And the writer only knows...

" Take a bunch of roses: I use it to signify my passion. Do we have here, then only a signifier and a signified, the roses and my passion? Not even that: to put it accurately, there are here only 'passionified' roses….. Naturally, there are between the signifier, the signified and the sign, functional implications (such as that of the part to the whole) which are so close that to analyze them may seem futile." (113)

After reading "The Romans in Films" , I was particularly intrigued with the idea of how the creator (or anyone with authority over the matter at stake) can add a meaning to what he is controlling. For example, the smooth-faced, unperturbed and water tight Caesar, who seems to remain this way because he is the only one who does not know what is to happen to him. While Marc Anthony, Brutus, Cassius, and Casca are perspiring through every pore with the intensity and emotion of the situation. We can immediately relate to what is happening; we feel the intensity as they do, and yet, remain completely clueless like Caesar.

However, how is it that we interpret it the way they want us to see it? Like Barthes said, "it is this constant game of hide-and-seek between the meaning and the form which defines myth." (118) He then goes on to say that "it is the reader of myths himself who must reveal their essential function." (129) This is true. When we see Marc Anthony's face of anxiety, we all jump to our own experiences. Someone remembers the time they forgot the project which counted for half of their grade was due and had to skip two class periods and lunch to get it done; while someone else remembers that dreaded March 31st as they waited for midnight, hoping to log into their Brown account and getting good news. Whatever we think of, we get the idea of anxiety, and the creator accomplishes their job which I find truly fascinating.

The creator can not always succeed and sometimes the reader reveals a different definition. This reminds me of 2004's democratic hopeful Howard Dean's infamous scream . If you don't recall, Dean was the only person with any probability of beating Bush. However, one "Yeah!" and a hoarse voice gave Americans a scream that they related to their worst demented experience. Just one different interpretation lost him the election (or at least ruined it enough for him that Kerry could now take the lead.)

Perhaps I'm missing the idea behind this lecture, but one thing is for sure, isn't it just fascinating how the separation of myths from history can help us relate to them in our ways. Imagine what you could do with that!