Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Cool or Lame: Morgan Spurlock's New Project
When I saw "Supersize Me" I remember thinking to myself what a wonderfully
simple idea this was. Morgan Spurlock decided to go on a strict diet of fast food for 30 days…McDonald's fast food to
be specific. The film based on this endeavor went on to big fame and won many awards, all of which, I think, deserved.
But after the film, a friend of mine commented that Spurlock was a one hit wonder, that his idea was great, but that
likely he'd fade into pre-Supersize Me obscurity. Not so.
I looks like Mr. Spurlock is taking his wonderful concept and
expanding it into all sorts of
socially-conscious realms. His new show concept, to be aired on the FX channel will involve living some life-style for
a month and filming the entire process. According
to his blog, which gives a somewhat
consistent update on his project, he and his fiancée Alexandra moved to Columbus, OH where they decided to live on
minimum wage for one month. The idea being to show how hard it is to make it in the United States on the pltry sum of
(what is it now?) $5.15 an hour.
A superb idea. And quite timely, too. In fact, just yesterday the New York times started a series on class in America
that is sure to be Pulitzer material. In these heady Bushian days of conservative domestic policy, the show is surely
to develop a following. And this initial program is just the first of a series that will tackle issues ranging from
homosexuality to binge drinking, and consumerism. Very cool.
Filed under: Activism, Arts and Culture, Business, Blogs, Stories
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Milton Friedman Dec 18th 2005 5:07PM
If Mr. Spurlock is to be honest, he would also include the many social programs available to him at at minimum wage level. Living at $5.15 a hour is only for idiots, or arrogant social critics trying to prove a point. Reality shows that families with workers earning minimum wage also take advantage of our social programs and supports to provide them food, utilities, housing and education. It would be simple-minded and disingenuous to pretend that $5.15 an hour is all you have.
What Mr. Spurlock should do is figure out what the average family was taxed at in 1955, and then show us how much more money we would have to raise our families. Mrs. Cleaver could afford to stay home because the Cleaver's family annual tax bill was 25% less than today.
Mr. Spurlock would do us all a favor if he would drop the 1974 liberal mentality and try to raise a family in today's suburbia.
Andre King Dec 18th 2005 5:07PM
You spoke of these "various social programs" for people living under minimum wage, can you actually try listing some of them? You can't get unemployment checks unless you're, you know, unemployed, and the same goes for welfare.
If you wish to become more informed on this subject, try reading "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. I'm not sure what magical event you think happened since 1974 that made minimum wage enough for a person to live from, but I assure you this is a very real problem in America today.
randall Dec 18th 2005 5:07PM
I congatulate you on your 15 minutes but regret the extent to which are enjoying it and are "developing" it. You have made a movie that has addressed a controversial issue--cynical to some, personal to others, possibly unknown a minority--and you are riding its coat tails to other, equally promising controversial projects/derisions. As a filmmaker, I suppose this is your right and your calling, but as a social critic, I think you are a contadiction to the persona you have created. I don't think it's responsible for you to develop a film or TV "personality" based on this work. Your have created a persona, like it or not, of a concerned documentary filmmaker, but you have (d)evolved into a guy who makes statements for the sake of making statements so that he can be controversial so that he can maybe be famous. You cheapen yourself, and you insult the people you are trying to help. As a member of the choir to whom you are preaching, I have come to doubt your sincerity and your objective. Your very purpose seems to be undone by the extent to which you desire notoriety for creating controversy. It's like you found a sore spot common to a niche of people and are picking at it, but it's not your own. I guess the word is self-satisfied. Well, good luck with that, but it will be short lived, and nobody likes a self-satisfied cinic. Prove your intentions (or don't, I guess I don't really care), but at least don't unprove them....