"Streetwise"

Image Credit: Martin Bell

This documentary was probably my favorite of all the documentaries we have screened this semester. I loved the very realistic portrayal of poverty in the 1980's. Bell seemed to give a holistic view of the lives of these street children, without much bias, to argue that poverty is a vicious cycle that perpetuates over time.

Dewayne, one of the main characters in the film, was first shown begging for money on the streets to feed himself in the opening scenes. Later, the abandoned building he called home was shown, along with the ways he rummaged for food and tried to get by day to day. A little over halfway through the film, Bell revealed that Dewayne's father was imprisoned. And finally, at the end of the movie after Dewayne hangs himself, the narrator comments that all Dewayne really wanted was love, a family, and the life of a "normal" child. I think that all of the children shown in this movie deeply longed for each of these things (along with all the riches in the world).

However, simply having a mom or a dad did not mean that love was a part of a child's life or that life was "normal". For example, Erin had a mom, yet I would not say that she had "love". I would also be hesitant to say that she had guidance. In one of the first scenes, she was shown at the doctor's office getting checked out for yet another sexually transmitted disease. Being a prostitute to earn money, she naturally acquired these STDs. And despite her mother knowing that she was out on the streets selling her body, she did nothing to stop her daughter. I also found it appalling when Erin made the comment that she had no idea who her father is and he could "possibly be someone that she had gotten for a date at one time".

The lives that these children lived were a result of their upbringing. Due to having no family and very little money, these children were forced to make ends meet any way that they could (whether it be through prostitution, drug abuse, eating out of dumpsters, selling blood using a fake ID, or through violence). If these children were lucky enough to live into adulthood, this lifestyle and the things they learn from their childhood would stay with them and would impact the way that they raise their children. This makes poverty a cycle that seems to have no end in sight.

Laura Dunn's "The Unforeseen"

Image Credit: Laura Dunn

Laura Dunn's documentary, "The Unforeseen" explores the effects of developing Austin, Texas on both society and nature itself. I enjoyed this movie in its use of charts, graphics, interviews, and live footage. Maybe Al Gore even could take a note from Dunn...

I noticed Dunn appealing to the audience's emotions quite often. Her inclusion of Robert Redford (which was probably an ethos establishing move as well) and his reminiscing of how he learned to swim in Barton Springs is likely to evoke feelings of nostalgia in the audience. Her incorporating clips of the kid in the flannel shirt not wanting development to occur probably touched the audience's hearts. In addition, the beautiful color still shots and video footage of nature likely drew the audience away from favoring urban development because the beauty of nature should be preserved.

I particularly liked seeing the shots of Austin before all of the development occurred. It was interesting comparing the past to now. Maybe I was so drawn to this movie because it is about a city that I love and live in? Overall, props to Laura Dunn on this one.

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

Image Credit: Al Gore

This documentary was not what I was expecting at all. I have very limited knowledge of documentaries in the first place, but I have this idea that documentaries are a lot of voice-over and interviews presented in film format to advocate a certain position on an issue. It was interesting that Al Gore decided to film himself giving a powerpoint presentation to an audience for the majority of this film. In comparison to Michael Moore, I felt that Al Gore did little to entertain the viewers of his film. While the graphics and the data he presented were interesting and informative, I think the viewer would need to have a desire to learn and watch this movie to actually become engaged in the film. He made little use of soundtrack and other elements traditionally included in films also. He did make a lot of use of graphs and data charts and illustrations, which is a deviation from traditional film. This did make his argument more persuasive. I guess Gore's film just goes to show that simplicity can be a vehicle for conveying a point.

It was pretty interesting to me that Gore spent so much time laying out the facts of environmental change in the world and the effects it can have, but spent so little time discussing ways that people can try to preserve the earth. I do think it was necessary to spend a lot of time laying out the facts because people are pretty divided on the issue of environmental change and global warming. However, simply flashing the URL of a website to visit for ideas on how to help the earth just before the ending credits begin is not effective. Incorporating ways to help into the ending credits is also not effective. Most people probably do not even leave the movie playing for the tips on how we can help the earth to come on.

While this film was informative, it was not very entertaining and I felt like he did not fully cover the position he was advocating.

Michael Moore's "Sicko"

Image Credit: Michael Moore

After watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", I knew Moore would take an extreme stance on America's healthcare system. To be completely honest, I thought "Fahrenheit 9/11" was interesting and thought-provoking, but I was skeptical of Moore's claims. They seemed ridiculous. However, I am reevaluating these doubts after watching "Sicko".

I have a little more knowledge about the American healthcare system than I did about the 9/11 attacks and the federal government. This might have contributed to my being more persuaded by Moore's argument in "Sicko". Although Moore does choose to use some outrageous testimonies to persuade viewers that the American healthcare system is corrupt and centered around making money, there is some truth to these claims. Working in a pharmacy, I see insurance companies troubling patients with some of the same things that Moore shows in his film. Granted the things I see do not jeopardize lives, but they do indicate insurance companies are trying to spare themselves money at the expense of insured people's pocketbooks.

It seems crazy to me that insurance companies are able to determine what is "medically necessary" and what is "experimental". The people working for insurance companies probably do not have near the amount of knowledge that a doctor does regarding medical issues and medications. For that reason, I think that insurance companies should not be deciding that medications or procedures are not necessary. Even though insurance companies are not denying people service, they are making it impossible for patient's to seek the help they need because of the cost.

Much of the movie focused on comparing the American healthcare system with the healthcare systems in Canada, Great Britain, and France. I had always known of these countries having universal healthcare, but I thought that the quality of healthcare suffered and taxes paid by citizens skyrocketed under this system. I know I cannot trust Moore as my sole source of information on universal healthcare policies, but he did showcase several interviews with doctors and everyday citizens that contradicted these widely held perceptions about universal healthcare. And even though the doctors were employed by the country's government, they still earned a decent salary and were able to live luxurious lives. Moore made it a point to say that doctors working for the government probably would not be able to afford multiple million dollar homes and six cars, but why is that necessary anyway?

All in all, I thought this film was pretty fascinating. While Moore is quite biased, I think there is some truth to this film. I do wish we could see a documentary that was anti-universal healthcare for comparison purposes.

Random Thoughts:

1. I thought the part where Moore threw in the clip from Fahrenheit 9/11 and had the voiceover saying: "and remember, let's fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was completely unnecessary.

2. I felt like Moore's choice of using the 9/11 victims' struggles with insurance companies and Moore taking them to Cuba to obtain more affordable healthcare was a little too extreme. First of all, 9/11 was a tragic touching event that people of all ages relates pretty well to. I feel that Moore chose to include this in the film to win over those viewers that maybe hadn't bought into his argument just yet. I wasn't a fan of this choice.

3. I loved the part about Moore sending money to help pay for the medical expenses of the wife whose husband has the anti-Michael Moore website.

4. I am interested in how the insurance companies reacted to this film, especially after the part in the film with the girl that is not approved for both cochlear implants until her father writes a letter to the insurance company about how he will tell Michael Moore about his troubles.

Photograph of Colorado

I took this photograph a few winters ago in Colorado. This image could be used as proof of nature's beauty. However, standing alone, this image argues that nature is beautiful.

The unaltered realness of this image helps construct the image's credibility. The partially melted snow at the tops of the mountains and on the roads and the recently skied-on surface of the snow shows that this image is a snapshot of reality, not an artificial representation of nature. Because this image was not staged nor planned out, the image authoritatively speaks about nature's beauty.

The colors present in this photograph of Colorado convince viewers of nature's beauty. Clear blue skies are often associated with beauty, and the color white is a universal symbol for purity and beauty. Because both of these traditionally beautiful colors predominate the image, the photograph persuades the audience that nature is beautiful.

The comparison of the elements of nature in the image with the man-made ski lift on the right side of the image also demonstrate the beauty of nature. The trees, the blue sky, and the snow on the ground are all natural components of nature that appear very real and appealing to the eye. In contrast, the man-made ski lift in the picture, made of metal and dark in color, does not have a sense of reality and beauty about it. This contrast shows that there is beauty in simplicity and in realness.

Through capturing a true, unaltered depiction of nature, in analyzing the predominant colors in the image, and in comparing nature with a man-made ski lift, the photograph of Colorado convinces the audience that nature is beautiful.

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Image Credit: Michael Moore

I want to begin this entry by saying that I feel like I do not know enough about the events of 9/11 and the War in Iraq to fully comprehend this documentary.

This is the first Michael Moore documentary that I have watched. I have always heard that he directs provocative films, and now I can see why. His presentation of the events of 9/11 and the War in Iraq was radical, to say the least. In his film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", Moore argues that President George Bush and the federal government played a role in the plane hijackings in order to set the stage for acceptance of the War in Iraq. Moore utilizes several mediums, including TV broadcasts, interviews with all types of citizens, and clips from TV shows, to persuade the audience of his extreme perspective.

The movie began by laying out the beginnings of Bush's presidency, noting that he might have won by such a narrow margin because of his cousin and that he seemed to be playing harder than he was working. Then, the movie shifted to the 9/11 attacks and made Bush seem as though he had ignored prior notice of the attacks occurring. He also seemed indifferent when the attacks actually did happen. Moore presented a series of facts about the Bush's ties to the Bin Ladens and President Bush's attempts to silence talk and investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Because the United States' citizenry was in the dark about the events of 9/11, it was easy for them to support the War in Iraq when Bush initially suggested it (people were also gung-ho about the Patriot Act). It was not until the war seemed to drudge on that people began to think twice about what they were supporting. From the interviews with the soldiers, I got the sense that even they did not know why they were fighting (some even said so explicitly). I was especially struck by the soldier that stated: "I was a republican, but I realized [as a result of the war] that they conduct business in a dishonest way. And I am now a democrat". This seemed to solidify that the government was hiding information from the citizenry.

I found it interesting that the Patriot Act was passed so hastily and without Congress actually reading the provisions. I could not believe that the congressman in the interview stated that government officials do not read every bill that comes through because that would slow the process and be inefficient. We elect these officials to see to it that we, as citizens of the United States, are protected and we trust that these officials have our best interests in mind. If elected officials do not even read all the bills that come through congress, are they really doing the job we elected them to do?

Additionally, I found it interesting that people in the poorer communities were enlisted into the army after people began resigning or becoming disinterested in enlisting. I thought it was unfair to lure young men in by telling them about which celebrities had been in the army and/or marines, in hopes of persuading them into enlistment.

I noticed the film's tone change about midway through. The beginning of the movie seemed to be laying out a multitude of facts which laid the foundation for and supported his argument. The last half of the movie seemed to be much more emotionally-charged, especially with the interviews with soldiers and their families. If the facts from the first half of the film did not provoke thought or evoke an emotional response, surely the second half did.

Moore used rhetorical techniques throughout the film that made the conclusions that the viewer draws seem to be their own conclusions, rather than Moore simply stating his opinions and allowing the viewer to think about his points on their own. For example, when he was talking about the 9/11 attacks, he asked a series of questions about what normally occurs after a murder. The viewer is prompted to think that multiple investigations occur and the family members are the first people that are questioned. Moore then states that those actions were not taken in this situation. This evokes a feeling of suspicion on the part of the viewer, which is exactly what Moore was attempting to do.

Some random thoughts:

Does Moore actually believe everything he has laid out in the film?

What was Moore's motive in making the film?

What did Bush think when the film aired?

How does Moore gain access to the information he has obtained?

Peter Davis' "Hearts and Minds"

Image Credit: Peter Davis

Peter Davis' film, "Hearts and Minds", attempts to give multiple perspectives on the Vietnam War. He shows interviews with soldiers, common citizens, government officials, and the Vietnamese, while including excerpts from movies and presidential speeches. As I was watching, I noticed a direct parallel between "Hearts and Minds" and Bernie Cook's article, "Over My Dead Body: The Ideological Use of Dead Bodies in Network News Coverage of Vietnam". Throughout the movie, the Vietnamese were depicted as inferior to the Americans.

Many of the camera shots showed the Vietnamese in moments of weakness. For example, one camera shot showed a close-up of a wounded Vietnamese man on the floor, partially naked, with a group of American soldiers surrounding him, putting a gun to his chest. Never in the movie did Davis decide to depict the Americans in such a way. Instead, the Americans were shown either in body bags, or in a shot taken from such a distance that it was difficult to see the details of what was occurring.

Also, the shots of the common people in America and the common people in Vietnam contrasted sharply. The shots of the Vietnamese showed children that were missing limbs, had dysfunctional limbs, or had some other handicap. On the other hand, American children were shown playing football with their fully functioning bodies, and men and women were shown attending rallies to support the troops. This different depiction of the Vietnamese and the American common people further made the Vietnamese seem inferior.

Additionally, the interviews between the Americans and the Vietnamese were treated differently. Davis included multiple clips of the Vietnamese talking about how their homes were destroyed, how their families had been killed, and how they were left with nothing to eat, among other things. Both countries seemed to not understand why the war was being fought, but the interviews with Americans seemed to just show that the American people were relatively unaffected by the war and its atrocities. Davis' showing of the Vietnamese struggles and hardships made them appear weaker than the Americans who seemed unaffected.

Some other random thoughts:

I thought it was interesting how the interviews with the American soldiers were shot with a close-up head shots throughout the first part of the movie, but later the camera zoomed out to reveal the soldiers' handicaps acquired from the war.

I was a little shocked at the comments that Westmoreland was making during his interview at the end of the movie. He was mentioning how life was not valuable to the Orient and they did not really care about their life. I felt like that statement was appalling.