Analysis of Night of the Living

I want to start out by mentioning that before viewing Romero's Night of the Living Dead I completed the reading of the Wikipedia entry and article by Harper on Night of the Living Dead and those two readings, especially the reading by Harper allowed me to absorb much more from the film than I would have without the literature. The reading allowed me to understand the film within its historical context, for instance I would not have been thinking about the political and social anxieties that people were feeling in the 60s and 70s surrounding the Vietnam War and nuclear warfare. Most likely, I would have also missed the the killing of Ben at the end of the film and how this alluded to the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. These are just some of the things that were very helpful to have a heads up before watching the film so that I was able to get much more from the viewing. 

Clearly knowledge of the historical context of racism and sexism are very important to the films success. It would be easy to miss the way that Barbara precariously positions the knife towards Tom when they are first in the house even though he is protecting her and doing his best to help her. It is also seen in the film that the women are nearly useless. This is something I can say I certainly do not miss seeing in films. The men talk about the women as though they are only a burden and they actually become a burden at times in the movie that women would not generally be in a real life situation (i.e. Judy running out to join Tom in the truck and getting her jacket stuck and leading to the death of the couple, and also Barbaras catatonic state and utter un-helpfulness). The contextualization of these events in the film are critical to understanding what they mean to us as viewers.

The articles were also specifically helpful in relating the film back to the Hall article from the last two weeks of class. I watched Night with the Hall article in mind and I must say it really helped me understand not only the historical context of the film itself but why historical context is an especially important topic to consider when viewing the film. It struck me as very interesting to watch the relations between Ben and Mr. Cooper with the idea that it was nearly unheard of to have a black character as the protagonist of a film in the late 1960s. I enjoyed watching how Ben seemed to "rule" the upstairs and Mr. Cooper couldn't seem to put his trust in Ben, most likely because of the color of his skin. All of the bickering and disagreement between the two men (metaphorically, the two races) eventually leads to the demise not only of the two men but of everyone in the house. At the end of the film when Ben is murdered by the white police officers because they didn't realize he was a human I thought about the flag from the beginning, waving metaphorically in the graveyard and symbolizing the death of America. I tried to use Hall's article to break the flag down, the flag is the sign, the signifier is the flag, the form of the American Flag, its stars and stripes and the cloth of what it is made, and the signified is the concept of the flag, and here it is representing "the meaninglessness and deadliness of patriotism" (Harper p. 5). 

Another way to apply Hall's ideas of representation is to look at the meaning of the zombies. The meaning, or signified, of the zombies can be interpreted many different ways. They can be seen in a biblical sense as those who rise on "the last day", they can be seen as "the younger generation of Americans which, as it seemed to many in the late 1960s, wanted to overthrow traditions and replace them with new social order" (Harper p. 5), or they could also be seen as "the homeless, AIDS sufferers, drug users, or any other marginalized group" (Harper p. 5). There are many different possible meanings for one single thing in the film and that is why Hall's ideas are particularly important for the interpretation of this film. 

"THE TELEVISION SAID THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO"

Analysis of The Exorcist

I should start off by saying that I am actually not a fan of horror movies at all and normally I try and avoid them at all costs. For this assignment I decided that if I had to watch one I might as well make a classic that I had been meaning to see for a while, I chose The Exorcist. I found the film to have an eerily slow start that left my entire body stiff waiting for something to happen at about thirty minutes in. It was interesting to watch a film that had less blood and gore to keep my attention and more plot. I couldn’t help but think about the idea of signs when seeing the barking dogs, artifacts, and other religious imagery in the beginning scene in Iraq, which helped me focus on the idea of representation throughout the film.

In terms of the Hall reading, one of the “myths” that stood out to me most in the film was the idea of “children are demons”. I believe that the idea of children being demons came about to me because while watching the film I was thinking about one of the only other horror movies I have seen, Rosemary’s Baby. Rosemary’s Baby came out around the same time and it is about a woman who is unknowingly pregnant with the devil’s child.  Rosemary’s Baby came out around the same time, 1968. After finishing watching The Exorcist I looked around online and another film that came out with the same myth was The Omen, which I have not seen. I feel like this was the beginning of those in powerful media positions teaching us to fear our children. It is possible that I am off on this, however, it seems to match.

After finishing The Exorcist I found myself unbothered by most of what I had seen in the film, which is very uncommon to my typical feelings after watching a horror film. I started thinking about why this might by and I think that it is possible that it has to do with Foucault’s ideas about historical context being the key to the production of knowledge through discourse. I think that I was relatively un-scathed by the material I had seen not because I believe or do not believe in exorcism but because the technology used in 1973 and the special effects are nothing compared to what I am used to and thus I am much less afraid of what I am seeing because it looks so much less real than what I am used to seeing in horror films. The historical context is not only important in aspects of technology but also in changed laws and social norms such as the doctors smoking in the hospital or Father Karras having a few beers to blow off some steam at the bar. Because I know that these laws/social norms I am less likely to believe the other things happening in the film are real.

Applying Hall to Three News Programs

For this assignment I tried to watch a diverse group of news programs in order to get a better understanding of what is going on with representation in news shows. I chose to watch three news programs on February 10^th, 2012 so that I could see which stories were covered in depth by each news program. I watched Democracy Now, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and The O’Reilly Factor on Fox. Democracy Now is an extremely Liberal and progressive radio and TV show which features Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales. The Rachel Maddow is another liberal show, however being that it is on MSNBC (prime time network television) it can only be a certain amount Liberal. Lastly, The O’Reilly Factor is a very traditionally Conservative program on an extremely Conservative network. This turned out to be a great idea because I was able to see very easily the kind of Hall’s representation technique each program adopted.

Democracy Now was the first show that I watched. This program seemed very reflective in my opinion. The show starts with a 10 to 15 minute segment where Amy goes over the headlines from all over the world. On 2/10/2012 those included the $25 billion mortgage relief fund that has been supported by Obama, 8 civilian children killed in a NATO strike on Afghanistan,  work conditions in Apple’s Foxconn facilities in China and the protests surrounding these allegations, and even things like addressing the growing gap between rich and poor as was a headline in the New York Times on Friday Morning. This segment gives the viewer an understanding of a large number of issues going on in the world that many other programs just do not offer. The  show then covers some of the issues more in depth, for this episode it was the $25 billion dollars for the mortgage relief fund and the work conditions in Apple’s Chinese Foxconn facilities.

But no...really...there were 12 suicides last year AT the Foxconn facility...clearly the workers were trying to say something to whoever was listening...

 There were multiple guests for each segment which helped to emphasize that the show is much more of a conversation about the news rather than a yelling match or a “story telling” time for the host. There is a lot that each person on the show adds to the conversation about the issues and it gives the viewer the chance to see another side of the issue that is not covered really on mainstream news stations. I can mention that neither of these top two stories from Democracy Now were even mentioned on Maddow or O’Reilly.

Next I watched The Rachel Maddow Show. As far as Hall’s representation techniques go I would say that this program falls under intentional. Anyone who watches Rachel on a regular basis knows that she has a clear political agenda and opinion that frames how she comments on what is going on in the world. To my surprise, nearly the entire program was about election politics. This was shocking to me, especially since I had just watched Democracy Now and noticed that not one of the 8 or so headlines was about election politics or the GOP. She spoke about the issues from her own standpoint—clearly disagreeing with the Republican candidates—etc, etc. This really seemed intentional to me—the clips she showed of Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum—she selected those clips in order to emphasize her point and opinion and get the “liberal” view out there rather than presenting the issues in the election in a clear and unbiased manner.

The last, and in my opinion, the least was The O’Reilly Factor. This episode Laura Ingraham was taking the reigns for Bill as he was out. I found the representation technique surprisingly hard to detect in this particular episode—however after considerations I would classify it was constructionist. The most emphasized stories were about the GOP and the new legislation that Obama introduced in order to require all religious institutions to provide contraception to women regardless of their beliefs and the changes made to this later when he stated that the institution wouldn’t be required to pay for the contraception if they did not want to—the insurance companies could foot the bill.  There was a guest on the program, a Reverend from Cambridge, MA, who supported the new legislation and this startled and upset Ingraham. She attacked the Reverend saying that she was “pro-abortion” also, and that she must have been one of those members of the clergy who had supported the legislation from the beginning (insinuating that the Reverend was wrong in her opinion). There was just such a clearly defined agenda that did not include anyone, including a guest, to deviate from it at all.

I can't help but think...Why didn't Fox or MSNBC cover anything about the protests against the treatment of workers or news about Foxconn facilities in China...?

I think that it most times that I watch the news, especially the local news I notice that there is much more of a constructionist approach however I believe that due to the fact that elections are “coming up” most stations are focused on covering every second of that nonsense. I highly recommend Democracy Now as a regular news program because in all this election haze we are missing tons of information and events that are slipping by right under our noses—everything from the XL pipeline to what is going on with Iran and Syria. We have become so confused as a people by being exposed and un-exposed to critical moments in our history due to these different techniques of representation—it is time that we start to realize what is going on and how to change it. 

Review of Bowling For Columbine

I personally find Bowling for Columbine to be Michael Moore's best film, not only because I am interested in the material it covers but also because I think that the small injections of satire into the plot make this gruesome and devastating issue somewhat bearable. I should say that I am absolutely pro-gun control but I think that the fact that Moore himself is part of the NRA and chose to focus on this particular issue of American culture is key to the films success. Having the film, Bowling for Columbine, done by someone who is completely anti 2nd Amendment would have resulted in a completely different picture, it most likely would not have contained the same interviews, humorous cartoon, and overall "take" on the situation.

“Yes our children were indeed something to fear, they had turned into little monsters, but who was to blame?”

One of the most intriguing parts of the film for me was the segment about who is to blame for the school shootings. I thought that what Marilyn Manson offered in his brief opportunity to debate the allegations that he was to blame for Columbine was incredibly well said; “you put on a record and it’s not going to yell at you for how you are dressed, it’s going to make you feel better about it”. I can remember the Columbine shootings quite well. I remember watching the news coverage after the shootings happened and being confused and scared—much like the rest of the American public. However, I remember talking in classes about why we though this had happened and what we could do to keep it from happening again and when Marilyn Manson and other heavy metal or punk musicians came under fire by those in power for being the cause of the tragic events at Columbine. It was even obvious to me at the time, a ten year old girl, that musicians were not the cause of this. The part of Manson’s interview that I was not familiar was the theory that “keep everyone afraid and they’ll consume”. After Columbine my high school in Litchfield, CT went “buck-wild”. They invested limited funding in security cameras, we hired a police officer to be present in the school building at all times that school was in session, they started locking all the doors after the second bell so that one would have to be seen on camera before they were buzzed into the main lobby, and we started having “code white” drills. These drills were bomb and intruder drills where we were instructed to close the blinds, lock the doors, and wait under our desks while the administrative staff came by and checked if the doors were locked and made sure we were silent. This was the first time that I had experienced fear in my school, maybe even in my town—the first time that I felt as though it was possible for something like Columbine to happen in little ole’ Litchfield, Connecticut. I must say, keeping us afraid worked, we all went home to our parents talking about how school had installed new security equipment and such and then parents started wondering, “If the school has it, I should probably have it too, right?” This was the point that our little suburb decided it was time to start protecting ourselves from the “wackos out there” that James Nichols was talking about!  

I think that the conclusion that Michael Moore comes to: “a public that is this out of control with fear should not have a lot of guns or ammo hanging around” is simply wonderful in that it is so obvious! Everyone is busy pointing fingers at who is responsible for the U.S.A’s 11,127 gun related deaths per year that they don’t even realize what is right in front of them, fear. The fear that is engrained in us through American television and other media is at the root of our problem. A great example of this was the clip of Moore in a bar watching the local news in the evening in Canada—Canadians do not watch the same things that we watch—their breaking news is “NEW SPEED BUMPS” while ours is about some person of color who committed a violent crime on a white man. Gerbner’s thesis of the mean world syndrome is clearly alive and well in Bowling for Columbine. Unfortunately, since this film came out there has been little change made in the way of gun control and even less change in the way of violent programming, but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible!