Good Will Hunting

Good Will Hunting is a movie about the inner struggle of the title character, Will Hunting (Matt Damon). Hunting is a custodian at prestigious MIT in Boston, MA who possesses extraordinary intelligence far beyond MIT students and even its world-renowned faculty. Hunting spends most of his time drinking and carousing with his three best friends Chuckie (Ben Affleck), Billy (Cole Hauser) and Morgan (Casey Affleck).

Viewers are aware of Hunting’s genius when he solves a mathematical quandary posed to MIT students by internationally recognized professor Gerald Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgard). Only the best of the best are thought to have the ability to solve the equation. Hunting seems to do so with relative ease. Lambeau stumbles onto Hunting's work and tries to help him recognize his potential. He soon realizes that Hunting is dealing with deep-rooted issues that prohibit him to doing so and seeks to finds a psychiatrist that can help him.

Lambeau and Hunting go through several therapists before finding Sean McGuire (Robin Williams), a professor and a local junior college and former classmate and colleague of Lambeau. McGuire and Hunting's first meeting doesn't seemingly go well. Hunting begins to analyze McGuire, ultimately asking if he married the wrong woman. McGuire's wife died several years earlier. He takes deep offense to the accusation and asks Hunting to leave.

The next time we see Hunting and McGuire together is sitting on a park bench near a lake. It is during this scene that viewer are given full insight into the root of Hunting's interpersonal issues. McGuire tells Hunting that even though he has read many books and and has vast knowledge on on a variety of subjects, he has never experienced the beauty of the art at the Sistine Chapel, looked up at the ceiling painted by Michelangelo, woken up to a woman and felt truly happy, held a friends head while he died during war, loved a woman to the point of feeling totally vulnerable, and experienced true loss that only comes from loving something more than yourself. In other words, Hunting has never experienced life, he has only examined it from a distance.

Hunting meets Skylar (Minnie Driver) at a local bar. Skylar is a wealthy student and a very expensive Boston area university but accepts Hunting for who he is. They seemingly fall in love, and Skylar invites Hunting to come with her to California. Hunting walks away from the relationship just at the point where he would have to open himself fully to move forward. As viewers learn through the film, this is how Hunting has lived his life. He will not allow himself to be placed in a position where he can be hurt.

One of the most insightful scenes of the movie is when Chuckie tells McGuire that the best part of his day is the ten seconds after he knocks on McGuire's door each morning. He prays the McGuire will not be there, that he has realized that there is so much more available to him and he has reach out and grabbed it.

Hunting and McGuire make progress during the later stages of the film, each helping the other. Hunting learns to accept his past, that he was orphaned and abused. McGuire learns to accept his wife's death and realizes there is much more lift that he needs to experience.

The film concludes with Hunting going after Skylar, who has already moved to California and McGuire making arrangements to travel the world. Both realize that there is more to life than they have allowed themselves to experience.

The movie's structure is chronologic, meaning it is presented in the order of how events truly happen. Characterization of the film's participants is done primarily through external action and dialog. There is a significant amount of profanity in Good Will Hunting. In some films this would be a distraction but it fits the characters and backdrop of the movie.

The very first thought-provoking element of the Good Will Hunting is its tile. Viewers soon learn that it identifies the main character of the film, Will Hunting, but what is meant why Good Will Hunting. Hunting isn't recognizably good, at least in the early part of the film. Does it represent Hunting's potential? In my view it describes the virtue, or the good, of Hunting’s examination of his past and potential for the future.

While the film primary plot is concerned with Hunting's inner struggle to accept his past and move on with his life, there are many motifs, or small plot lines at work as well. Most apparent is the relationship between Hunting and Skylar. Will Hunting overcome his demons and open up to her before its too late. Another motif is the psychiatrist-patient relationship between Hunting and McGuire, a relationship that is therapeutic for both and later transitions into a deeper personal relationship. A third is Hunting's relationship with his neighborhood friends. Will these long-standing and safe relationships be too strong an influence and prevent Hunting from achieving his potential.

The film is packed with symbolism. The movie opens with Hunting sitting all alone in the corner of his mostly empty living room. The short scene is filmed from an elevated prospective. This scene symbolizes the fact that Hunting's lives a life of isolation and that he has painted himself in a corner.

In the early part of the movie, the Hunting and his friends meet up with a childhood rival at a children's baseball game and later track him and his friends down. The two groups get into a fight, interestingly filmed in slow motion by the movies director, Gus Van Sant. The slow motion footage, intertwined with periodic moments of regular speed action, is relevant to the film in two ways. First, the slow motion signifies that Hunting and his friends lives are going nowhere fast. The period moments of regular speed reminds the viewer that the action is actually very violent, a fact that is somewhat lost in slow motion.

When Hunting and Lambeau first visit McGuire, they walk down several steps to get to Lambeau's office. This is shown several times throughout the film and represent that Hunting is going deep within himself for self-realization. In the later stages of the film, Hunting and McGuire walk up the step together, walking out of view of the camera. This is meant to signify that both have overcome, or climbed out of their respective inner turmoil.

We see a painting on McGuire's wall when he meets Hunting for the first time. The painting is of a man in a small boat in rough waters. Hunting tells McGuire that the man is looking for any port in the storm and that is whey he became a psychiatrist. He also says it leads him to think that McGuire married the wrong woman. The painting is similarly symbolic for both characters. It represents how the lives of both are caught in a storm. Life is crashing in around them and they don't know where to go next, to which direction is the right port for them. The fact that both have issues that need examining and resolution is later reinforced when both are filmed from directly above at the beginning of one of their sessions.

Hunting's friends buy him a car in the later part of the film. It is an ugly car with rusted paint and ripped interior. The car is meant to symbolize the fact that Hunting is ready to accept his potential and move on with his life. The condition of the car reminds the viewer that his life is far from perfect but that scars and all he will keep moving forward.

The final element of symbolism is in the last scene when we see Hunting's car driving on the highway. He is driving to find Skylar, to “see about a girl. The landscape is bright with green grass and full trees. This symbolizes that Hunting is emotionally and spiritually healthy and the storms of his life, like those in the painting on McGuire's wall, have largely subsided.

The Hunt for Red October

The Hunt for Red October is a 1990 motion picture about captain Marko Ramius, the Soviet Union's premiere submarine captain, and his quest to defect to the United States with the USSR's new nuclear submarine, the Red October. The submarine in a new weapon that uses a top-secret propulsion system that allows it to run nearly silent. The plot thickens as the United States has to decide if Ramius, who is speeding to the US, is defecting or planning to attack.

The movie has many subplots, or motifs. Jack Ryan, a CIA analysts, discovers what he believes to be revolutionary battle submarine in a spy photograph. A considerable amount of the early portion of the movie is dedicated to Ryan convincing others of the significance of what he has found. When learning the Soviet naval fleet is chasing down Ramius' submarine at a Washington briefing, most believe that Ramius and his officers are acting alone and plan to attack the United States. It is Ryan, who has studied Ramius, that believes his is trying to defect and convinces the national security adviser to look into this possibility before aiding the Soviets in hunting down the Red October.

Another motif of the film is Ryan's quest to convince US Naval officers to give consideration to his theories. He goes a long way to demonstrate his passion for the matter when he cuts the line that he is dangling from while trying to board a US submarine and plunges into icy cold ocean waters. He later catches a break when Ramius turns the Red October in what US Naval operators call a “Crazy Ivan”. Ryan said that Russian submarine captains turn to the starboard at the bottom of each hour to check what his behind them. There is no such routine practiced by Ramius but Ryan's correct guess gives him at least temporary credibility with the submarine’s captain. Ryan is ultimately successful in convincing the USS Dallas to make contact with and eventually board the Red October.

A third motif involving both main characters is Ryan's pursuit of Ramius' respect when the two finally meet inside the Red October. Ryan initially impresses Ramius with the fact that he speaks Russian. However Ramius questions Ryan's conclusions of a book Ryan wrote about another naval operator. Ramius eventually accepts Ryan and they work together to bring Ramius' defection to fruition.

Even though the main plot and motifs are the primary focus of the movie, the movie has elements dedicated to ideals. Ramius realizes that the Soviet submarine was built with the primary intention of traveling to within miles of the United States by stealth and launching a nuclear attack. This has moral implications for Ramius. The loss of his wife has lead him to realize that he no longer condones such destructive strategies. Ramius sets out to deliver the Red October to the United States so that they will understand its technology and be able to plan defenses against it.

The conflicting ideals at odds in this movie are that of a rigid Soviet communist society and the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the United States. The truth of human nature and struggle for human dignity is evident. Humans seek freedom from tyranny and the ability to choose their own destiny. This is most effectively demonstrated by Ramius' first office, captain Borodin. In the early part of the film Borodin talks of his dream of traveling from State to State “without papers” and speaks with fond aspiration of his dream to live in Montana. His dying comment after being shot on the Red October is, “I would loved to have seen Montana.”

The Hunt for Red October has an identifiable texture to the film as well. Most of the film is shot on submarines, either the Soviet Red October or USS Dallas. The Red October is presented as a shiny vessel with all the latest technology. The confined spaces in which much of the movie and action is filmed limits the ability of the viewer to get distracted by external elements. More than average close-ups allows the viewer to focus their on interaction among the movie's characters.

Ramius is ultimately successful is avoiding the Soviet submarine fleet and turning over the Red October to the United States. The final scene of the movie shows Ramius and Ryan traveling on the Red October in the Penobscot River in Maine speaking fondly of the past fishing memories of their grandfathers. As the movie draws to a close, Ramius quotes Christopher Columbus, “and the sea will grant each man new hope, as sleep brings dreams of home.” Ryan replies, “welcome to the new world.”

On the Waterfront

On the Waterfront, a 1954 motion picture staring Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint, Rod Steiger and Karl Malden, is a movie that highlighted corruption on east coast shipping yards of the time. The movie drew its inspiration from a series of exposes written by Malcom Johnson, a New York Sun reporter who would later earn a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the subject.

In my view, the movie is primarily about the internal struggle of Terry Malloy, Brando's character. Our text refers to moral implications, the truth of human nature and the struggle for human dignity, all which are applicable to this film. Malloy finds himself loosely associated with a mob-like union running the waterfront. In the early moments of the film Malloy convinces a fellow longshoreman to the roof of his building where, unknown to Malloy, he is to be thrown from the roof because he plans to speak to authorities about his knowledge of crimes committed by the union. Malloy is deeply troubled when he learns his actions lead to the death of his friend.

Malloy first meets the sister of the deceased longshoreman, Edie Doyle right after his body is discovered. Doyle initially engages Malloy because she is convinced he has knowledge that will help her determine who was responsible for the death of her brother. Malloy initially refutes her inquiries but Doyle obviously notices a deep but withdrawn sense of morality in him. She continues to pursue answers and eventually they begin to have romantic feelings for each other.

Through out the film Malloy is torn between a taste of the easy life with an association with the union and what he knows to be honorable and just. Malloy had been a prize fighter years earlier. He was preparing for a fight that would earn him a fight for the title if he had won. Moments before the fight Malloy was was convinced by his brother who works for the union to throw the fight so that corrupt and powerful people would win bets they had placed against him. As Malloy put is, he could have been somebody instead of being a nobody. It was at this point that Malloy seemed to loose his spirit and his moral character becomes subdued.

Malloy knows that it isn't right for people to have to pay kickbacks just to work on the waterfront, or that people should be hurt of killed for speaking out against what they feel are unjust working conditions or treatment. The movie concludes with Malloy telling authorities what he knows about the illegal practices of the union and leading the longshoreman to work against the union boss and his henchmen. Malloy finds his moral character and the strength to stand up to the union. Good triumphs over evil.

Waterfront's writer, Budd Schulberg, spent years of his life examining and researching all he could about the New York waterfront. He frequented the West side Manhattan and Jersey City bars speaking to longshoreman and union leaders before writing the screenplay. His work was rewarded with the 1954 Oscar for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay.

The movie's director, Elia Kazan also won the academy award for On the Waterfront. Kazan was a very controversial figure. In 1952 Kazan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee during a time when American fear of Communism was at its peak. Kazan informed the committee on several of his acquaintances from the the Group Theater who once had been member of the Communist Party with Kazan. His testimony lead to the Hollywood blacklisting of these individuals.

In 1999, Kazan was awarded an honorary Oscar for lifetime achievements in the motion picture industry. Because of his 1952 testimony and failure to apologize for it in later years, several individuals and groups protested him and the award. There were demonstrations for and against Kazan outside the Academy Awards and some attending the event refused to stand or applaud in protest.

The summary of the movie at ModernTime.com brought up a very interesting point that I had not considered. The article stated that the “film will exemplify the way self-appointed tyrants can be defeated by right-thinking people in a vital democracy.” However points out that the movie avoids the main social issue of how these tyrants achieve such power in the first place.

The article also states that after more than 50 years the story no longer seem fresh. I agree with that statement to some extent. The cinematography is obviously dated and some of the acting is a bit over the top, particularly that of Rod Steiger. However the story of ordinary people rising to up against injustice in extraordinary acts of courage will be replayed in movies and history as long as movies are made and as long as humans walk the plant.