Heroism

Rather than talking about Joseph and the Coat of Many Colors, I wish to address the famous David from David and Goliath. According to our most recent findings about David, he was a young boy of fifteen or sixteen. He was still very much like a child, and his weapon of choice was not a sword or a mace, but a sling. He wore no armor to protect himself. While no one truly knows his feelings on the subject, the task itself had to be intimidating, especially because Goliath was well known for his size and brutality in the opposing army. Despite this, David did not fear that he might meet his own death; rather, he faced his opponent as he would with any other challenge.

Gilgamesh, on the other hand, feared death more than almost anything. Not only did he not wish to die (he wouldn't because he was half-immortal), but he didn't want his friend, Enkidu, to die either. Rather than face life without his mortal friend, he descended into the underworld to find a way to keep Enkidu alive. He was very strong and experienced, unlike David, but they both had merits of being brave. At first, he was looking out for himself, but then he also watched out for Enkidu, showing that he had a change of heart.

Both stories illuminate characters of stories who succeeded in triumph. David saved his people from the enemy army, and Gilgamesh, while he did not stop Enkidu’s death, did sacrifice his own time and life experiences to try to keep Enkidu alive.

What both stories encourage leaders and followers alike to do is to take a look at the world through a different lens, a lens where people don’t focus on themselves, but who look around them at the greater cause and try to contribute to it. One story shows a glorious triumph; the other shows the side of failure. Both are important to realize because, as humans, we are certain to make mistakes. They are a part of life. The lesson is to learn from them and continue to seek out better ways.

DocUtah

The film I watched was Thy Will Be Done, directed and produced by Alice Bouvrie in 2010. The movie follows a transsexual woman through her journey to be ordained in the Presbyterian Church. The issue being tackled is two-pronged, depending on the audience. For those undergoing similar struggles, the message is supposed to be one of comfort and encouragement, showing those people to be brave in their endeavors. The other issue is informing people not experiencing these trials is to not only be aware of other’s struggles, but to be accepting of people and their shortcomings, despite what they may be.

Although the main idea may not be clear, it is sure that one of the themes is illuminating people’s differences and asking them to showcase their differences as a form of uniqueness. The motivation of this is not to rewrite history, but not necessarily to add to it. It’s an in-between where transsexual people wish to establish themselves and justify their actions. The funny thing is, right now, there isn’t very much groundwork for this topic. It’s all very behind-the-scenes that only people going through it realize. Because of this, the political questions being confronted are also somewhat stagnant. While there are most certainly debates occurring, they aren’t out in the open for the public to be aware of.

The argument being made (acceptance, etc.) is made effectively, for the most part. The difficult thing to get past is the viewers’ opinions and values concerning this specific topic. Other than that, there are very diverse tactics the producer uses to convince the viewers to side with her.

The movie starts with the transsexual woman, Sara, canoeing by herself in a river. Her voice comes over, talking about acceptance and equality. Emotions definitely play a strong role throughout the whole movie as Sara shares her early life and struggle with cross-dressing. The camera alternately pans and zooms on a mannequin that, each time, displays different women’s outfits that Sara assumedly wears. The lighting on the clothes is subtle and soft so the viewers can imagine someone wearing the clothes, and it may not be the woman you think it would be.

There are multiple personal interviews of people related to Sara, such as her ex-wife, daughter, and therapist. The interviews all appear to take place in the interviewees’ houses, which shows they are comfortable in their own setting as Sara is in her current body and mindset.

A very common part of the movie is pictures, film clips, and audio bites of Sara and her life. The pictures are chosen very well, including pictures of her as a young boy and high schooler, and in early life with her ex-wife. The film clips include their wedding and fun moments with their infant/toddler daughter. On the other side of things, there were also pictures of the Book of Order, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church saying transsexuality and same-sex marriage was not allowed.

Counterarguments that could be made against this are, of course, the laws that were (and in some places still are) against same-sex marriage. While scriptures say that all men (and women) were created equal, those same scriptures do not ordain a marriage of two women, like Sara and his current wife. Then there’s the argument that no matter how much one wants others to be accepting of him/her, not everyone will be. The producer also makes a note that after the marriage, the woman who “married” them was charged for marrying two woman. While the movie made a good argument that should not have been the ending.