Perhaps the most important factor to think of when looking at a documentary is how things have changed since it was made. In the 2005 documentary "Class Dismissed" several intellectuals try to define class and break it down into three basic categories of economic, political and cultural factors that define a person's status in society. TV has a different and more instinctive definition... taste in beer. So have things changed since 2005? The short answer is, the issue of class division has become even more critical as the middle class in the US is shrinking and the working class wages have not risen to reflect productivity. Corporate profits are staggering and the purchasing power of the working class is hugely depressed. But we always have TV. This documentary concerns itself primarily with the working class and its representation in television programming. Classic examples like the "Honeymooners," "Good Times," "The Jeffersons" and contemporary to its time shows like "George Lopez," "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "King of Queens" all show images of working class families and their struggles to make ends meet. It is this relationship to the American dream that defines that struggle. Each father figure or breadwinner in the series is primarily concerned with the basics in life. it isn't until the late nineties that we see representations of families that are more aligned with the middle class in these domestic sit-coms. These are families that have achieved that next step in the American dream. In The Cosby Show for example his family is already well established with two professional jobs and all of the fine appointments in their homes. All of their basics have been provided for and the content of the show then switches to lifestyle instead of food clothing and shelter as was the main focus of a show like "Good times." So what does the representation of the American Dream have to do with the actual real-world pursuit of it? Turns out, quite a bit. As narrator Ed Asner states in the film, "As TV evolved as a commercially sponsored medium, advertisers began to play an increasingly important role in creating programs. Their impact went far beyond on screen sponsorship to having a hand in the actual production, including script writing and hiring of talent. Due to their power and influence, advertisers were able to redefine the meaning of the American Dream, from the search for a better life to the pursuit of a consumer lifestyle." Understanding representation only comes through understanding the economics of the medium. TV is a commercial enterprise, quite literally. It is a medium driven by advertising and commercials and needs to reflect the values that make the commercial machine expand. It's here the ideology of the market seeps into the shows. In their article Rethinking Popular Culture, authors Marshall and Sensoy ask, "How can teachers resist the pedagogies and corporate interests of popular culture and media in which the social world is simplified in ways that limit our understandings of complex social histories, identities, and structural inequities?" TV has it's own answer to that. Stereotypes. Stereotypes are the norm in TV because the characters are generally undeveloped and don't change. Perhaps because of the episodic nature of tv shows or laziness on the part of the writers. Class then becomes less about the true markers of social status and more about the trappings of low culture. As stated in the film, "You know being working class seems kind of like a lifestyle choice where people like pink flamingos and tacky furniture in their house, and don’t have much taste." Indeed class divisions become obscured by TV shows redefining class as a choice or taste for the tacky as opposed to the real forces that dictate class and that is earning power, influence and education. Perhaps the main criticism that I have of this documentary is one of their omission of other kinds of representations of family life in mass culture. This documentary takes a very small sliver of the types of TV shows that were available from the inception of television to 2005. The multitude of representations of white family life give a very wide array of experiences. Some lowbrow, some high brow but more than not, lots of white diversity in representation. The problem with speaking about black representation and minority representation in television is the representations are so limited. When there are few examples of black families on TV the importance of what could be seen as a light-hearted show takes on an added level of meaning and complexity because it stands as an iconic representation instead of a nuanced one or just another version of the black experience. So between 2005 and 2015 what has changed? According to a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, "middle-age, working-class white Americans are the only group in the country whose health and mortality rates are worsening."1 According to pollster Mark Pellman, "The distinction is, these blue-collar whites see opportunities for people like them shrinking, whereas the African Americans [and Hispanics] feel there are a set of long-term opportunities that are opening to them that were previously closed on the basis of race or ethnicity." It's a fascinating analysis and it begs the question, has representation in the media contributed to the misery, fear and anxiety of the viewer? - Gregory Golda ________________________________________________________________________ For more on the study please see How Delusional Nostalgia Is Killing the White Working Class View Sext Up Kids at MEFThe first impression of a film comes, of course, from its title and here we have to take the word "sext" and unpack its ostensible misspelling. The evolution of the word text like many words in the English language is a progression of the seemingly obvious to the rather layered and complicated. The word text alone has at least seven meanings as a noun and several more when used as a verb. Simply substituting the S for T describes a new phenomenon. The easy access to digital technology and the now familliar mode of communicating called texting allows for instantaneous messaging. With the addition of the ability to add pictures we have created a true minefield for tweens, teens and their parents. In this brave new world of digital communication technology the law has yet to find the nuance needed to both protect citizens as well as punish misdeeds appropriately. In this film directed by Maureen Palmer and produced by the Media Education Foundation we see several examples of children absorbing the hyper sexualized culture around them and using their digital technology to insinuate themselves into the mix. Kids and teens are seeing representations of sexuality before they are mentally ready for it and are mimicking and expressing very complicated ideas in very primitive ways. In the film it is stated, "Smartphones and social media make it possible not only for kids to consume Xrated images but to produce them with devastating consequences." It's here where the law and technology are catching kids up in a Byzantine trap. The power of this documentary comes from seeing the real world examples of preteens being sexualized in advertisements and the myriad examples of children being expected to behave in all too precocious ways. Probably the most damning criticism of the process and the one most likely to surprize parents is the "priming" done by the representations of princesses in children's media. A Peggy Orenstein states, "...And there's this way that it's very precious, and it feels like something protective against sexualization, but I think there's a real compelling argument to be made that it's priming them for sexualization. When there's just one form of play that they do for three years, and it's all about being the prettiest of them all and the fairest of them all, that becomes problematic. It goes really quickly from being the prettiest little girl to needing to be the hottest little girl. And its emphasis is over and over on beauty, on externals, on your defining yourself through how you look to others. And that primes girls and pushes them towards the hypersexualization that happens at an older age." As the father of an eight-year-old have already experienced several wake-up calls in that age old debate of when to talk about sexuality with children. The answer I have found is it is never too early to start that conversation. Because if you do not then the information both comes to the children and as I have found the children will seek it out with their digital technologies. Probably the most chilling elements of this film is the piers of the children using digital technology against one another to coerce or bully for whatever reason. The core issue here is children seeing images of what it is to be sexual and not understanding the power of sexuality or the purpose. If the only access a child has to sexuality is through online pornography then as the film shows there ability to relate and have meaningful relationships is damaged. The documentary is important to parents and children equally because of its insights. Children should know from adults that what they see around them is a commodified suggestion of what life should be like. Parents should know that the media's influence is constant and invasive. And only when that conversation is engaged can there be any protection and meaningful reflection on burgeoning sexuality. Follow Up: On November 3rd of 2015 it was reported that federal health officials have declared an epidemic in Crane Texas where 20 students of 300 in the town's high school have tested positive for chlamydia. The superintendent stated "We do have an abstinence curriculum and that evidently ain't working." It is situations like this, where teen sexuality flies under the parents radar, where sticking your head in the sand simply makes things much worse. Parents need the courage to actually protect their children with information not to ignore a fundamental component of humanity. From the film's website: The gap in opportunities for different races in America remains extreme. Nowhere is this more evident than our nation’s top public schools. In New York City, where blacks and Hispanics make up 70% of the city’s school-aged population, they represent less than 5% at the city’s most elite public high schools. Meanwhile Asian Americans make up as much as 73%. This documentary follows a dozen racially and socio-economically diverse 8th graders as they fight for a seat at one of these schools. Their only way in: to ace a single standardized test. Tested includes the voices of such education experts as Pedro Noguera and Diane Ravitch as it explores such issues as access to a high-quality public education, affirmative action, and the model-minority myth. http://www.testedfilm.com/To my surprise, the film tested was not about the standardized tests that have been plaguing my kids at home. This film by Curtis Chin and Adam Wolman revolves around a controversial test taken by middle schoolers that allows them to enter one of three 3 elite high schools in New York City. The burning question for me after watching this was, what are these 3 schools doing right that everyone else is not? The film follows a gaggle of middle schoolers who are burning the midnight oil and consuming large chunks of their family's income preparing for the SHSAT test. The core controversy explored in the film was not necessarily that there was a test but that there is a huge under-representation of minority students being placed in these elite schools.
I'm certainly not the kind of a film viewer that wants everything spelled out for me and frankly, there was no danger of that happening from this film's rather neutral and informational point of view. The film lacked any real drama other than a few testy exchanges between proponents and opponents of the test at a press conference. Unlike the much larger controversy of standardized testing in all public schools for federal funding what we saw in this film was a highly regarded test being supported by an establishment and a frustrated population of minorities looking at the test as a way for their children to transcend their birth place. The children and the families were less concerned about the disproportionate representation of minorities in the final placement as they were more concerned about the rather blank opportunity that the high schools represented. There seem to be a lot of magical thinking on the part of the parents that entry into the high school was a ticket to a better life. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. But, the real meat of the subject should have been whether or not white privilege is part of the problem in the New York City school system and how resources are allocated to poorly performing schools. This issue is a real problem nationwide. As a film the story was a straightforward telling of the prep, testing, and waiting with some statistics thrown in to show the disparity in minority placements. I was disappointed as an audience member that in the final summary there seem to be no way to engage in the debate. The stakes for this particular test are high for a few and non-existent for most. Unlike No Child Left Behind and the mandated testing there is a true purpose of this test. And it can be argued as it was in the film, that entry to the elite schools is based on merit. What will become of this test and the process? Several people involved in this issue rejected the idea of quotas as degrading of the value of the system. Others argued that the system is broken. As one activist gave a statement to the effect that everyone is a little right about how it's broken and how to fix it. After legal appeals were knocked down it looks like the fight will continue but, for me, the real question is how do we fix the dilapidated house and not just the exit door. -GJG |
AuthorGregory J. Golda started Media Matrix in 2015 ArchivesCategories |