Analysis of Secondary Sources

I used strategies 1 and 4 for the following sources.

Perin, Constance. Belonging in America. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

The section Imperfect People in Belonging in America raises the topic of an institutionalized definition of a “normal” person and implies that those who do not meet the qualifications will view themselves as being “unworthy, incomplete and inferior” (146). Perin claims that imperfect people are a “culture shock” to the normal population and that ‘“normal people’ become unsure that mortal systems of meaning and conduct will suffice in dealing with [the abnormal]'”(157). Perin’s assertion contradicts the dynamic in Edward; in fact, the suburbanites in the film, Peg in particular, were quite certain that “mortal systems” would be effective in integrating Edward into society. From the beginning, they failed to recognize his biological difference from the rest of society. Noting only Edward’s strange hands and endearing innocence, the “normal people” merely saw Edward as an outsider, alluding to their ignorance. Edward briefly shocked the community but shortly became some sort of a celebrity. This fascination with an artificial man who would generally be feared made me think that though they are normal, those living in suburbia are often so bored with uniformity that an anomaly can be seen as entertainment rather than something to be feared.


Halper, Thomas and Douglas Muzzio. "Pleasantville? The Suburb and Its Representation in American Movies." Urban Affairs Review 37 (2002): 543-74.

Muzzio and Halper explore the accuracy with which film makers capture elements of suburbia in movies and how such movies shape our view of society. The authors assert that while people have historically defined suburbia as an environment that fosters fulfilling lifestyles, moviemakers have long been exposing the falsehood of this association of suburbia with utopia by either satirizing or blatantly attacking the suburban life. While many suburban films are not entirely realistic, they “achieve the appearance of reality to the extent that they conform to our preexisting conceptions of the suburb” (547-48). The authors argue that as long as the moviemaker incorporates some elements that are obviously symbolic of the suburbia that we are most familiar with, the film need not flawlessly present suburban life as it truly is. Thus, film makers construct images of the American suburb consistent with the audience’s preconceived notions, and it is up to the audience to decide whether or not something is plausible.
The authors also discuss the audience’s role in the life of a movie using human psychology to validate the discussion. They suggest that there exists a connection between the film and the audience in that one can reveal something about the other. For example, a film’s commercial success is often a direct correlation of the audience’s reaction to the film. If a film is negatively received, it is implied that the audience disagrees with a presented idea. The authors also address the audience’s role in the actual viewing of a movie. During a film, viewers naturally participate in criticizing the content of the film by either accepting or rejecting its message. They also participate in the sense that they subconsciously alter the meaning of a scene or image for themselves according to personal experience and beliefs. What the authors claim in this passage made me reevaluate Burton’s intention for creating Edward Scissorhands. Initially, I felt that Burton created it for the sole purpose of mocking suburbia. Having read this article, I feel that maybe Burton was offering the audience a chance to change themselves by displaying their lifestyles on the screen in an exaggerated, yet somewhat realistic way.