For this week's post, please watch Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream on Netflix Instant and let me know what you think. In particular, let me know what you think the film's argument is, and please provide details about how the director Alex Gibney structures that argument. What is the message in the film? Is Park Avenue authentic? Does it present its evidence with authority?
Have fun watching and writing - and make sure your comments are posted by no later than Wednesday at 9 am!
This film was made very well. The editing was smooth, the cinematography was great, and the animations were fantastic. I enjoyed the story very much. The argument is that if you weren't born rich then you never will be rich or basically that if you're poor, it's incredibly difficult/impossible to get out of poverty. The director gives many examples of people that live in the building 740 Park Ave. and how they change politics to make things work out in their favor. The message I got from the film was that the rich need to start paying more on taxes. I don't mean to get into politics but it's extremely difficult when it comes to talking about this film. All the film did was bash republicans and talk about how they are trying to make the world better for themselves. The filmmaker said at the beginning of the film that money makes people meaner and feel more entitled. I halfway agree with that in the fact that if you do have more money then you are given more opportunities because you can afford more. Also is it mean of me not to give money to a man on the street corner begging for money? I rarely ever give money to the street beggars because I worked hard for the dollars in my pocket and I want to use them for other things. This film falls into a category that I don't like to talk about because all it does is cause arguments. This is all I have to say.
ReplyDeleteIt falls into a category that you don't like to talk about hmmm?
DeleteRight off the bat before I even started the film I can tell you that I enjoy the Gibney’s documentaries. His style, although quite different from mine, is quite interesting to watch, and the topics he chooses are usually very important to me. With a Gibney documentary you already know that he is going to be a big presence in the film. Not only is his view going to be glaringly apparent, but he himself will insert himself frequently into the film through voiceovers as well as onscreen appearances. Gibney’s argument in this film is largely about taxation, and manipulation of the government by means of large quantities of money. This pertains in particular to large interest political parties, and their means of fundraising through billionaires. The major thing I dislike about Gibney is his overbearing grip on all of his films. He structures his argument by getting tons of interviews appealing to his side only, and a few statistical animations here, and there (again only appealing to his view). He then uses visuals of poor people on the other side of park avenue to show the dynamic between rich, and poor in this country. This is ineffective to me because I feel like my mind was still wrestling with the political situations he has been bringing up for 90% of the film. This part, for me at least, draws my attention away from the documentary, which is a shame considering how wonderful it is. The film is authentic, and the statistics are correct, but without the other side having a real voice is definitely against my way of doing things. This, however, is Alex Gibney’s style, and he is an excellent documentarian. I was very entertained through most of the film.
ReplyDeleteThe editing and cinematography in this film were done beautifully, and I think it was a very well done film in the visual aspect. However it really bothered my that the message of the film was so skewed. It felt like an attack on republicans the whole time. While I do not call myself either democrat or republican and this paper is not about that, it felt really unfair in my eyes. It kept talking about how rich republicans only did things in government to help themselves or the rich get richer. It also talked about how if you are born poor, it is pretty much impossible to do anything because of the government policies. While I do agree with some of what the film said, I found it extremely hard to watch because it was so drastic and way to vague at points. Also it never once touched on any democratic policies or rich democratic people and how they affected policies. Also when talking about the Koch family, it kept bringing in words like Red America, Soviet Union and communism. While it only briefly glanced over the fact that they left America because they were blocked by the monopoly of the oil companies. When talking about 740 Park Ave it only talked about 2 of its residences that happened to be rich Republicans, while never speaking of the other tenants or their influence on politics. The argument of the film, in my opinion, was left very weak because it was just so attacking. Instead of being fair and giving both sides, it just used bashing language and vague details. This doc left a very bad taste in my mouth it was so one sided and unfair.
ReplyDeleteI find the film to be super interesting. I think that it makes a very good argument for the lower class. I found the story to be compelling and one that should be told. I really enjoyed the editing, I thought that it was very well done in the fact that when they were talking about a certain politician, they cut to them, with keeping the audio over the archive footage, which isn't that big of deal when you think about it, but to the normal viewer, one not familiar with film techniques, they would find it very interesting. As a film student I still find this technique very interesting and intriguing. I think the message of the film is one of that to not support the tea party, or the republicans, which I am completely fine with, I can see where the film can be a little controversial, lets say if a right winger was to watch the film, but I find the message to be a good one. Tax the rich and the super rich, and try to give breaks to the lower and middle classes. I find the film to be authentic in the sense that I believe everything that they are saying, the facts seem to be supported by facts, although they could be complete bullshit, they have people that seem to know what they are talking about from prestigious colleges and that makes me think that they know what they are talking about even if in fact they do not. The reasons stated before also back up why I think that the film presents itself with authority.
ReplyDeleteLike I said before I am way more critical of documentaries than any other film and I’m still not totally sure why that is. To add to that I really am not one to talk, or watch, or think about politics. With that being said I actually enjoyed this Documentary. I enjoyed the editing. This film could have easily have been talking heads the whole time but it wasn’t and I appreciate that. They used great b-roll, the shots of the “other park avenue,” the floor plans of the 740, the monopoly game bored, the letters to Washington with underlined dialogue all caught my eye interested. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with this film.
ReplyDeleteThe films argument is that republicans are selfish and don’t care about the lower class, that poor people get no help and that it is extremely difficult for them to help themselves, and that rich people are holding all this money and taking over the world with it.
Gidney structured these arguments by the way he built this film. His main point of the rich live selfishly is argued so much in this film that it can be seen even by his opening shots. The ritzy string music, close up of the doormans white gloves, and the stretches of luxurious buildings along with the narrator’s tone immediately let the audience know that this isn’t a film that is going to bring glory to the rich. Gidney also argues that the poor are trapped in a hole by his use of visuals. The bridge between the two park avenues, is literal and metaphorical, is shown so many times. Probably my favorite and the most exciting argument evidence was the phone call of Ryan and “Koch.” I was so into that! I found it really juicy evidence. Regardless of my views that was gold. Gidney also makes it a point to tell us that the top 1% control politics. I found it interesting that he used the school house rock about a bill with a lobbyist contradicting it. (Side note: I thought it was funny when the lobbyist said social conveyances and then we saw a title card that says “He means money”)
Is the film authentic or not? Well yes or no. I think that they make a great argument. They pull you in well with all of the evidence of their side, the call between Paul Ryan and Koch, the doorman of 740, the statistics. I believe their evidence I guess is what I am trying to say. It all seems legit and came from credible sources. The authority is there. My problem is that it is sooo one sided that after watching and thinking about it for a few days all I want to is hear from the other side. I mean the people who live in 740 can’t all be ruling the world. Those politicians can’t all be the anti-Christ. After our conversations in class I recently discovered that I appreciate documentaries more, the more sides they bring into the picture. I enjoyed the film but I think if it had more sides I would not only look at it with more authority but also would have really loved it much more.
I think Gibney’s lead argument is that money equals power. He has almost a rich v.s. poor style, him being on the poor side of the argument. When I say money equals power, I mean that having money can get the candidates you like into office through fundraising. The leading factor when it comes to structure that I enjoyed was that we know his bias and it is clear throughout the film. Nobody wants to say they enjoy a film with a major bias, but we all have our own biases. Showing the audience the filmmaker’s bias makes the information much more clear. There is much less guessing at least. He shows his through his interviews and even in the opening scene of the transition between the rich and poor sides of Park Avenue. I really like his stance on the richest of the rich situation. It makes for a more honest film. Having a completely one-sided and clear stance makes the film that much more relatable. For me at least, knowing that Gibney is speaking out against a “rigged” system kept me even more entertained.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful film and very well organized. Ok, now onto the real critique. The Documentary showed a lot of Park ave in all its glam with different angles of the 740 building and it also showed the slums of the other side of Park ave. I believe I only saw one interview with a (black) couple who fits the stereotype of someone who live on Park Ave. I would of like to have seen different interviews with the people who live in that part of the neighborhood and follow them around like a "day in the life" to see what happens to them on a daily basis. for example compare and contrast a nice limo to taking the public transportation because owning a car would be way to expansive. Interviews with more of the minorities would of been appreciated. Overall I think Gibney did a great job taking his own side and conveying it, but in all honestly it felt a little one sided. I can agree with some of the statements made by the other interviewees such as the ex doorman felt he would get a 1,000 bucks during the christmas holidays but instead he got a 50 dollar check. and that being rich doesn't make you cultured or smarter but in fact some rich people can just be dicks! I can totally agree with these statments because I used to work at 5 star private country club in Ohio and I used to meet all sorts of (rich) people. The richest guy at the club was great but he didn't tip for S***! other members pretended to not even know me or acknowledge (even though I worked there for 7 years). there is a stereotypical persona that some rich folks carry. but I can not judge all of them because many of the members were great people... with lots of money! there was authority presented in the film! why? because Alex Gibney intended on it and made his message clear!
ReplyDeleteI for one loved this film. I don't think that it's in anyway authentic because to me it seemed like any other doc I would watch. And come to think of it, the guy sounded a little like Michael Moore. Anyway, I think the film's argument is that America has reached a point where the American dream is virtually unachievable for the poor. They say in the film that people said America is the land of the free and if you work hard you can reach the top. This film shows the obvious segregation between rich and poor. It shows that the rich have so much power with their money that they can buy politicians and "rig the game" in their favor to get more money. This emphasizes on capitalism, that in America in order to get ahead you have to take what you can and screw everyone else. And the film shows evidence that the rich have decreased the middle class so they can have more money and spend less of it in taxes. The film argues against the fairness of this country, that we are slowly but surly loosing control and the rich are taking over the world. The message of the film is that it is a dog eat dog world and the poor are never going to be rich because they are stripped of opportunities to be able to break free from poverty. They say if they're poor, they should get jobs, but there are no jobs. They say go to school, but the public schools are horrible because they are underfunded and college is impossible to afford. It aims to show that Americans are stuck where they are born, unless something big changes.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the filmmaker Alex Gibney has an agenda and that he is on the side of the proletariat. I will not go as far to say his attack on the ultra rich is unwarranted but that he definitely has a gripe to pick with them.
ReplyDeleteThere is a sect in this society that is stepped on and overlooked because of their lack of economic power. Gibney's exploration of Park avenue takes him on journey that allows him to take a constructive look at those who have and those who do not have the social and economic mobility in New York.
What is interesting about this film is that it is not unique to only a certain section of New York but that it is a microcosm of what is true for cities like Chicago, Detroit and many other places around the world.
Gibney takes a personal approach in how he chooses to distill what he will from the rich and the poor on Park avenue. I think his argument is simply that those who have the social and economic power are those that can truly influence legislation and the poor who lack the economy of wealth are left behind. They do not matter. Real power therefore exists with those who have money.
One can argue that this film is one sided and that Gibney could have gone a bit deeper to give a more well rounded view of things. I know at the end credits there were those who declined to be interviewed but this is the film and it gives us something to chew on and to personally delve deeper into no matter how incomplete it may appear. The film speaks at some harsh truths about this society.
Park Avenue was one of my favorite films we have watched yet. That being said there is an extreme bias in this too. This film takes a very one sided look at what is going on in the top one percent of America's wealth and how corrupt it is. There isn't as much of a message as there is a unveiling of what is going on. There is a common theme of the one percent, but within that the film goes into many directions from there. The film uses personal accounts to show there personal greed, like the doorman and how he was treat; while also looking at the political side by showing the koch brothers. The message to me is not so vivid but the intention is, to expose the greed that has consumed the American world which we live in. This takes many different view point to get the viewer as angry and frustrated as possible. I don't think there was as much a message to be sent to viewers as there was an emotion that was supposed to be evoked. That being said through using many facts, interviews, and previous footage I believed this was accomplished very well.
ReplyDeleteThese Docs always make me want to reevaluate my career choices while at the same time really feeling very anti-anything that has to do with corporations and the government. i can definitely agree that the Docs goal of trying to inform but more have an impact on the viewer really worked. usually when you get docs of this nature that deal with government and social ladder it feels like it always jumps directly to hating the opposite side for being rich and not wanting to level out the playing field for the rest of everyone else. Park Ave on the other hand really takes you on this spiral like telling of the story, starting from the most of wealthy street in America to across the bridge on the other park ave. this story structure really helped me empathize for everyone across the bridge and myself, anyone who isn't that top one percent and has to deal with life decisions that these CEO''s take and end up impacting out lives.it than adds interviews with psychologist who again like i mentioned sets phase two of the story, giving an example of the way that people act in monopoly when they have the upper hand is the same way that the extremely wealthy act. i felt the content was authentic, the interviews of the doorman were effective being that they are the first direct contact with these top percentile people, than he begins to connect the dots between park avenues finest and government officials and as if it were all conspiracy theories it all begins to some how connect. the most provocative point connected was the Democrat (can't remember his name) who was voting against almost anything that was being proposed and this is why when the Democrats had control of both house nothing was ever passed because of him. another point made that really flew me over my seat was one of the supreme court judges who was the lawyer of this huge tobacco company.at this point in the Doc i had my mind made up of who are the bad guys. so Gibney was successful in getting the viewer to connect to the Doc and pretty much i'd say be against corporations and these wealthy park ave residents who are really calling shot in washington.
ReplyDeleteI have always found documentary on money and class interesting, especially with today’s economic gap. As a journalist this is something that I’ve had to focus on and read a lot about. It’s fascinating how many different ways this problem could be spun. The film’s argument definitely goes against Paul Ryan and the other ideologies of the rich anti-government lobbyists and politicians. Gibney offers both sides to the debate, but the experts he interviews share his same view. He also offers graphs and statistical data to better prove his point on the increased salary of only the rich and the “one percent.” An example of a fact-clip Gibney offers is, “One CEO makes 231 times as much as the average worker.”
ReplyDeleteI think it’s very clear to see how Gibney feels on the topic, even from the beginning when he uses the Monopoly metaphor. I think he has done a lot of research, but I feel I’m very much being fed more heavily to trust the side of the argument that Gibney is trying to persuade me to believe (which is fine, it just means Gibney has realized that he cannot be objective). As a journalist I’m taught to write and report the news objectively, or as objectively as possible, so this is something that I’m still learning to accept.
I found the film very powerful. It was interesting to see the divide between two classes of people that occupy the same street. It is rare that I find a documentary that actually makes me want to dive into research after. Park Ave. was very eye-opening in that it shed light on the close relationship between finance and government. One of the most powerful moments of the documentary for me was listening to the doorman talk about how the children change over time. It was little additions like this and the Monopoly test that kept me interested while at the same time seeing hard-hitting facts. I notice this class' effect on my viewing when I ask questions such as "Why don't they interview more from the opposing side." The final text shows that everyone they had reached out to declined to appear on camera. I think the documentary could have been even more powerful with their opinions, but the chances of that happening are very slim.
ReplyDeleteTwo things I really enjoyed during this film were the animation and the cinemaphotgraphy. The visuals ran together quite smoothly, a lot of the editing choices worked welled together. I can tell the editing choices were thought out and were most like distinctively and precisely guided by the director to post so his idea would be clear. I believe the message or main topic of the film is surrounding this whole controversy surrounding the rich vs. the poor and the have and have not’s. I do believe it has its moments of being authentic but it seemed a bit one sided to me. I never really believe something is truly authentic when it comes to a topic of such where it has many truths on all different angles so it could never be truly and completely ALL authentic. I feel more of a pull from the director for the audience to one sided-ly agree with the whole theory of the rich taking over the world and money brings you power. I would have like to see a different light shed on the “rich and powerful” because I personally don’t think they are the “bad guy” as it was portrayed.
ReplyDeleteThis film really spoke to me because as much as I try not to be, I am naturally politically compelled to speak my views about the lack of balance between wealth & poverty in America. The argument Gibney was making was very obvious in the structure of the film. You open up to shots of the Upper East Side with music of the orchestra, something mostly rich people attend. Then it takes you across the bridge to Queens where your life expectancy & quality are very much lowered. The harsh imagery of the ghettos in contrast with the opening are very affective. I also believe there is authority in the evidence. It's not hard to believe the realities of the richest in America taking all the money and politicians working with them to be in power. Because in America, money is power. Everyone knows that. The interviews were also very convincing.
ReplyDeleteThe message is that these super mega rich people need to spread their wealth and stop being so greedy. We'll see...
I think this subject is very important and even though the delivery was very one sided, you don't really have to question the material. He shows in the end the rich "one perecenters" like the Koch brothers & Stephen Schwarzman (who helped G.Bush win the election) that did't want to say anything for the film so at least he tried!
A good follow up film to see would be "The One Percent". Jamie Johnson, grandchild of the 'Johnson & Johnson' family tries to touch on these issues with his dad & his rich family. You see the other side that you don't see in Park Avenue in that these rich people don't want to 'go there'. Their minds are like robots & they only know rise in dollars and maintaining their wealthy positions. Because they are rich they will only do what is necessary to stay rich. They can't even fathom the thought of poverty. They try to block it out of their minds as much as possible. I think one of the interviews in Park Avenue touches on this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete