Bradbury: District 9

The film District 9, directed by Neill Blomkamp takes place in South Africa, years after an intelligent alien race crash landed on earth. The aliens, now common place in South Africa, are still segregated and live in slums. Some people are advocates of equal alien rights, but for the most part the aliens are looked upon as a lower race. This movie takes place post-apartheid, but the african american community also takes advantage of the aliens addictions and naivety. I find this ironic because the blacks in South Africa were kept down by whites and now free, they pick on the aliens by installing gangs in the alien ghettos to make a profit off them. The movie is about racism. The main character is an intelligent, upper middle class man with average political views. At first, he rejects his transformation and thinks he is becoming a monster. As the evolution (or devolution) continues, the man begins to feel sympathy for the aliens. This is a statement on how if an individual looks at life through the prospective of a lower class, they learn they are not so different. Just as whites kept blacks down, now people kept aliens down. Just as at one point in history it was an atrocity for whites and blacks to mate, now a doctored image of a man experiencing coitus with an alien is considered repulsive. The issue of racism is not solved in the film, as there is a sequel looming, but this comments on the fact that there is still racism and slavery in the world. Blomkamp is showing the atrocities of racism without explicitly saying so. That is what makes the movie enjoyable for the public. One knows that they are supposed to loathe the aliens because they are the outsiders, however you tend to end up rooting for them. They come off as scary and aggressive but are just like everyone else. This shows racial profiling and the injustices that go along with it. All in all, the film was enjoyable, jam packed with action, and a good political message.

Bradbury: Restrepo

The article Sebastian Junger wrote to eulogize Tim Hetherington relates directly to their time in Afganistan filming Restrepo. They were out in one of the most dangerous places in the world, (at least for an outsider) the Konigal Valley, filming the experience of war. While countless wars have been fought over the centuries, man has now evolved to a state where they can film and show the experiences of war to the rest of the world. There is soe horrible sights in Restrepo, such ast the scenes from Operation Rock Avalanche, and there are some beautiful sights, such as the bonding of men from different backgrounds to become a single unit, a single family. In the article, Junger mentions the fact that Hetherington had the idea that soldiers in war act the way they see soldiers in movies and photos, and propaganda. In a sense this is exactly what the two photojournalists were doing, except more accurately. Now, young men can watch Restrepo and see a more realistic aspect of war. Watching Restrepo changed the way I thought of war. The way Afganistan had been propagandized to me was a desolate wasteland full of crazy terrorists. The landscape turned out to be beautiful. The people in the villages just had different views on life than americans; possibly due to the images they have seen. If I were to ask Junger three questions about the film it would be: 1. Do you think you spent enough time to accurately show the war. 2. Do you think the war can ever be won. 3. Do you think that the Americans are ignorant to the Afganis. Three questions about the War: 1. Was the road really for the people of the valley? 2. Is this a just war? 3. Should Americans be in Afganistan? About his work: 1. Are you afraid of death. 2. Do you think your presence hinders the soldiers work? 3. What is your end goal?

Bradbury: Rendition

Is torture appropriate in any situation? Looking at history, one would have to say yes since it has been used since the dawn of war. It was popular even amongst the catholic church during the spanish inquisition. Thomas Moore, renowned as a saint, tortured heretics in the name of England. Today, people that agree with torture see it as a necessary evil. The United States of America's official position is that they do not torture. They do, however, perform acts of "extraordinary rendition". They essentially kidnap suspected terrorists and hand them over to the control of countries that do torture. Former CIA agent Robert Baer was quoted saying:"If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." Water boarding is a type of torture commonly used on prisoners. It is a simulated drowning  . One reported for the NY times subjected himself to water boarding for the sake of reporting. Paraphrasing, he stated it was the worst experience of his life and no human should be subjected to it. WHile we do not see water boarding being used in the film, we see other tactics such as electrocution. The prisoner in the movie is accurately depicted in relation to what actually happens. The prisoner was stripped naked, relieved of sight and sound, and psychologically broken down. I do not think this should happen to anyone. Especially if its done by the United States, who are a bastion of freedom and believe in due process. If we are truly a democracy, then why can the government take people secretly without our knowledge and without our say-so? There are other ways to extract information other than torture. It has been proven that being civil to prisoners has extracted more information than torture. Jake Gylennhall in the film states that if you torture one person you make 10, 100, 1000 more enemies. This means that victims of torture wil give up random names just to be relieved of pain.