Kylie Dekin 2
ART-revised
When I went to the Syn Art Gallery, I began to wonder. I started to think about what art really is. I did not know. I always thought art as big elaborate pieces created by really famous artist such as Leonardo Da Vinci and Vincent Van Gogh. I only thought paintings were considered pieces of art. Looking at all of the pieces showcased at the Syn Art Show at Woods Hall, I started to change my mind. Two pieces from this gallery helped me to find the real definition of art.
The first painting that caught my eye gave me the creeps. It was a smaller canvas painted with watercolors and black oil pastels. The watercolor was used to paint the background. It started a dark red and faded into a light pink, going from left to right. The fading reminded me of a sideways sunset. A girl’s face and her tall hair were drawn with black oil pastels and watercolor. The face was drawn all the way to the right of the canvas. This alignment caught me off guard because it was not centered which seems to be how things are in most cases. The artist, Lauren Strain, made the background color smudgy and had oil pastel drips down the canvas. The pointed face has two big dark eyes that stare right at you full of emotion and mixed feelings. What is so unusual about the eyes is that one eye is rounder and lighter and the other eye is darker and narrower. The rounder and lighter eye seems to look more innocent while the narrow darker eye looks more evil. The artist is telling her audience that the girl has two sides of her when you look into her and get to know her. But if people just go by looks, they would assume that she is an angry and sad looking girl. There is yellow watercolor blob that runs down the side of her face to her lips. Yellow symbolizes happiness, sunshine, and warmth. This yellow shows that this girl does have some happiness on the outside it just may not be a lot. The most unusual part of this painting is the round smudge on the bottom left of her face. There is a big circle of red and maroon smeared all on the side of her face to the bottom part of her eye. Part of her left side of her face seems missing as if people were missing a big part of her. Everything is very smudged and streaked. The face, the hair, the eyes, the nose, and the lips all had this smudging effect. The smudging of the black oil pastel looks like wet mascara running down a girl’s face after she has been crying. The girl was crying because people were judging her only by her outside appearance and not the inside. She wants people to know that she does have a happy and joyful part to her as well, even though it does not look like it on the outside.
The second piece of art that I chose is called Night Terror. This piece was made of many different materials. All the materials that were used made the piece look old and spooky. The artist, Daisy Winfrey, glued old pieces of newspaper and tea stained notebook paper to a medium square wooden box to create an old dilapidated house or room. The angles that she used also emphasized the aged affect. There is an old wooden floor lying at a slant. The floor is made of brown newspaper. The newspaper symbolizes the history and secrets that this room holds. The floor has very defined, precise, and detailed work done with acrylic ink. Each piece of wood is crooked and appears decayed. It looks as if somebody could fall through the floor. An old looking twin bed is placed on top of the slanted floor. A woman is laying under a detailed pattern quilt with her eyes wide-open waiting for something to happen. Her face is covered with many lines and shapes. The artist used the lines to prove that this woman is very old and has many memories, stories, and events that could have happened to her in her life or in this room. There are three brown bats flying randomly around. The bats were drawn on pieces of faded brown paper then cut out and glued on to the box. Each of the bats has a different face and a different pattern drawn all over its body. These patterns are all similar to the patterns on the woman’s face. It seems that the bats and the woman share some kind of memoires or experience. A light brown paper is paper mached on top of a solid black paint. This technique created an old looking texture. There were many tears, wrinkles, light spots, and dark spots, which gave it an old effect. Random clumps of skinny pieces of notebook paper are glued sporadically around. Torn pieces of royal purple paper with gold designs are glued about looking like old torn down wallpaper. The colors remind me of royalty and wealth. This old woman could have once been a wealthy person. There are two splintery white windows in this room. A boy is peeping through the window farthest away from the bed. His eyes are looking up and looked scared, possibly scared of the bats. I think he is scared of the old woman. The boy, wearing a backwards baseball hat, was spying on this old lady as if was a Friday night dare by his buddies. There could be rumors that this lady is crazy and people are scared of her. The lady looks tired and worn out of people always spying on her. The boy is the night terror.
Both of these pieces have many differences that can be easily pointed out. The painting is simpler than the box art piece. The artist who painted the girl used a more simple technique of using watercolors, oil pastels, and colors to create her piece of work. She got her point across by making parts of the face and background lighter and darker. The audience knows that there is something wrong with this girl by looking at the detail in her eyes and lips. The other piece of work used many different materials to collage a story together for an audience to feel and interpret the right atmosphere. She used materials that would help pull the theme together. She used old looking items such as the square wooden box, old newspaper, and tea stained notebook paper, and combined it with different techniques to create an old haunted look.
Color played a big role in Lauren Strain’s untitled piece of work. Reds, pinks, black, and yellow set the mood. When somebody sees red, he or she might think of anger or danger. Pink is thought as love and black is known as dark, evil, and mysterious. Yellow shows happiness and comfort. When we look at this piece, we can automatically get an idea of the mood and atmosphere. Daisy Winfrey, did not use color to set the mood. She once again used textures, detail, and techniques to create an old and haunting look. The old newspaper, tea stained notebook paper, cutouts of bats, and a wrinkled paper masche technique created the aged look.
I believe that both of these pieces have similar messages. The girl looks dark and angry on the outside but she really does have a softer side. I think she is a dark person but she also wants them to realize there also exists a soft and happy side; as well, it just may not be at that moment. In the other piece, it seems like the boy is spying on the old lady like she is crazy because she sleeps with bats and lives in an old and dilapidated house. I believe that there is a mixed message in this artwork. When we read the title Night Terrors and see the bats, it just automatically pops in the viewer’s head that the bats are the terror. That is not the case. The boy seems to be the night terror because he is always spying on this innocent old lady. This painting reminded me of how in, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the three kids, Scout, Jim, and Dill, were always spying on Boo Radley because of the horrible rumors that were gossiped and spread by the town’s people. Boo Radley ended up being a good person. This lady lives the same life. She probably is nice if people would, get pass the rumors. Both of these women want a fair chance to live a happy life but cannot get it with everybody judging them on their looks, attitudes, and rumors.
These two wonderful pieces showed me that anything could be art. A painting, a sketch, a wooden box with paper glued on it, a piece of poetry, a song, or even a photograph. I believe that art is created as long as it sends some type of message to the audience. Art does not have to have one message though it can have multiple. I realized that is the coolest thing about art. So many different messages can be deciphered from one simple piece. At the Syn Art Show room, there were so many different and great pieces. There were photos, sketches, paintings, sculptures, and musical instruments. Each and every piece was art because they all had some type of meaning or message depending on how you looked upon it. This art gallery was time well spent.
Friday, October 19, 2007
"Untitled" paper # 2 revision
What is it about art that evokes so many thoughts and questions? Is there a hidden message? What is the artist’s inspiration? Many of these questions race through my mind as I stand around in front of a piece of artwork. Sometimes the message is so deep you may need another person to collaborate thoughts with. Most people stand in front of a piece of artwork for hours trying to figure out what an artist is trying to convey through their piece. Some artists go to rigorous lengths in order to portray a certain message when designing a piece of artwork. After visiting many famous art exhibits throughout my lifetime, I have viewed many pieces, but have never fully understood the meaning behind most artwork. That is until I had an in depth conversation with my English class about a certain piece of artwork, one most people might not even consider art. We sat around the piece and analyzed every detail about the artwork. Finally, after some intense brainstorming, our English teacher gave us an assignment. The mission iss to pick out two pieces from the SynArts exhibit and write about our understanding of these pieces. After viewing the pieces of artwork, I have come up with some observations and analyzed the pieces I picked out from the gallery.
Untitled by Kevin Wilson, the name of the piece I chose, caught my eye when I first began to look around the exhibit. With a solemn appearance, it sat on the wall with a grey scale and a few colored accents. After viewing the piece for awhile, I felt drab and found myself contemplating the reason for this piece. The painting is divided into rows of squares complimented by an unknown face in the center of each square. On each upper right hand corner there lies a design that could represent a flag. Each flag is different and each person in the picture appears of a different race. The most amazing detail of it has to be the fact that none of the faces contain recognizable eyes. Through its dreary color scheme and jail like appearance, I came to the conclusion that this piece is about discrimination. Also, the faces are all different in their own way and represent people of different races. According to my recollection, the artist seems to be hinting at the fact that people of different races are not given enough attention. White Americans are the dominant race in the world and people refuse to accept anything outside the norm. Through this piece, the artist exemplifies the pain endured behind each discriminated face.
Another piece, named Untitled by Chris Davenport, is very colorful with many things occurring in the piece. The eye is first drawn to a man in a brown coat and hat who seems to be pointing at something. Next, you notice a man in a police uniform that looks as though he is going after the man in the brown suit. Behind the detective and the policeman a person is jumping down a hill and there is a flying saucer with roaring flames protruding from the side. Since the piece is so crowded with detail, I wonder if the artist failed to create a focal point. It appears as though the man pointing is meant to be the focal point, however, too much activity took the attention away from it. I believe the only reasoning behind the pointing man is for the observer to let their minds wonder what it is the man is actually pointing to. Although the piece is magnificent, the message behind the painting remains unclear. Some art may have no real intentions behind it; it simply may have just come out in a way the artist never intended.
In comparison of the two pieces, each Untitled artwork is unique in its own way. Both the pieces contain very inept details, which enable you to stare at it for hours. However, the pieces are also very different in their layout and overall tone. The piece by Kevin Wilson evoked the feeling of depression and horror in my mind. Then as I view the piece by Chris Davenport I feel curious about what is going on and what the message means. Also, I feel as though Wilson has a purpose to his artwork and Davenport does not. Wilson’s piece portrays discrimination and peoples reaction to other people outside their race. Davenport uses vivid color, but does not create a clear message that an observer can grasp by viewing this piece. Another difference between the pieces is the fact that one piece has a bit of a consistency to it, whereas the other is a disarray of colors and frenzy of things going on in the artwork. For some reason, I can connect with the dreary piece by Wilson, but am totally lost when I viewed Davenports’ piece. The artwork appeals to me because I think the artist makes his message clear through the picture. Clarity and consistency are key for me to understand the knowledge behind a piece of artwork.
Finally, the goal of an artist is to provide thought provoking artwork for the public. There is not necessarily always an inspiration behind each production of artwork. Some artists just create and then the people come up with their own explanations for the pieces. Art can open peoples minds and encourage people to think outside the box. It is a way to get people to think critically without even knowing they are doing it. After meeting Scott Jarret, one of the artists, I discovered that some artists come up with a concept and play around with the idea. After experimenting with that concept, their artwork starts to take formation. Other artists may find something that sparks their interest and work with it to produce their piece. In conclusion, art is not a structured activity. It is a very free process in which a person can let their mind wander.
Untitled by Kevin Wilson, the name of the piece I chose, caught my eye when I first began to look around the exhibit. With a solemn appearance, it sat on the wall with a grey scale and a few colored accents. After viewing the piece for awhile, I felt drab and found myself contemplating the reason for this piece. The painting is divided into rows of squares complimented by an unknown face in the center of each square. On each upper right hand corner there lies a design that could represent a flag. Each flag is different and each person in the picture appears of a different race. The most amazing detail of it has to be the fact that none of the faces contain recognizable eyes. Through its dreary color scheme and jail like appearance, I came to the conclusion that this piece is about discrimination. Also, the faces are all different in their own way and represent people of different races. According to my recollection, the artist seems to be hinting at the fact that people of different races are not given enough attention. White Americans are the dominant race in the world and people refuse to accept anything outside the norm. Through this piece, the artist exemplifies the pain endured behind each discriminated face.
Another piece, named Untitled by Chris Davenport, is very colorful with many things occurring in the piece. The eye is first drawn to a man in a brown coat and hat who seems to be pointing at something. Next, you notice a man in a police uniform that looks as though he is going after the man in the brown suit. Behind the detective and the policeman a person is jumping down a hill and there is a flying saucer with roaring flames protruding from the side. Since the piece is so crowded with detail, I wonder if the artist failed to create a focal point. It appears as though the man pointing is meant to be the focal point, however, too much activity took the attention away from it. I believe the only reasoning behind the pointing man is for the observer to let their minds wonder what it is the man is actually pointing to. Although the piece is magnificent, the message behind the painting remains unclear. Some art may have no real intentions behind it; it simply may have just come out in a way the artist never intended.
In comparison of the two pieces, each Untitled artwork is unique in its own way. Both the pieces contain very inept details, which enable you to stare at it for hours. However, the pieces are also very different in their layout and overall tone. The piece by Kevin Wilson evoked the feeling of depression and horror in my mind. Then as I view the piece by Chris Davenport I feel curious about what is going on and what the message means. Also, I feel as though Wilson has a purpose to his artwork and Davenport does not. Wilson’s piece portrays discrimination and peoples reaction to other people outside their race. Davenport uses vivid color, but does not create a clear message that an observer can grasp by viewing this piece. Another difference between the pieces is the fact that one piece has a bit of a consistency to it, whereas the other is a disarray of colors and frenzy of things going on in the artwork. For some reason, I can connect with the dreary piece by Wilson, but am totally lost when I viewed Davenports’ piece. The artwork appeals to me because I think the artist makes his message clear through the picture. Clarity and consistency are key for me to understand the knowledge behind a piece of artwork.
Finally, the goal of an artist is to provide thought provoking artwork for the public. There is not necessarily always an inspiration behind each production of artwork. Some artists just create and then the people come up with their own explanations for the pieces. Art can open peoples minds and encourage people to think outside the box. It is a way to get people to think critically without even knowing they are doing it. After meeting Scott Jarret, one of the artists, I discovered that some artists come up with a concept and play around with the idea. After experimenting with that concept, their artwork starts to take formation. Other artists may find something that sparks their interest and work with it to produce their piece. In conclusion, art is not a structured activity. It is a very free process in which a person can let their mind wander.
essay 2 revision
Daniel Glynn
English 101
Adam Weinstein
September 19, 2007
Ways of Life
The short three letter word art is not such a small matter when you think of all the things that deal with art. Art can range from a three year old child lying on the living room floor scribbling on a piece of paper to Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting “The Mona Lisa.” Art is not only on a canvas or a piece of paper, but art can also be a rock turned into a magnificent sculpture, notes on a piece of paper turn into a peaceful rhythm floating through the air, or a script acted out by dedicated actors and actresses.
Recently I visited an art exhibit and was able to see several different kinds of art while most of the pieces had their own style and own meanings, two of the pieces really captured my attention. One of them was an untitled piece, which really enables you to open your mind and uncover the meaning of the work, by Kevin Wilson. The first time walking by this piece I looked at it and an eerie feeling came over me. As a made my way back around the second time I stopped and really took a closer look at the picture. In the upper left hand corner of the portrait the background is jet black. Standing out in the jet black background is a human figure outlined in white with all but his head shaded in grey. From the figure’s white head are short white lines that form a halo around his head. This is a figure that portrays God. This figure is also on his side with his head near a cloud. There is a steam coming out of the cloud and going into a large silhouette of a man, which is the center of the piece, the stream enters the through figure’s head and goes straight into the part of the head where the brain is located. The stream coming down from the cloud in the heavens is a way of showing how God influences our decisions. In the upper left hand corner of the picture are eight figures with the body of a human and a television as a head. The sky blue screens of the televisions stand out against the gloomy grey background. These eight figures seem to have been lifted from the center of the piece and brought into the heavens. The noticeable sky blue screens are showing that the figures have reached eternal home.
The middle portion of the art has a background of a dull blue color. Also in this area of the picture are several human figures scattered throughout. All of these figures seem to be in a dreary state, and one even looks like he has blood squirting from various places on his chest. On the right side of the middle portion is a black circle with a white fire and a puddle of the same sky blue color that the figures in heaven had on their television screens. In this circle there are six human figures standing and seem to be waiting for their time. The most interesting thing in this area is a door that is being opened with a person coming out of it. Coming from the door is a triangular grey ray of light that leads to the heavens. The entire middle portion of this picture is representative of purgatory because all of the human figures in this area all seem to have been tormented; the grey triangle shows that after they serve their time they will eventually make it into heaven.
In the front of the picture there is a large human figure with several things happening to it. The first thing I noticed was the stream coming from the top of the picture and into the figures brain. After the stream goes into the figures head, it then goes through a white area around where a person’s ear would be. After it goes through the white area it then seems to disperse throughout the whole body. The stream coming from the top of the picture and into the head represents God’s influence on humans, and the white area in the side of the figure’s head is a way for the human to lose God’s influence.
The bottom area of the picture has a background of total blackness. There are also two human figures’ outlined in white and one of them as an “x” through it. There is also a little door on the lower right side of the picture with a grey beam coming out of it and shining on a human figure with horns. The grey beam also has lines running through like a road does. This portion is representing hell, and the door with the beam coming out of it and shining on the person with the horns is showing what will happen if people do not follow God’s ways.
Another piece that caught my eye was a sculptor by Katie McClung called Birmingham versus Broccoli. This piece starts at the forearm and extends all the way to the tips of the fingers. The entire sculpture is made of steel, and there are pairs of notches going down the arm about every two inches on all sides. The fingers on the hand are all bent they look like they are grasping for something that is now gone. On the hand there is a piece of broccoli between all of the fingers. When first looking at this sculpture it does not seem as deep and complicated as the first piece, but after taking a longer look ideas about the sculpture began to come to me. This piece has the title Birmingham versus Broccoli and I believe that the name says a lot about why the hand is grasping. Birmingham has been known as a steel city since 1899 when steel was first manufactured in the city, and neither the city or the area are known for their agriculture. The steel hand looking for something to grab on to is symbolic of the steel industry falling off and the rise of agriculture and the rise of agriculture is shown by the broccoli on the handing.
After taking a close look at both of these pieces I noticed that some of the same ideas are trying to be expressed through the art. In the first picture the artist is showing both sides of the after life along with purgatory. He is also showing how a person is exposed to both the good and evil and it is your choice of how you choose to live. In the second piece the artist is giving a message about the fall of something that has dominated over pervious centuries.
Both of the pieces gave worthy messages, and the way the artist presented their messages were in unique ways. Kevin Wilson was able to reveal his message by showing that a person has options, and that the options that you choose will lead you to how you will spend eternity. Katie McClung displayed her message in a different way. She communicated her message by showing an example of steel falling to agriculture by showing a steel hand being taking over by broccoli
As I said earlier, both of these pieces of art display there messages in unique and effective ways. If I heard of another art show done the same group of artist I would attend the show and expect nothing less.
English 101
Adam Weinstein
September 19, 2007
Ways of Life
The short three letter word art is not such a small matter when you think of all the things that deal with art. Art can range from a three year old child lying on the living room floor scribbling on a piece of paper to Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting “The Mona Lisa.” Art is not only on a canvas or a piece of paper, but art can also be a rock turned into a magnificent sculpture, notes on a piece of paper turn into a peaceful rhythm floating through the air, or a script acted out by dedicated actors and actresses.
Recently I visited an art exhibit and was able to see several different kinds of art while most of the pieces had their own style and own meanings, two of the pieces really captured my attention. One of them was an untitled piece, which really enables you to open your mind and uncover the meaning of the work, by Kevin Wilson. The first time walking by this piece I looked at it and an eerie feeling came over me. As a made my way back around the second time I stopped and really took a closer look at the picture. In the upper left hand corner of the portrait the background is jet black. Standing out in the jet black background is a human figure outlined in white with all but his head shaded in grey. From the figure’s white head are short white lines that form a halo around his head. This is a figure that portrays God. This figure is also on his side with his head near a cloud. There is a steam coming out of the cloud and going into a large silhouette of a man, which is the center of the piece, the stream enters the through figure’s head and goes straight into the part of the head where the brain is located. The stream coming down from the cloud in the heavens is a way of showing how God influences our decisions. In the upper left hand corner of the picture are eight figures with the body of a human and a television as a head. The sky blue screens of the televisions stand out against the gloomy grey background. These eight figures seem to have been lifted from the center of the piece and brought into the heavens. The noticeable sky blue screens are showing that the figures have reached eternal home.
The middle portion of the art has a background of a dull blue color. Also in this area of the picture are several human figures scattered throughout. All of these figures seem to be in a dreary state, and one even looks like he has blood squirting from various places on his chest. On the right side of the middle portion is a black circle with a white fire and a puddle of the same sky blue color that the figures in heaven had on their television screens. In this circle there are six human figures standing and seem to be waiting for their time. The most interesting thing in this area is a door that is being opened with a person coming out of it. Coming from the door is a triangular grey ray of light that leads to the heavens. The entire middle portion of this picture is representative of purgatory because all of the human figures in this area all seem to have been tormented; the grey triangle shows that after they serve their time they will eventually make it into heaven.
In the front of the picture there is a large human figure with several things happening to it. The first thing I noticed was the stream coming from the top of the picture and into the figures brain. After the stream goes into the figures head, it then goes through a white area around where a person’s ear would be. After it goes through the white area it then seems to disperse throughout the whole body. The stream coming from the top of the picture and into the head represents God’s influence on humans, and the white area in the side of the figure’s head is a way for the human to lose God’s influence.
The bottom area of the picture has a background of total blackness. There are also two human figures’ outlined in white and one of them as an “x” through it. There is also a little door on the lower right side of the picture with a grey beam coming out of it and shining on a human figure with horns. The grey beam also has lines running through like a road does. This portion is representing hell, and the door with the beam coming out of it and shining on the person with the horns is showing what will happen if people do not follow God’s ways.
Another piece that caught my eye was a sculptor by Katie McClung called Birmingham versus Broccoli. This piece starts at the forearm and extends all the way to the tips of the fingers. The entire sculpture is made of steel, and there are pairs of notches going down the arm about every two inches on all sides. The fingers on the hand are all bent they look like they are grasping for something that is now gone. On the hand there is a piece of broccoli between all of the fingers. When first looking at this sculpture it does not seem as deep and complicated as the first piece, but after taking a longer look ideas about the sculpture began to come to me. This piece has the title Birmingham versus Broccoli and I believe that the name says a lot about why the hand is grasping. Birmingham has been known as a steel city since 1899 when steel was first manufactured in the city, and neither the city or the area are known for their agriculture. The steel hand looking for something to grab on to is symbolic of the steel industry falling off and the rise of agriculture and the rise of agriculture is shown by the broccoli on the handing.
After taking a close look at both of these pieces I noticed that some of the same ideas are trying to be expressed through the art. In the first picture the artist is showing both sides of the after life along with purgatory. He is also showing how a person is exposed to both the good and evil and it is your choice of how you choose to live. In the second piece the artist is giving a message about the fall of something that has dominated over pervious centuries.
Both of the pieces gave worthy messages, and the way the artist presented their messages were in unique ways. Kevin Wilson was able to reveal his message by showing that a person has options, and that the options that you choose will lead you to how you will spend eternity. Katie McClung displayed her message in a different way. She communicated her message by showing an example of steel falling to agriculture by showing a steel hand being taking over by broccoli
As I said earlier, both of these pieces of art display there messages in unique and effective ways. If I heard of another art show done the same group of artist I would attend the show and expect nothing less.
Paper #2 Revision: Synesthetic Art
Discussing and Comparing Synesthetic Art
Last week our class visited the Student Art Gallery in Woods Hall. The art exhibit that was going on at the time was called SynArts Cotillion. SynArts is short for synesthetic art and, by definition, is a kind of art that tends to evoke synesthesia or a mixing of the senses. There were a wide variety of art forms being presented in the gallery, but all of them shared the common classification of synesthetic art. Some of them were sculptures or some form of three-dimensional art, some were paintings, and still others were collages or photographs. All of them seemed to give the viewer a feeling that there was a deeper, more abstract meaning than just what they could see painted or sculpted in front of them. I, personally, picked four different works of art that I found interesting and that I thought gave a fairly good sampling of the exhibit as a whole. Two of them are photography pieces by Jonathan Purvis, “Rufus Davis” and “Rachel Higgins’ Going Away Party between 12:30am and 1:30am.” The other two pieces are sculptures of some sort by Alon Wingard and Katie McClung. Wingard sculpted a piece called “Left right” and McClung’s sculpture is called “Birmingham vs. Broccoli.” I decided to look at all four of these pieces in detail and compare them in two separate pairs. I have also come to the conclusion that these pieces and the gallery as a whole did fit the definition of synesthetic art in the way they engaged my senses and emotions when I viewed the exhibit.
One piece that really caught my attention during my first trip around the exhibit was “Left right.” At first glance it appears to be a mass of wooden sticks poking out in all directions, protruding from some sort of base. After examining it closer, I noticed that the structure that the sticks were poking out of appeared to be a boat or canoe with a ribcage-like side. The sharp rods also had a fairly organized way of sticking out of the boat-like structure. They all either poked up or to the side. To me this piece exhibited order within chaos and vice versa. The actual boat structure was streamline and beautifully carved, and it and the rods were made of poplar wood. The sharp rods gave the sculpture a disorderly look about it. In addition, they gave the boat a dangerous element while the boat structure gave it an adventurous theme. The sculpture also had one rod which was much taller than the others and reminded me of the mast of a sailboat. I believe the boat was meant to appeal to somebody adventurous and brave. This piece appealed to me personally because of the uniqueness of it. The size and the wood used to make it also caught my attention.
The other sculpture I examined, “Birmingham vs. Broccoli,” was similar to “Left right” in that it was a sculpture with abstract elements protruding from a more orderly base. Other than that it was completely different from “Left right.” The bronze sculpture consisted of a rectangular building with small windows cut out in several places. The top of it had a hand sticking out of it with squared fingers that had a firm grip on several pieces of broccoli. The pieces of broccoli were painted with a dark shade of green so that they stood out from the bronze color of the rest of the statue. The two main elements in the sculpture clashed greatly, but they also illustrated the relationship between two different things. The broccoli and hand stood for one thing and the building stood for another. It’s possible that the artist was contrasting industry with agriculture or urban areas with rural areas. I think that it did represent one of these comparisons with the most likely being industry versus agriculture. The hand and broccoli represent the working farmer and his produce while the building represents the offices of some business or company. This piece did not catch my attention quite as quickly as “Left right,” but this piece intrigued me because of the combination of elements that made it up.
The last two pieces that caught my attention, “Rufus Davis” and “Rachel Higgins’ Going Away Party…,” were photography pieces by the same artist. They were both black and white silver gelatin prints of people that did not appear to be significantly altered. They were also placed right next to the entrance to the exhibit which is one of the reasons they caught my eye. This is where the similarities pretty much end for the two pieces because the moods that they convey are completely opposite. Rufus Davis is a close-up picture of a Black World War II veteran who is wearing a hat that labels him as such. This picture gave me an initial feeling of melancholy and sadness, not because of the fact that he is a veteran, but because of the worn, sad expression on his face. In contrast, I was also overcome with respect because of that fact that he was a veteran and had probably been through a lot. This gave me an appreciation for veterans and the way they fight to protect our freedom, but it also showed me the effects that war can have on the people that fight in them. In addition to the actual picture the title itself showed that the artist was trying to emphasize the fact that the person in the photograph is an actual individual. This goes against the way we usually view the military as one big unit rather than people with feelings and dreams just like everybody else. This piece caught my eye because of the expression on the man’s face and because of the emotion it conveyed.
The other piece by Jonathan Purvis, “Rachel Higgins’ Going Away Party…,” consisted of 16 small pictures to create one big collage. It not only differed from the other piece by Purvis in its number of photos, but also in the mood that it conveyed. It depicted different people having their photos taken in some kind of photo booth. All of them were extremely happy and jovial and probably somewhat intoxicated. It definitely pictured a party atmosphere with different people dancing, hugging, holding drinks, and even wearing masks. They were also making funny poses and stances and giving the camera comical looks. It was immediately obvious that these people were having a big celebration, and the title helps to get that across. They obviously wanted to have a blowout to see their friend off, and the mood was no doubt bittersweet because their friend was leaving. This grouping of pictures intrigued me because of the atmosphere it conveyed, and it was obviously aimed at people who like to party and have a good time with their friends. I was also interested in it because of its placement next to a very different piece, “Rufus Davis.”
All of these pieces show why synesthetic art is a diverse form of art that can come in a variety of forms. I did not actually experience a confusing of my senses when a walked around the gallery, but I did have a sensation that my senses were being more engaged than when I go to a typical art gallery that showcases 17th or 18th century art. My senses of sight and touch were especially engaged. Even my senses of smell and hearing were somewhat involved in the experience even if by nothing but sheer imagination. This is because the art that I saw really engaged my imagination, which can be seen as a sort of “sixth sense” which ties the other five together. I would even venture to say that the reason that the sensation of synesthesia works in the first place is because of our “senses” of imagination. In addition to the engaging of my senses, my emotions were also involved in my viewing of the gallery. Each piece evoked different emotions, whether positive or negative. I also felt like many of the artists were conveying synesthesia or the experience of synesthesia with their particular art form instead of actually trying to make the viewer experience it him or herself.
It is very hard to give a precise definition of synesthetic art because everybody who went to that gallery probably experienced something different than the next person who walked in. Some pieces were more “common” pieces of art than others. Some pieces even caused the viewer to question whether it was art. However, all the pieces in the SynArts exhibit contributed something to the sense of synesthesia, whether literal or not, and, as a result, the gallery as a whole definitely fit the definition of synesthetic art. After leaving the exhibit I had learned about a type of art that I had never even heard of before and had acquired a definite appreciation for it.
Last week our class visited the Student Art Gallery in Woods Hall. The art exhibit that was going on at the time was called SynArts Cotillion. SynArts is short for synesthetic art and, by definition, is a kind of art that tends to evoke synesthesia or a mixing of the senses. There were a wide variety of art forms being presented in the gallery, but all of them shared the common classification of synesthetic art. Some of them were sculptures or some form of three-dimensional art, some were paintings, and still others were collages or photographs. All of them seemed to give the viewer a feeling that there was a deeper, more abstract meaning than just what they could see painted or sculpted in front of them. I, personally, picked four different works of art that I found interesting and that I thought gave a fairly good sampling of the exhibit as a whole. Two of them are photography pieces by Jonathan Purvis, “Rufus Davis” and “Rachel Higgins’ Going Away Party between 12:30am and 1:30am.” The other two pieces are sculptures of some sort by Alon Wingard and Katie McClung. Wingard sculpted a piece called “Left right” and McClung’s sculpture is called “Birmingham vs. Broccoli.” I decided to look at all four of these pieces in detail and compare them in two separate pairs. I have also come to the conclusion that these pieces and the gallery as a whole did fit the definition of synesthetic art in the way they engaged my senses and emotions when I viewed the exhibit.
One piece that really caught my attention during my first trip around the exhibit was “Left right.” At first glance it appears to be a mass of wooden sticks poking out in all directions, protruding from some sort of base. After examining it closer, I noticed that the structure that the sticks were poking out of appeared to be a boat or canoe with a ribcage-like side. The sharp rods also had a fairly organized way of sticking out of the boat-like structure. They all either poked up or to the side. To me this piece exhibited order within chaos and vice versa. The actual boat structure was streamline and beautifully carved, and it and the rods were made of poplar wood. The sharp rods gave the sculpture a disorderly look about it. In addition, they gave the boat a dangerous element while the boat structure gave it an adventurous theme. The sculpture also had one rod which was much taller than the others and reminded me of the mast of a sailboat. I believe the boat was meant to appeal to somebody adventurous and brave. This piece appealed to me personally because of the uniqueness of it. The size and the wood used to make it also caught my attention.
The other sculpture I examined, “Birmingham vs. Broccoli,” was similar to “Left right” in that it was a sculpture with abstract elements protruding from a more orderly base. Other than that it was completely different from “Left right.” The bronze sculpture consisted of a rectangular building with small windows cut out in several places. The top of it had a hand sticking out of it with squared fingers that had a firm grip on several pieces of broccoli. The pieces of broccoli were painted with a dark shade of green so that they stood out from the bronze color of the rest of the statue. The two main elements in the sculpture clashed greatly, but they also illustrated the relationship between two different things. The broccoli and hand stood for one thing and the building stood for another. It’s possible that the artist was contrasting industry with agriculture or urban areas with rural areas. I think that it did represent one of these comparisons with the most likely being industry versus agriculture. The hand and broccoli represent the working farmer and his produce while the building represents the offices of some business or company. This piece did not catch my attention quite as quickly as “Left right,” but this piece intrigued me because of the combination of elements that made it up.
The last two pieces that caught my attention, “Rufus Davis” and “Rachel Higgins’ Going Away Party…,” were photography pieces by the same artist. They were both black and white silver gelatin prints of people that did not appear to be significantly altered. They were also placed right next to the entrance to the exhibit which is one of the reasons they caught my eye. This is where the similarities pretty much end for the two pieces because the moods that they convey are completely opposite. Rufus Davis is a close-up picture of a Black World War II veteran who is wearing a hat that labels him as such. This picture gave me an initial feeling of melancholy and sadness, not because of the fact that he is a veteran, but because of the worn, sad expression on his face. In contrast, I was also overcome with respect because of that fact that he was a veteran and had probably been through a lot. This gave me an appreciation for veterans and the way they fight to protect our freedom, but it also showed me the effects that war can have on the people that fight in them. In addition to the actual picture the title itself showed that the artist was trying to emphasize the fact that the person in the photograph is an actual individual. This goes against the way we usually view the military as one big unit rather than people with feelings and dreams just like everybody else. This piece caught my eye because of the expression on the man’s face and because of the emotion it conveyed.
The other piece by Jonathan Purvis, “Rachel Higgins’ Going Away Party…,” consisted of 16 small pictures to create one big collage. It not only differed from the other piece by Purvis in its number of photos, but also in the mood that it conveyed. It depicted different people having their photos taken in some kind of photo booth. All of them were extremely happy and jovial and probably somewhat intoxicated. It definitely pictured a party atmosphere with different people dancing, hugging, holding drinks, and even wearing masks. They were also making funny poses and stances and giving the camera comical looks. It was immediately obvious that these people were having a big celebration, and the title helps to get that across. They obviously wanted to have a blowout to see their friend off, and the mood was no doubt bittersweet because their friend was leaving. This grouping of pictures intrigued me because of the atmosphere it conveyed, and it was obviously aimed at people who like to party and have a good time with their friends. I was also interested in it because of its placement next to a very different piece, “Rufus Davis.”
All of these pieces show why synesthetic art is a diverse form of art that can come in a variety of forms. I did not actually experience a confusing of my senses when a walked around the gallery, but I did have a sensation that my senses were being more engaged than when I go to a typical art gallery that showcases 17th or 18th century art. My senses of sight and touch were especially engaged. Even my senses of smell and hearing were somewhat involved in the experience even if by nothing but sheer imagination. This is because the art that I saw really engaged my imagination, which can be seen as a sort of “sixth sense” which ties the other five together. I would even venture to say that the reason that the sensation of synesthesia works in the first place is because of our “senses” of imagination. In addition to the engaging of my senses, my emotions were also involved in my viewing of the gallery. Each piece evoked different emotions, whether positive or negative. I also felt like many of the artists were conveying synesthesia or the experience of synesthesia with their particular art form instead of actually trying to make the viewer experience it him or herself.
It is very hard to give a precise definition of synesthetic art because everybody who went to that gallery probably experienced something different than the next person who walked in. Some pieces were more “common” pieces of art than others. Some pieces even caused the viewer to question whether it was art. However, all the pieces in the SynArts exhibit contributed something to the sense of synesthesia, whether literal or not, and, as a result, the gallery as a whole definitely fit the definition of synesthetic art. After leaving the exhibit I had learned about a type of art that I had never even heard of before and had acquired a definite appreciation for it.
Art: A Spectator Sport (Revision)
Maria Gagliano
English 101
Adam Weinstein
19 October 2007
A Spectator Sport
Every college student’s dream comes to life when their professor tells them that they are going to miss a day behind a desk, or at least mine do. One of the greatest English classes of my days was when my class and I got to take a field trip to the art exhibit at Woods hall here at the University of Alabama. The artwork here was strictly made from students who attend the university. This was actually my first trip to an art gallery, and most of the artwork blew me away; some Pieces were absolutely stunning with bold or intriguing patterns, while others were not quite as beautiful and attractive as others. This art exhibit answered the question, what is synaesthetic art? Synaesthetic art is when one can look at artwork and see sounds or hear the colors; it is a very intriguing type of art that I found quite exciting as I observed the art on display. I am one who is hard to please; I like to see through a piece of art how hard the artist worked to accomplish his or her ultimate goal, which is to communicate with the admirer. As I observed this exhibit, there were two pieces by completely different artists that popped out at me the most, and although each had their own first impression, they started to come together and connect to one another through the messages each artist was trying to convey.
James Williams’s piece, “Strangers,” was the first to catch my wandering eye. The quote at the bottom half of his piece read, “Strangers on this road we are on but we are not two, we are one” jumped out at me kept me gazing at his work. I am a sucker for quotes; I like to think deeply about things, as do many people. The black, dull colored words were deep and meaningful with a patriotic vibe behind them. For some reason the thought of people becoming one forced me to think of the nation coming together. Around the words was a solemn, gray spray paint effect that bleeds into the rest of the piece, and helped add to the deepness of the quote. Placed on a square shaped card stock material, James used black and white gray scale throughout his piece, but to add a bit of life and a splash of color there was a red chili pepper design that traveled down the center in a thick strip that stood out nicely. Above the quote lies a very gloomy face of what appears to be an older man. Perhaps James wanted the face of the older man to come across as the speaker of the quote by suggesting one grows wiser with time. The sadness of the face shows through the black shading around the eyes, mouth, and nose, as well as the saggy bags below his eyes. The old man feels pain and discrimination and he wants that feeling to leave his tormented body. The red chili-pepper coloring travels through one of the eyes representing the furry and frustration this old man has experienced in his lifetime. My initial gut feeling as I look at this piece forces me to feel grief and sorrow for the hurt the old man expresses, but as I continue to stare in admiration I grow happier. I have realized that this old man’s face is sincere behind his words of wisdom and he wants everyone to come together and love one another, for he has experienced the opposite. In his past he used to feel loneliness and sadness, and he wants all segregation and discrimination to end and everyone love others from the inside, out. Peace and unity is a beautiful way of life and this man knows it and wants to preach it to the world. James’ piece was not the only one that portrayed the same sadness of a stranger.
Following the same elements of gloom was Jenny Fine’s piece, “Bowed Down.” Her work of art stood out very strongly to me because it was not an everyday painting; it was a photograph that had been transported onto a wet plate. Since this was my first art gallery experience, the way she had created her work of art amazed me, and I could not even begin to imagine the process she had to go through to create such a thing. I was able to simply gaze upon her piece and see all the time, effort, and hard work she had put into creating “Bowed Down.” The actual piece itself was quite small and in a perfect little square. This work was fully black and white and not a quite a perfect picture from the process of transporting it to the wet plate; it was a little rough around the edges where it was missing a few little pieces. This piece also pursued a very vintage detail that I admired. There is a girl in the middle of the piece hunched over with an arched back. The girl’s legs are completely straight as her arms dangle freely in front of her, almost touching her toes. The girl’s black as night, curly hair hangs loosely in front of her face covering the sad expression in her eyes. Despite her awkward position, she appears very relaxed with herself. The contour of her face expresses extreme loneliness, as she stands there by herself. She wears a white dress that appears to be a hand-me-down due to the jagged edges, but the white tends to offer a bit of fresh air because the grass below her stands strongly black, as well as all of the shading around her. Behind her stretches a solid cement wall appearing to keep her closed in. The young girl makes me feel very sad, almost enough for me to wish I could crawl into the picture and help put a smile on her face. She feels very alone and trapped; she wants to escape that blockade of a prison-like wall, break free, and begin a new life of happiness and friendships. Jenny’s work, as well as all other artists, carries the ability to connect on many different levels to other pieces created from other artist such as James.
Both “Bowed Down” and “Strangers” began to come together the longer I observed each piece. Despite being created by two completely different artists, I truly felt that Jenny and James shared a common thought process while creating their masterpieces. Through the moving mood of each piece, both artists tried to get the point across to their viewers that no one deserves to be alone and suffer discrimination. The dominating color black used in both pieces helped to better depict the gloom of the old man and young girl. All of the shading possessed an intensity signifying the anger each person is experiencing. Although black stood boldly out to the eye, the whites used in each added a sigh of relief. The white areas delivered life to each face, as well as hope of breaking free of their loneliness. Through the faces of sadness, both James and Jenny wanted their spectators to feel how strongly discrimination affects all kinds of people of all ages. As the young girl hunched over in Jenny’s piece looks into the camera, I almost feel her pain. She feels left out from the rest of the world, and she feels like nobody accepts her and that is why she is all alone in this piece “Bowed Down.” These two pieces tell me that no one deserves a life alone and everyone should learn how to accept others into their lives. “Strangers” and “Bowed Down” connected on many levels, but at the same time still found a way to contradict one another.
Since this was my first experience in an art exhibit, the way two pieces could connect and contradict one another at the same time drew me into a state of confusion and awe. The longer and harder that I observed, the clearer the aspects of each piece became. The age and burning eyes of the old man in “Strangers” represented experience from his past, and how one grows wiser with time. He has been through his share of life struggles, of pulls back and forth, and has suffered the abusing affects of discrimination. Through his anger and frustration, he tries to voice his concern through his quote as well as let young people know what is wrong and what is right. He wants people to become one and end segregation. In contrast to the anger of the old man, the young woman in Jenny’s piece expresses severe sadness and frustration. She feels trapped in a world she knows she does not belong as she stands before the cement, prison-like wall. Breaking free from this lifestyle is her only hope. As opposed to the old man speaking his mind, she screams for help on the inside. Help to guide her to a loving and colorful environment. The way that James’ piece mainly focused on the quote at the bottom of his piece and the way Jenny’s piece focused on the girl was interesting. This caused me to look at the two pieces in a different way, one through words as opposed to just a picture. It was a challenge, but one I was willing to think about.Through the similarities and differences of James’ and Jenny’s world, each piece had an impact on me as I observed for my first time.
Jenny Fine’s “Bowed Down” and James Williams’ “Strangers” found a way to communicate to me through expression. Each piece had an impact on me that forced me to keep staring in admiration. As I was looking at each piece, I felt an urge to go help someone right that second. They both made me realize that any individual beholds the ability to change the world. This art exhibit set up in Woods Hall was more than a day of missing class; it was an exhilarating first experience. If someone has never been to an exhibit or beautiful art, like me, I strongly advise visiting this gallery to break the virginity. All art is different as well as all people and critics; everyone has their own moving interpretation of art, go see if yours will be different from mine.
English 101
Adam Weinstein
19 October 2007
A Spectator Sport
Every college student’s dream comes to life when their professor tells them that they are going to miss a day behind a desk, or at least mine do. One of the greatest English classes of my days was when my class and I got to take a field trip to the art exhibit at Woods hall here at the University of Alabama. The artwork here was strictly made from students who attend the university. This was actually my first trip to an art gallery, and most of the artwork blew me away; some Pieces were absolutely stunning with bold or intriguing patterns, while others were not quite as beautiful and attractive as others. This art exhibit answered the question, what is synaesthetic art? Synaesthetic art is when one can look at artwork and see sounds or hear the colors; it is a very intriguing type of art that I found quite exciting as I observed the art on display. I am one who is hard to please; I like to see through a piece of art how hard the artist worked to accomplish his or her ultimate goal, which is to communicate with the admirer. As I observed this exhibit, there were two pieces by completely different artists that popped out at me the most, and although each had their own first impression, they started to come together and connect to one another through the messages each artist was trying to convey.
James Williams’s piece, “Strangers,” was the first to catch my wandering eye. The quote at the bottom half of his piece read, “Strangers on this road we are on but we are not two, we are one” jumped out at me kept me gazing at his work. I am a sucker for quotes; I like to think deeply about things, as do many people. The black, dull colored words were deep and meaningful with a patriotic vibe behind them. For some reason the thought of people becoming one forced me to think of the nation coming together. Around the words was a solemn, gray spray paint effect that bleeds into the rest of the piece, and helped add to the deepness of the quote. Placed on a square shaped card stock material, James used black and white gray scale throughout his piece, but to add a bit of life and a splash of color there was a red chili pepper design that traveled down the center in a thick strip that stood out nicely. Above the quote lies a very gloomy face of what appears to be an older man. Perhaps James wanted the face of the older man to come across as the speaker of the quote by suggesting one grows wiser with time. The sadness of the face shows through the black shading around the eyes, mouth, and nose, as well as the saggy bags below his eyes. The old man feels pain and discrimination and he wants that feeling to leave his tormented body. The red chili-pepper coloring travels through one of the eyes representing the furry and frustration this old man has experienced in his lifetime. My initial gut feeling as I look at this piece forces me to feel grief and sorrow for the hurt the old man expresses, but as I continue to stare in admiration I grow happier. I have realized that this old man’s face is sincere behind his words of wisdom and he wants everyone to come together and love one another, for he has experienced the opposite. In his past he used to feel loneliness and sadness, and he wants all segregation and discrimination to end and everyone love others from the inside, out. Peace and unity is a beautiful way of life and this man knows it and wants to preach it to the world. James’ piece was not the only one that portrayed the same sadness of a stranger.
Following the same elements of gloom was Jenny Fine’s piece, “Bowed Down.” Her work of art stood out very strongly to me because it was not an everyday painting; it was a photograph that had been transported onto a wet plate. Since this was my first art gallery experience, the way she had created her work of art amazed me, and I could not even begin to imagine the process she had to go through to create such a thing. I was able to simply gaze upon her piece and see all the time, effort, and hard work she had put into creating “Bowed Down.” The actual piece itself was quite small and in a perfect little square. This work was fully black and white and not a quite a perfect picture from the process of transporting it to the wet plate; it was a little rough around the edges where it was missing a few little pieces. This piece also pursued a very vintage detail that I admired. There is a girl in the middle of the piece hunched over with an arched back. The girl’s legs are completely straight as her arms dangle freely in front of her, almost touching her toes. The girl’s black as night, curly hair hangs loosely in front of her face covering the sad expression in her eyes. Despite her awkward position, she appears very relaxed with herself. The contour of her face expresses extreme loneliness, as she stands there by herself. She wears a white dress that appears to be a hand-me-down due to the jagged edges, but the white tends to offer a bit of fresh air because the grass below her stands strongly black, as well as all of the shading around her. Behind her stretches a solid cement wall appearing to keep her closed in. The young girl makes me feel very sad, almost enough for me to wish I could crawl into the picture and help put a smile on her face. She feels very alone and trapped; she wants to escape that blockade of a prison-like wall, break free, and begin a new life of happiness and friendships. Jenny’s work, as well as all other artists, carries the ability to connect on many different levels to other pieces created from other artist such as James.
Both “Bowed Down” and “Strangers” began to come together the longer I observed each piece. Despite being created by two completely different artists, I truly felt that Jenny and James shared a common thought process while creating their masterpieces. Through the moving mood of each piece, both artists tried to get the point across to their viewers that no one deserves to be alone and suffer discrimination. The dominating color black used in both pieces helped to better depict the gloom of the old man and young girl. All of the shading possessed an intensity signifying the anger each person is experiencing. Although black stood boldly out to the eye, the whites used in each added a sigh of relief. The white areas delivered life to each face, as well as hope of breaking free of their loneliness. Through the faces of sadness, both James and Jenny wanted their spectators to feel how strongly discrimination affects all kinds of people of all ages. As the young girl hunched over in Jenny’s piece looks into the camera, I almost feel her pain. She feels left out from the rest of the world, and she feels like nobody accepts her and that is why she is all alone in this piece “Bowed Down.” These two pieces tell me that no one deserves a life alone and everyone should learn how to accept others into their lives. “Strangers” and “Bowed Down” connected on many levels, but at the same time still found a way to contradict one another.
Since this was my first experience in an art exhibit, the way two pieces could connect and contradict one another at the same time drew me into a state of confusion and awe. The longer and harder that I observed, the clearer the aspects of each piece became. The age and burning eyes of the old man in “Strangers” represented experience from his past, and how one grows wiser with time. He has been through his share of life struggles, of pulls back and forth, and has suffered the abusing affects of discrimination. Through his anger and frustration, he tries to voice his concern through his quote as well as let young people know what is wrong and what is right. He wants people to become one and end segregation. In contrast to the anger of the old man, the young woman in Jenny’s piece expresses severe sadness and frustration. She feels trapped in a world she knows she does not belong as she stands before the cement, prison-like wall. Breaking free from this lifestyle is her only hope. As opposed to the old man speaking his mind, she screams for help on the inside. Help to guide her to a loving and colorful environment. The way that James’ piece mainly focused on the quote at the bottom of his piece and the way Jenny’s piece focused on the girl was interesting. This caused me to look at the two pieces in a different way, one through words as opposed to just a picture. It was a challenge, but one I was willing to think about.Through the similarities and differences of James’ and Jenny’s world, each piece had an impact on me as I observed for my first time.
Jenny Fine’s “Bowed Down” and James Williams’ “Strangers” found a way to communicate to me through expression. Each piece had an impact on me that forced me to keep staring in admiration. As I was looking at each piece, I felt an urge to go help someone right that second. They both made me realize that any individual beholds the ability to change the world. This art exhibit set up in Woods Hall was more than a day of missing class; it was an exhilarating first experience. If someone has never been to an exhibit or beautiful art, like me, I strongly advise visiting this gallery to break the virginity. All art is different as well as all people and critics; everyone has their own moving interpretation of art, go see if yours will be different from mine.
Chelsea Banks:Paper2 Revision
Chelsea Banks 2
Paper 2 Revision
Attraction at First Sight
An old conception of art is that it was supposed to be beautiful. I recently viewed an art exhibit on the campus of The University of Alabama that represented not only beauty, but also much more. Such art could be seen at the student art gallery in Woods Hall. These intriguing works came from a group of students who assembled the Synaesthetic Arts Cotillion, a nonprofit organization that enjoys contemporary art. This exhibition, sited at the university for a limited time, consisted of innovative photography, remarkable paintings, and multi-dimensional pieces that question the interpreter. Of these works, certain pieces caught my attention.
What causes a person to be ‘attracted’ to a piece of art? Is it the color, the texture, or the shape? Attraction deals with someone, or rather something that draws, allures, or entices the viewer. Basically, this attraction takes place between men and women, as well as people and art. Some may say the problem is finding a piece that captivates them. The only issue with this idea is that art, in essence, finds them.
I attended this art exhibit not knowing what pieces of art would present themselves to me. As a class assignment, I was told to observe a variety of artwork, formulate interpretations of that artwork, and decide if the works were effective. While I viewed the gallery, two pieces attracted me upon first glance. These captivating pieces of art were “The War Horse” and “Walk Away.” Being art that allures the viewer, these two works are ultimately sublime. Even though I scanned the entire gallery, my mind, or feet, always brought me back to these two pieces. Much like an attraction between two people, I was attracted to these works. I considered them beautiful—full of attraction.
That is the connection between beauty and art. Attraction. Ironically, art can be beautiful although it may not be pretty. This brings into perspective the thought of sublimity. Beauty is only considered present if the viewer is intrigued. For example, “The War Horse,” hanging symmetrically between two other pieces in the gallery, was captivating. I was initially attracted to the gruesome and dark horse, not because I thought it to be a beautiful piece, but because of its essential sorrow. Why is the horse so run-down and beaten? Laura Shill, the creator of this murky story, photographed a horse in Costa Rica that she describes as “used up and world weary, yet kind.” She used four rectangle blocks of different depths to piece together this picture of a horse with gouged out eyes and ears. Scars, bruises, and scrapes, as well as lines of barb wire show the heavy turmoil this horse has seen and may have yet to come. Coated with a thin layer of melted beeswax and dimerism, “The War Horse” is considered encaustic—painted with wax. When asked the purpose of the clear-yellow wax overlay, Shill explained that it creates an aged look. Does this parallel to the look of the horse itself? Shill also distinguished that the photograph, after the extensive and time-consuming process of enlargement, suffered from multiple abnormalities and flaws. Rather than deeming the project as ruined, she allowed the imperfections to enhance the attraction of the horse, as well as the beauty of piece as a whole.
Beyond the physical aspect of this artwork, the story is hidden. What do I see in this horse? Some say, “It is just a horse.” When I first saw him, I was instantly engaged, and questioned the reason for the four individual sections raised at diverse heights from the gallery wall. Why four levels? Then, I noted which body part of the horse was at each elevation. As luck would have it, the temple (head) of the horse was on the highest level, while the mouth was on the lowest. A reason? Yes. I came to the conclusion that this war horse was a symbol of human nature. People tend to speak before they think. We have probably all heard the slogan, “You have one mouth and two ears for a reason!” This trodden horse shows what life can do to those who learn this concept the hard way. Paradoxically, the photograph does show the horse with ears erect and mouth closed. Has the horse realized what sense is best? Do we eventually learn our lesson? Does it have to be after pain and suffering?
Pain is a feeling of complete resentment. It hurts, makes you angry, or maybe turns you to a state of absolute hatred. In reference to art being beautiful, pain is a common theme for artists. Remembering that beauty in the art world is anything that engages or captivates the viewer, pain is accepted as beautiful.
Another piece in the student art gallery that occupied my thoughts was Jenny Fine’s “Walk Away”. This intriguing photograph was one in a group of five black and white scenes; it grabbed my attention immediately. The photograph was exhibited on a collodian wet plate. While making collodian wet plates, it is quite simple to create cyanide gas, which can be extremely dangerous. Shill referenced to Fine’s process of artistic photography as “complicated” and declared Fine as an expert. At first glance, “Walk Away” is a photo of a woman walking away. The ground seems messy as though difficult to walk on; the trees in the distance are frightening. This black and white glossy photograph depicts that something is wrong. Noticeably, her feet are blurred. Is this intentional by the artist, or a mistake in printing? Even though the physical qualities of this photo are necessary for interpretation, I cannot help but simply wonder, “From what is she walking away?” This woman is experiencing some sort of pain to be turning and leaving it behind. We, as a society, tell ourselves that facing the problem is the superlative; however, what if confronting the pain only worsens the issue?
Pain. Beauty. Are they linked?
They very well can be. If pain attracts the mind, body, or spirit with sheer magnetism, then it is linked to beauty.
Another splendor in “Walk Away” is the blurred feet of the woman. We, by human nature, often hesitate when faced with a decision in life. “Walk Away” displays the woman’s hesitation to resolve. Perhaps the underlying attractiveness in this photograph is the relation she has to each of us.
The world wants to connect, whether to other people, higher beings, or even objects. What does art do for us? Primarily, it is for us to enjoy. Can you enjoy an ugly horse or a gloomy woman? These two pieces, “The War Horse” and “Walk Away,” are dark and distressing. How can they be considered beautiful? It is easy. Artists do not necessarily plan on art being what it becomes. “It is what it is!” states one artist. A lot of art is inaccessible because it requires background knowledge, but I say that it should be immediately engaging. That is all the artist wants: for his/her piece to be ultimately engaging and require critical thinking. Shill states, “I title my work ambiguously because I want the interpreter to interpret.” In reference to “The War Horse” and Walk Away,” the artists created pieces of art they wished would attract the interpreter. Through the pain, turmoil, and suffering the artists achieved their goal. Sometimes, artists do not intend for the interpreter to interpret anything in particular. They simply want the person viewing their work to be intrigued, or attracted, and formulate their own interpretation. They just want us to interpret. Interpret our own beauty.
Paper 2 Revision
Attraction at First Sight
An old conception of art is that it was supposed to be beautiful. I recently viewed an art exhibit on the campus of The University of Alabama that represented not only beauty, but also much more. Such art could be seen at the student art gallery in Woods Hall. These intriguing works came from a group of students who assembled the Synaesthetic Arts Cotillion, a nonprofit organization that enjoys contemporary art. This exhibition, sited at the university for a limited time, consisted of innovative photography, remarkable paintings, and multi-dimensional pieces that question the interpreter. Of these works, certain pieces caught my attention.
What causes a person to be ‘attracted’ to a piece of art? Is it the color, the texture, or the shape? Attraction deals with someone, or rather something that draws, allures, or entices the viewer. Basically, this attraction takes place between men and women, as well as people and art. Some may say the problem is finding a piece that captivates them. The only issue with this idea is that art, in essence, finds them.
I attended this art exhibit not knowing what pieces of art would present themselves to me. As a class assignment, I was told to observe a variety of artwork, formulate interpretations of that artwork, and decide if the works were effective. While I viewed the gallery, two pieces attracted me upon first glance. These captivating pieces of art were “The War Horse” and “Walk Away.” Being art that allures the viewer, these two works are ultimately sublime. Even though I scanned the entire gallery, my mind, or feet, always brought me back to these two pieces. Much like an attraction between two people, I was attracted to these works. I considered them beautiful—full of attraction.
That is the connection between beauty and art. Attraction. Ironically, art can be beautiful although it may not be pretty. This brings into perspective the thought of sublimity. Beauty is only considered present if the viewer is intrigued. For example, “The War Horse,” hanging symmetrically between two other pieces in the gallery, was captivating. I was initially attracted to the gruesome and dark horse, not because I thought it to be a beautiful piece, but because of its essential sorrow. Why is the horse so run-down and beaten? Laura Shill, the creator of this murky story, photographed a horse in Costa Rica that she describes as “used up and world weary, yet kind.” She used four rectangle blocks of different depths to piece together this picture of a horse with gouged out eyes and ears. Scars, bruises, and scrapes, as well as lines of barb wire show the heavy turmoil this horse has seen and may have yet to come. Coated with a thin layer of melted beeswax and dimerism, “The War Horse” is considered encaustic—painted with wax. When asked the purpose of the clear-yellow wax overlay, Shill explained that it creates an aged look. Does this parallel to the look of the horse itself? Shill also distinguished that the photograph, after the extensive and time-consuming process of enlargement, suffered from multiple abnormalities and flaws. Rather than deeming the project as ruined, she allowed the imperfections to enhance the attraction of the horse, as well as the beauty of piece as a whole.
Beyond the physical aspect of this artwork, the story is hidden. What do I see in this horse? Some say, “It is just a horse.” When I first saw him, I was instantly engaged, and questioned the reason for the four individual sections raised at diverse heights from the gallery wall. Why four levels? Then, I noted which body part of the horse was at each elevation. As luck would have it, the temple (head) of the horse was on the highest level, while the mouth was on the lowest. A reason? Yes. I came to the conclusion that this war horse was a symbol of human nature. People tend to speak before they think. We have probably all heard the slogan, “You have one mouth and two ears for a reason!” This trodden horse shows what life can do to those who learn this concept the hard way. Paradoxically, the photograph does show the horse with ears erect and mouth closed. Has the horse realized what sense is best? Do we eventually learn our lesson? Does it have to be after pain and suffering?
Pain is a feeling of complete resentment. It hurts, makes you angry, or maybe turns you to a state of absolute hatred. In reference to art being beautiful, pain is a common theme for artists. Remembering that beauty in the art world is anything that engages or captivates the viewer, pain is accepted as beautiful.
Another piece in the student art gallery that occupied my thoughts was Jenny Fine’s “Walk Away”. This intriguing photograph was one in a group of five black and white scenes; it grabbed my attention immediately. The photograph was exhibited on a collodian wet plate. While making collodian wet plates, it is quite simple to create cyanide gas, which can be extremely dangerous. Shill referenced to Fine’s process of artistic photography as “complicated” and declared Fine as an expert. At first glance, “Walk Away” is a photo of a woman walking away. The ground seems messy as though difficult to walk on; the trees in the distance are frightening. This black and white glossy photograph depicts that something is wrong. Noticeably, her feet are blurred. Is this intentional by the artist, or a mistake in printing? Even though the physical qualities of this photo are necessary for interpretation, I cannot help but simply wonder, “From what is she walking away?” This woman is experiencing some sort of pain to be turning and leaving it behind. We, as a society, tell ourselves that facing the problem is the superlative; however, what if confronting the pain only worsens the issue?
Pain. Beauty. Are they linked?
They very well can be. If pain attracts the mind, body, or spirit with sheer magnetism, then it is linked to beauty.
Another splendor in “Walk Away” is the blurred feet of the woman. We, by human nature, often hesitate when faced with a decision in life. “Walk Away” displays the woman’s hesitation to resolve. Perhaps the underlying attractiveness in this photograph is the relation she has to each of us.
The world wants to connect, whether to other people, higher beings, or even objects. What does art do for us? Primarily, it is for us to enjoy. Can you enjoy an ugly horse or a gloomy woman? These two pieces, “The War Horse” and “Walk Away,” are dark and distressing. How can they be considered beautiful? It is easy. Artists do not necessarily plan on art being what it becomes. “It is what it is!” states one artist. A lot of art is inaccessible because it requires background knowledge, but I say that it should be immediately engaging. That is all the artist wants: for his/her piece to be ultimately engaging and require critical thinking. Shill states, “I title my work ambiguously because I want the interpreter to interpret.” In reference to “The War Horse” and Walk Away,” the artists created pieces of art they wished would attract the interpreter. Through the pain, turmoil, and suffering the artists achieved their goal. Sometimes, artists do not intend for the interpreter to interpret anything in particular. They simply want the person viewing their work to be intrigued, or attracted, and formulate their own interpretation. They just want us to interpret. Interpret our own beauty.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Melissa Lovell Art paper revisions
Melissa Lovell
English 101-99
Weinstein
23 September 2007
Art can be seen in many different ways. Artists may look at a painting differently than a person like me. I love to look at art but when it comes down to deciding what the piece is about or trying to decide what the artist may be meaning by the picture, I have no clue where to begin. I am that girl in the art gallery that just stands there for a few minutes and looks at the art and says if I thought if it was pretty or good and then I move on to the next piece. When we went to the Woods Hall art exhibit, I was faced with the challenge to look at some art pieces and compare them. I walked around for few minutes looking at all the artwork to see which ones I liked the best. I wanted to pick art that other people could maybe see in the way that I describe them. I think that this assignment will help me look at art in a new way from now on.
The first piece that I looked at was one done by Jenny Fine. She had put some pictures that she had taken onto some tin templates. The pictures were in brown and white and they looked old. They reminded me of something that I would have seen in my grandmother’s house. I really enjoyed the photos that she had put on the templates. The one picture that I loved the most was the picture that she had of two girls. The piece was entitled The Sisters. I loved this picture because it reminded me of my sister and the times that we have had together. These pictures were somewhat happy pictures to me. The girls in the picture just looked happy and free, like they did not have a care in the world. I think that is one of the things that drew me to them and made me want to look at them. The artist may have been trying to imply that things can go back to the way they used to be, like in the old times. I thought this because the pictures were in black and while and they look like some of the pictures that I see in my grandmother’s house. She may just be using those pictures to show us that there are still happy things in this world. Her artwork just makes me feel so happy and good.
The second piece that I looked at was a huge painting on a canvas. Chris Davenport did the painting. This piece was an untitled piece. This painting seemed a little dark and gloomy. It seemed like he was trying to portray some form of war in the painting. There looked like there had been some destruction in the city or place that he was trying to make the picture take after. Not all the people in the painting however had sad looks upon their faces. Some of the people in the painting however looked somewhat happy and they were smiling. At the bottom of the picture, there is a man in what looks like a police officer uniform, so I assume that is who it is, and another man and they are looking at something that look like jellyfish. There is a blimp type thing at the top of the painting and it looks like it has been hit with a bomb or something destructive because the back of the blimp is on fire. The artist may be trying to say that he thinks that the world is slowly falling apart and that one-day the world will just be chaos and that it will soon be destructed.
These two artists have done two completely different types of art. One of the pieces is on a tinplate type substance and the other is on a canvas. One is painted and the other is a picture. The painting is more dark and gloomy. It makes me think of sad times and of war. The picture is happier. It makes me think of good times and it make me think of loved ones. When looked at in those manners these pieces have nothing to do with each other. They are completely different pieces. If you look at them in the art perspective, then you can see that they are very much alike. People who took a lot of time and effort to make these pieces what they are did a great job in creating them and making them interesting to look at and study. They most likely have some serious meaning to the people who did them, and they are great pieces of artwork. I give a whole lot f respect to people who can paint and do art like that.
When I look at artwork it always makes me think. I may not know exactly what the artist is trying to tell me, but I do think that I get the majority of what the artists want me to think. I loved looking at all the artwork and I loved the fact that all the artwork was in different styles. The artist all had different styles and they all had the freedom to do whatever they wanted with their work. It was one of the most unique art galleries that I have ever seen. I wish that I could go back and see all the work again. I would strongly recommend going to this gallery, even if you are like me and cannot really tell what the art is supposed to mean, you will still be able to get something out of this art gallery.
In conclusion, I would recommend that everyone go and see this gallery. It doesn’t matter how you feel about art, this gallery will make you think. It may not make you think about the art itself but it will make you think about the world in general. It was a great art exhibit and I would defiantly go again if I had the chance.
English 101-99
Weinstein
23 September 2007
Art can be seen in many different ways. Artists may look at a painting differently than a person like me. I love to look at art but when it comes down to deciding what the piece is about or trying to decide what the artist may be meaning by the picture, I have no clue where to begin. I am that girl in the art gallery that just stands there for a few minutes and looks at the art and says if I thought if it was pretty or good and then I move on to the next piece. When we went to the Woods Hall art exhibit, I was faced with the challenge to look at some art pieces and compare them. I walked around for few minutes looking at all the artwork to see which ones I liked the best. I wanted to pick art that other people could maybe see in the way that I describe them. I think that this assignment will help me look at art in a new way from now on.
The first piece that I looked at was one done by Jenny Fine. She had put some pictures that she had taken onto some tin templates. The pictures were in brown and white and they looked old. They reminded me of something that I would have seen in my grandmother’s house. I really enjoyed the photos that she had put on the templates. The one picture that I loved the most was the picture that she had of two girls. The piece was entitled The Sisters. I loved this picture because it reminded me of my sister and the times that we have had together. These pictures were somewhat happy pictures to me. The girls in the picture just looked happy and free, like they did not have a care in the world. I think that is one of the things that drew me to them and made me want to look at them. The artist may have been trying to imply that things can go back to the way they used to be, like in the old times. I thought this because the pictures were in black and while and they look like some of the pictures that I see in my grandmother’s house. She may just be using those pictures to show us that there are still happy things in this world. Her artwork just makes me feel so happy and good.
The second piece that I looked at was a huge painting on a canvas. Chris Davenport did the painting. This piece was an untitled piece. This painting seemed a little dark and gloomy. It seemed like he was trying to portray some form of war in the painting. There looked like there had been some destruction in the city or place that he was trying to make the picture take after. Not all the people in the painting however had sad looks upon their faces. Some of the people in the painting however looked somewhat happy and they were smiling. At the bottom of the picture, there is a man in what looks like a police officer uniform, so I assume that is who it is, and another man and they are looking at something that look like jellyfish. There is a blimp type thing at the top of the painting and it looks like it has been hit with a bomb or something destructive because the back of the blimp is on fire. The artist may be trying to say that he thinks that the world is slowly falling apart and that one-day the world will just be chaos and that it will soon be destructed.
These two artists have done two completely different types of art. One of the pieces is on a tinplate type substance and the other is on a canvas. One is painted and the other is a picture. The painting is more dark and gloomy. It makes me think of sad times and of war. The picture is happier. It makes me think of good times and it make me think of loved ones. When looked at in those manners these pieces have nothing to do with each other. They are completely different pieces. If you look at them in the art perspective, then you can see that they are very much alike. People who took a lot of time and effort to make these pieces what they are did a great job in creating them and making them interesting to look at and study. They most likely have some serious meaning to the people who did them, and they are great pieces of artwork. I give a whole lot f respect to people who can paint and do art like that.
When I look at artwork it always makes me think. I may not know exactly what the artist is trying to tell me, but I do think that I get the majority of what the artists want me to think. I loved looking at all the artwork and I loved the fact that all the artwork was in different styles. The artist all had different styles and they all had the freedom to do whatever they wanted with their work. It was one of the most unique art galleries that I have ever seen. I wish that I could go back and see all the work again. I would strongly recommend going to this gallery, even if you are like me and cannot really tell what the art is supposed to mean, you will still be able to get something out of this art gallery.
In conclusion, I would recommend that everyone go and see this gallery. It doesn’t matter how you feel about art, this gallery will make you think. It may not make you think about the art itself but it will make you think about the world in general. It was a great art exhibit and I would defiantly go again if I had the chance.
Kendall Lewis 2
Art-Its More Than Just Paint
Art exhibits often display many different styles and types of art. The art exhibit in the student art gallery did just that. There was a variety of artwork that allowed each artist to represent their strengths. Art allows someone to express their feelings and emotions. It can speak to an individual without using words, but rather pictures and patterns. Artists often create art without a purpose and end up with something that has a significant meaning to them. Every piece of art has its ups and downs. Each individual has a different perspective as to what they believe should be included in a piece of artwork.
Artist Lauren Strain’s artwork that is untitled is different from any of the other pieces in the exhibit. Her piece of artwork was very unique. With a red and pink background, the girl in the picture seemed to be disappearing into the background. Her facial features were distinct. Her large, black, bold eyes stood out from the rest of the picture. Her eyes had a sense of confusion in them. It was one of the first things that caught my eye when I looked at this piece of artwork. Her lips were plump, black, and each lip sealed to the other. Her nose blended into the pink and red color, but was still obvious to what it was. Falling from her eyes were yellow tears that appeared to be dripping down her face. Her face was shaped like an oval and her hair appeared to be red in a bowl like form. The texture of the artwork was fairly smooth. It was painted on a rectangle piece of canvas. The left side of the picture appeared to be a deeper brighter red, but the farther right you went the color faded out into a lighter shade of pink. The girl was placed on the right side of the canvas as she faded into the background of the artwork. I never could figure out what the artist was going for in her piece of artwork. The expression on the girls face in the artwork shows a sense of confusion. As I viewed this piece of artwork I was confused. I never could come to a conclusion as to what this painting was about. The details in the artwork that are emphasized show expression and allow the viewer to pay closer attention to those ideas of significance. In every piece of good artwork it is necessary to allow the viewer to come to a conclusion as to what the artist was going for when they created their art. I feel this is necessary so the viewer can be connected with each piece of artwork.
Jenny Fine decided to take a different approach to her artwork. In Jenny Fine’s art called The Sisters, Jenny uses black and white rather than color. Her artwork is done on a piece of tin using tintypes and wet plate collodion. Her artwork is a picture of two young girls dressed very similar. Their hands are crossed almost as if they are in trouble or have just heard some unpleasant news. The two girls are wearing flat shoes and ruffle dresses that appear to be pretty dressy as if they are dressed for a certain occasion. Jenny Fine made the appearance of the two girls very similar in which they are standing the same way and their hands are both crossed. The tin feels smooth and the lighting is very dim. The picture on the tin appears to be old. The background is very dull and the floors and walls seem to be very plain. To me, the artist was concerned or scared about something as a child. It is almost as if she experienced a period of mourning as a young girl due to a death and this was her and her sister mourning together over the loss. Jenny Strains artwork it an example of a good piece of art. It allows the viewers to connect with the actual piece and relate it to something they have experienced themselves.
Artist Lauren Strain and Jenny Fine both took a different approach to their artwork. Both artists used humans in their work. While Lauren Strain used an older females head, Jenny Fine used two young girls’ lower halves of their body. The texture and color were both completely opposite in the two pieces of artwork. Lauren Strain decided to use fairly smooth canvas and make her painting full of color. Jenny Fine used smooth tin and kept her photo only in black and white. In both pieces of artwork the people appear to look confused and upset. The two pictures seem as though they are trying to express emotion. In Lauren Strain’s artwork the woman appears to be confused, but in Jenny Fine’s the two girls seem frightened, scared, or upset.
Art has a different effect on every individual who views it. I chose the two pieces by Lauren Strain and Jenny Fine because I felt as though I was able to react to each of them in a different way. After viewing each piece I reacted differently. Lauren Strains piece made me feel confused and made me wonder what she was going for in her artwork. I was not exactly sure what she was trying to get across to the viewer. Jenny Fine’s piece of art made me upset. It reminded me of the time I lost my grandmother and my sister and I just sat there with a look of confusion on our face because we did not know what to do. Often time’s art is able to speak to a certain person and make them feel a certain way. In the Student art gallery in Woods hall I felt moved by several of the pieces of artwork. I felt as though the artist were able to communicate to the viewers without using words, but rather pictures, colors, and textures. Every different line and color on their artwork represented something else. Often time we just look at the large view of a picture and do not take time to actually understand what it is trying to say. People feel like if there are no words then it does not say anything, but in reality a picture is worth a thousand words. I would strongly suggest going to art gallery’s to view other individuals artwork. I feel as though it allows people to look at art in different ways and for them to really understand what the artist wants to communicate to their viewers. I feel as though it allowed me to determine what was necessary to include in a good piece of artwork and how to determine if I felt it was a good piece. It also allows the artist to express their feelings in other ways rather than writing it down in words. Every person is able to interpret art. Art is something that speaks to every individual differently and allows people to make their own interpretations of what they see.
Art-Its More Than Just Paint
Art exhibits often display many different styles and types of art. The art exhibit in the student art gallery did just that. There was a variety of artwork that allowed each artist to represent their strengths. Art allows someone to express their feelings and emotions. It can speak to an individual without using words, but rather pictures and patterns. Artists often create art without a purpose and end up with something that has a significant meaning to them. Every piece of art has its ups and downs. Each individual has a different perspective as to what they believe should be included in a piece of artwork.
Artist Lauren Strain’s artwork that is untitled is different from any of the other pieces in the exhibit. Her piece of artwork was very unique. With a red and pink background, the girl in the picture seemed to be disappearing into the background. Her facial features were distinct. Her large, black, bold eyes stood out from the rest of the picture. Her eyes had a sense of confusion in them. It was one of the first things that caught my eye when I looked at this piece of artwork. Her lips were plump, black, and each lip sealed to the other. Her nose blended into the pink and red color, but was still obvious to what it was. Falling from her eyes were yellow tears that appeared to be dripping down her face. Her face was shaped like an oval and her hair appeared to be red in a bowl like form. The texture of the artwork was fairly smooth. It was painted on a rectangle piece of canvas. The left side of the picture appeared to be a deeper brighter red, but the farther right you went the color faded out into a lighter shade of pink. The girl was placed on the right side of the canvas as she faded into the background of the artwork. I never could figure out what the artist was going for in her piece of artwork. The expression on the girls face in the artwork shows a sense of confusion. As I viewed this piece of artwork I was confused. I never could come to a conclusion as to what this painting was about. The details in the artwork that are emphasized show expression and allow the viewer to pay closer attention to those ideas of significance. In every piece of good artwork it is necessary to allow the viewer to come to a conclusion as to what the artist was going for when they created their art. I feel this is necessary so the viewer can be connected with each piece of artwork.
Jenny Fine decided to take a different approach to her artwork. In Jenny Fine’s art called The Sisters, Jenny uses black and white rather than color. Her artwork is done on a piece of tin using tintypes and wet plate collodion. Her artwork is a picture of two young girls dressed very similar. Their hands are crossed almost as if they are in trouble or have just heard some unpleasant news. The two girls are wearing flat shoes and ruffle dresses that appear to be pretty dressy as if they are dressed for a certain occasion. Jenny Fine made the appearance of the two girls very similar in which they are standing the same way and their hands are both crossed. The tin feels smooth and the lighting is very dim. The picture on the tin appears to be old. The background is very dull and the floors and walls seem to be very plain. To me, the artist was concerned or scared about something as a child. It is almost as if she experienced a period of mourning as a young girl due to a death and this was her and her sister mourning together over the loss. Jenny Strains artwork it an example of a good piece of art. It allows the viewers to connect with the actual piece and relate it to something they have experienced themselves.
Artist Lauren Strain and Jenny Fine both took a different approach to their artwork. Both artists used humans in their work. While Lauren Strain used an older females head, Jenny Fine used two young girls’ lower halves of their body. The texture and color were both completely opposite in the two pieces of artwork. Lauren Strain decided to use fairly smooth canvas and make her painting full of color. Jenny Fine used smooth tin and kept her photo only in black and white. In both pieces of artwork the people appear to look confused and upset. The two pictures seem as though they are trying to express emotion. In Lauren Strain’s artwork the woman appears to be confused, but in Jenny Fine’s the two girls seem frightened, scared, or upset.
Art has a different effect on every individual who views it. I chose the two pieces by Lauren Strain and Jenny Fine because I felt as though I was able to react to each of them in a different way. After viewing each piece I reacted differently. Lauren Strains piece made me feel confused and made me wonder what she was going for in her artwork. I was not exactly sure what she was trying to get across to the viewer. Jenny Fine’s piece of art made me upset. It reminded me of the time I lost my grandmother and my sister and I just sat there with a look of confusion on our face because we did not know what to do. Often time’s art is able to speak to a certain person and make them feel a certain way. In the Student art gallery in Woods hall I felt moved by several of the pieces of artwork. I felt as though the artist were able to communicate to the viewers without using words, but rather pictures, colors, and textures. Every different line and color on their artwork represented something else. Often time we just look at the large view of a picture and do not take time to actually understand what it is trying to say. People feel like if there are no words then it does not say anything, but in reality a picture is worth a thousand words. I would strongly suggest going to art gallery’s to view other individuals artwork. I feel as though it allows people to look at art in different ways and for them to really understand what the artist wants to communicate to their viewers. I feel as though it allowed me to determine what was necessary to include in a good piece of artwork and how to determine if I felt it was a good piece. It also allows the artist to express their feelings in other ways rather than writing it down in words. Every person is able to interpret art. Art is something that speaks to every individual differently and allows people to make their own interpretations of what they see.
Paper #2, Art Gallery
The Synarts Gallery
By: Tim Howard
The new art gallery, called Synarts Cotillion, at Scott Hall has many different artist’s amazing art work from some of the fine students of the University of Alabama. Some of this great art goes from still pictures, to paintings, and even to a bale of paper shreds. The two main pieces of art that stuck out the most in this exhibit are the still picture of the world war two veterans and the guitar. These two different forms of art will give you just a hint of the experience you will get to have coming to this amazing art gallery.
The first piece of art that you get to see when you first walk into the gallery is the still framed picture of the world war two veteran. His hat indicates that he is a World war two veteran. When you first walk into the art gallery, the still framed picture is one of the first pieces that you get to see. All you see is his upper body, and all you think is “ok this guy fought in world war two, next piece of art.” Then as you keep on going into the art gallery, all you do is think more and more about the still framed picture of the world war two veteran.
You look at other pictures such as the four pictures of the horse as you keep waking through the gallery, but all you can think about it is the still framed picture of the World War two veteran. You then decide to walk back and look at it one more time. You notice something that you did not notice the first time. You look at his face and notice that the world war two veteran is not smiling. The picture takes you back to your memory of the “Mona Lisa” by Leonardo DaVinci. The still framed picture reminds you of the Mona Lisa because everyone wants to know about her mystic smile. So you look at this war veteran man who is not smiling. You then ask yourself “What is he thinking about?” You start to stare into his eyes and you start to visualize him thinking back to the war as he going on to the shores of Normandy, fighting for the freedom that we all get to have. The war veteran lives for his friends for fallen, but also he lives for freedom. It amazes you how such an ordinary picture has so much of an amazing meaning behind it.
After you have gotten something great from this plain, black and white, ordinary still framed picture of world war two veteran, you can’t wait to see what is next to come. As you keep moving through the art gallery, you then notice a smaller version of a guitar, but it does not look like any guitar that you have seen before. All other guitars that you have seen always have a straight neck, but the tuning of this guitars stringed area is turned back toward the wall as you observe it. The first reaction you have is that “I want to play this guitar.” The reason being is because it is just so different from any other guitar. You also notice that there are only 4 frets and you know that that is a lot less than any normal acoustic guitar. You wonder what type of pitch or sound this little guitar could bring.
You look to the side and find a description saying that the artist, Anden Oben, based this piece of art off of a thirteenth century piece guitar made by Hans Frei of Turkey. As you keep thinking looking at it you notice the center of the guitar looks like the like a Catholic Church window. Then you look toward the back of the guitar and the way that it is shaped reminds you of an onion as it is shaped like a bulb. It at first just looks like wood flooring. This is as in the each piece of would is put side by side the way you would see on flooring and it somehow takes a round shape on the base of the guitar.
Once you have left this glorious art display you think about how the two writers took there approach on there art. With the still framed picture of the world war two veteran it seemed that there was not much real effort put into it the art. Although because we knew through his hat that he was a world war two veteran we can relate what he could have through what he might have see compared to a veteran who fought during the Korean war. Also getting to talk to one of the other artist in the synarts, Laura Shill, She explained that the artist took some pictures of these world war two veterans and it was just one the person liked. This does somewhat bring the art down because there was no special meaning behind her art, but people make art come to life not artist in that people connect what they feel and what they think a piece of art means.
The second piece of art, the extravagant guitar seemed like that without a doubt had many hours put into to it and all of its art was very visual and easy to see were the artist was going with his piece. Talking to Scott Jarrett, another Synart artist, told me about this piece done by Anden Oben, I found out that he makes instruments for a living and also teaches in the music department. Unlike the still framed picture, Mr. Oben did build this piece of art and wanted it to look different from regular guitars basing off this older version of guitar. The way Mr. Oben did this is through the neck, the center piece that looks like a Catholic Church window, and the base of the guitar.
The Synarts art gallery is an amazing exhibit to go and see. It gives you a feel of some of the different artist around the University of Alabama. The still framed picture of the world war two veteran and the guitar is just giving you a taste of some of the many amazing art in this exhibit. There are also other amazing art from abstract pictures to a bale of paper shreds. The exhibit is one o the many great new exhibits here in the capstone. Come and enjoy something new in visiting the Synarts gallery.
By: Tim Howard
The new art gallery, called Synarts Cotillion, at Scott Hall has many different artist’s amazing art work from some of the fine students of the University of Alabama. Some of this great art goes from still pictures, to paintings, and even to a bale of paper shreds. The two main pieces of art that stuck out the most in this exhibit are the still picture of the world war two veterans and the guitar. These two different forms of art will give you just a hint of the experience you will get to have coming to this amazing art gallery.
The first piece of art that you get to see when you first walk into the gallery is the still framed picture of the world war two veteran. His hat indicates that he is a World war two veteran. When you first walk into the art gallery, the still framed picture is one of the first pieces that you get to see. All you see is his upper body, and all you think is “ok this guy fought in world war two, next piece of art.” Then as you keep on going into the art gallery, all you do is think more and more about the still framed picture of the world war two veteran.
You look at other pictures such as the four pictures of the horse as you keep waking through the gallery, but all you can think about it is the still framed picture of the World War two veteran. You then decide to walk back and look at it one more time. You notice something that you did not notice the first time. You look at his face and notice that the world war two veteran is not smiling. The picture takes you back to your memory of the “Mona Lisa” by Leonardo DaVinci. The still framed picture reminds you of the Mona Lisa because everyone wants to know about her mystic smile. So you look at this war veteran man who is not smiling. You then ask yourself “What is he thinking about?” You start to stare into his eyes and you start to visualize him thinking back to the war as he going on to the shores of Normandy, fighting for the freedom that we all get to have. The war veteran lives for his friends for fallen, but also he lives for freedom. It amazes you how such an ordinary picture has so much of an amazing meaning behind it.
After you have gotten something great from this plain, black and white, ordinary still framed picture of world war two veteran, you can’t wait to see what is next to come. As you keep moving through the art gallery, you then notice a smaller version of a guitar, but it does not look like any guitar that you have seen before. All other guitars that you have seen always have a straight neck, but the tuning of this guitars stringed area is turned back toward the wall as you observe it. The first reaction you have is that “I want to play this guitar.” The reason being is because it is just so different from any other guitar. You also notice that there are only 4 frets and you know that that is a lot less than any normal acoustic guitar. You wonder what type of pitch or sound this little guitar could bring.
You look to the side and find a description saying that the artist, Anden Oben, based this piece of art off of a thirteenth century piece guitar made by Hans Frei of Turkey. As you keep thinking looking at it you notice the center of the guitar looks like the like a Catholic Church window. Then you look toward the back of the guitar and the way that it is shaped reminds you of an onion as it is shaped like a bulb. It at first just looks like wood flooring. This is as in the each piece of would is put side by side the way you would see on flooring and it somehow takes a round shape on the base of the guitar.
Once you have left this glorious art display you think about how the two writers took there approach on there art. With the still framed picture of the world war two veteran it seemed that there was not much real effort put into it the art. Although because we knew through his hat that he was a world war two veteran we can relate what he could have through what he might have see compared to a veteran who fought during the Korean war. Also getting to talk to one of the other artist in the synarts, Laura Shill, She explained that the artist took some pictures of these world war two veterans and it was just one the person liked. This does somewhat bring the art down because there was no special meaning behind her art, but people make art come to life not artist in that people connect what they feel and what they think a piece of art means.
The second piece of art, the extravagant guitar seemed like that without a doubt had many hours put into to it and all of its art was very visual and easy to see were the artist was going with his piece. Talking to Scott Jarrett, another Synart artist, told me about this piece done by Anden Oben, I found out that he makes instruments for a living and also teaches in the music department. Unlike the still framed picture, Mr. Oben did build this piece of art and wanted it to look different from regular guitars basing off this older version of guitar. The way Mr. Oben did this is through the neck, the center piece that looks like a Catholic Church window, and the base of the guitar.
The Synarts art gallery is an amazing exhibit to go and see. It gives you a feel of some of the different artist around the University of Alabama. The still framed picture of the world war two veteran and the guitar is just giving you a taste of some of the many amazing art in this exhibit. There are also other amazing art from abstract pictures to a bale of paper shreds. The exhibit is one o the many great new exhibits here in the capstone. Come and enjoy something new in visiting the Synarts gallery.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Reid Morton
Mr. Weinstein
English 101
11 October 2007
Since the beginning of time human beings tend to manifest their fears into erratic irrational acts to defend their sense of what is perceived as normal. The Salem witch trials, the patriot act, and McCarthy’s blacklist all exemplify how human beings react when they are threatened. In all three of these instances the cultures reacted to a traumatic event with a backlash of senseless behaviors that in effect did more harm than good. Popular culture imitates society and in the 1940’s and 1950’s cinema was taking off and was becoming a staple of the American pop culture. The movie the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, directed by Don Siegel, was intended to reflect this mass hysteria.
In the 1940’s and the 1950’s communism was spreading exponentially and the Soviet Union was threatening the United States position as the greatest superpower in the world. Joseph McCarthy then catalyzed a way of thinking that a majority of the American public would claim. He made a televised speech producing a piece of paper with a list of 205 names on it. McCarthy claimed that these 205 names were all communists that were currently working for the United States Government. As a result American citizens were fired and even given jail sentences because of the assumption that they were somehow committing treason. The United States of America was thrown into absolute paranoia of anything Communist in turn affecting every citizen including filmmakers.
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers features a doctor named Miles Bennell that witnesses some very strange occurrences in his town of Santa Mira. Some of his patients mention that they believe that their family or friends have not been acting themselves as of late. They have the same physical appearance as they did before but they are totally emotionless. Bennell then concludes that the reason for these weird events is some sort of alien invasion and delves deeper to find a meaning. With the help of his friend, Jack Belicec, they discover that his patients were correct in their suspicions and uncover a race of Pod People that intend to take over the world. These wretched beings kidnap humans and replace them with lifeless organisms that can not think or feel for themselves. This widespread infection of life without emotion, without freedom is an allusion to America’s fear of the spread of Communism.
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a political allegory that was an extension of the terror that the American Culture was undergoing. Communism is an ideal that establishes a society in which there are no classes and the government controls almost every aspect of life, the antithesis of Democracy. This ideal was viewed as this rapid spreading disease that was swiftly infecting the world. Similar to this, the movie featured a town that was engulfed in a comparable epidemic just as quickly. Also the alien’s characteristics are similar to the preconceived notions that Americans had of socialists, they were described to be physically the same but emotionally vacant. It was believed that the members of the socialist movement were not allowed to make their own decisions resulting in emotionless, lifeless human beings.
Another element that should be analyzed is the state in which the humans were converted; they were asleep. The time when the citizens of Santa Mira were most vulnerable, in their slumber, is when the extraterrestrials would strike. This is an allusion to the hatred towards the socialists is because some countries turned to Communism because their economy or government was weak. After World War II, Germany and much of Europe was severely crippled and in a lot of cases completely laid to waste. Countries such as Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Romania adapted Communism as their form of government; the Soviet Union assisted and for the most part sponsored this transition. Democracy hinges on the ability to freely choose the aspects of one’s own life. Since it was perceived that the Soviet Union imposed communism on weak nations any advocate for democracy instantly resented the Soviet Union.
The whole plot centers on people defending their town from the infiltration of Pod People/Communists, paralleling the dispute between democracy and communism. The bulk of the movie is the conflict between the protagonist, Bennell, and the antagonist, the aliens. The aliens themselves represent members of the communist party because they can not think for themselves; they have no freedom to determine their own destiny. Bennell represents the American culture; he fights to preserve a person’s freedom, a staple of democracy. Also, the conclusion of the movie is a cue to the hysteria that society was in. In a fit of terror and hysteria the good doctor runs into a road stopping an oncoming car and screams “They’re here already, you’re next!” This is a clear parallel to McCarthyism because he believed adamantly that the socialist sickness has penetrated our great country and played off the fear that you too will be the next to become ill.
When the Communist “infection” was at its strongest, it threatened the stature of the American society, a traumatic event that evolved into something worse. The American public was thrown into complete panic and reacted in a way that was un-American. People were stripped of their own freedom and lives were seriously hurt because of the belief that the Soviet Union would someday take over the world. It would be psychotic to make the argument that the entire United States of America had a psychological disability and thus the film a symptom. But the plot, conflicts, and characters in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers clearly mirror a time in American history were the public was in a hysteric craze.
WORK CITED
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Rotten Tomatoes. 11 Oct. 2007.
Stein, Jeff, and Laurence Urdang. "Paranoia." Def. 1. Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Unabridged ed. 1 vols. New York: Random House, Inc., 1971.
Mr. Weinstein
English 101
11 October 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers; Reflection of Paranoia
Paranoia: n. Psychiatry, mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projections of personal conflicts, which are ascribed as the supposed hostility of others.Since the beginning of time human beings tend to manifest their fears into erratic irrational acts to defend their sense of what is perceived as normal. The Salem witch trials, the patriot act, and McCarthy’s blacklist all exemplify how human beings react when they are threatened. In all three of these instances the cultures reacted to a traumatic event with a backlash of senseless behaviors that in effect did more harm than good. Popular culture imitates society and in the 1940’s and 1950’s cinema was taking off and was becoming a staple of the American pop culture. The movie the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, directed by Don Siegel, was intended to reflect this mass hysteria.
In the 1940’s and the 1950’s communism was spreading exponentially and the Soviet Union was threatening the United States position as the greatest superpower in the world. Joseph McCarthy then catalyzed a way of thinking that a majority of the American public would claim. He made a televised speech producing a piece of paper with a list of 205 names on it. McCarthy claimed that these 205 names were all communists that were currently working for the United States Government. As a result American citizens were fired and even given jail sentences because of the assumption that they were somehow committing treason. The United States of America was thrown into absolute paranoia of anything Communist in turn affecting every citizen including filmmakers.
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers features a doctor named Miles Bennell that witnesses some very strange occurrences in his town of Santa Mira. Some of his patients mention that they believe that their family or friends have not been acting themselves as of late. They have the same physical appearance as they did before but they are totally emotionless. Bennell then concludes that the reason for these weird events is some sort of alien invasion and delves deeper to find a meaning. With the help of his friend, Jack Belicec, they discover that his patients were correct in their suspicions and uncover a race of Pod People that intend to take over the world. These wretched beings kidnap humans and replace them with lifeless organisms that can not think or feel for themselves. This widespread infection of life without emotion, without freedom is an allusion to America’s fear of the spread of Communism.
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a political allegory that was an extension of the terror that the American Culture was undergoing. Communism is an ideal that establishes a society in which there are no classes and the government controls almost every aspect of life, the antithesis of Democracy. This ideal was viewed as this rapid spreading disease that was swiftly infecting the world. Similar to this, the movie featured a town that was engulfed in a comparable epidemic just as quickly. Also the alien’s characteristics are similar to the preconceived notions that Americans had of socialists, they were described to be physically the same but emotionally vacant. It was believed that the members of the socialist movement were not allowed to make their own decisions resulting in emotionless, lifeless human beings.
Another element that should be analyzed is the state in which the humans were converted; they were asleep. The time when the citizens of Santa Mira were most vulnerable, in their slumber, is when the extraterrestrials would strike. This is an allusion to the hatred towards the socialists is because some countries turned to Communism because their economy or government was weak. After World War II, Germany and much of Europe was severely crippled and in a lot of cases completely laid to waste. Countries such as Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Romania adapted Communism as their form of government; the Soviet Union assisted and for the most part sponsored this transition. Democracy hinges on the ability to freely choose the aspects of one’s own life. Since it was perceived that the Soviet Union imposed communism on weak nations any advocate for democracy instantly resented the Soviet Union.
The whole plot centers on people defending their town from the infiltration of Pod People/Communists, paralleling the dispute between democracy and communism. The bulk of the movie is the conflict between the protagonist, Bennell, and the antagonist, the aliens. The aliens themselves represent members of the communist party because they can not think for themselves; they have no freedom to determine their own destiny. Bennell represents the American culture; he fights to preserve a person’s freedom, a staple of democracy. Also, the conclusion of the movie is a cue to the hysteria that society was in. In a fit of terror and hysteria the good doctor runs into a road stopping an oncoming car and screams “They’re here already, you’re next!” This is a clear parallel to McCarthyism because he believed adamantly that the socialist sickness has penetrated our great country and played off the fear that you too will be the next to become ill.
When the Communist “infection” was at its strongest, it threatened the stature of the American society, a traumatic event that evolved into something worse. The American public was thrown into complete panic and reacted in a way that was un-American. People were stripped of their own freedom and lives were seriously hurt because of the belief that the Soviet Union would someday take over the world. It would be psychotic to make the argument that the entire United States of America had a psychological disability and thus the film a symptom. But the plot, conflicts, and characters in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers clearly mirror a time in American history were the public was in a hysteric craze.
WORK CITED
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Rotten Tomatoes. 11 Oct. 2007
Stein, Jeff, and Laurence Urdang. "Paranoia." Def. 1. Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Unabridged ed. 1 vols. New York: Random House, Inc., 1971.
essay 3- The Invasion of The Body Snatchers
Molly Cole
Adam Weinstein
October 14, 2007
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers; a political allegory or just a funny, “I can’t believe this is a classic” movie? I believe The Invasion Of the Body Snatchers is a political allegory with a touch of humor. This film was not just made to scare, but to show the parallelism of the small community in the film to all of American Society during the cold war era. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a classic horror film from the 1950’s, taking place in a little town in California called Santa Mira. Pods from outer space, which turn everyone, into robot-like forms, abduct the whole town; people who are abducted have no emotion or feeling at all. When someone in the town is at all suspicious of their neighbor’s new behavior, they would be the pods next targets. In many ways the pods are just like the communist party. In John Whiteheads, A tale for our Time, it is believed that, “The unraveling of the pod conspiracy has the flavor of an FBI exposé. The pod people represent a completely regimented society. Metaphorically, they are all alike as "two peas in a pod" because they have been sapped of their emotional individuality”(Peary). This film has been interpreted in so many ways, but I believe that McCarthyism is the main theme in this film. The pod people represent what America believed communists were like. We were told communists wanted everyone to conform and obey their master, just as the pod people did. As the audience from the fifties watched this film, many saw all traits of the communist party in these pod people. We were under the impression they wanted to take over and out lives would become absolutely worthless once conformed. McCarthyism pushed these views on America and almost destroyed the unity of our country.
Apart from the political aspect of the movie and its many interpretations, the film as a horror flick, was definitely not up to par. The jaw clenching music, the shocking scenes and the outrageous plot, could have definitely terrified me in the fifties, but after decades and decades of film going, it isn’t a horror film with out realism. The thought that something so terrifying could actually happen to you makes the film scarier. Our era, is so used to the worlds greatest special effects and realism, that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers can’t be scary, the special affects are so juvenile that I think my little brother could have done them. Bottom line, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers can’t be classified as a horror film, the corny lines and sub par acting make me laugh more than I scream. Even though I would never recommend this film to a horror fiend, that doesn’t mean I don’t think all of young America should watch it. I believe the picture that is displayed in this film was not only a problem in the fifties but is a problem in today’s society as well. This film shows the audience what conformity is, and should be a great example of what not to do in the future.
To wind it up, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers will always be a classic. Although, horror classic, I’m not sure of. This film might have been made just to give everyone a good scare, with out any ulterior motives, but the reality is, this film has two stories, it displays a time in American Society that was horrible and scary for everyone. No one could be trusted, everyone so paranoid about one another that life couldn’t be lived to its fullest. This film secretly shows our governments flaws, and we must learn from our mistakes to make out future greater. The Invasion Of the Body Snatchers is a must see, just to show society what we don’t want to become. Besides, it IS a classic, so you have to watch it!
Works cited
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times” Gadfly Online. 14, October 07
Adam Weinstein
October 14, 2007
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers; a political allegory or just a funny, “I can’t believe this is a classic” movie? I believe The Invasion Of the Body Snatchers is a political allegory with a touch of humor. This film was not just made to scare, but to show the parallelism of the small community in the film to all of American Society during the cold war era. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a classic horror film from the 1950’s, taking place in a little town in California called Santa Mira. Pods from outer space, which turn everyone, into robot-like forms, abduct the whole town; people who are abducted have no emotion or feeling at all. When someone in the town is at all suspicious of their neighbor’s new behavior, they would be the pods next targets. In many ways the pods are just like the communist party. In John Whiteheads, A tale for our Time, it is believed that, “The unraveling of the pod conspiracy has the flavor of an FBI exposé. The pod people represent a completely regimented society. Metaphorically, they are all alike as "two peas in a pod" because they have been sapped of their emotional individuality”(Peary). This film has been interpreted in so many ways, but I believe that McCarthyism is the main theme in this film. The pod people represent what America believed communists were like. We were told communists wanted everyone to conform and obey their master, just as the pod people did. As the audience from the fifties watched this film, many saw all traits of the communist party in these pod people. We were under the impression they wanted to take over and out lives would become absolutely worthless once conformed. McCarthyism pushed these views on America and almost destroyed the unity of our country.
Apart from the political aspect of the movie and its many interpretations, the film as a horror flick, was definitely not up to par. The jaw clenching music, the shocking scenes and the outrageous plot, could have definitely terrified me in the fifties, but after decades and decades of film going, it isn’t a horror film with out realism. The thought that something so terrifying could actually happen to you makes the film scarier. Our era, is so used to the worlds greatest special effects and realism, that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers can’t be scary, the special affects are so juvenile that I think my little brother could have done them. Bottom line, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers can’t be classified as a horror film, the corny lines and sub par acting make me laugh more than I scream. Even though I would never recommend this film to a horror fiend, that doesn’t mean I don’t think all of young America should watch it. I believe the picture that is displayed in this film was not only a problem in the fifties but is a problem in today’s society as well. This film shows the audience what conformity is, and should be a great example of what not to do in the future.
To wind it up, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers will always be a classic. Although, horror classic, I’m not sure of. This film might have been made just to give everyone a good scare, with out any ulterior motives, but the reality is, this film has two stories, it displays a time in American Society that was horrible and scary for everyone. No one could be trusted, everyone so paranoid about one another that life couldn’t be lived to its fullest. This film secretly shows our governments flaws, and we must learn from our mistakes to make out future greater. The Invasion Of the Body Snatchers is a must see, just to show society what we don’t want to become. Besides, it IS a classic, so you have to watch it!
Works cited
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times” Gadfly Online. 14, October 07
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: The Case of the Stolen Identities
Courtney Hamilton
Adam Weinstein
10/13/07
According to Tim Dirks, the black and white film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, is a movie pertaining to the fear of Communism during the 1950’s. The cheesy horror film touches the threat of communism and appropriately portrays its effects on the community. On the other hand, John Whitehead believes that McCarthyism plays the main role in the film. He believes that the movie eludes to the time of the Red Scare when communism plays a part in everyday life. However, there are many different interpretations of the movie and it depends on the way one views it. In my opinion, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, parallels the actions of the communist party during the Cold War due to its emphasis on stolen identities.
To begin, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, focuses on the loss of human emotion as an almost alien-like form takes over the town of Santa Maria. Pod people slowly start to take over the small community by placing seed pods around the town and planting them in peoples houses. If anyone acts somewhat suspicious the pod people plant their seed pods and wait for nighttime for the pods to conform. Once the pod people develop they have no mind of their own and thrive off the idea of perfection. This is one of the reasons I believe this movie is about the communist party. The communist party takes away ones ability to possess any of their own thoughts or ideas. They train people to think, act, and be clones of each other. According to Whitehead, “the alien pod people perfectly fit McCarthy’s profile of Russians and, not coincidentally, American schoolteachers. The Soviets were considered ice cold, outwardly peaceful but very authoritarian and emotionless.” (Dirks) This description of the Soviets clearly parallels to the pod people in the movie and the way the people have all the life sucked out of them. The pod people still look the same, but their whole personality is transformed leaving them with no real feelings of their own. Toward the end of the movie when Becky turns into a pod person, she tells Dr. Bennell to come join her and the rest of the pod people. She also states that life is much better as a pod person. This demonstrates the formation of a cult-like organization that remarkably resembles the characteristics of the communist party. There is also a scene in the movie where they show the seed pods being carted off to different parts of the world. Communists also try to recruit more people in order to convert them to communism and they use to fear to do so.
Aside from the communist aspect of the movie, the corny lines and spine chilling music probably made for a fairly frightening movie back in the fifties. The music has a way of spiking the drama and giving the scene a bit more of intensity. Also, the fact that Dr. Bennell is the only survivor from the town of Santa Monica makes for an alarming ending. As for today, people are not frightened by this type of movie. Scary movies today incorporate blood and gore in almost every scene. People today are not going to get scared if there is not blood and gore incorporated into a scary film. Now, people are used to movies such as Saw that involve jaws being ripped open involving life and death situations. Even though the movie does not make one jump out of their seat in horror, the cinematic features are very realistic. Although the cinematography today is viewed as mediocre , I am sure it made for a great film at the time. The main concern I have about this movie is the way the doctor deals with his patients. When suspected of a mass hysteria, the doctor subscribes his patients with drugs and then sends them on their way. In today’s society that would never be acceptable. As for the special effects, the development of the seed pods shows excellent detail for the time in which this movie was developed. The main character, Dr. Bennell, does succeed in evoking fear in the audience and does an excellent acting job. Invasion of the Body Snatchers demonstrates an example of the effects of communism, but all in all is not a movie recommended to sit down and watch with the intent of being frightened.
In conclusion, the film illustrates the fear of the communism depicted around the time of the Cold War. Many details of the movie lead to this concluding factor. One being that the pod people portray the same attributes of the Soviets in Russia when communism took place. During the Cold War, the communists exhibit a very bland personality and turn into robots of each other. Throughout the movie, the pod people exhibit these same traits. They lack the ability to love and care only about spreading the seed pods in order for more pod people to evolve. Also, the seed pods are sent off to different areas in order to treansform more people into pod people. Therefore, the seed pods represent the communists that do not tolerate any other political parties. Also, the absence of the pod peoples ability to make their own decision reflects that of the communist party. Invasion of the Body Snatchers demonstrates these qualities throughout the entire movie. As a result, the community is warned about the seed pods and the movie ends as society discovers finally begins to accept what is going on
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Adam Weinstein
10/13/07
According to Tim Dirks, the black and white film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, is a movie pertaining to the fear of Communism during the 1950’s. The cheesy horror film touches the threat of communism and appropriately portrays its effects on the community. On the other hand, John Whitehead believes that McCarthyism plays the main role in the film. He believes that the movie eludes to the time of the Red Scare when communism plays a part in everyday life. However, there are many different interpretations of the movie and it depends on the way one views it. In my opinion, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, parallels the actions of the communist party during the Cold War due to its emphasis on stolen identities.
To begin, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, focuses on the loss of human emotion as an almost alien-like form takes over the town of Santa Maria. Pod people slowly start to take over the small community by placing seed pods around the town and planting them in peoples houses. If anyone acts somewhat suspicious the pod people plant their seed pods and wait for nighttime for the pods to conform. Once the pod people develop they have no mind of their own and thrive off the idea of perfection. This is one of the reasons I believe this movie is about the communist party. The communist party takes away ones ability to possess any of their own thoughts or ideas. They train people to think, act, and be clones of each other. According to Whitehead, “the alien pod people perfectly fit McCarthy’s profile of Russians and, not coincidentally, American schoolteachers. The Soviets were considered ice cold, outwardly peaceful but very authoritarian and emotionless.” (Dirks) This description of the Soviets clearly parallels to the pod people in the movie and the way the people have all the life sucked out of them. The pod people still look the same, but their whole personality is transformed leaving them with no real feelings of their own. Toward the end of the movie when Becky turns into a pod person, she tells Dr. Bennell to come join her and the rest of the pod people. She also states that life is much better as a pod person. This demonstrates the formation of a cult-like organization that remarkably resembles the characteristics of the communist party. There is also a scene in the movie where they show the seed pods being carted off to different parts of the world. Communists also try to recruit more people in order to convert them to communism and they use to fear to do so.
Aside from the communist aspect of the movie, the corny lines and spine chilling music probably made for a fairly frightening movie back in the fifties. The music has a way of spiking the drama and giving the scene a bit more of intensity. Also, the fact that Dr. Bennell is the only survivor from the town of Santa Monica makes for an alarming ending. As for today, people are not frightened by this type of movie. Scary movies today incorporate blood and gore in almost every scene. People today are not going to get scared if there is not blood and gore incorporated into a scary film. Now, people are used to movies such as Saw that involve jaws being ripped open involving life and death situations. Even though the movie does not make one jump out of their seat in horror, the cinematic features are very realistic. Although the cinematography today is viewed as mediocre , I am sure it made for a great film at the time. The main concern I have about this movie is the way the doctor deals with his patients. When suspected of a mass hysteria, the doctor subscribes his patients with drugs and then sends them on their way. In today’s society that would never be acceptable. As for the special effects, the development of the seed pods shows excellent detail for the time in which this movie was developed. The main character, Dr. Bennell, does succeed in evoking fear in the audience and does an excellent acting job. Invasion of the Body Snatchers demonstrates an example of the effects of communism, but all in all is not a movie recommended to sit down and watch with the intent of being frightened.
In conclusion, the film illustrates the fear of the communism depicted around the time of the Cold War. Many details of the movie lead to this concluding factor. One being that the pod people portray the same attributes of the Soviets in Russia when communism took place. During the Cold War, the communists exhibit a very bland personality and turn into robots of each other. Throughout the movie, the pod people exhibit these same traits. They lack the ability to love and care only about spreading the seed pods in order for more pod people to evolve. Also, the seed pods are sent off to different areas in order to treansform more people into pod people. Therefore, the seed pods represent the communists that do not tolerate any other political parties. Also, the absence of the pod peoples ability to make their own decision reflects that of the communist party. Invasion of the Body Snatchers demonstrates these qualities throughout the entire movie. As a result, the community is warned about the seed pods and the movie ends as society discovers finally begins to accept what is going on
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers: James Ford
Many times the use of an allegory or analogy can better relate a message to the audience than simply speaking it. Allegories accomplish two tasks at which exposition inherently fails: they take an audience’s bias away as well as provide a palpable example. For these reasons allegories are commonly used to convey political messages that would be lost in mere rhetoric. Following in the same vein of movies such as The Crucible and The Matrix, the 1956 science-fiction classic, Invasion of The Body Snatchers, expresses the deep running American fear of forced conformity, embodied at the time by both the threat of communism and the panicked McCarthyism that resulted from it.
As a movie, not much can be said for Invasion of The Body Snatchers. The movies entertainment comes mostly in its cheesy lines, cheesy music, and total inconsistencies. It is a product of its time in more ways than one. But as a message and a warning, Invasion of The Body Snatchers works quite well.
As John W. Whitehead points out in his article, Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times, the movie can be interpreted in many different ways. It has been interpreted to be anti-communist, anti-McCarthyist, anti-scientific, pro-traditionalist, and as a recognition of the human fear for nature. While I think all of these interpretations have some validity to them, the most obvious theme to the movie is conformity, or the fear of it. This movie was produced during a time when the fear of forced conformity was becoming real for many people, and this fear, like all fear does, simply perpetuated itself to a point where there was no safe standing ground. The movie addresses this in everyway.
As cheesy as this movie was, there was something deeply frightening in the concept of body snatchers. The idea of becoming an emotionless, uncaring conformist solely bent on the propagation of conformity itself is indeed horrifying. It seems to go against all of our natural human instincts, and our desire for individualism, and is made even scarier by the idea that it may be forced upon us. This fear was Americas exact view of communism in the 1950’s. The use of pods as the threatening agent also has connotations towards the popular idea that communism was something that grew and that we must terminate its seeds to stop its growth. The scene were the man giving orders over a loud speaker to the entire town which has assembled in the square, was the “quintessential fifties image of socialism” (Peary). Whether or not this was a correct understanding of communism is irrelevant. It was America’s understanding of communism, and was indeed terrifying to many people. Our reaction to this fear was equally as frightening.
The question of freedom vs. security has always been of great importance to America, because we realize that both are equally important and are bound in a paradoxical relationship. We value freedom in our society more than any other great nation that has ever existed. In the 1950’s the common belief was that communism represented a loss of freedom and forced equality. Our fear of the loss of individual freedom is enormous. So enormous, that in an attempt to secure our freedom from the perceived threat of communism, we lost both security and freedom. The fight against communism, led by Joseph McCarthy, aimed to single out dissidents. A dissident could be anyone who did not fit the “all American” mold, and many people had their lives destroyed because they did not fit this mold. This era began to be described by the term McCarthyism, and is now considered a stain on the integrity and history of America. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is clearly an allegory to this movement as well. In the movie conformity is not encouraged, but forced, and this was also true of McCarthyism. If you were not for them you were against them.
Invasion of The Body Snatchers should not be interpreted as anti-communist or anti-McCarthyist. It should be interpreted as both, because both political ideologies are essentially the same, at least in the eyes of Americans in the 1950’s. Though they may have had different motives both had the same outcome: forced conformity and the loss of individualism. This is innately one of our deepest fears and has been addressed in the form allegories many times during the twentieth century, as that fear has and will continue to recurrently come closer to reality.
Works Cited
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times” Gadfly Online. 13, October 07
As a movie, not much can be said for Invasion of The Body Snatchers. The movies entertainment comes mostly in its cheesy lines, cheesy music, and total inconsistencies. It is a product of its time in more ways than one. But as a message and a warning, Invasion of The Body Snatchers works quite well.
As John W. Whitehead points out in his article, Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times, the movie can be interpreted in many different ways. It has been interpreted to be anti-communist, anti-McCarthyist, anti-scientific, pro-traditionalist, and as a recognition of the human fear for nature. While I think all of these interpretations have some validity to them, the most obvious theme to the movie is conformity, or the fear of it. This movie was produced during a time when the fear of forced conformity was becoming real for many people, and this fear, like all fear does, simply perpetuated itself to a point where there was no safe standing ground. The movie addresses this in everyway.
As cheesy as this movie was, there was something deeply frightening in the concept of body snatchers. The idea of becoming an emotionless, uncaring conformist solely bent on the propagation of conformity itself is indeed horrifying. It seems to go against all of our natural human instincts, and our desire for individualism, and is made even scarier by the idea that it may be forced upon us. This fear was Americas exact view of communism in the 1950’s. The use of pods as the threatening agent also has connotations towards the popular idea that communism was something that grew and that we must terminate its seeds to stop its growth. The scene were the man giving orders over a loud speaker to the entire town which has assembled in the square, was the “quintessential fifties image of socialism” (Peary). Whether or not this was a correct understanding of communism is irrelevant. It was America’s understanding of communism, and was indeed terrifying to many people. Our reaction to this fear was equally as frightening.
The question of freedom vs. security has always been of great importance to America, because we realize that both are equally important and are bound in a paradoxical relationship. We value freedom in our society more than any other great nation that has ever existed. In the 1950’s the common belief was that communism represented a loss of freedom and forced equality. Our fear of the loss of individual freedom is enormous. So enormous, that in an attempt to secure our freedom from the perceived threat of communism, we lost both security and freedom. The fight against communism, led by Joseph McCarthy, aimed to single out dissidents. A dissident could be anyone who did not fit the “all American” mold, and many people had their lives destroyed because they did not fit this mold. This era began to be described by the term McCarthyism, and is now considered a stain on the integrity and history of America. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is clearly an allegory to this movement as well. In the movie conformity is not encouraged, but forced, and this was also true of McCarthyism. If you were not for them you were against them.
Invasion of The Body Snatchers should not be interpreted as anti-communist or anti-McCarthyist. It should be interpreted as both, because both political ideologies are essentially the same, at least in the eyes of Americans in the 1950’s. Though they may have had different motives both had the same outcome: forced conformity and the loss of individualism. This is innately one of our deepest fears and has been addressed in the form allegories many times during the twentieth century, as that fear has and will continue to recurrently come closer to reality.
Works Cited
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times” Gadfly Online. 13, October 07
Invasion of Body Snatchers Paper #3
Jared Sims
English 101
Adam Weinstein
October 11, 2007
It is evident that the film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), has a heavily drawn influence from the socialistic ideas of Communism combined with the ideas from the McCarthy Era. The main plot of the movie is centered around pods that fell from space that take form of human’s bodies and eventually take over people’s minds when they sleep. A man by the name of Dr. Miles Bennell returned to his home town of Santa Mira,Ca to find people claiming to be people who they really weren’t (Dirks). Bennell’s quote when he returned to Santa Mira summed up the actions of the people in the town, “Sick people who couldn't wait to see me, then suddenly were perfectly all right. A boy who said his mother wasn't his mother. A woman who said her uncle wasn't her uncle (Dirks)”. Throughout the course of the movie, Dr. Bennell tried to unravel the mystery of why people were acting so strange. Eventually, Miles unravels the truth only to seek for help before the epidemic spreads. People under Communist rule remind me of ants, all working for a common goal under one leader. The people overtaken by the pods exhibited the same traits of one who was under the rule of Communist regime. The Cold War overtime led to the fear that Communism would be spread into America, this led to the ideas of McCarthyism (Whitehead).
Dr. Bennell’s quote, “In my practice, I've seen how people have allowed their humanity to drain away. Only it happened slowly instead of all at once. They didn't seem to mind...All of us - a little bit - we harden our hearts, grow callous. Only when we have to fight to stay human do we realize how precious it is to us, how dear. (Dirks)”, reminded me not only of Communism, but present day views on life. Communism enslaves its people into what seems like one company which is the government. The main idea of Communism is to give government control of all means of production, and have no social classes (Wikipedia). The pod people seemed to be living in a euphoric state that made them believe that they were all equal and had no say in how they were to live their lives. My aforementioned reference to people under Communist regime reminding me of robots comes from the fact that robots are made to perform a simple task that they are programmed to do. People under Communist regime also are raised to conform to government regulation and exist solely to benefit the government. Modern day views of what is right or wrong have dulled since times of past. It is evident the world is becoming more and more corrupt by the issues coming up in society. Conformity to an extent can be positive, but when a group is made to conform, general attitude most of the time is going to be negative. People under Communist rule do not like the position they are in but know that it is what they have to abide by so they conform to their government.
The Patriot Act adopted after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 allowed the government to invade privacy of people if they suspected them to be affiliated with any terrorist regime. The way that McCarthy led his hearings and the whole process involving the trials and hearings of those suspected to have pro-Communist beliefs seemed to associate itself with the Patriot Act (Whitehead). At the time, people were scared that the Cold War might spread ideas of Communism into the United States. There was a panic induced initiative that was began by McCarthy to try those that had any pro-communist affiliation. If found guilty, you could be assured you were going to lose your job, possibly family, and most people would turn against you (Whitehead). I look at the way Communism was treated during the McCarthy era, the same as terrorism is treated presently in America. After September 11th, there was an anti-terrorism movement that sparked conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq to avoid anything of that magnitude from happening again. Immediately after September 11th, officials were scouring the United States for alleged terrorists and attempting to weed them out of our country. A resentment for people with middle eastern descent also has increased during the present day as result of the terror attacks. You may associate the resentment of a certain race of people today with the resentment of those with pro-Communist affiliation during that era.
Individualism seems to stand out as an interesting point of debate in the movie. Individualism is what defines people, not only personally, but also on an industrial level. Entrepreneurs make our economy thrive by constantly introducing new products into the market. By allowing people to develop new products and start new companies, our economy is debatably the best in the world. Communist nations such as Russia and Cuba have bad economies, due to the fact that the government controls all means of production. People in Communist nations do not have the freedom to develop products, or start new businesses that would increase their nation’s economy such as those in other nations.
To conclude, I feel as if this movie was made specifically to portray the effects of Communism. It is directly related with controversy that was occurring at the time the movie was made. I think that all people could benefit from watching this movie, no matter how old it may be. Although the movie may be a low-budget, cheesy, horror film, it also portrays how a simple ideal could involuntarily corrupt a group of people. I would recommend this movie.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html>.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism.
English 101
Adam Weinstein
October 11, 2007
It is evident that the film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), has a heavily drawn influence from the socialistic ideas of Communism combined with the ideas from the McCarthy Era. The main plot of the movie is centered around pods that fell from space that take form of human’s bodies and eventually take over people’s minds when they sleep. A man by the name of Dr. Miles Bennell returned to his home town of Santa Mira,Ca to find people claiming to be people who they really weren’t (Dirks). Bennell’s quote when he returned to Santa Mira summed up the actions of the people in the town, “Sick people who couldn't wait to see me, then suddenly were perfectly all right. A boy who said his mother wasn't his mother. A woman who said her uncle wasn't her uncle (Dirks)”. Throughout the course of the movie, Dr. Bennell tried to unravel the mystery of why people were acting so strange. Eventually, Miles unravels the truth only to seek for help before the epidemic spreads. People under Communist rule remind me of ants, all working for a common goal under one leader. The people overtaken by the pods exhibited the same traits of one who was under the rule of Communist regime. The Cold War overtime led to the fear that Communism would be spread into America, this led to the ideas of McCarthyism (Whitehead).
Dr. Bennell’s quote, “In my practice, I've seen how people have allowed their humanity to drain away. Only it happened slowly instead of all at once. They didn't seem to mind...All of us - a little bit - we harden our hearts, grow callous. Only when we have to fight to stay human do we realize how precious it is to us, how dear. (Dirks)”, reminded me not only of Communism, but present day views on life. Communism enslaves its people into what seems like one company which is the government. The main idea of Communism is to give government control of all means of production, and have no social classes (Wikipedia). The pod people seemed to be living in a euphoric state that made them believe that they were all equal and had no say in how they were to live their lives. My aforementioned reference to people under Communist regime reminding me of robots comes from the fact that robots are made to perform a simple task that they are programmed to do. People under Communist regime also are raised to conform to government regulation and exist solely to benefit the government. Modern day views of what is right or wrong have dulled since times of past. It is evident the world is becoming more and more corrupt by the issues coming up in society. Conformity to an extent can be positive, but when a group is made to conform, general attitude most of the time is going to be negative. People under Communist rule do not like the position they are in but know that it is what they have to abide by so they conform to their government.
The Patriot Act adopted after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 allowed the government to invade privacy of people if they suspected them to be affiliated with any terrorist regime. The way that McCarthy led his hearings and the whole process involving the trials and hearings of those suspected to have pro-Communist beliefs seemed to associate itself with the Patriot Act (Whitehead). At the time, people were scared that the Cold War might spread ideas of Communism into the United States. There was a panic induced initiative that was began by McCarthy to try those that had any pro-communist affiliation. If found guilty, you could be assured you were going to lose your job, possibly family, and most people would turn against you (Whitehead). I look at the way Communism was treated during the McCarthy era, the same as terrorism is treated presently in America. After September 11th, there was an anti-terrorism movement that sparked conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq to avoid anything of that magnitude from happening again. Immediately after September 11th, officials were scouring the United States for alleged terrorists and attempting to weed them out of our country. A resentment for people with middle eastern descent also has increased during the present day as result of the terror attacks. You may associate the resentment of a certain race of people today with the resentment of those with pro-Communist affiliation during that era.
Individualism seems to stand out as an interesting point of debate in the movie. Individualism is what defines people, not only personally, but also on an industrial level. Entrepreneurs make our economy thrive by constantly introducing new products into the market. By allowing people to develop new products and start new companies, our economy is debatably the best in the world. Communist nations such as Russia and Cuba have bad economies, due to the fact that the government controls all means of production. People in Communist nations do not have the freedom to develop products, or start new businesses that would increase their nation’s economy such as those in other nations.
To conclude, I feel as if this movie was made specifically to portray the effects of Communism. It is directly related with controversy that was occurring at the time the movie was made. I think that all people could benefit from watching this movie, no matter how old it may be. Although the movie may be a low-budget, cheesy, horror film, it also portrays how a simple ideal could involuntarily corrupt a group of people. I would recommend this movie.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html>.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Paper # 3: The Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Movies are a funny thing. The setting can show different time periods throughout history. But no matter what the setting is, the movie will always reflect the time period and culture that is was made in. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), directed by Don Siegel, is just that. The movie is a political allegory that reflects the communistic times and our countries struggle to deal with the opposing threat of communism taking over. In the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the characters depict for the viewer, a town that is enveloped in a “mass hysteria,” which correlates to the communist threat of the 1950’s and the terrorist threats of today.
The movie begins with Doctor Miles Bennell, the hero of the movie, returning from a business trip back to his hometown of Santa Mira. His nurse, Sally, greets the doctor at the train station and claims that she has had a busy week because of all the patients who wanted to see Dr. Bennell. This would have been normal but when they return to the office, there is nobody there. Everyone has canceled their appointments claiming that they are cured. Suddenly, a boy by the name of Jimmy Grimauldi bursts screaming onto the scene claiming that his mother is not his mother. The Doctor, however, dismisses the hysterical boy for having a childish tantrum and drugs him. This is the first sign that something is amiss with in the town of Santa Mira.
Our hero later meets up with his love interest, Becky Driscoll. Their dinner is interrupted with a phone call from Miles Bennell’s good friend Jack. Becky and Miles head over to Jack’s house where they discover a body of a man. The man was lying on the pool table and looked just like Jack! Everyone returns to Doctor Bennell’s house scared and worried to find strange green pods planted in the green house. The pods burst open, and spew foam and ooze a milky substance. Inside the pods are bodies formed in the likeness of the quartet. Miles tries to phone for help when he discovers what has become of the town; the pod people are taking over. They are in the police, they are your parents, brother, sisters, and they are everywhere and everyone! They have no emotions, they do not laugh or cry, and they want everyone to be just like them.
This is the allegory the Director, Don Siegel, tries to depict throughout the movie, the spread of communism, its threat to our country and our way of life. Communism started out as a socialistic party at the beginning of the Russian revolution. Its goal was to distribute the wealth among the classes but it only succeeded in suppressing the Russian people and their culture (Wikipedia). Imagine living in where you job is predetermined for you at birth. People have to wait in ration lines for food and if they run out of bread guess you are screwed for the week. During the late 1940’s and early1950’s our country was faced with the dehumanizing threat of communism. Nobody knew whom to trust. People were disappearing and being Blacklisted left and right. Families were separated and people were petrified with fear. The United States of America is built on hard work and perseverance; our whole way of life was hanging by a string as people were turned onto the "idea" of equality. I highly doubt Lenin, Stalin, or any other socialist-communist leader had to wait in a food line. There is nothing equal about that. The pod people are depicting the communists with in the movie. The conspiracies, the pressure to make others become “one of them”, the emotionless attitudes, all the pod people are the exact same.
To conclude I do believe that the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is relevant today. Another them of the movie is McCarthyism. Senator Joseph McCarthy was a senator who convinced the United States that it was under communist attack. Dr. Bennell was in a way the saner version of Joseph McCarthy. The Dr. was trying to save his town from the monster pods that left people emotionless and in the same likeness, which is the allegory to communism. The problem today, however, is not communism but terrorism. After 9/11 the U.S. was left scared and vulnerable, President Bush passed an act of legislation that allowed to U.S. to monitor anyone who is suspected of
Being a terrorist. The Patriot Act is like many of the things that Senator McCarthy tried to accomplish in his reign as senator. McCarthy wanted to protect his country from the imposing threat of communism, as Dr. Bennell wanted to protect Santa Mira.
In closing, I would definitely recommend this movie to others, not for the allegories and allusions, but just because it is a horribly corny movie with great special affects. Watch on.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
The movie begins with Doctor Miles Bennell, the hero of the movie, returning from a business trip back to his hometown of Santa Mira. His nurse, Sally, greets the doctor at the train station and claims that she has had a busy week because of all the patients who wanted to see Dr. Bennell. This would have been normal but when they return to the office, there is nobody there. Everyone has canceled their appointments claiming that they are cured. Suddenly, a boy by the name of Jimmy Grimauldi bursts screaming onto the scene claiming that his mother is not his mother. The Doctor, however, dismisses the hysterical boy for having a childish tantrum and drugs him. This is the first sign that something is amiss with in the town of Santa Mira.
Our hero later meets up with his love interest, Becky Driscoll. Their dinner is interrupted with a phone call from Miles Bennell’s good friend Jack. Becky and Miles head over to Jack’s house where they discover a body of a man. The man was lying on the pool table and looked just like Jack! Everyone returns to Doctor Bennell’s house scared and worried to find strange green pods planted in the green house. The pods burst open, and spew foam and ooze a milky substance. Inside the pods are bodies formed in the likeness of the quartet. Miles tries to phone for help when he discovers what has become of the town; the pod people are taking over. They are in the police, they are your parents, brother, sisters, and they are everywhere and everyone! They have no emotions, they do not laugh or cry, and they want everyone to be just like them.
This is the allegory the Director, Don Siegel, tries to depict throughout the movie, the spread of communism, its threat to our country and our way of life. Communism started out as a socialistic party at the beginning of the Russian revolution. Its goal was to distribute the wealth among the classes but it only succeeded in suppressing the Russian people and their culture (Wikipedia). Imagine living in where you job is predetermined for you at birth. People have to wait in ration lines for food and if they run out of bread guess you are screwed for the week. During the late 1940’s and early1950’s our country was faced with the dehumanizing threat of communism. Nobody knew whom to trust. People were disappearing and being Blacklisted left and right. Families were separated and people were petrified with fear. The United States of America is built on hard work and perseverance; our whole way of life was hanging by a string as people were turned onto the "idea" of equality. I highly doubt Lenin, Stalin, or any other socialist-communist leader had to wait in a food line. There is nothing equal about that. The pod people are depicting the communists with in the movie. The conspiracies, the pressure to make others become “one of them”, the emotionless attitudes, all the pod people are the exact same.
To conclude I do believe that the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is relevant today. Another them of the movie is McCarthyism. Senator Joseph McCarthy was a senator who convinced the United States that it was under communist attack. Dr. Bennell was in a way the saner version of Joseph McCarthy. The Dr. was trying to save his town from the monster pods that left people emotionless and in the same likeness, which is the allegory to communism. The problem today, however, is not communism but terrorism. After 9/11 the U.S. was left scared and vulnerable, President Bush passed an act of legislation that allowed to U.S. to monitor anyone who is suspected of
Being a terrorist. The Patriot Act is like many of the things that Senator McCarthy tried to accomplish in his reign as senator. McCarthy wanted to protect his country from the imposing threat of communism, as Dr. Bennell wanted to protect Santa Mira.
In closing, I would definitely recommend this movie to others, not for the allegories and allusions, but just because it is a horribly corny movie with great special affects. Watch on.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Paper 3-Chelsea Banks
Chelsea Banks
English 101
Adam Weinstein
October 11, 2007
The Other
Ever since the premier of the 1956 science fiction, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, esteemed critics and viewers have created their own individual analyses of the film. Two similar critical interpretations of the classic movie are that it is an allegory for the loss of personal autonomy in the Soviet Union and that it is an indictment of McCarthyism paranoia about Communism during the early stages of the Cold War. “The mob hysteria, the sense of paranoia, the fascist police, the witch hunt atmosphere of the picture certainly mirrors the ills of McCarthy’s America” (Whitehead).
Despite political connotations of the film, lead actor Kevin McCarthy said in an interview included on the 1998 DVD release that he felt no political allegory was intended (Parks). Some, including Tim Dirks, agree that Invasion of the Body Snatchers contains the theme of paranoia toward socialistic Communism; however, they still interpret this film as just another thrilling, science fiction classic.
A classic film is often a distinguished or unique work of cinema that has transcended time and trends, with indefinable quality. Invasion of the Body Snatchers will be viewed in years to come as more than just another sci-fi horror film because it refers to more than the invasion of McCarthyism; it refers to the loss of our individuality by the invasion of “the other.” This takeover is almost always determined as evil in the belief that group-think and conformity are wrong. When “the-other” influences one to be something different than what they truly are, conformity has taken place.
What is the reason for conformity? The need for conformity is the desire to go along with the norms of a group of people, so you will be accepted as an in-group person (and not rejected as an out-group undesirable person). In reference to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the idea of conformity is vividly portrayed as wickedness. The film can be looked at as a philosophical exploration of personal identity. Just what does it take for people to be themselves? Is it how they look, act, the things they say? Is it not the case that people are constantly transformed into something they weren't just hours ago, or even moments ago? Among the many ways that these kinds of ideas are worked into the script is that sleep is a metaphor for unconscious physical change over time. It would be easy to analyze each scene in the film in this manner, going into detail about the various implications each plot development has on the matter of personal identity. Moreover, this classic picture depicts the idea of compliance which was deeply controversial in the 1950’s, when the movie was produced. In today’s society, the argument between individuality and conformity is still apparent, making this film more than just another horror movie.
Likewise, Invasion of the Body Snatchers portrays group-think as deathly immoral. One psychologist defines group-think as "a way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action" (Janis: 1972). Some primary symptoms of group-think are: unquestioned belief in the moral correctness of the group, stereotyped views of the out-group, pressure to conform, protecting the group from contrary viewpoints, by self-appointed ‘mind-guards’ (Schafer and Crichlow: 1996). The group of pod people in the film clearly believe they are morally correct, have stereotypes of people not like them, and protect each other. “It was ingenious to create a story where a whole town steadily turns into a villain, and even natural, inescapable biological functions threaten our heroes' destruction” (Sponseller). Under this mentality of group-think, the pod people believe they live in an untroubled world where everyone and everything is the same. Similarly, they see life without love, faith, and ambition, as simple.
The hero of the film, Miles, warns the world of “the other,” or imposters. Whether it is an idea, an item, or even a person that overtakes our mind and spirit, this invasion is contagious. One invasion leads to another. We morph to be like others and are faked onto thinking the problem cannot be too serious. Is more at stake other than individuality? The movie states multiple losses in those who fall to conformity and group-think. “The special looks in our eyes” are gone when we conform; we show “no emotion or feeling” (Miles). Miles’ friend Jack Belicec shows him a strange, corpse-like cadaver lying on his pool table - with an unfinished, half-formed, mannequin-like humanoid face and no fingerprints (Dirks). “The face is vague, all the features, but no details” Miles comments. It is the mass hysteria of uniformity that leaves no room for distinctiveness.
At the conclusion of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, with the pod people close behind, a seemingly crazed Miles runs onto the highway frantically screaming of the force which has overrun the town to the passing motorists and yells, "They're here already! You're next!" We are all in danger of the invasion of “the other.” People will always deal with the idea of someone or something taking over. This classic film illustrates an identifiable theme that pertains to not only the twentieth century, but also the centuries to come.
Despite the preconceptions of direction towards Communism, this is a gem of a film, not just for sci-fi and horror fans, and not just for its era. It's worth seeing by anyone with a serious interest in film, and can be enjoyed either on its suspenseful surface level, or more in-depth by those who want to look at the film as more metaphorical material for societal and philosophical concerns.
Works Cited
Janis (1972), and Schafer and Crichlow (1996). "Groupthink." ChangingMinds. 2007. Syque. 10 Oct. 2007..
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 26 September 2007. <http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html>.Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html>.
Parks, Kelly. "INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS -1956." FeoAmanteFeo Amante’s Horror Home Page. 1997. E.C. McMullen Jr. 10 Oct. 2007..
English 101
Adam Weinstein
October 11, 2007
The Other
Ever since the premier of the 1956 science fiction, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, esteemed critics and viewers have created their own individual analyses of the film. Two similar critical interpretations of the classic movie are that it is an allegory for the loss of personal autonomy in the Soviet Union and that it is an indictment of McCarthyism paranoia about Communism during the early stages of the Cold War. “The mob hysteria, the sense of paranoia, the fascist police, the witch hunt atmosphere of the picture certainly mirrors the ills of McCarthy’s America” (Whitehead).
Despite political connotations of the film, lead actor Kevin McCarthy said in an interview included on the 1998 DVD release that he felt no political allegory was intended (Parks). Some, including Tim Dirks, agree that Invasion of the Body Snatchers contains the theme of paranoia toward socialistic Communism; however, they still interpret this film as just another thrilling, science fiction classic.
A classic film is often a distinguished or unique work of cinema that has transcended time and trends, with indefinable quality. Invasion of the Body Snatchers will be viewed in years to come as more than just another sci-fi horror film because it refers to more than the invasion of McCarthyism; it refers to the loss of our individuality by the invasion of “the other.” This takeover is almost always determined as evil in the belief that group-think and conformity are wrong. When “the-other” influences one to be something different than what they truly are, conformity has taken place.
What is the reason for conformity? The need for conformity is the desire to go along with the norms of a group of people, so you will be accepted as an in-group person (and not rejected as an out-group undesirable person). In reference to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the idea of conformity is vividly portrayed as wickedness. The film can be looked at as a philosophical exploration of personal identity. Just what does it take for people to be themselves? Is it how they look, act, the things they say? Is it not the case that people are constantly transformed into something they weren't just hours ago, or even moments ago? Among the many ways that these kinds of ideas are worked into the script is that sleep is a metaphor for unconscious physical change over time. It would be easy to analyze each scene in the film in this manner, going into detail about the various implications each plot development has on the matter of personal identity. Moreover, this classic picture depicts the idea of compliance which was deeply controversial in the 1950’s, when the movie was produced. In today’s society, the argument between individuality and conformity is still apparent, making this film more than just another horror movie.
Likewise, Invasion of the Body Snatchers portrays group-think as deathly immoral. One psychologist defines group-think as "a way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action" (Janis: 1972). Some primary symptoms of group-think are: unquestioned belief in the moral correctness of the group, stereotyped views of the out-group, pressure to conform, protecting the group from contrary viewpoints, by self-appointed ‘mind-guards’ (Schafer and Crichlow: 1996). The group of pod people in the film clearly believe they are morally correct, have stereotypes of people not like them, and protect each other. “It was ingenious to create a story where a whole town steadily turns into a villain, and even natural, inescapable biological functions threaten our heroes' destruction” (Sponseller). Under this mentality of group-think, the pod people believe they live in an untroubled world where everyone and everything is the same. Similarly, they see life without love, faith, and ambition, as simple.
The hero of the film, Miles, warns the world of “the other,” or imposters. Whether it is an idea, an item, or even a person that overtakes our mind and spirit, this invasion is contagious. One invasion leads to another. We morph to be like others and are faked onto thinking the problem cannot be too serious. Is more at stake other than individuality? The movie states multiple losses in those who fall to conformity and group-think. “The special looks in our eyes” are gone when we conform; we show “no emotion or feeling” (Miles). Miles’ friend Jack Belicec shows him a strange, corpse-like cadaver lying on his pool table - with an unfinished, half-formed, mannequin-like humanoid face and no fingerprints (Dirks). “The face is vague, all the features, but no details” Miles comments. It is the mass hysteria of uniformity that leaves no room for distinctiveness.
At the conclusion of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, with the pod people close behind, a seemingly crazed Miles runs onto the highway frantically screaming of the force which has overrun the town to the passing motorists and yells, "They're here already! You're next!" We are all in danger of the invasion of “the other.” People will always deal with the idea of someone or something taking over. This classic film illustrates an identifiable theme that pertains to not only the twentieth century, but also the centuries to come.
Despite the preconceptions of direction towards Communism, this is a gem of a film, not just for sci-fi and horror fans, and not just for its era. It's worth seeing by anyone with a serious interest in film, and can be enjoyed either on its suspenseful surface level, or more in-depth by those who want to look at the film as more metaphorical material for societal and philosophical concerns.
Works Cited
Janis (1972), and Schafer and Crichlow (1996). "Groupthink." ChangingMinds. 2007. Syque. 10 Oct. 2007.
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 26 September 2007. <http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html>.Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html>.
Parks, Kelly. "INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS -1956." FeoAmanteFeo Amante’s Horror Home Page. 1997. E.C. McMullen Jr. 10 Oct. 2007.
Essay 3: "The Cinema is Truth 24 Frames Per Second"
Kylie Dekin
Adam Weinstein
English 101-099
12 October 2007
Simply Horror
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a classic horror science fiction movie created in the 1950’s. There can be many different themes pulled out of this movie. Two movie reviews written by Tim Dirk and John Whitehead, both believed that the movie was about communism, Nuclear War and McCarthyism. All of these historic events were occurring during this time. People could easily relate to these events because they were living through it. However, today people cannot relate to these same events because they are no longer happening. Instead, today we are dealing with terrorism and war in Iraq. This is one reason why I do not agree that the theme is communism and McCarthyism. I think that Invasion of the Body Snatchers was created to simply be a horror science fiction movie. Scientific outburst of new inventions, theories and ideas were just coming to a head. People today can also relate to this because we now live in a scientific world. Automobiles, computers, cell phones, and IPods are all getting hi-tech. Scientists are cloning animals, changing genes of unborn babies, and coming up with vacations for many different kinds of illnesses. Don Siegel created this movie to scare people of new scientific inventions going completely wrong. The characters in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers were all scared of the scientific idea of clones attempting to take over the world.
I did not live in the McCarthyism and communist era so I do not know how much people actually feared McCarthyism in the United States. I do not know who was all affected by this fear. Just like terrorism, some people are affected by it more than others are. Everybody’s beliefs and reactions will be different. On the other hand, was the idea that the theme was communism one big publicity stunt to draw more viewers to come see this classic horror movie of its time to make more money? There is no way for me knowing unless I did some heavy-duty research before watching the movie. However, I did not do that. Therefore, when I watched this movie for the first time, I automatically thought the movie was a classic horror science fiction movie. I just think that Doctor Miles Bennell was trying to save his town from a new scientific invention going bad. The giant seed pods were taking over his friends’ innocent lives one by one and making them emotionless people. They no longer could feel love or give love. They all think the same. Today, we would not think of this as communism, because we know what clones are the exact copy of an organism. In addition, during this communism era, psychologists were considered witch doctors because they talked to the “crazy” people. However, we would think this as normal today. So many people talk to psychologist for numerous reasons, not because we are witches talking to the devil. In the movie, they think the same. Dr. Bennell is sent to the emergency room where cops, doctors, and psychiatrists think he is going crazy. They are not going to listen to him until they see for themselves that he is telling the truth, which they do at the end of the movie.
In the twenty first century people believe that, a good horror movie is made of intense special affects, gory scenes, spooky music, dramatic deaths and famous actors. Thousands of dollars and a lot of time go toward all of these movies. However, sixty years ago this was not the case. Very little time and money was spent on movies. There was a little blood if any and very few special affects that help create horror movies in this era. What made movies scary in the early 1900s was the psychological themes. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a movie with barley any special effects and no bloody deaths or gory scenes. What makes this movie so suspenseful is the spine-chilling music, the “slow building tension,” (Dirks) the romantic scenes, and the idea of new scientific inventions going bad. I think that people today would not agree with Whitehead saying that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers “is still considered the greatest of all the horror and science fiction classics” (Whitehead). People are so use to the special affects and computer generated movies that they would probably laugh at this old classic because of the poor cinematography and the cheesy acting of not so famous actors. I personally think this was truly a great horror film because of its simplicity. Today, I think directors go overboard on special affects and goriness that they forget the plot or the whole point of the movie. They end up not having a good theme and it becomes a corny movie instead of a horror movie. Invasion of the Body Snatchers was more than a grade B movie; it is an all time classic horror movie. I think that people should see this movie with an open mind. Since not a lot of time or money was spent on the movie, it lacks acting, props, and special effects. However the plot and dialogue was very strong and it all made sense. I think the movie was very convincing because we can relate to it today. Cloning is very popular now and is practiced all over the world. For all we know, clones could very well take over the world today.
Adam Weinstein
English 101-099
12 October 2007
Simply Horror
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a classic horror science fiction movie created in the 1950’s. There can be many different themes pulled out of this movie. Two movie reviews written by Tim Dirk and John Whitehead, both believed that the movie was about communism, Nuclear War and McCarthyism. All of these historic events were occurring during this time. People could easily relate to these events because they were living through it. However, today people cannot relate to these same events because they are no longer happening. Instead, today we are dealing with terrorism and war in Iraq. This is one reason why I do not agree that the theme is communism and McCarthyism. I think that Invasion of the Body Snatchers was created to simply be a horror science fiction movie. Scientific outburst of new inventions, theories and ideas were just coming to a head. People today can also relate to this because we now live in a scientific world. Automobiles, computers, cell phones, and IPods are all getting hi-tech. Scientists are cloning animals, changing genes of unborn babies, and coming up with vacations for many different kinds of illnesses. Don Siegel created this movie to scare people of new scientific inventions going completely wrong. The characters in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers were all scared of the scientific idea of clones attempting to take over the world.
I did not live in the McCarthyism and communist era so I do not know how much people actually feared McCarthyism in the United States. I do not know who was all affected by this fear. Just like terrorism, some people are affected by it more than others are. Everybody’s beliefs and reactions will be different. On the other hand, was the idea that the theme was communism one big publicity stunt to draw more viewers to come see this classic horror movie of its time to make more money? There is no way for me knowing unless I did some heavy-duty research before watching the movie. However, I did not do that. Therefore, when I watched this movie for the first time, I automatically thought the movie was a classic horror science fiction movie. I just think that Doctor Miles Bennell was trying to save his town from a new scientific invention going bad. The giant seed pods were taking over his friends’ innocent lives one by one and making them emotionless people. They no longer could feel love or give love. They all think the same. Today, we would not think of this as communism, because we know what clones are the exact copy of an organism. In addition, during this communism era, psychologists were considered witch doctors because they talked to the “crazy” people. However, we would think this as normal today. So many people talk to psychologist for numerous reasons, not because we are witches talking to the devil. In the movie, they think the same. Dr. Bennell is sent to the emergency room where cops, doctors, and psychiatrists think he is going crazy. They are not going to listen to him until they see for themselves that he is telling the truth, which they do at the end of the movie.
In the twenty first century people believe that, a good horror movie is made of intense special affects, gory scenes, spooky music, dramatic deaths and famous actors. Thousands of dollars and a lot of time go toward all of these movies. However, sixty years ago this was not the case. Very little time and money was spent on movies. There was a little blood if any and very few special affects that help create horror movies in this era. What made movies scary in the early 1900s was the psychological themes. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a movie with barley any special effects and no bloody deaths or gory scenes. What makes this movie so suspenseful is the spine-chilling music, the “slow building tension,” (Dirks) the romantic scenes, and the idea of new scientific inventions going bad. I think that people today would not agree with Whitehead saying that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers “is still considered the greatest of all the horror and science fiction classics” (Whitehead). People are so use to the special affects and computer generated movies that they would probably laugh at this old classic because of the poor cinematography and the cheesy acting of not so famous actors. I personally think this was truly a great horror film because of its simplicity. Today, I think directors go overboard on special affects and goriness that they forget the plot or the whole point of the movie. They end up not having a good theme and it becomes a corny movie instead of a horror movie. Invasion of the Body Snatchers was more than a grade B movie; it is an all time classic horror movie. I think that people should see this movie with an open mind. Since not a lot of time or money was spent on the movie, it lacks acting, props, and special effects. However the plot and dialogue was very strong and it all made sense. I think the movie was very convincing because we can relate to it today. Cloning is very popular now and is practiced all over the world. For all we know, clones could very well take over the world today.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 01 October 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 01 October 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 01 October 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
Paper #3 Danny Glynn
Danny Glynn
Adam Weinstein
English 101
12 October 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
In the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, directed by Don Siegal, there is an allusion to the Red Scare fears of Communism in America in the 1950s. In the film the small town of Santa Mira becomes infected with giant pods that produce clones of people in the town. These clones then take over the bodies of the people in the town and turn them into emotionless humans. The “pod people” represent the Communist who do not have the right to express their thoughts or show any of their emotions without facing punishment, and in American around this time their were people being brought in to testify about their so-called Communist affiliations, and as a result of these hearings hundreds of people either lost their jobs, lost their families, or some even lost their lives because they committed suicide (www.gadflyonline.com). Miles Bennell is the local doctor in the film and he refuses to be taken over by the pod people and convert to their ways of thinking and acting. Another part in the movie that shows characteristics of Communism is when Miles and Becky are standing Miles’ office and they see the town’s people begin to gather around the town square and get the orders to deliver the pods all over the county, no matter what social class they were in everyone did it. This is symbolizing Communism because in a communist government labor is supposed to be divided equally among everyone, not matter your social class. (www.projectsdday.chs.edu). With communism comes a single party government that forces people to agree with ideas the ideas of the government, and in Invasion of the Body Snatchers through out the whole movie, from when Jack comes back and tells him that joining the pod people would be the best thing for him to when Becky turns into a pod person and tells him the same thing, the pod people are constantly pushing their ways and saying they are the best because they do not have the choice to speak out against them like in a Communist government.
There are allusions in this movie from beginning to end, and when I was watching this movie there were some of the points that the critics made about the movie that I agreed with, and having read their reviews before I watched the movie I found myself looking for the parts that the critics were talking about and noticed most of the allegory they were talking about. To begin with, I agree with the critics that say the movie is thinly disguised as allegory for the communist scare, and in a review written by Richard Schieb he says “To say that Invasion of the body Snatchers is an outright allegory about Communism is to be overly literal about it all.” (www.moria.co.nz). I would also agree with Danny Peary who wrote about the scene in Santa Mira’s town square, where a loud speaker reads off the day’s orders and tells the locals where to take pods, and he says this is the quintessential fifties image of socialism and that people need people need their freedom of thought, and without it we are all like vegetables (www.gadflyonline.com). Furthermore when Tim Derks describes the pod people as being cold, unable to express emotion or closeness as an allegory for Communism is a valid statement because Communist are said to be emotionless people that are unable to express themselves without punishment, and therefore these people would be a direct symbol to a Communist (www.filmsite.org).
When I was watching the movie I saw the things that the critics were talking about, but only one of the reviews that I read referred to this movie relating to today’s society, and it was about McCarthyism and the nine eleven attacks on the World Trade Centers. I was looking for things in the movie that symbolized things going on in America today that were related to the allegory of Communism and I could not find one that stuck out to me, although their were numerous allusion to what was going on in the 1950s with the Cold War hitting its peak. I believe that this film is not relevant to today’s society because the threat of Communism is not near as high as it was in the 1950s when this film was made. The only thing that I saw in the movie that relates to both Communism and today’s American Society is conformity. In the movie all of the pod people act alike and do the same things and in American society today you see a lot of people following what other people and how they act. This is not necessarily Americans conforming to Communism, but it is Americans showing traits of a Communist government. At the end of the movie when Dr. Bennell is standing in the middle of the highway screaming about what has happen in Santa Mira and trying to tell the people that are passing by that they will be next, no one listens to him and they just keep driving by, and this resembles a person not being able to speak freely in a communist country, but after being taking to the police station, people begin to listen to him and begin to believe what he is saying. The police then call the FBI, this is representing the American government and how the government is for the people, and the people have a say in the American government. Once again this is only comparing the two governments and showing the positives of American government, and the two not being directly relevant in this film.
In conclusion, I would view Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a movie with allegory relating to the Communist government. I also agree with many of the parts pointed out by the critics that talk about this film relating to Communism, but I would not say that this film has relevancy today because the threat of Communism is not like it was in the 1950s.
Works Cited
Derks, Tim. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). 1996. 27 Sept. 2007 <http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html >
Halsall, Paul. Modern History Sourcebook: Stalin's Purges, 1935. 1997. 12 Oct. 2007
<http://projectsday.chs.edu.sg/2001/web%20reports/cat5/2/files/Communism.htm >
Scheib, Richard. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1999. 10 Oct. 2007 <http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/bodysnatchers56.htm>
Whitehead, John W. Invasion of the Body Snatchers a Tale for our Times. 1998.
27 Sept. 2007 <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html>
Adam Weinstein
English 101
12 October 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
In the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, directed by Don Siegal, there is an allusion to the Red Scare fears of Communism in America in the 1950s. In the film the small town of Santa Mira becomes infected with giant pods that produce clones of people in the town. These clones then take over the bodies of the people in the town and turn them into emotionless humans. The “pod people” represent the Communist who do not have the right to express their thoughts or show any of their emotions without facing punishment, and in American around this time their were people being brought in to testify about their so-called Communist affiliations, and as a result of these hearings hundreds of people either lost their jobs, lost their families, or some even lost their lives because they committed suicide (www.gadflyonline.com). Miles Bennell is the local doctor in the film and he refuses to be taken over by the pod people and convert to their ways of thinking and acting. Another part in the movie that shows characteristics of Communism is when Miles and Becky are standing Miles’ office and they see the town’s people begin to gather around the town square and get the orders to deliver the pods all over the county, no matter what social class they were in everyone did it. This is symbolizing Communism because in a communist government labor is supposed to be divided equally among everyone, not matter your social class. (www.projectsdday.chs.edu). With communism comes a single party government that forces people to agree with ideas the ideas of the government, and in Invasion of the Body Snatchers through out the whole movie, from when Jack comes back and tells him that joining the pod people would be the best thing for him to when Becky turns into a pod person and tells him the same thing, the pod people are constantly pushing their ways and saying they are the best because they do not have the choice to speak out against them like in a Communist government.
There are allusions in this movie from beginning to end, and when I was watching this movie there were some of the points that the critics made about the movie that I agreed with, and having read their reviews before I watched the movie I found myself looking for the parts that the critics were talking about and noticed most of the allegory they were talking about. To begin with, I agree with the critics that say the movie is thinly disguised as allegory for the communist scare, and in a review written by Richard Schieb he says “To say that Invasion of the body Snatchers is an outright allegory about Communism is to be overly literal about it all.” (www.moria.co.nz). I would also agree with Danny Peary who wrote about the scene in Santa Mira’s town square, where a loud speaker reads off the day’s orders and tells the locals where to take pods, and he says this is the quintessential fifties image of socialism and that people need people need their freedom of thought, and without it we are all like vegetables (www.gadflyonline.com). Furthermore when Tim Derks describes the pod people as being cold, unable to express emotion or closeness as an allegory for Communism is a valid statement because Communist are said to be emotionless people that are unable to express themselves without punishment, and therefore these people would be a direct symbol to a Communist (www.filmsite.org).
When I was watching the movie I saw the things that the critics were talking about, but only one of the reviews that I read referred to this movie relating to today’s society, and it was about McCarthyism and the nine eleven attacks on the World Trade Centers. I was looking for things in the movie that symbolized things going on in America today that were related to the allegory of Communism and I could not find one that stuck out to me, although their were numerous allusion to what was going on in the 1950s with the Cold War hitting its peak. I believe that this film is not relevant to today’s society because the threat of Communism is not near as high as it was in the 1950s when this film was made. The only thing that I saw in the movie that relates to both Communism and today’s American Society is conformity. In the movie all of the pod people act alike and do the same things and in American society today you see a lot of people following what other people and how they act. This is not necessarily Americans conforming to Communism, but it is Americans showing traits of a Communist government. At the end of the movie when Dr. Bennell is standing in the middle of the highway screaming about what has happen in Santa Mira and trying to tell the people that are passing by that they will be next, no one listens to him and they just keep driving by, and this resembles a person not being able to speak freely in a communist country, but after being taking to the police station, people begin to listen to him and begin to believe what he is saying. The police then call the FBI, this is representing the American government and how the government is for the people, and the people have a say in the American government. Once again this is only comparing the two governments and showing the positives of American government, and the two not being directly relevant in this film.
In conclusion, I would view Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a movie with allegory relating to the Communist government. I also agree with many of the parts pointed out by the critics that talk about this film relating to Communism, but I would not say that this film has relevancy today because the threat of Communism is not like it was in the 1950s.
Works Cited
Derks, Tim. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). 1996. 27 Sept. 2007 <http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html >
Halsall, Paul. Modern History Sourcebook: Stalin's Purges, 1935. 1997. 12 Oct. 2007
<http://projectsday.chs.edu.sg/2001/web%20reports/cat5/2/files/Communism.htm >
Scheib, Richard. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1999. 10 Oct. 2007 <http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/bodysnatchers56.htm>
Whitehead, John W. Invasion of the Body Snatchers a Tale for our Times. 1998.
27 Sept. 2007 <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html>
An Invasion of Our Times (Revision)
Marian Acee
Adam Weinstein
English 101
12 October 2007
The film, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers, can be categorized in numerous ways: a political allegory, the greatest sci-fi horror movie of all time, and a social satire. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers was filmed in 1956, a time in which many communistic allegations were put on American government officials, later known as the “Red Scare”. There are many different instances throughout the movie that can link it to the McCarthy era and the Red Scare. According to Whitehead,“Body Snatchers invokes at least a double reading. It was both a mirror of a particular moment in history and a compass indicating the symptoms of a growing societal illness.” (Whitehead) In The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the suspicion and paranoia of the pod people can be closely compared to the allegations put upon high ranking government officials during the McCarthy Era and profiling concerning certain ethnicity's after 911.
Whitehead mentions,“Body Snatchers may also be interpreted as anti-scientific, reflecting the fears of a particular decade.” (Whitehead) I think this shows how this film can relate to modern day events such as 911 and the after effects. This film reflects the fear of this particular decade and the horrific events taking place. Like the film, people were horrified by the circumstances and were scared for their lives. The most basic human instinct is one of survival and in the film the pod people had this taken from them. No matter how hard they tried, they could not control what was happening to them.They believed their new lives were much better than before and that you could achieve anything and everything with no emotion. This can be compared to suicide bombers and terrorist in a way that they were convinced into performing this particular duty in giving up their basic human rights. They believed they could achieve everything through their god by giving their lives for their religion. They were brain washed into believing they were doing the right thing in achieving martyrdom. During the 911 after-effects, people began to lose trust in particular ethnicity's and feared for their lives.
Terrorism is definitely a major theme throughout this film. Throughout the film, people are fooled by their so called friends. They believe their friends are just as they have always been, but instead they are sneaking into peoples houses and planting pod seeds. In doing this, they are effecting the lives of their old friends. The pods eventually take over their bodies and they are not at all what they used to be. In relation, terrorism is quite similar. Many times, America has been fooled by other countries. We sometimes do not realize what is going with other countries. In result, we are attacked. As in the movie, individuals we believe are normal, turn out to be just the opposite. Terrorist sneak into our country,disguised, and destroy parts of our country. In result, many things change,people involved and uninvolved are completely different for the rest of their lives. Our country is forever changed by these attacks. Therefore, terrorism is a large theme of this movie.
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been remade twice. To me, this significantly proves that it has ongoing social relevance. This film can relate to modern day events in some way no matter what year it is. This also proves why Whitehead referred to this movie as “A Tale for our Times.” It is certainly a tale for all times.
When reading the criticism of Whitehead and Dirks, I expected the film to be far more related towards McCarthyism. The McCarthy era was a time period from the 1940’s to the late 1950’s in which Republican senator, Joseph McCarthy, made communistic allegations towards the American government and the entertainment industry. In result, certain individuals were stereotyped into being communist. This caused many high ranking officials and celebrities to lose their jobs. People feared certain individuals, and feared their lives over certain things such as the atomic bomb. This film definitely signifies how people felt during that time period. I can see how this film horrified people, because the pods related so much to people being taking over by communist. I think the criticism might have been a bit over-blown, but is definitely accurate to what was going on then and what is going on now.
In conclusion, I believe that this film is very relevant to everyone and modern day experiences. It speaks to people today because of the similarities between the film and the recent 911 horrific incidents. I believe this film is an excellent portrayal of a great horror sci-fi film. I would encourage others to view it, even though the film is quite old and does not compare to modern day horror films. The suspicion and paranoia of the pod people can be compared to the scare people experienced themselves during the many allegations in the McCarthy Era and in today’s post 911 world.
Whitehead, John W. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale For Our Times." 15 November 2007
Adam Weinstein
English 101
12 October 2007
The film, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers, can be categorized in numerous ways: a political allegory, the greatest sci-fi horror movie of all time, and a social satire. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers was filmed in 1956, a time in which many communistic allegations were put on American government officials, later known as the “Red Scare”. There are many different instances throughout the movie that can link it to the McCarthy era and the Red Scare. According to Whitehead,“Body Snatchers invokes at least a double reading. It was both a mirror of a particular moment in history and a compass indicating the symptoms of a growing societal illness.” (Whitehead) In The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the suspicion and paranoia of the pod people can be closely compared to the allegations put upon high ranking government officials during the McCarthy Era and profiling concerning certain ethnicity's after 911.
Whitehead mentions,“Body Snatchers may also be interpreted as anti-scientific, reflecting the fears of a particular decade.” (Whitehead) I think this shows how this film can relate to modern day events such as 911 and the after effects. This film reflects the fear of this particular decade and the horrific events taking place. Like the film, people were horrified by the circumstances and were scared for their lives. The most basic human instinct is one of survival and in the film the pod people had this taken from them. No matter how hard they tried, they could not control what was happening to them.They believed their new lives were much better than before and that you could achieve anything and everything with no emotion. This can be compared to suicide bombers and terrorist in a way that they were convinced into performing this particular duty in giving up their basic human rights. They believed they could achieve everything through their god by giving their lives for their religion. They were brain washed into believing they were doing the right thing in achieving martyrdom. During the 911 after-effects, people began to lose trust in particular ethnicity's and feared for their lives.
Terrorism is definitely a major theme throughout this film. Throughout the film, people are fooled by their so called friends. They believe their friends are just as they have always been, but instead they are sneaking into peoples houses and planting pod seeds. In doing this, they are effecting the lives of their old friends. The pods eventually take over their bodies and they are not at all what they used to be. In relation, terrorism is quite similar. Many times, America has been fooled by other countries. We sometimes do not realize what is going with other countries. In result, we are attacked. As in the movie, individuals we believe are normal, turn out to be just the opposite. Terrorist sneak into our country,disguised, and destroy parts of our country. In result, many things change,people involved and uninvolved are completely different for the rest of their lives. Our country is forever changed by these attacks. Therefore, terrorism is a large theme of this movie.
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been remade twice. To me, this significantly proves that it has ongoing social relevance. This film can relate to modern day events in some way no matter what year it is. This also proves why Whitehead referred to this movie as “A Tale for our Times.” It is certainly a tale for all times.
When reading the criticism of Whitehead and Dirks, I expected the film to be far more related towards McCarthyism. The McCarthy era was a time period from the 1940’s to the late 1950’s in which Republican senator, Joseph McCarthy, made communistic allegations towards the American government and the entertainment industry. In result, certain individuals were stereotyped into being communist. This caused many high ranking officials and celebrities to lose their jobs. People feared certain individuals, and feared their lives over certain things such as the atomic bomb. This film definitely signifies how people felt during that time period. I can see how this film horrified people, because the pods related so much to people being taking over by communist. I think the criticism might have been a bit over-blown, but is definitely accurate to what was going on then and what is going on now.
In conclusion, I believe that this film is very relevant to everyone and modern day experiences. It speaks to people today because of the similarities between the film and the recent 911 horrific incidents. I believe this film is an excellent portrayal of a great horror sci-fi film. I would encourage others to view it, even though the film is quite old and does not compare to modern day horror films. The suspicion and paranoia of the pod people can be compared to the scare people experienced themselves during the many allegations in the McCarthy Era and in today’s post 911 world.
Whitehead, John W. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale For Our Times." 15 November 2007
Ben Stallworth
EN 101
Adam Weinstein
October 11, 2007
Communist Science Fiction
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a science fiction film that was made in 1956. The
film has been remade three times. It is based on the novel The Body Snatchers and has a similar
plot line to another movie known as I Married A Monster From Outer Space. Dr. Bennell, a
local doctor, discovers that the townspeople are transforming from their regular bodies to an alien
body form known as the pod people. The pod people cannot be distinguished from regular
people through physical appearance. The only noticeable characteristic the pod people have
separating them from regular humans is that the pod people show no emotion. They are formed
in a plant-like structure called pods. Dr. Bennell tries to stop the pod people and escape to safety
while they secretly work to produce and spread the pods. Once a pod person, everyone acts the
same: walks at the same pace, talks at the same volume and in the same tone of voice, never
cries, and never laughs. The situations and wild plot of the film provides an arguable direct
relation to the communist style of government.
Critics share opinions when it comes to comparing and contrasting this film with the
international political events that filled the decades before out generation. Some critics think the
film acts as a metaphorical compass that acts as a reminder to the direction that society is
moving: down. Others think that the plot line of the movie relates directly to Communism. The
pod people are all the same: they have no opportunity for choice and no opportunity for change.
Just like the pod people, the victims of Commu
EN 101
Adam Weinstein
October 11, 2007
Communist Science Fiction
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a science fiction film that was made in 1956. The
film has been remade three times. It is based on the novel The Body Snatchers and has a similar
plot line to another movie known as I Married A Monster From Outer Space. Dr. Bennell, a
local doctor, discovers that the townspeople are transforming from their regular bodies to an alien
body form known as the pod people. The pod people cannot be distinguished from regular
people through physical appearance. The only noticeable characteristic the pod people have
separating them from regular humans is that the pod people show no emotion. They are formed
in a plant-like structure called pods. Dr. Bennell tries to stop the pod people and escape to safety
while they secretly work to produce and spread the pods. Once a pod person, everyone acts the
same: walks at the same pace, talks at the same volume and in the same tone of voice, never
cries, and never laughs. The situations and wild plot of the film provides an arguable direct
relation to the communist style of government.
Critics share opinions when it comes to comparing and contrasting this film with the
international political events that filled the decades before out generation. Some critics think the
film acts as a metaphorical compass that acts as a reminder to the direction that society is
moving: down. Others think that the plot line of the movie relates directly to Communism. The
pod people are all the same: they have no opportunity for choice and no opportunity for change.
Just like the pod people, the victims of Commu
Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Its McCarthyist Themes
Barrett Ford-Paper #3: Analysis of Invasion
The movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” can be interpreted in several different ways. Released in 1956 and directed by Don Siegel, it was received in a variety of ways. Many people saw it and still see it as simply a science fiction or horror movie. As a film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was well ahead of its time. It was much more entertaining and suspenseful than many of the terrible horror movies that are currently being produced. However, many people saw this horror classic as more than just a movie. These people saw it as a political interpretation or allegory. The two most popular interpretations were and still are either as a representation of the political power being taken by Communists (mainly in Russia), or of the Red Scare investigations performed by Senator McCarthy in response to the threat of Communism. In Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), the film aims to parallel the invasion of the Pod People and the means by which they attempt to take over the human race with the investigations or “witch hunts” performed by Senator McCarthy and his cohorts.
McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin, and his men comprised the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Whitehead). This committee which utilized vastly greater self-imposed powers than it was most likely given by Congress, used forceful and deceptive means to do what they deemed was best for America during the 1950s. All of these investigations extended from the Cold War which was not a war at all but a “political fabrication” (Whitehead). The Cold War was a result from the power that both the Soviet Union and the United States had gained in the post-World War I era as well as the nuclear technology that both countries had attained. McCarthy blacklisted notable members of Hollywood and many others and called them before the Committee to be questioned about being affiliated with the Communist party (Whitehead). These questionings were more like accusations led by McCarthy who specialized in wild attacks and humiliations of people (Whitehead). Many of the accused lost their jobs, and some even committed suicide (Whitehead).
In John Whitehead’s essay he discusses the impact of the McCarthy investigations and how Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a political allegory that represents them. He discusses how people were forced to become “pod-like” in cooperating with McCarthy and his committee, and that there was a “pod-like uniformity” that took over Hollywood as a result of all the threats and blacklisting that took place. I would say that I have to agree with his stance. The characters in the movie were forced to give up the right to say what they felt or express themselves much in the same way that Americans had to say what the government wanted to hear during the Red Scare of the 1950’s. The people in the movie also had their lives ruined if they did not cooperate much like the members of Hollywood and others who were targeted by McCarthy. In Tim Dirks general overview of the movie he also lists the “the sweeping mass hysteria” that was brought on by the McCarthy Red Scare investigations as a possible interpretation of the film.
In addition to the McCarthyism view, Dirks also lists several other interpretations that need to be taken into account. One of these possibilities is the loss of our individuality and ability to have emotion or think for ourselves as a result of “conformity and group-think.” This is definitely a plausible interpretation as the pod people in the movie could be seen as not McCarthy or the Communists but simply the idea of conforming to the majority. Communism is, however, what he lists as the major theme or idea behind the film. This “dehumanization” as Dirks calls it can be definitely be seen as an influence on the film. It could even be said that the Communist themes are mixed in with the McCarthyism themes discussed earlier. When the people of Santa Mira are taken over by the pod people their bodies are replicated and replace their old ones (although it is unclear where the old ones disappear to), this process is supposed to make everyone equal. At the same time that everyone becomes equal, however, they completely lose the old personality and emotion that they once had. This process could also mirror the effect that Communism has on society. Another interesting thing is that the transformed individuals are aware of their change and work to convert others. For example, when Becky wakes up from her very brief sleep she makes Miles aware of her change and tries to persuade him to give in. This ability to recognize ones own change or giving in can be representative of the effects of McCarthyism, Communism, and group-think.
Whitehead, in addition to discussing the theme of McCarthyism in the movie, also discusses its relevance to our society today. He believes that the movie could also be representative of the political atmosphere following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is definitely a plausible argument. Many of the actions that took place after the attacks in 2001 were similar to the ones that took place during the Red Scare. People were abused, ostracized, taken into custody, or questioned simply for being Arab much like the way people who were falsely accused or blacklisted during the Cold War Era. It was also extremely hard for Arabs to keep jobs or lead successful lives, and some were even beaten or killed. Congressional committees were erected to make investigations (although for better reasons than during the McCarthyism years) and people were looked down upon if they were not patriotic or loyal enough to their country. These two eras, although 50 years apart, are surprisingly similar in their political climates and their relevance to the themes of this movie. McCarthyism is simply the best, most relevant explanation for the political themes in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the more recent political climate in the United States can be related accordingly.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
Whitehead, John W. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times.” Gadfly Online. 1998. 27 September 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
The movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” can be interpreted in several different ways. Released in 1956 and directed by Don Siegel, it was received in a variety of ways. Many people saw it and still see it as simply a science fiction or horror movie. As a film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was well ahead of its time. It was much more entertaining and suspenseful than many of the terrible horror movies that are currently being produced. However, many people saw this horror classic as more than just a movie. These people saw it as a political interpretation or allegory. The two most popular interpretations were and still are either as a representation of the political power being taken by Communists (mainly in Russia), or of the Red Scare investigations performed by Senator McCarthy in response to the threat of Communism. In Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), the film aims to parallel the invasion of the Pod People and the means by which they attempt to take over the human race with the investigations or “witch hunts” performed by Senator McCarthy and his cohorts.
McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin, and his men comprised the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Whitehead). This committee which utilized vastly greater self-imposed powers than it was most likely given by Congress, used forceful and deceptive means to do what they deemed was best for America during the 1950s. All of these investigations extended from the Cold War which was not a war at all but a “political fabrication” (Whitehead). The Cold War was a result from the power that both the Soviet Union and the United States had gained in the post-World War I era as well as the nuclear technology that both countries had attained. McCarthy blacklisted notable members of Hollywood and many others and called them before the Committee to be questioned about being affiliated with the Communist party (Whitehead). These questionings were more like accusations led by McCarthy who specialized in wild attacks and humiliations of people (Whitehead). Many of the accused lost their jobs, and some even committed suicide (Whitehead).
In John Whitehead’s essay he discusses the impact of the McCarthy investigations and how Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a political allegory that represents them. He discusses how people were forced to become “pod-like” in cooperating with McCarthy and his committee, and that there was a “pod-like uniformity” that took over Hollywood as a result of all the threats and blacklisting that took place. I would say that I have to agree with his stance. The characters in the movie were forced to give up the right to say what they felt or express themselves much in the same way that Americans had to say what the government wanted to hear during the Red Scare of the 1950’s. The people in the movie also had their lives ruined if they did not cooperate much like the members of Hollywood and others who were targeted by McCarthy. In Tim Dirks general overview of the movie he also lists the “the sweeping mass hysteria” that was brought on by the McCarthy Red Scare investigations as a possible interpretation of the film.
In addition to the McCarthyism view, Dirks also lists several other interpretations that need to be taken into account. One of these possibilities is the loss of our individuality and ability to have emotion or think for ourselves as a result of “conformity and group-think.” This is definitely a plausible interpretation as the pod people in the movie could be seen as not McCarthy or the Communists but simply the idea of conforming to the majority. Communism is, however, what he lists as the major theme or idea behind the film. This “dehumanization” as Dirks calls it can be definitely be seen as an influence on the film. It could even be said that the Communist themes are mixed in with the McCarthyism themes discussed earlier. When the people of Santa Mira are taken over by the pod people their bodies are replicated and replace their old ones (although it is unclear where the old ones disappear to), this process is supposed to make everyone equal. At the same time that everyone becomes equal, however, they completely lose the old personality and emotion that they once had. This process could also mirror the effect that Communism has on society. Another interesting thing is that the transformed individuals are aware of their change and work to convert others. For example, when Becky wakes up from her very brief sleep she makes Miles aware of her change and tries to persuade him to give in. This ability to recognize ones own change or giving in can be representative of the effects of McCarthyism, Communism, and group-think.
Whitehead, in addition to discussing the theme of McCarthyism in the movie, also discusses its relevance to our society today. He believes that the movie could also be representative of the political atmosphere following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is definitely a plausible argument. Many of the actions that took place after the attacks in 2001 were similar to the ones that took place during the Red Scare. People were abused, ostracized, taken into custody, or questioned simply for being Arab much like the way people who were falsely accused or blacklisted during the Cold War Era. It was also extremely hard for Arabs to keep jobs or lead successful lives, and some were even beaten or killed. Congressional committees were erected to make investigations (although for better reasons than during the McCarthyism years) and people were looked down upon if they were not patriotic or loyal enough to their country. These two eras, although 50 years apart, are surprisingly similar in their political climates and their relevance to the themes of this movie. McCarthyism is simply the best, most relevant explanation for the political themes in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the more recent political climate in the United States can be related accordingly.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “General Review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” 1996. 27 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
Whitehead, John W. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for Our Times.” Gadfly Online. 1998. 27 September 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
Critical Interpretation: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers
Melissa Lovell
Eng 101
Weinstein
12 October 2007
The movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been around for a while. Before we watched the movie with the class, our teacher told us to read some critical interpretations some other people had made when they watched the movie. The one interpretation that stuck out to me the most was the one that suggested that this movie was just a science-fiction movie. The next day in class when we started to watch the movie, all I could think about was if it was a science fiction movie or not. I believe that the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a science-fiction movie with some really cheesy lines.
Tim Dirks stated in his critical interpretation that this movie is only a science fiction movie. In his review, Dirks said, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) is a thrilling, disturbing classic science fiction/alien film” (Dirks 1). He does not believe that there is any reference to communism in this movie. The movie is about pods that transform into the people that they are around. When you go to sleep, the pods take over your mind and then take over their bodies. That is all Tim Dirks saw in the movie. He knew that when some people saw the movie their were going to see the reference to communism, but he couldn’t help but see the science fiction in the movie. When the movie came out there had just been the Red Scare and so most people had communism on their mind so I think that maybe that is why some people saw the communism in this movie. He also thinks that some people think that the movie is about communism because the writer and producer were thought to be communists. The things that you hear before you watch the movies are going to greatly effect how someone views a movie. Many others have viewed his interpretation the same way. Some of those others even remade the movie into a scarier science fiction movie.
When I watched the movie, the interpretation that I took away from the movie, it that it was indeed a science fiction movie. I even thought that it was a tad bit scary. We talked as a class before we watched the movie and after we watched the movie. Some people in the class thought that the movie did have some communism ideas in the movie. Some others in the class thought about the movie the same way that I had. I didn’t see how any part of the movie would make someone think about communism. Most of the lines in the movie come off as corny. The people are so normal at first and then when the pod people take over their bodies they become like robots. The things that the people said and the way they acted were funny. I saw no signs of communism in the way they talked and acted at all. Some people in the class argued that the pods that took over the peoples bodies was just like what the communists do when they take over a country and the people there. In one part of the movie, the people that have been taken over by the pods get more pods to take to their families in other counties to turn them into pod people. Some people in the class also saw how some one could have taken that as communism. When we talked as a class, we discussed that the era that movies are made in and the things that are going on influence the way that people view the things that are in the movie. So if you decide to watch the movie with the thinking that it is going to be scary, you should be prepared for a few scary moments.
If you watch this movie, you should expect to see some fairly scary moments. At one point in the movie, the doctor is looking in the basement for a pod and he opens the top to a cellar type thing and there is a pod body growing in their. I have to say that this part of the movie scared me. There are some good parts when the people change from normal humans to pod people and they start acting different. They act quite creepy and they seem just like robots. There is a good chase scene when the doctor and his girlfriend are running away from the people who are trying to turn them into pod people. Then the girl gets taken over by the pod and she just changes all of a sudden. She is talking to him and then all of a sudden she changes and looks weird and starts talking weird. It would not be the best scary movie now days, but back when it first cam out I bet it was one of the scariest movies out then.
I would suggest watching this movie to everyone. It has its scary moments and then it has its funny moments. I think that it is always fun to watch old movies and see how many things have changed since then. Some people may watch the movie and see the political allegory, the communism, or some other form of government involvement in this movie. Some may see it the way I did, a scary science-fiction movie. Whichever way you see this movie, I hope that you enjoy it as much as I did.
Eng 101
Weinstein
12 October 2007
The movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been around for a while. Before we watched the movie with the class, our teacher told us to read some critical interpretations some other people had made when they watched the movie. The one interpretation that stuck out to me the most was the one that suggested that this movie was just a science-fiction movie. The next day in class when we started to watch the movie, all I could think about was if it was a science fiction movie or not. I believe that the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a science-fiction movie with some really cheesy lines.
Tim Dirks stated in his critical interpretation that this movie is only a science fiction movie. In his review, Dirks said, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) is a thrilling, disturbing classic science fiction/alien film” (Dirks 1). He does not believe that there is any reference to communism in this movie. The movie is about pods that transform into the people that they are around. When you go to sleep, the pods take over your mind and then take over their bodies. That is all Tim Dirks saw in the movie. He knew that when some people saw the movie their were going to see the reference to communism, but he couldn’t help but see the science fiction in the movie. When the movie came out there had just been the Red Scare and so most people had communism on their mind so I think that maybe that is why some people saw the communism in this movie. He also thinks that some people think that the movie is about communism because the writer and producer were thought to be communists. The things that you hear before you watch the movies are going to greatly effect how someone views a movie. Many others have viewed his interpretation the same way. Some of those others even remade the movie into a scarier science fiction movie.
When I watched the movie, the interpretation that I took away from the movie, it that it was indeed a science fiction movie. I even thought that it was a tad bit scary. We talked as a class before we watched the movie and after we watched the movie. Some people in the class thought that the movie did have some communism ideas in the movie. Some others in the class thought about the movie the same way that I had. I didn’t see how any part of the movie would make someone think about communism. Most of the lines in the movie come off as corny. The people are so normal at first and then when the pod people take over their bodies they become like robots. The things that the people said and the way they acted were funny. I saw no signs of communism in the way they talked and acted at all. Some people in the class argued that the pods that took over the peoples bodies was just like what the communists do when they take over a country and the people there. In one part of the movie, the people that have been taken over by the pods get more pods to take to their families in other counties to turn them into pod people. Some people in the class also saw how some one could have taken that as communism. When we talked as a class, we discussed that the era that movies are made in and the things that are going on influence the way that people view the things that are in the movie. So if you decide to watch the movie with the thinking that it is going to be scary, you should be prepared for a few scary moments.
If you watch this movie, you should expect to see some fairly scary moments. At one point in the movie, the doctor is looking in the basement for a pod and he opens the top to a cellar type thing and there is a pod body growing in their. I have to say that this part of the movie scared me. There are some good parts when the people change from normal humans to pod people and they start acting different. They act quite creepy and they seem just like robots. There is a good chase scene when the doctor and his girlfriend are running away from the people who are trying to turn them into pod people. Then the girl gets taken over by the pod and she just changes all of a sudden. She is talking to him and then all of a sudden she changes and looks weird and starts talking weird. It would not be the best scary movie now days, but back when it first cam out I bet it was one of the scariest movies out then.
I would suggest watching this movie to everyone. It has its scary moments and then it has its funny moments. I think that it is always fun to watch old movies and see how many things have changed since then. Some people may watch the movie and see the political allegory, the communism, or some other form of government involvement in this movie. Some may see it the way I did, a scary science-fiction movie. Whichever way you see this movie, I hope that you enjoy it as much as I did.
Several people who have watched the movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers have interpreted it as a movie that has a double meaning. People such as Tim Dirks and John Whitehead thought the movie was political allegory and a social satire. I feel as if the movie, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is not in fact a movie based on political issues but is just a sci-fi movie made to scare the viewer.
In his review of the movie, John Whitehead said “no matter the criteria of those who made the film… the alien pod people perfectly fit McCarthy’s profile of Russians.” (A Tale for our Times- 4) He felt that movie was showing how people started acting when the alien pod people started taking over. He felt like they were the Russians and the Americans were starting to be taken over and changed by them. I feel however, the movie is just a horror film made to scare. I think that whoever wrote the script was just trying to make a movie that would frighten the viewers. I feel this movie has to relevance to the whole “Red Scare” and I don’t think it’s a social satire. At the time when the film came out, Americans were all married about communism and they were scared of the Russian people. A man named McCarthy started basically a “witch hunt” for anyone who was connected to communism. This made everyone go crazy and start accusing others of being connected. If someone was found out to be involved with communism or supported it, they were black listed from everything, even their jobs. I think this is why John Whitehead assumed this movie was connected to Communism and had a double meaning. I think he, like many other Americans at the time tried to find some tie to the “Red Scare” because that was on everyone’s mind at the time.
I however do not feel like this movie is anything but a horror film. Watching it now it present times, I felt it had no connection to communism and Russians. I think people were thinking it did simply because that was the main issue of the time. People assumed anything to have a double meaning because they were paranoid and frantic. I think all the movie is, is just a fun film for people to enjoy. I think if Whitehead and Dirks watched the movie today, they would find no relevance to communism. I think they would realize the only reason they associated the two together is because they had the issue on their mind. The film is something that can be watched by many people and interpreted in many ways, but to me its just a sci-fi movie.
In his review of the movie, John Whitehead said “no matter the criteria of those who made the film… the alien pod people perfectly fit McCarthy’s profile of Russians.” (A Tale for our Times- 4) He felt that movie was showing how people started acting when the alien pod people started taking over. He felt like they were the Russians and the Americans were starting to be taken over and changed by them. I feel however, the movie is just a horror film made to scare. I think that whoever wrote the script was just trying to make a movie that would frighten the viewers. I feel this movie has to relevance to the whole “Red Scare” and I don’t think it’s a social satire. At the time when the film came out, Americans were all married about communism and they were scared of the Russian people. A man named McCarthy started basically a “witch hunt” for anyone who was connected to communism. This made everyone go crazy and start accusing others of being connected. If someone was found out to be involved with communism or supported it, they were black listed from everything, even their jobs. I think this is why John Whitehead assumed this movie was connected to Communism and had a double meaning. I think he, like many other Americans at the time tried to find some tie to the “Red Scare” because that was on everyone’s mind at the time.
I however do not feel like this movie is anything but a horror film. Watching it now it present times, I felt it had no connection to communism and Russians. I think people were thinking it did simply because that was the main issue of the time. People assumed anything to have a double meaning because they were paranoid and frantic. I think all the movie is, is just a fun film for people to enjoy. I think if Whitehead and Dirks watched the movie today, they would find no relevance to communism. I think they would realize the only reason they associated the two together is because they had the issue on their mind. The film is something that can be watched by many people and interpreted in many ways, but to me its just a sci-fi movie.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Political Allegory?
Meredith Streppa
Adam Weinstein
English 101
13 October 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Political Allegory?
Movies today often portray an escape from the real world. However, they also exemplify situations and happenings going on throughout the world in the present as well as past times. The movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, produced by Walter Wagner is very controversial when it comes to situations of the past. Many people believe that this film is a political allegory representing McCarthyism and a time of Communism. Many people believe that this movie is just a horror film, made to scare people. One man named Tim Dirks comments, “A quintessential, black and white B-picture…low-budget film is very effective in eliciting horror with slow-building tension, even though there are no monsters, minimal special effects, no violence in the take-over of humans, and no deaths” (Dirks). Although many people believe that the classic film, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, is simply a horror film, it is truly a political allegory describing the time of McCarthyism and communism around the world. It can even be considered a political allegory to audiences today.
McCarthyism is known as, “the term describing a period of intense anti-Communist suspicion in the United States that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s” (Wikipedia McCarthyism). To understand McCarthyism, one must know what Communism is. Communism is defined as, “an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx” (Wikipedia Communism). Communism may look good on paper, yet when it started to be practiced in other countries in the 50’s and such, it proved to be not fair. In the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, a man named Dr. McCarthy has had multiple calls about a weird epidemic going around in which people were not acting like themselves. After a few days, McCarthy realizes that something is taking over the town. It appears to be strange “pods” over ruling people’s bodies. Eventually, all of the people are turned into “pod people”, in which they act, talk, and do everything the same. The plot alone shares a big relation with Communism. Communism is aimed at making everyone equal, in a classless society, just like the “pod people”. In a scene with Dr. McCarthy and Becky in McCarthy’s office, McCarthy says that humanity has been drained away. This is a great deal like communism, people have no rights and in essence no humanity. Another point that McCarthy makes in the film is that people are born into an untroubled world where everyone is the same. There is no emotion or a feeling; the only instinct is the stay alive. This is a lot like communism, people do not have any say in the government and if they show any emotion towards anything about communism, they are often killed. They also basically have one instinct, and that is to survive and help their families survive. John Whitehead believed the same saying, “One in particular, Don Siegel’s 1956 classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers, captured the ideology and politics of this time period perfectly” (Whitehead). He believed that this movie portrayed the time period of McCarthyism very well as well as the dehumanization of individuals during the war, and post war era.
Another link between this film and McCarthyism is the names in the movie alone. McCarthy was a U.S. senator in the 1940’s and 50’s. He spoke out against communism, and many people were often called out for being sympathizers towards communists. In the film, McCarthy, ironically the same name, speaks out against the “pod people” and frequently points out people for being “pods”.
This movie could also be related to times in our recent history. For example, the effects after September 11th. Many people started to call out terrorists, and openly bash people of the Middle Eastern descent. The terrorists were trying to prove a point that Americans were bad, and deserved to be punished. They share characteristics with the “pod” people. They all share one belief, and are trying to get more and more people to believe in the same practices as they do.
McCarthyism is a thing of the past; however there are similar things that people speak out against, the biggest example being terrorism. Our situation today is different, seeing as the majority of people in America do not support terrorism, yet there is still that small percent of people trying to sway our beliefs. Communism was a much bigger threat in the 50’s seeing as many countries believed in it. The belief also started to grow in the United States, which posed a large problem. This system may have looked good on paper, yet it did not work out when it was executed. The government of the United States spoke out greatly towards communism because they knew that it was not a good system to have. People still speak out about it today, yet because many more problems have come about, one does not hear about it as much.
All in all, the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is indeed a political allegory defining a time of Communism and McCarthyism in the 1940’s and 50’s. As opposed to what many people believe, it is not just a B rated horror film. This movie, communism, and McCarthyism share many of the same characteristics that make me believe that this movie is a political metaphor.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 26 September 2007.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html. >
"McCarthyism." Wikipedia. 12 Oct 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism.>
“Communism.” Wikipedia. 12 Oct 2007.
Adam Weinstein
English 101
13 October 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Political Allegory?
Movies today often portray an escape from the real world. However, they also exemplify situations and happenings going on throughout the world in the present as well as past times. The movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, produced by Walter Wagner is very controversial when it comes to situations of the past. Many people believe that this film is a political allegory representing McCarthyism and a time of Communism. Many people believe that this movie is just a horror film, made to scare people. One man named Tim Dirks comments, “A quintessential, black and white B-picture…low-budget film is very effective in eliciting horror with slow-building tension, even though there are no monsters, minimal special effects, no violence in the take-over of humans, and no deaths” (Dirks). Although many people believe that the classic film, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, is simply a horror film, it is truly a political allegory describing the time of McCarthyism and communism around the world. It can even be considered a political allegory to audiences today.
McCarthyism is known as, “the term describing a period of intense anti-Communist suspicion in the United States that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s” (Wikipedia McCarthyism). To understand McCarthyism, one must know what Communism is. Communism is defined as, “an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx” (Wikipedia Communism). Communism may look good on paper, yet when it started to be practiced in other countries in the 50’s and such, it proved to be not fair. In the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, a man named Dr. McCarthy has had multiple calls about a weird epidemic going around in which people were not acting like themselves. After a few days, McCarthy realizes that something is taking over the town. It appears to be strange “pods” over ruling people’s bodies. Eventually, all of the people are turned into “pod people”, in which they act, talk, and do everything the same. The plot alone shares a big relation with Communism. Communism is aimed at making everyone equal, in a classless society, just like the “pod people”. In a scene with Dr. McCarthy and Becky in McCarthy’s office, McCarthy says that humanity has been drained away. This is a great deal like communism, people have no rights and in essence no humanity. Another point that McCarthy makes in the film is that people are born into an untroubled world where everyone is the same. There is no emotion or a feeling; the only instinct is the stay alive. This is a lot like communism, people do not have any say in the government and if they show any emotion towards anything about communism, they are often killed. They also basically have one instinct, and that is to survive and help their families survive. John Whitehead believed the same saying, “One in particular, Don Siegel’s 1956 classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers, captured the ideology and politics of this time period perfectly” (Whitehead). He believed that this movie portrayed the time period of McCarthyism very well as well as the dehumanization of individuals during the war, and post war era.
Another link between this film and McCarthyism is the names in the movie alone. McCarthy was a U.S. senator in the 1940’s and 50’s. He spoke out against communism, and many people were often called out for being sympathizers towards communists. In the film, McCarthy, ironically the same name, speaks out against the “pod people” and frequently points out people for being “pods”.
This movie could also be related to times in our recent history. For example, the effects after September 11th. Many people started to call out terrorists, and openly bash people of the Middle Eastern descent. The terrorists were trying to prove a point that Americans were bad, and deserved to be punished. They share characteristics with the “pod” people. They all share one belief, and are trying to get more and more people to believe in the same practices as they do.
McCarthyism is a thing of the past; however there are similar things that people speak out against, the biggest example being terrorism. Our situation today is different, seeing as the majority of people in America do not support terrorism, yet there is still that small percent of people trying to sway our beliefs. Communism was a much bigger threat in the 50’s seeing as many countries believed in it. The belief also started to grow in the United States, which posed a large problem. This system may have looked good on paper, yet it did not work out when it was executed. The government of the United States spoke out greatly towards communism because they knew that it was not a good system to have. People still speak out about it today, yet because many more problems have come about, one does not hear about it as much.
All in all, the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is indeed a political allegory defining a time of Communism and McCarthyism in the 1940’s and 50’s. As opposed to what many people believe, it is not just a B rated horror film. This movie, communism, and McCarthyism share many of the same characteristics that make me believe that this movie is a political metaphor.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 26 September 2007.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. <http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html. >
"McCarthyism." Wikipedia. 12 Oct 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism.>
“Communism.” Wikipedia. 12 Oct 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Maria Gagliano
Adam Weinstein
English 101
10 October 2007
In the past critics such as John Whitehead and Tim Dirks have interpreted and based the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers on either Communism or McCarthyism. Dirks article of the movie focuses on the subject of McCarthyism, the traits of being cold or “one of them” and unable to express emotion or closeness (Dirks). In Whitehead’s article, he states that the movie strongly represents Communism and that specific time in history. To Whitehead, the seed pod people represented the Communist who wanted to wipe out the American society in order to produce Communist clones. Pod people are those that have no passion or sense of feelings (Whitehead). Both Communism and McCarthyism are clearly depicted throughout the entire movie through the growing seed pods trying to take over an entire community by cloning or even taking the place of a human during their sleep. In the movie, there is only one man, McCarthy, who tries to stay a hero and not let the seed pods take over, but when he loses everyone he loves, he quickly realizes that ending this deadly time is going to be tough alone. Both Whitehead and Dirk’s articles express Invasion of the Body Snatchers to be a thrilling science fiction, horror film that models a time period in history when illness among society took over, but this movie does not compare to modern day science fiction, horror films.
After watching and evaluating the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I began to strongly disagree with both Dirk’s and Whitehead’s reviews of the movie. They each stated in their articles that this movie was based on politics such as Communism and McCarthyism taking over a whole society, but, to me, this movie was clearly just a science fiction film demonstrating the fear of the unknown. In the beginning of the movie, the town’s people are confused as to why loved ones are acting differently. They try to tell people that their loved ones feelings just are not the same and that all of their emotions are gone; people are not acting the way they used to and nothing is what it seems. One elder lady, in the movie, is told to go see a psychiatrist for saying these things because to some it just seems like pure non sense. As the movie progresses, the doctor tries to figure out what is going wrong in the town, and he soon learns that that seeds come from out of the sky and root in a farmer’s field to grow and become pods. Fear of the unknown, in this movie, is represented through the fear of outer space, where the seeds originate from. Whitehead states, “During America’s early space exploration, many Americans feared space would invade the earth” which is clearly shown in this movie through the fear of the seed pods wiping out the whole town (Whitehead). Even in Dirks article, he refers to the pods as aliens trying to dehumanize an entire community. In the beginning, no one wants to be taken over by the pods and everyone tried to strongly resist it, but once their bodies are taken over in their sleep, they explain their world as perfect with no worries as they try to convince the ones who have not been taken over yet to just let it happen.
Another reason that I have grown to believe that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a science fiction film is because of the fear of new technology. “Many viewed the movie as a warning of the dangers of science and inventions,” because people began to realize that advancements in technology could ultimately harm the world (Whitehead). In the movie, Miles states, “So much has been discovered the past few years. They may be the result of atomic radiation or weird alien organisms” implying that the alien like pod creatures were only created due to new technology (Whitehead). People began to fear technology, and learned that it is not always good and helpful, or at least that is what they believed.
Although I do believe that the movie is a science fiction film, I do not agree that it is a horror film. A horror film is a film that is designed to create fear as well as scare and horrify viewers; this movie did not. Even Dirks characterized the movie as thrilling and disturbing, but I thought otherwise. I am a scary movie fanatic; therefore it takes a lot to impress me. When I read in the articles that this movie was going to be a horror film, I was ready and excited to watch it, but Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a total joke. I actually caught myself laughing in some parts. The acting was terrible, perhaps due to less experienced actors and actresses it because it was, after all, an old film. The frightened screams of those in distress in the movie were not even those screams that give me chills and goose bumps when I hear them like when I watch a modern day horror film.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers does not even come close in comparison to modern horror films today such as The Ring and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Modern day scary movies have the ability to cause the heart to race, make someone panic and yell at the screen as if the people in the movie can really hear what they have to say. These two modern movies send chills up and down my body as I watch them, and make me want so bad to turn the movie off but I just cannot because it is too entertaining and I have to see what happens. A great scary movie keeps one watching and wanting more, which is not what Invasion of the Body Snatchers did for me since the whole time I had to fight myself from falling asleep.
To all those horror film groupies like myself, I do not advise watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you like a great horror movie to truly scare you out of your wits, this is not the movie to watch; it will actually be a complete waste of time. It does not at all compare to modern day movies and the high standard that they have set. This movie is not at all relevant to audiences today and their expectations of a good, horrifying movie. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is too corny and old; go spend your time watching something better.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 26 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
Adam Weinstein
English 101
10 October 2007
In the past critics such as John Whitehead and Tim Dirks have interpreted and based the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers on either Communism or McCarthyism. Dirks article of the movie focuses on the subject of McCarthyism, the traits of being cold or “one of them” and unable to express emotion or closeness (Dirks). In Whitehead’s article, he states that the movie strongly represents Communism and that specific time in history. To Whitehead, the seed pod people represented the Communist who wanted to wipe out the American society in order to produce Communist clones. Pod people are those that have no passion or sense of feelings (Whitehead). Both Communism and McCarthyism are clearly depicted throughout the entire movie through the growing seed pods trying to take over an entire community by cloning or even taking the place of a human during their sleep. In the movie, there is only one man, McCarthy, who tries to stay a hero and not let the seed pods take over, but when he loses everyone he loves, he quickly realizes that ending this deadly time is going to be tough alone. Both Whitehead and Dirk’s articles express Invasion of the Body Snatchers to be a thrilling science fiction, horror film that models a time period in history when illness among society took over, but this movie does not compare to modern day science fiction, horror films.
After watching and evaluating the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I began to strongly disagree with both Dirk’s and Whitehead’s reviews of the movie. They each stated in their articles that this movie was based on politics such as Communism and McCarthyism taking over a whole society, but, to me, this movie was clearly just a science fiction film demonstrating the fear of the unknown. In the beginning of the movie, the town’s people are confused as to why loved ones are acting differently. They try to tell people that their loved ones feelings just are not the same and that all of their emotions are gone; people are not acting the way they used to and nothing is what it seems. One elder lady, in the movie, is told to go see a psychiatrist for saying these things because to some it just seems like pure non sense. As the movie progresses, the doctor tries to figure out what is going wrong in the town, and he soon learns that that seeds come from out of the sky and root in a farmer’s field to grow and become pods. Fear of the unknown, in this movie, is represented through the fear of outer space, where the seeds originate from. Whitehead states, “During America’s early space exploration, many Americans feared space would invade the earth” which is clearly shown in this movie through the fear of the seed pods wiping out the whole town (Whitehead). Even in Dirks article, he refers to the pods as aliens trying to dehumanize an entire community. In the beginning, no one wants to be taken over by the pods and everyone tried to strongly resist it, but once their bodies are taken over in their sleep, they explain their world as perfect with no worries as they try to convince the ones who have not been taken over yet to just let it happen.
Another reason that I have grown to believe that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a science fiction film is because of the fear of new technology. “Many viewed the movie as a warning of the dangers of science and inventions,” because people began to realize that advancements in technology could ultimately harm the world (Whitehead). In the movie, Miles states, “So much has been discovered the past few years. They may be the result of atomic radiation or weird alien organisms” implying that the alien like pod creatures were only created due to new technology (Whitehead). People began to fear technology, and learned that it is not always good and helpful, or at least that is what they believed.
Although I do believe that the movie is a science fiction film, I do not agree that it is a horror film. A horror film is a film that is designed to create fear as well as scare and horrify viewers; this movie did not. Even Dirks characterized the movie as thrilling and disturbing, but I thought otherwise. I am a scary movie fanatic; therefore it takes a lot to impress me. When I read in the articles that this movie was going to be a horror film, I was ready and excited to watch it, but Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a total joke. I actually caught myself laughing in some parts. The acting was terrible, perhaps due to less experienced actors and actresses it because it was, after all, an old film. The frightened screams of those in distress in the movie were not even those screams that give me chills and goose bumps when I hear them like when I watch a modern day horror film.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers does not even come close in comparison to modern horror films today such as The Ring and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Modern day scary movies have the ability to cause the heart to race, make someone panic and yell at the screen as if the people in the movie can really hear what they have to say. These two modern movies send chills up and down my body as I watch them, and make me want so bad to turn the movie off but I just cannot because it is too entertaining and I have to see what happens. A great scary movie keeps one watching and wanting more, which is not what Invasion of the Body Snatchers did for me since the whole time I had to fight myself from falling asleep.
To all those horror film groupies like myself, I do not advise watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you like a great horror movie to truly scare you out of your wits, this is not the movie to watch; it will actually be a complete waste of time. It does not at all compare to modern day movies and the high standard that they have set. This movie is not at all relevant to audiences today and their expectations of a good, horrifying movie. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is too corny and old; go spend your time watching something better.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 26 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Siegel, Don. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. 1956.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
Kendall Lewis
English 101
October 12, 2007
English 101
October 12, 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
One can interpret the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers in a variety of ways. It can be interpreted as a science fiction horror movie, a political allegory, or a social satire. There are clearly many examples of McCarthyism and Communism in the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but in my opinion it is clearly a science fiction horror movie. Critics like John W. Whitehead and Tim Dirks would interpret the movie according to Communism and McCarthyism because both historical events were occurring at the time this movie was produced. In society today, we would not interpret the movie based to those things because that historical period is no longer occurring in the world today.
Critic Tim Dirks interprets the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a Communist movie stating that, “its main theme was the alien (read ‘Communist’) dehumanization and take-over of an entire community by large seed pods that replicated and replaced human beings” (Dirks). While the movie was being made, Communism took a big part in society. People were given certain standards to live by. Like in the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the people were all expected to turn into pod people that acted just alike rather than unique individuals. According to John W. Whitehead, Invasion of the Body Snatchers “is still considered the greatest of all the horror and science fiction classics of the 1950s” (Whitehead). I agree with John Whitehead because the movie can clearly be related to events in our decade today. Events like the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon show how mass hysteria has spread over the United States in society today.
I truly believe that the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is strictly a science fiction horror movie. Audiences today can truly enjoy the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers because it can be related to recent historic events such as terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the outbreak of AIDS. Events such as these show that there are still outbreaks in our society today and that times have not changed that much. Like the Americas did with Iraq, in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Miles was not giving up fighting against the pod people. He did not agree with that by any means and he was not going to give in to them. He wanted to stay a normal unique individual rather than turning into a pod where everyone thinks and acts alike.
Often times a science fiction movie involves a fear of the unknown. Like in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers Miles and Becky are unsure of what they are finding humans turning into. They are finding that people are before unsure of their surroundings and unsure about whom the people are that they are running into. They later learn they everyone is turning into pod people and that they are the only ones left normal. Becky later explains to Miles that she tried to stay awake; but that she fell asleep and the pods just took over her body. Miles is then left alone as the only human who is not a pod person. Miles is now scared because his pod is already created he just has to fall asleep before he will turn into a pod. When Miles sees other people starting in enter the town he tries to explain to them what is going on, but they appear to already be pods and know exactly what they are doing.
In conclusion I feel that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is strictly a science fiction horror movie. There is clear evidence that the movie represents some aspects of McCarthyism and Communism from critics Tim Dirks and John Whitehead, but if they were to view the movie today I feel they would get a different impression. I feel that viewers should watch the movie as a horror sci-fi movie rather than trying to interpret it as a political allegory. It was overall a good movie that I was able to enjoy. Even though it was an older movie I will still able to enjoy it today. Like most humans, movies that are relevant to society today tend to be more enjoyable than other movies. When one can truly relate to a movie and connect to it you know you have a good movie. I believe that when Don Siegal produced this movie Communism and McCarthyism were two big events going on in society. I think he intended for the movie to be interpreted to those things, but I believe if he were to produce it today he would just say he was producing a science fiction horror movie. Often times I believe producers can get caught up in what is going on in the world today and interpret their movies according to the events so they are capture their audiences, but in reality they are really just science fiction movies. I believe if the movie was truly related to McCarthyism and Communism today then audiences would not have any interest in watching it today. Overall, I would recommend the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a good science fiction movie that all audiences can still enjoy today.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 26 September 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.Critic Tim Dirks interprets the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a Communist movie stating that, “its main theme was the alien (read ‘Communist’) dehumanization and take-over of an entire community by large seed pods that replicated and replaced human beings” (Dirks). While the movie was being made, Communism took a big part in society. People were given certain standards to live by. Like in the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the people were all expected to turn into pod people that acted just alike rather than unique individuals. According to John W. Whitehead, Invasion of the Body Snatchers “is still considered the greatest of all the horror and science fiction classics of the 1950s” (Whitehead). I agree with John Whitehead because the movie can clearly be related to events in our decade today. Events like the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon show how mass hysteria has spread over the United States in society today.
I truly believe that the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is strictly a science fiction horror movie. Audiences today can truly enjoy the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers because it can be related to recent historic events such as terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the outbreak of AIDS. Events such as these show that there are still outbreaks in our society today and that times have not changed that much. Like the Americas did with Iraq, in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Miles was not giving up fighting against the pod people. He did not agree with that by any means and he was not going to give in to them. He wanted to stay a normal unique individual rather than turning into a pod where everyone thinks and acts alike.
Often times a science fiction movie involves a fear of the unknown. Like in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers Miles and Becky are unsure of what they are finding humans turning into. They are finding that people are before unsure of their surroundings and unsure about whom the people are that they are running into. They later learn they everyone is turning into pod people and that they are the only ones left normal. Becky later explains to Miles that she tried to stay awake; but that she fell asleep and the pods just took over her body. Miles is then left alone as the only human who is not a pod person. Miles is now scared because his pod is already created he just has to fall asleep before he will turn into a pod. When Miles sees other people starting in enter the town he tries to explain to them what is going on, but they appear to already be pods and know exactly what they are doing.
In conclusion I feel that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is strictly a science fiction horror movie. There is clear evidence that the movie represents some aspects of McCarthyism and Communism from critics Tim Dirks and John Whitehead, but if they were to view the movie today I feel they would get a different impression. I feel that viewers should watch the movie as a horror sci-fi movie rather than trying to interpret it as a political allegory. It was overall a good movie that I was able to enjoy. Even though it was an older movie I will still able to enjoy it today. Like most humans, movies that are relevant to society today tend to be more enjoyable than other movies. When one can truly relate to a movie and connect to it you know you have a good movie. I believe that when Don Siegal produced this movie Communism and McCarthyism were two big events going on in society. I think he intended for the movie to be interpreted to those things, but I believe if he were to produce it today he would just say he was producing a science fiction horror movie. Often times I believe producers can get caught up in what is going on in the world today and interpret their movies according to the events so they are capture their audiences, but in reality they are really just science fiction movies. I believe if the movie was truly related to McCarthyism and Communism today then audiences would not have any interest in watching it today. Overall, I would recommend the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a good science fiction movie that all audiences can still enjoy today.
Works Cited
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 26 September 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
essay 3
Laurel Caldwell
October 12, 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The classic movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a movie that is very controversial. It can be depicted, of course, as a Horror/Sci-Fi film, but also as a political allegory that talks about McCarthyism. McCarthyism is a term that describes a period of time from the late 1940’s to the late 1950’s where there was very strong anti-Communist suspicion in the United States. When this movie was first made, Communism was very prevalent around the world and McCarthyism was occurring throughout the United States. Because of that, it is reasonable to believe that this movie’s underlying theme is about McCarthyism. However, I think that this movie is just one of those old scary movies.
John Whitehead states in his review “A Tale for our Time” that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is the “greatest of all the horror and science fiction classics of the 1950’s.” There are a few reasons as to why this movie is so good. It could be because of the cast, who were all unknown actors at that point. It could also be because of “crafty manner in which director Siegel avoided the use of special effects. Or maybe it was the strong story provided by Jack Finney and Daniel Mainwaring’s screenplay” (Whitehead). This movie has had three re-makes since it first came out in 1956. Each time it was re-made, there was an issue going on throughout the world that people could connect that specific issue to the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. For example, at the time of the original movie in 1956, it was Communism; and the last re-make of it in 2007, the issue was terrorism. Because Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been re-made so many times, it shows you that people from many different generations can easily relate to the movie.
In the review from Tim Dirks, he informs his readers that in the original version of the movie, there was no prologue or epilogue. Without the prologue and epilogue, people found this movie very horrifying. Originally, the movie started with Dr. Miles Bennell meeting his nurse, Sally, after getting off the train. She tells him that there had been something weird going on around town while he was gone. The movie ended with Dr. Bennell wandering around the highway screaming, “Look, you fools. You’re in danger. Can’t you see? They’re after you. They’re after all of us. Our wives, our children, everyone. They’re here already. YOU”RE NEXT!” Because the movie ended like this, it scared people a lot. Having lifeless forms take over your body is a scary thing to people because you would not be able to be independent and be yourself or express emotions. It would just be a dull boring life and we would all be the same.
After watching this movie, I am not so sure if I would agree with the criticisms made by Whitehead and Dirks. Yes, the pod people do resemble the communists in a way that they take over your body, but really, they are just something made to scare you. When people come to watch movies, they come for entertainment and to just relax and watch a good movie. I don’t understand why people look so deeply into movies. Of course there are some movies where you do want to look more in depth into them, and really think about the message the director is trying to portray, like The Passion of the Christ maybe for example. But why would a director of a scary movie put issues into the movie that try to make you think as to which theme they want you to follow through the movie. Most do not want to be sitting there thinking, “Hmm, this looks a lot like political allegories to me.” But, I believe that when the directors made this movie, they were interested in how they could make this movie the best they could, how they were going to pull in the most money at the ticket box, and how they were going to pull in a big audience. They did this by making a plain ol’ scary movie, that would continue to fascinate audiences throughout the years.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
October 12, 2007
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The classic movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a movie that is very controversial. It can be depicted, of course, as a Horror/Sci-Fi film, but also as a political allegory that talks about McCarthyism. McCarthyism is a term that describes a period of time from the late 1940’s to the late 1950’s where there was very strong anti-Communist suspicion in the United States. When this movie was first made, Communism was very prevalent around the world and McCarthyism was occurring throughout the United States. Because of that, it is reasonable to believe that this movie’s underlying theme is about McCarthyism. However, I think that this movie is just one of those old scary movies.
John Whitehead states in his review “A Tale for our Time” that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is the “greatest of all the horror and science fiction classics of the 1950’s.” There are a few reasons as to why this movie is so good. It could be because of the cast, who were all unknown actors at that point. It could also be because of “crafty manner in which director Siegel avoided the use of special effects. Or maybe it was the strong story provided by Jack Finney and Daniel Mainwaring’s screenplay” (Whitehead). This movie has had three re-makes since it first came out in 1956. Each time it was re-made, there was an issue going on throughout the world that people could connect that specific issue to the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. For example, at the time of the original movie in 1956, it was Communism; and the last re-make of it in 2007, the issue was terrorism. Because Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been re-made so many times, it shows you that people from many different generations can easily relate to the movie.
In the review from Tim Dirks, he informs his readers that in the original version of the movie, there was no prologue or epilogue. Without the prologue and epilogue, people found this movie very horrifying. Originally, the movie started with Dr. Miles Bennell meeting his nurse, Sally, after getting off the train. She tells him that there had been something weird going on around town while he was gone. The movie ended with Dr. Bennell wandering around the highway screaming, “Look, you fools. You’re in danger. Can’t you see? They’re after you. They’re after all of us. Our wives, our children, everyone. They’re here already. YOU”RE NEXT!” Because the movie ended like this, it scared people a lot. Having lifeless forms take over your body is a scary thing to people because you would not be able to be independent and be yourself or express emotions. It would just be a dull boring life and we would all be the same.
After watching this movie, I am not so sure if I would agree with the criticisms made by Whitehead and Dirks. Yes, the pod people do resemble the communists in a way that they take over your body, but really, they are just something made to scare you. When people come to watch movies, they come for entertainment and to just relax and watch a good movie. I don’t understand why people look so deeply into movies. Of course there are some movies where you do want to look more in depth into them, and really think about the message the director is trying to portray, like The Passion of the Christ maybe for example. But why would a director of a scary movie put issues into the movie that try to make you think as to which theme they want you to follow through the movie. Most do not want to be sitting there thinking, “Hmm, this looks a lot like political allegories to me.” But, I believe that when the directors made this movie, they were interested in how they could make this movie the best they could, how they were going to pull in the most money at the ticket box, and how they were going to pull in a big audience. They did this by making a plain ol’ scary movie, that would continue to fascinate audiences throughout the years.
Works Cited
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Paper#3, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers
Tim Howard
English 101
October 12, 2007
Conformity in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Invasion of The Body Snatchers, directed by Don Siegel, created a mass hysteria making people the movie was either referring to McCarthyism or Communism. The main reason why people believe it had to do with McCarthyism or Communism is because the movie came out in America during 1956. But it makes you wonder what would happen if this same movie came out now? Would it be changed to make you believe that it was another type of threat such as terrorism? The meaning of this movie is more than just talking about one group. Taking that into note, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers expresses the theme of conformity.
Many different critics have reported what they believe is the meaning of what this movie is about. Many people believe that it either based on McCarthyism. Others on the other hand believe the movie was based on Communism. I on the other hand believe the deeper meaning behind this movie and many other movies like this such as many different werewolf movies is that it is about conformity. Everyone becoming all the same thing whether or not they want to or not. Also the reason why many people believed that it was either McCarthyism or Communism is because the time era when this movie came out, during 1956.
One of the many different critics who have written about The Invasion of The Body Snatchers is John W. Whitehead. Even though Whitehead opinion of this movie was that it was based on McCarthyism, his article gives more than enough support to prove that it is just a basis of conformity. The first example of conformity in Whitehead’s article is when he says in his article that “It was both a mirror of a particular moment in history and a compass indicating the systems of a growing societal illness.” (Whitehead) What he says here is that because of the time when this movie came out that many people had the belief that this had to deal with either McCarthyism or Communism. Though the other part of this sentence proves to state that this reason people did believe that was part to the symptoms of a growing societal illness. This means that just as people were afraid of communist back, if it had came out such as a time period of today it could reference to area that the people of today’s society would be afraid of.
Another example of conformity in Whiteheads article is when he is quoting a man named Lavalley. Lavalley says “it is only because the government-dominated, bureaucratic, and conformist fifties was itself creating an America like this picture of the Soviet Union.” (Whitehead) This statement proves that the main reason why any of the reasons why people believed that The Invasion of The Body Snatchers was considered to be based on Communism or McCarthyism was because of the entire conformist in the time had people to believe this. Proving that from almost every aspect that you look at this movie from conformity can be seen from the movie, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers.
Another critic that has written about The Invasion of The Body Snatchers is Tim Dirks. In his article he states that during the making of this movie, before it was released to the public of America, they added a prologue and epilogue. This shows conformity as that the people even in the movie could not leave the movie as is because they believed the actual ending was too scary for America audiences. So adding this prologue and epilogue would allow the movie to end with McCarthy, the main character coming to a victorious ending and saving America from all of these pods.
Another example of conformity that Dirks uses in his article is when he refers to the scene were some of the pod people are talking to Dr. McCarthy and they say “We can’t let you go. You’re dangerous to us. Don’t fight it, Miles. Sooner or later, you’ll have to go to sleep.” (The Invasion of The Body Snatchers) This relates to conformity because all of these people in his town have turned into pod people and they want him to become one of them. The reason why Dr. McCarthy is dangerous to these pod people because he is different and he could tell other people about them. Also, the reason why they wanted Dr. McCarthy to go to sleep is because that was the way the pod person could take over the regular person. Only when that person went o sleep person could take over and conform into the community.
Both critics are correct as in to the fact that this movie is without a doubt about a certain group conforming other people to be like themselves. Although I do not believe that it can be determined to a certain group just because there is not enough information to prove of being just one group. But there is enough to say is talking about people becoming more conformed. This is shown through all the people in town who all been transformed into these other people through these sea pods. These created sea pods all acts alike which is very plain with no sense of emotion.
I believe that The Invasion of The Body Snatchers has a much deeper meaning behind it. That is that we all conform to some group. Sometimes that can be a good thing, but it also can be a very bad thing. Whether or not we know it or not our family and friends will start to see the influence. Just like the son noticed the change in his mom people know changes in your life also. Eventually over time we will change into the total different person and we might not even be recognized anymore. This movie is warning us not conform but to be ourselves. We don’t have to become mediocre! We can be our own individual self. Being conformed is giving up your individuality and we should run away from that just like in this movie like Dr. McCarthy does.
Bibliography Page:
1.Don Siegel, Invasion of The Body Snatchers, made in 1956
2.Tim Dirks, “Invasion of The Body Snatchers,” (review), http://www.filmsite.org/inva2.html
3.John W. Whitehead, A Tale For Our Times, http://www.gadlyonline/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html
English 101
October 12, 2007
Conformity in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Invasion of The Body Snatchers, directed by Don Siegel, created a mass hysteria making people the movie was either referring to McCarthyism or Communism. The main reason why people believe it had to do with McCarthyism or Communism is because the movie came out in America during 1956. But it makes you wonder what would happen if this same movie came out now? Would it be changed to make you believe that it was another type of threat such as terrorism? The meaning of this movie is more than just talking about one group. Taking that into note, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers expresses the theme of conformity.
Many different critics have reported what they believe is the meaning of what this movie is about. Many people believe that it either based on McCarthyism. Others on the other hand believe the movie was based on Communism. I on the other hand believe the deeper meaning behind this movie and many other movies like this such as many different werewolf movies is that it is about conformity. Everyone becoming all the same thing whether or not they want to or not. Also the reason why many people believed that it was either McCarthyism or Communism is because the time era when this movie came out, during 1956.
One of the many different critics who have written about The Invasion of The Body Snatchers is John W. Whitehead. Even though Whitehead opinion of this movie was that it was based on McCarthyism, his article gives more than enough support to prove that it is just a basis of conformity. The first example of conformity in Whitehead’s article is when he says in his article that “It was both a mirror of a particular moment in history and a compass indicating the systems of a growing societal illness.” (Whitehead) What he says here is that because of the time when this movie came out that many people had the belief that this had to deal with either McCarthyism or Communism. Though the other part of this sentence proves to state that this reason people did believe that was part to the symptoms of a growing societal illness. This means that just as people were afraid of communist back, if it had came out such as a time period of today it could reference to area that the people of today’s society would be afraid of.
Another example of conformity in Whiteheads article is when he is quoting a man named Lavalley. Lavalley says “it is only because the government-dominated, bureaucratic, and conformist fifties was itself creating an America like this picture of the Soviet Union.” (Whitehead) This statement proves that the main reason why any of the reasons why people believed that The Invasion of The Body Snatchers was considered to be based on Communism or McCarthyism was because of the entire conformist in the time had people to believe this. Proving that from almost every aspect that you look at this movie from conformity can be seen from the movie, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers.
Another critic that has written about The Invasion of The Body Snatchers is Tim Dirks. In his article he states that during the making of this movie, before it was released to the public of America, they added a prologue and epilogue. This shows conformity as that the people even in the movie could not leave the movie as is because they believed the actual ending was too scary for America audiences. So adding this prologue and epilogue would allow the movie to end with McCarthy, the main character coming to a victorious ending and saving America from all of these pods.
Another example of conformity that Dirks uses in his article is when he refers to the scene were some of the pod people are talking to Dr. McCarthy and they say “We can’t let you go. You’re dangerous to us. Don’t fight it, Miles. Sooner or later, you’ll have to go to sleep.” (The Invasion of The Body Snatchers) This relates to conformity because all of these people in his town have turned into pod people and they want him to become one of them. The reason why Dr. McCarthy is dangerous to these pod people because he is different and he could tell other people about them. Also, the reason why they wanted Dr. McCarthy to go to sleep is because that was the way the pod person could take over the regular person. Only when that person went o sleep person could take over and conform into the community.
Both critics are correct as in to the fact that this movie is without a doubt about a certain group conforming other people to be like themselves. Although I do not believe that it can be determined to a certain group just because there is not enough information to prove of being just one group. But there is enough to say is talking about people becoming more conformed. This is shown through all the people in town who all been transformed into these other people through these sea pods. These created sea pods all acts alike which is very plain with no sense of emotion.
I believe that The Invasion of The Body Snatchers has a much deeper meaning behind it. That is that we all conform to some group. Sometimes that can be a good thing, but it also can be a very bad thing. Whether or not we know it or not our family and friends will start to see the influence. Just like the son noticed the change in his mom people know changes in your life also. Eventually over time we will change into the total different person and we might not even be recognized anymore. This movie is warning us not conform but to be ourselves. We don’t have to become mediocre! We can be our own individual self. Being conformed is giving up your individuality and we should run away from that just like in this movie like Dr. McCarthy does.
Bibliography Page:
1.Don Siegel, Invasion of The Body Snatchers, made in 1956
2.Tim Dirks, “Invasion of The Body Snatchers,” (review), http://www.filmsite.org/inva2.html
3.John W. Whitehead, A Tale For Our Times, http://www.gadlyonline/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Invasion
Julia Burchfield
EN 101
Adam Weinstein
October 8, 2007
The Invasion
The movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a controversial one. One can view the movie in many different ways: A horror/Sci-Fi, a political allegory, or “a mirror of a particular moment in history”. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, in my opinion, is nothing more than a horror/ sci-fi movie. Although there are clear examples of McCarthyism and “The Red Scare” throughout the movie, I do not think that was what the movie was made to portray. Audiences today can relate to this movie because they can apply recent historical events to the movie. The reason McCarthyism and Communism seem so apparent in the movie is because they were occurring around the same time the movie was released, so it was natural for people and critics, like Tom Dirks and John Whitehead, to apply that to the movie.
John Whitehead stated that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a “Tale for our Times”, which is a statement that I agree with. The reason the movie was so popular then, and the reason why it is still being remade now, is because we can somehow relate the movie to an event in our decade. As shown in Tim Dirks’ review of the movie, the movie was first produced in 1956, and remade in: 1978, 1993, and 2007. This shows that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is one of the best horror films ever made. The fact that directors can continue to produce this movie and that people to still watch it shows that the movie relates to the audience, no matter what decade it is shown in.
These thoughts lead me to realize that the movie is not based on “The Red Scare” of the 1950s. “The Red Scare”, lead by McCarthy, involved prosecuting people suspected of being members of the Communist party, especially government officials. If the movie was about “The Red Scare” audiences today would not watch it; it would not interest them because we are no longer dealing with that conflict. However, in Tim Dirks review, he points out certain scenes that can lead one to believe that the movie is based on “The Red Scare”. He points out that the “indifferent doctor, Dr. Dan Kaufman, who also has had a number of troubling referrals in the past few weeks, dismisses the cases of delusional paranoia as an ‘epidemic mass hysteria’". Although this can be connected to Communism, it can also be connected to threats of more recent decades, like AIDS, terrorism, “psychological revolution” (Dirks), and many others. Dr. Kaufman also states that the cause of this “epidemic mass hysteria” could be “worry about what is going on in the world”. Although I can see why this could be connected to Communism as well, I can also see how this could be related to the terrorism of 911. In the 1950s, the worry going on in the world was “will Communism take over the United States?” In 2007, which was the year of one of the remakes, people were worrying if “terrorist were going to take over the United States?” Again, this shows why the movie is still popular today; people relate to the movie because they can either view it as a classic horror/sci-fi, or they can apply current events to the movie.
Despite the fact that the movie relates to a lot of events in history, I do not think that was what the original director, Don Siegel, intended for the movie. In my opinion, I think that Don Siegel was trying to produce a horror film that could relate to all audiences. Humans losing their bodies to alien forms where they have no emotion is frightening to every human being; which is why America was so frightened of Communism in the 1950s. They wanted to be able to think for themselves, and to be individuals instead of a community as a whole. America today is afraid of terrorist taking control of our country and telling us how to live our lives. In the 1970s, Americans were afraid of contracting AIDS and not being able to live their lives the way they planned. This is why the movie is such a good horror film, it relates to each viewer because no one wants to lose their identity, freedom, or emotions.
In conclusion, I think that John Whitehead and Tim Dirks’ criticism of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is overblown. I think that if they were to review the movie today they might think that it applied to something other than McCarthyism or Communism. Although it can relate to those two things, I think that the movie was made to be a good horror movie, and should be watched as a good horror movie, not judged as a political allegory. If the movie was truly based on those two events in history, the movie would be relevant to audiences today, which it is. A director today would not remake The Blob or The Thing (both movies from the 1950s) because they no longer related to our sophisticated audience. However, audiences today relate to The Invasion of the Body Snatchers because it is a “grade A” horror film that can be watched by people of every decade and century.
WORKS CITED
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
EN 101
Adam Weinstein
October 8, 2007
The Invasion
The movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a controversial one. One can view the movie in many different ways: A horror/Sci-Fi, a political allegory, or “a mirror of a particular moment in history”. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, in my opinion, is nothing more than a horror/ sci-fi movie. Although there are clear examples of McCarthyism and “The Red Scare” throughout the movie, I do not think that was what the movie was made to portray. Audiences today can relate to this movie because they can apply recent historical events to the movie. The reason McCarthyism and Communism seem so apparent in the movie is because they were occurring around the same time the movie was released, so it was natural for people and critics, like Tom Dirks and John Whitehead, to apply that to the movie.
John Whitehead stated that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a “Tale for our Times”, which is a statement that I agree with. The reason the movie was so popular then, and the reason why it is still being remade now, is because we can somehow relate the movie to an event in our decade. As shown in Tim Dirks’ review of the movie, the movie was first produced in 1956, and remade in: 1978, 1993, and 2007. This shows that The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is one of the best horror films ever made. The fact that directors can continue to produce this movie and that people to still watch it shows that the movie relates to the audience, no matter what decade it is shown in.
These thoughts lead me to realize that the movie is not based on “The Red Scare” of the 1950s. “The Red Scare”, lead by McCarthy, involved prosecuting people suspected of being members of the Communist party, especially government officials. If the movie was about “The Red Scare” audiences today would not watch it; it would not interest them because we are no longer dealing with that conflict. However, in Tim Dirks review, he points out certain scenes that can lead one to believe that the movie is based on “The Red Scare”. He points out that the “indifferent doctor, Dr. Dan Kaufman, who also has had a number of troubling referrals in the past few weeks, dismisses the cases of delusional paranoia as an ‘epidemic mass hysteria’". Although this can be connected to Communism, it can also be connected to threats of more recent decades, like AIDS, terrorism, “psychological revolution” (Dirks), and many others. Dr. Kaufman also states that the cause of this “epidemic mass hysteria” could be “worry about what is going on in the world”. Although I can see why this could be connected to Communism as well, I can also see how this could be related to the terrorism of 911. In the 1950s, the worry going on in the world was “will Communism take over the United States?” In 2007, which was the year of one of the remakes, people were worrying if “terrorist were going to take over the United States?” Again, this shows why the movie is still popular today; people relate to the movie because they can either view it as a classic horror/sci-fi, or they can apply current events to the movie.
Despite the fact that the movie relates to a lot of events in history, I do not think that was what the original director, Don Siegel, intended for the movie. In my opinion, I think that Don Siegel was trying to produce a horror film that could relate to all audiences. Humans losing their bodies to alien forms where they have no emotion is frightening to every human being; which is why America was so frightened of Communism in the 1950s. They wanted to be able to think for themselves, and to be individuals instead of a community as a whole. America today is afraid of terrorist taking control of our country and telling us how to live our lives. In the 1970s, Americans were afraid of contracting AIDS and not being able to live their lives the way they planned. This is why the movie is such a good horror film, it relates to each viewer because no one wants to lose their identity, freedom, or emotions.
In conclusion, I think that John Whitehead and Tim Dirks’ criticism of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is overblown. I think that if they were to review the movie today they might think that it applied to something other than McCarthyism or Communism. Although it can relate to those two things, I think that the movie was made to be a good horror movie, and should be watched as a good horror movie, not judged as a political allegory. If the movie was truly based on those two events in history, the movie would be relevant to audiences today, which it is. A director today would not remake The Blob or The Thing (both movies from the 1950s) because they no longer related to our sophisticated audience. However, audiences today relate to The Invasion of the Body Snatchers because it is a “grade A” horror film that can be watched by people of every decade and century.
WORKS CITED
Dirks, Tim. “Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1956).” 1996. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.filmsite.org/inva.html.
Whitehead, John. “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times”. Gadfly Online. 1998. 9 Oct. 2007. http://www.gadflyonline.com/11-26-01/film-snatchers.html.
Paper 3- "Snatching Communists- McCathyism in America"- Nick Neveu
“Snatching Communists - McCarthyism in America”
There are few films to date that can completely capture the politics and cultural outlook of an era in American history. One of these films, however, is Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The movie was released at a pivotal time in our nation’s history. During the 1950’s, America was booming with life. This included new types of music such as Rock ‘n Roll, the mainstream introduction of the television, and a rapidly growing economy. With these wonderful inventions and new life, America, nevertheless, also had a dark side. Joseph McCarthy, who was the senator of Wisconsin at the time, helped bring about the “Red Scare” with accusations of the communists invading American culture as well as the government. Any un-American act was subject to investigation which made many citizens lose their jobs, family, and even commit suicide. This “Red Scare” greatly affected Hollywood by shredding careers and reputations of anyone believed to be affiliated with Communism. This idea of McCarthyism spread like wildfire throughout our country. Although many, including director Don Siegel, deny any relation between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and McCarthyism, the evidence and overall storyline present overwhelming support to link the two together.
The political allegory of McCarthyism in the film is discussed in John Whitehead’s essay “Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Tale for our Times.” Whitehead breaks the film down into many different scenarios which include interpreting the movie as a symbol for AIDS, fears of the decade, or even the central government as the American majority. His most compelling interpretation as previously discussed is that of McCarthyism. He states that this movie was a double reading, both “a mirror of a particular moment in history and a compass indicating the symptoms of a growing societal illness” (Whitehead). Tim Dirks also presents us with a different variation of the McCarthyistic view. In his review, he explains, “Yet its main theme was the alien (read ‘Communist’) dehumanization and take-over of an entire community by large seed pods” (Dirks). He believed the pod people as well as the seeds were not only the view of McCarthyism but communists themselves.
While personally viewing the movie, I immediately took interest in interpreting the allegory as the spread of McCarthyism. McCarthyism nearly destroyed Hollywood by making everyone in the business believe the way an Anti-Communist should or else ruining their career. Just like the pod people in the film, Hollywood stars had to be brainwashed to show no emotion about their true feelings about politics or they were essentially destroyed. Not only were Hollywood stars swept by the ideas of McCarthyism, everyday citizens also had hearings for any Un-American act reported or affiliations with Communists. In the film, as the main character Miles escapes to the highway to try and save the world from the pods, a pod person stops the bunch exclaiming,”Wait. Let him go. They’ll never believe him.” This was the case in many of the trials held for many claimed Communist. The hysteria of McCarthyism was so woven into society, that the accused victim had no chance of getting off free even if they were completely innocent. The passing truck in this scene also had on the back, “Los Angeles-San Francisco-Portland.” I believe it was staged to put Los Angeles first because that is the location of Hollywood!
The one scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers that sold me to the idea of McCarthyism was when Dr. Kaufman and Miles were discussing the growing problems of the community outside of a restaurant. Dr. Kaufman seemed to sum up the entire community not feeling right about their loved ones as, “A strange neurosis, evidently contagious, an epidemic mass hysteria. In two weeks, it spread all over town.” When asked what causes such as hysteria he replied, “Worry about what’s going on in the world probably.” Not only is this scene a bit awkward when first viewing, the way the doctor was completely calm about the statement struck me as odd. I believe the writers purposely put this conversation in the script to link “what’s going on in the world” (McCarthyism) to the plot of the movie. Another thing I noticed about the film was that the main enforcement of making sure everyone was a pod person was done by the police. As they are the controlling force in our communities, McCarthyism was the controlling force in our society which in turn made sure the views for Communism were changed.
Even though this movie was a perfect political allegory of the 1950’s in America, it can also be interpreted as a political allegory today. This movie appeals to our senses, which is why it has been remade three times. Each time the movie is released, it is during a time where people are conforming to the ideas and ideology of that time period. It was remade during the Vietnam War as well as the Persian Gulf War. In each of these cases, the views of the nation outweighed individual’s thoughts, conforming them to the ideas shared by the majority. In today’s society Operation Iraqi Freedom and the resultant of 9/11 both mold our mindsets into wanting to eliminate terrorism and set up a Democracy in Iraq. The Iraqi people are indifferent about this change but America is not giving them much choice by keeping our soldiers in their country. Even though they fight back just as Miles did in the film, it is hard to stop an inevitable force.
In conclusion, even though many speculate this film has nothing to do with McCarthyism, after viewing the movie and dissecting the dialogue, it is clear both these ideas are linked together. Invasion of the Body Snatchers has a way of gripping audiences of all eras with its descriptive storyline and intriguing action. This movie continues to relate to the ideology of society by its adaptivity and pure genius. These ideas coupled with an always changing society allow this movie to stun audiences of any age and in effect, make it an American classic.
Work Cited
Just a movie
Henry Shields
English 101
October 9, 2007
Weinstein
It’s Just a Movie
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is considered to be one of the greatest horror/science fiction movies of its time. It has been reviewed by professors and students across the nation for its supposed “double meaning” and political allegory. Critics such as John Whitehead proclaim the movie symbolizes the time and events of the Cold War and “Red Scare” era. He states, “No matter the criteria of those who made the film… the alien pod people perfectly fit McCarthy’s profile of Russians…” (A Tale for Our Times-4). Alien “pod people” are claimed to symbolize Russians. And the humans on earth are claimed to symbolize Americans who are taken over and slowly killed off by the aliens (Russians). However, I feel that Invasion of the Body Snatchers expresses a vivid theme of horror throughout the entire movie; nothing more, nothing less.
Writer John Whitehead critiques the movie in his essay, “A Tale for our Times”. He makes references between the characters of the movie and real life people of the Cold War era. Joseph McCarthy, a republican senator from Wisconsin, was a big leader during the Cold War who was famous for bringing about the “Red Scare”. The “Red Scare” was the belief that there were communist spies from Russia infiltrating the government. Whitehead makes the relation between the “Red Scare” and the aliens landing on earth. He also compares the character, Dr. Bennell, to the role of McCarthy. Dr. Bennell becomes a leader and the one who tries to sort out all of the people who have already been “snatched”. Whitehead also talks about the schoolteachers show relevance to the Cold War in the movie. Schoolteachers in the Cold War era were checked the most for being communist. It was believed that if the communist really did want to take over they would try to brainwash our kids first. In the movie teachers are some of the first ones to get “Snatched”. Whitehead makes good points concerning the symbolism of the movie. Although his points are legitimate, I feel he has blown the plot out of proportion.
After watching the movie, I feel that the comparisons to the Cold War are absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion, the movie was a breakthrough for horror and science fiction. Because no one had ever seen anything like it, they immediately started trying to find something to compare it to. It just so happened that the first thing critics and viewers thought of was a real life event; the Cold War. Even the author claims it is irrelevant to all Cold War and Red Scare events. He states, “If the pods in Invasion seem to incarnate the popular image of a communist totalitarian state, it is only because government-dominated, bureaucratic, and conformist fifties was itself creating and America like this picture of Soviet Russia”(Tale for our Times). The author blames the viewers for interpreting the movie this way. He claims that Americans were constantly scared during the fifties and only “bureaucrats” like them could make such a comparison. I feel that people are taking credit away from the author’s work when they make false comparisons and accusations. I think the author simply made a good horror film that did a good job of scaring people. In his essay, Whitehead takes note of the “fine ensemble cast” and the “haunting piano chords” that are still used today in movies and shows. These are qualities that make a great movie. Overall I feel that Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a true classic horror/Science fiction movie, not the political allegory critics and viewers have made it out to be.
English 101
October 9, 2007
Weinstein
It’s Just a Movie
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is considered to be one of the greatest horror/science fiction movies of its time. It has been reviewed by professors and students across the nation for its supposed “double meaning” and political allegory. Critics such as John Whitehead proclaim the movie symbolizes the time and events of the Cold War and “Red Scare” era. He states, “No matter the criteria of those who made the film… the alien pod people perfectly fit McCarthy’s profile of Russians…” (A Tale for Our Times-4). Alien “pod people” are claimed to symbolize Russians. And the humans on earth are claimed to symbolize Americans who are taken over and slowly killed off by the aliens (Russians). However, I feel that Invasion of the Body Snatchers expresses a vivid theme of horror throughout the entire movie; nothing more, nothing less.
Writer John Whitehead critiques the movie in his essay, “A Tale for our Times”. He makes references between the characters of the movie and real life people of the Cold War era. Joseph McCarthy, a republican senator from Wisconsin, was a big leader during the Cold War who was famous for bringing about the “Red Scare”. The “Red Scare” was the belief that there were communist spies from Russia infiltrating the government. Whitehead makes the relation between the “Red Scare” and the aliens landing on earth. He also compares the character, Dr. Bennell, to the role of McCarthy. Dr. Bennell becomes a leader and the one who tries to sort out all of the people who have already been “snatched”. Whitehead also talks about the schoolteachers show relevance to the Cold War in the movie. Schoolteachers in the Cold War era were checked the most for being communist. It was believed that if the communist really did want to take over they would try to brainwash our kids first. In the movie teachers are some of the first ones to get “Snatched”. Whitehead makes good points concerning the symbolism of the movie. Although his points are legitimate, I feel he has blown the plot out of proportion.
After watching the movie, I feel that the comparisons to the Cold War are absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion, the movie was a breakthrough for horror and science fiction. Because no one had ever seen anything like it, they immediately started trying to find something to compare it to. It just so happened that the first thing critics and viewers thought of was a real life event; the Cold War. Even the author claims it is irrelevant to all Cold War and Red Scare events. He states, “If the pods in Invasion seem to incarnate the popular image of a communist totalitarian state, it is only because government-dominated, bureaucratic, and conformist fifties was itself creating and America like this picture of Soviet Russia”(Tale for our Times). The author blames the viewers for interpreting the movie this way. He claims that Americans were constantly scared during the fifties and only “bureaucrats” like them could make such a comparison. I feel that people are taking credit away from the author’s work when they make false comparisons and accusations. I think the author simply made a good horror film that did a good job of scaring people. In his essay, Whitehead takes note of the “fine ensemble cast” and the “haunting piano chords” that are still used today in movies and shows. These are qualities that make a great movie. Overall I feel that Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a true classic horror/Science fiction movie, not the political allegory critics and viewers have made it out to be.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Essay three- Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been alleged around the worldwide hysteria revolved around the Communist Movement, but other evidence has led me to believe otherwise. Worldwide hysteria has always been present no matter what era. The most common mass hysteria has been over science, terrorism, or politics. The fact that this film has been remade numerous times proves that it is not just about one specific movement. Which furthermore proves that it was not a film about Communism but just a sci-fi horror film about worldwide mass hysteria meant to scare the viewers.
Many critics have many different responses to this film. Some believe it is showing the mass hysteria over Communism or McCarthyism, while others simply believe it is showing the struggle with worldwide conformity as a whole. In a review by Tim Dirks he made several good points proving that the accusations about this movie being filmed around the ideas of Communist hysteria was too vague and was open to too many different interpretations. For example, Dirks says that, “the theme of the cautionary, politicize film was open to varying interpretations, including paranoia toward spread of harmful ideology such as socialistic Communism, or the sweeping mass hysteria of McCarthyism and the blacklisting of Hollywood, the spread of a unknown malignancy or virulent germ, or the numbing of our individuality and emotional psyches through conformity and group-think.” Also, this further proves how the film has been remade four different times each estimated about 20 years apart. The first Invasion of the Body Snatchers in 1956 was “an allegory for Communism and McCarthyism.” The second, also called Invasion of the Body Snatchers, created in 1978 was “an allegory for the psychological revolution of the 1970’s and self-help books.” A few years later in 1993 Body Snatchers was created which “resembles a foreign, terrorist siege.” Finally, the most recent one created this year called, The Invasion in which “the a flu-like virus brought to Earth by a crashed space shuttle, turning victims into cold, emotionless, people after they sleep.” All of these remade movies are prime examples that the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers was just a sci-fi film about the world around them. Of course the people living in 1956 are going to relate it to Communism or McCarthyism because that was the worldwide hysteria they were experiencing. If that movie had never been made until the year of 2001 when 9/11 happened that would be our first interpretation also. It would be the worldwide hysteria of terrorism we went through. I do not believe that Don Siegel directed that film intending for it to be specifically about Communism. He made a great sci-fi horror film and left it opened for his audience to interpret the way they wanted. Telling someone who firmly believes it was not made specifically about Communism is not going to change his or her mind. That’s what makes it such a great sci-fi. When I think of a sci-fi film I think of a movie that you experience the way you have relations to it. For instance, being born in the 80’s is going to cause me to react dramatically different to a 50’s movie than someone who lived during that time period.
I would describe this film as a good horror film because not many horrors can keep me on the edge of my seat but Invasion of the Body Snatchers had me at the edge of mine. Although, it was very different from most horrors I was use to, I would recommend it because it was unexpected horror.
WORK CITED.
(Dirks) 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' 1956
(Siegel) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Many critics have many different responses to this film. Some believe it is showing the mass hysteria over Communism or McCarthyism, while others simply believe it is showing the struggle with worldwide conformity as a whole. In a review by Tim Dirks he made several good points proving that the accusations about this movie being filmed around the ideas of Communist hysteria was too vague and was open to too many different interpretations. For example, Dirks says that, “the theme of the cautionary, politicize film was open to varying interpretations, including paranoia toward spread of harmful ideology such as socialistic Communism, or the sweeping mass hysteria of McCarthyism and the blacklisting of Hollywood, the spread of a unknown malignancy or virulent germ, or the numbing of our individuality and emotional psyches through conformity and group-think.” Also, this further proves how the film has been remade four different times each estimated about 20 years apart. The first Invasion of the Body Snatchers in 1956 was “an allegory for Communism and McCarthyism.” The second, also called Invasion of the Body Snatchers, created in 1978 was “an allegory for the psychological revolution of the 1970’s and self-help books.” A few years later in 1993 Body Snatchers was created which “resembles a foreign, terrorist siege.” Finally, the most recent one created this year called, The Invasion in which “the a flu-like virus brought to Earth by a crashed space shuttle, turning victims into cold, emotionless, people after they sleep.” All of these remade movies are prime examples that the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers was just a sci-fi film about the world around them. Of course the people living in 1956 are going to relate it to Communism or McCarthyism because that was the worldwide hysteria they were experiencing. If that movie had never been made until the year of 2001 when 9/11 happened that would be our first interpretation also. It would be the worldwide hysteria of terrorism we went through. I do not believe that Don Siegel directed that film intending for it to be specifically about Communism. He made a great sci-fi horror film and left it opened for his audience to interpret the way they wanted. Telling someone who firmly believes it was not made specifically about Communism is not going to change his or her mind. That’s what makes it such a great sci-fi. When I think of a sci-fi film I think of a movie that you experience the way you have relations to it. For instance, being born in the 80’s is going to cause me to react dramatically different to a 50’s movie than someone who lived during that time period.
I would describe this film as a good horror film because not many horrors can keep me on the edge of my seat but Invasion of the Body Snatchers had me at the edge of mine. Although, it was very different from most horrors I was use to, I would recommend it because it was unexpected horror.
WORK CITED.
(Dirks) 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' 1956
(Siegel) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
