Surveillance and Power

Both The Conversation and Enemy of the State illustrate the connections between surveillance and power, and how these notions relate to voyeurism and the gaze of the camera. All of the "surveyors" in the film are in favor of surveillance not because they think that everything should be brought into the light, but because they want only themselves to be able to see anything. When the tables are turned and the watchers become the watched, they are not as complacent with the technology and surveillance as they were when they were watching others. Gene Hackman's character in The Conversation is calm and collected for most of the movie. However, when he finds out that he has been bugged and his conversation was listened to, he becomes extremely upset and kicks everyone out of his office. Likewise, when the NSA officials find that there own bugs have been used against them, they are even more determined to stop Will Smith. This shows the hypocracies of those that favor surveillance, in that they want to see everyone else but not be seen by others. They desire the classic position of power that comes with the unreturned gaze, the gaze of the voyeur.

Complicating the themes of voyeurism and surveillance even more is the audience watching the films that are about watching. As audience members we want to know more about the characters and the plot as well, especially in the case of complicated plots like these two films. There are also the cases where we cannot be sure whether we are watching a surveillance image or simply a regular camera shot. When we think we are watching the surveillance image, we feel less like voyeurs because it other characters are watching and we are just watching along with them. However, if it turns out that the image is simply a normal shot, we fill the role of the voyeur as the only ones watching. The audience is secure in their position of power because unlike the surveyors in the movies, their gaze cannot be returned back to them. Just like the anger felt by the watchers when they become watched, we might not be so willing to watch movies if we knew that others could watch movies of our lives

temporal indexicality in the age of facebook

In Levin's discussion of "the rhetorical consequences of the now increasingly widespread recognition of the photographic surface...as a construct" (584), there is a corollary: photo-chemical indexicality is replaced with temporal indexicality. I understand this argument as stating that history's own alteration of the photographic image, an alteration made possible through digital and technological advances, replaces the notion of the image itself as proof with the notion of the image as proof of time having passed, of an event, of something that once was. Yet I'm wondering if our own knowledge of the image as proof of the event, of a fleeting moment in time, of something that is - which will, after a photochemical process, become something that once was - almost negates that which is being photographed. I'm wondering if our knowledge - of the image as proof, and consequently, of the moment as proof - creates an artificial moment, and an artificial referent. I'm specifically thinking about facebook photos of red solo cup-clutching college students that have become commonplace and myspace photos of girls posing into their bathroom mirror. This sort of artificiality calls into question the relation of realness to truth; the image is real, but is the moment true? And in relation to the concepts of flow and liveness, how do moments that are photographed disrupt the flow of reality itself?

It also seems to me that there is a paradox in the notion of digital enhancement and photoshopping, for isn't it this very malleability of the photographic image that allows film to be "a vehicle for storytelling" in addition to a "medium that documents, that chronicle what actually happens in the world?"

I am also curious as to where the omniponence of surveillance images comes from.
"When one sees what one takes to be a surveillance image, one does not usually ask if it is 'real' (this is simply assumed) but instead attempts to establish whether 'the real' that is being captured by the camera is being recorded or is simply a closed-circuit 'real time' feed. This is precisely what gives these sorts of images their semiotic appeal" (585)
In this quote, it appears that there is no dispute over the realness of the surveillance image. I'm wondering what this says about the relationship between the camera that records the surveillance image and the spectator; is there something fundamentally different about this relationship that enables greater trust?

The "recognition of the photographic surface as a text, as a construct . . . [is] nothing short of an obsession in that locus of the social construction of vision which is contemporary commercial cinema." -Levin, 584

Levin poses this statement in his article, and I don't quite buy it. Cinema, regardless of its place in our culture is still fiction. The indexicality of photographic images do not raise cinema above the realm of fiction, so why would this recognition of "photographic surface as a text" disturb its place? Levin also claims that "films both teach us how to see the world and register a general sense of how our culture is doing exactly that", but aren't we all just sitting back and watching movies?

Seriousness

I found the google article by Lisa Parks very intriguing in that there were many correlations to past articles that we have read. The concept of the interpreted image appeared many times, twice on page 7:

"The satellite image is a site/sight that must be read...by clicking on a camera icon you can view a photo with the caption..."

I think this more than exemplifies the role of the myth as defined by Barthes for in this case it is clear that the image is being manipulated via missing dates and purely violent, stereotypical contents which "are as much the invention of Western imaginary and ways of understanding world conflicts as they may be accurate descriptions of conditions on the ground"(7). 

This also reminded me of the Snead article and how the portrayal of blacks in American/Western media has historically contained negative and subjugate connotations. That even in the image of starving African children, or savagely murdered African people, created to generate pity produce a feeling of civil superiority in the viewer. This was further demonstrated on page 4 when Parks lifts a quote from the Washington Post which read "This tool will bring a spotlight to a very dark corner of the earth" which resonates Africa as the "Dark Continent," a very dated and orientalist conception. 

Keenan's article on image overload also popped into my mind on Publicity and Indifference in which image overload creates the reverse of the desired effect.  Parks cited campbell who explained that the the images created to create response, "because of their familiar forms--just as easily lead to inattention and indifference..."(7) This revives a thought I might have shared earlier:

Do the powers in control utilize their understanding of media to impede humanitarian efforts, or anything in that matter? Does this transform the media into a form of surveillance?

 I think the article makes a good argument for this. In terms of the films, I enjoyed The Conversation in that the eye is replaced by the ear, hearing is the equivalent of seeing and there were many correlations, I thought, between this film and Rear Window in terms of public versus private. The soundtrack was very well done in that it seemed that the piano music in the beginning was very sharp and defined and as the movie progressed the sound and music sounded muffled and echoey. Mr. Call represents a collector of the public, he captures the public domain via private means and this makes him powerful yet he himself is a very timid and frightened man, an analogy for modern society. The surveillancer becomes the surveillanced identifies with Keenan, the panopticon, and the other readings for this week. 

Enemy of the State seemed to be a more literal demonstration of Park' article in which the surveillance for security and protection becomes a weapon of political and economic interest. One very powerful man attempting to maintain a secret, a fear, which ends up destroying him, similar to Mr. Call's situation. This film seemed to play up more the voyeuristic aspect of surveillance, there were a few Ms. Torso moments. Both films seem to relay the concept that surveillance is derived from fear of the hidden, more so the internal than the external.

Semantic Function in The Conversation

Perhaps I am still very much entrenched in the structuring of counter-cinema of Godard. In Coppola's film The Conversation, I found certain imageries/ colors of scenes as semantic function. For example, the office of Martin (or of director?) featured primary-colored furniture such as red couches and yellow columns in contrast to the dark business suits that prevail most of the scenes (and in the scenes taking place in the building of the director). Later at the electronic gadget convention as Caul discovers Martin on the velvet red couch in a mainly neutral-toned colored decor. In the convention room, a female receptionist/ worker is dressed up in a yellow dress.  Towards the end as Caul goes to director to return the data, his envelope is spotted noticeable blue (that he throws away in the greens and picks up again) and this same blue appears later again in the hotel room scene - with a vivid blue toolbox, Caul makes a hole on a wall of the bathroom in order to create an access to the other room - to create a way to surveillance. The use of colors in certain props of the film constructs a system of reference to surveillance. 

Apart from the use of colors as semantic function, the recurring notion of "circling" seems to take on a certain semantic meaning as well. There are imageries of circular action throughout the film such as that of circular- shaped video tapes, the couple walking in a circle in the park, and one of my favorite scenes of the film - in the parking lot of Caul's workshop/ studio/ office where Caul and a female character are surrounded by a motorcycle that circle around them in expanding circular motion. (around the couple, around the columns in the empty arena of the parking lot)

These recurring imageries/ ideas as semantic function seem to consolidate the notion of surveillance that is so vividly captured in Coppola's film. The circular motion seems to suggest a return of what has been done, come and go, the repetitive act that leads to meaninglessness (and more if thought more). This idea is apparent in the final scene in which Caul is trapped in his space of invaded privacy. The consequences that ensue from this job (surveillance) are brought upon Caul himself as his space is violated -- he dismantles and deconstructs his own living space -- human environment -- down to pieces and blocks of walls and plasters and industrial building materials - back to the origin. His loss of his own protection and privacy goes back to the very beginning of the development of individualism and construction of privacy at which one, without any barrier or walls of security, starts to build a system in order to protect himself. This initial act of building a wall of protection has come back years later to its origin - lack of protective barriers and only the prevalence of surveillance. 

The relationship is very intriguing - between the semantic functions embedded in the film and the structural engagement of 'surveillance' as discussed by Levin. The semantic meanings mentioned above (colors, a circular shape) effectively contribute to the construction and manifestation of the idea of surveillance in the film's structure and in "the condition of the narration itself." (Levin, 583)

---

On an indirectly - relevant note... I just can't get over how highly mediated one's life is in the 'now...'  The prevalent use of digital media (primarily photography, video, internet, tv, etc..), its role as a recoding mean and representation of existence. (Refer back to the notion of Barthes "that has been...") The generation of the now is so accustomed to this omni-presence of media that not only are we being targeted as an object of vulnerability within the mediated system, we, as a subject, are also offering ourselves as an object to be viewed and remembered through this recording media.  The quintessential example that I believe best depicts the generation of now is, quite undoubtedly, 'Facebook.' 

One moment one would be at a social gathering and in a matter of an hour or two there will be photographs of this event uploaded on the web... It is almost terrifying and shocking to see the actions of media-accustomed generation that have almost become in a way mechanical. A camera (or better - a smart phone with the camera function) is always attached to him/her as a necessary item (or maybe a partner), the flashes that go off constantly in the dark are now beyond distracting and have become a norm of social gatherings/ parties - what is supposed to be an act of enjoyment and relaxed social act, and the moment one gets home he immediately goes over to his computer and upload the photos that have just been taken in real life onto a digital space..  

Perhaps one is so aware of the mediated system in which he is situated that he feels obligated to show his participation, the desire to be part of the 'imagined community' in an apparent, visible manner... It is almost as if a happening/ momental actions can be validated only through such an act of recording and its results -- that individual's actions or events require validation -- it is a mandatory act for the citizen of the now in order to be acknowledged of the existence of being. Quite a prime example of surveillance (and even subordination) I think...  how increasingly vulnerable we, as a member of the mediated era, are becoming, make ourselves to be in addition to the surroundings that already pose much threat of invasion. 

Enemy of the State post 9/11

I had watched Enemy of the State when it came out, and didn't really remember much about it so when I saw it again (this time, unlike it's release in 1998, in a post-9/11 world) I was surprised (and deeply saddened) by how unbelievably relevant it is currently, and how it seems to signal a shift in public perception with regard to security vs. civil liberties--i.e., the fear 9/11 instilled in many people have lead to massive erosions of civil liberties in this country with extremely little protestation from (and in many cases, with active support of) the majority of people.  The bill that the movie centers around does not sound that unlike the Patriot Act which was passed soon after 9/11, or the recent FISA legislation that passed very recently.  Both of these bills profoundly alter the place of civil liberties in this country, and conflict in many ways with the Fourth Amendment.  Yet, I have yet to speak to a single person my age who even knows what the FISA legislation is.  Even though it is a bill that allows the government to conduct wiretaps without warrants (granted, before they needed warrants, but the body that issued them was so pro-government they'd never refuse anyways--but it says an unbelievable amount that the government even rejected the illusion of oversight) and that immunizes telecoms for their complacency in illegally providing information to the government.  These are unbelievable provisions, which deeply challenge the rule of law in this country.  Yet, there was almost no public discourse about it--especially in the mainstream press, which barely covered it, and then, only after the issue had been brought and extensively discussed by many bloggers who were concerned with the rule of law.  And, while there eventually was a fairly prolonged struggle in the congress to come up with the final draft of the bill, that occurred as the result of a pretty small set of individuals who passionately worked against it--like Chris Dodd, who spearheaded the effort against telecom immunity in the senate, and liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald, who was one of the many people who wrote extensively about the issue, and helped to organize a campaign to stop the legislation.

Watching Enemy of the State, I felt profoundly sad, because the paranoid dystopian vision it offers is not that unlike the country we live in today, and many of the changes that have lead it on that path have happened while most of the nation sat by in complete silence.  For example, the massive databases and how the cross-referenced them to track Will Smith's movements and associations sound remarkably like the Main Core program in the government.  This is a program that is highly secret and has received practically no coverage in the mainstream press (I read about it in the small online news site Salon.com--which has done an excellent job of discussing these issues while the mainstream press completely ignores them), and is basically a mechanism to search through many different databases (allowing the government to do similar analysis and tracking as they were doing with the databases in the movie).  It appears highly likely that this program was the issue that was at stake in the now famous incident where Gonzales and Card went to the hospital, where Ashcroft was extremely sick, and tried to get him to sign on to something that he had already refused.  In fact, as a result of this, many of the highest ranking officials in the DOJ threatened to resign.

The question of how these increasingly Orwellian programs have been able to occur is fairly complex, as in many cases they were created behind closed doors, kept secret from not only the public but also most members of congress often (and in many cases they're completely illegal as well).  However, many of the changes--Patriot Act, FISA, etc.--were bills that were passed in the congress with little protestation.  Not only did people sanction giving broader surveillance powers to the government, but in the case of FISA, the legislation literally provides amnesty to people who broke surveillance laws that were set in place after Watergate to stop the kind of things Nixon did.  It's almost like Enemy of the State ended with the bill passing, with an additional amendment that let the main evil guy off the hook.

The part of watching Enemy of the State that I found the saddest is precisely that people in the movie strongly protested the curtailments of civil liberties.  Will Smith's wife works at the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), and towards the end of the movie he even says that she was right in her paranoia of the eroding civil liberties (not to mention the fact that the villains in the movie are from the NSA, which obviously is a rather anti-government-surveillance stance).  Now in most mainstream action movies, people who work in places like the ACLU are often made fun of as paranoid naive hippy panzies.  It's sad to think that not that long ago a movie--a mainstream action movie at that--actually had as one of its main messages that civil liberties are important and should be protected.

Also, this is kind of random, but did anyone else notice that when they pulled up his information, the bad guy (NSA guy) was born on 9/11 (1940)?  That just put the icing on the  creepy cake of watching Enemy of the State in a post-9/11 US for me.

Hope is Here. Change is Coming

I cannot start this blog without mentioning how amazing it is to know that Obama is going to be our next president!! Not to mention how shocking and wonderful was Brown's reaction. Marching down Thayer, through RISD, past Kennedy Plaza, and into the steps of the State Capitol, was a great way to celebrate, and a great addition to my freshmen year memories.



Anyways back to screens and projections.



"Not least since Orwell's 1949 vision of an aggressively invasive authoritarian 1984, our sense of the future -- and increasingly of the present--has been marked by the fear of being watched, controlled, and robbed of our privacy."

Just that first page got me thinking. Live Free or Die Hard is a combination of both films that we watched. It takes The Conversations' public spying on the public idea and Enemy of State's use of private cameras to spy on the public. Unlike in the Tiennamen Square incident, harmless traffic control systems are used to spy on the public in hopes of over throwing the government. It can be argued that when this happened after the clashes in Tiennamen Square, it was for the good of the people, for their protection. Live Free or Die Hard shows how easy it is for our forms of protection to be exploited.

The article also commented on the secret camera being part of the narration. Its impossible for me not to think of The Truman Show. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYj2m1yVpGU ) I love this trailer because it shows not only this week's topic, but past ones. To begin with, we can see that many things cannot be seen until the secret camera leads us to it. In the scene were Truman's wife arrives with the groceries, you can also see how advertising is intertwined with the rest of the narration. The trailer also shows a scene where Truman is talking to his best friend. You can see the editing team adding dramatic music and editing the scenes. Just proof of how music has as much importance as the angles the movie is shot in. Most importantly, this also shows Levin's argument of how you just assume what you see is real when in reality it can very easily be edited.

OBAMA SMASH!

I know we aren't at the video/computer game section of the class, but I felt with all of Chun's examples of media coverage of the election I feel I have to include this:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/31/mercenaries-2-gets-political/#more-4712

Yes, you can blow up the world as either Obama or Palin

Boom!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHDVSW5OpI4

In relation to Joyrich's Hypermasculinity article and the article on TV sound, I want to examine a show that my (very masculine) friend put on during some down time and a drink. This show, Destroyed in Seconds from the Discovery Channel is one of many sort of "live camera" TV catastrophe shows, in this case focusing on technological and natural disaster that (as they claim) happens in a matter of seconds (as opposed to feral animals, wild criminals, etc). Since every spectacle happens only in a matter of seconds, they take their time to rewind, replay, analyze, and dissect the horror inside out.

In contrast to Good Morning America or soap operas, these shows focus so much on the visual spectacle, calling for rapt attention of the gaze, lest the viewer "miss something". The replays serve to emphasize the importance of making sure the viewer catches every detail. Yet the disembodied sound narrative is necessary to carry out the act of precise analysis and almost scientific authority to explain this all to us. And just as these disasters are slowed down and analyzed for us, they are also shot at us at a pace of one per every one to three minutes. The onrush and sheer amount of videos given to us between each break shell shock us, until every explosion looks the same, yet each one is meant to incite, excite, glue, sensationalize, and horrify. Furthermore, the fact that most of these videos are taken by home cameras, surviellance cameras, etc. parallels to TV's own lack of high visual quality, such that part of the spectacle is the video's grainy "realness".

This is certainly a masculine show, but does this show cut against the grain of "essential television qualities" of sound and feminine reception? I would argue the opposite, for I think shows like these that are non-narrative, fragmented, and ADD also build upon inherent qualities of the TV as medium, and very much reinforce the visual over the aural. However, this does not negate Joyrich or any of the other theorists, but rather merely serves to reinforce the idea that television is full of polysemy.

The Tonight Show

I am really interested in the relationship a commercial has to both the other commercials surrounding it as well as to the program it "interrupts."  So, i tuned in to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on NBC thinking that this was the best way to see "mainstream" advertising.

What I found interesting is that I saw a series of commercials all focusing on the home/family, immediately before and after an interview with Sarah Silverman.

The first commercial was a Verizon commercial, you know the one where the dad goes in to work and asks his secretary what his schedule is and he is essentially spending the day texting his family.  Then, it was a local commercial about carpeting your home.  Finally, and this is the best... a commercial showing a family around the breakfast table.  The mother is silently tidying up the kitchen while the father respectfully "asks the tough questions" of his teenage daughter who missed curfew for a (gasp!) boyfriend.  I thought this was going to break into a joke, but it was actually sponsored by the Church of Latter Day Saints.  Then immediately to Sarah Silverman...

...who dives into making fun of Sarah Palin's giant family and the way she brings the kids all over the campaign trail.  Then she talks about her "The Great Schlep" video which I'm sure lots of people have seen and its fairly edgy.  

The next commercial segment begins with a depression medication, then goes into MetLife so "your family can watch its dreams bloom," then 2 plugs for NBC shows, then a car commercial, then a commercial for local politician (senator?) Jack Reed talking about "working Rhode Island families."

And then back to Sarah Silverman making sexual innuendos. 

So whats the deal?  Is NBC just screwing up and surrounding a controversial figure with family-values propoganda?  Is there some other way to understand this particular flow?

The Allure of Live TV

Feuer's argument about liveness being the ideology of television struck a particular chord with me in light of the recent Olympics. Although the time difference between America and China made live coverage extremely impractical, American news corporations lobbied to have popular events (like swimming and gymnastics) take place in the morning in China, so that they would be live during primetime broadcast on the east coast of the U.S. I read about this in the paper while the Olympics were going on, and I was quite surprised to find that American news companies were actually able to pull that off.

But despite being aware of the impracticalities of live broadcast (and perhaps the undue attention to American TV in the scheduling of certain events), I found myself completely a victim to the allure of live broadcast. I remember staying up until ridiculous hours of the early morning to watch how events turned out (in live time), even though I knew I had to get up early in the morning and the events would likely be replayed or put on youtube.

Even more interestingly, my sister (who is very into swimming) made a big to-do about us recording all of the swimming events for her, because she was hiking in the widerness while the Olympics were going on. But when she got back, she barely watched any of the recorded footage. Something about it not being live made it much less interesting to her.

In the spirit of television's fragmentation, my post tonight is incredibly fragmented. A few main points came up for me with this week's readings.

First of all, I was very interested in Feuer's use of the word "aura" in describing the videotape as eliminating aura, as well as the relationship between aura and the sense of liveness we see in television. It seems to me that the images shown on television have some semblance of aura whereas the images of a film do not; regardless of the ways in which television can manipulate these events - in terms of replaying them over and over again, using slow-motion, etc. - the fact that they ocurred once - and once only - in time has an organic and authentic quality, a uniqueness, to it, that film cannot.

Secondly, I was really in the relationship between spectator and television, and the relationship between this relationship and that between spectator and film. When Feuer discusses Good Morning America, she discusses how David Hartman acts as a link between us and the guest he is interviewing. She writes: "David sets the circuit of address: he may look into the internal monitor and he may look at us; but the guest looks only at David - so that David mediates all discourse. The format denies the possibility of direct address from the interviewee to spectator" (18-19). In this sense, it seems that television does not offer its spectators the same ability to conquer the individuals onscreen as does film. In film, the spectator can possess the female celebrity, both directly and indirectly. In television, by contrast, there is only indrect contact with the indvidual being interviewed, and indirectness underscored by the technical shots used in these interviews. I guess the issue that came up for me in observing this relationship is how television seems to overpower its spectator, yet previous texts we have read equate television with femininity and film with masculinity.

Lastly, in the readings and in the lecture, the idea of aperture kept on coming up in relation to television, contrasting the closure of film. However, I remember aperture as being an element of counter cinema, and I am curious about the relationship between the aperture of counter cinema and the aperture of television.

...Broadcast news makes me want to kill myself... (alternate: makes my brain melt)

For some reason I thought we were supposed to do the flow analysis thing of the half hour of TV we watched, and even though no one else did that (so I'm guessing I misheard), since I already did it, I'll just post that.  It's pretty interesting--it's like the normal fragmentation of tv on crack (as there's a new story like every 10 seconds minimum pretty much), but there's distinct themes that run across sections of a few of the segments to keep it semi-continuous even though it's shifting stories so rapidly (i.e., the illusion of continuity to disparate subjects).

Anyways, here's a half hour NBC news (with commercials!--from 5:53-6:23 today):

-man driving in car, reporter says you can save gas by driving manual cars.  It goes back to the woman in the studio to end the story.

-commercial--two men fishing, talking about bank--New port fed.  One of them is getting tangled up in his fishing line as he talks about his current bank which is bad or something.

-political ad for Jack Reed--images of him talking and shaking hands with happy, smiling people.  He's for cutting taxes, creating jobs, alternate energy, lower healthcare costs.

-commercial--man bowling--Alzheimer's ad--his wife is confused at the bowling alley--prescription Arecept--image of old people happily going on boat, then at the beach.

-Back to the show--Image of fire burning in Florida.

-image of gunshop--man in studio says gun sales are up in the bad economy--people feeling unsafe

-lead singer of Bare Naked Ladies arrested for coke possession.  Image of him in courtroom.

-high heels race--image of drag queens

-man in studio--then reporter giving preview of what's to come

-Access Hollywood commercial--tonight at 7:30--something about a "spooked stage" and "psychic medium"

-Political add against Question 1--woman at hospital

-ad for potato bacon soup--images of soup and other things up close.  White background.

-Toyota ad--zero financing--cars driving up and then away.  White background.

-NBC news intro. animation/graphic

-quick previews of stories to come (go by to fast for me to write even a bit about)

-ethics case dropped against Bill Irons--image of hime--back to studio--to reporter in Providence.  Reporters talking to Irons.  Shot of ethics commitee

-Back to studio--man talking--something about Urciuoli (someone's last name)

-mother charged in child abuse case--his father had already been charged

-Fed. cuts interest rate--image of capitol building--images of Wall street--market closes down despite rate cut--graphic of stock market

-back to studio

-reporter--talking about people trying to unionize

-interview--female busdriver talking about efforts to unionize (she's fighting for it)

-reporter outside hospital--nurses vote to join union

-woman talking about healthworker unionization

-rescue workers rallying outside hospital, trying to unionize

-woman in studio

-reporter in Providence--in front of workers picketing against change in healthcare plans (from Blue Cross to United Healthcare)--crowd booing mayor as he walks by

-interview with mayor--says he's confused with reaction, that the plan is good, that it will save taxpayers 8 million dollars.

-reporter says many taxpayers agree with mayor

-interview--woman saying she doesn't get how people can say that, people won't have healthcare.

-man in studio--Rhode Island students protesting new fee increases

-graphic--statement from RI College

-gambling sales down--images of various gambling games--graphic of lottery sales (they're down)

-traffic update--reporter in different location, in front of screen--graphic of roads, dotted lines represent traffic, the color of the lines the amount of traffic.

-weather update (in different location, in front of screen)--wind speeds fairly high--says cold will stop soon though.

-previews of news to come: cats found abandoned in tupperware containers, troops headed for Iraq, some others I didn't catch

-RI bank ad

-Jack Reed ad--same as earlier one

-Nissan ad--advertising fall sale--car showroom

-NBC news --advertising it's radio show

-tomorrow on NBC news--state worker story--something about stealing taxpayer money--that's all i caught

-woman in studio--soldiers going to Iraq--images of soldiers, American flag waving in the wind

-family members of soldiers/soldiers talking about leaving--how hard it is

-police officer had his badge, gun, other police items stolen from his truck at his home by teenagers--he was suspended without pay for a week

-image of construction workers taking down bridge--reporter assures us it's only supposed to last a few days

-next at 6--cats abandoned in tupperware (again)

-Cerrones GM-car ad

-carpet and flooring ad-man installing-->happy couple in newly furnished house.  Ends with cartoon and song.

-Ad-man says Democrats in control of congress are taking to much taxpayer money--urges people to vote Republican

-bath splash showroom ad--images of bathroom stuff

-Cerrones GM ad again--this time he's in front of 4 cars.

-studio-cats

-reporter-they were in bad shape--image of cat scratching itself--person who left them unknown--interview with woman saying where she found the containers they were in--outside animal shelter--workers there describing how bad their condition was--images of cats in cages scratching--says in a month or so people who want to adopt them can

-reporter gives a number to call to adopt them

-elementary school closing--kids will be transferred to other schools--images of school--teachers to lose jobs, apparently like a similar event recently.

-mayor and recycling coordinator taught recycling to kids at a public elementary school

-author of Scooby Doo and You (I have no idea) talking to kids

-image of dog dressed like skunk--woman in studio (or maybe a reporter) asks for people to send in their Halloween photos

-weather report--graphic of globe (mostly North America)--image of jetstream--cool air here currently will be replaced by warm air brought by the jetstream--but, tonight cold--images of clouds

...and thank god, that's the last of it.

9/11 Coverage and Flow

Raymond Williams talks about how important flow is in broadcasting. According to Williams, stations deliberately plan out their entire schedules, making sure that there is a continuous flow throughout their broadcast. Whether there is a commercial, promo, news, or a serial show on, the continuity remains. Rick Altman adds to the theory of flow, showing how the soundtrack of the broadcast lets the viewer know when to pay attention.

The coverage of 9/11 seemed to be an instance where the flow of the broadcast was interrupted. The reason for this seems to be that the events of 9/11 were so extreme that the stations did not plan for them and had no plan in place to deal with them. Normal news happens without the stations knowing what is coming, but in general they are prepared to respond to it. During the coverage of 9/11, the broadcasters were shocked and often seemed to be at a loss for words. This led to lots of time where there was no sound at all. According to Altman, this would lead to a loss of flow and the viewer would not be able to tell what was happening. Part of the problem ws that there was very little new information to report on, even though the stations clearly had to stay on the same topic. There seemed to be attempts to reinstate the flow by offering new information, but this led to times when they had to redact what was said, such as the car bomb going off in Washington. The stations also had a limited number of clips to show, and ended up playing the same clips over and over. This also contributed to the lack of flow and seemed to diminish the "liveness" of the broadcast, despite the fact that it was breaking news and basically was live.

One concept that the 9/11 coverage did reinforce was the one of intertextuality. Like any breaking news, all of the stations were focused on the same thing, even to the extent that some were showing the exact same shots. Watching any of the news stations would have provided the same information and news.

Television Theories_ monotonous view?

I feel as if the views that we have covered so far are mainly focused in the domain of the U.S. ... I would be interested in expanding the view onto the international level. I am watching the broadcast from France 24, BBC, etc. Will post the review soon. 

I had never really taken a step back and thought about the unique media that is television. A film lasts about two to three hours... during this time, one may be completely immersed in the characters, plot, etc... but afterward, the film is over (with the rare exception of a sequel or something of that sort). Many actors get several leading roles, so we as an audience think that we know them on a familiar level.

Television is like film.. amplified. Multiplied by ten billion... but put in the background. We are constantly bombarded with images-- familiar faces of stars who we think we know personally, commercials telling us what we need to buy, plot lines that are all too familiar... just with a different twist.

We become so accustomed to our television that some don't even bother to turn it off. It's just background noise... We also become accustomed to the characters who we see on our shows. I have told people numerous times that when I grow up I want to be Olivia Benson (from Law and Order SVU). In reality, she doesn't exist (although this is idea is hard to grasp-- I love Olivia...).

How did this happen? Why are we so connected to this little box?? Without it, would we be missing a sense of imagined community within our city, state, country...???

Movies on TV

To me, one of the most striking things about television commercials is the way they manage to reduce feature length movies into small enough fragments to fit in with the text of TV. The full film is reduced into a minute-long skit, filled with shots from the movie. There are quick characterizations, usually through repeated situations. Consider an advertisement for Role Models, an upcoming feature. First, we are told of Danny and Wheeler's mandatory community service, and forced time spent with youths, then their formal punishment: karma in the form of excessively precocious children. The only bit left out, is Danny and Wheeler's ultimate realization of the good in the kids, which we are all programed to expect. Essentially three full acts are played out in a minute long bit: perfect for television consumption.

"Rip...he's no ordinary cat..."

So, as I'm writing this right now I'm watching Goosebumps on Cartoon Network, a show which during my childhood days honestly used to give me nightmares. Why? Because Law and Order is boring and I've already seen the episode of the Daily Show. 

The context of the episode(which is ironic) is a girl TV actress, Allison, starring in a very poor satire of the Exorcist revolving around some kind of zombie cat. The girl is, of course, a drama queen who knows bounds, and leaves the set to study her lines. She runs over an eerily similarly mutilated cat, named Rip, that belongs to a family who doesn't own a television because "they lie," and so they live in a very pre-television era setting and have no idea who Allison is. The cat then proceeds to haunt the girl actress and everyone thinks she's going crazy and she sorta is....then the episode ends, what the hell?

The episode after is conveniently the next part, I have to watch it...I am sucked into the flow of children's programming...

While watching, the commercial and societal structures implemented into the flow are so amazingly obvious due to its targeted audience, which makes perfect sense. Catching and retaining the focus of a child is so much more difficult than that of an adult and there is much done to compensate for this.

Within the show the sound advance, a concept which I could not quite grasp at first, was blatant. While I write this I can hear the crescendo and tremolo of synthetic strings which foreshadows a mutilated demon cat under the blanket Allison is reaching for. When the show pauses and resumes there are always goofy shorts to transition back into the show, utilizing familiar cartoon ghosts and xylophone sound bites that serve well to alert me the show is doing something and I should look.

The commercials are colorful and commanding, fluffy creatures saying "ask your parents to buy me today," some involving relevant social contexts, Holloween, Election season, parodies of popular songs, many images of tv within a tv, and action figures, all of which tell me that I am in control of the image, that I can even own the image (and physically touch them in the case of an Iron Man figure which tells me "his power can be mine"). This is almost a direct correlation with Altman's quote:

"we turn towards the screen to complete our sense of the star's presence"(575) or the image, hero athlete, and in this case is Iron Man.

In response to the 9/11 footage which I found to be shockingly brutal even still, I found it annoying that despite the severity and brute trauma of the event, the competition between channels was still quite evident. Each station seemed frantic to interview the most important people they could find, quantity of interviews over quality, the captions were all the same but the banner graphics and transitions were still colorful and distracting. At one point the Rhode Island news station ran a banner which at the end asked viewers to "stay tuned for complete coverage!", overtly competitive. The voices of the internal audience, the anchors, still sounded monotonous and directed which really pointed a cold, mechanical feel in the people whom are supposed to be warm and human like. However, I did notice that the coverage was completely soundless/musicless at times which really added reality impact to the footage which says something about how the absence of sound is just as powerful as sound weapons themselves.

Question: Has the modern television era with its overabundance of sound turned silence into a powerful symbol of reality and sound into an emblem of professional superficiality?

I guess its more of an opinion than a question.

So now my blog is tremendous but the end of the story is ridiculous. Get this...Allison begins turning into a cat because Rip is apparently stealing her life force and they go back to Rip's owners to find a solution to the problem. Turns out that Rip is actually the product of a failed genetic experiment and this mother who has become half of a cat person, its nasty. Allison is expected to suffer the same fate in which the magnificent line is shared "its not so bad...you get used to it." blah blah blah, Rip is killed, the effects are reversed and the event is turned into a TV show. The show ends with Allison being a good person and her best friend randomly eats a mouse revealing an incredibly annoying second cliff hanger ending.

Double aperture...I change the channel only to find futurama...the flow never stops

Television Is My Friend

The first time I ever saw a guest actor in a famous TV show was a special episode of Friends when Brad Pitt made an appearance. I figured that since Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were married, they assumed it was a cool idea to have him on the show. At the time (mostly because of my age), it seemed like plain old fun, no publicity or hidden intentions.However, it is evident that this is not true. As White allows us to see, these appearances have a different agenda.

White gives a lot of examples of TV shows weaving their plot lines together. When I read these examples I was reminded of a MadTV skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JImyMGNQSs ) which joins the shows Grey's Anatomy, House, and ER. The main characters of this show interact hoping to save a patient. Although a skit meant to mock these shows, I think they had a good idea. Had it been a little (or a lot) less stupid and with the real actors, the skit would have shown the bizarre cases and remedies that House shows, the dramatic and comedic aspects of Grey's Anatomy, and the drama and action that keeps you on your toes of ER.

This strategy gone bad can be seen in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Not being a fan of these shows my information might be in correct, but the main characters seemed to be dating each other. Buffy was not an actual character on Angel and neither was he in Buffy. Now I'm not aware of when exactly these shows started mixing (was it because both shows were at their best, etc.) but I do know that it became so complicated that they had to break up the character's relationship. This basically shows that although it is a good idea to join shows and have guest appearances, its best if its kept at a minimum of an episode.

I feel that shows are no longer doing this as much as White's article leads us to believe. However, guest appearances are still being made. This happened a lot in Will & Grace. You would see Jack trying to be a back up dancer for Jennifer Lopez or Janet Jackson or Will dancing to the music of Footlose with Kevin Bacon. There are also many episodes in which one of the main characters meets an actor and insists they are the character they play on TV. Not only bringing attention to the actors, but the shows they are on.

Both Harold & Kumar movies, for example, have Neil Patrick Harris play a drug and sex obsessed version of himself. Harold and Kumar would idolize Neil Patrick Harris. These characters would act like crazy fans, just like we would. I feel like this may have more impact. They are telling us that these actors are worthy of being written into the show. However, they aren't going to play the server or love affair, but themselves. They are so "awesome" they are worthy of having these fictional characters be obsessed with them.

On one last note, big name companies have been taking this idea to advertise their products. White mentions Robert Young/Marcus Welby, M.D. promote Sanka decaffienated coffee, and Neil Patrick Harris promoting Old Spice comes to mind. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TusJ8HSLaUs)

Knowing Death

I'm a bit tired, so I'll keep it short and sweet. I came into this movie knowing it was about Tim Treadwell's death, and that seeing the opening where he gets dangerously close to the bears set me at unease, and made me realize that that man, whom the camera is pointed at, is dead. Although most people who probably came to see the movie knew the premise of the movie, the background information, coming in, Herzog put in a little subtitle of "Timothy Treadwell (1957-2003)" as a signifier to label him as a dead man. In a way I feel this is how Herzog tries to manufacture punctum, but that's not what I'm really going to talk about. See, there's Herzog's footage that he films and Treadwell's footage, and the two sources are sometimes not easily discernable from each other. The whole confusion that I felt between the switching of the two cameras seemed to link Tim's death with a reminder of Herzog's own mortality. The camera became a pointer of death, that in the hands of "Tim" (or rather Amy) the camera is both bringing the dead back to life and a constant threat to that life on film, that at any moment for all we know that man on film may be attacked, and we will witness his death.

Objects of "Mummy Complex" in Film

I find Bazin's comparison of aesthetics of painting and film quite intriguing (and a bit bothersome, from a painter's point of view.. ) I find it a bit problematic - his simplification of painting as a medium in pursuit of "realism" mainly... Yes, the question has become "the creation of an ideal world in the likeness of the real, with its own temporal destiny," and that painting is permanently tied with "inescapable subjectivity." (Bazin, 12) But what about the essence of the medium, the "presence" that is "the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity," as Benjamin argues? (Benjamin, 220) That authenticity that fades in the products of mechanical reproduction, the decay of aura, but of works of art? 

Bazin argues that at the origin of painting and sculpture lies a "mummy complex" - the psychological need in man that is the view of survival as "depending on the continued existence of the corporeal body."  Yes, originality in photography lies in the "essentially objective character" and thus is separated from the realm of painting in its different quality. However, consider the films La Jetée and Grizzly Man. A considerable number of scenes of both films captures objects that are mummified - the museum of "ageless animals" in La Jetée in which the couple is situated, becoming immersed in the world of the museum, the collection of past lives and memories - the scene that screams punctum of the mummified animals. (How do we view this merge of life (human) and the life ceased and yet captured in the frame of appearance/ resemblance to the life in existence of one point?) Also consider the scene in Grizzly Man in which a man is being interviewed in a room of mummified human adventurer and of a bear with his paw cut off - covered with a bandage.) The quality of "mummy complex" of painting is revived through the actual presentation of the mummified objects - thus a significant, defining nature of painting is examined rather unmistakably and evidently in film. Curious.

I am interested in comparing further the aesthetics and qualities of painting and film - and at which points they overlap... how Benjamin's idea of "decay of aura of mechanical reproduction" stands in relation to the appreciative speech of Bazin and Barthes of photography (and film.) One idea that I am strongly opposed to is to devalue a medium of art to another in order to set a hierarchy within the arts... "Painting is, after all, an inferior way of making likenesses, an ersatz of the processes of reproduction. Only a photographic lens... satisfy the deep need man has to substitute for it something more than a mere approximation, a kind of decal or transfer." (Bazin, 14)  I would like to consider the vast evolution of painting, not solely its period of rampant realism... What about other aspects of human judgment/ view/ interests? Is it only the psychological or aesthetic needs that one longs for, that are needed to define real - true - ? What about the sentimental, emotional, sensational, sensual values, the ones that are not necessarily evoked by realism but perhaps by purely abstract/ expressionist representation? 

...relating this thought to the projected theme of the moment: real - true - time..?

Moms, Bears, and Planes...oh my...

I found it interesting how in the beginning of Lucinda, Barthes describes his torturous shifts between genuine and pose and how lifelike we try to be we are still posing, muted and we become dead in this respect "to make oneself up was to designate oneself body as simultaneously living and dead"(31). The camera seems to always elicit ingenuity accept in the case of the surprise shot. This directly coincided with Mr. Treadwell's constant shift between persona and the genuine and in a very morbid analogy his obsession with not assuming but becoming the pose (and becoming a bear) lead to his very literal death.

Barthes states that punctum in the photograph is not coded, this seems to provide evidence of reality. Incapacity to name is a good symptom of disturbance. This is what I feel gave La Jete its very powerful visual performance. As a film composed of photographs it re-demonstrated to me the power of the photo, a medium I rarely have the patience for. The effort and care put into the composition and organization and pacing of the photos evoked a number of inexplicable feelings and emotions that in film i very rarely have time to process, to add. Using punctum as a measure of reality, does Jete exemplify a film which achieves authenticity?

I feel that punctum is rare in cinema but can be detected. For instance in Grizzly Man, one thing that really smacked in the face/disturbed me/sought out and destroyed me were the behavior of the foxes. This absolutely did not coincide with my understanding of nature, as the bears so predictably did, and made the movie authentic to me amongst an awkward director, cruel ironic edits used to foreshadow, and sentimental reenactments which are used to establish a history. If the fox behavior was in fact a punctum, this punctum would be exclusive to film in that a single photograph cannot properly reveal the in depth wild dog/treadwell relationship as movement and sound do.

Where I disagree with Barthes is his Winter Garden Photograph amongst digressions of his mother. This photo to him was just an image, but a just image that truthfully captured the essence of his mother, it was the photographic epitome of truth to Barthes. But in this scenario the truth is entirely specific to him and him alone, which he alludes to kind of, but I believe that it is impossible for a photograph's meaning and interpretation to be real because this truth it depends on varies to much, there is no constant.

Touching on the questions from the lecture, I believe that a raw photograph cannot lie about the objects in the frame under the laws of science. But the meaning and interpretation has no real base as soon as language, an unreal entity, is applied to it, if that makes any sense. Along the lines of the dead, death is an undeniable reality, it is a truth which is linked strongly with history, the photo seems to incorporate both of these...

Grizzly Man

Barthes idea of the punctum and the ideas of truth and reality are complicated in many ways in Grizzly Man. I agree with Ben that the version of himself that Tim Treadwell presents is not exactly truth. He does multiple takes a umber of times, comments on the different takes, and even suggests that his footage be used in a television series. He is clearly playing to the camera, as opposed to the camera being an unseen viewer to Tim's actions. He also presents himself as being alone the whole time, even though Werner Herzog reveals that for a few of his trips Amy was with him. The audience is distinctly aware of the camera because Treadwell speaks directly to it and at one point mentions that both cameras are rolling. We cannot be sure if the person we are watching on the footage is the real Tim Treadwell or the persona he has created for himself. The documentary tells us that Treadwell used to create alternate personas for himself before his trips into the wildnerness, and that his original name was not Treadwell. Besides his obvious love for bears, we can't be positive that what Treadwell tells us about himself is true.

In Camera Lucida, Barthes speaks of the punctum of being different for every person, and being unintentional on the part of the photographer. In Grizzly Man, Herzog narrates how some of Treadwell's shots show unintentional shots of extreme beauty. While these shots may not have been intended as beautiful by Treadwell, does this make them punctum only for Herzog or for the audience as well. It seems that by pointing out the punctum, Herzog destroys it for us by accepting what he sees as punctum and not being able to find it for ourselves. When Herzog tells us of the beauty in the shots, our attention is drawn to them, and we are specifically looking for a punctum. Barthes suggests that the punctum cannot be find by looking for it but that it seeks out the viewer. Is it possible for the punctum to seek out the viewer if the viewer is already looking for it?

Punctum in terms of mythologies

I am curious about how studium and punctum are related to mythologies, and whether or not they can each be used to manipulate an audience to think a certain way. It seems to me that any photograph will inevitably produce some sort of mythology, because its image has been taken out of context. I am confused as to the way in which a photographer can avoid the framing of a photograph.

Also, the punctum is meant to evoke a feeling of sensitivity or humanity in the observer. It goes beyond the symbolic, and resonates within an audience. Isn't this punctum necessary to successfuly sway an observer to believe a mythology? I understand that 'staged punctums' are not real punctums, simply because they are not natural. But can a someone use a punctum, taken out of context, to manipulate an audience?

I had one small problem with Barthes's concept of the “punctum” vs. the “studium.” Barthes description of it states that while one is able to engage with the photograph and the myth of the photograph—the statement that the photographer is trying to make with it. The punctum, on the other hand, is described as something that is unintentionally eye-catching.

In the example we looked at in lecture, the studium had to do with the social context of the image of the two Italian girls, and the punctum was the crooked front teeth of one of the girls. My problem is that Barthes seems to imply that the punctum is something that the author never chose to present in his photograph, something that is not part of the message he is trying to convey within his myth.

But, having some experience with photography, I find that things like that punctum are exactly what catches the photographer’s eye. Little visual quirks of composition are what make photographs unique and interesting, and it’s safe to assume that the photographer is aware of them, is probably even intending that your eye be drawn to them.

I know that Barthes says that the punctum is the result of the viewer’s engagement with the photograph, and that perhaps different people see different punctums. But if obvious visual quirks are incorporated into the composition of the image, it is likely that the photographer intended to capture them and intended for them to be noticed. How then can they really be separated from the studium, and the myth of the photograph, if you’re finding yourself visually attracted to something that the photographer intended you to be visually attracted to?