Crash Review

One of the most powerful films that I have ever seen has to be Crash. The film was released in 2005 and directed by Paul Haggis. Crash is also the winner of three Oscars, including Best Picture for 2005.
The film takes place in Los Angeles, California and tells the story of many characters of differing backgrounds, skin color, and socioeconomic statuses. The characters do not know each other, and do not realize how interconnected they truly are. This film really is an interwoven masterpiece. The story is not just told from one perspective, but many that are separate and unique. In the end, the characters, who were trying so hard to be their own individuals and live their lives, crash into each other literally and figuratively. My favorite quote from the film is, “You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something”. In any big city, I feel that this statement rings true. Human contact is needed because we are social beings, and need others for our survival. In a place where everybody is out for themselves, crashing into one another is inevitable.
Not only is the story extraordinary, but the music, filming, editing, and lightening also make for a powerful piece. Take for example Bird York’s song “In the Deep” that plays towards the end of the film. While watching the powerful images and hearing a deeply moving song, chills run up and down your spine as your realize that this too could happen to you. The audience feels for the characters because they are not doing anything unordinary, but simply living their lives.
Is the film overdone though? Are the characters’ lives filled with more drama and more connected than the average Americans? I would say some what, but it is the characters’ stories that make Crash seem realistic.
I would recommend that everyone see Crash. It opens the audience’s eyes to topics that are not often discussed outside of a sociology class, including discrimination, racism, and stereotypes. Crash gets my two thumbs up and undeniably deserves it.

Philo T. Who???

Thomas Edison. Alexander Graham Bell. Philo T. Farnsworth? We all know who Edison and Bell are, but Farnsworth? Philo Farnsworth was a farm boy, a Mormon, and the inventor of the electronic television. If Farnsworth invented the television, then why is he not a well known figure in American history?

Growing up, Farnsworth had a curious mind, especially about projecting images using electrons. He dreamed of a tube that would turn a picture into electrons and then back into a picture to be displayed. Before he was 20 years-old, he was already immersed in created the first television, with economic support from local businessmen. However, during this time period, RCA (the corporation that owned rights to radio at the time) was also trying to create the first electronic television. With a major corporation competing with Farnsworth to create the first television and obtain a patent, the race was on.

When discussing the dominant and subordinate groups in the Farnsworth vs. RCA television race, it is clear that RCA was the dominant group. The corporation had money, power, and the respect from every major company. Farnsworth was subordinate because of the lack of money and support. At one point, RCA even sent a representative to Farnsworth’s laboratory in San Francisco, and copied the blueprints from Farnsworth’s work. RCA clearly took advantage of Farnsworth because they felt dominate to him. When Farnsworth finally developed the first working electronic television and got the patents, RCA offered him $100,000 for the patents but it was refused. Because the corporation had the money, they were able to make the offer and attempt to steal Farnsworth’s work.

Farnsworth eventually began to suffer from depression and alcoholism because of the stress that RCA imposed onto him. How did a gentle, farm boy become a completely different person? It was because RCA exploited him because of their dominate status. Philo Farnsworth’s story shows subordinate groups can be destroyed by dominate groups, Now we can understand why no one knows the name Philo T. Farnsworth; because he was not powerful, wealthy, or dominate enough to compete against a major corporation’s exploitation.

"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.

Stereotypes make the world go around. . .

Stereotypes are everywhere. If we are aware of them or not, we all judge people by them. We have racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes, religious stereotypes, age stereotypes, and anything else that makes people different. We are all meant to be individuals. Naturally, there will be differences between people and we expect this. Then why do we judge others when they are not like us and place stereotypes on them? Are humans just naturally inclined to group others and make references from those groups? I believe so. Walter Lippmann tackled the subject of stereotypes in his book “Public Opinion” and there are two particular quotes from this book that I believe encapsulate why we hold stereotypes and what they represent for us as humans “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”. What a true statement that is. Time is money. Money is what makes the world go around. In today’s society, money is what motivates most people to go to work everyday, and how do you make money if you are too busy learning about others? It is sad but unfortunately true. Lippmann also stated this quote “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”. Certain traits that become stereotypes for a group of individuals does not represent the entire group, there is always an exception to the rule. However, we expect stereotypes to exist when making choices dealing with people. Stereotypes in essence make the world a more concise place and people simpler to understand. Until we change our ways of thinking, stereotypes will always exist, there is no way around it.

Viacom; The power it has over me.

Television. I just cannot get enough of it! When you are watching television though, most of the time you are not thinking “Oh, I wonder which media company owns this station”. At least I do not. However, I have been lately. Sometimes after the credits, it will show which company owns the station, whether it be Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, Bertelsmann, News Corporation, or General Electric/NBC. After paying attention to this, I realized that most of the television stations that I watch are owned by Disney and Viacom. How is that for gate keeping? Because I think I watch more stations produced by Viacom (mostly CBS and MTV) I will focus on that company. Viacom owns many stations that you probably watch on a regular basis and did not even know it. Its properties include CBS, MTV, TNN, VH-1, Nickelodeon, UPN, and Paramount Pictures as its movie studio, along with many more properties. Viacom bought CBS in 1999, and has since grown larger by having two influential broadcasting networks in its grips (CBS and UPN). Sharing programming and expanding a franchise are two synergies that Viacom has brought about. For example, Saturday morning cartoons on Nickelodeon are now run by CBS and since this switch, ratings have increased dramatically. The company has also created movies in cooperation with their television stations. For example, MTV films produced Save the Last Dance in 2001 under the co-production of Viacom and MTV films.
After realizing how much information I consume under one company, it is worrisome. Most all of the information that I receive on a daily basis is controlled by a small group of individuals. And that is a frightening thought, even if it is entertaining.