Choose one scene from the "Minimum Wage" episode that you found particularly memorable and/or persuasive. Remember that in a documentary (and all reality TV), a director has at her disposal infinitely more footage than can appear in the final film. Why did the director choose to include *this* scene? What is its purpose and how does it further the film's ultimate argument? Also, what rhetorical appeals is the scene drawing on? (Ethos? Pathos? Logos?) Finally, what role did the filming technique itself play in the effectiveness of the scene? (Was it a handheld camera shot? Was it set up by the "stock footage" of Columbus? What about the camera angle?)
Remember that blog posts need to be at least 300 words. Due 4/10.
The scene I chose to pick was when the man and the woman took the kids out on Easter. This scene displayed the problems that not only one person has on minimum wage but a husband and wife with children. Buying two rolls of bread for $1.20 set the wife into a frustrating fit.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this scene is to give the audience a sense of the fragility of a relationship when it comes to money. Working on minimum wage requires the couple be very strong and patient with each other. It gets even more brittle if there are kids involved and there is a holiday. It is tough to balance out pleasure and necessities.
Obviously this a pathos approach. The conductor uses an emotional strategy to show the audience that life on minimum wage is extremely difficult. The emotional strategy is how two people who are together could very easily turn against each other due the choices of what to spend money on. The lesson to learn here is that the couple needs to balance out exactly how they want to spend their money. There was also a solid logos approach I liked. They showed the audience their bill for walking into the hospital and getting some prescriptions and band aids. They also showed their daily paycheck and the money counter on the bottom left hand side. This really helped the audience understand how easy someone on minimum wage can get aggravated by something minute.
The technique of filming in the late winter, or late fall, gave the setting for this picture a gloomy feel to it. It is meant give the audience the worst possible scenario. Its going to be cold, windy, no air conditioning, no heater, no furniture, and living on beans and rice. This is obviously going to send a very depressing emotional response to the audience which makes us feel sympathy for them already before they even begin their show. They use a montage approach beginning very early in the morning which nobody likes to do and show them throughout their day working hard and then coming home exhausted and cranky. After day 1, we as an audience were convinced that life on minimum wage sucks.
I found the scene in which Morgan and his fiancee took his niece and nephew to the grocery store. By buying them food at the grocery store and documenting the ensuing fight between the documentarian and his girlfriend, the audience was exposed to a pathos appeal. The argument being put forward by the inclusion of the scene was that many families struggle to provide even the slightest "luxuries" for their children or themselves. This theme was common throughout the narrative, but the inclusion of the family dynamic stretched the use of pathos about as far as it could go.
ReplyDeleteThe filmmaker wanted to express the difficulties of providing for a family on minimum wage. While most American's would consider supplying their children with treats to be a non-issue, the minimum-wage lifestyle seemed to prove challenging. I wasn't particularly persuaded by the presentation of these scenes. The logos exemplified by the continuous documentation of the funds made for a far tighter argument. By delivering footage and documentation for the couples hectic work schedule as well as their paychecks and expenditures, the audience was able to keep up with the money flowing through their hands. It was easy to see how some unlucky folks can be financially crippled by something as simple as a medical condition.
I found the piece as a whole to be compelling in a number of ways. It succinctly describes the plight of many American families without trying to be too much of a human interest story. That said, I do find the few examples of pathos-oriented visual argument to fall a little flat. Seeing the couple bicker over rolls in a grocery store may appeal to some viewers' empathy, but I felt that scene held the audience's hand a little too tightly to try and make them feel the way they are supposed to.
I agree. This scene and the "we had to make two emergency room trips in ONE DAY" scenes have always rung a bit false to me. They make me start to doubt Spurlock's integrity a bit. I find watching them trying to pay the bills to be much more powerful.
DeleteMorgan Spurlock documentary, episode: minimum wage of the television series 30 days, ask the question is it possible to live on minimum wage in America while suffering the price of a high cost living.
ReplyDeleteI find the most persuasive, and memorable, scene being when Spurlock is deciding whether he should go to the hospital, or, to gamble with waiting out his injury.
This scene demonstrates the anxiety and stress lived out in the day to day of minimum wage workers. Showing this by including his thought circle that not going could lead to an even worse injury and more lost work and money; or to go, miss a day’s wages, and possibly not be able to pay the upcoming rent. Thus furthering his question of if it is possible to live on low wages, what does it do to a person(s) mentality, and how difficult it is.
Using an appeal to our rationality on this subject by repetitively showing their debits and the importance of a signal day’s wage. Thus strengthening the idea that cost of living has increased to the point that the minimum wage should be increased.
Like wise, presenting, in hand an appeal to a viewers emotions by showing the couple arguing caused by the stress of tying to make these extremely difficult decisions.
Recording the scene with a hand held camera, while in a darker, small, and furniture vacant apartment is an additional attempt to bring about this call to pity using film techniques. Moving sharply “to and fro” those talking as to better create a mood that benefits the idea of stress inherently born within the systems of minimum wage.
The scene I find the most interesting and appealing in Morgan Spurlock’s film is the one in which Morgan and his wife have their niece and nephew in town for Easter weekend. On this weekend they struggle to entertain the kids on a minimum wage salary. Along with the burden of providing food, the couple has to go to the thrift store in order to find affordable blankets and pillows to keep the kids warm. The financial difficulties faced by the couple in the thirty days are well reflected in this scene.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this scene is to reflect the difficulties faced by the many families who are living on minimum wage. The financial burdens faced by everyday families include necessities such as food and living expenses. This scene was chosen by the film maker because it was the only example of children’s lives on minimum wage. The couple’s already diminishing funds took even greater deficits after they needed to buy warm blankets and food for the visiting children. It furthers the film’s ultimate argument of minimum wage being too low for American families to survive based on common living expenses. The film takes an emotional approach, pathos, to presenting this argument.
The difficulty of financial burdens faced by the couple during this scene is expressed in the minor bickering between Morgan and his wife over financial decisions. The ‘reckless’ spending by Morgan takes a toll on his wife, and they argue over financial decisions over the weekend the children came to visit. The decision to create the thirty day experience of life on minimum wage was also based on the pathos appeal. The cold Ohio winter was represented by constant snowflakes falling in the film to give a cold and eerie environment to the film and its background. The filming of the documentary included deep focus on the couple during film interviews and also different angles to include the eerie look of the winter life in Columbus, Ohio.
The scene that jumps out for me in 30 Day “Minimum Wage” is the birthday scene. Morgan Spurlock’s fiancé 30th birthday happens to be when they are filming the documentary. Ideally she always imagined her birthday being celebrated with her friends. This was not going to be the case. Morgan Spurlock struggled in deciding whether it was the correct decision to take off an entire day's worth of work to spend with his wife to-be. He pictured this day to be a magically and take their minds off their adopted lifestyle. The previous day when they spent a dollar or two more at the grocery store his wife reached her breaking point. She expressed that she has been walking every day to work, just so they can save $2.50. She was tired of him blowing hard earned money on unnecessary things. Spurlock was eager to see how she would react when she finds out he is taking her to a $30 birthday dinner. He intended to begin the day at the conservatory, but the $6.50 per ticket was too expensive for their budget. Instead they had a free and pleasant time at the park, followed by a $25 dinner. After waiting forty five minutes for the public bus transformation a stranger informs them that it stops running after six on the weekends. They had to resort to a taxi which cost them $15. The composer uses pathos to show how a good day was undermined by a taxi ride. Morgan Spurlock and his fiancé spirits were crushed.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of minimum wage is to ensure that workers can achieve a decent standard of living. This documentary portrays the opposite. This scene is evidence that minimum wage does not cover the necessities of living. If you are the working poor leisure time is an expense. A healthy relationship, a safe place to live, and basic necessities like food are all hard to maintain when working so long for so little. The composer also uses the technique of logos to portray that minimum wage does not obtain a standard way of living. At the bottom of the screen you can see how they are living paycheck to paycheck. Once they earn money to stay afloat, they are soon in debt once again.
When the Spurlock or his fiancé needed a confessional the camera was handheld. This filming technique was effective because it allowed the audience to hear more interpersonal thoughts. Overall the documentary did a great job of persuading the audience of its purpose.
In the “Minimum Wage” documentary, Morgan Spurlock had some very dramatic, eye opening scenes. One that I thought stuck out was the couple’s trip to the free secondhand store. I felt this was an important scene that Spurlock added because it seemed like this was the first “break” that they caught during their experience. Up until this point Spurlock and his fiancée have had nothing to sit, eat, or sleep on and the ant problem combined with the long work days made for a stressful environment. They were welcomed when they went to the store and were almost in shock at everything that was offered. One of the main purposes for this scene I believe is to show that there are places and people that try and help those and need.
ReplyDeletePathos plays a major role in this scene. The emotional appeal is brought out when the owner of the store is showing them around and he shows the volunteers folding clothes. They all looked happy to be there and be helping those in need. Also the fiancée starts to cry when she realizes how much of a service they are doing. I thought it was also important include the shots of the moving truck dropping off the table and chairs, because the lack of transportation is a major problem to most people on minimum wage.
The filming techniques of this scene are effective because its shows a handheld shot of them walking in the cold to the store. This just emphasizes the difficulty of living with no car. Once in the secondhand store there were pan shots of everything they offered with happy, smiling workers. This gave a sense of welcoming and helpfulness. When the two got back to their apartment and set the few pieces of furniture up, it made the room feel a little more like a home.
One scene I found memorable from the show 30 days with Morgan Spurlock, was when Morgan’s niece and nephew came up to visit for the weekend. This scene was very touching and became memorable thru Morgan’s loving hospitality and will to entertain. He showed that even though he and his wife get by on the bare minimum, they can still enjoy life and have fun with the children. I think the director put this scene in the movie to show how someone on such a low income can have a good time just like the rest of the world. Less fortunate individuals make it in the world with what they have. The scene with the children also engages the audience of Morgan’s generosity and loving spirit. Morgan and his fiancé only spent around eighty dollars on both children for the whole weekend, that eighty dollars could have been used for bills, food, furniture, or some other necessity. The author of this film took a pathos approach when inserting this scene into the film. When children come into play pathos is usually always involved. It was sad to see how the children were not given enough material objects, but at the same time so much attention from such a low income couple. Not only were they a low income couple, but also a very frustrated pair. The films showed how many things in their lives turned sour due to the lack of income. The handheld camera gave the film/scene a lower quality production which fit the low scale theme. Also, because this film was shot in the winter it had a cold, dark, unforgiving feel that made situations seem worse than they probably were. Columbus, Ohio during the season of winter is not the prettiest of places and helped the narrator (Morgan Spurlock) depict his hardships to the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that was most effective to me was the scene with the kids visiting for Easter weekend. Spurlock took them to the movies, and spent more on drinks than tickets, then continued to shell out money for various things for the kids. This was an appeal to pathos, the struggle to manage money when it is fun to treat people you love and it's natural. But, this is also indicative of two ideas. One, the spending craze is out of control, and two, people generally do not think about bank accounts when they get it in their head that they want something. This is so true for people, especially with credit cards. I'll spend seven-hundred dollars on a monthly income of four hundred fifty-nine after taxes, get behind on bills and get my children's children in debt. Is this the case for everyone that makes minimum wage? No, absolutely not. Some people honestly try and can't make ends meet, and that is how this documentary worked well. For Morgan Spurlock, if things went terribly, he had his real funds to fall back on- two hospital trips in two days. This was an effective documentary.
ReplyDeleteIn this movie, the author was trying to get the point across to the audience minimum wage is hard to make it on in today’s world. His target audience was anyone that’s not on minimum wage, he knew that majority of these people had no idea what it was like to try and make ends meet or remind a person that was once there.
ReplyDeleteTo help his argument Spurlock decided to live the life for 30 days, and talked his fiancé into going on this research trip with him. By living the live they locked up their credit cards, left their money behind and only took a few things with them (example clothes). Spurlock and his fiancé to bring the full picture to the movie show all the places they were trying to rent including the one they finally choose and to add some reality they interviewed the landlord about the area, who tells them that there was a METH lab just last week near the apartment that they had just rented but not to worry said the land lord it is gone now. By adding in looking them looking for a place to rent, is a way of using pathos and maybe some logos. This is pathos because a person can feel the struggle and feel the fear when hearing of the METH lab. Logos could be argued, knowing logically a person has to budget money but maybe they have never had to do it this extreme.
As the movie goes on, Spurlock has the viewer’s follow them on their journey to their jobs, eating, shopping, hospital trips and tries to keep the viewer with pathos still he wants the viewer feel the pain, stress, and struggle that they are going through. To see what it is like in the areas that he is in all the time Spurlock stops and does interviews with people that live, work in those areas everyday so he and the viewer’s get a feel to what this world is like.
I won’t lie this film is hard for me to break down, because during the film I was crying because I have went through these struggles I had to make the choice of food or heat before in my life and it’s not fun. So one view that I think he should of brought into this movie is a different area. This area was full of people that was helping for example were they got the furniture, a land lord that would what for the deposit for rent, close enough that one of them could walk to work, and the other one could get one the bus. Not all these places that have poverty have these advantages; I know that I didn’t.
The scene that I found memorable was when Morgan and Alex found the church run store where everything was free. The kindness of the volunteers and Alex’s emotional response to it really brought home the importance of how much we need kindness in the world. This scene was important to put in the show because it shows people that there are people out there who wish to help those who are less fortunate. It shows the viewer that there are kind people in the world and that we can get involved if we wish to. This scene helps with the director’s argument by continuing to show us how difficult it is for some people to live life. People who can afford luxuries such as furniture or food that isn’t from a can don’t know how it is so scrimp and save. They don’t know what is to be given a gift as precious as a table to sit by and eat. That is what this scene was meant to display. It was to show people the emotion that can be caused by a simple gift. Very often we forget what it is to receive a gift from the heart I think that this scene shows us that. It definitely draws mostly on Pathos. Through the whole episode Alex is constantly giving us a taste of what she is feeling by letting her emotions show so much. I think this has made the episode better as a whole. Pathos is important because very often we can block out what we see on TV when we see homeless people or people who are wearing dirty clothes. The emotion of Alex draws us in to pay more attention and keep out attention. This scene was shot with the hand held camera. I think that helps with the effectiveness of the scene because when you go into a store of any kind you are walking and moving, looking about at everything. By following and seeing what Morgan and Alex are seeing it is more real to us then a stationary camera capturing the scene. The angle allows us a good view of Alex being touched by the kindness of the volunteers of the store. This scene will stay with me for a very long time. If nothing else I will remember the kindness of the volunteers and thankfulness of Morgan and Alex.
ReplyDeleteMalia Reimann
In Morgan Spurlock’s episode Minimum Wage, he and his fiancé set out to see what it is like living on minimum wage for 30 days in Columbus, Ohio.
ReplyDeleteThe scene I found most persuasive is when the couple receives their medical bills. The bills are both between $300-$500. This puts the couple instantly in debt. By showing the calculations of what they had before the bills and after, you can see how ridiculously expensive it is just to walk into a hospital. Spurlock’s fiancé had something as harmless as a urinary tract infection and she was charged hundreds of dollars. How is a person on minimum wage supposed to stay healthy when the cost of care is so expensive? To me it seems insane that you are charged that much just for stepping in a hospital.
Pathos is being used in this scene because you are emotionally frustrated and shocked that the medical bills were so expensive considering how little money they had. The scene really makes you realize the sacrifices one on minimum wage is faced with every day and the stresses that come from those decisions. The documentary shows the audience just how difficult living on minimum wage is and reinforces/persuades the audiences beliefs that minimum wage needs to be raised.
Many outside factors also contributed to the emotions of the audience including the camera shot and the context. The camera shot was not of high quality, which enhanced the feeling of poverty and darkness. Also, being that it was wintertime in Ohio added more emotions of stress and sadness.
I lived in Columbus, Ohio with just my mother until I was five years old. After my mother met my stepfather, and my sister was born, we moved to Circleville, Ohio, and I remained there until I graduated high school. From the time I was born until now, my stepfather has been on disability and my mother has worked minimum wage jobs to provide for our family. It has been an exhausting adventure.
ReplyDeleteFor most of us, these minimum wage jobs will only ever be those first jobs that we had as teenagers; while our parents are glad that we are learning the value of a dollar, we’re building up our bank accounts and our experience. There are people; however, that tend to get trapped in tough situations that cause them to continuously work low paying, tough, jobs for majority of their life. Most commonly, these people that begin in these jobs are those who start out young with a family especially young single mothers. I think for this reason, and for my own personal experiences, the most memorable scene was a brief scene where a father was shown talking about how working low paying jobs takes its toll on the happiness of their family. This scene is the first memorable scene to me because as I grew up, happiness was often sacrificed to provide for a physically healthy family. I feel as though, this brief scene, begins to put things into perspective and the director edited this scene into the segment to give the audience something to relate to. Happiness is something that everyone desires and when it is taken away by the world, people can relate. Children are brought up by the show to give the audience extra baggage and make them feel sad that children have to grow up in environments where parent’s aren’t around and aren’t happy with their life’s because they are extremely stressed out. Children melt the icy layer over everyone’s hearts in entertainment. It’s definitely an emotional draw that is lead into a transition in the show by a man who has worked minimum wage to provide for his kids. This man creates a character who is a credible source because the man has been working and taking care of his family and the scene very deliberately adds children to make his story all that more real. The shot itself was done by a cameraman looking down on the small family that allows the audience to feel more personal and connected to the father talking about his kids. The camera is looking down at them, which helps an audience get a sense of how small and fragile this delicate situations involving happiness is. The lack of happiness can destroy the family that each parent is working so hard to keep from shattering.
One scene that I found particularly memorable or persuasive from the "Minimum wage" episode was when Morgan was sitting at the temp agency, having a conversation with another man who was just trying to scrape by, looking for work. From what I can remember Morgan asked the man what he would do if he didn't have the temp agency and couldn't make enough money for his family. The man sat there for a second and the only words he said were, "Oh man, I don't even know. Kill myself." Kill myself. Those words are powerful all in their own.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this clip of the episode is very short, there is definitely a purpose for why the director chose to use this scene. Just this friendly conversation had pathos all over it. When the director chose this scene, I believe that he/she was trying to show the audience that the fight for survival in the minimum wage world is real. People struggle as far as the mere thought of suicide.
The filming of this scene was shot from above Morgan and the mans head. Angled down at their faces. I think by the way the camera was angled down it was trying to capture the sadness of the man. It showed the position of how the man was sitting, with his hands crossed and his head down. I could see and feel the struggle that that individual faces everyday. It is crazy to think that the lack of money a household takes in can control their happiness and can destroy a family in a blink of an eye.
One of the scenes I remember most clearly in the Minimum Wage episode was when the couple went to the group that handed out free goods to the needy. In this scene, the building was depicted in a positive light, and the extensiveness of the operation was shown through multiple shots. Wide shots for an overall view were used, along with medium shots of the volunteers. The shot I remember most clearly however, was the extreme close up of Morgan’s fiancé crying. This was a very effective shot because it brought home the feeling the director was trying to convey. In an episode that depicted so much hardship, it was sign for the fact that there are people who are there to help those who need it. Also, it shows how important organizations like that one are to both the needy and the volunteers alike. The scene definitely appeals to the viewer’s pathos and makes you feel for the people who live hard lives.
ReplyDeleteThis film’s overall argument is that minimum wage needs to be increased. This was extremely apparent in the end when Morgan called out the government to help, and said flat out that wages are unfair. This episode is most definitely attempting to bring light on the issue, and the director carefully chose his shots in order to do so. Having grown up in a privileged household, the constant pressures of a life paid for by minimum wage was not existent. As I started to grow however, it became more and more apparent that everyone was not as fortunate as myself. I believe this episode is an eye opener for everyone, but especially for those who take their lives for granted. The director definitely hit the nail on the head when it came to choosing an argument for the film.
Alex Goodlett
The scene from “minimum wage” that I found the most persuasive was any scene dealing with the two hospital trips that the couple needed to take. While two visits to a hospital in one month would be extraordinarily bad luck; both Spurlock and his fiancé had to make a trip. It makes sense that the director would include these scenes because they appeal to the audience with logos and pathos, and also uses the episode as a stage for the national healthcare debate. The scene uses pathos to make you feel sorry for the poor and uninsured outright by showing that there really is no way to afford a trip to the hospital, and being hurt in the first place keeps them from work. It also convinces with logos in a similar fashion by showing how a simple trip to the emergency room can quickly drain all income from a household using the money counter that often popped up. Logos was also used by showing in a different scene that free clinics are really not a solution in a large city full of uninsured poor. Ethos was used somewhat in talking to the professionals that worked at the free clinic, they agreed that the free clinics are not able to take in the amount of patients that exist and use their credibility as healthcare providers to state that another solution is needed. The shot set up in these scenes was much like the choice in season; a cold, white, artificially lit emergency room full of injured and unhappy people at 4 in the morning. This type of shot lends more to the pathos argument in that the entire scene is so pitiful you can’t help but feel bad for the couple. Even if you found Spurlock and his fiancé somewhat annoying, other patients were shown in the same (and more genuine) situation which fed into pathos.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that I’m choosing to take a deeper look into is the scene where the two review their medical bills. My family was raised with a stronger understanding of medicine and healthcare because my father is a practicing physician and I myself am studying to become a nurse within the next year.
ReplyDeleteThe scene evokes a lot of emotion because not only are the documenter and his wife in need of medical attention and displaying the need for empathy and a sense of helplessness they display their anger and frustration. They wife is basically in tears and the documentary is using the hand camera and swearing into it about the cost of an ACE wrap being 40 dollars. With this pathos approach the director adds a new element to his argument that it is very hard to provide for a family living on minimum wage. The healthcare reform was beginning to develop and was relevant during the time that they chose to film. The strong emotional appeal shows the “realness” of the difficulties of people on minimum wage who experience everyday problems with no other means at their disposal. This is a very useful ploy because everyone needs healthcare and not everyone can pay the premiums that healthcare demands so everyone begins to feel the frustration and empathy that the documenter is trying to evoke.
The review of the bills was a climax scene of their illness experience in the documentary. They went to the free clinic and the ER thinking that those were the only means at their disposal and it cost them a lot in the end. What they and most Americans do not understand is that the emergency room is reserved for medical emergencies and that is why they pay the premium, the hospital wants people to stay away from the ER for things that are not life threatening. They both could have gone to a pharmacy to describe their situation and there are urgent care facilities that are around Columbus that they can use at a much lower cost. The use of this scene was very powerful and was aimed at the general population of middle class Americans to show how persuasive a pathos appeal can be.