john pearson movie review

8/12/2019 John Pearson Movie Review

1/14

Running head: MOVIE REVIEW 1

Movie Review: 21 (2008)

John Pearson

Loyola University Chicago

School of Education


2/14

MOVIE REVIEW 2

Student development theory provides the guide lines to make sense of what students do

and how students grow while in college and beyond. Theory can be difficult to apply to a

hypothetical situation but, through the examination of the college student characters in the movie

21 (Luketic, 2008), I explain Perrys (1968) Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development

along with Kohlbergs(1976) Theory on Moral Development in order to make sense of the

characters actions. My explanation will be grounded in theory. The essay begins with a

synopsis and overview of 21 (Luketic, 2008), then moves to an explanation of Perrys (1968) and

Kohlbergs (1976) theories. Later I look more closely at the main characters, and then I connect

each character to specific stages or positions within both theories. Next, I look at how to work

with these students; last, I summarize the entire movie and discuss whether it is a solid

illustration of college student development.

Synopsis of 21 (2008)

21 (Luketic, 2008) began with the story with Ben, the main character, a gifted student at

MIT, in the office of an admissions counselor at Harvard Medical School. The counselor told

Ben in order to get the scholarship to pay for school, his resume needs to dazzle. Ben, the

counselor says, did not have a resume that jumps off the page because he has no life experiences

that make him unique. From that point on, the viewer rode along with Ben as he began the

process of going through a life experience.

Ben had neither the money nor the resources to pay the $300,000 tuition needed for

Harvard Medical School. After Ben demonstrated his intelligence in class, he is approached by

his math teacher, Professor Micky Rosa, who asked Ben to be part of a card counting gambling

scheme (Puig, 2008). After initially resisting, Ben accepted the offer, due in no small part to the

persuasion of his love interest Jill. After multiple trips to Las Vegas where he and his team won


3/14

MOVIE REVIEW 3

big, the law began to close in on Ben. Back at MIT, Ben dealt with the difficulty of balancing

the life that he had in Las Vegas with the science project that he and his friend, Miles, had been

working on for over a year, the 2.09 competition on technology and innovation.

As the movie progressed, conflict arose between Ben and Professor Rosa when Ben does

not follow the rules and loses big. Once Professor Rosa left, the team hatched a new plan and

decided to continue without their former leader. Through a serious of plot turns, that are at times

predictable, 21 (Luketic, 2008) told the story of a main character who dealt with new social

pressures along with the academic pressures that come with being a 4.0 student at MIT who is

attempting to go to medical school. During 21 (Luketic, 2008) each of the main college student

characters demonstrated key components of both Perrys (1968) theory and Kohlbergs (1976)

theory.

Perrys Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development (1968)

Perry (1968) began his research to examine how students interpreted and made meaning

of teaching and learning processes (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). Perrys

(1968) Intellectual and Ethical Development Theory is important to student affairs professionals

because as students thinking changed, so did their self-concept, their roles, their ways of

interpreting the world around them (Knefelkamp, 2003, p.12). Perrys (1968) theory was

composed of four levels or positions of development that encapsulate the entire scheme.

The first of the four positions is dualism. Dualistic thinking occurs when the student

views the world from a dichotomous lens of right-wrong or black-white. Knowledge is seen as

quantitative. Authorities are seen to always possess the correct answers (Evans et al., 2010).

The second position of the theory is multiplicity. Perry (as cited in Evans et al., 2010)

defined this stage as honoring diverse views when the right answers are not yet known (p. 86).


4/14

MOVIE REVIEW 4

Deeper thought is only achieved because the authority dictates this movement, not because the

student has decided to take the next step. As the student moves within the multiplicity stage, the

conception of the student role shifts from that of one who works hard to learn to one who learns

to think more independently (Evans et al., 2010). As independence increases, peers become a

more legitimate source of knowledge, as the importance of the authority is lessened.

As the student moves toward relativism, they begin to recognize that there are multiple

authorities and that the old structures and ideas that were once held on to so strongly, are now

breaking down (Evans, et al., 2010). Knowledge has become more qualitative. Most

importantly, in this position, authority loses its status as not being open to challenge, and the

student becomes more motivated to openly question the authority (Perrys Intellectual Scheme,

1999, p. 12).

Following relativism is commitment. For a student in the commitment position of

Perrys (1968) theory, commitments are now needed in order to gain bearings in a relativistic

world (Evans et al., 2010). As Evans et al. (2010) wrote, the commitment process involves

choices, decisions, and affirmations that are made from the vantage point of relativism (p. 87).

Decisions are made to find identity, rather than being dictated by what the authority says is

correct. Similar to Perry, Kohlberg focused on how students make meaning, but Kohlberg

looked at moral judgments specifically.

Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development (1976)

Moral development represents the transformations that occur in a persons form or

structure of thought and extends beyond just expanding cultural values (Kohlberg & Hersh,

1977, p. 54). The theory is made up of a six-stage sequence grouped into three levels. The first

level of Kohlbergs theory is the pre-conventional stage. In this stage, perspective is individually


5/14

MOVIE REVIEW 5

focused and the student has yet to understand the rules and expectations of society (Evans et al.,

2010). In the second level of the theory, also known as the conventional level, the rules and the

expectations of authority figures (family, friends, nation, etc) takeprecedence, no matter the

consequences (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). In level three or post-conventional individuals

separate themselves from the rules and expectations of others and base their decisions on self-

chosen principles (Evans et al., 2010, p. 103).

Level 1: Pre-conventional

Within the pre-conventional level lie two separate stages. In the first stage,

Heteronomous Morality, right is defined by obeying the rules and avoiding punishment or harm

to others (Evans et al., 2010). There is a belief that as long as you are not caught, you will have a

free conscious. The second stage in the pre-conventional level is Individualistic Instrumental

Morality. This stage occurs when the student only follows the rules to gain self-interest. What is

right is defined by what is only fair for everyone (Evans et al., 2010). Within this stage, the

student has a pragmatic, practical thought that minimizes negative consequences to self (Evans et

al., 2010).

Level 2: Conventional

In level two, at the first stage, Interpersonally Normative Morality, expectations of those

closest to the student take precedence. An individual in this stage is concerned with the approval

and agreement from others instead of concern for self. Following Interpersonally Normative

Morality is Social System Morality. Social System Morality occurs when the student feels that

rules apply equally to everyone (Evans et al., 2010). Society defines what is right. Individuals

within the system care for the maintenance of and the obligations within the system (Evans et al.,

2010).


6/14

MOVIE REVIEW 6

Level 3: Post-Conventional

The final level of Kohlbergs (1976) theory includes the Human Rights and Social

Welfare Morality. In this stage, there is concentration on the protection of the rights and welfare

of all (Evans et al., 2010). Agreements with others are vital to maintain the current system of

morality. In the final stage of the post-conventional level, Morality of Universalizable,

Reversible, and Prescriptive General Ethical Principles includes a step that incorporates points of

view from everyone involved. A single guiding principle guides everyone (Evans et al., 2010).

Each character in 21 (Luketic, 2008) went through stages of both Perrys (1968) and Kohlbergs

(1976) theories but before discussing those stages, more detail on the specific characters is

needed.

Character in 21 (2008): Ben

As a 4.0 student, Ben dreamed of going to the Harvard Medical School. The only thing

missing was the money to pay for the astronomical $300,000 tuition. Ben was a low income,

white, heterosexual male who grew up in a single family home. The viewer does not get much

insight into his familial situation except that Ben had lost his dad when Ben was very young and

was influenced greatly by being raised by his mother. There are many times throughout the

movie that Ben failed to realize the privileges he held. Prominently, he is being educated at one

of the most prestigious colleges in the USMIT, and while medical school may be a difficult

next step, a degree from MIT is a significant accomplishment, let alone a college degree. Other

than his low socioeconomic status, Ben possessed all of the dominant attributes of society: he

was white, heterosexual, and male. Ben commonly forgot the privileges that he holds and

instead focused on what he did not have, motivating him to join the illegal card counting team at

MIT. Aside from those details, the movie does not shed much detail into Bens religion,


7/14

MOVIE REVIEW 7

ethnicity, or even year in college. He was an extremely intelligent student with high aspirations

who had no money to pay for his lofty goals.

Character in 21 (2008): Jill

Bens love interest in 21 (Luketic, 2008), Jill was a white, heterosexual female who was

either raised on her own or by her single mother. Very little detail into Jills background(year in

school, religion, ethnicity, etc)is given but, the movie told the viewer that her father has been

gone for a long time. Because Jill was involved with the card counting team, it can be inferred

that she too was from a lower socioeconomic status, simply trying to pay for school. Jill was a

beautiful girl who knows how to manipulate other people with her looks. She could also be

influenced by strong authorities, just as she was by the primary authority in 21 (Luketic, 2008),

Professor Micky Rosa. She too was a high achieving student who was drawn to and motivated

by success. While Jill was part of the life Ben lived in Las Vegas, part of his life at home was

his best friend Miles.

Character in 21 (2008): Miles

Miles, Bens best friend, was a white heterosexual male who was very smart and high

achieving. Miles was not as smart as Ben pushing Miles to be extremely difficult on himself,

even though he had many privileged attributes. No to mention he was about to get a degree from

a very prestigious university. Miles experienced tremendous success but does not realize it

because he constantly compared himself to Ben. Other than the fact that the movie painted Miles

and his friends as the outsiders, the viewer did not learn much more about his background.

Ben, Jill, and Miles were white and heterosexual students who had many privileges that

they did not recognize because they were part of the dominant group. Their privilege went easily

unnoticed. Even with the privileges that each possessed, each character still experienced the


8/14

MOVIE REVIEW 8

levels and positions described earlier from both Perrys (1968) Scheme on Intellectual and

Ethical Development along and Kohlbergs (1976) Theory on Moral Development.

Ben: Kohlberg (1976)

From the very beginning of the movie, Ben was within the Heteronomous Morality stage.

As 21 (Luketic, 2008) opened, at the 1:35 mark, Ben stated what I was doing wasnt illegal.

From the very start, Ben obeyed the rules in order to avoid punishment or harm to others. Ben

had an unquestioning deference to powerthat guided him and told him that what he was doing

was not illegal, and as long as he does not get caught, his conscious would be free (Kohlberg &

Hersh, 1977, p. 54). At the 43:55 mark of 21 (Luketic, 2008), the group demonstrated further the

Heteronomous Morality of Kohlbergs (1976) Theory of Moral Development when they repeated

the phrase dont get caught counting. This statement reiterated, that as long as you are not

caught, you are doing nothing wrong (Evans et al., 2010). Ben and his group members knew that

what is right was defined by obeying the rules that Micky Rosa had set. And when they

followed these rules, no one would get hurt.

Ben demonstrated the Individualistic, Instrumental Morality when, at the 22:20 mark of

the movie he told the group that he just could not join. Ben followed the rules for his own self-

interest (Evans et al., 2010). He already had a job that paid and a science fair project that he

must work on. And for him, at that moment, he promoted agreement with his friends and

decided the project was more important than joining the team to go to Las Vegas. Ben further

shows that he is in the Individualistic, Instrumental Morality stage of Kohlbergs (1976) theory

when he qualified the illegal activity as an ends to a means at the 28:50 minutemark. He took

a practical approach, with pragmatic thought that would minimize the negative consequences


9/14

MOVIE REVIEW 9

toward self (Evans et al., 2010). In Bens head, the most practical, although illegal way, to solve

the problem was to join the team and go to Las Vegas.

Ben: Perry (1976)

At two points during 21 (Luketic, 2008) Ben experienced the first position in Perrys

(1968) Intellectual and Ethical Development Theory. Ben demonstrated his dualistic thinking

when the college counselor asked Ben well, have you considered cutting off a leg? in order to

get into our school? (7:15). At the 36:40 mark, Ben is told by theprofessor that they count

cards, we do not gamble, we follow a set list of rules. You will not get emotional. In both of

these instances, the authority is dictating what is right and what is wrong. The counselor

jokingly told Ben that to get in, he must cut off his leg and Ben considered it. Professor Rosa

dictated to Ben that this is what they do, and this is how to avoid conflict, two prominent aspects

of dualistic thought (Evans et al., 2010).

Ben moved further into the multiplicity position at the 7:35 mark when he was told by the

admissions counselor that his resume needed to dazzle. Ben wanted his resume to dazzle only

because of what the authority says. The authority wanted Ben to push himself, so he must. Ben

moved on, a more developed stage of multiplicity, when at the 1:26:20 minute mark, he realized

that Mickey did not have all the answers and he begins to break free from the authority. As Ben

broke free, the influence of his peers took over just as Perry (1968) described in the Multiplicity

position (Evans et al., 2010). One of Bens biggest peer influences throughout 21 (Luketic,

2008) was Jill and she had her own unique experience.

Jill: Kohlberg (1976)

When Jill came into the store where Ben worked, at the 24:28 minute mark, Jill reiterated

to Ben that she was actually not here for a tie. When she discussed her relationship with her


10/14

MOVIE REVIEW 10

father and blackjack, in Bens eyes she was looking for a connection. But in reality, Jill only

looked for Ben to join the team for self-interest. Just as the Individualistic, Instrumental

Morality discussed, Jill was only following the rules to get Ben to join the team. She was not

there because she was interested in Ben; she was there for the pragmatic, practical thought of

getting Ben to join the team headed to Las Vegas (Evans et al., 2010). She promoted agreement

between all parties involved (Evans et al., 2010).

Jill further demonstrated her ties to Kohlbergs Social System Morality at the 49:15 mark

when she told Ben thats what theyall say in regards to leaving the team when a certain money

threshold is met. While Jill does not believe Ben, she still cares for the obligation of the system

by letting him know that she believed him. She wanted and needed to maintain the current

system. The best and easiest way to do this was through agreement (Evans et al., 2010).

Jill: Perry (1968)

As the movie ends and Ben began to break free from Professor Rosa, Jill told Ben when

he suggested that they move on, Jill stated no, no I think we should go back to Boston and

figure this out at the 1:27:40 mark. By saying that she thinks they should leave, Jill showed

how strongly tied she was to authority. As the scene progressed, Jill, because she was in the

multiplicity stage, realized that the authorities did not always have the right and answer. It was at

that point that she commits to moving on without the professor. Jill moved to relying solely on

her peers for support (Evans et al., 2010). Being that Jill is one of the main characters, her story

is one of the best examples of multiplicity. Jill and Ben are not the only characters experiencing

changes; Miles, Bens best friend also progressed through Kohlbergs (1971) and Perrys (1968)

theories.


11/14

MOVIE REVIEW 11

Miles: Kohlberg (1971)

Miles, just like Ben and Jill before him, spent the most time in the Individualistic,

Instrumental Morality stage of Kohlbergs (1971) theory. When Miles stated at 11:40 we dont

date, we dont travel, we dont have anymoney, the only thing that we do have is the 2. 09 he

took a pragmatic, practical outlook at their lives. In order to minimize the negative

consequences toward self, they stuck to what they knew the - 2.09 competition (Evans et al.,

2010).

Miles also experienced the Social System Morality stage when he kicked Ben off of the

2. 09 team at 1:20:40. Ben and Miles had been working on their project for over a year. Ben

was kicked off because he no longer had the same passion. Miles demonstrated that the rules

apply to everyone, that when you do not do your job, even if you are the smartest kid, the rules

will applied to all (Evans et al., 2010). Miles maintained and cared for the things within the

system and for the good of the entire project, he kicked Ben off.

Miles: Perry (1968)

At 1:41:10 in 21 (Luketic, 2008), Miles and Ben discussed their relationship and the

trouble that it has experienced recently. It was at this point that Ben apologized for the way he

treated Miles. After the apology, Miles jokingly repeated back to Ben: money, girls, high-roller

sweets, Vegas yea I think I probably would have blown off the 2.09 competition too. By

forgiving Ben and seeing past the 2.09, Miles realized that old structures and ideas have been

broken down. He examined and reflected on what was going on and realized that their

relationship is more important that any competition or night in Las Vegas. It is at this point that

Miles is fully ingrained in the Relativism position in Perrys (1968) Scheme. He becomes

detached from the 2.09 and he and Ben come to a legitimate agreement on the importance of


12/14

MOVIE REVIEW 12

their relationship, two key aspects of Perrys (1968) multiplicity (Evans et al., 2010). With

thorough discussion of how each character experienced the positions of Perrys and Kohlbergs

theories, the challenge now is how to apply each theory to a specific field of student

development.

Working with Ben, Jill, and Miles in Academic Advising

In my journey through student affairs, I hope to work as an academic advisor with first

and second year students. Ben, Jill, and Miles are perfect examples of the thinking for many first

year students. They are tied directly what the authority says and are only looking for the right

answer, an answer built on obeying the rules and avoiding punishment. As an academic advisor

using Kohlbergs (1971)Theory, I would expose the student who is the first stage to a person

who is at the higher stage of thinking. For example, I would meet with my first year student and

invite one of my past students who have progressed through school to ease the fears of the first

year student. Evans et al. (2010) suggested that the best way to have a person progress through

the Moral Stages is to be exposed to higher stage thinking. And by exposing the student to a

more progressed way of thinking, they will continue in their development.

For Perry (1968) a student in the early stages needs the challenge and support to progress

through (Evans et al., 2010). For Ben and Miles especially and to some degree Jill, I would be

sure to challenge their thought process that they have nothing. They are members of an

extremely privileged group and until they are exposed to their privileges and power in society,

they will continue to go unnoticed. As I continue to challenge and support, hopefully Ben and

Miles will spread the word to their friends and let them know that while there are challenges,

they are lucky to have had an extremely prestigious education, that many were not lucky enough

to experience.


13/14

MOVIE REVIEW 13

Summary

Although not to the same degree, the story in 21 (Luketic, 2008) is one that is common to

many college experiencesa good friend joins a new group, gets over extended and realizes that

he has let down his old friends. Each of the main characters made meaning out of their particular

situation. Ben and Jill justified an illegal activity by saying they will never get caught while

promoting the financial benefit. Bens friend Miles, who was most progressed, saw that Ben just

needed to do what he needed to do and was able to make another strong commitment to Ben.

Even though they may have been participating in illegal activities, the characters still held up the

societal virtues of loyalty and hard work. Each trusted that the rules would be applied to

everyone equally, and in the end, 21 (Luketic, 2008) demonstrated that at some point, society

will catch up.

21 (2008) was a demonstration the power and influence that an authority can play in the

lives of students. Ben saw the college counselor, Professor Rosa, and Harvard Medical School

as THE authority and worked to do whatever each told him. 21 (Luketic, 2008) taught me that as

new professional I must be cognizant the power and influence that could have in the lives of my

students and how it could be abused. For these reason alone 21 (Luketic, 2008) is a good

illustration of student development.


14/14

MOVIE REVIEW 14

References

Evans, N., J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice(2ndEdition). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Knefelkamp, L. (2003). The influence of a classic.Liberal Education, 89(3), 10-15.

Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral Development: A review of the theory. Theory Into

Practice, 16(2), 53-59.

Love & Guthrie (1999). Perrys intellectual scheme.New Directions for Student

Services, (88). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Luketic, R. (Director). (2008). 21 [Motion picture]. United States: MGM Studios.

Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W.

Chickering, & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college(pp. 76-116). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Puig, C. (2008, March 30). This hand comes up one big, predictable bust for 21. USA Today.

john pearson movie review

Documents