You are on page 1of 4

Elena Little

English 101
10/26/14
Stranger With A Camera
1:
Different Insiders perspectives
about Appalachia
This place was there home,
refused to see anything wrong
with there situation, didnt like
the filmmakers only filming the
poor part, not everyone was poor,
only filmed what they wanted.
You had to work to get what you
had, there life. Loved there
property, will do anything for
there community, thought the
filmmakers looked past the
people and culture and focused
on depravation.
They were afraid of change, didnt
like people who revealed the
reality of their situation.
Different Insiders perspectives
about the murder
The people (*)of eastern
Kentucky thought the murder of
Hugh O Conner was a good thing,
believed he deserved it, most
people agreed with Hobart Isons
reasons. Others like Mason
Eldridge thought that Hugh was
doing no wrong in his film work,
didnt deserve what he got.
Eastern Kentucky became glum
after Hobart shot Hugh. Most
people supported Hobart. People
knew he wasnt a bad person for
doing what he did. Even though
he took someones life because
they were a community of people
who depend on each other,
protect each other and support
each other through anything.

Different Outsiders perspectives


about Appalachia
In Honesty wanted to capture a
part of the Human race, never
meant to offend anyone. Just
wanted to show all aspects of the
united states, intention of the
filmmakers was to film people in
there lives making good with
what they had, and essentially
surviving. The CBS had different
out looks of the Appalachia then
the Filmmakers did. Wanted to
show poverty without making
the people of eastern Kentucky
feel shameful for the life they
had made theirs.
Different Outsiders perspectives
about the Murder
The Outsiders after the Murder
saw that eastern Kentucky town
as ignorant, backward, and
violent when Hobart killed O
Conner. People believed that
Hobart killed a stranger with a
camera and if we go around
killing strangers well we dont
want to know what would
happen. Some understand why
Hobart did what he did, but
thought that Hobart should have
tried to understand why he was
filming. These were the people
that knew Hobart Ison was not
crazy. Elizabeth Barret(**) was
both an insider and an outsider.

2:

Who, if anyone in the film, changes their minds based on listening to the
perspectives from the other side? Put an (*) next to any person or group of
people in your table above whose perspectives seems to shift or change over
time. Put a double (**) next to anyone who is in a position of more power or
privilege and changes their mind.
In this film there is clearly two sides. Likewise, Mason Eldridge never showed
signs of changing his view on the situations he never had a problem with the
filmmakers taking pictures of him, seen as harmless, he never changed his
perspectives but he certainly understood why Hobart did what he did. There were
others whos perspectives changed over time like Elizabeth Barret; at first she
thought that what Hobart Ison did was wrong, and Hugh O Conner did not
deserve what he got but this started to shift when she had to understand their
backgrounds as people, they both were good people, never meant to do any wrong
to each other, just doing there jobs in there community, after she understood where
they came from and why they were doing it and being in a position growing up in
Eastern Kentucky but also a filmmaker she really understood both sides, not one
more the other because she stood on both sides of the camera.
3:
To what extent does Barrets perspective evolve over the course of the film?
What did Barret discover about her own perspective by the end of the film? If
the goal of making this movie was understanding, to what extent do you think
she was successful?
Over the course of the film Barrets perspective I think evolves in a good amount.
What started as being confused about why both Hugh O Conner and Hobart Ison
did what they did lead to Her understand not only why Hugh O Conner wanted to
film the lives of those living in poverty and how they survive but also why Hobart
and the rest of the town was so upset and offended when these outsiders wanted to
show the rest of the world what it was like living in a place like Eastern Kentucky,
All people like Hobart thought was they only wanted to show the worse of it to the
rest of the world and they did not want to feel shame, but they also didnt
understand that the filmmakers really had no intention of making them feel shame
but just wanted the rest of the world to know about all aspects of the human race,
all they wanted to do was to tell fairly what they saw and wanted nations to know
about it. Also the Filmmakers didnt understand why it was such a big deal being
in Hobart situation in a community full of people who would do anything to
protect each other and knowing that with everything you wanted or had it had to
be worked hard for, nothing came easy in eastern Kentucky and Hobart knew that
the outsiders would just see them as poor not as people who didnt need money or
a lot of things to be happy and to live, they could be happy and live with what they
had, without all the glitter. I think that to a great extent by the end of the film there
was an understanding created for both sides, Maybe a man didnt have to die

because of all this but the reasons behind both sides made valid arguments.
4:
Peter Elbow suggests that [d]isagreement doesnt have to lead to fighting or an
adversarial process, if we cooperate in exploring divergent views. Perhaps
disagreement should not lead to fighting and dissent but the analytical
question is why does it? What factors make cooperation so difficult between
people with opposing views? Can Booth and Elbows ideas really work in
practice?
The Factors the make cooperation between people with opposing views difficult
is the fact that you cant please everyone, no matter how much you think that your
side is the better side or your reasoning is right there is always someone who
doesnt agree. Usually people who dont agree with each other have a hard time
creating an understanding of ones side because deep down they know that they are
always right. For Booth and Elbows ideas to work in practice there would have to
be an understanding but I think that Elbows can go hand in hand, he states
cooperate in exploring divergent views, he would be more willing to understand
both sides.
Take one perspective or point of view expressed in the film that you strongly
disagree with (or have serious doubts about) and make a serious attempt at
playing the believing game. What new thinking or understanding emerges about
that perspective? About your own perspective? About the method of attempting
to believe? (If no new thinking emerges, hypothesize as to why this might be).
One perspective that I strongly disagree with in the film is the fact that Hobart
Ison thought that shooting Hugh O Conner was the solution. This makes me angry
because Hobart didnt take anytime to know why Hugh was even there in the first
place, he made assumptions about Hugh O Conner and the sad part was that Hugh
and Hobart were really not that different, they both are good people with no
intention to hurt anyone, or offend anyone, both living there lives doing there jobs.
Maybe what Hugh O Conner and his crew did was wrong considering it was
Hobarts property but they were being Harmless and Hobart Ison used violence to
fix the problem. There is always an understanding that emerges when thinking
about this perspective, I think that if I was in Hobart Isons situation I would have
thought that Hugh being there was wrong, I mean living in that situation its hard
for the world to understand what its like, but if I was in Hugh O Conners shoes, I
would have thought that taking a picture was harmless, and that maybe the world
needed to know about certain aspects of the human race but in no sense did I
attend to offend or shame anyone. The method of attempting to believe both sides
is important in preventing things like a person dying over and argument, or just for
the human race you have to attempt to understands peoples reasonings even if you
dont necessarily believe then yourself.

Take one perspective or point of view expressed in the film that you strongly
believe or agree with (or one that earns your assent) and make a serious
attempt at playing the doubting game. What new thinking or understanding
emerges about that perspective? About your own perspective?About the method
of attempting to doubt? (If no new thinking emerges, hypothesize as to why this
might be).
One perspective in the film that I Agree with is the fact that there are Filmmakers
who truly only want to get all that is bad, who never focus on what is good about
towns like eastern Kentucky, For example look at our society today, watch the
news never once is there actually something good on there most of the news is
about death and violence and money and politics. But I also agree with the
perspective that there is a difference between places like BBC and CBS vs.
Filmmakers, reality is that filmmakers have no intension of making people feel
shameful about the life they lead or how they do things because no one should feel
shameful about who they are and what they are doing, they just wanted to capture
a community, and filmmakers are about seeing the community for what it is, and
in this case staying true the experiences of both sides and trust that that is enough.
I think that Hobart had a hard time understand the difference between places like
CBS and BBC vs, Filmmakers, places like CBS they serve the purpose but they
never tell the whole story and films showed the people being filmed there lives,
and places they grew up, gave them connections and memories to back home.
Hobart didnt understand that is what got harmless Hugh O Conner dead. There
has to be an Understanding.

You might also like