Little White Lie?

      During a class discussion today in American Studies we talked about a blog post our teacher had written called "This American Lie". If you'd like to read the blog post you can click HERE and be linked to the blog. Earlier in the year we had listened to a podcast of a monologue by a man named Mike Daisey who talked about atrocities he had witnessed of the working conditions for people who make Apple products. The story of the workers strife he told was very compelling, however news has recently come out that a lot of the "facts" or claims in the story are falsified completely or exaggerated.

      People in class were connecting this incident to criticism the Kony 2012 campaign has received. Many believe that the issues in Uganda were oversimplified in the video for Kony 2012 video in order to generate  a massive public response. The oversimplified truth therefore becomes a lie in some peoples eyes. Some would argue that this is a necessary lie in order to get the public to pay attention and care. This begs the question is it okay to lie if it is for a good reason? However this isn't the question I want to discuss in this blog post.

I want to focus on the question: What constitutes a "lie" when it comes to story telling in the media today?

      I would argue that the Kony 2012 video isn't truly a lie. Or at least not to as great of a degree that Daisey's monologue was.

      Stories are all CONSTRUCTIONS. (In this blog I'll be referring to articles, nonfiction books, and historical/news accounts as stories). We've discussed this a lot in American Studies. Everything in a sense, is a construction. Even when people write history textbooks, they are reconstructing history. They have to decide what is important and what should be omitted for the sake of space. In story telling, people are allowed to omit information that they don't feel is relevant to the story they are telling. This doesn't make their story any less true, there just might be some things left out. It is the duty of a diligent person to research those extra pieces if they'd like. This is why I believe the Kony 2012 video is not a lie.

      However, there is a difference between omitting information and adding falsified information or exaggerating facts. This I would consider a lie and not a truthful construction. If something never happened, it can't be a part of a historical construction. For example, in Daisey's monologue he talks about a man with withered hands using an ipad for the first time. There was never a man and this event never occurred. Daisey didn't simply retell an event in a moving or dramatic way, he completely fabricated one that never existed. It's not a truthful construction because there was never a man or event that happened. He had no basis to construct anything from, he just made it up.

      My ideas only apply to stories that people claim to be accurate accounts of events. I would have been happy with there being exaggerations in Daisey's monologue if he had said that his story was a piece of fiction with some basis in facts. However, he claimed that his story was all true facts, which in fact, it was not.

What do you think constitutes a lie in story telling? Is omission a form of lying as well? How much should intent be considered in these situations?

The Sea Horse

      Recently I saw New Trier production of "The Sea Horse" by Edward J. Moore. It's a story about two characters, a man and a woman, that are romantically involved but their relationship is difficult because she has trust issues and he is aways away working on a ship. In the show, they are at the restaurant she owns called the Sea Horse, talking about their plans for the future as the man wishes to get married, but the woman is hesitant. The female character, Gertrude, was played by Chloe Knight and the male character, Harry, was played by John Parks.

      I was very impressed by Chloe and the sophomore John in this show because I felt like they were extremely invested. They did everything all out and did not hold back or seem uncomfortable onstage. There were a few moments when I felt their silent tension could have been used differently. The moment that I would have changed was when Chloe finally admitted that she could not have children anymore because she had been hurt too badly before. Her old husband had abused her. In the show, John shrugged a little and the scene moved on, but I felt like that was a big revelation and called for a longer time for it to sink in and for the audience to realize its importance. Especially since John had a monologue at the beginning of the show where he talked about how badly he wanted a kid and how having one would change everything in their life for the better. I would have kept it so that there was a build in the argument until the moment when Chloe finally blurts out she can’t have children. Then there would have been a pause where John steps back a little shocked and confused. Chloe would have stepped forward reaching out her hand to him a little and he would have just pulled away a little more, turning away from her, prompting her to say her next line about how she was hurt too badly. This line would be said quieter than her previous one and a little softer, showing her vulnerability and how much it hurts her to not be able to have a kid anymore. Hearing the change in her voice he would turn back to her and try to comfort her a little bit as the scene progressed and the lines continued. The whole moment should be done slowly, with each action being done with some tenacity to show how painful this truth is for both characters.

TV Tolkenism: Fringe

      In our class American Studies we've been talking about the idea of "TV Tolkenism". Our teacher has formulated the thesis that on the majority of network dramas minority characters are just used to create diversity, but are never really seen as the main characters. A show that I picked out to support this thesis was Fringe.

Click HERE to view a video clip of the show. Below is a screen shot from part of the video.

-Fringe is a FOX drama about a group of scientists and FBI agents that work together in order to solve crimes in a special unit of the government called the "Fringe Division." They solve crimes that involve theoretical areas of science. Basically that means crimes that are on the "fringe" of reality, they don't seem like they're possible.

-The show centers on a white male, Peter and his crazy scientist father, Walter. In this scene, Walter (center) is walking with Agent Broyles (left) and Astrid (right). Agent Broyles is the head of Fringe Division and he is a very serious, play by the rules character. Astrid is the quiet assistant to Walter that reigns in his insanity.

-The most exciting character by far in this scene to watch is Walter. He draws attention by the way he talks and carries himself. He is a character with a complicated relationship with his son and past. Agent Broyles and Astrid are not complicated characters. They are there to help Walter and you don't know too much about their personal lives.