The Petrified Forest, written by Robert E. Sherwood, is a Noir film that was produced in 1936. The film depicts how a traveling man named Alan Squier, waitress Gabrielle Maple, and gangster Duke Mantee come together, and the unexpected outcome for these characters. The majority of this film takes place at a restaurant/gas-station called the Bar-B-Q located in Black Mesa, Arizona. There are considerable amounts of dramatic scenes throughout the film that involve Squier and Maple; however, when Mantee is introduced the film begins to change course and the drama and crime scenes intertwine. While watching the film I found it interesting how each of the characters interacted with one another. I especially found Squier and Maple’s interaction interesting. At the beginning of the movie Squier is shown walking through the desert; Squier is portrayed as having no money or real purpose. However, despite Squier’s disheveled look and situation Maple is intrigued with him and his intelligence. This can be seen in the movie when Squier …show more content…
says “The trouble with me, Gabrielle, is I, I belong to a vanishing race. I’m one of the intellectuals.” to which Maple replies “That, that means you’ve got brains!” At first you would not expect these two characters to interact much nor take any interest in getting to know one another. I also found it interesting that before Mantee appeared on screen he was already interacting with the characters in a way and was introduced to the plot line. The character Gramp Maple mentioned that Mantee and his gang were on the run, and that they had to be close to their location. No one really paid much attention to Gramp’s comments, but the mention of Mantee was foreshadowing what was to come. The theme/s of the film became very evident when the three main characters Squier, Maple, and Mantee came across each other at the Bar-B-Q which are crime and drama. I believe that the film accurately portrayed Mantee as a notorious criminal/outlaw. Mantee was dressed in a suit which was typical of gangsters from that era. Mantee’s demeanor was also stern, and he was short answered with the patrons in the restaurant. This demeanor is expected of a gangster as it portrays that he means business, is serious, and his word/threats should not be taken lightly. Due to how Mantee’s character was portrayed it was interesting that Squier would strike up a conversation with Mantee as if he were any regular customer in the diner. Justice is portrayed towards the end of the movie during two different scenes.
The first portrayal of justice occurs when Squier manages to convince Mantee to shoot and kill him. The reason why Squier’s death is justice is because he is then able to help Maple. Squier makes Maple the beneficiary to his life insurance policy, and with that money Maple is free to leave the diner and pursue her dreams of traveling to Paris and becoming a painter. Without Squier’s help Maple would most likely remain at the diner and never be fully happy. The last portrayal of justice occurred when law enforcement officials closed in on Mantee’s location and a shootout began. After the shootout one of the characters claims that the police got Mantee. I interpreted that this meant Mantee was also shot dead. Mantee’s death is justice because he in essence paid for all his wrong doings and he harm he caused to
others. Overall, I found that the movie was intriguing, primarily to see how the fate of each character played out. While at first it seemed Squier had no purpose in the end he is the reason why Maple will finally have a chance to fulfill her dream. However, in order for Squier to fulfill his purpose of helping Maple, he needs the help of Mantee in ending his life. Had not both Squier and Mantee been in the same place at the same time then Maple could not have been helped.
I found the book to be easy, exciting reading because the story line was very realistic and easily relatable. This book flowed for me to a point when, at times, it was difficult to put down. Several scenes pleasantly caught me off guard and some were extremely hilarious, namely, the visit to Martha Oldcrow. I found myself really fond of the char...
Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz states how schools that claim they are following restorative approaches through their policies in discipline are not necessarily restorative, but have enough flexibility to allow a restorative response.
Cormac McCarthy’s novel All The Pretty Horses depicts the constant search for justice in a world plagued with injustice. John Grady, while never given the justice owed to him, never gives up on his search for a place wherein he can find justice. Through John Grady’s experiences we can more clearly view the idea that, even though you may never find justice in the world sometimes it’s more important to focus on your quest for justice than your outcome.
10. After reading this book, you will have a very different outlook on Judges. Justice Wargrave had a very interesting outlook on justice, and was a very deceitful man. You would think he would be a very honest and truthful man, because hes a judge. He believes in the “right prevailing” (pg.184), he's in law, he's got a “strong sense of justice” (pg.184), and he seems like an overall normal judge. However, if you look into the other side of Wargrave, youve got a man who loves causing death to the guilty, and daydreams about “ingenious ways to carry out murder” (pg. 185). Killing people who committed crimes unpunishable under the law satisfied both his desire to murder and his desire to carry out justice for wrong doing. It helps you to understand justice to him is seeing the guilty suffer, and the right prevail.
giving him the welcome of a god, "give me the tributes of a man, / and
Many people percieve revenge to be something that falls under justice, as they are driven by emotions, while others consider getting the police involved as serving justice. Moreover, some people find revenge to be pleasing and satisfying, but to argue the point that just because something is more satisfying does not mean it is
There is a fine line between justice and
... the defendants had to deal with a higher human authority, the judge and jury of their area. In To Kill A Mockingbird Tom Robinson had to deal with an alleged rape, and no matter what the evidence said, or how hard his lawyer worked, he was convicted and later died. Tom was falsely accused, and his death was untimely and could have been avoided. But he accepted his fate calmly, as if he knew no matter what he would be convicted. The defendant in A Time To Kill, Carl Lee was accused of murder of the two men who raped his daughter. Carl was found not guilty, even though he did kill those men, and later on in life will have to deal with his actions. Both men had to deal with what the court brought against them, and they both did. Carl and Tom dealt with multiple issues, but the prejudices of their race, and the time they were tried ultimately determined their fates.
... The surprising acts of the mother and the descriptions, which are presented to us from her, are very conclusive and need to be further examined to draw out any further conclusions on how she?really? felt. I have a lot of fun. The mother-daughter relationship between the narrator and her daughter brings up many questions as to their exact connection.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
Olympians. In the old order of things, family is by blood only. A husband and
To those like the abolitionists, their lawyers, and the former president, who all wanted nothing but justice for these Africans. Another detrimental decision maker in this story are the judges both in the Supreme Court and the state level; they are both the ultimate decision makers and any choice they make, directly affects the Africans and others involved. While retributive justice is used to maintain social order. In the context of the movie, these courts were used to keep social order, whether the outcome is one way or another.
Dictating a man's future would seem enough be a difficult task for anyone, for it is whether this man ends up with a lifetime in prison or he is given the privilege to walk the streets. Deciphering facts from fictitious tales, and putting everything up for questioning. Such an experience was only granted to men in the 1950’s. A time when race and gender were gradually beginning to not be definitive of an individual's social class. Although, it may seem like an incredibly undesirable task, sitting in hot New York courthouse with eleven other men is needed for justice to rightfully be served. Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.
Justice is part of revenge; as also for revenge is part of justice. “Justice” comes from a Latin word that means “straight, fair, equal”, it’s the quality of being righteous and loyal towards one’s state, although serves the interests of the stronger (Hourani, 1962), while revenge is the act of taking retaliation for injuries or wrongs. What ever the circumstances are being the individual who experiences a unjust act, results in the hunt for one of these two things: Justice or revenge. What are the key differences between the two? Justice can be defined as the concept of moral rightness, which is based on the rules of law, fairness, ethics, and equality among the governed citizens.
Justice, fairness, and decency, abstract concepts that are innate in society and human nature. However, despite their near universal status in humanities mid, they often have different meanings for individuals. Aeschylus uses The Oresteia in order to explore these issues as characters in the play try to determine what it means to be just, what a just actor does, and what is the best model or means of achieving justice. The characters discuss ideas such as vengeance, reciprocity, balance, moderation, and finally the end result of the implied debate leads to a jury system. In this paper I will go over two of the several different interpretations of justice used in the Oresteia and compare and contrast them in order to demonstrate which is the