LBJ

The documentary LBJ was filmed in 1968 and was directed by Santiago Alvarez. This documentary’s subject matter was all about President Lynden B. Johnson who was ran our country from 1963 to 1969. The filmmakers wanted to construct Johnson as the villain in the film and as a figure of hatred. Alvarez used a lot of archival footage; however he twisted that footage in a variety of ways to make Johnson look like an evil person. The very beginning of the film opens up with dramatic horror music playing. One way that Alvarez distorted the archival footage was he showed wedding pictures of Johnson’s daughter getting married but instead of showing them normally, he cast a red shade over the picture symbolizing evil. The documentary uses a lot of cross cutting between Johnson and a dog's face. This just insinuates how ridiculous and stupid Johnson is. The documentary shows footage and pictures from the assasinations of both of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. A photo of Johnson is shown holding guns, making it seem like he was indeed the one responsible for all these deaths. Alvarez uses a lot of metaphors in his film, a very significant metaphor that was used was the owl. After each assasinations, an owl sitting in a tree at night was shown. I think this symbolizes death or possibly even Lynden B. Johnson.

Primary

The documentary Primary was directed by Robert Drew. This documentary followed John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey around during the Wisconsin Primary. This film is a great example of the role of performance in the image of the president, or those running for president. JFK was very charming, smooth and knew how to manipulate his image so it looked good on the camera where as Humphrey did not do this so well and looked more awkward on camera. The filmmaker used observational filming in this documentary and therefore it was not scripted at all. There was a lot of cross cutting used between JFK and Humphrey. This showed the apparent differences between their images and the way they presented themselves. The film showed Kennedy seeming as if he did not have to try very hard to be charming to the people; however Humphrey appeared to have difficulty and had to try very hard. In many of the scenes, the people were flocking towards Kennedy all excited and trying to get autographs, handshakes, and etcetera. On the other hand, Humphrey was alone on the sidewalk having to go out of his way to greet people and shake THEIR hands. This may have been how it truly was, or the filmmaker might have cut out different scenes and made these scenes contrast each other to make it look as if Kennedy is the favored candidate. I also noticed that the film focused much more on Kennedy and his wife Jackie than it did Humphrey. It displayed great moments of Kennedy, for example when he was walking through the crowd shaking everyone’s hands after he gave his amazing speech, but it shows mediocre moments of Humphrey, for example when he is giving a speech at an informal restaurant. It is safe to say that this film wanted to portray Kennedy in a better light than Humphrey and that could have been one of the reasons Kennedy won.

Reality TV articles 3&4

The article "The Moral Economy of person production: the class relations of self-performance on "reality" television," by Bererley Skeggs discusses how British reality television focuses on social class whereas American reality television focuses more on race. self transformation reality shows are seen quite a bit in both societies. However, British reality shows transform working class people whereas American reality shows transform middle class people. Transformation shows are popular because the audiences watching all hope to be the people undergoing transformations to better their lives. The article also plants out how morality is taught quite a few different ways in reality television. By shame and guilt, rules and advise, social mobility through self performance or measuring bodies for qualifying value. Although I believe some reality television shows instill some morality into its participants. I do not think most walk away with new found morality. For most reality shows, they teach people improper morals and do not help them better themselves at all.

The article "Frontier House: Reality Television and the Historical Experience" by Malgorzata Rymsza-Pawlowska discusses the reality show Frontier House which was a rare type of show that combined reality genre with an education documentary. This show is one of the few that present good morals to its participants and viewers. It helps the participants realize to be grateful for everything they have in their lives. Although it did make some couples realize they have nothing in common and are not in love, it also allowed others to reconnect with each other without the interference of technology.