Cool Hand Luke
Cool Hand Luke is a 1967 film directed by Stuart Rosenberg. The film describes a laid-back southern man who is sentenced to two years in a rural prison due to his deviance acts. Luke is arrested for defacing a line of parking meters and ends up in jail working on a chain gang for the sadistic Captain. One day Luke was walking down a dark street while drunk late at night, and he used a pipe wrench to cut the tops of parking meters. However, his criminal conduct was not done with the motive of stealing from the residents. Instead, Luke did the act to show his defiance of the societal restrictions and system, thus the impulse of independent action against the authority rather than an act of selfishness. Due to this act, Luke is arrested and sentenced to serve a two-year sentence on a chain gang ( Reynolds 1997)
There are several harsh oppressions evident in the film that depicts the nature of the prison system. Firstly, a two-year conviction is considered a cruel and oppressive response to the prison system when related to the act of deviance that Luke performed. The order found this act a threat to the status quo and wanted to teach Luke and any other like-minded individual a lesson. Therefore, the sentence did not match the crime that Luke performed but rather aimed at achieving other purposes such as protecting the status quo.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, the harsh oppression is also noticeable at the work farm where prisoners have little else but a striped uniform, leg chains and an earned place in the jailhouse pecking order. The farm was managed by a sadistic guard known as the Captain who recites the rules of conduct when working on the farm ( Reynolds 1997) . Harsh oppressions were evident in the hands of correctional officers and their form of punishments towards prisoners and not in words. The system used measured language to deny its harsh authority, using the language of power to show neutrality. For example, a judge harshly sentenced Luke to two years in prison in the impersonal acceptable style of the court, which is similar to how the Captain harshly sentenced Luke to death in the same detached terms. Other harsh oppressions were evident through the uncultured and sadistic nature of prison bosses. Fe or example, the end of Luke occurred when the correctional officers launched a bullet through his chest because of the shoot to kill authority at the prison system.
Apart from that, there were several incidences where harsh oppression was meted out continually against Luke for most of his prison sentence. For example, whenever he made escape attempts, he was met with severe punishments such as being made to wear double chains, being forced to perform manual labor to the point of exhaustion or getting executed during the third time of escaping. Throughout the prison facility, harsh oppressions were applied against any attempts that defied authorities, even if it was an informal system within the lower pecking order. Luke underwent several beatings that intended to force him into submission and ultimately aiming at his spirit rather than his body, thus thrusting his rational aspirations into a realm of chaotic and incompatible efforts.
However, these harsh oppressions never had the desired result since Luke did not relent in his defiance against the authority. He refused to conform to the rules of the facility and often found himself at odds with his bosses, to the point of the boss putting him in solitary to prevent him from running away. Luke defined the authorities and resisted the disciplines required at the prison work farm, which led to his attempt escape that caused his death rather than recaptures. His deviance instincts as expected of him resisted the mandate to follow the rules as set by the system. As a result, he severally tried to escape the facility but was recaptured and viciously punished for his infractions. At one time the captain managing the work farm referred to Luke’s deviance and rule-breaking as a failure to communicate in a parody of modern social psychology.
Therefore, in the end, justice for Luke was restored in some sense, but only in the mind that every person gets some liberation upon death. Luke’s constant disregard for the rules of the system that he opens hates was integral in giving fellow inmates hopes for themselves. All his resilience contributed to motivating other prisoners and giving them hope to fight for another day. His attempted escapes and death due to trying makes him an idol and martyr to his fellow prisoners who admired his determination. Additionally, his defiance of the authority also worked for Luke’s benefits as it enabled him to survive several fights, fuelling the grudging admiration from fellow convicts including the top convict who almost took his life ( Reynolds 1997) .
In this regard, Luke’s mission was not suicidal despite being masochistic, whereby his death created a martyr. The other prisoners who shared an environment with Luke saw his demise as restorative instead, and therefore different martyrs were a form of recounting his tales and mythologizing him. The murder of Luke was crucial in undermining the authority at the prison system, thus an act of defeat on the part of the system and one which gave solace and pride to other prisoners. Throughout the film, the character of Luke changes the entire culture of prisoners held in the chain gang. In fact, he was not a physical threat to the guards and other prisoners as seen when Dragline beat him. Luke conducted his resistance moves passively, always careful to show respect to the guards. Instead, throughout the film, Luke used his intelligence and will to earn the respect of all prisoners and bosses. As a result, all the prisoners who remain behind after Luke’s death lived imitating his way of life.
Dead Man Walking
This is a 2008 film about a man on death row and a nun struggling to help him. The movie is about a convicted murderer, Matthew Poncelet on death row due to murdering two lovers, and a religious Sister Prejean who helps him evade the execution by arguing against the death penalty and calling for a second chance ( Prejean, 2011). In this case, the movie offers a liberal-humanist vision of uncommon elusiveness and depth. It presented the theme of capital punishment by tackling both sides of the sentence being right or wrong. Showing how just punishment and redemption could work together, thereby sentencing the accused to death by a civil authority created a path for Matthew Poncelet to meet Sister Prejean, receive spiritual instruction and take responsibility for his crimes.
In this movie, I believe that Mathew Poncelet deserved to be on death row because of the nature of crimes he had committed. Matthew Poncelet was a ruthless murderer and rapist who have been put on death row for killing two teenage lovers. The flashback recreations of murder show a man who does not give much to love and is filled with hatred and racial antagonism. Matthew was known to make racist comments and find trouble ( Prejean, 2011) . He is arrogant, bigoted and cruel as seen with the terrible crime that he committed. Therefore, he deserved to be on death row because he did commit the murders as seen from his confessions and this was a chance to restore justice to the victims and the family members.
Additionally considering the families of the victims and the agony they were going through, there is no doubt that Matthew deserved to be on death row. The murder caused a lot of pain on the families of the victims who had to go through substantial sadness due to the actions of the offender. Therefore, putting him on death row was a deserved move that could also ensure families of the victims gets relief, and other citizens understand that murder is wrong. Putting him on the death row will make families of the victims secure, knowing that the threat has been neutralized. It was the right way to serve justice for the victims as well as the family members.
Matthew Poncelet committed a horrendous crime, planned for it and was aware of its consequences. Even though he blames the incidence on being high, he was fully aware of the action that took away lives of the kids without valuing it. Also, Matthew was characterized by being deceitful and manipulative that was fully exposed by not being truthful to Sister Prejean. It is until under Prejean’s determined guidance that we get to see the other side of Matthew who shows to be genuinely sorry for the hurt ( Prejean, 2011) . Putting him on the death row was justice served right. He chose to be a murderer and deserved getting the punished for it.
However, this film also made me have a change of opinion regarding capital punishments in some way. Before watching the movie, I felt that anyone who committed horrible crimes landing them on death row deserves to face the death penalty. I used to think that such individuals who kill innocent people deserve to die by the same fate to serve justice as well as create a viable lesson to individuals with similar crimes, thus taking control of the situation. However, watching the film has made me relax my stand on capital punishments. Though I still support death penalties for offenders with horrible crimes, I believe individuals who are being executed are human beings with feelings and fears
Therefore, the film has reformed my thinking somewhat, and I am more willing to listen to the arguments against capital punishments. For example, when legal systems execute people for crimes of murder, they fail to consider other factors such as the remorse of the offender or the effect that the death penalty will have on the offender’s family and friends. In this film, though Matthew admits to being at the scene of the crime, Matthew showed remorse for his actions and had sought redemption by reading the bible ( Sarat, 2002) . Such an individual would have been given a second chance to reconsider their lives and change their ways.
Secondly, if the legal systems want to stress the point that killing is wrong, they do not have to confirm it through the murder of another person. Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. The fact that the state kills people because of manslaughter does not provide any teaching against taking lives. The nun Helen Prejean in the film made persuasive arguments that had moral, logical and theological reasoning against capital punishments regarding using murder to punish a crime of manslaughter.
Additionally, death penalty from the film failed to provide a chance for a fair trial. A good number of people who are executed are inadequate or are not in a position to hire good lawyers who can represent them. For example in the film, Matthew did not have a lawyer or an advocate that could serve him and help him with legal issues involving appeals ( Sarat, 2002) . His execution occurred despite lacking a fair trial by getting legal representation. This is why he had to contact the nun and ask her to find someone who would work pro bono. Additionally, his appeal to get another hearing for this trial with the governor was denied without any logical explanation. These sequence of issues proved that there is some issue with the legal system that should be addressed regarding capital punishment. The failure of the government to provide the accused with the necessary legal treatment to appeal for their freedoms shows the issues regarding the death penalty.
Individuals placed on a death row are often treated like animals. They are not given an opportunity to get the proper justice that would give them a fair hearing. However, there are chances that some of the accused as not monsters they are made to appear and to acquit them fair trial would reduce the harsh punishments. In the end, the film contributed towards changing my opinion on capital punishments.
References
Prejean, H. (2011). Dead man walking: An eyewitness account of the death penalty in the United States . Vintage.
Reynolds Jr, O. M. (1997). Review of Cool Hand Luke. Okla. City UL Rev. , 22 , 97.
Sarat, A. (2002). When the state kills: Capital punishment and the American condition . Princeton University Press.
