Anatomy Schmatomy

When I am asked about my favorite TV show, nothing in particular pops into my head. It’s not that I don’t like TV… in fact; it is usually on when I am cooking lunch or while I’m doing schoolwork. I just honestly don’t have time to watch the same show every week.

So for this blog, I decided to research statistics concerning “Grey’s Anatomy” because it seems like every person I know is obsessed with the show. I have NEVER seen a single episode because I was always at practice when it was on television, and I’ve never had the urge to watch it online.

According to the Nielson ratings at USAToday, "Grey’s Anatomy" averages #5 on the top 20 list for broadcast programs. According to this site, 25.8 million viewers tune into ABC every Thursday at 9 PM.

The Nielson ratings at Zap2It rank "Grey’s Anatomy" #6 on the top 20 list of Network Primetime Series. This is the average for the 2006 – 2007 season through April 1, 2007.

The biggest news for "Grey’s Anatomy" was that the show drew its second-largest audience ever during the concluding episode of the season. According to TVGuide, an amazing 27.29 million people tuned in. This was a jump of 1.7 million people from the previous week. “That was also ABC’s largest audience in the Thursday 9 pm hour with series programming in more than six and a half years (since a May 2000 millionaire).”

Other shows during the same time-slot include "Deal or No Deal" and "CSI." I would most likely watch one of these shows instead of "Grey’s Anatomy" because I’m not a fan of “hospital shows.” Maybe I’m just being stereotypical, because I haven’t seen an episode, but anything involving death, blood, pain, or hospitals is not appealing to me. I’d much rather watch something happy, but obviously I’m unlike 27 million viewers in the United States!

Love Actually

"Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow airport. General opinion makes out that we live in a world of hatred and greed - but I don't see that - seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it's not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it's always there: fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, none of the phone calls from people on board were messages of hate or revenge; they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I've got a sneaky feeling you'll find that love, actually, is all around.”
- Hugh Grant

The opening line of “Love Actually” is powerful, and so true. Often, we see so many negative things in today’s world that we simply forget to look around and realize how much happiness, comfort, and love there is all around us. Directed by Richard Curtis, “Love Actually” is actually my favorite movie. While most people select a classic as their “number one” film, I’m hooked on “Love Actually” and continue to watch this film over and over and laugh, cry, smile, and get goose bumps.

Curtis is credited with films such as “Bridget Jones’s Diary” & “Notting Hill.” “Love Actually” was nominated for two Golden Globes and won the title of “Best British Film” at the UK’s Empire Awards. The film features Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, Laura Linney, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Keira Knightley, Rowan Atkinson and Bill Nighy to only name a few!

Released in time for the Christmas season is 2003, the stories of different couples unfold and intertwine throughout the film. I think I love it so much because all of the different stories seem very close to reality. The film examines some relationships that are working and some that are not working. Curtis does an excellent job developing each character and explaining their story.

“Love Actually” isn’t your typical “romantic comedy” as some might think. The story appeals to both men and women and isn’t just “happy-sappy” the entire time. Young couples, older
couples, and single friends face death, love affairs, and happy endings.

The film is set primarily in England and follows the lives of the new Prime Minister and bachelor (Hugh Grant), a writer, a married couple facing hard times, a man who has just lost his wife, a little boy finding himself in love for the first time, a newly married couple, young single men hoping to find love, etc. etc. etc.

No matter what you're situation in life, especially regarding relationships, you will connect with a character in this film. You need to see it for yourself and I promise you won’t be disappointed.

collide, run into, smash into, bump into…CRASH

In my opinion, “Crash” is indeed worthy of its 2004 Academy Award for Best Motion Picture of the Year. Director/writer of “Crash,” Paul Haggis, is no stranger to fame and also wrote the screenplay for Best Picture Winner “Million Dollar Baby” the previous year. Additionally, Haggis’ résumé includes writing for the film, “Letters from Iwo Jima,” and revising the screenplay for “Casino Royale.”

Movies are powerful vehicles for transmitting messages to the masses and “Crash” sends a message that everyone can benefit from. Most people will walk away from the film with more knowledge of how they judge others and will become more aware of racial prejudices that still occur in today’s world. “Crash” looks at racism from the perspective of many characters, each playing a unique and vital role in the film.

- A district attorney and his unhappy wife
- Two police detectives who are also lovers
- A police officer with a sick father
- A young police officer with a racist partner
- Two young black men who are car thieves
- A Mexican-American locksmith
- A Chinese man and his wife
- A Persian man without a strong English vocabulary
- A black TV director and his wife
…and the list goes on.

Throughout the film, the characters crash into each other on a multitude of levels. The story, set in Los Angeles, begins with a car crash and flashes back to the characters’ lives on the previous day. Their lives are intertwined and many of the characters are misjudged because of their racial/ethnic background. Because of stereotypes and racism, problems and events arise as the plot unfolds.

The district attorney’s wife (played by Sandra Bullock) realizes that she is unhappy, and this may be the source of her prejudice and distrust toward others. The Mexican American locksmith is continually mistaken as a gang member, while he is simply trying to provide for his family. In one scene, he is changing the locks at the district attorney’s home when Bullock says:

“I would like the locks changed again in the morning. And you might mention that we'd appreciate it if next time they didn't send a gang member...Yes, the guy with the shaved head, the pants around his ass, the prison tattoo...I am telling you. Your amigo in there is gonna sell our key to one of his homies.”

This is just one example of the incidences that occur in the film. There are many twists, but Haggis does an excellent job keeping the story realistic. Each of the characters is “relatable,” and it is heart-renching to watch some of them continue down their current path. The overall ending isn’t entirely “happily ever after,” but neither is the real world. I would give this film an A+ for its easy-to-understand language, its powerful imagery, and thought-provoking story.

My Name is...What? My Name Is...Who?

Does the name Philo T. Farnsworth ring a bell? Before we watched the documentary, Big Dreams, Small Screen, I had never heard of Farnsworth. Considering he invented television, you would think that I would have at least recognized his name because we are a generation that has grown up watching television programs. However, there is a reason I don’t recognize his name…

Farnsworth’s interest in television began when he found science and radio magazines in the attic of his home in Idaho. By age 14, he already had a blueprint for an electronic TV system. So why do we associate the name, Vladimir Zworykin, with the invention of television and not the name of a small town genius?

Zworykin was backed by RCA and therefore had power over Farnsworth. Farnsworth rejected an offer of $100,000 from RCA for his entire company, but in the end, RCA still ended up with the credit. RCA unveiled their TV at the 1939 New York World’s Fair and Franklin D. Roosevelt even gave the first speech about television. Farnsworth had unveiled his television 5 years earlier, but was somehow forgotten. Why? This is definitely a case of David and Goliath: only the little guy didn’t win.

The idea of domination/subordination can help explain Farnsworth’s story. Paula S. Rothenberg states on page 112 of “Race, Class, and Gender in the United States,” that “the dominant group usually holds all of the open power and authority and determines the ways in which power may be acceptably used.”

In this case, RCA was the dominant group. RCA wrongly used their power to send Zworykin to Farnsworth’s lab to steal the blueprints of his television tube. RCA had power because they were a large company and had money to finance research. Originally, Farnsworth went to the bank and borrowed $25,000 because he promised to have a picture within one year; however, RCA had many more resources. It’s unfair that RCA was able to maintain power over Farnsworth, but they were able to do so because they were such a well known company. Unfortunately, it makes sense that people would trust a radio giant rather than one unknown man.

Farnsworth eventually won the patent battle and was paid loyalties, but “RCA got credit for developing and presenting television,” according to the documentary “Big Dreams, Small Screen.” Farnsworth deserved to have the credit, but was powerless against the RCA giant.

The Bluest Eye Review

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.

The Penguins Steal The Show

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...

Entertainment aaaand Education - What A Concept

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.