In order to properly understand why BMW created The Hire series and Chosen in particular one must first understand BMW's financial position in 2001. BMW was the envy of the auto industry. A 1999 AutoWorld magazine article sums up the company's enviable position--
"Most everybody seems to have a definite notion of who BMW buyers are - affluent Baby Boomers who wear their cars like Rolex watches and Armani suits, but also express a passion for driving.

That crystal clear image is what puts BMW among the most coveted automotive brands in the world."
The AutoWorld article goes on to discuss BMW's recent acquisition of LandRover and what it might mean for the company's future. Fast forward one year to June of 2000 and Fortune magazine is writing about BMW's unfortunate LandRover buy and subsequent resell. The article makes a case that BMW is undergoing distress and striving to maintain their elite brand image while still expanding their market share. Enter The Hire, Chosen, and a new era of marketing.
In 2001, BMW was not launching a new model, instead they invested a considerable sum of money into reestablishing themselves as the market leaders in luxury vehicles. They conducted extensive research that showed that the demographics of "the average work-hard, play-hard customer was 46 years old, with a median income of about $150,000. Two-thirds were male, married, and had no children." Another interesting statistic also emerged, 85% of them used the internet before purchasing a car. BMW decided to try a wholly new advertising approach and launched BMW films where prospective customers could come and view the films. It was a unique draw at the time and it created tremendous buzz and market appeal for the brand.
Chosen and the rest of The Hire series reinforced the image of what a BMW customer looked like, he was male, affluent, cool and perhaps most importantly elite. The advertising strategy itself also reinforced the image. Although it's difficult to remember now when high speed internet access is so easily accessible in 2001, access to a high speed internet connection was far more likely if you were relatively well off. The Hire series both in content and means of distribution therefore reinforced BMW's brand as well as the dominant power structure of the white wealthy elite male world. In 2006 a demographic survey was released that showed that 72% of the people who the BMW 5 series--the car featured in Chosen-- are white and male, clearly BMW's advertising paid off.

TIPRR 13

I have to admit, I am totally interested in this concept of ‘discursive practices,’ ‘hegemony’ and ‘interpellation’ as “the way power is internalized by those whom it disempowers, so that it does not have to be constantly enforced externally” (170). In the business world, the need to motivate a select populous through cultural means is ubiquitous. I deal with the concept almost every day and it comes up in conversations with other management routinely. Then, when I sit down and start to read theory and about this idea of creating a kind of internal motivation that “tricks” the individual into believing that something is a choice when it is merely a decision already made by the social construct (as in interpellation) – well, I can’t help but be interested in how that mechanism actually works in practice. There is a sadistic kind of pleasure in trying to understand how to create cultures that motivate without having “to be constantly enforced externally.” In fact, I cannot imagine that a teacher does not think of the same things – and yet we look at the idea in a mostly negative light when we feel like something is possibly “manipulating” us. Therefore, if the aim of looking through the lens of theory is, in part, to enlighten our understandings to these principles in action in our lives, what can we do about them except see them?

I apologize if my interpretation of the theory is incorrect, but I’m taking a stab nonetheless.

I would like to briefly look at an article written by Jere Longman for “The New York Times” dating Saturday, July 14, 2001 entitled, “OLYMPICS; Beijing Wins Bid for 2008 Olympic Games.” Specifically, I am interested in the discussion the article talks about regarding “human rights” in China:

Amnesty International reported last week that China has executed 1,791 citizens since April in a renewed anticrime campaign. Some recent executions took place after those sentenced to death were first taken to sports stadiums and jeered in ritual public humiliation, the rights group said today.

Without question, a large concern for all those who are citizens or refugees from China is the mass executions going on there and the violation of human decency in “ritual public humiliation.” It stands to reason that many have previously tried to boycott China’s bids for acceptance by the International Olympic Committee.

In an indication that the failed boycotts of the 1970's and 1980's would not be repeated in a post-cold-war era, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said, ''What we do know is that American athletes are going to go there, and they're going to compete and hopefully compete very well and bring home lots of gold medals.''

Obviously, Americans care about, in reference to their commercialism and media content, the idea of winnings, above all other things. Previous to the above statement, the White House spokesman, Ari Fleisher is quoted as having said, “The president does not view this as a political matter.”

In the BMW short-film, Chosen (2001), there is the interesting idea that Tibetan monks, refugees from China, are life-threateningly attacked by nameless and politically anonymous assailants, which are violently fought against and finally, in much the same American sense as Condoleezza Rice’s statement, beaten and lose against the competition of a superior “athlete,” both in the physical and in the driving sense. The expectation of the time was not necessarily that anything would change regarding China’s violence against its own people but that in small ways (bringing home lots of gold medals) American ability would show its superiority. This was not a “political matter” but one of innate dominance of the American people for their capitalistic competitiveness: they would out-race, out maneuver, and out fight in the small battles of the Olympic fields, just as the Hire does in the film.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/sports/olympics-beijing-wins-bid-for-2008-olympic-games.html?pagewanted=1

TIPRR 13-Cultural Materialism Has Nothing To With Shopping...

I was really hoping that it would. But alas...

So, in looking at Cultural Materialism, as Barry mentions, it seems that the huge majority has dealt with Shakespearean texts. However, when looking at "What cultural materialists do," the very first thing listed is that:

"1. They read the literary text...in such a way as to enable us to 'recover its histories,' that is the context of exploitation from which it emerged.
2. At the same time, they foreground those elements in the work's present transmission and contextualising which caused those histories to be lost in the first place" (180).

So, if I understand correctly (and I accept that I may be off base here), the idea is to take a look at the context/histories of the text's origin and then examine the text, with that knowledge, in the context of the present, focusing specifically on why those histories have been lost.

When examining Chosen, I would assume that most of us feel the same: it's not so old that its "histories" have been lost. Yet, the use of the Tibetan child as the "chosen" one allows for some examination of the context of exploitation.

2001, the year The Hire series was released, marked the 50th anniversary of China's reoccupation of Tibet. In May of that year, President Bush met with the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office, resulting in strained relations with China.

Analyzing Chosen in light of this knowledge, we are able to "recover its history" and its "context of exploitation." By centering this advertisement on the Tibetan "chosen child" one could say that BMW was making a statement about the necessity of helping the oppressed Tibetan people, further putting the white car and the better driver on the side of "good." At the same time, one could say that BMW was exploiting the plight of the Tibetans in order to sell cars.

So, what does that mean in the context of today, eight years later? Why were these histories lost? Is it because the Tibetan plight has taken a backseat to more pressing matters, like Tiger Wood's extra-marital affair? Is is because as a nation, we are trying to improve our relationship with China and so we gloss over the situation? Is it because we no longer care?

Analyzing Chosen now, one is able to see that BMW's use of the Tibetan imagery emphasizes the "otherness" of the Tibetan culture and brings their plight again to the forefront. In looking at the corrupted monk in the end, could one possibly pull out a statement regarding some of the corrupted means of dealing with the Tibetans? Are there people who are being "bought off" in order to not aid these people? Do we need to be more like Mr. Owen in our endeavors to help the Tibetans? I certainly think that taking a lesson from Chosen would be a bit more worthwhile than examining the ins and outs of Tiger Wood's life.

Something is Rotten in the City of Detriot

My title hails from a Transformers Animated episode that Brent was watching as I was reading about Hamlet and cultural materialism. It seemed slightly appropriate, even though I don't know if BMWs are made in Detroit...

Reading about these two approaches reminds me of a few books that I've been reading (skimming...) for my paper. One that seems like a perfect example of New Historicism is a book called American Domesticity that talks about the influence of the housekeeping practices and manuals from the turn of the century on Hollywood filmmaking practices. The book offers close readings of films and housekeeping manuals and societal practices, and ends up being a fascinating read. It seems like this is what New Historicism and Cultural Materialism both do: open up the analysis of a text to allow for historical realities, account for 'non-literary' texts and their influence on the literature itself.

The difficult thing about distinguishing between new historicism and cultural materialism when studying this specific text is that we're not really far enough removed from 2oo1 to make a large distinction between a historical text and a current text (though maybe I'm wrong about this...2001 still seems really recent to me). So, I'm going to attempt New Historicism, but I might get it all wrong, and it might seem quite a bit like Cultural Materialism (which I'm no longer going to capitalize because I've been inconsistent enough as it is...), but that's that.

The first thing I ever thought when I saw this film was, "Did this actually work?" It seems like a large price to pay for a commercial. Turns out, it did work. The internet tells me so (their sales were up 12.5% after releasing the films, even though BMW didn't release a new car that year). The BMW films emerge from a culture of product placement so ingrained in the traditional American viewer that not only do we not flinch at its inclusion in anything (in fact, automobiles are the most likely to be included as product placement), but we fully accept that in this case, our entertainment is a commercial, a commercial our entertainment. This pairing of entertainment with economics perfectly reinforces our capitalist system. If I'm not aptly saying it, what I'm trying to say is this: our capitalist society has fully accepted a system where we are informed about our products through entertainment, and it is only in this climate that a film like Chosen can even exist.

In a traditional close reading, we would delve deeply into the text, discussing how differing elements of the film contribute to its overall meaning. In new historicism, these facts of BMW sales and wikipedia articles about product placement are co-texts to be read in tandem with the text. So, beautifully photographed BMW chase scene=reinforcement of societal notions of the BMW as a luxury vehicle. If I understand it correctly, the goal of new historicism isn't only to understand a text or a context, but ultimately to understand a culture. And that is kind of cool.

Comrad Jeff

“Men and women make their own history but not in conditions of their own choosing.”

Cultural materialism is a form of historiography with a political nature. It takes the political framework of the time in which the literary text comes and the current political situations that the text helped create.

Cultural materialism is used typically to study Shakespearian texts in current situations. Shakespearian criticism changed because of the political influences of Marxism and feminism. With this reading of Chosen, I will focus on the political commitment.

For this cultural materialist reading we must first start with the context. Chosen was released in 2002 and typically I would think that a 7 year period isn’t a significant amount of time to really study any political differences, but two aspects really work in our favor: our countries economy has made a significant swing this decade and our text is a commercial for a luxury vehicle.

The year 2000 had our lowest unemployment rates in the US since the 60s. BMW has its most profitable year in 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/03/11/bmw/).

The unemployment rate of 10.2% in October of this year (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers
&series_id=LNS14000000) was the highest since 1940. BMW is making layoffs (search BMW layoffs in your favorite search engine, there are many stories).

I haven’t provided a fraction of the information out there concerning the US economy or even touched on many of the financial issues concerning American homes. I’m not an economist, but I am a theorist and this is my reading of Chosen in the context of our current economy and the economy at the time of creation.

One reason for our poor economic situation is traced back to loans given by large institutions that were then unable to cover the loan once the party who took the loan could not pay it back. When a bank or other financial institution forecloses on a home, they do not get the same return as they would if the loan was paid back in full.

A lot of fault goes to the poor planning of those many financial institutions that gave loans to those who wouldn’t be able to pay it back. But why were people applying for loans and racking up debt? What was so important that they were willing to go into debt to pay for it?

BMW is selling a luxury car. Luxury cars should be purchased by the 1% with the disposable income available for luxury items. But this commercial isn’t exclusively appealing to the wealthy. If you aren’t Clive Owen in a BMW, then you’re a scum ball in a Ford trying to kidnap a child. Do I really have a choice? Either I go into debt and save the world or I make the fiscally sound decision and everyone thinks I’m a creep.

I had a difficult time choosing a single idea to address from this week's reading because there was so many interesting ideas and areas where the two schools of thought intersected. Ultimately I decided to go with a couple of Barry's points about what feminist critics do.

Barry stated that feminist critics "raise the question of whether men and women are 'essentially' different because of biology or are socially constructed as different". One of the feminist theories that I find most interesting is the idea that sex is a biological fact but that gender is performative and shaped by cultural norms, so that what we in America consider appropriate male or female behavior is shaped by our cultural expectations. Chosen is an action movie and action movies are designed to appeal to a male audience. Clive Owen is the stereotype of a male action star. He is tough, cool, and independent--clearly not swayed by any female influences. This is a genre made by men for men. Even in the few action films with a female lead the heroine is portrayed as being an exception to her gender. She is heroic because she acts like a man. Action films reaffirm the societal construct of male and female behaviors.

Of course Chosen is also a commercial and it's clearly trying to sell a product to a male audience by proclaiming this is what it means to be a man in a man's world. BMW is unconcerned about whether or not any women appear in the ad because in a patriarchal society media that highlights men and caters to men is the norm rather than the exception. The Bechdel Test is a simple rule used for judging female representation in media, the very existence of such a test makes a case for the limited presence that women have in media. Additionally, I would argue that societal misogyny makes it acceptable for women to like action movies-- see Timbre's example of female fans of the James Bond franchise-- while belittling any men who like media that is produced for a female demographic.

I was also interested in the idea that feminism criticism debates the idea of the death of the author and instead argues that "experience is central". I think that this has interesting applications for Chosen. Ang Lee is an Asian American male and in Chosen he's made a film that features Asians and men. This would seem to support the idea that experience is central in the creation of a text. Of course a look at his entire ouvre of work show's that he is capable of telling authentic stories about characters who are very much outside his personal experience but I do think it's interesting to question this idea of the role of experience in creating art. Is it possible for a white male to create a feminist film that accurately depicts female characters? Is it possible for a white film maker to create a story about African American characters? I'm not entirely sure that this was the point Barry was trying to make but I found the idea very interesting.

TIPRR 12

Of the chapter readings, I was most interested in this idea of écriture féminine: or the inherently female-oriented language. It was interesting that feminists saw male-oriented language as authoritative and controlling and felt the need to pit the female-oriented against it as rule-breaking and looser (the opposite rather than a complementary). I have to admit I had similar misgivings to Barry, “And if femininity is socially constructed then it must follow that it differs from one culture to another, so that such overarching generalizations about it are impossible.” It was not without some humor that I found myself laughing when the idea of a female-oriented language was analyzed by Kristeva who said essentially that female-oriented language is best shown in poetry because it kind of made the idea of prose a little out of reach of this language. But I did like reading Kristeva’s perspective on the same subject – I leave this subject alone for now because my analysis is long.

With my textual analysis, I have to give the following caveat: I intend to give this a classical Freudian analysis. Chosen is about the fears of homosexual encounters and the necessity of the woman in a male world. Now that I have said that you might be saying, “Huh?” I’ll try to explain.

In the beginning the main character pronounces his availability by the turning on of his lights as a boat comes to harbor. He has effectively introduced his willingness to receive and be alternately pursued. Following the docking of the boat he is introduced to the little box – a hollow object with a surprise inside – symbolic of female genitalia. He is quickly told as he goes to open it, “Wait. It’s for later.” This introduces a pause between the time of reception and the time of revealing the secrets within the woman. The car could be seen here having two meanings; first, the ambition of the main character, and second, the three (man, boy, and car) as male genitalia, thus expressing the latent manhood of the main character.

The boy is put into the backseat, where he is physically and metaphorically demonstrating that he is no longer in control of his life. As he and the boy– the boy being perhaps a symbol of the man’s own innocence – turn to leave, they see the lights of two cars turning on, thus revealing themselves and their intentions. From the passenger seats of both cars emerge unknown men. The symbol of three – the driver, the passenger and the car itself – reiterates the male genitalia. The initial interest is easily evaded as the BMW goes speeding past them only to run into yet another hiding car. What follows is a dance, symbolic of sexual intercourse, of the three cars but the dance is in the form of a chase, thus evoking a fear of homosexuality. The main character becomes trapped. There is penetration by the use of the rifle – a dangerously aggressive metaphor – and the main character’s escape by brute force.

There is a transition at this point in our story which follows by the acceptance of a home – a place where we should feel safe – and the introduction of a counterfeit monk (perhaps symbolizing our own religious faith and devotion). This monk receives the main character’s symbolic “innocence” (the child) and attempts to use a syringe (yet another symbolic form of sex) to inoculate the “innocence” with a pink/purple glowing material (purpose unknown but with obvious female connotations). The man returns (after seeing other monks tied up – three of them to be precise) and uses aggressive force to stop the kidnapper. Thus, the ordeal is completed, an important change symbolized in the main character’s life, he is finally able to go back to his car to find the box (the woman) sitting there, waiting for him. He finally opens the box (now that it is later) and finds a band-aid within – a symbol of healing. He is thereby healed on his ear – yet another possible symbol of being responsive and receptive – and finally conquers his own fears because of the woman. Of course, there is the Hulk image on the band-aid that perhaps could mean the woman holds something of innate manhood for the main character making him a “greater man” in the process. Also, it is not without irony, that the kidnapper wears cowboy boots, which leads to a future award-winning film by the director, “Brokeback Mountain,” that deals with issues of homosexuality – perhaps making this short film a dream of the director’s. In the end, the BMW commercial is a reiteration of the powerful machismo of heterosexual aggressiveness and the connection of the BMW to the sexual potency of the heterosexual male, but that potency is only applicable when he listens to women.

tiprr 12 Freudian Psychoanalytical Critique

The major goal of what psychoanalytical critics do is identify the conscious (or overt content) and unconscious (or covert) within the text.

Some of the overt content or conscious mind in the text, Chosen, is the coming together of two cultures, the dark calm mysterious hero vs. bad guys, the wisdom of the children, etc. These are elements and possible themes that the director, Ang Lee, wants the audience to leave the theatre or viewing considering.

Jacques Lacan’s theories are rooted in the work of Freud. Lacan helps us search to identify the covert or unconscious mind with the phrase “I am where I think not.”

We pay close attention to the unconscious because that is the meaning of the text. And we will understand this by the motives of the author and characters’ unconsciousness.

The unconscious mind of the text is the BMW itself. Although the vehicle is the sole purpose of the party funding the film, in my analysis of the text I find that the director is telling a story while using a car, not overtly telling the story of the BMW. The car is there because it must, but it does not tell the story. The hero, Driver, is saving the day and he never gives credence to the car as a hero or anything more than a device he controls. Driver uses the car to navigate around the bad guys, but the car is not even present when the day is really saved.

BMW wants their car and purpose to be covert, therefore, they hire a successful director to tell a story that will incorporate a vehicle, not tell the story of a BMW. The director is the author of the film and his story is not BMW specific, but the fact is that he did use the BMW.

Because the indestructible vehicle is the choice of the author and hero, then it will be my choice as well.

TIPRR 12-The One after Thanksgiving Break

WARNING: Too much turkey inhibits analytical abilities.



So...Psychoanalytic or Feminist Criticism, eh? While both address very interesting ideas, I think that for this week, I will focus on the feminist lens.

I think that the concept that I found to be the most intriguing in the reading is the idea that prose writing "is essentially a male instrument fashioned for male purposes" (121). With Virginia Woolf's statement "That is a man's sentence," it necessarily follows that there is a "woman's sentence." The ecriture feminine is obviously a realm of much conflict, but the idea that "men's writing" and "women's writing" differ seems kind of like a "duh" concept to me. It's in Kristeva's examination of the symbolic and the semiotic that some of those differences are made explicit.

So, how does all of this relate to Chosen? Well, after watching it again, all I have to say is this: apparently women don't need to buy cars. Or at least, they are not the target audience for this particular advertisement; there's not a single depiction of a woman in the film. In fact, one could argue that this particular brand of filmmaking is very NON-ecriture feminine; it screams "MANLY" in every way, from the male characters to the car chase to the cowboy boots that we have discussed extensively. There are guns, a (brief) fistfight, and most importantly, a rockin' vehicle, all things that appear extensively in films created by men, for men. Is this particular "language" accessible to females? Sure; all it takes is one glance into the theatre on opening night of the new Bond film to see that women can "get it" (though there could be some argument that the item that is the most accessible to women is Daniel Craig himself).

So, how about an ecriture feminine for film? Much like the elements discussed in the text, I would assume that they would include much more "poetic" filmmaking-longer shots with softer lighting, more romance, and less fighting. What would Chosen look like from this angle? I'm guessing it be more reminiscent of a Jane Austen adaptation rather than a Bond film.

Here's My Psycho Analysis

Okay everyone, I gave you at least a week to be the first to post, so no whining about how I said what you wanted to. Also, I hope that your respective Thanksgivings were very nice. I spent mine throwing up, which was just about as bad as it sounds.

Psychoanalysis is really interesting to me because I find myself simultaneously accepting and rejecting it. Lacanian psychoanalysis is of particular interest because it seems to me that without saying the words, he seems to support the idea of a "collective unconscious" in that the unconscious is tied to language, which is a shared and complete system shared by all people (or at least those who speak the language in question). So, there are systems at work that govern our own actions more than our conscious selves do, and that's crazy. I find it interesting that we can regard characters "as assemblages of signifiers clustering round a proper name" (108), which seems to relate directly to the ideas of metonymy and metaphor. So, while Lacanian psychoanalysis seems to disrupt or deconstruct many of our traditional notions of self-hood and consciousness, it still asserts that there is some meaning to be had in the world, and that reading texts correctly can uncover this meaning.

All this said, I thought for some reason that psychoanalytic criticism would somewhat easy. I started making a list of the things that the characters could possibly stand for:

The Hire: Western Culture
His Noble Steed: Products of capitalism
Mason Lee: Eastern Culture
Ignoble Steeds and associated drivers: Colonizers, perhaps? Oppressors? Power grabbers?
Wicked Monk of the East/West: Those who would exploit/expose their own culture for status among the Other.
The Box: The unconscious.

However, as I finished this list, I realized that it was just starting to sound like the already hashed out Postcolonial or Liberal Humanist reading I've already done, with the exception of the last element. I also remembered that psychoanalysis (this time of the Freudian type, but what's a good analysis without some hybridization?) privileges "the individual 'psycho drama' above the 'social drama' of class conflict" (101). So, with that in mind, here's take two of my attempt at psychoanalysis, treating the whole thing as an attempt to understand and uncover one's essential selfhood:

The Hire: The individual, lacking in understanding of self
The Chosen: The Other, at peace with the interaction between his conscious and unconscious
The not-as-good-as-Clive Owen-drivers: Distractions that function as screen memories for the hire.
Evil Monk: Another individual, living in denial.
The box: The unconscious itself

So, at the beginning of the film, the boy gives the hire a box and tells him not to open it--it's for later. The desire to understand what is inside the box--and hence, the boy's motivation in giving it to Clive Own--is the mystery that subtly drives the entire narrative. As viewers, we forget that we care about the box, but once it's opened we realize that perhaps a desire to understand what was in the box is what drove the hire to act as he did in preserving the boy. All the distractions along the way function as screen memories, making us forget the box. Perhaps Clive Owen's adept driving is simply his way of transferring his tension with the mystery of the box into physical action.

The end of the film, the opening of the box, could represent pushing away all distraction and allowing the individual to uncover the unconscious thought that has shaped the whole narrative. A hulk bandaid. The use of the Hulk itself suggests the fragmentation of self, the duality of our identities. It is only in accepting and acknowledging his unconscious that Clive Owen becomes whole (after all, psychoanalysis of the Freudian nature was supposedly therapeutic...).

I feel at once insightful and stupid. Is this normal?

First, I apologize if anyone tries to load this on a slow internet connection. I'm using a lot of embedded clips to illustrate my points this week and I hope it won't inconvenience you.

One of the things that I really enjoyed about this week's reading was how easily a critique of Chosen fit into the theory. Marxism is a criticism of the way that class, economics, and structures impact the art we create and here we have a commercial dressed up to look like a movie and isn't it marvelous how easily it fits into this model? Then I started trying to look at the movie through some of the more specific Marxist critical lenses and that's when it started getting really entertaining.

According to Barry one of the methods used in Marxist criticism is to "explain the nature of a whole literary genre in terms of the social period which 'produced' it. Commercials are a genre that are extremely representative of our modern consumerist and materialist culture. I would argue that Chosen is a commercial overtly presented as art and that most modern movies and television are just as intent on selling a product they are just more covert in their presentation. That Chosen is not unique because it blends art and commercialism but that it is unique for that overt way in which it does so.

Take a look at the following clips from some popular movies,


How many products were on display and being sold in that commercial film? Granted that's part of the joke there but what about this example?

In just that short clip there were plugs for ipods, apple computers, hewlett packard, pepto bismol, panasonic, x-box, and naturally lots of cars, porsche, hummers, GMC, even the t-shirt Shia LaBeuf is wearing is advertising The Strokes.

We live in the age of product placement.Advertisers aren't as interested with placing during commercial breaks because they know that we don't watch them, instead they want to find a way to advertise their product in the program itself. This clip from 30 Rock beautifully illustrates how money really is the bottom line.


I have many more thoughts on this topic but I'm going to save them for my presentation and I will leave you with this last clip from Neil Young. The video for "This Note's for You" was intended as a commentary on the commercialization of art. Initially banned by MTV because they worried that many of the ads and companies parodied in the video would sue the network of course in true MTV fashion they milked the controversy for all it was worth and then eventually rewarded it with a video of the year award. This Note's for You

TIPRR 11

Looking at Barry, one of the things that was especially interesting to me was his outline of how Marxism is interpreted. In other chapters, he had one or two variations on a theme, but with Marxism, it seemed like there were so many cooks in the kitchen it was almost entirely impossible to differentiate the head chef: Marx, Engels, Hegel, Eagleton, Belsey, Lenin, all those Russian Formalists, Althusser, etc. When I finished, I found it interesting that his section, “What Marxist critics do,” had to be separated into “methods” rather than generalized directions (as I interpret other chapters) because you can choose to make a division between the overt and the covert, or you could relate the context of the work to the social-class status of the author, or you could explain the whole literary genre in terms of the social period that produced it, or you can look at the social assumptions of the time it which it is consumed, and lastly, you can claim that literary forms are themselves are determined by political circumstance. Wow, the possibilities! Oh, and I should mention that there are varying degrees of each method that you can take (as explained in the Stop and Think section). Because of my own personality, I think that I end up in the Althusser realm in my philosophies (if I were to related myself as a Marxist) and like looking at those subtle views of how society works. To me it felt like he was one foot in Marxism (because there is a meaning) and one foot in postmodernism (because he likes looking beyond the “sign” to what is going on underneath).

Now, because of the variations on Marxism that exist, the matter that I had more than one choice to focus on was a little unnerving: How do I look at Chosen? Can’t really say for sure. I could look at the helplessness of the lower-class monk to the upper-class car driver (though I think it up to debate that the monks are particularly destitute because they had the funds to hire “the hire.”) I could also look at how Ang Lee was a recent addition to the A-list directors because of his most recent award-winning hit: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and the possible pretention that comes with an Asian director “proving” the spiritual superiority of Asian mysticism in the face of the BMW western world. On the other hand, this film is pre 9/11 and the Western power over the threat of subtle conspiracies was unquestioned at this point in time, perhaps never even looked at, thus heightening the superiority of the western social structure and the prominence of such iconic forms of “upper class” as having a BMW as a vehicle used in conjunction with a “transportation” job – we are so rich that even our menial jobs of transporting people are done in luxury cars. At the time (May 2001), Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun had been out for roughly 4 years (both released in 1997), the reality of Tibetan monk refugees was easily accepted and China’s involvement in Tibet and the need for westerners to intervene in their time of need was a topic of debate. In 2000 the Dalai Lama made the statements, “we need to develop more altruism and a sense of caring and responsibility for others in the minds of the younger generation” and “As long as there is no freedom in many parts of the world there can be no real peace and in a sense no real freedom for the rest of the world” – both the boy showing his superior altruism and the lack of peace and freedom explicit in the film reflect these statements that have direct political circumstance relations. But what “method” should I choose to elaborate on? It does make for a fun game, though.

TIPRR 11-The One with the Disclaimer

I know this has happened to us all, but I really should stop reading others' responses before I post my own. I'd like to at least pretend that I have original thoughts. So, as a result, I am going focus one element that interested me in the reading: Althusser's idea of interpellation.

According to Barry, interpellation, as defined by Althusser, is "The 'trick' whereby we are made to feel that we are choosing when really we have no choice" (158). Althusser goes on further to assert that capitalism "thrives on this trick" my making "us feel like free agents ('You van have any colour you like...') while actually imposing things upon us ('...as long as it's black')" (158).

As I read through this description and thought about it, while I may not agree that this is true 100% of the time, I found myself exploring various situations in which this is the case in our capitalistic society. Most of the instances I could think of were highly manipulative, but still, they were there.

One specific thought I had in relationship to this was, "That follows along with Heather's dating philosophy." My friend Heather, before she got married, had very specific opinions regarding male/female dating relationships. And while this really has nothing to do with "class systems" and Althusser may roll over in his grade when I make this comparison, here it goes... Heather believes (or did, anyways-I think marriage has changed a few things for her) that all relationships are initiated, directed, and controlled by the woman. According to her, if a girl wants to date, she has to get out there, find the boy, and then do everything she can to convince him to fall in love with her. While this is all fine and dandy, the trick is this: while doing all of this, the woman must make sure that the boy is convinced that every step was HIS idea, that he chose her initially, that he was the one to make the first move, that he decided that he couldn't live without her and that she had absolutely nothing to do with that process (other than being her attractive, adorable self, of course). The connection, I feel, is in the idea that the boy does believe he has a choice, but the girl has made it very difficult to choose anything but her. Interpellation on a personal level. Tricky, tricky.

Now on to Chosen. As Jeff and Erika mentioned, and as we've discussed in class, it's a commercial. Many would say that commercials in and of themselves are tools of capitalism; Althusser, himself, lists the media as an ideological structure that is sympathetic to the state and the political or economic status quo. But even if you don't go quite that far, commercials are designed to sell stuff. They promote a specific product, in this case BMW.

Now, looking at this specific commercial from a Marxist perspective, I would venture to say that the very design of this film is to "maintain the economic status quo." After all, BMW is known to be a car for the upper class, the wealthy, and the advertising of this product is done in such a way that its meaning is accessible to this upper-echelon of people.

For example, the entire structure of the commercial series designed around the hire is very "high-brow," taking various directors and having them create mini films centered on this one specific brand of automobile. What is created is supposedly "art" rather than "advertising." Classifying the films as "art" already begins to differentiate the audience (and therefore the buyers). After all, it is only when basic needs are met that one is able to be concerned with art at all, thereby eliminating the lower-class from the pool of potential viewers.

In addition, in Chosen, the subject matter itself is another indication that this advertisement is focused on a very specific "class" of people. Who has the time and means to know/learn about the Tibetan culture and people? Certainly not those who are slaving away 14 hours a day at minimum wage just to make ends meet. And then to make the connection between Ang Lee and the Hulk band-aid? It's as if there's a secret code that flows throughout this films that says "if you understand this, then you belong with us and are worthy of purchasing this car." Starting out at somewhere around $40,000, it is clear that this is not a car that can be purchased by the "lower class" of "hard-working folk," and this advertisement does everything in its power to reinforce that fact.

**Disclaimer: After reading this over again, I'm not even sure if I agree with myself here. Maybe I'm just not that Marxist. I'll let you know on Tuesday. **

In which two German products duke it out, and Marxism wins.

I once clinched a game of "Battle of the Sexes" for my team by knowing that BMW stands for Bavarian Motor Works, which just goes to show that knowing your economic bases really is good for something.

So I did more reading than was required (and as a result, Jeff, you may have to do more reading than is required when my post is longer than 500 words), and it helped me to see the way that base affects superstructure (that reading also refused to pin down one exact definition of a Marxist reading, which was less helpful). Barry states that "Marxism is a materialist philosophy: that is, it tries to explain things without assuming the existence of a world, or of forces, beyond the natural world around us, and the society we live in" (150). So, all the philosophy, religion, moral codes, etc. that we adopt are purely created by our material reality. In The Critical Experience (196-197),David Cowles explains this by relating this example: most societies accept that stealing another person's property is immoral (which we attribute to ethical or religious codes), but this is entirely based on our notions of personal property and ownership (a material reality). If our material reality was based more on shared ownership, the notion of stealing as wrong doesn't hold, because there's no such thing as stealing what you already own. Thus, the superstructure (don't steal) is entirely shaped by the base (property ownership).

So, taking Marxism way down to its basic roots, I would like to try to locate the base of the film, and see how it affects and creates the superstructure.

Jeff fairly easily addressed the base: this is a commercial. The basic, material reality of this film is that it was created to sell a car. Any notions of aesthetic beauty, interesting stories, or universal themes are all foregrounded by this reality. We create assumptions about the characters based on their own material realities (Good car = good guy. Bad car = bad guy).

It could also be argued that within the story, even the characters shape their moral systems entirely based upon their economic motivations. Clive Own is the hire. Not the volunteer, not the friend, the hire. Any desire he has to help this boy--any loyalty he feels for him, any desire to protect him--is based entirely on the material reality that he will be paid. It is highly likely that the men with the materially (in case you're keeping track, I have used the word "material" in its various forms nine times so far) inferior cars are also putting their cars and their lives on the line for a similar reason, and it is not a stretch to say that had the price been different, Clive Owen may well have been the one trying to shoot the boy, not save him.

It is both interesting and difficult to view texts this way, because I feel like they start to fall apart. If everything is a construct of economic realities, is there such a thing as authentic art? Where does personality (not to mention spirituality) fit into such a model? Am I programmed to value higher-level thinking because of my cushy middle-class upbringing? Am I programmed to like certain films based on their material success? I'm not saying that I find anything morally questionable about paying artists for their work, but viewing any artifact through a strict Marxist lens tends to reduce it to mere product, valuable for sustaining the current material system.

tiprr 11

Some things appear to be innocent, like kittens, but they are not. See the world for what it is.

Chosen is a commercial, not just for a car, but for a class system that BMW wants to perpetuate for their financial benefit. The car industry itself seeks to devalue the skilled worker by putting him or her on an assembly line to perform a repetitive task that neither requires nor generates any workable skill. A worker cannot leave the assembly line because they have no knowledge of building a car, but only of their assigned repetitive task.

Why does our main character drive a BMW? It must be a nice car. He is a skilled driver that is in the business of saving lives and can be trusted with precious cargo. His car must be able to do what he needs it to do. His counterparts are in the business of stealing and destroying. Their cars are inferior. Their many cars cannot catch and stop his one car, even when surrounded. Why would they drive these inferior vehicles? They cannot afford a nice car and even if they found the money, they can’t have it. This is what drove them to this life of crime and decadence.

The upper class, a restrictive class of one man, drives a clean and undamaged BMW to save the goodness from being made filthy by the many in the lower socioeconomic situation of rusted and damaged cars.

Ang Lee owns the product (Chosen) that the lower class has made. The hundreds of thousands of others who work on his films are mentioned, but not valued. This film is to perpetuate his capitalist agenda (see Hulk band aid).

Genre? It’s a commercial. Focus on selling you something you don't need or want.

Our goal is not to merely understand this world, but change it. We will be in classrooms where we can guide our students to do so as well. We (you, me, and our students) can obtain our goal of the classless society.

As I read through the section on postcolonial theory, I kept thinking about a discussion we had in my class last month while studying the events leading up to the American Revolutionary War. We were discussing the reasons for colonialism and empire building and the idea of mercantilism. Mercantilism is the idea that colonies exist to serve the Mother Country; more specifically that they provide raw materials that the Mother Country can turn into manufactured goods. These goods are then sold back to the colonies at a high price. I couldn't help thinking that Orientalism and Othering are examples of a sort of cultural mercantilism in which the invading empire selects certain raw materials from a native culture to exploit and use them in manufacturing their own products. Using "Chosen" as an example, we have Ang Lee-- a Chinese native and China is very much the "Colonizer" in Tibet-- taking Tibetan customs and religion and using them to manufacture a commercial for a German car company.

"Chosen" relies on a variety of Asian stereotypes in its execution. The strong but silent monks, the child prophet, the sense of the exotic and inexplicable, even the stereotypical double agent who's been corrupted by Western culture--he's wearing shoes inside and not just any shoes, cowboy boots! To be fair, the film also deals in Western stereotypes of the strong but silent action hero variety who steps in to save the day. Lee may well be attempting to demonstrate his cultural polyvalency by highlighting elements from two disparate cultures but is relying on cultural stereotyping really a celebration or recognition of the ways in which the colonizer and the colonized impact one another?

Looking at the three stages of postcolonial literature--adopt, adapt, and adept-- I would argue that Chosen fits within the adopt phase of postcolonial theory. The film follows the codes of Western advertising while also employing a very traditional Western narrative structure, the Tibetan representations seem to be there to add a sort of exoticism to embellish the whole thing. Even the music is mostly Western sounding with the exception of a few parts where it sounds like they are using a traditional Asian instrument to add a sense of the mysterious other.

Of course to take this all in a completely different direction, it could be that Ang Lee is just an adept postmodern artist who is employing a subtle form of parody to poke at Western stereotypes of Asian culture. Perhaps he sees humor in the combination of high brow artistic film directors being asked to use their craft for that most low brow of purposes--commercial advertising.

TIPRR 10

What interests me in our reading (and the Key Points therein) is the completely profound perplexity that gave me a headache as I read both criticisms going, “Um, okay.” I have to admit, the one quote that most caught me was Barry’s definite feelings about postmodernism when he says, “If this second aspect of the postmodern condition, this loss of the real, is accepted as a fact, then it is hard to see a ground for literary theory to occupy, since all methods of literary interpretation – Marxist, feminist, structuralist, and so on – depend upon the making of a distinction between surface and depth, between what is seen in the text and some underlying meaning.” Can we say Eeyore? As Sharon put it in class last week, the idea of what we are doing is a “theory game” and postmodernism feels almost like the killjoy to that game. Nobody likes a party-pooper but I have to admit (as Timbre describes) Baudrillard’s propositions are fascinating to me, maybe in part because I do not totally get them. On another personal note, postcolonial literature, particularly, is some of my favorite literature for the fluidity of identity, but V.S. Naipaul’s Half a Life was infuriating for its downward spiraling pessimism.

In Chosen, my attempt at postmodern criticism might include looking at the pastiche use of motifs between action film and transcendentalist film. For instance, the definite action film car chase is concerning a boy who apparently has some great meaning to the Tibetan culture as it is manifest here with a kind of mystification as the boy can “predict” the future when giving the band-aid box at the beginning and its opening at the end. Ultimately, the film creates association between something greater than the car because of the car, due in part to the connection of the prescient boy. Also, there is the allusion to ballet and dance in the chase, first because of the music and then because of the obviousness to the movements portrayed – there is no movement that does not look particularly purposeful – the whole of the exercise becoming almost comical as cars (who are trying to block and stop the movement of the BMW) try not to actually run into one another in jerky stops and starts, including the BMW.

Furthermore, we are dealing with a combination of symbolic codes from action films that have no apparent grounding in reality but, instead, are merely symbols for symbol-sake. Who is the Hire? Where does he come from and how does one gain a contract with him? Where would a Tibetan monk come into contact with something of an “underworld” character? They are merely symbols. These are followed closely by the clear, almost totally ambiguous characters of the “chasers” who are mostly kept in silhouette or only flashes of faces (i.e. – two cars with men standing outside them, the doors propped open, the headlights’ synchronized turning on at a particular moment when the Hire would notice them). These characters only pose as would-be antagonists and have no particular connection either to the Hire nor his passenger; it is never explicit who they are there for because it could easily be to kill the Hire for his past work as it is to kill his passenger for the unknown purpose he contains. This leads to the idea that the boy-monk has no particular purpose except to be transported and the Hire has no other purpose than to do the transporting.

The film itself, by its very nature, is postmodern in the intertextuality of its creation: a car commercial, in the midst of an action film, produced for the internet, with a reference to the director’s upcoming Hulk film.

tiprr 10

Since Erika wrote on postcolonialism and Timbre wrote on postmodernism and I agree in principle with what they both wrote, I am going to write about kittens.

This kitten is cute.

Chosen and postmodernism

So, I can see some reflexivity with the *wink* *wink* to the audience with the Hulk band aid and perhaps a bit of blurring the lines of genre with the classic western film, but I don’t see the text of Chosen as either a postmodern text or having significant postmodern elements.

I agree with Timbre and Baudrillard’s assessment of Chosen (very nice post by the way) in terms of hyperreality and the “how blurry is your reality” quiz. But is this an assessment of how postmodern your text is? Has anyone thought of a text that isn’t one of the 4 signs? Is a 1, not very postmodern?

I don’t see this theory as being similar to the other theories. Structuralism and Marxism (for example) are clear ways of looking at anything. I can look at any text with a structuralist or poststructuralist view because I can always study the context of the text or the text itself (theoretically).

To be postmodern, the text must include postmodern elements. I can look and may find postmodern elements in most texts, but it might not be there. There may be no postmodern elements. It must (according to Barry) do the stuff listed on page 79, right? Therefore the text, not my theoretic viewpoint determines, whether or not it is postmodern.

In literary terms Chosen isn’t fragmented with a discontinuous narrative, but on the contrary is a very straightforward narrative. The architectural idea of the text believing in “excess, in gaudiness, and in ‘bad taste’ mixtures of qualities” just doesn’t seem to fit our piece in tone or concept.

Even if I thought the piece was gaudy or in bad taste, what would make it postmodern is if those things were done with the intent of them being so. Right? All of the examples in the Barry text are of the creator being postmodern, and the theorist discovering this, not deciding it.

I am very aware that my post is annoying and am prepared for the next post-person to angrily prove me wrong, but you have to admit, that is a cute kitty.

TIPRR 10

I remember when I was first introduced to literary theory at the ripe old age of 18, postcolonialism was emphasized so little that I honestly don't remember even studying it at all. However, when I took a class from Gloria Cronin 7 years later, postcolionalism had come so much to the forefront that it was the lens through which we examined all of the literature we studied. I've often wondered WHY this was the case, and it wasn't until reading Barry this week that I came to appreciate that this lens is a relatively new one in the repertoire of literary theory. I certainly think it's a good addition to the toolbox, and the philosophy of the theory interests me greatly. However, after reading Erika's post, I can simply say "Yeah," and leave it at that. So, I'm going to focus on postmodernism-something that's much less comfortable for me.

In the reading on postmodernism, I really appreciated the background on modernism and the attempt to clarify the differences between the two theories. As I read, one of the concepts that intrigued me was this postmodernist idea of the "loss of the real." Maybe it's because of my own personal experiences with losing tough of reality, but this really seemed like a plausible concept. The existence "hyperreality" where the lines between the real and imagined have been obscured? Just ask any 18-year-old-boy abut his relationship with his girlfriend, and I bet he'll be able to tell you a thing or two about not being able to live up to a "hyperreality"-- said girlfriend's "chick flick fantasies."

In relationship to this, Barry also discusses Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulations" and how signs have lost their "fullness," the state at which they are a "surface indication of an underlying depth or reality" (84). There are a series of steps in the "emptying" process, according to Baudrillard, as discussed by Barry, and it is within these steps that that I have examined Chosen this week.


According to Baudrillard, the steps in the creation of hyperreality through the loss of the real are as follows:
Step 1-The sign represents a basic reality.
Step 2-The sign misrepresents or distorts the reality behind it.
Step 3-The sign disguises the fact that there is no corresponding reality underneath.
Step 4-The sign bears no relation to any reality at all.

In thinking about how Barry distinguishes between the steps and about the paintings used to illustrate each category, I find that Chosen, as a text, falls most into the second step, with spill-over into the first and third at times. Here's why...

In the beginning, we see an artistic shot image of the dock, the boat, and the ice being broken up by the boat as the boat pulls in to the dock and the Tibetan man and child meet Clive Owen. The beauty of the image itself is a distortion of the reality behind it, because this is an romanticized representation of a dock at night. In addition, there would be more than two passengers simply standing on the deck-others are needed to "park" a boat safely, especially if there were ice on the water.

Then there's the car chase. This is where I feel that the sign does represent a basic reality, thereby falling into step 1, because there is in fact a BMW out there that looks and handles like this car. However, slipping back into step 2, the way in which the car chase is presented. One versus three, light versus dark, and then add the abilities of stunt drivers, the talents of cameramen, and the music...Bam you've now got a very inaccurate representation of what you, as a driver of the BMW, would ever be able to do. Plus, this car chase is highly romanticized in the favor of BMW in general (and why wouldn't it be-it's their commercial). After all, the car is shown in beautiful lighting, it doesn't get dirty, and the bullets seem to just bounce off leaving no holes. The one exception to this, the one bullet that does break through, is due solely to the fact that they are trapped, which is quickly remedied by ramming the other car out of the way, and even after ramming the other car, as Clive Owen drives away, the tail end doesn't seem to have been damaged. THAT is a romanticized version of the car. Does the car exist? Yes, but is it this incredible? Probably not. And that is why this text falls into Baudrillard's second step on the way to the loss of the real.

There is so much more to this "romanticization/misrepresentation" of reality within this text--neon pink poison and the ability to take out another man with one poorly-placed punch? However, I think I'll leave the rest of this discussion for class because I'm interested to hear what you guys think. Sorry about the length, yet again.

TIPRR 10 - My bandaids have Charlie Brown on them. Seriously.

This post is laden with parentheticals. Sorry.

So here's the interesting thing about Postcolonialism and Postmodernism: they function both as ways of looking at a text and also as qualities that the texts themselves can possess. This sounds easy in a sentence, but I'm finding it a little difficult to negotiate in practice because I can't decide which angle to take. So...that's that.

Looking at Chosen through a Postcolonialist lens is interesting because it keeps challenging me on my own assumptions. A goal of postcolonialist criticism is to show Western literature's "general inability to empathize across boundaries of cultural and ethnic difference." This film seems to portray racial relations much like films we've seen in the past (if they even enter a film at all...): the good white man comes in to save the small Asian boy. Much like The Cheat that we saw at the beginning of the year in film history, the bad guy is the greedy, somewhat culturally assimilated Asian. Ultimately, the good Tibetan monks have to rely on the strong white man, who desecrates their spiritual artifacts in the process (Wikipedia tells me that you spin the wheel in part to receive good karma. Can you get good karma when you set the wheel spinning with someone else's unconscious head? Maybe it purifies the bad karma brought by violence and general Clive Owen-ery?) Furthermore, it's a German car that these films are glorifying. The German car and the white man save the day. This seems problematic.

But then I remember that the filmmaker is, himself, Asian. Not Tibetan, but probably more sensitive to Tibetan culture than, say, Michael Bay (I tried to come up with a director I hated more but...nope.). What do I do with that? What do I do with the fact that Ang Lee has strongly situated himself as both an Asian AND American filmmaker (Eat Drink Man Woman and The Hulk? Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Sense and Sensibility?), as both an action director and a drama director? Is Ang Lee merely adopting Western traditions, is he adapting them to suit his needs, or is he so adept at them that he can do anything, and trying to do a Postcolonialist criticism isn't really even necessary?

Perhaps Ang Lee's film (and filmic work as a whole) is just one large celebration of what Barry calls "cultural polyvalency"--the ability to belong to multiple cultures at the same time (as I remember from science, valence electrons are electrons that can flit about and help to complete the outer electron ring when elements are trying to bond (not to be confused with valance electrons, which are window coverings for a child interested in science)). The story in Chosen can be see to represent a partnership between Eastern and Western cultures, because although Clive Owen is the savior, he's not the chosen--that title belongs to the boy, Ang Lee's son whose actual name is Mason (further evidence of Ang's willingness to simultaneously include both cultures even in his personal life). The whole goal of the film is to help the boy, and rather than colonizing the story, Clive Owen merely comes in, stays a while, and then leaves. Ang Lee is a multicultural, multigenre-al filmmaker, easily tackling both Asian and American cinema, action and Jane Austen (he should just direct a Kung-Fu adaptation of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies and get it over with), and is probably loved by Postcolonialist critics because of this.

TIPPR 9

I was interested in exploring the structuralist outlook that Claude Levi-Strauss applied when looking at the interpretation of myths. Levi-Strauss looked at how an individual tale or parole fit into the whole cycle or langue. In this case I’m looking at Chosen as the parole within the langue of the whole “The Hire” series.

With “The Hire” BMW set out to exploit the codes from numerous film genres to create a unique ad campaign. They selected a wide variety of directors and allowed them to do pretty much whatever they wanted as long as they used Clive Owen as the driver and featured a BMW in the film. The result was a series of films that ostensibly feature the same character in a variety of situations. It’s an interesting way of creating a narrative around what is essentially an avatar for BMW, because although the driver character maintains some similarities from film to film there are also some differences depending on the needs of that particular film.

In “Chosen” he is a strong but silent good guy who saves little boys and is a clear white hat, good guy. In “The Follow” he could have stepped straight out of film noir detective film, he is morally ambiguous although in the end he ultimately does the right thing. In “Star” he is suddenly humorously crass and addressing the camera directly. We know nothing about his character beyond his accent and his ability to drive very, very well. Where is he from? Who does he work for? Each film shows him in very different locales; sometimes he appears to be working with the police, sometimes he is clearly operating outside the law. We don’t even know his name, because all that is important is his role as the driver. This is of course a brilliant advertising technique because it allows the audience to project themselves into the role.

At the same time these films also allow the directors to sell themselves. Each film is a clear reflection of its director. “Chosen” references Ang Lee’s other films, particularly “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “The Hulk”. The other films are equally reflective of their creator’s ouvres. So to bring this back to structuralism, “Chosen” is best understood when looking at it as a piece of the larger ad campaign. With each film contributing a different perspective of what is a BMW driver to appeal to the largest possible audience as well as using each film to sell the other works of the directors involved with the project.

tiprr 9

“This is the typical structuralist process of moving from particular to the general, placing the individual work within a wider structural context.”

“In the structuralist approach to literature there is a constant movement away from the interpretation of the individual literary work and a parallel drive towards understanding the larger, abstract structures which contain them.”

Must the structure be abstract?

I listened to Ang Lee’s commentary on the film and he actually tells us where to start.

“I think Tibetan symbolism is a good place to look into the piece”

He says this just as the faux monk hits his head on the Tibetan prayer wheel or mani wheel (pictured at the end of Jason Hagey’s response).

“And, ah, yeah, there are a lot of little things in there people can dig into, I think (laughter). But I hope the film is like a maze.”

Take the following with a grain of google image search salt. When Clive Owen looks in the window at the tied up monk, he is looking between the legs of a statue. The camera moves and reveals the statue and lingers on the details. The Dakini, a female Buddhist deity, is the helper of those in pursuit of spiritual well being and enlightenment. As she poses in an enticing stance, she dances overtop two human figures symbolizing her presence and her position as a goddess. This deity is shown wearing a necklace made of skulls and drinking from a skull, signifying the demise of ignorance and unawareness of man. After seeing the monks and being unaware of this statue, Owens reenters the house and saves the boy.

The Tibetan symbols are interesting, but looking at the larger structure often removes some meaning of this film for me because the larger structure is a commercial. That is the context of the creation of this film. BMW hired Lee to make a short film using their product. Lee includes a highly choreographed driving “fight” scene with the cars on the dock. The previous film Lee directed (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) was a box office success and has many highly choreographed fight scenes which leads me to believe that is why he was hired. Plus, the next film Lee directed is Hulk, which leads me to believe that the band-aid at the end is a pitch to see his next film.

At one point in the film Owen reverses his BMW into another car violently pushing the other car out of the way for a heroic escape. The next time we see the back of the BMW it’s in pristine condition because this is a commercial.

TIPRR 9

A key point of the reading that intrigues me (and I would say that is a direct reflection of my typical preference to do the opposite) is in the deconstructionist digging deep into the world of exposing contradictions and paradoxes of a particular text. I think I tend to be a structuralism-minded individual (if I had to choose between these two modes of thinking) and I look for parallels and “bigger picture” thinking (which is why my analysis of the film will take a structuralism stance). I have to say, however, because of this intriguing factor regarding deconstructionism I am completely interested in learning to think more in this modality. I like that it is a “philosophical” perspective and I’m especially fond of its “multiplicities of meaning” because I am not so much a scientist (or linguist in this case) and I love to look at things from multiple perspectives more so than say, “This is the way it really is” because of a “univocal” reading. The reading made me wonder about myself and my tendency to like the harmony, the unity and coherence of something rather than pointing out the “flaws” of textual disunity. I believe, though, that it is perhaps best to start with structuralism in order to better ground the deconstructionism.

Attempting to look at the film, “Chosen,” from a structuralism perspective (because I am not even sure if I am doing this right), I would say we are looking at a film that is built on the nuances of dichotomies. First of all, we have the relationship of boat and automobile as the sea and the road come together on a dock. In turn, we have a vehicular ballet as the cars chase after the BMW as it zips about the dock’s quarters. The music itself is oddly dichotomous between the introduction of Asian culture (the “Chosen” himself) and a very Western musical genre (I don’t typically expect to hear classical music when an Asian character is the focal point). In the second half of the storyline, the fake monk is dressed in traditional Tibetan monk garb except the extreme clash of cowboy boots. When Clive Owen clobbers the fake monk, the violent action is accompanied by the spinning of the traditional prayer wheel, which is meant to bring purification and power in Tibetan Buddhist religion. Ultimately, the symbol of the Hulk (also a violent being) used as a band-aid for a minor flesh wound brings together the whole of the text – this is especially true as the box is at the beginning of the film and finally its contents revealed at the end of it, thus creating a bookend effect to the narrative. The end result is one where the violent nature of the West is the way to accomplish the Eastern nonviolent ends; the two are balancing of one another, neither existing without the other. If not for the Eastern insurgence of the “Chosen” character, there would not have been the violence. If not for the typical Western violence of Clive Owen knocking unconscious the confederate, there would not have been the resulting peace. Cyclically, the two need each other and balance one another. I could perhaps become post-structuralism here and begin to discuss how this all is equally a subversion of itself, but I will leave that for our discussion in class.

My Bad

I will delete this and repost on Monday morning.

I don't have Chosen with me, and although it seems like I was told, I didn't realize I would be using it for my TIPRR. I have seen it, but I should probably watch it again before making an "official theoretic reading."

Sorry if this will throw everyone off, but I will try and post early Monday morning.

TIPRR 9--The one that's forever long...SORRY

It is so very interesting to me to see the difference between two theories that are so very closely named-it's obvious that the transition from one to the other was a bit more reactionary than it was progressive.

To be honest, when it comes to post-structuralism, I think that I'd feel more like a teacher who's looking for flaws in the author's tense, continuity, and pronoun agreement rather than a theorist who is unleashing the power of the text itself. Maybe I just haven't gotten my head around the "decentered" universe yet...I'm going to make some serious efforts in that area before my presentation on Tuesday, I promise.

Structuralism makes a bit more sense to me, but truthfully, it's a bit uncomfortable simply because as a lit teacher, I want to analyze the so-called egg! Taking a look at the chicken is great, but I REALLY like the egg and looking at it is so much more natural for me. So, here goes my attempt...feel free to correct and or mock.



In looking at a text from a structuralist point of view, there seem to be a variety of approaches one can pursue. Barthes identified five specific codes that can be used when examining a text: the proairetic code, the hermeneutic code, the cultural code, the semic code, and the symbolic code. These don't seem to be the only way of approaching a text using structuralism, however, and so in looking at Ang Lee's Chosen, I chose to be a bit more general, looking for the "underlying universal narrative structure" while still maintaining the conventions of a car commercial.

In examining Chosen, it is very clear that this is not your "typical" automobile advertisement-the length alone makes that obvious. In addition, you lack the typical "watch-the-car-go-as-the-voice-over-waxes-eloquent-about-its-many-fabulous-features" element. Rather, what you have is a film, and it's one that follows a very typical narrative structure in a very small amount of time.



Basic (VERY basic) narrative structure begins with an exposition, which sets up the characters and setting. In Chosen, once the credits have finished, the exposition takes all of about 23 seconds. Characters: boy and driver. Setting: stock/ship yard of some sort. In typical narrative structure, towards the end of the exposition you get a "call to action" which often introduces the main conflict of the narrative. In Chosen, the boy is handed over to the driver, thus intimating the call to action--get him where he needs to be safely, and the boy hands the driver a box stating that "It’s for later," indicating that what’s inside may be useful at a later time.

The next section, rising action, often consumes much of the rest of the text itself. It is in this section that the texts builds in suspense, the characters facing challenge after challenge, some of which move them toward the goal, and some of which are hindrances to progress. In Chosen, the rising action of the narrative consists of the car chase within the stockyard. The driver is able to maneuver his one (white) vehicle around the three (dark) vehicles of his opponents in his efforts to protect the boy. While they are shot at, it's not until they are completely trapped that one bullet is able to make it inside of the car. (But, he's able to anticipate the shot and tell the boy to duck just in time.) The challenge of being trapped gives the impression of being the ultimate climax, and the driver is able to conquer the opponent by using his BMW as a battering ram.

The climax of a typical narrative structure is the moment in which the culmination of events creates the peak of the conflict--it's the big battle between good and evil. The "I'm trapped; let's use my car as a battering ram" incident may initially seem to be the climax of Chosen, but it is not. This occurs when the driver arrives at the "safe house" to drop off the boy and the boy recognizes (from the black cowboy boots) that this man is not a good guy. So, yet again, the Driver must battle the bad guy--this time with fists, after scaling the outside wall and entering the room just as the boy is about to be shot with some neon pink liquid. THIS is the true climax of Chosen, the rescuing of the boy from the awful fate, in the nick of time.

Falling action shows the result of the climax, in this case, the spinning apparatus and the visual connection between the driver and the boy. And the denoument, or falling action, is the narrative's conclusion. In Chosen, this is done with the driver's return to the car and the box that is sitting in the passenger's seat. By opening the box and finding a bandage, the creator of this text is able to tie up the loose ends regarding the box's contents, as well as demonstrate just how close the driver came to meeting his own doom.

This text, in its limited time, follows the universal narrative structure, and thereby appeals to our sensibilities as consumers of stories. By doing this, Ang Lee and company are still able to sell us their product--the BMW. As you watch the film, it becomes clear that the driver has, by far, the superior vehicle. Not only is it white (a symbol for goodness) while the others are dark, but he is able to drive circles around them (literally), showing off the power of the car. By making the rising action of the narrative consist of mostly car chasing, BMW is able to show off their stuff, much like any other car commercial. Therefore, I, personally, think that while the structure is that of a narrative, this film still maintains advertising conventions. (And why wouldn't it? After all, isn't the ultimate point to sell cars?)

Okay--now I need your feedback...am I way off base on this structuralism thing, or am I on the right track? Again-so sorry for the length.

TIPRR 9 - In which Michael Bay makes a brief appearance

So, as far as I understand it, the goal of this TIPRR is to show how Structuralism (or Post-Structuralism, but I'm not feeling decentered today, so I choose Structuralism) operates in Ang Lee's Chosen, thereby demonstrating that I am on my way to understanding what Structuralism does and how it works. So, here goes.

As I understand it, Structuralists assert that no texts have meaning in isolation, but rather, that we understand them (and create them!) only by understanding societal and language codes. Our reality is made up of a system of codes, and each text is merely one iteration (parole) of the larger code at work (langue (which my spell check suggests should be "languish". Apparently blogger also has a difficult time with theory)). To me, a discussion of Structuralism and film naturally leads to a discussion of IMR--Institutionalized Modes of Representation--and how these codes function to shape our interpretation of the text. For example, in American film (and most other films...) we as viewers and practitioners have agreed to a code of editing that says that it's okay that in just three shots we move from dock/parking lot to bridge/highway to house. When we cut to these places, we do not believe that each of these things are connected to each other, we understand that Clive Owen is on a journey. The cut signifies time passing. This is not inherent to the cut--we could have decided that every moment needed to be concretely represented--but it is how the language codes operate within film.

So, when looking at Chosen through our Structuralist glasses, we first need to identify what coding systems operate here. We could go into great detail about specific editing codes, but there are codes that operate even more generally. I want to look at Chosen through two generally accepted and understood codes: as an action film, and as an advertisement.

This film relies on many codes of the action film (and of melodrama, which go together more often than you would think) for the viewer to construct meaning. To do this, the film employs a series of oppositions, resting mostly in good/bad (chosen/not chosen?) For example, from the get-go we understand that Clive Owen is the good guy because he's driving a light car and the bad guys are driving dark cars (white hat/black hat), but we are also to understand that Clive Owen isn't a sissy do-gooder--that's no white linen suit he's wearing. He's good, but he's not afraid to bash some heads. We look at this car chase (in which Clive Owen is the good driver, and all the others are bad drivers) in the context of other car chases; we understand that the chase has bigger stakes than just driving around, because other car chases in other films have similar stakes. Frankly, I'm surprised no cars blew up, but I guess this is Ang Lee not Michael Bay. When the boy arrives at the house, he notices the fragmented character of the evil monk--monk's clothing with cowboy boots? POINTY BLACK cowboy boots? It's gotta be a bad guy--and with a meaningful look lets Clive Owen know that this is not a good guy. All this is communicated with no dialogue--Lee is relying purely on pre-established codes in order to create meaning.

When discussing Structuralism and fashion, Barry points out that often times fashion will break established codes in a knowing way in order to make a statement (46). Examining Chosen as an advertisement leads me to believe that this is entirely what BMW was interested in when it commissioned all of these films. While including staples of the conventional car ad--showcasing the car's superior handling abilities, strong safety features, lush interiors--it dispels with narration and sales figures in favor of telling a story. The fundamental code is still, "I want you to buy this car," but BMW ditches traditional modes of communicating that message in favor of this one: "This car is cool." We still have to know and understand car commercials in order to understand how different this film is, and to begin to understand for what purpose it might be different.

Okay, I'm already at 700 words so I should probably end this. I think that Structuralism is cool and interesting and useful, and I think that Post-Structuralism is cool but I do wonder a little bit what good it actually does anyone. Post-Structuralism seems a bit like a person who consistently points out problems yet does nothing to attempt to fix them. Who does it help to deconstruct and decenter everything? Maybe I'm not giving Post-Structuralism credit, but it seems like a theory-person's way of saying, "Forget You Universe! There's no truth anywhere!" (I thought of several other possibilities for that first phrase, and then decided to make it BYU appropriate). Maybe there are other cool things that I haven't seen yet about Post-Structuralism that will make it seem more helpful.

tiprr 8

Recurrent Ideas #3:
“Language itself conditions, limits, and predetermines what we see.” Nothing is just “there” because we construct everything through a language. In media terms, everything is coded and interpreted by the writer and reader. Meaning is intended and implied by the author or unintended and inferred by the reader.

“Language doesn’t record reality, it shapes and creates it, so that the whole of our universe is textual”

Therefore an experience can’t be recreated, no matter the mode, without significant “problems.” But, I don’t think there are really problems per se. It is just interpretations. Some may value Realism over the Impressionism art movement because their values can be argued.

If we had a holodeck that could show us a perfect recreation of an event, would it replace all art? Of course not.

We tell the same stories over and over again, and not just the same theme, but also quite literally the same story. Is there a definitive Hamlet? Which actor is the best at portraying James Bond? I don’t think we would ever find the “best” one and then stop. But these are fictional characters.

Jesse James has been portrayed in a lot of film.
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000001/

Here is an example of Joan of Arc.
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0027188/

What if it was a less romantic character?
Alyssa Milano, Drew Barrymore, and Noelle Parker are played Amy Fisher in TV movies 1992 or 1993. I think this would be really interesting to view the news coverage of this story and ask why we retold this story we all knew and how did the filmmakers do it differently? The results may be less artistic and more financial.

Who has played Adolf Hitler, C. S. Lewis, George Washington, Richard Nixon, Pablo Picasso, John Quincy Adams, and will play Alfred Hichcock in a film next year?

A Leavisite-style reading Sister Knowles’ “If I Were a Boy”
(Side note: Did anyone listen to the BC Jean version?)
This type of reading is driven by the moral convictions without taking form, structure, genre, etc. into consideration.

I wonder if we will read “I’m Glad I’m a Boy! I’m Glad I’m a Girl!” in class.
Beyoncé is saying that men should not be able to get away with behavior simply because it is typical of their sex. Who is letting loved ones get away with unacceptable behavior. Here is post from youtube under the video:

“soberbob0911
I think most attractive cops can't help it...they are always in positions that put them into meeting other attractive persons ...the cop's spouse should know what they're getting into, either sex. Just from what I've seen with cops I know.”

Are there a lot of attractive criminals? I really just wanted to post that because of one phrase he uses, which might be my most hated phrase: can’t help it. That is one of the major purposes of me being here on earth: to learn to help it. Stereotypes and gender roles should not limit us.
Why do we let ourselves off the hook with such a mentality as to suggest we can’t do anything other than the what is currently appealing?

I am way over the 500 words and I ‘m sorry. I’m sure we’ll discuss this is class.