Rate It!

This week we’re looking at Nielson ratings for our favorite shows. I had trouble finding the ratings for my actual favs, so I’m choosing a game show: Deal or No Deal. Howie Mandel’s beautiful baldness appears every Monday night at 8 on NBC.

For the week of March 19-25, Deal or No Deal tied 10th among the top 20 network primetime series. Here are the details:

Deal or No Deal is in a competitive time slot, but it fairs well. It’s up against the 4th rated show, Dancing with the Stars on ABC, which it hasn’t surpassed. The other shows in that time slot, like Fox’s Prison Break and CBS’s How I Met Your Mother, don’t offer all that much competition. I think it’s in a good time slot for the type of show that it is.

I don’t think it would work as well if it were moved to a later time slot on any day because a lot of the heavy weights, like Grey’s Anatomy, and the CSI’s are after 8pm. If it had to move to another night, Tuesday and Wednesday could be tricky because nothing wants to go against American Idol. Thursday nights have Ugly Betty, so that could be another tricky night. It could probably handle the competition on Friday nights, but Monday night is a much better TV game show night.

Basically, Deal or No Deal is in the best time slot for itself. It’s definitely a competitive show, especially for being a game show.

The Labyrinth

"Where everythings seems possible and nothing is what it seems..."

Before we visited Harry Potter at Hogwarts...before Frodo took us on a magical journey in Lord of the Rings...there was... The Labyrinth.

(Trailer for The Labyrinth)

This 1986 movie combines the skills of Jim Henson and George Lucas to create the tale of a fanciful world that could rival that of the popular fantasy films of today. The movie stars a young Jennifer Connolly who makes a wish that sends her baby brother into the hands of the Goblin King, played by David Bowie. To get him back, she must make her way through the labyrinth to the castle. Along the way she meets all sorts of creatures, some who help her and some who threaten her. She must use her mind and her heart to make it all the way through the maze to save her little brother.

There are many reasons that The Labyrinth is a must-see. The strongest part of the movie has to be the amazing puppetry and special effects, especially considering it was made in the 80s. There seems to be much more detail and care put into it than the computer animated graphics we’re used to today. Jim Henson really shows off his genius in this one. The characters are Muppets, but most of them are much scarier than what we’re used to from him. The movie was nominated for awards because of the amazing visual effects.

Another reason to see this film: David Bowie. If you think you’ve seen him at his best, think again! Woven into the movie, we have various musical interludes which contribute to a catchy soundtrack. His tight pants, heavy eye shadow, and platinum blonde fro/mullet hair will leave you wondering why 80’s fashions ever went out of style.

The Labyrinth keeps you glued to the screen. Every time Sarah takes a turn in the maze, she meets new, interesting creatures with different tasks and powers. Henson and Lucas thought of the most amazing characters that most people would never even dream of. At the end of the movie, you just want Sarah to continue to explore the labyrinth so we can meet more magical creatures. You will be completely immersed in the tale.

The Labyrinth is one of those movies that will take you away from reality. If you have any sense of humor, The Labyrinth will turn around any bad day. It’s a great escape from the computer generated images we’re used to today. It will remind you of a simpler time when movies were more tangible. It’s a little known treasure that you definitely should discover.

Crash is a Smash

“You think you know who you are? You have no idea.”

In the 2004 movie Crash, Officer John Ryan says this to his partner Officer Tom Hansen. Ryan knows Hansen accused him of being a racist. Hansen thinks he’s above racism—but he soon finds out that Ryan is in fact right. He doesn’t know himself like he thought he did.

Paul Haggis’ Best Picture winner, Crash, is an intense movie that follows a group of colorful characters through a turbulent 36 hour period. The movie has several different storylines that Haggis weaves together perfectly. Each of these story lines teaches us something about racism.

We meet Rick and Jean Cabot (played by Bredan Fraiser and Sandra Bullock), the LA District Attorney and his wife. While Rick tries to base his campaign as being as “non-racist” as possible, Jean lives a lonely life, unsure of who she can really trust.

There’s Officer Ryan and Officer Hansen (Matt Dillon and Ryan Phillippe), who both struggle with their racist beliefs. Hansen is new to the LAPD and thinks he has his ideals in check. Ryan, though, quickly teaches him that he does not know himself yet.

We meet Farhad (Shaun Toub) who deals with stereotypes against his middle eastern background everyday. He is ironically full of stereotypical beliefs himself, which eventually lead to take tragic action against an innocent father and husband.

All of these characters and many more are strikingly different on the outside, but deeply similar on the inside. They all deal with issues of racism and lonliness, stereotypes and hate. No one knows who they can trust, but they are all connected in random day to day business which forces them to cross each others paths—or crash into each other.

If Walter Lippman were to watch this movie, he would have a lot to say about the issues of stereotypes. His description of stereotypes in his text Public Opinion says “they are an ordered, more or less consistent picture of the world, to which our habits, our tastes, our capacities, our comforts and our hopes have adjusted themselves.” They are a sort of defense that keeps our lives going. For example, in the movie we see Sandra Bullock’s character held at gunpoint by two African Americans. Afterwards, she regrets not having followed her instincts because the stereotype she knew of African Americans made her afraid of the two who eventually stole her car. She and other characters use the stereotypes and the pictures in their heads as a defense mechanism to not have to deal with the world as it is.

This award winning movie is a must-see for everyone. It brings up topics that are often never spoken about, such as racism in law enforcement and our own uncomfortable feelings with people who are different from us. It forces conversation and discussion on topics that are often taboo. Paul Haggis has created a masterful piece that deserves all the awards and attention it received. It definitely deserves a ten out of ten stars.

Philo vs RCA

It sounds like the storyline from a movie.

The hard working, slightly awkward, all American boy discovers something great and hopes to spread it to the world.

Then along comes the evil Russian who steals his idea and claims it as his own.

Unfortunately, the ending isn’t as happy as one might like.

Philo T. Farnsworth is the hard working American in this storyline and Vladimir Zworykin is the evil Russian. These days, few people know that Philo T. Farnsworth is the creator of the television. Why? Because big business won.

There are similar themes between the Farnsworth story and situations we’re learning about in this cluster. Philo is the subordinate group with no power. Even though he had the knowledge, he did not have the money which, in this situation meant power. RCA dominated him because it was a powerful corporation.

We could also see Philo as the minority group and RCA as the majority. Philo did not have enough pull as a single person, while RCA had many members and lots of influence. Philo was not strong enough as a single person to own the design of the television. RCA, however, was.

More specifically, let’s compare the Philo storyline to The Bluest Eye. Philo would represent the African American characters. No matter how hard they tried, they were always at the mercy of the white majority. They were just as capable, but didn’t have the status to pull themselves out from the bottom. It’s a classic case of little guy/big guy. And the big guy won.

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.