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 9/12.
Throughout the show, the only thing that Morgan and Alex had to worry about was getting themselves by on minimum wage, but then we get introduced to Alfred, who is twenty two and has five children. Then Morgan started to question how much more difficult it would be to have kids while living on minimum wage. To get more specific, I want to talk about the scene that occurs in and just outside the grocery store. Morgan and Alex wanted the kids to have a good time and wanted to get them a gift. While at the store, Morgan and Alex argue about the prices of certain objects, most notably the two baked treats. The four went out to the movies before, which cost them upwards of twenty dollars, so it makes sense as to why Alex was being uptight about the money they were spending at the store, even though it was a dollar and twenty cents. Alex’s frustration with Morgan comes out once they leave the store. She is upset because they have payments for rent and the doctors’ appointments amongst other things. Morgan understands but at the same time wants to be able to have some sort of freedom.
ReplyDeleteBy looking at the rhetorical techniques used in this scene, the viewer can sense how the scene furthers the difficulties of living from paycheck to paycheck. Logos is there simply due to the fact that it is going to be much harder to tend to children as well as yourself. Ethos is shown by the hardships Morgan and Alex have to go through while taking in the kids. Pathos is present because tending to children strikes a chord with us all.
In the movie 30 Days I thought it was particularly interesting that they made the movie in the winter. I think it really emphasizes how the poor people live, and how hard it can be to be poor and living on minimum wage. The scene I am choosing is when the wife is walking to work very early in the morning, and you can see her breath as she is talking to the camera. The movie would not have the same effect if it were made in the summer because it is normally harder for people to see other people shivering and trying to keep warm. It looks more pathetic and makes the audience feel badly for the people who have to do this for longer than just thirty days. I think the director included this scene because it quietly emphasizes how hard life is for the poor, without being in the audience’s face about it. I think that the rhetorical appeals of this scene is pathos and ethos. It makes the audience feel for the poor and also for the couple living in this bad condition. Using the element of pathos in the scene where you can see her breath, makes people realize just how hard this lifestyle would be. The scene also uses ethos. By showing her walking along and talking to the camera team with the camera man using a handheld camera, shows that this is not a set up or scripted film. It makes the audience feel that it is real and credible by not being like any other movie a person would go to see in the theater, it seems like it is truly real life. I think they did a great job making this film credible, and worthwhile to watch. It teaches people just how hard it is to live on minimum wage and that it is a real problem in the U.S. that we all need to work towards to fix and help others in need.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that transcribed most in my mind is in the hospital when Morgan is speaking with a Hispanic husband and wife about their medical conditions. It was interesting that the director focused on the husband and his comments about his chronic diabetes disease. The couple coincidentally is also living off minimum wage and cannot afford health insurance. The scene feels to be persuasive in the sense that individuals have bigger problems than living pay check to pay check. These individuals have their health on the line and are defenseless. Morgan and Alex are visiting the free clinics to what seems to be minor issues when in reality there are individuals with life threatening problems and no assistance what so ever. In perspective, Morgan and Alex’s emergency room costs were extreme even for a middle class worker. For an individual with serious and continuous medical conditions without health insurance, the medical costs seem overwhelming. It would be impossible for these individuals to neither get ahead in life nor support a family. Morgan once asked the husband what he would do if free clinics weren’t available; he replied he would likely kill himself. These individuals not only have to worry about cost of living, but more importantly their health.
ReplyDeleteRhetorical appeals in the scene by furthering the hardships due to minimum income and/or no health coverage. Ethos is shown by the attempt of getting medical care and the hardships all the individuals face as well as Morgan and Alex. Pathos was greatly used in this scene. I felt sorrow and pain for this couple. The scene changed my thought process of helpless civilians because when it comes down to it everyone deserves appropriate health care. There are people in dire need for help and America cannot offer them assistance. Pathos locks in the frustration and guilt the couple has over their chronic disease.
During the film 30 Days the scene that demonstrates the entire mood of the movie is when Morgan and his fiancé find themselves in the emergency room. While Morgan is waiting to hear the news about his fiancé, he meets a man Latino man. This man he speaks with is part of the working poor group that Morgan has infiltrated during his thirty day experiment. Morgan speaks with the man and during their interaction Morgan asks the man why he is in the emergency room, the man replies that he and his wife both are diabetic and cannot afford health insurance. Morgan is struck with disbelief that this man is just getting by and asks him what would happen if the emergency room was not there the man jokingly replies that he would probably kill himself. The mood of the shot really sets the tone for that scene, the camera is obviously handheld and this conveys a more homemade and real tone to the shot. The lighting is also very dark and ominous as to reflect the situation that Morgan and this stranger find themselves unfortunately thrown into. The main rhetorical strategies used in this scene is ethos and pathos, the director used ethos because the fact that we can now see that Morgan is immersed into this working poor lifestyle we can believe that he can now sincerely relate to these people. The director also uses pathos in this scene; the pathos is revealed not only when Morgan must sit with his fiancé in the emergency room, but also when he speaks with the diabetic gentleman. During this scene we find ourselves feeling very sorry and wanting to help this man who finds himself in a very unfortunate situation. This scene contributed to the overall feel of the film because we can now see real people who live day to day in this situation that Morgan adopts for thirty days. During this scene we also see how relationships are strained though the hardships of poverty.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed quite apparent to me that this production was intended for a middle class audience. In more broad terms, this was intended to inform anyone that was not living on minimum wage, just how difficult it truly was to do so. The director's choice, of shooting the film during the winter months, helped emphasize the difficult living situations.
ReplyDeleteOne scene in particular that stood out to me, was the one in which they discussed the original implementation of a minimum wage, during the 1930's. In this scene, newspaper headlines, from the time of minimum wage's introduction, gave some historical insight of the political atmosphere at the time. It went on to discuss how the minimum wage had remained unchanged since the 1990's, without any adjustment for inflation. The rhetorical strategy of ethos was used, when they discussed how Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, had been introducing measures to congress, trying to raise minimum wage, yet it was continually voted down by the senators. The scene then shifted to an interview with someone who was presumably influential in the decision not to raise minimum wage.
I do not recall who this individual was, I assumed he was an authoritative figure, as he wore business attire, and he was being interviewed in a well-appointed office. This person claimed that raising the minimum wage would result in a loss of job creation, and would force employers to lay off some of their employees. As he was saying this, the camera cut to an image of a dilapidated factory. This is an example of logos, as it compares and contrasts the rhetoric that the individual being interview is speaking, with an image of what the director wants the audience to see as “the reality” of the situation. In doing this, the individual being interviewed is somewhat discredited, as what he is saying, “could happen”, has clearly already occurred in the instance of this abandoned factory.
Additionally, the scene went on to inform the audience that the very same senators, who had denied a raise in the minimum wage, had voted in favor of giving themselves numerous pay raises. A cartoon image of a huge sack of money, was used in this scene to reinforce the irony of the senate's hypocritical actions.
Great observations, particularly about the middle class audience. I believe the interviewee you're referring to was a leader at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
DeletePicking just one scene from the “Minimum Wage” episode is quite difficult for me. As a privileged, middle class student who is on her own and paying bills for the first time, I have experienced quite a shock. This shock by no means prepared me for what I saw in the “Minimum Wage” episode.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most unsettling scenes to me was Morgan’s brief conversation with the old man on the way to the job. If my memory serves me correctly, this man said he was 79 years old. The thought of my similarly aged grandfather (as active and spry as he is) waking up at 5 a.m. on a cold, winter morning to do minimum wage, manual labor, sends chills down my spine. It is easy to forget that not everyone has been saving and planning for their entire career. Rather, many people work their entire lives simply just trying to break even.
Further, this man discussed the fact that he is getting paid relatively the same amount that he was getting paid quarter of a century ago. It is mind boggling to think that this man has not progressed in his career or even his wages; he has, in fact, regressed. With the advent of technology taking more jobs year after year, it is easy to forget those who are displaced by them.
I think the main rhetorical appeal in this particular scene is pathos. In this scene, I think many people will reflect on their parents or grandparents and how they would feel if they were in that situation. This evokes feeling of sadness, empathy and even anger. The man also uses exact dollar amounts and figures, which addresses the rhetorical appeal of ethos. The fact that this scene was shoot early in the morning while it was still dark, with several bundled up men smushed together in a car further perpetuate the intention of evoking empathy and sadness. The combination of these aspects is intended to pull on the heartstrings and it did just that.
After watching this episode, my water, cable and (occasional) bar bill seem much more manageable. Even more, I am so thankful that my grandparents and parents worked as hard as they did to allow me all the things I have been given that I take for granted; my education; a warm house; nutritious food; and overflowing Easter baskets.
Great observations about how the scene was shot.
DeleteChoosing a specific scene from “30 Days” was difficult to decide as the whole documentary changed my perspective on how the other half lives. Like the majority of the class, I come from a privileged middle class family. I did compare myself to Morgan and Alex multiple times throughout the film because I am now a proud tenant of a rental house and have to pay bills and provide for myself. Multiple times throughout the film they talk about eating rice and beans over and over again. Living on my own with three other roommates we go through a similar situation when we go grocery shopping. We find the right sales and purchase the most we can at the lowest price possible. I felt an immediate connection with Morgan and Dave but not on the same level that they were on.
ReplyDeleteThe scene I felt most memorable was when Morgan and Alex were in the hospital. Morgan keeps discussing that hopefully they can afford the hospital bills and we later learn that they are rather expensive and they cannot afford them. This drew my attention because I have a shoulder replacement surgery that cost $21,000, luckily I have insurance but I cannot imagine if one of them would need a major surgery and not being able to afford it. In this scene Morgan speaks to the two individuals with diabetes who have to wait multiple hours to receive attention. I believe the director chose this scene to gain a perspective on how people who live on minimum wage literally struggle to survive.
Pathos is a rhetorical analysis used in this scene because the director attempts to sadden the audience by showing this particular clip just to prove how exactly rough it is to not only live on minimum wage but a struggle to survive. Also ethos is used to show exactly how hard the standard of living is on minimum wage by them discussing on hard it is to receive medical attention and getting an actual view of the individuals with diabetes and that they may die without medical attention.
The filming technique in this scene is an up close camera angle of the two individuals with what it looks like to be a handheld camera. The audience gains a sense sorrow for these two because of the angle. It is almost like it hits at home, like the audience itself in right there with them. The lighting is dim and gives a sense of darkness and grief for the two individuals
But the real question is, how much did your surgery *actually* cost you/your parents. I love getting these medical bills where a "$21000" surgery actually gets paid for by your insurance for, say, $5000. It's a completely crazy system.
DeleteAs a non-traditional student, I have personal experience related to many of the 30 Days series topics and this episode focused upon living on minimum wage is no exception. The scene which spoke to me most was the one in which Morgan and Alex are trying to decide whether they can afford to take her to the doctor or emergency room. Alex is ill and living with no creature comforts, little food and heat are not helping. She needs medical care but knows that, not only will it cost considerable money for the care itself, she will have loose at least a days’ wages to receive the care. The argument that Morgan and Alex have about how badly she does or does not need care, how much it will cost, where to get it and the wages they will lose are all too familiar to those of us without any (or good) health insurance. These are not uncommon problems for the working poor who often have to choose between rent, medical care and medication. I believe this scene was included to demonstrate to those who are not familiar just how moment to moment living on minimum wage is and further the film’s argument to that effect. Although we call it ‘living paycheck to paycheck’ when folks are barely getting by, it is really moment to moment since any given moment can add illness or injury to the mix and make a difficult situation nearly impossible.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetorical appeals drawn upon for this scene are ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos is demonstrated by the real people getting genuinely sick and needing actual medical care that they cannot afford. It just doesn’t get more credible than that. Speaking with other folks in similar situations in the healthcare setting lended further pathos to the scene. Although we feel for Alex’s predicament, adding the stories of others deepens our feelings of empathy for the working poor. Logos is demonstrated most cleanly by the math. Throughout the episode, Morgan reinforces the reality of living on minimum wage by narrating the mathematical truth. Alex’s care cost this much. The couple lost this much in wages due to her illness. They now have this much more money to earn if they are going to be able to pay their rent, eat, etc. The combination of these monetary facts, handheld cameras and interaction with individuals (who are not scripted actors) completes the most appropriate filming technique for effective documentary argument.
I found this film as a whole to be very persuasive and enlightening. The entire concept is intriguing and original. The first thing I noticed about the film was the location in which it was shot. Being from Columbus myself, I recognized many of the locations that were shown throughout the film. It was a real wake up call to me to be able to see just how privilaged I am compared to the impoverished people whose lifestyle Morgan and Alex were emulating. I have seen the run-down, low income housing in the bottoms of Columbus and it is always a part of the city that I try my best to avoid travelling through when I'm in my hometown. Being able to gain a new perspective in which I was able to better understand just how much people who reside in these areas struggle just to get through each day made me feel a need to reach out to these people, because life is not filled with the luxuries that people like myself are able to enjoy.One scene that particularly captivated and inspired me was the scene in which Morgan and Alex go to the Westside Free Store to find basic furnishings for their apartment. In High School as part of a community service project, I actually volunteered at this exact Free Store. Seeing this place in the film reminded me of how amazing I felt about the brief work I did there and showed just how great of an impact services like this can have on people living in Morgan and Alex's position.
ReplyDeleteThis scene had a particularly strong impact on the viewer's sense of pathos. By being able to see how poorly these impoverished people are often treated (recieving barely minimum wage for hard manual labor, struggling to recieve affordable medical attention, etc) and then seeing that in contrast to the services like free stores that are more than generous in providing basic necessities to these people made this scene even more uplifting. In my volunteer work at this Free Store, I helped to clean the store and stock items, but never had the opportunity to directly interact with costumers. Seeing Alex get teary-eyed and emotion because of the worker's generousity was a really touching experience for me. There is a clear apeal to the logos and emotions of the viewer to be able to see the impact that these services have on even someone has has not been living in these conditions for an extended length of time. One can only imagine the joy that must be felt by visitors of these free stores who know what it is to truly life with the minimums of everything for, in many cases, their entire lives.
I think that this scene served as a great contrast to the rest of the film, most of which displays how horrible living conditions are for the poor, by making the arguement that there are opportunities out there for more priveleged people to reach out and truly make a difference. Only by setting up the film in a way that we really experience with Morgan and Alex the devastation of living such a low quality of life are we able to feel the oppisite of these emotions when they are able to gather such items as warm blankets and a kitchen table. The raw emotions of greatfulness that Morgan and Alex candidly display in this scene may well be the strongest choice the director could have made to appeal to the audience. Not only does our reasoning and logic tell us that these services should be a more common thing, we actually FEEL the effects they can have on people in need.
The camera shots in this scene work well because there is a strong focus on the emotional reactions of Morgan and Alex throughout and this is what really hits the audience. Also, by setting up the location that this place is in, we are able to see just how impoverished the area is and how many people here are truly in need of these services. The rawness of this, it's contrast to the rest of the film, and choice of camera angles and shots all mesh together in order to produce a truly effective scene that makes a clear arguement without having to state it directly.
In “Minimum Wage”, there are numerous scenes that captivate the audience by using multiple rhetorical devices to enhance the episode’s argument. A particularly memorable scene is when Morgan and Alex receive their hospital bills at the end of the month, shocked by the total cost for, as Morgan puts it, “just walking into the emergency room.” I believe the director chose to include this scene for the mere fact that it touches on a variety of issues: number 1 being that a minimum wage worker would take months to pay of a bill of that size, and number 2 being that minimum wage workers almost never have health care, and are thus forced into paying extremely large medical bills.
ReplyDeleteAppealing to ethos with a close up shot of the bills, it is easy to believe that this is in fact the amount of money that they owe. An official piece of paper from the hospital is clearly shown; there is no mistaking where this paper came from. The emotion Morgan displays while discussing the bills touches on pathos, and a sort of leveling with the every day middle class or lower class worker who believes they are paying too much for medical care. It is relatable. It is real life. Having it portrayed so simply, with a single camera set up on a tripod that could easily be used by Morgan himself, allows the audience to feel like this could have come from anyone’s home, including their own. This scene helps the overall argument that the minimum wage is too low; no one working for the minimum wage of the time would have been able to pay that bill, without help at least. It also subtly brings up the issue of government help: what can be done to change this, why is the current system not working?
The framing of this scene, with both Morgan and Alex discussing the bills at the table, incorporates a very common scene in many households. It then transitions to a shot of only Morgan talking within a very small depth of field (which becomes even smaller once only the bill is being shown directly in front of the lens.) This scene is similar to a confessional style shot, where the persons on screen show all emotions without regard to any plot. The use of this type of shot allows the audience to really connect with Morgan, after already having connected with the dinner table scene previously. The confessional shot plays on pathos, with the close up of the bill playing on ethos. In this way, every aspect of the entire scene is carefully set up to play on some type of rhetoric that furthers the argument of the episode.
There are numerous scenes from the 30 Days: Minimum Wage episode that caught my attention and stood out to me. The one that really grabbed my attention however was the free clinic scene when Morgan went to have his arm checked out before heading to the emergency room. I think the director chose to include this scene to highlight a significant problem with people being able to take care of themselves. He shows a line of people essentially so long it’s out of the door at a free clinic and a doctor saying they can only look at something like 20 people despite there being at least double that number if not more. It caught my attention because I was aware of these free clinics and always thought they were easily accessible to those who needed them. However in this scene it clearly displays the mass numbers that show up and are eventually turned away due to the fact that the doctors simply can’t look at that many people.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a use of pathos rhetorical approach in this scene. He interviewed various people, one woman saying how she had been standing in line since 2pm and another couple that relied on the free clinic for medical attention because they were both diabetic. The man interviewed even goes on to say that without the free clinic he would probably just kill himself because he depends on it so much for his medication. It definitely struck a chord with me and made me really feel badly for these people and how tough they have it. If I ever feel too sick or am injured I just go to the doctor and my health insurance covers most of it but for these people just barely getting by on minimum wage who can’t afford health care these free clinics are all they have.
The camera techniques used for the most part were wide, sweeping, steady shots to show the sheer volume of the people in line and stuffed into the clinics. All the interviews were shot intimately close so the viewer could get a real sense of the emotion of these people and what they were going through.
There were many scenes in the film 30 Days but the one that caught my attention was the scene when Alex and Morgan were in their apartment and they saw ants crawling around the floor and walls while they were eating on the floor. I believe Morgan wanted to show this scene because he not only wanted to prove to the viewer that he was really doing what he said he would – live on minimum wage for 30 days – but to also show that they were really struggling and that they couldn’t even afford basic things like a table and chair or some bug repellent. The food they were eating wasn’t great either. Like this scene, most nights they were eating beans and rice. During this scene they were wearing more clothes because they tried to stay warm. Morgan and Alex couldn’t afford heating in their apartment. I think it definitely helped their argument that living on minimum wage is very tough.
ReplyDeleteI think pathos is used in this scene because there are emotions triggered while watching them eat on the floor. They look cold, hungry and miserable while eating. They’re not in a talkative, happy mood. The ants disgust them as well. Viewing this made me feel bad for them. I felt sad watching Alex complain about being too cold.
The camera work was very effective in the scene. They zoomed in on the ants crawling around on the floor and carpet The camera also showed them actually eating the food, and it showed what food they were eating. When they did this, the camera would be at a higher angle, to really express the fact that they were eating on the floor. These camera angles and effects made the scene more realistic and the documentary much more powerful overall.
The movie 30 days was very interesting to me. This movie put a lot into perspective for me, and really opened my eyes when it comes to families working on minimum wage. The scene that really stuck out to me was with the man who had an entire family to feed. Morgan and Alex only had to rely on their selves and as we saw, even this was not easy. Think about how much harder it would be if you added five kids along with the two of them. After Morgan met the man who had five children he invited his niece and nephew to come stay with him and his fiancé for the weekend.
ReplyDeleteMorgan wanted to do fun things with his niece and nephew and therefore he did not work all weekend so that he could take them out on fun things, but when looking up what fun things there were to do in the area, he found it very funny as to what he found. Morgan found things to do such as go on a tour of your local cemetery or your local hospital and in all honesty, what kid wants to do things like that? It puts into perspective how many things kids are limited to when their parents are working minimum wage. Also, at the grocery store Morgan’s nephew wanted a donut and they got two which added up to a total of I believe $1.20. Alex was not happy with this even though they were not spending over two dollars. It is crazy that, that much money means so much to them, that’s a ride on the bus that they cannot afford. This scene really stuck out to me as to how hard it would be to support that many people on minimum wage.
The director obviously showed this scene to share the more people in the family the harder it is to support on minimum wage. Also, to maybe show the government that they needed to higher minimum wage because families cannot live off of it. I would see this as both ethos and pathos. It would be ethos because Morgan Spurlock is a credible actor and filmmaker. Also, the way he went about the situation and put himself in the shoes of people living on minimum wage also makes him a credible source. It is pathos because you realize how much families really suffer with living on minimum wage and this may make you sad or angry with the government for making minimum wage so low. The camera played a role into this because they somewhat zoomed into the conversation Morgan and Alex were having to show their argument and to show how stressed out they were about the whole situation. Also, when they would put the man’s name up on the screen whose raising a family of six, it just touched you more when they somewhat interviewed him on how hard it was to raise his family like this.
The scene that was most effective for me was when the director and his fiance got into an argument about how much he was spending for the children. It really hit home for because of my father giving me things that we knew he couldn't afford, yet he wanted to make me happy. Then, of course, my mother would give him a lecture about how they couldn't afford it and, well, now they're divorced. My dad has now stopped doing that all of the time because of him wanting my siblings to earn what they want, but I still have those memories when I was little. So I feel that this plays on pathos due to the emotional ties that it creates within the audience. Most of America has the same idea that they don't want their kids growing up without something they desire, but mostly we don't have the means for it. I'm sure it was chosen simply because of how many links it draws between the audience and the film. There is also an element of ethos because of the believability of the director. We fully believe that he would do anything or give anything for these kids even though they aren't his own. I guess that could be a counterpoint to his ethos because they are not truly his children. However, going back to the audience connection, I have seen that same loving look in my dad's eyes towards my brother and I when we ask for something he knows we can't afford.
ReplyDeleteThe other point that the director wanted to draw upon was that marriages are tested a great deal when in a tight financial situation. This plays on pathos because no one likes a fight regardless if they are in it or they are watching it. We all have also been in that situation, getting backlash from a spouse, fiance, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. for some decision that we made that they don't agree with. We associate with the scene because we've been on either end of that fight and we know how easily it is to lose your head or end a relationship that simply started with an argument like that. And although the fiance seems to not make too much of a deal about it, as a woman, I can say that she is holding it in because she's being filmed. I could tell that it genuinely perturbed her and she wanted to have a heavier discussion with her husband-to-be about it.
In a documentary about such an unfortunate but real topic, there are usually quite a few scenes that are meant to memorable and persuasive. One scene that stuck out to me while viewing the episode was the scene where Morgan Spurlock and his fiance had all their money in the empty canned food jar. This scene was shown at some point when he was talking about how hard the two of them had been working, yet they can show what they worked for in a measly canned food jar. The premise of the movie was to show how hard it is today for a person or family to survive on minimum wage. This scene exemplified what the movie was trying to get across. Throughout the entire movie it kept showing the two of them working really hard all day, and yet their ending balance was small enough to fit in a can. Throughout the movie they showed footage from the jobs they chose and each time it showed them busting their butt. Though there is no doubt they didn't have to work 200% every second, they still had grueling hours and physically demanding labor. That shows that even though it is minimum wage, you still are required to put forth a lot of effort to attempt to make ends meet.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetorical appeal that they were using in this scene I think was logos. I believe it is logos because they are using the small can in an attempt to create a rational argument. I think this was a very effective way to show that argument, because when you think of two paychecks for a month it seems like a lot. Even if both the paychecks are coming from minimum wage workers. However, by combining their paychecks in that can it shows how little they have to show from their work. This could also lead you to think that maybe the poverty cycle is created and encouraged from something like this. The fact that two people can work a month that hard and have so little money is very deterring and probably causes many to not try at all.
The scene most poignant to me in “Minimum Wage” was right at the beginning when Morgan and Alex first moved into their new apartment. The landlord was describing how just days ago there was a homeless person holed up in it and downstairs there was a crack house… but it’s not violent, its just drugs. The scene itself was not particularly moving or persuasive, rather the choice of words from the landlord who brushed off a crack house likes its no big deal. This simple reality of ‘below the line of poverty living’ is honestly quite scary.
ReplyDeleteAs middle and upper class citizens we are under the assumption that the inner city neighborhoods are unsafe and the line “I wouldn’t want to be caught there after dark” comes up in conversation. The fact that Morgan chose this scene to be part of the film, in a ways, confirms this controversial reality. I’m not trying to say that all such neighborhoods are bad, should be avoided and otherwise helpless, but the fact of the matter is they are ‘hard’ places to live. It was this simple conversation and subsequent first glance into the apartment that gives us well off folks a view into the real world of minimum wage living and the uncertainty that comes with it.
For better or worse, all three rhetorical appeals made an appearance, or at least a cameo, in this scene. The star of the show would be pathos. From the apartment’s cold nature to the matter-of-fact manner of the landlord, any middle class person would have jumped back in their car and sped away! This scene was not only meant to trouble the viewer but also, in a sense scare them. Ethos showed up in terms of the fact that Morgan is undertaking this ‘minimum wage’ task seriously and is not simply living in his own house with a minimum wage salary rather he is living in the heart of it. Also, the landlord looked like he’d been in the business for a number of years, so when he mentioned a crack house, he most likely was not exaggerating. And finally logos made a cameo as we watched the $$ from their paychecks start ticking away at the bottom of the screen.
There was nothing really spectacular about the filming technique used in this scene. It was nice that they showed us the apartment inside and out, to give us a better idea of the neighborhood, but Morgan did not attempt to spruce up the scene in any way. And maybe this was the point, to try and make something so bleak and dreary would ultimately be a poor choice, but to keep it like so only emphasizes the destitute quality of life a lot of American’s are trying to escape.
The scene I chose for this post is from the part of the episode where it is the girl, Alex’s, birthday. On that day they are wandering around when they stumble upon some sort of museum or exhibit in town. The only problem is that tickets cost too much and they can’t afford to go in. On the way out, Morgan gave Alex the option of either going back and buying two tickets for the exhibit or going out for dinner later that evening. She chose to spend time outside during the day and then have a nice dinner that night.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that this scene was included in the episode is because it resonates with most of the people who are fortunate enough to have lived without financial stresses. The goal of the program is to give people a more in-depth and “real” version of what life like is on a minimum wage salary. So far in my life, I have never been in a place financially where I have had to make a decision between spending money on a ticket for an exhibit or eating dinner. So for me, seeing that even though they were two articulate professionals that still couldn't live happily because of the low wage they were making really had an impact. It makes you think that if two grown-ups working full time could barely get by, then how could a family of four or five with young children to pay for possibly survive.
As far as rhetorical strategies go, I think the main one used in this scene is pathos. It makes the viewer not only sympathize with people who have to live life on minimum wage, but also start to think that something should be done to change it. There is also a bit of logos in the scene when they are breaking down how much it costs to go to the place and to dinner and how much they make in each shift. It gives the viewer a numerical representation of how drastic the situation really is. The filming of the shot helps the scene because it's a hand-held camera and it trails behind them as they make the sad walk out of the exhibit because they can’t afford it. This gives the viewer the full effect of the disappointment they felt not being able to enjoy themselves due to having tight finances.
In the episode “Minimum Wage” there was plenty of scenes that really opened my eyes to just how hard living on minimum wage can be. The scene that really stuck out was when the couple had their niece and nephew with them for the weekend and they were taking them out for the day. First they took them to the movies and bought drinks for everybody, which made the movie trip really expensive. Next they went to the store and were buying groceries, but then Morgan and his nephew picked out some junk food that they didn’t necessary need. Once the couple walked outside of the store they began fighting over the amount of money that was being spent on things that they really didn’t need. I feel that they showed this scene because it shows how much money can play an effect on a family. It particularly zoomed in on the kids while the couple was fighting, and I think this was to show that fighting can cause the whole family problems. After the fighting was all said and done, Morgan talked to the cameras and said that he was going to let his kids be happy and not keep them from buying this in life. Overall I think this whole scene was to show that raising children is difficult when a family is on a budget because parents always want what’s best for their children and they don’t want to disappoint them. I believe that ethos was definitely shown in this scene because it’s actually showing the effects of being on a budget and how it leads to fighting and families sometimes falling apart. I also would say it shows pathos because it makes the viewer emotional watching this family going through their emotions at a difficult time. The last thing I’d say I noticed in this scene was that they purposely filmed it outside of the store because it was cold and it explains what happens outside of the public eye.
ReplyDelete