Review of The Bluest Eye

What is beauty? What is race? Who has power? Who gets to decide?

These are a few of the issues tackeled in Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. Set in Lorain, OH in the 1940s, the story follows the tragic life of the Breedlove's, a black family struggling to survive in a white-ruled society. Pecola Breedlove is obsessed with having blue eyes so she can be pretty like the other girls. Along the way, though, she discovers that happiness cannot come from eye color.

Toni Morrison does an excellent job portraying the pressures that society places on minorities. Pecola is not only ridiculed at school for being who she is (a black child), but she's unloved at home as well. Her mother plays into the thought of white supremacy by showing more love towards her boss's white daughter than towards her own flesh and blood. Her father is abusive and ruins her life.

There are many topics tackled throughout the story. One of the idea of beauty--what is it and how does one get it? Pecola sees beauty as blue-eyed white girls. Her friend Claudia gets angry that this is what she's expected to like and envisions beauty in a black baby. She eventually learns that beauty does not equal happiness or contentment.

Another idea is that of self-hatred. The little black girls and boys grow up with a self-hatred already growing inside them. From the beginning of their life, they're taught through the actions of those around them that they are inferior, dirty, ugly, and bad. Even while some try to fight this, they inevitably seem to gain this self-hatred, almost as a necessary part of growing up.

This book is difficult to get through, but very interesting once you look at its message. It is not a pick-me-up story, but it is eye-opening. It is an important read because it tells in a real, raw way the struggle of a minority in our country. The messages can be spread to people of any skin color. Issues with beauty and self-hatred don't discriminate.

What is a Documentary?

A documentary is one of those things that changes with time. What might have started out before the 1900s as short moving pictures by Auguste and Louis Lumeire, has evolved and expanded to include box office hits like Farenheit 9/11. Documentaries differ in the length, technology used, and other technical elements. However, I do think there’s a simple, yet broad, definition for a documentary.

I found the definition of “documentary” in the root of the word, “document.” The definition of “document” is to support with evidence or decisive information. Therefore, a documentary portrays evidence and information to tell a non-fiction story.

This definition is almost too simple, though, so what else can be added to it? One of the first descriptions of what makes a documentary came from John Grierson when he labeled it as “the creative treatment of actuality.” The word “actuality” implies to me that it observes real life as it’s happening. It’s not scripted or staged or purposely manipulated. It requires the documentarian to act as a fly on the wall, trying not to influence or change the subject, but to simply observe. It doesn’t even have to be video. American Radio Works has documentaries that are just audio and still fit into the documentary catagory.

So how should we determine what a documentary in our class should be like? This is my suggestion for documentary guidelines:

1. There must be a subject (which does not have to be human—it can be an animal, a place, a thing, etc.) If you want it to be a good documentary, there should be some sort of conflict or adverse situation that the subject goes through.
2. The documentary must observe the subject as it is. It should not be scripted or manipulated.
3. It should include facts and evidence on the subject. (This doesn’t necessarily mean statistics and numbers. Facts can simply be truthful statements about the subject.)
4. It should be put together in a creative, logical way that is pleasing to the intended audience.

Our class already knows there are some great documentary examples at Current TV. You can find other examples at Channel 4, a not-for-profit channel in the UK. Their "fourdocs" are four minute documentaries that anyone can submit for the world to see (now they're even moving to 59 second "microdocs!")

Documentaries cannot be strictly defined. Their definition depends on who you are, who your audience is, and what your purpose is. Anyone can make a documentary.

Episode Review: 30 Days--Immigration

How do you make a life-long committed Minuteman love a group of illegal immigrants? If you believe the Immigration episode of 30 Days, just stick him in a one-bedroom apartment with a family of seven illegal immigrants. The second season of 30 Days begins with an episode that attempts to tackle the debate of illegal immigration, but comes off as a one-sided, emotional tear-jerker.

Frank George is a Minuteman who patrols the US border of Mexico. When he was seven he came to the US legally. The Gonzalez family emigrated from Mexico—illegally. The family of seven lives in a cramped one-bedroom apartment, barely surviving off meager wages and random jobs. These opposite worlds collide when Frank George moves in with the Gonzalez family for 30 days. He lives the life of an illegal immigrant and learns their day-to-day struggles. The family has to deal with his strong opinions against illegal immigration.

The purpose of the episode is to show the struggle between illegal immigrants and our government. The movie started portraying both sides well, but as the episode went on, it seemed as though we were being pushed towards siding with the immigrants. There is clear agenda-setting in this episode. It tugs at the heart strings and spends more time looking into the lives of the immigrants. We see the close, modest Gonzalez family scraping by everyday, yet never complaining about their situation. We watch Frank go to Mexico to see how pitiful life is in the poverty-stricken country. The scenes leave you wondering how anyone could possibly want these people to return to such conditions.

But what about the other side of the debate? All we hear from Frank George is repetitive argument that “it’s just the law” and that illegal immigration will “bring bout the disillusion of this country.” But why? What’s happened in the U.S. so far that proves this? What is happening to American citizens who are just as poor as these immigrants, though completely legal? The show failed to go into this crucial side of the debate.

The episode does have some redeeming qualities. It does not abuse stereotypes. We see throughout the episode that Frank George is more than just a Minuteman with a mission. His background as an immigrant himself lends him an interesting point of view to the situation. He is able to connect with the Gonzalez family, especially to the daughter, Armida. Frank and Armida have many civilized debates over the topic and by the end of the episode, Frank is close to tears when having to say goodbye to Armida. He is much more sensitive than one might expect.

The show also de-bunks the illegal immigrant stereotype. Most people expect a dirty, uneducated family with no future, but there is so much more going on with the Gonzalez family. We see how hard-working the dad, Rigorberto, is when Frank goes with him on a job. We see the mother, Patty, as just that—a mother who will do anything to make her family happy, even if that includes taking so much time to collect and recycle cans just for a measly five dollars. Most striking of all is Armida, the golf-playing, well educated high school student with high hopes on a college career.

It is Frank’s seemingly quick change of heart that makes this episode so questionable. The man who has had such strong, deep feelings towards immigration for almost his entire life begins to go soft after less than thirty days? This seems to be the working of great story-writing instead of reality. Frank does seem to open up his mind on the topic a bit. As Walter Lippman said in his piece Public Opinion, “A great deal of confusion arises when people decline to classify themselves as we have classified them.” What he finds with this family is not at all what he expects. But when the episode is over, we read that he continues to work with the Minutemen. So while the episode dramatizes a story about a changed man, the reality is that he seems to have just opened his mind a bit.

My final thought on the show is this: It failed to cover the controversy completely, but it at least succeeded in bringing the topic to a new audience. It took the immigration topic out of strictly news and politics by giving it a face. It was not merely about a Minuteman and illegal immigrants. It was Frank George and his own personal struggle within himself. It was the Gonzalez family and their warm hearts and earnest desire to stay together as a family. The episode is good for entertainment, but not much more.