....Term Task......

Film: Finding Forrester
Setting in place: The Bronx, New York
The scene:
As a mid term task we were asked to analyze a movie scene and I have chosen ‘Finding Forrester’. The following is a link to the selected scene.

William Forrester is a writer whose only published book has become part of the main bibliography of Literature at secondary school. Jamal Wallace is a star basketball player who also has a gift for writing. That is, until one day circumstances bring him into contact with William Forrester; and it's an encounter that ultimately changes the direction of his life forever. Jamal enrolls himself to a writing competition and he is disqualified since he has presented a paper similar to one wrote by Forrester. The day of the competition the writer who has been locked in his apartment for years, decided to leave it so as to attend the competition and speak for him.

Analysis:

We will be analyzing three different aspects of Forrester decision of speaking for Jamal at the competition:

- Whether it was a human act or not
- Whether it was a good decision or not.
- What options were available and their possible implications.

Firstly, Forrester decision was a human act because it fulfilled three main characteristics of such. These ones are:
- There was awareness of the consequences, since Forrester knew that his speech could help Jamal not to be dismissed, He was also aware of the respect that the teachers had for him and the importance of his words.
- There was consciousness, since Forrester was in full possession of his own capacities at the moment of deciding.
- There were other choices available such as staying at home and not to attend the competition, or attending the competition but not speaking for Jamal. Moreover, not only were there several choices but also he was fully aware of them.

Then, Forrester decision was morally good according to Daniel Ruiz (1987) terms, since it complied with the three requirements for a human act to be so. These ones are:
- The action must be good in itself and, in fact, in the case it is. It would have been much easier for Forrester to stay at home without risking the privacy he had constructed for a long time and not get personally involved with Jamal and take sides on the matter. A decision to be good needs to respect the principles of universal ethics of kinship and reciprocity, in our particular example kinship is found in the friendship Forrester felt at the moment of describe his relationship with Jamal and reciprocity is shown previously by Jamal having done something for him that was respecting a pact of not telling anyone that he was Forrester’s student.
- It has also good intentions since his decision was altruist; he resigned what he had believed for years in favor of what he calls FRIENDSHIP.
- The circumstances are good since Forrester was a very well know writer and the teachers at Jamal’s school were very fond of him; as soon as he started speaking everybody paid attention.

Now, if we consider that he could have chosen another option, which one would be? He could have stayed at home, letting his life pass by and actually he was fully aware of that option. But what would have been the consequences? I believe that Jamal would have been expelled from the school and Forrester would have died alone. Both characters constantly refer to one of the first scenes that Jamal asked about soup (meaning not personal involvement). So, if you happen to watch the whole movie…

just start asking ‘no-soup questions’... Try to get involve!!!!!