Using 3-4 quotations from Rushdie's Wizard Of Oz, tell how he would interpretation this video of Indian children singing a song from the American film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf5svfS_bnc
I think Rushdie would say that the video exemplifies the vivid and realistic fantasy world of The Wizard of Oz -- he speaks of its "realistic surreality" (Rushdie 27). The children are fully absorbed in this world...smiling, carrying on with their pantomimes of real behaviors, which probably seem quite real to them. As Rushdie says of Oz, it "finally became home" (Rushdie 57). This is also consistent with the fantasy-filled Bollywood cinema Rushdie recall that these children have likely been exposed to: "'We are all dancing out our stories," (Rushdie 11), as Rushdie quotes a Bollywood director.
The video also captures the pure happiness of some of the best parts of The Wizard of Oz, what Rushdie calls the "pure, effortless and somehow inevitable felicity," which he observes is as near as possible to an "authorless text" in its seeming inevitability -- perhaps reflected in the video by the absence of any director, or any adult (Rushdie 16). Consisting only of happy children capably performing their routines, the video would remind Rushdie of what he calls the "driving force" of the film: "the inadequacy of adults" (Rushdie 10), reflected in Dorothy's taking charge of her own life, the delight of the Munchkins and the weakness of both her adult caretakers in Kansas and the exposed wizard.
Rushdie could also not help but comment on the children's skipping, an imitation of Dorothy's skipping down the yellow brick broad which he admires and states is the "clever, shuffling little skip that will be the leitmotif of the entire journey," representing Dorothy's -- and perhaps the children's -- "steps out along the road of destiny" (Rushdie 44).
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Blog 9
What would Fredric Jameson say about the following image:
http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/mona-lisa-on-the-simpsons1.jpg
Jameson would say that this picture of an older Lisa Simpson substituting for the woman in the classical Mona Lisa painting is a perfect example of postmodernism. It makes fun of classic 'high culture', merging it with popular culture and thereby elevating popular culture, as here represented by a female member of of a dysfunctional, working class, TV family. In Jameson's words, the picture can be said to represent 'the effacement...of the older...frontier between high culture and so-called mass or commercial culture and the emergence of new kinds of texts infused with the forms...and contents of that very culture industry [TV, for example] so passionatelely denounced by all the ideologues of the modern..." (Jameson 2). Artworks like the Mona Lisa that have been considered high art are now viewed "as a set of dead classics" (Jameson 4). Jameson goes on to say that while this sort of postmodernism and "complacent (yet delilrious) camp-following celebration...is surely unacceptable" -- at some level we still emotionally reject the degradation of a classic work of art -- we must still "reject moralising condemnations of the postmodern "when it's compared with the equally ridiculous 'high seriousness' of the great modernisms'" (Jameson 6). The postmodern challenges our conceptions, and while it may sometimes make us uncomfortable, we also realize (and laugh at) the truth in that challenge.
Jameson might also observe that this picture is postmodern because it puts on display for both admiration and ridicule a TV example of the latest and most current form of capitalism: an ugly, homogenized city like the Springfield of The Simpsons, with its visible and generic 'Bowlarama', and the Simpson family, who spend their time trapped in American working class conditions and roles as they watch TV, drink (Homer, at least), fight with each other and scheme for a way out of their social and economic constraints.
http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/mona-lisa-on-the-simpsons1.jpg
Jameson would say that this picture of an older Lisa Simpson substituting for the woman in the classical Mona Lisa painting is a perfect example of postmodernism. It makes fun of classic 'high culture', merging it with popular culture and thereby elevating popular culture, as here represented by a female member of of a dysfunctional, working class, TV family. In Jameson's words, the picture can be said to represent 'the effacement...of the older...frontier between high culture and so-called mass or commercial culture and the emergence of new kinds of texts infused with the forms...and contents of that very culture industry [TV, for example] so passionatelely denounced by all the ideologues of the modern..." (Jameson 2). Artworks like the Mona Lisa that have been considered high art are now viewed "as a set of dead classics" (Jameson 4). Jameson goes on to say that while this sort of postmodernism and "complacent (yet delilrious) camp-following celebration...is surely unacceptable" -- at some level we still emotionally reject the degradation of a classic work of art -- we must still "reject moralising condemnations of the postmodern "when it's compared with the equally ridiculous 'high seriousness' of the great modernisms'" (Jameson 6). The postmodern challenges our conceptions, and while it may sometimes make us uncomfortable, we also realize (and laugh at) the truth in that challenge.
Jameson might also observe that this picture is postmodern because it puts on display for both admiration and ridicule a TV example of the latest and most current form of capitalism: an ugly, homogenized city like the Springfield of The Simpsons, with its visible and generic 'Bowlarama', and the Simpson family, who spend their time trapped in American working class conditions and roles as they watch TV, drink (Homer, at least), fight with each other and scheme for a way out of their social and economic constraints.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Blog 8
How would Freud describe Jack Bauer's masculinity?
Freud (or some other psychoanalyst) would need to analyze Jack in order to determine what problems he has and what the roots are of his hyper-masculinity. But the best guess is that Jack has an unresolved Oedipus complex. The Oedipus complex for a male describes a young child's attachment to his mother and his unconscious wish to replace his father as his mother's lover. This leads to fear of the child's father's resentment over being displaced -- specifically fear of castration by the father. When the oedipus complex is resolved, the child bonds with and identifies with the father, no longer fearing him, no longer sexually desiring his mother and developing a healthy sense of his own masculinity using his father as a model. The result of this resolution is the formation of a healthy superego -- the fear of the father becomes internalized in the child as a conscience, an internal (no longer external) authority, and the resolution of the child's infatuation with his mother paves the way for normal relations with the opposite sex.
It's unclear exactly what problems are produced if the oedipus complex is not successfully resolved, but Freud viewed it as central to much if not all later neurotic problems. From Jack's history in 24, we can assume there were problems in resolving his oedipus complex. Jack's father is portrayed in seaon 6 of 24 as a controlling and dishonest (if not evil) figure who Jack confronts over the course of multiple episodes. Mention of his father before these confrontations is almost absent (repressed?). Jack has similar problems with his brother, who sides with Jack's father. As a result of unresolved Oedipal tensions we might assume both a problem with Jack's superego and view of authority as well as with his masculinity.
Jack's superego and view of authority is clearly not a typical one. Jack's conscience drives him to do things that others would consider extreme -- torture, extreme self-sacrifice, etc. At the same time that he can flout convention or authority he is also strangely bound by it, as evidenced by his repeated deference to various presidents, who he obeys completely (at least the honest ones) and goes to great lengths to protect.
Jack's masculinity is also super-charged and his relationships with women problematic, perhaps owing to failure to identify with a mature and stable masculinity because of the lack of a healthy relationship with his father. He has an affair while married to his wife. He has an overprotective devotion to his daughter that is extreme, even given an often selfless dedication to daughters by many fathers. He has a conviction in his near invulnerability, willing to undertake even the most risky endeavors with an expectation of success (or a more than usual willingness to die trying). While not necessarily enjoying violence (or does he?), he has an amazing ability to engage in it with a non-emotional, almost mechanical efficiency, even sacrificing friends when the greater good seems to demand it.
Freud (or some other psychoanalyst) would need to analyze Jack in order to determine what problems he has and what the roots are of his hyper-masculinity. But the best guess is that Jack has an unresolved Oedipus complex. The Oedipus complex for a male describes a young child's attachment to his mother and his unconscious wish to replace his father as his mother's lover. This leads to fear of the child's father's resentment over being displaced -- specifically fear of castration by the father. When the oedipus complex is resolved, the child bonds with and identifies with the father, no longer fearing him, no longer sexually desiring his mother and developing a healthy sense of his own masculinity using his father as a model. The result of this resolution is the formation of a healthy superego -- the fear of the father becomes internalized in the child as a conscience, an internal (no longer external) authority, and the resolution of the child's infatuation with his mother paves the way for normal relations with the opposite sex.
It's unclear exactly what problems are produced if the oedipus complex is not successfully resolved, but Freud viewed it as central to much if not all later neurotic problems. From Jack's history in 24, we can assume there were problems in resolving his oedipus complex. Jack's father is portrayed in seaon 6 of 24 as a controlling and dishonest (if not evil) figure who Jack confronts over the course of multiple episodes. Mention of his father before these confrontations is almost absent (repressed?). Jack has similar problems with his brother, who sides with Jack's father. As a result of unresolved Oedipal tensions we might assume both a problem with Jack's superego and view of authority as well as with his masculinity.
Jack's superego and view of authority is clearly not a typical one. Jack's conscience drives him to do things that others would consider extreme -- torture, extreme self-sacrifice, etc. At the same time that he can flout convention or authority he is also strangely bound by it, as evidenced by his repeated deference to various presidents, who he obeys completely (at least the honest ones) and goes to great lengths to protect.
Jack's masculinity is also super-charged and his relationships with women problematic, perhaps owing to failure to identify with a mature and stable masculinity because of the lack of a healthy relationship with his father. He has an affair while married to his wife. He has an overprotective devotion to his daughter that is extreme, even given an often selfless dedication to daughters by many fathers. He has a conviction in his near invulnerability, willing to undertake even the most risky endeavors with an expectation of success (or a more than usual willingness to die trying). While not necessarily enjoying violence (or does he?), he has an amazing ability to engage in it with a non-emotional, almost mechanical efficiency, even sacrificing friends when the greater good seems to demand it.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Blog 7
Using Habermas' language: How would he respond to Ghosts of Rwanda?
Habermas would view Ghosts of Rwanda as representing a political discourse actively going on in the public sphere. According to Habermas, the public sphere is "a discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgement." In other words, the views expressed by the makers of Ghosts of Rwanda via the content and interviews in their documentary are an example of a political debate taking place in the public sphere - a political debate which is intended to shape political policy according to the will of the people.
What is unique about Ghosts of Rwanda in relation to Habermas' theory is that it disproves his contention that "the public sphere has collapsed." Habermas believes that the true public sphere was corrupted by media institutions and therefore reflected a political discourse based not on the will of the people but on the will of the media producers responsible for creating the textual and televisual forums for said political discourse. In other words, Habermas might suspect that the political ideas discussed in Ghosts of Rwanda represent the vested political and business interests of its creator, PBS. On the contrary, however, PBS has little to gain economically or socially from the policy implications implicitly suggested in Ghosts of Rwanda. Instead, PBS' creation of the documentary seems to stem from a general interest on behalf of the network to raise public awareness about a particularly troubling event in recent history and to convince its viewers that the US needs to take a different approach to incidents of international genocide. While it can be said that PBS' views as social institution shaped the nature of the discourse in Ghosts of Rwanda, it would be overly cynical to suggest (as Habermas might) that PBS had an ulterior agenda in mind that benefited only themselves when they made this documentary. Rather, this shows that the uncorrupted public sphere can still exist in contemporary mass media and can serve as a viable forum for political discourse which serves to embolden the wishes and desires of the masses.
Habermas would view Ghosts of Rwanda as representing a political discourse actively going on in the public sphere. According to Habermas, the public sphere is "a discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgement." In other words, the views expressed by the makers of Ghosts of Rwanda via the content and interviews in their documentary are an example of a political debate taking place in the public sphere - a political debate which is intended to shape political policy according to the will of the people.
What is unique about Ghosts of Rwanda in relation to Habermas' theory is that it disproves his contention that "the public sphere has collapsed." Habermas believes that the true public sphere was corrupted by media institutions and therefore reflected a political discourse based not on the will of the people but on the will of the media producers responsible for creating the textual and televisual forums for said political discourse. In other words, Habermas might suspect that the political ideas discussed in Ghosts of Rwanda represent the vested political and business interests of its creator, PBS. On the contrary, however, PBS has little to gain economically or socially from the policy implications implicitly suggested in Ghosts of Rwanda. Instead, PBS' creation of the documentary seems to stem from a general interest on behalf of the network to raise public awareness about a particularly troubling event in recent history and to convince its viewers that the US needs to take a different approach to incidents of international genocide. While it can be said that PBS' views as social institution shaped the nature of the discourse in Ghosts of Rwanda, it would be overly cynical to suggest (as Habermas might) that PBS had an ulterior agenda in mind that benefited only themselves when they made this documentary. Rather, this shows that the uncorrupted public sphere can still exist in contemporary mass media and can serve as a viable forum for political discourse which serves to embolden the wishes and desires of the masses.
Blog 6
How would Stuart Hall respond to the question: How does L&O affect the audience in terms of ideology?
For Stuart Hall, the communication of meaning in a television show begins with the encodings of the show's creators -- the intentions of the producers, writers and actors as encoded and represented in the visuals and language of the show. These encodings exist in a cultural framework, and contain both the relative explicit denotation of the words spoken and the associative connotation of all that is seen and heard, as understood by the show's creators. What is actually communicated, however, depends on how the viewer decodes the "visual and aural" signs that make up the shows "discourse" (Hall 511). The decoding will be to some extent limited by what is encoded but can still vary widely among people and be at odds with some of the intentions of the creators. The encodings generally operate -- and this is certainly true in Law & Order -- within a "dominant code" (Hall 515), a set of common and broadly institutionalized signs and meanings. Law & Order portrays the official and classical view of wrongdoing and the law: people who commit horrible crimes for varied but fairly traditional reasons, a police bureaucracy determined to discover the culprits and a legal system trying to convict them but also working with the constraints and struggles of the law, and the constant tension between what is just and what is legal, trying to be just while pushing the limits of what is legal as regards to confessions, searches, etc.
How the viewer responds to Law & Order, however, will depend on his or her own social framework. According to Hall, they may view the show within the same "dominant code" and accept the show more or less as it's presented. Viewers may also operate under the "negotiated code" (Hall 516), in which there is variation among the viewers' interpretation based on the viewer's situation. In the case of Law & Order, which has so many different personal situations and points of view -- disturbed or defiant criminals, aggressive or more complacent law officers, zealous prosecutors as well as more balanced prosecutors and judges -- different individuals may interpret "Law" and "Order" differently based on their own corresponding position or inclinations, sometimes embracing and sometimes rejecting a character or situation and what may be the intended encoding. Finally, some viewers, according to Hall, may decode the show "in a globally contrary way" and view the show with an opppositional reading. This last set of viewers would mostly reject the show's basic 'law and order' framework for "an alternatvie framework of referecne" (Hall 517). This could be the interpretation of a criminal, or any particular individaul who is fundamentally at odds with the rules of American law or the way they are enforced in our culture.
For Stuart Hall, the communication of meaning in a television show begins with the encodings of the show's creators -- the intentions of the producers, writers and actors as encoded and represented in the visuals and language of the show. These encodings exist in a cultural framework, and contain both the relative explicit denotation of the words spoken and the associative connotation of all that is seen and heard, as understood by the show's creators. What is actually communicated, however, depends on how the viewer decodes the "visual and aural" signs that make up the shows "discourse" (Hall 511). The decoding will be to some extent limited by what is encoded but can still vary widely among people and be at odds with some of the intentions of the creators. The encodings generally operate -- and this is certainly true in Law & Order -- within a "dominant code" (Hall 515), a set of common and broadly institutionalized signs and meanings. Law & Order portrays the official and classical view of wrongdoing and the law: people who commit horrible crimes for varied but fairly traditional reasons, a police bureaucracy determined to discover the culprits and a legal system trying to convict them but also working with the constraints and struggles of the law, and the constant tension between what is just and what is legal, trying to be just while pushing the limits of what is legal as regards to confessions, searches, etc.
How the viewer responds to Law & Order, however, will depend on his or her own social framework. According to Hall, they may view the show within the same "dominant code" and accept the show more or less as it's presented. Viewers may also operate under the "negotiated code" (Hall 516), in which there is variation among the viewers' interpretation based on the viewer's situation. In the case of Law & Order, which has so many different personal situations and points of view -- disturbed or defiant criminals, aggressive or more complacent law officers, zealous prosecutors as well as more balanced prosecutors and judges -- different individuals may interpret "Law" and "Order" differently based on their own corresponding position or inclinations, sometimes embracing and sometimes rejecting a character or situation and what may be the intended encoding. Finally, some viewers, according to Hall, may decode the show "in a globally contrary way" and view the show with an opppositional reading. This last set of viewers would mostly reject the show's basic 'law and order' framework for "an alternatvie framework of referecne" (Hall 517). This could be the interpretation of a criminal, or any particular individaul who is fundamentally at odds with the rules of American law or the way they are enforced in our culture.
Blog 5
Quoting Barthes' "Myth Today" Essay: Discuss how Barthes would understand the following CNN image:
"And it is again this duplicity of the signifier which determines the characters of signification."
The signifiers in this picture are the American soldier in combat, the barren wartorn landscape, and the spraypainted Iraqi flag. Taken together, these images can lead to a number of different signifieds. The signifier here where exhibits the duplicity that Barthes mentions is the Iraqi flag. One one hand, this could signify that the Americans and Iraqi people are allies and that the American combat presence in Iraq is an extension of America's intention to spread democracy and peace througout the world. However, the Iraqi flag could also signify the sovereignty of Iraq and the fact that an American soldier is essentialy fighting in a place he has no business being. Given the duplicity of this particular signifier, Barthes might contend that this image denotes a positive military situation but connotates the intrusion of Americans in to a foreign land.
"And it is again this duplicity of the signifier which determines the characters of signification."
The signifiers in this picture are the American soldier in combat, the barren wartorn landscape, and the spraypainted Iraqi flag. Taken together, these images can lead to a number of different signifieds. The signifier here where exhibits the duplicity that Barthes mentions is the Iraqi flag. One one hand, this could signify that the Americans and Iraqi people are allies and that the American combat presence in Iraq is an extension of America's intention to spread democracy and peace througout the world. However, the Iraqi flag could also signify the sovereignty of Iraq and the fact that an American soldier is essentialy fighting in a place he has no business being. Given the duplicity of this particular signifier, Barthes might contend that this image denotes a positive military situation but connotates the intrusion of Americans in to a foreign land.
Blog 4
Find three quotations in “Rhetoric of the Image” that you find illuminating, Discuss them and apply them to the following ad for the last episode of The Sopranos.
1. "in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed a priori by certain attributes of the product and these signifieds have to be transmitted as clearly as possible."
I thought this quote was interesting because it reveals a complexity in media advertising that perhaps Barthes didn't anticipate. While Barthes contends that the signifieds of an advertising message are "formed a priori by certain attributes of the product" there is reason to believe that this applies to material products like cars and soap, but not to cultural products such as films, TV shows, etc. When advertising a TV show the signifieds of the message are not necessarily formed a priori by the show's attributes. For example, the above ad for The Sopranos has a connotation that America provides the opportunity for all to succeed in a free-market, even if that success comes by way of criminal activity. This is not, however, necessarily a signified message that one would readily associate with early seasons of The Sopranos. Rather, the producers of this show are creating a message in this ad that takes almost a retrospective look at Tony Soprano and what he has accomplished over the entire duration of the series. This makes sense, because the ad is not for the show itself but for the final episodes of it.
2. "If our reading is satisfactory, the photograph analysed offers us three messages; a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message."
I found this quote particularly illuminating because of its simplicity and apparent validity. In The Sopranos ad, we can clearly identify these three messages. The linguistic messsage, "Made in America", suggests literally that The Sopranos is a television show produced in America. The non-coded iconic message (which utilizes the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty) is that The Sopranos is synonomous with American values, particularly those associated with freedom and liberty. The coded iconic message is more complicated because it juxtaposes the "goodness" of America and its freedom with the harsher reality that criminal enterprises like the Mafia take advantage of this freedom for their own self-benefit.
3. "What is a lexicon? A portion of the symbolic plane (of language) which corresponds to a body of practices and techniques"
The introduction of the term "lexicon" is of particular relevance to the analysis of The Sopranos ad. The phrase "Made in America" is embedded in our cultural lexicon and is layered with different connotations. Literally, it denotes that something was produced in America. The connotations, however, are that things made in America are special for a variety of reasons - they represent quality, they are good for the country because they necessitated the emplyment of American citizens, and that the products themselves are infused with many of the same values we associate with our country. If the phrase "Made in America" was not a part of our cultural lexicon, the linguistic juxtaposition at work in The Sopranos ad would go unnoticed and unappreciated.
1. "in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed a priori by certain attributes of the product and these signifieds have to be transmitted as clearly as possible."
I thought this quote was interesting because it reveals a complexity in media advertising that perhaps Barthes didn't anticipate. While Barthes contends that the signifieds of an advertising message are "formed a priori by certain attributes of the product" there is reason to believe that this applies to material products like cars and soap, but not to cultural products such as films, TV shows, etc. When advertising a TV show the signifieds of the message are not necessarily formed a priori by the show's attributes. For example, the above ad for The Sopranos has a connotation that America provides the opportunity for all to succeed in a free-market, even if that success comes by way of criminal activity. This is not, however, necessarily a signified message that one would readily associate with early seasons of The Sopranos. Rather, the producers of this show are creating a message in this ad that takes almost a retrospective look at Tony Soprano and what he has accomplished over the entire duration of the series. This makes sense, because the ad is not for the show itself but for the final episodes of it.
2. "If our reading is satisfactory, the photograph analysed offers us three messages; a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message."
I found this quote particularly illuminating because of its simplicity and apparent validity. In The Sopranos ad, we can clearly identify these three messages. The linguistic messsage, "Made in America", suggests literally that The Sopranos is a television show produced in America. The non-coded iconic message (which utilizes the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty) is that The Sopranos is synonomous with American values, particularly those associated with freedom and liberty. The coded iconic message is more complicated because it juxtaposes the "goodness" of America and its freedom with the harsher reality that criminal enterprises like the Mafia take advantage of this freedom for their own self-benefit.
3. "What is a lexicon? A portion of the symbolic plane (of language) which corresponds to a body of practices and techniques"
The introduction of the term "lexicon" is of particular relevance to the analysis of The Sopranos ad. The phrase "Made in America" is embedded in our cultural lexicon and is layered with different connotations. Literally, it denotes that something was produced in America. The connotations, however, are that things made in America are special for a variety of reasons - they represent quality, they are good for the country because they necessitated the emplyment of American citizens, and that the products themselves are infused with many of the same values we associate with our country. If the phrase "Made in America" was not a part of our cultural lexicon, the linguistic juxtaposition at work in The Sopranos ad would go unnoticed and unappreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)