Spike Lee's Phony Objectivism
I know I am beating a dead horse when I argue this, especially with regards to changing the ideals of main stream media, but once again, objectivism is not real! News is never "fair and balanced," and political pundits are never political analysts separate from their own political ideologies. Neither are documentaries.
Objectivism, as complex a term as it is, is quite simple to disprove, especially with regards to human’s subjective relationships to other objects in the world. There is always something we are partial to, from religion to politics, and we’ll do and say anything to benefit that which serves us or our cause best. Even if the historical method, which is often used in most accurately recording history, were applied to an issue, we’d still have to ask, to whom does it benefit? More so, taking an objective approach to a topic means to have a larger acceptance for known evidence. But, it is still dependant on relative evidence, because if the evidence is proved false or denied, the objective approach is rendered useless. And in this day and age, it doesn’t take much to render it useless. Humans have become quite skilled in the art of rhetoric and can argue against any kind of evidence, even if it is true. Look at O.J. Simpson, surely he was guilty.
Last night ended Spike Lee's four-hour HBO documentary, “When the Levees Broke: a Requiem in Four Acts,” which aired with much anticipation to an American audience steal reeling from the cultural damage experienced by a failed governmental response to one of the greatest natural disasters our nation has ever suffered, Hurricane Katrina. However, much of that anticipation was fueled by an extremely effective marketing campaign by HBO that touted Lee was merely letting the testimonials of survivors and images of the disaster to speak for themselves, and allowing the film's viewers to come to their own conclusion as to who is to blame for the failed rescue responses to victims of the hurricane.
Although allowing the images and testimonials to speak for themselves and letting the audience decide who is to blame sounds logical enough, it is a misnomer to say that they are completely objective. First and foremost the director of the documentary has complete control over what images and testimonials audiences will see and hear. That alone disproves the validity and presence of objectivism within the film. Why would Spike Lee choose to show graphic images and sad music at key moments in the documentary? The answer is very simple: to persuade an audience through emotional manipulation. This is classic rhetoric. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is "the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion." He described three main forms of rhetoric: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos, the latter being the appeal based on emotion. In essence, Lee’s documentary is one giant example of Pathos, persuasion using emotion. Heck, even I found myself becoming teary eyed at points in the film.
However, is Lee bad for doing this? No. In fact, they are good film techniques and very effective in conveying whatever political messages documentarians want to convey. Lee’s message was clear: Blacks are to present day being treated like slaves and the government doesn’t care about them, as was “evidenced” by their slow response in New Orleans.
Is Lee right? Maybe, but the Blacks who evacuated New Orleans, those who had flood damage insurance on their homes, those whose experience of Katrina was nowhere near as tragic as others and whose critiques of FEMA are less critical, can also be right and contrary to Lee. Furthermore, Lee’s assertion is called into question when FEMA members outside of the documentary say that neither New Orlean’s Mayor Ray Nagin, nor Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco asked for assistance during or shortly after the storm, or that Victims were told well before the storm made landfall that they needed to evacuate, yet stayed.
My entire argument is in an effort to disprove the notion that Lee’s documentary was an objective one, not to say that the victims, those most harmed by the government’s slow response, are partly to blame. When I read articles and blogs, or hear that Lee was being objective when he made this documentary, I have to wonder, why would Lee emotionally detach himself from a research project that has the possibility of promoting his cause, which has always been to present the plight of Blacks in American society? Nearly every film Lee has ever made has done this in some way or another. And thus, “When the Levees Broke: a Requiem in Four Acts” is propaganda at its best and completely bias.
Objectivism, as complex a term as it is, is quite simple to disprove, especially with regards to human’s subjective relationships to other objects in the world. There is always something we are partial to, from religion to politics, and we’ll do and say anything to benefit that which serves us or our cause best. Even if the historical method, which is often used in most accurately recording history, were applied to an issue, we’d still have to ask, to whom does it benefit? More so, taking an objective approach to a topic means to have a larger acceptance for known evidence. But, it is still dependant on relative evidence, because if the evidence is proved false or denied, the objective approach is rendered useless. And in this day and age, it doesn’t take much to render it useless. Humans have become quite skilled in the art of rhetoric and can argue against any kind of evidence, even if it is true. Look at O.J. Simpson, surely he was guilty.
Last night ended Spike Lee's four-hour HBO documentary, “When the Levees Broke: a Requiem in Four Acts,” which aired with much anticipation to an American audience steal reeling from the cultural damage experienced by a failed governmental response to one of the greatest natural disasters our nation has ever suffered, Hurricane Katrina. However, much of that anticipation was fueled by an extremely effective marketing campaign by HBO that touted Lee was merely letting the testimonials of survivors and images of the disaster to speak for themselves, and allowing the film's viewers to come to their own conclusion as to who is to blame for the failed rescue responses to victims of the hurricane.
Although allowing the images and testimonials to speak for themselves and letting the audience decide who is to blame sounds logical enough, it is a misnomer to say that they are completely objective. First and foremost the director of the documentary has complete control over what images and testimonials audiences will see and hear. That alone disproves the validity and presence of objectivism within the film. Why would Spike Lee choose to show graphic images and sad music at key moments in the documentary? The answer is very simple: to persuade an audience through emotional manipulation. This is classic rhetoric. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is "the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion." He described three main forms of rhetoric: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos, the latter being the appeal based on emotion. In essence, Lee’s documentary is one giant example of Pathos, persuasion using emotion. Heck, even I found myself becoming teary eyed at points in the film.
However, is Lee bad for doing this? No. In fact, they are good film techniques and very effective in conveying whatever political messages documentarians want to convey. Lee’s message was clear: Blacks are to present day being treated like slaves and the government doesn’t care about them, as was “evidenced” by their slow response in New Orleans.
Is Lee right? Maybe, but the Blacks who evacuated New Orleans, those who had flood damage insurance on their homes, those whose experience of Katrina was nowhere near as tragic as others and whose critiques of FEMA are less critical, can also be right and contrary to Lee. Furthermore, Lee’s assertion is called into question when FEMA members outside of the documentary say that neither New Orlean’s Mayor Ray Nagin, nor Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco asked for assistance during or shortly after the storm, or that Victims were told well before the storm made landfall that they needed to evacuate, yet stayed.
My entire argument is in an effort to disprove the notion that Lee’s documentary was an objective one, not to say that the victims, those most harmed by the government’s slow response, are partly to blame. When I read articles and blogs, or hear that Lee was being objective when he made this documentary, I have to wonder, why would Lee emotionally detach himself from a research project that has the possibility of promoting his cause, which has always been to present the plight of Blacks in American society? Nearly every film Lee has ever made has done this in some way or another. And thus, “When the Levees Broke: a Requiem in Four Acts” is propaganda at its best and completely bias.
posted by Caleab at 4:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home