an Indian "The Wizard of Oz"

Picture this: it’s July in India and a group of children are rehearsing for their show of The Wizard of Oz. The children can’t be older than six or seven, and although they may not understand exactly how to act, they sure do have the will. They are determined to put on a good show, even if they have not yet had the chance to hone their skills for it. But there may be more to this picture than simply the inherent cuteness. Within the context of “The Wizard of Oz,” a book commissioned by BFI Film Classics and written by Salman Rushdie, there is more that can be revealed in this children’s play.

“The Wizard of Oz” was written to accompany the movie, The Wizard of Oz. Rushdie chose to write about his insights of this movie, including “a brief production history and a detailed filmography, notes and a bibliography,” (Rushdie 1) after being requested by BFI Film Classics. In it, Rushdie states that an “absence of higher values greatly increases the film’s charm, and is an important aspect of its success in creating a world in which nothing is deemed more important than the loves, cares and needs of human beings (and, of course, tin beings, straw beings, lions and dogs)” (Rushdie 12). This perfectly carefree sentiment is easily seen in the children preparing for the play. As they skip across the stage, follow their stage blocking and actions, and exchange glances to make sure everything’s going ok, their innocence in inherently apparent. They have no higher values than enjoying their day and including everyone in their enjoyment. Naïve and idealistic, they embody the innocence Rushdie sees in the film The Wizard of Oz. The movie has a knack of transporting anyone who watches it to an ideal place: Oz is therefore a metaphor for our childhood fantasies of what life would be (wonderous). It’s childlike simplicity and idealistic-ness are given to it by the children who watch it and kept by the adults who remember it.

Thinking about the Indian children practicing The Wizard of Oz, it’s easy to also be reminded of Rushdie talking about the song from the movie, “Over the Rainbow.” He says, “‘Over the Rainbow’ is, or ought to be, the anthem of all the world’s migrants, all those who go in search of the place where ‘the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true’” (Rushdie 23). As an American watching Indian children, one can be reminded of the history lessons about people immigrating to the US in hopes of improving their lives. It is an innocent hopefulness that could be argued to be carried over from childhood, where there are no impossibilities and a harsh reality won’t stand in your way. These specific children may not be immigrating anywhere, but the hopefulness of dreaming still applies to them. Rushdie could argue that these children are be hopeful of having a good, improved life wherever it takes them, just as immigrants had when they traveled to the US.

At one point in the video of the children, a teacher calls out to them, critiquing their performace. This brings to mind a dual thought pattern about the teacher: while she brings enjoyment (it can be assumed that the children enjoy working on the play rather than "normal" schoolwork) she is also still the authority figure. In this way, she is both Glinda and the Wicked Witch of the West for the children: she is brings about enjoyment but also stress of pleasing her and the audience. It brings to mind Rushdie’s saying that “Of course Glinda is 'good' and the Wicked Witch 'bad'; but Glinda is a trilling pain in the neck, and the Wicked Witch is lean and mean” (Rushdie 42). A mean teacher may have the same expectations, but it is easier to stand up to her and feel dignified in doing so. This teacher has good intentions and wants the children to enjoy themselves on stage, but she will also ensure that they perform the play to the best of their abilities - she never loses her authority.

Postmodernism in "the Simpsons"

“The Simpsons” is a very popular tv show. What was surprising about it, at first, though, was that it was a cartoon made for adults. This hadn’t been done before in tv: cartoons were made for children and adults watch live-action shows. And, on top of that, this show was a success.

The reason “The Simpsons” was a success was because it frequently commented on pop culture, American values, and the modern way of life. It poked fun at these things to show Americans their lifestyles in another light. This was a sign of the postmodernist thought coming into American culture.

Postmodernism has been described by Fredric Jameson, one of the founding writers on the theory:

“What has happened is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to aeroplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation.”

It is the movement where artists and thinkers are trying to come up with fresh new ideas. Capitalism thrives on it: a new idea will be successful because of its novelty, so the more new ideas that are thought up, the more success there will be. Therefore, more and more artists are trying to come up with the next new thing, which is becoming increasingly hard to do. Many are turning back to old ideas and creating a new twist to them in order to create a new thing. This is where “the Simpsons” comes in.

“The Simpsons” enjoys taking the old, making fun of it, and creating a new idea in the audience’s mind. Sometimes this idea is as simple as questioning the old thing: for instance, why is (was) this thing held in such high regard? What’s so special about it? One of its pictures is that of The Mona Lisa, redrawn in “Simpsons”-style art with the “Simpsons” town – Springfield – behind her. As Jameson said, “What we must now affirm is that it is precisely this whole extraordinarily demoralising and depressing original new global space which is the “moment of truth” of postmodernism.”

Jameson saw problems with the postmodernism movement. He recognized that the mode of thinking behind it as devaluing everything that was created. No longer are works celebrated for their effort, for their cunning, or for their quality. Now works are only cherished as far as their novelty. Old works are only good for how they can influence new ones, especially if they can be made fun of. But there is something to be said for new, postmodern works of art, such as “the Simpsons.” By drawing our eyes to what’s different about the new “Mona Lisa,” the piece points out how society has changed so that the viewer can decide if they are happy with the changes. The work motivates people to mold society in a way that they want it to be instead of sitting back and watching it go. The new piece could also point out the good parts of the old piece, letting audience members realize what is important about the past piece and value it more. There may not be as much about postmodernism that’s bad as Jameson seems to think.

Freud's Analysis on Jack Bauer

If Freud got the chance to comment on Jack Bauer’s masculinity, he would probably say that Jack’s masculinity is based off of childhood anxieties and abnormal behavior. Jack Bauer is obsessed with his job of hunting down terrorists, to the point of even putting it ahead of his family issues. When his daughter sneaks out of the house, before Jack becomes heavily involved with stopping the terrorist plot that has just started, he decides to leave his wife to deal with the problem so that he can be called in to work. Clearly there is something to his job that he feels is more important and more pressing than that of his daughter’s safety. Freud would argue that this reasoning, which he may describe as neurotic behavior, is a result of fears that Jack experienced as a child. With those fears still buried in his subconscious, Jack would feel that dealing with terrorism is more important than dealing with his problems at home.

Once at work, the audience learns that Jack Bauer once had an affair with his coworker. This behavior is not looked on kindly by society and Freud would be quick to point out that this action is clearly a result of Jack’s process of becoming an adult not going smoothly. Freud would explain that infants show signs of sexuality that must be molded as they grow to become socially acceptable as adults. When Jack has an affair, he is stepping outside the bounds of what was expected of him. Freud would most likely point out that, where many people would see Jack Bauer as a very masculine character, he is actually flawed sexually and acts based on his fears – not an image of an ideal man.

Blogs: a Public Sphere?

Blog discussions usually count as a public sphere, but not all the time. Given that they are on the internet, which can be accessed by anyone, it is reasonable to assume that anyone can read a blog and respond to it. However, there are some limits to this ability. Those people who don’t have access to the internet or do not know the language that the blog is written in could not read the blog and understand the ideas it portrays. This is a major problem when it comes to understanding other cultures and other ways of thinking, which directly influence disagreements between cultures and countries. Without knowing what the other side thinks, it’s harder to discuss the problems at hand and come to a compromise. Blogs also stop being a public sphere if a person is not a member of a blogging site. Without a membership, people cannot respond to blogs that they read with their own thoughts and opinions on the issue. While they can still learn another person’s perspective, they cannot teach that person a new perspective in return. All three of these situations forego the ground rule of a public sphere: that “access is guaranteed to all citizens.”

On the other hand, blogs still fulfill the definition of a public sphere in that it gives people “the freedom to express and publish their opinions.” They are not edited in a way that makes them more friendly or convincing to a larger amount of people, so therefore they are not censored. A reader of a blog can instantly understand the writer’s exact point of view on a subject. Therefore, a blog is a public sphere, but there are still limits on who can join in on the discussion.

Advertising "The Sopranos"

A lot can be said for one of the advertisements for the last season of The Sopranos. The particular ad is a wide shot of the Statue of Liberty looking out to sea in the background. It is small and distant and incredibly iconic of how people first coming in to New York City view America. In the foreground, blocking the sea at which the Statue of Liberty is looking, is Tony Soprano. He is wearing a black trench coat over a suit and tie and looks like he’s planning. His eyes are shifting towards the left, as if he’s assessing the Statue of Liberty from afar. Off of his right shoulder, a flock of birds are flying away, out of the image. The entire picture is in black and white. In the sky of the top left corner are black words: “The Final Episodes – April 8, 9PM” and under those are red words: “Made in America.” Nowhere on the ad does the title of the show appear.

This image can be critically analyzed through the writings of Rowland Barthes. In his essay, “Rhetoric of the Image,” he discusses how, “there are those who think that the image is an extremely rudimentary system in comparison with language and those who think that signification cannot exhaust the image’s ineffable richness.” This quote simply compares two ways that people may view images in comparison with language. One group doesn’t think that pictures can convey nearly as much information as language can while others celebrate the level of detail one can get by studying an image, despite language’s advantages. When looking at the Sopranos ad, the first group would commend the subtle complexities that arise from the phrase “The final episodes…made in America.” The second group, on the other hand, would be most interested in the way Tony Soprano interacts with the rest of the image, as if he could dominate and manipulate it the moment he decides that he wants to.

The interaction between Tony and the rest of the image is intriguing. Tony looks every bit the mob boss that he is, and the fact that he looks like he’s planning to take someone or something down to hold onto his power – if not gain any – is intimidating. As a mob boss, he acts very much as if he is above the law: that it has no pertinence to him except to make it more difficult for him to do his business. But since he is over the law, most of the people who work for him or owe him are helpless. Because they got involved with him, they no longer have the option of falling back on the law’s help to protect themselves from him. This stands against all the virtues that America wants to stand for in the global world. America, traditionally, stands for freedom and liberty: something that people lose when getting involved with the law. The birds flying away from Tony show the fear that he uses to control everyone.

With so much detail and story coming from the image alone, those who feel that language can’t convey the same dialogue as a picture can form their argument. They would argue that “in fact, it is simply the presence of the linguistic message that counts, for neither its position nor its length seem to be pertinent…” This could be true. The bold colors stick out in the upper-left hand corner, contrasting with the bold shades that Tony has in the image. The rest of the background is in shades of grey. Without the writing, Tony would not only stick out like a bad Photoshop job, but the image would seem unbalanced. The writing balances the image and makes it seem more unified. The tone of the show, however, is excellently conveyed without words.

The group who believes strongly in the importance of language, obviously, would disagree with this idea. They would be quick to point out how “…the viewer of the image receives at one and the same time the perceptual message and the cultural message…” The perceptual message is what someone sees at first glance in an image, while the cultural message is the one that can be gotten after analyzing an image for more time. While the image itself tells a lot about the message, the language that accompanies it “banishes one possible signified…and orients the reading towards a more flattering signified…” The text in the ad narrows down all the possible meanings that a viewer could get from the image. The phrase that pops out to people in the ad is “the final episodes…made in America.” The information that the series is winding to a close tells viewers of the ad that the series’ climax is coming up and that the drama and severity and finality of characters’ actions are going to be much more intense. That information, in turn, makes the image seem much more intense and urgent. The phrase “made in America,” however, is much more interesting. This phrase is meant to summarize the mood and tone of the final season. Tony’s control over the American system and his disconnect with the consequences of the law give him a lot of power over others. In essence, he can make whatever he wants happen. The power he has over what his industry creates plays on the sense of pride America has over products it makes. The complexity in the subtlety of this phrase draws in viewers’ interests and makes them pay more attention to the ad and to the show.

"The Blair Witch Project": A New Reality?

“...for the first time – and this is the effect of the film – man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.”

“Magician and surgeon compare to painter and cameraman. The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web. There is a tremendous difference between the pictures they obtain. That of the painter is a total one, that of the cameraman consists of multiple fragments which are assembled under a new law. Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers, precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art.”

The Blair Witch Project was heralded in to the film world in 1999 as an inventive new way to make movies. It was told completely from the characters’ point of view: what they could see through the cameras that they held. In essence, the character was also the cameraman, showing the audience exactly what they could see and hear – with no extra information, like movie-goers tend to get. This idea was revolutionary because it made what was on the screen seem so much more real. Was this a scripted movie or was the audience watching actual footage of a real-life event? From then on, filmmakers saw the cameras they used in a whole new light with new ways to view the worlds and stories they were creating. They could make the audience feel like they were part of the story, not just a bystander to it.

Because the audience got a whole new perspective to the reality of the movie, the characters also seemed more real. No longer was it obvious to viewers that the characters were really actors pretending to be someone else. The Blair Witch Project was formatted like a home video, giving the eerie feel that the audience was watching real people – not actors – going through the events of the movie. It made it much easier for viewers to feel concern when the people on screen were in trouble because they had to question whether real people had actually gotten lost in the woods and died. The connection to the characters that the audience made, as well as the new level of reality that the camera style brought to the movie, changed the way films would be made in the future.

studying "Tokyo Story"

Tokyo Story was clearly very different as a Japanese movie than as an American movie. It was about an old couple that went to Tokyo to visit their children. It chronicled their journeys to each child’s house and introduced the viewer to each of their children and the lives that they were living. The movie very well chronicled the way the Japanese view family and what values are placed on family: children are expected to become highly respected and worthy of praise for their parents. Japanese parents feel ashamed if their children do not live up to all that they planned for them. Children, in turn, must also give a lot of respect to their parents for all that they had done for them, although the contemporary society that was portrayed in Tokyo Story showed how children did not always fill out this part of their duty to the family.

But these problems were not highlighted the same way they would have been in an American movie on the same Japanese family. There is no heavy drama to move to story forward: no one gets in a fight during a road trip with a person they will be stuck with for the duration of the journey and there is no solution given at the end of the movie. From observation, most Americans in class seemed incredibly bored by the movie because nothing seemed to be happening. Without a problem that needed to be solved by the end of the movie, as Americans are used to, the audience was subjected to the events of a perfectly normal trip that could actually happen to a normal person during their normal lives. No fighting matches, no tears, no break-ups and reunions between characters, and no one taking sides on any issues. Tokyo Story could have actually happened, and that is boring to an American audience.

Not only was the pace and plot of the movie different, but there was almost no score added to the piece. This is the final piece of the movie that most Americans tend to take for granted, but miss when it’s taken out. Almost every emotional point (or even potential emotional point) in an American movie is highlighted with the appropriate music. Not so for Tokyo Story – other than dialogue and sound affects (the sound of a cup being placed on a table, for instance), there was no sound. This confused the American audience in class because they weren’t being told how a scene should make them feel. This also fed into the universal feeling the class seemed to have towards the movie: boredom. It can’t be said that a Japanese audiences are used to being expected to get their own messages out of movies or even that a Japanese audience wouldn’t also be bored from the movie, but it can be said that most Americans watch movies so they can turn off their brains and let themselves be taken away. It’s for the same reason that thoughtful movies make less money in the box office than mindless action flicks.