Where do we draw the line between freedom and safety? The film The Day the Earth Stood Still, directed by Robert Wise, broaches this question from a unique perspective and displays many of the pros and cons that must be taken into consideration in order to answer this question. Earth is faced with the question: should humanity give up violence, or maintain its freedom to bear arms? While the decision was ultimately left up to the audience in this movie, the movie intended to convey that it is in the better interest of humankind to give up a portion of freedom to bear arms in favor of the safety of billions.
Often, the decision between preserving freedom or safety comes down to two opposite courses of action. The ultimate question must then
…show more content…
After going on for so long, most would say this violence was just a part of life, unchangeable. However, I believe that the creators of this movie saw a glimpse into what could have become a very real apocalypse in the near future of Earth: the development and dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. This film, released just six years after the devastation of Japan and the end of World War II, acted as a warning of what the future could hold, if this violent streak …show more content…
Klaatu concisely sums up a counter to this toward the end of the movie, as he finally finds the opportunity to implore the human race to strive toward peace: “This does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly.” Freedoms should only be considered such if they do not interfere with the freedoms of others; in this case, the “freedom” to develop atomic weaponry greatly infringes upon other humans’ (and in the film, aliens’) rights to life. Therefore, peace and safety over violence should be the obvious
2. According to Sobchack, contemporary screen violence greatly differs than portrayals of violence in years past. Today, violent scenes are careless and lack significance because we as audiences have become calloused and desensitized to any acts of violence. She states that there is “no grace or benediction attached to violence. Indeed, its very intensity seems diminished” (Sobchack 432). Senseless violence, gruesome acts, and profound amounts of gore are prevalent in movies today, and because even this is not enough, it must be accompanied by loud blasts and noise, constantly moving scenes to keep audiences stimulated and large quantities of violence for viewers to enjoy what they are watching. Decades ago, it was the story that was engaging to audiences and filmmaking was an art.
"The Controversy of Gun Control." Open Discussion about Various Controversies. N.p.. Web. 3 Dec 2013. .
Charen presents her thesis prominently at the beginning of her essay in her title. By doing so, she not only clearly expresses her thesis that we must give up some liberty to secure the United States, but also peaks the interest of the reader with a provocative and timely statement. To understand the appeal of the title as a narrative hook, the reader should consider the context in which it was written. Charen’s essay was written at a post-9/11 time when security was on the minds of everyone in the United States.
As a matter of first importance, the characters in the story are incredibly affected by the Hiroshima bomb dropping. The bomb being
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
INTRODUCTION TO TOPIC: A tragedy that would have been prevented if the US had a uniform national gun policy.
This nation was built on the right to bear arms, but this freedom is more controversial than ever. With all the school shootings and gun violence in America today at some point it may seem that just too take away all guns may be the answer to this problem. In defense, this is not the answer. If someone wants to commit a crime, gun laws will not stop them from obtaining the weapon. It is like a drug. Drugs are illegal, but every day you see someone either with, on, or recovering from a drug habit. What about for defense right to own guns to protect your family if part of your constitutional rights. Rights that are supposed to be unalienable rights. Although in this day in time, they are always trying to take away guns either by trying to pass laws or taxing guns and ammo which almost makes guns unaffordable for middle class normal American families.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
America—the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not only are these words sung in the national anthem, but they can even be considered a motto for the country. In the US, residents and citizens have many rights that people in other countries can only dream about. They have the right to practice freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many other freedoms thanks to the founding fathers and the United States Constitution. But there are some very controversial rights as well. What about the second amendment – the right to bear arms? While America is considered one of the freest countries in the world, we might ask ourselves: is it too free? Although the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, the safety of the nation is far more important. America should use Australia as a model when it comes to gun laws. Stricter, more extensive background checks, requiring permits and training, and the prohibition of automatic and semi-automatic guns must be enforced in order to help lower crime rates and ensure American citizen’s safety.
As long as there have been men and women on this planet there has been violence. This is an immutable fact. In all likelihood, there will always be violence within the human race. Robert Heinlein said, "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Indeed this is plausible. The premise of these arguments is that giving a creature with a proven track record of violence a phenomenally powerful tool of destruction is less than wise. As an alternative, this paper proposes to limit access to such powerful devices (semi-automatic firearms) through the use of tracking methods, restricted sales, and heavier penalties for illegal possession of firearms. The firearms most specifically addressed are semi-automatic weapons including repeating rifles and handguns.
Comparing the United States’ homicidal statistics to England and Wales’, I’ve been moderately persuaded towards the opponent’s side of gun control. It’s difficult to dictate what’s morally acceptable in today’s society with the increasing amounts of controversy, but noticing the dramatic increases in crime rate due to the lack in supply of guns, versus the dramatic decreases in crime rate because of an increase in the supply of guns, definitely proves the consequences of gun control to a certain degree. I would also have to agree that ridding the public from their firearms does take away the privilege of defending ourselves from any sort of crime. With the given results, knowing that our American citizens defend themselves from
One of the longest lasting debates in the United States is the struggle to balance freedom and safety. Throughout history there have been instances were freedoms have been suspended- whether for the better or worse- because the United States was in a time of crisis. The Quasi War against the French, the Civil War, and the First World War were events where presidents found themselves under fire because of their controversial suspension of certain constitutional rights. Should certain freedoms be curtailed in times of crisis? This debate has always been so controversial because there has never been a majority one way or another. There have always been people for suspending freedoms to preserve safety and at the same time there have always been people that have believed that freedom is ultimately more important than safety.
Peter H. Brothers’ “Japans Nuclear Nightmare” compares the movie Godzilla to a devastating period in Japan’s history: The Atomic Age. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States destroyed Japan. In this article, Brothers wants to educate the audience and accomplishes this by using ethos and pathos. He uses ethos by appealing to ethics and to show right and wrong to the Japanese culture and community. He also uses the rhetoric of pathos to appeal to the audience’s emotions. Pathos is one of the easier ways to capture the audience and the author does that by using imagery and symbols. Brothers’ connects
Imagine waking one day to witness the tragic state of hundreds of thousands of homes being left in ruins, along with the ashes and rubble of major cities, and the casualties of millions of citizens. This was evident on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan when the first ever atomic bomb dropped. A mere three days later, and Nagasaki, Japan was also bombed, and the world was taken by storm. Even though WWII is in the past, the long-term effects on Japanese citizens and the debate on possible outcomes of the war is still discussed decades after the events. According to Peter H. Brothers in “Japan’s Nuclear Nightmare: How the Bomb Became a Beast Called Godzilla,” these events inspired film director, Ishiro Honda, to create the monster movie Godzilla,
It is impossible to talk about a Wes Anderson movie without acknowledging its stunning color palettes and quirky storytelling style. In one of his most exemplary works, Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson uses a warm color scheme that blends bright and desaturated colors that ranges from golden yellow, vermillion red, creamy beige, light brown, to even a hint of teal. His color scheme, which is reflected throughout the film’s props, sets, costumes, title design, and camera filters, effectively evokes nostalgia, establishes the summer-like, dreamy mood of the film, and creates a distinct contrast between the different moral values of his characters. However, in the chaotic stormy escape scene and in the costume of Social Services, the visual design deviates greatly from the film’s primarily warm color palette and instead, immerse their visual elements in a deep, dark blue color to show the contrasts in the mood of the story as well as the attitudes of the characters. Overall, Anderson’s visual