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.