thanks for the link, really interesting . it does raise questions about the importance of narrative and squeezing out a cohesive story in one hour, especially form 300 hours of footage. but I am a little confused because as you said, Spurlok does not seem to have changed his mind very much by the end. so do you think that his reaction is to a different version or that he still feels misrepresented? he seems to defending himself to his own community in some ways, especially in the ways that he refers to the "alien family" with a harsher tone. but is that just becasue the filmmakers pushed him for the softer sides?

it seems that the two episodes that we watched do push for emotional arcs that seem somewhat forced. if not for the ending taglines (which might be last ditch truth contingencies), both episodes follow very specific characteroligical arcs.. and emotional transformations.

Excellent find on that letter... A couple of things jumped out at me while reading it...

For one, I think the ethical issues involved in creating a story at least partially based in some one else's "reality" are worth talking about. I'm particularly interested in how that ethical issue meshes with weather or not a person's view of "reality" changes over time. Was Frank feeling one thing at the time of the filming and another thing at the time of writing his letter? If his emotions (and therefore his representations of his experience) did change over time, does that regard his experience as a "phase" and thus belittle his position (either as a minuteman or as a member of that family for a month)? Is it excusable that FX may have edited the segment towards the story they wanted to tell, regardless of what actually wound up happening? Isn't editing towards a story you want to tell kind of like coming up with a thesis statement and then doing research and writing a paper? (If so, and if that is in fact a huge ethical issue, why are people taught to write research papers like that in school?)

I also found it really interesting that Frank defended his anti-immigration stance in his own immigrant status. "The host, Morgan Spurlock refers to me on the show as an 'anti-immigrant' Minuteman? If you look at the film you will see that even they know that I am an immigrant myself!" This brings up two questions. 1) Why do people feel like they have to give themselves credibility like that? It often points to how unfounded / misinformed their ideas are in the first place (for example, the often repeated, sadly misinformed "I can't be racist! My best friend is black!" line of thinking...). 2) Does this statement of his own immigrant status point to some sort of repressed, internalized self-hatred? (I realize that can get a little psychoanalytic, but I'm sure someone out there is dying to take a bite out of that one...)

Finally, it stuck out to me that he stated explicitly in his letter that Bush should be Impeached. I don't have much else to say on that, but would love to hear others' thoughts...

Bravo Henry on finding that letter! My reaction to reading it and the issues it raises...

To take and edit someone's words and comments out of order, out of context, to in effect make them appear to say something that they did not say is not documentary, but rather mockumentary. That is not squeezing a narrative or emotional arc -- that is making one up. Editing a story towards what you want to tell or illuminate is one thing -- and a fine line at that. However, cutting and pasting words to re-create a new meaning than the one whose words you are using intended in my opinion is just plain old lying and misrepresentation. Imagine if someone asked you in an interview how studying for finals were, and you replied 'really hard, don't know how I'm going to make it' -- then recorded themselves asking a question how it felt breaking up with your significant other (regardless if you have one or not) and edited your response to the first question in after the second question. How would you feel?

I first want to say what a pleasure it was to get to speak to all of you this past week and Brown and what an honor it was for Eugene to include in such an inspired class.

Secondly, I want to say that Frank changed his tune 100% when he returned home and that nothing on that show was taken out of context. Once he became surrounded by his minuteman friends and wife, I believe Frank felt that he had to defend the way of thinking that was instilled into him by this peer group and that any recognition of this family as contributing members of society would ne heresy.

In 30 Days, we leave the emotional outcome of the story in the hands of the participant and at the end of that show, I don't think its hard to see that Frank truly felt for the family.

In my opinion, he would have saved a lot of face had he just admitted that while he may not agree with how these people came to the states, they represent a group that the country now cannot do without and something must be done to stop future illegals from crossing over, endangering the welfare of their families, and, from his point of view, stealing low wage jobs which impact the economy.

All I know is he cried like a baby while we were there and no one was poking him with a sharp stick to make that happen.

I have two comments to make in response to Henry's comments.

First, it's great that you found that letter. However, as other people stated, we have to really be somewhat skeptical of its authenticity. But, Morgan brings up a good point that, if it is authentic, Frank may have written it to prove something to his fellow Minutemen and wife.

Second, I don't think there needs to be a positive or negative resolution to these 30 Days segments. Simply watching them, people can really learn a lot about the issues they confront. The point of the show is to capture a glimpse of someone's life in an extraordinary situation. I may be wrong, but I don't think the point of this show is to have a positive message. Hopefully, they will offer viewers some insight, and possibly invoke some real thought on these issues.

Authenticity of the letter seems to be an issue.
Mr. Jorge's email address, if anyone is interested in in talking with him. frank1950 at juno.com
(Make sure to revise with the @ and there are no spaces when you send to him -- just don't want him to get spammed by typing it out correctly.)

There also is another possibility to his reaction other than wanting to prove something to family and friends, and that is termed 'stockholm syndrome'. For instance did the views that Patty Hearst speak while living with the SLA really reflect her views? I know I'm pushing the boundrey here, but it is an interesting avenue to consider as we look at Truth and how it is constucted, and viewed.