this is not the case. In some instances I can see where I have composed strong headings. In the paper A New Age of Metal Monsters I can see a very strong heading that starts with a good hook, provides general information concerning the subject to strengthen my credibility, and finishes by leading into my thesis. In my paper Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh this is not the case. The introduction opens with a borderline cliché that is followed with a rhetorical question. The introduction, though based around a good thesis, relies on humor and cheap parlor tricks to make up for the fact that there is no real value to the information in the introduction. My thesis development this semester has been phenomenal. This class has really helped me produce great theses. My theses have become short, solid and very defendable. These like “The Coen Brothers use contrast light in order to indicate character intentions and provide greater distinction between character locations within the scene.” (Jasiulevicius, Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh) I feel through developing these strong theses my writing has become more cohesive and my papers overall flow better. My conclusions have been a little lackluster. My growth on conclusion writing has remained a bit stunted. Evidence can be seen in my paper Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh. My conclusion barely was four sentences and ended on a doctored Starwars quote.


The crowning achievement of this semester is my progress in MLA style writing and formatting. Prior to this class my knowledge and skills where almost none existent. This can been see in my paper entitled Calvin and Hobbes. There are multiple quotations "My identity is so wrapped up it what I buy that I paid the company to advertise its products" (Jasiulevicius, Calvin and Hobbes) but no citation. Throughout this semester, my works cited page has been almost flawless. This class has provided excellent instruction on proper citation, skills I barely possessed prior to. In paragraph citation still haunts me as a writer though. In A New Age of Metal Monsters, I refer to Teleotte’s ideas upon human genocide and blissfulness yet do not in paper cite him. Errors like these are not to be taken lightly and the proper corrections will help me in the future. Overall there have been many struggles and triumphs for me this semester. My achievements and progress in MLA style citation, thesis development and grammar rules have been tremendous triumphs. Still, topics like grammar rules and conclusions are focuses for the future. I thank you Mrs. Redding for a great semester and a wonderful class. I wish you all the best of luck in the future. Sincerely, Justin Jasiulevicius


Julie Bohannon/Justin Jasiulevicius English 1102/ Redding Literature Film Paper February 27, 2012 Dim Lights and Dark Chiguar Drugs, money and the fast lane are the essentials for the live fast and die young lifestyle. With a rise in crime across the nation has America actually become no country for old men to dwell? Whether the Coen brothers meant to answer this question or not they certainly explored the idea in their explosively dark movie No Country for Old Men. A lot can be said about the storyline and characters involved in this modern day western, but one aspect far surpasses all of the components that make this tale complete. In No Country for Old Men, the Cohen Brothers use contrast lighting in order to indicate character intentions and provide greater distinction between character locations within the scene. The most widely manipulated movie tactic used throughout the film is the strategic use of contrast lighting. In one of the first scenes that we meet Lwellyn, there is an extremely, almost unnatural contrast between the shadow of the clouds on the prairie, and the other sunlit spots. This drastic contrast between light and dark is a prevalent theme throughout the whole movie. The use of hard lighting in this specific shot helps amplify the contrasting amongst the landscape. Directly following this scene Lwellyn finds a dead man underneath a forlorn tree. The shadow of the tree is perceived as way darker than in real life. The spots where we are led to believe the sun is shining is visually overly bright compared to the shadowing. Again this use of hard lighting amplifies the contrasting in the current area. This use of hard lighting is chosen to create greater definition between locations within the scenes. To be specific, once Lwellyn is underneath the tree, the contrast in lighting is so great that one naturally blocks out any back ground light and retains focus upon everything within the shading. Despite the fact that all of the interaction and events are taking place within the hard lighting shadows, this shadowing on the prairie scene creates more variation within the scenery.


Moreover, in a broader perspective, the whole movie is shot in a part of the world where the landscapes are wide and flat with little variation. The open range is figuratively the closest arid ecosystem to a desert. A movie such as No Country for Old Men is a slow paced movie spotted with bits of action. A real plot is not truly defined until forty five minutes into the film once the audience discovers that Anton Chiguar has a device that can locate the coveted suitcase of money. In addition, Lwellyn has such as extensive drawn out character and plot development. The contrasting in lighting and use of hard lighting allows for variation that keeps the movie interesting and makes for scenes, such as Lwellyn hunting, more visually pleasing and faster paced. The lighting throughout the whole movie contributes a lot to the overall mood of the film. From a broad overlook to a more in depth look, the lighting acts as a catalyst to the suspense as well as the more aloof scenes. In scenes such as the one where the sheriff is eating his breakfast and reading the paper, there is almost a complete absence of any shading or darkness whatsoever. This is one of the brief, sparse scenes where comedy enters the story. Despite the grim undertone of the comedy, the bright lighting contributes and amplifies the mood. This is also one of the few times where back lighting is used to brighten a character. Though very minor, there is some use of back lighting to brighten the overall mood of the scene by illuminating the waitress from behind. As stated before this is very minor but it is crucial to allowing a comedic scene such as this one to flow with such a forlorn movie On the other hand, the scene where Lwellyn is running from the men in the truck uses the bright lighting in a different way. Most of the scene is at night shrouded in darkness, though when the men inside the truck begin chasing Lwellyn, the mood immediately spikes to a suspenseful, jagged ruckus resembling that of a monster chase scene. This is one of the immediate images the viewer is exposed to, a cascade of truck lights barreling towards Lwellyn. To the viewer it is quite obvious that this is a truck, but at first glance it takes on a monstrous persona reminiscent of the lighting effects previously used in the 1962 James Bond film Dr. No. In that film the locals refer to “a dragon that hunted the swamps at night�. In reality it was an armored tank with headlights similar to the truck in No Country for Old Men. Aside


from this barrage of truck headlights, there is also a small break of dawn directly behind the truck, further amplifying its entrance. Another point of interest to note concerning the lighting of the truck chase scene is that the truck lights become the key lighting during the chase. The main source of light prior to the entrance of the truck is the pale moon light draping the landscape. To heighten the mood of the scene,as soon as the truck enters the picture the key light switches from the moon light to the truck’s headlights. Not only does it switch from a fixated mellow source to a artificial jagged source, but it is also in constant motion leaving the key lighting in this scene to become very erratic. As the audience watches Lwellyn run from the truck not only are the left in anticipation for his outcome, but they are exposed to a roller coaster of sporadic key lighting further amplifying the confusion of the whole scene. The key lighting is not only manipulated with regards to the landscape, but contributes a lot to the overall persona of the main antagonist in the film, Anton Chiguar. Anton Chiguar is a very curious character throughout the whole film in regards to the way he is illuminated. One of the only times we whiteness him fully lit is either when he is out in broad daylight or while he is injured. Even when the audience first sees Anton sanz any shadowing, he emerges from a stolen police car, the contents within, including the driver, are almost pitch black. This darkly perceived character who is a native to darkness in this film is surrounded by ominous lighting in almost every scene. The other scene he is seen fully lit in is right after his car accident. This occurs only briefly as he slowly emerges from the car. Not all of his face is visible and the camera makes a quick sweep to his back which is shrouded in shadow due to the angle of the sun. Once Anton’s face is visible once more as he sits on the curb, he is positioned underneath the shade of a tree, still retaining his dark presence. The effect of key lighting manipulation mixed with strategic hard lighting shadow placement concerning Chiguar can be seen again in the instance where Chiguar confronts Carla Jean within her bedroom. In this clip the absence of back lighting around Chiguar can account for the abyss-like void that encompassed the corner where he is seated. The key lighting that reveals him is only from his shoulders down. The scene does not show him killing Carla Jean. In turn, there is an implied gap of storyline that


jumps to him standing outside looking at the bottom of his boots. The audience is led to believe that he is making sure he does not have blood on his boots or leave tracks. The darkness used prior to this exit implies the impending death in Carla Jean’s future. In other scenes Chiguar is shown killing his victims but this scene just proves that darkness is a factor to death. To build upon this scene the implication of death is indeed always signaled by shadow and or darkness of some kind. To as a minor extent as the shadowing of a character when he is introduced in a scene, there is a correlation scene throughout the film. A minor example of this can be seen in a clip where Anton Chiguar kills the innocent driver on the side of the road. He is driving a stolen police car and pulls behind the innocent driver to pull him over. Until Chiguar steps out of the car both he and the driver are in almost pitch black from the spectator’s view point. Not only is there implication that Chiguar might yet again kill another, but possibly that grim if not deadly outcomes are in the near future for the driver of the car. Another example of this implication of death can be indirectly seen when Chiguar has his tense conversation with the Texaco store clerk. Most of the scene both Chiguar and the clerk are halfway shrouded in shadow implying that this is indeed a tense situation that can go either way. Concerning the lighting, an interesting part of the this particular scene is once the coin has been flipped and the store clerks life safe for the time being, Chigaur halfway side steps to his right but still maintains eye contact and speech with the clerk. This maneuver causes the light to cover his whole face. It is interesting this correlates to the previous theory stated; because in turn once Chiguar’s face is completely illuminated the audience has assurance that Chiguar will not kill for the time being. Lighting is not the only factor but the most important in this film. When concentrating on lighting in films, it makes one think about the implications and character intentions portrayed throughout the whole movie. The manipulation of lighting in film is the life force that surrounds, binds and penetrates the characters in a way that reveals more than words and camera angles could ever convey.


Work Cited Dr. No. Dir. Terence Young. Perf. Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, and Bernard Lee. Eon. 1962. Film. No Country for Old Men. Dir. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen. Perf. Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, and Josh Brolin. Paramount, 2007. Film.


Justin Jasiulevicius Engl 1102 / Redding Paper 1 31 January 2012 “A New Age of Metal Monsters “ Painting a picture of a desolate landscape, spotted with slightly burnt barren trees, with the stereotypical background noise of a lone wolf howling at the moon overhead to most seems like a perfect setting for the classic all American horror film. These iconic settings of castles and eerie lands have become embedded in our culture over the past eighty years. Whether subliminal anti communistic propaganda or the fascination with fear itself, something drove the people of the twentieth century to explore their darker sides. Films such as the 1931 James Whale film Frankenstein, is the perfect example of the beginning of the new revived human monster fascination. For a solid forty years after Frankenstein, humans dove further and further into stories resembling those of our forefathers. Giant monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong echoed memories of Leviathan and the Behemoth. Yet somewhere along that line a shift in focus occurred. For once humans began looking into their future, and began seeing the possible horrors that might become of their actions. Films such as Blade Runner and books like “Dracula’s Children” looked from the present onward and not only saw monsters in more modern settings, but pushed the envelope of human technology and fore casted a reign of sorrow and terror because of our actions. The face of monsters to come and their new stopping grounds are those of our own backyards. Moreover, horror stories of the early forties placed their villains far away in evil demented places such as undiscovered far away mountain villages and Eastern Europe. To theorize, the reintroduction of monsters to the modern era involves somewhat of an evolution. One might say that this is humankind’s second fascination overall as a society with monsters. Through industrialization, the leading countries of the past century have socialized their “empires” in ways that resemble ancient Rome for the first time since then. Now regional tales were able to reach the ears of most the world in a fraction of the time it previously had taken.


Because of this socialization, these tales traveled fast and caught the imaginations of all classes which in turn began the mankind’s second fascination with monsters. Through human history there are two distinct periods of time where the culture of monster stories has flourished, the periods being the classic Roman / Greek empires and from the end of WWI to the present day. The periods between medieval Europe and World War I seem to have less of an emphasis upon monster folklore. Compared to tales from that of Aristotle and Pliny the Elder, the only resurgence of monster enthusiasts in mass has been within the past century. There have been many similarities between the two eras. Most of the origins of both eras’ creatures stem from folklore, regional tradition, religious views, and ancient mythology. With the evolution of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), some of the first movies to hit the big screen with the new technology were Greek and roman mythology stories. Movies such as “Jason and the Argonauts” and “Clash of the Titans” were instant classics, that centered around the “old tradition” of monsters. However, as stated before, modern monster fascination has evolved in a much different way than that of ancient civilization. Humans have begun weaving horror stories of the future dangers of our scientific advances. In an article entitled “Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film”, author J.P. Telotte further elaborates on this idea of human creations creating our own destruction. A common topic of futuristic demise is our coming invention of robotic helpers that develop artificial intelligence and turn against us. This story has already been told in so many ways and variations. The popular television series Battlestar Galactica is about the last few survivors of the human race seeking sanctuary from their evil robotic “cylon” creations that which to exterminate them in vengeance for the years of slavery they were subjected to. The 1996 film The Matrix tells of an apocalyptic war between humans and their machine creations. The machine creations eventually subdue the human race into a dream world in order to use their bodies as batteries. Films such as these are the result of human imaginative evolution. No longer are man’s monster stories only that of mythical beings and the demonic actions they wrath upon us, but in turn they are of how our scientific creations, our scientific children exact revenge upon us, of how they become our real life monsters. This is where fantasy trails along the border of possibility. This is also where bedazzling shock


fear trails along the border of apocalyptic horrific possibility. Is this the result of humans searching elsewhere for fearful ideas or humans realizing the worst case scenario dangers of our scientific ventures? Through competitive markets, naturally throughout the monster movie evolution there has been a push to further the fear factor in each movie. How might one accomplish a more terrifying experience for the viewer? The horror tales of the future play upon one’s imagination which is where the scariest monsters lie. In Telotte’s article, the main focus was more than just futuristic apocalyptic films. Telotte questioned the subliminal motives for focusing on such films and sought clarity on a related but separate topic, the topic of human doubling. This subject of human doubling is another fear of the future. Genocide is horrendous in itself, but what of living in a blissful life sanz any emotions or worrying? At first one might become a little disturbed at the idea, but Telotte sought for more and found that others disagree. In the 1956 science fiction film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, extraterrestrial pods landed on Earth and began identically cloning individual humans. Once the process was complete, the human under control of the pod, part of an interconnected species, void of all emotion, thought, or free will. The controlled human remained in a state of bliss such as that of a mindless insect. As stated before, this appears to be a very horrific way to live for a human; however, director Don Siegel disagreed. In reference to Invasion of the Body Snatchers it is stated, “He really believes that being a pod is preferable to being a frail, frightening human who cares. He has a strong case for being a pod. How marvelous it would be if you were a cow and all you had to do is munch a little grass and not worry about life, death and pain. There’s a strong case for being a pod.” Through this controversial idea or case in favor of states of being such as the pod, we see copious amounts of iterations with this message embedded in the main storyline. An example being The Stepford Wives, a whole town centered on replacing common house wives with robotics android replacements. These androids are practically perfect in every way yet in calls into question, would one really want to live in such a reality polar opposite to our own? The television show Battlestar Galactica directly questions whether it is indeed better to be a robot void of emotion or a flawed human being. The Cylons (cyborgs) in Battlestar Galactica are exact human replicas. The characters in the show directly question if


these Cylons can indeed feel real emotions including love, and sorrow. What is even more interesting is that some of the human characters end up being Cylons but not even realizing it. They question if everything they thought they felt was real or just software. This idea of being stripped of all feelings and freewill is the new monstrous entity that has become the future of monster stories. A curious concept to consider, is the idea of humankind loosing it’s fear of monsters and exploring other understandings. To elaborate, naturally there are things that scare everyone, but in the broader spectrum, overall, has our society begun to conquer its fear of monsters? Moreover, have we begun to examine monsters as more of an imaginary reminder of the capabilities and forces of nature as opposed to a horrific symbol of terror and violence? This idea challenges the question of whether humankind’s look into the future is a result of competitive markets, a fear of our own capabilities or something more. One aspect still holds true, violence has not left horror movies by any means. It seems to be the only card up writers’ and directors’ sleeves. Modern horror movies are becoming less of a terror picture centered around well throughout, symbolic monsters and more of an amusement ride. There has been a steady decline in straight forward terror films and more of a rise of slasher blood and guts films which are two completely different things, pertaining primarily to mainstream film that is. There will always be a subtle underground cult classic horror film group of movies that continue that horror tradition. Also there has been a rise of horror parodies which are just an embarrassment to the genre in and out of itself. The evolution of humankind’s fascination with monsters is one that is constantly rewriting itself. Every day we are slowly changing our outlook on monsters and everyday monsters are changing the way we view the world. We have seemed to almost conquer our fear of monsters themselves and in turn only fear the horrific ways we could die by their hands. If not the death aspect, it is the future possibilities of our own hands that is the real fear. Regardless of our motives, there stands a fact that humans have been “reintroduced” to monsters and socialize these stories across the land in ways we have not seen since ancient Rome. The big difference between present day people and Roman society, besides the absence of togas aside from the occasional National Lampoon movie, is that the monsters of today look into the


future. These are the heralds of the new age of metal monsters, the possible children of our hands, the newly envisioned arbiters of human destruction. Of creations we might bring about, the metal monsters might however be the scariest ones of all.


Works Cited

Asma, Stephen. On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Battlestar Galactica. Writ. Glen A Larson. Dir. Glen A Larson. SyFy Chan. 2003. Television. Clash of the Titans. Dir. Desmond Davis. Perf. Laurence Olivier, Harry Hamlin, and Claire Bloom. Warner Video. 1981. Film. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Dir. Bon Siegel. Perf. Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter. Allied Artist Pictures, 1956. Film. Jason and the Argonauts. Dir. Don Chaffey. Perf. Todd Armstrong, Nancy Kovack and Gary Raymond. Colombia Pictures. 1963. Film. The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurnce Fishburne and Carrie -Anne Moss. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999. Film. The Stepford Wives. Dir. Frank Oz. Perf. Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler and Mattew Broderick. Paramount. 2004. Film Weiner, Robert G. “Marvel Comic and the Golem Legend.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 29.2 (2011): 25, 50


What’s the Difference?

For my most successful essay I chose A New Age of Metal Monsters. I feel this paper had many strong points. The most notable strong point in this paper was the thesis development and the supporting evidence. The thesis for this paper, though a little lengthy to get to, was very fell formulated and really held the paper together. The supporting evidence and main body of the paper I feel really flourished because of this strong thesis. The introduction in my opinion was also a very strong point. The introduction starts off painting a picture that draws the reader in. The introduction also has good general information that gives myself come credibility upon the subject and reassures the reader that they are not wasting their time. All of this leads to a thesis that jettisons the reader into the main body of the paper. Though this paper had many strong points it did have its weaknesses as well. Grammar and the use of passive voice were problems for this paper. The passive voice took away from the overall presence of my writing as well as the multiple grammar mistakes. For my least successful essay I chose Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh. This paper is my least successful this semester because it lacks in almost every aspect we reviewed this semester. The most notable flaw of this paper was the multiple spelling error, one of which occurring within the title. The misspelling of the focus character for the paper just makes the whole composition look ridiculous. Both the conclusion and the introductions to this paper are extremely lackluster. Both use cheap humor and clichĂŠs to fill space and leave the reader with nothing gained. There is a silver lining to this paper however. The thesis presented is very strong. The thesis focuses around two points, one of which is not explained or supported very well. The other point however is defended very well.


The introduction and main bod of A New Age of Metal Monsters far surpasses that of Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh. The introduction flows better and uses merit and a hook to entice the reader rather than cheap writing tricks. Both papers conclusions were lacking though Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh’s was by far the worst, lacking in length and closure. Overall A New Age of Metal Monsters was written with fewer grammatical errors and defended its main thesis better. It Uses multiple references to support its claims and flows it a clear concise way.


Julie Bohannon/Justin Jasiulevicius English 1102/ Redding Literature Film Paper Comment [GSC1]: Format issue

February 27, 2012 Dim Lights and Dark Chiguar

Comment [GSC2]: Misspelled “Chigurh�

Drugs, money and the fast lane are the essentials for the live fast and die young lifestyle. With a rise in crime across the nation has America actually become no country for old men to dwell? Whether

Comment [GSC3]: Rhetorical question but used for effect

the Coen brothers meant to answer this question or not they certainly explored the idea in their

Comment [GSC4]: Not, Comment [GSC5]: Present tense

explosively dark movie No Country for Old Men. A lot can be said about the storyline and characters involved in this modern day western, but one aspect far surpasses all of the components that make this

Comment [GSC6]: generalization Comment [GSC7]: passive voice

tale complete. In No Country for Old Men, the Cohen Brothers use contrast lighting in order to indicate character intentions and provide greater distinction between character locations within the scene. The most widely manipulated movie tactic used throughout the film is the strategic use of contrast lighting. In one of the first scenes that we meet Lwellyn, there is an extremely, almost unnatural

Comment [GSC8]: PR #25 Comment [GSC9]: PR #29

contrast between the shadow of the clouds on the prairie, and the other sunlit spots. This drastic contrast between light and dark is a prevalent theme throughout the whole movie. The use of hard lighting in this

Comment [GSC10]: PR #25

specific shot helps amplify the contrasting amongst the landscape. Directly following this scene Lwellyn

Comment [GSC11]: More specification

finds a dead man underneath a forlorn tree. The shadow of the tree is perceived as way darker than in real

Comment [GSC12]: Use present tense

life. The spots where we are led to believe the sun is shining is visually overly bright compared to the

Comment [GSC13]: Passive voice and PR #25

shadowing. Again this use of hard lighting amplifies the contrasting in the current area. This use of hard lighting is chosen to create greater definition between locations within the scenes. To be specific, once Lwellyn is underneath the tree, the contrast in lighting is so great that one naturally blocks out any back ground light and retains focus upon everything within the shading. Despite the fact that all of the interaction and events are taking place within the hard lighting shadows, this shadowing on the prairie scene creates more variation within the scenery.

Comment [GSC14]: Passive voice


Moreover, in a broader perspective, the whole movie is shot in a part of the world where the landscapes are wide and flat with little variation. The open range is figuratively the closest arid ecosystem to a desert. A movie such as No Country for Old Men is a slow paced movie spotted with bits of action. A real plot is not truly defined until forty five minutes into the film once the audience discovers that Anton Chiguar has a device that can locate the coveted suitcase of money. In addition, Lwellyn has such as extensive drawn out character and plot development. The contrasting in lighting and use of hard lighting allows for variation that keeps the movie interesting and makes for scenes, such as Lwellyn hunting, more visually pleasing and faster paced. The lighting throughout the whole movie contributes a lot to the overall mood of the film. From a broad overlook to a more in depth look, the lighting acts as a catalyst to the suspense as well as the more aloof scenes. In scenes such as the one where the sheriff is eating his breakfast and reading the paper, there is almost a complete absence of any shading or darkness whatsoever. This is one of the brief, sparse scenes where comedy enters the story. Despite the grim undertone of the comedy, the bright lighting contributes and amplifies the mood. This is also one of the few times where back lighting is used to brighten a character. Though very minor, there is some use of back lighting to brighten the overall mood of the scene by illuminating the waitress from behind. As stated before this is very minor but it is crucial to allowing a comedic scene such as this one to flow with such a forlorn movie On the other hand, the scene where Lwellyn is running from the men in the truck uses the bright lighting in a different way. Most of the scene is at night shrouded in darkness, though when the men inside the truck begin chasing Lwellyn, the mood immediately spikes to a suspenseful, jagged ruckus resembling that of a monster chase scene. This is one of the immediate images the viewer is exposed to, a cascade of truck lights barreling towards Lwellyn. To the viewer it is quite obvious that this is a truck, but at first glance it takes on a monstrous persona reminiscent of the lighting effects previously used in the 1962 James Bond film Dr. No. In that film the locals refer to “a dragon that hunted the swamps at night�. In reality it was an armored tank with headlights similar to the truck in No Country for Old Men. Aside


from this barrage of truck headlights, there is also a small break of dawn directly behind the truck, further amplifying its entrance. Another point of interest to note concerning the lighting of the truck chase scene is that the truck lights become the key lighting during the chase. The main source of light prior to the entrance of the truck is the pale moon light draping the landscape. To heighten the mood of the scene,as soon as the truck enters the picture the key light switches from the moon light to the truck’s headlights. Not only does it switch from a fixated mellow source to a artificial jagged source, but it is also in constant motion leaving the key lighting in this scene to become very erratic. As the audience watches Lwellyn run from the truck not only are the left in anticipation for his outcome, but they are exposed to a roller coaster of sporadic key lighting further amplifying the confusion of the whole scene. The key lighting is not only manipulated with regards to the landscape, but contributes a lot to the overall persona of the main antagonist in the film, Anton Chiguar. Anton Chiguar is a very curious character throughout the whole film in regards to the way he is illuminated. One of the only times we whiteness him fully lit is either when he is out in broad daylight or while he is injured. Even when the audience first sees Anton sanz any shadowing, he emerges from a stolen police car, the contents within, including the driver, are almost pitch black. This darkly perceived character who is a native to darkness in this film is surrounded by ominous lighting in almost every scene. The other scene he is seen fully lit in is right after his car accident. This occurs only briefly as he slowly emerges from the car. Not all of his face is visible and the camera makes a quick sweep to his back which is shrouded in shadow due to the angle of the sun. Once Anton’s face is visible once more as he sits on the curb, he is positioned underneath the shade of a tree, still retaining his dark presence. The effect of key lighting manipulation mixed with strategic hard lighting shadow placement concerning Chiguar can be seen again in the instance where Chiguar confronts Carla Jean within her bedroom. In this clip the absence of back lighting around Chiguar can account for the abyss-like void that encompassed the corner where he is seated. The key lighting that reveals him is only from his shoulders down. The scene does not show him killing Carla Jean. In turn, there is an implied gap of storyline that


jumps to him standing outside looking at the bottom of his boots. The audience is led to believe that he is making sure he does not have blood on his boots or leave tracks. The darkness used prior to this exit implies the impending death in Carla Jean’s future. In other scenes Chiguar is shown killing his victims but this scene just proves that darkness is a factor to death. To build upon this scene the implication of death is indeed always signaled by shadow and or darkness of some kind. To as a minor extent as the shadowing of a character when he is introduced in a scene, there is a correlation scene throughout the film. A minor example of this can be seen in a clip where Anton Chiguar kills the innocent driver on the side of the road. He is driving a stolen police car and pulls behind the innocent driver to pull him over. Until Chiguar steps out of the car both he and the driver are in almost pitch black from the spectator’s view point. Not only is there implication that Chiguar might yet again kill another, but possibly that grim if not deadly outcomes are in the near future for the driver of the car. Another example of this implication of death can be indirectly seen when Chiguar has his tense conversation with the Texaco store clerk. Most of the scene both Chiguar and the clerk are halfway shrouded in shadow implying that this is indeed a tense situation that can go either way. Concerning the lighting, an interesting part of the this particular scene is once the coin has been flipped and the store clerks life safe for the time being, Chigaur halfway side steps to his right but still maintains eye contact and speech with the clerk. This maneuver causes the light to cover his whole face. It is interesting this correlates to the previous theory stated; because in turn once Chiguar’s face is completely illuminated the audience has assurance that Chiguar will not kill for the time being. Lighting is not the only factor but the most important in this film. When concentrating on lighting in films, it makes one think about the implications and character intentions portrayed throughout the whole movie. The manipulation of lighting in film is the life force that surrounds, binds and penetrates the characters in a way that reveals more than words and camera angles could ever convey.


Work Cited Dr. No. Dir. Terence Young. Perf. Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, and Bernard Lee. Eon. 1962. Film. No Country for Old Men. Dir. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen. Perf. Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, and Josh Brolin. Paramount, 2007. Film.


Julie Bohannon/Justin Jasiulevicius English 1102/ Redding Literature Film Paper February 27, 2012 Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh Drugs, money and the fast lane are the essentials for the live fast and die young lifestyle. With a rise in crime across the nation has America actually become no country for old men to dwell? Whether the Coen brothers meant to answer this question or not they certainly explored the idea in their explosively dark movie No Country for Old Men. A lot can be said about the storyline and characters involved in this modern day western, but one aspect far surpasses all of the components that make this tale complete. In No Country for Old Men, the Cohen Brothers use contrast lighting in order to indicate character intentions and provide greater distinction between character locations within the scene. The most widely manipulated movie tactic used throughout the film is the strategic use of contrast lighting. In one of the first scenes that we meet Llewellyn, there is an extremely, almost unnatural contrast between the shadow of the clouds on the prairie, and the other sunlit spots. This drastic contrast between light and dark is a prevalent theme throughout the whole movie. The use of hard lighting in this specific shot helps amplify the contrasting amongst the landscape. Directly following this scene Llewellyn finds a dead man underneath a forlorn tree. The shadow of the tree is perceived as way darker than in real life. The spots where we are led to believe the sun is shining is visually overly bright compared to the shadowing. Again this use of hard lighting amplifies the contrasting in the current area. This use of hard lighting is chosen to create greater definition between locations within the scenes. To be specific, once Llewellyn is underneath the tree, the contrast in lighting is so great that one naturally blocks out any back ground light and retains focus upon everything within the shading. Despite the fact that all of the interaction and events are taking place within the hard lighting shadows, this shadowing on the prairie scene creates more variation within the scenery.


Moreover, in a broader perspective, the whole movie is shot in a part of the world where the landscapes are wide and flat with little variation. The open range is figuratively the closest arid ecosystem to a desert. A movie such as No Country for Old Men is a slow paced movie spotted with bits of action. A real plot is not truly defined until forty five minutes into the film once the audience discovers that Anton Chigurh has a device that can locate the coveted suitcase of money. In addition, Llewellyn has such as extensive drawn out character and plot development. The contrasting in lighting and use of hard lighting allows for variation that keeps the movie interesting and makes for scenes, such as Llewellyn hunting, more visually pleasing and faster paced. The lighting throughout the whole movie contributes a lot to the overall mood of the film. From a broad overlook to a more in depth look, the lighting acts as a catalyst to the suspense as well as the more aloof scenes. In scenes such as the one where the sheriff is eating his breakfast and reading the paper, there is almost a complete absence of any shading or darkness whatsoever. This is one of the brief, sparse scenes where comedy enters the story. Despite the grim undertone of the comedy, the bright lighting contributes and amplifies the mood. This is also one of the few times where back lighting is used to brighten a character. Though very minor, there is some use of back lighting to brighten the overall mood of the scene by illuminating the waitress from behind. As stated before this is very minor but it is crucial to allowing a comedic scene such as this one to flow with such a forlorn movie On the other hand, the scene where Llewellyn is running from the men in the truck uses the bright lighting in a different way. Most of the scene is at night shrouded in darkness, though when the men inside the truck begin chasing Llewellyn, the mood immediately spikes to a suspenseful, jagged ruckus resembling that of a monster chase scene. This is one of the immediate images the viewer is exposed to, a cascade of truck lights barreling towards Llewellyn. To the viewer it is quite obvious that this is a truck, but at first glance it takes on a monstrous persona reminiscent of the lighting effects previously used in the 1962 James Bond film Dr. No. In that film the locals refer to “a dragon that hunted the swamps at night�. In reality it was an armored tank with headlights similar to the truck in No Country for Old Men.


Aside from this barrage of truck headlights, there is also a small break of dawn directly behind the truck, further amplifying its entrance. Another point of interest to note concerning the lighting of the truck chase scene is that the truck lights become the key lighting during the chase. The main source of light prior to the entrance of the truck is the pale moon light draping the landscape. To heighten the mood of the scene, as soon as the truck enters the picture the key light switches from the moon light to the truck’s headlights. Not only does it switch from a fixated mellow source to an artificial jagged source, but it is also in constant motion leaving the key lighting in this scene to become very erratic. As the audience watches Llewellyn run from the truck not only are the left in anticipation for his outcome, but they are exposed to a roller coaster of sporadic key lighting further amplifying the confusion of the whole scene. The key lighting is not only manipulated with regards to the landscape, but contributes a lot to the overall persona of the main antagonist in the film, Anton Chigurh. Anton Chigurh is a very curious character throughout the whole film in regards to the way he is illuminated. One of the only times we whiteness him fully lit is either when he is out in broad daylight or while he is injured. Even when the audience first sees Anton without any shadowing, he emerges from a stolen police car, the contents within, including the driver, are almost pitch black. This darkly perceived character who is a native to darkness in this film is surrounded by ominous lighting in almost every scene. The other scene he is seen fully lit in is right after his car accident. This occurs only briefly as he slowly emerges from the car. Not all of his face is visible and the camera makes a quick sweep to his back which is shrouded in shadow due to the angle of the sun. Once Anton’s face is visible once more as he sits on the curb, he is positioned underneath the shade of a tree, still retaining his dark presence. The effect of key lighting manipulation mixed with strategic hard lighting shadow placement concerning Chigurh can be seen again in the instance where Chigurh confronts Carla Jean within her bedroom. In this clip the absence of back lighting around Chigurh can account for the abyss-like void that encompassed the corner where he is seated. The key lighting that reveals him is only from his shoulders down. The scene does not show him killing Carla Jean. In turn, there is an implied gap of storyline that


jumps to him standing outside looking at the bottom of his boots. The audience is led to believe that he is making sure he does not have blood on his boots or leave tracks. The darkness used prior to this exit implies the impending death in Carla Jean’s future. In other scenes Chigurh is shown killing his victims. To build upon this scene the implication of death is indeed always signaled by shadow and or darkness of some kind. To as a minor extent as the shadowing of a character when he is introduced in a scene, there is a correlation scene throughout the film. A minor example of this can be seen in a clip where Anton Chigurh kills the innocent driver on the side of the road. He is driving a stolen police car and pulls behind the innocent driver to pull him over. Until Chigurh steps out of the car both he and the driver are in almost pitch black from the spectator’s view point. Not only is there implication that Chigurh might yet again kill another, but possibly that grim if not deadly outcomes are in the near future for the driver of the car. Another example of this implication of death can be indirectly seen when Chigurh has his tense conversation with the Texaco store clerk. Most of the scene both Chigurh and the clerk are halfway shrouded in shadow implying that this is indeed a tense situation that can go either way. Concerning the lighting, an interesting part of the this particular scene is once the coin has been flipped and the store clerks life safe for the time being, Chigaur halfway side steps to his right but still maintains eye contact and speech with the clerk. This maneuver causes the light to cover his whole face. It is interesting this correlates to the previous theory stated; because in turn once Chigurh’s face is completely illuminated the audience has assurance that Chigurh will not kill for the time being. Lighting has proved to be the most important aspect of this film. It defines landscapes, and provides structure within the scene. The lighting also predicts the future. Lighting is and will always be an huge factor in films that most will never notice but will feel.

Work Cited Dr. No. Dir. Terence Young. Perf. Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, and Bernard Lee. Eon. 1962. Film.


No Country for Old Men. Dir. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen. Perf. Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, and Josh Brolin. Paramount, 2007. Film.


Justin Jasiulevicius Engl 1102 / Redding Paper 1 31 January 2012 “A New Age of Metal Monsters “

Comment [GSC1]: Unnecessary quotes

Painting a picture of a desolate landscape, spotted with slightly burnt barren trees, with the stereotypical background noise of a lone wolf howling at the moon overhead to most seems like a perfect setting for the classic all American horror film. These iconic settings of castles and eerie lands have become embedded in our culture over the past eighty years. Whether subliminal anti communistic propaganda or the fascination with fear itself, something drove the people of the twentieth century to explore their darker sides. Films such as the 1931 James Whale film Frankenstein, is the perfect example

Comment [GSC2]: This is a specific time period with no specific purpose. Needs to be clarified why this was chosen.

Comment [GSC3]: Subject verb agreement

of the beginning of the new revived human monster fascination. For a solid forty years after Frankenstein, humans dove further and further into stories resembling those of our forefathers. Giant monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong echoed memories of Leviathan and the Behemoth. Yet somewhere along that line a shift in focus occurred. For once humans began looking into their future, and began seeing the possible horrors that might

Comment [GSC4]: Different word choice

become of their actions. Films such as Blade Runner and books like “Dracula’s Children” looked from

Comment [GSC5]: Unnecessary quotes

the present onward and not only saw monsters in more modern settings, but pushed the envelope of

Comment [GSC6]: Possible run on sentence, break it up a bit so the audience does not get lost and/or bored

human technology and fore casted a reign of sorrow and terror because of our actions. The face of monsters to come and their new stopping grounds are those of our own backyards. Moreover, horror

Comment [GSC7]: Clarify Comment [GSC8]: “stomping grounds”, slang, cliche

stories of the early forties placed their villains far away in evil demented places such as undiscovered far away mountain villages and Eastern Europe. To theorize, the reintroduction of monsters to the modern era

Comment [GSC9]: Use different word choice, far away is already used in this sentence.

involves somewhat of an evolution. One might say that this is humankind’s second fascination overall as a society with monsters. Through industrialization, the leading countries of the past century have socialized their “empires” in ways that resemble ancient Rome for the first time since then. Now regional

Comment [GSC10]: Awkward, take this thought and make it a separate sentence for clarity and flow. Comment [GSC11]: Subject verb agreement.

tales were able to reach the ears of most the world in a fraction of the time it previously had taken.

Comment [GSC12]: Use different phrasing


Because of this socialization, these tales traveled fast and caught the imaginations of all classes which in turn began the mankind’s second fascination with monsters.

Comment [GSC13]: The is not needed in this sentence

Through human history there are two distinct periods of time where the culture of monster stories has flourished, the periods being the classic Roman / Greek empires and from the end of WWI to the

Comment [GSC14]: Passive voice

present day. The periods between medieval Europe and World War I seem to have less of an emphasis

Comment [GSC15]: Awkward sentence structure, break up.

upon monster folklore. Compared to tales from that of Aristotle and Pliny the Elder, the only resurgence of monster enthusiasts in mass has been within the past century. There have been many similarities between the two eras. Most of the origins of both eras’ creatures stem from folklore, regional tradition,

Comment [GSC16]: Not been, use occured Comment [GSC17]: Passive voice Comment [GSC18]: Try “the majority”, most sounds to broad and unsure.

religious views, and ancient mythology. With the evolution of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), some of the first movies to hit the big screen with the new technology were Greek and roman mythology stories. Movies such as “Jason and the Argonauts” and “Clash of the Titans” were instant classics, that centered around the “old tradition” of monsters. However, as stated before, modern monster fascination has evolved in a much different way than that of ancient civilization.

Comment [GSC19]: No quotations Comment [GSC20]: No quotations Comment [GSC21]: To be verb, try became Comment [GSC22]: PR #31 Comment [GSC23]: PR # 24

Humans have begun weaving horror stories of the future dangers of our scientific advances. In an article entitled “Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film”, author J.P. Telotte further elaborates on this idea of human creations creating our own destruction. A common topic of futuristic demise is our coming invention of robotic helpers that develop artificial intelligence and turn against us. This story has already been told in so many ways and variations. The popular television series Battlestar Galactica is

Comment [GSC24]: PR # 25

about the last few survivors of the human race seeking sanctuary from their evil robotic “cylon” creations that which to exterminate them in vengeance for the years of slavery they were subjected to. The 1996

Comment [GSC25]: “wish” not which

film The Matrix tells of an apocalyptic war between humans and their machine creations. The machine creations eventually subdue the human race into a dream world in order to use their bodies as batteries. Films such as these are the result of human imaginative evolution. No longer are man’s monster stories

Comment [GSC26]: This sentence is too long, possible run on sentence.

only that of mythical beings and the demonic actions they wrath upon us, but in turn they are of how our

Comment [GSC27]: How, slightly awkward phrasing, consider revision. Comment [GSC28]: PR#30

scientific creations, our scientific children exact revenge upon us, of how they become our real life

Comment [GSC29]: PR #30

monsters. This is where fantasy trails along the border of possibility. This is also where bedazzling shock

Comment [GSC30]: I don’t know what you mean and/or what you are getting at here Justin


fear trails along the border of apocalyptic horrific possibility. Is this the result of humans searching elsewhere for fearful ideas or humans realizing the worst case scenario dangers of our scientific ventures? Through competitive markets, naturally throughout the monster movie evolution there has been a

Comment [GSC31]: Rhetorical question Comment [GSC32]: Rewrite Comment [GSC33]: Passive voice

push to further the fear factor in each movie. How might one accomplish a more terrifying experience for the viewer? The horror tales of the future play upon one’s imagination which is where the scariest

Comment [GSC34]: And ,

monsters lie. In Telotte’s article, the main focus was more than just futuristic apocalyptic films. Telotte questioned the subliminal motives for focusing on such films and sought clarity on a related but separate

Comment [GSC35]: Use present tense

topic, the topic of human doubling. This subject of human doubling is another fear of the future. Genocide

Comment [GSC36]: To be verb

is horrendous in itself, but what of living in a blissful life sanz any emotions or worrying? At first one

Comment [GSC37]: Lack of citation

might become a little disturbed at the idea, but Telotte sought for more and found that others disagree. In the 1956 science fiction film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, extraterrestrial pods landed on Earth and began identically cloning individual humans. Once the process was complete, the human under control of the pod, part of an interconnected species, void of all emotion, thought, or free will. The controlled human

Comment [GSC38]: Missing a verb

remained in a state of bliss such as that of a mindless insect. As stated before, this appears to be a very horrific way to live for a human; however, director Don Siegel disagreed. In reference to Invasion of the

Comment [GSC39]: Use present tense

Body Snatchers it is stated,

Comment [GSC40]: Omit “is”

“He really believes that being a pod is preferable to being a frail, frightening human who cares. He has a strong case for being a pod. How marvelous it would be if you were a cow and all you had to do is munch a little grass and not worry about life, death and pain. There’s a strong case for being a pod.” Through this controversial idea or case in favor of states of being such as the pod, we see copious

Comment [GSC41]: Wrong quotation format for such a long quote Comment [GSC42]: There is no citation

amounts of iterations with this message embedded in the main storyline. An example being The Stepford

Comment [GSC43]: Get out of passive voice

Wives, a whole town centered on replacing common house wives with robotics android replacements.

Comment [GSC44]: Sentence frag.

These androids are practically perfect in every way yet in calls into question, would one really want to live in such a reality polar opposite to our own? The television show Battlestar Galactica directly

Comment [GSC45]: Rhetorical question.

questions whether it is indeed better to be a robot void of emotion or a flawed human being. The Cylons

Comment [GSC46]: To be verb

(cyborgs) in Battlestar Galactica are exact human replicas. The characters in the show directly question if

Comment [GSC47]: To be verb


these Cylons can indeed feel real emotions including love, and sorrow. What is even more interesting is

Comment [GSC48]: PR #28 and 25

that some of the human characters end up being Cylons but not even realizing it. They question if

Comment [GSC49]: PR #25 x3

everything they thought they felt was real or just software. This idea of being stripped of all feelings and freewill is the new monstrous entity that has become the future of monster stories. A curious concept to consider is the idea of humankind loosing its fear of monsters and exploring

Comment [GSC50]: PR #25

other understandings. To elaborate, naturally there are things that scare everyone, but in the broader

Comment [GSC51]: Passive voice

spectrum, overall, has our society begun to conquer its fear of monsters? Moreover, have we begun to

Comment [GSC52]: Another rhetorical question

examine monsters as more of an imaginary reminder of the capabilities and forces of nature as opposed to a horrific symbol of terror and violence? This idea challenges the question of whether humankind’s look

Comment [GSC53]: Two rhetorical questions in a row

into the future is a result of competitive markets, a fear of our own capabilities or something more. One

Comment [GSC54]: PR#25

aspect still holds true, violence has not left horror movies by any means. It seems to be the only card up writers’ and directors’ sleeves. Modern horror movies are becoming less of a terror picture centered

Comment [GSC55]: Cliche

around well throughout, symbolic monsters and more of an amusement ride. There has been a steady

Comment [GSC56]: PR #29

decline in straight forward terror films and more of a rise of slasher blood and guts films which are two completely different things, pertaining primarily to mainstream film that is. There will always be a subtle

Comment [GSC57]: PR #25

underground cult classic horror film group of movies that continue that horror tradition. Also there has

Comment [GSC58]: This fragment needs revision. Comment [GSC59]: PR #30

been a rise of horror parodies which are just an embarrassment to the genre in and out of itself. The evolution of humankind’s fascination with monsters is one that is constantly rewriting itself. Every day we are slowly changing our outlook on monsters and everyday monsters are changing the way

Comment [GSC60]: PR #30 Comment [GSC61]: This is unnecessary and biased Comment [GSC62]: Confusing

we view the world. We have seemed to almost conquer our fear of monsters themselves and in turn only

Comment [GSC63]: It will be so much more powerful if you avoid the passive voice here

fear the horrific ways we could die by their hands. If not the death aspect, it is the future possibilities of

Comment [GSC64]: PR #25

our own hands that is the real fear. Regardless of our motives, there stands a fact that humans have been

Comment [GSC65]: PR #25

“reintroduced” to monsters and socialize these stories across the land in ways we have not seen since ancient Rome. The big difference between present day people and Roman society, besides the absence of togas aside from the occasional National Lampoon movie, is that the monsters of today look into the future. These are the heralds of the new age of metal monsters, the possible children of our hands, the

Comment [GSC66]: PR #30


newly envisioned arbiters of human destruction. Of creations we might bring about, the metal monsters might however be the scariest ones of all.

Works Cited


Asma, Stephen. On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Battlestar Galactica. Writ. Glen A Larson. Dir. Glen A Larson. SyFy Chan. 2003. Television. Clash of the Titans. Dir. Desmond Davis. Perf. Laurence Olivier, Harry Hamlin, and Claire Bloom. Warner Video. 1981. Film. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Dir. Bon Siegel. Perf. Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter. Allied Artist Pictures, 1956. Film. Jason and the Argonauts. Dir. Don Chaffey. Perf. Todd Armstrong, Nancy Kovack and Gary Raymond. Colombia Pictures. 1963. Film. The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurnce Fishburne and Carrie -Anne Moss. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999. Film. The Stepford Wives. Dir. Frank Oz. Perf. Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler and Mattew Broderick. Paramount. 2004. Film Weiner, Robert G. “Marvel Comic and the Golem Legend.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 29.2 (2011): 25, 50


Justin Jasiulevicius Engl 1102 / Redding Paper 1 31 January 2012 A New Age of Metal Monsters Painting a picture of a desolate landscape, spotted with slightly burnt barren trees, with the stereotypical background noise of a lone wolf howling at the moon overhead to most seems like a perfect setting for the classic all American horror film. These iconic settings of castles and eerie lands have become embedded in our culture. Whether subliminal anti-communistic propaganda or the fascination with fear itself, something drove the people of the twentieth century to explore their darker sides. Films such as the 1931 James Whale film Frankenstein, are the perfect example of the beginning of the new revived human monster fascination. For a solid forty years after Frankenstein, humans dove further and further into stories resembling those of our forefathers. Giant monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong echoed memories of Leviathan and the Behemoth. Yet somewhere along that line a shift in focus occurred. Humans began looking into their future, and began seeing the possible horrors that might become of their actions. Films such as Blade Runner and books like Dracula’s Children looked from the present onward. They not only saw monsters in more modern settings, but pushed the envelope of human technology and fore casted a reign of sorrow and terror because of human actions concerning the environment and the way we treat one another. The face of monsters to come and their new environments are those of our own backyards. Moreover, horror stories of the early forties placed their villains far away in evil demented places such as undiscovered mountain villages and Eastern Europe. To theorize, the reintroduction of monsters to the modern era involves somewhat of an evolution. One might say that this marks humankind’s second fascination overall as a society with monsters. Through industrialization, the leading countries of the past century have socialized their “empires” in ways that resemble ancient Rome. The age of industrialization marks the first time since the Roman era that this has occurred. Now regional


tales reach the ears of most the world in a fraction of the time compared to that of the past. Because of this socialization, these tales traveled fast and caught the imaginations of all classes which in turn began mankind’s second fascination with monsters. Through human history, two distinct periods of time exist where the culture of monster stories flourishes. These two periods include the classic Roman / Greek empires and from the end of WWI to the present day. The periods between medieval Europe and World War I seem to have less of an emphasis upon monster folklore. Compared to tales from that of Aristotle and Pliny the Elder, the only resurgence of monster enthusiasts in mass occurs within the past century. Many similarities exist between the two eras. A majority of the origins of both eras’ creatures stem from folklore, regional tradition, religious views, and ancient mythology. With the evolution of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), some of the first movies to hit the big screen with the new technology were Greek and roman mythology stories. Movies such as Jason and the Argonauts and Clash of the Titans became instant classics that centered around the “old tradition” of monsters. However, modern monster fascination evolves in a much different way than that of ancient civilization. Humans have begun weaving horror stories of the future dangers of our scientific advances. In an article entitled “Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film”, author J.P. Telotte further elaborates on this idea of human creations creating our own destruction. A common topic of futuristic demise is our coming invention of robotic helpers that develop artificial intelligence and turn against us. This story has already been told in so many ways and variations. The popular television series Battlestar Galactica depicts the last few survivors of the human race seeking sanctuary from their evil robotic “cylon” creations that seek to exterminate them in vengeance for the years of slavery they were subjected to. The 1996 film The Matrix tells of an apocalyptic war between humans and their machine creations. The machine creations eventually subdue the human race into a dream world in order to use their bodies as batteries. Films such as these are the result of human imaginative evolution. Mankind’s monster stories no longer only consist of mythical beings and the demonic actions they wrath upon us. In turn, they tell of our scientific creations, our scientific creations exact revenge upon us, and of these creations becoming


real life monsters. These new age monster stories trail along the border of fantasy and possibility. They also trail along the border of suspenseful anxiety and apocalyptic horrific possibility. Is this the result of humans searching elsewhere for fearful ideas or humans realizing the worst case scenario dangers of our scientific ventures? Competitive markets naturally push to further the fear factor in each movie, especially in the monster movie genre. These markets seek for new ways to accomplish a more terrifying experience for the viewer. The horror tales of the future play upon one’s imagination, where the scariest monsters dwell. In Telotte’s article, the main focus was more than just futuristic apocalyptic films. Telotte questions the subliminal motives for focusing on such films and sought clarity on a related but separate topic, the topic of human doubling. Another fear of the future includes the subject of human doubling. Genocide is horrendous in itself, but what of living in a blissful life sanz any emotions or worrying? (Telotte Human Artiface ) At first one might become a little disturbed at the idea, but Telotte sought for more and found that others disagree. In the 1956 science fiction film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, extraterrestrial pods landed on Earth and began identically cloning individual humans. Once the process was complete, the human under control of the pod, existed as part of an interconnected species, void of all emotion, thought, or free will. The controlled human remained in a state of bliss such as that of a mindless insect. As stated before, this appears to be a very horrific way to live for a human; however, director Don Siegel disagreeds. In reference to Invasion of the Body Snatchers he states, “He really believes that being a pod is preferable to being a frail, frightening human who cares. He has a strong case for being a pod. How marvelous it would be if you were a cow and all you had to do is munch a little grass and not worry about life, death and pain. There’s a strong case for being a pod.” (Weiner, Marvel Comic) Through this controversial idea or case in favor of states of being such as the pod, we see copious amounts of iterations that embed this message in their main storyline. One example includes The Stepford Wives, a movie about whole town centered on replacing common house wives with robotics android


replacements. These androids are practically perfect in every way yet in calls into question, would one really want to live in such a reality polar opposite to our own? The television show Battlestar Galactica directly questions whether it is indeed better to be a robot void of emotion or a flawed human being. The Cylons (cyborgs) in Battlestar Galactica exist as exact human replicas. The characters in the show directly question if these Cylons can indeed feel real emotions including love, and sorrow. Even more interesting, some of the human characters end up being Cylons but not even realizing it. They question if everything previously thought or felt was real or just software programming. This idea of being stripped of all feelings and freewill is the new monstrous entity that has become the future of monster stories. The idea of humankind loosing it’s fear of monsters and exploring other understandings sparks curiosity. To elaborate, everyone retains fears of some kind, but in the broader spectrum, our society has begun to conquer its fear of monsters. Moreover, we have begun to examine monsters as more of an imaginary reminder of the capabilities and forces of nature as opposed to a horrific symbol of terror and violence. This idea challenges the question of whether humankind’s look into the future exists as a result of competitive markets, a fear of our own capabilities or something more. One aspect still holds true, violence has not left horror movies by any means. Modern horror movies are becoming less of a terror picture centered around well throughout, symbolic monsters and more of an amusement ride. A steady decline in straight forward terror films has occurred as well as a correlation in a rise in slasher blood and guts films. Although these may seem similar at first, they are two different genres. Forever will a subtle underground cult classic horror film group of movies continue that horror tradition. The evolution of humankind’s fascination with monsters is constantly changed and writing itself. Every day we are slowly changing our outlook on monsters and everyday monsters are changing the way we view the world. We seem to have almost conquered our fear of monsters themselves and in turn only fear the horrific ways we could die by their hands. If not the death aspect, the future possibilities of our own hands remain the real fear. Regardless of our motives, there stands a fact that humans have been “reintroduced” to monsters and socialize these stories across the land in ways we have not seen since ancient Rome. The big difference between present day people and Roman society, besides the absence of


togas aside from the occasional National Lampoon movie, is that the monsters of today look into the future. They exist as the heralds of the new age of metal monsters, the possible children of our hands, the newly envisioned arbiters of human destruction. Of creations we might bring about, the metal monsters might however be the scariest ones of all.


Works Cited

Asma, Stephen. On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Battlestar Galactica. Writ. Glen A Larson. Dir. Glen A Larson. SyFy Chan. 2003. Television. Clash of the Titans. Dir. Desmond Davis. Perf. Laurence Olivier, Harry Hamlin, and Claire Bloom. Warner Video. 1981. Film. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Dir. Bon Siegel. Perf. Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter. Allied Artist Pictures, 1956. Film. Jason and the Argonauts. Dir. Don Chaffey. Perf. Todd Armstrong, Nancy Kovack and Gary Raymond. Colombia Pictures. 1963. Film. Telotte, J.P. Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film. Film Quarterly. Vol. 36, No.3. p. 44 – 51. University of California Press. 2009 The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurnce Fishburne and Carrie -Anne Moss. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999. Film. The Stepford Wives. Dir. Frank Oz. Perf. Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler and Mattew Broderick. Paramount. 2004. Film Weiner, Robert G. “Marvel Comic and the Golem Legend.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 29.2 (2011): 25, 50


Calvin and Hobbes Justin Jasiulevicius Calvin's idea of idividuallity is sticking to the American way, what ever that may be. Concerning the subject he's talking about, shirts, it means having a logo for a company. The humor part of his ideas comes from the seriousness in which he's talking. He sincerely believes that a company logo on his shirt will further his individuality. The irony of course is that this is the exact opposite of what most people think as far as individuality goes.

Comment [GSC1]: Heading needs formatting

Hobbes responds witha very simple "You admit that?" question. His response is voiced from the view point that Calvin's idea on individuality is so absurd that why would a person admit to such views. Watterson uses Hobbes in a very effective way by presenting him as a good intentive, thoughtful listener. This presentation of Hobbes allows for his resonse to seem as the voice of reason to further solidify the fact that Calvin is obviously wrong in his beliefs.

Comment [GSC5]: with a

Watterson is making the argument that consumerism is America's source for identity, The corporate link to the argument is a little more vauge. I interpret it as America's addiction to consumerism is so extreme that we use the excuse of self choice as a mask for our addiction to a company's products. Watterson's development starts with an outlandish comment on Calvin's shirt and how he wished it had a logo. The next panel states Calvin's reasoning on his statement and belief on what makes a good shirt. Then it goes on to Clavin philosophising on the message that a shirt with a corporate logo presents to the world. Finally Hobbes is so shocked at the route Calvin has taken that he states the obvious. Calvin in turn relates his views on shirts and identity to the culture of America. The humor is that all of Calvin's statements and thoughts are the "anti-definition" of identity yet are very true concerning their relation to America's clothing culture. I agree with Calvin’s statement that clothing with a logo is better than clothing with out solely under the circumstances that the clothing without had nothing else on it. Then your comparing boring to st least some what interesting. Other than that I disagree because the shirt logo fad has had it's day for along time. Now I believe it's time for a change. I will agree with Watterson from the standpoint that alot of logos present a status to people around them. The Polo shirt company produces slightly expensive everyday wear that only displays their logo. Their shirts are viewed by many as shirts well off people buy. As far as the indiviuality factor goes I will agree to the point that some companies logo's displayed on a person’s shirt present the idea that they enjoy doing a certain action. Pabst Blue Ribbon for example, if a person wears a PBR shirt they are stating to the world "Hey everyone, I like to drink cheap beer." I wear some shirts that have logos on them, mainly because they are work shirts. I do think alot of times that people who choose to wear shiorts with commerical logos are trying to project a statement about themselves, but usually not in the way Calvi n presents it. I think expensive shirts like the Polo shirts I mentioned earlier are the ones Watterson has in mind mainly because they are synonomous with consumerism. Like Calivin stated "My identity is so wrapped up it what I buy that I paid the company to advertise its products." Those words could asily be substituted with "My identity is so wrapped up in what I buy that I want everyone to know what status I'm at in society by paying Polo for one of their shirts so people will know how much money I can afford to spend on simple items." Concerning Watteron's criticism however I do not believe he was includng sports team logos. I believe a different mentality comes along with sports apparel purchasers. I believe sports apparel speaks to a person's likes (or dislikes), such as penguins or cartoons. The grey area in retrospect is very wide when it comes to this topic. What if the man who wore the PBR shirt just really liked that beer? Wha if the person who wears the Breast Cancer Awaremness shirt knew someone who was affected by that horrible disease. To sum it all up I believe Watterson was targeting genaric brands such as Tyco or Brawny, logos that usually don't play towards people's wants but their needs. I guess when it comes to clothing, you never really know why people wear certain things.

Comment [GSC2]: misspelled Comment [GSC3]: There is no hook or lead in to the introduction Comment [GSC4]: Here is the thesis

Comment [GSC6]: I think you mean incentive Comment [GSC7]: response

Comment [GSC8]: misspelled

Comment [GSC9]: misspelled

Comment [GSC10]: This paragraph is too short. Comment [GSC11]: use different word choiceing Comment [GSC12]: misspelled

Comment [GSC13]: shorts

Comment [GSC14]: misspelled Comment [GSC15]: There is no proper citation Comment [GSC16]: easily

Comment [GSC17]: This is a series of rhetorical questions. Needs revisions Comment [GSC18]: misspelled


Justin Jasiulevicius English 1101/ Mr. Wheeler Athens Technical College

Calvin and Hobbes The comic strip Claivin and Hobbes discusses politics and culture using humor. The main character Calvin makes many statements about these subjects and his counterpart Hobbes retorts with a realistic view. Calvin's idea of individuality is sticking to the American way, what ever that may be. Concerning the subject he's talking about, shirts, it means having a logo for a company. The humor part of his ideas comes from the seriousness in which he's talking. He sincerely believes that a company logo on his shirt will further his individuality. The irony of course is that this is the exact opposite of what most people think as far as individuality goes. Calvin’s sidekick Hobbes retains a more realistic view. Hobbes responds with a very simple "You admit that?" question. His response is voiced from the view point that Calvin's idea on individuality is so absurd that why would a person admit to such views. Watterson uses Hobbes in a very effective way by presenting him with good incentive, as a thoughtful listener. This presentation of Hobbes allows for his response to seem as the voice of reason to further solidify the fact that Calvin is obviously wrong in his beliefs. Watterson is makes the argument that consumerism is America's source for identity; the corporate link to the argument is a little more vague. I interpret it as America's addiction to consumerism is so extreme that we use the excuse of self choice as a mask for our addiction to a company's products. Watterson's development starts with an outlandish comment on Calvin's shirt and how he wished it had a logo. The next panel states Calvin's reasoning on his statement


and belief on what makes a good shirt. Then it goes on to Calvin philosophizing on the message that a shirt with a corporate logo presents to the world. Finally Hobbes is so shocked at the route Calvin has taken that he states the obvious. Calvin in turn relates his views on shirts and identity to the culture of America. The humor is that all of Calvin's statements and thoughts are the "anti-definition" of identity yet are very true concerning their relation to America's clothing culture. Calvin’s statement that clothing with a logo is better than clothing with out solely under the circumstances that the clothing without had nothing else on it. Comparing boring to moderately interesting. The shirt logo fad has had its day for along time. Now I believe it's time for a change. I will agree with Watterson from the standpoint that many of logos present a status to people around them. The Polo Shirt Company produces slightly expensive everyday wear that only displays their logo. Their shirts are viewed by many as shirts well off people buy. As far as the individuality factor goes I will agree to the point that some companies logo's displayed on a person’s shirt present the idea that they enjoy doing a certain action. Pabst Blue Ribbon for example, if a person wears a PBR shirt they are stating to the world "Hey everyone, I like to drink cheap beer." I wear some shirts that have logos on them, mainly because they are work shirts. I do think many of times that people who choose to wear shorts with commercial logos are trying to project a statement about themselves, but usually not in the way Calvin presents it.

Expensive shirts like the Polo shirts I mentioned earlier are the ones Watterson has in mind mainly because they are synonymous with consumerism. Like Calvin stated "My identity is so wrapped up it what I buy that I paid the company to advertise its products." Those words could easily be substituted with "My identity is so wrapped up in what I buy that I want everyone


to know what status I'm at in society by paying Polo for one of their shirts so people will know how much money I can afford to spend on simple items." Concerning Watteron's criticism however I do not believe he was including sports team logos. I believe a different mentality comes along with sports apparel purchasers. I believe sports apparel speaks to a person's likes (or dislikes), such as penguins or cartoons. The grey area in retrospect is very wide when it comes to this topic. There are men who wear PBR shirts because they just really like that beer? There are people who wear the Breast Cancer Awareness shirts because they know someone who is affected by that horrible disease. To sum it all up I believe Watterson was targeting generic brands such as Tyco or Brawny, logos that usually don't play towards people's wants but their needs. I guess when it comes to clothing, you never really know why people wear certain things.

Struggles and Triumphs  

This is a look into the struggles and triumphs of my writing this semester. It is in a portfolio format. The cover page is a painting I coom...

Advertisement