The Codes of Media

In "Television Culture" by John Fiske, four codes of television are examined:
1) social: mostly aesthetic elements - appearance and speech
2) technical: the technological aspects of media that go into the actual creation of TV shows, movies, etc.
3) conventional representational: the traditional elements of a story, like the narrative
4) ideological: elements which encompass a society's ideologies, such as class, politics, etc.

All of these codes work together to shape, say, a television show.  Fiske goes on to say, "the reading position is the social point at which the mix of televisual, social, and ideological codes comes together to make coherent, unified sense: in making sense of the program in this way we are indulging in an ideological practice ourselves, we are maintaining and legitimating the dominant ideology, and our reward for this is the easy pleasure of the recognition of the familiar and of its adequacy" (1094).  The notion of legitimation is a very Marxist-based perspective -- the ideologies of the owner-class (modes/relations of production) construct and govern the art, politics, culture, etc. of the working-class (superstructure).  We are born into these codes, which, in actuality, creates a never-ending cycle.

A prominent discussion we had in class on Thursday had to do with the rising theme of anti-establishment within movies.  Some texts that represent this idea are Robin Hood and The Dark Knight, and more subtly in Borat.  But what we see as anti-establishment actually is anti-current-establishment.  That is to say, in order to be a radical text, the establishment that is being attacked would have to be demolished altogether.

The example I want to use is the 2009 film Law-Abiding Citizen.  Although the movie may seem radical in promoting anti-establishment, the final outcome simply serves to legitimate the beliefs of the ruling class; in this case, law enforcement and, particularly, the legal system.  To summarize the plot requires some length, so bare with me.  And *THIS IS A SPOILER ALERT* for those of you who don't want to find out the ending :)

Clyde Shelton, played by Gerard Butler, witnesses two men rape and murder his wife and daughter.  Prosecuting attorney Nick Rice, played by Jamie Foxx, eventually decides that he would rather fight for his reputation of convicting criminals than help Shelton, letting the main murderer walk away after just a few years in prison.  Shelton, betrayed by the legal system and Rice, devises a brilliant plan, killing both murderers in gruesome, brutal ways.  Immediately arrested and held for the murders, Shelton uses the justice system against itself for the rest of the film.  At the end, his plans are eventually foiled, and he ends up getting outsmarted by Rice.

The entire movie is very deliberate with the anti-establishment theme, as Shelton takes the legal system into his own hands.  He threatens Rice and mysteriously commits crimes while being held in solitary confinement, sometimes even using the laws against Rice.  The ending, however, serves the legal system, basically showing  viewers that criminals (no matter what their motives) never succeed in the end.

All of that said, it is clear that the director wants the audience to sympathize with Shelton's character.  Having to watch his wife and daughter's vicious murders, with the added fact that Gerard Butler is one of Hollywood's sexiest men, makes it obvious that he is the "heroic outlaw".  Jamie Foxx, on the other hand, is portrayed as conniving in his own ways, looking out only for himself.  This valorization of the criminal looks to be a rising theme in movies throughout the years, but most are not really radical when more closely inspected.

Butler, Gerard, and Jamie Foxx, perf.  Law Abiding Citizen. Overture Films, 2009. Film.

Fiske, John. "Television Culture." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 1087-97. Print.
---------------------------
The movie trailer for Law-Abiding Citizen.

Seinfeld & GLEE vs. Society

Does life imitate Seinfeld or does Seinfeld imitate life?

Some argue that Seinfeld may bring about a 20th century, "no holds barred" way of life but many argue that it's vice versa; that the thoughts evoked and often pronounced throughout the show were and are imitations of a subconscious reality that Americans traditionally suppress.  The controversy of the show springs from violating several mainstream conventions in the media, specifically seen as having a postmodern point of view.

Post-Seinfeld ten years later, I want to point us to the television series GLEE, which has truly become an international phenomenon.  The show is famous for its use of music, but also for the underlying, controversial issues it addresses.  This past week's episode, "Never Been Kissed", brought about many societal issues that are currently looming in America yet are untouched in public for the most part.  Because of the recent suicides of several gay teens, the episode spoke volumes about anti-hate.  (Ironically, though, I would have to assume that most of the viewers of GLEE are already anti-hate to begin with.)

During the episode, the issue of identity is pushed to a new degree, and the director seems to handle two specific story lines in very careful ways.  One: Kurt Hummel, played by Chris Colfer, the only openly-gay student at his school, meets another gay teen from an all-boys academy who eventually encourages him to have courage throughout his trials.  I will be giving more emphasis on the second, however: Shannon Bieste, played by Dot-Marie Jones, a football coach who is neither "feminine" nor lesbian.  Bieste's character calls into question the idea of sexual identity [and identity in general].  Before "Never Been Kissed" was aired, several other episodes had already placed the character of Bieste in a comprosing, vunerable position: her sexuality was unknown, she is a female football coach for an all-male team, and, as a result of her position of leadership and authority, she had to act tough and strong, both mentally and physically.

Although the writers choose to allow Seinfeld-like thinking (i.e. the students do make fun of her and do not repress their thoughts), they must also show strong opposition, with Mr. Schuester, played by Matthew Morrison, pointing out their wrong.  Along with asserting that she is not gay, Bieste only appears masculine on the outside, whether it be the demeanor or physical attributes (Jones is a strength-based athlete - weight-training, shot put, arm wrestling, etc. - in real life).  But who first defined masculine in the first place?  Where do the ideas of masculinity and femininity come from?  And why is it that society, in general, automatically looked at Bieste's character as not normal or even wrong?  Even the position of a football coach is reserved for males.

Without delving further into the topic, as I only wanted to brush upon the questions looming around last week's GLEE episode, I conclude by stating that sexuality and gender appear more and more to be social constructs, especially when individuals are harassed and put down for not meeting the status quo.  As an implicit attack on the base-superstructure model of Marxism, GLEE calls us to begin understanding where our ideologies come from - allowing ideologies to be questioned instead of complete acceptance without thought.

Falchuk, B. (Writer), & Buecker, B. (Director).  (2010).  Never Been Kissed [Television series episode].  In R. Murphuy (Producer), Glee.  Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox Television.
---------------------------

The girls of GLEE perform a mash-up of "Livin' On a Prayer" by Bon Jovi and "Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones in last week's boys as girls against girls as boys episode.

Judith Butler, Alec Baldwin, and the Implications of Sex and Capitalism

In "Imitation and Gender Insubordination", Judith Butler states that "gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original; in fact, it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself".  In Glengarry Glen Ross, Alec Baldwin seems to portray a masculinity that, in fact, has no origin.

The famous monologue has Baldwin's character using foul-language and a stern voice, all in an attempt to get the salesmen, played by Ed Harris and Jack Lemmon, to start "acting" like men.  Beyond that, it seems that the salesmen just sit there and take it -- accept it, really.  Is this how men should behave, then?  Or only those in power that need to motivate other people to act upon something?  After all, Baldwin's character is also working for an unseen boss and is expected to perform and get results.

The entire speech, in addition to Baldwin's word-choice, which include many queer-related phrases, seems to emasculate the salesmen.  He feels he must belittle them in order to get them to act, and to a businessman, it could be argued that this is the only way to go if you want to make money.  Thus, the notion of capitalism penetrates the whole scene, from the watch, to the mention of the car, to the obvious fact that their jobs revolve around the free market.  In addition, feelings make humans weak and irrational, so men must keep themselves emotionless -- apparent in the fact that neither of the salesmen really react to Baldwin's yelling, besides their meager attempts to verbally fight back.  Just from watching this one famous scene from Glengarry Glen Ross, it is clear that the idea of masculinity is still that men must be tough, strong, even vulgar if the occasion calls for it.

Butler, Judith. "Imitation and Gender Insubordination." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 722-29. Print.