Understanding Theorists through Film Review For this assignment, you are to sele
ID: 398544 • Letter: U
Question
Understanding Theorists through Film Review For this assignment, you are to select a film from the list below and write an essay review of the film based on its treatment of the ethical issues it explores. Your essay must include an introduction and thesis statement, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion, and comply with APA formatting requirements. Here is the outline to follow: The introductory paragraph should identify the film and its director, briefly summarize the plot in your own words, and explain the ethical dilemma the protagonist in the film encounters. Your thesis should state whether or not the character acted appropriately in the situation. In the second paragraph, you need to describe the character and explain his or her role in the film. How do you find out about this character? Do you learn more about the character based on his/her actions or his/her words? In the third paragraph, you should discuss the ethical dilemma in detail and explain the alternatives available to the protagonist. In the fourth paragraph, you should explain what the character decides to do to resolve his/her ethical dilemma through the theories of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Which philosopher has the most influence on the resolution of the ethical dilemma? Your fifth and final paragraph should offer a restatement of your thesis and a graceful conclusion to your essay. Please remember to include a reference page, in APA format.
FILM CHOICES: Changing Lanes, Glengarry Glen Ross, Minority Report, North by Northwest, Rainman, Schindler's List, Shawshank Redemption, The Incredibles, The Informant!
Explanation / Answer
The ethical dilemmas in the movie Changing Lanes seem surreal frequently, but to be thought of in depth, the conclusion remains that they could really happen in real life. To be trying to predict the main characters’, Doyle Gipson and Gavin Banek, the prediction of both main characters changed several times throughout the movie.
At the beginning of the movie, it seems as if both characters are protagonists as it picturizes background of both men, but suddenly that notion changes Gipson shows as the protagonist as Banek becomes the antagonist. If Banek would have exchanged information with Gipson and given him a ride to the courthouse, the entire situation could be different. However, Banek exit post the scene of an accident with Gipson, thereby giving rise to the cruel chain of events in motion.
Next shown Banek, the court lawyer who realizes that he accidentally left an important document at the accident scene and Gipson has picked it up, without knowing the matter. The rest of the movie circles around Banek’s search for the document, and Gipson’s getting back at Banek for many things Banek does to him.
Both Banek and Gipson were given many opportunities to reconcile themselves by doing the right thing, but each time they chose to involve in the fight. Instead of being humble and letting the matter be, they each do cruel things to one another. Banek hires a hit man to make Gipson’s bankrupt. Gipson, at the time is trying to retain his family who are separating from him. The computer fraud performed by Banek compels Gipson getting the house he wanted to purchase for family.
Gipson decides to get on the same page with Banek by realizing that he is the one who made him. Gipson shows up at the school where Banek asks him to arrive stating the boys are hurt whereas it was only to be arrested and sent to jail. There he is confronted by his wife who tells him of the separation.
Gipson’s friend, bails him out but Gipson’s drug of choice is chaos. Meanwhile, Banek has second thoughts for Gipson and he sets out to make things right. His partners informs that they have forged a new document that replaced the one he lost.
This is where the ending looks unrealistic. Being a Wall Street Lawyer, Banek decides he is going to make things right nd shows the document to family which he has just obtained from Gipson, which is not ethical to be discussing the official document with family.
Its known from the very beginning of the movie that Banek has cheated on his wife and Gipson has a bad temper.
Both have different modes of response to tragic situations. Banek masks over his sins, and when that does not work, he just tries to take the shield of the law, at the same time breaking the law for his own gain.
Gipson, on the other hand, cannot control anger. He hurts people physically as a consequence of outburst of different happenings.
In the end, both character becomes a tragic hero. Banek goes to talk to Gipson’s wife to bring her back and also organizes fund from charity for their family.
William B. Carlin and Kelly C. Strong have attempted addressing the resolution to ethical dilemmas
The ending is what leaves pondering how a Wall Street lawyer could be so melodramatic and less practical. Theres nothing done in accordance to ethics from the beginning to end. Not the over the top revenge, nor the too humble than required reconciliation at the end
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.