After being told that her book wasn't worth publishing and struggling for her voice to be heard, Toni Morrison's words entered the realm of literature. She wrote to give courage to black females and give them a story of her own childhood to relate to. She told a tale of idea of beauty, of culture, and an individual's struggle of embracing herself, or the lack of.
The Bluest Eye was finally published in 1970 by Plume Books and now is a national best seller and an Oprah Book Club book. Toni Morrison also received a Nobel Peace Prize in literature. Her story is of a girl embedded in her juvenile memories. Pecola Breedlove grew up in a household of hate, violence, and abuse. It broke her spirit to trying to obtain the impossible.
What I commend the most within this novel is the ability to see through Claudia's (the narrator) eyes to another time. I was not a daughter of black family growing up in Ohio in the time of the perfect Shirley Temple dolls beautiful white models. However, through Morrison, I saw, if even just a glimpse, of what Pecola struggled with personally. It hurt me to think a girl as young as her could truly, and whole heartedly, desired to, "rise up out of the pit of her blackness and see the world with blue eyes." (pg. 174) as Soaphead Church explained. At one point in her youth, she thought dandelions were pretty and could not understand why others thought of them as weeds. When you outward expression of hatred towards these flowers begain, so did her internal decline of herself. As she saw in movies, only pretty girls had blue eyes and their life was only one to dream of. She, on the other hand, had the worse life a small girl could imagine. she thought if only she had blue eyes would the world see her as beautiful too. The fertility of the soil was mentioned and that merigolds did not grow the season Pecola's baby was to be born. Pecola always felt like she was from bad soil as well and would never grow into a flower.
I think anyone can read this book and be motivated to define who they are rather than be defined by someone else. Especially in today's society, our youth lack the self-exploration that I remember in myself. They are defined even more by what is pretty or where they stand in society. Society sets standards, but there is nothing locking an individual into a poor, or rich for that matter, life. You make of it what you want and you get out what you put in. I wish not to seem to over-look the idea of white privilege and that some individuals recieve "benefits" in society, but how will we ever change this if we don't start somewhere now and work towards greater equality? I talk of allowing individuals to establish their own values, or virtues. Morrison says in an interview, "The virtues are things you work for. To be forthright. To be educated. To be in control. To be diplomatic. To be healthy. To be graceful. These are the things you can work for. You can get them. They are available to you."
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
What is a documentary in today's dictionary?
A documentary should play the role of the mother by the bedside of her child telling of a time when she was young. It should be a medium to tell the story of a specific person or group of people. A mother experienced her own story, and a producer should do the same through those who lived the story. But how does this story evolve into something the public considers a documentary?
When I think of documentary, my first thought goes to the National Geographic shows of foreign lands or people I had never heard of before. I would still include these programs in my definition along with broadcast news stories, the minuteman program, and the Hmong film. I think in these examples, music wasn’t a key point, but it did help convey the emotion the narrator wanted the viewer to experience. However, I feel that reality television is scripted. Yes, it is showing a story of a real life person that has the interest of its viewers, but what is the point of telling this story? Is it something different that a majority of the viewers need to be informed of because they haven’t experienced it?
I think the role of producers is not to use documentaries as a medium of self-expression but as something more powerful. As Patricia Finneran, director of the SilverDocs documentary film festival said, "The role of the artist is often to challenge the status quo and force us to question our understanding of reality. The best result that can come out of the controversy surrounding 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is for all of us to question the intentions and manipulations of not just documentary filmmakers, but all media makers." It's purpose is initiate thought and inform its viewers.
When reading an article by Eugene Hernandez, many influential people, including Morgan Spurlock, Michael Moore, and Bingham Ray, of the field gave their defitintion of a documentary. I disagree with the idea that if it is non-fiction it is a documentary. I don't think Supersize Me or Jackass should be in the same category as National Geographic. These "documentaries" were created with a specific message to tell, not a story with the purpose to inform. I am be unrealistic in that there is no objective point of view in media, but I don't think it should be propaganda.
In today’s world, a critic must take into account the consumers of documentaries. A producer can create a story, but who will watch it? These stories, often human interest, need to take the attention of those who are willing to purchase their work. As you can see, a consumer can bring their documentaries to their home with a small fee to watch clips of foster care, the prison system, and other stories they the majority have never experienced themselves. To me, the purpose of a documentary isn't to make money for a producer, but to give a lounder voice to an indivdual. Gratification theory finds its home here. This is where I find fault in today's definition. I see a documentary being any story that needs to be told, not just a story that the consumers of media find interesting.
To summarize my thoughts, I would lay down a few criteria to meet to establish a film or story becoming a documentary. First, the story must be informing its viewers of something they are unfamiliar with. If they already know Westminster uses an overabundance of salt on their sidewalks, a documentary doesn’t need to be made entitled “The Day in the Life of the Man who salts Our Sidewalks”. The story should be real and told as unbiased as possible. My personal preference would be to allow the individuals own voice be heard and not some directors interpretation. I want to see raw footage and clips and not some magical directors trick that leads me to believe something other than the truth. I can’t control the gatekeepers, but I think there should not be an individual or agency controlling the story in a documentary. I think it is more than non-fiction, but these finer points expressed by this article seem to be in agreement with my developing idea. I agree that in today's world a documentary is a form of journalism, but I hope not in the terms of The Great Moon Hoax of 1835.
When I think of documentary, my first thought goes to the National Geographic shows of foreign lands or people I had never heard of before. I would still include these programs in my definition along with broadcast news stories, the minuteman program, and the Hmong film. I think in these examples, music wasn’t a key point, but it did help convey the emotion the narrator wanted the viewer to experience. However, I feel that reality television is scripted. Yes, it is showing a story of a real life person that has the interest of its viewers, but what is the point of telling this story? Is it something different that a majority of the viewers need to be informed of because they haven’t experienced it?
I think the role of producers is not to use documentaries as a medium of self-expression but as something more powerful. As Patricia Finneran, director of the SilverDocs documentary film festival said, "The role of the artist is often to challenge the status quo and force us to question our understanding of reality. The best result that can come out of the controversy surrounding 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is for all of us to question the intentions and manipulations of not just documentary filmmakers, but all media makers." It's purpose is initiate thought and inform its viewers.
When reading an article by Eugene Hernandez, many influential people, including Morgan Spurlock, Michael Moore, and Bingham Ray, of the field gave their defitintion of a documentary. I disagree with the idea that if it is non-fiction it is a documentary. I don't think Supersize Me or Jackass should be in the same category as National Geographic. These "documentaries" were created with a specific message to tell, not a story with the purpose to inform. I am be unrealistic in that there is no objective point of view in media, but I don't think it should be propaganda.
In today’s world, a critic must take into account the consumers of documentaries. A producer can create a story, but who will watch it? These stories, often human interest, need to take the attention of those who are willing to purchase their work. As you can see, a consumer can bring their documentaries to their home with a small fee to watch clips of foster care, the prison system, and other stories they the majority have never experienced themselves. To me, the purpose of a documentary isn't to make money for a producer, but to give a lounder voice to an indivdual. Gratification theory finds its home here. This is where I find fault in today's definition. I see a documentary being any story that needs to be told, not just a story that the consumers of media find interesting.
To summarize my thoughts, I would lay down a few criteria to meet to establish a film or story becoming a documentary. First, the story must be informing its viewers of something they are unfamiliar with. If they already know Westminster uses an overabundance of salt on their sidewalks, a documentary doesn’t need to be made entitled “The Day in the Life of the Man who salts Our Sidewalks”. The story should be real and told as unbiased as possible. My personal preference would be to allow the individuals own voice be heard and not some directors interpretation. I want to see raw footage and clips and not some magical directors trick that leads me to believe something other than the truth. I can’t control the gatekeepers, but I think there should not be an individual or agency controlling the story in a documentary. I think it is more than non-fiction, but these finer points expressed by this article seem to be in agreement with my developing idea. I agree that in today's world a documentary is a form of journalism, but I hope not in the terms of The Great Moon Hoax of 1835.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
What separates you from the moster is the emotion
When flipping through the channels and finding nothing on, I usually settle for FX. In our society today, consumers want something new and emotionally invigorating. It is like a psychological killer. He or she doesn’t have the same emotional reactions to specific situations a normal person would experience. The killer needs stronger stimuli to provoke emotions, and thus kills to feel. I feel like I am that killer searching for something meaningful on television that will provoke some kind of feelings because everything else on TV has been done. I think this was the reason for the birth of reality shows.
FX is a parental unit for just such a show. Morgan Spurlock produces “30 Days,” which incorporates an episode called ‘Immigration’. It is about a legal immigrant who spends his days as a minuteman alongside his wife patrolling the borders of the United States and Mexico. Frank George is from Cuba and is offered the proposition to spend 30 days living with an illegal family in the United States. Viewers are intrigued with the curiosity of Frank’s endeavors with the Gonsolas family. The question is prompted of whether or not, at the end of his stay, Frank will want to deport the family or support their illegal life in the United States.
Frank was an immigrant himself. I was intrigued by the fact that he had such a strong belief and support for America. He was a minuteman to protect the laws that govern the place he lives in. Lippman says, “we pick out what our culture has already defined for us”. I question if Frank whole-heartedly supported American laws, or if he did because that was what, stereotypically, a good citizen would do. As a law-abiding citizen, Frank needed to rid the country of all that was bad to make it a better place to live. Frank gave this warning, “Americans, get up and save this country or they’ll be none”. However, after living with the Gonsolas family, did Frank think America was better with or without these people?
I think the justice that Frank wanted was trying to be obtained through simple stereotypes. Frank was a minuteman to protect his country. However, Lippman says, “If we cannot fully understand the acts of other people until we know what they think they know, then in order to do justice we have to appraise not only the information which has been at their disposal, but the minds through which they have filtered it.” Frank went to Mexico and saw what the family had left behind, and to me, became more human in front of the show’s viewers. Whether it was due to the gatekeepers of reality TV, or the talent of Morgan Spurlock, I felt like Frank was reciprocating real emotions, especially with Armida who believed in the “American Dream”. To understand the means for which Frank attempts justice for his adopted country, you must understand his cognitive constructs about immigration after his 30 day experience in that one bedroom apartment.
As a critic, it touched the heart strings, but it is still the portrayal of the ideas of one man. It may have informed individuals of the struggle from both sides of the border for immigrants, and changed the simple to the more complex, for which I commend the show. It seems that the man that was rejected five times from film school has made a name for himself. However, the purpose of the show was to gain viewers in any way it could. Producers can use agenda setting to bring to light what they think are the worst issues in America. If they can gain viewers successfully because viewers accept and adopt that these issues need the most attention and action from the public, I would feel ashamed to watch another show. I would like the pictures in my head to become more complex, but I would like the power to pick my own pictures to edit.
FX is a parental unit for just such a show. Morgan Spurlock produces “30 Days,” which incorporates an episode called ‘Immigration’. It is about a legal immigrant who spends his days as a minuteman alongside his wife patrolling the borders of the United States and Mexico. Frank George is from Cuba and is offered the proposition to spend 30 days living with an illegal family in the United States. Viewers are intrigued with the curiosity of Frank’s endeavors with the Gonsolas family. The question is prompted of whether or not, at the end of his stay, Frank will want to deport the family or support their illegal life in the United States.
Frank was an immigrant himself. I was intrigued by the fact that he had such a strong belief and support for America. He was a minuteman to protect the laws that govern the place he lives in. Lippman says, “we pick out what our culture has already defined for us”. I question if Frank whole-heartedly supported American laws, or if he did because that was what, stereotypically, a good citizen would do. As a law-abiding citizen, Frank needed to rid the country of all that was bad to make it a better place to live. Frank gave this warning, “Americans, get up and save this country or they’ll be none”. However, after living with the Gonsolas family, did Frank think America was better with or without these people?
I think the justice that Frank wanted was trying to be obtained through simple stereotypes. Frank was a minuteman to protect his country. However, Lippman says, “If we cannot fully understand the acts of other people until we know what they think they know, then in order to do justice we have to appraise not only the information which has been at their disposal, but the minds through which they have filtered it.” Frank went to Mexico and saw what the family had left behind, and to me, became more human in front of the show’s viewers. Whether it was due to the gatekeepers of reality TV, or the talent of Morgan Spurlock, I felt like Frank was reciprocating real emotions, especially with Armida who believed in the “American Dream”. To understand the means for which Frank attempts justice for his adopted country, you must understand his cognitive constructs about immigration after his 30 day experience in that one bedroom apartment.
As a critic, it touched the heart strings, but it is still the portrayal of the ideas of one man. It may have informed individuals of the struggle from both sides of the border for immigrants, and changed the simple to the more complex, for which I commend the show. It seems that the man that was rejected five times from film school has made a name for himself. However, the purpose of the show was to gain viewers in any way it could. Producers can use agenda setting to bring to light what they think are the worst issues in America. If they can gain viewers successfully because viewers accept and adopt that these issues need the most attention and action from the public, I would feel ashamed to watch another show. I would like the pictures in my head to become more complex, but I would like the power to pick my own pictures to edit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
