#5) Cultural Studies

            The study of culture correlates with the study of other important facets of human existence and interaction, such as historiography and performance. Furthermore, historiography explores how people choose to represent themselves simultaneously in the present and the past; the way in which history is recorded directly reflects a current culture and where they place importance, and how they choose to perceive those who came before. This is pertinent to media studies because we use all forms of media to capture, comment on, create and even recreate history and culture. As media and technology advance, and communication becomes easier (telephone, texting, email, skyping, etc.), the technology itself becomes a part of our culture, and an expression of who we are and how we interact. For example, the movies that a generation creates will always reflect what their current society found important, popular, interesting, relevant, etc. 

            So how exactly should we analyze culture, in order to better comprehend how culture exists and develops, and its relationship to our various methods of communication and media? Raymond Williams, wrote “The Analysis of Culture” and outlined three approaches to analyzing culture:

                        1) Lived culture: only fully accessible to those living in that time and place

2) Culture of a period: the recorded culture, of every kind, from art to the most everyday facts

3) Culture of Selective tradition: the factor connecting lived culture and period cultures.

This order reflects the changes that occur as we move further and further from the original culture, and attempt to recreate it for our current culture. To elaborate on selective tradition, Williams states, “From the whole body of activities, certain things are selected for value and emphasis. In general this selection will reflect the organization of the period as a whole, though this does not mean that the values and emphases will later be confirmed.” So people today can emphasize certain people, places, or events from the past, but it is still possible that we are remembering them or perceiving them incorrectly, or giving them the wrong amount of significance, compared to how they were experienced in the “lived culture.”

            In the 2008 film, Be Kind Rewind, these approaches to cultural studies are explored, particularly the culture of selective tradition. This film creates a commentary on how media and recording inevitably factor in (and record) the current culture in which it was recorded, even if it attempts to reenact a moment from the past. In order to save Mr. Fletcher’s video store from being demolished, Jerry and Mike rally up their community and create a video on the history of Fats Waller, a famous jazz musician from the 1920’s who supposedly was born in that building. The truth is, the building is not a historical landmark because Fats was NOT actually born there; Mr. Fletcher just told Mike that when he was young so that he would be proud to live there himself. The town mainly knows Fats Waller from using analysis approach #2: “culture of a period.” They listen to his music, see pictures of him, etc. Only those who knew Fats Waller when he was alive could analyze it from approach #1, yet since that was so long ago, the people of this town use approach #3 of “culture of selective tradition” to reenact scenes and make them appear to be from Fats Waller’s life and time period. They interview people who follow a script and lie to the camera, claiming to have known him, testifying that he was indeed born in that building. Here, the town is putting emphasis on an event that did not actually happen; by creating this documentary, they are using media to create their own interpretation of history.

At the end of the film, as the town gathers together to watch their final project, their bright faces and feelings of success and pride are much bigger than the original goal to make a film about Fats Waller. They are not watching the film for historical accuracy or being proud of their town’s association with a famous jazz musician. Instead, this town experiences pride in watching the documentation of their individual roles in the film, and their ability to create a great movie together. At the end of the day, it really did not matter what the movie was about because the movie itself was more accurately a recording of THEIR culture, their town, their people, and what THEY found important: keeping their video store from being demolished, and supporting their friends.

Thus in their attempt to use approach #1 and display the life and times of Fats Waller (with the cardboard cutouts of cars, the old-fashioned clothes and instruments, the running fan in front of the video camera), these people were actually embracing #2 and #3. Yet this is because it is impossible for them to even approach #1 fully, because their recording will only ever be a recording of the culture in which they currently exist; the time period when it was actually filmed. Their media was advanced, even if they tried to make the camera footage look dated. Yet not capturing the 1920’s is nothing to be ashamed of; Williams explains how these approaches are inevitably different by the nature of time: “Theoretically, a period is recorded; in practice, this record is absorbed into a selective tradition; and both are different from the culture as lived: ‘No, that really isn’t what it was like; it is your version.’”

            These concepts are also highlighted in Mike and Jerry’s attempt to recreate many other films throughout the movie, particularly Ghostbusters. Since they no longer had a copy of the original, they had to recreate the scenes that they remembered the best, in the way they perceived them. By the same token, whenever we attempt to study or perform history, it will always be a reenactment to an extent. If we did not live in the culture, we are always creating our own version of what it was like, and the audience will always perceive it according to THEIR current culture. Thus how we write, act, use media, communicate, is always connected to our lived culture (our current time and place), and the recordings absorb over time into selective tradition.

#4) Media Effects

I did not budget my time effectively in order to complete this reading response on time. Sorry. :(

(I also feared I would not have enough to say about it, regarding the film and the reading.)

#3) Text & Genre

In American Film Genres (from Sharon’s notes), Rick Altman states that genres create a particular “world” and as audience members, “we follow its rules; when we enter into a genre film, all our decisions are self-consciously modified to support a different kind of satisfaction…From one genre to another, the genre spectator always participates in overly counter-cultural acts.” (280) As we become familiar with a genre, we begin to expect certain outcomes, characters, stylistic choices, etc. Then our satisfaction comes from the action in that world, which differs from our reality. For example, “in the western and the gangster film, we long for the spectacle of a type of violence that society roundly condemns.” (280) We could conclude that the motivation for recurring themes, motifs, and styles in genres is the unspoken situation of the people creating and finding pleasure in these genres. People’s ideologies are therefore reflected in their movies, and the way we interpret, categorize, or utilize the genre is a demonstration of our understanding of its purpose in our current culture and society.

In Paul Schrader’s Notes on Film Noir, he exemplifies how a genre naturally forms out of the issues and mindset of the time period. Film noir is rooted in America’s involvement in the world wars, thus it reflected post-war realism. It “suited America’s post-war mood; the public’s desire for a more honest and harsh view of America would not be satisfied by the same studio streets they had been watching for a dozen years…It was now taking place in the streets with everyday people.” (55) Furthermore, all characters had elements of secrecy, crime, and deceit to them, yet the satisfaction was found in the detective characters, attempting to stop the crime and solve the mystery to save the innocent and condemn the bad. America enjoyed this type of escape, where crime didn’t pay, yet an unrealistic state of happiness and bliss was not being shoved in their faces. The noir world was cold, dark, and sinister, formulating a nightmarish world of American mannerism, and creating artistic solutions to sociological problems.

In his essay, Ideology, Genre, and Auteur, Robin Wood states that genres “represent different strategies for dealing with the same ideological tensions.” Film noir is dealing with stresses and tensions (depression, pessimism, and hopelessness) in a very blatant and literal fashion, and we can still determine that from the stylistic choices because these same ideological tensions can be felt today through the film, and in our own society. Although this genre is used more ironically today (perhaps we believe we have advanced in our methods of storytelling for the screen, that film noir can no longer be taken seriously, due to its melodramatic “black and white” structure), the elements that make up the “noir” genre are still effective in addressing emotions of fear and a need for a hero.

In The Maltese Falcon (1941), the film noir elements are found within the cinematography, particularly regarding angles and lighting. As for lighting, much of the film’s deepest interrogations take place in the small detective office, at night, with the camera very close to a lit lamp. Furthermore, light often streamed in through the open blinds which established an eerie mood, as if the light resembled someone outside of the building, possibly spying on the intimate conversation taking place in tight quarters. The sharp, contrasting lights against the dark room (and the darkness outside) also accentuates the interrogation aspect of the conversation typically taking place: someone is being questioned about their involvement with or knowledge of a crime, for example. The lighting therefore intensifies the heat of the conversation, and the need to bring the dark, secretive things to light.

            The low camera angles, particularly in the office during an interrogation, makes the actors look taller and more menacing, since the camera is filming essentially from the ground up. Also, it was quite often that someone’s back was to the camera. While this is a pretty standard procedure for filming two characters talking to each other, it is more stylized and exaggerated in film noir to add to the mystery; this camera angle conceals the reactions of the other person (the listener), and makes it seem like the two people are therefore not seeing eye-to-eye. Perhaps one is hiding something from the other, which is often the case. This angle also makes the audience feel like they are not getting the full story or the full effect of the conversation, further highlighting the enigmatic and puzzling nature of the plot and characters’ true motives. There is a level of discomfort and distance felt when we are to look at someone’s back during a scene. We feel cut out from it—not in the conversation or able to “read the room.”

By using mainly medium shots and close-ups, the film is accenting the small, tight nature of the spaces in the shot. The camera consequently cannot reveal much of what is happening around them. It enhances the tension and the forced intimacy, which the detectives must create in order to get answers from those under question. This also intensifies the violence (physical and gun shots), and the sexual tension between Spade and Brigid. The close-up shots of her reflect the way in which Spade might be fooled by her attempt at looking innocent, or captivated and distracted by her beautiful, womanly features. Yet she receives her proper punishment at the end, thank goodness.

In conclusion, the formation and utilization of genres reflect the worlds into which people desire to escape, and the manner in which film can satisfy their needs, by creatively displaying their ideologies and societal issues at the time. The film noir genre/mood reflected the mental, psychological, and emotional state of the American people during and after the world wars, through the reflection of everyday people in real environments (not sets) dealing with the darkness of crime, deceit, and hopelessness. The cinematography accentuates this mood through the contrasting abilities of both lighting and camera angles. Yet viewers still received much satisfaction from the characters and plot. After all, crime never pays in the end. The whereabouts of the Maltese Falcon remain a mystery, and the crazy chick finally goes to jail. Justice is served.

#2) Authorship

I apologize that this response might be vague and unorganized like the last one, since I missed the lecture for this unit last week, and struggled to understand how the concepts might relate to this film. I really did try to structure my points, but know that I will do better in the future. For this film, I DID have comments on authorship in the film's diegetic music, lighting, and other cinematic elements, but did not discuss that here. Please let me know if that is something I SHOULD have discussed, or if it is enough to simply pick one film example. Basically, I'm not sure if it is better to pick ONE concept from the reading and use MANY different examples from the film, or to pick a few different concepts/quotes, and relate it to ONE example from the film. For this response, I have done more of the latter.

For this response, I focused on the statement by Peter Wollen: “The auteur theory does not limit itself to acclaiming the director as the main author of a film. It implies an operation of decipherment; it reveals authors where none had been seen before” (566). As a director, I have witnessed how the role of the director strongly impacts the entire narration of the piece. I control many of the crucial elements: mise en scene, blocking/movement, character development, music, etc. Yet the collaborative nature of theatre means that no matter what, the story is owned by and articulated through various “authors,” namely the playwright, actors, and spectators. While media is a different lens than theatre, these principals of copious authorship are still relevant.  John Ford’s film direction highlights the influences and authorship capabilities of voice-over narration, scenic shots, and film editing, which combine to represent thematic antinomies, such as the “civilized” versus the “savage.”

Ford’s award-winning film, How Green Was My Valley, (1941) supports Wollen’s critique of Ford’s exploration in authorship, particularly regarding binaries and their complex function in storytelling for film: “the system of oppositions is much more complex: instead of there being two broad strata of film there are a whole series of shifting variations. In these cases, we need to analyze the roles of the protagonists themselves, rather than simply the worlds in which they operate.” This quote guided my viewing of this film, serving as a tool for uncovering how Ford chose to structure Huw Morgan’s authorship of is own story, and his relationship with the world around him, both in the past and present. The opening voiceover of an adult Huw—“I am packing my belongings in the shawl my mother use to wear when she went to the market. And I’m going to my valley. And this time, I shall never return”—and the viewing of Huw as a young child, immediately establishes that the rest of the film will be the recapitulation of Huw’s childhood, and an exploration into how the green valleys have become overtaken with the blackness of the coal mines. Thus the physical exposure of the green-now-black valley creates this antinomy of a once civilized, yet now savaged world that has caused Huw to long for his childhood.

The rest of the film is a flashback of Huw’s young life, and the many tragic events that occurred, such as the mining strike, and death of his brother (Ivor) and father (Gwilym). By having the protagonist be a young child who mainly observes, it causes the authorship to fall into the hands of the older characters: Huw’s parents, brothers, sister, sister-in-law, teacher, and Mr. Gruffyd the new preacher. Thus even though these are Huw’s memories, he is more of a witness of the world around him. A protagonist is normally described as the one with the strong objectives, bringing about the main action in the story. Yet here, quite the opposite is taking place. So as we experience the film, should we reflect more on the older Hugh with his blackened valleys, or the younger Hugh with his greener valleys? It is intriguing how Ford has directed this film to reveal two different “authors” within the same character. This highlights the importance of narration and its relationship to time, which also highlights the binary relationship of the civilized and the savage, since this town goes from one to the other over time.

To elaborate further, by setting up this film as a memory tale where Huw is narrating his past (as the audience experiences it in the present), Ford is reflecting the concepts of Roland Barthes in The Death of the Author, who addresses two opposing views on storytelling in relation to time: “the author, when we believe in him, is always conceived as the past of his own book…that is, he pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it.” He then adds his rebuttal: “Quite the contrary, the modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing…there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now” (4). In other words, once the piece is written, the author “dies” and their writing will always be experienced in present time, with the reader viewing things with their own mindset, opinions, and realities. The author’s existence does not factor into how their work will be received or interpreted. Likewise, as we view Ford’s film in real time, Huw (the “author” and narrator) basically fades into the background of his own story. The major events that happen are often not his doing, therefore, he is not depicted like the author or protagonist at all. Our experience with his memories is less about him, and more about the world in which he lives, and how we experience his past in the present. Yet with the narration of grown-up Huw, and the images of the valley at the beginning and end, Ford is directing us to recall this protagonist throughout the film, and reflect on how his actions, influences, and surroundings have caused him to long for his valley in present day.

In conclusion, binaries are definitely at play in Ford’s film: the author is “dead” enough to allow us the chance to experience his memories in real time, without the constant feeling that we are living through one character’s memory and feelings the entire time. Yet through the narration, older Huw remains the observant yet omniscient center of the entire film. This mixture of the past and present emphasizes how the civilized has become savaged over time, thus establishing a clear thematic binary, which is Ford's unique style: “My own view is that Ford’s work is much richer than that of Hawks and that this is revealed by a structural analysis; it is the richness of the shifting relations between antinomies in Ford’s work that makes him a great artist, beyond being simply an undoubted auteur” (575).

#1) Industry and Political Economy

          “Media” is such a broad word; it covers all types of processes that act as the medium between people and the world around them. Thus it plays an important role in the political economy in which we live and the study of culture. At large, a society is a function of its needs; the jobs we create, the education we receive, and the lifestyles we lead are all subject to the influence of what we determine as necessities. But who ultimately determines our needs?

Studying the politics of economy helps us view our history through materialism, and determining the power relationships that inherently develop as we as humans try to create and fulfill our needs. Media—broadcasting, journalism, the internet, or other methods of communication—will always be a need, since it is the means by which our ideas and our shared existence becomes known. Thus media is a direct reflection of what we as a society find important to discuss, feel, express, and most importantly…buy.

It is impossible to examine political economy without taking cultural studies into consideration. This was one of the clearest points made in Garnham’s article, “Political Economy and Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Divorce?” To quote the end: “How is it possible to study multi-culturalism or diasporic culture without studying the flows of labor migration and their determination that have largely created these creatures?” (71) The things we buy create jobs for other people, and they also create our world, since these items—food, music, movies, clothes, games, and everything else—are how we spend our money, our time, etc. It is difficult to think of describing yourself or others without including how we spend our time, what things we like, etc. Thus we individually and as a culture ARE a result of the media surrounding us. And the media we create is a result of who we are, who we want to be, and what we choose to know and talk about.

This relates to the pilot of Aaron Sorkin’s series, “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” which only lasted one season. The show captures the behind-the-scenes business and production ordeals of a live sketch comedy show, much like “Saturday Night Live.” To me, the most powerful moment was the controversial speech made by the producer, ensuing all the chaos that followed. What he said relates directly to what we SHOULD think about when we watch television, or interact with any media: what are we allowing the media to say about us? Or make us believe? It has the power to influence what we think about, watch, listen to, and buy.

The producer’s point in interrupting the sketch that made fun of past presidents was to call out its viewers (and entire cast and crew) for buying into petty humor that not only embarrasses their leaders, but themselves as well, for finding that type of trite humor entertaining. Thus Sorkin is emphasizing that media speaks louder than anything about the type of people we are, and how our humor and speech in general is a product of…well, our products. What we consume is not only material things; the television we watch states a lot about our community at large. Thus, like the title of Garnham’s other article suggests, the media we create is an expression of our cultural industries, and vice versa. We cannot discuss the people who create the need for things without also critiquing those who consume the things in need/want.

People thrive on labor and consumption, therefore it was hard to watch the main operator struggle with whether he would cut off the producer in order to keep his job, or allow it to air until he did something against the standards of public television. This also made me think about how our television, and media in general, is always being monitored, especially during live recordings (sports, awards shows, the news) and governed by certain standards, which then create our personal standards for what we believe should or should not be included in the media. Hence our viewing of media is controlled by those who are paid to decide what is appropriate or allowed to be public information.

In relation to Garnham’s 3 organizations of media, live television is a constant “flow” of media and a control of distribution systems. In contrast, many businesses close on holidays, for example, but media cannot; we have the expectation that every channel will constantly show something on the screen. It is something we have grown to depend on, and it should never go away, or stop being constant and relevant to our world and our news, our products our likes and dislikes. To stop media or to have corruption in it is to corrupt our society, cultural industries, and political economy. Sounds a bit dramatic, but it’s really true.

By the same token, this show might not have been successful because it depicts the fragile nature of people working in an industry that we depend on greatly, and consider to be very constant, stable, and satisfying. It is not pleasant to see the feeble nature of those behind the scenes of our dependable media. Likewise, we want to use the television to get information on reality, but mostly to escape it. Their sitcom is a way to laugh, forget, and relax after a hard day’s work. It is unnerving to know that those producing this product we love so much are all power-hungry, disagreeable, and possibly don’t even want to be on the screen to begin with (Matthew Perry’s character). It is more pleasing and reassuring to assume that those in the business on and off the screen WANT to be there, that their labor is enjoyable, and that we can therefore sit back and enjoy their product in peace. We viewers seem to prefer coping or false consciousness. So Sorkin’s show was just too meta, I guess. J A show inside of a show of this nature just didn’t meet the status quo.