I found the talk with Roger Williams very inspiring and very interesting. I have never been in the presence of such a highly successful producer before and it was interesting hearing his story. I loved the way he went about making films and how passionate he was about them. It was interesting to see how he got his motivation because he thought the story wasn’t being told correctly. It was also interesting to see how his assistance was so involved with his career in keeping it organized. It shows he respected her by giving her the golden ticket to Sundance. I wonder how hard of a transition it was for her coming right out of school to become so organized. I also wonder what classes she wished she could have taken to help her more in her job.

After watching Jarecki’s 2012 documentary, The House I Live In, I consider it to be a huge eye opener. From a young age the stereotype of prisons is that “very bad” people are put away there. While that may be true, there are also some inmates in there that have made a few wrong turns down the wrong path and have been given a sentence of a ridiculous amount of years. It is amazing that how someone who murdered someone can get the same amount of years as some of the people in this film for selling drugs, or even more. I am not saying that I condone those actions of illegal selling but I do not believe that they should be treated the same as a murder or rapist.  This documentary exemplifies exactly this. One police officer in the movie gave an excellent statement of how it is almost like the prisoners are “paying for our fear instead of paying for their crime.” And then, for those who are released, it is almost as if they are still paying for their crime due to the obstacles that lay ahead of them when trying to begin again. The difficulties of finding a job are extremely hard and therefore no job leads to no money which leads to no housing, etc… Therefore, this leads them to right back where they started and the cycle begins again.

There were also certain aspects of the film that I really appreciated. I loved the level of intimacy the director showed with each person he interviewed. Each really opened up and showed the audience their story. Listening and seeing them in their own world created a personal connection with the viewers. The variety of locations helped show that this is a problem across the country and not in one area.

In this documentary, I loved the layout. I loved how the documentary talked about the drugs and the impacts it has on so many families first. Then, the documentary discussed the survival aspect of selling drugs. The idea that it isn’t for moral pleasure but for pure survival in a world that doesn’t hire ex criminals. The documentary continues to talk about the youth and how they are constantly being sucked into the whole drug dealing world at such a young age that they don’t know anything else. The interviews with affected victims were very powerful towards the end in that they carried the effect of drugs on their facial expressions. I could feel their pain through the screen. Lastly, I enjoyed the ending. The whole topic of the man who was sentenced to life in jail on probation for smuggling small amounts of drugs. I think it’s ridiculous that his mom had to go through everything she went through with her son and dead daughter. The ending really paved the way for the possible future of drugs and laws against drugs.

After watching the documentary, I didn’t want to immediately write a blog. I wanted the message of the documentary to sit with me as I searched for evidence of such things in my every day life at Lafayette. As I do agree with the majority of what the documentary says, I have to question some of the statistics. I cannot quite remember them but there were a few that seemed to be over exaggerated. There was a stat about like 1 in 4 women are physically abused in a relationship. I don’t see that as a real representation. Since I’m in a statistics class, there’s something called Response Bias (where someone responds falsely to prove the point of the survey) and I think that’s what happened there. Overall, though, I liked the courage of the women in the documentary and how it was filmed. The only thing I wish the documentary talked more about was how women impact the economy. They stimulate advertisements and how Americans spend their money. They play such big roles in films and attract (some) men to watch their movies. They really impact the flow of money in this country and I think that’s sold short (see what I did there?).

A distinction between Jarecki’s numerous interviews is the location at which they were filmed. Obviously the inmates were interviewed in the prisons but even the security guard, inmate family members, and other non professional speakers on the topic were interviewed in public places familiar to that person. Perhaps Jarecki interviewed them in their ‘natural habitats’ to make them more comfortable speaking to him about personal experiences and political topics.

Those who were the professionals in the study of the war on drugs were all interviewed with a white backdrop behind them, with nose room, and specialized lighting. This gave them a more reformed and official feel.

In our reading for this week, there was  mention of the start of reality tv and America’s growing interest in filming their own lives. Because cameras are now so easily obtainable, it makes it easier for people to produce their own films and documentaries. I find it interesting that so many of us are entertained by watching the drama of other people’s lives like the Kardashians and shows like the Bachelor, in which some of the drama is probably completely staged to make them seem more interesting. In that case, why do we still label it as “reality” tv, if most of it is not realistic? Some of these shows could be filmed documentary style but not be real at all, like the Megladon film or Mermaids: The Body Found by Animal Planet. It makes it hard to find the line between what is real and what isn’t when so many people are creating this kind of media.

I found it interesting that in the scene where the two cops were searching the hair salon for drugs, they were surprisingly calm about the whole process. It was very commonplace for them, because it is something they do multiple times on a daily basis. They even started making jokes with the man they were going to arrest for possession of the drugs, and he didn’t even seem like he felt any guilt for his crime. It really showed me that the war on drugs is still very prevalent, and for it to become such a common issue it proves that there is a need for a solution.

It was a great experience watching two documentaries with two varying styles back to back.  When we watched “Miss Representation” a lot of people critiqued the lack of variety in the women interviewed for the film. In “The House I Live In” Jarecki interviewed such a wide variety of people of differences races, ages, genders and who were in various different positions within the process of the jailing system.

Jarecki interviewed professors, a lawyer, a judge, a jail security guard,  female drug dealer, inmates, family members of the inmates, etc. This gave the film such a well rounded view of the problem.

This film reminded me of “The Battle of Algiers” and the inability to pin point a ‘bad guy.’ Jarecki’s film did the same thing by interviewing such a variety of people. It makes it  impossible to pin point who the enemy or ‘bad guy’ is, so the viewer cannot blame one person. Being unable to place blame encourages people to join the cause and fight against the problem addressed in the film. This brings me back to the idea of a film’s intention.

I felt the intention of the film was to make people aware of the issue. The narrator said that he interviewed a number of people and a majority of them did not know the “drug war” was still going on. If society isn’t aware of the problem, no change will ever come.

I found it very interesting how the drug dealers help supported others in their there area. I was surprised to hear that they bought things like ice cream and sneakers for the children also. It is so hard to not become a drug dealer when there are not a lot of male role models in these boys life. It makes me wonder how different the area would be if the school was also stronger and the teachers cared about the kids. It would be interesting to see what how and why the females would leave the school system. How many of them become a drug dealers and if they aren’t how do they support themselves.

I wrote the following post for one of my writing courses – I figured it would be of interest to people in this course:

Kevin Smith’s quintessential 90’s slacker comedy, Clerks, originally contained a somewhat nihilistic and frankly depressing ending, in which a robber murdering the main character, Dante Hicks. This completely alters the tone of the original film and if it were included in the final cut, would have no doubt changed people’s opinion of the film.

Clerks, while somewhat existentialist in nature, was simply a love letter to the care free age of early to late twenties. Around that time, most people are still trying to find direction in their lives. The characters have pointless conversations about Star Wars, the people that surround them, relationships, drug use, and simply everyday life. However, by the end, Dante has found a semblance of purpose or at least been driven to find his purpose. He decides that he’s in a rut and it’s implied that he will try to move on. The ending, while not necessarily “happy,” provides hope for Dante. And in the broader sense, it provides hope for humanity. It confirms that while we may have the tendency to slack off and sometimes fall into mediocrity, we still have the ability to raise ourselves up.

If the original ending had remained, with Dante being gunned down immediately after he decided to make an adjustment, the film would have contained an entirely differentmessage. It would no longer be a satiric, yet oddly uplifting look at slackers; it would have become a tragedy. The message would have been that there is no point to trying. You could die at anytime, so why attempt to change your life?

Ultimately, Kevin Smith decided to remove this dramatic ending. This was generally accepted as the right move; Brian O’Halloran, the actor who played Dante said that he hated the original ending, providing the reasoning that it “was too quick of a twist.” This was for the best, as it provided Smith with the basis for the rest of his filmography: the idea that while slacking off may be fine sometimes, there’s always an opportunity to change and improve.