Toni Morrison’s’ “The Bluest Eye” is written about black families living in poverty. The two main characters, Pecola and Claudia are preteens who share different views of their African American culture. Claudia is more secure and satisfied with being African American. Pecola, however, wants nothing more than to look like her idol, Shirley Temple.
The girls struggle through life with completely different families. Claudia comes from a loving home whereas Pecola comes from a family that is rather dysfunctional. Her father is an alcoholic that is unreliable and forceful; her mother is hard working but shows more love for her boss’s white child. Pecola never received love, she only got the repeated message that she was ugly. Claudia hated that black people, like Pecola, wanted to be white. She refused to play with a white baby doll and she ripped it apart to find out why everyone loves it. She doesn’t find anything different on the inside.
Claudia and Pecola represent more than just two children living hard lives. The message is showing the hardships of these African American families and also how obsessing over something you cant have can drive a person mad. People need to be secure with themselves and understand that differences in people make them unique. Pecola drives herself mad because she wants to have the ‘bluest eyes’.
Toni Morrison does a thorough job explaining the difficulties these characters faced, but the narration got to be a bit confusing. At times it is not clear of who is speaking or even what they are trying to say. The book is geared more towards African American women and their understanding of the happenings in the girls’ lives. The book can teach a lesson to all people who are willing to keep an open mind.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
documentary
I feel that a documentary is a production that is intended for educational purposes. It can be used for classroom purposes, but it may lend its knowledge to anyone who wants to learn more on a specific topic. We have seen many different clips in class that have forced us to look at a topic more in-depth and create our own point of view on the subject. Basically any type of segment that is geared towards making people gain knowledge on a subject could be considered a documentary; reality shows, news stories, and the like can inform individuals on a subject they might not have previously been aware of or known much about. When looking at how documentaries have changed over time, you can see a clear difference with the media that is available for a particular time period.
When we watched “A Class Divided” we were watching a news special on an event that happened in the 1960’s. It has been a useful tool for everyone to learn about discrimination. That clip differs from some things that are available today. We have new ways to get media and watch a documentary. Internet sites, such as youtube.com, now allow people to watch and post documentaries. We now have a larger selection to choose from and a chance to add our comments. We in a sense become our own gatekeepers. People can choose to watch documentaries on television or on the internet and also what documentaries they want to watch. There is pretty much something for everyone. I had never really worked with youtube.com, so I was not completely sure of what all was out there, but if I found that if I need to search for a topic this site makes it much easier to find a documentary. I went to youtube.com and simply typed in “documentary” and found pages of documentaries from strange things such as, how to eat sushi all the way to more serious things like child abuse.
When I think of a documentary I think of a show that is focused on exposing something or educating people on a topic. It is very impressive when experts are used to reinforce this information and make it more credible. Upon watching some of the documentaries I was shocked to see some of the people who produced them. One guy sounded like he dropped out of school in the eighth grade, while others were produced by more credible sources such as PBS. I also find that feelings can be evoked by music in certain circumstances. If the documentary is on something that is sad, a slow song would add to the effect and make people feel how they people feel in the production. I personally do not find it mandatory to have a narrator, but it is helpful.
Documentaries could be produced by anyone, but it is up to the viewer to choose what they want to watch and if it is credible or not. I read on a website (http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040702docs.html) that Morgan Spurlock used a definition from Webster’s dictionary while describing a documentary as, “A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.” I feel that this definition is quite clear and concise as to what a documentary could fall under.
When we watched “A Class Divided” we were watching a news special on an event that happened in the 1960’s. It has been a useful tool for everyone to learn about discrimination. That clip differs from some things that are available today. We have new ways to get media and watch a documentary. Internet sites, such as youtube.com, now allow people to watch and post documentaries. We now have a larger selection to choose from and a chance to add our comments. We in a sense become our own gatekeepers. People can choose to watch documentaries on television or on the internet and also what documentaries they want to watch. There is pretty much something for everyone. I had never really worked with youtube.com, so I was not completely sure of what all was out there, but if I found that if I need to search for a topic this site makes it much easier to find a documentary. I went to youtube.com and simply typed in “documentary” and found pages of documentaries from strange things such as, how to eat sushi all the way to more serious things like child abuse.
When I think of a documentary I think of a show that is focused on exposing something or educating people on a topic. It is very impressive when experts are used to reinforce this information and make it more credible. Upon watching some of the documentaries I was shocked to see some of the people who produced them. One guy sounded like he dropped out of school in the eighth grade, while others were produced by more credible sources such as PBS. I also find that feelings can be evoked by music in certain circumstances. If the documentary is on something that is sad, a slow song would add to the effect and make people feel how they people feel in the production. I personally do not find it mandatory to have a narrator, but it is helpful.
Documentaries could be produced by anyone, but it is up to the viewer to choose what they want to watch and if it is credible or not. I read on a website (http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040702docs.html) that Morgan Spurlock used a definition from Webster’s dictionary while describing a documentary as, “A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.” I feel that this definition is quite clear and concise as to what a documentary could fall under.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
30 days
The second season of an FX hit “30 Days” has proved to be rather controversial. With issues on, Immigration, Religion, and Jail the show may leave some viewers feeling a bit heated. According the FX website, the executive producer, Morgan Spurlock, is known for the production of his own movie, “Super Size Me”, where he documents his daily eating habits at a fast food restaurant chain. Spurlock captured the essence of reality television by allowing his life to be filmed without any outside interference.
The hit show “30 Days” continues his success by looking at more charged issues and allowing viewers to experience life from a different point of view. A person from a different culture or background is put in a setting for 30 days that they are not familiar with and they have no control as to what happens to them. The show documents the 30 days to see what changes, if any are made by this enriching experience.
A recent episode on Immigration allowed a self appointed Minuteman, “Frank”, to move into a home with a family of illegal immigrants. Frank was born in another country, but migrated with his family legally. He feels that it is his duty to pick up the governments slack and enforce the immigration laws. His new family for the next 30 days feels that they should be granted citizenship and immigration should be accepted in the United States.
The opening scene is a view of the Statue of Liberty while her message, “The New Colossus”, is narrated in the background, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is a message that seems to go against the laws of the country. The illegal family, Paty, Rigo, and their children are confused as to why they cannot be part of this country; they are tired, poor, yearning to breathe free and pretty much homeless. Frank feels that they would be welcomed if they immigrated legally. What he does not yet realize is how hard legal immigration is for a poverty stricken family coming from nothing to a land of opportunity. The want, the need and the desire to be an American is overwhelming. The challenge of the film is for Frank to overcome his preconceived stereotypes, but it may prove to be harder some think. Author Walter Lippman discusses that people tend to associate with those that are most like them and make treaties and laws that benefit them, but what they do not know is how these laws will affect those who are not like them. The documentary forces Frank to experience a different culture and makes him examine his beliefs about the laws of the country that he calls home.
The documentary covers many different angles and is brilliantly filmed, which gets two thumbs up review from me. The producers do an excellent job at allowing both sides to be shown without focusing more on one side or another. The main gatekeeper for this show is the viewer. It is up to the viewers to watch the documentary that is pitted up against other hour long shows at this hour. The agenda setting is done by the schedule of the show in many different ways, such as the time it is aired, and also what the producers want the viewers to see from each episode in the way that it is filmed and edited. The filmmakers only have an hour to get across the information they want their viewers to see, feel and interpret. Controversial topics allow viewers to form their own opinions through the agenda of the producers. The documentary will keep viewers on the edge of their seats if they feel particularly strong about a certain subject. I would definitely recommend anyone to challenge themselves by watching this program for an hour, or even better yet: live the life of someone else for “30 days”.
The hit show “30 Days” continues his success by looking at more charged issues and allowing viewers to experience life from a different point of view. A person from a different culture or background is put in a setting for 30 days that they are not familiar with and they have no control as to what happens to them. The show documents the 30 days to see what changes, if any are made by this enriching experience.
A recent episode on Immigration allowed a self appointed Minuteman, “Frank”, to move into a home with a family of illegal immigrants. Frank was born in another country, but migrated with his family legally. He feels that it is his duty to pick up the governments slack and enforce the immigration laws. His new family for the next 30 days feels that they should be granted citizenship and immigration should be accepted in the United States.
The opening scene is a view of the Statue of Liberty while her message, “The New Colossus”, is narrated in the background, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is a message that seems to go against the laws of the country. The illegal family, Paty, Rigo, and their children are confused as to why they cannot be part of this country; they are tired, poor, yearning to breathe free and pretty much homeless. Frank feels that they would be welcomed if they immigrated legally. What he does not yet realize is how hard legal immigration is for a poverty stricken family coming from nothing to a land of opportunity. The want, the need and the desire to be an American is overwhelming. The challenge of the film is for Frank to overcome his preconceived stereotypes, but it may prove to be harder some think. Author Walter Lippman discusses that people tend to associate with those that are most like them and make treaties and laws that benefit them, but what they do not know is how these laws will affect those who are not like them. The documentary forces Frank to experience a different culture and makes him examine his beliefs about the laws of the country that he calls home.
The documentary covers many different angles and is brilliantly filmed, which gets two thumbs up review from me. The producers do an excellent job at allowing both sides to be shown without focusing more on one side or another. The main gatekeeper for this show is the viewer. It is up to the viewers to watch the documentary that is pitted up against other hour long shows at this hour. The agenda setting is done by the schedule of the show in many different ways, such as the time it is aired, and also what the producers want the viewers to see from each episode in the way that it is filmed and edited. The filmmakers only have an hour to get across the information they want their viewers to see, feel and interpret. Controversial topics allow viewers to form their own opinions through the agenda of the producers. The documentary will keep viewers on the edge of their seats if they feel particularly strong about a certain subject. I would definitely recommend anyone to challenge themselves by watching this program for an hour, or even better yet: live the life of someone else for “30 days”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
