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.