After The First is a parable - a story that has a moral or teaches a lesson. To figure out the moral of the film, first ask yourself what lesson Steve's father and mother wanted him to learn? Second, what do you think Steve actually learned? Then discuss what the film taught you.
50 comments:
"After the First" is definitely a story that contains an inner message to it, a moral. The moral that the story is trying to convey is to not be too quick to judge a book by its cover. Steve's father, at first, wanted to get Steve to bond with him by going on a hunting trip. He thought this would be a great activity Steve and him would share together as father and son, and it was at first until Steve, regretfully, shot the rabbit. The dilemma that Steve and his father faced are the questions of values that are associated with each of them. Steve's perspective on shooting an innocent animal was likely to be inhumane. His father's perspective on the case was in fact the complete opposite since he was already in the war. Killing a poor innocent creature meant nothing to the father as it did to the son. This proves the lesson to be, don't be too quick to judge someone. They might not like the same things you do, or act the same way, so it's crucial we take a look at the way other people see things, in their perspective. This lesson is what I learned from watching the short film, "After The First".
I agree with Kissila in that this film had the message of not to judge too quickly. However, I viewed the lesson as more personal to the son and father. I thought that the son's innocence was gone after this trip and killing an innocent being and his image of his father before was gone to what his dad was really like. The violence that the father encouraged the son to do clearly made him uncomfotable, but the father said it would get easier. This says a lot about the mentality of people and how we justify violence more escalated than this and I believe that this video shows the darker side of humans.
After the First, in my opinion was trying to show the viewers how death is not meant to be taken lightly. We see this stuff everyday in the media and unless you see it right in front of you the reality of it will not sink in. For the young boy going hunting was like him stepping out of this perfect world that his parents had built for him. Which is maybe why hunting is a right of passage into adult hood because it pushes you into the harshness of reality that some people face, for this young boy it being death.
I agree with Jess i do feel that the massage was personal between the boy and his father. Due to the fact that the boys father killed so easily an innocent rabbit it could have changed the way the boy saw his father.
At first glance, the film seemed somewhat anvilicious on delivering an anti-hunting message, what with the young protagonist being seemingly traumatized by the events. However, upon further deliberation I thought that it was more or less an amalgamation of messages, with each side holding merit; the father is upholding a tradition, an innate source of pride for him and his ancestors before him. His attention to gun safety and careful consideration after seeing his son's reaction paints him as understanding, if initially mistaken--his most grievous mistake in the film was to callously dismiss the possibility that Steve may not actually like hunting on the basis of his own limited experience. Steve, too, had first joined the hunt in anticipation of an exciting new activity without fully knowing how directly killing an animal would affect him, and is himself a victim of not judging the situation correctly; he represents the uninformed/inexperienced innocent, or the blissfully ignorant. His mother, although correct all along, is only revealed to be as such at the end, and the initial build up is for her to be proven wrong. Had Steve been slightly different in his mentality, she may very well have been, thus also having judged the situation before she knew much of it. She is the skeptic.
Ultimately, I believe the moral is that assumptions can lead to hurtful experiences; slow acclimation to the root cause of it can help adjustment ("it gets easier after the first").
I also agree with Jess in that the film showed the darker side of humanity; our capacity for desensitization is enormous. Horror one day, uneasiness the next, and so forth until it becomes routine...it is undoubtedly true in almost all of us and is even a method of therapy for certain phobias. Perhaps our morals are simply based upon what we are horrified the most to.
I think that the moral of the story “After the First” is to not judge other people too quickly because until you know them well enough to put yourself in their shoes or have experienced the same thing that they have you don’t know how someone else is going to feel. It seemed as though Steve wanted to show his son a good time and let him feel that he is an adult in the eyes of his father by going hunting with him. On the other hand it seemed that Steve’s mother didn’t want him to go fearful that he is still too young. Since Steve’s mother did let him go I think that she and Steve’s father wanted him to learn responsibility. I think that Steve learned that you don’t always feel the way that you thought you would feel after you do something. In this case he thought that he was going to love hunting, you could tell this by his excited attitude. Unfortunately, he found out that he didn’t feel as excited as he was before the rabbit got killed. I think that Steve learned that not everyone has the same morals and likes.
I agree with Jess, I think that people often justify violence by saying things that aren’t entirely true. Clearly the father has become a little desensitized to killing things and tried to put pressure on his son to make him kill something as well. I think that the father should have let Steve think a little more on his own rather than pressuring him into something that he didn’t want to do.
In the short film, "After the First," I believe there was a conflict of values between Steve, his father, and his mother. His mother thought that hunting was not a current fad anymore and that society has developed since that era. His father believed it was just a boy thing and that it was time for Steve to learn because he (his father) learned it when he was nine and Steve is now twelve. Steve was looking forward to it, as he enoyed playing with the gun in his rookm and was exhilarated when he shot the stump on his first try. However, when Steve saw his father shoot the rabbit, he was conflicted between the trhill he got when shooting the stump and the pity he felt for the rabbit. Although Steve was supposed to learn how to hunt, he learned how much power he has and that power feels good, but can be dangerous and cause serious consequences. He was troubled by the way his father treated another organism's life. HE film showed me how easy it is for something fun to turn dangerous and emotionally trying when someone else's life is in your hands.
I agree with Kissila. I think she brought out an important point about the father being in the war. Involvement in a tramatic situation like that can cause a person to be jaded. It also may cause him to view things differently because the war taught him to shoot and kill without empathy in order to stay alive; it was very animalistic, as is hunting. The war stripped the father of empathy, but Steve did not have that experience and therefore still displayed concern for the rabbits when shooting them.
Steve's father and mother wanted to pass down their family tradition of hunting by teaching him when he turned an age they found appropriate, even though they disagreed if he was ready or not. They take it seriously in his family and his mother wanted to make sure he was emotionally prepared to hunt down a living animal. In the end, Steve was not prepared to kill a living being, although he was eager to learn in the beginning. He felt a lot of power when shooting the gun, but did not yet experience what that power is used for until he watched his father. Even though family traditions are passed down at a certain age, not everyone is ready. He felt pressured to do what his father wanted, not wanting to let him down. "After The First" showed how some people are put into a position where they have to choose what is right for them. They have to decide what they believe in versus doing what someone else tells them to do based on tradition.
I think this film really shows how people can really lose their innocence. Steve had lost it once he had shot the rabbit. He had a bunch of fun shooting objects that weren't alive. Once he had shot the rabbit, he realized that he had just taken a life of a poor innocent animal. He thought he could be just like his father, acting like a man going hunting. Once he realized that with hunting, comes deaths of animals. People give in to the pressure of their peers just to be like them. Once they do something that really disturbs them, they should know that they have to do and believe what THEY think. Not what others think.
I agree with Kissila in that people should try and see things from other people's perspectives. Imagine yourself in their shoes.
I agree with Jess in that the mentality of people justifying violence in a way that is more escalated than the hunting accident, and also with the intent of showing a darker side in humans.
After we watched the film, all I was thinking about was how the kid clearly didnt think about how it would feel to actually kill something. At first he was anxious to try shooting things, but none of those things were living. I think that the father was so excited about his son wanting to hunt that he didnt warn him about the feelings that come along with your first kill, which steve obviously wasnt as thrilled about.
I agree with Kissila. Before discussing the questions with my group i didnt realize that the film was trying to make us think about how quickly we are to judge things. Steve has a completely different outlook on hunting after his experience with killing te rabiit. I also agree that before judging a situation we have to put ourselves in the shoes of others to truely understand it.
After The First is trying to teach us the lesson that just because we wave a lot of power, does not mean we need to use it. In the film, Steve's father wanted Steve to go through the same right of passage as he did when he was a kid. This right of passage was using a shot gun to shoot and kill an animal. The gun represents the power over the much weaker rabbit. Steve's father even asks Steve if he likes having so much power. Steve had a choice to use that power or not and he chose to use it because of the pressure from his father. Afterwards, Steve realized that just because he may have a lot of power he does not have to use it. I have learned from the film that if you do not feel comfortable doing something then you do not have to do it.
"After the First" got me thinking about the way that a parent treats their child's own opinions. Steve's mother didn't think that it was a good idea for him to go hunting, because he is much too young. I completely agree with this, although his father wanted him to go because it was "a family tradition." Although it meant a lot to the father that he was going to teach Steve how to hunt/shoot a gun, he never really thought about how the son felt until after he walked away after he(Steve) had shot the rabbit. The father looked at this as no big deal, just killing another rabbit, something that he has been doing since he was nine. Steve on the other hand was traumatized by what he had done. I believe that Steve learned a lot about his father, such as he has no problem killing people in wars, or killing animals because "its the right thing to do" (don't quote me on that because i remember it was something along those lines). Steve, on the other hand figured out that he did not want to come out to be like his father in that way.
I agree with Laryssa, death is a very serious thing for some people and some people cope with it better than others. Steve is someone who has a hard time taking the life of another living thing.
I agree with Jess, on the level of what she said about the innocence of Steve after this trip. If you saw the look on Steve's face once his dad had killed the rabbit, you would notice that he was about to cry. This was something that he could never un-see, and that would stick with him for as long as he lived. Like she said, it shows that the dad values violence more than other things that would be more important in most people's eyes.
In “After the First” we see two different opinions of this family’s hunting tradition. Steve’s father wanted him to join the tradition so he could take part in the culture and take one more step towards growing up. Though Steve is fairly young, this is still a right of passage for him. On the other hand, his mother wanted him to keep a level head and not abuse the power of the gun; she believed that a boy of his age wasn’t ready to handle those capabilities. Steve learned that although hunting is a popular activity, there still is a certain amount of respect towards animals that needs to be maintained, because they are an essential part to the world. In addition to this, he learned the importance of joining this tradition with his father.
I learned a similar lesson that Steve did. With certain traditions in my family, there are some things that I feel uncomfortable with, but nonetheless staying loyal to my family is what’s important. I then hold a higher respect to those aspects because my family values it so much.
I think that the film taught me about judgement in society and how many people judge others too quickly without knowing everything about the situation. Steve's father judged Steve too quickly, thinking that he was ready to take a life of an animal at 12 years old. Even though his mother was reluctant in letting the two of them go hunting, she still gave in and let them go. At first, Steve was excited by the power that he got to have. In the end, when Steve saw his dad shoot the rabbit and when he shot the rabbit himself, his views completely changed. Steve also judged his dad in the beginning because he was idolizing him and looking up to him for showing him how to hunt. Once he saw his dad kill the rabbit, Steve lost some of his innocece, which relates to the darker side of society. Overall, I learned not to judge things too quickly because of hat happened to Steve after his father judged him and after he judged his father.
Jess, you make a good point by saying this video shows the darker side of humans. Steve was excited to go hunting for the first time, but once he began shooting he grew more uncomfortable. He wasn’t forced into this act, but I think that when humans are forced to perform a violent act, it can change their mentality. But in Steve’s case, he walked away from this experience with a heightened sense of awareness of how to treat others better.
I agree with Brandon. I think that the end result of the movie does show a loss of innocence in Steve. I think that this relates to society and that there is a darker side to it. After Steve shot the rabbit, his father told him that "after the first time, it gets easier". This shows a darkness in society because this type of mindset almost justifies crimes and terrible events througout history. Steve's loss of innocence was backed up by what his father told him, which shows how humanity does have a darker side.
I was absent for the film!!
This film taught me that although some people may take things lightly, in this case it was kidding a rabbit, others may not.. And just because you are someone's Father, boss, ect., doesn't mean that everyone else will view the world as you do. And it is important to respect that and respect peoples boundaries.
I compleetly agree with Kissila, I think she made a great point about the father and sons outlook on hunting and how for the son it was a huge deal becasue he had never even shot a gun before, where as the father had been in the war and had already shot human beings.
I think that what the father was really trying to teach his son was that killing another living thing is not a big deal. Killing a bunny might not have been a big deal for the father because he had been to war, but it was something that his son took very seriously. I think that the message of this film was that killing is something that you should never take lightly.
After watching the short film titled "after the first", i think that it teaches the viewers not to judge something so quickly. In this case, the son, Steve, judges his father for going hunting. So he wanted to try it himself. After getting hands-on expirience, he realized it wasn't all what it was set out to be. At first, he thought it was a cool, grown-up thing to do. After doing it himself and actually killing a small animal, he felt remorse and it changed his views on hunting as a whole. The lesson learned here is that nobody should judge anything or anybody until they get hands on experience. And unfortunately, the young boy learned the hard way.
I agree with what Kara said. I think that when Steve's father took him hunting, he was excited to make his son more like himself and didn't really consider how Steve would feel about it or how killing would affect him.
Brandon makes a very valid point. Nobody will really know what it feels like to be disturbed and shocked unless something shocking and disturbing actually happens to them. After that, hopefully they learn a lesson,
I believe that Steve's parents were initially trying to create a good bonding opportunity between Steve and his father and also to learn respect for fire arms. Steve in the end learned about himself and that he didn't feel comfortable killing living things even though he was a good shooter. I learned that you should speak up for yourself in situations that make you feel uncomfortable because you may end up doing something you regret.
I agree with Sam in that this movie portrays the darker side of humanity but also shows a little bit of hope with Steve who felt bad after shooting the rabbit but still gave into the pressure from his father. It makes me wonder what his decision will be the next time his father asks him to go hunting.
I think that Steve's father's intentions were that Steve was going to love hunting. After seeing the satisfying look in his son's eyes when he shot the tree stump, Steve's father thought he would love to shoot a rabbit. However, contrary to his father's assumptions, Steve was uneasy about shooting a rabbit. Steve’s mother wanted Steve to feel this way. She is more compassionate than Steve’s father, as Steve’s father is quick to have no problems shooting a gun because he was in a war. Steve learned about himself. He learned the he does not need to feel the same way that his father does in every situation.
I disagree with Kelsey and Brandon when they say that the lesson from this film is about losing innocence, and feeling prepared or unprepared to do something. I think the bigger picture is about learning about you. Kelsey is right about the family tradition altering one’s family values, but I feel the lesson was more for Steve and his father to learn about themselves.
I was absent for this assignment.
I was absent for this assignment.
I think it is interesting how Steve's father tries forcing Steve to be a hunter by introducing him at an early age and then telling him it gets easier after your first time, saying basically that he is going to take Steve out again and try to change his views on killing animals.
I agree with Laryssa. Death shouldn't be taken lightly, a lot of people die everyday. Some from hunger, others from disease or carbon monoxide poisoning. The point is it is covered in the media but you truly don't understand unless you were there out in the harsh world and experience a friend or unknown person die in front of you.
After the First is one of the examples of the phrase don’t judge a book by its cover. The father in the story thought it would be okay for his son, Steve, to shoot a rabbit because he enjoyed shooting the tree stump so much the first time. When Steve was called upon to shoot the bunny he hesitated and was scared. He didn't want to kill the bunny but he didn’t want to disappoint his father either. He was given a choice and in the end Steve believed he had made the wrong choice. This illustrates even though Steve’s father is his father, doesn't mean that he knows what he is thinking. This story is a topic you can relate to today, because parents believe they know what is best for their children but they are not always necessarily correct.
I agree with Brandon when he said that Steve wanted to be just like his father but when it came time to actually shot an animal his attitude towards shooting totally changed. Peers today pressure others into things they don’t want to do and this was the same case with Steve and his father.
“After The First” accidentally but strongly makes a point as to the impact of class on morality and the non-existence of objective morality. While somewhat tangential to the body of the work, this observation is far more cogent than the heavy-handed moralization attempted by the work. “After The First” attempts to portray a dichotomy of moral conflict between the innocent, concerned mother and the hardened, desensitized father which is carried over to Steve’s choice on whether to shoot. This conflict, however, is completely overshadowed by the unspoken, non-confronted elements of the story.
Steve is living a rural American petty-bourgeois lifestyle. His very existence is thus massively destructive to the same wildlife which he agonizes over killing. It is not this minor hypocrisy, however, which is the most important element of the accidental moral. Rather, the important moment is the scene in the car, when Steve asks his father about the war. While intended only to show the origin of his father’s hard-heartedness, this conveys far more: the contemporary American conflicts (Korea and Vietnam) which could be the “war” in question were destructive imperialist slaughters inflicting incalculable violence upon populations for the sake of American hegemony.
To a proletarian perspective, the killing of a rabbit is utterly trivial – and is even a moral good, as it provides much needed food and fur. However, the proletarian morality would be aghast by imperialist slaughter at the beckoning of the bourgeoisie, as indicated by the social upheavals during the First World War. It is only the petty-bourgeois morality which can abstract such destruction while actualizing the killing of a rabbit as a supreme moral choice of great gravity and consequence. “After The First” fails utterly in its intended message and in doing so reveals a great deal about the class perspective to morality which inspired it.
I disagree with a plethora of comments - perhaps all - on here, as I see the intended moral dichotomy as an abject failure. Rather, I think the story meaningfully presents, if only inadvertantly, an examination of class-morality and the absurdity of partisans of 'objective morality' as the moral lesson of the story is strongly conditioned by class perspective.
I don’t think Steve’s father did anything wrong by taking his son out hunting. Many fathers take their sons out either hunting or fishing almost as a tradition past down from father to son. However, I found it interesting that after Steve shot the rabbit and felt terrible about it that his father was saying oh it gets easier as if to say that he’s going to bring him out to do it again, even though he is uncomfortable with it.
I agree with Kissila in that people should be more accepting in other people’s opinions, and that you should try to see things from their prospective instead of trying to change their way of thinking.
"After the First", in my opinion that it was trying to show me and the other viewers how the Steve's father wanted to bond with his son by taking him hunting but his father probablly didn't understand that when Steve killed that rabbit, he was upset. When his father said that it would get easier and better when you get used to it. I also think that when I watched the short film, "After the First", it got to me that for my perspective was if you want to go hunting, then go but if you don't want to then don't. With Steve's point of view of shooting that rabbit and then his fathers point of view is that he was happy for his son but when Steve saw his dad shoot a rabbit, he didn't like it because the rabbit was innocent. This short film "After the First" has got me thinking about going hunting.
In "After the First", Steve's mother and father both have a common goal of raising their son into a responsible young man who has the same morals and values of his parents. But, his mother and father have separate goals when it comes to the event at hand, hunting. Steve's mother opposes it because she does not want to teach her son to be violent at such a young age, whereas his father ensures Steve's mother that he is old enough to deserve going on such a trip. Steve's father aims to teach him a skill he believes is valuable, while also teaching him responsibility. But, what Steve ends up really learning is that the power that comes with hunting and killing animals is power that he doesn't want to have.
I personally thought that this could be connected more to gun violence than being to quick to judge someone or being a passage to adulthood.
I agreee with Elise, that the boy didn't know how it would feel to kill a real animal and how different it is from shooting at tree stumps. Everything is not what it seems when you actually try it.
I agree with Keith in that this film is an example of the complete absence of understanding of the dialectical nature of the class struggle and nature's role in it. While some might claim this film as evidence of the Bourgeoisie's ever growing need to conquer new markets - this time that of the traditional "morality tale" - in this case, I believe this is more an attempt by the liberal movement to trivialize and dichotomize our youth's understanding of ethics. As such, I think the kid should have shot the dumb rabbit before going on to deal with more important ethical concerns - that of his role in the privileged first world in the international class struggle for democracy and human rights.
I also agree with Kissila who also understands the dialectic and has rightfully pointed out the role war plays in these efforts and our need to think deeply about the nature of war and its use in artificially segregating workers based merely upon their state and ethnicity.
Post a Comment