..but the best reason what I think is, in a malicious and white southern racist society a black man Lucas Beauchamp was wrongly accused of murdering a white man. In Mississippi, white controlled southern area racist whites were ready to lynch him, but young boy Chick Mallison from southern white family helped to find the real murderer and save Lucas life from death sentences. As Chick Mallison got rescued from icy creek during rabbit hunting by Lucas and treated him as guest in his own house. Chick knew that Lucas was a good man. Besides, Chick wasn’t racist enough as others. Since, nobody wanted to save a black man where a white young boy Chick’s endeavor helped to reveal the truth and established equal justice.

Perhaps what makes this the best movie yet is just the overall completeness of the cast and aesthetics of the story. There is a cast of characters ranging ages and ethnicities, the use of aesthetically pleasing and involving camera angles refresh the audiences senses, and in the end it is a feel good story in terms of todays morals. I would be interested to see if this film did well in parts of the country that still had predominant racism during the time it was released.

Intruder in the Dust is without a doubt a brilliant and well crafted film. As for why it is called the best movie ever there are a variety of reasons to elaborate on. Films such as this one work on so many levers because it is actually about something. It dives into the world itself . Dealing with issues that were relevant to the time period. Also camera techniques used throughout the film were just astounding. Especially in the beginning of the film when Lucas is being escorted out the car and you see that shot of everyone looking. Plus near the end of the film when all the twins folk walk away when realizing Lucas did I not commit the crime. Plus the quest for justice in such a racial situation resonated quite well .

I believe it was the best movie because it was true to the time period. Also the movie was made in a Oxford which was very segregated that helps to stay true to the times. I enjoyed the movie a lot. The actors mesh well with each other, the dialog, it just all kept me very intrigue.

Charles Brown spared no context when producing this movie. From the beginning he gave the viewer a look into separation and racism. But the irony of the movie is Miss Habersham, because the order generation was usually set in their way of racism. I believe this was the best movie because it did not focus only on the hate towards African Americans, it also should the aspect of justice for a human being Lucas Beauchamp.

This movie is one of the best because it is a time capsule. It touches on the hateful social issues at the time but its almost 70 years later, the issues are different but just as hateful. I also think the cinematography in this film was one of the first of its kind and it just really enhances the film.

I believe Bruce Kawin called intruder in the dust best Faulkner movie, is because how complete it is. The film is so authentically made creating a suspense throughout the entire film and capturing the audiences interest. For me as a viewer, i felt there was not one false note. Two important characteristics of the film were the shooting on location, and delivery of a strong message that was important.

Intruders in the dust can be considered a best movie because it does not distort Faulkner’s novel. The film is true to Faulkner’s novel because the film follows the same plot. The movie was also very ahead of its time. The movie portrays a black character in a positive light. Lucas was innocent and the town people were exposed as racist.

This movie is the best because of the plot; it includes different contents related to racism, injustice and accusiations. But also includes help, support and understanding. These things together catch the attention of the public and the effective way it was recorded helped to get different recognitions.

Intruder in the Dust is the best movie because of the use of the actual people in the south. Using locals makes the movie feel more authentic even though their parts were voiced over and they were just there to show face and allow the movie to be filmed on location they really contribute to the film. Furthermore, the story in this movie is timeless. As we mentioned in class Faulkner had an understanding of the world and the history of the US. Although this film and novel are only telling one story it is actually telling the story of the racism and is pointing out issues that we still face today. Its incredible.

I think it is a good story that makes it best. It is one of the few works that Faulkner did not use ambiguous hints or metaphors to talk about social problems, but a very clearly and bluntly way to reveal the real South racial society. Besides that, the role of black people was not only a victim but also a discoverer of the truth make it different from any other detective novels. Although the theme was not accepted by the film companies and most of the public, it is a good story anyway.

The novel itself was a great read. I was able to picture Lucas Beauchamp as this very intense character that always presented himself as calm and controlled. The actor that played Lucas in the film perfectly captured this. My favorite part, and in my opinion the best part, was when Lucas entered the crossroads store and bought a ginger snap. In the novel there was a verbal encounter between Lucas and the white man but the film didn’t include that. It didn’t take away from anything but in fact I believe the choice of not including that verbal encounter and skipping to the white man about to attack Lucas was more effective to the story. The acting and the cinematography of the piece is also quite distinct and wonderful.

The picture here is racism which has been passed through video messaging or movie to every people. In the novel or movie Intruder in the Dust is mainly about racism and its cause and effect which has been depicted well through movie.

A message picture is a film on morality. Instead of being for entertainment purposes only, it intends to communicate a message or ideal about society. Intruder fits the description because in 1948 Oxford racism was very much alive. It also shows that while there was racism there were also white people with moral that helped when things went wrong.

This movie would be considered a message movie. The statement of showing a free black man that walked with confidence as any free white man in 1948. The message resonated with African Americans because they were usually portrayed in film to be the comedic figure. Chicks’ uncle John Steven, gave a message in the end when he said e"This is a lesson for us". I believe this movie was a great lesson all on the perception we put on people due innate nature to be frightened of the unknown.

The more i watched the film the more i realized a part of this film is a coming of age film. We see Chick a child taking control over the situation and believing Lucas is innocent when nobody else wanted to. The message for me was that the hope to a change relies on the new generations.

A message picture is a film with a strong message. Intruders in the dust show that racism can influence the way you think. In the film, Lucas was innocent but the people of oxford automatically believed that a black man had to be guilty. However when Lucas was proven to be innocent it opened the eyes of the people of Oxford.

Intruder in the dust is a message picture because it posted a race trusted problem to audiences and try to deliver the solution through the story of a white boy helping a black man to approve his innocent. Yet it is also a classical hollywood narratives depicting the boy’s inner struggles.

Content that is produce to say something in specific. A photo can communicates a message, scenes of a movie can communicates a message too but a movie as a whole envolve different messages depending on the scene. Intruder communicates a lot of messages like being supportive, always find the true, etc. But the main one for me is racism.Because the white community pointed as guilty (without evidence) a black man

A message picture is a film that tries to teach the audience about an issue or idea that is often overlooked or not spoken about. The message of the picture is racism and its affects on not only the black people, but the rest of the community. The community in the picture has a mob-mentality and does not sway their opinion and the young boy in the film has to make the conscious choice to get against his community, the things he has learned, and the way he is taught to act and treat others.

The film shows racist and would want the people to know. In additions it teaches everyone to find out the answer if the person is guilty or not. The boy makes a good decision to give everyone an equal chance to prove themselves of the action taken.

I think that the role of Hollywood in America at that time was a distraction from the global happenings of the country. The extravagant film premieres and films themselves provided a few hours in which the American public could escape whatever issues they faced in their lives to watch the film. Because of the “hoopla” it seems like many people who were keen in the art of film making may have been reserved in putting their knowledge on display because of possible negative connotations that would come with it.

Oxford response tells me that Hollywood have a big influence on American culture. when the people of Oxford first learned of the film they were not happy with the idea. Until the director persuaded them by putting them in the film.

Oxford’s was eventually welcoming once the “Hollywood” evaded with their money and promises of fame. Oxford was hesitant because this Faulkner’s books was like holding a mirror up so the city could see their racist reflection, which the did not approve of until the Hollywood change their minds. Therefore, I believe that Hollywood in America can bring out the greed in us all.

I think the response from oxford demonstrates the power of a picture message. If the director does a great job at conveying the message, it can change the way people feel. Hollywood has the power to make an impact on americans. If audiences like what they see, that feeling will stay with them forever.

Oxford’s response tells me that Hollywood had a big influence on American culture. There were not too many forms of entertainment in the 40’s so Hollywood filled that need. Many townfolks came to watch the filmimg for a chance to star in the film or just watch from afar.

Often times people are “star-struck” by the idea of Hollywood. If someone from Hollywood said they would be in a film they would not pass the opportunity because they want to be seen on the big screen. That is why they were not concerned with who they would be or what they would portray in the film but rather just cared about being in it. Every person craves to be known or acknowledged what better way to be known or acknowledged than being on a big screen in front of the entire country?

This speaks volumes about American culture. People can do crazy things to try to be on TV now-adays and they don’t care what they do to get their minute of screentime. This is something I dont think has changed very much or will change.

And still today it is painfully obvious as to the role that Hollywood plays in American culture. Americans have this insatiable need to be entertained, so much so that they would elect to the highest office a man whose only merit is his ability to entertain. That to me says it all.

I think it shows that the general American public hold Hollywood in a high regard. It is something that people dream of being a part of and only a select few ever make it there, but for Oxford, being a part of Hollywood is typical and mundane. The only redeeming quality is the great films produced.

What I think is, a novel brings out every aspects of a scenario in details, when people read novels they feel the different scenarios from their hearts. In contrast, in late 40s most likely people knew the story of the movie and people especially white people did not go to theater to watch the movie. There could be an issue about insulting or hurting sense of humor where the movie is about racism of white people. That could be the reason flopping the movie in the box office.

This plays into one of my previous comments where I was wondering if the predominantly racist parts of the country would react negatively to a film in which a young white boy ends up helping an elder black man accused of shooting a white man. The fact that the whole story takes place in a southern state may have been insulting to the southern white population whos belief go against everything that happened in the movie.

There are a variety of reasons for box office failure. For one it is possible audiences were unsure to see the film due to the sensitive issues the film presented such as racism. Especially in relation to parts within the country that were still considered primarily racist, so as a result would of initially have negative reaction to the film.

I believe it was a failure because it was a message picture and America just wasn’t ready at the time to hear or learn the message it sent.

The novel Intruder in the dusk gives a more degrading view of African Americans, which I believe the readers who purchased the novel at that time indulged in the imagination. From calling the dog a “nigger dog” to making Alexander sound like a idiot when he was the one that new how to get to the grave. More over, the movie due to censorship did not focus on the racism as much but showed more of the injustice. In 1949 The division is still high in the South. The failure of the movie shows could also be accounted to the portrayal of the Lucas as an strong black man, America was not ready to show that whites and blacks as equal.

I think this movie didn’t do well in the box office because this movie made people uncomfortable. The message the movie was not on every american’s radar. They didn’t want to learn about it nor did they care to.

Maybe more educated people read the book while everyone included the less educated would see the movie. The people that read the book probably saw how ground breaking and ahead of it’s time the novel was while some ignorant racist people thought the movie was bad and inaccurate.

The movie was ahead of its time. A movie portraying a black actor in a positive light and a white actor in a negative light was not a desirable to moviegoers. Racism was still strong in the 40’s.

Its message conveying extents way more than the community could afford to understand. Also, the function of serious movies as transmission of information had been unable to replace the role of classical hollywood narrative as tools for entertainment for a long time.

I believe it was a box office failure because the budget was not enough to spread the word in order to get more recognition. And probably a well known group of actors could have made the message behind being accepted in a less difficult way. Especilly in that time were making a change or go try something new is something not common

I think the film was expected to be a failure because it has a strong message about something that would probably make people of that time uncomfortable. They were not ready for just a strong message about racism. Even today there are many people who are not ready to deal with a strong message about racism. I think that people who read books especially if they read a lot of books develop a different perspective of the world, compared to those who exclusively watch just the popular movies. Those who read the book were ready for the strong message about racism but those who went to see the film were hoping for an escape from their reality rather than a reality check.

This film was essentially about an African American man who has been wrongfully accused of killing a white man and a white boy with some help strives to prove his innocence. This film was mainly about racism and I think on some level even though people knew racism was of such prevalence and that it as wrong, people didn’t want to go see a film that showcased that. They knew the truth but weren’t ready to confront it. Racism is always a controversial topic of discussion but at the time this film was released, people weren’t as open about it as we are today.

Perhaps it also had to do with the fact that people could buy a book and read it in the confines of their own homes. They’re faced with the indignation that Faulkner weaves into his novels, but at least they’re forced to grapple with it in private. Sharing that experience as a collective group in a theater, however; is a different thing entirely. I’m not so certain that 1940’s white America was willing to subject themselves to that sort of visual condemnation. I am reminded of a certain scene towards the end of the film, wherein Mallison and his uncle are standing on the balcony overlooking the sea of cars “fleeing” from the jailhouse, after everyone has now learned that Beauchamp is innocent. It is here that Mallison so famously exclaims “They’re running away” To which his uncle replies “Its much worst than that, they’re running away from themselves.” Racist white America hates to be faced with the fact that their racism is unfounded and unjust, they’d rather run away before having to answer for it.

Chick has been rescued by his black friend and Lucas. Lucas took Chick to his own house and offer food and dry clothes. Chick offered money for offering food but Lucas did not accept for his hospitality, because Chick was his guest. In the movie, it was almost same treatment of race. Chick Mallison got little angry for not accepting his payment and left the house with his coins.

At the time the film was made race and racism was a topic that wasn’t really acknowledged as a major problem even though among the races it was evident. The comment Richard Wright makes paints a picture in my head that the Harlem movie audience realize that things like this happen everyday with the exception that Lucas would not have been saved. A white audience may chuckle at the goofy men running out of the barber shop at the beginning because they have no perception of the circumstances at which the town is gathering.

Well to address right off the bat, race is a major factor in both adaptions. Standard relationships between whites and blacks can be seen in the films first act when Chick is at home with his family and how his father interacts and speaks to their servants. Another comparison comes from the first encounter between Lucas and chick when lucas brings him to his home. In the film adaptation chick becomes upset and angry due to the fact Lucas refused to accept his money since he brought him as a guest. Although within the novel this was not present.

are raised. Another interesting apect would possibly be the familiarity and support for Juano Hernandez who was popular in the New York City theater scene.

Racism is deeply ingrained in the town of oxford. Everyone in the town assumes that Lucas, a black man is guilty of murder. Lucas also does not tell his lawyer the full truth as he knows that a grown man will not believe him. However, Lucas tells Chick the truth as he is still young and racism has not fully tainted his beliefs.

The way the book shows racial problems is less effective than the film because talking about race means talking about color, physical figure, etc. And the novel made you imagine that instead of show you how everything actually is like the film does and i found that more effective.

Intruder in the dust, Faulkner’s novel illustrates about racism, hatred to minorities, justice, hospitality and so forth which is very critical issues he talked about, and also sarcastic and sharp to some people who are against Faulkner’s writing. He not only Intruder in the Dust but also The Story of Temple Drake, The Reivers, The Big Sleep wrote about distinguished issues which is very mordant.

Perhaps his novel is called mordant due to the sarcastic humor and irony it may present. It’s hard to describe for be exact in what sense. Perhaps to the critical acclaim or response it received from such a savage topic.

Mordant means expressing harsh criticism especially in a way that is funny. He used what was happening at the time and made a picture to show America how they were sort of like tough love. how they were “running from themselves” to quote the ending of the film.

Faulkner’s novels lays a blueprints for people who are not afraid to say whatever they want. His novels gave a nail biting truth to what was his reality at the time. His vivid, detailed view was funny and heartbreaking at times but it keeps you glued by saying things that others would want to say but can’t out of fear.

I didn’t know this word and had to look it up. Mordant means being sharply caustic or sarcastic. I believe that not just this novel but all of Faulkner’s writing could be considered Mordant. He has a way with his words. He can get a serious message across without doing it in a serious tone. He is one of the wittiest writers I have ever read.

Because, metaphorically speaking, his novel can be a sharp knife that either people use it to cut theirselves and suffer internally or to make something productive with it to make their live easy.In other words this novel can make the reader hate the author and feel bad of their actions or realize their mistakes love the author.

The novel is called mordant because it brings up the topic of racism. The novel blatantly points out the “roles” of black people vs. white people. Often Lucas is told “if you’d only behave like a black man” however he refuses and the novel exemplifies what happens when people do not play their part in that society at the time. Everyone always wants things to be perfect and in their places so the film and the novel show what happens when it is not, so it made audiences uncomfortable. Therefore they called it mordant.

Since, it was not huge development in the decade of thirty’s and forty’s in the setting where the two movie shooting took place. The Oxford was more likely suburbs area like Court and Lawyer’s offices, small stores presence especially in Intruder in the dust, and concrete houses and street in The Reivers, but most places were looked like small village and there are green trees, muddy roads and ponds and so forth.

In the beginning of both movies its setting was in Town. And it seems like the Town was where they shot a lot of the films material.

Through both films presented they both composed of settings and locations within town. Such as in the beginning of intruder in the dust with that big wide open shot of the town and the various stores and offices it is composed of.

Both The Reivers and Intruder in the Dust are in rural settings. Both films I believe are taken place in rustic areas. With dirt roads, small towns and country type homes.

Both films had a similar setting. Intruder in the Dust was mostly shot at interior space, for example Jailhouse, lawyers office, barber shot etc. The Reivers had many scenes shot in the exterior in rural areas, until they arrive in Memphis.

Both films Intruder in the dust and Reivers were set in small towns in the south. Both had scenes inside the actual town and scenes shot out in the country. Both films did a great job at giving you a real life feel of the south.

The exposition of Reivers and the story of Intruder in the Dust are set in southern towns. The towns have a lot of similarities. Both have grit and grime, and farm land not to far away. Both films try to portray as accurately as possible life in a small town in the south.