clerks

Clerks and Generation X

The idea of Generation X as a slacker generation is an illusion created by the media in order to take the responsibility off of adults and institutions that were actually the ones at fault for limiting opportunities and avenues for Generation X to become involved in. The film Clerks then shows the perspective of Generation X without the media bias and shows who the people of this generation were and removes any blame from Generation X.

Clerks takes place in Leonardo, New Jersey and centers around characters Dante and Randall who work at the Quik Stop and RST Video respectively. These two characters seem fairly content with their current lifestyle and exhibit no desire for lateral movement like a better job or higher education. The two represent the slacker mentality that was exhibited in the 1990s and has been equated with Generation X. Generation X is the generation that follows the Baby Boomers and is viewed as having all the opportunity in the world and fails to capitalize on it. These opportunities include a peaceful time in the United States with economic prosperity; this generation never dealt with a large scale draft like their parents’ generation did with the Vietnam War and they have no recession to handle.

Those included in Generation X are those who grew up during the 1980s, this would the time period where they were in their teenage years and early adolescence, mostly those that were living in the time post-Cold War. While those who are a part of Generation X are often defined as slackers, which implies that they have no motivation despite an environment which would allow them to succeed, this is an illusion created by the media in order to take the responsibility off of adults and institutions that were actually the ones at fault for limited opportunities and avenues for Generation X to become involved in.

There’s a scene where Dante and Randall are talking about community college and Dante says that he has higher ambitions than working in a Quik Stop. The two discuss going back to college but quickly come to the realization that they were wasting time taking the courses they were taking because they felt like the classes were not getting them anywhere. This is important because it shows that these two individuals that director Kevin Smith is using to exemplify Generation X are not without ambition but see the futility in their efforts and are dissuaded by it. The important part is that they come to this bleak conclusion after first taking courses in college and making an effort. Welcome to the Jungle: The Why Behind Generation X, talks about how Generation X had their opportunities limited by adults who controlled society at the time. One example that the author uses is a scene where a college student is unable to stay awake in class. It is not because this student doesn’t care or is bored, but he had to stay up late working to pay for his tuition. The Generation X student is being held back and has his opportunities limited because of an institutional structure—without his job he cannot pay for an education but because of his job he cannot stay awake to learn. Contrary to the view the media sent out in the 1990s, these students want to learn but have forces acting upon them that prevent that from happening.

Kevin Smith, the director of Clerks, modeled the movie after him and after his own life experiences growing up in Leonardo, New Jersey and is himself part of Generation X. In a sense, Smith is an example of a person that stood contrary to this idea of what the prototypical Generation X youth did because he worked hard despite limited opportunities and eventually became a successful director. Working at youth centers and places similar to Quik Stop and RST Video, Smith was able to accumulate a large amount of life experience to draw upon in his scripts as well as a quirky group of friends to utilize as actors in his movies. Eventually, Smith managed to get into film school where he gained the technical abilities necessary to direct a film. This was not without difficulty—he went to a relatively unknown film academy located in Vancouver, Canada. Smith shows that despite great odds, that Generation X had ambition and drive.

Youth in Generation X were pegged as being slackers, by giving them this label it promotes an identity that lays all of their lack of achievements onto them. This applies to inclusion in that labels are often enticing both to those who apply them and those who are given them. This means that for those that create labels they have the satisfaction of categorizing individuals to fit an idea that works within society, in this case it was necessary to explain the underachievement of Generation X as being the result of their un-ambitious nature. For those who receive labels it becomes easier to exist within society through the acceptance of those labels. This means that slackers can be included only when they act society’s scapegoat. Despite the negative connotations that come with the name “slacker,” it would be far more difficult to attempt to escape that label because even though Kevin Smith found success, it did not come without great perseverance and his success story is a rarity among the slacker generation.

paper 4

Tim O’Brien’s memoir shows a situation in which the general detachment of soldiers through comedy and irreverence creates an environment where soldiers can function and do their jobs. This detachment only works at times where there is no action but the perception of potential danger. By creating this detachment soldiers are able to view the war as ordinary rather than horrific. O’Brien does this through a number of ways including nicknaming his characters, euphemizing words like death and having the soldiers perform normal tasks in extreme situations.

When O’Brien recalls the names of his friends in Vietnam he very seldom says their full name. More often then not the names are ___, ___ and ___. This is a form of detachment that soldiers like O’Brien used in the war to try to distance themselves from the idea that these are people with emotions and lives back home. By nicknaming the other soldiers, often in a playful and satirical manner, O’Brien is showing that this helped detach each soldier from the other, this way they could continue on and not get wrapped up in the emotion of losing a friend.
The nicknames gave each soldier the identity as a well liked member of the squad while people who were not well liked were given plain names like “Johnson” or “Smith.” But even the ones who were given nicknames were still kept at a distance. The soldiers never really got to know each other as people who had lives before war and the nicknames enabled this to happen by giving a backdrop or stereotype as to who the person was without knowing them. For example, no one really knew much about Mad Mark, but his name already gave all the information that the soldiers needed to know about him without ever getting too close to him as an individual.

O’Brien also uses euphemisms which he describes as standard jargon among the soldiers. Words like killed, __ and ___ are replaced with “wasted” ___ and ___. This way if a fellow soldier was blown up by a mine the men didn’t have to ponder over him being killed, but rather “Jimmy was wasted.” These euphemisms create separation from the events that are happening and help the soldiers deal with the war, destruction and death rather than harp on it. The soldiers understand what the terms mean but at the same time it allows them to distance themselves from the actual significance of the euphemism.
O’Brien is trying to show that these soldiers needed to distance themselves from the war and its atrocities. Him and the other soldiers were in constant fear of being killed and by euphemizing the language it seemed as if death was more distant. When a man gets killed right next to you a soldier can wonder how easily that could have been him. By using this language it depersonalizes the situation and moves the soldiers away from their friends. The euphemisms take a phrase like “a soldier was ‘wasted’” and turn it into just another thing that happens rather than a sad death of a friend.

O’Brien also sets up scenes in which the soldiers perform normal tasks in unordinary situations. For example, when the alpha company is on an ambush mission O’Brien’s partner, Reno, lights up a cigarette in the middle of the ambush. The men were supposed to be in hiding to kill the enemy and in this scene of fear for the author, his partner casually smokes a cigarette, unfazed by the smoke that may be seen. This is an act that could be placed in a living room or a patio but is hard to be seen at the sight of a battle in a war. O’Brien even acknowledges that this is against procedure, but doesn’t say anything to Reno. This shows that this is not a wise decision because the light of the cigarette could tip off the enemy and sabotage the mission. The army took this into account by making it forbidden, yet it is as if Reno needs to have his cigarette to achieve some sort of normality in a scene of danger. This seems like an irrational action to a normal person because the cost of getting caught outweigh the benefits; however, this act makes sense when one takes into account the detached mentality that the soldiers had. Reno is not afraid in this scene; this act shows that he has detached himself enough so he can see the war as less dangerous at times of potential danger.

paper 3

Phillip Wiseman AMST Paper 3 TA- Meghan

The movie Gold Diggers shows how during times of hardship it becomes necessary for those that have wealth to help those who lack money and to interact with them to show the existence of a classless society. Herbert Hoover instills this idea through his concept of volunteerism and the understanding that everything in the economy is cyclical and eventually will fix itself. Volunteerism helps those that are in need, but also can help those that give provide the help. In Gold Diggers both sides of volunteerism are seen through Brad Roberts’ actions and the successes that the play and its performers receive from his money.
Hoover believed that individuals should make the decision themselves to help others rather than have the government impose these social welfare systems on its citizens. “Quote.” In Hoover’s address made in Colorado he talks about how the New Deal was a form of communism and that rather than have these government run and instituted programs, the way to get out of the depression would be through the volunteerism of others.
Hoover talks about a classless society in the sense that any individual can rise to the highest ranks within the country, therefore, regardless of our economic position in society we should associated ourselves as Americans because we all share this common opportunity.
In the movie Gold Diggers, the female stars are constantly out of work and run down by the failing economy. They finally get the opportunity to be in a show; all the girls are excited as they have been living in rundown apartments for the past few months after their previous show--or in some cases shows--has been cancelled. Barney Hopkins, the producer, tells them all about the show in a very grand style: how he has parts for all of them, and how the show will make thousands of dollars and stay open for months. The girls are suddenly let down when they discover that Barney will probably have to cancel this show because he doesn’t have any money to pay for all the expenses. It is not until Brad Roberts, a wealthy New Englander, offers to help that they are able to producer their show and become successful.
Without Brad’s money they would be unable to produce a show which Barney is confident will be a hit. It is important to note this because it elicits in the audience a sense of frustration over Barney’s seemingly helpless situation. The reason why he cannot get the money is not that Barney is a bad businessman, but because many banks were closing at this time or were unable to hand out loans because of the depression. This is when Brad comes in to save the day and help finance the play. Here it can be seen that Barney has exhausted all conventional avenues and has come up short handed. When all seems to be lost, Brad generously volunteers his money to pay for the production. This shows that sometimes situations cannot be helped by banks or other entities, but people must rely on volunteerism by others.
Brad’s contributions were significant to the play and he probably did not have to sacrifice much to give the $15,000 to Barney. This shows that volunteerism is a smart idea because the wealthy people who contribute are able to easily give up the money because it is considered a small amount to them. But to others a lot can be done with a small sum of money. This can be seen with how easily Brad is able to get the money and how quickly he is able to decide to lend it to Barney. To Brad this money is not that important and losing $15,000 will not make a significant change in his life. Conversely, this money does mean a lot to Barney who is able to give work to dozens of women and men. Here the cost is less than what benefit it gives. This shows that volunteerism is effective because it is less costly to volunteer and extremely important to the ones receiving the aid.
By the end of the film all the women are happily married--or soon to be married-- and the show has become a success. Brad’s older brother gives Brad a check for $10,000, eliminating any worry from Polly that her and her new husband would not be able to make it financially. Also, everyone is excited over the play and it’s success is only matched by their own happiness.
This scene shows the end product of Brad’s volunteerism. Without his volunteering the money to Barney, the show would not have been performed and all of their success would have never been. Also, viewers see that as a result of his volunteerism that the main characters all indirectly end up together and found love. This is possibly an allusion to the idea that with money and the generosity of others comes the truest of happiness seen in this movie through marriage. The ability of Brad’s brother and the family’s attorney to interact with Carol and Trixie shows the ideal result of living in a classless society where individuals take responsibility for their own personal welfare and that of others.

Draft

Phillip Wiseman American Studies 72 TA- Meghan Drury

Immigrants’ Strive to Leave Poverty

While many native-born whites blamed urban poverty and squalor on immigrants, immigrants were essentially forced into poverty when they arrived. Living in poverty was not a choice, but because many of them did not have the skills necessary or know the language spoken immigrants were forced into low paying jobs--assuming they were able to get jobs in the first place. Once immigrants were in America they strived to become successful by working their way up through industry.
Anzia Yezierska uses Sara and her family in her novel Bread Givers to show native-born Americans how immigrants strived against adversity to succeed in America. In Bread Givers, Sara--the youngest daughter of a Russian immigrant--strives to get herself out of the poverty and squalor of Hester Street on the Lower East Side of New York City and become educated. Sara is unhappy with her life in poverty and sees an education as her way out. Sara recalled a story she read in the Sunday paper about a girl who was working hard in a shop and was “turning gray” until she began going to night school, then college and eventually a school teacher.# This little story set Sara on a path that would eventually lead her toward attending college and then onto her career as a teacher. The story of the girl in the paper as well as Sara’s story of how she became a teacher mirror the typical American success stories of immigrants coming out of poverty and “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps” to achieve success through education.
Sara not only has ambitions of getting an education, but she also works in a laundry while attending night school. This shows that not only does she have aspirations of a better life, but that she is working hard in the mean time so she can survive on her own. While the native-born white image of immigrants may be those who lived in filthy poverty, Sara worked hard in a laundry to save money for a new life of college and classes. Sara was trying to work her way out of poverty to a better life.
Early in the novel there is a scene in which Sara buys a fish for 25 cents and sells it later that day for 50 cents. This shows that Sara is intelligent enough to learn how to make a profit. She said that she no longer wanted to go through trash to find old coals for fire or to sit on a street corner and beg, rather she had the ingenuity to know that she could make a profit from fish peddling. This is an example of how Yezierska shows the immigrants’ drive to improve their quality of life.
Because Sara went to night classes and eventually to college she was able to pull herself out of poverty. She transformed from a poor girl living in squalor to an educated woman who could take care of herself and better her community. This is in direct opposition to how many native-born whites saw immigrants. Now, Sara is able to enjoy finer stores and a better living and proves that immigrants can work hard to become a part of American society.
Sara’s father, Reb Smolinsky, also has dreams of becoming wealthier; however, he is sent back to poverty after being taken advantage of. Reb shows that he wants a better life after he purchases the grocery store in Elizabeth. This is another example of entrepreneurialism among immigrants or of how the father was trying to “pull himself up by his bootstraps.” The reason why Reb is unsuccessful is not because of a lack of trying due to laziness, like many native-born whites may believe about immigrants’ work ethic, but it is because he is taken advantage of that he is unsuccessful. Therefore, if he lost all his money and is in even greater poverty now then before, it is not fair to blame that poverty on himself. He was trying to be a productive member in society, but was cheated out of his goal. When native-born whites then blame the poverty and squalor in their urban cities on immigrants it is not a fair judgment.
Bessie, the sister of Sara, worked hard at her job as well. Bessie was so committed to getting herself and her family out of poverty that she worked long hours and gave all of her paycheck to the family for their survival. While Mashah spent her pay on goods like clothing, and her own towel and hanger, Bessie wanted her family to take her money to better themselves. Her character is one way of showing how immigrants wanted success and were willing to work hard for it no matter what the consequences may be-- in Bessie’s case it was working hard with little reward for herself.
Lewis Hine’s photograph “Chile Labor Documentation Project” is another example of immigrants trying to get themselves out of poverty. In the photograph a family and their neighbors gather together to make garters. Young children are even involved in the sewing. This family will work all day and late into the night working on these garters and will likely make little profit of off them; however, they continue to work hard because they know that this is the only way to get some form of income. This photograph shows that immigrants were working extremely hard to make it in America and did not want to remain in the squalor in which they lived.

Argument

Through methods of comparison Stewart and Colbert serve to propagate and dissolve the myth respectively. Stewart makes Obama look immaculate through pointing out the flaws in Bush and Cheney. While Colbert pokes fun at the myth by making outlandish correlations between Obama and Lincoln. Both understand that a myth exists, but Stewart tries to strengthen the myth while Colbert tries to strip it away through comedy.

Stewart/Colbert

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report both perpetuate myths but in different comedic ways.

Jon Stewart:

• Portrays Obama as a mythical figure that will end all the problems in America.
• He's liberal and panders to a liberal, Obama-centric crowd.
• He presents Bush and Cheney as "the evil empire" and looks to Obama as a reasonable, intelligent and popular man.
• Everything contrasted Bush and Cheney. He indirectly made Obama look good by comparing him to the comical shortcomings of Bush and Cheney.
• Referred to Michelle Obama as a gift, while Bush and Cheney were made fun of.
• Showed a clip of applause at the White House for Obama while he was with Bush. Stewart joked that Bush asked what kind of boos these were. Implying that Bush was an unpopular president and never received much applause.
  

Colbert:

• Makes fun of the myth by comparing Obama to Lincoln in the most outlandish and insignificant ways.
• He doesn't strip the myth of it's credibility because he at no point tries to point out the fallacies in comparing Lincoln to Obama.
• Discussed Obama's train ride from Penn to DC and all the stops in between. Obama sworn in on Lincoln's bible.
  
• To almost defraud some of the myth he showed just how comical it was by saying how Obama could become more like Lincoln. This included making Michelle Obama appear crazy, and having Obama grow out a beard like Abe.