-
Lesson 9
Reply to post your assignment.
-
42 Replies
-
What I learned: An entire movie can be written with only old ways and challenges.
Old Way
This is an open and shut case.
Challenge
One juror has doubts.
Old Way
The boy was slapped. This is a motive.
Challenge
The boy has been slapped all his life. Why should the boy murder his father now?
Old Way
The slums create criminals. You know what these people are like.
Challenge
A juror grew up in the slums and he is not a criminal.
Old Way
The boy has a record.
Challenge
It does not mean he killed his father.
Old Way
Lawyers do not ask questions because they know the answers will hurt their case.
Challenge
Lawyers can be stupid. Maybe he did not care because he did not want the case.
Old Way
The murder weapon was very unusual.
Challenge
The same kind of knife was bought near the crime.
Old Way
A witness heard an argument and the body hitting the floor.
Challenge
The witness could not have heard because the el train was too loud.
Old Way
The old man saw the boy run down the stairs.
Challenge
The old man could not have seen it because he walked to the door too slowly.
Old Way
Kid says, “I’m going to kill you.”
Challenge
People often say that but do not mean it. A juror says it and does not mean it.
Old Way
The boy could not remember the name of the movie so he did not go to the movie.
Challenge
He was under great emotional stress. A juror could not remember the name of the movie he saw.
Old way
The angle of the stabbing was down and in.
Challenge
To use that kind of a knife, you stab upward.
Old way
The woman saw the boy kill his father.
Challenge
She could not have seen it clearly because she was not wearing her glasses.
Old Way
All kids are bad.
Challenge
The juror was caught up in his anger and disappointment toward his son.
-
Joan, you make this look so easy. I guess my notes from last night’s watching of this movie need to be better. Having trouble remembering some scenes/steps/progressions. Thanks for this really concise and thorough recanting of these items. Makes me want to learn shorthand, so that I don’t have to stop and start the movie over and over to make my notes.
Chris
-
Hi Joan,
I really like the simplicity of your answers. You’ve touched upon all the major points of contention in the movie. Well done.
-
-
Day 9 Old Ways
What I learned from this assigment. Chris needs to learn shorthand for taking notes.
• Assumption of guilt
• Just want this over
• Not caring
• Prejudice
• Not looking beneath the surface
• Assuming the evidence is not questionable
• Assuming the witnesses were accurate
• Assuming the Defense Attorney did his job
• Assuming the case is completely logical
Juror Number 3 was the most adamant juror that the boy was guilty. This had to do with his bias against what he felt was betrayal by his own son and the falling out they had. He believes many young people are bad eggs.
Juror Number 4 The stock broker was all matter of fact that he commited the murder. Kind of robotic in his groupthink.
Juror Number 6 was in a hurry to go to a baseball game. The defendant is going to be executed and he has a ballgame as his priority.
Juror 12 at the beginning voted guilty and was not really paying too much attention and showing people his marketing campaign for Rice Puffs cereal.
Juror Number 8 simply raises question after question that cast doubt on The Accused’s guilt. For example, that the switch blade was unique, one-of-a-kind and he pulls one out just like it that he bought at a pawn shop. Then he counted how many seconds it took to walk an approximated number of steps and it did not match what the prosecutor alleged. Nice touch he gets Juror Number 3’s suit coat out of the closet and helps him put it on. Really drives home the humanity in Henry Fonda’s character.
At every re-vote, more and more jurors come over to his side that this was not an open-and-shut case. It does beg the question then, who did it? But that is not the point of the movie. Reasonable doubt is.
-
Chris–But you have all the jurors numbered. That’s something I couldn’t figure out.
-
-
Day 9. Twelve Angry Men
Bob’s Examples of Old Way vs. Challenging with New Way
What I learned from doing this assignment is that the majority of this film is like a seesaw demonstrating Old Way vs New Way, and the satisfying thing is the New Way (rational thinking, humanity, willing to hang out with ‘not knowing’) ultimately wins.
In the following bits of back and forth dialogue, the Old Way gets confronted and challenged by the New Way, until the Old Way eventually breaks down.
Old Way: (Rush to judgment) It’s an open and shut case.
New Way: Well, they’re entitled to a fair trial.
Old Way: (Bigotry colors his decision, literally pre-judging) You know what we’re dealing with….Maybe it serves him right, ya know what I mean? … The kid’s a dangerous killer, you can see it.
New Way:(providing some context for humanity) He’s 18 years old!
Old Way: (Quick to judgment) Why can’t you decide right now?
New Way: Supposing you’re wrong. You can’t send a boy off to die.
Old Way: (Bigoted) Look,Mister, he got a fair trial. He’s lucky he got it, ya know what I mean? … Listen, I’ve lived among them all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.
New Way: Only an ignorant man would believe that!
Old Way: (a seemingly less prejudiced and meek juror, John Fiedler) I just thought he was guilty from the word go. Nobody proved otherwise.
New Way: (Henry Fonda with an important distinction poking a huge hole in ‘I just thought…’ talk. “Nobody HAD to prove otherwise. The burden of proof’s on the prosecution.”
Old Way: (from bigot) I don’t believe the kid’s story. I believe the neighbor-woman across the street’s testimony.
New Way: If you don’t believe the boy, why do you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too. (Whoa, Fonda throws some heavy shade.)
Old Way: (from a seemingly reasonable juror) The witness said the boy was fighting with his father who slapped him. That seems like a motive.
New Way: (shedding light on the boy’s backstory to open up jurors’ minds) This kid’s been slapped around so many times in his life, I can’t see it as a motive.
Old Way: (from a blowhard) Bright? He’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English.
New Way: (from juror who speaks English as a second language and throwing his grammar as well as his opinion back in his face.) “Doesn’t” even speak good English.
Old Way: (from a reasonable-sounding juror) I think the boy went back for the knife to hide the evidence.
New Way: (from Fonda, whose character believes in ‘innocent until proven guilty’) Maybe…but maybe he really was out to a movie until 3 in the morning. I’m saying we just don’t know.
Old Way: (more bigotry painting with a wide brush) You’re out of your minds… a kid like that…
New Way: (reason over emotion) I don’t think the kind of kid he is has anything to do with it. The facts are supposed to determine the case.
Old Way: (more self-righteous nationalism) Whadaya mean, I don’t understand? Look at his guy! they come over here from God knows where and try to tell me I don’t understand? You know how ‘these people’ lie! It’s born in them! They get drunk and bam, someone’s lying in the gutter! etc.
New Way: (Nine jurors walk away from his tirade) And one juror who is still holding out for a guilty verdict (E.G. Marshall) says, Sit down and don’t open your mouth again!
New Way: Henry Fonda- We want to hear your arguments.
Old Way: Lee J Cobb- (Growling like a caged beast) I ALREADY GAVE YOU MY ARGUMENTS!
New Way: (patience) We want to hear them again.
So, in general, the Old Ways are non-thinking, gut-based and bigoted assumptions driving decisions and the New Ways are rational thinking and humanity, keeping in mind that each life is sacred.
-
Thanks Bob. This is a very clear summary.
-
Thank you, Joan. I really enjoyed doing this “close watching” of the film. Glad I could pause it. It gave me new insights into what Hal has been talking about.
-
-
-
What I learned: In every deprogramming session, Selma challenges Elizabeth’s old ways of thinking. In fact, that is what deprogramming is about. It is so obvious, but I didn’t see it until I did this assignment.
I did not include all the old ways and challenges because the list would be too long..
Selma:
Old way
Selma believes it was her fault her mother died.
Challenge
Gaia, Selma’s Change Agent, asks if Selma can honor her mother by accepting that it was her father’s fault that she died.
Old way
Selma is afraid to interview at the transition house because of her mother being killed and because she fears not getting the job.
Challenge
Gaia convinces her to take the job.
Old way
Selma gets angry with Elizabeth.
Challenge
Gaia: “Is there something you need to change?”
Old way
Selma: “I made a pact with myself never to lie to my clients.”
Challenge
Elizabeth is ready to leave counseling. Selma tells a lie to save her from more abuse or death.
Old way
Selma believes she is self-sufficient.
Challenge
Gaia says she will support Selma if she wants Gaia.
Old way
Selma believes she is not strong and powerful.
Challenge
Gaia says she is, given that she broke her vow of always telling the truth in order to save Elizabeth.
Elizabeth:
Old way
Elizabeth defends herself for falling in love with Mark
Challenge
Selma, Elizabeth’s Change Agent, says she does not have to defend herself.
Old way
Elizabeth thinks there is something wrong with her.
Challenge
Selma: “It’s nothing you did or said. You don’t have a particular flaw in your character. You simply fell in love with the wrong man.”
Old way
Elizabeth: “Mark’s a good man.”
Challenge
Selma: “Those are all qualities you admire, but when Mark’s with you, he has none of them.” Also, “Can you see how he’s isolated you?”
Old way
Elizabeth: “I’m in control.” “He doesn’t control anything.” “I’m not a victim.”
Challenge
Selma helps Elizabeth understand that she is wrong.
Old way
Elizabeth: “Of course, I love him.”
Challenge
Selma: “Trauma bonds can feel like love, but they’re not. It’s the addiction.”
Old way
Elizabeth calls Mark in secret.
Challenge
Selma asks if Elizabeth feels the need to call Mark.
Old way
Elizabeth thinks she is delusional.
Challenge
Selma: “I know you aren’t crazy.”
Petra
Old way
Petra believes that abused women do not need an on-site counselor.
Challenge
Gaia, Petra’s Change Agent, argues that an on-site counselor will save abused women from suffering and even death. A counselor will also open more beds in the transition houses.
Jasmine:
Old Ways:
“I’m never going back. The baby changes everything.”
Challenge
Clarence, her Change Agent and her abuser, convinces her to return to him.
-
Joan- I got goosebumps, when in the first paragraph above you wrote, “In every deprogramming session, Selma challenges Elizabeth’s old ways of thinking. In fact, that is what deprogramming is about. It is so obvious, but I didn’t see it until I did this assignment.”
I, too, have been seeing elements of my idea that have just come to light. And like you, they seem obvious now, but until the last two days, they were hidden. Thank you for sharing!
-
I also appreciated your insight into the parallels of deprogramming and old vs new ways
-
-
Ashley’s 12 Angry Men Analysis
I learned that you don’t need a complicated plot to create a powerful film.
Old Way: Assuming the witnesses are telling the truth
Challenge: Humans make mistakes; the knife isn’t so rare after all; How did the old man hear him with the roaring train sound; Witnesses might want attention or recognition; Witness’s eye sight is called under question
Old Way: Assuming the boy is guilty because he’s from the slums
Challenge: Straight-laced jury member grew up in the slums; We all have our prejudices; Perhaps he couldn’t remember the film because he was under emotional distress
Old Way: Assuming “I’m gona kill you” is a real threat
Challenge: Angry man says it and the jury member asks “you don’t really mean it”
Old Way: Talking is a waste of time and costs money
Challenge: What if the boy had a “stupid” lawyer or his lawyer didn’t want the case; Immigrant highlights the beauty of democracy
-
Ashley’s Old Ways Challenge Chart
This assignment helped me identify the challenges to the Old Way. I hadn’t previously thought of this, and I’m excited to integrate it into the Act 1 script and outline.
Old Way: Women, especially slave women, shouldn’t speak out.
Challenge: Malinche has an extraordinarily influential voice, plus she can communicate with birds
Old Way: A hierarchal society benefits everyone, not just the wealthy.
Challenge: Lower classes are put in danger by the decisions made by Mexica noblemen and Spanish royalty.
Old Way: Foreigners are evil and can’t be trusted.
Challenge: Both the protagonist, Malinche, and antagonist, Hernando, are foreigners. And everyone is a foreigner depending on the perspective.
Old Way: Playing “small” keeps you safe.
Challenge: Malinche needs to use her gift to survive and to ensure the survival of her son and her people. And that means courageously “shining her light”.
-
I notice your character’s old way was playing small. It made me think of a speech by Nelson Mandela. As I read it over, I thought it is something for me to remember as an aspiring screen writer:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are
powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness,
that frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant,
gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.
There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won’t feel
insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory that is within us.
It’s not just in some of us. It’s in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine, we consciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
-
Thank you so much, Joan. This speech is exactly the transformation. I saved it in my notes for inspiration. 🤩
-
This speech is so inspiring. Thank you for sharing.
-
This really is an inspiring speech and really captures what transformation is about. I also saved it for future consideration in my character Chloe’s change from old to new ways. She is looking for something outside of herself to make the change for her.
-
-
-
Day 9 Part 2: Bob’s Old Ways Challenge Chart for my play.
What I learned doing this assignment is that taking a hard look at the many filters of perception, beliefs and ‘rules’ my characters have is a powerful way to debunk many long-standing beliefs. And it’s another tool to help pry the main character out of a stuck situation and into positive action. Some examples:
Old Way: An eye for an eye is what Malvolio lives by. “If they hit me, I hit back harder.”
New Way: “If they go low, we go high.” Fabian, the baker (and hardest hit), is the first to understand that, in the long run, good will win out.
Old Way: “If I don’t demonstrate how superior I am, people will treat me badly.”
New Way” “If you are simply yourself, devoid of pretense, you don’t waste all your energy posing and preening for others.”
Old Way: “People are pretty much what they do and what their status is. The higher the status, the greater the person.”
New Way: “Status is often something conferred by others upon you. What’s central is how you feel about your authentic self. Struggling for ever-higher position is wearying, worrisome, and a waste of precious time.”
Old Way: “I don’t care what all you low-life types think about me.”
New Way: “The truth is, you want to be liked, or at least, respected, by everyone.”
Old Way: “Some have greatness thrust upon them—and I am among that special group, destined for fame and fortune.”
New Way: “Greatness is something you achieve by your own actions. It is not ‘thrust upon you.’ You’ve got to earn it.”
Old Way: “I have just cause to retaliate in the name of vengeance.”
New Way: “But let the punishment fit the crime. You directly hurt FIVE people.”
Old Way: “It wasn’t my fault that a goat kicked over the lantern and burned down Fabian’s mill. I didn’t plan that.”
New Way: “Planned or not, your revenge meant no bread for the whole town. If you never sent in the goat to befoul Fabian’s mill as a prank, it never would have burned.”
Old Way: “But I didn’t mean it, I told you.”
New Way: “Tell that to all the hungry families.”
-
Bob–I’m very touched by each of your New Ways. Thank-you.
-
Thank you, Joan. That’s encouraging to read. What’s amazing is, all these “New Ways” and challenges were not a big part of my thinking before I started this course, which I think will forever change how I approach writing a play.
-
-
Bob,
I thought Malvolio might get stuck in his escalating revenge schemes! I like the way you are helping him find ways to change.
-
Thank you, Marilynne. I did not think of any of these ideas before this course. I’m grateful for that.
-
-
Hi Bob, your new ways are full of wisdom and humanity. They point out the protagonist’s weaknesses without being critical. Not knowing how the protagonist respond to each comment that challenge his belief, I’d imagine that these comments seep into his subconscious and make him realise that he needs to change if he want people to respect him.
BTW, I admire your learning process. You must have spent a great amount of time reading other participants’ posts and giving them feedbacks. That’s the best way to learn.
-
-
Vivien’s 12 Angry Men Analysis – Day 9, Assignment 1
What I learned about doing this assignment is the importance of introducing the characters’ normal world. Their habits, beliefs, social values, rules, etc… inform their actions and decisions. When the audience understand this dynamic, they are more likely to develop empathy for the characters and engage in their journey.
Another lesson I learned from this assignment is how to create believable and interesting conflicts among characters by using their beliefs, values, etc…
ANALYSIS
Of the 12 jury members, three show strongest resistance to acquitting the boy because they have ulterior motives. They are jury #3, #10 and #7.
I’ll discuss the main motives of these jury members and how they use other “old ways” to justify their decision.
1. JURY #3, a head of messenger service
#3 is extremely opinionated, fiercely competitive, and ruthless. He’s intolerant of people who have different views and forces his views on others.
#3 backstory: he was violent toward his 22-year-old but blamed their tumultuous relationship on the son. His son once hit him when they fought and later cut ties with him. #3 projects himself as the father of the boy in the court case and is hellbent on punishing him.
OLD WAYS: Assumption of guilt
“These lawyers can talk and talk and talk even in a case as obvious as this one.”
“This man is a dangerous killer, you could see it. He knifes his father, four inches into the chest. … It’s an open and shut thing.”
“Every one of you knows this kid is guilty! He’s got to burn! We’re letting him slip through our fingers here!”
“The boy lied, and you know it.”
“Goddamn, rotten kid. I know what they are like. I know what they can do. I know how they can kill you every day …. I can feel the knife going in.”
OTHER “OLD WAYS”:
Prejudice: “Sometimes I think we ought to take these tough kids and just slap ‘em down before they start trouble.”
Not looking beneath the surface: “The phrase was “I’m going to kill you,” and the kid screamed it out at the top of his lungs…. Anybody says a thing like the way he said it, they mean it.”
Just want this over: “Yeah, let’s get this over with. We probably all got things to do.”
Assuming the witness was accurate: “I’m talking about facts… He (the man who lives in the apartment above) said it sounded like a fight. Then he heard the kid shout out, “I’m gonna kill you.” A second later he heard a body fall… They (the police) found the father with a knife in his chest.”
CHALLENGE:
As #8 says to #3 “You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts… You’re a sadist.”
#3 is blind with anger against his own son. He’s made up his mind to punish the boy to convince himself that his violence against his own son was justified. When the other jury members understand his motive, #3 loses all credibility.
#3 bases his guilty verdict on two arguments: 1) the boy tells his father ‘I’m going to kill you,” hence he must have meant it; 2) the woman across the street saw him plunge the knife into his father’s chest.
#8 debunks both arguments:
1) people say ‘I’m going to kill you” when they’re angry, as one jury did in the room. It’s not a real threat, only a way to express anger.
2) The woman could not have clearly identified the assassin 60 feet away in a split seconds in the dark without wearing her eyeglasses.
2. Jury #10: a Muslim garage owner, probably a migrant himself.
#10 is an angry and bitter man. He’s a bigot and a xenophobe. He has utmost contempt for people who live in slums like the boy at the trial. For him, these ‘illegal immigrants’ are the scums of society: they are idiotic, drinkers, liars, criminals and drug addicts. They kill senselessly; they take advantage of society and do no good to society.
OLD WAYS: Prejudice
“It’s pretty tough to figure. I mean, the kid just kills his father. Bang! Just like that.”
“It’s the element. I’m tellin’ you they let those kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves ’em right.”
“Look, I’ve lived among them (kids living in the slums) all my life. I mean, you can’t believe a word they say. They are born liars.”
“Look, you know how these people lie! It’s born in them!… They don’t know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don’t need any real big reason to kill someone either! No sir!”
“The kids that crawl out of these places are nothing but trash.”
“Oh they’re very big drinkers, all of’em, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter. Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s how they are! By nature! You know what I mean? Violent!”
“They’re against us. They hate us. They want to destroy us. They come over here and they benefit from everything that we’ve built.”
“This boy, we got him. I say we get him before his gets us!”
“He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English.”
OTHER “OLD WAYS”:
Assuming the Defence Attorney did his job: “When these guys (the defence attorney) don’t ask questions, that’s because they know the answers already and they figure they’ll be hurt.”
Assuming the witness was accurate: “What about that woman across the street?… She looks out the window and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father.”
Not caring: “I don’t give a damn about the law. Why should I? They don’t.”
CHALLENGE
#10 lets his own beliefs guides him rather than thinking critically about the evidence. His bigotry causes a backslash. The group finds him repulsive when he tries to impose on them his vitriolic view on immigrants and people who live in slums. He forgets that one jury member is a migrant (#11) and another member lives in a slum (#5). He loses respect and credibility from everyone and they turn their back on him.
3. JURY #7: a salesman.
#7 is a bully. He’s loud, quick to show his temper and quick to form opinions. He doesn’t care about the boy or the case. He doesn’t want to waste time sitting on a jury. He has a pair of ticket to a baseball game later on and is distracted by the game. He talks about it constantly and pays little attention to the group discussion. #7 wants #8 to join the other 11 jury members to vote ‘guilty’ so they can all go home.
OLD WAYS: Just want this over
“Come on, let’s vote then we’ll go home!”
“This better be fast. I get tickets to a ball game tonight.”
“Come on already! Look at the time!”
“Well, what’s there to talk about? Eleven men in here agree. Nobody had to think about it twice, except you.”
“So what’d you vote not guilty for?”
“The boy is guilty, pal. Like the nose on your face. So let’s go home before we get sore throats.”
“So now where are we? I’m telling you, we can yakety-yak until next Tuesday here. Where’s it getting us?”
OTHER “OLD WAYS”:
Not looking beneath the surface:
“How about that business with the knife. I mean, expect normal people to believe that kind of bullshit?”
“I mean this kid is five for oh. Look at his record. He was in children’s court when he was ten for throwing a rock at his teacher. At fifteen he was in reform school. He stole a car. He’s been arrested for mugging. He was picked up twice for knife fighting. He’s real swift with a knife, they said. This is a very fine boy.”
Assumption of guilt:
“Listen, there are facts staring you right in your face. Every one of them says this kid killed his old man.”
“What, just because I voted fast? I think the guy’s guilty. You couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.”
Assuming the Defence Attorney did his job: “For cryin’ out loud his own lawyer knew he didn’t stand a chance right from the beginning. His own lawyer. You could see it. He deserves the chair.”
Not caring: “Let’s take it into the judge and let the kid take his chances with twelve other guys.”
CHALLENGE
#7 doesn’t have a strong viewpoint. His arguments are vague and unconvincing. He simply regurgitates those of the prosecutor or jumps on the band wagon with the majority. Everyone can see that #7 cares more about his ballgame than about an 18-year-old boy’s life. His attitude is disturbing, and the group doesn’t take him seriously.
4. OTHER JURY MEMBERS
Apart from jury #8, who has doubts about the boy’s guilt, other jury members were initially swayed by an eloquent prosecutor. The fact that the boy had a weak defence attorney did not give them a different viewpoint to contemplate. But when #8 makes them look beneath the surface, they slowly form their own opinions and start to have reasonable doubt that the boy killed his father.
Old Way:
Assuming the case is completely logical
“What do you think of the prosecutor? I think he’s very sharp the way he handled all his points one by one, in logical sequence. Take a good brain for that. I was very impressed.” (#12)
Challenge:
#12 cannot have a balanced view by just listening to one side of the argument.
Old Way:
Not looking beneath the surface: “Pretty obvious. I was convinced on the very first day.” (#6)
Challenge
#6 is likely to take the prosecutor’s arguments for face value.
Old Way:
Assumption of guilt: “It’s up to us to convince this gentleman here, that we’re right and he’s wrong.” (#12)
Challenge:
#12 does not seek a different point of view. He assumes that the majority is right, which later proves to not be the case.
Old Way:
Prejudice: “He’s born in a slum and slums are breeding ground for criminals. Children from slum background are potential menaces for society.” (#4)
Challenge
#4 states opinion, not facts, and he talks generality, which doesn’t give validity to his argument.
Old Way:
Assuming the witness was accurate: “She says that the lights went out immediately after the killing but that she got a good look at the boy in the act of stabbing his father. As far as I can see, this is unshakeable testimony.” (#4)
Challenge:
The woman could have mistaken the boy for someone else. She was 60 feet away from the murder scene. She looks through the window across the street as the el train passes by and saw someone stabbed the father in one split second then the light went out. She’s short sighted and did not wear eyeglasses.
-
Vivien- Brava! For me, you’ve written the most comprehensive analysis of Old Ways vs. New Ways! As I read though it, I found myself nodding at little points I missed. Thank you! I love how committed you are to excellence.
-
Thank you Bob. I am glad that my analysis gave you some new insights.
-
-
Hi Vivien,
Thanks for the two “What I learned…” I’m going to keep them.
-
Thank you Joan.
-
-
-
Vivien’s Old Ways Challenge Chart
What I learned doing this assignment is to take a critical look at the Old Ways my Transformable Character looks at the world. From this analysis I refined the conflicts in my movie to make them organic and believable, and to create empathy for the protagonist.
Old Ways for “My Brother’s Ashes” dramedy
· One should let go of outdated traditions.
· One must always tell the truth.
· One must be in control.
· One must use logic to solve problems.
· To make good decisions, one must have strong opinions.
· To love is to be true.
· One can’t accept what one doesn’t understand.
· One knows what’s best for one’s parents.
· One must fight to get what one wants.
· Walk away is the best way to avoid conflict.
· One must be swift when solving problems.
· If science can’t prove it, then it’s superstition.
Old way
Alicia tells Mother she must go home to Sydney now (for Anthony’s funeral, which is a secret to Mother). She can’t change the plan to suit Mother.
Challenge
Mother: Grandma is 100 years old. I don’t want to miss her birthday. I might never see her again.
Old way
Alicia: If we love Mother, we must tell her that Anthony has died. To love is to be true.
Challenge
Father: Mother is likely to have a total meltdown if she hears the news. It’s our duty to protect her. It’s our family’s tradition.
Old way
Alicia reproaches Father for being unjust to Mother by keeping her in the dark about Anthony.
Challenge
Father: Sometimes it’s more important to be kind than to be true.
Old way
Alicia doesn’t understand Father’s decision, hence doesn’t think she can help him.
Challenge
Father: You don’t need to understand the situation. Just accept it.
Old way
Alicia wants to go back to California to give Father the freedom to deal with Anthony’s matter as he sees fit.
Challenge
Father: The best way to help the family is to stand by them during crisis time.
Old way
Alicia: Let’s address the problem now, i.e tell Mother the truth because the truth does not change with time.
Challenge
Father: we’ll tell Mother when the right time comes. There’s a time for everything.
Old way
Alicia: Mother sees Anthony in her dreams because she thinks about him all the time. Our brain replays our thoughts during the day when we sleep.
Challenge
Anthony’s dream leads Mother to the Ash Temple where the family secretly let his ashes to rest.
Old way
Father gets hospitalised for a heart attack. Alicia refuses to lie to Mother this time. The family must treat Mother with respect and include her in family’s matters.
Challenge
Father has lived with Mother for 40 years. He knows her temperament. He knows that Mother will become frantic and will create more problems if she sees him in the hospital. He’s right. Mother becomes hysterical when Alicia brings her to the hospital.
Old way
Alicia: Let’s make up a temporary story that Anthony has moved to Vietnam to find his roots. We’ll come up with new stories as we go along.
Challenge
Father: a temporary story is not a solution unless we have a long-term plan to help Mother cope.
Old way
Alicia: Mother will be happy when she sees that Anthony is enjoying his life in Vietnam. We’ll doctor some pictures of Anthony living in Vietnam.
Challenge
Mother doesn’t want Anthony to live in Vietnam. She’s afraid that he’ll marry a local woman and settle there. She doesn’t want to lose her son.
Old way
Alicia: We’ll ask our travel agent to tell Mother that there’s Avian Flu in South Vietnam where Anthony lives, and the region is under lockdown. So, Mother can’t go to there now.
Challenge
Mother panics. She wants Father to bring Anthony home, immediately.
Old way
Alicia: I give up. Nothing works. Let’s tell Mother the truth.
Challenge
Father: We will tell Mother the truth after we find a way to keep Anthony’s spirit alive for her.
Old way
Alicia: Anthony’s secret girlfriend Cindy is six months pregnant with their son. But she looks like a hippie and may cause more stress to Mother. Maybe we shouldn’t introduce Cindy to her.
Challenge
Father: Mother won’t abandon her grandchild. She may think that he’s Anthony’s reincarnation. Let’s take a chance with Cindy. She must be a fine woman for Anthony to fall in love with.
Old way
Alicia: Father needs not suffer in silence. He should mourn Anthony with Mother. That’s what parents do when they lose a child.
Challenge
Father: love is making personal sacrifices. I am the head of the household, and I must stay strong for the family.
I haven’t listed everything. But the discussion above should give a good idea about the story.
-
I liked this profound observation: “The truth does not change with time.” It made me stop and think!
This is a close knit family with critical family events happening. It seems they experience/share some of the old and new ways together, rather than being individual experiences. Not something I had thought about before.
-
Hi Marilynne,
Traditional Vietnamese families (or traditional Asian families in general) function as a unit. They are close-knit and make important decision together. This practice often causes conflict between the traditional older generation and the younger generation who grow in Western countries and more in tune with Western way of life.
-
-
-
Marilynne’s 12 Angry Men Analysis
What I learned doing this assignment is I appreciated having “on the nose” examples that were relatively easy to identify and helpful to understand the old and new ways together.
Asignment – Old Ways (OW): Challenged by New Ways
OW prejudice
NO. 10: It’s tough to figure, isn’t it? A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that. Well, it’s the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves ‘em right
NO. 10: You’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I’ve lived among ’em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know that.
Challenged by NO. 9: (to NO. 10 very slowly). I don’t know that. What a terrible thing for a man to believe!Since when is dishonesty a group characteristic? You have no monopoly on the truth.
NO.7: Look at the kid’s record. At fifteen he was in reform school. He stole a car. He’s been arrested for mugging. He was picked up for knife-fighting. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm. This is a very fine boy.
Challenged by NO. 8: Ever since he was five years old his father beat him up regularly. He used his fists.
NO. 4: This boy—let’s say he’s a product of a filthy neighborhood and a broken home. We can’t help that.We’re not here to go into the reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals. They are. I know it. So do you. The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.
NO. 10: You said it there. I don’t want any part of them, believe me.
Challenged by NO. 5: I’ve lived in a slum all my life…. I used to play in a back yard that was filled withgarbage. Maybe it still smells on me.
Challenged by NO. 8: Well let me ask you this. Do you really think the boy would shout out a thing like thatso the whole neighborhood would hear it? I don’t think so. He’s much too bright for that.
NO. 10: (exploding). Bright! He’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English!
NO. 11: (slowly). He doesn’t even speak good English.
OW: Assumption of guilt
NO. 3: I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.
NO.10: (wisely). Well, look, you’ve gotta expect that [evidence about losing the knife]. You know what you’redealing with.
NO.7: Let’s vote now. Who knows, maybe we can all go home.
NO. 3: (sarcastically) Somebody’s in left field. (To NO. 8) You think he’s not guilty?
NO. 7: What, just because I voted fast? I think the guy’s guilty. You couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.
Challenged by NO. 8: I don’t want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while. Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That’s not a very goodhead start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock ’em on the head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.
OW: Just want this over
NO. 7: Just a minute. Some of us have got better things to do than sit around a jury room.
Challenged by NO. x: you have something more important to do (like go to a baseball game) than this fundamental duty in a democratic society
OW: Assuming the evidence is not questionable
NO. 7: How did you like that business about the knife? Did you ever hear a phonier story? Right. This better be fast.’ I’ve got tickets to the ballgame.
NO. 3: That’s old enough. He knifed his own father, four inches into the chest. An innocent little nineteen-year-old kid. They proved it a dozen different ways. Do you want me to list them?
Challenged by NO. 8: No.
NO. 10: (to NO. 8). Well, do you believe his story?
NO. 8: I don’t know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don’t.
NO. 8: There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.
OW: Assuming the witnesses were accurate
NO.3: Okay, let’s get to the facts. Number one, let’s take the old man who lived on the second floor right underneath the room where the murder took place. At ten minutes after twelve on the night of the killing he heard loud noises in the upstairs apartment. He said it sounded like a fight. Then he heard the kid say to his father, “I’m gonna kill you.!” A second later he heard a body falling, and he ran to the door of his apartment, looked out, and saw the kid running down the stairs and out of the house. Then he called the police. They found the father with a knife in his chest.
Challenged by several jurors: noise of the train, couldn’t have heard the boy; time and distance to the front door and the speed the old man could travel
NO. 10: Look, what about the woman across the street? If her testimony don’t prove it, then nothing does.
Challenged by NO. 8: I’d like to ask you something. How come you believed her? She’s one of “them” too,isn’t she?
NO. 4: Next, the boy claims that on the way home the knife must have fallen through a hole in his coat pocket, that he never saw it again. Now there’s a story, gentlemen. You know what actually happened. The boy tookthe knife home and a few hours later stabbed his father with it and even remembered to wipe off the fingerprints.
NO. 4: Everyone connected with the case identified this knife. Now are you trying to tell me thatsomeone picked it up off the street and went up to the boy’s house and stabbed his father with it just to beamusing?
Challenged by NO. 8: No, I’m saying that it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone elsestabbed his father with a similar knife. It’s possible.
NO. 3: You’re crazy. Why would he lie? What’s he got to gain?
NO. 9: Attention, maybe.
NO. 3: You keep coming up with these bright sayings. Why don’t you send one into a newspaper? They pay two dollars.
[NO. 8 looks hard at NO. 3 and then turns to NO. 9]
Challenged by NO. 8: (softly). Why might the old man have lied? You have a right to be heard.
NO. 9: It’s just that I looked at him for a very long time. The seam of his jacket was split under the arm. Did you notice that? He was a very old man with a torn jacket, and he carried two canes. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition—his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him after seventy-five years. That’s a very sad thing. A man like this needs to be recognized. To be questioned, and listened to, and quoted just once. This is very important.
OW: Assuming the Defense Attorney did his job
NO. 3 (annoyed): What about the ones that were asked? For instance, let’s talk about that cute littleswitchknife. You know, the one that fine, upright kid admitted buying
Challenged by NO. 8: All right. I had a peculiar feeling about this trial. Somehow I felt that the defensecounsel never really conducted a thorough cross-examination. I mean, he was appointed by the court todefend the boy. He hardly seemed interested. Too many questions were left unasked.
OW: Not caring
Overlap with some of the others already raised
OW: Assuming the case is completely logical
NO. x: assumes it would be easy to stab someone with the blade down
Challenged by NO. x: grew up in a neighborhood where a switchblade was common; demonstrates how unlikely this was; how the knife would have to be opened and held to stab a taller man in a downward thrust
NO. 4: The boy’s entire story is flimsy. He claimed he was at the movies. That’s a little ridiculous, isn’t it? He couldn’t even remember what pictures he saw.
Challenged by NO. 8: One of the other jurors couldn’t remember details about a movie he’d seen either, and wasn’t under the strain this boy was
OW: Not looking beneath the surface
Overlap with assumptions of guilt
-
Hi Marilynne, I very much enjoy reading your analysis. It’s thorough and clear. It’s nice to see who says what and who challenges the old beliefs.
I like the way you classified the jury’s comments in the old ways category of thinking and highlighted their points in bold.
-
-
Marilynne’s Old Ways Challenge Chart (Assignment 2)
What I learned doing this assignment… this exercise has been helpful to think specifically about how the changes will happen in my story (Chloe runs away to Africa…)
1. Habits
OW: Chloe is used to be in charge and usually barrels ahead planning for a new project without input from other stakeholders, which is exactly what she does for the new maternal-child project. This is despite not being as familiar with the environment and culture as others.
NW: Stakeholders in the maternal-child project are invited to have a say in developing the plans if they are expected to support them.
2. Assumptions
OW: Chloe feels her knowledge and experience make her the genuinely the most knowledgeable about maternal-child project planning; these assumptions make her arrogant and short-tempered with others who “don’t get” her thinking.
NW: She realizes other people have other equally important experiences in and knowledge of the African context which allows them to make suggestions about how to move forward if she wants their cooperation. Initially they do this privately through notes and private conversations rather than challenge her in public.
NW2: When Chloe realizes her way is not always the best she quietly observes and learns from other successful programs.
3. Filters of Perception
OW1: Chloe’s perception of where she is in life is always through a filter of “what should have happened, and her lifelong goal not being fulfilled” and not as a result of her choices
NW1: Chloe begins to make conscious choices about her life and where she wants to be – not where everyone else expects her to be
OW2: Chloe holds a strong belief that education is the answer for women and children in developing countries, particularly for them to move forward in their development and live better quality lives. This belief clouds her ability to see other possible solutions and leading her to often dismiss them as well as the people proposing them without consideration
NW2: Chloe develops new and exciting partnerships with people and agencies that she never considered before. They contribute in unexpected ways to her program development.
4. Beliefs
OW1: She has gone along with expectations of important people in her life: her father, her husband, her children, her boss, eg. does not make decisions that feel right to her, or take the career path she has always dreamed of
NW1: Chloe takes a hard look at what are the expectations in her own heart and begins to live by these, even if they don’t agree with what others want her to do, e.g. stays in Africa although everyone is imploring her to come home
OW2: she was raised in a community that believed in a Christian faith and was expected to continue in this path without question, which she has done most of her life. She is dissatisfied with something in her life and feels the need to explore alternative faiths
NW2: Rosemarie’s gentle demeanor and Buddhist faith inspires her to not only want to find out more but be open to new ideas.
5. Social Values
OW: Chloe holds some strong social values around treating people with respect and creating equality in her work and social circles. She finds not everyone believes these values are important in the same ways or they have different ways of demonstrating their values. She gets frustrated and tries to change people’s minds by telling them what the “right” values are. This is never a successful strategy.
NW: Even though she recognizes her old ways don’t work, Chloe struggles to change – to stop calling people out for their behavior that doesn’t fit her social values. Her new ways are a work in progress as she tries to be more patient and tolerant in her circumstances and spend more time listening and understanding rather than lecturing. Some of the kindergarten students that she works with part-time give her with some guidance.
6. Rules, etc. for your story – Natural and Artificial Hierarchies
OW: Chloe is used to working in a hierarchical structure and understood her place in the scheme of things. She is at a total loss in her new environment and seems to be “stepping on someone’s toes” at every turn. Some people find her seeming disrespect for “their system” irritating and unacceptable.
NW: Rosemarie helps Chloe build a partnership with a mentor who helps her fit in. She begins demonstrating respect and understanding that local partners appreciate.
-
Hope’s 12 ANGRY MEN analysis
What I learned: I’ve always liked this movie and now, watching it for (probably) for fourth or fifth time, this lesson had me approach it differently. The writer, Reginald Rose, was so deliberate; and his characters so varied. Nice example, too, for making a contained screenplay work.
Old ways (lots of assumptions):
- open and shut case
- Non-white citizens are “born liars”
- only “bleeding hearts” would think otherwise
- non-native English speakers can’t be trusted
- “do-gooders” are trouble makers
- eye-witness testimony is dependable
- Old men should be sidelined
New ways:
- When someone’s life is on the line, the jury owes him a discussion
- Don’t make assumptions about non-white citizens
- Saying “I’ll kill you” shouldn’t be taken literally all the time
- With age comes wisdom
- Recognizing the hardships of old age
- <font face=”inherit”>”</font>Prejudice<font face=”inherit”> always obscures the truth … now we have reasonable doubt”</font>
-
Day 9 Part 2 Shifting Belief Systems
Old Ways / Challenge
What I learned doing this assignment…
Old Ways:
Judge Ken has a fear of being overturned if he hands out too harsh sentences.
He has a fear of getting caught if he joins the star chamber.
He also has a fear of loss of social standing if he gets caught being in the star chamber.
Challenges to the Old Ways:
Judge Jason encourages him to join the star chamber in order to get things done-do something about the injustices that aren’t being solved by the court. “We get things done, we get results.”
They both have had family members killed or physically injured by selfish, careless distracted drivers.
This should incentivize Ken to come over to the light-dark side. It’s light because they solve the
injustices and dark because it’s illegal.
-
JD’s 12 Angry Men Analysis
I learned that there is mid-ground and gradient between old ways and new ways. It is important to show why the old ways will not solve the problem at hand.
Challenges to Assumption of Guilt:
“Burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open their mouth.”
Challenges to Just Want This Over:
“It’s only one night. A boy may die.”
Challenges to Not Caring:
“Don’t you have the guts to do what you think is right?”
Challenges to Prejudice:
“Only an ignorant man can believe that! Do you think you were born with a monopoly on the truth?”
“You believe the woman’s story, but you don’t believe the kid’s story. And she’s one of them, too.”
“You don’t care about this case. You just want to get the kid.”
(Action) Everyone getting up from the table after racist rant.
“Prejudice always obscures the truth.”
Challenges to Not Looking Beneath the Surface:
Questioning the old man’s motives for the testimony he gave.
Questioning if the kid panicked and forgot the knife, then how was he so calm to wipe off his prints.
Pointing out how easy it is to forget details of recent past events, even when not under pressure.
The last jury hold-out thinking about his own son and how that relationship is tainting his judgement.
Challenging Assumptions That the Evidence is Not Questionable:
(Action) Presenting the same exact knife.
Challenging Assumptions That the Witnesses Were Accurate:
Questioning whether the old man could hear the yelling over the noise of the passing L-train.
“How can you believe anything the old man said!” And realizing you just argued against your own argument.
Questioning the timing of the old man getting to his door to look out.
Questioning the lady across the tracks not wearing her glasses.
Challenging the Assumptions That the Defense Attorney Did His Job:
“I would have asked for another lawyer.”
“Maybe the case was not important to the court-appointed lawyer.”
Challenging Assumptions That the Case is Completely Logical:
“I’ll kill you!” – “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me. Do you?”
-
JD’s Old Ways Challenge Chart
I learned that there is a lot of room in my script to add more challenges which will setup the ultimate New Ways I want to reveal.
Old Ways and Challenges
Jake is rugged and egotistical:
– Nervous about scuba diving
– Shook-up by mermaid sighting
– Starts getting paranoid
– Enjoys romance with Lana
– Taking too long to find the treasure
– Lana’s life in jeopardy is weighing on Jake’s new found conscious
Jake is womanizing:
– Lana is not an easy target
– Jake cannot stop thinking about Lana
– Jake and Lana are developing a relationship in private
– Exchanging gifts
– Falling in love
– Compassionate
– Changed man because of love
– Mermaid tattoo
Jake is self-centered:
– Takes on business partner
– Opens up to Old timer
– Wants to Lana happy
– Starts to value Lana’s needs over his own
Immature
– Has to take job because of cashflow issues
– Begins to value romance over sex
– Learns there is more to life than treasure and money
– Values gift given from Lana more than the treasure he has taken
– Does the mature and moral thing in the end
Finders Keepers:
– Feels compelled to give a gift to Lana
– Gives up some treasure to con the rival treasure hunters
– Once he finds the treasure, he decides not to keep it
Losers Weepers:
– Jake is forced to think about right and wrong — and rightful owners — when he realizes what the treasure trove really means to Lana
– Discovers the intrinsic value of artifacts over their cash value
– Returns artifacts to rightful owners
-
Brenda Boddy – 12 Angry men analysis
What I learned doing this assignment was that you can question a situation to make a protagonist begin to have a shift in their perceptions.
I’m going to lump the 11 jurors who thought the boy was guilty onto one side and juror number 8 onto the other.
The 11 jurors thought the boy was guilty not only by their personal perceptions and experiences, but their belief that the system had treated the boy fairly and done its best to show his side of the case.
Juror 8 also started the journey with his own perceptions, which included ‘life is important’ and a belief that decisions involving the death penalty were not to be taken lightly. Because of this he became the change agent.
Each time a challenge was brought to the table (duplicate knife, angle of stabbing, not remembering the movies the kid saw, the kid’s decision to come home, the woman seeing the incident without her glasses, and the noise the train made) jurors were impacted by their own life experiences and realized they were judging the crime through their own-colored glasses. One by one they began to have a shift in their perception of whether the kid was guilty.
-
Brenda Boddy – OLD WAYS CHALLENGE CHART
What I learned: I went back through my script and changed some of the dialogue to question Karma’s actions, so that she thought of things in a different way. As she applied herself she also ‘learned’ new ways of viewing herself.
Old Ways Challenge
Karma doesn’t believe she has powers.–Kit challenges her, “What does it hurt to try?”
Karma hurts someone. Doesn’t want to use her powers.—Kit challenges her, “master them.”
Karma doesn’t believe who she is.—Kit makes her repeat that she is a ‘goddess’.
Karma doesn’t think she’s good enough to get the Godstones.—Zeus has no one else. Tells her she’s the “only one.”
Karma failes to get Zeus’s stone. Doesn’t think she can get Poseidon’s stone.—Zeus asks her, “What will happen if a being, such as Thamia, gets the power to rule creation?”
Karma feels they may have a chance if Zeus fights alongside her. When he is taken out, she believes she can handle this herself.
When Thamia injures Sobin, and chokes Karma to death…she rises, with the full strength of Zeus, and annihilates Thamia.
-
Tom’s 12 Angry Men Analysis
What I learned from this lesson was that old ways can be tackled in groups, multiple times, and with different levels of intensity. While there were some on-the-nose moments in this movie, there were also some challenges that felt more generated by discovery.
ASSIGNMENT 1
Old Way: Assumption of guilt
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation;
Old Way: Just want this over
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation; One guy switches his vote because he just wants it to be over and then gets called out by the person who came to the country
Old Way: Not caring
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation; One guy switches his vote because he just wants it to be over and then gets called out by the person who came to the country
Old Way: Prejudice
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation; Multiple jurors later say the boy is from the slums and that all, which enlightens others to the systemic racism at play; One juror says that the accused should burn and gets called out for personally wanting him to take the fall—then gets riled up and says that he’ll kill the juror, illustrating that someone could say something like this without really meaning it; Guy starts making racist comments and everyone gets up and turns their back on him—another guy tells him to shut it or he’ll split his skull.
Old Way: Not looking beneath the surface
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation; Guy starts making racist comments and everyone gets up and turns their back on him—another guy tells him to shut it or he’ll split his skull
Old Way: Assuming the evidence is not questionable
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation; Juror 8 later asks to see the knife, another juror summarizes the segment of the trial regarding the knife, and juror 8 reveals the same knife, it was bought at the corner store for $2—indicating there could likely have been more than one knife; the stabbing motion is called into play later and the juror who grew up in the slums explains anyone who ever used a switchblade would stab low and up, not high and downward.
Old Way: Assuming the witnesses were accurate
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation; The witness saw the murder through the windows of an elevated train, and the old man says he heard the boy screaming out, the old juror says he did it for attention and he knows this because he too is old and lonely; Calling into question that an old man travelled across the room in 15 seconds, one of the jurors who was adamant he was guilty, yells out how can we trust anything an old man says. They then map it out and see it takes 28 seconds; The woman who saw the murder wore glasses but says she rolled over in bed and saw the murder but would not have had time to
Old Way: Assuming the Defense Attorney did his job
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation;
Old Way: Assuming the case is completely logical
Challenge: Initially challenged by Juror 8 who voted not guilty to start a conversation;
ASSIGNMENT 2
Tom’s Old Ways Challenge Chart
What I learned from this lesson was that there are a variety of ways to challenge the old ways and that the challenge lands even harder when the character struggling through the old ways has the self-discovery that leads them to acknowledge the need for change.
-
CHHIMED DROLMA’S 12 ANGRY MEN ANALYSIS
What I learned doing this assignment is to look for the ways that people can have their beliefs/values/ways challenged. Henry Fonda did it in a way that is a lot more gentle than what one might see today on the internet and maybe there are subtler ways for people and characters to reveal other ways of being to antagonists.
12 ANGRY MEN OLD WAYS (#’s=Old Ways / Number + Letter=Challenge)
1. Care more about their ballgame than a man’s life. Murder is at least interesting. Assault, burglary cases aren’t entertaining enough.
1a. Henry Fonda says a man’s life is worth at least a few hours.
2. Immediate reaction of violence toward “slum kids.” The “slum kid” is lucky he got a trial, as if it isn’t his right. “They’re” born liars.
2a. “Only an ignorant man can believe that.”
3. Kids from “bad” backgrounds are menaces to society.
3a. Henry Fonda calls out the bigotry and sadism.
4. Racist tirade.
4a. Everyone either gets up, faces away from him, ignores him, or speaks up against him. Directly addresses prejudice.
5. Racist, sadistic tirade
5a. The picture of the man’s own estranged son makes him consider all HE’S done wrong in his relationship with his son and how maybe the kid on trial deserves another chance.
6. Racist sadist is crying silently as all file out of the jury room and ignore him in disgust/pity.
6a. Henry Fonda gets racist sadist his jacket, shows him maybe the first moment of compassion in his life.
CHHIMED DROLMA’S OLD WAYS CHALLENGE CHART
What I learned doing this assignment is that I need to rewrite my entire screenplay/book to include more challenges to my protagonist’s views and ways.
1. A.V. suffers through her daily nightmares alone.
1a. A.V. is challenged to share by W, then also by M and T, then she shares with O as an example.
2. A.V. womanizes to avoid the emotional pain of her first love.
2a. Meets C who directly confronts AV’s fear of relationship and motivates AV to be vulnerable.
3. Rather than communicate with her crew, A.V. hires someone to communicate with them and make sure their emotional needs are met.
3a. Her crew sees what she’s been through and vocally encourages her to reach out for help instead of helping them all the time.
4. Doesn’t let even her best friend D know what is going on with the little girl and why she’s looking for her.
4a. When AV finally, shamefully tells D what’s going on, he’s mad because he supports her 100% and challenges her to be a better friend and share herself.
5. Her knee-jerk reaction to emotional as well as physical threats/upset is violence or distraction through sex or drinking.
5a. AV’s tendency toward violence almost gets D killed. T encourages AV to seek help so she does finally talk with W and others and no longer feels like a loose cannon.
6. AV wants to discover what the nightmares are, but when she does, she doesn’t want to deal with them and thinks she can just move forward by continuing her Old Ways.
6a. T tries to talk with AV, but only M gets through to her and tells her how talking to someone helped her, then also talking with her grandma.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Chhimed Drolma.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
Log in to reply.