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.