Stuart Hall and Law and Order

Law and Order is a television show that encodes a message about the American criminal justice system to its viewers.  When viewers watch the program, they decode a particular message. 

            If one were to watch an episode of Law and Order: SVU, Stuart Hall would say the message encoded into the show is that the crimes committed by sexual offenders are especially heinous.  In fact, in the opening of the show, this message is specifically narrated.  However, the ideology perceived by the audience (the message they decode) may be different intended by the minds behind the show.

            Hall would say that some people would have a dominant reading of the show, meaning that these people would fully accept the ideology about sex offenders the show is trying to relay.  Others would have a negotiated reading, in which the accept some of the basic tenets of the encoded message but modify the message to reflect their own point of view.  In the case of Law and Order, a negotiated reading might be that sex offenders do commit heinous crimes, but sex offenders can’t just be anybody; they all fit into one demographic composed of minorities from low socio-economic backgrounds.  Hall would say that others, still, would have a oppositional reading in which they disagree entirely with the dominant reading.  An oppositional reading of Law and Order might be that sex crimes should not be punishable under the law (absurd as that may sound).

            Hall would say that the ideology accepted by the audience would be diverse.  He would also say that social factors would affect one’s reading.  For example, a person who has done time in prison and interacted with convicted sex offenders may have a different reading than a mother whose child has been a victim of a sex offender.  Factors such as race, gender, socio-economic background, etc. would all affect how a viewer would perceive an episode of Law and Order.  

Jameson and Postmodernism

   Jameson would say that the image is an example of postmodernism.  The image is a “Simpsonized” version of the Mona Lisa.  It’s fairly strange and a definite deviation from the original painting that is so well know.  Jameson notes:

“What has happened is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the fantic economic urgency of producting fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to aeroplanes), at ever greater rates of innovation and experimentation.”

The image is an example of this “experimentation” as well as an attempt to create a new commodity.  The artist is trying to be funny and creative and to juxtapose two well-know visual images to create something visually innovative.  This is the image’s pastiche.  It is imitating Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting and creating from it something new and different.  Pastiche, according to Jameson, is a fundamental tenet of postmodernism.           

            Jameson would also classify this as postmodern because its very light and meant to be perceived as a joke.  Jameson says this “essential triviality” differs from the “Utopian high seriousness of the great modernisms.” 

Freud and Jack Bauer

Freud would say that in all people, including Jack Bauer, there is a level of innate bisexuality, meaning that all people are born with both male and female traits.  However, through psychosexual development, people become monosexual and assume more of the traits of one gender than the other.  Freud assigned traits to the different genders: males are active while females are passive; males have phalluses while women are castrated.  Freud would argue that a trait of males is the Oedipal complex in which men in which men desire for the destruction of one parent and are sexually attracted to the other.

In the case of Jack Bauer, I’m not positive that we see evidence of an Oedipal complex, but he is an example of Freud’s theories of sexuality and masculinity.  He is very active and certainly not passive.  When his daughter goes missing, he actively tries to find her and doesn’t passively wait by the phone like his wife (a female) does.  Jack Bauer is an example of male dominance; he’s in charge of other people and he does only what he wants to do, breaking the rules and defying authority to accomplish his goals.  He also seems to be motivated by sexual impulses, another tenet of Freudian theory.  Jack is desperate to find his daughter to improve the sexual relationship he has with his wife.  At work, he has a flirtatious relationship with one of his female coworkers.  He jeopardizes his job and uses his relationship with this woman for personal gain, demonstrating how he acts, once again, of sexual impulses.  Freud would argue that much of Jack Bauer’s masculinity is derived from the unconscious, including repressed memories from his past.  Having only watched the pilot and being unfamiliar with the remaining episodes of the series, I don’t know if Bauer’s past is discussed, but his masculine behavior would be largely derived from his past, according to Freud.

Habermas and Ghosts of Rwanda

In regards to Ghosts of Rwanda, Habermas would say that in some ways, the documentary is an example of the public sphere.  “Newspapers and magazine, radio and television are the media of the public sphere,” he says.  Because the documentary appeared as part of Frontline on PBS, the documentary meets this qualification of the public sphere.  However, public broadcasting is owned by the government, and “although state authority is so to speak the executor of the political public sphere, it is not part of it.”  The documentary does have a very political subject matter and a political opinion within it.  Ghosts of Rwanda seems to criticize the United Nations and the American government for not taking more appropriate actions when the genocide began.  While it does provide a lot of information about the genocide in Rwanda, it doesn’t do so without a political bias.  Habermas would argue that political control is not being subordinated to the public’s demand for information, therefore limiting its classification as part of the public sphere.  However, Habermas also notes that “public discussions about the exercise of political power” are critical to the public sphere, therefore making Ghosts of Rwanda an example of the public sphere.  I’m not quite sure how Habermas would classify the documentary, because there seem to be some aspects of the film that support its classification as part of the public sphere and some aspects that do not.  

Barthes and the CNN Image

Barthes would understand and attempt to analyze this photo of an American soldier in Iraq by discussing the different codes found within the image.

There are no words found within the image, except for the Arabic writing that appears on the Iraqi flag.  But since that language is unintelligible to me, the viewer, the image appears to be devoid of a linguistic code.

Denotatively, the image features a man operating a gun.  The setting seems to be one where there is a lot of concrete.  It appears that other men are present in the far off distance.  On a concrete slab beside the man is a painted replica of the Iraqi flag.  The man is framed in the center of the image in the lower half of the frame.

On a connotative level, the image conveys more than just the denotative code.  The gun is a symbol of violence and destruction.  The pile of rubble in the background also symbolizes the presence of destruction.  The juxtaposition of an American soldier against an Iraqi flag sends a strong message to viewers.  Is America fighting for Iraq or against Iraq?  The colors within the image also contribute to the connotative code.  The neutral color of the concrete and the soldier’s camouflage blend into the overall picture, but the bright red of the Iraqi flag bring attention to the flag and may be what the photographer is trying to emphasize.  The focus and intense gaze of the man suggests that the soldier has a specific purpose and is not merely present in the space for no reason. 

Three Quotes from Rhetoric of the Image

1. We are still, and more than ever, a civilization of writing, writing and speech continuing to be the full terms of the informational structure.  In fact, it is simply the presence of the linguistic message that counts, for neither its position nor its length seem to be pertinent.

In the advertisement, there is a linguistic message.  And as Barthes believes, it is the most pertinent message to relaying information.  While the images in the ad allow viewers to formulate ideas on what the show may be about, the words on the ad relay information.  HBO realizes the importance of the linguistic message and utilizes it here to share information about the date and time of the series finale.

2. The type of consciousness the photograph involves is indeed truly unprecedented, since it establishes not a consciousness of the being-there of the thing (which any copy could provoke) but an awareness of its having-been-there.

The image of James Gandolfini in this advertisement is a photograph.  While it may easily have been photoshopped, it creates the idea in viewers’ minds that Gandolfini was actually there in front of the Statue of Liberty at some point in time.  Because we now have “proof” that he was once there, the message that the advertisement is trying to relay is not more credible.

3. The variations in readings is not, however, anarchic; it depends on the different kinds of knowledge—practical, national, cultural, aesthetic—invested in the image and these can be classified, brought into a typology.   

This ad relies on this type of knowledge that Barthes describes.  We can use national knowledge to understand the Statue of Liberty symbolizes things such as freedom and New York City.  We can use aesthetic knowledge to understand that red color of “Made in America” may be symbolizing bloodshed and predicting an especially violent series finale.  Practical knowledge can be used to interpret Gandolfini’s facial expressions.  One can look at the ad and see that he looks like he’s suspicious of someone or something and that he may be plotting some kind of revenge.

Aura and Reality in The Blair Witch Project

The Blair Witch Project gets its “scariness” from its ability to portray reality and to depict horror, not in a stylized and dramatized way, but in a way which seems highly believable possible in real life.  The film tries to recreate the aura of horror, and it does so through bare-bones production techniques and realistic acting instead of through visual effects and dramatization which greatly detract from the reality of horror and reassure audiences that the “horror” on the screen isn’t real. 

The first quote affirms Walter Benjamin’s belief that aura disappears in film because the audience is not physically there.  Benjamin is correct in that The Blair Witch Project cannot perfectly recreate the aura of physically being present during the characters’ time in the woods.  But the second quotes says that film presents a better depiction of reality than visual art because it “penetrates deeply into [reality’s] web.”  The Blair Witch Project, through its very medium of film, gets closer to reality than any other form of mechanical reproduction because of this “penetration.” 

The Blair Witch Project does try to recapture the aura, especially through its marketing as real home videos that were “found” in the woods (instead of a highly produced, directed, edited, etc. piece of entertainment).  But it also attempts to cut into reality.  Instead of highly stylized camera shots, the film employs a shaky camera technique and the actors break the fourth wall and talk to the camera/audience.  By both recreating aura and cutting into reality, The Blair Witch Project creates a new and highly effective kind of horror film.

Realism: Tokyo Story vs. classic Hollywood

Realism can be described as depicting something as the eye would see it. The "eye" behind Tokyo Story is director Yasujiro Ozu. Realism in Tokyo Story can be found in both technical and thematic elements of the film.

Technically, Ozu used many low to the ground camera angles. We discussed in class that his purpose behind doing so was to simulate the Japanese tradition of sitting on the floor. Ozu's shot selection also added to the film's realism. I remember from the film that there were several instances in which it seemed like he had placed a camera in a hallway and showed people merely walking in and out of rooms. This kind of slow shot progression and showing of everyday activities enhances the film's realism, for instead of showing only relevant shots, Ozu instead gives us an idea of everyday Japanese life.

Thematically, Tokyo Story also exemplifies cinematic realism. The pace of the movie is very slow and, at times, somewhat boring. There are no action scenes or chase sequences, just everyday Japanese life. But as mentioned earlier, that adds to Tokyo Story's realism. As viewers, we see a very realistic portrayal of an average, ordinary Japanese family.

Classic Hollywood directors would possess different "eyes" than Ozu, and therefore, their portrayal of realism would be different.

Technically, classic Hollywood cinema is based on continuity editing and making the camera seem invisible. That's one way in which Tokyo Story and classic Hollywood are alike. Ozu used his low camera angles to create the illusion of being at eye level and to de-emphasize the camera's presence.

Thematically, however, classic Hollywood films are centered around a central goal or quest of the protagonists. For example, in the Wizard of Oz, the central goal of the movie was for Dorothy to find her way home. Tokyo Story did not have this kind of focus. For me, the plot is still somewhat unknown and I'm not certain of Ozu's message that he wishes to deliver to his audience. This kind of central goal be a form of realism as well. Many people watch films to identify with the characters on the screen and to experience an emotional catharsis via the characters' struggles and achievements. Therefore, classic Hollywood films contain realism because they portray everyday character flaws and real emotions.

Report

From the title of the film, we know that Connor’s Report is a report and, more specifically, the news report of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  The film has a very unique structure in both its audio and video components.

The audio of Report is out of chronological order.  The film begins just moments before the president is shot with the news reporter describing President Kennedy’s car ride through the streets of Dallas, Texas.  Then Kennedy is shot, and the audio of the news report continues until Kennedy is officially pronounced dead.  Then there is a short moment of silence, a break in the audio.  The news report continues with the same reporter, only now, we hear the reporter narrating Kennedy’s visit from when the President initially arrives in Dallas.  The reporter describes the deboarding of Air Force I, the Secret Service’s preparations for Kennedy’s arrival, and the massive crowds that have gathered to greet the President.  The audio continues without interruption until the end of the film when the reporter is describing Kennedy’s car ride through Dallas—the very starting point of the film.

Unlike the audio that has one major shift, the video shifts, or changes, many times in Report.  Initially, the film begins with the corresponding footage of President Kennedy’s visit to the audio.  But when the reporter realizes that Kennedy has been shot, the film progresses into a series of jump cuts of the motorcade, and then eventually into the lengthy white screen with jumpy lines and no recognizable images.  When the President is officially announced dead, the video changes to an all black background.  When the audio changes, we see footage from a Spanish bullfighter, and then footage that corresponds with the audio of Kennedy’s arrival.

Connor uses this atypical format in both the audio and video to make a statement about Kennedy’s assassination.  I think the reason he puts the audio (and it’s corresponding video) out of chronological order is to allow his viewers to witness the death of the President, but then backtrack and analyze the irony of Kennedy’s assassination and learn that the Secret Service was on high alert that day.  Most viewers know that Kennedy was assassinated, but Connor’s Report and the way he structures the film give viewers the opportunity to learn more about the events that led up to Kennedy’s death.

The different shifts in the video’s all have implied meanings in and of themselves.  When the video is normal footage of Kennedy’s motorcade at the beginning, I think this symbolizes the normality of the situation before the initial gunshot.  Then the jump cuts lead me to believe that Connor is trying to display a state of confusion.  When the reporter learns that Kennedy’s car has been shot at, the video turns to the white screen with random interference.  This jarring video stays like this for quite a while, but in listening to the audio, the shift in video occurs as mass confusion and chaos breaks out.  The reporter asks listeners to stand by while he tries to gather more information.  The tone of the reporter’s voice becomes frantic and much louder.  All of these elements combined imply a state of mass chaos where no one, not even the reporter knows what has happened.  This chaos continues until Kennedy’s death is confirmed.  Then the reporter’s tone of voice turns somber, and the black background appears.  The implication of this seem to be one of finality—the confusion has ended and now the reporter and the rest of the world know that Kennedy is dead.  The images of the matador and the Spanish bullfighting ring, to me, seem to imply that Connor thinks that all of the Dallas spectators were like the rowdy Spanish spectators.  Instead of watching an innocent bull being killed, they were instead witnessing the slaughter of the President of the United States. 

"Charleston"

Film Art would look at this picture and try to analyze its different meanings including its referential meaning, its explicit meaning, its implicit meaning and, its symptomatic meaning.

Referential- A woman holding a baby stands against a wall.

Explicit- Since this is just a photograph, there doesn't seem to be any apparent explicit meaning.

Implicit Meaning- The black woman seems to be the child's caretaker. The way the woman and the child are interacting suggest that they are very familiar with one another. The two both seem to be looking at something, perhaps suggesting that the two are spectators.

Symptomatic Meaning- A black woman is holding a white baby, and by the title of the photograph, we can infer that this picture takes place in Charleston, South Carolina. The symptomatic meaning of this photograph has to do with race relations in the Deep South. One symptomatic meaning is that African Americans are stereotyped as employees of Caucasians, because the woman in the picture appears to be the child's caretaker. Another symptomatic meaning may be that ignorance knows no racism. From the subjects' clothing and the cars on the street, this picture seems to be from the 1950s or 1960s when racial tensions were very high. But this picture seems void of tension, as if to suggest that babies, in their state of innocence, are colorblind and don't know how to discriminate.

Practices of Looking would take a different approach to analyzing this photo. According to the book, photographic truth is a myth. "The creation of an image through a camera lens always involves some degree of subjective choice through selection, framing, and personalization." Instead of just analyzing the different meanings of the photograph, viewers should think about the perspective from which this picture was taken.

These subjects seem very carefully chosen-a white baby and a black woman. It also appears that there is no one else on the street, so perhaps this picture was staged and the photographer wanted to create this very scenario to share his thought on race relations in the South. The photograph is taken from the side and not head on. Perhaps this was done so to capture both the woman's and the baby's gazes. The framing suggests that the subjects are looking at something. Perhaps the photographer is suggesting that they are onlookers to the racial tensions in the South. They themselves are not displaying racism, but they are watching it all around them.