Yeah, I don't feel like being creative with the title right now

Article One

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.depaul.edu/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=104&sid=b4cd6cc1-1368-4719-b43b-23e1cdea1379%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=fah&AN=1862850

Films that set out to expose racial hatred for "what it is" sometimes appear to be fanning the very flames that they are trying to quash. Remember Mississippi Burning, a portrait of systematic racial violence in America's Deep South? The pointy hooded klan reportedly advised their members to go and see the film because they felt it served their cause. The same might be said about elements of American History X.

The film sets out to expose the currents of race hatred in a poor Californian neighbourhood, and does so without glossing over any home truths. Racism comes in all hues: slipped in at the family dinner table or vitriolically bellowed out at ear-bleed volume through a concert PA stack.

The story follows Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), the leader of a Venice Beach gang of skinheads, who is released from prison after doing time for killing two black crooks he caught breaking into his car. His younger brother Daniel (Edward Furlong) is now following in big bro's footsteps and looks up to him for leadership. But he discovers that his brother has changed a great deal during his stint behind bars.

Insights into Derek's development are presented in flash-back: the past, where convictions are more cut and dry, is filmed in black and white. The young Derek, seen through his brother's eyes, has an aura of divinity about him reflected in the music and religious iconography.

The performances are all excellent. Edward Norton shows an extensive broadening of his range, while Edward Furlong shows plenty of promise as an older actor. Avery Brooks gives a strong performance as the African American teacher who cares enough to try and work through the hatred.

American History X goes to the root of racist hatred. It reveals how potent a brew racist rhetoric can be on vulnerable, young minds. It is, ultimately, unambiguous in its depiction of the wastefulness and ugliness of racist rage and violence, but also offers a way of breaking the vicious circle of hatred. Racists may find ways of twisting the film to their cause, but then they always will.

This review was begun in such a way that might have suggested negative connotations were associated with this film and those like it (such as Mississippi Burning, a very famous movie that portrayed the treatment of African Americans in the Deep South that the author mentioned), but later backtracks on such a train of thought, stating that racists always have and always will find ways to twist well-intentioned portrayals to fit their own agendas. The author goes on to praise the film as being completely unambiguous in it’s message that racism and hatred of any kind are at best is totally destructive, and gives the movie’s actors very high marks. He gives the readers a small taste of the plot, highlighting the essentials but taking care to not reveal some key spoilers in between, to better help them understand if they are unfamiliar with the work, and to emphasis his points if they were. In the short amount of words he used, he essentially captured what is supposedly the intended message of the film, all the while offering his positive critique of both the plot and the performance.

Article Two

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=17&sid=5b39d86d-aed0-4f73-97e8-8ff4c226260c%40SRCSM1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eric&AN=EJ783976

On the day that his older brother is due to be released from prison, student Danny Vinyard (Edward Furlong) turns in a paper praising Hitler's Mein Kampf to his Jewish teacher Murray (Elliot Gould). He is sent to the principal, Bob Sweeney (Avery Brooks) who assigns him another task. He gives him a day to complete an essay on the events that have shaped his life, including the events leading up to the imprisonment of his brother. The assignment will be called American History X.

Writing this essay provides the cinematic device to tell the story of Danny and his older brother Derek (Edward Norton). Derek has been imprisoned for the killing of two men who tried to steal his car one night. Derek didn't kill them because they were thieves but because they were black, and he had been the leader of a neo-Nazi, white-power group. Derek's hatred of blacks was triggered when his father, a fireman, was killed by drug-dealers (presumed black), who shot him as he attempted to put out a fire in a poor neighbourhood. Hooking up with a local white-power activist Cameron (Stacy Keach), he organises a group of white kids into an organised mob who terrorise local non-white owned businesses.

Derek's racism is directed at anyone he meets - he explodes with rage when he finds that Murray is friendly with his mother, because he is Jewish. So when he finds two black kids (one of whom he had encountered before) messing with his car, he has no hesitation in killing them. One of them survives the initial hail of gunfire but Derek finishes him off as he lies wounded on the footpath.

When Derek is released (after serving three years for manslaughter), he returns home to find his mother ( Beverly D'Angelo) and siblings living in a small, shabby apartment, and that Danny has become involved in the neo-Nazi movement. Derek's own reputation has been enhanced by his crime, but he wants nothing more to do with Cameron's activities, and is determined to stop his younger brother following in his footsteps. The film follows his attempt to explain to Danny how his life has changed, and Danny's own exploration of his family's past (through writing his essay).

Tony Kaye's film is a thoughtful and sometimes shocking account of a skinhead's descent into murder and his eventual attempt at rehabilitation. The film is driven by two outstanding performances, from Edward Norton and Edward Furlong. Norton is simply frightening as the hate-filled Derek, all shaven scowl and bedecked with swastika tattoos. His portrayal depicts a keen intellect corrupted by an unfocussed rage. However, Edward Furlong has arguably the harder role, as it is more subtle and less showy. As a gangly teenager, desperate for a sense of belonging, and looking for someone to look up to, Furlong's Danny looks as uncomfortable in his own body as he does in his surroundings. The film is sustained by the sheer power of their performances.

Kaye's direction is visually striking, even if he does tend to overdue his use of slow-motion shots and allegorical imagery. He uses grainy black and white for the flashback sequences, which adds a documentary (and more ominous) feel to them. Kaye presents a couple of truly shocking (though not gratuitous) sequences - the double killing opens the movie and is shown again near the end of the movie. It is a sign of Kaye's confidence and talent that he shows the same scene twice, since when we see the murders at the start of the movie, we merely see a menacing-looking skinhead committing a violent act. When we see the killing later in the movie, we are aware of what drives Derek; we see the killing in a different context, and it is still as shocking and terrifying as the first time.

The other very disturbing sequence in the film is an attack, by Derek and his gang, on an Asain-owned supermarket. Though it is little more than vandalism and petty violence, the sense of reckless energy and viciousness is palpable - Kaye knows how to make an audience uncomfortable and uneasy without needing to gross them out. In some ways, he shares the same skill as Spike Lee in conveying tension and a sense of impending catastrophe.

Kaye's treatment of racism and racists is far more thoughtful than the polemic approach favoured by Lee. However, the film seems to suggest that young intelligent people (such as Derek and Danny) just need some moral guidance to cure them of their racist urges. The rest of Derek's gang are portrayed as fools, and therefore beyond redemption. This theory is somewhat undermined by the presence of Cameron, a confirmed racist who is obviously smart too. As the film concludes, the suggested real source of Derek's racist hatred is far too simplistic and naive, and it ignores the obvious tension arising from the natural conflict between culturally separate groups (white and black working class neighbourhoods). Another flaw in the movie is the depiction of Derek's conversion :- as someone who hates black people enough to kill two men for a triviality, his change of heart in prison is unconvincing. The film may be naive in its beliefs but it is still an infinitely better insight into the minds of racists than crudely drawn rubbish such as Betrayed.

There was some controversy before this movie was released when the director (Kaye) claimed that Edward Norton had used his Hollywood influence to have the final cut of the movie changed so that Norton would get more scenes. If any scenes seem superfluous, they don't include those involving either Norton or Furlong, who have each delivered their best performances to date in their respective careers. Likewise, Kaye's direction announces the arrival of a serious and powerful talent.

This (extraordinarily long) review offers much of the very same things as the first, with a few notable exceptions. Both films praise the outstanding performances of Edward Norton (Derek Vinyard) and his ‘brother’ Edward Furlong (Danny Vinyard), claiming that it was their acting that essentially brought the film to life and made the incredible impact it had on its audience possible. Both reviews also praise the movie’s message as a whole, with the latter of the two articles offering more details and insight into the imagery and symbolism of the film. The second film, however, puts more emphasis on the director Tony Kaye, and his role in achieving this masterpiece. He also does something the previous author does not; he explains the impact that the film had on its creators. He goes into a brief summary of the director’s (Tony Kaye’s) editing of the film, and how they affected the final product.

Best Youtube AMV, period.

I Speak of Poetry

1) When Langston Hughes wrote the masterpiece ‘The Negro Speaks of Rivers, he was sure to pick rivers that would make a desired impact on his readers. His first line states that these rivers are ‘older than the flow of human blood in human veins’, which is true in both respects. These rivers were here long before humans were, and when we finally did arrive, provided the lifelines for civilization as a whole. These specific rivers, however, had a very significant meaning for African Americans in particular, from the Nile River that cradled one of the most famous and advanced African civilizations (the Egyptians), to the muddy Mississippi, which saw their burdens under slavery in the new world.

2) Wow, this is a lot of questions! Alright, when the speaker says that he is the ‘darker brother’, he simply means to point out the fact that he is an African American, but still very much a part of the human family. He eats in the kitchen because he is considered a second class citizen during this time, inferior to his ‘lighter brothers’ and therefore meant to be concealed from the rest. He says ‘he’ll eat at the table tomorrow’ because he believes that in due time (not necessarily tomorrow in the literal sense), his oppressors will realize that he is indeed a person, and deserves to be treated as no less. The title makes the point that ‘negros’ are, too, Americans, and have earned the right of the nation’s respect.

3) The Harlem Renaissance was meant to glorify and celebrate all types of African Americans, giving them all an uplifting voice when there was previously none. This poem, Mulatto, doesn’t seem to do that, as it’s numerous racial slurs and insults to the mixed and black race seem to have the exact opposite effect. Black power advocates like W.E.B. Du Bois was in no means unjustified in objecting to this poem.

5) In his poem, ‘Note on Commercial Theater‘, Hughes objects to black culture being absorbed by whites during the Harlem Renaissance and the seemingly dependant lifestyles of blacks on whites. During the Harlem Renaissance, most African American writers had to get published through white publishing houses, and they gained the largest audiences while performing music in Caucasian clubs. He felt that blacks had to be dependant on themselves to truly succeed. This is still relevant today, especially in terms of music. Hip Hop and R&B have long been the brainchild for blacks, yet it has been absorbed into the mainstream white community, where they are the biggest consumers of it.

6) Because he feels that although we still have African roots and the blood of Africa running actively through our veins, we need to identify as Americans first and foremost. Poems like ‘I, too’ only solidify this belief that we are now a part of this country, and it is permanently imbedded into our collective identities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) harlot