Week 9: The Incredibles & Family

Week 9: Paper Introduction

Silent suffering, chaos, and violence exist in a fascist state that creates an illusion of unity and order. In the film V for Vendetta, the protagonist, V, opposes this type of broken government called Norsefire. He aims to inspire the people of Britain to revolt against such deceiving and corrupt system under the rule of its dictator, Adam Sutler, through destructive means. Journal writer Douglas Bulloch agrees that the film is rightfully charged with the criticisms for its “open approval of symbolic terrorism” (1). However, V’s actions such as his detonation of the Old Bailey is more symbolic, achieving to relay his message to the government and the people, and is not a way to inflict damage through his abilities. The character’s goal as the Guy Fawkes-masked figure is to send his message out through every aspect of his life, from his deeds to his appearance. V is less a terrorist and more a vigilante who attempts to replace their dystopian society with a free country controlled by its people by using radical action. V offers anarchy that is not the presence of social and political chaos but the liberty from an imposing and repressive regime.

Week 9: Megamind Review

The film Megamind revolves around its brainy, villainous, and hilariously incompetent titular character. From the beginning, it seems like it would just be your typical superhero-supervillain kind of movie, having obvious resemblance to Superman's story of arrival on Earth. There was even a reporter love interest, Roxanne Ritchie, a la Lois Lane. The only difference is that the focus here is on the bad guy. However, as the story progresses, it veered farther and farther away from the normal superhero plots. First of all, Megamind unexpectedly beats Metro City's seemingly unbeatable protector, Metro Man, and the city was left in his and his sidekick, Minion's, control. It gets much more interesting when all of this tires out Megamind and he goes into some kind of existential crisis, unsatisfied of how his world is now that he's achieved what he thought he wanted. It was brilliantly ironic how, after this, Megamind put everything in his power to undo his achievements and restore his life of unsuccessful attempts to rule over the city. That was where he found purpose in. What is very interesting about the plot of the film is how the villain, Megamind, is humanized in his search for happiness in acceptance after accomplishing what he thought he wanted. The storylines are complicated (Megamind played Bernard to woo the girl Roxanne, Tighten's supposed father to train him as the new hero, and Metro Man at one point) but it's endlessly entertaining that you'll never worry where the story is going. There isn't much emotional punch, but the characters are incredibly fascinating that you are still curious as to how everything would resolve. How can the villain get the girl? How can the villain find acceptance? Will a new hero solve everything? Their stories are wrapped up neatly by the end. The whole film is pure fun, the twists are mostly fresh and original, and the characters have so much depth to them that the watcher is engrossed more and more layers are revealed in every scene.

Week 8: Hauerwas Reading Thoughts

The Hauerwas reading gave me a few things to think about when I reflect on this big issue of the United States right now. I've never given much thought to the logic behind the pacifists' ways before and how that belief will apply to this kind of situation, but this reading certainly gave me a good glimpse of it. While reading what Hauerwas had to say, I reflected upon the immediate response to 9/11. I remember President Bush declaring "we are at war" on the news after the event. What stuck out to me was when he pointed out that if, indeed, we are at war, then that must mean that Bin Laden was a warrior fighting for his cause just as much as we are fighting for ours. He's not a murderer that slayed many innocent U.S. citizens. For me, that way of looking at it, is just unacceptable.

Hauerwas also brought up how Americans only feel safe when we're at war because that means we're fighting to end something. We are in action, and that gives us comfort. The fact that war may be giving us comfort is a terrifying thought for me. I haven't thought much of this but, right now, I feel that we cannot possibly achieve peace through war. That totally defeats the purpose. This is why, thanks to the Hauerwas reading, I'm starting to consider the pacifist's rationale. I'm not saying that I will surely be one but, as a Christian, what Hauerwas said did resonate with me. I always ask "What does God want us to do in this situation?" and I am not confident to rule out the pacifist way.

When people say pacifist, I think nonviolence. In regards to the war, some people may think right away they're just those narrow-minded people that would accept mass suicide and not defending ourselves against terrorists. Yes, pacifism is an extreme, and that's probably why some react negatively to that kind of response. One may be accused of non-patriotism. However, I see now that that's not necessarily the case. Even though it's still very hazy, I have a slight picture now of what pacifists see when they commit to their beliefs. According to Hauerwas, it's a "church constituted by people who would rather die than kill".

I think people should never close their minds to all the various ways one can take action. In this reading, Hauerwas considers some of the ways others approach war and gave his take on it, and with that, I'm taking everything into consideration.