I must confess that I had never seen the movie Top Gun until last night when my boyfriend forced me to watch it (only under the agreement that we could watch my favorite movie, Tangled, another night). I was not impressed with the film at first, mostly because I couldn’t get over my bias against Tom Cruise, but also because the script itself was extremely corny. I’m aware that at the time the film was made, this type of stuff wasn’t corny, but it is to me today, and I strongly disliked the romantic aspect of the film. However, after we watched the movie and I had expressed my distaste in the film, my boyfriend showed me a slip from the film Sleep With Me, in which Quentin Tarantino analyzes Top Gun, claiming that it is the greatest film script ever written. It’s actually an extremely funny clip, and I would recommend it to anyone who has seen Top Gun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSV35A1cQDM
The subversity in the text, he claims, makes it such a great film because it is not a film about a fighter pilot who goes to flight school, or about his relationship with his instructor. Instead, the film is about a man’s struggle with his sexuality. Tarantino goes on to explain his reasoning, saying that there is sexual tension between Maverick, the protagonist who is played by Tom Cruise, and Iceman, his rival in th flight school. Supposedly, Iceman is tempting Maverick to “go the gay way,” while Charlotte, Maverick’s love interest in the film, is trying desperately to convert him to complete heterosexuality. The best part is that Tarantino's observations actually make sense.
Tarantino’s analysis of the film is an extreme example of Barthes’ pleasure of the text; while it doesn’t seem as if the film leaves too much room for interpretation when it comes to Maverick’s love life, Tarantino has found a space in the film where it leaves a gap and has given it his own meaning. I hadn't considered Top Gun as a writerly text, but I can see how Tarantino does because it is able to be interpreted differently by many people. While I was watching the movie, I did not completely formulate a romantic subplot between Maverick and Iceman, but I think that Tarantino's analysis makes sense. Tarantino takes great pleasure in filling in these gaps in the text; Barthes calls this jouissance, or the French word for pleasure. Barthes discusses the eroticism behind this filling in of the gaps, saying that this is what the reader takes pleasure in because it gives them freedom to be creative. The interpretation also goes hand-in-hand with Macherey's "Theory of Literary Production," in which he states that what is left out of a work is what is most important, because it allows its readers to make interpretations and to decide for themselves the meaning of a text. Like Barthes, Macherey values the writerly text over the readerly text. I think that what is so entertaining about this clip is that Tarantino does take so much pleasure in his interpretation; he is visibly excited throughout the film clip. I haven't seen Sleep With Me, but if the rest of it is anything like that one clip, then I think I would enjoy it more than I enjoyed Top Gun.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Friday, December 4, 2015
Jake Gyllenhaal hates Bourdieu
Returning to reflect upon a theorist gone by, I really enjoyed Bourdieu's reading, "On Television."
It immediately called to mind the film Nightcrawler (check out the trailer, it's a great movie), in which Jake Gyllenhaal plays a man looking for a job who stumbles upon an accident on the freeway and realizes that bloodshed is a lucrative business in the news world. When he can't find a position in the business, he decides to go DIY with a camera and his old (but speedy) car.
There are plenty of gory lines in the movie that immediately call to mind Jameson's quote: "The underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and horror," such as "If it bleeds, it leads," and a newscaster's disturbing advice to "Think of the news as a bleeding woman running down the street with her throat cut." In fact, the movie's grotesque media spectacles and commodification of terror can relate back to numerous theorists, especially Baudrillard and Zizek. Jake Gyllenhaal's character eventually finds success in manipulating the scenes of crimes and accidents to make them seem more spectacular, even arriving before the cops and manipulating evidence for the most shocking shot (blurring the line between media, fiction, and reality - back to Baudrillard). However, I'd like to give Bourdieu domain on this one; he seems to be much more optimistic.
He argues that no singular journalist can really be to blame for this phenomenon, because media and society as a whole has created an immense pressure through "the race for the scoop." As Bourdieu points out, "This means that news which might prove dangerous to those involved can be broadcast simply to beat out a competitor, with no thought given to the danger" (258). This is essentially the premise of Nightcrawler: news is a business of speed and spectacle, with victims becoming objects of consumption. The audience of Nightcrawler is then entitled to sit and watch in horror, realizing the poignancy of the critique and thinking self-righteously about the callous nature of the news industry; essentially "opining and reclining," as Chomsky would put it. However, Bourdieu is more optimistic. He believes that if people become aware of the system that necessitates this behavior and the mentality of "if it bleeds, it leads"reporting, change will be made possible. A refreshing view in the face of so much cynicism. In his words, "[If] people became aware of them, conscious action aimed at controlling the structural mechanisms that engender moral failure would be possible" (258).
However, I'm sure Jake Gyllenhaal's character resents Bourdieu's optimistic vision; its realization would mean he's out of a job.
It immediately called to mind the film Nightcrawler (check out the trailer, it's a great movie), in which Jake Gyllenhaal plays a man looking for a job who stumbles upon an accident on the freeway and realizes that bloodshed is a lucrative business in the news world. When he can't find a position in the business, he decides to go DIY with a camera and his old (but speedy) car.
There are plenty of gory lines in the movie that immediately call to mind Jameson's quote: "The underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and horror," such as "If it bleeds, it leads," and a newscaster's disturbing advice to "Think of the news as a bleeding woman running down the street with her throat cut." In fact, the movie's grotesque media spectacles and commodification of terror can relate back to numerous theorists, especially Baudrillard and Zizek. Jake Gyllenhaal's character eventually finds success in manipulating the scenes of crimes and accidents to make them seem more spectacular, even arriving before the cops and manipulating evidence for the most shocking shot (blurring the line between media, fiction, and reality - back to Baudrillard). However, I'd like to give Bourdieu domain on this one; he seems to be much more optimistic.
He argues that no singular journalist can really be to blame for this phenomenon, because media and society as a whole has created an immense pressure through "the race for the scoop." As Bourdieu points out, "This means that news which might prove dangerous to those involved can be broadcast simply to beat out a competitor, with no thought given to the danger" (258). This is essentially the premise of Nightcrawler: news is a business of speed and spectacle, with victims becoming objects of consumption. The audience of Nightcrawler is then entitled to sit and watch in horror, realizing the poignancy of the critique and thinking self-righteously about the callous nature of the news industry; essentially "opining and reclining," as Chomsky would put it. However, Bourdieu is more optimistic. He believes that if people become aware of the system that necessitates this behavior and the mentality of "if it bleeds, it leads"reporting, change will be made possible. A refreshing view in the face of so much cynicism. In his words, "[If] people became aware of them, conscious action aimed at controlling the structural mechanisms that engender moral failure would be possible" (258).
However, I'm sure Jake Gyllenhaal's character resents Bourdieu's optimistic vision; its realization would mean he's out of a job.
A Modern Day Panopticon
In class yesterday we talked about the Panopticon, which was originally designed by Jeremy Bentham in 1785 and analyzed by Foucault, who applied it to society as a whole. We spoke about its use in the recent film Guardians of the Galaxy, but I was wondering if there were any real examples of its utilization within the past century. The most recent example I could find was in the design of the Statesville Correctional Center in Crest Hill, Illinois, which was built in 1925 and is still used today. It is the only currently working example of the Panopticon in the U.S. The correctional center has two "roundhouses," each of which houses a tower in the center, surrounded by cells. A "fun" fact about the center is that it was also used for executions from 1928 to 1962; thirteen people were executed on the electric chair during this time, adding to the cruelty of the center. It was also the only center where executions were carried out when the form of capital punishment was changed to lethal injection until 1998.
As Foucault states, "all that is needed, then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a schoolboy" (Foucault 97). It is interesting to know that this type of prison is still around today, as the intimidation tactic that it employs is effective, but damaging to its inmates, who believe that they may be constantly under watch. However, as Foucault observes, this is merely a reflection of the constant observation that we conduct of each other in society. Because of this, is living in the physical Panopticon really much different from living in the figurative Panopticon of society? Obviously, those of us who are not incarcerated do have much more freedom, but we are all under the same pressure to perform. We are told to act a certain way, and we are all under a microscope. Especially with the introduction of social media, we don't always know when we are being watched (for example, I am not aware that someone is scrolling through my Instagram photos until they like one of them, so as a sort of unwritten rule of social media, I should always put my "best foot forward" when posting pictures). Foucault is so right in comparing the prison to our lives; the societal pressure to conform is exactly like the Panopticon that he so acutely compares it to.
As Foucault states, "all that is needed, then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a schoolboy" (Foucault 97). It is interesting to know that this type of prison is still around today, as the intimidation tactic that it employs is effective, but damaging to its inmates, who believe that they may be constantly under watch. However, as Foucault observes, this is merely a reflection of the constant observation that we conduct of each other in society. Because of this, is living in the physical Panopticon really much different from living in the figurative Panopticon of society? Obviously, those of us who are not incarcerated do have much more freedom, but we are all under the same pressure to perform. We are told to act a certain way, and we are all under a microscope. Especially with the introduction of social media, we don't always know when we are being watched (for example, I am not aware that someone is scrolling through my Instagram photos until they like one of them, so as a sort of unwritten rule of social media, I should always put my "best foot forward" when posting pictures). Foucault is so right in comparing the prison to our lives; the societal pressure to conform is exactly like the Panopticon that he so acutely compares it to.
Plato's allegory of the cave
"He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection." (99)
Focault talks about ideology and power in a very interesting way. His description of the panopticon is somehow similar to Plao's allegory of the cave: he describes a world where prisoners live chained in a cave. The puppeteers cast shadows on the wall and these shadows construct reality for the prisoners. One of the prisoners breaks free and leaves the cave. At first, he is blinded by the sun and apprehensive about the new world. The shadows in the cave had always seemed so real to him. After he has spent some time in this new world, he realizes that his entire existence has been controlled by others and he now knows the truth.
It is very interesting to see how very palpable ideologies are, but most of the time we aren't aware... I wonder what ideologies I have accepted unconsciously and therefore, live by without even noticing them... This scares me a little and goes back to-I don't remember the name of the theorist-who says that in order to understand ideology we have to stand outside of it...
Link to an explanation of Plato's cave allegory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA
Link to the article about gendered comments on thanksgiving:
http://theodysseyonline.com/rollins/gender-norms-thanksgiving/234116
Focault talks about ideology and power in a very interesting way. His description of the panopticon is somehow similar to Plao's allegory of the cave: he describes a world where prisoners live chained in a cave. The puppeteers cast shadows on the wall and these shadows construct reality for the prisoners. One of the prisoners breaks free and leaves the cave. At first, he is blinded by the sun and apprehensive about the new world. The shadows in the cave had always seemed so real to him. After he has spent some time in this new world, he realizes that his entire existence has been controlled by others and he now knows the truth.
Similarly, ideologies and their power creep up on us throughout the years without us noticing how strongly they influence our lives and shape our identities. As the panopticon and the puppeteers of the cave, ideologies show us what we should see and help us make sense of 'our realities.' The problem with this is that people get too fixated on the ideologies they have adopted (consciously or unconsciously) to the point in which they get blinded by them. For example, people that strongly believe gays are condemned to hell who have been taught to believe this and consciously accepted this belief. Another example is people who grew up a certain way and unconsciously adopted a certain ideology; I found myself in this position a couple days ago: I was reading an article titled "Gendered Comments You Probably Faced At Thanksgiving" and all of them resonated with me!! I didn't go back home for thanksgiving but I remembered all those Christmas dinners we had... I certainly heard all those comments such as "Honey, that's not very lady like" or "Girls cook, guys do something manly" or "Honey, you should wear a little more makeup."
Sure, I love my family; but the gender ideologies are so unconsciously deeply rooted in the back of their minds that they say things like this with the best intentions as if they were giving me a good piece of advice (by telling me to wear more makeup to look prettier...). What's worse, there is no way in the world I can point this out to my elder family members because "most people are not just comfortable in their ignorance, but hostile to anyone that points it out" (I got this quote from the video I copied the link to, check it out!)It is very interesting to see how very palpable ideologies are, but most of the time we aren't aware... I wonder what ideologies I have accepted unconsciously and therefore, live by without even noticing them... This scares me a little and goes back to-I don't remember the name of the theorist-who says that in order to understand ideology we have to stand outside of it...
Link to an explanation of Plato's cave allegory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA
Link to the article about gendered comments on thanksgiving:
http://theodysseyonline.com/rollins/gender-norms-thanksgiving/234116
Roger and Me: A Foucauldian Love Story
This week in class I shared my encounter with the enchanting and mysterious Roger. Pure boredom and a 4-hour drive led me down the path to 855-FOR-TRUTH, but the resulting hour long conversation was truly heaven ordained. Run by GospelBillboards.org (do yourself a favor and listen to a few of their audio clips explaining the billboards, they're hilarious), the call service gives you the option to talk to a representative about any questions you may have and be told you're going to Hell free of charge! Obviously I wasn't about to let that opportunity pass me by, and soon enough I was on the line with someone who was soon to become a friend and confidant.
Roger was immediately charming - in his thick southern drawl, within the first 10 minutes he had compared my lifestyle to beastiality (I just looked that word up to see if I was spelling it correctly, which was INCREDIBLY dumb and I highly advise against EVER doing) and pedophilia. I posed (only occasionally sarcastic) questions for Roger about his beliefs and received increasingly outlandish and offensive answers. By the time I hung up, I was feeling amused but vaguely nauseous. Nothing he'd said was anything I hadn't heard before, but that didn't make it much better. Driving down I-75 you're barraged by these same messages over and over by billboard after billboard, but these messages certainly aren't limited to antiquated forms of media exposure. Scrolling through Facebook or surfing through channels on TV, it's never too hard to find some good ole' religious fundamentalism, almost always of the Christian variety.
Foucault's concept of surveillance is directly tied to our exposure to these messages everyday. In his words, “THE GAZE is alert everywhere.” Foucault believes that we're trapped in an ideological relationship with power, and I'd have to agree with him. So many of the ways we're entrenched in the power dynamics of ideology aren't as obvious as a 40 foot billboard along the highway - the way that ideology is conveyed is often much more insidious. Religious ideology has occupied and even guided our national rhetoric for so long, it has become essential to understanding how we perceive normalcy. I articulated in a previous blog post that were are being constantly scrutinized both by media and by each other to make sure we adhere to societal norms. Those that are seen as 'Other' are perceived as deviant and dangerous, and for years the solution to this danger has been to lock it out of sight, whether in a prison or mental institution.
Roger consistently referred to homosexuality as an illness throughout our conversation, something to be cured. In the context of today's more liberal media views, this might be shocking to some, but the correlation between queerness and mental illness still exists in our society. It has too much history to be shed so easily; homosexuality wasn't even declassified as a mental illness by the APA until 1973. People were still institutionalized (and frequently administered electroconvulsive therapy) less than 45 years ago - not nearly long enough time for the stigma to disappear. People like Roger act as vessels for the stigma to carry on and continue to be inscribed in expectations of behavior and of the body. As Foucault states, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance.” Although blatant
homophobic media spectacles have become less common in recent years , surveillance on the basis of normative performances of sexuality and gender (among many other things) remain interactive and pervasive throughout society.
Roger was immediately charming - in his thick southern drawl, within the first 10 minutes he had compared my lifestyle to beastiality (I just looked that word up to see if I was spelling it correctly, which was INCREDIBLY dumb and I highly advise against EVER doing) and pedophilia. I posed (only occasionally sarcastic) questions for Roger about his beliefs and received increasingly outlandish and offensive answers. By the time I hung up, I was feeling amused but vaguely nauseous. Nothing he'd said was anything I hadn't heard before, but that didn't make it much better. Driving down I-75 you're barraged by these same messages over and over by billboard after billboard, but these messages certainly aren't limited to antiquated forms of media exposure. Scrolling through Facebook or surfing through channels on TV, it's never too hard to find some good ole' religious fundamentalism, almost always of the Christian variety.
Screencap from the Gospelbillboards website
Foucault's concept of surveillance is directly tied to our exposure to these messages everyday. In his words, “THE GAZE is alert everywhere.” Foucault believes that we're trapped in an ideological relationship with power, and I'd have to agree with him. So many of the ways we're entrenched in the power dynamics of ideology aren't as obvious as a 40 foot billboard along the highway - the way that ideology is conveyed is often much more insidious. Religious ideology has occupied and even guided our national rhetoric for so long, it has become essential to understanding how we perceive normalcy. I articulated in a previous blog post that were are being constantly scrutinized both by media and by each other to make sure we adhere to societal norms. Those that are seen as 'Other' are perceived as deviant and dangerous, and for years the solution to this danger has been to lock it out of sight, whether in a prison or mental institution.
Roger consistently referred to homosexuality as an illness throughout our conversation, something to be cured. In the context of today's more liberal media views, this might be shocking to some, but the correlation between queerness and mental illness still exists in our society. It has too much history to be shed so easily; homosexuality wasn't even declassified as a mental illness by the APA until 1973. People were still institutionalized (and frequently administered electroconvulsive therapy) less than 45 years ago - not nearly long enough time for the stigma to disappear. People like Roger act as vessels for the stigma to carry on and continue to be inscribed in expectations of behavior and of the body. As Foucault states, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance.” Although blatant
homophobic media spectacles have become less common in recent years , surveillance on the basis of normative performances of sexuality and gender (among many other things) remain interactive and pervasive throughout society.
Roger just checkin up. What a sweetie.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Jameson and "Kick a Ginger Day"
South Park is a fascinating and controversial show regarding satire; the show satirizes people and events throughout popular culture (often in a crude manner, pushing the limits arguably farther than they should be pushed), taking an ambiguous political stance, but still making a statement nonetheless. From the Tiger Woods Scandal to the pervasiveness of social media, South Park has left few areas of our culture untouched, commenting on these issues by creating crazy scenarios that blow them out of proportion. However, we talked in class about how the show’s meaning can be misinterpreted by those who are less educated in satire and who are less able to read and determine whether a work is making a positive or negative comment on something. This misinterpretation happened recently my former middle school, where students made national news by instating “Kick a Ginger Day.” They had gotten the idea from an episode of South Park from 2005, in which the young characters persecute red-headed red-headed children. The episode was an example of satire, as it was commenting on the cruelty of children in schools, but the middle school students, who range from sixth to eighth grade, were clearly unaware of this commentary. We discussed in class about how satire can be damaging to society when people are too uneducated to realize that it is poking fun at the thing it is satirizing, rather than agreeing with it. This instance of student violence and bullying is an example of the potential harm caused by satire when one is ignorant.
Jameson says that “depth is replaced by surface,” which can apply to the meaning garnered by the middle school students from the episode of South Park. They took only the surface meaning from the episode, unaware of the real meaning behind what the episode was stating in its satire. Jameson also talks about the hermeneutical, or what can be interpreted; the events in any given episode of South Park can either be interpreted literally or consumed with an awareness of its parody. While South Park creates satire by making something seem over-the-top ridiculous, there are definitely people who will take its message seriously and act similarly to the characters on the show. Although I think that South Park is not overall a destructive television show, it can cause issues because people interpret it incorrectly.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/25/melrose-middle-school-investigate-bullying-incident-that-targeted-redheads/Q146cjVZzU82amJ2gbyLHJ/story.html
https://grovetogrub.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/south-park-the-greatest-modern-satire/
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Jungle Cruise vs. Kilimanjaro... Also, Eco Has Ruined Disney World For Me
On a recent trip to Walt Disney World, I realized that Umberto Eco has completely ruined Disney for me. This was most apparent on my most recent ride of the Jungle Cruise, which is a perfect example of Eco’s assertion that Disney tells us that the simulated is better than the real. The audioanimatronic animals do not even attempt to mask themselves as real; rather, they are cartoon-like, suggesting that the cuteness of cartoon animals is preferable to the possible grotesqueness of real animals in the jungle. I also found it interesting how the predictability of the Jungle Cruise, as Eco talks about, is preferable to the unpredictability of a real safari. As humans, we would rather know what is going to happen, as we take comfort in predictability; the Jungle Cruise offers this, while nature does not. This means that the Jungle Cruise can give us “more” than the real-life safari, on which there is no guarantee that guests will see any animals. In fact, we can control the animals, as demonstrated by the holiday version of the Jungle Cruise, “Jingle Cruise.” I had never been on this version of the ride before, and I found it funny that the animals, many of which were wearing Santa hats and scarves and playing with Christmas presents, give us “more” than real animals do. They are even more Disney-fied, as they are aware of the holiday season, something that real animals in the wild are obviously unaware of.
The Kilimanjaro Safari ride in Disney’s Animal Kingdom is another ride on which guests trek through the jungle in search of animals; however, this ride actually contains real animals. The animals are kept in enclosures that the guests cannot see, so they are always on display. Guests are made to believe that they are lucky to see the giraffes and lions so up close and “uncaged,” but these animals are always visible to guests on the safari. The Kilimanjaro Safari does offer more unpredictability than the Jungle Cruise, as the animals are real, sentient beings that can act how they please, but they must do so within the constraints of the enclosure. This still feeds into the idea that Disney can give us more than reality can; by controlling where the animals are able to roam, Disney makes a planned sequence of viewing animals seem unplanned and unprecedented.
Guests at Disney World do not have to worry about unpredictability, as they know that they will be able to see everything that they have come here to see, with no unforeseen changes or lack of entertainment possible. Everything at Disney World is timed to a T, from the audioanimatronics of the rides to the exact moment a parade begins down Main Street to the beginning of the fireworks show, “Wishes.” This predictability makes Disney World the ideal place for people who have grown up in our passive consumer culture, as they merely have to visit the parks in order to experience everything, rather than searching for these experiences in the real world.
The Kilimanjaro Safari ride in Disney’s Animal Kingdom is another ride on which guests trek through the jungle in search of animals; however, this ride actually contains real animals. The animals are kept in enclosures that the guests cannot see, so they are always on display. Guests are made to believe that they are lucky to see the giraffes and lions so up close and “uncaged,” but these animals are always visible to guests on the safari. The Kilimanjaro Safari does offer more unpredictability than the Jungle Cruise, as the animals are real, sentient beings that can act how they please, but they must do so within the constraints of the enclosure. This still feeds into the idea that Disney can give us more than reality can; by controlling where the animals are able to roam, Disney makes a planned sequence of viewing animals seem unplanned and unprecedented.
Guests at Disney World do not have to worry about unpredictability, as they know that they will be able to see everything that they have come here to see, with no unforeseen changes or lack of entertainment possible. Everything at Disney World is timed to a T, from the audioanimatronics of the rides to the exact moment a parade begins down Main Street to the beginning of the fireworks show, “Wishes.” This predictability makes Disney World the ideal place for people who have grown up in our passive consumer culture, as they merely have to visit the parks in order to experience everything, rather than searching for these experiences in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)