>yeah, ok, i can see all that, having been frustrated and flummoxed by
>students, myself. but then, that's why *you're* there, right. ;-)
it's also why moore's there, right?
given who he was producing the original doco for and why, it's no big deal.
but... for the sake of discussion... and it'll be interesting after we've
both viewed it again. it's been awhile for me....even if _others_ read his
film as making fun of the working class, the point with a reader response
analysis is to point out that it's not just subjective, but that those
subjectivities are systematically produced and that they _also_ tell us
something about the cultural product (the film) and the creator of that
cultural product. moore is part of the world no less than you or i are. i
make fun of the C&W bar painted flamingo pink and choose that description
for a reason. for, as noble as i think working people can be and are in the
struggle of living their daily lives, i often shake my head and think, "do
you _really_ have to have the hulk of a rusted out impala in your yard?"
:) or "yes, i know you love to work on old cars and fix them up.
wonderful. but do you _really_ need to buy an old boxcar and convert it
into a garage? wouldn't a nice garage kit from the hardware store be just
as good and a little more, uhm, aesthetically appealing?" heh. (I know
someone contemplating such a thing and I had to bite my tongue!). we are
all part of this culture and if _we_ make fun, no matter how much we know,
then you can bet people like my students make a LOT of fun, especially
given how little they know.
after all, could he have not told a variation on the theme of "Rabbits: Pets or Meat?" by using someone else in a similar circumstance who didn't fit the image of one of ma and pa kettle's offspring. I've been to Flint, most people there don't look as she does. he probably had a lot of footage to work with and spent some time doing the footwork on this film, yes? i've been part of the production of a doco on a similar theme. They didn't pick the most outlandish people to feature in the film. they picked people who represented different viewpoints. they didn't seek out the most colorful people with the most unusual circumstances.
i mean, why not show a family getting divorced? how about someone turning to alcohol to deal? or who starts abusing family and partner to deal? what about all the families that had to commute hundreds of miles a week? why not tell those stories?
the Rabbit lady and the Color lady were chosen for a reason: they were colorful characters. fine. that's the nature of doing a doco--you choose who you're going to include and who you don't. you choose what discussions you'll include and which you won't.
He wanted to be shocking and, of course, _funny_. It's not surprising that people laugh--like they laugh at Gummo.
But, that's Moore's shtick. Street theater, as you said. but if that's the genre you're going to use--to be outlandish and choose outlandish themes--then it shouldn't be surprising that people who don't have the framework to understand what he's doing are going to be most interested in laughing at people they're used to laughing at. afterall, why do you want to laugh at people who you aspire to be like? and, if you do, then don't you take pleasure in the belief that _you_ won't be like that. just as people who identify with the workers can feel superior and say, _I_ wouldn't get a job evicting other families and _I_ wouldn't sell rabbits for meat when only six months before they were pets! etc.
and so, that's how the film works on the viewer to make it seem as if it's an individual choice--and in part this is because it's a genre that skewers everyone, to some extent. that's fine, but as a didactic technique--and docos are generally made with that in mind--then i think it definitely needs more space for telling the narrative of _how_ people actually overcome the conditions that are not of their own making.