Page 1

Monstrosity: Yesterday, Today, & Tomorrow By; Macie McCannon


Monstrosity: Yesterday, Today, & Tomorrow

Macie McCannon Karen Redding English 1102 May 2, 2012


Monstrosity: Yesterday, Today, & Tomorrow Table of Contents Analytical Cover Letter....................................................................1 Quality Comparison.........................................................................2 Least Successful Paper............................................................2 Most Successful Paper............................................................6 “What’s the Difference?”........................................................9 Least Successful Paper (with mark-up) ........................................10 Least Successful Paper (new final version) ..................................13 Most Successful Paper (with mark-up) .........................................16 Most Successful Paper (new final version) ...................................19 Free Choice Essay (with mark-up) ...............................................22 Free Choice Essay (new final version) .........................................25


May 2, 2012 Karen P. Redding, M.A. Professor, English 1102 Gainesville State College, Oconee 1201 Bishop Farms Parkway Watkinsville, GA 30677 Dear Mrs. Redding, My name is Macie McCannon and I am a freshman at Gainesville State College. Throughout the semester, this class has helped me learn my strengths and weaknesses in my writing. With the depth of the essays written this semester, I have learned that the more depth the better and that I should never leave my audience in any form of confusion about the topic when my essay is coming to a close. For my least successful essay, I chose “Monstrosity.” This essay tells of the various monsters of society and the way scholars view them. I chose two articles to write about in my essay. One article discusses the possibility of the “monsters” we, as a society, think so lowly of as being the heirs to our society. The second article used states the thought of society creating a monstrous image to allow them to feel better about themselves when making mistakes. My overall writing from this essay was weak and did not go in depth enough. Within my second paper, I made sure that I did not make that same mistake. For my most successful essay, I chose “Who Can Be Trusted?” which was written by Brittany Evans and myself. This essay tells about the mistrust of robots and technology in general in the film, I, Robot. Throughout my paper, I made sure to link my topic sentences back to the main idea of the thesis statement when I was providing examples. I wrote, “When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between two characters...it displays intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the audience” (McCannon, Paper 2). Throughout this semester, I have been able to learn much more about myself as a writer even though I already though I understood my strengths and flaws. Thank you for all of your help this semester. I feel that I hae grown as a writer this semester, as I am sure I will continue to grow throughout my college career. Sincerely,

`tv|x `vVtÇÇÉÇ


Least Successful Essay Monstrosity Society’s portrayal and viewpoint of what constitutes as being a “monster” is continuously evolving, just as society itself does just the same. While the idea of a monster has changed from something as simple as a sinner during biblical times, the image of a monster has developed into images of Frankenstein and vampires, as well as murderers and rapists that exist in today’s world. However, the overall definition of a societal “monster” has remained the same. The actual persona of a monster may vary from city to city or place to place, but the immediate image in most everyone’s minds when thinking of monsters, consists of thoughts of darkness and harm. This, in fact, is what actually defines a monster. Society has maintained a consistent image of monsters throughout the years, in order to distinguish failure and provide society with an image of what societal norms are, and what constitutes as abnormal or unacceptable behavior as a member of society. Throughout his article, “Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx”, Seymour Rudin describes the various portrayals of vampires throughout time. He describes the evolvement of these creatures and how the haunting of the tales of these "monsters" has spread to all cities with their own definition varying from city to city. Rudin takes Frank McConnell's study of werewolves and vampires and concludes that we have created these "monsters...may now be our heirs" (Rudin 116). This idea was drawn from McConnell's idea that the vampires “are [our] blood brothers" (McConnell). The thought of such creatures being our heirs is frightening because that means that we have some of this “monster” in each and every one of us. In multiple stories about vampires, these monsters have been depicted to possess attraction to the same sex, as


opposed to the “normal” attraction to the opposite sex. This attraction creates a monstrous and disturbing image because of society’s distaste for homosexuality that remains strong in many cities. Rudin’s examples of the unnatural traits vampires possess creates an unnatural air that surrounds the idea of vampires, who are inhuman and monstrous. In his article, “Monster–Making: A Politics of Persuasion”, Edward Ingebretsen suggests that society creates monsters in order to produce an image of failure for the community. He supports the claim by telling the story of Jeffrey Dahmer and other wellknown “monsters” of society. Ingebretsen states that Dahmer’s “closet held [and] he passed” (Ingebretsen 30) the test of blending in with society. This idea provokes the fear of the possibility of more “monsters” just like Dahmer being among us every day of our lives that we are completely unaware of. Ingebretsen’s ideology about monsters is that they are so quickly produced while citizens are carefully constructed to avoid creating a “monster” in place of a “normal” citizen (30). His purpose is to distinguish the significance of monsters in society in order to define what a society should and should not be. Rudin and Ingebretsen are just two of many scholars that have analyzed the evolvement of monsters throughout the years. The reliance that society places on this ideology of monsters is unnatural in itself; the fact that we have let ourselves base our lives and society on something an image that could possibly not even matter sickening to really process. I think that the image of monsters we have created will never disappear and with just continue to grow as the years progress. Our society has relied on the idea of what a monster is and what a “normal” person should be based off this


monstrous idea that it would be almost impossible to eliminate the support we seek from monsters. Works Cited Ingebretsen, Edward. “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion.” Journal of American Culture. ESBCO Host. Web. Accessed Jan 18, 2012. Rudin, Seymour. Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx. Kent State University. Press. 115 – 124.


1

Most Successful Paper Who Can Be Trusted? By the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips implanted into our brains. Everyday technology continues to advance further and further. With that knowledge in mind, the thought of what the future holds with these advances frightens and creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner. An exceeding amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie. The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate how much of a bigger light is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie is darker, the artificial lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of mistrust on technology. In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where detective Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies him as the focal point in the scene. Also, with the use of back light it makes his hologram look extremely real, as if Dr. Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with technology.


2

Proyas also uses unrealistic lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room is shown to actually appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson. Alex Proyas uses various camera angles and shots to display the significance of certain characters and scenes throughout the film. When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas demonstrates this technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in extremely close and gives the database a powerful and almost intimidating quality. This perspective gives the viewers a thought that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then reapplies the idea of VIKI having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the robots and other technology, to show that they hold power, maybe even too much, and almost like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper hand. When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between two characters, either during a conversation or during an action scene, it displays intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the audience. He demonstrates this technique when Detective Spooner chases after the robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him. Proyas uses the film


3

technique of shot reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To reinforce this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower and concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though it was acting out of obedience and trying to help it’s owner. The closer Spooner gets to the robot, the shorter the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This growing shortness of lengths displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the thought that the technology gives an uneasy feeling as well. Although technology looks safe and reliable on paper, there are several uncertainties about it being used. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may become, it can never differentiate between right and wrong as humans do. Since technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative outcome. As seen through the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology cannot be trusted and the advancements in the future must be watched upon exceptionally close.


What’s the Difference? My most successful essay this semester is titled “Who Can Be Trusted?” The essay discusses the mistrust of technology throughout the film I, Robot. My partner and I provided examples from the film that exhibit this mistrust being displayed. We chose to make two different points about how the mistrust was shown and then we proceed to provide examples for each technique used. One technique was the use of bright lighting. We chose two scenes from the film that we found significantly bright and discussed the way that this provided an uneasy feeling that could not possibly be realistic. We also touched on the way that this bright lighting was only used inside, while the outside world—nature—kept its usual brightness or darkness depending on the presence of the sun. For the second demonstration of mistrust, we chose to discuss the use of various filming techniques throughout the film to show the intensity of the uneasiness brought upon the film characters when the robots were involved. We used one scene in which the director made the technology seem very large and overpowering, and another scene where the camera kept switching back and forth between the main character, which was chasing after the robot, and a robot. The depth we used to exemplify the obvious mistrust of technology within this film helped the readers understand why we found the technology distrustful. My least successful essay this semester is titled “Monstrosity.” This essay takes two articles written about monsters and compares and contrasts the information within the articles. The first article used discusses the possibility of the monsters being frowned upon by society actually being the heirs of society, itself. The second article explains that society has provided the various monstrous images


over time to create an image of what it is meant when considered a monster. The author states that society has created monsters to advert attention from the people’s own flaws so that they are able to feel better about their own mistakes. In this essay, I did not succeed as well in providing a deep understanding for my readers. From this failure, I assured that I did not make the same mistake within my next essay assigned in class. When comparing my first and second essays for this class, I agree with the grading difference for which I did not succeed in creating a clear image for my readers in the first paper. I am thankful for Mrs. Redding’s help throughout the semester with becoming a better writer and for her help understanding my flaws in my writing.


Least Successful Essay Monstrosity Society’s portrayal and viewpoint of what constitutes as being a “monster” is continuously evolving, just as society itself does just the same. While the idea of a

Comment [MM1]: This sounds redundant

monster has changed from something as simple as a sinner during biblical times, the

Comment [MM2]: Simple how?

image of a monster has developed into images of Frankenstein and vampires, as well as

Comment [MM3]: Redundancy again with the wording

murderers and rapists that exist in today’s world. However, the overall definition of a societal “monster” has remained the same. The actual persona of a monster may vary from city to city or place to place, but the immediate image in most everyone’s minds when thinking of monsters, consists of thoughts of darkness and harm. This, in fact, is what actually defines a monster. Society has maintained a consistent image of monsters throughout the years, in order to distinguish failure and provide society with an image of what societal norms are, and what constitutes as abnormal or unacceptable behavior as a member of society. Throughout his article, “Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx”, Seymour Rudin describes the various portrayals of vampires throughout time. He describes the evolvement of these creatures and how the haunting of the tales of these "monsters" has spread to all cities with their own definition varying from city to city. Rudin takes Frank McConnell's study of werewolves and vampires and concludes that we have created these "monsters...may now be our heirs" (Rudin 116). This idea was drawn from McConnell's idea that the vampires “are [our] blood brothers" (McConnell). The thought of such creatures being our heirs is frightening because that means that we have some of this “monster” in each and every one of us. In multiple stories about vampires, these monsters have been depicted to possess attraction to the same sex, as

Comment [MM4]: Make it clear that society sets the standard for what it means to be a monster


opposed to the “normal” attraction to the opposite sex. This attraction creates a monstrous and disturbing image because of society’s distaste for homosexuality that remains strong in many cities. Rudin’s examples of the unnatural traits vampires

Comment [MM5]: All over the world

possess creates an unnatural air that surrounds the idea of vampires, who are inhuman

Comment [MM6]: Help create

and monstrous. In his article, “Monster–Making: A Politics of Persuasion”, Edward Ingebretsen suggests that society creates monsters in order to produce an image of failure for the

Comment [MM7]: Clarify what is meant by “creates”

community. He supports the claim by telling the story of Jeffrey Dahmer and other wellknown “monsters” of society. Ingebretsen states that Dahmer’s “closet held [and] he passed” (Ingebretsen 30) the test of blending in with society. This idea provokes the fear of the possibility of more “monsters” just like Dahmer being among us every day of our lives that we are completely unaware of. Ingebretsen’s ideology about monsters is that they are so quickly produced while citizens are carefully constructed to avoid creating a “monster” in place of a “normal” citizen (30). His purpose is to distinguish the

Comment [MM8]: This is a little confusing

significance of monsters in society in order to define what a society should and should not be. Rudin and Ingebretsen are just two of many scholars that have analyzed the evolvement of monsters throughout the years. The reliance that society places on this ideology of monsters is unnatural in itself; the fact that we have let ourselves base our lives and society on something an image that could possibly not even matter sickening to really process. I think that the image of monsters we have created will never disappear and with just continue to grow as the years progress. Our society has relied on the idea of what a monster is and what a “normal” person should be based off this

Comment [MM9]: Revise this sentence.


monstrous idea that it would be almost impossible to eliminate the support we seek from monsters. Works Cited Ingebretsen, Edward. “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion.” Journal of American Culture. ESBCO Host. Web. Accessed Jan 18, 2012. Rudin, Seymour. Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx. Kent State University. Press. 115 – 124.


Least Successful Essay Monstrosity Society’s portrayal and viewpoint of what constitutes as being a “monster” is continuously evolving, just as society itself has done. While the idea of a monster has changed from something as small as a sinner during biblical times, thoughts of being monstrous has developed into images of Frankenstein and vampires. Today’s image includes murderers and rapists on the nightly news updates. However, the overall definition of a societal “monster” has remained the same. The actual persona of a monster may vary from city to city or place to place, but the immediate image in most everyone’s minds when thinking of monsters, consists of thoughts of darkness and harm. This, in fact, is what society actually defines as a monster. Society has maintained a consistent image of monsters throughout the years. In order to distinguish failure and provide society with an image of what societal norms is society has maintained a consistent image of monsters throughout the years. Throughout his article, “Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx”, Seymour Rudin describes the various portrayals of vampires throughout time. He describes the evolvement of these creatures and how the haunting of the tales of these "monsters" has spread to all cities with their own definition varying from city to city. Rudin takes Frank McConnell's study of werewolves and vampires and concludes that we have created these "monsters...may now be our heirs" (Rudin 116). This idea was drawn from McConnell's idea that the vampires “are [our] blood brothers" (McConnell). The thought of such creatures being our heirs is frightening because that means that we have some of this “monster” in every one of us. In multiple stories about vampires, these monsters have been depicted to possess attraction to the same sex, as opposed to the


“normal” attraction to the opposite sex. This attraction creates a monstrous and disturbing image because of society’s distaste for homosexuality that remains strong all over the world. Rudin’s examples of the unnatural traits vampires possess help create an unnatural air that surrounds the idea of vampires, who are inhuman and monstrous. In his article, “Monster–Making: A Politics of Persuasion”, Edward Ingebretsen suggests that society defines what is meant to be a monster in order to produce an image of failure for the community. He supports the claim by telling the story of Jeffrey Dahmer and other well-known “monsters” of society. Ingebretsen states that Dahmer’s “closet held [and] he passed” (Ingebretsen 30) the test of blending in with society. This idea provokes the fear of the possibility of more “monsters” just like Dahmer being among us every day of our lives that we are completely unaware of. Ingebretsen’s ideology about monsters is that monsters are produced so quickly while citizens are carefully constructed to avoid creating a “monster” in place of a “normal” citizen (30). His purpose is to distinguish the significance of monsters in society in order to define what a society should and should not be. Rudin and Ingebretsen are just two of many scholars that have analyzed the evolvement of monsters throughout the years. The reliance that society places on this ideology of monsters is unnatural in itself; the fact that we have allowed ourselves to base our lives and the society we live in on an image that could possibly not even matter is sickening to process. I think that the image of monsters we have created will never disappear and will just continue to grow as the years progress. Our society has relied on the idea of what a monster is and what a “normal” person should be based off this monstrous idea that it would be almost impossible to eliminate the support we seek from monsters.


Works Cited Ingebretsen, Edward. “Monster Making: A Politics of Persuasion.” Journal of American Culture. ESBCO Host. Web. Accessed Jan 18, 2012. Rudin, Seymour. Urban Gothic: From Transylvania to the South Bronx. Kent State University. Press. 115 – 124.


Most Successful Paper Who Can Be Trusted? By the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain will be complete, cars will be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to

Comment [MM1]: . Comment [MM2]: C

control devices via microchips implanted into our brains. Everyday technology continues to advance further and further. With that knowledge in mind, the thought of what the future holds with these advances frightens and creates a sense of suspicion

Comment [MM3]: How so? Could elaborate here instead of making a bare statement.

within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner. An exceeding amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie. The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate how much of a bigger light is shown on technology. Since the outside world in the movie is darker, the

Comment [MM4]: Try rewording this thought

artificial lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of mistrust on technology. In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James

Comment [MM5]: You used this phrase already in the intro. Say this is a different way to avoid redundancy in your paper

Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where detective Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies him as the focal point in the scene. Also, with the use of backlighting it makes his

Comment [MM6]: Using the word “it” is a no-no

hologram look extremely real, as if Dr. Lanning remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world holograms do not exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with technology.

Comment [MM7]: Add comma


Proyas also uses unrealistic lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room is shown to actually appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson. Alex Proyas uses various camera angles and shots to display the significance of certain characters and scenes throughout the film. When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas demonstrates this technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in extremely close and gives the database a powerful and almost intimidating quality. This perspective gives the viewers a thought that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then reapplies the idea of VIKI having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the robots and other technology, to show that they hold power- maybe even too much-almost like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper hand. When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between two characters, either during a conversation or during an action scene, it displays intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the audience. He demonstrates this technique when Detective Spooner chases after the robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him. Proyas uses the film

Comment [MM8]: Substitute with “the impredssion”


technique of shot/reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To reinforce this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower and concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though it was acting out of obedience and trying to help it’s owner. The closer Spooner gets to the robot, the shorter the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This growing shortness of lengths displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the thought that the technology gives an uneasy feeling as well. Although technology looks safe and reliable on paper, there are several uncertainties about it being used. No matter how smart and more advanced technology

Comment [MM9]: Don’t use “it”

may become, it can never differentiate between right and wrong as humans do. Since

Comment [MM10]: No-no word

technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative outcome. As seen through the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology cannot be trusted and the advancements in the future must be watched upon exceptionally close.


Most Successful Paper Who Can Be Trusted? By the year 2020, the first synthetic human brain will be complete. Cars will be able to drive themselves, broadcasts will use live holograms, and we will be able to control devices via microchips implanted into our brains. Everyday technology continues to advance further and further. With that knowledge in mind, the thought of what the future holds with these advances frightens and creates a sense of suspicion within. In the movie, I, Robot, Alex Proyas uses the focus of lighting and camera angles in order to signify the overall mistrust of technology by the general population and specifically Will Smith’s character, Detective Spooner. An exceeding amount of bright lighting remains constant throughout the movie. The filmmakers use bright lighting to highlight new ideas and indicate how much more important technology is portrayed to be throughout the film. Since the outside world in the movie is darker, the artificial lighting in the movie seems too bright and gives the audience an uneasy feeling that life in the future is not what it seems. The overuse of symbolic lighting helps the audience envision life as more modernized in the futuristic world and creates the feeling of mistrust. In scene six, Proyas uses bright light positioned behind the hologram of James Cromwell’s character, Dr. Lanning, to separate him from the background where detective Spooner speaks with his hologram in the USR building. The lighting identifies him as the focal point in the scene. Also, with the use of backlighting Proyas makes Dr. Lanning’s hologram look extremely real, as if he remains alive and stands there himself. In the real world, holograms do not exist and produces a sense of the unnatural, bringing out the feel of uncertainty with technology.


Proyas also uses unrealistic lighting in scene seven when Detective Spooner talks to Lawrence Robertson, played by Bruce Greenwood, in his office. When the camera zooms in on Robertson, the director uses an intensified key light on the right of his face. Proyas continues to directly shine the light upon his face while the shot zooms out and the room is shown to actually appear dark overall. Proyas uses this sharp light on Robertson’s face continuously throughout the scene, making him look unrealistic and to show the audience that there is also mistrust with Robertson. Alex Proyas uses various camera angles and shots to display the significance of certain characters and scenes throughout the film. When he has the cameras zoom in, Proyas exhibits either the significance of what the characters are saying or to define the character itself. Proyas demonstrates this technique in the scene where Bridget Moynahan’s character, Dr. Calvin, and Detective Spooner are touring the facility. When the pair approaches VIKI, the camera zooms in extremely close and gives the database a powerful and almost intimidating quality. This perspective gives the viewers the impression that she has a mind of her own. Proyas then reapplies the idea of VIKI having artificial intelligence when she denies the request for the surveillance film leading up to Dr. Lanning’s “suicide.” He uses closer camera angles when filming the robots and other technology, to show that they hold power- maybe even too muchalmost like the technology is taking control of the human population with its upper hand. When Proyas chooses to use the film technique of going back and forth between two characters, either during a conversation or during an action scene, it displays intensity as well as reinforcing reactions and emotions between the characters and the audience. He demonstrates this technique when Detective Spooner chases after the


robot running with the purse as Spooner begins to chase him. Proyas uses the film technique of shot/reverse shot to exemplify the intensity of the situation. To reinforce this theory, the intensity and determination brought forth by Spooner as he chases the robot signifies the emotional tension between man and technology. Spooner’s willpower and concern with the running robot shows that he does not trust the robot even though it was acting out of obedience and trying to help it’s owner. The closer Spooner gets to the robot, the shorter the shots last before switching to the opposing runner. This growing shortness of lengths displays the heightening of the situation, which adds to the thought that the technology gives an uneasy feeling as well. Although technology looks safe and reliable on paper, there are several uncertainties about the use of technology. No matter how smart and more advanced technology may become, no form of technology will ever have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong as humans do. Since technology is based on statistics, the use of it can lead to a negative outcome. As seen through the film techniques demonstrated by Proyas, overall, technology cannot be trusted and the advancements in the future must be watched upon exceptionally close.


McCannon 1 Macie McCannon Professor Croft English 1502 January 23, 2012 Juno The 2007 film, Juno, tells the story of a naive teenage girl who finds

Comment [jp1]: “Juno, a 2007 film, tells.”

herself in the predicament of teenage pregnancy. The director, Jason Reitman, created a favorite film for many viewers all across America. As the main character, Juno, sorts through the difficult choices she is faced with, Reitman brings humor to the situation to remove the automatic discomfort such a sensitive subject produces. Reitman does an exceptional job of evolving Juno’s character in three very distinct ways: denial, hopefulness, and depression throughout the film to continue the idea of teenage pregnancy being viewed as a scary but humorous at the same time.

Comment [jp2]: make this two separate sentences. Consider rephrasing to: Reitman does an exceptional job of evolving Juno’s character in three very distinct ways: denial, hopefulness, and depression. Throughout the film he evolves the idea of teenage pregnancy from a solely scary event to a humorous event.

The way that Juno handles the initial discovery of her pregnancy is the expected reaction to finding out one is pregnant in the “prime” years of life, teens. First, she is in denial; she insists on taking another pregnancy test even though the first three tests she took came back positive. Once this test proves positive as well, Juno sluggishly walks back to her home and pretends to hang herself with a

Comment [jp3]: Their. When using “one”, use “their” Comment [jp4]: Not needed—already developed her as being a pregnant teenager, as the reader grasp which prime being referred to.

Comment [jp5]: The last Comment [jp6]: Proves to be positive

red licorice rope in the tree in her front yard. It is obvious that she is not sure what to do next in this situation, but she knows that she will have to take car of it

Comment [jp7]: care

one way or another eventually. Reitman’s portrayal of an innocent teenager finding out they are pregnant is one hundred percent accurate when predicting the reaction of this young woman who is ultimately still a child herself.

Comment [jp8]: Rephrase to: “…. one hundred percent accurate representation of what most would predict the reaction of this young woman, who is ultimately still a child herself, to be.


McCannon 2 After Juno’s plan to have the unborn child aborted fails, she then begins to have hopefulness as she resorts to looking for adoption parents in hopes for a good life for her child. She holds to high standards in this search for adoptive

Comment [jp9]: becomes hopeful Comment [jp10]: of Comment [jp11]: better

parents while looking in the newspaper for these wishful parents almost contradicts those standards completely. Most women searching for someone to

Comment [jp12]: Consider rephrase of: She has high standards for the adoptive parents that she seeks to raise her child but ironically searches in a newspaper, a haphazard way.

adopt their child would go through an adoption agency, but not Juno. She chooses a couple she finds as an acceptable prospect and goes with her father to meet the pair, Mark and Vanessa, and seals the deal that very same day. Juno’s hopefulness to create a positive outcome for her child is ongoing throughout the rest of the film after the initial scene of her searching in the newspaper. Although Juno is dedicated to giving her child up to Vanessa throughout the entire film, even once her husband decides to leave her, once the actual birth

Comment [jp13]: “even after Vanessa’s husband decides to leave her.”

happens there is an obvious depression inside of her. The night after the birth, Juno lies in bed with baby’s father, Paulie Bleeker, and cries herself to sleep.

Comment [jp14]: With the baby’s father

While this seems like a shocking turn to the film, post partum depression is a common symptom in women after the initial birth of their child, even if they are keeping their child. Reitman’s addition of this depressing scene, brings the film back to the reality that teenage pregnancy is still a serious subject even if the outcome is the positive choice. Jason Reitman did an excellent job at constructing this film in all aspects. His portrayal of Juno’s character is just one of the innumerous specifics that helped create the film and the best product possible. Reitman’s distinction of Juno’s mixed emotions about her pregnancy throughout the film create the reality side of the situation while her personality forces her to turn the situation

Comment [jp15]: Outcome ends in a positive manner.


McCannon 3 into a joke. This process helps produce a well-rounded film about teenage pregnancy and the different reactions that it produces. Juno’s stages of denial,

Comment [jp16]: reactions that it can produce

hopefulness, and depression throughout the film allows the viewers to realize how tough teenage pregnancy is in making the right choice and demonstrations the pressure that accompanies it.

Comment [jp17]: how tough teenage pregnancy is , the difficulties in making the right choice and demonstrates the pressure that comes with those choices.


McCannon 1 Macie McCannon Professor Croft English 1502 January 23, 2012 Juno Juno, a 2007 film, tells the story of a naive teenage girl who finds herself in the predicament of teenage pregnancy. The director, Jason Reitman, created a favorite film for many viewers all across America. As the main character, Juno, sorts through the difficult choices she is faced with, Reitman brings humor to the situation to remove the automatic discomfort such a sensitive subject produces. Reitman does an exceptional job of evolving Juno’s character in three very distinct ways: denial, hopefulness, and depression. Throughout the film, he evolves the idea of teenage pregnancy from a solely scary event to a humorous event. The way that Juno handles the initial discovery of her pregnancy is the expected reaction to finding out one is pregnant in their “prime” years of life. First, she is in denial; she insists on taking another pregnancy test even though the first three tests she took came back positive. Once the last test proves to be positive as well, Juno sluggishly walks back to her home and pretends to hang herself with a red licorice rope in the tree in her front yard. It is obvious that she is not sure what to do next in this situation, but she knows that she will have to take care of it one way or another eventually. Reitman’s portrayal of an innocent teenager finding out they are pregnant is one hundred percent accurate representation of what would predict the reaction of this young woman who is ultimately still a child herself, to be.


McCannon 2 After Juno’s plan to have the unborn child aborted fails, she becomes hopeful as she resorts to looking for adoption parents in hopes of a better life for her child. She has high standards for the adoptive parents that she seeks to raise her child but ironically searches in a newspaper, a haphazard way. Most women searching for someone to adopt their child would go through an adoption agency, but not Juno. She chooses a couple she finds as an acceptable prospect and goes with her father to meet the pair, Mark and Vanessa, and seals the deal that very same day. Juno’s hopefulness to create a positive outcome for her child is ongoing throughout the rest of the film after the initial scene of her searching in the newspaper. Although Juno is dedicated to giving her child up to Vanessa throughout the entire film, even after Vanessa’s husband decides to leave her, once the actual birth happens there is an obvious depression inside of her. The night after the birth, Juno lies in bed with the baby’s father, Paulie Bleeker, and cries herself to sleep. While this seems like a shocking turn to the film, post partum depression is a common symptom in women after the initial birth of their child, even if they are keeping their child. Reitman’s addition of this depressing scene, brings the film back to the reality that teenage pregnancy is still a serious subject even if the outcome ends positive matter. Jason Reitman did an excellent job at constructing this film in all aspects. His portrayal of Juno’s character is just one of the innumerous specifics that helped create the film and the best product possible. Reitman’s distinction of Juno’s mixed emotions about her pregnancy throughout the film create the reality side of the situation while her personality forces her to turn the situation


McCannon 3 into a joke. This process helps produce a well-rounded film about teenage pregnancy and the different reactions that it can produce. Juno’s stages of denial, hopefulness, and depression throughout the film allows the viewers to realize how tough teenage pregnancy is, the difficulties in making the right choice and demonstrations the pressure that comes with those choices.


Monstrosity: Yesterday, Today, & Tomorrow  

Collection of my writing throughout the semester

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you