Final Blog

     I believe that Salman Rushdie would interpret the clip of the India children signing a portion from the Wizard of OZ, for the most part in the same way that he interpreted the movie. He states that the movie deals with growing up on ones own when he says that, “The wizard of Oz is a film whose driving force is the inadequacy of adults, even of good adults, and how the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies and so, ironically, grow up on themselves” (Rushdie 10) and this relates to the clip as well. The only people we see on the screen are the kids, and although we can assume (and hope) that there is some sort of adult figure there, we don’t for a fact know that there is a teacher. There is one point in the clip where we hear woman say something, who we can assume is the teacher, but we still don’t know for sure. The fact that it seems like the kids are singing the song by themselves and it seem as organized as kids that age can be, and taking control of their destiny and in a way, grow up themselves, shows how Rushdie would interpret this clip the same way as he would the Wizard of Oz.  
     Another way in which we see how this clip would be interpreted the same as the Wizard of Oz by Mr. Rushdie is how the movie crosses cultural barriers. Throughout most of the video, it is hard to hear if they are speaking English or not, but one part that is in clear English is the thing that the woman says which is “very good”. In the book, Rushed explains that “The Wizard of Oz … was my very first literary influence” (Rushdie 9) and this shows how even back then this movie crossed barriers and is continuing to do so today. The fact that they are signing a song from an American movie not in English (for the most part), it is clear to see the movie is crossing barriers even today and is another way in which it Rushdie would interpret The Wizard of Oz and this clip. 
     Although I believe Rushdie would interpret the clip of the Indian children signing a song from the Wizard of Oz the same way he interpret the movie it self, there is one main difference. The difference isn’t even about how he interpreted the Wizard of Oz at all it’s more about how he viewed it, what level he was at intellectually at the age he saw the movie, and how one could interpret the children in the clip as being at different level then he was. He says that “the ten-year old who watched The Wizard of Oz at Bombay’s Metro Cinema knew very little about foreign parts and even less about growing up (Rushdie 11). It’s evident, for the simple fact that the children, who look younger then ten first of all, are signing a song from an American movie that they know more about foreign “parts” then he did, and that has to do with how the times have changed. 
     Even though the last point shows how the two are different, I still feel like the two are similar and therefore Salmon Rushdie would analyze the clip in the same way he interpreted the Wizard of Oz.  

11.23 Post - Jameson on The Simpsons

     I think that Fredric Jameson would say that the image in question from the Simpson’s is definitely postmodernist for a couple main reasons. There is a quote from Jameson that relates directly relates to how and why this image is postmodernist when he states that “However we may ultimately wish to evaluate this populist rhetoric, it has at least the merit of drawing our attention to one fundamental feature of all the postmodernisms enumerated above: namely, the effacement in them of the older (essentially high-modernist) frontier between high culture and so-called mass or commercial culture, and the emergence of new kinds of texts infused with the forms, categories, and contents of that very culture industry so passionately denounced by all the ideologues of the modern”. This quote is a direct correlation to the image from the simpsosn. The image from the Simpsons adapts a very famous old painting, from a different time period and different a social class and combines it with a modern twist to create something new. The aspect of this image that is, as Jameson describes it “older (essentially high-modernist)” and “high culture” is the clear reference to the Mona Lisa. The “mass or commercial culture” aspect is how the Simpsons put their own twist on it and make it relevant to the show. It’s drawn in “Simpsons” style where as anybody who watches the Simpsons would know that it is from the show even if they don’t know what episode it’s from. Another way in which The Simpsons is mass culture is because it’s a very well known TV show and TV is a way to expose something to the masses. The combining of both a high culture and mass culture is a way in which something can be postmodernism as described by Jameson. The image from the Simpsons uses the main aspect of the woman from the original image, but it adds its own twist to it to make it original and different by having the town of Springfield in the background. It is in this way that the Simpons have made an panting from a different time and culture new and relevant that Jameson would says this image is postmodernist.
     An additional way in which this image is postmodernist and how Jameson would view it as this, is displayed in a quote by him that states that “modifications in aesthetic production are most dramatically visible”, which is exactly what this image does. We can assume that it is a modern version or maybe even making fun of the Mona Lisa and we see that they two are different and we can immediately see this when we look at the image. The image from the Simpsons is a drastic change in the aesthetic production of the original painting by Leonardo De Vinci and these changes are dramatically visible. Both this reason and the reason I stated above is why Fredric Jameson would say that the image has many postmodernism characteristics.  

11.9 Post

     I think that Freud would describe Jack as being masculine for two main reasons. From just seeing the first episode of the show, we get a pretty good view of what type of person and more importantly, what type of man Jack Bauer is. We see that Jack Bauer is defiantly very masculine because of power. In both today’s world, and maybe even more evident hundreds of years ago, is that a man is often considered a man (and how much of a man) based on his power, and how much of it he has. It seems evident that Jack Bauer is quite powerful. For one, it seems like he basically runs his “office” that he is in. When he asks someone to do a task, they do it, and he doesn’t really have to report to anyone, he kind of does what he wants and is his own boss. We see several times, just in the first episode alone, that he uses his gun for power and to get what he wants. His power is a way in which Freud would see him as being masculine.  
     Another way in which Freud would describe Jack Bauer as being a man and having masculinity characteristics, is his sexuality. Often times in culture (although many may not agree with this or think this is right) a man is, sometimes judged by his sex appeal, and how much sex he has as to how much of a man he is, which is apparent in this snow. Even though this is not a show where we see him having sex (as is sometime shown in shows on a network where you have to pay to watch such as HBO and Showtime), we still get a glimpse into his sexual life. We learn, just in the first episode that he has a kid, a wife and had an affair so it’s clear to see that he is a sexual being, so Freud would probably describe Jack as being masculine, because he (like another human being) has been influenced by his “infantile sexuality”. Freud states in the second part of his work that “A comprehensive study of the sexual manifestations of childhood would probably reveal to us the existence of the essential features of the sexual impulse, and would make us acquainted with its development and its composition from various sources.” Even though we don’t see (at least in the first episode) things from Jacks childhood that would prove Freud’s point, we must, by Freud’s standards, say that he is sexual as a man, because of his childhood. Because of this, we can conclude that Freud would probably believe that Jack is sexual man, and hence is a masculine character.  

10.26 Post

     I think that dailykos.com is in many ways a public sphere as Habermas describes it, but in one key it isn't quite one. It is very much a public sphere because it’s a place where anyone can discuss anything political in a manner that’s easy to access and post something (once you sign up) and comment on other users posts. As it states in chapter five of Practices of Looking “In theories of visual culture influenced by Marxist theory, the term reproduction is used to describe the ways that cultural practices and their forms of expression reproduce the ideologies and interests of the ruling class” (183). This quote can be applied to dailykos.com very closely. It give a medium and place for the average person, that’s not necessarily the dominant class to talk about politics and gives them a place where they can express their view that may not reflect those of the dominant class. This is also what Habermas believes; that if your not the dominant class the majority of people don’t have a way of getting their voices out, so dailykos.com or any other blog site for that matter would qualify for a means of doing this, therefore qualifying as a public sphere.  
      It’s not a public sphere in the fact that it’s on the Internet. Although most people have Internet access, not everyone has the Internet so it’s not quite as public as it could be. Another way in which it’s not quite as public as one would like, is that not everybody may know about the site. I certainly did not know about the site before this, so although Habermas did not specify how accessible something must be for it to be considered a public sphere, that is certainly something that I feel applies to how “public” the public sphere is. Even though there are some flaws in the publicity of dailykos.com, I still believe it is indeed a form of a public sphere as described by Habermas. 

Blog 4: The Sopranos

There are many quotes from Barthes, “Rhetoric of the Image” that could be applied to the ad for the last episode of The Sopranos, but there are three quotes that I find specifically interesting and that apply quite well to the ad.
     One of the quotes is, as Barthes describes in his essay, that we have 3 messages the photo gives us: a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message. He goes on to say that “The linguistic message can be readily separated from the other two, but since the latter share the same (iconic) substance, to what extent have we the right to separate them?” (272). This quote applies directly to this picture because even if someone knows nothing about the show. The viewer can guess that this show (or at least the episode or season) is very America because the statue of liberty in the background is an American icon, which is the “coded iconic message”, for America. The words “Made In America” that also appear in the ad is the linguistic message, but as Barthes describes in his quote, aren’t necessary if you have either the coded and/or non-coded iconic message, which the statue of liberty takes care of. If it just said “Made In America” and it had the Eiffel tower in the background, that wouldn’t mean anything. But you could just have the statue of liberty since it’s an American icon and that would be fine. So you can take away the words, the linguist message, and keep the statue of liberty (the coded message) but not the other way around.  
      One thing that’s interesting about the ad, is that it doesn’t even say what show it is. Nowhere in the ad does it say “The Sopranos” so for someone who has never seen the Sopranos, they probably won’t know what it’s the final episode of. This actually counters a quote from Barthes that says “At the level of the literal message, the text replies – in a more or less direct, more or less partial manner – to the question: what is it? 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” (274). There are words in the ad, but even with those words, the viewer could still wonder, what is it, what is this ad for? If someone doesn’t know what The Sopranos are, or even if some one knows of the show, but has not seen an episode, they still may not know what the ad is for because it doesn’t have the words “the Sopranos”. This quote from “Rhetoric of the Image” shows a way in which the ad does not hold up to Barthes standards of word usage.  
      The final quote that I find very interesting that applies to this ad, and all advertisements as Barthes describes is that “… the distinction between the literal message and the symbolic message is operational; we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in a pure state” (276). He’s saying that no advertisement has a literal meaning because everyone can interpret it differently and has his or her own thoughts as to what the symbolic messages behind the images are. Some one could interpret that because the statue of liberty (coded iconic message for America) is behind him, that he is leaving America rather then going to it, where as someone else might think that’s false because of the words “Made in America” (which are part of the linguistic message) are present. Another person might feel like the birds to the right of the man are symbolic for something, where as another viewer might see no symbolic meaning. The fact that this ad could be seen in countless different ways, applies to Barthes quote, like he says all ads should.  
      These are examples of only three quotes from ““Rhetoric of the Image” that apply to the ad, but there are tones more that could apply to the advertisement as well.  

10.12 Post

      I think that both of the quotes apply in someway or another to The Blair Witch Project because the movie is trying to be a realism film as well as bring out the auroras of the actors and the landscape as well.
      The first quote applies to the movie because, I fell the movie is trying to achieve the aura, both through the characters in the movie and the woods that they are in, even though the first quote says is not possible to do through a camera lenses. I think they come very close to achieving the aura of the landscape. While watching the movie, you really get an eerie feeling of the woods; from the voodoo dolls in the trees to the rocks out side the tent when they wake up in the morning, to the noises at night and the shaking of the tent that happens one night. This makes it feel like they’re not just in some random woods somewhere, but give the viewer the felling that they really are in woods that are haunted of some sort, and give the woods a personality, and almost gives them an aura. I think that the filmmakers, come very close, and maybe even achieve the aura of the woods, the distinctive quality of the woods. We also see characters personality though the movie, at the attempt to replicate the actors’ auras. In the beginning of the movie we get a little incite onto the characters personalities, but starting about halfway through the movie, when they all realize that they are lost, we get to see their personalities when they start to break down. We don’t quite get to see the different characters auras, but this is a curtail step in the viewer getting closer to getting a glimpse of their aura. 
      The film also relates to the second quote because of the films goals (and success to some extent) to create realism and give the viewer a since that it could happen to them. As it states in the second quote “… the cameraman consists of multiple fragments which are assembled under a new law”, which is exactly how the Blair Which project (and any other movie for that matter is shot). In a movie in general, there are thousands of frames filmed and they are piece together to form a story. In the Blair Witch project, it takes it a step further; it’s shot from a first person point of view, which makes it feel even more realistic it could be the viewer who’s in that place. This gives the viewer an even grater since of realism because it feels like it’s being seen through their eyes. Another way, in which this is done in the film, is how there are day and night scenes. This splits up the film into to sections, and two different types of “emotions” of the film. Both the day and night scenes are both intense for different reasons. The day scenes are intense, because we see how the three people start to break down and panic because they realize they are lost, as well as the things they come across that makes them believe even more that the myth is in fact true. The night scenes are also intense because of the events that take place, such as the weird noises that happen and the shaking of the tent, etc. This is another way in how the fragments are assembled in different ways to give the viewer a since of reality. This goes to show that both the first quote, and the second quote both apply to the movie, The Blair Witch Project.  

10.5 Post

One main way, in which Tokyo Story and a classical Hollywood continuity film produce different forms of realism, is the difference between realism between the two countries. Tokyo Story is suppose to portray realism in Japan, so watching it in America and interpreting it as a realistic movie, doesn't necessary transfer over, because that might not be real to us. Where as a Hollywood movie is probably more realistic to us because we can related to it, and vise versa. Someone in Japan, watching Tokyo story can relate to that better then a Hollywood film. The themes of realism in the respective countries and cultures that the movie portrays may not transfer over to different parts of the world. But this doesn't mean it's not a realistic film. Just because the film does not transfer over from one country to the world, doesn't mean it’s not a realistic, as long as the viewer views it as realistic. Another way that they are different is the movies focus on different aspects of reality. As we saw in Tokyo Story, there was a huge emphasis on family values and, for the most part, how they care about one another and how they interact with each other, as is generally true with Asian cultures. In America, there’s generally not as big of an emphasis on things of that sort of things. The fact that the two “types” of realism films are in fact different in various ways, is also how they are both similar; they are realistic to the people watching them in their country. The key goal of a realism film is, to make the viewer feel like they are seeing something that’s real, and something that could actually happen. So even if someone in Japan doesn’t relate to what they’re seeing in a Hollywood realist film, as long as they can still see it as something that would actually happen, as something that’s real, then the film has achieved what it’s meant to do.