Intersections sheds a light on issues most of us have but rarely speak on. The topic of race, poverty and an unjust system, we know its happening but have we really accepted the harsh reality of accepting this is the way society works? NO and intersection helps show that by speaking on the issues that are happening everyday and the way they address this is in adding their own lives with a hint of society.
The most powerful scene of the play involves Alex, Janelle and Mike, the reason for this has to do with police brutality and how its demonstrated throughout the play. We see Alex go through a intensive amount of training when trying to get into the force. Alex endures being pepper sprayed and having to recite “and the amount of force used was reasonable and effective… Sir” while being in a great amount of pain. He also has to preform the act of beating up a fake person with a baton while others cheer for him. You can see the emotional and physical tole this is taking on Alex but Officer Charles states “we push them as hard as we can because some people are not meant to be police officers.” In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQqY-4MYwQc ) we basically see the scene of Alex and Officer Charles take place. We see these men struggle to say the words they are suppose to and see how they take out their frustrations on the dummy representing a person. The correlation between the play and video are almost identical because of the intensive training these two go through. Is it really to see if they have what it takes, or is it really to teach these men how to block all emotion in order to do the job right. Maybe if emotional training was well carried out as intensive as the training already done police officers would have a better mindset when dealing with problems.
In the last scene of Intersections we see how the system training failed Alex and see him faced with a choice that will define him. He encounters Janelle and Mike but proceeds to Janelle to press her with commands. The audience can tell whats coming and its not pretty.
Alex- HANDS UP NOW, HANDS UP
Janelle-MY HANDS ARE UP THEY’RE UP
Alex-I NEED TO SEE ID! DON’T REACH INTO YOUR POCKETS
Janelle- I’m just trying to show you my id.
Alex then proceeds to tell her that she needs to put her hands up where he can see them but then telling her that she can’t talk back to him. Janelle confused questions him about his contradicting request and Alex (aggressivly) tells her to back up and not turn around then shoots her. He becomes agitated and repeats “the amount of force used was reasonable and effective.” This just further analyzes that the intensive force used in training only makes it easier to justify actions by claiming protection was accomplished. We struggle with Alex because unlike most cases we hear about, he is a struggling latino man. The system trained him in a way to strip him from his emotions and to go the more aggressive route when dealing with individuals. Karen Hopkins helps demonstrate this in her article Deadly Force REVISITED: TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR D.C. POLICE USE OF FORCE. by addressing “The series revealed that MPD officers fired their weapons more than twice as often as other major metropolitan area police departments.3 Eighty-five people were shot and killed by DC police between 1990 and 1998. The Post series discussed six deficiencies including incomplete reporting and tracking of police use of force, failure to properly train new and continuing officers, off-duty shootings and shooting at cars, failure to discipline officers guilty of misconduct, ineffective complaint investigations, and costly litigation” (Hopkin 130).
The play Intersections displays a great amount of awareness and represents a message that these things do happen… ( Don’t really know how to conclude this)
—-Cited Sources
Hopkins, Karen. “Deadly Force” Revisited: Transparency and Accountability for D.C. Police Use of Force.” National Lawyers Guild Review, vol. 72, no. 3, Fall2015, pp. 129-160. EBSCOhost, mail.lagcc.cuny.edu/viplogin/default.aspx?redirect=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=112238803&site=ehost-live.
1) Is my message clear?
2)What would you add if you were me?
3)What should my conclusion consist of?
4) What is something you are confused about?
5) Is the introduction written well?
Kat,
I love the way that you’re injecting your own voice into this piece in the way we discussed in class — it makes your tone unique and really gives it an extra punch.
In your next drafting adventures, though, I would encourage you to get very specific with what you’re talking about, particularly in your intro: remember that if you’re going to craft a unique voice, you have to be even sharper than usual about it. So, when you say things like “the topic of race, poverty and an unjust system,” I’d encourage you to pause and think: is this really one topic? It’s a huge and complex one, to be sure! How can you get as specific as possible with your words?
I’d also encourage you to read this out loud to yourself to proofread it — you’ll find sometimes that sentences might veer a little off course, and it will help if you read out loud to find those places.
Additionally, when you refer to the video, it can get confusing: a reader might think that the video represents the play itself, that the people who produced Intersections produced this video, for example. Make sure you’re careful with your language here! Further, I’d love, love, love to hear more about what you mean regarding “emotional training.” I mean, I have some ideas, but elaboration might be very helpful, and can make your paper richer. Your transition from talking about that to going into Alex being Latino could get a little clearer, though I must say I love your discussion there and would love to see you dive even deeper into the issue. Using the scene of his training to talk about how they stripped him of his empathy might be a good way to transition to talking about him specifically, and about why you think the playwrights chose to make him a Latino character. (Cite evidence from the play to back up whatever you think.) Also, I think you can elaborate more on that article: don’t just tell us what it says, tell us what it means and how, specifically, it helps you analyze the play and why you think they made Alex Latino/what you think that does for the play/what you think it does to the audience.
In terms of how to conclude, try rereading your paper once you’ve edited it and see what new insights you’ve created. Summing those new insights up might be great — if you haven’t created new insights, that’s okay! Look for where you can elaborate to do so!
Does that make sense? I’m loving this so far and am excited to see where you go from here!