This movie—all of Peter Weir's movies—are so rich that our limited discussions don't do them justice. But we're trying.
1. So what was your reaction to the movie? And why?
2. What do you think the major theme is of this movie—more than anything, what is it about? And have we seen this theme in other Weir movies? Does Witness support what we've seen in other Weir films, does it broaden the thematic concern, or does it question it? How so?
3. "Witness." Great title. So why call this movie that? We get that it begins with Samuel as a witness to a murder, but that point soon disappears, or gets overwhelmed by the many other concerns of the film. But still—Witness. Meaning what, as we consider what this film is about?
Tomorrow, we'll begin perhaps Weir's thorniest effort, a box office and, to a great degree, a critical dud starring Harrison Ford (again), Dame Helen Mirren, and the late teen hot throb River Phoenix: Mosquito Coast. Bring coffee to keep you alert; have your neighbor pinch you every so often. No sleeping aloud.
1. I really like this movie. I like the contrasts of the different belief systems; I like Samuel, and I like the humor that doesn't require a lot of though to understand. This movie is easy to watch, but it also presents a lot of major themes, namely, is it okay to disobey the rules of the society you live in because you don't believe in them. Overall, it was an enjoyable movie, but it wasn't shallow, like some movies similar to it in plot are.
ReplyDelete2. As I said above, I think the main theme of this movie is whether or not rules apply to you if you don't believe in the reasoning behind those laws. Near the beginning, when Samuel and Rachel are being driven to possibly identify the killer, Rachel says she doesn't want to be a part of Book's laws. She believes that because she doesn't live in the city and doesn't usually associate with city people, their laws shouldn't apply to her. Later, when Book is about to beat of the teenagers, Eli tells him it's not their way, and he counters "but it's my way." Even though he's living as an Amish would, dressing like one and working like one, he still isn't Amish, so he doesn't have to follow their rules, even though it ends in his being found. This theme is also present in Master and Commander. Stephen doesn't want to live like the navy does. He wants to stop at the Galapagos and live like a naturalist, staying as long as he needs for his discoveries. However, he is forced to follow the rules of the navy, even though he wants no part of it.
3. I think "witness" doesn't just apply to Samuel witnessing a murder. I think it also refers to Book witnessing a completely different lifestyle and trying to live in it. The movie is about the murder, but it's mostly about Book being introduced to a world without violence, where he could live and become someone who isn't literally surviving on crime. He sees how people can work in a community without having specified jobs. He sees people do work for each other just because they're friends. For example, the raise a barn for a newly-wed couple, just because they're neighbors. He sees a world that has a hierarchy (with the elders at the top, then men, then women), but the hierarchy doesn't control everyone's actions. They respect their elders, but they still do pretty much what they want once their daily work is done. I think the movie is titled "Witness" in reference to Book witnessing a different way of life, and, eventually, deciding whether or not he wants to live that way permanently.
I really enjoyed this movie, especially because I felt like even though it was more commercial and accessible than his other films, Weir didn't "sell out" to appeal to the masses. I think the major theme of this movie is how a person's perception of the world can affect his or her values. Both John Book and the Lapp family have to learn to see the world in a different way because of their situation. The main characters have to confront what they've always known when their world changes: Book has always trusted the law and taken for granted that he's right about everything, but he has to abandon that when he sees the corruption and danger his job means for him; Rachel has always followed the Amish ways and has to reconcile her beliefs and customs with her attraction to John and her individuality. This idea of adapting one's perception of the world has been addressed in other Weir movies, such as The Last Wave; unlike John and Rachel, however, David was never able to reconcile his new knowledge of the spiritual realm with his preconceived notions of the world because the apocalypse happened before he had the chance. Similarly, the characters in Picnic at Hanging Rock never accept that the world is not as orderly and controlled as they pretend it is. In those films, the characters are forced to accept the possibility of the supernatural into their orderly lives and they can't. In less surreal, more realistic films such as Master and Commander and Witness, the characters are able to adapt to changes in their perception of the world. It's almost as if Weir is making a point that, unlike his earlier, more surreal films would suggest, it is possible to see the world in a different way in real life. I think the film is called Witness because we are all witnessing these characters on this journey to re-examine their values. Just like Samuel's experience witnessing a murder allows him to explore the possibility of murder and learn about why specifically it's wrong and, most importantly, why some people do it anyway, we as the audience witness these people's lives and are able to learn from them without having to go through their struggle ourselves.
ReplyDelete1. I enjoyed the film but I was a little disappointed with some of it. The final action scene ended up playing out like a lot of those 80’s drama/thrillers did. The large conspiracy and the buildup of tension were solved in a few minutes without John having to plan or really figure things out at all. Samuel found that the old man’s advice was true. There always is another option. When he made that motion with his hand I actually thought his beliefs had flown out the window and he was advising Samuel to go get the gun. I think they left his gesture intentionally ambiguous to make us think that. Honestly I was disappointed. We saw John have his beliefs and lifestyle shaken; it would’ve been a pretty interesting statement if Eli had been ready to kill the other guys. Also (and this is less important) but those three guys obviously came to kill John and not to capture him. Why then does Schaeffer, after finally cornering John and disarming him, decide to lead him outside at gunpoint? Classic bad guy mistake. At least he didn’t spend 5 minutes dramatically explaining his whole plan giving the Amish people time to arrive.
ReplyDelete2. Unfortunately one of my biggest problems with the film is probably the best representation of what the film is about. Eli and Samuel choose the pacifist route and end up saving the day. Well sort of. That only works because John also crushes and suffocates one man with corn and blows a hole in another. Something else is a little foggy as well. Schaeffer and company were not on a stealth mission. They walked onto the farm with shotguns and made no attempt to hide what was going on. Not only was this the stupidest way to try and find John, it also means the ending makes no sense. They clearly knew there were going to be witnesses or dead bodies. After all his murder and deceit, a few unarmed Amish men suddenly gave Schaeffer some cold feet? I’m only going on about this because it really takes away from the message that I think Weir was trying to get across. John is placed in a foreign land and comes to see that maybe their ways make more sense than his, even if he can’t stay. Except their ways would never work in the real world. Only in their little bubble. Try ringing a bell in the middle of Philadelphia when some guys are mugging you. It’ll probably just bring more guys to help stab the hell out of you. If it weren’t for some truly incompetent criminals, the message would be completely useless. I think Weir presents the idea much more effectively in his other films. The idea of taking a step into the unknown presents itself in every film we’ve watched so far.
3. The film starts with Samuel witnessing a crime, and Schaeffer is thwarted because of all of the witnesses at the end. Perhaps it’s a message. No crime goes unseen? There are always consequences to our actions? I think that’s a ridiculous idea, but it’s nice to imagine. Sorry, my view of this film got more and more negative the more I thought and wrote about it.
Being American made, this movie carried all the respective pros and cons. Like I previously mentioned, I felt far more comfortable within this movie's familiarity. But as an additional consequence, the film lacked the feeling of true uniqueness that all of Weir's others have had.
ReplyDeleteLooking narrowly and solely at Witness, I say that the film is well done. To me, an excellent film must be watched twice— once for awe and a second time for understanding. Witness entertained me, educated me even, but does not call for a second viewing. Its most impressive feat was incorporating the Amish slant so smoothly and seamlessly. I think Weir tried to accomplish a similar task with the aborigines in The Last Wave, but he failed miserably, especially in comparison to this glorious work.
Again, for the upteenth time, we have two opposing worlds by Weir— a dichotomy. The Amish, who appear perfect for some time, on the one side. Eventually, their inevitable imperfection is revealed when they nearly shun Rachel. Yet, they end in beauty, just as they started, when they gather in a powerful communal stand. On the opposing side, we have the modern, urban world. Little good is seen of this side: cops who go about whacking people, corrupt individuals who will kill to protect themselves, tourists who treat the Amish as tropical animals, teenagers who bully peaceful people with absolutely no motivation, and women have "guests" over while their children are sleeping. Yet, a man, faced with the choice of either, chooses the latter. So the theme... In class, the majority of the guys said they would return to the city, leaving behind something imperfect, yet utopia in comparison. If Book, I would stay in a heartbeat. I think Weir would too.
I remember after quite some time had passed since we had viewed the horrifying murder, I turned to Kira and Coles and said, "Ah! I just got why it's called Witness." They replied, "Umm, yeah?" The title is genius, I agree. Samuel is witness toa murder, Samuel and Rachel are witnesses to city life, and Book (and arguably the audience) is witness to the Amish ways. 'Witness' implies a running theme of Weir's— observation. Book almost completes a transition away from his observational status, but ultimately cannot. This is possibly a statement by Weir, and if so, a controversial one. What does it mean? Are the invisible walls of societal structure too real to transcend?
1.Again, I liked this movie. It was definitely more lighthearted (the joking, the dancing) and easier to follow then the other Peter Weir films that we watched. It was more conventional than his other movies, but in some ways that made it more enjoyable.
ReplyDelete2.I think the theme of this movie is that it is hard to bring two different human cultures together, although all human cultures have a similarity — their preoccupation with law, order and hierarchy. This opposition of two different cultures and their preoccupation with low and order is common to nearly all the movies we’ve seen. For example, in Master and Commander, the doctor represents scientific-based culture with a belief in secular-humanist law system, and Captain Aubrey represents a manly honor-based culture with a belief in an almost fascist, hierarchical-based law system. In Witness, this theme of clashing two different cultures and their laws manifests itself when violent, lone wolf police officer John Book must go to Amish country to protect a witness to a brutal murder. He learns to enjoy the Amish way of life, and through his journey the moviewatchers learn the benefits and the problems of both societies. Modern culture can be violent, isolating, and with its obsession with money and material possessions it is easily corruptible. In contrast, Amish culture is family-oriented, more moral, and brings people together, but also is misogynistic and straitlaced.
In a way, I think this movie challenges the themes of some of Weir’s earlier ones. In earlier movies, the two battling cultures came together in some sort of harmony. Aubrey and the doctor are best friends. Frank and Archie, although coming from the two different backgrounds of middle-class honor and tramp survivalism, are brought together through war. However, in this film the two different cultures cannot properly mix, and Jack moves away. The two cultures are just too different.
3.Okay, I’m still not sure why this movie is called Witness. Jack Book witnesses a new world, and begins to realize the flaws of his original one. Rachel and Samuel do the same thing. But aren’t we all witnesses, really? We all witness something every day. With this in mind, it’s hard to determine the significance of the movie’s title.
1. Witness had a happy ending, which is very refreshing compared to the other films we have been watching. I loved the character of Samuel because he was so open to the world and he hadn’t decided yet whether he condemned a culture of guns and electricity or embraced it. I thought it was both hilarious and horrifying when the man was drowned in corn. The Lapps and John were very relatable. I liked the dilemma, if Book stays at the Lapps’ house, he puts them in danger but if he leaves, he will be in danger.
ReplyDelete2. The theme of tradition versus change appears in many of Weir’s films. In Witness, although the Lapps managed to get through the film without using fire weapons, they didn’t seem too upset about Book using the guns to defend them. Both Book and the Lapps had to compromise some of their values and possessions in return for safety. Book wasn’t as easygoing as the Lapps, though. He continues to use a telephone throughout the film. The entire time Book is in Amish country, he is trying to fix his car so that he can leave even while he seems to be relaxing into the Amish lifestyle. Rachel doesn’t make Book get rid of his gun when she sees it; instead she just pretends it isn’t there by hiding it in the cupboard. In the end of Master and Commander, Captain Aubrey hasn’t changed his mind about tradition being the best way. He just compromises.
3. Book is witnessing the Amish way of life. Samuel is witnessing the violence of life. In the end of the movie, Schaeffer doesn’t kill Book because the Amish people are there to witness the act.
I didn't really enjoy this movie. I liked this movie in spurts, but that was definitely not a good enough reason to say that I liked the film. I enjoyed the beginning then felt bored by the middle and then I liked the end. In the middle of the film I often found myself thinking about what chewbacca would be like in this movie. I felt like there were so many scenes that didn't offer much to the overall plot of the film.
ReplyDelete2. This film, like all of the other films we've seen, is about two different worlds. He doesn't want to say that one world is better than the other. His objective is just to show both worlds and to let the viewer decide which one is best. This has been seen in Master and Commander, Last Wave, and The Year of Living Dangerously. Weir presents the problems that we have in our world through the murder in Philly then compares it to the pacifist ways of the Amish world. He shows us that Harrison Ford chooses to deal with problem instead of doing nothing. This is why he goes back to Philadelphia instead of staying in Lancaster county. This is also why he chooses his "own way" when it comes to bullies. It's just the same Peter Weir theme in a different setting. For the same reason I believe that this movie is called witness because Harrison Ford and the viewer are witnessing two different worlds. Samuel at the beginning is seeing a different world for the first time and so is Harrison Ford.
1. I really enjoyed it and found it very entertaining. I got a very different feel from this movie than I got from the others we’ve watched. The other films either had a mystical/mysterious element or a war/combat one. Witness seemed entirely different. Although still very action-packed, it seemed to convey slightly different messages. The main focus seemed to be the contrast between two worlds and what they can learn from each other.
ReplyDelete2. As I said above, the main theme in Witness is the contrast between our world and a world completely different from ours. We know how our world works, but in this film we are exposed to an entirely new way of living. We come to love Rachel and her son Samuel as two completely innocent Amish people that are dropped in to the middle of our very different way of living. Our world is reflected back to us through their eyes when they are thrown in to the midst of a murder. Contrasting it to Rachel and her son, it seems violent and scary. This emphasizes what is wrong with our way of living. On the other hand, when Book lives with the Amish we see that living in our world can be a good thing as well. If John Book had not been with Rachel and Samuel when the bad police arrived, there would have been nothing they could have done. The Amish would not have fought back, but Book could. In Master and Commander, we have two very opposite ways of living being presented. Captain Jack Aubrey stands for the manly side of war, while Stephen stands for the more nurturing side of nature. Both ways of living are reflected by contrasting them to one another. Both the good and the bad.
3. Samuel not only witnessed a gruesome murder, but he also witnessed a great statue, countryside he had never seen, the inside of a police busy police station, hot dogs, the possible need of violence to protect yourself, and so forth. Samuel and Rachel witnessed an entirely new lifestyle. Obviously lessons were learned for both of them while witnessing another place. The same goes for Book. He was going through and living his life in an entirely one-sided way, but once he witnessed the way of the Amish, things seemed to change for him. Although he went home in the end, he got something from witnessing the Amish lifestyle.
I didn’t really like this movie. In the first half, I thought there were a lot of interesting images and interactions between characters, but by the second half it really became the Harrison Ford show. The character of Rachel was completely phased out by the final act, therefore I didn’t feel bad when Rachel and John were separated because Rachel felt very empty and absent in the last half of the film. Same goes for Samuel, I thought that he was one of the emotional anchors of the film, but he is noticeably absent from the last half as well. Both characters are there and on screen, but they aren’t doing much; it’s all Harrison Ford. It makes sense, since Harrison Ford is who people are showing up to film for, but there is a disservice being done to Samuel and Rachel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone, the film is definitely about the order and chaos that comes from tradition. You have the tradition of not ratting out other cops being broken by Harrison Ford, which leads to the chaos of him getting shot and having to hide. You have the tradition of staying passive as an Amish person in the face of a civilian’s ridicule. The Amish people are very set on tradition, and John coming into their existence is a real shake up for them. Peter Weir must have been really slapped around by some teachers or something for breaking the rules, because he really hates the idea of people being confined by standards and tradition.
I think the human race is witness to a lot of horrific, and the majority of the time nobody says anything about those incidents. The scene of when the regular teens put ice cream on the Amish is example of that. That is something that goes unpunished before John steps in, but it’s the fault of both the teens for doing it and the Amish for letting it happen. We allow a lot of terrible things to happen to us out of fear or, in this case, tradition, and it takes stepping back or fresh eyes to the situation to realize that we shouldn’t submit ourselves to that kind of treatment. Samuel is the first witness to a murder, but every other individual in the film is witness to a mistreatment or an unfortunate encounter. In a way, life is more about witnessing things than it is about experiencing them. This explores that idea.
This was one of my favorite movies we have watched so far. In some ways, this movie is much different than Last Wave and Picnic at Hanging Rock. It is much more conventional I feel, making it easier to watch. It does have many of the characteristics Weir's other movies contain--the music, beautiful shots, not the most satisfying ending. Harrison Ford's character, a harsh policeman from Philly, seems to do a 180 when he comes into the Amish community, building houses and being part of a family. Unable to maintain these Amish ways, he punches a kid for making fun of the Amish and murders two police men, right in front of all the Amish people he has been living with. They, like Samuel, are witnesses. John Book seems to have changed into a better person when he meets these good Amish people, but ends up doing another 180 and starts off just as un-Amish-like as he was before. Does he change from the beginning of the movie? I think when he leaves Rachel and Samuel at the end, though he is not a completely different person, his values have altered. Though the Amish people witness all this brutality in such a short period of time, they don't seem to change. It is the people who do wrong in the Amish people's eyes that end up changing in this movie. I think the Amish being witnesses to these horrors has something to do with a theme, the Amish representing purity and simplicity and piety and all that is good, but I don't know what it would be. Because of the Amish in the movie, we notice how different we act than the; we see the contrast between the two worlds. This is almost critiquing the wrong going on in the world, more specifically the police force in Philly.
ReplyDelete1. Ehhhhhhhhhh. I think I would have liked this movie better if Samuel were the main character. I feel like he was a doorway for John to walk through as opposed to his own character. I would have loved to have seen the entire movie from his perspective. It wasn't a bad movie, but there was a point where it dragged a bit. I was at least happy that though John didn't stay (which I would have rather he did) Rachel didn't go with him, which to me was awesome.
ReplyDelete2. Social differences. Control. Spirituality vs. Law, two different points of view. John reminded me of Aubrey in the way that he, in the end, was very narrow mindedly focused on a goal despite a period in the middle where it seemed like he might do something else. Also in that he believed very firmly in his way of doing things. One thing that always seems to be present in Weir's films when there's an apparent separation between the views of Stephen and Aubrey or the Amish and John, each one has laws. There's always a system of governing. The Amish have their rules, John has his, Aubrey has his tradition and belief that man must governed, even science has rules. I don't know that I believe man MUST be governed, but I certainly think that structure exists in nature and that we can't help but create it for ourselves. Perhaps we haven't found the right way yet, but even more likely is that there is no right or perfect way and I think Weir explores that idea.
3. A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. Both Samuel and John witness and gain knowledge from worlds that are new to them, particularly John. I'm not entirely sure if at the end of the movie he learned anything from it, but he definitely became aware of it.
1. I liked the movie over all because many parts of it were both funny and dramatic. It was interesting how these two parts worked together to make the funny things funnier and the dramatic things more dramatic. I did not really like the end of the movie. I really expected Book to end up living with the Amish. I guess that it was symbolic that he did not. It symbolized how he was not like them, but I think the movie should have been about him changing to be more wise and peaceful. At the end of that movie he might have died. I think that his death at the hands of his violent coworkers after he realized that peace was the only true path to happiness would have been a way better movie than him going on living after learning very little to nothing about life. I know that the movie was trying to convey a message about how modern people don’t care enough about life, but it could have conveyed this message just as well if the ending had been absolute rather than vague and depressing.
ReplyDelete2. This movie shares not only a theme, but also a basic plot with some of the other movies we have watched. I thought that it was very similar to the last wave in that a person from what one might call normal society found themselves surrounded by another group of people with different views on life. In Gallipoli the general structure was slightly different but still very recognizable. In Gallipoli the main characters come from the small group and find themselves immersed in society. All three of these movies share one theme. Society is bad. I think that this is a theme in all weir films including master and commander. I know that we have had many debates about the good and the bad things about tradition and change. In master and commander tradition represents what society represents in Weirs other movies. His other movies are obviously built to show us what is wrong with the world we live in, so I think that master and commander is probably built around showing us what was wrong with tradition. To summarize, Whiteness’ primary purpose is to show the viewer what is wrong with today’s society from an objective point of view. It shares this theme with all of weirs other movies on some level.
3. I think that the whiteness is the viewer. As is said in my last answer, Weir is showing us what it wrong with the modern world. Both the viewer and Book are whiteness’ to this during the movie. During this film we see the world through the eyes of the Amish. The Amish do not like technology. Technology is a symbol for the modern world in this movie. That means the Amish do not like the modern world. In this film we are shown why. We are witnesses to what is wrong with our society.
I somewhat liked Witness. Okay, I definitely didn't hate it. I just thought that some of it was overdone and too much. When I told my parents that we had just watched Witness, my mom groaned and said that she was okay not watching that movie again. I don't want to rain on any parade here, but I don't actually think that Harrison Ford is that great of an actor. I talked this over with my dad and evidently he did a fair job as Han Solo. However, seeing as I have never seen Star Wars, I am not one to critic his acting in that film.
ReplyDeleteAs for the theme and what the movie is about...these questions are the ones that frustrate me. Not because I don't feel like putting in the effort, I do, but because there is no definite and clear answer. It's open for interpretation. Usually I love doing that kind of work, but with this film it is a little bit different. Was it only about love? No. Was it a story of a man and his journey of self-discovery? Possibly. Did the movie focus on the "quaint" lives of the Amish to make the viewer think about how their life compared? Could be. Peter Weir definitely seems to have many of the same themes in his movies. Often there is some sort of relationship between two groups. As John continues to point out (way to stay observant Jcap), there seems to be a theme of two figures. One light and the other dark. Sometimes this is represented in hair color (Master and Commander, Gallipoli, Picnic at Hanging Rock) and sometimes with race (The Last Wave).
I think the reason for the title is more than just the fact that Samuel was a witness. I think it applies to all of the Amish people at the end of the movie and even beyond that. A witness changes everything. If there is a witness, there is another person who sees something. Another opinion can be formed. We are all witnesses of the movie.
This was one of my favorite Peter Weir movies that we’ve watched so far. Witness really gave a different vibe from Peter Weir compared to The Last Wave or Picnic at Hanging Rock as it was more conventional and lighthearted at some points. I liked having a somewhat “happy” ending, but in a way, it was still Weir’s typical unanswered ending too. Despite it’s differences from the other mysterious/plain weird Peter Weir movies we’ve seen, Witness still has beautiful cinematography and unique music choices.
ReplyDeleteAs basically everyone else has said, the movie is really about Weir’s favorite theme of tradition and the clash between two different worlds, the closed off Amish country (traditional world) and the city life of Philadelphia. We watch as Samuel encounters an entirely new world from the Amish and as John learns about the Amish culture, so we also learn to see these two different worlds from their eyes. Witness can relate to The Last Wave & Master and Commander in this sense of tradition being a major theme. Jack Aubrey and John Book are similar in their beliefs of laws and rules while the Amish and Stephen focus more on nature.
Starting in the beginning with Samuel witnessing the murder in the bathroom, all of the most important scenes of the movie have some sort of onlooker, someone who is witnessing the unfolding of events. After the bathroom scene there’s the one when the Amish are stopped and taunted by teenagers and John Book stands as a witness, only he decides to do something about it. In the end, all of the Amish rush to the sound of the bell and are there as witnesses when John Book’s and Samuel’s lives are threatened. Like Jenny said, the movie explores the idea of individuals witnessing the mistreatment or unfortunate experiences of another person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the movie, mostly because I felt as though the characters made pretty realistic choices. I think it would’ve been easy to have Rachel and John stay together, or to have John conform to the Amish views of being antiviolence. But I think it was interesting to see how hard it was for John to try and be peaceful. Like I said in class, John was ready to spring into violence when the punks started to harass Danny.
ReplyDeleteI think that the movie leaves the audience wondering what affect Book will have on this community, especially Samuel. As we see, Samuel has been exposed to these two different worlds, and he is still trying to figure out what kind of beliefs he will hold for the rest of his life. Like John said on Friday, we see this theme in Master and Commander: will Blakely be Aubrey or Steven? We see a younger generation observing the conflict of an older generation, and they have to decide if they will carry the traditions or change society.
Obviously, the Amish people were there to witness the violence of when the ‘English’ came to kill john, but in a way the audience is a witness as well. Like so many other Weir films, we are introduced into this community that we are not familiar with; and then we have to decide how we feel about the actions of the characters. And like Samuel, we are confronted with the negatives our society, and then we must decide which world we would have chosen.
1. I really like this movie. I thought Weir did a great job with this movie, especially handling the touchy subject of bringing in someone else’s religion, especially one that is the butt of many jokes. It’s difficult to broach that subject and I think Weir does it in a good way, while still being slightly tongue in cheek about it.
ReplyDelete2. I completely agree with Madeleine: the main theme of this movie is how other cultures affect you. To an extent, it reminds me of a question I’ve heard before: If you don’t believe in a certain religion’s deity, can they still smite/affect you? If you don’t believe in someone else’s system or lifestyle, you usually don’t have to take part in it, until it directly affects you. Now how do you deal with taking part in a foreign entity? Both Samuel/Rachel and Book struggle with this throughout the movie, and it becomes a common theme.
3. “Witness” definitely doesn't apply to only Samuel witnessing a murder. It applies to different cultures witnessing other cultures as they co-exist. The “English” in John Book witnessing the way the Amish live, and the Amish in Rachel and Samuel witnessing the way the “English” live in Philadelphia.