Daisey Yanking Our Chain
Big controversy over Mike Daisey's monologue about Apple's sweatshops in China. Apparently some of the horror stories he related about the workers and their conditions he didn't personally observe or didn't happen at all. A section of his one-man show was broadcast on This American Life and became one of its most popular pieces ever. Over the weekend the show did an hour looking into what Daisey got wrong and how they allowed it on the air.
Daisey has been making pretty lame excuses--your basic "searching for a higher truth" sort of stuff. Actually, I've long had a problem with all art that claims to represent facts--the creators generally want it both ways. They want the frisson of "this really happened" but also reserve the right to change things to improve the drama.
But Daisey's case is far worse. When actos portray real people, we understand we're not watching a documentary, but a dramatization that compresses, emphasizes and (often) just makes stuff up. Daisey, on the other hand, was performing a first-person monologue about things he'd uncovered in his visit to China. Much of the power of his piece was that he saw the things he was describing. To say what he's saying was essentially true (which it probably wasn't) is no excuse.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:18 AM
5 Comments:
People do not seem to realize the harm that comes from fudging details when presenting factual sounding descriptions, especially one which causes disrepute to someone. The story then becomes about the fudge and not about any "larger truth" (if there is one) that was meant to be conveyed. I.e. One phony fax got a pass for a guy who blew off his National Guard obligations.
Of course maybe Mr. Daisey thinks that Apple sweatshops in China are being talked about and they wouldn't have been had he not made his claims, so maybe he thinks its worth it and Ira Glass is just collateral damage
Drama presented as factual retelling of true events has boosted impact, which I think artists have tried to present works as factually based since Homer wrote about the Trojan war.
It's interesting, I watched this weekend a BBC production of Shakespeare's Julius Ceaser, and I'm also in the middle of HBO's "Rome" (season 1). Needless to say, the factual presentations are very different (though I think "Rome" is closer, getting the main characters and sequence of events correct). But both are lent a dramatic emphasis because in the back of my mind is always the thought "these people really existed and experienced what I am seeing."
If the goal of drama is to have the audience empathize with or witness the "truth" the author is imparting, starting with historic figures makes the job a lot easier.
Another example cam to mind. The first time I saw Fargo, I had bought the DVD without knowing the story (I just heard the film was excellent). The movie opens with a "Based on true Events" information box.
SPOILERS
I was really blown away by the film, because I found myself absolutely enthralled in my empathy with the main character, Jerry Lundegaard. Macy portrayed him with incredible skill as someone who could be anyone, who was simply drawn, step by step, into the most horrible situation imaginable for an ordinary (not fictional) character.
It was some time later that I found out that the "true events" box was a lie - or should I say device. I think the device worked perfectly on me, as I am sure the film would not have been as impactful had I known it was a fantasy of the Coen Bros., something my mind would have discounted as something that could never really happen.
Yes, the Coen brothers were having a laugh and playing on the audience's expectation. It was about as silly as claiming O Brother, Where Art Thou? is based on The Odyssey.
When actos portray real people, we understand we're not watching a documentary, but a dramatization that compresses, emphasizes and (often) just makes stuff up.
Kind of like "Game Change", huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home