Comments by
Lacy Green
It is interesting to contrast the way these two mediums portray death. There are so many details that the film can’t possibly portray, but there is also such emotion conveyed through the visual image of a man hanging. It’s really great to be able to compare and contrast these two interpretations in such detail. I know it has definetly given me a better understanding of the story!
I agree with Kaitlin that this could easily be a rewritten ending to the story, if the trip actually represented Farquhar’s hanging. The way all of the background noise just stops is important also. This being one of the few times the filmmaker strays from the storyline, it seems that there should be some greater significance. I wonder if it isn’t a technique to break up the long running sequence. Maybe it was just a move made so that the people in the audience would gasp.
I wonder if the poor vocal quality isn’t due more to the age and production of the film. It is quite difficult to understand and I am confused as to whether or not that is intentional. The zoom in on Farquhar’s face is really effective in giving the viewer a quick, panicky feeling as well.
I think in the story and in the movie, this is the most beautiful scene. It requires a great amount of skill in both writing and filmmaking to depict how a man must look at the world after a near death experience. However, it really makes me sad in knowing that he isn’t even experiencing this at all. It kind of makes you think this is how Farquhar may have seen things had he survived his hanging for real.
In this clip of the movie, I think you get a better sense of his physical pain than you do in the story. In the story I feel like there is more attention put on his emotional and mental pain, but this clip helps to visualize the intensity of Farquhar’s physical struggle against nature and the Union army.
Is it just me or does the large amount of silence in this movie add to the creepiness of it? It really makes you feel uncomfortable watching it in parts. Also, it’s interesting that this is more effective, in my opinion, than the dark, looming music typical of this kind of scenario.
This paragraph almost had me believing that it was all real. The author so delicately describes Farquhar’s physical state that it really fools the reader.The intensity of Farquhar’s imagination is really the backbone for the whole story. The believability of the scene comes from the fact that Bierce describes everything in Farquhar’s mind to extreme detail.
In this part of the story, I started to question things. It did seem rather unusual in both the book and the movie that Farquhar could successfully evade that many bullets. There is a sense of false hope, because even the reader knows that such a situation is not believable in real life.
I think this sentence also capitilizes on the idea that Farquhar is taking in more of what is around him before death. His attention to detail and his appreciation of nature seems to heighten (if only in his imagination) in the few moments before his death. When I first read it, the uncanny revelation seemed to be like he was realizing all that he might have missed out on.
This is yet another example of how the soldiers treated death with such formality. It is almost striking at how they are able to emotionally distance themselves from the situation and carry out their duty. I wonder if Bierce didn’t remember from his experience in the Civil War. how it felt to carry out killing someone with such formality.
I think it is also important to consider the technology of guns in this age. Guns weren’t as accurate or as effective and could often leave a person fatally wounded, but not kill them on the spot. Being shot ineffectively could result in a prolonged torture rather than the quick result of a hanging. I think this may be some reasoning for Farquhar’s “unfair” idea.
Bierce should really be credited for his amazing use of language here. Even though it is violent imagery as Michael stated, the author describes it beautifully. It also helps to lengthen a scene, which in actuality occurs very quickly.
I didn’t catch the part about the driftwood either. In Farquhar’s defense, I thought that the soldier may have had to answer to higher rank in order to do something as drastic as burning down a bridge. Perhaps the soldier thought that Farquhar could do it easier, without having to report to anyone. Still I agree that the soldier is definitly planting the seeds of rash action in Farquhar’s head and it does seem rather staged.
I think Farquhar’s being hung on the same bridge is completely intentional. It just builds on the irony and allows the Union soldiers to make even more of a mockery of Farquhar.
If you look at the definition of stockade it is simply referred to as a large fence-like barrier. However, the definition also mentions that stockades are often built with loopholes near the top of the fence. Because Farquhar is so intent on searching out every loophole to escape death, I found this definition to be interesting.
I think this paragraph shows a rather cocky side to Farquhar. In a time of war, one shouldn’t assume it safe to speak in such a way to anyone they don’t really know (same colors or not). Also, it seems really arrogant of him to assume in advance that he can outwit the Union soldiers. This may play up dramatic irony, but in my opinion, I lose a little of my compassion for Farquhar due to his arrogance and recklessness.
This scene definetly seems planned, which leads me to view it as a trap. If Farquhar and his wife were already sitting outside their gates, on a bench, it appears that they were waiting for this man. His dusty horse also implies that he had traveled a long way. This definetly makes the reader question his loyalty.
Contrary to most of these posts, I don’t get the impression that Farquhar becomes more noble with this description. This paragraph seems to begin justifying why it is he is being hanged. In the first section I saw him as a helpless victim, but here I see that he was fully knowledgeable of the risks he was taking as a scout for the South.
Dan, I wonder if he doesn’t use the choice “unclosed” to mirror his earlier reference to “unsteadfast.” It may be that he is trying to stay in line with a similar word choice. I agree that the negative slants that Bierce puts on his words certainly affect the overall mood of the story.
It’s interesting that the author sets up such beautiful imagery in the beginning of this paragraph. When first reading “the water, touched to gold by the early sun…stream” I didn’t take into account that it was actually serving as an irritation to the man. Bierce has an odd capability of interjecting these beautiful scenes to counteract that which is in actuality something so incredibly dreadful. I wonder what he hoped to accomplish by using this technique?
This may be a strange interpretation, but I think that the weight used to balance the sergeant and the civilian is interesting. It seems to be a major element that ties them together. Though the sergeant controls the civilian’s fate with his physical weight, there is also an emotional weight that bears down on him. He deals with the weight of knowing that he killed a man. Clearly, I am not basing this so much on the descriptions in the passage, but rather the idea that the author wrote this after the civil war and from the perspective of someone who may have had to deal with the weight of killing others.
I agree Daniel. Compared to the strange set up of the rest of the story, this sentence comes off as completely obvious and unnecessary. It really doesn’t structurally mirror the rest of the story, but perhaps that was the authors intent.
Soham, I completely agree! I think this statement also reitterates the idea that dying in battle is glorious. For ages warriors, soldiers, etc. have been glorified in their deaths and this sentence seems to say that warriors, soldiers, etc. not only face, but completely perceive death in a different way. They must perceive this way because it is how they have been trained to look at death in order to survive.
This is a great question! An author is undoubtedly influenced by the social implications of his time period and I feel that is very evident in this piece. In my opinion, the idea of the “glory of war” that usually appears in art done during war is not present here. There is so much emphasis put on the details of the killing and the emotionally detatched violence of the war and I think this displays some of Bierce’s regret at what has happened. If he isn’t writing from his own personal feelings (though I imagine he is) he certainly acts as a vessel to convey the regret of society over the blood that has been shed. It’s as though this is just one of the many scenes that may have come back to haunt Ambrose or any American, after time spent in the midst of war.