Analyse how the representation of divergent viewpoints leads us to a greater awareness of the complexity
of human attitudes and behaviour.
In your response, make detailed reference to your prescribed text and at least ONE other related text of
your own choosing.
Sample response: Prose fiction
Prescribed text:
Related text:
Snow Falling on Cedars, David Guterson, 1995
A Separation, Asghar Farhadi, 2011 (film)
Introduction
outlines the
main points of
the argument
and connects
the two texts
through the
similar
situation of
the search for
truth
People and their problems are rarely simple to understand. Within any person there may
be a range of contradictory emotions and attitudes that make it hard for others to
understand motivations and actions, or to define the essential nature of that person in a
few words. Groups of people may seem united by culture, gender, habits and so on, but a
range of viewpoints and perspectives within the group will inevitably mean that
resolution of issues, or even agreeing about what the issue is, is a complex and difficult
process. In the novel, Snow Falling on Cedars, David Guterson explores how divergent
viewpoints can distract from the truth of an event, because people’s perceptions and
understanding are coloured by their preconceptions and prejudices. The novel strongly
promotes the idea that a good person will be honest, straightforward and unbiased in his
or her search for truth. In the 2011 film, A Separation, Asghar Farhadi shows us many
different viewpoints about an incident. It is only through seeing the whole situation from
the perspectives and motivations of all characters involved that we come to realise the
complex gender, class and religious issues that underpin events. Farhadi suggests that a
search for truth will also reveal the injustices and inequalities that underpin Iranian
society. Both texts also explore how we are always hampered by only partial knowledge
of a situation or event. People will make a judgement about a situation, regardless of how
much or little they know about the circumstances.
How Snow
Falling on
Cedars
explores
divergent
perspectives
Guterson writes about the murder trial of a Japanese-American, accused of killing a white
American man over a land deal. The novel shows us how events can create a range of
perspectives, how people’s prejudices can blind them to the truth, and how it can be
difficult to establish the truth because our knowledge of a situation is often incomplete.
The title of Guterson’s novel suggests some of the complexity of the central situation. It
not only describes the wintry Oregon setting of the novel, but also alludes to the
significant Japanese community in San Piedro. There is pathetic fallacy in the coldness of
the snow and wind and the harshness of the landscape outside the courtroom.
Throughout the novel, Guterson uses the snow symbolically to suggest how most people
are blinded to the truth by their narrow, prejudiced perspectives. The word “cedar” also
refers to Ishmael’s and Hatsue’s childhood escape from the harsh narrow-mindedness of
the real world, where an inter-racial relationship would not be accepted by anyone.
Blindness to
truth treated
symbolically in
the novel
How a wide
range of
perspectives is
established in
the novel
When we
don’t know
the full story,
we may
misjudge
Representations of divergent viewpoints are established in Chapter 1, with a range of
conflicting perspectives. The out-of-town reporters, who sit in a group and whisper
“conspiratorially”, are separated from Ishmael Chambers, the local newspaper man,
suggesting that there will be different ways of assessing the trial, and implying the
inferiority of the small-town view. The trial itself is about conflict and is conducted in
adversarial style, with deliberate attempts by both sides to undermine the credibility of
other viewpoints. Hatsue, the accused man’s wife, is hostile towards Ishmael and will not
speak to him, making us think initially that she is much less fair and reasonable than he is,
because, at that point, we do not know the reasons for her behaviour. Having established
a sense of conflict in the opening chapter, Guterson then structures his novel to move
between the court case, the time around Carl’s death and events before and during the
war. We read the perspectives on the same events and situations of a number of
characters, so that we can see just how divergent some viewpoints are and how they have
come to be that way.
The context in
which
divergent
viewpoints will
arise
The main events occur nine years after the end of World War II, when prejudice against
Japanese people is still very high and complicates people’s perceptions of Kabuo’s guilt
or innocence. This attitude is expressed by a number of characters, including the trial
jurors, who misread Kabuo’s composure. Where Kabuo thinks he is concealing his
torment and suggesting quiet inner strength, the jurors see detachment, defiance and
Oriental “inscrutability”. Even Carl finds his own reaction to Kabuo’s facial features has
been changed by the war, and needs to be reminded by Kabuo that many of the enemies
in the war also had Carl’s Scandinavian features. We become aware as readers that
external circumstances can alter life-long relationships through changing perceptions,
viewpoints and emotions. Events can also entrench existing viewpoints to make people
even less likely to change their opinions, adding to the complexity of a situation. Etta’s
dislike of Japanese people is reinforced by the war and makes her feel even more justified
in dishonouring the deal with the Miyamotos.
How
viewpoints can
conflict with
objectivity
The juror discussion shows how perspectives are underpinned by personal prejudices,
biases and ignorance, and how people will choose one ‘truth’ over another, based on their
own preferences, emotions and short-comings. This point is made by Nels Gudmussen
when he warns them that the prosecution case “has proceeded on the assumption that
you will be open ... to an argument based on prejudice.” Instead, the jurors allow their
dislike of Japanese people to over-ride all “reasonable doubt” about Kabuo’s guilt,
preferring to think that Kabuo is “fishy”, “suspicious” and “he’s got to be hiding
something”, all emotive responses that back up their deeply-ingrained prejudices. They
cannot understand why the one dissenting juror can’t see it their way and when parts of
Kabuo’s story support his innocence, they are dismissed as convenient lies.
Guterson’s
commentary
on viewpoints
motivated by
personal spite
and
inadequacy
Guterson is quite condemnatory of these small-minded bigots. They are shown as
impatient, illogical and callous, keen to condemn a man to lifelong imprisonment, or even
death, for a range of unworthy personal motives. Guterson also criticises Ishmael for his
weakness and his willingness to condemn an innocent man out of spite and personal
inadequacy. Ishmael pretends to the town and to himself that he has adopted an impartial
viewpoint, but he is really attempting to hurt Hatsue through her husband. Guterson
creates knife-edge suspense about Kabuo’s future, when we know that he is innocent,
that the jurors want to condemn him, and Ishmael could prove his innocence, but won’t.
At this point, Ishmael alone is aware of the truth and has the power of life and death; his
failure to act honourably because he is still hurt by Hatsue shows us the complexity of
human beings and how an essentially good person could cause irreparable harm to
another out of petty emotion.
The two texts
connected by
content and
techniques
The Iranian film, A Separation, also revolves around a court case, where the truth is
slowly arrived at through the gradual revelation of all events and the motivations of
different characters. As with Snow Falling on Cedars, we learn that there is a lot of
concealment that must be uncovered, and that an understanding of the truth depends on
the willingness and ability of people to move beyond personal pride and self-interest, as
Ishmael eventually does in the novel. The film begins with a couple applying for divorce;
the woman, Simin, wants to leave Iran for a better life for herself and her daughter, but
the husband, Nader, wants to stay to look after his father, who has Alzheimer’s disease.
After the wife leaves him, Nader must hire a woman, Razieh, to look after his father.
There is a misunderstanding, Nader pushes Razieh and is then blamed for the miscarriage
she suffers, resulting in a charge of murder. The film explores the positions and
viewpoints of everyone involved and we arrive at a final understanding about the truth of
the miscarriage. As in Snow Falling on Cedars, people do not fully reveal the truth
because there are personal reasons and circumstances in play, and this adds to the
complexity of the situation.
The director’s
commentary
on acceptable
and
unacceptable
viewpoints
The men in the film, Nader and Razieh’s husband, Hojjat, are handled less
sympathetically than the women. In terms of “divergent viewpoints”, they are both more
confrontational and aggressive than their wives and are particularly aggressive to each
other. We are shown that Nader has a lot to contend with after Simin leaves, and
especially when he comes home to find his father neglected, but this does not justify
accusing Razieh of theft or pushing her. Hojjat is unemployed and burdened by debt, so
there is a suspicion that the miscarriage charge is made up, or that he struck Razieh in
anger and is the cause of the death. The woman at the centre of the controversy, Razieh,
has only a small voice in the court hearing.
How divergent
viewpoints are
represented
visually
Farhadi shows us divergent viewpoints through the dynamics of character relationships
and through the use of close-ups to reveal emotions. The film begins with Simin and
Nader sitting next to each other, not seeing each other, and arguing their separate cases
to a faceless judge. Both husband and wife show through their language, expressions and
gestures that they passionately and earnestly believe in the rightness of their own
position. The final scenes show us Nader and Hojjat positioned on either side of a
corridor, both anxiously awaiting the judge’s verdict, each man convinced that he must
win because he is right. The gap between them symbolises the gulf between their social
positions and their viewpoints about the events. Razieh is mostly seen alone in the film.
We know about her anxiety and increasing alarm from the close-ups of her face. We also
know that she does not share the same viewpoint as her husband, partly because he
dominates her when they are together and partly because we know she knows more than
the others about the situation.
Conclusion
links both
texts through
content and
techniques
Both texts are similar in using the technique of multiple viewpoints to show complexity.
Both show that people will not reveal everything they know, so it is hard to discover the
full truth. They show that people are quick to make judgements based on limited
knowledge, especially when it supports their prejudices or self-interest. Both also show
that even when we understand everyone’s point of view, some perspectives are more
ethically and logically acceptable than others, because viewpoints are so often skewed by
prejudice.