Leopold and Loeb chapters 16-18

It is not difficult for me to understand how Leopold and Loeb were constantly confused for one another; the boys are represented in so many different manners I have a hard time trying to keep them separate. They really were a team; “One was Leopold and one was Loeb, but they became Leopold and Loeb. Though possessing different personalities, they became the sum of those personalities” (20). The Tribune was quick to point to Leopold as the evil genius and hypnotist and Loeb as gentle and sensitive Dickey, but then they just as quickly changed their story to “Loeb ‘Master of Leopold’ Under Solemn Pact Made: Sex Inferiority is Factor”. Experts debated which one of the boys actually killed Bobby Franks. Alienists portrayed Leopold as the more intelligent of the two boys, whereas “Loeb is pictured as little more than a crude criminal” (220). The many experts “spent twice as much time dissecting Leopold as Loeb. The result has been a distorted and oversimplified picture of Richard Loeb” (219).
The alienists said Leopold, even though the more cunning, saw his friend as “Superman” (210). He was infatuated with Loeb, and apparently initiated homosexual tendencies: “Loeb admitted them but claimed he” only “submitted in order to have Leopold’s aid in carrying out his criminal ideas” (215). The power dynamic again shifts; who was manipulating whom? Higdon believes “there was genius and criminality in both” (220).
The alienists speculated on how the relationship functioned, arguing it was very possible “this friendship between the two boys was not altogether a pleasant one to either of them…Their friendship was not based so much in desire as on need, they being what they were. Loeb did not crave the companionship of Leopold, nor did he respect him thoroughly. But he did feel the need of someone else in his life. Leopold did not like the faults, the criminalism of Loeb, but he did need someone in his life to carry out this king-slave compulsion” (225).

Chicago Tribune Packet (Leopold and Loeb)

In reading these articles on the murder investigation and subsequent trial of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, I noticed how different the journalism seemed compared to articles we’ve read from more recent issues of The New York Times. In every article there is a new expert being interviewed, a new theory being developed and more “clews” to be deciphered. The journalists sound more like crime novel authors than journalists. Is it at all newsworthy that the triangle part of the A is larger than normal? How does that in any way indicate that the murderers were intelligent? Many of these experts and sources are unnamed; one girl cries into her tea because she is so sad for Dickey Loeb’s troubles, and yet she is not identified in the slightest. I wonder if the journalists have any grounds for these claims, or if they are merely creating stories to sell issues. The public certainly seemed to stay interested if stories were continuing on the matter four months later, so maybe this extra drama was just playing to that.
Many of the articles discuss the mental states of the boys; their lack of Jewish faith, lack of community, heightened intelligence, parents, lack of discipline and regular consumption of moonshine are all mentioned as explanations for the violent crime these boys committed. There was also great debate to whether or not Leopold and Loeb were sane when they kidnapped Robert Franks. The defense and prosecution go back and forth presenting evidence to support their own claim, including reasons as bizarre as “autohypnosis”. In addition, while one article describes Loeb as the “King” and Leopold the “slave”, yet another says it was Leopold who manipulated the gentle Loeb. The different journalists have their own biases that shine through in their work.

Comments on Unit II Blogs

My blogs for Unit II are much more consistent than my blogs for Unit I. After being duped by journalistic tricks and biases in Unit I, I think I was more critical in my readings of Schanberg’s New York Times articles, and also in my comments on the film. This unit, I tried to go deeper than just noticing interesting aspects of the writings or the film and ask myself why they were interesting or what purpose they served. While extensive and sometimes confusing, the website about film analysis was extremely helpful in my understanding of the different possibilities certain visual or sound effects had on a single shot. For instance, in analyzing the use of shallow focus in the scene at the Coca-Cola factory, I tried to imagine how the scene would be different if the director used deep or raking focus instead. I also tried to trace several themes throughout all the mediums; this helped me when I was writing my screening report because I felt like I had concrete examples to draw on from my blogs. I hope the same will prove true for my essay.

Spalding Gray: Swimming to Cambodia and Rolling Stone article

I am amazed that Spalding Gray has the same voice in both the article and the monologue, though he says very different things. Reading the Rolling Stone article after Swimming to Cambodia, I can definitely recognize his personality and his mannerisms in the second work. I had grown so comfortable with his voice that it took me until after I finished to article to realize this seemed to be a very different Spalding Gray even though he sounded the same. In Swimming to Cambodia, Gray seemed completely lost. He rambles on humorously enough, and recounts Perfect Moments as well as exotic adventures, but he is not a man at peace with himself or his surroundings. Without warning, he is struck by moments of intense grieving and guilt for Cambodia: “How could I think of my pleasure when the world still suffered so? How? How? Oh, the shame of it! I needed to get back to give my old sweaters away to the Cambodian refugees in Far Rockaway” (124). His paranoid freak-outs result from stress, fear and anxiety about whether the life he has chosen for himself is in fact the right one: “Renée, it was a mission, a mission! I was on a mission. I’m not supposed to be back here” (108). When he talks about fame in the monologue it is only in comparing himself to John Malkovich and talking about the envy he feels for “the huge party” the film cast and crew held “when Craig T. left” (97). He calls Craig T. Nelson a “Professional Actor” and Malkovich “a good storyteller” (97). He discusses fame through his lack of it in the monologue, but in the article he relates his own anecdotes about dealing with his newfound fame. He talks about getting limos and private jets sent for him, going on The David Letterman Show and bowling for People magazine. He is witty and biting, but he is more confident. Gone are the stories of empty promises and fights with Renée. He has finally made a decision and seen it through. His experiences in Cambodia have now opened creative doors as well as financial ones, whereas before they isolated him: “But instead I ended up in Krummville with Renée and it was horrid. Horrid because I didn’t want to be there and I saw all the hardwoods as palm trees. At night I dreamed of taking the magic mushrooms and scuba diving with Ivan on a perfect enchanted isle somewhere in the Indian Ocean” (107). And his “semistardom” turned out “to be a lot more humbling than total obscurity”, so this new self-confidence has developed out of humility rather than egocentrism (Rolling Stone 31).