struggles and triumphs

Struggles and Triumphs: How Eventually

Everyone’s Goose Gets Cooked

Justin Jasiulevicius

Karen Redding

English 1102

29 April 2012

English 1102

Struggles and Triumphs: How Eventually

Everyone’s Goose Gets Cooked

Table of Contents

Analytical Cover Letter………………………………………

Quality Comparison………………………………………….

Least Successful Paper………………………………….

Most Successful paper………………………………….

“What’s the Difference?”………………………………

Revision Samples…………………………………………….

Least Successful Paper (with mark up)………………..

Least Successful Paper (new final)…………………….

Most Successful Paper (with mark up)…………………

Most Successful paper (new final)……………………..

Free Choice Essay (with mark up)……………………..

Free Choice Essay (new final) ………………………….

April 28, 2012

Karen Redding, M.A.

Assistant Professor, English/Reading

Interim Writing Tutor, Fall 2011

Gainesville State College, Oconee

Office 547, Library

1201 Bishop Farms Parkway

Watkinsville, GA 30677

Dear Mrs. Redding

My name is Justin Jasiulevicius, I am a sophomore at Gainesville State College. This semester

has been filled with many struggles and triumphs, so much so I have decided to name my

portfolio after them. Much development as a writer has manifested itself through these struggles

over the semester. The fist aspect that comes to mind is the struggle I have faced with grammar

and the passive voice. Beginning the semester I found myself in a deep rut of grammatical errors

and passive tense. Throughout the whole semester I have lost many of my points due to picky

rules and careless misspelling of words. As I review my past work I can see that this is still a

problem but has improved over the semester. In my least successful essay, Dim Lights and Dark

Chigurh, the Anton’s Chigurh’s name is misspelled multiple times, even in the heading.

Problems like these are disastrous to any writer. The progresses I have made in identifying them

this semester have been tremendous. My over use of “to be” verbs was an issue that I had never

looked at before. Looking back at my previous writing in Calvin and Hobbes I see instances

where my paper is littered with “is” and “was”. In an excerpt, “The irony of course is that this is

the exact opposite of what most people think as far as individuality goes.” (Jasiulevicius, Calvin

and Hobbes)

Coming into this semester I had a sense of confidence concerning this class. My previous

experiences with writing left me with the impression that I had nothing to improve upon. After

revisiting my past essays I can definitely see this is not the case. In some instances I can see

where I have composed strong headings. In the paper A New Age of Metal Monsters I can see a

very strong heading that starts with a good hook, provides general information concerning the

subject to strengthen my credibility, and finishes by leading into my thesis. In my paper Dim

Lights and Dark Chigurh this is not the case. The introduction opens with a borderline cliché that

is followed with a rhetorical question. The introduction, though based around a good thesis,

relies on humor and cheap parlor tricks to make up for the fact that there is no real value to the

information in the introduction. My thesis development this semester has been phenomenal. This

class has really helped me produce great theses. My theses have become short, solid and very

defendable. These like “The Coen Brothers use contrast light in order to indicate character

intentions and provide greater distinction between character locations within the scene.”

(Jasiulevicius, Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh) I feel through developing these strong theses my

writing has become more cohesive and my papers overall flow better. My conclusions have been

a little lackluster. My growth on conclusion writing has remained a bit stunted. Evidence can be

seen in my paper Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh. My conclusion barely was four sentences and

ended on a doctored Starwars quote.

The crowning achievement of this semester is my progress in MLA style writing and formatting.

Prior to this class my knowledge and skills where almost none existent. This can been see in my

paper entitled Calvin and Hobbes. There are multiple quotations "My identity is so wrapped up it

what I buy that I paid the company to advertise its products" (Jasiulevicius, Calvin and Hobbes)

but no citation. Throughout this semester, my works cited page has been almost flawless. This

class has provided excellent instruction on proper citation, skills I barely possessed prior to. In

paragraph citation still haunts me as a writer though. In A New Age of Metal Monsters, I refer to

Teleotte’s ideas upon human genocide and blissfulness yet do not in paper cite him. Errors like

these are not to be taken lightly and the proper corrections will help me in the future.

Overall there have been many struggles and triumphs for me this semester. My achievements and

progress in MLA style citation, thesis development and grammar rules have been tremendous

triumphs. Still, topics like grammar rules and conclusions are focuses for the future. I thank you

Mrs. Redding for a great semester and a wonderful class. I wish you all the best of luck in the

future.

Sincerely,


Julie Bohannon/Justin Jasiulevicius

English 1102/ Redding

Literature Film Paper

February 27, 2012

Dim Lights and Dark Chiguar

Drugs, money and the fast lane are the essentials for the live fast and die young lifestyle. With a

rise in crime across the nation has America actually become no country for old men to dwell? Whether

the Coen brothers meant to answer this question or not they certainly explored the idea in their

explosively dark movie No Country for Old Men. A lot can be said about the storyline and characters

involved in this modern day western, but one aspect far surpasses all of the components that make this

tale complete. In No Country for Old Men, the Cohen Brothers use contrast lighting in order to indicate

character intentions and provide greater distinction between character locations within the scene.

The most widely manipulated movie tactic used throughout the film is the strategic use of

contrast lighting. In one of the first scenes that we meet Lwellyn, there is an extremely, almost unnatural

contrast between the shadow of the clouds on the prairie, and the other sunlit spots. This drastic contrast

between light and dark is a prevalent theme throughout the whole movie. The use of hard lighting in this

specific shot helps amplify the contrasting amongst the landscape. Directly following this scene Lwellyn

finds a dead man underneath a forlorn tree. The shadow of the tree is perceived as way darker than in real

life. The spots where we are led to believe the sun is shining is visually overly bright compared to the

shadowing. Again this use of hard lighting amplifies the contrasting in the current area. This use of hard

lighting is chosen to create greater definition between locations within the scenes. To be specific, once

Lwellyn is underneath the tree, the contrast in lighting is so great that one naturally blocks out any back

ground light and retains focus upon everything within the shading. Despite the fact that all of the

interaction and events are taking place within the hard lighting shadows, this shadowing on the prairie

scene creates more variation within the scenery.

Moreover, in a broader perspective, the whole movie is shot in a part of the world where the

landscapes are wide and flat with little variation. The open range is figuratively the closest arid ecosystem

to a desert. A movie such as No Country for Old Men is a slow paced movie spotted with bits of action. A

real plot is not truly defined until forty five minutes into the film once the audience discovers that Anton

Chiguar has a device that can locate the coveted suitcase of money. In addition, Lwellyn has such as

extensive drawn out character and plot development. The contrasting in lighting and use of hard lighting

allows for variation that keeps the movie interesting and makes for scenes, such as Lwellyn hunting, more

visually pleasing and faster paced.

The lighting throughout the whole movie contributes a lot to the overall mood of the film. From a

broad overlook to a more in depth look, the lighting acts as a catalyst to the suspense as well as the more

aloof scenes. In scenes such as the one where the sheriff is eating his breakfast and reading the paper,

there is almost a complete absence of any shading or darkness whatsoever. This is one of the brief, sparse

scenes where comedy enters the story. Despite the grim undertone of the comedy, the bright lighting

contributes and amplifies the mood. This is also one of the few times where back lighting is used to

brighten a character. Though very minor, there is some use of back lighting to brighten the overall mood

of the scene by illuminating the waitress from behind. As stated before this is very minor but it is crucial

to allowing a comedic scene such as this one to flow with such a forlorn movie

On the other hand, the scene where Lwellyn is running from the men in the truck uses the bright

lighting in a different way. Most of the scene is at night shrouded in darkness, though when the men

inside the truck begin chasing Lwellyn, the mood immediately spikes to a suspenseful, jagged ruckus

resembling that of a monster chase scene. This is one of the immediate images the viewer is exposed to, a

cascade of truck lights barreling towards Lwellyn. To the viewer it is quite obvious that this is a truck, but

at first glance it takes on a monstrous persona reminiscent of the lighting effects previously used in the

1962 James Bond film Dr. No. In that film the locals refer to “a dragon that hunted the swamps at night”.

In reality it was an armored tank with headlights similar to the truck in No Country for Old Men. Aside

from this barrage of truck headlights, there is also a small break of dawn directly behind the truck, further

amplifying its entrance.

Another point of interest to note concerning the lighting of the truck chase scene is that the truck

lights become the key lighting during the chase. The main source of light prior to the entrance of the truck

is the pale moon light draping the landscape. To heighten the mood of the scene,as soon as the truck

enters the picture the key light switches from the moon light to the truck’s headlights. Not only does it

switch from a fixated mellow source to a artificial jagged source, but it is also in constant motion leaving

the key lighting in this scene to become very erratic. As the audience watches Lwellyn run from the truck

not only are the left in anticipation for his outcome, but they are exposed to a roller coaster of sporadic

key lighting further amplifying the confusion of the whole scene. The key lighting is not only

manipulated with regards to the landscape, but contributes a lot to the overall persona of the main

antagonist in the film, Anton Chiguar.

Anton Chiguar is a very curious character throughout the whole film in regards to the way he is

illuminated. One of the only times we whiteness him fully lit is either when he is out in broad daylight or

while he is injured. Even when the audience first sees Anton sanz any shadowing, he emerges from a

stolen police car, the contents within, including the driver, are almost pitch black. This darkly perceived

character who is a native to darkness in this film is surrounded by ominous lighting in almost every scene.

The other scene he is seen fully lit in is right after his car accident. This occurs only briefly as he slowly

emerges from the car. Not all of his face is visible and the camera makes a quick sweep to his back which

is shrouded in shadow due to the angle of the sun. Once Anton’s face is visible once more as he sits on

the curb, he is positioned underneath the shade of a tree, still retaining his dark presence.

The effect of key lighting manipulation mixed with strategic hard lighting shadow placement

concerning Chiguar can be seen again in the instance where Chiguar confronts Carla Jean within her

bedroom. In this clip the absence of back lighting around Chiguar can account for the abyss-like void that

encompassed the corner where he is seated. The key lighting that reveals him is only from his shoulders

down. The scene does not show him killing Carla Jean. In turn, there is an implied gap of storyline that

jumps to him standing outside looking at the bottom of his boots. The audience is led to believe that he is

making sure he does not have blood on his boots or leave tracks. The darkness used prior to this exit

implies the impending death in Carla Jean’s future. In other scenes Chiguar is shown killing his victims

but this scene just proves that darkness is a factor to death.

To build upon this scene the implication of death is indeed always signaled by shadow and or

darkness of some kind. To as a minor extent as the shadowing of a character when he is introduced in a

scene, there is a correlation scene throughout the film. A minor example of this can be seen in a clip

where Anton Chiguar kills the innocent driver on the side of the road. He is driving a stolen police car and

pulls behind the innocent driver to pull him over. Until Chiguar steps out of the car both he and the driver

are in almost pitch black from the spectator’s view point. Not only is there implication that Chiguar might

yet again kill another, but possibly that grim if not deadly outcomes are in the near future for the driver of

the car.

Another example of this implication of death can be indirectly seen when Chiguar has his tense

conversation with the Texaco store clerk. Most of the scene both Chiguar and the clerk are halfway

shrouded in shadow implying that this is indeed a tense situation that can go either way. Concerning the

lighting, an interesting part of the this particular scene is once the coin has been flipped and the store

clerks life safe for the time being, Chigaur halfway side steps to his right but still maintains eye contact

and speech with the clerk. This maneuver causes the light to cover his whole face. It is interesting this

correlates to the previous theory stated; because in turn once Chiguar’s face is completely illuminated the

audience has assurance that Chiguar will not kill for the time being.

Lighting is not the only factor but the most important in this film. When concentrating on lighting

in films, it makes one think about the implications and character intentions portrayed throughout the

whole movie. The manipulation of lighting in film is the life force that surrounds, binds and penetrates the

characters in a way that reveals more than words and camera angles could ever convey.

Work Cited

Dr. No. Dir. Terence Young. Perf. Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, and Bernard Lee. Eon. 1962. Film.

No Country for Old Men. Dir. Ethan Coen and Joel Coen. Perf. Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, and

Josh Brolin. Paramount, 2007. Film.


Engl 1102 / Redding

Paper 1

31 January 2012

“A New Age of Metal Monsters “

Painting a picture of a desolate landscape, spotted with slightly burnt barren trees, with the

stereotypical background noise of a lone wolf howling at the moon overhead to most seems like a perfect

setting for the classic all American horror film. These iconic settings of castles and eerie lands have

become embedded in our culture over the past eighty years. Whether subliminal anti communistic

propaganda or the fascination with fear itself, something drove the people of the twentieth century to

explore their darker sides. Films such as the 1931 James Whale film Frankenstein, is the perfect example

of the beginning of the new revived human monster fascination. For a solid forty years after Frankenstein,

humans dove further and further into stories resembling those of our forefathers. Giant monsters such as

Godzilla and King Kong echoed memories of Leviathan and the Behemoth. Yet somewhere along that

line a shift in focus occurred.

For once humans began looking into their future, and began seeing the possible horrors that might

become of their actions. Films such as Blade Runner and books like “Dracula’s Children” looked from

the present onward and not only saw monsters in more modern settings, but pushed the envelope of

human technology and fore casted a reign of sorrow and terror because of our actions. The face of

monsters to come and their new stopping grounds are those of our own backyards. Moreover, horror

stories of the early forties placed their villains far away in evil demented places such as undiscovered far

away mountain villages and Eastern Europe. To theorize, the reintroduction of monsters to the modern era

involves somewhat of an evolution. One might say that this is humankind’s second fascination overall as

a society with monsters. Through industrialization, the leading countries of the past century have

socialized their “empires” in ways that resemble ancient Rome for the first time since then. Now regional

tales were able to reach the ears of most the world in a fraction of the time it previously had taken.

Because of this socialization, these tales traveled fast and caught the imaginations of all classes which in

turn began the mankind’s second fascination with monsters.

Through human history there are two distinct periods of time where the culture of monster stories

has flourished, the periods being the classic Roman / Greek empires and from the end of WWI to the

present day. The periods between medieval Europe and World War I seem to have less of an emphasis

upon monster folklore. Compared to tales from that of Aristotle and Pliny the Elder, the only resurgence

of monster enthusiasts in mass has been within the past century. There have been many similarities

between the two eras. Most of the origins of both eras’ creatures stem from folklore, regional tradition,

religious views, and ancient mythology. With the evolution of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), some

of the first movies to hit the big screen with the new technology were Greek and roman mythology

stories. Movies such as “Jason and the Argonauts” and “Clash of the Titans” were instant classics, that

centered around the “old tradition” of monsters. However, as stated before, modern monster fascination

has evolved in a much different way than that of ancient civilization.

Humans have begun weaving horror stories of the future dangers of our scientific advances. In an

article entitled “Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film”, author J.P. Telotte further elaborates on

this idea of human creations creating our own destruction. A common topic of futuristic demise is our

coming invention of robotic helpers that develop artificial intelligence and turn against us. This story has

already been told in so many ways and variations. The popular television series Battlestar Galactica is

about the last few survivors of the human race seeking sanctuary from their evil robotic “cylon” creations

that which to exterminate them in vengeance for the years of slavery they were subjected to. The 1996

film The Matrix tells of an apocalyptic war between humans and their machine creations. The machine

creations eventually subdue the human race into a dream world in order to use their bodies as batteries.

Films such as these are the result of human imaginative evolution. No longer are man’s monster stories

only that of mythical beings and the demonic actions they wrath upon us, but in turn they are of how our

scientific creations, our scientific children exact revenge upon us, of how they become our real life

monsters. This is where fantasy trails along the border of possibility. This is also where bedazzling shock

fear trails along the border of apocalyptic horrific possibility. Is this the result of humans searching

elsewhere for fearful ideas or humans realizing the worst case scenario dangers of our scientific ventures?

Through competitive markets, naturally throughout the monster movie evolution there has been a

push to further the fear factor in each movie. How might one accomplish a more terrifying experience for

the viewer? The horror tales of the future play upon one’s imagination which is where the scariest

monsters lie. In Telotte’s article, the main focus was more than just futuristic apocalyptic films. Telotte

questioned the subliminal motives for focusing on such films and sought clarity on a related but separate

topic, the topic of human doubling. This subject of human doubling is another fear of the future. Genocide

is horrendous in itself, but what of living in a blissful life sanz any emotions or worrying? At first one

might become a little disturbed at the idea, but Telotte sought for more and found that others disagree. In

the 1956 science fiction film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, extraterrestrial pods landed on Earth and

began identically cloning individual humans. Once the process was complete, the human under control of

the pod, part of an interconnected species, void of all emotion, thought, or free will. The controlled human

remained in a state of bliss such as that of a mindless insect. As stated before, this appears to be a very

horrific way to live for a human; however, director Don Siegel disagreed. In reference to Invasion of the

Body Snatchers it is stated,

“He really believes that being a pod is preferable to being a frail, frightening human who cares.

He has a strong case for being a pod. How marvelous it would be if you were a cow and all you had to do

is munch a little grass and not worry about life, death and pain. There’s a strong case for being a pod.”

Through this controversial idea or case in favor of states of being such as the pod, we see copious

amounts of iterations with this message embedded in the main storyline. An example being The Stepford

Wives, a whole town centered on replacing common house wives with robotics android replacements.

These androids are practically perfect in every way yet in calls into question, would one really want to

live in such a reality polar opposite to our own? The television show Battlestar Galactica directly

questions whether it is indeed better to be a robot void of emotion or a flawed human being. The Cylons

(cyborgs) in Battlestar Galactica are exact human replicas. The characters in the show directly question if

these Cylons can indeed feel real emotions including love, and sorrow. What is even more interesting is

that some of the human characters end up being Cylons but not even realizing it. They question if

everything they thought they felt was real or just software. This idea of being stripped of all feelings and

freewill is the new monstrous entity that has become the future of monster stories.

A curious concept to consider, is the idea of humankind loosing it’s fear of monsters and

exploring other understandings. To elaborate, naturally there are things that scare everyone, but in the

broader spectrum, overall, has our society begun to conquer its fear of monsters? Moreover, have we

begun to examine monsters as more of an imaginary reminder of the capabilities and forces of nature as

opposed to a horrific symbol of terror and violence? This idea challenges the question of whether

humankind’s look into the future is a result of competitive markets, a fear of our own capabilities or

something more. One aspect still holds true, violence has not left horror movies by any means. It seems to

be the only card up writers’ and directors’ sleeves. Modern horror movies are becoming less of a terror

picture centered around well throughout, symbolic monsters and more of an amusement ride. There has

been a steady decline in straight forward terror films and more of a rise of slasher blood and guts films

which are two completely different things, pertaining primarily to mainstream film that is. There will

always be a subtle underground cult classic horror film group of movies that continue that horror

tradition. Also there has been a rise of horror parodies which are just an embarrassment to the genre in

and out of itself.

The evolution of humankind’s fascination with monsters is one that is constantly rewriting itself.

Every day we are slowly changing our outlook on monsters and everyday monsters are changing the way

we view the world. We have seemed to almost conquer our fear of monsters themselves and in turn only

fear the horrific ways we could die by their hands. If not the death aspect, it is the future possibilities of

our own hands that is the real fear. Regardless of our motives, there stands a fact that humans have been

“reintroduced” to monsters and socialize these stories across the land in ways we have not seen since

ancient Rome. The big difference between present day people and Roman society, besides the absence of

togas aside from the occasional National Lampoon movie, is that the monsters of today look into the

future. These are the heralds of the new age of metal monsters, the possible children of our hands, the

newly envisioned arbiters of human destruction. Of creations we might bring about, the metal monsters

might however be the scariest ones of all.

Works Cited

Asma, Stephen. On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears. New York: Oxford University Press,

2009. Print.

Battlestar Galactica. Writ. Glen A Larson. Dir. Glen A Larson. SyFy Chan. 2003. Television.

Clash of the Titans. Dir. Desmond Davis. Perf. Laurence Olivier, Harry Hamlin, and Claire Bloom.

Warner Video. 1981. Film.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Dir. Bon Siegel. Perf. Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter. Allied Artist Pictures,

1956. Film.

Jason and the Argonauts. Dir. Don Chaffey. Perf. Todd Armstrong, Nancy Kovack and Gary Raymond.

Colombia Pictures. 1963. Film.

The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurnce Fishburne and Carrie

-Anne Moss. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999. Film.

The Stepford Wives. Dir. Frank Oz. Perf. Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler and Mattew Broderick.

Paramount. 2004. Film

Weiner, Robert G. “Marvel Comic and the Golem Legend.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies

29.2 (2011): 25, 50

What’s the Difference?

For my most successful essay I chose A New Age of Metal Monsters. I feel this paper had

many strong points. The most notable strong point in this paper was the thesis development and

the supporting evidence. The thesis for this paper, though a little lengthy to get to, was very fell

formulated and really held the paper together. The supporting evidence and main body of the

paper I feel really flourished because of this strong thesis. The introduction in my opinion was

also a very strong point. The introduction starts off painting a picture that draws the reader in.

The introduction also has good general information that gives myself come credibility upon the

subject and reassures the reader that they are not wasting their time. All of this leads to a thesis

that jettisons the reader into the main body of the paper. Though this paper had many strong

points it did have its weaknesses as well. Grammar and the use of passive voice were problems

for this paper. The passive voice took away from the overall presence of my writing as well as

the multiple grammar mistakes.

For my least successful essay I chose Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh. This paper is my

least successful this semester because it lacks in almost every aspect we reviewed this semester.

The most notable flaw of this paper was the multiple spelling error, one of which occurring

within the title. The misspelling of the focus character for the paper just makes the whole

composition look ridiculous. Both the conclusion and the introductions to this paper are

extremely lackluster. Both use cheap humor and clichés to fill space and leave the reader with

nothing gained. There is a silver lining to this paper however. The thesis presented is very strong.

The thesis focuses around two points, one of which is not explained or supported very well. The

other point however is defended very well.

The introduction and main bod of A New Age of Metal Monsters far surpasses that of Dim

Lights and Dark Chigurh. The introduction flows better and uses merit and a hook to entice the

reader rather than cheap writing tricks. Both papers conclusions were lacking though Dim Lights

and Dark Chigurh’s was by far the worst, lacking in length and closure. Overall A New Age of

Metal Monsters was written with fewer grammatical errors and defended its main thesis better. It

Uses multiple references to support its claims and flows it a clear concise way.




February 27, 2012

Dim Lights and Dark Chiguar









contrast lighting. In one of the first scenes that we meet Lwellyn, there is an extremely, almost unnatural



specific shot helps amplify the contrasting amongst the landscape. Directly following this scene Lwellyn

finds a dead man underneath a forlorn tree. The shadow of the tree is perceived as way darker than in real

life. The spots where we are led to believe the sun is shining is visually overly bright compared to the

shadowing. Again this use of hard lighting amplifies the contrasting in the current area. This use of hard

lighting is chosen to create greater definition between locations within the scenes. To be specific, once

Lwellyn is underneath the tree, the contrast in lighting is so great that one naturally blocks out any back

ground light and retains focus upon everything within the shading. Despite the fact that all of the

interaction and events are taking place within the hard lighting shadows, this shadowing on the prairie

scene creates more variation within the scenery.

Comment [GSC1]: Format issue

Comment [GSC2]: Misspelled “Chigurh”

Comment [GSC3]: Rhetorical question but used for effect

Comment [GSC4]: Not,

Comment [GSC5]: Present tense

Comment [GSC6]: generalization

Comment [GSC7]: passive voice

Comment [GSC8]: PR #25



Comment [GSC11]: More specification

Comment [GSC12]: Use present tense

Comment [GSC13]: Passive voice and PR #25

Comment [GSC14]: Passive voice





Chiguar has a device that can locate the coveted suitcase of money. In addition, Lwellyn has such as


allows for variation that keeps the movie interesting and makes for scenes, such as Lwellyn hunting, more

visually pleasing and faster paced.










On the other hand, the scene where Lwellyn is running from the men in the truck uses the bright


inside the truck begin chasing Lwellyn, the mood immediately spikes to a suspenseful, jagged ruckus


cascade of truck lights barreling towards Lwellyn. To the viewer it is quite obvious that this is a truck, but

at first glance it takes on a monstrous persona reminiscent of the lighting effects previously used in the

1962 James Bond film Dr. No. In that film the locals refer to “a dragon that hunted the swamps at night”.

In reality it was an armored tank with headlights similar to the truck in No Country for Old Men. Aside

from this barrage of truck headlights, there is also a small break of dawn directly behind the truck, further

amplifying its entrance.



is the pale moon light draping the landscape. To heighten the mood of the scene,as soon as the truck


switch from a fixated mellow source to a artificial jagged source, but it is also in constant motion leaving

the key lighting in this scene to become very erratic. As the audience watches Lwellyn run from the truck

not only are the left in anticipation for his outcome, but they are exposed to a roller coaster of sporadic

key lighting further amplifying the confusion of the whole scene. The key lighting is not only


antagonist in the film, Anton Chiguar.

Anton Chiguar is a very curious character throughout the whole film in regards to the way he is


while he is injured. Even when the audience first sees Anton sanz any shadowing, he emerges from a








concerning Chiguar can be seen again in the instance where Chiguar confronts Carla Jean within her

bedroom. In this clip the absence of back lighting around Chiguar can account for the abyss-like void that





implies the impending death in Carla Jean’s future. In other scenes Chiguar is shown killing his victims

but this scene just proves that darkness is a factor to death.




where Anton Chiguar kills the innocent driver on the side of the road. He is driving a stolen police car and

pulls behind the innocent driver to pull him over. Until Chiguar steps out of the car both he and the driver

are in almost pitch black from the spectator’s view point. Not only is there implication that Chiguar might

yet again kill another, but possibly that grim if not deadly outcomes are in the near future for the driver of

the car.

Another example of this implication of death can be indirectly seen when Chiguar has his tense

conversation with the Texaco store clerk. Most of the scene both Chiguar and the clerk are halfway





correlates to the previous theory stated; because in turn once Chiguar’s face is completely illuminated the

audience has assurance that Chiguar will not kill for the time being.

Lighting is not the only factor but the most important in this film. When concentrating on lighting

in films, it makes one think about the implications and character intentions portrayed throughout the

whole movie. The manipulation of lighting in film is the life force that surrounds, binds and penetrates the

characters in a way that reveals more than words and camera angles could ever convey.

Work Cited







February 27, 2012

Dim Lights and Dark Chigurh









contrast lighting. In one of the first scenes that we meet Llewellyn, there is an extremely, almost unnatural



specific shot helps amplify the contrasting amongst the landscape. Directly following this scene

Llewellyn finds a dead man underneath a forlorn tree. The shadow of the tree is perceived as way darker

than in real life. The spots where we are led to believe the sun is shining is visually overly bright

compared to the shadowing. Again this use of hard lighting amplifies the contrasting in the current area.

This use of hard lighting is chosen to create greater definition between locations within the scenes. To be

specific, once Llewellyn is underneath the tree, the contrast in lighting is so great that one naturally

blocks out any back ground light and retains focus upon everything within the shading. Despite the fact

that all of the interaction and events are taking place within the hard lighting shadows, this shadowing on

the prairie scene creates more variation within the scenery.





Chigurh has a device that can locate the coveted suitcase of money. In addition, Llewellyn has such as


allows for variation that keeps the movie interesting and makes for scenes, such as Llewellyn hunting,

more visually pleasing and faster paced.










On the other hand, the scene where Llewellyn is running from the men in the truck uses the bright


inside the truck begin chasing Llewellyn, the mood immediately spikes to a suspenseful, jagged ruckus


cascade of truck lights barreling towards Llewellyn. To the viewer it is quite obvious that this is a truck,

but at first glance it takes on a monstrous persona reminiscent of the lighting effects previously used in

the 1962 James Bond film Dr. No. In that film the locals refer to “a dragon that hunted the swamps at

night”. In reality it was an armored tank with headlights similar to the truck in No Country for Old Men.

Aside from this barrage of truck headlights, there is also a small break of dawn directly behind the truck,

further amplifying its entrance.



is the pale moon light draping the landscape. To heighten the mood of the scene, as soon as the truck


switch from a fixated mellow source to an artificial jagged source, but it is also in constant motion leaving

the key lighting in this scene to become very erratic. As the audience watches Llewellyn run from the

truck not only are the left in anticipation for his outcome, but they are exposed to a roller coaster of

sporadic key lighting further amplifying the confusion of the whole scene. The key lighting is not only


antagonist in the film, Anton Chigurh.

Anton Chigurh is a very curious character throughout the whole film in regards to the way he is


while he is injured. Even when the audience first sees Anton without any shadowing, he emerges from a








concerning Chigurh can be seen again in the instance where Chigurh confronts Carla Jean within her

bedroom. In this clip the absence of back lighting around Chigurh can account for the abyss-like void that





implies the impending death in Carla Jean’s future. In other scenes Chigurh is shown killing his victims.




where Anton Chigurh kills the innocent driver on the side of the road. He is driving a stolen police car

and pulls behind the innocent driver to pull him over. Until Chigurh steps out of the car both he and the

driver are in almost pitch black from the spectator’s view point. Not only is there implication that Chigurh

might yet again kill another, but possibly that grim if not deadly outcomes are in the near future for the

driver of the car.

Another example of this implication of death can be indirectly seen when Chigurh has his tense

conversation with the Texaco store clerk. Most of the scene both Chigurh and the clerk are halfway





correlates to the previous theory stated; because in turn once Chigurh’s face is completely illuminated the

audience has assurance that Chigurh will not kill for the time being.

Lighting has proved to be the most important aspect of this film. It defines landscapes, and

provides structure within the scene. The lighting also predicts the future. Lighting is and will always be an

huge factor in films that most will never notice but will feel.

Work Cited



Engl 1102 / Redding

Paper 1

31 January 2012

“A New Age of Metal Monsters “




become embedded in our culture over the past eighty years. Whether subliminal anti communistic

propaganda or the fascination with fear itself, something drove the people of the twentieth century to

explore their darker sides. Films such as the 1931 James Whale film Frankenstein, is the perfect example

of the beginning of the new revived human monster fascination. For a solid forty years after Frankenstein,

humans dove further and further into stories resembling those of our forefathers. Giant monsters such as

Godzilla and King Kong echoed memories of Leviathan and the Behemoth. Yet somewhere along that

line a shift in focus occurred.

For once humans began looking into their future, and began seeing the possible horrors that might

become of their actions. Films such as Blade Runner and books like “Dracula’s Children” looked from

the present onward and not only saw monsters in more modern settings, but pushed the envelope of

human technology and fore casted a reign of sorrow and terror because of our actions. The face of

monsters to come and their new stopping grounds are those of our own backyards. Moreover, horror

stories of the early forties placed their villains far away in evil demented places such as undiscovered far

away mountain villages and Eastern Europe. To theorize, the reintroduction of monsters to the modern era

involves somewhat of an evolution. One might say that this is humankind’s second fascination overall as

a society with monsters. Through industrialization, the leading countries of the past century have

socialized their “empires” in ways that resemble ancient Rome for the first time since then. Now regional

tales were able to reach the ears of most the world in a fraction of the time it previously had taken.

Comment [GSC1]: Unnecessary quotes

Comment [GSC2]: This is a specific time period with no specific purpose. Needs to be clarified why this was chosen.

Comment [GSC3]: Subject verb agreement

Comment [GSC4]: Different word choice

Comment [GSC5]: Unnecessary quotes

Comment [GSC6]: Possible run on sentence, break it up a bit so the audience does not get lost and/or bored

Comment [GSC7]: Clarify

Comment [GSC8]: “stomping grounds”, slang, cliche

Comment [GSC9]: Use different word choice, far away is already used in this sentence.

Comment [GSC10]: Awkward, take this thought and make it a separate sentence for clarity and flow.

Comment [GSC11]: Subject verb agreement.

Comment [GSC12]: Use different phrasing

Because of this socialization, these tales traveled fast and caught the imaginations of all classes which in

turn began the mankind’s second fascination with monsters.

Through human history there are two distinct periods of time where the culture of monster stories

has flourished, the periods being the classic Roman / Greek empires and from the end of WWI to the



of monster enthusiasts in mass has been within the past century. There have been many similarities

between the two eras. Most of the origins of both eras’ creatures stem from folklore, regional tradition,

religious views, and ancient mythology. With the evolution of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), some

of the first movies to hit the big screen with the new technology were Greek and roman mythology

stories. Movies such as “Jason and the Argonauts” and “Clash of the Titans” were instant classics, that

centered around the “old tradition” of monsters. However, as stated before, modern monster fascination

has evolved in a much different way than that of ancient civilization.





already been told in so many ways and variations. The popular television series Battlestar Galactica is

about the last few survivors of the human race seeking sanctuary from their evil robotic “cylon” creations

that which to exterminate them in vengeance for the years of slavery they were subjected to. The 1996

film The Matrix tells of an apocalyptic war between humans and their machine creations. The machine

creations eventually subdue the human race into a dream world in order to use their bodies as batteries.

Films such as these are the result of human imaginative evolution. No longer are man’s monster stories

only that of mythical beings and the demonic actions they wrath upon us, but in turn they are of how our

scientific creations, our scientific children exact revenge upon us, of how they become our real life

monsters. This is where fantasy trails along the border of possibility. This is also where bedazzling shock

Comment [GSC13]: The is not needed in this sentence


Comment [GSC15]: Awkward sentence structure, break up.

Comment [GSC16]: Not been, use occured


Comment [GSC18]: Try “the majority”, most sounds to broad and unsure.

Comment [GSC19]: No quotations

Comment [GSC20]: No quotations

Comment [GSC21]: To be verb, try became


Comment [GSC23]: PR # 24

Comment [GSC24]: PR # 25

Comment [GSC25]: “wish” not which

Comment [GSC26]: This sentence is too long, possible run on sentence.

Comment [GSC27]: How, slightly awkward phrasing, consider revision.

Comment [GSC28]: PR#30


Comment [GSC30]: I don’t know what you mean and/or what you are getting at here Justin

fear trails along the border of apocalyptic horrific possibility. Is this the result of humans searching

elsewhere for fearful ideas or humans realizing the worst case scenario dangers of our scientific ventures?

Through competitive markets, naturally throughout the monster movie evolution there has been a

push to further the fear factor in each movie. How might one accomplish a more terrifying experience for

the viewer? The horror tales of the future play upon one’s imagination which is where the scariest

monsters lie. In Telotte’s article, the main focus was more than just futuristic apocalyptic films. Telotte

questioned the subliminal motives for focusing on such films and sought clarity on a related but separate

topic, the topic of human doubling. This subject of human doubling is another fear of the future. Genocide

is horrendous in itself, but what of living in a blissful life sanz any emotions or worrying? At first one

might become a little disturbed at the idea, but Telotte sought for more and found that others disagree. In

the 1956 science fiction film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, extraterrestrial pods landed on Earth and

began identically cloning individual humans. Once the process was complete, the human under control of

the pod, part of an interconnected species, void of all emotion, thought, or free will. The controlled human

remained in a state of bliss such as that of a mindless insect. As stated before, this appears to be a very

horrific way to live for a human; however, director Don Siegel disagreed. In reference to Invasion of the

Body Snatchers it is stated,

“He really believes that being a pod is preferable to being a frail, frightening human who cares.

He has a strong case for being a pod. How marvelous it would be if you were a cow and all you had to do

is munch a little grass and not worry about life, death and pain. There’s a strong case for being a pod.”


amounts of iterations with this message embedded in the main storyline. An example being The Stepford

Wives, a whole town centered on replacing common house wives with robotics android replacements.

These androids are practically perfect in every way yet in calls into question, would one really want to

live in such a reality polar opposite to our own? The television show Battlestar Galactica directly

questions whether it is indeed better to be a robot void of emotion or a flawed human being. The Cylons

(cyborgs) in Battlestar Galactica are exact human replicas. The characters in the show directly question if

Comment [GSC31]: Rhetorical question

Comment [GSC32]: Rewrite


Comment [GSC34]: And ,


Comment [GSC36]: To be verb

Comment [GSC37]: Lack of citation

Comment [GSC38]: Missing a verb


Comment [GSC40]: Omit “is”

Comment [GSC41]: Wrong quotation format for such a long quote

Comment [GSC42]: There is no citation

Comment [GSC43]: Get out of passive voice

Comment [GSC44]: Sentence frag.

Comment [GSC45]: Rhetorical question.



these Cylons can indeed feel real emotions including love, and sorrow. What is even more interesting is

that some of the human characters end up being Cylons but not even realizing it. They question if

everything they thought they felt was real or just software. This idea of being stripped of all feelings and

freewill is the new monstrous entity that has become the future of monster stories.

A curious concept to consider is the idea of humankind loosing its fear of monsters and exploring

other understandings. To elaborate, naturally there are things that scare everyone, but in the broader

spectrum, overall, has our society begun to conquer its fear of monsters? Moreover, have we begun to

examine monsters as more of an imaginary reminder of the capabilities and forces of nature as opposed to

a horrific symbol of terror and violence? This idea challenges the question of whether humankind’s look

into the future is a result of competitive markets, a fear of our own capabilities or something more. One

aspect still holds true, violence has not left horror movies by any means. It seems to be the only card up

writers’ and directors’ sleeves. Modern horror movies are becoming less of a terror picture centered

around well throughout, symbolic monsters and more of an amusement ride. There has been a steady

decline in straight forward terror films and more of a rise of slasher blood and guts films which are two

completely different things, pertaining primarily to mainstream film that is. There will always be a subtle

underground cult classic horror film group of movies that continue that horror tradition. Also there has

been a rise of horror parodies which are just an embarrassment to the genre in and out of itself.

The evolution of humankind’s fascination with monsters is one that is constantly rewriting itself.


we view the world. We have seemed to almost conquer our fear of monsters themselves and in turn only

fear the horrific ways we could die by their hands. If not the death aspect, it is the future possibilities of

our own hands that is the real fear. Regardless of our motives, there stands a fact that humans have been




future. These are the heralds of the new age of metal monsters, the possible children of our hands, the

Comment [GSC48]: PR #28 and 25

Comment [GSC49]: PR #25 x3



Comment [GSC52]: Another rhetorical question

Comment [GSC53]: Two rhetorical questions in a row

Comment [GSC54]: PR#25

Comment [GSC55]: Cliche



Comment [GSC58]: This fragment needs revision.



Comment [GSC61]: This is unnecessary and biased

Comment [GSC62]: Confusing

Comment [GSC63]: It will be so much more powerful if you avoid the passive voice here






Works Cited


2009. Print.





1956. Film.








29.2 (2011): 25, 50


Engl 1102 / Redding

Paper 1

31 January 2012

A New Age of Metal Monsters




become embedded in our culture. Whether subliminal anti-communistic propaganda or the fascination

with fear itself, something drove the people of the twentieth century to explore their darker sides. Films

such as the 1931 James Whale film Frankenstein, are the perfect example of the beginning of the new

revived human monster fascination. For a solid forty years after Frankenstein, humans dove further and

further into stories resembling those of our forefathers. Giant monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong

echoed memories of Leviathan and the Behemoth. Yet somewhere along that line a shift in focus

occurred.

Humans began looking into their future, and began seeing the possible horrors that might become

of their actions. Films such as Blade Runner and books like Dracula’s Children looked from the present

onward. They not only saw monsters in more modern settings, but pushed the envelope of human

technology and fore casted a reign of sorrow and terror because of human actions concerning the

environment and the way we treat one another. The face of monsters to come and their new environments

are those of our own backyards. Moreover, horror stories of the early forties placed their villains far away

in evil demented places such as undiscovered mountain villages and Eastern Europe. To theorize, the

reintroduction of monsters to the modern era involves somewhat of an evolution. One might say that this

marks humankind’s second fascination overall as a society with monsters. Through industrialization, the

leading countries of the past century have socialized their “empires” in ways that resemble ancient Rome.

The age of industrialization marks the first time since the Roman era that this has occurred. Now regional

tales reach the ears of most the world in a fraction of the time compared to that of the past. Because of

this socialization, these tales traveled fast and caught the imaginations of all classes which in turn began

mankind’s second fascination with monsters.

Through human history, two distinct periods of time exist where the culture of monster stories

flourishes. These two periods include the classic Roman / Greek empires and from the end of WWI to the



of monster enthusiasts in mass occurs within the past century. Many similarities exist between the two

eras. A majority of the origins of both eras’ creatures stem from folklore, regional tradition, religious

views, and ancient mythology. With the evolution of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), some of the

first movies to hit the big screen with the new technology were Greek and roman mythology stories.

Movies such as Jason and the Argonauts and Clash of the Titans became instant classics that centered

around the “old tradition” of monsters. However, modern monster fascination evolves in a much different

way than that of ancient civilization.





already been told in so many ways and variations. The popular television series Battlestar Galactica

depicts the last few survivors of the human race seeking sanctuary from their evil robotic “cylon”

creations that seek to exterminate them in vengeance for the years of slavery they were subjected to. The

1996 film The Matrix tells of an apocalyptic war between humans and their machine creations. The

machine creations eventually subdue the human race into a dream world in order to use their bodies as

batteries. Films such as these are the result of human imaginative evolution. Mankind’s monster stories no

longer only consist of mythical beings and the demonic actions they wrath upon us. In turn, they tell of

our scientific creations, our scientific creations exact revenge upon us, and of these creations becoming

real life monsters. These new age monster stories trail along the border of fantasy and possibility. They

also trail along the border of suspenseful anxiety and apocalyptic horrific possibility. Is this the result of

humans searching elsewhere for fearful ideas or humans realizing the worst case scenario dangers of our

scientific ventures?

Competitive markets naturally push to further the fear factor in each movie, especially in the

monster movie genre. These markets seek for new ways to accomplish a more terrifying experience for

the viewer. The horror tales of the future play upon one’s imagination, where the scariest monsters dwell.

In Telotte’s article, the main focus was more than just futuristic apocalyptic films. Telotte questions the

subliminal motives for focusing on such films and sought clarity on a related but separate topic, the topic

of human doubling. Another fear of the future includes the subject of human doubling. Genocide is

horrendous in itself, but what of living in a blissful life sanz any emotions or worrying? (Telotte Human

Artiface ) At first one might become a little disturbed at the idea, but Telotte sought for more and found

that others disagree. In the 1956 science fiction film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, extraterrestrial pods

landed on Earth and began identically cloning individual humans. Once the process was complete, the

human under control of the pod, existed as part of an interconnected species, void of all emotion, thought,

or free will. The controlled human remained in a state of bliss such as that of a mindless insect. As stated

before, this appears to be a very horrific way to live for a human; however, director Don Siegel

disagreeds. In reference to Invasion of the Body Snatchers he states,

“He really believes that being a pod is preferable to being a frail, frightening

human who cares. He has a strong case for being a pod. How marvelous it would

be if you were a cow and all you had to do is munch a little grass and not worry

about life, death and pain. There’s a strong case for being a pod.”

(Weiner, Marvel Comic)


amounts of iterations that embed this message in their main storyline. One example includes The Stepford

Wives, a movie about whole town centered on replacing common house wives with robotics android

replacements. These androids are practically perfect in every way yet in calls into question, would one

really want to live in such a reality polar opposite to our own? The television show Battlestar Galactica

directly questions whether it is indeed better to be a robot void of emotion or a flawed human being. The

Cylons (cyborgs) in Battlestar Galactica exist as exact human replicas. The characters in the show

directly question if these Cylons can indeed feel real emotions including love, and sorrow. Even more

interesting, some of the human characters end up being Cylons but not even realizing it. They question if

everything previously thought or felt was real or just software programming. This idea of being stripped

of all feelings and freewill is the new monstrous entity that has become the future of monster stories.

The idea of humankind loosing it’s fear of monsters and exploring other understandings sparks

curiosity. To elaborate, everyone retains fears of some kind, but in the broader spectrum, our society has

begun to conquer its fear of monsters. Moreover, we have begun to examine monsters as more of an

imaginary reminder of the capabilities and forces of nature as opposed to a horrific symbol of terror and

violence. This idea challenges the question of whether humankind’s look into the future exists as a result

of competitive markets, a fear of our own capabilities or something more. One aspect still holds true,

violence has not left horror movies by any means. Modern horror movies are becoming less of a terror

picture centered around well throughout, symbolic monsters and more of an amusement ride. A steady

decline in straight forward terror films has occurred as well as a correlation in a rise in slasher blood and

guts films. Although these may seem similar at first, they are two different genres. Forever will a subtle

underground cult classic horror film group of movies continue that horror tradition.

The evolution of humankind’s fascination with monsters is constantly changed and writing itself.


we view the world. We seem to have almost conquered our fear of monsters themselves and in turn only

fear the horrific ways we could die by their hands. If not the death aspect, the future possibilities of our

own hands remain the real fear. Regardless of our motives, there stands a fact that humans have been




future. They exist as the heralds of the new age of metal monsters, the possible children of our hands, the



Works Cited


2009. Print.





1956. Film.



Telotte, J.P. Human Artifice and the Science Fiction Film. Film Quarterly. Vol. 36, No.3. p. 44 – 51. University of

California Press. 2009






29.2 (2011): 25, 50

Calvin and Hobbes Justin Jasiulevicius Calvin's idea of idividuallity is sticking to the American way, what ever that may be. Concerning the subject he's talking about, shirts, it means having a logo for a company. The humor part of his ideas comes from the seriousness in which he's talking. He sincerely believes that a company logo on his shirt will further his individuality. The irony of course is that this is the exact opposite of what most people think as far as individuality goes. Hobbes responds witha very simple "You admit that?" question. His response is voiced from the view point that Calvin's idea on individuality is so absurd that why would a person admit to such views. Watterson uses Hobbes in a very effective way by presenting him as a good intentive, thoughtful listener. This presentation of Hobbes allows for his resonse to seem as the voice of reason to further solidify the fact that Calvin is obviously wrong in his beliefs. Watterson is making the argument that consumerism is America's source for identity, The corporate link to the argument is a little more vauge. I interpret it as America's addiction to consumerism is so extreme that we use the excuse of self choice as a mask for our addiction to a company's products. Watterson's development starts with an outlandish comment on Calvin's shirt and how he wished it had a logo. The next panel states Calvin's reasoning on his statement and belief on what makes a good shirt. Then it goes on to Clavin philosophising on the message that a shirt with a corporate logo presents to the world. Finally Hobbes is so shocked at the route Calvin has taken that he states the obvious. Calvin in turn relates his views on shirts and identity to the culture of America. The humor is that all of Calvin's statements and thoughts are the "anti-definition" of identity yet are very true concerning their relation to America's clothing culture. I agree with Calvin’s statement that clothing with a logo is better than clothing with out solely under the circumstances that the clothing without had nothing else on it. Then your comparing boring to st least some what interesting. Other than that I disagree because the shirt logo fad has had it's day for along time. Now I believe it's time for a change. I will agree with Watterson from the standpoint that alot of logos present a status to people around them. The Polo shirt company produces slightly expensive everyday wear that only displays their logo. Their shirts are viewed by many as shirts well off people buy. As far as the indiviuality factor goes I will agree to the point that some companies logo's displayed on a person’s shirt present the idea that they enjoy doing a certain action. Pabst Blue Ribbon for example, if a person wears a PBR shirt they are stating to the world "Hey everyone, I like to drink cheap beer." I wear some shirts that have logos on them, mainly because they are work shirts. I do think alot of times that people who choose to wear shiorts with commerical logos are trying to project a statement about themselves, but usually not in the way Calvin presents it. I think expensive shirts like the Polo shirts I mentioned earlier are the ones Watterson has in mind mainly because they are synonomous with consumerism. Like Calivin stated "My identity is so wrapped up it what I buy that I paid the company to advertise its products." Those words could asily be substituted with "My identity is so wrapped up in what I buy that I want everyone to know what status I'm at in society by paying Polo for one of their shirts so people will know how much money I can afford to spend on simple items." Concerning Watteron's criticism however I do not believe he was includng sports team logos. I believe a different mentality comes along with sports apparel purchasers. I believe sports apparel speaks to a person's likes (or dislikes), such as penguins or cartoons. The grey area in retrospect is very wide when it comes to this topic. What if the man who wore the PBR shirt just really liked that beer? Wha if the person who wears the Breast Cancer Awaremness shirt knew someone who was affected by that horrible disease. To sum it all up I believe Watterson was targeting genaric brands such as Tyco or Brawny, logos that usually don't play towards people's wants but their needs. I guess when it comes to clothing, you never really know why people wear certain things.

Comment [GSC1]: Heading needs formatting

Comment [GSC2]: misspelled

Comment [GSC3]: There is no hook or lead in to the introduction

Comment [GSC4]: Here is the thesis

Comment [GSC5]: with a

Comment [GSC6]: I think you mean incentive

Comment [GSC7]: response



Comment [GSC10]: This paragraph is too short.

Comment [GSC11]: use different word choiceing


Comment [GSC13]: shorts


Comment [GSC15]: There is no proper citation

Comment [GSC16]: easily

Comment [GSC17]: This is a series of rhetorical questions. Needs revisions



English 1101/ Mr. Wheeler

Athens Technical College

Calvin and Hobbes

The comic strip Claivin and Hobbes discusses politics and culture using humor. The main

character Calvin makes many statements about these subjects and his counterpart Hobbes retorts

with a realistic view. Calvin's idea of individuality is sticking to the American way, what ever

that may be. Concerning the subject he's talking about, shirts, it means having a logo for a

company. The humor part of his ideas comes from the seriousness in which he's talking. He

sincerely believes that a company logo on his shirt will further his individuality. The irony of

course is that this is the exact opposite of what most people think as far as individuality goes.

Calvin’s sidekick Hobbes retains a more realistic view. Hobbes responds with a very

simple "You admit that?" question. His response is voiced from the view point that Calvin's idea

on individuality is so absurd that why would a person admit to such views. Watterson uses

Hobbes in a very effective way by presenting him with good incentive, as a thoughtful listener.

This presentation of Hobbes allows for his response to seem as the voice of reason to further

solidify the fact that Calvin is obviously wrong in his beliefs.

Watterson is makes the argument that consumerism is America's source for identity; the

corporate link to the argument is a little more vague. I interpret it as America's addiction to

consumerism is so extreme that we use the excuse of self choice as a mask for our addiction to a

company's products. Watterson's development starts with an outlandish comment on Calvin's

shirt and how he wished it had a logo. The next panel states Calvin's reasoning on his statement

and belief on what makes a good shirt. Then it goes on to Calvin philosophizing on the message

that a shirt with a corporate logo presents to the world. Finally Hobbes is so shocked at the route

Calvin has taken that he states the obvious. Calvin in turn relates his views on shirts and identity

to the culture of America. The humor is that all of Calvin's statements and thoughts are the

"anti-definition" of identity yet are very true concerning their relation to America's clothing

culture.

Calvin’s statement that clothing with a logo is better than clothing with out solely under

the circumstances that the clothing without had nothing else on it. Comparing boring to

moderately interesting. The shirt logo fad has had its day for along time. Now I believe it's time

for a change. I will agree with Watterson from the standpoint that many of logos present a status

to people around them. The Polo Shirt Company produces slightly expensive everyday wear that

only displays their logo. Their shirts are viewed by many as shirts well off people buy. As far as

the individuality factor goes I will agree to the point that some companies logo's displayed on a

person’s shirt present the idea that they enjoy doing a certain action. Pabst Blue Ribbon for

example, if a person wears a PBR shirt they are stating to the world "Hey everyone, I like to

drink cheap beer." I wear some shirts that have logos on them, mainly because they are work

shirts. I do think many of times that people who choose to wear shorts with commercial logos are

trying to project a statement about themselves, but usually not in the way Calvin presents it.

Expensive shirts like the Polo shirts I mentioned earlier are the ones Watterson has in

mind mainly because they are synonymous with consumerism. Like Calvin stated "My identity is

so wrapped up it what I buy that I paid the company to advertise its products." Those words

could easily be substituted with "My identity is so wrapped up in what I buy that I want everyone

to know what status I'm at in society by paying Polo for one of their shirts so people will know

how much money I can afford to spend on simple items." Concerning Watteron's criticism

however I do not believe he was including sports team logos. I believe a different mentality

comes along with sports apparel purchasers. I believe sports apparel speaks to a person's likes (or

dislikes), such as penguins or cartoons. The grey area in retrospect is very wide when it comes to

this topic. There are men who wear PBR shirts because they just really like that beer? There are

people who wear the Breast Cancer Awareness shirts because they know someone who is

affected by that horrible disease. To sum it all up I believe Watterson was targeting generic

brands such as Tyco or Brawny, logos that usually don't play towards people's wants but their

needs. I guess when it comes to clothing, you never really know why people wear certain things.

struggles and triumphs

Documents