skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Bluest Eye was written by Toni Morrison, the first African American woman to receive the Noble Prize for Literature (and rightfully so in my opinion). This is the first novel I’ve read from Oprah’s Book Club and I can see why she selected it. The novel brings issues of white supremacy and race to the forefront. The story takes place in Lorain, Ohio, where Morrison herself grew up.
The Bluest Eye tells the story of 11-year-old Pecola Breedlove, a black child who fantasizes about having blue eyes, which are symbolic of American white beauty. She is enchanted by Shirley Temple, a child star who defines this beauty with her blond hair and blue eyes. Pecola thinks that people might love her and treat her differently if she has blue eyes.
Pecola idolizes Shirley Temple, but her best friend Claudia despises her and doesn’t understand the novelty of white dolls. Everyone tells her that they are beautiful, but she can’t seem to find this beauty.
Pecola’s parents don’t treat their children the way they should, and this may be a reflection of their own childhood experiences. Mrs. Breedlove puts her boss’s white daughter on a pedestal and beats her own daughter, Pecola. Mr. Breedlove (Cholly) sexually assaults Pecola, his own child, practically destroying her inside and taking her life away from her.
The entire story is really a tragedy and was hard to read at times. However, in today’s world, I feel that stories and movies usually end “happily ever after.” As much as these tales make everyone smile and go about their daily lives, it was refreshing to read something “real. Morrison didn’t write a happy twist at the end of her novel. She kept it honest, and left me thinking about the issues she presented.
In class we discussed Morrison’s target audience for her first book, and we do not fit into this demographic. However, I feel that anyone who reads this book will benefit from looking into the real issue of race in this country. Just as Pecola dreamt about “ideal American beauty,” we still do this in 2007. Don’t we as a society, strive to be like the rich and famous? I think it is important for us to realize that beauty does not equal happiness and we are all individuals.
I think there is more than one correct definition for a documentary. However, in my opinion a documentary is a film, produced by an amateur or a professional, which tells someone’s story. It may consist of interviews with one person or many people. Documentaries are non-fictional works, depict real life situations or issues, shouldn’t be scripted, and attempt to educate the audience. They often feature a narrator who helps tell the story, and music can play an integral role in the films. I think my interpretation of documentaries is defined by those I have seen. 
I was trying really hard to think about documentaries I’ve seen in the past… besides the typical Supersize Me, Fahrenheit 911, Bowling for Columbine, etc. Then I realized that March of the Penguins is a nature documentary! (And an amazing one at that). This documentary goes along with my definition because it has a narrator, Morgan Freeman. It tells “someone’s” story as well…It tells the story of the emperor penguins in Antarctica. While no one could interview the penguins, obviously, the documentary focuses on the struggles that they must go through each year to survive. It is also supported by some awesome instrumental music. I definitely recommend the documentary film and promise it isn’t cheesy. Go rent it if you haven’t seen it!On another note, when we watched One Nation Under Guard in class, I was entranced by the music. It made the film more powerful and supported what the interviewees were saying. The music helped “set the scene” in my head. I don’t remember any music sticking out from the other documentary we watched in class, A Class Divided. This documentary was fueled by the interaction among the participants. No matter how you get your point across, with or without music, documentaries can be powerful vehicles for messages.
We’ve also discussed reality shows and their relationship with documentaries. There are countless reality shows on television, but I don’t really think they are documentaries. Some of the elements are there; however, there is no way to prove that the shows are not scripted...
I think that the FX reality series, “30 Days,” does a good job working against the common complaint that “reality shows are lame with contrived narratives populated by characters the producers exploit by perpetuating worn out stereotypes.” Generally speaking, I agree with this statement, even though I continue to watch crappy reality shows now and then simply for the entertainment factor. Morgan Spurlock’s episode of “30 Days,” titled “Immigration,” does more than entertain… it attempts to educate.
This episode is trying to create awareness about the issues of illegal immigration and minutemen among the American population. In this episode, Frank George, a minuteman and legal immigrant who came to America from Cuba when he was 7, moves in with the Gonzales family, a family of illegal aliens residing in Los Angeles, CA. Parents Patty and Rigoberto crossed the Mexico border with their 3 oldest children 12 years ago. Their 2 youngest children are citizens of the Unites States.
Frank states that he is a minuteman because he “can’t see thousands of people coming over the border everyday and not do anything about it.” Frank moves in with the Gonzales family for 30 days, under three conditions:
1. He must leave any ID behind
2. He must move in with the whole family and sleep in their house
3. He will be put to work as a day laborer
The situation was pretty awkward when Frank first arrived at the house. He said, “I could tell there was uneasiness among all of us.” Obviously. I can’t imagine this situation being comfortable for most people.
The Gonzales’ daughter, Armida, was one of the most outspoken and developed a relationship with Frank. Armida eventually takes Frank to a rally to support a new bill that would allow illegal aliens to achieve citizenship. Frank refused to light a candle in support of the bill and Armida made a very good point by saying, “He has to see it and come up with his own conclusion.” It’s very difficult to completely change someone’s opinion. It is much easier to reinforce an existing belief, but Frank’s opinion of illegal immigrants was so engrained that he will have to decide for himself based on his experiences.
I think that the “30 Days: Immigration” episode is really interesting and did a good job explaining the illegal alien situation in the United States. Then again, I’m a sucker for Spanish culture, so this may be just my opinion. According to the episode there are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. That is an insanely large number. I think Morgan Spurlock was trying to demonstrate the level of poverty in the Mexico and explain why so many Mexicans come to the U.S. illegally (I'm not saying that it's right).
However, I think Spurlock messed up with one thing. The Gonzales family was very poor, and yet Armida was shown playing golf and wearing nice polo shirts. It seemed a little odd to me that they couldn’t afford money for Christmas presents, but she could afford her own golf clubs. I also question how Armida was even applying for college when she doesn’t have a birth certificate or social security number. I would think that you need to prove your citizenship before being accepted into a higher institution of learning. Am I wrong?
Overall, the experience seemed to somewhat alter Frank’s perspective about illegal aliens. According to Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion, “If what we are looking at corresponds successfully with what we anticipated, the stereotype is reinforced for the future.” The Gonzales family was NOT what Frank had anticipated. They contradicted his stereotype, or at least broadened his view that not everyone is the same. He learned that illegal aliens are just as human as he is, have families, and must work to survive in this country.
