Jing Ke
Oct, 2007
Course Title: Film Studies
Growing up under Pressure
Some of my perspectives on Singapore film industry
(As a Chinese born in the late 1980s and grown up in a populous mainland city, Singapore film is not a familiar word to me. Surrounded by Hollywood blockbusters and Hong Kong gangster films, I watched my first Singapore film 3 months ago after arriving here. The more Singapore films I watch, the more curious I feel about the film industry of this country, that is the reason why I choose this topic.)
Singapore film industry began in the early 1930s, it enjoyed a golden age in the 1950s and 1960s and produced nearly 400 films during that period. After its independence in 1965, the film industry of the nation was almost silent before 1990 as the government despised film making. However, since the release of Bugis Street and Mee Pok Man, the first profitable local film in 1995, film industry of Singapore has launched into its renaissance.[①] From my perspective, the renaissance of Singapore film industry is in a steady but tortuous process.
The film industry of a country is inseparable with its culture, history, politics and economy background as well as the ideology and value it believes in. Accordingly, I’d like to analyze Singapore film industry from the following aspects:
Culture:
Singapore a small and multi-raced country possessing a diversified culture, the various ethnic groups celebrate their own cultures while they intermingle with one another. This special form of culture has great influence on local film industry, since film is a cultural practice, it is born in a certain culture context and has emotional and moral impact on the audience. Film is also remarked as a “bridge” connects different cultures and represents the culture background in which it is produced. Therefore to utilize film as an instrument for cross-cultural exchange is rather important to Singapore, since culture harmony is the basic element for a steady-going society.
Take Kelvin Tong’s horror film The Maid for example, it is a horrible story happens in a Singapore Chinese family, there are many traditional Chinese elements in the film, like the Seven Ghost Month, the Chinese Opera and the sacrifice to the dead, these are all representations to the traditional Chinese way of life in the old days. It would arouse a range of different responses among audience coming from different culture background. A Chinese will probably understand the heavy and deep pathos in this movie or even have a feeling of nostalgia to the philosophic perception on life and death in traditional Chinese values, while, say, an Indian or American would probably only enjoy the horror it brings in and sigh with confusion or even misunderstanding of the “unreasonable” Chinese way of life after seeing the film. They may have a peep into the traditional Chinese culture while misunderstand it at the same time. The risk exists in any film produced from any culture background.
Example above is one aspect of the culture issue, on a higher level, film need to represent the unique culture of Singapore to the world and promote indigenous culture at the same time. However, as 99% of the films screened in Singapore are imported while few films are exported, the indigenous culture of Singapore is under threat in the tide of globalization.
Politics & Ideology:
Acting as a part of media industry, film is under the influence of political power and ideological tendency since its appearance. Government is the leading power in control of the film industry, the administrative control can be implemented by two means, one is financing (this will be mentioned later), the other is censorship.
Film censorship is inevitably practiced in every country in different forms and different degree, according to Singapore Media Development Authority, the film censorship in Singapore aims to “protect the young from unsuitable content as well as to maintain stability and harmony in our multi-racial and multi-religious society”.[②] Besides, films are classified into 5 categories in order to provide a wider choice for audiences. As a matter of fact, either the film censorship or the classification is accepted by most of the local audience.
However, things are becoming more complex when we regard film as a way to reflect reality rather than a tool to conform the ideology. Hong Kong broadcasting magnate Run Run Shaw once called Singapore “too clean”,[③] which is a reflection on the strictness of the film censorship, and the “cleanness” is even seemed unreal.
I’d like to discuss more on Royston Tan’s film 15: The Movie, which narrates five fringe Singaporean teenagers who are abandoned by the system, the life they adopt is incompatible to the mainstream of the society. It seems more like a documentary than a film, recording the true-life story of the “bad boys” who lost themselves in the metanarrative in this postmodern world. For some acceptable reasons, this film was initially banned in Singapore and then suffered 27 cuts before being approved for release. It is reasonable for a film which reflects the dark side of a society being banned by the authority in order to maintain social stability, but sometimes to uncover and expose the wound is a better cure. The drug smuggling, suicide committing and self-abandoned adolescent gang boys can be found every place in the world and have become a social problem, film bears the responsibility to guide the audience looking into their inner world and touch their weakness behind the marble façade. It is much helpful than simply brand them “bad guy” and throw them in the corner of this “rich-and-educated-set-the-rule”[④] society. From this point of view, film censorship can be more open and flexible in some certain conditions.
On the other hand, politics is an effective power in promoting the local film industry when the government has realized the function of popular culture in facilitating economy and improving country’s image in the world. Events like the annual Singapore International Film Festival and the Film Week in Singapore Season held in London 2005 witness the government’s effort in promoting Singapore film to the world. Actually these events turned out to be great success which acquires both reputations and profits for Singapore.
Finance:
What impresses me most on Singapore film industry is that many celebrated films turned out to be very cheaply made. Eric Khoo’s film Mee Pok Man was made with a tight budget of S$100,000, and Tay Teck Lock’s Money No Enough was made for less than S$1 million but raked in S$5.8 million[⑤], making it the most commercially successful local film up to now. (Disappointedly, according to a statistic made by Singapore Film Commission, which indicates the production cost and box office receipts of all Singapore films produced from 1991 to 2007, most of the films are still at loss in business.[⑥]) Compared with some Hollywood blockbusters with tens of millions of US dollar’s budget, or even some Chinese movies produced in recent years, the financing deficiency in Singapore film industry is easy to notice and is apparently a burden on its renaissance, although the relationship between financing, quality and commercial success is not a certainty in film industry.
Accordingly, from another perspective, Singapore films concentrate on themes like social life may objectively because of the restrictions on its small budget, further financial support and more multinational cooperation is needed if Singapore wants to produce epic films like Troy or high-tech films like Star Wars.
Audience & Market:
Geographically, Singapore is an island-state with a 4.5 million small population, it is a limiting factor to the domestic film market. At the same time, due to the diversified culture background, some small budget and realistic films tend to be more successful in Singapore, like Eric Khoo’s 12 stories, Djinn Ong’s Perth and Jack Neo’s I not Stupid. Concentrating on social topics and culture interweaving landscape in Singapore, these films are capable to maintain the customer inland as well as exploit new market and find audience overseas. In recent years, more and more Singapore films appear on the stage of some well-known international film festivals (Pusan, Berlin, Moscow, Venice, etc.), they are nominated or awarded, manifesting Singapore’s marching into the international film market.
It is reasonable that due to the limited space of box income in local film market, the future of commercially successful Singapore film lies in the oversea market. In order to get a position in the international film market, domestic film productions will compete (and cooperate) with studios like Hollywood, Bollywood, and other competitors in Europe and Asia. From my perspective, a renewal in film themes and trends in Singapore film industry is necessary, filmmakers could experiment on new themes like historical or fictive, also, cooperation with other film magnates in the world is helpful to exchange ideas and acquire new techniques in film making as well as solve financial problem.
Filmmaker:
There are many capable filmmakers and directors in Singapore, they make films with their talent and passion and are trying on different styles and genres, exponents are Jack Neo, Royston Tan, Eric Khoo and Kelvin Tong. These filmmakers and their works have become the milestones in the renaissance of Singapore film industry. Besides the achievement, there is still a rough road to go. More panoramic films capable to reflect the history, society and human spirit of Singapore are in need and other challenges still occur, like to forge an indigenous as well as distinct film culture and film style of Singapore; and to produce more mature films that are both artistically and commercially successful.
To sum up, rapid development in Singapore film industry in the past decade has accumulated governors’ and filmmakers’ experience and confidence in film making as well as marketing. Both domestic and oversea markets are being cultivated, while problems and challenges still exist, the film industry of Singapore has obtained great progress and is showing its huge potential. As long as Singapore film industry can take advantage of its internationalization while maintain the indigenous color, it will harvest more achievement in future.
[①] The history of Singapore film is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Singapore
[②] http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/1001qns.aspx?sid=165&fid=77&v1=True#HtmlAnchor_Anchor
[③] http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/95/0616/cinema.html
[④] This phrase is from one of the boy’s lines in 15: The Movie
[⑤] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Singapore
[⑥] Statistic resource: http://www.sfc.org.sg/main.html
Mar 26, 2010
Bowling for Columbine, A Michael Moore's Documentary
Jing Ke & Chen Lou
Oct, 2007
Course Title: Film Studies
Bowling for Columbine and Documentary Film
About this film
In this film, Michael Moore looks into the nature of violence in the United States, focusing on guns as a symbol of both American freedom and its self-destruction in a deep interrogation and incisive exposure, which spurs us to think; while, with tendentious and aggressive point of view, this film looks more like a symbolically individual interpretation than a rational documentary film.
Documentary film
Literally, “documentary” is to document reality. Although “documentary film” originally referred to movies shot on film stock, it has subsequently expanded to include video and digital productions that can be either direct-to-video or made for a television series.
The term “documentary” was first used by documentarian John Grierson’s review of Robert Flaherty (1884-1951, a filmmaker who directed and produced the first commercially successful feature length documentary film Nanook of the North in 1922)’s film Moana published in the New York Sun in 1926. In the 1930s, he further argued that documentary was the cinema’s potential for observing life in a new art form, which meant that the “original” actor and “original” scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to interpreting the modern world; and that materials “thus taken from raw” can be more real than the acted article. Grierson generally held documentary as “creative treatment of actually” compared with the dramatic fiction as “bourgeois excess”.
Modern lightweight digital video cameras and computer-based editing have greatly aided documentary makers, as has the dramatic drop in equipment prices, which placed far more interpretive control in the hands of the director, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries.
However, as a matter of fact, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.
Moore as an Auteur Director
Accurately, this film is not only directed, but also written, starring, and produced by Michael Moore. He is also the director and producer of another celebrated documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. In his documentaries he tends to present a critical look at some social problems like gun violence or international issues like globalization and the Iraq War. He is active in promoting his political views and is known for his “fiery left-wing populism.” Besides film, he is also a director of TV series and a writer of three best-selling books, and all of his works reflect a left-wing viewpoint on American political and social issues. Although some Americans see him as a betrayer of the country, he claims himself as a patriot. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[i]
Awards
Bowling for Columbine had brought Moore international attention after its release and won numerous awards, including a 55th Anniversary Prize, Cannes Film Festival in 2002; an Academy Award for Best Documentary Features, International Documentary Association - Best Documentary of All Time and the César Award for Best Foreign Film in 2003.
Content and Focus
Bowling for Columbine is released on October 11, 2002 and explores what Moore suggests are the causes for the Columbine High School massacre (Occurred on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School, two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher, wounded 23 others, before committing suicide.) and other acts of violence with guns in America. Moore focuses on the background and environment in which the massacre took place and looks into the nature of violence in the US, he describes gun as a symbol of American freedom as well as its self-destruction at the same time.
The arrangement of materials in this documentary is, to some extent, disordered. Moore mixed and interweaved a great lot of materials, real and artificial, historical and real-time, into the film to make it more convictive and impressive.
Remarkably, this film enjoys a commercial success: with a budget of only $4,000,000, it grossed $40,000,000 worldwide, including $21,575,207 in the United States. It also broke box office records internationally, becoming the highest-grossing documentary in the U.K., Australia, and Austria.
Features of the film
1. The Use of Cartoon:
Moore tries to convey the historical connection between whites' fear of non-whites and the protection of gun ownership using an eight minute cartoon. The cartoon starts with the Mayflower (the ship), focuses on the colonists' fear of indigenous people, and only links this fear to blacks as they approach the civil rights era. This cartoon, together with some news clips, each tending to indicate the emphasis on violence and crime in news reports, and interviews illustrate the “security-minded” attitude of U.S. residents all prove that the Columbine massacre is not merely an outcome of the easy availability of guns in the U.S., but instead more connected to a “climate of fear” which is engendered by the American media. The eight minute cartoon is an artificial element in the documentary, which shows the director’s creativity and sense of humor.
2. Ironic Choice of Music:
About 20 minutes in the film, the song Happiness Is a Warm Gun plays during a violent montage is shown. The footage of it mainly reflects people buying and firing guns, a town in Utah passed a law requiring all residents to own guns, a blind man who is a gun enthusiast, etc. Also, when the film cuts to a montage of a review on American foreign policy decisions from 1953, which is filled with violence and hegemony, the film is set to another song What a Wonderful World. So we can feel the director’s intention to express his criticism in gun holding and American foreign policy through the choice of music.
3. Numerous Interview and Discussion:
In this film Moore interviews various people, including the National Rifle Association's president Charlton Heston, the rock-and-roll musician Marilyn Manson, and many residents, he seeks to explain why the Columbine massacre occurred and why the United States has a higher number of violent crimes — especially crimes involving guns — and he charges that the occurrence of violent crimes in the U.S. is relatively higher than other developed nations.
The interview is a central part of the documentary; Moore conveys what he wants to tell the audiences through the interviewee’s mouth, which makes the film quite “objective” – what is expressed is not the director’s viewpoint, but the interviewee’s.
4. Starring of Director:
Unlike most documentaries in which the directors never make an appearance, Michael Moore jumps to the front of lens in Bowling for Columbine and the whole film is absolutely under his steering. He gets a free gun for opening a bank account, he takes two Columbine victims to the Kmart headquarters to claim a refund, he visits Canada to show front doors unlocked and people are much less concern over crime and security, etc. His intervention arouses furious disputation on the objectivity of the film. It makes the documentary seems like a true-man show and some critics even contend it as “deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive”.[ii]
Strengths
Put aside the argument on the standard of objectivity of documentary, which is always under impugnment, Bowling for Columbine is unquestionably successful in exploring into the thorny subject like the cause of the high murder rate and nature of violence in the US. It is thought provoking, agitative, and impressive.
Here are some reviews of the film from a website, which claims to express the opinion of “the top critics and audiences in the US”[iii], witness the popularity of this documentary:
●For anyone who cares about the future of America, it is required viewing.
●As the national media become more sedate and incurious; this country desperately needs a gadfly like Moore. Indeed, we need more like him.
●Moore has perfected the art of highly entertaining, self-important, politically motivated documentary-making, and he has got as potent a topic as ever with Bowling for Columbine.
●Anything that coaxes us into thinking about why we are the way we are, even as imperfectly as Bowling for Columbine does, is an energizing change of pace.
●A great national conversation starter.
Inquiries
The theory of Gate-keeper: In human communication, in particular, in journalism, gatekeeping is the process through which ideas and information are filtered for publication. The internal decision making process of relaying or withholding information from the media to the masses. The theory was first instituted by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1947 and is still one of the most important theories studied by students of mass communication and journalism. Gatekeeping occurs at all levels of the media structure - from a reporter deciding which sources are chosen to include in a story to editors deciding which stories are printed, or even covered.
When concerning to this movie, Moore, undoubtedly, did a good job as a gatekeeper, who displayed genuine information that are totally truthful. However, making a decision between what to show and what to ignore itself is a kind of gatekeeping, and as a result of this, he seems to be selling his point of view to viewers furtively and smartly in the name of documentary film.
For example:
● The title originates from the story that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two students responsible for the massacre, attended a school bowling class early that morning, at 6:00 a.m., before they committed the attacks at school starting at 11:18 a.m, which at last proved wrong because their absence of school that day (NOT SHOWN). However, Moore incorporates the concept of bowling in other ways, such as a Michigan militia uses bowling pins for their target practice, the two boys’ classmates recollections about them with the bowling class. By doing these, Moore suggests that bowling could have been just as responsible for the attacks on the school as Marilyn Manson or even Bill Clinton. In sum, all of these give spectators impression that they are persuaded into buying this kind of subjective opinion of the director himself, what is the other reality, who cares? It seems that it is the way that using reality to get superficially “objective” opinion really matters rather than the whole reality itself.
●After an interview with NRA president Charlton Heston, who walks away from the interview while the cameras are still rolling, Moore leaves a photograph of six year old school shooting victim Kayla Rolland in Heston's house when he departs (SHOWN ON PURPOSE). By doing so, Moore actually exaggerated the tendentious view of them both, and give an ostensible demagoguery for viewers on the ostensible assumption that he only himself is seeing reality and on the side of right and totally true.
What is more important, after all these provocations and dig-deep efforts, Moore actually did not add up to certain definite answer or really objective consensus. It is more like gate-keeper who let the advantageous information flow into his display rather a rational or holistic scan contributing to further insight, ironically but unbelievably by the way, the information is actually genuine and thoroughly truthful on its own.
Conclusion
Moore played a great role in his documentary film and succeed in spurring viewers to think more about the nature of violence of American; but as a gate-keeper with tendentious and aggressive approach in his documentary film, all the communication that he did seemed symbolic and some sort of individual heroic, hardly add up to a rational approach or real answer to the issue.
[i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine
[ii]http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
[iii]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bowling_for_columbine/?beg=0&int=136&creamcrop_limit=30&page=all
Oct, 2007
Course Title: Film Studies
Bowling for Columbine and Documentary Film
About this film
In this film, Michael Moore looks into the nature of violence in the United States, focusing on guns as a symbol of both American freedom and its self-destruction in a deep interrogation and incisive exposure, which spurs us to think; while, with tendentious and aggressive point of view, this film looks more like a symbolically individual interpretation than a rational documentary film.
Documentary film
Literally, “documentary” is to document reality. Although “documentary film” originally referred to movies shot on film stock, it has subsequently expanded to include video and digital productions that can be either direct-to-video or made for a television series.
The term “documentary” was first used by documentarian John Grierson’s review of Robert Flaherty (1884-1951, a filmmaker who directed and produced the first commercially successful feature length documentary film Nanook of the North in 1922)’s film Moana published in the New York Sun in 1926. In the 1930s, he further argued that documentary was the cinema’s potential for observing life in a new art form, which meant that the “original” actor and “original” scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to interpreting the modern world; and that materials “thus taken from raw” can be more real than the acted article. Grierson generally held documentary as “creative treatment of actually” compared with the dramatic fiction as “bourgeois excess”.
Modern lightweight digital video cameras and computer-based editing have greatly aided documentary makers, as has the dramatic drop in equipment prices, which placed far more interpretive control in the hands of the director, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries.
However, as a matter of fact, directorial manipulation of documentary subjects has been noted since the work of Flaherty, and may be endemic to the form.
Moore as an Auteur Director
Accurately, this film is not only directed, but also written, starring, and produced by Michael Moore. He is also the director and producer of another celebrated documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. In his documentaries he tends to present a critical look at some social problems like gun violence or international issues like globalization and the Iraq War. He is active in promoting his political views and is known for his “fiery left-wing populism.” Besides film, he is also a director of TV series and a writer of three best-selling books, and all of his works reflect a left-wing viewpoint on American political and social issues. Although some Americans see him as a betrayer of the country, he claims himself as a patriot. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[i]
Awards
Bowling for Columbine had brought Moore international attention after its release and won numerous awards, including a 55th Anniversary Prize, Cannes Film Festival in 2002; an Academy Award for Best Documentary Features, International Documentary Association - Best Documentary of All Time and the César Award for Best Foreign Film in 2003.
Content and Focus
Bowling for Columbine is released on October 11, 2002 and explores what Moore suggests are the causes for the Columbine High School massacre (Occurred on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School, two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher, wounded 23 others, before committing suicide.) and other acts of violence with guns in America. Moore focuses on the background and environment in which the massacre took place and looks into the nature of violence in the US, he describes gun as a symbol of American freedom as well as its self-destruction at the same time.
The arrangement of materials in this documentary is, to some extent, disordered. Moore mixed and interweaved a great lot of materials, real and artificial, historical and real-time, into the film to make it more convictive and impressive.
Remarkably, this film enjoys a commercial success: with a budget of only $4,000,000, it grossed $40,000,000 worldwide, including $21,575,207 in the United States. It also broke box office records internationally, becoming the highest-grossing documentary in the U.K., Australia, and Austria.
Features of the film
1. The Use of Cartoon:
Moore tries to convey the historical connection between whites' fear of non-whites and the protection of gun ownership using an eight minute cartoon. The cartoon starts with the Mayflower (the ship), focuses on the colonists' fear of indigenous people, and only links this fear to blacks as they approach the civil rights era. This cartoon, together with some news clips, each tending to indicate the emphasis on violence and crime in news reports, and interviews illustrate the “security-minded” attitude of U.S. residents all prove that the Columbine massacre is not merely an outcome of the easy availability of guns in the U.S., but instead more connected to a “climate of fear” which is engendered by the American media. The eight minute cartoon is an artificial element in the documentary, which shows the director’s creativity and sense of humor.
2. Ironic Choice of Music:
About 20 minutes in the film, the song Happiness Is a Warm Gun plays during a violent montage is shown. The footage of it mainly reflects people buying and firing guns, a town in Utah passed a law requiring all residents to own guns, a blind man who is a gun enthusiast, etc. Also, when the film cuts to a montage of a review on American foreign policy decisions from 1953, which is filled with violence and hegemony, the film is set to another song What a Wonderful World. So we can feel the director’s intention to express his criticism in gun holding and American foreign policy through the choice of music.
3. Numerous Interview and Discussion:
In this film Moore interviews various people, including the National Rifle Association's president Charlton Heston, the rock-and-roll musician Marilyn Manson, and many residents, he seeks to explain why the Columbine massacre occurred and why the United States has a higher number of violent crimes — especially crimes involving guns — and he charges that the occurrence of violent crimes in the U.S. is relatively higher than other developed nations.
The interview is a central part of the documentary; Moore conveys what he wants to tell the audiences through the interviewee’s mouth, which makes the film quite “objective” – what is expressed is not the director’s viewpoint, but the interviewee’s.
4. Starring of Director:
Unlike most documentaries in which the directors never make an appearance, Michael Moore jumps to the front of lens in Bowling for Columbine and the whole film is absolutely under his steering. He gets a free gun for opening a bank account, he takes two Columbine victims to the Kmart headquarters to claim a refund, he visits Canada to show front doors unlocked and people are much less concern over crime and security, etc. His intervention arouses furious disputation on the objectivity of the film. It makes the documentary seems like a true-man show and some critics even contend it as “deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive”.[ii]
Strengths
Put aside the argument on the standard of objectivity of documentary, which is always under impugnment, Bowling for Columbine is unquestionably successful in exploring into the thorny subject like the cause of the high murder rate and nature of violence in the US. It is thought provoking, agitative, and impressive.
Here are some reviews of the film from a website, which claims to express the opinion of “the top critics and audiences in the US”[iii], witness the popularity of this documentary:
●For anyone who cares about the future of America, it is required viewing.
●As the national media become more sedate and incurious; this country desperately needs a gadfly like Moore. Indeed, we need more like him.
●Moore has perfected the art of highly entertaining, self-important, politically motivated documentary-making, and he has got as potent a topic as ever with Bowling for Columbine.
●Anything that coaxes us into thinking about why we are the way we are, even as imperfectly as Bowling for Columbine does, is an energizing change of pace.
●A great national conversation starter.
Inquiries
The theory of Gate-keeper: In human communication, in particular, in journalism, gatekeeping is the process through which ideas and information are filtered for publication. The internal decision making process of relaying or withholding information from the media to the masses. The theory was first instituted by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1947 and is still one of the most important theories studied by students of mass communication and journalism. Gatekeeping occurs at all levels of the media structure - from a reporter deciding which sources are chosen to include in a story to editors deciding which stories are printed, or even covered.
When concerning to this movie, Moore, undoubtedly, did a good job as a gatekeeper, who displayed genuine information that are totally truthful. However, making a decision between what to show and what to ignore itself is a kind of gatekeeping, and as a result of this, he seems to be selling his point of view to viewers furtively and smartly in the name of documentary film.
For example:
● The title originates from the story that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two students responsible for the massacre, attended a school bowling class early that morning, at 6:00 a.m., before they committed the attacks at school starting at 11:18 a.m, which at last proved wrong because their absence of school that day (NOT SHOWN). However, Moore incorporates the concept of bowling in other ways, such as a Michigan militia uses bowling pins for their target practice, the two boys’ classmates recollections about them with the bowling class. By doing these, Moore suggests that bowling could have been just as responsible for the attacks on the school as Marilyn Manson or even Bill Clinton. In sum, all of these give spectators impression that they are persuaded into buying this kind of subjective opinion of the director himself, what is the other reality, who cares? It seems that it is the way that using reality to get superficially “objective” opinion really matters rather than the whole reality itself.
●After an interview with NRA president Charlton Heston, who walks away from the interview while the cameras are still rolling, Moore leaves a photograph of six year old school shooting victim Kayla Rolland in Heston's house when he departs (SHOWN ON PURPOSE). By doing so, Moore actually exaggerated the tendentious view of them both, and give an ostensible demagoguery for viewers on the ostensible assumption that he only himself is seeing reality and on the side of right and totally true.
What is more important, after all these provocations and dig-deep efforts, Moore actually did not add up to certain definite answer or really objective consensus. It is more like gate-keeper who let the advantageous information flow into his display rather a rational or holistic scan contributing to further insight, ironically but unbelievably by the way, the information is actually genuine and thoroughly truthful on its own.
Conclusion
Moore played a great role in his documentary film and succeed in spurring viewers to think more about the nature of violence of American; but as a gate-keeper with tendentious and aggressive approach in his documentary film, all the communication that he did seemed symbolic and some sort of individual heroic, hardly add up to a rational approach or real answer to the issue.
[i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine
[ii]http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
[iii]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bowling_for_columbine/?beg=0&int=136&creamcrop_limit=30&page=all
The interactions between mass media, culture and politics in the postmodern circumstance - With the example of U.S. TV series 24
Jing Ke
Nov, 2007
Course Title: Media and Culture Analysis
The interactions between mass media, culture and politics in the postmodern circumstance
- Take U.S. TV series 24 as a case
In contemporary society, mass media, culture and politics are always integrated and interacted with one another, the mass media is a reflection of the culture and politics to which it belongs and it has the reaction to both of the two domains. In this paper, I’ll analyze the process of interactions between mass media, culture and politics with a case study of the TV series 24.
First of all I’d like to analyze what 24 is as a mass media product. According to Roland Barthes, the entire signification of a culture product can be scaled into three levels: The denotative level, the connotative level and the ideological level.[i] Connected with 24, the denotative level of it is a story about a competent agent Jack Bauer working for a fictional U.S. government Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) and fights against terrorism threat to save the nation, it is an American TV series wins many awards and is full of suspense. The connotative level is about a super-hero fight against evil and protects the country, making choices and also suffering from the conflicts between family and country, life and death, trust and betrayal, humanity and bloodiness, ration and emotion. And on the ideological level, 24 questions some major subjects in the field of culture, sociology and politics, e.g. the relationship between human power and technology, the roles of male and female plays in contemporary society, the individualism and worship of hero in the American culture, together with the ideological icon this TV series implies after the 9/11 terrorism attacks.
24 and ideology: The mass media’s function in building up an ideology
Postmodernism holds a trenchant point of view on mass media and its function in solidify a system of ideology. According to Fiske and Hartley[ii] and other theorists, people understand the world through their own ideologies, which infiltrate into the culture via language, narrative, symbol, and mass media, etc. Since the ideologies are repeated ceaselessly in a certain culture context by the media, people (the receivers of such repetition), form a natural response and begin to certificate and accept those ideologies without any question or doubt. This process has established the “power” or “violence” of mass media, they have the power to define, to judge and to dominate everything in public life: for instance, they keep on telling people stories about crimes and immorality as well as the threats caused by them, as a result the person who receives such information will spontaneously distinguish “him/herself” from “them” in this context and thus behave him/herself as a law-abiding, cautious and conscientious citizen. Anything excluded by such narrative created by mass media is regarded as deviation and is being marginalized in society. In one word, postmodernism asserts that it is mass media create the legitimacy of ideology.
In this perspective, 24 is successfully using the power of mass media to conform the U.S. ideology and rebuild people’s confidence after 9/11. The first episode of the TV series is shown nearly two months after the 9/11 attacks, this terrorism attacks had arouse profound transformation in the U.S. politics, economics, diplomacy and social life, also, the country’s confidence of being a superpower is collapsed attended with the Twin Towers; the sense of panic, insecurity and wrath caused by the attacks flourished the country and anti-terrorism became an international subject overnight.
In such condition, 24 rigidly touches the sensitive subject of anti-terrorism and sets the whole story in a tragic and anxious atmosphere, directly facing the panic consist in American citizens and insinuates the 9/11 and Iraq War throughout its narratives. In my perspective, Jack Bauer, the leading character, is an extension of American former screen superheroes like the Superman, Batman and Terminator etc. that all cater to the country’s worship of individualistic heroism. And for Jack Bauer, his almighty competence and bravery in fight against terrorism give the audience an image of a hero who can conquer any difficulty in any condition and roughly but successfully save the country, save people’s lives, a hero like him is exactly needed for American citizens to construct a sense of security after 9/11.
Then 24, as a TV series and a form of American mass media, tries to build up the nation’s confidence by advocating heroism and creating a virtually secure environment which is similar to the realities but not at all realities. We have to admit that what we called “reality” is “an agreement we make with ourselves and between ourselves and the rest of the culture about what we will call real”[iii]. Postmodernism develop this point of view to a higher level by pointing out the delusive aspect of the reality such as “representation” and “simulacra”. To same extent, 24 matches what Jameson called a “pastiche” in the contemporary vision-dominated postmodern world and we can define 24 as a pastiche which represents the image of U.S. according to the traditional and ideal views to comfort and lull people. It gives an image that “Even if the same thing happens in reality, some superhero like Jack Bauer will come forth and defuse the crisis.”
Another influence created by the “hegemony” of mass media is that, different ideologies will “compete” with each other and show their validity in the space exploited by their own mass media. (Like the Hollywood blockbuster Titanic, the ideological information it bears is obvious: the success of the American New World, which is portrayed as youthful, energetic, full of democracy and freedom, while oppositely the European Old World is senile and autarchic. With the film sweeping the world, the glamorous, perfect image of America spread.)
Things are similar in 24, the ideological conflict between the east and the west is reflected in the TV series. For instance, in 24, the source of terrorism attacks is directly alluding some Mid-East and Asian countries and the images of the nation’s hostile countries including China are aggrandized again on screen. The ideological and political inclinations, similar to many other American mass media and popular culture products did, cultivate the validity and superiority of American Ideology in order to consolidate its meta-narratives.
I’d like to discuss more on that, in fact, ideology, culture, politics, and civilization are all intertwined, and mass media plays a dedicate role in this net. For instance, 24 is about anti-terrorism, and the origin of terrorism is actually rooted in the conflict between the East and West Civilizations, between Christianity and Islam (the religion is a representation of civilization). However, without a thorough analysis and objective understanding of the origin for which the West World should take much of the responsibility, anti-terrorism won’t be effective, at least, the way like expressing ideological opposition in 24 won’t be effective.
To sum up, from the TV series 24 we can educe that the ideological function of mass media is never out of date, the news, the films or other forms of mass media all have a huge influence on building up an ideology and meta-narrative, on propagandize political and cultural inclination, from this perspective, 24 has more meaning on ideological function besides entertainment.
24 and gender: The transformations in the gender role in postmodern time
Postmodernism emphasize the change in the power relationship between male and female in contemporary society. According to Richard Dyer[iv] and Foucault[v], the stereotypes of masculinity are shifting all the time in different situation, which indicate a change in the social status played by male and female roles. Power is dynamic; the nature of power relationship may shift all the time.
Although I mentioned in my previous discourse that Jack Bauer, the leading character, is an extension of American former screen superheroes like the Superman, Batman and Terminator etc. The differences between those heroes are also obvious: Firstly, unlike the 1970s muscle stars such as Schwarzeneger and Stallone, the actor, Kiefer Sutherland, who enacts the hero Jack Bauer, is a haggard-looking man with wrinkles and tiredness on his face. Besides his bravery, wisdom and almighty competence, 24 also shows the audience other aspects in his personality, something more like a human, a father, a husband, and a friend, rather than simply a hero. Like many other contemporary TV series and films (e.g. the Spider-Man), 24 breaks the traditional image, or stereotype, of a strong, callous white male and conveys the idea that a hero has his own emotions and sensibilities, happiness and sufferings, just like any man on the street. The ideal image of a hero has changed.
Secondly, the individualistic heroism in 24 is no longer real “individual” - Superman can save the world all by himself but Jack Bauer cannot, he has to depend on his supporting team including his fellows (many of them are females), the whole CTU and other government agencies, his leaders and, most importantly, machinery and technology (which will be discussed later). Here I’d like to concentrate on the roles male and female each played in 24, which can be a reflection of the gender issues in postmodern society.
In postmodern context, the traditional domination of patriarchy in the family or society is weakening and the male-centered meta-narrative is collapsed. Such is also happened on Jack, his family is broken, his daughter is rebellious, and his venture life is totally a mess. Although he is a superhero who can invincibly save the nation, he also, to some extent, reflects the living status of contemporary urban male citizens: living under huge pressure, being both physically and mentally debilitated, enmeshed in family and working crisis, lacking a real trustworthy friend in his life, etc. (And in 24, Jack cried many times when he faces the death of his wife and workmates or confront some rather difficult choices.) His loneliness and helplessness correspond to the declination of masculinity in postmodern society as man are no longer the center or most powerful group in society since knowledge have been greatly transferred to females. On the other hand, the imperfections of Jack Bauer as a superhero make the image of him “perfect” on the contrary, which is more real and amiable than the earlier screen heroes.
If we see Jack Bauer as a representative of contemporary masculinity, the female characters in 24 can then be figured as a representative of contemporary feminism. Around four hundred years ago Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet “Fragility, thy name is woman!” However, things have changed today, women are no longer, at least not only, an existence of fragility; the female characters in 24 have comprised almost every typical stereotype of contemporary women, which indicate the sense of independency of women in postmodern society.
Jack’s daughter, Kim, a typical contemporary American teenager, also a young woman, rebellious and capricious, she tends to see her family problem in her own point of view and stands for self-directed ideas in her life. She is a trouble-maker and is not a liked character in 24; this is probably because she reflects some of the eccentricity of teenagers in today’s society. However, when she tells her mom “I love you” for the first time as she is in real danger and struggles to escape with her friend after being hijacked, we can feel that under her rebellious façade, her inner world is rather frail and eager for love. Kim is the representative of contemporary young woman seeking for independence and love in their lives but always have no ideas when they are in real crisis situation. (And Jack’s wife, Teri, a mid-aged woman who worries about her family problem and relies on her husband when accident happens – by calling him ceaselessly, is more traditional and domestic. She represent the ideal image of women in patriarchy families.)
There are some stronger female characters in 24, like the dirty agent Nina Myers, one of Jack's closest and most trusted allies in CTU - Michelle, and the wife of the President, Sherry Palmer, etc. They have some common features: well-educated, very competent in the field they engaged in, sedate and intelligent – in one word, they play the roles that are supposed to be acted by men before. In contemporary society, the group of such “forceful women” in the field of politics, business, high-tech, academe etc. is increasing rapidly, the power has been largely transferred from man to women. This corresponds to Foucault’s discourse on power-knowledge relation, which asserts that knowledge is the determinant of power rather than gender in postmodern time and the one who owns knowledge owns power.
Here is another question on the postmodern gender issues: with the fluid of power between genders in today’s society, the boundaries of different social roles male and female played are blurred, this has caused the traditional gender characteristics disappearing. For instance we can see that neutralized dress and style has become a fashion internationally and many people are tending to be transgender. Is it a natural step in the development of human beings or a kind of alienation of human society? Personally I cannot prefigure the future of this power transference between men and women and curious about what men and women will be like decades later.
24 and technology: cyborg citizens and biopower in postmodern city
One research subject of post-humanism is how to face the influence of technology on human beings and how to use technology properly in postmodern time. We cannot deny that human beings have already been alienated by technology – non-personalized, abstracted, symbolic and becoming instrument. According to Chris Gray[vi], advances in technology have changed our definitions of what it is to be a human and what it is to be a citizen, we can move beyond the fixed states of the human body and nation, we can communicate beyond the limit of geographical position, by cyber-modification and cybernetic systems such as the Internet.
Further, Gray argues that since technology enables human to get beyond the natural bounds of the body and promote the artificial intelligence, the distinction between human and machine are fading away, the human brain can be biologically altered or technologically enhanced to its perceived potential. Thus, Gray proposes to rethink the definition of citizenship since citizens have largely become cyborgs and the influences of cyborgs on ethics and politics in today’s society.
Take 24 as an example, it is obvious that Jack Bauer is a cyborg citizen living in the 21st century and utilizing every latest achievement of technology. More accurately, his power is largely relying on technology and we can say without technology Jack Bauer can do nothing but sitting in his office or staying at home. Technology and his body have been merged into a unity which is defined as a “cyborg”. McLuhan said media is the extension of man, for Jack Bauer, technology (to which media belongs) is the extension of himself. Gray advocates the political equality and the right to express opinions democratically for cyborg citizens which is rather hard to achieve in real life. For Jack, since his power and knowledge are granted by the country government, he has to act accord with his social status rather than act as he really wants to. In 24, we can see that Jack lost his wife and workmates in order to fulfill his responsibility to the nation and for many times he wants to quit but he couldn’t. The rights for cyborg citizens are restricted.
On the other hand, due to the infiltration of technology into every aspect of social life, the status of women has been greatly improved and a new social relation between man and woman is building up. This is what Haraway called “a boundary-less form”, which is a new phase in the development of feminism.
I’d like to analyze more on the restricted rights of today’s cyborg citizens. It is not only a deprivation of utterance but also an outcome of the mechanism of surveillance in postmodern society. According to Foucault[vii], surveillance (the act of keeping watch over a person or place) is one of the primary means through which a society enacts control over its subjects. Modern social subjects regulate their own behavior in a panopticon way: presume they are being watched by the power system (e.g. social institutions) and then they control and regulate their behavior to fulfill the system. As a result, a certain type of citizen is “produced” by the mechanism of surveillance and the relations of dominance and subordination are maintained in the process. The combination of modern power and human body generates the “biopower”, which refers to the power exercised over human body in order to train or force individual to act by the dominance’s intention: willing to work, fight wars, produce babies, etc. It is like creating a meta-narrative and only when the individuals obey such orders can they obtain their own power.
Let’s go back to 24, Jack Bauer is a typical existence under this biopower, his identities regulate his behaviors. He is an agent of CTU, so he has to bet his life to fight against terrorism; he is a father as well as a husband, so he is responsible to protect and rescue his family; he is a superhero in others’ eyes so he is deemed to perform missions that are impossible to achieve. All of these identities are conveying surveillance from the “gaze” of the social institutions as well as from the whole community, once Jack Bauer trespass against such regulations, he will be marginalized and lose his power – he is no longer “Jack Bauer” and become nobody in his society. On the other hand, the terrorists in this TV series are also operated by the biopower of their society and politics; they behave like “jihad” in order to match their system of surveillance and ideology. In one word, biopower produces a certain kind of citizen that serves to the establishment of an ideology.
Conclusion: 24 and the eternal pursuit of human nature
What strikes me most in 24 is the discussion and investigation of human nature. From my perspective the pursuit of human nature and humanity is the only eternal subject glowing throughout the history and development of human society. It surpasses the struggles on politics or conflicts between different countries and different interest groups; it characterized the universal strengths, weaknesses, anguish, happiness and needs, etc. of human beings exceeding the boundaries of races and ideologies. In postmodern circumstance, the investigation of human nature and the returning of humanism are rather important for people since human and human societies are being enormously alienated by technology.
From my perspective, the theme of 24 is not only about political struggles, diplomatic mediations and anti-terrorism - it also represents the test and challenge on human nature. The first thing I want to mention is conflicts. The whole TV series is abounding with conflicts: the conflicts between countries, values, religions, ideologies and political interests in the exterior and the conflicts in families, friends, personal mentality and beliefs in the interior. These conflicts and struggles exist in our everyday life and 24 represent the complexity of such conflicts to incite the audience (at least I have) ponder on some rather serious questions: Why there are so many struggles in the world? Are political interests really more important than human’s life? Why people living in the 21st century have to be cyborgs and dominated by biopower? How can we make ourselves live in a safer and more peaceful environment? More importantly, is the alienation (such as the religions which were created to comfort human beings but now brings in more suffering to some extent is a typical sort of alienation) a degeneracy of human society or a natural stage? And are the criteria of “justice” and “evil” we believe in trustworthy? Since the conflicts and struggles are becoming the themes of human life, the real human nature and humanism are dying away - it may be too pessimistic to say so but we cannot deny that human beings are becoming more pugnacious, brutal, callous and selfish. (I remember that it is written in Holy Bible, “We are all sons of God”, and after watching 24 I have a better understanding on why Nietzsche said “God is dead”!)
Another essence in 24 is choices. The characters in 24 are facing choices related with life and death almost every minute, and every choice brings in sufferings. Take Jack Bauer for instance, as I have mentioned ahead, he is a cyborg citizen with many different identities he has to fulfill. It is this diversity of identity that brings him conflicts and choices: choices between individual and country, career and family, life and death, trust and distrust, etc. All these choices make Jack a superhero but ruined his life and smashed his spirit at the same time; he lost almost everything in his life including his wife and friends, becoming lonely and unhappy. Although there is not a real Jack Bauer in the reality, there are many modern citizens like him and we can find some similarities between Jack and ourselves: for instance, we both live with multi-identities, under pressures from different sources and are weighed down with playing our roles. However, it is simply a truth that no one can have an eye on everything simultaneously and as a result, although modern citizens are playing many roles, they do not play any of them well. As a matter of fact, after seeing the whole TV series, we can go to the conclusion that what is presented in 24 is exactly what we are doing all the time: making stiff choices between different interests and striving to play our roles well.
What’s more, in the process of facing conflicts and making choices, and the sacrifice of families, affections and workmates, the characters in 24 are all struggling with their own destiny and fighting against their inner weaknesses. Accordingly another message 24 conveys is the toughness of human beings and tells people the real enemy you confront is yourself.
In conclusion, as a media product made in the U.S. after 9/11 attacks, 24 reflect the complicated relationship between mass media, politics and cultural background of human society. It suggests the tendentiousness on U.S. ideology and diplomacy and can be viewed as a product of the traditional adoration of heroism. Also, the story told in 24 is a representation of the new model of relationship between genders and human – technology in postmodern society. Besides discussing the alienation of human in modern time, 24 puts up a paradigm of goodness, faithfulness and mutual-affections, it calls for the return of human nature. - This is my personal interpretation of 24 in the cultural-analysis context.
References:
[i] Roland Barthes. Rhetoric of the Image. Image, Music, Text. Ed. and trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. 32-51.
[ii] Fiske, J. and J. Hartley (1988). The Signs of Television; The Codes of Television. In Reading Television. (pp.37-67). London, Routledge.
[iii] Kolker, R. (2002). Preface. Film, Form and Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill
[iv] Dyer, R. (1997). The white man’s muscles. White (pp.145-183). London: Routledge.
[v] Foucault, M. (1979). Excerpts from The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. In Natoli, J. & Hutcheon, L. (EDs). 1993. A Postmodern Reader (pp.333-341). NY: State U of NY
[vi] Gray, C. H. (2002). Citizenship in the age of electronic reproduction. Cyborg citizen (pp.21-54). New York: Routledge.
[vii] Foucault, M. (1984). Panopticism. In P. Rainbow, (Ed.), The Foucault reader: an introduction to Foucault’s thought (pp.206-213).
Nov, 2007
Course Title: Media and Culture Analysis
The interactions between mass media, culture and politics in the postmodern circumstance
- Take U.S. TV series 24 as a case
In contemporary society, mass media, culture and politics are always integrated and interacted with one another, the mass media is a reflection of the culture and politics to which it belongs and it has the reaction to both of the two domains. In this paper, I’ll analyze the process of interactions between mass media, culture and politics with a case study of the TV series 24.
First of all I’d like to analyze what 24 is as a mass media product. According to Roland Barthes, the entire signification of a culture product can be scaled into three levels: The denotative level, the connotative level and the ideological level.[i] Connected with 24, the denotative level of it is a story about a competent agent Jack Bauer working for a fictional U.S. government Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) and fights against terrorism threat to save the nation, it is an American TV series wins many awards and is full of suspense. The connotative level is about a super-hero fight against evil and protects the country, making choices and also suffering from the conflicts between family and country, life and death, trust and betrayal, humanity and bloodiness, ration and emotion. And on the ideological level, 24 questions some major subjects in the field of culture, sociology and politics, e.g. the relationship between human power and technology, the roles of male and female plays in contemporary society, the individualism and worship of hero in the American culture, together with the ideological icon this TV series implies after the 9/11 terrorism attacks.
24 and ideology: The mass media’s function in building up an ideology
Postmodernism holds a trenchant point of view on mass media and its function in solidify a system of ideology. According to Fiske and Hartley[ii] and other theorists, people understand the world through their own ideologies, which infiltrate into the culture via language, narrative, symbol, and mass media, etc. Since the ideologies are repeated ceaselessly in a certain culture context by the media, people (the receivers of such repetition), form a natural response and begin to certificate and accept those ideologies without any question or doubt. This process has established the “power” or “violence” of mass media, they have the power to define, to judge and to dominate everything in public life: for instance, they keep on telling people stories about crimes and immorality as well as the threats caused by them, as a result the person who receives such information will spontaneously distinguish “him/herself” from “them” in this context and thus behave him/herself as a law-abiding, cautious and conscientious citizen. Anything excluded by such narrative created by mass media is regarded as deviation and is being marginalized in society. In one word, postmodernism asserts that it is mass media create the legitimacy of ideology.
In this perspective, 24 is successfully using the power of mass media to conform the U.S. ideology and rebuild people’s confidence after 9/11. The first episode of the TV series is shown nearly two months after the 9/11 attacks, this terrorism attacks had arouse profound transformation in the U.S. politics, economics, diplomacy and social life, also, the country’s confidence of being a superpower is collapsed attended with the Twin Towers; the sense of panic, insecurity and wrath caused by the attacks flourished the country and anti-terrorism became an international subject overnight.
In such condition, 24 rigidly touches the sensitive subject of anti-terrorism and sets the whole story in a tragic and anxious atmosphere, directly facing the panic consist in American citizens and insinuates the 9/11 and Iraq War throughout its narratives. In my perspective, Jack Bauer, the leading character, is an extension of American former screen superheroes like the Superman, Batman and Terminator etc. that all cater to the country’s worship of individualistic heroism. And for Jack Bauer, his almighty competence and bravery in fight against terrorism give the audience an image of a hero who can conquer any difficulty in any condition and roughly but successfully save the country, save people’s lives, a hero like him is exactly needed for American citizens to construct a sense of security after 9/11.
Then 24, as a TV series and a form of American mass media, tries to build up the nation’s confidence by advocating heroism and creating a virtually secure environment which is similar to the realities but not at all realities. We have to admit that what we called “reality” is “an agreement we make with ourselves and between ourselves and the rest of the culture about what we will call real”[iii]. Postmodernism develop this point of view to a higher level by pointing out the delusive aspect of the reality such as “representation” and “simulacra”. To same extent, 24 matches what Jameson called a “pastiche” in the contemporary vision-dominated postmodern world and we can define 24 as a pastiche which represents the image of U.S. according to the traditional and ideal views to comfort and lull people. It gives an image that “Even if the same thing happens in reality, some superhero like Jack Bauer will come forth and defuse the crisis.”
Another influence created by the “hegemony” of mass media is that, different ideologies will “compete” with each other and show their validity in the space exploited by their own mass media. (Like the Hollywood blockbuster Titanic, the ideological information it bears is obvious: the success of the American New World, which is portrayed as youthful, energetic, full of democracy and freedom, while oppositely the European Old World is senile and autarchic. With the film sweeping the world, the glamorous, perfect image of America spread.)
Things are similar in 24, the ideological conflict between the east and the west is reflected in the TV series. For instance, in 24, the source of terrorism attacks is directly alluding some Mid-East and Asian countries and the images of the nation’s hostile countries including China are aggrandized again on screen. The ideological and political inclinations, similar to many other American mass media and popular culture products did, cultivate the validity and superiority of American Ideology in order to consolidate its meta-narratives.
I’d like to discuss more on that, in fact, ideology, culture, politics, and civilization are all intertwined, and mass media plays a dedicate role in this net. For instance, 24 is about anti-terrorism, and the origin of terrorism is actually rooted in the conflict between the East and West Civilizations, between Christianity and Islam (the religion is a representation of civilization). However, without a thorough analysis and objective understanding of the origin for which the West World should take much of the responsibility, anti-terrorism won’t be effective, at least, the way like expressing ideological opposition in 24 won’t be effective.
To sum up, from the TV series 24 we can educe that the ideological function of mass media is never out of date, the news, the films or other forms of mass media all have a huge influence on building up an ideology and meta-narrative, on propagandize political and cultural inclination, from this perspective, 24 has more meaning on ideological function besides entertainment.
24 and gender: The transformations in the gender role in postmodern time
Postmodernism emphasize the change in the power relationship between male and female in contemporary society. According to Richard Dyer[iv] and Foucault[v], the stereotypes of masculinity are shifting all the time in different situation, which indicate a change in the social status played by male and female roles. Power is dynamic; the nature of power relationship may shift all the time.
Although I mentioned in my previous discourse that Jack Bauer, the leading character, is an extension of American former screen superheroes like the Superman, Batman and Terminator etc. The differences between those heroes are also obvious: Firstly, unlike the 1970s muscle stars such as Schwarzeneger and Stallone, the actor, Kiefer Sutherland, who enacts the hero Jack Bauer, is a haggard-looking man with wrinkles and tiredness on his face. Besides his bravery, wisdom and almighty competence, 24 also shows the audience other aspects in his personality, something more like a human, a father, a husband, and a friend, rather than simply a hero. Like many other contemporary TV series and films (e.g. the Spider-Man), 24 breaks the traditional image, or stereotype, of a strong, callous white male and conveys the idea that a hero has his own emotions and sensibilities, happiness and sufferings, just like any man on the street. The ideal image of a hero has changed.
Secondly, the individualistic heroism in 24 is no longer real “individual” - Superman can save the world all by himself but Jack Bauer cannot, he has to depend on his supporting team including his fellows (many of them are females), the whole CTU and other government agencies, his leaders and, most importantly, machinery and technology (which will be discussed later). Here I’d like to concentrate on the roles male and female each played in 24, which can be a reflection of the gender issues in postmodern society.
In postmodern context, the traditional domination of patriarchy in the family or society is weakening and the male-centered meta-narrative is collapsed. Such is also happened on Jack, his family is broken, his daughter is rebellious, and his venture life is totally a mess. Although he is a superhero who can invincibly save the nation, he also, to some extent, reflects the living status of contemporary urban male citizens: living under huge pressure, being both physically and mentally debilitated, enmeshed in family and working crisis, lacking a real trustworthy friend in his life, etc. (And in 24, Jack cried many times when he faces the death of his wife and workmates or confront some rather difficult choices.) His loneliness and helplessness correspond to the declination of masculinity in postmodern society as man are no longer the center or most powerful group in society since knowledge have been greatly transferred to females. On the other hand, the imperfections of Jack Bauer as a superhero make the image of him “perfect” on the contrary, which is more real and amiable than the earlier screen heroes.
If we see Jack Bauer as a representative of contemporary masculinity, the female characters in 24 can then be figured as a representative of contemporary feminism. Around four hundred years ago Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet “Fragility, thy name is woman!” However, things have changed today, women are no longer, at least not only, an existence of fragility; the female characters in 24 have comprised almost every typical stereotype of contemporary women, which indicate the sense of independency of women in postmodern society.
Jack’s daughter, Kim, a typical contemporary American teenager, also a young woman, rebellious and capricious, she tends to see her family problem in her own point of view and stands for self-directed ideas in her life. She is a trouble-maker and is not a liked character in 24; this is probably because she reflects some of the eccentricity of teenagers in today’s society. However, when she tells her mom “I love you” for the first time as she is in real danger and struggles to escape with her friend after being hijacked, we can feel that under her rebellious façade, her inner world is rather frail and eager for love. Kim is the representative of contemporary young woman seeking for independence and love in their lives but always have no ideas when they are in real crisis situation. (And Jack’s wife, Teri, a mid-aged woman who worries about her family problem and relies on her husband when accident happens – by calling him ceaselessly, is more traditional and domestic. She represent the ideal image of women in patriarchy families.)
There are some stronger female characters in 24, like the dirty agent Nina Myers, one of Jack's closest and most trusted allies in CTU - Michelle, and the wife of the President, Sherry Palmer, etc. They have some common features: well-educated, very competent in the field they engaged in, sedate and intelligent – in one word, they play the roles that are supposed to be acted by men before. In contemporary society, the group of such “forceful women” in the field of politics, business, high-tech, academe etc. is increasing rapidly, the power has been largely transferred from man to women. This corresponds to Foucault’s discourse on power-knowledge relation, which asserts that knowledge is the determinant of power rather than gender in postmodern time and the one who owns knowledge owns power.
Here is another question on the postmodern gender issues: with the fluid of power between genders in today’s society, the boundaries of different social roles male and female played are blurred, this has caused the traditional gender characteristics disappearing. For instance we can see that neutralized dress and style has become a fashion internationally and many people are tending to be transgender. Is it a natural step in the development of human beings or a kind of alienation of human society? Personally I cannot prefigure the future of this power transference between men and women and curious about what men and women will be like decades later.
24 and technology: cyborg citizens and biopower in postmodern city
One research subject of post-humanism is how to face the influence of technology on human beings and how to use technology properly in postmodern time. We cannot deny that human beings have already been alienated by technology – non-personalized, abstracted, symbolic and becoming instrument. According to Chris Gray[vi], advances in technology have changed our definitions of what it is to be a human and what it is to be a citizen, we can move beyond the fixed states of the human body and nation, we can communicate beyond the limit of geographical position, by cyber-modification and cybernetic systems such as the Internet.
Further, Gray argues that since technology enables human to get beyond the natural bounds of the body and promote the artificial intelligence, the distinction between human and machine are fading away, the human brain can be biologically altered or technologically enhanced to its perceived potential. Thus, Gray proposes to rethink the definition of citizenship since citizens have largely become cyborgs and the influences of cyborgs on ethics and politics in today’s society.
Take 24 as an example, it is obvious that Jack Bauer is a cyborg citizen living in the 21st century and utilizing every latest achievement of technology. More accurately, his power is largely relying on technology and we can say without technology Jack Bauer can do nothing but sitting in his office or staying at home. Technology and his body have been merged into a unity which is defined as a “cyborg”. McLuhan said media is the extension of man, for Jack Bauer, technology (to which media belongs) is the extension of himself. Gray advocates the political equality and the right to express opinions democratically for cyborg citizens which is rather hard to achieve in real life. For Jack, since his power and knowledge are granted by the country government, he has to act accord with his social status rather than act as he really wants to. In 24, we can see that Jack lost his wife and workmates in order to fulfill his responsibility to the nation and for many times he wants to quit but he couldn’t. The rights for cyborg citizens are restricted.
On the other hand, due to the infiltration of technology into every aspect of social life, the status of women has been greatly improved and a new social relation between man and woman is building up. This is what Haraway called “a boundary-less form”, which is a new phase in the development of feminism.
I’d like to analyze more on the restricted rights of today’s cyborg citizens. It is not only a deprivation of utterance but also an outcome of the mechanism of surveillance in postmodern society. According to Foucault[vii], surveillance (the act of keeping watch over a person or place) is one of the primary means through which a society enacts control over its subjects. Modern social subjects regulate their own behavior in a panopticon way: presume they are being watched by the power system (e.g. social institutions) and then they control and regulate their behavior to fulfill the system. As a result, a certain type of citizen is “produced” by the mechanism of surveillance and the relations of dominance and subordination are maintained in the process. The combination of modern power and human body generates the “biopower”, which refers to the power exercised over human body in order to train or force individual to act by the dominance’s intention: willing to work, fight wars, produce babies, etc. It is like creating a meta-narrative and only when the individuals obey such orders can they obtain their own power.
Let’s go back to 24, Jack Bauer is a typical existence under this biopower, his identities regulate his behaviors. He is an agent of CTU, so he has to bet his life to fight against terrorism; he is a father as well as a husband, so he is responsible to protect and rescue his family; he is a superhero in others’ eyes so he is deemed to perform missions that are impossible to achieve. All of these identities are conveying surveillance from the “gaze” of the social institutions as well as from the whole community, once Jack Bauer trespass against such regulations, he will be marginalized and lose his power – he is no longer “Jack Bauer” and become nobody in his society. On the other hand, the terrorists in this TV series are also operated by the biopower of their society and politics; they behave like “jihad” in order to match their system of surveillance and ideology. In one word, biopower produces a certain kind of citizen that serves to the establishment of an ideology.
Conclusion: 24 and the eternal pursuit of human nature
What strikes me most in 24 is the discussion and investigation of human nature. From my perspective the pursuit of human nature and humanity is the only eternal subject glowing throughout the history and development of human society. It surpasses the struggles on politics or conflicts between different countries and different interest groups; it characterized the universal strengths, weaknesses, anguish, happiness and needs, etc. of human beings exceeding the boundaries of races and ideologies. In postmodern circumstance, the investigation of human nature and the returning of humanism are rather important for people since human and human societies are being enormously alienated by technology.
From my perspective, the theme of 24 is not only about political struggles, diplomatic mediations and anti-terrorism - it also represents the test and challenge on human nature. The first thing I want to mention is conflicts. The whole TV series is abounding with conflicts: the conflicts between countries, values, religions, ideologies and political interests in the exterior and the conflicts in families, friends, personal mentality and beliefs in the interior. These conflicts and struggles exist in our everyday life and 24 represent the complexity of such conflicts to incite the audience (at least I have) ponder on some rather serious questions: Why there are so many struggles in the world? Are political interests really more important than human’s life? Why people living in the 21st century have to be cyborgs and dominated by biopower? How can we make ourselves live in a safer and more peaceful environment? More importantly, is the alienation (such as the religions which were created to comfort human beings but now brings in more suffering to some extent is a typical sort of alienation) a degeneracy of human society or a natural stage? And are the criteria of “justice” and “evil” we believe in trustworthy? Since the conflicts and struggles are becoming the themes of human life, the real human nature and humanism are dying away - it may be too pessimistic to say so but we cannot deny that human beings are becoming more pugnacious, brutal, callous and selfish. (I remember that it is written in Holy Bible, “We are all sons of God”, and after watching 24 I have a better understanding on why Nietzsche said “God is dead”!)
Another essence in 24 is choices. The characters in 24 are facing choices related with life and death almost every minute, and every choice brings in sufferings. Take Jack Bauer for instance, as I have mentioned ahead, he is a cyborg citizen with many different identities he has to fulfill. It is this diversity of identity that brings him conflicts and choices: choices between individual and country, career and family, life and death, trust and distrust, etc. All these choices make Jack a superhero but ruined his life and smashed his spirit at the same time; he lost almost everything in his life including his wife and friends, becoming lonely and unhappy. Although there is not a real Jack Bauer in the reality, there are many modern citizens like him and we can find some similarities between Jack and ourselves: for instance, we both live with multi-identities, under pressures from different sources and are weighed down with playing our roles. However, it is simply a truth that no one can have an eye on everything simultaneously and as a result, although modern citizens are playing many roles, they do not play any of them well. As a matter of fact, after seeing the whole TV series, we can go to the conclusion that what is presented in 24 is exactly what we are doing all the time: making stiff choices between different interests and striving to play our roles well.
What’s more, in the process of facing conflicts and making choices, and the sacrifice of families, affections and workmates, the characters in 24 are all struggling with their own destiny and fighting against their inner weaknesses. Accordingly another message 24 conveys is the toughness of human beings and tells people the real enemy you confront is yourself.
In conclusion, as a media product made in the U.S. after 9/11 attacks, 24 reflect the complicated relationship between mass media, politics and cultural background of human society. It suggests the tendentiousness on U.S. ideology and diplomacy and can be viewed as a product of the traditional adoration of heroism. Also, the story told in 24 is a representation of the new model of relationship between genders and human – technology in postmodern society. Besides discussing the alienation of human in modern time, 24 puts up a paradigm of goodness, faithfulness and mutual-affections, it calls for the return of human nature. - This is my personal interpretation of 24 in the cultural-analysis context.
References:
[i] Roland Barthes. Rhetoric of the Image. Image, Music, Text. Ed. and trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. 32-51.
[ii] Fiske, J. and J. Hartley (1988). The Signs of Television; The Codes of Television. In Reading Television. (pp.37-67). London, Routledge.
[iii] Kolker, R. (2002). Preface. Film, Form and Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill
[iv] Dyer, R. (1997). The white man’s muscles. White (pp.145-183). London: Routledge.
[v] Foucault, M. (1979). Excerpts from The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. In Natoli, J. & Hutcheon, L. (EDs). 1993. A Postmodern Reader (pp.333-341). NY: State U of NY
[vi] Gray, C. H. (2002). Citizenship in the age of electronic reproduction. Cyborg citizen (pp.21-54). New York: Routledge.
[vii] Foucault, M. (1984). Panopticism. In P. Rainbow, (Ed.), The Foucault reader: an introduction to Foucault’s thought (pp.206-213).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
