Ultimate Analysis.

I will be using Sara M.'s recap of the Survivor: Nicaragua episode "This is Going To Hurt" in this blog entry. It can be found at TelevisionWithoutPity.

How did the individual responses in your group vary? Which differences are examples of polysemy, and which are example of polyvalance?

My response differed from Sara's in that there were different players that I like. She seems to favor Chase, who I absolutely detested throughout the season. Other than her views on each character, her recap is objective enough not to question. I believe that this makes our differences an example of polyvalence. What we are given to decode is the same, and we tend to break down the actual events in a similar way, but our views on the characters themselves and their moral outlooks differ quite drastically. Sara defends Chase's moves within the game of Survivor, siting moves that I myself would call wishy-washy or pathetic.

How did the individual responses in your group converge? Identify possible shared interpretive communities that could explain this similarity.

In general, Sara and I have responded to the events in the later half of this season of Survivor in quite a similar way. Each character is given certain traits that are hyperbolized for the audiences, and it seems that Sara has picked up on this as much as I have. "Merry Jane" is a statement to Jane's character, while she knows that Holly is neurotic, and Fabio has a lot more going on inside of his head than a lot of the other castaways seem to think. This is what makes me believe that polysemy is not taking place, as we often walk away with the same general memories and interpretations of the events from each episode. I believe that Sara and I converge so strongly on our general outlook towards each episode because we are from the shared interpretive community of, well, Survivor fanatics. While this may seem like too obscure a demographic to deem a cultural category, I believe that Sara and I are able to look at episodes in a similar way because we have both watched Survivor for so long. In doing so, we have gotten used to its conventions, over-looking the predictability at times to see what each new season has to offer.

Which group members used dominant codes for interpreting the video? Negotiated/Oppositional codes? How do you know these things?

I believe that both Sara and I used negotiated codes over oppositional and dominant. Despite our differing opinions, neither of us is seeking to directly oppose Survivor itself. Instead, we both use our own believes in combination with the conventions of the show itself to interpret it week to week. I am honestly a little rusty on what dominant codes is referring to, but I don't believe that either of us follow this thought process based on my understanding of dominant coding.

While the same message may have been encoded, "Sara M." and myself clearly decoded much different things.

JAC..

A Queer Analysis Of Modern Family.

How, if at all, does the representation in the clip reinforce systems of heteronormativity? What stereotypes of heterosexuality and homosexuality are present in the clip?

I don't know that this clip reinforces systems of heteronormativity as much as it just brings the subject to the forefront. The best example of this is when Mitchell and Cameron (the gay couple) is at the gas station on their way to the party. A very typically masculine guy bumps into their car, which upsets Mitchell. He begins to call the man out on it, but backs down as the man begins to intimidate him. Afraid to look the man in the eye, Mitchell winds up turning around and calling him a bad name. The manly man hears Mitchell and gets in his face. This is when Fizbo, Cameron's clown alternate ego, decides to shine, stepping in for Mitchell and getting the guy who bumped their car to apologize for the whole ordeal.
It is very interesting to me from the beginning of this scene how Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Mitchell) decided to play it. From the very beginning of the encounter, he is looking down most of the time, wanting to speak his mind, but clearly afraid of how the seemingly heterosexual man will react. Heteronormativity is reinforced, or represented here, in that Mitchell would not have felt nearly as uncomfortable speaking his mind had he been what the other man would have considered "straight". Granted, the guy who bumps into their car does look like a pretty mean dude regardless, but I believe a lot of what makes Mitchell afraid to be up front in this scene is the fact that he is self-conscious about his homosexuality, and how this will come off to a man who he is already in a confrontation with. In a way, it seems that Cam was only able to stand up to the man behind the make-up of Fizbo. Though he looked ridiculous suited up like a clown, he was demanding and assertive when standing up for Mitchell, which is quite out of the norm for Cameron.


This scene in particular depicts the binary of heterosexuality and homosexuality quite clearly. On one end are Mitchell and Cameron the homosexuals, who are more feminine than most other men on the show, and on the other end is this macho dude at the gas station. A better example from the regular cast of defined heterosexuality might be the character of Jay, the patriarch of the family. Jay is often reserved, and does not speak about his feelings very often. He is in constant fear that his step-son will turn out like his son Mitchell, and does whatever he can to make sure that this won't happen (such as advocating his step-son's fencing and attempts at picking up girls). Though Jay has accepted that his son is gay and that he has a partner for life in Cameron, he does not seem particularly pleased or comfortable with it. When Mitchell and Cameron arrive to the party, Cameron as Fizbo, begins doing a little of his act for Jay. At first, Jay smiles and tries to humor his pseudo son-in-law, but eventually just walks away, saying something to the affect of not being able to do this. Though it is funny within the context, it is clear that Jay is simply uncomfortable because Cameron is not masculine enough by his standards.

How does the clip link sexuality and gender? In your opinion, do these associations reinforce or challenge heteronormativity?

I found the plot between Phil and Claire to be as much about gender as the Fizbo plot. The Dunphy's are trying to throw their son Luke the perfect party, and clearly each have differing opinions on what the perfect party for a ten year old boy should be like. Phil believes that it should be a fun, adventure party, with reptiles and rock-climbing and other physical activities. Claire, on the other hand, remembers having a blast making comb-satchels at a little girl's party when she was a kid, and thinks this would be a great activity for Luke and his friends. On the day of the party, it is clear that all of the kids favor Phil's party, the only two to wind up making comb bags being Mitchell and Claire. There is a clear, gendered dyad here, despite the fact that both Claire and Phil are heterosexual.
It is clear that many of the men in this episode believe that sexuality and gender should exist along clear-cut lines. Jay, the patriarch of the family, clearly believes that those of the male gender should be sexually attracted to women and that those of the female gender should be sexually attracted to men. Throughout this episode, several others are uncomfortable when these lines are crossed, such as the buff guy at the gas station that Mitchell attempts to confront. I'm not sure if Phil is terrified of Fizbo because Fizbo is a clown, or if there is something deeper about the fact that it is Cameron, a gay man, dressed in a clown's suit.
I believe this episode challenges systems of heteronormativity by bringing them to the forefront. It is clear that in the confrontation at the gas station, that the man is not okay with Mitchell to start with because of his sexuality, or because he comes off as "gay", but as a viewer, it would be hard not to side with Mitchell and against the aggressive man in the situation. Mitchell is clearly the underdog, and the one who's in the right in the situation.

How, if at all, does the clip portray sexuality as a permanent, personal, or special quality? After reading this chapter, do you find that portrayal troubling or affirming? Why/why not?

For most of the characters in the show, sexuality is very permanent and personal. Though the plot focuses on the gay couple, the heterosexuals within the episode certainly have conquests of sexuality of their own. Manny is in love with a girl from his class, and this makes Jay proud. Phil and Claire's daughter is jealous of her boyfriend even speaking to another woman, and this is certainly a response based on gender, if not each character's sexuality as well. Cameron and Mitchell's sexuality in particular seems to shine through in each as a permanent, personal, and special quality. The two can't help but be who they are, and this is part of what makes them so endearing. In a way, it is troubling that the two gay character's sexualities seem to way more heavily on their personalities than those of the heterosexual characters, but at the same time this is somewhat realistic, as a homosexual probably does in fact toil with their own sexuality a lot more throughout their life than a heterosexual does in going through the motions of a heteronormative world.


Progress.


JAC..

A Feminist Analysis.

What gender stereotypes discussed in this chapter do you see present in the texts?

Like anything that Seth Macfarlane creates, "The Cleveland Show" not only creates and advocates stereotypes, but it does so in a more blatant, outright manor than other shows might. While a news program, or a talk show might try to hide any stereotyping that might take place, shows like Family Guy and American Dad feed off of the taboo nature of upfront stereotyping. From the very beginning of this clip, we see Donna readjust her skirt and boobs, an obvious attempt at gendered humor. From there, we see her take off her wedding ring and join her single, female friends while Cleveland is at home, trying to care of the children. Though most of what I have to say will be discussed in the section about role reversals, there is a clear-cut way that the show seems to view both men and women.

I believe that this stereotypes of active/passive, public/private, and logical/emotional were all reversed within this episode, while the depiction of the stereotypes of the sexual object and sexual subject could be interpreted in multiple ways. The book describes the fact that, at least stereotypically speaking, media tends to define men as powerful and "in charge", while women are often depicted as objects or the catalysts for sexual quests. In this clip, however, Donna seems to be the one in charge, while Cleveland is subjected to being the object of her affection. The reason that I don't believe that this was a complete role reversal is because I believe that like in this episode, men are depicted as wanting sex at all time, always a willing participant if the woman is willing. Though Donna throughout this clip and in the two bedroom scenes does seem to take on the masculine role of being in power and in charge, Cleveland is still always willing to succumb to her advances. So, as I said, I believe that in this case, this binary is a muddled mix of tradition gendered stereotype adherence and gender reversal. That being said, I believe that it is always clear, whether the roles are reversed or not, that each of these two main characters is playing the role of one gender or another throughout the episode. Though Cleveland acts very stereotypically feminine throughout this episode and is only masculine at times, it is clear that at all times he is playing one role or the other.

What additional gender stereotypes not addressed in this chapter can you identify? How might they be related to those from this chapter?

One is the stereotype, or common belief that men are willing to have sex at any time, as long as there is a woman there who wants it as well. Cleveland is upset with Donna, especially in the second bedroom scene, but still breaks when Donna comes on to him sexually. Another is the idea that a woman might want to hide the fact that she is married in order to enjoy single life. Though I believe the cheating or untruthful spouse is represented in the media on both ends (both male and female), I believe that is shown different for each gender. Donna takes off her wedding ring and neglects to mention to her single friends that she has a husband simply in order to have a good time away from the house and routine. I believe when a male is shown taking off his wedding ring, there is usually some sort of infidelity to follow it. As we see, there was no man that Donna was trying to hide her marriage from, but she still felt the need to lie to both Cleveland and her friends. I believe that when a man takes off his ring it is rarely for something so un-promiscuous. That why I believe that even this may have been an example of role reversal, as Cleveland is shown in the next scene, worrying about his wife and the family. In reality, though, everyone knows that infidelity happens on all ends of the spectrum, and that it can more truthfully be chocked up to the character of the individual than their gender.

Are there any examples of gender reversals in the text?

As I stated above, I believe this episode was a better example of role reversal than anything else, though I do believe that this role reversal was well-defined to the point that it was clear that the individuals were acting their opposites.

The contrast between the active male and passive female seems to be directly reversed within this episode to the point that it seems intentional. Donna becomes the untruthful husband who is going out, being social, while Cleveland is left at home, taking on the role of the passive one, caring for the children and the house. Cleveland also gets emotional, becoming the worried wife who can't trust their spouse. This is much like the contrast that the book discusses between the lives of Marge and Homer Simpson, though the genders have been reversed. Donna is the one going out and getting drunk and causing drama within the family, while Cleveland is the passive, emotional one trying to hold everything together. It is arguable whether or not Donna is particularly logical throughout the episode, but besides her drunken tirades she is much more composed, or at least less consumed with emotion than Cleveland is.

Favorite thing the book had to say:

"Sexism is discrimination based upon a person's sex. Instead of targeting individual men, or even men as a social group, feminism seeks to reveal and eradicate socially ingrained systems of sexism that harm all individuals."

JAC

Rhetorical Analysis.

What are the key signs? What other signs cluster around them and what associations and dissociations are invited by the clustering of signs? What is strategically absent from the texts?

In the National guard promotion, most of the shots that are shown are under two seconds, and depict various staged scenes of war. In each, an American soldier seems to be rescuing someone in need, or blowing up an enemy, or finding themselves. I believe that these scenes are all signs that the army can equal power, glory, and heroism. When one goes from citizen to soldier, all of these events could take place, apparently, raising the one who made this choice to the level of esteem that the individuals depicted in this promotion seem to have achieved. The National Guard is associated with all of these positives, instead of the other very real possibilities that joining the National Guard can create for a person: such as death, disability, or delusion.
The Army Strong Recruiting Video is more testimonial, and less hands-on. In this video, various veterans, soldiers, and trainees are depicted attesting to what being a soldier means. Some times people are shown individually, some times in groups of soldiers, saluting and chanting a similar creed. In a way, the video seems to be saying that to be a member of the army is a sign of all of these things that these individuals who are already a part of the army are saying. To be an American soldier is to "never accept defeat" and to be "an expert and a professional" etc. Like the National Guard video, this video fails to really delve into the possible negative consequences of joining the armed forces. Instead, the army is only associated with prominence and pride.

What formal appetites does the text create? How are they resolved?

Through the use of quick shots and triumphant music, I believe that the videos create an appetite that can only be satiated by the typical ending that we all know is coming: join the army; here's our number. I do not believe that the National Guard satiates the appetite that it creates very well, or is at least anti-climactic to a certain extent. We see all of these staged war scenes for thirty seconds before we see a regular boy become a soldier. The disconnect between those images and the truth is too great for me to believe that this was the best approach, the best way to satisfy the appetite created. Of course, we're not going to see any blood, see the enemies blow up or get shot at the end, so we just see that we ourselves can live all of this glory by joining without seeing the consequences.

Identify three other messages that share at least some structural similarities with the video. What are the similarities and what expectations do they foster?

For some reason, both the National Guard and Army Strong Recruiting videos remind of the adds they used to run before a while ago with Tiger Woods, before all of the scandal. In these commercials, which were for the Nike company, many people would be shown achieving athletic greatness, and then simply saying, "I am Tiger Woods", which was a sign of them believing in themselves and their abilities to excel. Though being a good golf player is much different than being a good soldier, the message is delivered in a similar, almost exalted way. Join the army, and you can achieve greatness like these individuals. Buy Nike products and you can achieve greatness like Tiger Woods himself.
Another is an add that I saw before the Super Bowl last year for Febreze in which a wife is seen cleaning the house as if it is war with the men and the fowl odors that they create during the game. These two adds just remind me of this Febreze ad because they are all shown in quick clips, as if an actual battle is taking place. The message in the end may be much different, but there are definite structural similarities.
Finally, 

What is the story being told in the video? What are its main characters and events? What do you notice about the specific discourse being used in the video and what are the characteristics of the narration?

The story in each of these videos is the possible story of you and your potential. It is the story of a person choosing to go from ordinary citizen to a glorified soldier and protector of freedom. The characters within the story are those who have already chosen this path, and who are achieving excellence because of this choice. Powerful, uplifting words are used to describe the lives and beliefs of those who have chosen a path in the military already. Nothing is really shown about the actual process of becoming a member of the army or National Guard, only what one can achieve once one has made this choice.




JAC..

Organizational Analysis.

 
Read the chapter on Organizational Analysis. Next, go to the class blog and watch both episodes of "The Colbert Report," and "The Daily Show." After reading and watching both episodes, blog the following question:


How does Stewart and Colbert explicitly and/or implicitly parody the four biases as described and outlined by Bennett in this chapter?


I enjoyed watching these two episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, because I haven't tuned into either program on a regular basis in several years. Though it is hard to classify either of these shows as a true news program, they do parody the format and conventions of news programming quite closely. Like the book discusses about Blink 182's "All The Small Things" music video, neither The Daily Show of The Colbert Report would be even slightly credible if they did not follow the codes of news and talk show programming so closely.


Despite the fact that both programs are clear examples of "mews" (mock-news), both do deliver a decent amount of truth in each episode, some of which comes from being so directly opposed to traditional news programming. In a way, Jon Stewart sounding biased against the mistakes that President Obama has apparently been making almost makes it appear as though Stewart is mocking the mockers, or those who have been putting down Obama, rather than Obama himself.


Both Colbert and Stewart chose to make things extremely personal in their interviews and discussion sessions. As mentioned above, Stewart spent 3-5 minutes going on and on about Obama himself, and other former presidents who had been put down by the media in the past. When Colbert is doing his package on King Tut's Penis, he focuses more on the awkward exhibitor who allows him to tour the museum than he does on King Tut himself. In a way, both seem to be more explicit with their biases, which might lend to the feeling that they are only joking and mocking other reporters and media professionals. Both Colbert and Stewart seem to explicitly work for dramatization and narrative content. Stewart wanted to know the story about Marion Jones losing her medal, going to prison, wanted to hear about the motions of it all. Similarly, Colbert wanted a story to go along with his guests David and Julie Eisenhower, putting up an adorable picture on the screen from the day the two apparently met.


Even in the real news, or news that is more focused on reporting the facts, there is an attempt to plug at these human emotions. It always shocks me that the ten second teasers you tend to see for the news that night are often so morbid, thinking that viewers are more likely to stay for a story about a mother drowning her baby than for a story about a boy scout troupe, or some attempt at world peace. In this way, I believe that the bigger news affiliates try to implicitly create personalization and dramatization, though they are often quite obvious about it.


The authority-disorder bias is the hardest for me to define within these two episodes, because the focal point in both episodes tended to be on the authority. In a way, both Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert seem to represent the disorder, or those who are cynical about the people currently in power. They serve as a gateway for the audience to question authority explicitly, openly.


Both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are extremely fragmented, which I believe is a problem with many new programs today. In the case of these two shows, each topic is packaged into a story strung along with a series of jokes. Though these jokes often lead into the next segment, there is rarely a real relation between sequential subjects. Colbert and Stewart are often able to make fun of the fact that they swing from one subject to another, but these shifts are not quite as seamless with other news programs. I find it quite funny when a reporter needs to wrap up a segment about a heart-filled issue that they feel the need to show compassion about, and has to appear to still have care for the first issue of the tragic death of the baby in the bathtub, while still rolling right into the next segment on Obama's tax mistakes.


Bias is unavoidable, but I believe that both of these shows do a decent job of balancing the bias, or at least making light of it. I believe that bias is always better, but perhaps not as convincing, if it is explicit. If one tries too hard to hide their feelings implicitly, then it can come off even more untruthful than a clear stance on an issue might.

Why Media???

I've wondered for a very long time what draws me to the media industry, and have come to the conclusion that I like the uncertainty of it all. The idea of working at a desk for the same hours every week literally frightens me, and I want to do everything in my power to avoid a fate of this nature.

But it is not just avoiding other industries, it is the media industry itself, which seems to be so dynamic and constantly changing. As new mediums emerge, it is only getting easier to get known, and get one's word out there, and that is what I really want to do. I see media as a way of leaving a trail of the things that I have done, and eventually and hopefully a long-lasting legacy. Whether one is in the media industry or not, I believe that what one chooses to watch or listen to strongly affects that persons general outlook, as well as their emotions on a day to day basis. Few things have been more rewarding to me than in August of 2005, when I made a video for a friend who was moving away. When we all sat down to watch it, several people were so moved that they began to cry. Now, don't think that I like making people cry. That isn't the case at all. It is simply the idea of creating something so powerful and permanent that it can move people for generations.

I was in the creative writing school for a few years, and looking back on the time I spent in the program, the first word that seems to always come to mind is stagnant. My poetry teacher last Spring told us that poetry is a dying art, and I agree. That's not to say that words themselves and text are no longer important, but I believe that nowadays this is not the best way to affect people and to show them how you feel. Visual representation of one's outlook may be the best way to represent what is going on in their mind. I want people to see my own perceptions of the world, whether they agree with them or not. On top of all of this, creating/directing/writing, they all make me extremely happy. When I edit something for a class, it does not feel like work, which tells me that this is something that I could possibly be happy doing in the future.

As I just transferred into the school, I have only completed one quarter of media classes, but feel that I learned more in this quarter about what I want to do and about the path I've chosen than I ever did as a creative writing major. I've learned that leadership and followership are both extremely important, but have also learned that I am not the type of person to follow. I am absolutely a collaborator, but I am not the group member that watches the project form before their eyes, pitching in where people ask me to.

I have also learned to let up a bit on myself. I am an extremely driven person, so it bothers me that I don't know exactly what I am working towards at the moment. I know what I want to do with my life, but would need several lifetimes to do it all. I'm trying to take the advice of my professors and realize that at this point it is more about the passion for the general art than it is about the specifics. Maybe I will be a director, maybe a writer for a sitcom, maybe something else entirely, something I never dreamed of being. But I'm learning that it's alright to try out several creative avenues and outlets before settling on one. I've never dabbled in audio production, but this could be my calling for all I know. If it is not, then it won't hurt to have learned some of the snuances of the audio industry, because I know that anything that I am willing to learn whole-heartedly will have positive results. As long as I am willing to adapt myself to the changes in the industry and the changes that might occur along my own path, I believe that everything will work out.

Overall, I have learned that whether it is film, video, or audio, that the media industry is right for me. I love it all, and always look forward to learning something new.