“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

Originally I planned to write my blog post about something different entirely, but after the discussion in class today I changed my mind. When I read An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge I did not think that either side of the story was a lie. I believed that the narrator’s straightforward view of the hanging and the vision in Farquhar’s head both happened as described. Neither perspective was a lie; nor do I actually think Bierce lied to the readers, he just mislead us to make the story more interesting.

As I mentioned in class today, the narrator told us the truth in the last sentence of the first section; Farquhar’s idea of escaping death and being reunited with his family was never materialized. However the first time I read this line, I just kind of passed it by. I wanted to know Farquhar’s backstory and since the second section flashed backward in time, it didn’t seem too fishy that the story could continue after Farquhar had (almost certainly) died. By the time I finished reading the second section I was distracted by how Farquhar was deceived by the Union soldier and I had almost completely forgotten about the line in the first section where the story had essentially ended.

But really, the story did not end immediately after the soldier stepped aside and let Farquhar fall to his death. Farquhar probably did not die instantaneously from the hanging; it took a few seconds for him to actually die. In those few seconds it is my opinion that the story the narrator conveys in section three actually did happen in Farquhar’s mind. These few seconds felt like a day to Farquhar, and I think that neither Farquhar nor the narrator lied to us in section three. The events in this section happened…in Farquhar’s mind. His thrilling escape and journey home were true, to Farquhar. Time slowed down for him and his last few seconds of life were actually a day, to him. So in my view, the narrator was not lying when he/she conveyed the events Farquhar believed were happening, the narrator was just conveying the truths as Farquhar saw them.

I know in class today we discussed whether we thought the narrator just made up Farquhar’s thoughts, whether the narrator was actually omniscient or not. But that would just mean that there is a story inside of a story and if we questioned if every story we read was real or not, reading fiction would not be interesting. If I asked myself if all of the events in Harry Potter were really just made up by a sad little orphan living in a little cupboard under the stairs, what fun would that be? We know that fiction is not real to begin with, so if we question every character, every line of text, we might lose the experience of being drawn into a story. Sure Bierce could have been trying to trick us by having the narrator fabricate a story, but why does that make the story any less significant? It is still just a story created by someone, whether it is the narrator or Bierce himself. It is still technically not “true” any way you look at it. We could say that Farquhar never existed, that no one actually died at Owl Creek Bridge, that maybe the narrator fabricated the entire story. But I just don’t see the point; I don’t think it really matters whether Farquhar or the narrator actually created the events in section three. We have to believe something or there is no point in reading a work of fiction.

As Dumbledore said to Harry in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” What Farquhar did in his last few moments of life may have been inside his head or maybe just inside the mind of the narrator, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

How many times? How many lies?

Straying from the ‘distorted truth’ versions of lies that we observed in class, I tried to concoct an outright lie for the assignment ‘your history.’ However, I had a hard time doing this, mostly because of how unconvinced I was of my own lies. Most of them sounded absurd in my head and I would just scratch them off, convinced that “No one is going to buy THAT,” or “There’s no way I’ll be able to say this with a straight face.” It took me a while to reason that the audience this was intended for barely knew me. I realized it would be easy to make something up about my life back in Nepal because I suspected anyone in my class knew much about this land so isolated from the US, both physically and culturally. I decided to make up a story about my family owning a guesthouse on the trail up to Mount Everest. I actually knew very little about the trail and when I started reading my notes out loud to the class, I felt completely transparent. So, I was immensely surprised when I saw that most of the class had bought my lie.

This made me think about how the efficacy of lie hinges not only upon the author but also upon the audience. I know that if I’d spun such a story back in Nepal, it would be an utter failure. My appearance would be dead giveaway to begin with, but in a country halfway across the globe, the fact that those high altitudes of Nepal are inhabited by indigenous groups of people called Sherpas is no common knowledge. Similarly, only a few years back I would have blindly believed a nice old man if he’d said “I was born and raised in New York,” in a deep Southern accent.

I read Dan Brown’s novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’ some time back during its yielding days of heightened controversy. The book tweaks some deeply ingrained beliefs of Christianity and although it is a work of fiction, historical facts have been used to prop up the plot. I have always been drawn to mystery novels and this book made me awestruck. It was befuddling because of how Brown meshed what he claimed to be fact with pure fiction. Even when the book ended, all the puzzles fit into place and Brown had laid out all that he had to say, I was left wondering what I was supposed to believe. I was tempted to believe most of it and even share my newfound knowledge with whoever was willing to pay heed. Brought up in a largely Hindu community, I was oblivious to many facts of Christianity. Regardless, I am pretty confident the book was able to puzzle people of a more Christian background too. It wasn’t until I came across some documentaries and readings on the Internet by religious scholars that I came to know that most seemingly factual information in the book were inaccurate. In some way, this made me admire the author even more because of how astute he was in convincing his readers of his lies. In fact I became an ardent fan, and went on to read his other works. I was drawn by how the revelations in the end always took me off guard. However, by the fourth book I think, he had become almost predictable. It reminded me of the time when I obsessively read Sidney Sheldon mystery novels until I reached the point when I could foresee the end by putting together some elements I knew he always used to manipulate the reader.

So, I guess you really can’t fool all the people all the time and at the receiving end, it all comes down to how well you can resonate with your "liar."

An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge

I would like to take this opportunity to make a comparison between this story and the epic movie entitled Gladiator. Towards the very conclusion of this story the author describes Mr. Farquhar as traveling along a dark deserted path until he reaches his true happiness at the end. His true happiness lies in the form of his untarnished home and beautiful wife. She is waiting for him as he approaches but as he reaches to feel what he struggles to believe is real he experiences true dissatisfaction; he reaches the end of his rope and his glorious dream comes to an abrupt end. The same approach is used in the film Gladiator when Maximus envisions his wife, beckoning home, and young boy as he slips closer towards his ultimate demise. At the conclusion when he is finally in reach of these beautiful memories he passes on and will ever remain just footsteps away from happiness. This common approach gives us, the readers and viewers, the idea that when faced with certain death one will vividly imagine, so much so as to truly believe it is real, our deepest desire and true happiness. The idea behind this that strikes me as most compelling is that the means of survival is not the initial thought in the face of death, but the initial thought is of what one knows will be lost forever.

Using Truth to Create a Lie

Admittedly, I read through An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge with skepticism. I was prepared for a lie because of the nature of this class. However I would not say that it ruined the story for me. It just made me more aware and able to search for the clues signaling its falsehood.

Near the end of the first part, Farquhar hears a loud ticking noise whose frequency appears to be slowing down. The ticking is revealed to be his watch and represents time slowing down in Farquhar’s perception. This gives his mind the time to develop the elaborate story of his escape which you will notice he plans out in the next paragraph.

As we lied in class, Farquhar’s mind lies to Farquhar. As Kurt Minges mentioned, Farquhar lies to himself to combat the pain of fear and grief. Like many of us used reality to make lying easier in class, Farquhar’s mind uses his reality.

What Farquhar’s mind creates is a version of what could happen if he had A LOT of luck. Potentially, the rope could break, he could free himself from his bonds, he could dodge the bullets of an entire company of infantry, and he could make it to the bank, loose his pursuers, and walk the entire way home. From this narrow possibility and the setting around him, Farquhar’s mind creates an intricate lie. However even Farquhar realizes how unlikely this is at times. He notes how surprising it is that even the most skilled marksman missed him. When he declares that he will not be able to dodge the next shot, the next cannon blast, the oncoming volley of shots from the entire company of soldiers, his mind solves that issue too. A conveniently placed vortex throws Farquhar onto the shore at a spot where he is completely safe.

However this is the beginning of the end. As Farquhar moves away from the original setting, his fake reality begins to fall apart. He does not recognize the forest he is in or the constellations in the night sky, despite the fact that he lives in the region. He travels through the seemingly never-ending forest and finds a nondescript road. The entire time he sees no sign of human life. His imagination is losing its vivid details, so it fast forwards to his home-coming and tries to justify it by telling him that he must have sleepwalked all the way home.

Despite the hints, Farquhar believes to the end that he managed to escape, that he made it home. Part of what made the lie work was his willingness to believe it. It was like a good dream from which the sleeper never wants to wake.

Reality and Perception

After reading An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, I was quite interested by the idea that reality can be easily influenced by perception. Throughout the story, the author, Ambrose Bierce, presents two versions of reality. Despite the idea that reality consists of only the truth, Bierce’s narration illustrates to me how easily any truth can be manipulated by perception. The execution scene at the bridge can be observed through two vastly different viewpoints. Farquhar’s viewpoint is veiled with the emotional frenzy that (I suppose) comes with a feeling of imminent death. The contrasting viewpoint of the executioners’ consists of a purposeful void of emotion, perhaps in an effort to not dwell on the impending execution that might forever weigh on their shoulders.

I believe Bierce eases the reader into Farquhar’s altered perception of reality by describing Farquhar hear his watch tick like a loud hammer that bangs at an excruciatingly slow pace. It is generally accepted that a watch does not tick especially loudly or slowly; therefore, at this point in the story, Farquhar’s perception of reality begins to differ drastically from that of his executioners. Bierce’s writing about Farquhar’s break from reality makes me realize that it is not uncommon to view reality in a distorted perspective.

We all experience different shades of reality. Every truth is different to every person depending on his or her perception of it. Often, a friend and I will argue about political issues. Both of us will have legitimate reasons for our beliefs. We can never come to an agreement though. While we are living in the same world, with the same citizens and the same politicians, our values color our views on how Congress is doing, how the presidential election is progressing, etc. Due to our differing values, we essentially perceive two different realities in the same political world.

I think individuals can experience two different versions of the same reality on a personal level, as well. Often, we let our emotions manipulate the reality of a situation, and then, once we view the same situation at a different time, when we are not in an emotional state, we see it in an entirely different way. For example, I always experience an immediate feeling of doom when a professor returns to me a test marked with a bad grade. That same day, I always seem to let this sense of failure color my vision about my academic future, getting a job and becoming successful. After about a week, however, I look back on the test and see it for all it was worth: just a percent, a number. It will, most likely, have no real impact on my life. In reality, nothing actually changed between the day I received the test and a week later. However, I changed the way I perceived the impact of the test from an emotional to a practical viewpoint.

We, as humans, are not perfect. We let values, emotions and many other elements of life alter the way we see certain situations, ourselves and our lives. Because of this human error, reality never entirely consists of the truth; reality must always be a combination of the truth and the way we perceive it.

"All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions" - Leonardo da Vinci

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, perceive means “to become aware of through the senses”.

Since all of what we know we have either heard or seen it, our knowledge is simply an aggregate of all our perceptions. While some truths exist, many are simply the reported perceptions of others. But the problem with our knowledge being based almost solely upon perceptions, is it’s difficult to discern which perceptions are ‘more accurate’ or more fitting to our view of reality. The truth, therefore, depends on the perception of each individual.

We have all been told numerous times in our lives a fascinating story where, as soon as it ends, we wonder how much of it was true, and how much was nothing more than an embellishment. Often times, we wish to speak with another involved person, hoping to attain a better understanding of the truth. The truth, however, is nearly unattainable because no matter who you hear the story from, he will relate it to you as he perceived it. The story of a partaker is bound to be drastically different than that of a bystander, if not simply because the partaker is more emotionally involved.

Furthermore, when I listen to a story in which the narrator uses details that seem impossible to notice in the heat of the moment, I immediately begin to question everything the person is telling me. In the beginning of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” by Ambrose Bierce, the details are so accurate and concise that I find myself putting faith in the narrator. I don’t question whether he is misleading me, embellishing the story, or including his own perceptions. As Part I continues, however, I notice the narrator adding more personal details to the story than I am willing to accept. The description of the “stream racing madly” starkly contrasts the sterile description of the bridge with the soldiers on it. As soon as he adds these minute details to the story, I realize I am no longer reading it through an objective narrator, but rather through one man’s perspective.

The fact that Ambrose Bierce writes that the trees are “like a diagram in a lesson in perspective” cannot be coincidental, since that is exactly what “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” serves as. When the reader discovers that Peyton Farquhar is actually dead, he realizes that the whole story deceptively contrasts two different realities. At the beginning the reader is introduced to one reality, which he is unknowingly forced back into in the last sentence of the short story, without ever realizing he had been experiencing a different reality. The details of Peyton Farquhar’s escape were portrayed as a separate reality, which is ‘true’ to him. To decide which reality is more ‘truthful’, the reader must look at the perspective of each reality. While I believe Farquhar’s reality is more truthful to him, as it is the last reality he experienced before passing on, I also believe that the first reality is more truthful to the situation as it is conveyed to the reader.

Casey

"An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"

As a student in “Truth, Lies and Literature,” I should have known that the short story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” would provide anything but the truth. Yet the final statement “Peyton Farquhar was dead” (p. 8) took me by surprise. I couldn’t help but feeling slightly ashamed at believing the story of his escape, especially after we had been told in class to pay specific attention to the believability of our surroundings. Reflecting on the story as a whole however, Ambrose Bierce purposely employs detailed settings and emotions, and takes advantage of the human tendency to sympathize in order to present his story as a truthful one.

Instinctively, most people don’t want others to die, so when presented with a man about to be hanged above a river, the reader’s natural inclination is to feel sympathy toward the man. Bierce appears to capitalize on this sympathy by emphasizing Farquhar’s personal and emotional ties. By juxtaposing the stiff silence of the soldiers to the frantic thoughts running through Farquhar’s head, Farquhar immediately appears to be the victim, and already gains the reader’s vested support in his survival. Bierce also appeals to one’s sense of familial ties. Farquhar’s last thoughts are of his family, thanking God that his “wife and little ones are still beyond the invader’s farthest advance” (p. 3). Thoughts of his family appear repeatedly throughout the story of his escape; they guide him down the deserted country road, and they welcome him joyously upon his arrival home. Even if there are other indications that Farquhar’s escape is a fallacy, the reader wants to believe he survives, if only to see his family again.

The vivid descriptions of the river, the forest, and the empty country roads lead the reader to believe that Farquhar is truly fleeing for his life. Apart from the dim light above, the cold darkness that engulfs Farquhar is exactly what one would expect to see while struggling at the depths of a fierce river. The light growing brighter until it finally breaks the surface, the air cool as it swirls into the lungs. As the reader, there is a sense of panic at Farquhar’s initial drowning, and relief as he inhales; these senses are only present due to the author’s juxtaposed, detailed descriptions of the river, “cold and dark” (p. 5) and of the air, “blinded by sunlight” (p. 5). Similarly vivid descriptions present his escape as exciting, intriguing, and most of all believable. The “prismatic colors in all the dewdrops,” (p. 6) the blue smoke rising from the recently fired rifles, and the canon blasts makes for a captivating escape from the river. Struggling through the interminable forest with only the direction of the sun as a guide, and following the endless road lined by the “black bodies of trees,” (p. 7), his long journey appears to come to an end upon his arrival home. Greeted by his wife, “looking fresh and cool and sweet,” (p. 8) his story seems to have come around, from terrified near death to utter elation. However, it has come farther than that; the story has come full circle. “Peyton Farquhar was dead,” and the numerous details disappear, leaving the reader with only the realization that they have been fooled the entire time.

While still slightly ashamed at being gullible enough to believe every word of the story, looking back and analyzing parts of the story is somewhat comforting. The story was designed to fool the reader; it was supposed to play off of one’s emotions and desire for a happy ending. I doubt that I was the first, and probably won’t be the last to believe this story to be true, but I defend that my trust in the author and his story was not incongruous.

"An Occurrence at Owl Creek"

After the exercise in Tuesday’s class, I began to really think about our ability to lie as human beings. It is intriguing that, after watching 30 some odd people lie, not everyone has the same expertise in the field of lying.

Those who do not have a knack for lying, I have found, can usually be weeded out from the rest of the pack simply based on their body movements. Whether it was rocking back on their chair, their inability to look anyone in the eye, their hands fidgeting with their pencil and paper, or even a smile rising to their lips, it was a sign that they were hiding something and they knew it. As for those who found a way to fog the line between fact and fiction, I believe that few of them actually have the ability to make, and present, a masterful lie. Going through each student, it became obvious that many of us (my self included) did not “truly” lie, but rather slightly twisted a story from our lives in order to create a memory that seems to come from a historical-fiction section of our brain.

I believe that cgieger hit this point perfectly when he/she (sorry did not see a name) stated that it is this combination of fact and fiction that made these lies harder to detect. This is the reason that most people tell lies that involve some truth in them.

The fact that it is easier to create a “truthful lie,” comes from similar reasoning as stated by Sabrina. She stated that her inability to lie streams from the fact that she had been taught, from an early age, that lying was morally bad. Because most humans have this understanding that lying is bad, we tend to hide our lies within truths in order to convince ourselves that the lie is not a lie. Once we are able to do this, we do not feel the moral pressure that comes from lying, and thus we are satisfied. The creation of liars, I believe, comes from mastering of this technique.

While this technique may seem immoral, it is sometimes used in a positive manner. Similar to the man in An Occurrence at Owl Creek, humans tend to convince themselves that a lie is reality in order to momentarily save himself or herself from some sort of pain. Author Ambrose Bierce shows this during the last minutes of Peyton Farquhar’s life. Dying by the noose, listening to the unbearable sharpness of his ticking watch and watching the lifeless pieces of wood slowly drift down the river, Farquhar changes what he believes is reality in order to dull the pain of death. While this quick life he lives is a lie, it is one that allows him to progressively come to peace with death. Unfortunately, like many people find, reality is reality and eventually we are forced to come face to face with it.

"Anyone who claims to be good at lying

is obviously bad at lying. Thus - as a writer myself - I cannot comment on whether or not writers are exception."
-Chuck Klosterman

I was never good at lying, so it didn’t surprise me when so few believed my lie. Lying for today’s assignment actually took me more effort than telling the presumable truth.

I’m probably a poor liar, because I was taught from a very young age that lying was bad. Yet, I’m sure that at some point in our childhoods that we’ve all heard something of the like (and some of you guys were obviously very, very good at lying, regardless). As a child, I never had much to lie about, though. I was always the “obedient child” who never tried to step beyond the boundaries that were set. For in my memories, there were always repercussions for lying, and the consequences were what I feared. Just look at what happened to Pinocchio.

At most, my lies often resembled this:

Mom: Sabrina! Are you eating candy? I told you that you couldn’t have candy!

Sabrina, with sticky fingers and a pack of open M&Ms: Nooooo! I didn’t eat any candy!

Then, my mother would proceed to scold me.

But in addressing the lie as a wrong, my mother fundamentally shaped my development. She wasn’t actually addressing the act of eating candy without permission; she was making an investment towards making the foundation of my moral judgment so that I would be prepared for when I would need to consult my sense of right and wrong when sweets would be the least of my worries, when the temptations to commit wrongs with detrimental consequences would be much greater.

But that still doesn’t answer: why lies are wrong? If we can manipulate the colors of a photograph or the sounds of a song, why can’t we change the authenticity of the words we say? As far as I understood back then, lies were bad because mommy said so. If I wanted to be a good girl and have mommy’s unyielding love, I had to do what she said was right. Mommy was always right and being right was good.

That was then.

Now, lies are “bad” simply because by lying, I am accountable for having breached unspoken rules of personal and public conduct (i.e. moral codes). The idea that there is a definite right and wrong has been passed on from generations to generations, even if we all can come to a realization later in life that morals are ideals not concrete, ubiquitous laws. So, then the repeated exchanges between parents, who correct their children, and the children, who naively accept their parents’ words for truth, simply highlight that morality is part of our culture.

But nowadays lies are more present that truths and morals. There is nothing that can stop us from thinking alternative truths or believing that reconstructed memories were once true events. Lies happens so often and are so pervasive in our world that we don’t even make the conscious effort to consider whether or not a small lie, a small stitch in our stories, is wrong. Everybody lies (don’t lie, you know you do), and if you and I both lie, then shouldn’t our norms, which construct our sense of morality, be subject to change?

Take today’s exercise for instance: we all made an effort to lie and tell truths. Why was it that we found lies more intriguing? Why was it that most lies, to a certain degree, were truths? Why were even blatant lies accepted for truth? Have we really become so conditioned to lies that we more or less acknowledge that the truth is more obscure than lies? Is that why we can and often will accept lies for truth?

It’s all about perspective.

So, what’s yours?

Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge- How to tell a lie

It was interesting in class that many of our “lies” had some value of truth to them. I am guilty of this because as I ran through my own memories to find a truth, I distorted others to create a lie to share with everyone. I think that because our lies had this truth factor, it was harder for the class to distinguish between the fact and lie because both were conveyed in a possible manner.

In Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce, Peyton Farquhar’s “escape” is somewhat believable because it follows from the “true” setting which is described in great detail in part I. As a reader, we know that Peyton is about to be hung, there is a stream below, woods along the sides and a sergeant with his troupe stationed around Peyton. Therefore, falling into the stream, feeling suffocated and being shot at are all possible scenarios that could follow from the initial setting. From part II, the reader also learns that Peyton is “...chafed under the inglorious restraint, longing for the release of his energies, the larger life of the soldier, the opportunity for distinction,” (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/375/375-h/375-h.htm). So, his imagined great escape also comes from a truthful desire of Peyton's for grand adventure. Since we learn this fact before his adventure begins, we believe that Peyton would fight for his life and walk for hours through the woods. Bierce’s close account of Peyton’s actions and emotions also make the escape more believable because-how could he make all of that up? The reader, or I at least, gets pulled in by the story so that the last sentence, the truth, comes as a shock.

Therefore, it seems to me that the truth is the best tool to convince someone to believe a lie.

An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge : Filters

Is it possible to tell a truth?

I’m honestly wondering. Every story, even the ones that are meant to be honest, leaves out little details that the teller thinks are unimportant. Or maybe the teller emphasizes certain events they deem relevant.

This editing has to happen, doesn’t it? When we live our lives we don’t think the same things as other people think or place the same importance on things as other people do, and so our version of what happened will be a version with entirely different focus than those of other people. If it’s a story, someone has to be telling it. If someone is telling it, then there is a filter between the listener and what actually happened.

For me, a lie is a manipulation of someone’s perception of events. Which leaves me in a weird situation — since that is also an accurate description of what the truth is, too, for all storytellers.

The twists of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” work because the author plays with the filter between unadulterated truth and the reader. That filter is the perception of Farquhar, the main character. Even before Part II Farquhar leads me to be fuzzy on some facts. At one moment the narrator describes the stream below as “dancing madly”, the next Farquhar thinks how “sluggish” it is. Farquhar listens to the ticking of his watch and the narrator describes its “regular” rhythm, and the next moment Farquhar starts thinking it is getting slower and increasing in strength until it doesn’t sound like a description of a ticking watch at all.

So of course Farquhar misleads the reader in Part II, when the narrative gets more directly inside his head. The author, Bierce, lets us see things the way Farquhar sees them, emphasizing the details that Farquhar would deem important, even when what he thinks contradicts other parts. Bierce even told the reader that this shift in who controlled the narrative was about to happen at the end of Part I.

Sure, what we read from how Farquhar perceives things is incredible in detail and very human in many little ways, and that makes it resonate with the reader. Sure, Farquhar was acting as a filter for us to understand events, but we as human beings can only hear stories through a filter.

So was his way of seeing things a lie? Or was his perception of the moments before death one of many possible truths, even as it seems entirely opposite to what happened? How close can we get to the real truth with a story?

(Or is there even one real truth?)

"All we've got

is who we are, and all we know is pretending." John O'Callaghan

This post is a little late and most of the class has already covered what Momento meant to our class and how it emphasized what we had talked about all semester. I think it was pretty easy to see that this movie emphasized that fact that reality can be fictional and memories are no where close to accurate. To me the relationships between the characters and the audience were the most interesting aspects. Not only does this movie prove that reality is questionable it also shows that relationships and perceptions can be as well. Until the last 10 minutes of the movie we all sympathized and believed Leonard. It's interesting we felt this way even though we knew Leonard really never knew anything that was going on in his life. We, the audience, chose to put all our faith in his version of the story even though we knew he had no memory. Not only that, Leonard put all of his faith in little scribbles on paper and tattoos, even though he knew that in moments of strong emotions he could write something rash he would later regret. Overall, we're all trusting completely ridiculous sources. What we didn't mention in class but that I can't help thinking about is that this movie also emphasizes weeding out the "bullshit", not being manipulated. We may have touched on this for a second but I think it's one of the most important parts of the movie. Everyone, including the audience, allows themselves to be manipulated. I'm not sure if everyone is lying to themselves or simply just too trusting of the information given to them.

momento/perception

While at NOMA I visited a black and white photography exhibition entitled Residents & Visitors and I though it tied in with perception dealing with the movie Memento. It was a broad documentation of locale and focused on examination of perceived culture in Louisiana during the twentieth century. The exhibit allows the viewer to uncover a mysteriously luring element of nostalgia located in the photographs, among the range of tones; aiding this element is the uncanny effect of the overall display, consisting of the work of Native photographers alongside visiting ones. The photos mostly take place on a local level, case by case basis, thus the exhibition resonated immediately with me. I found it to be one of a kind, a fully operative piece of the past informing the viewer of an otherwise familiar place in time, of something he/she cannot know, but can experience in their own way. You see, this type of experience, that was designed with the combined effort and skill of fellow photographers, not only showcases the effective power of refine printing skills but emphasizes the power of perception. Have you ever tried to imagine early parts of the twentieth century in color? Most people are unable to do this since they have not seen it with there own eyes, the only thing they have, to go off of, is images shown to them. Moving or still, images of the early 1900’s we see today were mainly introduced by Hollywood and are in black and white. Trying to imagine 1952 in color, thus becomes virtually impossible to today’s youth. However, this effect in coordination with the emphasis on perception forced me to acknowledge, as well as, to appreciate its power in relation to reality, as a manipulation of reality. Beyond the filial relationship between the subjects in the photos, in this context, as a Resident or Visitor the photographers maintain an experiential relationship with the subject and each other. While examining these portraits collectively, they become even more mysterious. The comparison of the artist renderings and interpretations becomes unavoidable; and thus compels you to further ponder the culture and how it is encompassed in each rendering; also consider the significance of the symbolic nature between, the native human subjects among each other and the significance of the things their being depicted among seemingly become extensions of themselves as you further investigate the frame. , could it be the cleverness of the photographer, or were these people as intriguing that they seem existing in such a defined state of culture that was inescapable of the eye. Mysterious.

Can't trust anything can you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/martin-luther-king-jr-misquoted-after-osama-bin-laden-killed/2011/05/03/AFNKPjfF_blog.html
Just because someone says MLK said it, doesn't make it so.
But is the quote any less meaningful without his name attached?

Memento

I totally agree with Sheeri. As soon as I heard John or Teddy, whoever!, say that he created J.G., I immediately thought "Isn't this the same ending as Shutter Island?" Although I must admit that I liked this movie a little better than Shutter Island for some reason. And yes, it did sum up pretty much everything we learned in class. We should have just watched movies like this all semester! Hehe. Anyway! I am having a lot of fun doing my paper because I realize more and more correlations between the two stories, yet I often rule them out because they don't prove anything that my thesis statement claims. It's a little like a game. TTFN!

Memento

At first this movie confused me, but as it ran its course I became more and more intrigued trying to figure out what was actually going on. I liked Leonard in the beginning, but after the plot twist was revealed I had a harder time sympathizing with him because of what he decided to do. He lost the meaning of what he was doing, and he used his condition to continue killing John G.'s even though he had already gotten the one who hard attacked his wife. The only thing he had to live for was this act of revenge, and even though Teddy informed him of what he had already done, he chose to ignore it so he could still have a reason to live.

memento

so yeah basically memento hammers home the message that we have discussed all semester, that truth is subjective and something that each individual creates for themselves. also, shutter island is pretty much the same movie. it is interesting to think about how everyone creates their own truth in some ways. many would argue that religion serves this purpose for many people, allowing them to live in a world in which they believe that good deeds in life will lead them to a wonderful afterlife, thus giving them purpose (like leonard gives himself purpose by creating this investigation for himself). many people also tend to perceive people's words and actions in accordance with what they want to hear or see. although these are not necessarily honest ways to live one's life, this does not necessarily mean that it is a worse or wrong way to live. I believe that if you are not hurting or harming anyone and are still able to function in society, creating a truth for yourself that makes you happier is perfectly fine. Why not? After all, you only have one life to live, and you might as well be happy during the time you are given.

Powerful & Disorienting

Wow, that was a bit different from when I remember watching it when I was younger, but still epic and mind blowing all the same. I definitely get more out of it now, to some extent because I'm older, but mostly from what I've learned in this course. I enjoyed the manipulation of both us as the viewers and Leonard as a victim of short term memory loss. The way the movie is related from the end to the beginning is very disorienting and leaves the viewer vulnerable to the forms of manipulation to come. It also serves as a reminder that if yuo forget the manipulative nature of the world and its many agendas, you may also become someone elses tool. Overall my favorite part has to be the end when Leonard has found out that he has been killing many people, and chooses to alter his reality by letting himself forget about what he has just been told and giving himself a new clue. Even with his disability, Leonard takes full control of his reality and makes his disability an advantage.

Memento was the perfect movie to sum up everything we have been taught this semester. Specifically, I thought it dealt with the issues of truth and manipulation in a way that was very relevant to our class. As Teddy said, “You don’t want the truth. You make up your own truth.” The idea of creating one’s own reality runs throughout the entire movie. Because Leonard cannot make new memories, he becomes the extreme example of something we are all guilty of. He is manipulated, he accept lies as reality and creates his own truth. Whether this is a good or bad thing is something I am still trying to figure out. “So you lie to yourself to be happy.” Teddy tells Leonard, “There’s nothing wrong with that. We all do it.” We may all do it, but what are the implications of lying to yourself?

Memento is an example of how failure to distinguish between truth and lies can allow you to be manipulated. Leonard is manipulated by almost every character in the film (Natalie, Teddy, even the man at the front desk of his hotel), and in Leonard’s case, those manipulating him do not have very good intentions. However, Leonard’s willingness to accept lies also allows him to live his life. Lying to himself is easier than facing the reality that his wife is gone, her killer is dead, and Leonard has nothing else to live for. I found that these two issues, manipulation and the benefit of lying, were key concepts that were found in many of the texts we analyzed this semester.

Memento

As I was watching the movie, I couldn't help but feel sorry for Leonard and the lonely life he lives. It's pretty much like he's living in an tangible, Earth form of Limbo, can't go anywhere and can't remember anyone. First and foremost, he lost his wife, which would drive anyone crazy however what really drilled the nail into the coffin was that she died, in both sequences, a painful death; in Leonard's sequence she was brutally murdered before him, and in another she could not bear to endure her husband's loss of memory and virtually had him kill her. On top of all that, Leonard lost his job, his house, his money, his friends...the list goes on. What I have to ask is, what was his motivation to live? To realize that it was all for nothing? Perhaps this thought has crossed his mind once or twice before but alas he cannot remember.

Natalie?

Okay so first of all, I LOVED that movie. At first, I didn't understand why the would show a scene then rewind and show the scene before and then rewind and show the scene before. Being artsy was my initial thought. I understand now that if the movie played in chronological order, the mystery would be lost because the answer comes at the beginning rather than at the end. But in this movie the beginning is the end. I think this movie fits into the class so well because for the entire movie we distrust Teddy and sympathize with Lenny. We pity Lenny. We want him to find the killer. But at the end of the movie, we know longer sympathize. He is killing people who weren't his wife's killer (namely because his wife didn't die).
What I'm having trouble with is Natalie. I know she was the girlfriend of Jimmy Grant, the guy that Lenny kills before starting to track Teddy. But I don't understand why Teddy sent him to her or why she pretended to be beaten up by Dodd. What was her motive? What did she want? Anybody have any answers?

Memento. Long post, but worth the debate.

Memento presents an OVERWHELMING amount of mixed morals. Situations that audiences everywhere would handle differently--no two people are exactly the same.
There is a reason our loyalties and emotions are sporadic with the characters. We sympathize and like Leanord when we think he is avenging his wife (yet he is still planning murder, which is usually considered a morally wrong act. Is it acceptable in this case?). Eventually we see that he chooses to live his life constantly "finding the murderer"... that is already dead. A common reaction is for the audience to be appalled that Leanord makes the decision to make himself forget that he has already killed his enemy and to continue murdering in order to give his life meaning. Some may view it as selfish. (so is this to say that no one in the audience has made a selfish decision to improve their life? Or is it different because he is murdering? Is this where the line gets drawn? Is he not entitled to a happy life? After all, Teddy is giving him bad people such as drug dealers to kill. Do the drug dealers still deserve to live even though they have probably murdered others and have sold illegal substances? Why do they deserve to live a content life while Leanord does not?) Teddy also brings in a few questions of ethics. I know that I had mixed feelings about him throughout the movie. Is he a bad person for doing drug deals and helping Leonard kill people--even while being a cop? Or is he a good person for giving this person a reason to live? He seems to have sympathy in his heart.
The movie leaves more thoughts than just, "wow... now I know what he feels like when he doesn't remember things". Yes that is a very interesting idea, but when you dig deeper, you see that it is a clever way to set up all of these questions of ethics. that is the big picture here. Seeing the scenes in reverse toys with the audience's emotions. The director feeds one situation and then piles more variables on top to complicate the emotions--creating mixed feelings. Feelings so mixed that one might feel cheated at the end. It really just comes down to one's priorities.
Don't we all do the same thing, though? We choose what we want to believe. We choose so many things that make us content with our life. We create values based off of what life presents or deals to us. The literature in this class presents us with ideas to interpret. To accept or discard. It's our choice! Janelle has been trying, I think, to show us that not only does this happen in literature and the classroom, but in everyday situations in life. It could even be a situation like Leonard's. So are we really so different from Leonard? It is common to make hypocritical decisions and 'exceptions to the rule' all the time. so where is the line drawn? does that make us bad people? Again, it is your interpretation. What do you think?

Momento

Unfortunately, I didn't get to watch the first part of the movie but I caught on pretty quickly. I love the way it kept me thinking and guessing what was coming next (just like this class has all semester). The way it goes back and forth challenges your mind and I love that! I also love when movies have an unexpected ending. Momento's ending may have been disappointing to some but I thought it was perfect! The movie was awesome, I will definitely be looking it up to watch the whole thing. :)