"The Bluest Eye" Review

“The Bluest Eye” is a novel by Toni Morrison that was first published in 1970. The story follows the life of an 11 year old African American girl, Pecola Breedlove, and her daily struggle in being black. The audience is introduced to Pecola’s friends, Frieda and Claudia MacTeer. Beauty is a main theme through out the novel, and Shirley Temple was a beauty icon for little girls during the time period. Claudia despised the idea that white skin and blue eyes equals beauty, but Pecola feel into the trap. She desired blue eyes because she felt that they would make her less ugly. Because Pecola knew she was unable to change her skin color, blue eyes was the next best alternative to fitting in.
The author, Toni Morrison, clearly wrote the book for black women in the United States. Because I am a white woman, it was hard for me to follow the story and put myself in Pecola’s shoes. However, “The Bluest Eye” was very well written because we were able to see the effect that standardized beauty has, specifically on a young girl who was always said to be ugly because of her skin color. What I did not like about the book was the fact that there was not one narrator and that the point of view kept switching from the girls time period to 40 years before their time. Morrison did a good job at explaining why Pecola was the way that she was, but it was hard to follow.
For an individual who is of a minority race, the book may have been more valuable. For myself, it was enlightening to read, but was not that powerful because I could not relate to the main characters. The novel is a sad, depressive read but very well written. I would recommend that everyone read the book, but it will most likely be more powerful to those who can relate.

Defining a Documentary

How would you classify a documentary? Would reality television shows be considered documentaries because they are documenting a person’s daily life? Or, is a documentary a boring film that you are required to watch for a class? I would define a documentary as entertaining as a reality television program but with more substance. I have watched a few documentaries, the latest one being “Super Size Me” where Morgan Spurlock eats at McDonald’s for 30 days and monitors the effects that it has on his body. His documentary was very entertaining, but I also learned something from it. Therefore, maybe a documentary can be used as a learning tool to present information in an enjoyable way. Documentaries should include a main character, or characters that the story follows. The documentation part of the film should be from the point of view of the character(s), but it is also helpful to see the opposite side of the story. In Spurlock’s documentary, we saw his viewpoint of McDonald’s and got other people’s input as well.
Having a narrator helps the audience follow the events that they are watching. In “Super Size Me”, Spurlock was the main character and narrator. A documentary should follow the life of the character(s) but not to the point where the audience is bored. Furthermore, the use of music that is suitable for the documentary may intrigue the audience by adding another pleasurable element.
As Morgan Spurlock says, a documentary is “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 believe that Spurlock summed it up quite nicely. Documentaries should be entertaining, informative, and factual. A good documentary is the type that makes the audience want to come back for more.

"30 Days" Review

“There is nothing good on television” is a common complaint that is constantly being said. After watching an episode of “30 days” titled Immigration, this statement is proven to be false. The show is produced by FX Networks, with the executive producer being R.J. Cutler (The War Room). “30 days” is a documentary with hints of reality television through out. This “in your face” television program is for individuals who are into current events and who strive to be open minded. In this particular episode, Frank, the main character who is also part of the Minutemen, moves in with an illegal immigrant family for 30 days. Frank migrated to the United States legally and also comes from a Spanish speaking background. The show begins by showing Frank at home and then out with the other Minutemen on the Mexican border. He shares his thoughts about illegal immigrants, which is that they should all be shipped back to their own countries. For 30 days, Frank lives with the Gonzales family in Los Angeles, California. The house is small and crowded with five children ranging in age from 10-22 and the parents, Patty and Rigorberto.
After Frank moves in with his new family, tensions rise as the oldest daughter, Armida, begins to confront Frank on his beliefs. Through out the entire episode, this discussion continues with Armida at one point stating “The American dream, what about the American dream, you know? The American dream, for him to try to stop that is insane”. Frank speaks his mind later in the episode as shown in the following quote “If you’re going to be here, you have to understand how to take care of this country. And if you can’t take care of this country, you need to go back to Mexico”. After living with the family for a couple weeks, Frank takes a trip to visit the Gonzales’ family living in Mexico. Seeing the deplorable conditions pulls at his heart strings and he beings to see past legalities.
Stereotyping is a theme seen throughout the 30 days. Before Frank went to live with the Gonzales’, his intended purpose was to send them back to Mexico the following day. He felt that they were not being productive citizens of society and not helping the United States. However, Frank’s views are changed later in the episode when he sees how hard the family works to support itself and that the oldest daughter Armida plans to attend college to make a name. As Lippmann states in his book Public Opinion, “There is neither time nor opportunity for intimate acquaintances. Instead we notice a trait which marks a well known type, and fill in the rest of the picture by means of the stereotypes we carry about in our heads”. It is only after we are able and willing to see people for what they are that stereotypes are not as relevant.
After viewing the episode, it definitely opened my eyes to both sides of the illegal immigration movement. I was interested the entire time because it was human nature at it’s finest; the need to be on top, such as how Frank acted. “30 days” not only was entertaining but also serves the purpose of breaking down stereotypes and judgments of others. It allows the viewer to see both sides of a current issue that everyone has an opinion on. The only part of the episode that was negative was when Frank and Armida were playing golf. It seemed to me that it was not needed to make the intended statement. Also, it seemed contradictory that the Gonzales’ family had no money but could afford golf clubs. That scene ruined it for me a bit.
Morgan Spurlock is the creator of “30 days” and also produced the documentary “Supersize Me”. The purpose of creating the show was that viewers can discuss the episodes and learn more about each other along the way. Other episodes include the following; Chris Jobin, a man who lost his job to outsourcing, travels to India (where his job was outsourced too) and lives with a family for 30 days. Another interesting episode is when Spurlock actually enters a jail system for 30 days to see what being a prisoner is like. The idea of the show is to put people in uncomfortable positions, in which they have preconceived stereotypes about, and let them see the other side of the fence.
Overall, I would give the episode an 8/10. I think the message was clearly shown and it was entertaining. However, I felt some scenes took away from the message that was being portrayed.