America's favorite mutants and terrorism

It might seem a little odd to bring out the X-Men to talk about how terrorism is portrayed in the media, but I think there is an interesting representation that can be analyzed. 

I'm gonna go ahead and bring out the first X-Men film from 2000--yes I know it's not the comics or cartoons, but I'm not geeky enough to have seen any of them or even know what they are called. 

In X-Men, we are introduced to Marie/Rogue (Anna Paquin) who hitches a ride with Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), who are both mutants. The president of the U.S. recently had an assassination attempt by another mutant so the risk for being exposed as a mutant is high and there is a ton of political tension over the situation. Rogue and Logan are ambushed by some of Magneto's followers in attempt to kidnap Rogue who would be used as a weapon to turn all the world summit leaders into mutants. Cyclopes and Storm  the two and bring them back to the X-Mansion where Professor X is teaching young mutants to hone and perfect their skills for the benefit of humanity.  The fight is on for the X-Men to stop Magneto from killing Rogue and giving mutants power over humanity. 

So we know that this is a terrorism based plot because is relies heavily on the political implications and power issues of one group of people over another--in this case mutants vs. humanity. While Magneto is putting every effort to having the mutants be accepted into society through an aggressive approach with a superior mindset, Charles Xavier believes there is a way for mutants to live with the humans in peaceful co-existence. We have this interesting dynamic between freedom fighters and terrorists--but it is even crazier because we are talking about a fantastical world meshing with the real world. One thing is clear--the humans believe all mutants are a terrorist threat to their way of life and their countries. 

The film portrays terrorism as act against a group of people in which the counter group of people believe they are being oppressed by. So the Magneto is claiming his act of terrorism only because he believes the humans will not accept mutants into society, which he is partially correct at first. However, with Magneto being on the side of the "bad guys" the audience sees things in the view that Magneto is a terrorist to the humans, and Professor X  on the "good guys" side is fighting against the terrorist--although you have to admit Magneto has some pretty good points he makes if it weren't for the fact that he is trying to kill off humanity. Honestly I wouldn't mind becoming a mutant with the machine he makes.

In class we talked about the coverage of 9/11  and the difference between news media, "Terror TV" and other crime films/shows in how they depict terrorism. I think X-men obviously has a much different effect than all of these just based on its content, but never-the-less, we do get a very clear representation of terrorism.

Sins of a serial killer

By far, one of the most creepy serial killer portrayals I've ever seen is in the movie Se7en. First of all can I just say--what? Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, Gwyneth Paltrow and Kevin Spacey...all in one movie? Pretty genius if you ask me. 

In the movie Se7en, detectives Somerset (Freeman) and Mills (Pitt) are investigating a murder that they soon realize will become a series of murders following the pattern of the seven deadly sins--gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, pride, lust and wrath. The John Doe serial killer (who we later find out is Spacey) justifies his murders as a punishment for the world's ignorance against these sins. Somerset tries to understand the mind of the serial killer, but Mills believes there is no way you can understand what a serial killer is thinking or what their motives are. 

This film brings back some of the media representations I talked about with the criminal mind set in Dexter. Although Spacey's character is not biologically influenced in his crime, but is psychologically driven to  make a point and to justify his desire to kill. You could also make the claim to the environmental influence since he is doing it out of disgust for what the world has become.

So we automatically recognize the representation of serial killers as creatures of habit. They have a pattern they follow for each victim. Although it an interesting media generated representation that the murders are made out of one underlying motive. In Dexter the motive is to get all the bad guys off the streets to keep the good people safe while still feeding his dark passenger in morally respectable manner (a bit iffy on the use of moral...). In Se7en the motive is to make a statement and purge the world from the seven deadly sins.

Something our class talked about in the reading from Schmid was the Gothic aspect the media puts on the serial killer character. This is portrayed through Spacey's character in the film quite well. First of all he is physically never present and we only see him as this idea of a person though we have evidence that he is real. This adds to the mystery of the character. Then we get the aspect that he has this morally sound reasoning for his murders which gives him this slight sympathetic element. Finally there is the obvious element that he is killing people in a grotesque manner and it is essentially impossible to stop him. Another point to be me made is that though Somerset is working to further understand the mind of the Spacey's character, he can never truly get a grasp at what Spacey is thinking and what he may do next.

In terms of the celebrity involved with serial killers, we get this glorified novelty in the work of the serial killer by making each of these victims "criminals" in a sense themselves. It puts Spacey's character in the position of the necessary purger of sins to cleanse the world and restore order--which is something all audiences want--so it definitely toys with the viewers position against serial killers and heightened the amount of intrigue in their motivations. There is also this dark sort of poetry to the murders that just adds to this sense of fame and celebrity for the serial killer.

Creepy as it may be, serial killer films such as Se7en are interesting to watch because we, in the American culture, are so fascinated by the novelty of the serial murders and the mental process of a serial killer.

Have a bodyguard at all times, Ladies

"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."

Although the above famous quote that would only sound so scary and intimidating from the great Liam Neeson has nothing to do with women and their representation in crime media, you just have to use it when talking about Taken. 

In the film, Bryan Mills (Neeson) is working on having a better relationship with his daughter after being absent with his former job as a CIA special agent. Against his wishes he lets his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) go with a friend to France on what he later finds out is a U2 European tour. When Kim and Amanda get to Paris they are invited to share a cab, unbeknownst to them, with an attractive young man who is working for an Albanian human sex trafficking group. While in Amanda's cousin's house alone they are taken, but not before Bryan calls Kim to check on her and is able to talk her through what will happen--and of course he makes the above threat. From there Bryan is on a quest to find his daughter and kill the men who took her. 

So this representation is obviously centered around women as victims from sexual crimes. In class we talked a lot about rape myths and how they the media portrays them. Though the concerns brought up in this film are ones to take caution over, they send a very distinct message about sex trafficking and rape. 

First of all, we get this message that if you are a pretty upper class young woman who is travelling in a foreign country you will most likely be targeted for sex trafficking, especially if you are alone or with another young woman similar to your demographics. It also presents young teenage woman as an easy target because they are reckless, horny, and only care about have a good time. 

Though women are the the majority of people who are victims of sex trafficking, statistics show that most of those women are being trafficked in their own countries. Also, according to the Polaris Project there are more US victims of human trafficking circulated within the US than the amount of US victims circulated in foreign countries. So women are actually more subject to human trafficking in the US than they are in foreign countries according to stats. 

Another portrayal in the film is that the trafficking gang makes the women addicted to drugs so that they will have sex with customers to feed their addiction. This representation is accurate in that there has been evidence of this happening around the world. Of course we also get the representation of Kim being sold to an old, fat, rich foreign man as one of many sex slaves. Although this does happen in sex trafficking rings, there is more evidence of this happening to women within their own countries rather than as an American in a foreign land.

So, I think this movie has accurate representations of female victims of sexual crimes in some ways, but their are some exaggerations and misrepresentations in terms of the manner in which the sex trafficking plays out in the film. The message of the film is basically if you are a young, white, middle to upper-class female traveling in a foreign country, chances are you will be take by a sex trafficking ring. 

I remember I was in high school when I first saw this movie, and our substitute teacher decided that instead of following the teachers rubric she would show us this movie because it was an important message that we all needed to know. I can tell you after the movie was over, I didn't want to leave the country at all if my parents weren't with me. So the media representation certainly did what it was intending to do, but the message is a little bit over the top. 

HMFS ~ 21 Jump Street is back in business

If we are going to be talking about the portrayal of drugs and crime in the media, there is no way we can forget about 21 Jump Street. Now, on a normal basis I would have chosen the original, but since I think the most recent Jump Street fits better with a contemporary view on drugs, I'll bring in Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. 

In the film, former high school nerd Schmidt (Hill) and jock Jenko (Tatum) help each  other through training to become cops. After getting into some trouble, the partners are stationed on 21 Jump Street, which is an office of sorts for young cops who can pass off as high school students while solving crime in schools. They are assigned to find the dealer and supplier of a drug HMFS which recently killed a student. Schmidt and Jenko essentially switch their previous high school roles and work on the case while becoming a little too invested in their high school lives. 

After watching the entire first season of The Wire, there are lot of difference that we can compare when it comes to how drugs are portrayed in the media. First of all, in The Wire the dealer and supplier are respected much like Eric Molson is in 21 Jump Street, but there is a level of fear from Barksdale that Eric doesn't have with his friends. There is also different demographics when it comes to the two dealers. Eric is a teenage, upper-class white kid from a suburban area and Barksdale is 20-35 year old, lower-class black man living in urban Baltimore. So we get two very different representations of drug dealers with these two forms of media. Part of that representation, mind you, also comes from the comedic aspect of 21 Jump Street. 

The criminal investigation process is also very different between the two media representations. For one, Schmidt and Jenko go undercover to discover who is dealing and supplying the drugs. Then there is the obvious problem of their unprofessional cop manner, which they support as just going with their undercover persona, but we discover that it is a much more personal investment. There is even a scene when Eric questions the partners' undercover identity, considering that they could be cops, but then he says with the behavior the two "brothers" elicit  there is no possible way they could be cops. In The Wire, the cops work under a professional manner and aren't undercover by any means so the process is much different. 

Now talking about the moral panic around drugs portrayed in the media, we don't get this use sense of moral panic do to the comedic nature of the show. Obviously Ice Cube is pretty adamant about Schmidt and Jenko finding the supplier to stop the spread of the drug. There doesn't seem to me much concern by about the spread of the drug ruining the lives of high school students. However Ice Cube does make a funny statement about how since it was an upper-middle class white kid who died from the drug, now the case was important enough to look into. But even from the students at the school, there isn't this hype or panic surrounding the spread of drugs through the school. Also the representation of moral panic usually is stemmed from the overdone media coverage and we have none of that represented in the film. It also down plays the potential panic since it is a comedy.

Unlike how other drug centered TV shows and films represent drug crime, 21 Jump Street handles the issue in  a completely different manner with the comedic element. Rather than having drug problems revolve around poor, heavily black populated urban areas being distributed among adults, the films provides an upper-middle class, high school setting with mostly white teenagers running a drug ring. However, I think it is important to point out the potential message this movie is trying to make about our perception on drug crimes and its representation in the media. That maybe by going against our societal expectations and stereotypes in the film it is making a point about the representations we get in shows such as The Wire. Something to think about.

A Different Light: Interpreting school shootings in a fictional media representation

When it comes to dealing with school shootings, it is a sensitive and tragic subject to portray through the media. However, the media goes through a lot of work in making a spectacle out of school shootings in examining the purpose and history behind the shooter(s) motives. 

There is not a lot, in terms of entertainment media, of examples that portray school shootings other than infotainment documentaries studying and analyzing the motives of shooters. However there is one New York Times Bestselling author who portrays an emotional fictional story centered around a school shooting and a trial that follows.

In Nineteen Minutes Jodi Picoult tells a story about a teenage high school boy named Peter who was bullied  and finally snaps after his former best friend Josie leaves him out of peer pressure to join the popular group of kids in school and now instigates much of the bullying toward Peter. Peter decides the best way to deal with the situation is to bring a firearm to school and Josie witnesses the horrific events that follow. Josie's mother, Alex, takes on trial of Peter's case in court as the judge though her daughter is a key witness for the prosecution. 

This story takes on an interesting issue surrounding school shootings where the reader is able to have an exclusive look inside the trial of the shooter and the bullying that caused Peter to react the way he did. We get an interesting insight not looking at the effects of bullying but rather the issue of peer pressure and becoming someone you are not in order to please others. 

I think though the story still tries to explain the purpose and motives around the shooting there is several extra elements that people wouldn't typically expect from media coverage of school shootings--fiction or not. For example, we get the insight of a judge ruling on the trial of the shooter as well as a mother whose daughter witnessed the event and had a hand in instigating the event. Aside from that, we also get a compelling look into the parents of the shooter trying to figure out what they could have done differently or signs they may have seen toward this effect happening. The emotional involvement that Picoult portrays through these two parents is just impeccably written and has you feeling such strange emotions that are seemingly foreign to the general reader. 

As in many of Picoult's books, the emotion that is transcribed into this heart-wrenching story containing such a difficult issue has readers actually sympathizing with the shooter at times, which is such a different and confusing message to portray. The media usually tries to get the public to focus on a certain focal point to understand the shooter(s) motive such as troubled home life, mental illness, school troubles--Picoult focuses on the effects of peer pressure in high school.

Picoult said she did intensive research on the Columbine shooting but she wanted less about the information behind the shooters and more about those who were impacted by the effect directly. She ended up getting a first hand account from a survivor of the Ricori shootings in MN. From the account of a young man whose friend had died in the shooting, Picoult felt a great connection as a parent and wanted to portray that through her story. 

I think the most interesting narrative in this story is the one between Alex and Josie and their strained mother/daughter relationship. It explores an interesting dynamic of Alex making a choice to fix the relationship with her daughter or judging fairly without being effected about the choices her daughter made. 

All in all, this is a fantastic story that plays with your emotions through such a trying ordeal and the sensitive subject of a school shooting and there is an interesting angle that Picoult takes on compared to that of media in general. 

An Epic Escape for Justice

There is no way we can talk about prison films without me ranting about one of my favorite movies of all time- The Shawshank Redemption. I mean, just the name of the film is awesome let alone the fantastic plot line, intriguing characters and amazing actors.

The Shawshank Redemption is a story that follows the prison sentence of Andy Dufrense, who was charged for the murder of his wife and her lover, though he was actually innocent. While in Shawshank, Andy becomes friends with Red, the prison con man "who knows how to get things." Andy is able to work his way up in the prison by using his banking/accounting skills to help out the prison guards and even the warden with their finances and taxes. 

This movie contains all of the typical stock characters of a prison film: the corrupt warden (Norton), the innocent heroic protagonist (Andy), the comrade (Red), the group of friends (Haywood, Brooks, etc.), the evil guard (Hadley), and the bad guy crew (The Sisters). 

The film also follows the stock plot of prison films. The story involves Dufrense's 20 years spent in Shawshank to lead up to the climax of his epic escape through a tunnel he has dug from him cell out to the sewer pipes. It's not good prison movie unless someone breaks out or a riot erupts. But this movie takes it to the next level in which Dufrense conceals his escape attempts for 19 years without ever getting caught, and at the same time he is able to work his way up in the ranks of the prison system. 

The stock theme of the film follows the rebellion against injustice as Dufrense escapes from the prison as a free man with money he took from the corrupt warden and therefore serving justice to those who persecuted him in his innocence. 

You gotta love Red--the guy who knows how to get things--because as an audience we like to see someone who can challenge authority, so when there there someone in the prison system who can break a few rules and get away with it we tend to cheer for them. I think the way they set up his character in the film was drawn out the best and utilized to bring home the theme of injustice and the ability to turn your life around (from a murderer to a respectable man).

I think in terms of how prison films are typically set up, this film does a spot on job of following the stock elements. The fantastic acting and the intriguing story line only add to that irresistible exclusive look into prison life, though it is in a historic sense and perhaps not quite in tuned with the complete reality of what happen(ed/s) in prisons. 

The Weather today consists of Courts and Lawyers

When talking about criminal law films and the way court systems are portrayed in the media, I always tend to dose off and think "ugh, court systems, yada, yada, yada lets get this over with." However, the dynamic of how court systems are portrayed in contemporary films is not so much centered on the trials themselves anymore, but they focus largely on the actions of the lawyers outside of the court. 

In The Rainmaker, Matt Damon's character, Rudy Baylor, just graduated from law school and takes his bar exam  while working at small firm that isn't doing so hot. He takes on a case of a couple whose insurance company is denying requests that will help pay for their son's operation which will save his life. Rudy learns of the schemes run by corporate insurance agencies to rip people out of their money, and he fights to take them down and serve justice to the couple whose son (spoiler alert) had died because he was denied the operation. 

Now, I may be a little biased because any movie or show Matt Damon is in I automatically think it is amazing, but this criminal law film based off the book of John Grisham does a good job of making the court system complex and passionate. Obviously the lawyers get away with somethings that they would not be able to get away with in the real world (like when they stage the contact of a jury member in order to play the defense attorney against himself by removing a member who could potentially go against the prosecuting case). 

In class we talked about the three modes of media trials: abuse of power, cases illustrating the sinfully rich, and cases involving a kind of evil stranger. The Rainmaker falls into the categories of abuse of power and illustrating the sinfully rich. The insurance company holds the power with ability to deny customers what they need, but they are also making tons of money off of people who are less fortunate. Insurance companies are a different kind of authority figure abusing trial than we would usually assume, but they are known form abusing the power they have from instances in the past.

This is the case in which Rudy works towards providing justice to this couple who loses their son because of the insurance company's schemes and cheating people of their money. He works to expose the insurance company of fraud and essentially allowing the couple's son to die. 

The biggest aspect of this movie is the battle between the young, inexperienced lawyer and the experience lawyer who has a reputation for winning many, if not all, of his cases. 

Leo Drummond, the defense attorney for the insurance company, is a lying scheming lawyer who goes through any means to make sure his client wins the case, whereas Rudy is concerned mostly with being honest and forthright in his cases. This launches the central conflict of ethical issues within the practice of law and the in the court systems in general. I feel like this type of representation does not reflect on the nature of the court systems and lawyers today, but the devious evil defense lawyer is a popular character type in these criminal law films. Never-the-less, there is an interesting conflict that is presented with the ethical issues that arise in the criminal justice system.

Another interesting aspect of the show is that an almost equally corrupt judge as Drummond is a lawyer who wants to call the trial off because he doesn't think Rudy can make a could case, gets replaced with a more sympathetic judge who is willing to let the trial commence. This example of corrupt judges botching the trial before it even commences is another one of the ethical problems that are being displayed in the court systems. 

In the end, Rudy wins the case, but the insurance company declared themselves bankrupt so they can't pay the fifty million dollars of punitive damages. This is still a great success for Rudy, but he decides rather than continuing in his career as a lawyer, we would teach law to students and focus on the ethical behavior of lawyers instead. 

So in the end the central conflict is the ethical principles of the court systems and how this is portrayed in the media. With the abundances of criminal law films and shows that portray these unethical court scenarios, one can conclude that people have a lack of trust in the court systems and the criminal justice system as a whole because lawyers and judges can behave unethically. However, I don't think this correlates with the way the court system actually works in our society- it is just how the media chooses to portray it because of the few large cases where the people felt there was injustice (perhaps the OJ Simpson case as an example). 

In any case, it is important to examine the ethics of the criminal justice system and the people who work within it. 

Dig up the Bones

As much as forensic science really intrigues me, I was never that into the whole CSI thing. But every once in a while I turn on the TV attached to the treadmill and watch an episode of Bones, another forensic crime fighting team.

This comedy crime drama features a forensic anthropologist, Dr. "Bones" Brennan, accompanied by Special Agent Booth who solve crime through identifying human remains that are too difficult to identify through FBI forensics. In the particular episode I watched, they find a mutilated body siting in a pool of its own blood inside a pod. They identify the body and begin doing an investigation.

Now, with Booth on their team, it makes a little more sense that they are doing extensive detective work, but the level of involvement in the investigation by the forensics team is still surprising to me. This aspect of the forensics crime fighters really stems from the CSI crime drama series.

In class, we talked about how people are drawn to these types of crime fighting shows because they see science has hard facts solving crime and restoring order to society. Just like this idea is expressed through CSI, so it is through Bones.

One of the most prevalent aspects of the show that reinforce science accurately solving crime, is the highly advanced technology. Not only does the team have screens in which they can navigate through all of their information, they are able to see things and investigate at a much more advanced level than forensic scientists would be able to do in reality. The gadgets and gizmos allow them to do things that make their investigation more credible, therefore the audience holds more belief in the science that solves the crime.

So people who watch shows like Bones do so because they can believe in something factual and proven that unmistakably locks up the perpetrator and restores order to society. And who can deny the credibility of the investigation with all that high-tech stuff?

Though the representation of forensic science is highly exaggerated in crime shows such as Bones with the detective-like manner the forensics team operates in and the technology which lets them do things they wouldn't have access to in reality , I think the show is giving the audience exactly what they want: a reason to believe in science to solve crimes.

The Dynamic Duo- Solving crime...but not cops

Since we are talking about cop films this week I decided I would switch up my dark, drama theme that I have been going with and talk about one of my favorite shows of all time- Psych.

Psych is a comedy crime fighting show centered around two best friends, Shawn and Gus, who are not actually cops but run their own detective/investigative business while working for the Santa Barbara Police Department at the same time. Shawn's dad, Henry, raised him to pay attention to the details of crime scenes and essential taught him through various staged scenarios as a child how to be a good detective. Though Shawn didn't have the motivation or work ethic to actually become a cop, he was able to sneak his way into the force by solving crimes the cops couldn't by saying that he was a psychic. So he starts making his living by faking his psychic abilities while his partner Gus, a pharmaceutical rep, plays along and solved crimes with him.

What I like about this show is that it goes against some of the cop film stereotypes, which in a large part works with the comedy aspect. Usually the main guy tends to be the logical, sensible leader of the group who gets the job done, but in Psych, Gus is the logical one who keeps Shawn on track and holds the steady job rather than banking on the department to find them cases every week. Although, Gus is easily persuaded by Shawn to join insane cases or do crazy things even when Gus initially refuses or knows that it will come to no good.

This also sets up the white guy-black guy partnership that is becoming more and more common in cop films and shows. There is an interesting dynamic that works between these two life-long friends, which makes any racial jokes from both sides funny and acceptable. It also adds more to the crazy, thoughtless white guy character working with the intelligent, logical black guy character- Gus keeps Shawn grounded in terms of logic, but also Gus is able to follow through with all of Shawn shenanigans because he gives Gus his fun side.

Then there is also the male-female partnership between Juliette and Carlton. Where Carlton is the rough, no-nonsense detective who gets annoyed at every little thing Shawn does, Juliette is the calmer, more down-to-earth detective who works with Shawn and realizes how much help he is to the force.

More commonly seen in cop films and TV shows, Shawn and Gus go about solving crimes in very unconventional ways. They break into peoples houses without warrants, they pretend to be people they are not to get information (although Shawn usually introduces himself by his actual name while Gus gets a ludicrous, crazy made-up name), and then they are obviously lying to the cops and to their clients about the psychic nature making them average citizens who really shouldn't be out there solving crimes and catching criminals. We see this a lot in crime films and shows. The cop or cops take a not so legal route in order to get the information they need to catch the bad guy, and in the end it all works out since the bad guy is behind bars, so we don't see the repercussions of handling a crime outside of the codes of criminal justice.

In this way, the media portrays the criminal justice system as something that can be flexible as long as the good guys defeat the bad guys, which is not the case in the real world. A show like Psych glorifies this not strictly legal form of setting the world right and it does so in a comedic manner, which makes the viewer feel more inclined to this idea of the criminal justice system even more.

Despite its obvious flaws, Psych is a cleverly written show and has fantastic plot lines in each episode- honestly some of the stuff they come up with is way out of the box and of course, super funny. That's the other thing you have to remember about cop comedies- it will never follow the rules otherwise it wouldn't be funny.

Plus, (spoiler alert) you gotta love the on-screen relationship with Shawn (James Roday) and Juliette (Maggie Lawson) coming together. One of the funny parts of the show is knowing that Roday and Lawson are together in real life but he still has to chase her in the show while she constantly rejects him (until later seasons of course).

Destined to Kill

After reading Rafter's thoughts on what makes bad people bad, I was intrigued by the idea that some criminals are psychologically conditioned to commit crimes by something that has influenced them and altered their mental perception. 

Dexter is one of those famous serial killer shows where the viewer can actually cheer on the serial killer without feeling twisted or evil for doing so. In later episodes and seasons we discover that Dexter went through a terrible trauma that caused him to be the way he is. Dexter doesn't have emotions- well so we are told, but I have seen him get angry and I can't that as an emotion. Dexter also has this constant desire to kill people and he has a great fascination with blood, which is why he is a forensic blood splatter specialist for a Miami police department. Dexter's MO is to kill criminals who have murdered people and will most likely continue to murder people in which Dexter justifies his killings as saving more innocent lives. In a future episode he is labeled the "Bay Harbor Butcher," and some people like him because he takes murderers off the street, but others hate him because he is still serial killer set loose in Miami. 

However in this particular episode of Season 1, Dexter's true identity is still unknown to everyone and the police are tracking down the dangerous "Ice Truck Killer." However, Dexter also has his own little investigations going on in order to satisfy his murderous urges. He follows around this young teenage kid who was released from jail after serving time for slashing a guy death. Dexter believes he will strike again and actually prevents another innocent killing from happening, but when he pulls the kid in to perform his own murder, Dexter finds out that the kid is much like himself- he can feel nothing. Then we discover that the man the kid murdered had raped him, and in Dexter's eyes this act was understandable and somewhat similar to the workings that Dexter is doing himself. Then he tells the kid not to kill anyone who doesn't deserve it. 

I liked this episode because it made this connection between Dexter and the kid (I can't remember his name) showing Dexter that though (in his mind) his killings are more justified, there are others out there who feel (or rather don't feel) the same way he does due to a traumatic event in their life. 

The criminality of these two characters does not come from their environment and they weren't born with this evil, but their brains are psychologically altered because of these events. Spoiler alert for those who haven't seen the show yet, but Dexter, along with his older brother Brian who happens to be the Ice Truck Killer, witnessed the gory mutilation of his mother and sat in a two inch thick pool of her blood for several days before they were found by the police (specifically Harry who becomes Dexter's foster/adopted father). In order for Dexter to cope with this situation, his young three or four-year-old brain tuned out everything that happened and shut off his emotions to protect himself from the horror. Later this effected his psychological thinking into a passionate desire to kill and be fascinated by blood. 

Dexter didn't choose to be a criminal. The trauma from his childhood altered him psychologically to be a criminal. However, in the real world that is something that is difficult to get a grasp of. Though, Dexter releases these urges on bad people, it doesn't change the fact that he is still a serial killer, right? It is an interesting concept to think about, and that is one of the reasons why the criminal justice system hold this psychological state of criminals into account. 

When considering the mental state of the kid who killed the man who raped him, the viewer has this idea that the murder is justified, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a murder. Yet the fact an experience like that would clearly mentally effect a young kid allows us to understand that such a traumatic moment in his life would cause his mind to protect himself from the pain. 

This is such a difficult subject when it comes to criminal justice because generally the cultural idea is that all criminals deserve to be put away so they can't hurt anyone else. And though this is just a television show, I think that this idea of psychologically altered conditions instigating crime is relevant and can't be ignored. Dexter didn't choose to be a criminal, it was just something that he couldn't control due to his brain function after a traumatic event in his life. 

Crime through Frontline

Last week our class talked about "infotainment" and we watched an episode of Dateline as an example of infotainment. This got me to thinking about other kinds of infotainment I watch that include crime in the media. The first thing that popped into my head was the Frontline documentary style of news entertainment. Though many of the Frontline shows that I have watched revolve around wars and natural disasters or revolutions in other countries, I watched an interesting one called "Rape in the Fields" about immigrant women who work in the fields to support their family and are raped.

Frontline documentaries are in-depth reported stories that usually focus on hot topic issues at hand or serious problems that happen around the world and in America. Many times what they are reporting on is even dangerous. I watched a Frontline show about the fighting in Palestine and Israel and the filmer was literally in the room with suicide bombers preparing to go out into the plaza.

In this particular Frontline documentary, primarily Hispanic female immigrants who are farm workers speak out about the sexual harassment and abuse that occurred out in the fields or around the farm and how they couldn't do anything about it because they were illegal. If the women refuse to give into the farmer they will be out of a job next season and their families will starve because the men cannot receive work.

There are a lot of shots where we see the women staring off into the horizon with their faced covered so you can only see their eyes and a lot of dialogue boxes since most of them do not speak English. This really emphasizes that they are victims and especially that they are victims that cannot escape- I believe that is part of the constant repetition of screen shots with the women wearing these cloths and concealing themselves. They also focus a lot on this cross necklace that hangs from a woman's rear-view mirror projecting her innocence.

I was trying to make sense of all the beautiful establishing shots of the fields and the sun setting over the horizon of these gorgeous fields with flowers, wheat, grape vines- and it didn't seem like these shots fit very well with this crime they were highlighting. The only thing I could think of was that they wanted to show the viewer how peaceful this place seemed to be, but that it was hiding the crime that happened daily. There were also shots of blurry lights at night and other establishing shots of location and crops.

The in-depth investigation with multiple interviews and being able to see the victims and even some suspects I think is was really makes this form of news entertaining for the viewer. We have a more personal connection to the crime when we can put a face to it and with the establishing shots and filmed interviews it makes it that much more entertaining to watch than if it were simply a news segment.

Personally, I love documentaries because you are receiving information in a more entertaining fashion, and crime documentaries resonate with the American culture because we like nudge our way into the nitty gritty of what people go through to commit crime or what victims who have been incriminated against feel about the crime. It is almost like how when we see a car accident we slow down because we just have to know if anyone got hurt or who was the nimrod that cause the accident to happen. We are obsessed with nosing into other peoples lives, and what better way to do that than to see/hear first hand interviews and get a picture of where it happened.

The DA did it?

When you think of identity theft you usually don't consider that person to be your identical twin sister. In The Lying Game, Emma Bennett, who grew up jumping around through different foster homes, discovers she has an identical twin sister named Sutton Mercer who lives in Arizona with her wealthy family. Sutton decides to go to California in search for their birth mother, and Emma poses as Sutton while she is gone. When Sutton returns a series of events happen that put she and Emma's lives in danger and they are threatened that they will be killed if they switch back. One night Sutton and Emma's boyfriend, Ethan, confront a fellow student, Derek, who admits he was ordered to drown Sutton. The next day Derek is found dead and Ethan is falsely accused for the murder.

I have always thought the concept of being falsely accused of murder was something that works it self out in the end- that somehow the truth will always come out. Unfortunately this is not the case in reality and innocent people can be found guilty for others' crimes. However, I believe my understanding of this truth-will-prevail idea comes from how the issue is dealt with and portrayed in the media. Of course, Ethan seems even more guilty because he has a juvy record and he books it out of town when he thinks the police blame him.

The truly interesting part about his episode and the surrounding episodes is the corruption and schemes of the District Attorney, Alec- Sutton's godfather. Obviously in this case Alec is man of authority and holds a lot of power, but he pulls off plenty of shady stunts that make the viewer despise him especially since he is suppose to be a man of integrity, honestly, and an upholder to the law. This concept of people wanting to watch problems and corruption in the criminal justice is one that Rafter mentions in the text book. Americans find it entertaining to watch characters who should have good moral integrity participate in acts of crime because it goes against the grain of what the criminal justice system should be.

Before Ethan's court date, his brother Dan, who is a cop, thinks that Ethan doesn't have a chance of winning the case because the state appointed attorney doesn't believe Ethan isn't guilty and will just try to find other motives that will give him less jail time rather than fight for his innocence. This connects to the inequality and problems that lie within the criminal justice system even in the real-world.

Back to the good ol' DA, Alec knows more information about Derek's death, but he holds it back because he has secrets that can't be exposed due to their criminal nature. I honestly believe that a real DA would give up those secrets in order to protect the innocent even if it costs him his job. So, though this does make the point of problems within the criminal justice system, this show takes it to the extreme.

The issue of bribery is also an interesting one to discuss since this is seen frequently in crime films/shows. Somehow the bribery thing always seems to work and the criminal justice system becomes even  more flawed, but from my understanding that is not so easy to do in the real world.

In the end, Ethan is able to get a top-notch lawyer and they can't find enough evidence against him to have a trial. Sutton, Emma, Ethan and Thayer (Alec's step-son) are sent a picture of Alec winding up to hit Derek with a tire iron so he gets arrested and most of his shady secrets come out to prove his innocence from the actual murder, but he still has plenty more he's kept to himself.

So there are plenty of crime related events going on in this show simultaneously, but they all add to the drama and the scandals we crime media lovers can't get enough of.

The Rogue Assassin- Nikitia

I recently just started watching Nikita, a show about a trained assassin who went rogue from an already rogue government group called Division (so the double rogue possibly makes her not rogue...). Division sent out agents to kill her fiance and now she is out for revenge, and she wants to get the other recruits who are manipulated into joining Division out of the program. Nikita trains a girl, Alex, whose parents were murdered by Division, and has her infiltrate from the inside.

There are plenty of movies and shows out there about assassins and secret agents either committing crimes or preventing them, but the interesting aspect of this show is that both parties are committing crimes. Even though Nikita is trying to prevent murders from happening that Division is implementing, she is willing to commit the crimes herself if it is in her best interest. Since the viewer is inclined to be on Nikita's side, this almost suggests that some crime is necessary and is okay if it is for the best interest of getting revenge and ultimately bringing down a rogue agency. There are even instances when police are involved and both Nikita and Division go against their authority, yet as the viewer, you think, "Oh that's okay if Nikita does it, but bad on Division's part."

In this particular episode, Nikita is after another one of Division's "Black Boxes," which hold all of the secrets Division is hiding from the world and are used to blackmail outside groups to do their bidding. So Nikita goes after the guardian of this particular black box when another rogue government group interferes, and finally the police arrive and everybody is shooting at everybody. Soon it is Nikita and the guardian vs. the police. At this point, I have to call Nikita out on this one. She is fighting so hard for revenge against the "bad guys," but she is killing dozens of police in the process. The show completely justifies Nikita turning against authority in order to achieve her mission. Not to mention it makes the police look like they are good for nothing as the majority of the force that was brought in gets taken out before the select few finally handcuff Nikita and the guardian (and they escape anyways so the police essentially did nothing but get killed).

So clearly, this representation of crime is over-exaggerating, but it does show an interesting conflict between the "good guys," the "bad guys," and the authorities. It no longer becomes good vs. bad, but has a triangle effect. Is Robin Hood still the "good guy" if he does everything out of selfish intentions?

I think that the media, in this case in particular, can promote crime if it means the so-called good guy becomes the hero,  but that doesn't change the fact that crime was committed. Do the good acts cancel out the bad? I guess you could compare Nikita to Batman except the Batman is even more justified in what he does even if the public doesn't know it. This poses another question: Is is okay to commit a crime to prevent a worse one from happening? I suppose it is even a sticky situation in real life, but this representation clearly demonstrates that crime is cool and bad ass if you have good intentions and you look good while doing it.

This also shows a lot about what Americans want to see. They want to see that hero figure, but there also needs to be that inherent flaw that makes everything they are doing borderline. We want to see people cross that line and still have something good come out of it. In a way I think is justifies some of the lines that are crossed in the real world. The police can't win otherwise the hero fails. It's an interesting representation.

But hey, Nikita is unstoppable, and she can't be stopped otherwise there's no show.