Jameson and the Simpsons

Jameson would argue that this drawing is purely postmodern, lacking any real meaning whatsoever. It appropriates the famous da Vinci painting of the Mona Lisa into a cartoon similar to the style of The Simpsons. Jameson would believe that in making Mona more modern, it removes the real meaning behind the painting. As a Simpson, she becomes kitsch - a pastiche, lacking any sort of purpose or depth. She exists only to make The Simpsons' creators money, unlike the original, which displayed da Vinci's skill as a portrait painter. This Mona is very crudely drawn, with no shading or depth to her - she is very obviously two dimensional. She is also placed in a modern setting, with a bowling alley, convenience store and gas station behind her - rather than the Italian countryside, like the original. Perhaps this is reflective of the West's changing landscape (cheap shops and conveniences rather than wild and untamed landscapes). In short, Simpsons Mona looks like a watered-down version of the original, chiefly created for mass consumption.

Freud and Jack Bauer

Freud would certainly see Jack Bauer as an interesting character. He would agree that Bauer conforms to the traditional gender role of the man as a protector and problem solver. He gets things done, his team sees him as a leader. He is expected to be proactive and to do whatever it takes to get the job done.
But he is not perfect; he is having marital troubles and could be having an affair with a coworker. Perhaps Freud would see these issues as signs of a repressed memory; maybe Bauer experienced something traumatic as a small child that made him feel inadequate, and thus overcompensates at his job in order to prove himself worthy, sacrificing his relationships with his family in the process.
Perhaps Freud could assume that Jack is fixated in the anal stage (occurring in children around age 2-3; as their parents toilet train them, they fight for control over their bodies, as well as their first main conflict with the id and the ego). Now in his 40s, Jack is fighting for control of his own life: his daughter is disobeying him, he and his wife are having problems, and at work he must deal with large amounts of stress and secrecy. In order to regain a sense of self-worth, he pushes all his energy in his work.

Habermas and Ghosts of Rwanda

First, Habermas would discuss whether Ghosts of Rwanda was a part of the public sphere, and I think he would agree that it is. According to his article, he writes that the public sphere is "... a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed" (49). The documentary aired on PBS, which reaches millions of Americans every day. While not every home owns a television, a vast majority do. PBS also functions based on public donations - it exists from philanthropy alone. Thus, the public has a very active role in making PBS what it is, as it is not a private corporation seeking large profit.
PBS also represents a public body. As Habermas writes, "citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion - that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions" (49). PBS chose knowledgeable people to discuss the events of the Rwandan genocide; ones who are not afraid to ask difficult questions and give thought-provoking answers - in particular, Carl Wilkens, the "last American in Rwanda," who frequently asks why the United States didn't come to Rwanda's aid.
Habermas later notes that "the public sphere [i]s a sphere which mediates between society and state" (50). PBS does this by frequently criticizing and inquiring the USA's foreign policy during the genocide. Both average American citizens and American politicians are given equal screen time in the documentary, each giving their opinion, which allows viewers a balanced perspective.
In the end, PBS - or, more specifically, the Frontline staff - acts as an arbiter between the different voices of Americans in Rwanda during the genocide of 1994, allowing the public to take in the information and create their own opinions.

Hall and Law & Order

How does L&O affect the audience in terms of ideology?

Hall would definitely mention that the show is encoded with the dominant view of the criminal justice system (in the show's case, the producers' view). It doesn't matter that the producers may have never worked in an American police department or even as a lawyer or judge -- they write how they think it works, not necessarily how it really works.
When the audience sees L&O, they will decode the message and take it one of three ways, depending on their background.
One group (the dominant reading) will believe that L&O's portrayal is completely accurate. They will not question the show. They believe that the actors are playing police officers just as police officers act in reality, that lawyers and judges behave just as they do on the show, and even the actors playing criminals play their roles realistically.
Another group (the negotiated reading) will accept that generally, L&O is accurate - but these viewers may have personal experiences with the justice system that don't fully align with L&O. They thus adjust L&O's code to fit their interests, despite the contradictions that inherently arise.
The final group will reject L&O completely. They may work as a lawyer in NYC, or maybe as a cop or have been arrested before -- or even have simply done a good deal of research in the field. Whatever the circumstance, they do not believe that L&O is accurate. They understand the preferred reading but still reject it.

Barthes and the CNN Image

*To view the image, click here*

Early in his essay, Barthes explains that in semiology, there is more than simply a signifier and a signified -

"... any semiology postulates a relation between two terms, a signifier and a signified. This relation concerns objects which belong to different categories, and this is why it is not one of equality but one of equivalence. We must here be on our guard for despite common parlance which simply says that the signifier expresses the signified, we are dealing, in any semiological system, not with two, but with three different terms. For what we grasp is not at all one term after the other, but the correlation which unites them: there are, therefore, the signifier, the signified and the sign, which is the associative total of the first two terms."

With the CNN image, the signifier (a soldier in full uniform, prepared to shoot) was chosen to signify America's War on Terror in Iraq. The overall sign, according to Barthes, would then be US presence in Iraq. When we see this image, we immediately know what its meaning is: that America is waging a war with Iraq. The soldier himself does not inherently carry meaning, as "... the signifier is empty, the sign is full, it is a meaning." He is also quick to point out that the soldier isn't necessarily the only signifier of the War on Terror. There are thousands, even millions, of War on Terror signifiers, and none of them are more correct than any other.

"... myth has in fact a double function: it points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes it on us."

One could argue that the myth of this image is war as a means of defending freedom. The soldier stands behind a piece of concrete with the Iraq flag painted on it, as if he is protecting it. The image pushes the viewer to understand that the soldier (or the United States) is set on preserving Iraqi freedom (or simply freedom at large). This myth goes back as far as the Crusades, during which thousands of European soldiers risked their lives to fight for Christianity (and, in turn, their country or kingdom) by attempting to regain control of the Holy Lands. But, as Barthes points out, we mustn't focus too much on the myth's history, as

"... the form [or myth] does not suppress the meaning, it only impoverishes it, it puts it at a distance, it holds it at one's disposal. ... meaning will be for the form like an instantaneous reserve of history, a tamed richness, which it is possible to call and dismiss in a sort of rapid alternation: the form must constantly be able to be rooted again in the meaning and to get there what nature it needs for its nutriment; above all, it must be able to hide there."

The myth of war remains latent within this image. One's initial reactions could be toward the soldier himself, or the brightly painted flag just behind him -- but the signification still remains.

"Rhetoric of the Image" and The Sopranos

My discussion of the quotes and the photo:

"... all images are polysemous; they imply, underlying their signifiers, a 'floating chain' of signifieds, the reader able to choose some and ignore others" - pg 274

Here, Barthes is saying that every image is open to dozens of interpretations - but there isn't one single "ultimate" meaning, they are all correct. With this photograph from The Sopranos, several explanations appear. One could assume that the man in the foreground is a New Yorker because he is standing near the Statue of Liberty. One could also suppose that he is an immigrant, or comes from an immigrant family, as the Statue of Liberty is located on Ellis Island - the first destination of many immigrants from the past. Another interpretation could be that the man is a businessman, or perhaps attending a special occasion, as he wears a fine suit. The possibilities are endless, and depend entirely on the context during which the viewer sees the photo.

"The text helps to identify purely and simply the elements of the scene and the scene itself; it is a matter of a denoted description of the image (a description which is often incomplete) or, in Hjelmselv's terminology, of an operation (as opposed to connotation." - page 274

We can use this quote to further make sense of the above photo. The only text of the image reads: The Final Episodes: April 8, 9PM. Made in America." Notably, it doesn't give any information about what television program it's advertising; rather, it lets the actor (as well as the tone of the overall photograph) stand in as a symbol of the show. The first line is simply information about the show, it will air April 8 at 9pm. The next line isn't so easy to define. It could be referring to the show itself, to the actor, to the family (the Sopranos), perhaps to the city behind the actor. In any case, the phrase itself could be inferred to project value on the show - Americans particularly prize products "made in America," because it implies that the products are of a superior quality due to their origins in the United States.

"... there nonetheless remains in the photograph, insofar as the literal message is sufficient, a kind of natural being-there of objects: nature seems spontaneously to produce the scene represented." - pg 279

Here, Barthes is saying that photographs give a sense of reality that any other medium sorely lacks. When we see the picture of Tony Soprano, we know that he (or actor James Gandolfini) has stood there at some point in time - he is real. We can believe that

Blair Witch Question

A tad late...

These quotes certainly apply to Blair Witch. The power of this "documentary" is just how real the film felt. The three principle characters behaved like normal 20-somethings of the mid-90s; they could have been friends or neighbors. The film contained a certain spontaneity; it didn't feel scripted or rehearsed. Despite its critics, no one can deny how natural it seems. The scariest stories are the ones that feel the most like they could happen to you, and Blair Witch feels undeniably real.



The film certainly attempts to recapture that "aura" of reality. Its on-location shooting, unrehearsed script and shaky camera work shed the studio qualities of typical films. The irony, of course, is that the audience is fully aware it's a film -- the camera is a central piece of the story, with the characters continually referring to either Heather's obsessive taping or just the weight of the equipment they are carrying. We are constantly reminded that Blair Witch is a film - but that doesn't take us out of the world of the story. We are too entranced, wondering what will happen next; our years of movie-watching prevent us from removing ourselves from the world of the story.

In this sense, their attempt was successful. We feel as if we were wandering through those woods: we see their teeth chatter, hear the wind, the birds, the trickling of the creeks - and it all sounds like it's coming from a standard home video camera, not a film set.