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.

Trusty Liberal Arts Education

Lippman's discussion of stereotypes repeatedly reminded me of the literary critical approach of semiotics. Semiotics maintains that one can never know the signified (the actual thing) but only the signs (representations) for it. The classic example is apple. The word "apple" is a sign that brings to mind the taste, smell, color, of apples perhaps along with personal anecdotes of making apple sauce as a child, or stealing crab apples from the neighbor's yard, or bobbing for apples. All of these things are signs for the actual thing. They are what is associated the apple, they represent the apple, but they are not in fact the apple. This theory is a little dense, but the following quote from Lippman seemed to me as though it could just as easily have been talking about semiotic theory. "Thus there can be little doubt that the moving picture is steadily building up imagery which is then evoked by the words people read in their newspapers." (Walter Lippman p. 50).
I wanted to make this connection because the reason for cluster courses (or at least the most basic reasons that I have heard) is that students were not making the connections between their classes. I feel as though I usually do make connections among my classes, and a lot of times a concept from, say English class, will help me understand another theory in Communications, Sociology, etcetera.

A Comfortable Expectation

"Our stereotyped world is not necessarily the world we should like it to be. It is simply the kind of world we expect it to be." (Walter Lippman p. 57)
I love this passage from Lippman. It makes sense to me and speaks to the world I live in and percieve. It reminds me of that old idea that going into something with a negative attitude probably lends to having a negative experience. I think this basic idea is there, but something deeper as well. What we have seen, experienced, or been told dictate (in part) what we expect from the future. For example if a toddler throws his spoon on the floor and his mom picks it up, he throws it again to see if she will do it again (I am stereotyping right now assuming that it would be the mother feeding this child instead of its father, brother, grandfather, grandmother, social worker etc.). It becomes a game. He knows his mom will go to pick up the spoon. If she keeps the spoon instead of giving it back as before, the toddler may make a fuss. Okay, so that is a bit of a stretch, but things that are unexpected often throw us for loops and we try to rationalize and fit these events into the formula of past experience. We get fussy when things do not fit in that box of expectation; when things do not fit into the pictures in our mind. To me, Lippman's idea of stereotype is the same idea. It is comfortable to fit people and events into a rubric. Like when you are reading and you see the first few letters of a word and assume that you know what that word is and continue reading, sometimes needing to return to that word and realize that instead of "whole" it said "whore" changing the meaning drastically.

Once Upon a Time Warner

AOL instant messenger is a part of Time Warner's internet department and as we read in the chapter is a company that has been revolutionary in the areas of concentration of ownership and synergy. After the AOL and Time Warner merger, (now called just "Time Warner") the company grew in power and breadth of influence. How does this influence me? Well considering AOL instant messenger is a communication form and I usually ignore the obnoxious pop ups and format my settings in such a way that aim today does not assail my screen every time I sign on, I would say that the influence in this particular case may be less than in others. However for the sake of argument if I had the immediate appearance of aim.com set, I would daily be subject to the advertisements of films etc that Time Warner is producing at the time. This is the idea of synergy; that all components of this company work together in promoting itself. It makes sense. It also makes me think of Marx and the means of production. The privileged own the means of production, and whether we are aware or not, sometimes what seems like an outside endorsement of a product or film is really not neutral and objective in the least, but connected to the company in a deeply rooted way.

media and the pictures in my mind

I think that some media influence the pictures in our minds more than others. Television is powerful in creating and perpetuating these pictures because it affects multiple senses at once and can present ideas through visual images that one might not pick up on consciously. I guess most things are subtle in this area, but my thoughts are lingering on television. Sitcoms, for example perpetuate typical/stereotypical roles of gender, race, age etc. through dialogue and situation. I think the more media engaged the more messages one ingests.
I heard somewhere that when a ship landed for the first time, the people on the shore did not see it because it was foreign to them. In other words it was invisible because in the minds of the viewers it did not exist. They were looking at the ocean expecting to see just ocean and this is what they saw. I am not sure where I heard this, what the context was, or if it is at all true, but the point speaks to our class discussion. We see what we expect to see and are often blind to things that are out of the norm. We interpret the world every day and create our own reality. I was thinking the other day about how I react to things. I found out last week that my grandmother in all likelihood has only a few months to live. I cried, I was upset, most would be, but my life has not changed. Later that day (after I was told "the news") I was talking and laughing and having fun. It seems like I should have been more affected for a longer period of time. I guess what I am thinking here is that, like with other things, I create a reality. I am not explaining my thought well, probably because I do not want to expose my soul or anything like that. Have you ever had something terrible happen and then wonder at how unaffected you are? Or wonder at how you could be so "normal" so fast? I think that this "pictures in your head" idea connects to many things. I think that the stereotypes and expectations of the world that each of us have are safe. They are what we perceive as normal. When something shocks us or jumps outside of that box we strive like mad to get back to that picture because it is what we understand. I only understand a world that my grandmother is in, existing and living. It's not real to me that she will not be there/here.
I think this links to the media and our interpretations because we do the same thing there. I think that we absorb from the media things that alter the reality we perceive. I think that it is easier to alter and change your reality unconsciously rather than consciously. I think that analyzing the messages we see and hear everyday can help the process become a little more conscious. I also think that we compartmentalize things that do not fit with our picture (sometimes).