Cojames's Blog

Another One

C.J. — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:27:47 +0000

One scence that come to memory is a scene almost at the end of the movie. Ferris is being meeting with the Iraqi bomber. The C.I.A is watching his every move via satelite. But the Iraqies create a diversion so that the C.I.A would no longer be able to tail them and follow them back to their safehouse. Once the C.I.A has no clue who to follw they give up. “Sorry Buddy” Ed Hoffman says when he finds that they have created a diversion. He does not want to make an attemp to save his employee. This scene alone tells you what type of man Ed Hoffman is and does he really care or is it just a job to him. The qoute from Ridely Scott who directed this flim stands out in my mind. He says something along the line that in this movie its a difference between right, wrong and reality. This could be why Ed Hoffman repeats the phrase “nobody is innocent in this shit” everytime somethig happens to the point where ferris needs help or confirmation.

Say What Exercise

C.J. — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:20:32 +0000

The article I read was an interview with Ridely Scott. He briefly talks about his views on terror and politics. He also states that the movie “Body of Lies” is a reflection of his views as well.

One of the quotes i chose “Should we have gone in? No I dont think so. Are we going to get out soon? No. Now we’re up to our necks. To leave now would be terrible.” I responded to this quote saying that if we made this mess (war on terror) we could easily get out of it.

One of the quotes i did disagree with was ” The movies intimate “that we are right and they are wrong, no one is ever totally right or wrong. What makes a difference (in Body of Lies) is there are alot of reality checks in this film.” I disagreed with this quote because Body of Lies depicts right and wrong. Its basically saying that the C.I.A is right and everyone else is wrong. The terrist are wrong and the Jordanian head of intelligence who chooses to help is wrong as well. But at the end it is the Jordian head of intelligence who saves the day.

My qverall response to the article was asking Ridely Scott that if he beleives that right or wrong is viewed differently in the movie and “No one is innocent” why have someone who is innocent and someone who is the bad guy. Why not put the movie in both perspectives instead of one?

B.O.L

C.J. — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:30:07 +0000

A scene that makes me focus on my focus question is the scene in the middle of the movie. Ed hoffman is telling ferris how “nobody is innocent in this shit.” Ferris is Trying to find the guy who is causing all the bombs ; he can’t seem to have any help from the C.I.A which he works for. The only good thing they seem to be doing is wrecking his plans and making him more of a target. They do this because they think that they are helping. Really what they are doing is putting ferris and all of his friends/co-workers in danger. Its funny because Ed Hoffman who is the boss over ferris and also works for the C.I.A says the same phrase more than once throughtout the movie. He only says it when ferris raises a question to him. This makes me beleive that the C.I.A is corrupt in so many other ways. Like for instanst maybe they want to keep this bomber on the streets. Intially they do not catch this bad guy but the Jordian head of intelligence catches him. This person has less information than the C.I.A but yet he is the first to catch him. This movie seems like a obvious movie but i believe that there is a another whole moral to the story and details that happen in this movie that you will only catch if you really pay attetion

Body of Lies

C.J. — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:58:00 +0000

Well i was really planning on watching the movie agani tonight because I only saw it twice. I chose this movie because it seems like I could write alot about. My focusing question I chose is : Who is the Overall enemy in the movie. The reason why I chose this question is because throughout the movie we never know who to point the finger toward. The movie is about this guy who works for the C.I.A and he is undercover in iraq. Ultimalty he is looking for this guy who is seeting off bombs throughout the country. It may seem that thats my answer to my focus question right there. But I remeber watching this movie twice, and both times I kept wondering who is being truthful and who is not. I know I can search google and things like that. But I am needing a lil more help. Im thinking maybe I should come up with a different focus question but I cant because thats what I ask myself everytime I see this movie.

What I do know is that the C.I.A is wanting some of this to continue to happen. They really dont want to have anyother people on this case. But the undercover cop is now seeing that the job is getting personal. He finds that his life is in danger along with some of the people that he associates himself with. At this point he doest know who to trust. While he is thinking that one person is behind it all, he soon finds out different. The title iof the movie is sort of a hint to it all. Maybe my focus question then should be Why is the movie titled BODY OF LIES? IDK

character change

C.J. — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:32:38 +0000

I wanted to elaborate on my focus question for O Brother where Art Thou. With this movie i wanted to focus on the same question i focused on in Raising Arizona. Do the characters change throughout the movie. This time around i wanted the question to be a little bit different. Does the movie focus just on one character. Unlike Raising Arizona, O brother where art thou has three main characters. I think that the movie does revolve around one person which is Ebert, played by George Cloony. The other two characters just happen to be on the journey with him. Not really having a reason to tag alone except for the made up treasure that was promised to them. In raising arizona the movie revolves around H.I. this is why he has a dream about his own life. Im still trying to get some accurate information to elaborate more on my focus question. I guess you can say i have two focus questions but they both tie into the same thing.
Also with the changes of the character I think there is a sign of change. At the end of the movie after the three man where pardoned, Ebert finally asks for forgiveness. Yet we see delmar and Pete ask for forgiveness right at the beginning of the movie. Ebert seems to NoT beleive so much in superstiton as pete and delmar. In Raising arizona H.I. dreams of a change. This shows a sif=gn of him wanting to change as soon as he gets out of prison. Both movies are different , yet sort of the same.

I AgReE

C.J. — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:40:04 +0000

Andrew Moss Says that Raising Arizonia is Psychograpic. In order for me to agree with him I had tounderstand what that word meant and apply it to the movie. The dictionary describes psychograpic as being :A graphic representation or chart of the personality traits of an individual or group.

I agree that Raising Arizon is defiantly a movie showing Hi’s different personalities. Today I came to an conclusin that the whole movie is a dream. Hi has been dreaming all of the events that has taken place. During his dream the Coen brothers exaggerate H.I’s longing to be different than what he alreay is. H.I’s dream is the graphic of his own personalities. The dream shows how much H.I is struggling with him self but really doesnt know it until the end of his dream.

Most may disagree that it is not a psychographic flim because they dont see how H.I has a personality issue. Smalls, I beleive is a representation of H.I’s other personality. The Coen Brothers clearly show the two fighting eachother, because H.I in reality is really fighting himself to be good or to continue on the path that he was on before he marreied ED.

There are also many other events that happen in the film to show that this a psychographic film. I think that the two brothers that escaped from prison is also another personality of H.I. During the movie the Coen brothers represented H.I’s character as being all these different people that he was or wants to become.

Raising Arizona

C.J. — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:34:19 +0000

I Found Raising Arizona to be very interesting in a silly way. This movie was something different than I am used to watching. While watching this movie i wondered about each of the characters. I focused on the question of Does H.I and Ed’s character change throughout the movie. I wanted to focus on this question because I felt like in almost every movie the characters change toward the end. Some of them change in the beginning or maybe the middle. Focusing on this question, i wanted to analyze why it changed and is it good that it did change.

In the beginning of Raising Arizona Herbert I. McDonough is portrayed by Nicolas Cage as a convict. In and out of prison. He is somewhat a kind guy with a big heart. Yet he ends up in prison a couple of times. when he meets Ed, his soon to be wife he starts to change. While in prison he is motivated by her and see’s her as his reward. H.I . says at one point in prison that, ” A brighter future lays ahead, a future thats only 14 months away.” (raising-arizona). This is one of the first signs we see H.I change in this movie.

Along with H.I., Ed also changes. Ed is a police officer and has finger printed H.I every time he went off to prison. When she finds out that she is bearing (cannot have children of her own) her character changes to a greedy person. She will be determined to do anything to have a child even if she has to kidnap one. Which they do. The image of their first picture with nathan jr. H.I has a look on his face sort of indicating a face in question of how he got to this point. Since getting married and having a child, althouh he doesnt verbally speak about it nor is it said in the movie, H.I. remebers his old ways and how much he had freedom to do what ever he wanted when he wanted.

The most important scence that showed the most character change was at the very end. Both H.I. and Ed had a change of character when they realized that taking little Nathan jr. was a bad idea. Ed tells H.I that them taking jr. makes them no better than smalls (the bounty hunter).

I beleive H.I. and Ed’s character change made the moral of the story more clear. At first you see this bad guy/convict. You think that there is no hope for him. But he soon realizes his mistakes and orks toward correcting them by giving Nathan jr. back to his biological parents. Opening his eyes to what may come in the future because of his mistakes and good deeds.

Mmm Chocolate!

C.J. — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:38:24 +0000

Chocolate! there are a few foods that people feel passionate about. A passion that goes beyond sweetness of most candies or desserts.Everybody craves Chocolate! If not everybody, about 9 out of 10.

Candy bars, milk shakes, cookies, flavored coffee ,even cereal I like them all. But only in one Flavor. CHOCOLATE!!! have you ever wondered where chocolate comes from. All I know is that it comes from some kind of coco something. Knowing where it comes from doesnt concern me as much as its taste. I always say that chocolate is not a candy its a cuisine. I beleive it is. If i had my way with things i would put chocolate on almost everything. Now don’t get me wrong, im not putting a stomper on other flavors. I think strawberry is kind of good…….just not as good as chocolate.

For true chocoholics whch I myself am a victim, chocolate goes beyond strawberry. There is just no competition. When Im having a bad day, cranky, happy, sad, content, or just bored, my answer is Chocolate. I can say the only down side of it is a stomach ache only if too much is consumed.

My chocolate obsession…well not so much as an obsession but rather addiction has been following me since before I could remeber. If your thinking that Im just bored and don’t really know what to write about then…..you may be right. But that still does not give an excuse of the true fact that chocolate is the most tempting cuisine/candy out there!!!!!!!