Prize Winning Fiction

Toni Morrison’s novel The Bluest Eye is beautifully written. This work of fiction is written for African American women. It speaks to particular issues and gets inside the lives of African American women. The novel tells the story of eleven year old Pecola Breedlove. However, by jumping between various points of view the novel gains a sense of the community rather than simply one girl’s tale. Pecola’s tragic story is supplemented with glimpses of other lives that flesh out the community in which she lives. The characters jump off the page with spice and texture. Morrison paints the picture of a living breathing town with tangible issues. There is not a two dimensional character amid these pages. The closeness of the subject to the author is evident within the text. Rich in language, color, and content, the novel is a triumph.

The use of color and imagery is particularly fascinating in this work. Some passages even have a distinct smell. The novel actively engages the senses. Packed with self-hatred and concepts of what it means to be black and the levels within that construct The Bluest Eye is powerful, thought provoking, and challenging.

Documentary?

From my cursory knowledge, a documentary is a nonfiction film often with a specific message. A documentary may have music, a narrator, or captions, but most often uses special effects sparingly if at all. In a documentary the camera is held level, with little cinematic flair, in order to “document” life and reality, or at least to lend that feel to the work.

The academy defines an award eligible documentary as “a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.” If we eliminate the theatrically released element this definition fits nicely with our class projects, most of the programs we have viewed for class, and other documentaries we have discussed. However the definition of documentary makes it all the more clear why 30 days was termed a “quasi-documentary” show. As with most reality television, the show seems to edit and manipulate the actual events often to alter the reality drastically. Because reality television is focused on ratings it fictionalizes the subject matter more that a documentary should.

The projects for this class should be held to a similar definition. We are aiming to create a true and accurate documentary. Our projects will highlight a true, rather than fictional, story. While there is a wide variety of elements that can be used in our documentaries, there is also a kind of balance that needs to be present. This balance consists of using technology (editing etcetera) without altering the truth. In the end, it is necessary to look at how the work is a complete project as well as how honest it is. Is the documentary well put together? Is it coherent? Is there a clear stance or message presented? Is this documentary true and fair to the participant? I believe these are the things that should be looked for in our projects.

Aliens: Not The Little Green Kind

Every form of media has a certain slant and 30 Days is no exception. In fact Morgan Spurlock’s quasi-documentary reality show 30 Days is arguably more biased than others. The premiere episode entitled appropriately “Immigration” is full of emotional pulls that push an agenda. Spurlock is known for this style of project having been the director and producer of Super Size Me, a film that examined and experimented U.S. fast food tendencies. 30 Days, like most reality television shows puts “ordinary people” in unusual positions. Frankly, the people in this show fit the purpose of pushing a sympathetic attitude toward illegal immigration and immigrants.

The viewer is first introduced to Frank, a Latino minuteman who patrols the U.S.-Mexico border and informs border patrol when illegal crossers are spotted. Frank is loud, somewhat offensive, extremely patriotic, and at least at first comes off as almost combatant. He believes firmly in his volunteer work as a minuteman (which began after the infamous attacks on September 11, 2001). After a brief introduction to Frank, he moves in for 30 days the Gonzales family. The Gonzales family consists of two parents and 5 children. While the two youngest children are legal aliens, the rest of the family is residing in the United States illegally.

The main conflict in the episode is the differing opinions on immigration. Frank disagrees with illegal immigration and is quite passionate in his arguments. The Gonzales family is for the allowance of immigration. Their daughter, Armida, seems the most articulate and passionate about the issue and sparks discussions with Frank on the issue. Frank and Armida go toe to toe in discussions, but seem to say the same things. Armida cannot understand why Frank is so unforgiving of illegal aliens.

The purpose of the episode seems to be to persuade its audience to be pro-immigration or at least more lenient in the area of illegal immigrants. The episode used particular devices in trying to get the “immigration sympathetic” response. There was a strategic use of music and shots of empty streets that added to the emotional pull of certain scenes. These flashes of poignant music and deserted lonely reality were consistently seen after a tearful moment or a moving discussion of Armida’s college dreams.

Another convenient aspect of the show was Frank’s personality in contrast with the Gonzales clan. He is a rather obnoxious guy while the family is inviting and easily liked. The comparable softness of the Gonzales family made them easier to relate to. In effect, Frank was easier to demonize because he often came off as harsh.

It was also a bit contrived when, in the early scenes, the family and Frank went out to a Mexican restaurant with Armida’s white male teacher. The dinner was to celebrate Armida’s scholastic achievement, but it digressed into a heated debate about illegal immigration between Frank and the teacher. This scene seemed to extend the cultural line and emphasize the (apparently) ironic stance of the attendees due to the cultural and racial backgrounds of each. The restaurant scene is a prime example of how the show plays with the pictures in your head in an effort to persuade. The ethnicity of the dinner party and its location were not coincidence.

It is interesting that the episode never really persuades for a specific policy, rather plays on an emotional response to the situation of illegal immigrants, the Gonzales family, and especially Armida’s college aspirations. A poster toward the end of the episode encompasses the argument made by the show. The poster simply reads: “no human being is illegal.” Frank brings this together by saying “there comes a time when you love people for who they are… all politics aside.” Ironically the show does not put politics aside, but makes it the focal point. Although there is not a specific policy stated in the episode, pushing the illegal immigrant issue is an obvious agenda, and is approached with an obvious slant.

While the episode attempted to emotionally pull the viewer to a certain view on the immigration issue, in the end I believe it failed. It failed because the same issue that is at work within the episode is at work in its audience. As Walter Lippman writes “the systems of stereotypes may be the core of our personal tradition, the defenses of our position in society.” The positions of Frank, Armida, and the audience members were ultimately preserved. Frank resumed his position as a minuteman, Armida continued her pursuit of education and her support of the immigration cause, and the audience went back to their lives. Who am I to say that no single viewer changed their mind or broadened their view, but in all likelihood individuals left with the same attitudes that came with.