Young Goodman Brown

“There might be a devilish Indian behind every tree” (397).  This early line in “Young Goodman Brown” somewhat places this story in history.  The numerous allusions to the Salem Witch Trials more firmly place this story in history.  The opening quote shows the fear of the unknown (i.e., Indians).  This idea follows throughout the rest of the story.  This fear of Indians and the unknown is interesting when remembering the Spanish explorer story and John Smith’s account.  Both explorers were not fearful of Indians but they also spent substantial time with Indians.  

This fear of unknown is still in effect in America today.  People are fearful of the unknown; this is a human trait; but this ties into debates over immigrants and even those of different backgrounds within the US.  The US is still a very self-centered society.  The early Americans felt they had a right to the land, regardless of the fact that Indians were there ages before them.  The US still has this mentality where their nose is constantly in other’s business and feeling they know what is right. 

I found the wife, Faith, to be interesting.  She is her husband’s tie to God, but she may actually be Faith itself.  Young Goodman Brown believes that he can do one evil deed and then live happily ever after with Faith as if his action never happened.  He discovers that he may never be able to go back from one evil deed.  This idea ties into modern US society.  At what point can we stop ourselves from doing what we believe to be right and then go back to how it was before?   We, and Young Goodman Brown, cannot go back to the way things were before the evil deed. 

Young Goodman Brown finds a man in the wood with a snake on his staff.  This more fully draws in the aspect of religion.  As America was just starting to take root in the New World, religion was a key part.  Europeans fled their homeland for religious freedom in the New World.  As this is why they fled, religion payed a key part in their early society.  

When Young Goodman Brown learns of his ancestors and their deals (whipping a Quaker woman and the part in King Phillip’s war), he tries to break away from his forefathers.  Their actions tie, again, into the fear of the unknown.  Their fear manifested into violence.  The US has a very violent history.  There are not many years where it can be classified as not involved in some kind of armed conflict.  His forefathers did not like things that were different than them. This is interesting because in American history class, most young children hear of how America was/is a ‘melting pot’.  This makes it seem like early America was a bunch of skipping whilst making daisy chains.  This is not the case.  

Young Goodman also discovers that no one is exempt from evil deals.  The high up in society all the way down to the everyman make evil deals.  This does not present society in a very pleasant light.  

Morton and Bradford

The most apparent difference between the writings of the two men is Morton's fascination with classical mythology.  He makes a great many references to not only classical mythology, but quite a few references to biblical stories, as well.  This observation at the beginning of the reading made it quite easy to see the distinction between Morton and Bradford.  Morton, as described in Bradford's account, is one who enjoyed being merry, even to the point of blasphemy.  Morton, while he does make allusions to stories other than the Bible, defends himself by stating that he has been misjudged by people who have a stick up their rear (obviously, he states this much more eloquently than I).  Morton presents himself as one who is not out to harm anyone.  Bradford viewed him as a somewhat malicious man, who freely consorted with the native population, and even armed them.  In both the men's account of the May Pole incident, they both use classical references.  Morton does not seem to view his festivities in a negative light--even if he alludes to Oedipus and other unseemly stories--he calls it "harmless mirth (pg 160).  Bradford likens Morton's party to that of Bacchus, who is not seen as a good god.  Bradford sees him as the anti-Christ.  Bradford seemed quite pleased that Morton was shipped back to the MotherLand and no longer able to have such 'mad Bacchinalian' parties (145).  
The two men also had different views on the business done at Merrymount. Bradford, as aforementioned, did not care for the trading with the native people.  He viewed Morton as arming the enemies.  Although, Bradford viewed the native population as enemies and as friends when it benefited him.  He used God to justify this.  Morton, ever the merry man, had a positive view of his business at Merrymount.  While he was arming the Indians, he did not view them as the enemy. They were present at the May Pole party.  He thought that Bradford and Company were merely jealous of the booming business he had created (pg 161).
While this is not a very important point, I find it quite telling of Morton's character when reading his name for Miles Standish.  He referred to him as Captain Shrimp.  This little nickname also shows the difference between the two men.  Morton enjoys life, and Bradford is much more stoic.

Even The Rain

The actors in the film seemed to identify with their characters and embodied them in their personal lives.
The actor who played Christopher Columbus was a drunk who did whatever struck his fancy.  He did not care for those around him--until the end of the film.  He occasionally made references to religion--when it benefited him.  Columbus also used religion to his advantage.  The actor did not have a family to go home to, which might have contributed to his actions.  I don't remember if Columbus had a family waiting for his to return.  Both the actor and Columbus are tricky little men.
The actor who played the somewhat unknown priest was exactly like his character.  He was incredibly feisty and would not give up a fight, even if it would not end well.  He did not seem to have much forethought.
The actor who played de las Casas was reserved, yet determined, much like the reformed priest.
The character of Daniel was very much like his character Hatuey.  He fought for what he believed to be right.  He fought for his life, and the lives of those around him.  Daniel, just like Hatuey, fought for fundamental human rights in the face of tyranny.  I found him to be a fiercely determined little nugget.
Both the story of Columbus "finding" the New World and Daniel's story with the water glorify the underdog.  In the case of Daniel, it is more difficult to determine if he was right in the actions he took.  By presenting the feelings of the government, there was a suggestion that Daniel was not taking the right course of action; however, the government man was presented as a pompous man.  He referred to Daniel and his followers as Indians who were not to be trusted.
Costa, while not an actor, has interesting parallels to characters.  At the beginning of the film, he is an arrogant man just out for money.  By the end of the film, he has seen the error of his ways and redeems himself, much like de las Casas.
The film, through both the stories presented, raises the interesting question: how does one live after catastrophic events?  How does one live with themselves if they were a negative part of the event?