Documentary

It was interesting how the narrator, being both an eastern Kentucky resident and a film journalist stayed somewhat standoffish throughout the documentary. She did this, I think because she understood both of the cultures and wanted to portray their point of view equally and fairly. Probably the most shocking aspect of the documentary, to me was the sentencing of Hobart. Although I myself would be outraged if someone from a different culture came to my community to film a documentary on how horribly I lived, and intended on showing it to people only of their culture, I don’t think I would be angry enough to shoot him. I think Hobart probably should have received a harsher sentence, or at least should have served his full ten years.

To me, the epicenter of the culture clash, was how the filmmakers blamed the degree of poverty in Eastern Kentucky on the flaws of the American Dream. Then to counter this mindset the narrator juxtaposed it with a poor coal miner stating that he had lived the American Dream and was happy with his life. This is interesting, and somewhat ironic because it shows that those who are disavowing the American Dream were those who were secure in it (to their standards). The filmmakers had standardized to what constituted the American Dream to their lifestyle, and when they saw a community living outside those boundaries, they decried that lifestyle that the people were content with. However, in a way, the filmmakers were using the poor coal miners, just as corporations had, in order to capitalize on a product, which in their case was a documentary about poverty. But I don’t think the filmmakers had any band intentions with making their film. However, I do think they were arrogant and ignorant to other lifestyles. Although obviously the filmmakers were aware of other lifestyles and cultures, they were ignorant to the peoples’ attitudes towards them. And this ignorance, I believe is what started the culture clash.

To answer question number three, members of a community should tell the community story, or at least approve of some one else to do it. I think the narrator recognized her community’s obligation to document their way of life and social problems and felt it was necessary to document it being both a resident and a journalist. I believe she did this to protect her communities reputation, so they would be portrayed as a bunch of savage hill-billies and also to expose the dangers of ignorance, which was present on both the filmmakers side as well the Kentucians side.