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.

Being Unique in a Postmodern Culture

In "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture", Bordo states that "the very advertisements whose copy speaks of choice and self-determination visually legistlate the effacement of individual and cultural difference and circumscribe our choices" (1101).

Americans claim that being "unique" is a goal; a privilege that each person should take seriously.  But shirts like the one pictured above seem to question this idea of "uniqueness".  How can I wear a "unique" shirt when a company is producing it in mass quantities?

Even Madonna was originally seen as a figure that overthrew the gender expectations dictated by social norms, but she later made herself look "normal", as Bordo points out.  "She has gone on a strenuous reducing and exercise program, runs several miles a day, lifts weights and now has developed, in obedience to dominant contemporary norms, a tight, slender, muscular body" (1111).  What does this message send to her fans that praised her anti-Barbie look and seemingly unique, expressive nature?  This sudden change in outward appearance suggests that we can only be as unique as society allows us to be, which is not that unique at all.

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 1099-115. Print.

Shakespeare, *NSYNC, and The 40 Year Old Virgin

An eloquent poet from the 17th century, a boy band from the 90s, and a Steve Carell film might have little in common aesthetically, but at the root of their products are complex gender issues.

In "Taming of the Shrew", Kate eventually becomes "tamed", verbalizing her transformation in her final speech.   Although there is much debate about if the speech is actually a reveling of her true feelings, there is no doubt that the images her speech she creates are a recognition of the gender expectations at the time - submissive, subservient, and dedicated to their husbands.

Beginning as early as Elvis, The Beatles brought the Sexual Revolution to new heights, as millions of women went crazy at the sound of a note.  More recently, *NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys were two famous boy bands known world-wide who could bring women to tears and screams.  Be it their good looks, suave dance moves, or sensuous voices, not only did they drive parts of the economy, they helped in shaping what we now know as the teeny-bopper or youth culture.

In The 40 Year Old Virgin, the gender roles are reversed and Steve Carell plays a 40 year old male who has never slept with a woman before.  His friends immediately tell him that they have his back, but see his virginity as a "problem" that must be "fixed", based on the apparent societal expectations of the genders and sex.

Although the sexual issues that have been existent for centuries are not visible at first glance, it becomes clear that influential writers, musicians, and films, among other media, have a profound affect on and perpetuate cultural notions of gender roles - no doubt, today's society is no stranger to these continued gender roles, through celebrities like the Jonas Brothers and Justin Bieber.

---------------------------

Brian Stokes Mitchell and Marin Mazzie performing "So In Love" from the musical adaptation of "Taming of the Shrew", "Kiss Me, Kate".

The 40 Year Old Virgin trailer.

Tennessee Williams and the Radical Romance

During class this week, we discussed Foucault's "History of Sexuality" and the "Radical Romantic Comedy" chapter of McDonald's text.  To get a better idea of the concepts and theories put forth by the authors, we watched Shakespeare In Love and Annie Hall.  However, since I just watched a classic Tennessee Williams' play, The Glass Menagerie, at the Mark Taper Forum, I'm going to relate some of the things we talked about in class to the play.

The play's narrator, Tom, played by Patch Darragh, takes us through an alter-ego-representation of his life, with his crippled sister and outrageous mother - an all-around dysfunctional family, abandoned by their father long ago.  Jim O'Connor, played by Ben McKenzie, enters Act Two as a "gentleman-caller", invited by Tom as part of a plan (on his mother's part) to find a suitable husband for his sister, who was actually in love with Jim in high school.  As the night progresses, Jim and Tom's extremely shy sister, Laura, are left alone.  Jim is able to get Laura to break out of her shell, they share a dance in the moonlight, and even a small kiss.  Just when it seems like Laura and, as a result, the Wingfield family as a whole will finally live happily ever after, Jim reveals that he's engaged and leaves shortly after, never to return, as does Tom, who follows in the footsteps of his father.

The play itself is set in the late 1930s - before the social upheavals leading up to the formation of the modern radical romance - but many of the issues it confronts seem to correlate to McDonald's ideas.  Williams, instead of creating a boy meets girl to boy gets girl scenario in Act Two, throws multiple obstacles into the characters' pathways, resulting in the implied resolution of Jim to stay with his fiancé and Laura being left single and unemployed, unable to take care of herself.

Tom's idea of what life should be is kept down by his familial problems, his alcoholic-tendencies, and his obsessions.  His mother is portrayed as an overly-loving, financially-dependent, traditional woman, who puts all of her eggs in one basket when Jim comes into the picture.  Both Tom and his sister struggle with their mother to maintain sanity on their less-than-average incomes and less-than-normal family life, and Tom finally decides to leave them both in the end with nothing but a memory of him.  The show in itself is not quite self-reflexive, although it does become a sort of play-within-a-play.  And it's really not about romance at all, but about the more complex issues of life and its failures, self-worth, and truth.  But it is comedic and has its share of romance, nonetheless.  One of the bigger issues, though, is the idea of breaking away from life and its conventions.  Although it's not a radical romance, there are radical notions that defy conventional plots in general, and it most certainly does not end on a happy note.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Wallflower Press, 2007.  Print.

Dangerous Women and the Men Who Love Them

Martinis – shaken, not stirred – Aston Martins and special gadgets, love interests with names containing double entendres, and a gun barrel sequence: these are just some of the many images and ideas that popular culture associates with James Bond.  But what do these symbols actually represent and perpetuate in mass society?  Aesthetically, the films simply serve to entertain American and British audiences, but literary theorists Rivkin and Ryan would argue that there is something more than meets the eye, asserting that “[o]ne sees the media, television, film, and the like as instruments of economic, ethnic, and gender domination…the media inevitably further attitudes and perceptions that assure its continuation” (1026).  Although the 2006 Bond film, Casino Royale, uses action and romance to drive the plot, the film essentially tears down females and puts men on a pedestal, promoting a powerful, patriarchal concept of Western society, not only for the United Kingdom and America, but to international, Bond-loving audiences as well.

In his controversial portrayal of the legendary spy, Daniel Craig’s Bond strays away from the classical interpretation of the character, producing a mysterious, antihero persona.  However, throughout the film, Bond upholds the White, Western idea of the heterosexual male.  Explaining Marxist beliefs, Chris Barker states that “the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class” (56), suggesting that the majority of American and British Bond audiences in the 21st century still desire and advocate this type of dominating figure.  Thus, in keeping with the film, masculinity requires being physically strong, mentally logical, and somewhat emotionless.

In fact, because of Bond’s debonair personality – “the man that men want to be and women want to be with” – it would seem that men are encouraged to strive for these Bond-like qualities.  During the film, Craig’s Bond experiences a short instance of a lack of reasoning when he initially resigns from MI6 to settle down and live “happily ever after” with love interest Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green.  By the end of the movie, however, he detaches himself from all emotion – this is in keeping with the film’s function as a precursor to the “Bond we all know and love,” who can go through women like a child goes through toys.  This latter stage of the character allows men to desire sex without having to commit to a long-lasting relationship, where the ultimate goal would be marriage and children.  Bond also has an earlier love interest with the enemy’s wife, Solange, which further perpetuates the promiscuous behavior of males as acceptable; sleeping around, in particular, even at the expense of and with no regard for other men.  The movie may unconventionally reject the institution of marriage, but it calls forth a homogeneous construct of masculinity, which serves both the men already in power and the men who want to be power.  By legitimating male domination within American and British societies, such domination is made to appear natural to audiences.

Moreover, the film upholds the notion of the woman as being “the other”.  In The Second Sex de Beauvoir argues that “[man] thinks of his body as a direct and normal connection with the world, which he believes he apprehends objectively, whereas he regards the body of woman as a hindrance, a prison, weighed down by everything peculiar to it”.  Women are regarded as a stumbling block for men; defective, cunning, and dangerous.  Some may seem classy, sophisticated, and self-reliant, but many have skeletons in their closets.  In one of the most famous and integral scenes from the movie, Bond and Vesper share an intimate moment in the shower after Bond carelessly kills several henchmen, illustrating just how easily a man can be seduced by the seeming-innocence of a woman.

Bond later confesses to Vesper that she has stripped his armor from him: “Whatever is left of me – whatever I am – I’m yours”.  Nonetheless, Vesper is eventually shown to be a double-agent who has been able to play both sides until the very end of the movie.  The appearance of an independent woman usually leads to no good, and Bond’s traumatic experience with Vesper serves as a warning for men to stay away from dominating women, who reel you in and wrap you around their finger before ever showing their true colors.  Further, women are used as objects in the movie, endorsing an unspoken desire to put females below males.  Bond seduces Solange to get to her husband Dimitrios, an early villain in the film, and later, Le Chiffre’s organization kidnaps Vesper and uses her to lure Bond into a trap.  These subtle, distinct uses of women serve to strip females of any identity they may have and advance the idea of woman as “the other”, not belonging to any history nor having any sense of belonging at all, but simply living under the rule of males.  de Beauvoir generalizes this notion by stating that woman is “a free and autonomous being like all human creatures – nevertheless finds herself living in a world where men compel her to assume the status of the Other.”  Woman, then, is defined by her male counterparts: father, son, male co-workers and friends.  Instead of having or forming her own identity, she is handed an identity by male-dominated society.

Radical in nature and treatment, Casino Royale breaks away from the traditional representation of James Bond, while repeatedly illustrating normative strands of love and maintaining powerful social and cultural ideologies of Western masculinity, successfully yet subtly oppressing women.  Although women commend themselves for the amount of liberties they have gained in the West, the actual freedom has only been granted as a gift and prize, as opposed to a universal right and entitlement.  Casino Royale seemingly presents the modern world as if no advances for women have actually been made.  Indeed, the Bond franchise will forever be marketed as a simple spy-movie, but the ideologies that the movies actually endorse go beyond the mere façade of a suave, licensed-to-kill, clever assassin.


Craig, Daniel, and Eva Green, perf. Casino Royale. Dir. Martin Campbell. Columbia Pictures, 2006. Film.


de Beauvoir, Simone. "The Second Sex." marxists.org.  Penguin, 2005. Web. 22 Aug. 2010.


Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan, eds.  Literary Theory: An Anthology.  Malden: Blackwell, 1998.  1025-27.  Print.