Kelly Michalski

Com 207
Professor Johnson
November 26, 2012
Movie Analysis
(Finding Forrester)

Finding Forrester was a unique drama about a mentor-student relationship. There are three
scenes in particular that incorporated multiple cultural connotations. The first scene took place in the
high school cafeteria, where Jamal and his friends discuss the window, referring to the old man who
watches them from his apartment window. This scene is an ideal example of the social and cultural
functions of language and communicative exchange, because it demonstrates the groups distinctive
style of speech and non-verbal gestures. The second scene depicts Professor Crawford accusing Jamal of
plagiarism. Crawford states that his accusations should be excused, considering Jamals education and
background. This scene portrays the affects and repercussions of social construction and selected social
identities with regard to race. The third and final scene portrays Professor Crawford challenging Jamals
knowledge of literature. Jamal proceeds to answer all questions correctly and Crawford, realizing he has
been beaten at his own game, responds out of anger and asks Jamal to leave the classroom. This scene
exhibits Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions, with regards to power distance and uncertainty avoidance.
While each scene reflects a distinct cultural concept, all are flawed and need improvement. In each case,
a speaker failed to fully understand the point of view of another, causing miscommunication, which
could have been avoided if intercultural praxis was practiced.
Jamal Wallace is the main character, a 16-year-old African American, who lives with his mother
in the Bronx. Jamal attends one of the public high schools in the area and excels at basketball and is
talented in literature and writing. William Forrester lives across the street from the school yard. He is a
reclusive writer, who wrote a famous novel 50 years ago. Jamal and Forresters relationship forms and
grows out of the promise that Jamal will keep Forresters identity a secret and will not take any of his
writings out of the apartment, as long as Forrester continues to help him improve his writing. After
Jamal accepts an offer to an elite private high school, he meets his love interest, Claire Spence, a
wealthy student and daughter to one of the schools leaders. His literary professor is Mr. Crawford, who
wrote a novel a few years after Forresters, which the publishers rejected. Crawford mentions to the
class that they may participate in a literary contest. Breaking his promise, Jamal submits a piece of work
he wrote in Forresters apartment, unaware it was based off of one of Forresters few published works.
Crawford charges Jamal with plagiarism, threatening his attendance to the school. At the contest,
Forrester makes a surprise visit and reads an essay, presumed to be his own. He later reveals the true
author is Jamal and explains that Jamal used the published title and first paragraph with his permission
and that Jamal's silence was due to honoring the promise he made to him. As a result, the board
overruled all plagiarism charges.
The first scene I chose to analyze takes place towards the beginning of the movie in the high
school cafeteria and involves Jamal and his circle of male friends, who are seated casually around the
table. It begins with one of Jamals friends explaining that his dad saw the window (the elderly man in
the apartment), 20 years ago and he looked like a ghost. Another friend chimes in and states that he
heard the man killed someone and that is why he stays inside, to which someone responds, You gotta
kill an army to hide around here. Another friend claims that a girl named Shurrita use to live below the
window and one day she heard tapping sounds coming from his apartment, while she was on the phone.
He states she was, Buggin yall, buggin. She walked downstairs to find the tapping sounds moved to
the door and before she could hang up the phone, it disconnected. This friend heeds the others to stay
away from the windows place. Jamal and the others refuse to believe the story and one of them refers
to the girl as a crack ho. Afterward, one of the peers approaches Jamal and dares him to break into the
old mans apartment and steal something. Some members of the group taunt Jamal and one even
states, Niggas scared. Jamal responds, Bring it son, while another says, Thats my dog! As the
group disperses for class, the one member who said that he believed the story of Shurrita, is pushed by
another from the back of his head forcing his head down. Out of anger, he pushes back.
The social and cultural functions of language and communicative exchange concept was covered
in this first scene. According to class discussion, it can be best defined in the statement: without
language, we would be unable to speak, write, listen to others, or think; language conveys emotion,
relieves stress, and invokes assistance. Class discussion also explains that this concept includes three
subcategories: language and identity, language and unity, and language variations. The language and
identity category explains that national and ethnic identities derive in part from language. It also states
that it invokes the response to need to unify diverse groups (e.g. the adoption of Hebrew in Israel) and
reinforces identity among minority groups (e.g. Ebonics for African Americans). The language and unity
category enables cooperative efforts on small and large scales (e.g. working together on a class project
vs. cleaning up the environment). The language variations category includes four types: accents, dialect
(words based on region), argot (secret language unique to sub-cultures), and slang (informal, shorter
language). In this particular scene, slang is most applicable.
Throughout the conversation, the use of man and dog are used frequently at the end of
sentences and slang was common. This scene relates to the language concept because their style of
speech helps unify this group of individuals and ensure mutual understanding. Their speech also
promotes identity because their style of speaking is unique to their culture. The non-verbal action of
hitting one another towards the end of the scene relates to asserting male dominance and individual
identity. One strength is that all those who were included in the conversation expressed the same style
of speech to help ensure unity among the group. However, a weakness is present when the man with
the glasses is targeted for his belief that the story told was true. The group should have listened and
accepted his opinion or politely argued why they thought the story was false. Or, the speaker should
have told the story teller in private that he believed him, in order to avoid ridicule and disunity among
the group.
The second scene occurs after Jamal and Forresters trip to Yankee Stadium, where Professor
Crawford is becoming suspicious of Jamals rapid improvement in his writing. Jamal receives a note
asking to meet with Professor Crawford in his classroom. Crawford explains to him that he is faced with
two conclusions. He feels that either Jamal was blessed with an uncommon gift that suddenly decided to
kick in or he is getting his inspiration from somewhere else. He even states, Given your previous
education and your background, Im sure youll forgive me for coming to some of my own conclusions.
Jamal immediately defends himself and firmly states he wrote the papers. Throughout the scene Jamal
is standing with his eyes fixed on Crawford. In contrast, Crawford paces around the room, his eyes
wander, and only focuses on Jamal when he is accusing him. The scene then swipes to Forresters
apartment. Out of anger, Jamal slams the fridge after taking a soda and exclaims, Do you think if one of
his 2-comma kids was writin these papers hed be doing this considering your background shit?
Forrester agrees with Jamal and explains that Crawford cannot understand how a black kid from the
Bronx can write the way he does, so he assumes you cant. In this scene, Jamal is seated casually, with
soda in hand, focused on Forrester, who is picking up his apartment, but glances back at Jamal
occasionally.
The concepts of social construction and racial identity can be best expressed in this scene.
According to class discussion, social construction is an idea or phenomenon that has been created,
invented, or constructed, by people in a particular society or culture through communication. An
example of such a construct would be that Asian women are poor drivers, which is of course
stereotyping. Social constructs exist because people agree to follow certain conventions and rules
associated with the construct (e.g. language, money, gender, race, etc.). Therefore, human beings
participate in the creation of their own realities. Specifically, a racial social construct is a particular social
identity that categorizes people into different groups, as discussed in class. It is tied to biological
heritage that produces similar, identifiable physical characteristics.
Clearly, in this scene, Crawford falls into socially constructed concepts and stereotypes based on
public education, poor neighborhoods, and black people as a race. He assumes that Jamal is not well-
educated because he previously attended public school. He also believes that simply because Jamal is
black and from a poor neighborhood, he could not possibly possess the ability to write as well as he can.
However, race is physical human characteristic; it does not affect your mental capacity. Public education
and a poor neighborhood are also circumstantial. Attending a public school and coming from a poor
neighborhood does not necessarily impact a students learning abilities or intelligence. One strength in
this scene is that Jamal is focused on Crawford the entire time. He is standing with his eyes fixed on him,
showing that he is interested and cares about the conversation. One weakness is that Crawford acts in
an opposite manor. He paces around the room and his eyes are not always fixed on Jamal. He is only
focused on him when he accuses him. I feel that Crawford could have been more understanding in order
to avoid stereotyping. He should have gathered more evidence before accusing Jamal and have been
more open to Jamals talent. Also, the conversation seemed quite one-sided. Crawford should have
given Jamal more of an opportunity to speak and explain how he wrote the papers.
The third and final scene occurs immediately after Jamal decided to take A Season of Faiths
Perfection, a paper he wrote while in Forresters apartment, and turn it in to Crawfords class. This
scene begins with Crawford challenging Coleridge, a student, about the name of a poet, who ironically
shares his last name. Jamal knew the answer and made that fact apparent to Crawford. When Crawford
says to Jamal, Perhaps your skills do extend a bit farther than basketball, Jamal challenges him and
explains that he should have used further in his statement because it is more accurate. This challenge
instigates a heated battle of wits. Crawford proceeds to recite several various lines of poetry and Jamal
is able to immediately supply him with the correct author every time, causing Crawford to yell at Jamal
to leave his class. During this conversation, both Jamal and Crawford have their eyes fixed on one
another. Jamal is seated, while Crawford stands behind his desk. Jamal slouches and shrugs his
shoulders, when he realizes that he was able to correctly supply Crawford with the correct answers.
Crawford points to the door when he yells at him to leave, but even as Jamal gets up and starts walking,
he holds his gaze on the professor.
This scene encompasses power distance (acceptance of differences in power) and uncertainty
avoidance (reaction to ambiguous events). Both concepts are divided into high and low categories.
According to class discussion, high-power distance can be characterized by accepting positions,
following authority, having a concentrated and centralized authority, and being hierarchal (the U.S.
government for example). Conversely, low-power-distance is when one avoids concentration of
authority, it is decentralized, and there are fewer layers of management (for instance, Englands
Monarchy). Class discussion also dictates that low uncertainty avoidance involves embracing the
unpredictable, having fewer adherences to the rules, and risk taking is desirable. In opposition, high
uncertainty avoidance is where ambiguity is threatening, a stable and predictable work place is needed,
and there is a more reliance on the rules.
It appears that Jamal expresses low-power distance, compared to his high-power distance, well-
behaved classmates. Crawfords attack on Coleridge, elicited Jamal to challenge the professor, ignoring
Crawfords authority and title. Naturally, Jamal has low uncertainty avoidance as well. He embraced the
unpredictable situation and took advantage of it. He took a risk and beat Crawford at his own game of
wits, well aware that he had the authority. It can then be easily assumed that Crawford exhibits high-
uncertainty avoidance because he yells at Jamal when he felt threatened and embarrassed. He needs to
be in control of his classroom and expects all of his students to follow his rules. One strength is that
Jamal supplied Crawford with the correct answers. A weakness is that Crawford reacted out of anger
and without complete understanding. Jamal was trying to prove a point that he had a greater knowledge
of literature than Crawford realized. Crawford selfishly felt it was a direct attack on his intelligence, so
he felt uncomfortable. Crawford should not have reacted out of anger, instead he should have praised
Jamal for his answers because he started reciting lines of poetry in the first place. In addition, Jamal
should have expressed high power distance and not have antagonized the professor afterward by
stating, Come on professor, because it was taken as an insult.
These three scenes were able to successfully illustrate the cultural concepts of language, social
construction and identity, and power distance and uncertainty avoidance in action. This movie proved
that language and its variations can differ from culture to culture and even from individual to individual.
It showed that stereotyping is not only inaccurate and unjust, it can be hurtful. It also explained that the
way we view and see authority in particular situations can negatively impact conversation and
discussion. Although each scene was different in context, one theme was common throughout. Each clip
had its own faults, which could have been easily avoided if the speakers involved were more open and
understanding to the other persons point of view. In other words, they should have successfully
followed the steps involved in intercultural praxis. Even though every persons sense of culture and
identity can vary greatly, all people need to be considerate and open to others. This causes increased
awareness and will help people not only gain insight into another persons way of life, but also help
them take action based on critical reflection to create a more peaceful and just world, which is the
fundamental purpose of intercultural praxis.