Sweded Industry: Subverting the Culture Through Negotiated Text

Throughout the course of Michael Gondry’s Be Kind Rewind, we are shown scenes from a documentary on the life of Fats Waller.  The documentary is amateurish with low production value by most modern standards.  Near the end of the film it is revealed that those clips are from the documentary produced by a small cadre of townsfolk about the local legends of Fats and represent their personal vision of what the documentary would be like.  This film becomes then an articulation or and artifact of the structure of feeling.  In William’s Analysis of Culture he identifies structure of feeling as the particular living result of all of the general elements of an organization.  In other words,  the structure of feeling is this cultural consciousness of all the little bits of culture within a group.  This documentary that the people of this New Jersey town make represents that.  There are elements of the individual lives and personalities of the people as well as the myths and ideologies that are fed into the documentary.  

      This plays into Williams identification of the 3 levels of culture.  The first he identifies is the lived culture.  We cannot know what that is unless we were a part of it ourselves.  Then there is the recorded culture.  This is where the documentary comes in to play.  It is a recorded instance of that lived culture or culture of feeling.  The elements reflected in this artifact are the visual aesthetic of the people, based upon their consumption of the artifacts of the cultural industry (Hollywood films), and the mythology of Fats Waller in their neighborhood.  Much of the story of Fats’ life is composed of half memories and all out fictions.  So the neighborhoodites also slide into the 3rd level which is selective tradition.  In this way the film represents a selective tradition of its own.  The neighbors have distilled the mythology and memory of Fats into this single artifact.

      This is the nature of all of the “sweded” films as well.  The selective tradition has a “greatest hits” quality to it and this is what Jerry and Mike do with the films.  There are moments in the films that are memorable and perhaps iconic and provide the gist of what the film is about narratively and thematically.  These moments represent the selective tradition and these scenes are what are utilized in the sweded versions.  In an extraordinary sequence shot, we see the cast and crew of these sweded films reenacting various key scenes from films of note, like 2001: a Space Odyssey and Last Tango in Paris.  These scenes are not necessarily the most memorable or important scenes in the film, but they are the scenes that are significant to the members of the neighborhood and as such represent part of the selective tradition.

      Interestingly these films represent what Hall calls a negotiated code.  The negotiated code concedes the legitimacy of the hegemony but sets own ground rules in small things.  The hollywood films are part of a hegemonic system and Mike and Jerry create a negotiated articulation of each film.  They still love the dominant culture and are being clearly imitative of that ideology.  Even so their articulation of the film also is indicative of their unique system of values (culture of feeling perhaps).  This negotiated code is viewed as demonstrably subversive by the dominant culture and suppressed by the destruction of the individual articulations of that negotiated culture.  The people then move to a oppositional stance, rejecting the hegemonic hollywood in favor of creating their own story, their own structure of feeling.  The documentary on Fats Waller is that articulation.  It works not only contrary to the Hegemony of Hollywood but also in opposition to the capitalist structure in general. They charge no admission to the showing of the film, rather accepting donations to save their building, their home. 

      Be Kind, Rewind is deceptive in its presentation.  It has all of the trappings of a hollywood comedy: Big stars (Danny Glover, Mia Farrow, and Jack Black), crossover star (rapper Mos Def), ridiculous premise, and inspirational message.  But when viewed within the context of cultural studies it reveals a more interesting and, honestly, subversive subtext.  The film itself appears to take a negotiated stance, occupying both spaces of opposition and hegemony.  In many cases it seems that this is the best we can do.  The system is far to large and complex to take down through pure opposition, articulations like this film indicate the potential success of cultures and sub-cultures subverting the system within the system.  They take their stand but still get the word out.  That little wrinkle seems to be where cultural studies is the most powerful.

Media Effects: How Utilizing Formal Cinematic Elements in Son Of Rambow Tells Us Who the Opinion Leaders Are

     While one may view Son of Rambow as critique of media effects, or at least a representation of how media can effect children’s view of the world and their social interactions, it more surreptitiously and, honestly, ingeniously demonstrates a fundamental weakness of media effects as a critical framework.  The majority of media effects research focuses on content and conjures to mind hordes of fretful politicians and parents wringing their hands over how violent, profane, and pornographic the media has become and why won’t someone just do something and save our children from becoming godless depraved sex-mongers.  On the other hand many media effects researchers look at how communication happens and how opinions are changed.  Even in these cases, the research seems to lack a fundamental basis in the elements media, particularly film, that differentiate them from common human interaction e.g. conversation.  Film is story, but it uses unique means to manipulate that story that the media effects researcher seem to ignore.  Much of film craft is related to controlling how the camera captures the image and moves from one image to another.  There is an enormous amount of work and study into these techniques and how they communicate with the audience and yet media effect does not pay much attention to them.  

     Son of Rambow tells a story of media effects, but uses the technique of cinema to also comment on that.  The commentary is not merely narrative or characterized, which is most of the “content” that media effects is concerned with, it is in the use of visual composition, that unique element of film, that tells the real story and actually defends media effects position whilst simultaneously critiquing it.   While the narrative of the film focuses ostensibly on the effect on our protagonist of having viewed First Blood (He makes associates with a bully, he leaves his church, he alienated his family, he lies, etc. which are all arguably negative but ultimately lead to good [friendship, finding ones self]) through its visual composition, or cinematic elements, the film discusses the power of the opinion leader.

      Katz and Lazarsfeld identify the role of the opinion leader as an individual who obtains information on a topic and then disseminate it to their peer and thereby influence the peers’ opinions on said topic.  They say, “Certain people in every stratum of a community serve relay roles in the mass communication of [...]information and influence.” (31)  These opinion leaders are not specific people, but a role that we play in our interpersonal relationships.  Throughout the film we are introduced to individuals who play the role of the opinion leader.  Different characters slide in and out of that role and show the fluidity of that role in interpersonal relations.  The filmmakers do not simply present them on screen but use framing techniques and movement to clarify which character is the opinion leader in that moment.

      In the opening scene of the film we see a group of religious people gathered outside a movie house (with the title First Blood) clearly displayed.  Joshua, an opinion leader in his own right, asks Will Proudfoot to read a Bible verse.  The actors are set far from the camera (deep focus) setting the audience at a distance from them.  Will steps foreword, placing him very close to the camera and framed in the center of the shot.  This establishes two things: first that Will is the protagonist and we should empathize with him making him an opinion leader, and secondly that he is uncomfortable with this position and uncertain as to what he should do.  By placing him in this was the film entices empathy.  We are more likely to agree with his position, feel his pain, and desire his success.  This is important as the film reaches its close and believe that his choice is ultimately right.

     The capturing of Didier’s image is equally effective in this way.  There are multiple images of Didier walking or standing with a group of boys.  He is framed center and also closest to the camera.  We know by this that he is the opinion leader of the group.  Regardless of the fact that the boys behind him are copying his walk and hair, the most convincing piece of evidence that he is the opinion leader is his position in the frame.  On another occasion we see him riding his skateboard from left to right in front of a group of boys.  While he is not framed center he is moving with the grain, leading the boys in the right direction.  His opinion, while alien and foreign, is trustworthy to these boys.  We believe that their following of him is justified because he’s going the right way.

      The film also take opportunity to portray the transition of opinion leader to another.  While well established that Didier is the opinion leader at the school that power transitions to Will in a remarkable scene.  Will is brought to the chapel of the school.  He sees Didier standing at the other end of the aisle.  He produces a pistol and walks toward Will.  Didier is on the right and Will is on the left.  We can see that Didier is no real threat to Will because he is moving against the grain.  In the following exchange Didier explains that he wants to be in Will’s movie.  This changes the role of opinion leader from Didier to Will.  The camera moves in and becomes a low-angle shot making Will seem larger, though he is shorter that Didier.  This use of these techniques makes accepting the narrative elements of the story that support the concept of opinion leader easier.

     The concept of an opinion leader is key to modern media effects research.  However, if we ignore the cinematic elements of the film, we can lose sight of where the unique power of media lies; in its visual components.  This is the true genius of the film.  Through deft usage of cinematography, the filmmakers are able to discuss the insights and failings of media effects using the very elements that that research ignores.  Perhaps media effects would gain greater support in the artistic community if it took into account the craft of the craft and not merely the content.  I don’t think that there is an artist that believes that their art has no effect on their audience.  Effecting your audience is the point.  But focusing on content at the expense of the formal elements that make the art art is what alienates artists and many theorists from media effects.  Which is why Son of Rambow is far more effective in discussing media effects than any number of essays ever could be.

Virile and Erotic Incompatibility with the Happy Ending in The Maltese Falcon

     After the horrors and atrocities of World War II, many returned stateside with a profound sense of cynicism.  Witnessing the the death camps and having to now live with the Bomb changed the way people thought.  It becomes much harder for people appreciate sunny optimism after all of that.  This change in attitude changed the way that people saw their films.  Happy endings became rare as more “real” unresolved endings took their place.  Robin Wood speaks of creating a synthetic theory that combines Auteur theory, genre studies, and ideology.  Perhaps one of the most interesting ideologies is how the motif of gender roles supports capitalist ideology.  The gender roles she identified are the Virile Man and his shadow the Settled Husband and the Ideal Woman and her shadow the Erotic Woman.  The happy ending (another element that supports ideology) often involves Virile and the Ideal ending up together.  The cynicism that came back with the men of the war effected the portrayal of these motifs in films that contributed to Noir Film.

     Jon Huston’s Maltese Falcon is indicative of the influence of this cynicism on those two motifs.  Both the Ideal Woman and The Settled Husband do not exist in the context of the film.  All men are some version on the Virile Man and the women the Erotic Woman.  Both have similar qualities: action oriented, adventuresome, wanderers, sexual.  I will focus on the protagonist Sam Spade and the Femme Fatale Brigid O’Shaughnessy and how their portrayal exemplifies the cynicism indicative of Film Noir.  

     There are a few moments that exemplify Sam’s role as the Virile man.  The first occurs soon after his partner is murdered.  His partner’s wife comes to see him and kisses him immediately.  She begs that they can be together and refuses her.  This early event in the film sets up his sex appeal.  We also see him shamelessly flirt with his secretary and establish a romantic relationship with Brigid.  The three women of the film all are romantically interested in Sam.  Also, we see him fulfill the requirement of a man of action.  When Sam is confronted by Cairo he quickly and easily disarms him, and laughs.  Not only does he solve his problems through violence but he seems to enjoy it.  When he meets with Gutman he throws a fit.  He violently throws a glass and breaks it making clear his masculine dominance over Gutman and Wilmer.  Afterwards, we see him laugh to himself as he walks down the hall.  His violent power is a source of enjoyment for himself and the audience.

     Equally Brigid represents the Erotic Woman.  When Brigid first enters the film she is an object of desire for the two detectives.    I clear component of the Erotic Woman is that she is adventuresome.  Brigid is involved in an international caper which is far removed from the steady woman who stays home and serves.  She is a liar and violent, she commits murder after all.  This woman is willing to do things that the ideal woman is never allowed to do.  Exemplary is her inviting Sam into her apartment while only wearing a robe.  This impropriety is only allowable for the Erotic Woman.  She is transgressive and more likely to comply with the inappropriate romantic overtures of the Virile Man.

     These two roles intersect with the happy ending motif (a subset of the America is the land of Happiness) in the film.  Traditionally the Virile Man would end up with the Ideal Woman and convert himself into the Settled Husband.  This would fulfill the expectation and square with the ideology.  This film has an incompatibility in which there are no Ideal Women to settle the Virile Man.  It is clear that it is impossible for Brigid and Sam to remain in a relationship as the compatible relationship is that of the Virile man and the Ideal woman, but since this relationship is mismatched the “Happy Ending” is a myth.  The Erotic Woman is sent to jail and Sam is left alone, but he is content with that.  This unresolved ending, as the antithesis of the happy ending, and represents the cynicism that is indicative in Noir.  

     Men came back from World War II ready to set aside the “Happy Ending”.  Sure the enemy was defeated and the world was made safe for democracy, but at what cost?  This mounting cynicism was reflected in the film of the noir period and is seen clearly in The Maltese Falcon.  By its representation of the gender roles of the Virile Man and the Erotic Woman to the exclusion of the other two modes, it shows that the clear cut definitions of the cultural ideology are ineffectual in the real world.