Final Comparison Essay: A Comparison Between Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part2

INTRODUCTION TO THE ESSAY

“A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.” (Campbell) This is what fantasy films have been depicting since the early 20th century with movies like Metropolis (1927), King Kong (1933), The Wizard of Oz (1939), and many more. (Dirks) Films like these have dwelled in the minds of kids and adults across generations, eventually attaining a permanent place in their hearts. If you ask me or any other child of the early 2000s, our instant reply to the question of our favorite fantasy film would of course be the Harry Potter series. Harry Potter has been a hero that children of all ages and backgrounds have loved; either through reading the novels by J.K. Rowling or watching the film adaptations. Not only that, each and every character in the series has carried significant meaning in this hero’s journey. This is why I have chosen to analyze the roles of the characters Hagrid and Lord Voldemort with regard to their influence in Harry’s journey through the labyrinth in two films from the series. The two films I will be comparing are Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2 (2011).

Hagrid and Lord Voldemort are polar opposites in their characterization. Hagrid is on Harry’s side while Lord Voldemort is Harry’s mortal enemy. In both The Sorcerer’s Stone and The Deathly Hallows-Part 2, Hagrid and Lord Voldemort both reprise their roles as friend and foe, respectively to Harry. They both share a common interest in trying to push Harry right to the end of the labyrinth but for different reasons. Hagrid wants Harry to conquer Lord Voldemort while Lord Voldemort wants to destroy Harry at the end of his journey.We can see this in these two films, in light of Joseph Campbell’s theory on ‘The Hero’s Journey’, with Hagrid as one of Harry’s ‘Allies’ and Lord Voldemort as Harry’s ‘Shadow’.

HAGRID: AN ‘ALLY’ OF THIS HERO’S JOURNEY

In almost all fantasy ‘Hero’ based movies; the ‘Hero’ is most likely orphaned. This is the case for Harry too. Hence, other acquaintances are made forming surrogate bonds to that of family. Throughout all the Harry Potter films, Hagrid has played a pivotal role in Harry’s life guiding him through change, and caring and looking out for him; what Joseph Campbell would call an ‘Ally’. (Hero’s Journey)

In the opening sequence of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry Potter is brought into the Muggle world by Hagrid. As humans, we are brought into the world by our mothers. In Harry’s case, Hagrid is sort of a surrogate for Harry’s murdered mother. He enters the scene on Sirius’s flying motorbike carrying baby Harry and when Professor Dumbledore leaves Harry on the Dursley’s doorsteps, Hagrid is the one who gets emotional; just like any mother would get when leaving her baby in the hands of a stranger.

Hagrid continues to play the role of mother years later when he comes to take Harry with him to Hogwarts on his 11th birthday.

He educates Harry on his life and tells him the truth about his wizarding abilities. In this scene, a particular motherly action that Hagrid does is that he brings Harry a cake that he baked himself for his birthday. In a normal household, the mother bakes her children cakes for their birthdays and thus, we can say that Hagrid’s portrayal as a motherly ‘Ally’ is shown to have grown stronger. Throughout the rest of this film Hagrid presents himself as an affectionate ally in numerous ways by presenting Harry with valuable information that guides him into finding the labyrinth through which he must journey.

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part2 Hagrid is seen only in a handful of scenes but he is a part of one of the most powerful scenes of all the eight films of Harry Potter in entirety. This is the scene where Harry sacrifices himself to Lord Voldemort. Hagrid is present when this occurs and once Malfoy’s mother pronounces Harry dead, he is the one who carries Harry’s body back to Hogwarts. J.K.Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series mentioned in an interview that she always wanted Hagrid to carry Harry’s body out of the Forbidden Forest, cradling it – a bookend to the beginning of the series, when Hagrid brought infant Harry to the Dursleys. (Jensen) From analyzing this film in comparison to the first of the Harry Potter films, I can understand why she intended for such a thing. Hagrid was one of Harry’s staunch ‘Allies’ and one of the very few who saw him as an infant. Thus, we can say that the imagery was such that the surrogate who brought him into the world was taking him out of it.

LORD VOLDEMORT: THE LOOMING ‘SHADOW’ OF THE HERO

In physics they say, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” In films, I believe the saying should go, “For every good guy in a film, there must be a bad guy to make his life difficult.” This is the case for Harry Potter. The only thing stopping Harry from leading a perfectly normal life as a wizard is Lord Voldemort. Joseph Campbell would declare Lord Voldemort to be a ‘Shadow’. (Hero’s Journey) The ‘Shadow’ is the worthy opponent with whom the hero must struggle. In a conflict between good and bad, the fight between the ‘Hero’ and the ‘Shadow’ is to the end; one or the other must be destroyed or rendered impotent. (Archetypes, Myths and Characters) This is so obviously seen in the film as Lord Voldemort is shown to have tried to kill Harry since he was nothing but a harmless infant. Every encounter Harry has had throughout the eight films with Voldemort is one where he tried to kill him.

It is almost towards the end of The Sorcerer’s Stone when Harry and Lord Voldemort have their ‘first’ confrontation. Voldemort is still weak in this film as he is a mere parasite, feeding off Professor Quirrell. Harry temporarily defeats him through the touch of his hands as Voldemort cannot stand love. This is one of the main differences between Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort, who are very similar in many ways. Sometimes the thin line that defines good from bad can be as simple as love.

Lord Voldemort like most ‘Shadows’ does not back down without a fight. Throughout the series, he gets back up stronger whenever Harry temporarily defeats him. Like Harry, he too has a set of followers who stand by him. While he is a negative force in the story, it is important to remember that no man is a villain in his own eyes. In fact, the ‘Shadow’ frequently sees himself as a ‘Hero’ and the story’s ‘Hero’ as his villain. (Archetypes, Myths and Characters)

This is so perfectly portrayed after Harry’s ‘so-called’ death when Voldemort tells Ginny that everyone should now put their faiths in him in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2. In this film Voldemort is way more powerful than he was in the Sorcerer’s Stone. But he strikes hell in Hogwarts with the fear that Harry might find and destroy all the Horcruxes making him vulnerable. This battle leads to its epic form during the last duel with Harry.

This final duel between Harry and Voldemort highlights the epitome of good vanquishing evil.

CONCLUSION

Hagrid and Lord Voldemort play two very important roles in the journey of Harry Potter; Hagrid as the motherly ‘Ally’ and Lord Voldemort as the ‘Shadow’. When comparing their roles in the Sorcerer’s Stone and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2, we can see that they have just evolved into a stronger form of their original identities. An important point to note about these two films is that they were directed by two different directors. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was directed by Chris Columbus and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2 was directed by David Yates. They might have been picturized differently but the flow of the evolution of Hagrid and Voldemort was intact and their roles in Harry’s journey clear. Hagrid was an ‘Ally’ who guided Harry to the labyrinth and Harry’s first confrontation with his ‘Shadow’ Lord Voldemort in the Sorcerer’s Stone put him in the labyrinth. Throughout the other films, Harry with the help of Hagrid and his other ‘Allies’ wove his way through the maze past all of Voldemort’s traps, finally to find himself sacrificing his life in the Deathly Hallows-Part 2 where he got the boon of becoming a true hero. Harry then made his way to the end by dueling Voldemort and destroying him.

And thus, I would like to conclude with another quote by Joseph Campbell; one that describes the boon which Harry obtained from the labyrinth. “Life is without meaning. You bring meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning….” (Campbell)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:-

Archetypes, Myths and Characters. 1998. Document. 2 August 2012.

Campbell, Joseph. n.d. Document. 1 August 2012.

Dirks, Tim. Filmsite. n.d. DOcument. 1 August 2012.

Hero’s Journey. n.d. Document. 1 August 2012.

Jensen, Jeff. Entertainment Weekly. 1 November 2011. Document. 1 August 2012.

 

ET 27: Paris In Malaysia

Dear Sir/Madam,

The purpose of this letter is to appeal the ban on the film ‘Paris is Burning’, as I believe it is one film that needs to be shown to the Malaysian public for educational purposes.

As you know, the transsexual community in Malaysia has been suffering for many years to gain hold of their rights and make a decent name for themsleves. With 50,000 transsexuals as of the year 2000, our country has been dealing out harsh punishments to them unknowingly, by banning movies like ‘Paris is Burning’; a movie that may just show  the Malaysian public the real truth about transsexuals. This has led to so much discrimination against them and has even caused a number of suicides. One example can be the suicide of 26 year old Po Po, reported by the Star newspaper on Monday, October 2, 2000. Po Po’s body was found hanging by a towel around her neck from the ceiling. She worked as a sex worker to save enough money for a sex change operation. During the day she worked as a shampoo-girl in a beauty salon.  Her friends say that she was under terrible loads of emotional pressure and she finally snapped because she was cheated and left in cold by a man she trusted. Incidents like these have plagued our country for many years and I believe that enlightening the public about the problems faced by transsexuals through films like ‘Paris is Burning’ could reduce sucide rates amongst such people.

It is a well known fact that Malaysia, being a Muslim country, legally allows sex change operations but that is about as far as it goes. Till today, these transsexuals have been fighting for their rights in all other ways. This can be illustrated by thsi one case reported by The Daily Chilli on January 9th 2011. The report goes that a Malaysian transsexual vowed to fight for her rights after a court refused to change her gender on her identification documents to female following a sex-change surgery. Thsi is the case for so many people out there. They are not being given the due recognition they deserve to get for their new identity. This is made much worse by the Censor banning films like ‘Paris is Burning’. We as an audience go to movies to see parts of ourselves being reflected on screen. But what about these transsexuals? Since movies that reflect them get banned, they have absolutely no reassurance of their identity. Is this truly even fair?

Yes, Islam doesnt allow sex-change or same sex marriage but it aso doesn’t approve of mistreatement of innocent humans. These people are also human and they deserve the right to live their lives. Even the ultra conservative Iran condones sex reassignment surgeries. So why can’t we? At least let us take baby steps and start by screeing films like ‘Paris is Burning’. It is one film that shows us how talented and hard working these people are and how they too have dreams and aspirations.

Our current PM Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak came into power with the concept of 1 Malaysia. He said that as Malaysians we should walk around with the spirit of oneness in our hearts. I belive that ‘Paris is Burning’ is the perfect example of how a unified community should be as it shows how these transseuals stand up and look out ofr each other. So I say, lift the ban you placed on ‘Paris is Burning’!!! Let us all come together not only as people from different races and religions, but as man, women and  them god’s children with upholding the true and united Malaysian spirit… 1 MALAYSIA!!!!!!!!!

Yours faithfully,

Shruthi Jayashankar

ET 21: Strangers on a Train, A Garden of Freud

Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Strangers on a Train’ is indeed a garden of Freud. With Farley Granger playing the tennis pro Guy Haines and Robert Walker in the role of the wealthy wastrel Bruno Anthony, Hitchcock’s adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s novel is one that can be analysed using Freudian psychology. Using his theories on Conciousness and Psychosexual development, the characters of Guy and Bruno can be deeply explored.

Chairman Rey famously quoted that a narrative takes off when, ” a world at an uneasy state of equilibrium gets broken into by an event”. This occurs during the opening sequence of the film.

We see two pairs of feet, or rather shoes during the entire opening sequence and they sort of define the two leading men’s personalities. We have the snazzy and rather funky shoes, that seem to scream sexuality, belonging to Bruno and the plain and sensible black shoes of Guy Haines. If you notice, towards the end of the sequence, it is Guy who sort of initiates the whole relationship between Bruno and him. It is his foot that accidently taps Bruno’s foot, creating a whole domino effect of what is to come. When analysing this scene using Frued’s theory on conciousness, the act of Guy’s foot tapping stands out. Guy’s action is what we call a ‘Freudian Slip’.  The ‘Freudian Slip’, also known as a parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory or physical action that is interpreted as occuring due to the interference of some unconcious, subdued wish, conflict, or train of thought. (Wikipedia) From his shoes to his persona in the rest of the film, Guy Haines is a man who lives by rigid rules and morals. Thus, his action can be said to be a sign sparked by an unconcious desire to break loose from his heterosexual self. Later on in the film, Guy also has another ‘slip’, verbally this time, when he blurts to his lover Anne that he wished he could strangle his bitch of a wife Mirriam. This ‘slip’ can be due to his unconcious desire to get rid of her. Like Bruno said earlier, “just for a little bit there must have been someone you wanted permanently out of the way…”

Still focusing on the theory of conciousness, Guy and Bruno’s characters can be incorporated into the levels of conciousness. Let’s look at Guy first. Throughout the film, Guy is potrayed to be a man governed by his ‘Superego’. The ‘Superego’ is the ethical component of the personality and provides the moral standards by which the ego operates. (Britannica Encyclopedia) In the beginning, Guy finds it awful to think that anyone would want to ‘get-rid’ of someone and strongly denies ever wanting so. Even still, he never rudely cuts of Bruno and humors him till he reaches his stop. This highlights his upbringing to be a man who would never do anything as criminal as murder and would never rudely silence anyone even if they were getting under his skin. Even when he is put into a fix by Bruno, he never agrees to kill Bruno’s father and does everything he can to try and stop Bruno. Bruno on the other hand is a man whose ‘Id’ rules his mind. The ‘Id’ is a part of our conciousness that is based on our pleasure principle. It wants whatever feels good at that time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation. (AllPsych Online) Bruno is one person who does what he wants and says what he wants. As  normal human beings, we would rather not strike a converstion on how we would commit murder with a person we just met. Bruno doesn’t care. He doesn’t get Guy’s sarcasm and instead takes it as a green light and thus, murders Mirriam. He straighforwardly declares his hatred for his father and wishes him dead, only his declaration, unlike Guy’s, is not a ‘slip’. He wants to ‘finish off’ his father and he ain’t afraid to say it.

Bruno can also be analysed using another Freudian theory known as the ‘stage theory of Psychosexual development’. If you notice, Bruno displays certain specific characters that indicate that he has some sort of fixation that can be further explored using Freuds stage theory. Bruno is a talker and he never stops till he gets the last word. He is also a chain smoker; he says so himself in the beginning of the film. All these can be seen as symptoms of a man fixated at the ‘Oral stage of development’. The ‘Oral stage’ occurs from birth to the first year of an infant’s life. This is when the infant derives pleasure from oral simulation through gratifying activities like tasting and sucking. If the child’s needs are not met, it could lead to an ‘oral fixation’ later in life. (Psychology About.com) This could be the reason why Bruno seems to be so oral and always smokes. Another observation that can be made about Bruno is that he appears to be a homosexual man. Although this is not directly shown on screen due to restrictions by the ‘Hays Code’, Hitchcock’s potrayal of Bruno’s character says so. One important potrayal is Bruno’s hatred towards his father. This can be seen as a classic example of the ‘Oedipus Complex’. In the ‘Oedipus Complex’, a boy is fixated on his mother and competes with his father for maternal attention. During the process of transitioning, the mother becomes a seperate object, removed from the boy’s ideal self. Thus, she can be the subject of object love. The father’s role is crucial as some say that it is the time when boy identifies with his father. A strained relationship with his father may result in the boy identifying with his mother, thus following the object of his mother’s desire; his father, a man. This could result in the boy becoming a homosexual. (Changing Minds.org) From the definition of the ‘Oedipus complex’ we can say that Bruno could most likely be  a man whose transition period has gone wrong, hence leading to him expressing his homosexuality by getting over attached to Guy Haines. We can clearly see this whenever he interacts with Guy. He always seems to be flirting with him in a sense. Bruno also keeps saying to Guy, “I like you Guy, I would do anything for you…” All this just proves that Bruno’s sexuality is one that could be called to question.

In conclusion, we can say that Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Strangers on a Train’ is a movie that has been based on Freudian Theories and that just the characters of Guy Haines and Bruno Anthony can be so deeply analysed using Freudian psychology. Of course there are many more aspects of the film that could be analysed but I have chosen to study only the characters of Guy and Bruno. As a psychology student, I really enjoyed watching this film as the application of Fruedian theories was so beautifully woven into the screenplay. ‘Strangers on a Train’ is most definately a garden of Freud.

Biliography:-

AllPsych Online. The Conciousness. 2012 01 August

Britannica Encyclopedia. The Superego. 2012 01 August

Changing Minds.org. Oedipus Complex. 2102 01 August

Psychology About.com. The Stages of Psychosexual Development. 2012 01 August

ET 9: What Is Fascism?

What is Fascism? Well, some dictionaries define ‘fascism’ as a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Some others just simplify it to be a country that is under oppressive, dictatorial control. Fascism was founded by Benito Mussoloni, the leader of the Italian National Syndycalists, during World War I. It opposed the ideologies of ‘conservatism’, ‘liberalism’, ‘social democracy’ and ‘communism’. (World Civilizations Volume II: Since 1500) Italy, Germany and Japan are some of the very famous Fascist countires with Germany, being the most successful of them all.

Germany turned Fascist under the totalitarian rule of Adolf Hitler. Nazi Germany, as it was now called, began to flourish in all ways under Hitler’s rule. Just like all other industries, the film (propaganda) industry began to prosper as well. It was during this period when one of the greatest propaganda films of all time was produced. ‘Triumph of The Will’ by Leni Riefenstahl, to me, showed the whole world the true meaning of Fascism. When comparing certain shots in the movie with some points in ‘The Fourteen Defining Characteristscs of Fascism’ by Dr. Lawrence Britt, we are able to understand not only the construction of Riefenstahl’s film but also in a way, the idealistic construction of Nazi Germany under Hitler.

Britt stated that ” Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs…… Flags are everywhere and flag symbols are persent on clothing….” (The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism) In this propaganda film, this is evidently seen. Thousands of men, including Hitler, are seen to be sporting uniforms with the Nazi ‘swastika’ symbol sewn on them. Once we get to the rally, flags bearing the Nazi symbol and the Nazi Germany flag are out for display EVERYWHERE! If you clearly notice, even the title of this film is in away Fascist as it is sort of a patriotic slogan. Another point to note is that Fascist nations have clear identifications of their enimies. (The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism) For the Nazis, they were the Jews and the communists. (World Civilizations Volume II: Since 1500) How is this potrayed in the film you ask? Easy!!! They are not there! You can see no person of Jewish ethnicity present at all in the film. Every single person in this movie was a true blooded Aryan. “Rampant Sexism” as quoted by Britt is all a Fascist quality that can be seen in the film. All the commanding officers and people of power were all men and the women were protrayed in a ‘damsel in distress’ kind of way. In fact the only ‘powerful’ woman associated to this film was Leni Riefenstahl herself as she was the director of this film! But out of all these points, the most important point that was perfectly picturised in this movie was “The supremacy of the military” (The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism) This can be seen at many scenes in the movie. For instance, the military review, where Hitler walked around to see all those promising soilders showed military importance and also just the fact that one of the shots in that scene showed soilders EVERYWHERE! Where ever your eyes went, you saw soilders, an ocean of soilders.

This film painted a very ‘pretty’ picture of Nazi Germany. It showed all the good in a very exaggerated way with Riefenstahl’s usage of expressionist techniques, such as the fire lit shadowy shots during the first night’s celebrations. It also gives as an alarmingly different perspective of Hitler and the Nazis, compared to the perspective ‘Night and Fog’ gave us. The one and ONLY thought that was going through my head when watching ‘Triumph of the Will’ was that all this happiness and prosperity that Hitler was giving to the millions of  Germans in this film was occuring at the cost of the millions of lives that were being brutally taken away by Hilter from the Jews, communists and non-Aryans in ‘Night and Fog’. I felt that what Hitler did was cannibalistc in a sense as he was preying on the lives of his enemies to fuel the lives of his people. It was an action of an extremist Fascist. But to Hitler, it was the duty of a true Aryan…….
References:-

Britt, Dr. Lawrence. The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. n.d. Document. 23 July 2012

Philip J. Adler, Randall L. Pouwels. World Civilizations Volume II: Since 1500. Cengage Learning, n.d. Print

ET 4: Charlie and Buster

Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton were two brilliant actors who revolutionized the art of comedy and till today, they both lie in our minds as two of the most fantastic comedians the world has ever seen. Both of them, though similar as they both performed both gesturial and physical comedy, had two vastly different styles in the way they performed it and in the way they embodied their roles to make people laugh.

Chaplin, was not just an actor. To me, I would say, he was more like a brand. With his mustache, that hat and his signature ‘clown walk’, he was a seperate genre of his own. Chaplin, who is quite an interesting looking man, has a face that makes us look. Those twinkling eyes that sort of indicate that he’s always up to something and his mischevious smile is what animates his face. His persona can be attributed to that of a clown. He always wore a coat that was too tight, a pair of pants that were very baggy and loose, clown shoes that highlighted the way he walked and the hat that pulled the whole look together. I believe that we can only thoroughly enjoy Chaplin’s comedy, which many a times overlaps with farce, when we are able to view his entire body language, i.e from head to toe. This can be explained when looking specifically at Chaplin in “The Cure”. Most of the shots are full body shots, showing Chaplin’s entire body. This is a crucial point to note as most of what Chaplin does is physical comedy. Take the shot at the revolving door as an example. The way Chaplin and the spa keepers go round and round is one of the most amusing scenes in the film and what makes it so funny is the body language! Not only Chaplin’s body language but the other actor’s reactions to him.

In “The Cure”, Chaplin deals with all the difficult situations in a very witty way. It is almost effortless the way he infuriates the big man with the broken leg and his ‘great escape’ from the clutches of the massuse is probably one of the most epic scenes of all!!! The interesting thing to notice with Chaplin is that he didn’t really have to try hard to win the heart of the girl. It was almost an instant attraction! I guess it was all about the charm…

Keaton on the other hand had a very different appleal to me. Before watching the movie “The General”, I had never really seen a Buster Keaton movie. So to me, when I saw him on screen for the first time, the persona that came through to me was that of a little boy. One particular scene that made me realize that was the scene where he was followed by two little boys into his lover’s house. This particular scene to me showed how these kids could relate to him, thus potraying him also as a kid. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton’s face doesn’t spark an instant comical reaction to the audience but he too has a face that makes us look. The most animated part of Keaton’s face has to be his eyes. Throughout the first part of the movie, watching the various expressions the glimmered in his eyes really made me laugh. And as through the second half of the movie, we can see a increase in maturity in his expressions just by focusing on his eyes. Keaton in “The General” also does physical comedy and I must say it looked absolutely effortless. Now when comparing his physical comedy to that of Chaplin, Chaplin’s one looked very dance like while Keaton looked like rubber, i.e. super flexible when he performed his stunts.

Throughout “The General”, Keaton’s character faces alot of difficult situations and he managed to deal with them so effortlessly. But unlike Chaplin’s character who used wit to deal with the situations, Keaton’s character did what came to mind. In fact the ‘blurrness’ had he had when solving most of the problems was what made it so funny to watch. One of the best examples would be towards the end of the film when he messes around with the cannon and he kills one of the opposing men with the blade of his sword. It was such an epic scene. Also, Keaton had to go through ALOT of trouble to get the girl. But then again, he did it with such flare. It was brilliant.

I preferred Buster Keaton in “The General” more to Charlie Chaplin in “The Cure” as everything Keaton did was so impressive and his ‘guy next door’ appeal was more than enough to make me laugh. He was something unique and I truly enjoyed watching his performance in “The General”. It was a experience like no other…. ^_^

ET 1: Yourself As An Audience (Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge)

“Occurence At Owl Creek Bridge”

Directed by Robert Enrico

This film was the first ever non-Indian black and white short film I had ever watched. So I was quite excited over that prospect. Before I say anything else, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the film! The story was depicted so beautifully and I was awe-struck by the way the film was taken.

          To be honest, the openning was quite slow. I was quite restless but I couldn’t show it. Especially not when I was surrounded by other students like myself!!! Once the main charatcer was introduced, the rhythm of the story built on. But I was still sitting on the chair unable to stop myself from squirmming! This time, it wasn’t because of my boredom but it was because of the absolute horror that was being projected infront of me.  Watching that noose being placed around his neck was unbearable!! I actually started sweating in vain of being unable to set that poor man free!!!

          And when he was hung… I choked up, just inches away from tears! And it was after that scene that the story started moving fast. Watching the man try to set himself free and escape from the clutches of the army was so intense. I felt myself being dragged into the story itself. My anxiety level rose to an all time high, especially when the ecsaping man got himself caught in a current. I was literally praying in my head for him to be ok!

          I thought that the most powerful part of the film was when the man began running towards his wife and his home. It was excruxiating for me to watch and wait for his reunion with his love. And eventually when he did reunite with his love, I was in for another shock. It was all a dream!!!! I lost my self-control and I flinched!!! What I saw infornt of me was horrifying!!! A hung man!!!Even now, as I write this ET, I close my eyes and I see an image of this man, hanging lifeless!!! And it absolutely enrages me!!!

           This whole experience, watching this movie was something different. For starters, I had to control my reactions as I was present in a serious setting: A class full of students. I couldn’t yell or cry and give a big sigh of relief. In fact, if I had watched this at home, I would have been cheering the man when he was making his great escape!!! But I guess that’s what makes this experience unique!!! I really enjoyed this movie but I just couldn’t come to terms with the way it ended!!! Mabye it’s because I NEVER expected it, or mabye it just that I’m a big softy!!! Either ways, the sight of that man being hung will haunt me forever……