Seminar Reflection 5/21/09

Today during seminar, we discussed topics base on the movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. I think one of the main topics we discussed was the idea of detente. Detente is a French word meaning the idea of releasing tensions between two sides. This related to our discussion because during the movie, the main character, Klaatu, came to Earth with the plan of warning the whole world of possible obsoletion if countries continued to produce and plan nuclear weapons in a way that could threaten the rest of the universe. It seemed as if the United States were definitely open to the idea of meeting the other nations in order to stop this nuclear production and make Klaatu rest easy. But, the USSR wanted the meeting to be held in Moscow. The US agreed to that idea but then Britain wanted the meeting to take place...in Britain. So this made Klaatu a bit ticked off because he had an important message that he wanted to address to the whole world but was unable to express himself until the very end of the movie because of the disagreements between the nations. He basically left the world two choices. Either cooperate with his demands and stop the nuclear production, or...die along with everybody on the planet and not have Earth anymore :( .

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Pictures

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

When is violence or the threat of violence justified? Does The Day the Earth Stood Still answer this question differently from The Thing?

I believe that fear or the threat of fear is only justified when the enemy seems to have shown that they are planning to use violence or have already demonstrated their own type of violence. There is no point of starting a war against someone who hasn't even attempted to kill anyone or show any kind of violence  towards anybody. For example, near the beginning of The Day the Earth Stood Still, after Klaatu starting walking out of his ship, he was going to present a gift for the "Earthlings" but before he could tell anyone what it was he was shot prematurely by a soldier. I think that the soldier shot Klaatu out of paranoia because there was no evidence that Klaatu was planning on hurting anybody and he had previously said that, "We come in peace; we mean you no harm." You would think that after someone saying that, can you really see them as a threat? 

In The Thing,  I believe that violence was justified only because it was clear that the monster didn't want to "become friends" with the humans. He was attacked by dogs, shot at, lit on fire, and Dr Carrington still expected him to want to communicate. Though the creature showed some interest in what Carrington was explaining to him, he just flung his arm at him anyway, signifying that he was not interested in becoming friends, whatsoever. I believe that after the way the monster acted towards the humans, the violence in this movie was definitely justified.

Seminar Reflection 5/19/09

Today, during our seminar reflection, we talked about how The Thing related to the text that was given to us by Peter. I believe the main topic that we talked about was, "Do you agree with what Dr. Carrington did at the end of the movie?" What we were talking about was how Carrington wanted to communicate with the monster instead of killing it. Unfortunately for him, he was ignored by the monster and was tossed aside by the creature. I personally would not have agreed with Carrington in this situation only because of what had transpired throughout the movie. Like the killing of the dogs, the monster had clearly the intent of causing destruction once he was attacked by the dogs. Had he not been initially attacked by the dogs or had his 'spaceship' blown up near the beginning of the movie, Carrington might have had a better chance of communicating with the monster and could have possibly made scientific progress with the creature. But after communicating with it seemed futile afterwords, the military and the remaining people realized they needed to take care of the monster in order to preserve their own lives as well as the lives of the human race. The last line of the movie says it all, "Watch the Skies!"

The Thing Pictures

The Thing!

Is your interpretation of the movie closer to something that Biskind would say or Jancovich? In other words, is The Thing more about the need to meet the alien (Soviet) Other with violence, or is it more about social tensions or contradictions in American society?

Well I would have to agree with Biskind because when the alien has made contact with the humans, and the alien has attempted to attack the humans, you know that they aren't looking for friends. For example, when the scientist ran over to 'The Thing' to try to reason with it and act as if it were its friend, the monster just flung his hand  and knocked the scientist down without any regret or emotion for him. This shows what kind of creatures that aliens are, and in the near-end of the movie the people have to kill the monster because of the threat it poses upon them and the human race. At the end of movie,  the reporter warns people to look at the skies because we are not alone, which raises the paranoia and possible fear for the citizens. I say this because they don't know what to expect from whatever is 'up there'.

Invasion of Body Snatchers; Red Scare and McCarthyism