Comments
Erika Nyborg-Burch
INTL1800
Literature Review: Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia; explaining variables in world order transformation
In Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia, Ronald Deibert uses ecological holism, which he defines as a “nonreductive, evolutionary medium theory approach”[1] as a lens through which to analyze the relationship between changes in communications technology and transformations in the world order of political authority. [2] Deibert draws from the work of medium theory, but critiques these theorists for adopting a reductive, materialist approach to understanding world order transformation. Instead of viewing the changes in media technology as the direct causational forces behind changes in the superstructure or organization, Deibert argues that we must situate changes in media technology within an existing social context. He posits that particular material and ideological conditions within society inform the potential power of material forces of technology.[3] Drawing a parallel to Darwinian theories of evolution in which a particular environment selects for certain traits. Just as, in a niche environment, a genetic combination can confer an advantage on a species, so, too, Deibert argues, can a certain social environment create a space in which particular technologies develop and others wane in influence.[4] New technologies, in turn, can transform the social context itself, transferring power to those social forces whose “interests, goals, and logics of organization are likely to ‘fit’ with the new communications environments,”[5] while also allowing for a shift, over time, in symbolic forms and social norms that give rise to the “metaphysical underpinnings”[6] of the world.
In the body of his work, Deibert traces historical changes in means of communication, and the broader political economies in which particular modes of communication evolve into dominant forces. Deibert does not limit his analysis to traditional realist notions of power, and engages with constructivist that emphasizes the extent to which conceptions of power are socially constructed. After analyzing the distributional changes in media technology, he turns his lens of scholarship on the ‘social epistemology’ of each period, examines changes in technology as a factor in transforming a political community’s conceptions of its world.[7] Deibert’s historical perspective challenges the reader to question the primacy of the state as the dominant actor in politics. Instead of framing his analysis within notions of sovereign power, he argues for a conception of ‘political authority’ as the governing principle of international relations.[8] He examines the way in which the pre-national structures of Medieval Europe, as well as the transnational structures of today’s world, reconstitute a political authority in which the ‘nation-states’ of traditional international relations theory do not have a monopoly over defining the political order.
A parallel analysis to Deibert’s could trace the relationship between the control over the production and dispersal of knowledge (through communications technology), and the transformations in conceptions of authority. Deibert calls attention to the Church’s authority, during the Middle Ages, to the production of knowledge. During this era, the church proposed an Adamic view of language in which “there is no difference between the visible marks that God has stamped upon the surface of the earth… and the legible words of the Scriptures.”[9] In this worldview, the Priests who could access ‘the Word’ of God, had access to divine truth, and translated this word to the people, defining for them the relationship between signifiers and signifieds. In her essay, “What is Authority,” Hannah Arendt provides a visual representation of this ordering of power. She uses the image of a triangle to represent hierarchy of authority of the church in the middle ages. Authority derives from God, at the apex, and those who can read the texts, and thereby define God’s message, are above the masses, who cannot “work or fight.”[10]
Arendt’s theories on traditional forms of authority further situate the relationship that the church creates between the people, the priests, and God that Deibert describes within classical political theory. Drawing upon Plato, Arendt describes how authority makes a claim for itself by framing itself as able to access ‘expert knowledge.’ This conception of authority argues for the importance of the Church’s access to ‘the Word,’ and provide weight to Deibert’s theory that, in losing its control in defining the dominant discourse, the Church began to lose its authority.[11](Arendt, 108), and
Deibert traces how the spread of literacy, along with the rise of the printing press and public access to information demystified the Word, and gave the populace the ability to read texts in a private space outside the of the Church. As Roman Catholic Church lost its material hold over the production of writing, it also lost its hegemony over the ideological schema contained within it.[12] The diffusion of alternative ideologies in the form of printed pamphlets during the Protestant reformation allowed people to ‘protest’ the church’s domain over the cosmos.[13] Ushering in this movement, Martin Luther privileged his own reading of the scriptures above that of the church, and his mythic proclamation “Here I stand”[14] provides a new way of conceiving the space of the self within the world.[15] This conception collapses the space of the triangular hierarchy, and the individual can engage directly in communion with God.
The loss of church control over the word blurred the ancient distinctions between auctor and articies,[16] or the author and the maker, as the self was able to materialize his or her own design. This ideological transformation carries over into the realm of political theory, in which the ‘we,’ now assured of the reasoning capacity of its various ‘I’s,’ could re-write itself, and realize its authorship in the making of a Constitution, that the new printing technologies could disseminate.
Even before ‘modern man’ began the project of drafting constitutions, people began to codify law into text. According to Deibert, this process of writing the law allowed for more streamlined, centralized administration than previous oral agreements. This development, in concurrence with the codification of language, played a part in bringing into being the modern nation state.[17] Deibert also recounts how the collapsing of space in the realm of theology occurred in political conceptions of the world, as maps that used Cartesian planes as their frame of reference allowed people to reconceive the space of the earth, and to further divide this space along national lines.[18]
Deibert also addresses the extent to which the new state tried to control the production of knowledge, as the church had done so many centuries earlier. Drawing upon a Foucaultian theory of the growth of the disciplinary state, he argues that the modern nation used technology, both communications and military, to mold productive social subjects. While the Church was the interpreter of the Word of God, the state came to produce the words that would give meaning to social order, and disseminated materials to ‘educate’ the people.[19]
One can find evidence that material and ideological control over the production of knowledge has been a goal of political actors throughout history. While Deibert focuses on the spread of communications, an analysis of instances in which the state has prevented the development of communications technology offers insight into the force of the ‘word,’ and of the diffusion of information, in shaping social demands, and the interest of the state in controlling this process so as to limit social practices. For example, during the pre-bellum era of American history, the state prohibited slaves from learning to read, hoping to make them impotent social subjects. In the face of a literate populace, some governments have also sought to limit the spread of knowledge by controlling material production. In Cuba, the Castro government conducted a literacy campaign upon taking over control of the government. However the government, until recently, controlled the printing presses in Cuba, and monitored materials coming into the country. They also continue to prohibit advertising, and have replaced consumer images on old billboards with images of the ‘fathers of the revolution’ and declamations against the effects of the US embargo.[20] The state still controls the production of the national papers,[21] and may use the dissemination of national new to create a sense of national identity.[22] In the countryside, where most of the written documents are still pieces of government propaganda, and where fewer people have computers set up to hack internet sites, support for the ‘Revolución’ tends to be stronger, although many factors beyond access to media may contribute to this.
Deibert goes on to describe how the modern nation state has lost its control over the technologies of communication. Deibert situates this development out of a system that privileged state’s control over the means of production. In the wake of World War II, many of the advances in technology came out of research and development grants from Western governments, and the United States in particular[23]. However, as the secrecy behind this technology dissolved, and as a consumer market for these products grew, means of communication spread first to businesses, and later to the populace at large.[24] Deibert describes the ensuing rise in transnational corporations whose business operations defy single state regulatory systems, and the rise in social movements that lobby for issues across state bounds.[25]
Perhaps most striking, and most integral to Deibert’s argument for a postmodern epistemology, is the way that the state has lost control over the creation and dissemination of texts images. As social networking sights have grown in number and increased in complexity, the corporations that own the mainstream media no longer have a monopoly of control over the images and texts that the public can access, nor can they define how the populace reads these documents. Deibert argues, citing Baudrillard, that there is no longer a reality beyond the images, “no signified beyond the sign itself”[26] and that reality, instead, lies in the intersection of these multiple signs. Even more so as the era of portable personal devices has come into being, a multiplicity of people can record their own version of ‘what happens,’ and the state can no longer (if it ever really could), claim a hegemony over interpretations of historical events.
This postmodern order is a far cry from the Adamic vision in which the priests could define the secret meaning of the signs, and could control the images (though their access to resources for production). In this shift, Western political systems have moved from Arendt’s hierarchy of authority, in which a cosmic narrative defined our relationship to the heavens through the trope of extratemporality, to the utopic projects of nation states who argued for a linear narrative, in which their constitutions, as a point of origin, codified just law, to what the postmodernists describe as a disjointed heterotopia[27] that has no linear narrative. Through this process, I argue, that not only has the state lost its authority (in the traditional Arendtian sense), and it’s power (in the Weberian sense of control of the apparatuses of violence, or the Foucaultian sense of control over the minds of the people), but the “I,” too, has lost its stability, and where the subject can no longer proclaim “here I stand” without an underlying sense of anxiety over the tenuousness of the assertion.
Deibert argues that part of this successive change in ideology arises from the increasing number of hypermedia spaces in which we can assume alternative identities, and live out fantasies that may come to feel like realities.[28] We can also take part in creative ventures through communications technologies in which we recognize ourselves not as the original author, but one who borrows from others “ad infinitum.”[29] These changes contribute to what Jameson conceptualized as a fragmented subject that can no longer claim a single, fixed, and stable identity.[30]
Deibert acknowledges that much of the drive behind these changes arises not from social reactions against the power of the state, but instead from a capitalist profit motive. In the place of state surveillance over the subject, he argues that the bits of information that new technologies generate on a person contribute to a body of evidence that advertisers, instead of governments, can use in ‘smart’ marketing. These activities suggest that the nexus of ‘knowledge-power,’ in Foucaultian terms, may not only be a mechanism of government control, but that knowledge may also contribute to making a commoditized subject. To the extent that advertisers can manipulate the interests of the individual, they may come to play an increasing role in shaping the social context that constrains the choices of political actors.
[1] Ronald J. Deibert, Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia; Communication in World Order Transformation (New York: Colombia University Press, 1997), 37.
[2] In defining world order transformations, Deibert chooses to decouple the organization of political authority from a framework of state structures, allowing him to analyze world orders in which the state is not the single, or even primary structure of organization.
[3] Ibid, 28.
[4] Ibid, 30.
[5] Ibid, 32.
[6] Ibid, 34.
[7] Ibid, 37-44.
[8] Ibid, 9.
[9] In this passage, Deibert quotes Foucault’s theories on Adamic modes of thought. Deibert, 51.
[10] Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future (New York: Penguin Classics,1954, 2006), 104-120.
[11] Arendt goes further back into history than Deibert, and traces the foundation of the church on the Roman Empire. Arendt argues that, like the empire before it, the Roman Catholic Church drew upon a myth of founding (in the birth, death, and ascension of Christ), coupled with religious bonds to this beginning, and traditional return to it, founded authority as outside the political sphere of power, which they left to the feudal lords. Ibid, 108.
[12] I would argue, the church was able to rely upon dogma to codify certain readings of the text so that, even when individuals could read their own Bibles, the church continued to define the way in which they interpreted these texts.
[13] Deibert, 69-74.
[14] Scholars question the veracity of this statement.
[15] Deibert corroborates this claim with evidence that the use of the term ‘I’ grew in prominence over this time period. Ibid, 100.
[16] Arendt describes the importance of this distinction to the Romans, who believed that he who made was less important than he who wrote, and that the real ‘auctores’ of the city of Rome were its mythological founding Gods. Arendt, 122.
[17] Deibert, 79-93.
[18] Deibert also recognizes the role of political economy in the rise of the nation state. Throughout the book, he argues that changes in communications technologies are one of multiple changes in the material and ideological landscape that contribute to the rise of certain forms of political authority and the fall of others. Deibert, 86-89.
[19] Deibert, 89-90.
[20] The first billboard that I saw after disembarking from a plane at the charter-flight airport in Havana had a picture of George Bush looking dastardly with the label terrorist below it.
[21] These include Granma, the communist party paper, Trabajadores, the paper of the Cuban Workers organization, and Juventud Rebelde, or Rebellious Youth, of the Union of Young Communists.
[22] Deibert quotes Anderson, who argues that the state-owned newspaper has been a tool of the governments in creating an imagined community of the nation. Deibert, 108.
[23] Ibid, 119.
[24] Ibid, 119- 124.
[25] He may need to adjust his argument on the continued growth of big businesses in relation to the regulatory mechanisms of the states, as the global financial crisis which occurred after he published this treatise, demonstrated the potential of an at least temporary re-investment of power in the state, along with the continued role of the state as a source of aid in the event of a fallout.
[26] Deibert, 193-194.
[27] Deibert borrows this term from Foucault. Deibert, 188.
[28] I would argue that, while the ability play out a fantasy of multiple selves has grown through increases in technology, that the idea of multiple strains of a single self is nothing new, and can be seen in the human affinity for the theater, and for literature, throughout time.
[29] Deibert borrows this concept itself from Foucault’s essay, “What is an Author.” Deibert, 183.
[30] Deibert, 178.
Film Review: Code 46
Code 46 depicts some semblance of the world of the future, in which technology has finally breached the borders of the human body and has come to permeate and dictate genetics, reproduction, memory, and emotion. Life is surely technologized, yet the film provides an inadequately rough sketch of this “future.” The specifics of the world are unclear, often confusing, and this ambiguity seems unfinished rather than intentional. We experience this uncertain future through the equally ambivalent eyes of William, a lackluster detective whose life is ephemerally affected by an affair involving the erratic Maria. Maria is a self-proclaimed Robin Hood figure, providing fraudulent papelles to those denied and driven by the “beautiful faces” of the individuals for whom she provides. William discovers, yet conceals her crime in favor of a one-night stand. Thus the familiar ensues: flighty, rebellious woman and overworked, uninspired man collide and transform each other in a whirlwind of forbidden love. The futuristic twist: their genetic codes are too similar (they share fifty percent of the same DNA) and their affair is a violation of the highly punishable Code 46. Unfortunately, Maria and William are vacant characters, and their relationship is equally lacking in intrigue. The film situates their plodding story within questions of borders, governmental authority, human rights, memory, emotion, and language. However, the film feels like a bricolage rather than a cohesive, fully-formed execution of a vision.
Superseding nation-state boundaries in this world of the future is the technologically-guarded line between the realm of the “Inside” and the realm of the “Outside.” Inside is steel and glass, video screens and fingerprinting checkpoints, neutral colors and unflinching efficiency. Outside is color and noise, poverty and primitivism, nostalgic glimpses of what humanity once was. Traversing the border between Inside and Outside mandates a “papelle,” a passport-like identity card which marks one's status as an acceptable human being with rights, freedoms, security, and worth. Those who are denied papelles have been deemed flawed by the Sphinx, the all-encompassing, all-knowing governing force of the Inside. Thus the process of procuring papelles, producing fraudulent papelles, and illegally gaining access to the Inside is an ongoing challenge, and the film's flimsy attempt at launching a discussion about immigration, border control, and identification. The criteria for acquiring a papelle evokes Social Darwinism – “abnormalities” of the body or mind are surefire disqualifiers.
The film attempts an overbearing critique of the effects of technology on humanity by pitting the mechanized sterility of the Inside against the chaotic emotionality of the Outside. This reliance on predictable binaries removes the possibility for a nuanced exploration of a technologically dominated world. Inside, people consume “empathy viruses” to understand what others are feeling. Emotions become commodified capsules of information; individuals lack the ability to direct or claim agency over their feelings. “It is not living – it is just existing,” says William's taxi driver. On the Outside, rather, life is unpredictable, dangerous, and desperate – yet its rawness is glorified to be somehow more real. Maria breaks down as she asks William, “Have you ever lived Outside?” The Outside evokes emotion in Maria; her memory of it connects her to a truer actualization of humanity. Yet the Outside is also environmentally ravaged and economically impoverished, and its residents are second-class non-citizens. Thus the way in which the film glorifies the Outside feels unsettling and imperceptive; it misses the opportunity to truly discuss issues inherent in the the concept of Outside.
In this conceptualization of the future, the delineations between languages have been dissolved. At least, this is perhaps what the film attempts to depict by inserting random bits of French, Spanish, Italian, and Arabic into English. A poly-lingual language that crosses national borders is a nice idea, but the language is still primarily English, as well as Romance-language dominated. The insertion of random phrases and words feels awkwardly contrived as opposed to globally transcendent.
Memory is another interesting idea brought up in the film. Yet once again, the film fails to engage in a provocative discussion and rather just skims the surface. When Maria is discovered to have violated Code 46, her memory of the one-night affair with William is erased. In order to fill the hole, a memory of a finger injury from her youth is moved and reinserted into her consciousness. The film asks whether memories, once erased, can be retrieved, recalled, or reconstructed. William's memory is also erased after he gets into a car accident with Maria; he is able to return to the Inside mentally unscathed. The idea of memories being distinct, objectifiable entities that can be removed, modified, and replaced via technology is a compelling one, conjuring up postmodern images of the cyborg self and the mechanized manipulation of humanity. The film would have benefited from a deeper exploration of memory rather than focusing on an uninspiring, anticlimactic love affair.
The Media and the Spectacle
In their respective works “Century of Media, Century of War” and “Society of the Spectacle”, Robin Andersen and Guy Debord mourn the loss of critical dialogue and connection to reality in modern media. Andersen, arming her assertion with evidence from the past several decades of war reporting, claims that media no longer tells the truth, but rather tells stories which are designed to portray a more favorable reality. In a similar argument, Debord theorizes that the world today is shaped more by representations of reality than by actual reality, an unfortunate situation that masks the true decay of the world. Andersen describes the process of subjugation that resulted in this state of hyperreality as follows: first the media deceived the viewer, then the media fell victim to its own deceit, finally all that is left is deception. Debord terms this deception the spectacle. While Andersen’s explanation of the media’s deception of the public is not as comprehensive, the term here is still appropriate. This paper will not analyze Debord’s book, but his ideas and his language will be guides, adding an essential theoretical component throughout.
“This worker… finds himself every day, outside of production and in the guise of a consumer”
First Andersen tackles how the media deceived the viewer. Andersen states in her introduction, “War’s persuasions target not citizens, but consumers and audiences” . At the beginning of the book, this statement seems semantic; does not the individual choose to occupy each role at the appropriate moment? To answer this question Andersen details the shift in media from delivering information, used by the citizen, to delivering entertainment, used by the consumer. She explains, in recent wars, media has been less concerned with historical context and factual evidence and more concerned with action shots, which keep the viewer watching. The 1979 war in El Salvador was a clear example of this shift in priorities: “the main value of coverage… was entertainment-violence” . The focus here is on showing the viewer entertaining images rather than explaining the situation. Still, it seems a person with the knowledge that they are watching true events would be able to watch in their capacity as a citizen.
Andersen argues, however, that the images typically used in modern media solicit emotion rather than reason, much like advertising. Advertising’s purpose “is not to inform but to evoke positive feelings” . In other words the producers of advertisements have control over the viewer. When media takes the tactics of advertising it takes on the ability to control, an ability that contradicts the informative purpose of media. If media meant to inform it would want its viewer autonomous and engaged, unlike the viewer of advertising who is rewarded for passive acceptance . With its newfound power, the media removes the viewer from his capacity as a citizen and places him exclusively in his role as a consumer: “Viewed not as citizens to be informed, but as targets to be persuaded and deprived of expressing judgment, the public loses its sense of citizenship”
“The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable, and inaccessible… The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance”
Andersen continues; upon converting the citizen into a consumer of the spectacle, the media entangles itself in the spectacle. The media creates a sellable fiction of the world and then loses sight of the fact that the fiction is not reality. Unfortunately, the media is unable to reconnect with reality because the spectacle does not allow for discussion of what the spectacle portrays. Andersen perceives, “For television broadcasters to expose the production values and fictional referencing of political events would call into question the legitimacy of the commercial media’s own strategies and design”. In this way, the connection between media and entertainment is particularly dangerous because it denies media the ability to differentiate its purpose. Reporting on 9/11 exemplified this self-deception when it became clear that reporters were “under the sway of the techno-hyper-real” . Meaning they found the mass destruction more believable as some cinematic technological feat than as reality, even though the destruction was happening right in front of them.
“The spectacle is the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life. Not only is the relation to the commodity visible but it is all one sees: the world one sees is its world”
Finally, the viewer is deceived, the deceiver is deceived, and therefore reality is lost; all that remains is the spectacle. This is not to say that reality is destroyed but rather that it is indistinguishable from entertainment. Andersen states in her introduction, “this book explores the essential differences between the real and the hyperreal” implying that the differences are no longer obvious. Because television is “a system of internal references” , stories come to be explained with other stories rather than with an external truth. Once the connection between the media and entertainment is completed, references to myths, movies, and television dramas are used to understand real events. Regrettably, these events are no longer understood with references to historical contexts or realities. The war in Iraq, for example, “was systematically shaped and understood through a set of fictional frameworks”13 These frameworks were counterproductive because they “rendered the images [of the war] more convincing and compelling than the unpleasant realities of war” . The obvious problem here is that often reality is unpleasant and must be understood as such. When people do not understand things as they really are then people have no motivation to act.
“This ‘historical mission of installing truth in the world… is possible only where individuals are ‘directly linked to universal history’; only where dialogue arms itself to make its own conditions victorious”
The fate of society predicted by Andersen and Debord is grim: prisoners in a world of false security, no one will put a stop to the certain degradation of the real world. The one hope comes when Debord identifies that historic awareness and active dialogue can be used as weapons to fight the spectacle. Unfortunately, the citizen-turned-consumer described in these books is one who is powerless and easily manipulated. If Andersen and Debord believe the viewer can be drawn into the spectacle without a fight it is hard to believe she can free herself once inside.
A “fixer” is a person who helps foreign journalists organize meetings with officials, warlords, and everyday people, conduct interviews, and navigate both the physical and the (dare we say it?) human terrain when they are working on stories abroad. In dangerous, chaotic war zones like Afghanistan, where complex tensions exist, a fixer is essential for both investigative reporting and for the foreign journalist’s safety.
In Fixer: The Taking of Ajmal Naqshbandi, director Ian Olds tells the story of Ajmal Naqshbandi, a 24 year-old fixer. In 2007, Ajmal, along with a local driver and Daniele Mastrogiacomo, the Italian reporter they were both working for, was kidnapped by the Taliban. Mastrogiacomo was released in a prisoner exchange, but the Taliban kept Ajmal and demanded the release of more prisoners. Despite the pleas of Ajmal’s family and many others, the Afghan government did not act and Ajmal was killed.
Olds tells the story of this tragedy, combining footage from Ajmal’s work with Christian Parenti (a reporter for The Nation and field producer for the film), interviews conducted after Ajmal’s death, and video from both regional news coverage and Taliban propaganda. Fixer seeks to comprehend what happened, how it happened, and what its significance is in a larger context. Not only is the film is a compelling portrait of Ajmal and the work of war reporting, but it also interweaves Ajmal’s story with that of contemporary Afghanistan – the history of conflict that has shaped current clashes both internal and international, the problems of corruption, and the challenges faced by everyday people in this world.
The film centers on Ajmal and the role he plays as a fixer. Not only does he deal with logistical issues, but Ajmal also plays a more active role in the journalistic process, suggesting story ideas and providing Parenti with a uniquely informed opinion on complex situations. His job is proof that, in this age of globalized media, face-to-face interactions still matter: the ability to read situations and people, and to translate not only linguistically but also through a cultural lens. It is fascinating to see how Parenti’s questions are relayed and “edited” by Ajmal – how Ajmal acts as a cultural arbiter.
Ajmal is shown as a young man who is intelligent, curious, and insightful. Refreshingly, and despite the inherently asymmetrical power dynamic between fixer and foreign journalist, Ajmal is generally shown as equal to Parenti, and, while frustrated with the state of his country, is also deeply skeptical about the American government’s intentions. Ajmal is devoted to his family, and exhibits a warm camaraderie with Parenti and his team. His friendly demeanor and young, open face make him immediately likeable; this impression is reinforced through frequent footage of the journalistic team driving around, discussing story ideas and joking around with each other.
One of the best and most revealing scenes, however, diverges from the film’s overall representation of Ajmal as kind and innocent. As Parenti sits obliviously in the backseat, Ajmal and a friend chat in their own language. Ajmal outlines his job in cold economic terms – he works for whoever pays the most and says, “Money matters because these people don't have friendship […] They know you while you're working with them, but after that they don't even recognize you. These people are all the same; European, American […]”. Here Ajmal is not simply a kind and tragic figure, but a real person making calculated decisions in the name of his own self-interest.
The film also succeeds in depicting the chaos, divisions, and problems of contemporary Afghanistan. Finding out the truth about events and navigating government bureaucracy become ludicrous propositions. Early in the film, Ajmal and Parenti’s investigation of a Taliban warlord’s death begins and ends with the hearsay of old men; no one has definite answers, or at least is unwilling to share them. Later, for a story on the Afghan court system, Ajmal and Parenti convince an official to let them observe a trial. They witness a man being sentenced to death, only to find out that it was all a performance – a representation of “how it should be.”
The corruption and ineptitude of the government – Ajmal himself is blackmailed by corrupt judges at one point – creates an atmosphere of hopelessness. There is no one, inside or outside the country, to appeal to for help. Ajmal’s father says that the Afghan government is “a puppet of foreigners […] that is why we expect nothing from them.” It is a statement that stays with you. Meanwhile, the ruthlessness of the Taliban is no alternative to the government’s inaction. One scene in particular, when Ajmal and Parenti arrive at the site of a suicide bombing and interview the resigned locals, conveys the senseless violence that is shadows everyday life.
Structurally, Olds makes thoughtful choices that enhance the narrative. At the beginning of the film, Ajmal is introduced as a voice in the background of Mastrogiacomo’s hostage video – fitting, as the fixer is so often unseen and unacknowledged – and we are immediately told that he was murdered. Knowing this from the start adds tension to the rest of the film, as well as a sadness that pervades otherwise cheerful scenes of the team. The film’s parallel unfolding of the Nation investigation and of Ajmal’s kidnap and murder weaves all the elements of the story together, keeps the pacing engaging, and adds dramatic irony when Ajmal blithely comments that, as a fellow Pashtun, he is safe from the Taliban.
Olds is particularly adept at highlighting particular moments of contrast and impact, like the reveal in the mock trial scene. Another such moment takes place as Afghan president Hamid Karzai is explaining why the government was willing to release Taliban prisoners for the Italian reporter but not for the Afghan citizen: “a very powerful compulsion […] to support the people of Italy […] They constructed a road for us, an important road […]”. These moments prompt unbelief, laughter, and despair. Meanwhile, some of the most powerful scenes in the film are from videos produced by the Taliban: the grisly, execution footage (while Olds blacks out the worst parts, the flailing limbs of the victims are chilling enough in and of themselves, and in one video you can distinctly see blood rapidly flowing out), and Ajmal’s hostage video – dignified, terrified, resigned, and heartbreaking.
Fixer introduces lingering questions that remain unanswered; in Ajmal’s narrative, a former Taliban member says that Pakistan ordered Ajmal’s death, but this is not explored further. There are also several scenes where cultural differences – on friendship, sex, family – are broached in conversation; the brief discussions offer an intriguing look into how these differences are perceived on an individual level and not as larger, anthropological generalities. More broadly, Olds paints a bleak view of Afghanistan’s future. Ajmal’s hostage negotiation was a win-win – as incongruous as that turn of phrase may sound – situation for the Taliban; either the government would release their prisoners, or, if they did not act, there would be anger both within the government and directed at the government. The scenario illustrates the difficulty of achieving justice and rule of law even assuming the best intentions on the part of the government.
Olds tells a compelling story of Ajmal’s life and death, and of the world he lived in and we helped create – as Americans, as Westerners, and as media consumers. We are left with a greater understanding of a person and the work he did, as well as haunting reflections on the human cost of news and the plight of a war-torn country.
In response to Isabel:
How would you update Anderson and Keenan, ie, does their analysis shed light on, hold up, with respect to post cold war, and post-9-11 politics?
keywords/ variables: blogging, polyvocal, power of twitter...
question: pro-war/pro-peace?
Is political agency out-sourced through the camera..displaces the willingness/capacity of public to act? Passive observers?
How would you possibly confirm this phenomenon?
Tree falling in the forest: would a war happen without cameras to film it?
Erika:
How medium theory helps explain relationship/shifts of political economy, political authority, and now, civil liberties, at risk because of surveillance technologies = Citizen Lab.
Example of Access Denied in China.
Jennifer:
What is the relationship between society of spectacle and 'militainment'?
What's changed since '68 (and the situationists)? How has their influence infilitrated current practices of counter-media, guerilla video?
Have we lost the critical edge of the situationists? Or has it too been subsumed by mass media?
Literature Review: Week 7 Photography and Cinema
In “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin addresses the shifting nature of art as it becomes reproducible by technological means. As technology allows for the quick and efficient reproduction of an original piece, the original nature or “aura” of the piece, which consists of its tradition, its history, is depreciated and the meaning of art changes. Authenticity loses its importance, as does the ritual significance of art. Not only is the meaning of art changing, but our perceptions are changing along with it. Benjamin presents photography and film, highly manipulable art forms that technically reproduce the real, as extreme cases in this shift of representation. Film, especially, destroys the aura, it “...substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence,” (221). Film’s claim of realness and indexicality, of being a representation through the eye of the camera of that which truly exists, is “...the height of artifice...” (233). The aspect of the collective experience of film also reflects changes in the way art relates to its spectator; individual reactions to film are intimately tied up with a mass response. In these many ways, Benjamin explores how film as art form of technological reproduction allows for entirely new modes of perception.
Benjamin’s analysis lays an important, and interesting, foundation for Thomas Levin’s essay “Rhetoric of the Temporal Index: Surveillant Narration and the Cinema of ‘Real Time.’” In this essay, Levin addresses the changing nature of representation in cinema, related in no small way to challenges to claims of indexicality faced by semiotic forms such as photography and film. Confronting the increasing presence of surveillance as a fixture in our lives, Levin turns to the significance of cultural production in forming the way we perceive and receive the issue of surveillance. Focusing on the cinema of the last two decades, Levin addresses the increase in a rhetoric of surveillance used in cinematic narratives, both thematically and structurally. He describes a number of films in which surveillance figures prominently in the narrative as a mode of representation, both as a recording done by an automated surveillance device and as a real-time surveillant transmission. Levin claims that this increase in surveillant camera shots, in shifts from the classical codes of cinematic representation to codes recognized as belonging to a rhetoric of surveillance, is in fact a reaction to the challenge of indexicality, or realness, faced by photography and film in the era of Photoshop, digital editing, and special effects. The artifice of film that Benjamin speaks of and its effect on our modes of perception is only increasing in the modern day, and Levin takes this issue as a strong impetus for the turn towards surveillance in narrative cinema. Surveillance occupies a privileged position in terms of representing the real; its indexicality is left unchallenged in the way that cinema’s is and, as a narrative device in cinema, works almost as “semiotic compensation” (585) for cinema’s artifice.
Especially important in the privileged position of surveillance an omniscient index to the real is the aspect of temporality -- of liveness and timecodes. While cinema and photography are mostly concerned with a spatial indexicality (which can technically be altered after the fact), surveillance as a form of visual representation is more concerned with temporal indexicality. Focusing especially on surveillance through real-time transmission seen in films such as The Truman Show, Levin explains how claims to liveness, or the temporal simultaneity of occurrence and reception, eliminate the possibility of post-production manipulation and allow for more legitimate claims to truth. While the fact of the matter is that cinematic artifice is not diminished in any real way, the visual rhetoric of such surveillance is arguably so powerful as to give cinema back some claim to realness and indexicality. The use of omniscient surveillance in the diegesis of a film and its effect on the viewer is significant: as Levin says, it could be argued that “it places the spectator in the very pleasurable...position of the cctv operator, [serving] to legitimate surveillance through subtle, formal means..” On the other hand, it could also reveal truths about cinema: “...because here the spectator’s narrative desire is satisfied by a camera logic that is explicitly surveillant, this exposes a certain regime of narrative cinema as fundamentally complicit with certain aspects of the visual economy of surveillance,” (589). Harking back to Benjamin’s claims in relation to new forms of technological reproduction, these changes in cinematic practice have consequences for our modes of perception. The coding of surveillance and its relation to the real, the easy translatability of a surveillance aesthetic to cinema, and the shift cinema is thus making from focusing on spatial indexicality to temporal indexicality have consequences for how we relate to and are affected by narrative film, perhaps bringing it closer to our perception of the real, and how we respond to the increasing presence of surveillance in our lives.
I just saw a screening of Afterschool by Antonio Campos at the Cable Car. It addressed a lot of the same motifs and themes of Cache, not only in terms of surveillence, but there is also a running story line of film-making and video-editing by the story's protagonist, as he is also watched and filmed himself. It also explores ideas of truthfulness and agency (film as record vs. film as action).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1224366/
Warning: I didn't like the movie at all. Probably hated it. I thought it was boring, vague, and grotesque. But if you liked Cache or are interested in video as a character, it has a similar thematic form and feel.
Documentary Review: Fog of War
Errol Morris’s The Fog of War is one of the most thought provoking, masterfully crafted, and timeless documentaries I have seen. The film centers on its sole interviewee, Robert McNamara, and employs this infamous Secretary of Defense’s biography and personal reflections as the foundation for an engaging discourse in history, philosophy, and the exploration of moral ambiguity in modern warfare.
Known for his controversial service as Secretary of Defense under John Kennedy’s and Lyndon Johnson’s administrations, Robert McNamara has been condemned as responsible for the killing of millions of Vietnamese in the ground and bombing campaigns conducted by the U.S. in Vietnam throughout the 1960s. Rather than presenting any sort of indictment or vindication of McNamara’s primary role in escalating an un-winnable and undesirable war, Morris opts to explore how a man with such promise, intellect, and ability for compassion (“the best and the brightest. The best brains, the greatest capacity to lead, the best judgment”), qualities that McNamara visibly expresses throughout the film’s interviews, can insert himself in a position to manage an atrocity of these proportions. This context grounds the film’s examination of the “fog of war,” the continually relevant and enduring ethical distortion produced by conflict that allows man to justify these brutal acts committed against fellow man. Describing this concept, McNamara states: “What ‘the fog of war’ means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate.”
Errol Morris’s directorial decisions and stylistic editing successfully complement the film’s exploration of the complex moral issues intrinsic in a wartime environment. During the opening credits, we are introduced to the film’s content by Philip Glass’s ominous and score which immediately demands the audience’s attention. This score adds fitting texture and emotion throughout the film while it serves to unnerve the viewer in conjunction with the challenging themes being addressed.
In viewing Fog of War, one can easily see why Morris is considered an expert documentary filmmaker. His cuts to footage, images, and sound bytes never detract or distract from the topic at hand, and often go beyond mere visual representations of McNamara’s interview. For example, after introducing “Lesson #1: Empathize with Your Enemy,” he cuts from the black screen displaying this text to a view of satellite images of land (presumably a military target of some sort) seen through a microscopic lens. This clip appears to symbolize the failure of the U.S. to empathize with its “enemies” during warfare as it presents a cold, calculated depiction of targeting the other from afar. Another striking visual is the overlay of text on pictures of devastated Japanese cities after the fire-bombing of WWII that compares them to U.S. cities of comparable size. This emphasizes McNamara’s warnings concerning the massive destructive capacity of modern warfare in a manner meant to strongly resonate with the film’s American audience. Generally, Morris utilizes the power of violent spectacle (bombs, explosions, artillery and machine-gun fire) throughout the film to acquaint the viewer with the disturbing realities of war. However, he rarely shows bloody violence or corpses. Perhaps Morris does not want to distract the audience from McNamara’s narrative or cause them to feel either overwhelming disgust with or approval of McNamara’s past actions. Rather, Morris desires the viewer to remain contextually in the “fog of war,” aware of the brutal costs of warfare while at the same time understanding of its justifications and the moral ambiguity that it demands of its participants. Instead of providing his opinion or a solution to these difficult issues, Morris’s film initiates a dialogue challenging the audience to reexamine their assumptions about war and the figures who perpetrate it while encouraging them to make up their own minds about these controversial topics.
The most significant directorial choice in the film is Morris’s portrayal of McNamara. The film cannot be considered impartial by virtue of its construct. McNamara is the only person interviewed, his stories and musings steer the narrative, and he is able to offer his take as the final word on all the issues that are raised. The interviews are shot to make it seem as if McNamara is looking directly at and addressing the viewer in a dialogue. The limited space and framing surrounding him give the audience an impression of singular access to the man, his thoughts, and his reflections. In many ways, McNamara takes advantage of this opportunity to exonerate himself of his reputation as an “evil” person, carrying himself in a composed, confident, thoughtful, and often compassionate manner throughout the film. However, Morris is careful not to allow this vindication from blame or guilt. He chooses to shoot the interview this way precisely in order to humanize McNamara. He wants us to sympathize with McNamara so that we can grasp the “fog of war”: he wants us to understand how this seemingly intelligent, insightful, respectable, and decent human being can, within a certain context or “mechanism,” become responsible for horrible acts of war and millions of deaths. While McNamara does not ever express guilt directly, his avoidance of questions about blame and responsibility exhibit a certain unease about his role in the war that remains with him over thirty years later. Morris ensures that the numerous criticisms of McNamara do make an appearance in the film, showing a montage of images of condemning texts. Also, Morris symbolically implicates him in the fire-bombing of Japan during WWII as the numbers from McNamara’s report to increase bombing efficiency are seen dropping like bombs from an airplane in footage of the attacks.
The Fog of War is subtitled Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, and the film is organized in parts that correspond with these eleven lessons about war which McNamara hopes to imparts on the viewer and, ideally, humanity at large. Derived from his unique bank of life-experiences and the wisdom of hindsight, these thoughts are neatly packaged as maxims that carry the film through both its historical and philosophical narratives. In contrast, the complex ideas they present and ethical questions they invoke are anything but neatly packaged. McNamara’s declarations that “rationality will not save us” in a nuclear age and “you can’t change human nature” present bleak forecasts of humanity’s destructive capabilities. Broaching issues like the necessity to empathize with the other in conducting a just war alongside the admonition that “in order to do good, you may have to engage in evil,” both McNamara and Morris challenge the audience to deliberate from within the titular “fog.”
Many of the lessons, such as “empathize with your enemy,” “proportionality should be a guideline in war,” and “belief and seeing are often both wrong,” are juxtaposed with McNamara’s recounting of events in which he and others failed to abide by these directions. While images and footage of bombings, craterous landscapes, and ruined cities are shown on screen, McNamara’s voiceover describes his involvement in the utter devastation and countless civilian deaths caused by the overwhelming fire-bombing of Japan during WWII and the extensive bombing campaigns in Vietnam. Also, he illustrates how faulty intelligence of a nonexistent attack during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident led to the passage of the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that allowed the President to engage the military without a formal declaration of war by congress. In an uncannily similar situation, faulty intelligence about the presence WMDs led to the invasion of Iraq almost forty years later. Throughout the film, McNamara laments the inability of the American administration to empathize with and understand the North Vietnamese, their reasons for fighting, their struggle for independence from foreign occupation, and their determination to continue that struggle no matter the cost. He suggests that those in power in the U.S. administration viewed the conflict solely from their Cold War-superpower perspective, and this was a major factor in escalating and prolonging the un-winnable war. Again, it is easy to make glaring comparisons to the Bush Administration’s lack of cultural knowledge and understanding in its planning and execution of the war and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq.
Informed by the failures of his past, McNamara offers these lessons as warnings and guides for future conduct in any and all wars. Meanwhile, his advice evokes all-too-apparent comparisons to U.S. ignorance to these caveats in the problematic management of the Iraq War. Although McNamara never confesses to feeling guilt about his past and ultimately dodges questions regarding personal responsibility for ethically questionable U.S. actions in Vietnam, he does readily admit to past mistakes and errors of judgment. Born out of McNamara’s experiences, mistakes, and many years of reflection, these valuable lessons might be understood as a form of confession and a feeling of obligation to attempt to prevent similar errors and injustices in the future.
Thus, Fog of War is not meant to absolve McNamara from blame or condemn him for the blood on his hands. Instead, aims at a far more difficult but philosophically rewarding endeavor: an explanation of how a man such as McNamara is even capable of authorizing, managing, and committing such acts that would be considered abhorrent to the common person. The answer, it seems, lies in the “fog of war.” The film offers McNamara a medium through which to leave some positive legacy in the lessons of his reflections while simultaneously coming to terms with his own past.
Standard Operating Procedure Film Review
In 2004, shocking photographs were released to the world showing physical, psychological and sexual torture of Iraqi detainees at the interrogation prison Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Documentary filmmaker Errol Morris explores the context in which the photos were taken in his 2008 film, “Standard Operating Procedure.” To call it a documentary, however, with its slow-motion re-enactments, heavily edited interviews, and dramatic musical soundtrack seems inappropriate. Morris has described “Standard Operating Procedure” as a non-fiction horror film, a more accurate description. He seeks to discover the stories outside of the photos’ frames, interviewing the low-ranking soldiers who were involved in the scandal.
Though the photos received a firestorm of media coverage, Morris felt that a key piece of the story had gone untold: No one had spoken to the soldiers on the ground level. He said that no one had asked them the simple but important questions, “Hey, what did you think you were doing? What's shown in this photograph? What's this photograph about?” Morris says that the film is “trying to contextualize photographs that everybody in the world has seen but nobody knows anything about” (O'Hehir). In the film, we discover the personal relationships and the gender dynamics that influenced the events. The interviewees reveal how some photos were cropped to protect certain MPs. Morris speaks to five of the indicted eight military prison guards as well as Janis Karpinski, a former brigade general.
The film opens with Karpinski, the highest-ranking official to be charged, speaking at her own defense. Her eyes pierce the camera, a style characteristic of each of the interviews. Morris uses a device called the Interretron, which enables the subject to see the interviewer in the camera lens, making it seem as if a person is talking directly to an audience. Morris keeps himself mostly absent from the film, giving the interviews a confessional-like quality. The interviewees seem to be speaking on their own accord. Lynndie England, who was photographed with a naked Iraqi man on a leash, tells about the social dynamics at Abu Ghraib and the pressures to follow orders. It was “a man’s world” and women had to work hard to demonstrate their power in order to avoid being controlled. While being interviewed, England, who looks much older than 25 years old, defends her actions, attributing her behavior to her affair with Charles Graner Jr., an Army reserve specialist. She declares that every woman was there because of a man.
Letters written by MP Sabrina Harman provide insight into her mentality during her time at the prison. A voice-over reads the letters, telling us about her desire to document the events so that the outside world would know the truth. She writes, “If I want to keep taking photos, I have to fake a smile.” We see this smile in the infamous photo of her giving the camera the “thumbs-up” sign as she kneels next to a naked Iraqi soldier curled up on the ground. Even though she was in the photographs, she didn’t believe she was complicit in the behavior.
The interviewees never apologize, and speak with an alarming matter-of-factness. They all work to absolve themselves, blaming their actions on the others and proclaiming that they were just following orders. “We just do what they want us to do,” one MP remarks. More alarming are England’s statements, “We didn’t kill them. We didn’t shoot them.” They were told to do everything short of killing them. So that is what they did. Morris rarely challenges the interviewees. Only on a few occasions does the audience hear Morris’ questions, which provide an additional outlet for the soldiers to justify their actions. He asks one MP if any of these events seemed weird, to which she replies that they were helping to save lives. She had seen the injuries American soldiers sustained in the field and believed that this kind of behavior would help in the interrogation process. In another instance, we hear Morris ask England if it was her birthday the night Graner had the Iraqi detainees create a human pyramid. She says that she turned 21 that night, reinforcing an image of the MPs as young, naïve, and incapable of rational behavior and decision making, an image that seems to prevail throughout the film. While it was Morris’ intent to focus on the soldiers operating on the ground level, the lack of discussion of responsibility among higher-ranking officials in the U.S. government is a noticeable gap, preventing viewers from understanding how just how far up the blame can be spread.
Morris cited the sheer quantity of photographs to be a motivating force behind his decision to make the film. There were thousands taken, a majority of which move across the screen in neat white frames. At the end of the film, we are told which photographs were labeled violations of interrogation protocol and which were labeled “Standard Operation Procedure” (S.O.P.). We learn that the image that haunted the American public the most - a hooded Iraqi man standing on a box, arms outstretched with faux wires attached to his fingers - depicted a practice that was just S.O.P. While we are told the reasons that cause something to be classified as a violation, the justification behind the S.O.P. classification is never explored. The absence of this discussion is frustrating considering it is the film’s title.
Morris’ concern with the visual aesthetics of the film and use of artistic license borders on excessive. “Standard Operating Procedure” is filled with over-stylized slow-motion re-enactments of the stories the interviewees tell. These images act more as a shock-and-awe feature rather than contribute anything constructive to the film. Scenes of blood slowly dripping from a man’s face or the silhouette of Sadam Hussein frying an egg adds a level of melodrama to the film that borders on absurd at times, blurring the lines between fiction and truth. These re-enactments, combined with a dramatic musical score written by Danny Elfman, Tim Burton’s longtime musical composer, heightens the film’s artsy horror movie-esque quality. Critics have also called attention to the costliness of the production and extensive credit list, including 10 prop makers and 33 cast members.
“Standard Operating Procedure” makes it apparent that the Abu Ghraib photographs were just a snapshot into the kind of routine torture that was carried out by the American military. It reminds us that photographs do not present simple truths and that there are limits to what they can tell us. However, there is little else that the film reveals or adds to our understanding of a disturbing tragedy that has already been extensively covered by the media. Ultimately, Morris leaves us still grappling with the question of how a person could ever commit such egregious acts of torture.
Works Cited
O'Hehir, Andrew. Interrogating Abu Ghraib. 2008 25-April. 2010 15-March .
Literary Review - War and Cinema: the Logistics of Perception
In War and Cinema: the Logistics of Perception Paul Virilio examines the close relationship that has existed between modern warfare, and cinematography. In the late-nineteenth century American Colonel Gatling was inspired to create a crank-driven machine gun while Jules Janssen in France took inspiration from another gun to create a device with a revolving unit that would allow a series of photographs to be recorded. The latter technology was eventually perfected by Etienne-Jules Marey to create a chrono-photographic rifle, “which allowed its user to aim and photograph an object moving.” (15) Perhaps this why it should be no surprise that the lexicon of film direction is sprinkled with militaristic words like “aim” and “shoot.” While the technology that made both the machine gun and moving pictures possible share similar origins, their ties also have a highly symbolic bond. Virilio enumerates the ways in which both war and cinema rely on similar notions of perception that transcend their basic actions and involves the interplay of sight, light, space, and time.
The preliminary sense tied to the act of perceiving is sight. Without being able to see, understanding becomes a bit more difficult. Virilio states that “for men at war, the function of the weapon is the function of the eye.” (26) On the battlefield, a successful strategy is based on seeing the enemy before he can see you. The military airplane became a tool of sight as pilots used the higher elevation to survey the landscape in order to facilitate a comprehensive battle plan. In his description of the filmmakers “armed eye” Dziga Vertov shows the parallels between the soldier and his weapon and the filmmaker and his camera. Vertov proclaims himself as “the camera’s eye. I am the machine which shows you the world as I alone see it…I rise up with the aeroplanes—I fall and fly at one with the bodies falling or rising through the air.” (26) This relationship between the camera and the eye also brings to question notions of the gaze and how it can be controlled by media. Virilio relates the act of a pilot surveying the battlefield to the way the female body was scrutinized by the male vision. He discusses how images of pin-ups and actors were carefully produced and retouched to non-life size scale with accurate measurements like the mapping of a military terrain. Photographers and directors became army cartographers, to the consumptive pleasure of many soldiers. The camera became a tool to organize the gaze, as the airplane organized a martial strategy.
The same way flight revolutionized the vision of warfare, the technology further influenced how certain groups re-imagined sight. The Italian Futurists, inspired by modernism represented by the mechanics of automobiles and airplanes sought “to manipulate and falsify dimensions.” (21) In their bombastic manifesto, penned by F.T. Marinetti, Futurists set one of their objectives to replace the stale classic standard of motion embodied by Nike at Samothrace with their images that “put human sight on the same footing as energetic propulsion.” (21) The Greek goddess of strength, speed, and victory was no longer apropos and the new symbols of power were the technology of the day, many of which were used for military purposes. Benito Mussolini would eventually repurpose the energetic language of Futurism to promote fascism in Italy.
Another important metaphor Virilio uses in the description of perception is that of light as a means of enlightenment. The artilleryman and cameraman share the same motto of “lighting reveals everything.” (20) The author describe cinema as creating a new market of dematerialization by selling light rather than a physical product. As discussed in lecture, movies could even perceived a literacy promoting tool by providing a means of understanding to anyone who could see. Virilio cites Agnès Varga’s comments on the Impressionists who used sunlight as means to reflect a more scientific, and perhaps accurate, visual study. For a gunman the inability to see his target negates accuracy. He states that “light calmly appears to us as the truth of the world.” (49)
The role of light is also strongly tied to the importance of the understanding and manipulation of time and space in both cinema and warfare. The concept of space and time encompasses characteristics such as distance, speed, depth, and order. Evry Shantzmann’s is quoted as believing that “observation takes place by means of light, which is propagated at finite speed, things are observed in a past as far back as they are spatially distant.” (41) Time and space become important tools of creating memories that are produced by cinema and mislocated by war. In cinematography time and space become fluid terms as shots are edited, and a visual story is constructed frame by frame. Cinema creates “an artificial unity of time by means of a real unity of place” (17) and thus fulfilling the role of creating a ‘collective experience’, or memory. The history of war is similarly fluid as creating a collective memory of such a large scale event with many individual experiences is unlikely. War exists parallel to memory in a constantly changing temporality.
It would be difficult to understand the full scope of war with the naked human eye. The camera eye has allowed filmmakers to assemble different locations, times, and events into a more concise moving image. Hundreds of years of political leaders have understood the importance of the image as a tool for propaganda. The advent of capturing moving images only provided another weapon in the arsenal of spreading cultural ideologies. How these visuals are interpreted becomes a discussion of how they are produced and disseminated. The perception of war and cinema can be distilled to the investigation of sight, light, space, and time and how they relate to each other to create a symbolic set of images.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/outlook/2009/02/090205_lynndie_england.shtml
Re. Standard Operating Procedure
If you have time listen to this BBC World Service interview with Lynndie England. There's a 5ish minute long introduction that's good too, but her actual interview starts a bit into the programme.
England: "I was pretty much at the wrong place at the wrong time"
Melissa Shube
Hearts and Minds Film Review
Hearts and Minds, Peter Davis’s 1974 documentary, is as much about American culture as it is about the Vietnam War. A seething indictment of American power and exceptionalism, it condemns the American’s leaders for the war, both for the effect the war had on Vietnam and the Vietnamese people, and the effect the war had on the American soldiers who fought in it.
The documentary begins with a clip of life in Vietnam, with Vietnamese children playing, women at work, a beautiful landscape, and traditional Vietnamese music in the background. This is pre-war Vietnam, peaceful and exotic. Two soldiers with guns walk through the screen, ending the peaceful image, and the film beings.
The film’s narrative is not really the focus and consists only of a sketch of the escalating war and the growing public awareness and outrage. It is only roughly chronological, and individual interviews are cut up and placed so they evolve with the mood of the film. The real plot development is intended to take place in the viewer’s mind, which is eased into the ideas of the war and then increasingly shamed and repulsed by devastating war images, interviews with angry and helpless Vietnamese, and the presence of American power, racism, and callousness. Hearts and Minds makes no attempt at neutrality, and every pro-war interview and quote, when compared to images of war in Vietnam—a Vietnamese man who makes coffins for children, standing among piles and piles of small coffins, and a mother carrying a naked child whose skin has been nearly burned off entirely by napalm—comes off looking misguided.
As the movie begins, Clark Clifford, an aid to President Truman, establishes the idea of American power. “When the second world war was over, we were the one great power in the world.” Throughout the film US officials talk about the United State’s responsibility to stop communism, to win in Vietnam, and to save the Vietnamese and also America. The film’s title comes from Lynden B. Johnson’s 1965 statement, “the ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there."
However, interviews with Vietnamese suggest that the United States is no savior. There are almost no images of Vietcong leadership or Vietcong cruelty, and the only Vietnamese mention of communism comes from the Vietnamese forces allied with the Americans. The threat of communism seems invented, a product of United States rhetoric. Rather, Davis suggests that the war is an American attack, a product of American Imperialism. Daniel Ellseberg, a former aid to the Defense Department who received considerable screen time, articulately summed up this point. “We weren’t on the wrong side. We were the wrong side, ” he said.
The film suggests that American leaders are so convinced by their goal, that they lose of the sense of the reality of Vietnam, and even of their own humanity. In the movie’s most powerful scene, General William Westmoreland, who was in control of the military operations of the war, says, “The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the Westerner. Life is cheap in the Orient.” The film cuts to a funeral scene, where a small boy holds an image of his father and wails as his father’s coffin is lowered into the ground. The boy’s grandmother tries to climb into the grave and two gravediggers have to restrain her and pull her back out. This deliberate pairing of footage may be the reason some reviewers tend to Hearts and Minds propaganda. However, this does not make Davis’s point any less powerful.
One of the central personalities in the film is Lieutenant Cooker, who was held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam for years. The camera follows the Lieutenant as he speaks at parades, to schoolchildren, and to a group of mothers and grandmothers. He is patriotic and unwavering in his message and says he would be willing to go back to fight the good fight. Cooker also shows the racist side of the war, calling the Vietnamese “gooks,” and says the country would be beautiful if not for the people. His unflattering, racist portrayal is striking but perhaps unfair. As a prisoner of war, it is not surprising that he has employed racial “othering.”
Davis plays with juxtaposition between what is going on in America and in Vietnam at the same time. He films parades, revolutionary war enactments, and talks to people (a mailman, high school girls at graduation) who are so far removed from the war that they aren’t entirely sure what its about. His short clip of a football game, to me a very familiar scene, is seething with masculinity, power, and excitement. The goal is to win, both in the game, and as the priest tells the team, in the game of life. These American symbols and ideas of victory and dominance are dispersed throughout the movie in between brutal footage of the war
The film features an extensive and strangely compelling scene in a dark Vietnamese brothel, where three American soldiers have sex with three women. The soldiers chat with each other in the process, and one comments that his “girl” would be surprised if she saw him now. Maybe this scene just captivated Davis’ attention, or maybe the women, prostituting themselves to American soldiers, are supposed to be a metaphor for the American invasion of Vietnam and possession of the country. Either way, the scene emphasizes the Vietnam is American war on foreign grounds, that power is wildly unbalanced towards American, and American’s back home have no idea what’s actually going on.
In general, the soldiers featured in the film run a precarious middle ground between the government and America. They’re the product of American ideas of power and masculinity (as in the brothel scene) but they’re also privy to the realities of Vietnam. They are proud to serve, and some are seduced, at least initially, by the glamour and excitement of war. “The excitement, especially if you were getting shot at, was just incredible,” says pilot Randy Floyd.
However, as the movie progresses, their interviews began to take a more skeptical, anti-war turn. Randy Floyd reveals himself as an activist. Others express disgust at the war and some run away. Towards the end of the film, the camera pulls back to show that some of the interviewed veterans were missing limbs or were sitting in wheelchairs, permanently damaged by their service.
Philip Knightly’s book “The First Casualty” provide some helpful context for the movie. Knightly describes a general ignorance about the war, especially during the first part of the war, and attributes this to poor press coverage due to an initial unwillingness by the press to challenge the government and thus hurt the cause. For instance, the bombing in Cambodia went on for a year before the American press covered it. In addition, he explains that many journalists were still thinking in World War II terms of good and evil. They covered the military operations while failing to address the scope, purpose, and reality of the war. Due to all of this, in 1967 Americans still didn’t know what the war was about. Knightly’s book follows the coverage from the beginning of the war to the end, where increased media, including film and TV coverage, led to a change in public opinion that eventually helped end the war.
Davis masterfully closes Hearts and Minds in the streets of America, at a parade in New York City, with flag waving fans on the sidelines and children proudly marching in uniforms, in rows, carrying guns. It is almost as if nothing had changed in the past two and a half hours. But then protesters become visible, including veterans, standing on the side of the parade, who yell and are yelled at. There is a bloody police scuffle. But they unruly protesters are taken care of, and as the movie closes as the Parade, the overt metaphor for American Imperialism, marches on.
Sources (my footnotes didn't seem to work)
Bernard Weiner, “Review.” Film Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2 (University of California Press, 1974-1975).
Elizabeth Dickenson. “A bright, shining slogan” Foreign Policy.com (2009) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_bright_shining_slogan
Philip Knightly, The First Casualty. ( London: Pryon, 2000)
Vincent Canby, “Movie Review, Hearts and Minds.” New York Times. March 24, 1975
Literature Review: The First Casualty
The focus of the chapters I read from The First Casualty can be encapsulated in the famous phrase, “The first casualty when war comes, is truth.” (Senator Hiram Johnson 1917, in the wake of World War 1) Through the examples of the Korean, Algerian and Vietnam wars, Phillip Knightley explores the age-old conflict between the military and the media in wartime.
It isn’t easy being a war correspondent—the physical and emotional stress these journalists have to undergo is immense. But what we as readers seldom see are the ethical concerns and internal conflicts that plague the vocation. Many war correspondents are faced with the question: What does it mean to be “loyal”? Is it to inform public opinion? What if this gives “aid and comfort to the enemy” and has “a bad moral and psychological effect” on troops? Is it desirable, or even possible, to strike a balance between professionalism and ‘patriotism’?
Correspondents were forced to strike some sort of balance during the Korean War, when they were banned from the war front for truthful reporting. Furthermore, it was difficult to not “get on side” with the military, when the organization was providing them with food, transportation, housing, communication tools, and the very information that they needed to write their stories. The state of confusion and internal conflict suffered by the correspondents is demonstrated by the fact that during June to December 1950, when only a voluntary code of reporting was in place, the correspondents “implored military authorities to introduce full, official and compulsory censorship”.
The conflict between professionalism and patriotism can also be observed in more recent times. The American media garnered severe criticism for failing to more vigorously question the Bush administration's insistence on going to war against Iraq in the wake of 9/11. They published what the administration spoon-fed them, and failed to ask critical questions (e.g. the presence of WMDs, the unilateral action of the US, etc) for fear of being unpatriotic and un-American.
Apart from censorship imposed by the government, military and correspondents themselves, censorship was also imposed by editors/owners of publications and foreign governments. In the case of the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese government expelled many correspondents from the country, labeling them as “spies and communists” and “the enemy within”. Though this may sound appalling to anyone with a deep-rooted appreciation for democracy or who is used to a tradition of free press (most Americans), General MacArthur essentially did the very same thing during the Korean War, though he couched it in different terms. He expelled up to 17 correspondents from Korea for negative reporting that failed to show an understanding of their “important responsibility in the matter of psychological warfare”.
On an even deeper level, Knightley suggests that deciding what and how much to include in a story is more than just a matter of drawing clear professional lines, but raises many ethical issues too. The parasitic, voyeuristic, intrusive nature of the job gnawed at many correspondents, especially photographers, who began questioning if they were merely capitalizing on someone else’s grief.
Moreover, it is also a question of what the best method of reporting or getting a message across is. This is often more complex than merely laying the facts bare. Described by some as “the greatest war photographer ever seen”, Burrows self-censored the photographs he took. For instance, he once chose to not shoot the face of a dying man in Vietnam, for he “didn’t like making it too real”, thinking that this would “make people quickly turn over the page to avoid looking.” So, he tried to shoot photos such that people would “look and feel, not revulsion, but an understanding of war.”
This idea of “too real” grew in the two decades between the Korean and the Vietnam War (and has continued growing), thanks to technological advances. Stories woven together with words and still shots from the Korean front, evolved to become moving images of vibrant color and sound by the time America entered the Vietnam War. 60% of Americans obtained their war news from the television in the 1960s. This real time, high quality, constant flow of war coverage that new technology allowed, undoubtedly altered the politics of war.
As several historians suggest, and as I would have expected, the direct transmission of the brutal, unadulterated truth of war threw into question, the ability “of a democracy which had uninhibited television coverage in every home to ever be able to fight a war (again), however just” (Robin Day, BBC Commentator). Yet, a survey conducted in 1967 showed that a majority of viewers (64%) were moved to support their soldiers and the war, instead of opposing it. Reasons cited for this include a surprising lack of reality conveyed by diminished, edited snippets of television footage, viewed in the safety and comfort of a living room, and the resultant confusion of ‘reality television’ and dramatized/romanticized cinema. Today, more than 4 decades on, people may have become more desensitized to scenes of gore and horror; but I would argue that the long-term effect of constant exposure to the realities of the battlefield has nurtured a stronger anti-war stance amongst a greater proportion of the American public.
The advancement of technology has also made it more challenging for military censorship to occur at the grassroots level. During the Korean War, correspondents often had to fly to the reporting headquarters in Japan to get their stories out, or use the campsite’s single telephone to dictate their stories to the headquarters. They did so in a room of soldiers and generals upon whom they relied on for battle information and survival—there was no secrecy or exclusivity. To avoid these problems, carrier pigeons were even used! However, after the first pigeon took 11 days to fly from Korea to Japan, the idea was abandoned. Today, with the click of the mouse and a wait time of several split seconds, stories can be delivered transatlantically with one less layer of censorship.
Knightley also pays attention to the evolution of the quality of reporting achieved and required in the face of increasingly modern warfare. Whilst reporting the technical aspects had been quite adequate in World War 2 and the Korean War (though less so in the latter), where the issues were more clearly discernible, Vietnam posed a different challenge. It was a “new kind of interdisciplinary war that required a new kind of war correspondent who could see that complex political issues intruded and belay military aspects.” Take for example, issues of local corruption, rampant racism, the idea and practice of winning hearts and minds, guerilla warfare, and the very fundamental question of the American intervention itself, were among the important topics that merely had their surfaces scratched. The growing need to protect one’s compassion in the face of unparalleled bloodshed and violence was also neglected by many correspondents who turned to the sensationalism of blood and gore to sustain their readership. Furthermore, there was a growing group of ‘proto-journalists’ or ‘mercenary journalists’ who were freelancers less interested in serious reporting, but who came as ‘thrill seekers’, “with the vocation of being onlookers”. As a result, critical questions were ignored; for journalists either didn’t know what to address, how to address them, or whether they even wanted to address them in the first place. Knightley opines, “Although (the correspondents) showed admirable professional courage on the battlefield, they failed to show equal moral courage in questioning what the war was all about.”
This is indeed an incredibly high calling; and the fact that the media is still failing (but learning) to muster this courage in reporting on various wars (as in post-9/11), suggests that the military-media wartime conflict is one that will perhaps never be resolved.
Beatrice Igne-Bianchi
Documentary Review:
An Armenian Journey
Written, directed, and produced by Theodore Bogosian, “An Armenian Journey” (1988) was the first documentary broadcast to the public that exposed viewers—with an emphasis on those in the United States since the film aired on PBS—to what some believe was the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government.
There appear to be, as documented by Bogosian, two camps of thought regarding Armenian deportation in Eastern Turkey. One is that the Young Turk leadership calculated the extermination of the Armenian population, which is what Bogosian is trying to show—and to prove—to the public through his film. The second camp is in defense of Turkey, and negates that there were any preemptive killings, but rather, that the exorbitant number of Armenian deaths was a casualty of war. Bogosian sheds light on an all-true topic that has been repeatedly denied by world powers. But also shows how decades later, US diplomat Henry Morganthau publically acknowledged the genocide stating “the treatment which was given the conveys clearly shows that extermination was the real purpose of the (Young Turk) leadership.” His film sets out to bring the truth to the surface by contrasting the two camps of thought.
An Armenian-American, Bogosian’s film circles around three primary interviews and his trip to the USSR and former Armenian territory. His subjects include 76-year-old Mariam Davis, a survivor of Armenian deportations in Eastern Turkey, a historian with expertise in the Ottoman Empire, Justin McCarthy, who denies the Armenian genocide, and Kevork Bardakjian, a professor of Armenian Studies. A proclaimed journalist, Bogosian embarks on a mission to gather archival documents—records of war crime trials—to prove the veracity* of the Armenian Genocide to the public. Coming from Armenian ancestry, Bogosian’s journey is also one of personal discovery, which he makes no effort to hide or withhold throughout his film.
Bogosian starts off his low-budget documentary film by introducing his findings and theory of the Armenian Genocide as “undeniably true”—words he reiterates throughout. He introduces his viewers to this undeniable truth of the Armenian Genocide with Mariam Davis’s interview. As a survivor of the extermination, her eye-witness account is an obvious choice. Not only that, Bogosian further references that her photos and documents prove her story to be truthful albeit tragic.
To show the other side of the story, the side that covers up truth, Justin McCarthy’s account is just as alarming as Mariam’s. He denies that there was any extermination, and detests the use of the word genocide, saying that it “implies something akin to what Hitler did to the Jews.” McCarthy says that print media and the pinnacle of yellow journalism at the time misstated the event. He calls it “the worse of yellow journalism” because it was pro-allied in a war, and therefore, makes it “harder for us to get at the truth.” He goes on to discount the plethora of recognized print media sources, particularly the New York Times, saying that we should be “skeptical” of them. McCarthy further discounts any of the photographs taken to be representative of genocide against Armenians, saying that like the articles, they were manipulated.
The film picks up after the interview with Kevork Bardakjian, who refutes McCarthy’s claims. Bardakjian and Bogosian discuss the need to further prove the truth of the genocide through records of trials that were published but are now incomplete and seemingly “missing” from Turkish records. The goal is to retrieve the records in the USSR and have Bardjakjian translate them from old Turkish to further prove that the Turkish were being trialed for war crimes against the Armenians. Thus, Bogosian and Davis set out on a mission to get the records with just a 35mm camera. Bogosian encounters problems on his trip due to extreme censorship in regard to the trial records. Because they are archival documents written in Ottoman Turkish (a language only known by a handful of scholars now), no photocopies of the papers are permitted. However, he is able to bypass this and eventually gets the copies discreetly delivered to his hotel room. Back in the United States, Bardjakian spends countless hours translating the archives, to discover, and not unsurprisingly since the film wouldn’t negate its main truth claim, that the records do indicate that the “massacres and felonies perpetrated (against the Armenians) in (Eastern Turkey) were organized and ordered to be carried out by the (Young Turk) government.”
In addition to the concrete paper evidence, the viewers see the emotionally charged scenes with Mariam Davis visiting the old territory and remembering her childhood and the darkest time in her life. Bogosian puts to types of truth evidence in front of his viewers: empirical proof (veracity) with the archival documents, and the human truth from seeing and hearing the story of Mariam Davis.
However, while I personally have no doubts about the Armenian Genocide, because Bogosian is so personally invested, it almost seems to five the film a biased quality. As someone who is using this platform for self-discovery and an already predetermined notion of the event, even with all the evidence, it can come off as a documentary that is not objective. For me, at least, I think there could have been a more subtle way of convincing the viewers of this truth. He should have let it speak for itself, as opposed to reiterating it all the time. And because of his repetitions and reiterations, to a certain degree, it can lose its impact as something truthful. When something is the truth, it necessitates less explication. But perhaps there’s more to it, and my interpretation of its overly biased approach is a product of my generation being hyper critical and used to seeing things presented in a way that is less obvious. And I must repeat that Bogosian is, without a doubt, a pioneer in making a film of this truth often denied.
Furthermore, my critique of the way in which he went about the film does not mean that I discredit any of the evidence given—there is no doubt in my mind that Turkey purposefully exterminated the Armenian population.
*I utilize this word instead of truth because Bogosian utilizes written documents—the records of war crime trials—as tangible evidence of the Armenian Genocide. Veracity has an empirical proof, and evidence is necessary to prove the veracity—not truth—of a given concept. That is not to say that he is right nor that he is unbiased, but it appeared to me that his main goal was to use qualitative information (archival written records), even though he does not use the word “veracity” in the film.
Literature Review: The First Casualty
In the First Casualty Philip Knightly chronicles the role of the war correspondent’s relationship to truth telling during times of war. The relationship, which appears to be inherently antagonistic, between the media and the military is explained through pivotal moments and characters throughout history. Each chapter focuses on a particular war, consistently exposing the ongoing dilemma of the war correspondent of deciding whose side they are on, a choice that has to be made due to irreconcilable aims of the military and the media. The journalistic duty to bear witness and write the first draft of history that attempts to approximate the truth is hindered by the military’s desire to win the war swiftly and with support.
From the Crimean War with the Times of London, to the changing technologies brought on with the telegraph, then television, video and now instantaneous forms of communication via the internet, the war correspondents dilemma has still managed to become tangled up with the military and the war’s objectives. Particularly since Vietnam War coverage and the war lack of support from the public, Knightley exposes how governments have become a lot more deliberately strategic and adept at managing the media and ultimately controlling the press to their advantage.
The particular chapters I focused on were at the concluding part of the book that seemed to draw in on an emerging thesis that the military’s pull on the war correspondent had finally won out over journalistic integrity. The war in the Falklands particularly stands out as the starting point for this particular era of war correspondence because it provided a model that assured that government policy would not be undermined by the media. According to Knightley, the impressive amount of control Britain had over the news coming out of the Falklands normalized the notion of a censored war to an extent that “no war that Americans now fought would be free of censorship, management, and manipulation”( 483). The previous experiences with war and journalism had developed a method for controlling the news in a democratic society to ensure public opinion supported the ongoing war efforts. The war correspondent had gone beyond just not reporting the first attempt at truth telling of the war, the media now became an active tool to foster public and therefore democratic support of the war.
The loss of the possibility of journalistic integrity was partially due to the fact that the military perspective and agenda is presented in a more cohesive and institutionalized manner, allowing for policies and training of how to manipulate the media for their liking. Whereas journalists had no formal way of passing on learned experiences of how to work around the war of the military, the military had established manuals and training programs about how to circumvent the press. The manuals essentially created a strategy around the principals of: appearing open and eager to help; never directly espousing full summaries and never appearing in direct control; nullifying undesirable news; controlling emphasis and not facts; balancing bad news with good; and only lying when it is certain the truth will not come out during the war. It is within this framework of overt manipulation that Knightley looks at the last two decades of the media’s coverage of war.
The October 1983 invasion of Grenada, for example, had absolutely no news coverage from war correspondents. The few journalists that attempted to directly cover the event were shot en route (492), exemplifying the very explicit stance that the military was now taking with the media. Following this, the invasion of Panama was also not covered by journalist after promising a pool system of news reporting but not delivering. The military seemed to be in complete control of what was to be covered and not. The first Iraq war showed the new characteristic of a more controlled media that portrayed armed conflict in the Gulf as inevitable and created a need to go to war by focusing stories on isolated cases of extreme atrocities, like the killing of infants and allusions of Saddam to Hitler. The Pentagon only allowed for a pool system of journalism which confined journalists to pre-assigned groups whose movements were coordinated by the military.
What stands out as particularly shocking in this more explicit control of the coverage was the attitude which the public received the limited media. The idea that the truth about the Gulf War could and should wait until it was over was arisen with nearly 80 percent of the public agreeing with such safety precaution (492). Added on to the normalization of limited coverage, part of the military’s media strategy included the portrayal of the battles as a more surgical and accurate procedure with the emerging technologies of warfare implying that war was more humane and had less casualties.
Knightley portrays the Gulf War as a war lost by the journalists and won by the military, only to be followed up by the limited and misleading coverage of the conflict in Kosovo. Stories were disseminated that elevated isolated cases of rape into a systematic war crime. Additionally there was a complete disregard for the safety of journalists that were not within the structure that the military created. Critical and accurate coverage was so sparse and unreliable that congress explicitly asked for a fact finding mission because it felt it was ill-informed to continue with making decisions about the war. Ironically this limited war coverage coincided with the ease in communicating with technology, making it the most televised war at the time. Yet, the public had no desire for a more accurate portrayal of the battle, this type of war coverage had become normalized to the extent in which the public was noted as feeling annoyed by the coverage taking up to much of their television programming saying that war images were just too upsetting (525).
The portrayal of the Iraq War furthered the public’s distraction form a critical journalistic perspective by adding emphasis to the experience of the soldier. A Hollywood series even aired prior to the beginning of the war, approved by the Pentagon and Rumsfeld himself, introducing the tone of the war coverage that was to come. The strategy for media coverage in Iraq also heavily relied on embedded reporting to not only add focus on the personal perspective of the soldier but to also create a norm of self-censorship that tends to come out of lived experiences with soldiers.
Coverage of the Iraq war was also characterized by complete saturation of media coverage having more live picture media coverage than any war before. Even with the constant arrival of more new stories from Iraq that painted the same scenario, two particularly news stories stood out as being symbolic of the message the military wanted to carry out with the Iraq War. Conveniently, the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein occurred in front of a hotel that was housing the majority of the members of the international press. Although only one hundred or so Iraqis participated in literally bringing down Saddam, the image resonated as the marker of the true reason and accomplishment of the US presence in Iraq. The toppling of the Saddam statue becomes a clear example of the military’s propagandistic theatrics to built support and cohesive sentiments about US presence in Iraq. Followed by the rescuing of Private Jessica Lynch, which became equally symbolic of American lives being sacrificed at the hands of the cruel and kidnapping Iraqis, The heroic and theatrical aspect of her rescue was explicitly exaggerated to create an allusion of a core American value—taking care of their own people—in reality she was being kept hospital treated for her injuries when they stormed in to save her.
Knightly concludes with a rather pessimistic stance on where the war correspondent stands today. What used to be a profession that attempted to uncover the truth in a critical way during vital war times has turned into a strategy of propaganda and myth-making that serves the interests of the military.
Helen Feng
Literature Review: Virtuous War (Chapter 1-6)
Informal in style yet deeply provocative in content, Virtuous War tracks James Der Derian’s mental and physical quest to map the military-industrial-media-entertainment network and the effect of this network upon our understanding of war, of security and of reality itself. Through the increased use of virtual simulation in military training and combat, the American army seeks the ability to perform violence through remote control while reducing human casualties. Der Derian delineates the twin effects of virtualization with the current virtuous rationalizations for war, such as promoting democracy to humanitarian intervention; and argues that the interaction is producing “a revolution in military and diplomatic affairs” (xvi). In other words, the “virtual” and the “virtuous” combined will aid America’s attempts to effect ethical change from a safe distance through technological and martial means. With the premise clearly laid out, Der Derian deconstructs and problematizes the relationship to uncover the future implications for the military’s pursuit of virtualization through a myriad of interviews, visitations to military bases and first-hand experiences with simulations.
Virtuous War uncovers the post-9/11 insecurity and fear of uncertainty existent within the American military in terms of its own capabilities of protecting U.S. interests, reflected by and even exacerbated by the all-inclusive War on Terror on to-be-determined enemies. Yet at the same time, the increasingly prevalent use of simulations points to the assumed certainty in U.S. military’s ability to understand the enemy, to foresee their tactics, and to accurately model the vast complexities of the war machine. Throughout the book, Der Derian goes back repeatedly to Clauszowitz’s fog of war and the unpredictability of war, in order to question the military’s unquestioned faith in the power of simulations to adequately train their soldiers. The contrast of deep insecurity with the hubristic faith in American technology harks to the foundations of realism itself, which sets the absolute principles of rationality in the face of great uncertainty and lack of rationality in life itself. However, the accounts from the Box reveal that the complexity of war reasserts itself despite the military’s best efforts: even in simulation, accidents and errors occur with abundance. As Der Derian writes, “from the last two engagements, it seemed apparent that the shift from war/sim to peace/sim was not going to be an easy one.” (62) In other words, simulation itself cannot provide the adequate training necessary for peace, or for certain victory; rather, the difficulties in real wars transfer themselves, albeit with slight mutations, into simulated wars.
In the first chapter, Operation Desert Hammer showcases an unexpected usage for the military’s simulation trainings—the spectacular display of gadgetry and force becomes a sign of technological superiority, a new “cyberdeterrent” to replace the growing ineffectiveness of nuclear warheads. Der Derian parallels the digitized deterrence to its nuclear counterpart, since both rely on the symbolic spectacles to convey their potential power. I would add a distinction between the two, however. Though media representation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did help emphasize the destructive powers of U.S. nuclear weapons, the deterrence power of nuclear warheads lies within their physical presence and capabilities. On the other hand, simulation trainings supposedly improve military strategy as a whole and thus are a step removed from the physicality of nuclear weapons. Due to the deeply embedded effects of simulation trainings, they require a closer network between the military and the media in order to correctly portray the powers of these new developments. In order to grab the media attention, the military must engage in greater and more self-conscious displays of spectacle, similar to the likes of “Kernal Blitz 99” in the Bay Area. The nature of simulations requires a tightening in the relationship between the military and the media industries—a closing of the gap between war and representations of war.
In the intersection of real and simulated war, the book explores the role of responsibility and the possible erasure of responsibility with simulation trainings. Der Derian’s description of his own physical reactions—pounding heart and cold sweat—to simulation training demonstrates the bodily-realness of the virtual. In this sense, simulations effectively blur the line between reality and virtuality; it exists in a liminal space where the body’s perceptions respond to simulated reality. As such, virtuality cannot wholly eliminate responsibility for the body still experiences the effects. Referring to Michael Herr’s reflection on Vietnam, where images “stayed stored there in [the] eyes” for years before they were comprehended, the added barrier of simulation away from the flesh-and-blood battlefield will slow down the comprehension of war even further. As Der Derian writes, “in this high-tech rehearsal for war, one learns how to kill but not to take responsibility for it, one experiences ‘death’ but not the tragic consequences of it” (10). Unpacking this statement reveals that simulations works to desensitize in two ways: one, the simulated consequences of war lessens the need for comprehension itself, and second, repeated simulation training will desensitize the body’s responses and prevent comprehension even when the consequences are real. If the images take longer than a lifetime to process, then Benjamin’s sobering note on “self-alienated humans becoming their own showpiece” (41) can be a definite possibility.
The first six chapters within Virtuous War read as an accumulation of information and realizations about the American military’s increasing use of simulations to model warfare. While Virtuous War self-consciously avoids making sweeping critiques or even evaluations, the book consistently highlights the untested assumptions made by the military and raises probing questions on the implications for such practices. America’s pursuit for “bloodless, humanitarian, hygienic wars” still remains more a dream than reality, as virtuous warfare defers human suffering, responsibility and even comprehension of war-trauma itself.
In November 2005, three employees of PayPal - Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim – launched a new website that would come to dominate the Internet: www.YouTube.com. Using Adobe Flash Video technology, the website sought to display a wide variety of user-generated video content including video-blogging, original short movies or videos, music videos, TV and movie clips. The aim was to provide an easier and simpler technology for video sharing.
By July 2006, users were watching more than 100 million videos per day on its site, making YouTube accountable for 60% of all videos watched online. In 2007, it was estimated that YouTube consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet in 2000 , and just two years later, in January 2009, YouTube surpassed 100 million viewers in the U.S. The average viewer was watching 356 minutes of video (approximately 6 hours) per month. Today, the video-sharing site gets more than 1 billion searches a day, close to Google itself, and has 24 hours worth of video being uploaded every minute.
With its easy interface, free access and sharing capabilities, YouTube has created a community of users and searchers different from that of Google. It is a new form of social networking that gives individuals the power to make and share video content, most of which would not be shown in mass media. This dramatically widens the range of material available. Most users make or watch clips of around 2 to 3 minutes, ranging from comedy clips to videos that shock, from homemade videos to recorded clips – all the while browsing the website. Users can also see other clips that are being watched, the most popular videos, YouTube’s personal recommendations or they can opt to create their own playlist. In such a way, everything is adapted to costumers needs.
One of the most important characteristics of a YouTube video is its presentation – both the time and the image of a clip. Unlike going to the movies, most YouTube users are not looking to watch a long video. Users are searching, not sitting in a movie theatre. Thus, a YouTube video has the challenge of keeping an audience engaged since users have so many other options at just the click of their finger. In that sense, videos depend on the viewer (child vs. adult, teenager vs. college student); YouTube clips must master the relationship between the intended audience and the duration of the video.
Three videos, Growing Up in the 1950’s Revealed, Hope Floats and Waylon Jennings Sings “Oilmen” with Earl Scrugg, come to mind as longer pieces (27 minutes, 27 minutes and 10 minutes respectively) which clearly target a specific audience. Although each brings a different style of image – one a clip from a television series on the Sixties, one a documentary style ‘advert’ for “Floating Doctors” and the last a short ‘older style’ film paying tribute to oil workers – they all require the searcher to stop browsing and focus for longer than 3 minutes. In fact, the first video Growing Up in the 1950’s Revealed is part of a series and is therefore trying to engage the viewer so they will continue to watch all four parts. Thus, in these three videos the browser is actually watching a movie on a computer, changing the medium through which we view films, and therefore the notion of a movie. In this case, YouTube becomes both an educational and recreational tool for viewers. However, for those who are not captivated early, clicking on one of the other videos on the sidebar is always an easy option.
Although this makes it harder for users who create videos, and is especially frustrating for directors making shorter films, it is part of the beauty of YouTube. Whatever the mood you’re in, there is a video out there for you. For those who only have a small break to browse YouTube, shorter videos like the Amazing Gymnast Outdoors require less time and hardly any attention or thought. Like many other YouTube videos, this clip contains various raw footage edited together with a music track in the background. Instead of telling a story, for 3 and half minutes the user is exposed to a gymnast performing a series of tricks both inside a gym and outside on building, parks and cars.
But some uploads on YouTube are meant to invoke emotion or a sensation of inspiration on the viewer’s behalf. Let’s take for example Susan Boyle’s performance on the television show Britain’s Got Talent – one of YouTube’s biggest hits. Susan Boyle is a plump and plain 47-year-old woman who defies expectations and forces the viewer to confront prejudice; at the beginning the viewer does not believe she can sing and then finds out she has a wonderful soprano voice. Therefore, at the end of the clip, the viewer is supposed to be moved and uplifted by her talent and courage. This inspirational story-telling method, which produces reactions from searchers, is widely and successfully used on the websites uploads.
Perfect examples include the three clips, the Man with no Limbs, the Deaf Girl Plays Violin and Moments. In less than 5 minutes, all three videos manage to capture a YouTube browser’s attention through emotion. The first short clip begins as a joke - allowing the viewer to relate to the disabled man – but by the end, the camera captures audience members crying, as the man with no limbs manages to get up off the ground despite his disability. The second clip is a Pantene Pro-V advertisement that uses a short inspirational story about a deaf girl who succeeds in a music contest, performing a piece of music regardless of inability to hear. The final line of the video is “You can shine”. The story is inspiring and poignant – but also illusory. Other clips are more life-like – such as David Hoffman’s movie Moments – which combines different footage of instants in people’s lives. This type of video, which uses realistic material similar to one’s own life, allows viewers to relate directly to the video.
Browsers of YouTube can also uniquely relate to the websites videos when users utilize the technique of “direct address”. Homemade videos are common amongst customers who chose to either share their talents, stories or jokes through their webcam. Two examples include the clips No Legs Poet and the Japanese Beat-boxer. The first video works well on the website as it begins with a frame of only the man’s face, and then as you continue listening to his story, he moves away from the camera and you learn of his disability. The second video is a showcase of talent by the user in order to win a competition. The method of addressing viewers used by both is personal (not only filmed in their homes but also directly speaking to the spectator) and therefore it can invoke more sentiments and be more intriguing to the viewer. Both videos are attempts to promote oneself through a “direct address” to the customer.
The question then becomes about factors of truth over the Internet. What do YouTube browsers believe and why? Some may choose the more documentary style videos as ones to believe, others may look at the uploader, and others may only pick clips from television or film. For example, if a viewer were to watch all of the YouTube clips of average people using the Android telephone (The Verizon Experiments), would they believe them? Would a YouTube user then go out and buy the Android telephone? Does the authenticity of a low-resolution webcam have more impact both emotionally and in transmitting information to the public? In the end one cannot decipher what people choose to believe and what they don’t – it depends on the viewer. The point is to seize a searcher’s attention for the duration of your clip through the image, the length of time, the type of address or topic.
Nevertheless all of the videos above create the ever-growing YouTube community. Producing a different form of communication and challenging what is acceptable in cinematic documentary, these videos are universal, interactive and accessible to all those with an Internet connection. Some are ‘normal’ people, some are actors and some are musicians – all, however, bring together people from around the world. The interactiveness of the video-sharing website and its ability to showcase real-time clips accounts for its huge success rate today. People continue to stay connected to news, what’s in and just generally what others are doing, forming a collective memory for all. Its social impact illustrates the phenomenon that YouTube has become.
Sources Used:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-16-youtube-views_x.htm
http://www.pakblogger.com/10-interesting-facts-about-youtube
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/3/YouTube_Surpasses_100_Million_US_Viewers
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jbG1BC7l8u9Njm7Yo9QV7GLN4uMA
Jacob Friedman
INTL 1800, James Der Derian
Literature Review: 21st Century War/Media
April 20, 2010
Virtuous War, Virtuous Imagery: Der Derian and Sontag
In the second half of James Der Derian’s Virtuous War and Susan Sontag’s Regarding the Pain of Others, the reader is given an introduction to virtuous war and photographic images of war in modern America. For a time, American war (of the virtuous variety) seemed to mimic traditional aspects of American images of war, such as the lack of dead Americans, violence as a foreign, remote spectacle, and the fusing of reality and art. From Kosovo to the Institute for Creative Technologies to the first years of the Bush Administration, virtuous war and imagery of pain and suffering seemed to be converging in the United States. After 9/11, some of these seemingly easy comparisons became more difficult to make, as the initial “shock and awe” of the Iraqi invasion gave way to an intractable conflict, and a steady stream of terrorist counter-imagery forced its way into the public sphere.
Writing with regards to Jack Valenti and the creation of the ICT, Der Derian warns against the “disappearance of the body, the aestheticizing of violence, the sanitization of war” (Der Derian, 165). Professor Der Derian is referencing the coming together of Hollywood and America’s war-making machine that occurred in the late 1990s, but such aestheticiziation is a common theme of American war images. As Sontag points out, there is a long and distinguished history of hiding American dead, at the very least by obscuring the naked face. In World War II, photographs of dead GIs tended to obscure the faces of the dead; indeed, the first image of fallen American soldiers since the Civil War was George Strock’s famous photo from 1943 (Sontag, 70).
Simultaneous to the political aestheticiziation of war was its increasing remoteness to the American homeland. The most well known images of the Gulf War, the Kosovo War and beyond comes from gunship sights, or from the bombs themselves. Implicitly lacking in these images are American soldiers, or America itself. This separation of America from horror and violence is also a modern aspect of violent imagery. In Sontag’s words: “being a spectator of calamities taking place in another country is a quintessentially modern experience”(Sontag, 18). She continues: “the more remote or exotic the place, the more likely we are to have full frontal views of the dead and dying.” (Sontag, 70).
Finally, the control of images, the infowar, is an important coming together of virtuous war and virtuous imagery. The question of the global event and the global accident must be understood against the backdrop of these issues. The transition from accident to global event occurs through the new global media, which is measured by its capacity produce a moving image of the world. (Der Derian, 210, 252). Yet the question of what images are shown and what images are hidden is a vital aspect both of virtuous war-making as well as virtuous imagery. Sontag points to NBC’s burying of footage of carpet bombings after the 1991 Iraq war and the hiding of the more horrific photos from 9/11 as proof of this selection, to which Der Derian adds the public emphasis on the accuracy of new smart-weapons in Kosovo and the subsequent reduction in collateral damage, despite ample evidence to the contrary (Sontag, 66; Der Derian, 198).
In the years since 9/11 and the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, it is possible to see a shift in the way images and war interacted in the American public and entertainment sphere. Of course, such shifts were not universal. The suppression of photos of coffins of American soldiers was justified for reasons similar to ones outlined in Sontag’s book. Der Derian notes the way the US government shaped the network’s response to 9/11, including personal petitions by Condoleezza Rice to major networks to not show Al-Qaeda videos (Der Derian, 239). The first images of the war was the bombing of Kabul, devoid of human American presence, contrasted with the overwhelming presence of American officials and pundits on the networks. (Der Derian, 237) Shock and Awe was a prime example of the “full-spectrum dominance” as articulated by General Wesley Clark in Virtuous War (Der Derian, 191).
Yet in two important ways, 9/11 and beyond represented a fundamental break in the virtuous war and concurrent war imagery model in the United States. First, violence had come home on American soil. Sontag writes about images of Africa as confirmation “that this is the sort of thing which happens in that place.” (Sontag, 71). Yet an important aspect of the way war was waged and the way the imagery of war was received and interpreted in the United States was the difference between that place and this place. That place was where violence and war occurred, in direct contrast to the peace and freedom of this place. Der Derian writes: “with the toppling of the WTC a core belief was destroyed: it could not happen here” (Der Derian, 236). This core belief was not only ingrained in American psyche, but in virtuous war doctrine as well: the transformation of war to the virtual spectacle, played out like a video game, was accompanied by a necessary remoteness. The contrast between remote and remotely-controlled wars, and jets filled with innocent passengers hitting public buildings in New York and Washington D.C. is striking.
At the same time, a rise in counter-narratives and counter-images played in opposition to attempts at information-war dominance that had regularly occurred in past conflicts. Bin Laden’s videos situated themselves as the narrative alternative to CNN talking heads and Bush administration soundbytes. The existence of two narratives regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was in opposition to virtuous war hopes for information and imagery dominance. To use Der Derian’s phrase, this “mimetic war of images” was a contrast to the tightly controlled imagery and language of other recent conflicts (Der Derian, 240). Sontag, in her book, reminds the reader to ask: “what pictures, whose cruelties, whose deaths are not being shown?” (Sontag, 14). While the virtuous war model was in part based on a full-spectrum dominance that included the promotion or suppression of specific information and imagery, in the global war on terror this imagery became nearly impossible to suppress. While the US government battled to keep pictures of coffins off the airwaves and front pages, images of decapitations and butchered American soldiers were being transmitted through counter-networks and media set up by Al-Qaeda and others. The inability to control the image in the recent Iraq war goes hand in hand with the greater collapse of the virtuous war, even if the MIME-net remains alive and well.
“All efforts to aestheticize politics culminate in one point. That one point is war” (Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Technological Reproducibility”, 41).
What happens when we morally and visually aestheticize war? When war is made to look more surgical and less diagnostic, more principled and less interest-based, more virtual and less visceral, it becomes easier to brand it, in fact, more “coercive diplomacy” and less “war”. When programs advocating, “bombing for peace” are proposed with no hint of irony, we know that the war being discussed has gone surgical; it has been transformed into a virtuous war (Der Derian, 183). This transformation is exactly what James Der Derian’s book, Virtuous War, attempts to track, by taking the reader through the military-industrial-media-entertainment network (MIME-NET) and mapping it over time in order to dissect the consequences of its existence. Susan Sontag’s book, Regarding the Pain of Others, examines how we view images, specifically photographs, of other people’s suffering and pain. Both Sontag and Der Derian are very aware of an image’s dependence on its caption and how that combination of image and explanation has immense power in the ability to shape identities and perceptions of the world and of events, for both benevolent as well as nefarious purposes.
Photographs of war, to Sontag, have great impact because they become how “war among people who have not experienced war” is understood (Sontag, 21). Various questions arise from such an observation. What is the viewer’s relationship with such images and subsequently, such events? What is obscured as well as revealed by these photographs? And, if all photographs require some degree of framing and exclusion, how can an image be authentic? In her essay, Sontag approaches these questions and concludes that images only are capable of acquiring meaning through the process of framing and providing a narrative; that is, through the addition of words. Otherwise, rather than remembering events through photographs, people will remember just the photographs themselves (Sontag, 89). “Narratives can make us understand. Photographs do something else: they haunt us” (Sontag, 89), although I would add an addendum that narratives only make us understand one of multiple perspectives of the photo’s context.
An image of human suffering caused by war compels one to react—whether it be to protest, to change the channel or just to remain transfixed on the image, embracing the voyeuristic allure. Shocking and ugly images demand the most reaction and thus, are more likely to become lodged in our minds as evidence, as the definitive truth about an event. These photographs, Sontag claims, form part of our individual memory of events; the images recognized by all become an aspect of what society chooses to remember, to think about (Sontag, 85). The decision of which images are chosen for the Collective Instruction, as opposed to Collective Memory, of society is illustrative of how the society views itself. In the US, we are much more likely to document atrocities committed by others, as opposed to those committed by us.
Perhaps some of the most interesting and poignant issues arise in Sontag’s treatment of transforming war and human suffering into beauty and art. Sontag argues that while some photography can be exploitative and objectifying, it can also serve as a strong critique of governments or policies causing such pain, or can compel people to do something with the emotions that the image provokes. It does not matter who the photographer was. A photograph, once produced, gets separated from its photographer; it has a life of its own. Photos can be reproduced, combined, cut, distorted, misappropriated, reappropriated—and while an image may not be an agent itself, when it enters the global matrix of information flows, it is born. As Sontag notes, “The photographer’s intentions do not determine the meaning of the photograph, which will have its own career, blown by the whims and loyalties of the diverse communities that have use for it” (Sontag, 39). However, the difficulty with photographs lies not just in the fact that once produced they develop their own “career”, but lies also with the tendency to afford them a high truth-status with relatively little narrative attached.
The capability of photographs to become decoupled from the photographer, in part, allows the images to go global, transforming how the world perceives events to be unfolding, which then affects the events in turn. Sontag has little patience for the idea of simulated realities in shaping global reality, but Der Derian seems not to take it to the black and white extreme Sontag does, opting rather to explore how simulation shapes specific realities—military simulation shapes the realities of war. The preference for flawed simulation over no simulation is indicative of this, not in that reality has been replaced, but in that we prefer an explainable unreality to an unexplainable reality (Der Derian, 280). The emphasis on narrative remains, but the demand comes from the spectator.
Der Derian takes an ambitious stab at developing a virtual theory, which aims to provide “a truly antagonistic and openly pluralist approach towards the world’s most pressing dangers” (Der Derian, 254). Virtual theory is presented as way of approaching the MIME-NET that seeks to describe the changing constellation of factors leading to the emergence of a global and/or critical event. However, it is not a theory that lives on the sidelines of that constellation. Rather, it embraces its “potential to make meaning and to produce presence, to create the actual through a theatrical differentiation and technical vision” (Der Derian, 219). It resides in the brackish water of causality, placing the accident at the center, ebbing and flowing as the environment around it changes. Within the loose construct of virtual theory, the language through which events (especially accidents) balloon out to the global level is made up of images, simulations and spectacle. In turn, virtual theory also “explores how reality is framed, read, and generated in the conceptualization and actualization of a global event” (Der Derian, 220).
The increasing ability of global media to reach enormous amounts of people in almost real time has altered and destabilized the Information Age (Der Derian, 250-1). The constantly changing network structure of global media elude national control and scripting, which has given a newfound power of information to non-state actors. When plugged into the information flow of global media, one’s perceptions of events and responses are shaped before one can critically assess them (Der Derian, 252). The image remains dependent on narrative to give it meaning and context, but the narrative is shortening and getting pushed aside for the sake of the image.
This week’s title being convergence I expected that the Blog of Earl Morris would bring large swathes of the course together. It did that and more. Unfortunately for my post, the “more” seemed to untie the “that.” There was so much interaction between Morris’s blogs and the rest of this course that it seems almost impossible to track. The relations between his work and that of just one other author or filmmaker we’ve encountered in this class could fill books. In trying to lock down a coherent overview of Morris’s blogs that was not simply overwhelming digression, regrettably, I’ve had to overlook many of these interesting relationships. Nevertheless I’ve tried to provide a feel for Morris’s general project by explicating what I found to be the most interesting or foundational of his numerous blog postings and briefly gesturing at a few of what I found to be the most informative and salient “intertexts” or simply commonalities between his work and that of other scholars or directors we’ve previously encountered.
According to Morris, what we perceive as reality is determined in large part by our beliefs. Photographs and film provide vivid illustrations of this fact. Images are incapable of being true, false or objective. They’re simply the wrong kind of entities which to attribute truth-values. Though to Morris this does not mean we should disregard the concept of truth with regard to photography. Images can still be used to guide towards truth, which Morris repeatedly demonstrates is determined by context. However the fluidity and manipulability of photographs is often hidden by their presentation or their insidious “ability to make us think we know more than we really know.” Furthermore this ability is so great that many of us run the risk of “confus[ing] photographs with reality.” It is in this risk that Morris finds the dangers, the destructive powers of photography and this risk that he seeks to diminish through careful exposure of the possibilities of meaning entailed by photographs.
The tendency to view photographs as true, objective representations of reality has been around since the invention of the process. As Barthes claimed photography seems to be the only art that has the power to transmit a feeling that “this-has-been.” Benjamin also seems to have attributed a similar evocative power to photography when he claimed that the photograph makes its object “meet you half way.” Even Sontag admits that a photograph has a connection to reality that is unique among artistic products, as a “faked photograph is defined in a very different way than a “faked painting.” Photographs just seem to impart the knowledge that at some point their objects were existent in the external world and observable. According to all of the above-mentioned theorists other forms of art do not impart this feeling of knowledge.
However, Morris claims this power of photography is deceptive. The first time Morris presents his view that photographs are incapable of having truth-values, he does so as though their truth is a blatantly obvious fact of the matter. He begins by exhibiting this photograph:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/morris/18morris533.jpg
and almost rhetorically poses the question “is it true or false?” before quickly responding that he finds “the question ridiculous.” He then simply claims that “stripped of all context a photograph is virtually meaningless.”
The rhetoric of his presentation is interesting because in a later blog entry he claims that whenever someone presents something is obvious it probably means they don’t understand it. Additionally as the power of photography to evoke a “feeling of truth” is so strong it isn’t immediately clear that the question “is this photograph true or false” is meaningless. It seems easy to imagine someone who upon viewing the image and Morris’s “ridiculous question” would almost instinctively think, “of course it’s true because there was a real boat.” Conversely it seems someone could just have easily thought, “of course its false because it’s completely photoshopped.”
Yet, thankfully Morris ultimately provides far more than just assertion. An argument is disparately scattered through the rest of his blog entries and only a small amount of reconstruction is necessary to perceive its force. First Morris makes the claim, common in the philosophy of truth, that truth is a relationship between language and the world. It is a very difficult task to flesh out what the substance of that relationship is and Morris doesn’t really try to do so, taking for granted a proper semantics and our capacity to assign truth-values to sentences. He then inquires into how we might determine the truth or falsity of photograph. When we see the photograph of an object and respond to the question “is it true?” with “yes, there was a real object” we are not assigning truth to the photograph, but to the statement, “this picture is of object x.” The intuitive notion that photographs can be true or false seems to rely on a photographs power to draw out “mental captions” while obscuring the fact that they are doing so. Intuitive claims about the truth of photography seem to rely on implicit statements and thus leave us with no real knowledge of how we could possibly assign truth-values to the photograph itself. This absence of knowledge together with the power of photographs to obscure their action on observers is further explored in several of Morris’s posts.
One of the most and revealing of these posts is the one on the Mickey Mouse and war photography. In current (as in this past January) war photography in the Middle East, there have been a large number of children’s toys photographed. To some this glut suggests something sinister, manipulation, a willingness to politicize symbols simply to win ideological battles. Morris wanted why there were so many photographs of toys and how they came to be in hopes of shedding light on the questions of their political implications. Are the pictures “just anti-war?” Are they disguised bias or do they simply increase drama because of ideas they invoke? Morris tried to interview all the photographers that took pictures of toys, but found only one that was willing to be interviewed, Ben Curtis the chief photographer, Middle East, Associated Press.
The discussion with this photographer is wide ranging but centered on the “accuracy” of photographs. Curtis took the Mickey photo, the “truth” of which was called into question by various blogs and even his editors who all suspected it was staged. This suspicion may have being so strong in part perhaps because the Mickey photo was distributed shortly after a Reuters photograph was found to be photoshopped and the pressure to make sure no “falsified” photographs were released was very high. Of course Curtis stood by the fact that his photograph was absolutely not tampered with in any way and expressed a few opinions about what might have aroused suspicions that it was.
On one hand he said, echoing Morris’s and Sontag’s (perhaps unwittingly) opinions, “it is the caption that provides the accuracy of the picture.” As his picture was run in several places with different or non-existent captions it was not surprising to him that its “accuracy” was doubted. Additionally, he said, today with a greater amount of media being constantly generated there is always a plurality of perspectives that are becoming harder and harder to bridge because of the ability to fine-tune the absorption of them. Thanks to the internet a conservative today has a way to make sure he only gets conservative opinions and interpretations of images and events. The same goes for virtually any member of any group.
Morris propounded a slightly stronger view that it was simply an observer’s thinking that a photograph was suggesting a view the observer didn’t like that causes “the suggestion that a photograph was posed.” Looking at this photograph that was not manipulated:
http://blog.camera.org/archives/Ben%20Curtis%20mouse.jpg
Morris says people infer that the photographer is trying to blame the death of a child on Israel (as many people that argued that the photo was staged held that it was a piece of anti-Israeli propaganda). The absence of a caption allows people to read their political leanings or fears into the picture regardless of what the image actually allows to be inferred or what the photojournalist who took the picture says he or she knows.
To emphasize this point, in a later blog Morris posts the above photograph three times a caption, a statement about what the photographer knew about the situation.
“A child’s toy lies amidst broken glass from the shattered windows of an apartment block near those that were demolished by Israeli air strikes in Tyre, southern Lebanon, Monday, Aug. 7, 2006. Israeli bombs slammed into a complex of buildings flattening four multistoried apartment blocks, including the one apartment that had been the target of Saturday’s Israeli commando raid, whilst a civil defense ambulance was hit in the rear and slightly damaged with emergency workers who had gone to the bomb site to search for bodies being forced to flee.”
Morris then asks his readers to imagine this caption ending in three different ways.
1) With no change
2) It is an illustration of a tactic employed by the Israeli Defense Forces to target civilians in southern Lebanon.
3) It is an illustration of a tactic employed by Hezbollah and Hamas to use their own civilians as human shields.
The import of these endings for the meaning of the photograph is large. Depending on which is selected, Morris says the same photograph could be construed as “anti-Israeli propaganda, anti-Hamas propaganda or journalistic truth.” As Morris states much earlier photography (as well as neuroscience) provides very strong reasons to conclude, “believing is seeing” and often times seeing helps to strengthen very irrational beliefs.
This view that images by themselves don’t have a truth-value, but are determined by belief effectively corresponds in many senses to David Hoffman’s idea that there is never “the truth.” When Hoffman talked in class about the ability of competent filmmakers to stage anything, he rejected the notion that film can ever convey the truth. He claimed, roughly, that the skill with which directors can stage scenes makes it almost impossible to distinguish between reality and simulation. Additionally the advancements in film technique and technology blur the lines between the concepts of staged and not staged while even the smallest directorial and editorial decisions resulted in a unique product that provided a view of the world. In effect whenever you see a film you are seeing from the filmmakers viewpoint whether that filmmaker intended it or not. Yet these viewpoints are truths these perspectives make implicit claims about the object of the film or the film itself which when unpacked are capable of bearing truth claims. Morris just seems to take it a step further. The perspective of the auteur may provide a statement but only through its interaction with the beliefs of the viewers. While the perspective of a photograph might be a factor in the process that determines the statement the viewer implicitly makes when attributing truth or falsity to a an image or sequence thereof it can only be the statement the viewer formulates that has a truth value and this statement varies from viewer to viewer.
Diverging slightly from Hoffman towards Bogosian, Morris makes it clear that he only thinks this inability to access the truth apart from perspective is only in regard to images. He doesn’t think variance in the statements formulated as responses to the same picture means there is no objectivity or absolute truth whatsoever. He says he his not assaulting truth and “there is a real world out there.” He just thinks that photographs in and of themselves don’t help us access it. In fact they hinder us from accessing it because “they attract false beliefs.” Morris seems to accept reality is accessible through other means, namely “unadorned human reason.”
Ted Bogosian professed repeatedly in class that there was truth and as far I could tell the only distinction between types of truth he made was between modes of acquisitions. He claimed there was journalistic truth and emotional narrative truth, by which he seemed to mean that we could apprehend the truth through the affect of fiction or through the straightforwardly intellection comprehension of the presentation of facts. Morris’s acceptance of a substantial account of truth together with his notions of how we access it, again corresponds with Bogosian’s general ideas while contributing a little theoretical specificity. Morris holds as we’ve seen that there are certain modes of media that move us towards truth but only indirectly, through the stimulation of reasoning.
Morris’s claims and arguments, as they both counter and substantiate the claims of Hoffman or Bogosian taken individually, seem to fit perfectly over and eliminate the tension between the conjunction of the two filmmakers ideas of images’ relation with the truth. For Morris there is both the truth, as Bogosian seems to see it and truths, as Hoffman would have it. Our access to Truth or reality doesn’t come directly; there are always truths involved. . Such mediation does have the tendency to draw us away from reason and thus away from truth. Yet such mediation doesn’t mean we can’t access the Truth, in some cases images can guide us to truths, as Hoffman would label perspectives, which when they stimulate reasoning, help lead us to what I think Bogosian would call Truth. To put it practically, to reach truth through media production, rather than focusing on portraying a singular viewpoint very self consciously and skillfully (as Hoffman might) or portraying affectively effective narratives in an attempt to capture truth directly (as Bogosian might) Morris says it is necessary to focus on stimulating skepticism and reasoning. Additionally, all three filmmakers seem to completely agree that given the proliferation of media, truths, and modes of production it is becoming and will become more and more difficult to distinguish Truth from truths and reality from simulation as time passes.
The relations between media (specifically photography), politics and truth are something we have explored many times in this class, through many mediators. Benjamin revealed how the effects of the “mechanical reproduction” necessitated by photography mark a radical departure from “traditional art” and jeopardize “historical testimony.” Roland Barthes further elucidated the aspects of photography that distinguish it from other artistic mediums, attempting to delineate its essence to build a new science. Susan Sontag, rejecting the idea that photography has a distinct essence, provided a careful analysis of photography’s import for the meaning of events and its complex interaction with political narratives.
While these scholars each have a different conclusion about the nature and effect of photography they share similar concerns. They each, in their own way, worry over the truth claims in the mechanical capturing of images. For Benjamin this destruction is of authenticity and engenders a dangerous transformation of the basis of art, “from ritual to politics.” For Barthes it is the platitudinous inherent, flat “death.” For Sontag it seems to be the possibility posed and thereby false photographs as well as the photographs ability to detach itself from intentions.
Perhaps then the most significant relation of Morris’s blog to other areas of this course is that it gives a new shape to these worries and their possible alleviations. If photographs are completely void of truth-values and “believing is seeing” not even distinctions between false and true photographs or films, those Sontag relies on for an ethical treatment of photography, are sustainable. The seductive destruction occasioned by a photograph begins with forgetting or obscuring of that fact. Thus the responsibility for determining and obtaining the truth is solely inside the individual who consumes or produces media. The media consumer has a responsibility to try to know the limits of his knowledge, the producer a responsibility to try to create media that simulates skeptical inquiry and rational discourse. Only through the acceptance of such responsibility can we hope to navigate the ever-expanding realm of mediated truths and avoid its inherent dangers.
Marc Gilbert
Adoration - Atom Egoyan
5/4/10
In Adoration, a film by Atom Egoyan, a young man wrestles with the mysteries of the past, fabricating, simulating and fictionalizing his memories. It tells the story of Simon (Devon Bostick) coping with the death of his parents, Rachel (Rachel Blanchard) and Sami (Noam Jenkins). Their death and the car accident that caused it is shrouded in mystery, and when his French teacher reads aloud a story of a terrorist placing a bomb in his wife’s airline baggage, Simon places himself in the story as the unborn child of the terrorist and unknowing martyr. There is a one-to-one correlation between this story Simon creates and his own family’s memories, as Simon’s grandfather tells Simon, holding a digital camera, that he believes that Sami purposefully killed Rachel in a final act of spiteful martyrdom. The same actors play both characters, visually aligning the two memories, as fiction melts into reality, and vice versa.
In Adoration, memories are created and inserted into history like the scroll of a Rachel’s violin: they can be cut off and replaced with different ones, copies of what we suspect the original resembled. Simon, unable to cope with and unable to understand his memories and complicated family history, fabricates a new one out of a newspaper article. Using this new memory as a placeholder for the real, he disseminates it to his peers, and then an ever-growing network of audience members over the Internet. He sits transfixed in front of their flowing images on screen, hoping that, if perhaps he cannot figure out his family’s memories, then perhaps an unbiased jury of public voyeurs can deliver a verdict.
The results are inconclusive, as the Internet audience gives Simon a cacophony of different viewpoints. Just as in his own family history, the conversation spirals out of control into one of race, responsibility, and ideology. An elderly woman, coached from her chair by a much younger (and social media-savvy) relative, reveals, reluctantly, her concentration camp tattoos. A skinhead commiserates with young Simon, flashing his own scrawled message on his forearm: “Six Million Lies.”
Ultimately these flashes of chat room dialogue come across as weak and undeveloped, as they work to mainly advance the plot and tease out Simon’s inner thoughts. Impersonal and sporadic, they do not engage, but rather speak to technology’s impersonality – one friend deplores the fact that “I'm just a thing on whatever it is you’re watching me on.” This moment of inner conflict for Simon plays as the ontological removal of media from the active sphere, of a separate space. Simon, after all, plays the born son of an unsuccessful martyrdom, once removed from his actual history. But his actual role, his reality, is equally distant from an objective family truth: was it martyrdom that killed his parents, or was it the result of chance, of too much wine, of an eye condition?
Equally probing is the question of simulation, of the power of the recounted history to take the place of unsolved memory. With the same actors playing the roles of his parents and the couple in the news story, it becomes apparent that one memory has the power to supplant the other, but the order collapses. Instead of the news story illuminating the shadowy memory, the divergent and morally fraught memory begins to color the lessons of the news report. Simon begins to defend his make-believe father’s position, at least in front of the camera, as the historical record becomes personalized in its digestion, and then dissemination. Israel’s implicit role in this conversation is equally simulative: a tattooed record of the Holocaust is the moral argument against an anti-Israel bombing. The real victim and the simulated injustice are transposed and intertwined.
Finally, Egoyan’s film attempts to address problems of truth-telling that call into question the efficacy of media and memory. From Simon’s monologue in front of his class, to his Internet chat rooms, to his grandfather’s fervent message that he implores Simon to believe: “Your father is a killer.” But in the slow peeling of layered storytelling, Simon’s grandfather’s words are both true and false for their different contexts. In the news story, Simon’s father is a killer, and in Simon’s grandfather’s memory, Simon’s father phone-call a proof of his guilt. Simon’s own storytelling is immediately dramatized, only to become more and more truthful as his own personal history reveals itself.
Ultimately, Adoration is able to balance and counter weave a number of condensing and collapsing themes and storylines. It speaks to the dynamic charade of memory, as it snakes its way in and out of historical record. Technology plays a large roll in this hard-drive conception of memory: as insertable and rewritable, shareable and updateable. The anonymous figures of chat rooms and Internet dissents plague Simon like his own inner voices. This idea of simulation runs concurrent to issues of objective truth, and the splicing of the real and the fictional.
In the end, the real images on screens—Simon’s grandfather on a digital camera or nine talking faces on a laptop—do no better at explaining Simon’s past than the fabricated fiction of dramatized storytelling. Memory then can not only be reappropriated, but it too can reappropriate the stories we tell ourselves, the myths of human creation. As Simon says, “I think that this idea we get, that if you get to know someone, if you humanize them, it stops you from pulling the trigger or setting off the bomb or whatever, well that's just a myth we're taught, something we get from the movies. When the reality might be that's what actually inspires extreme action.” In this game after all, like another game from our childhood, we are only allowed to act, or react, when “SIMON SAYS.”
Meredith Weaver
"Waltz with Bashir" -- Directed by Ari Folman
By the seventies, Palestinians had increasingly taken refuge from the Israeli state in Southern Lebanon, thus changing demographics and developing Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) control in the area. These demographic shifts created increased tension in Lebanon and, along with Israel’s support of Christian militias which would become the South Lebanese Army, fueled a civil war there.
The Lebanon War began in June 1982 with invasion of South Lebanon by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) after years of conflict along the northern territory with Palestinians in Lebanon. Under Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Minister of Defense, plans to occupy a security zone 40km within Lebanese borders to inhibit missile range diverged into occupation as far north as Beirut. In addition, Bashir Gemayel (leader of Maronite Phalange party’s paramilitary and Sharon’s Christian ally) was appointed President of Lebanon.
The young president was killed in an explosion in September 1982 instigating a swift response by the IDF. Israeli forces occupied Beirut the following day and authorized Phalangist fighters’ entrance into Sabra and Shatila, Palestinian refugee camps, on claims that PLO forces remained within. At least 800 civilians are estimated to have been killed in the Sabra and Shatila massacre although other estimates are much higher. Phalangist casualties totaled at 2. [1] Israeli troops looked on, monitored exits and fired illumination rounds while the slaughter continued. Almost immediately, Israel’s involvement and responsibility were questioned and protest led to the Kahan Commission. Ariel Sharon was determined to bear personal responsibility. In addition, an international commission found that the government of Israel had acted in opposition to international law in the initial invasion of Lebanon.
It is in the shadow and dreamscape of this war that director Ari Folman’s award-winning film, “Waltz with Bashir”, reveals the search for truth in reconstructing quietly repressed memories. Folman seeks the past he cannot recall – his whereabouts the night of the Sabra and Shatila massacre as an IDF soldier. Slowly, he builds a memory in corroboration with the stories and memories of other soldiers present on that disastrous night.
align="center">Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complain when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces. –Sigmund Freud
“Waltz with Bashir” is animated (with exception of the short final scene) and thus a rare breed in the world of documentary. Though based on interviews and conversations the director had with real people – in fact, many characters are depicted as a semblance of themselves – animation provides a certain distance from reality and allows the possibility of the fantastic. Dreams, hallucinations, and hazy memories are integral to the evolution of this film and animation is a creative and effective vehicle to represent the surreal as not strikingly different from the real. Interviews stream into memories of life as a soldier stream into hallucinations of floating in the ocean atop a gargantuan naked woman. And while the viewer can, for the most part, discern what scenes have a basis in lived experience, there remains a subtle ambiguity. Which memories are factual? What is missing? “Memory is fascinating… [It] is dynamic. It’s alive. If some details are missing, memory fills the holes with things that never happened,” says Folman’s friend and semi-personal psychologist in the movie. This provokes the director’s meditation on memory and pursuit of filling the holes of recollection with events that did happen as corroborated by fellow soldiers and people who were present during the massacre.
Truth-telling is another theme of global media. Journalism and media agencies depend on a claim to the truth that legitimizes their stories and stance. The entertainment industry seeks a similar legitimacy from military support and cooperation in war films to “reality” TV’s unscripted “real life” depictions. “Waltz with Bashir” gives the impression that there is a truth to be found in historical events and war. This truth is worth searching for, no matter the pain or disappointment that might accompany discovery of such a forgotten past. What’s more, this truth is not a given because our minds work in mysterious, deceptive ways; therefore it must be sought out. If one searches long enough, talks to the right people, and interprets subconscious reminders meaningfully, memory will develop.
However there is another layer to the truth of “Waltz with Bashir”; that is the truth behind the story and its representation. Ari Folman truly was a young soldier in the Israel Defense Forces posted in Beirut on the night of the massacre. The quest to uncover his personal implication is factual. Interviews animated in the film were recorded with Folman’s friends and fellow soldiers – with two exceptions for those who chose not to contribute their voice or visage but whose general character and comments were communicated. The director’s personal narrative and critique become an alternative claim to legitimacy.
Yet these aspects of truth-telling, discovery and implication interact with animation to create an atypical complication of reality. New dynamics of veracity are required in order to make the end result acceptable to a “discerning” audience. For instance, all interviews were shot in a studio with participants in a similar spatial arrangement as what would be in the film (side by side with a fake steering wheel when the conversation was set in a car). This decision was made with the understanding that when animated, viewers could not tolerate the environmental noises that provide legitimacy and context to most documentaries. Animated films’ sound tracks are always remarkably “clean” – free of distracting noises.[2] This nature makes animation an unusual bedfellow for documentary film.
A final aspect of animation which notably contributed to the film was the director’s freedom to depict war machinery without the necessity of military cooperation or large expenditures. Folman combines everyday settings and scenarios with war machinery (tanks rolling through the streets of Beirut, the birds-eye-view from a bomber) in a way that would have been difficult to recreate in a live action film. In addition, he throws in a bit of spectacle with 80s music and rock imagery to accompany military invasions. Humorous and horrific imagery are combined to challenge the viewer’s conception of reality. This method is repeated in the movie’s sound track. Familiar 80s rock progressions draw the viewer in, only to find the lyrics speak somewhat flippantly of attacking Lebanon and Beirut.
Yet all of this animated “truth” in regards to Ari Folman’s personal story pales in comparison with the final scene; live footage of the Sandra and Shatila massacre’s aftermath. The previous hour’s colors and layers of images that speak and move in representation of real people collide with a horrific and unexpected image of real people, voiceless and motionless as they lay in irreverent piles. It jars the viewer out of whatever distance might remain between her and the events. The viewer’s experience of Folman’s pursuit follows him into this vivid, veracious image.
Though the animated style and complex interaction of reality and dreamscape make “Waltz with Bashir” an interesting film in the context of documentary and global media, the film’s discussion of filmmaking and media also provide an interesting commentary. Throughout the documentary, characters refer to the cameras and film. We first see this reflexive consciousness when Folman begins to have dreams. He approaches a filmmaker friend to inquire about the importance of “flashbacks.” The familiar movie technique is not so common in everyday life and his experience gains context in relation to the most similar incidence to his knowledge – film.
Another reference to filming occurs later while Folman visits Carmi, a friend who has moved to the Netherlands to make his fortune selling falafel. Folman asks to draw the friend and his son playing outside in the snow. Carmi replies that he can draw, as long as he doesn’t film. Perhaps Carmi’s squeamish response to cameras is a subtle reveal of the real Carmi in Ari Folman’s life who decided not to allow his voice or image to be used. Even so, this small detail reveals a discomfort with video recording and the everyday actions that one might record; like the next scene of Carmi’s son playing war outside with a toy gun.
Cameras play a prominent role in the soldier’s lives also. In one meeting with a psychologist, Folman expresses that it was as if he was looking at everything through an imaginary camera while he was in the IDF. This implies a separation from direct involvement and interaction with the reality of war. A camera offers a limited view at any given point, and the role of observer rather than actor. However, this description is surprising—few of the events seen through the soldier’s imaginary camera have actually translated into memories. They are initially lost to the sands of time and trauma.
Finally, the presence of journalism and war correspondence during the Lebanon War is notable in Ari Folman’s memories. This is first seen as Folman returns from the battlefield on a short leave and is surprised by the attitude of Israel’s civilian society. Life went on as usual; kids partied, played and fell in love. Yet the protagonist remembers a different reaction to war during his childhood. When his father was away fighting, everyone was afraid to go out, streets were quiet. Something about the experience and familiarity of society with conflict and war had changed. They had become either less sensitized or less informed. Either way, the media’s role is evident. And there is no better symbol of Israel’s war correspondence than Ron Ben-Yishai, one of Folman’s interlocutors and the object a stunning wartime dream/memory.
Ben-Yishai was the most important Israeli war correspondent during 40 years of Israel’s engagement in conflict. In “Waltz with Bashir” this journalist is depicted as a fearless, seemingly invincible man walking tall through a barrage of enemy fire in West Beirut while soldiers take cover. This image is poignant: when applied to war correspondents in general, it gives the view of a group impervious to the violence and destruction of war. His tall stature and singular calmness attest to a group braver than the rest of the army, perhaps even with a higher morality. In fact, Ben-Yishai was not only first to report publicly on the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, he also was one of the first to report it directly to Minister of Defense, Arial Sharon. However, for this action he sacrificed advancement in his career during the twenty years. While Sharon was still in power, he insured that Ben-Yishai was not promoted. Thus there was a sense of morality that emanated from the role this one man played in not remaining silent about the massacre.
“Waltz with Bashir” uses its distinctive style of animation to blend reality with dreams, memories and hallucinations in the quest to uncover a larger narrative of truths repressed and reconstructed. The interaction of real characters and fictitious representations creates both a new claim to and challenge to legitimacy. The depiction of media attests to an influential though unsettling presence in the life of soldiers and civilians.
Samura Atallah
INTL1800, Professor James Der Derian
Documentary Review: Adoration
Adoration, the drama written and directed by Atom Egoyan, is a brilliant work of art that weaves a narrative on loss, terrorism, discourse construction, and mass media technology. In this review, I will provide a description of the film and then zero in on some central angles that I thought were critical in the movie, mainly media technology and the role it played in the film given the nature and objectives of the course.
The film is about an orphan, Simone, who lost his parents in a car accident. His grandfather seems to think that the father, Sami, deliberately killed his wife, Rachel. Simone knows of the accident but isn’t aware of the details or the contextual elements of the accident. The journey of discovery starts when Simone pretends in a French class that his mother was a victim of her fiancé’s plot to bomb an airplane headed towards the Holy Land. The fiancé, Sami, placed explosives in the luggage of Rachel who was pregnant at the time. Simone turns the translation assignment into a first-person narrative, him being the unborn child. He takes this further discussing the story and its implications on the internet, thus turning a personal story to a discourse of sociopolitical and cultural nature. Some people in the chat room express anger while some are more culturally sympathetic, justifying such action as a result of socialization, cultural hatred, and beliefs that are instilled during one’s upbringing. One survivor claims that he’s speaking on behalf of the dead stating that he has a stress disorder that is triggered every time he gets on a plane as a result of his traumatizing experience. Another contributor to the discussion claims that the father is a hero fighting for a just cause which he holds dear. The French teacher Sabine, who encouraged Simone in the drama exercise, initially appears to be a tutor concerned with the artistic expression of her students being a drama teacher herself, but as the events unfold, we learn that she was the wife of Sami and that Sami left her when he met Rachel.
Simone is being raised by his uncle Tom who is a tow truck driver. Tom faces financial problems and asks Simone whether he can sell the violin of his dead mother. The violin is a cultural inheritance and a symbol of the musical gift with which Simone’s mother was endowed. Simone takes the violin and heads to the grandfather’s house (which is empty) and removes the scroll as his father, Sami, was the one who restored the violin by changing the scroll. This represented Simone coming to terms with his history and his father as he burns the camera used to record his grandfather’s talk about Sami killing Rachel. Sabine appears to also be in a search quest, perhaps for pieces from her past and from Sami, and she asks Tom whether she can be part of Simone’s life after they have lunch when Tom tows Sabine’s car away. The film ends and the threads are weaved together when Simone goes to Sabine’s house and previews the photos of Sami and Sabine at their wedding. With this description, I will move on as to focus on certain elements in the movie that I thought were intriguing.
The way in which Egoyan managed to construct a nuanced narrative on terrorism, without even having to blow a bomb, was very compelling. That is- the ‘what if’ generated a broad discourse on terrorism, which is the new security threat of our age (weapons of mass destruction being the traditional security threat), via the use of mass media technology. In the film we see students, parents, and professionals participating in the cyber discussion which attests to media’s capacity to level the field through which discourses are created. Here, what is echoed via media technology is the interpretive understanding people have of their subjective experiences and the diversity of the opinions reflect that. This technology allowed Simone to swing between being fully immersed in his (fabricated) tragic experience and becoming more distant and taking a step back as he listens to other view points, other emotional truths. And it wasn’t until he engaged in this cycle that he was able to confront his past and reach liberation. So media technology in the film wasn’t merely a tool of expression but also a tool of personal liberation, of reflection, of being exposed to differing points of view but not necessary a tool for accepting those opinions (as Egoyan could have simply drawn a world in which Simone doesn’t listen to the diverse narratives) . In addition, the lines between the fictional and the nonfictional seem to be eroded by Simone’s story allowing for the creation of a space to maneuver between emotional truths and journalistic truths, thus conveying a broader spectrum of various accounts of truths. The film also points to the capacity that media possesses in reproducing discourses and narratives, whether the discourses ultimately result in positive or negative effects. This is exemplified by the man who explicitly states that the father of Simone is indeed a hero; on the other hand, some participants declared their intolerance of such an act but with an eye open to an exploration of the causal factors under play here. All in all, media in the film was a central actor and not merely a secondary or marginal actor; this reflects the ways in which media is increasingly penetrating every aspect of our daily lives. One can no longer afford to ignore such an actor or undermine its critical importance.
On the surface a comedic caper, David O. Russell’s “Three King” is in fact a wry political satire that turns a critical eye on the U.S. military and on George W. Bush’s immediate post-war policy. The film’s opening text, “March 1991. The war just ended,” serves both to situate the viewer temporally and belies the confusion on the part of soldiers, civilians, and news media alike who, in the wake of the “100-hour War”, find themselves asking: “What just happened? What was this war about anyway?” Emerging from this post-war uncertainty, Russell’s American soldiers (George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube, and Spike Jonze) go in search of Saddam’s stolen Kuwaiti bullion and, in the course of their heist, discover the great disparity between their experience of the war and that of the Iraqi people. The result lends the film a feel-good conclusion that places hope in individual human decency: the soldiers give up their gold to help a large group of Iraqi refugees flee to relative safety across the border. The upbeat conclusion, with Clooney and Ice Cube working as Hollywood military consultants and Wahlberg as owner of a carpet store, is not a betrayal of the critical line of the film; it places pressure on the disconnect between Americans (who can return to the comfort and stability of daily life) and Iraqis (for whom daily life is the reality of livelihoods destroyed by American bombs and oppression under Saddam Hussein).
In an interview with salon.com, Russell explains the impetus behind making the film as the recognition that “there had been a whole side to the conclusion of the war that had been buried under a sea of yellow ribbons” [1]. Finding this “scandalous”, Russell set out to make a film that addressed the “dehumanizing” aspects of a war that had largely been told through digital images. “Three Kings” is infused with references to digitized nature of the war, taking to task the way in which the images highly controlled in order to hide the very violent nature of war from the general public and to a large degree from the soldiers themselves.
Take Nora Dunn’s character, for example. Dunn plays NBS reporter Adriana Cruz, who—like every other reporter on the ground—is grasping at straws trying to get anything of substance from the military. The only story she can seem to get is the “exorcising” of the “ghost of Vietnam with a clear moral imperative”, which is of course the only story the military wants anyone to tell. The current practice of press embedding with troops is nowhere in sight. Instead, in an effort to control the flow of media and information, the U.S. military has instituted strict regulations for reporters and soldiers alike. Soldiers must be granted authorization to speak to the press. In one scene, an outraged colonel discovers that reporters have supplied some military personnel with forged authorization slips. Reporters, for their part, are assigned military escorts to ensure that the only thing that the only stories the reporters can tell are stories the military deems acceptable. Dunn is assigned to the canny, disillusioned Special Forces officer portrayed by Clooney, whose main job seems to be keeping Dunn chasing down false leads. Admittedly, the biggest wild goose chase Clooney sends Dun on is to his own benefit; having caught wind of the Kuwaiti gold story, Dunn is intent on seeing it through but Clooney devises to keep her away as he hunts for the gold himself. Upon realizing that she has been duped, Dunn breaks down in frustration, later exclaiming, “The war is over and I don’t fucking know what it was about. What was this war about? I was managed by the military!” In the end, however, it is the idealization of a free press that saves the day: rather than being court-martialed, the soldiers are honorably discharged thanks to Dunn’s coverage.
If the news media is mystified about the purpose and outcome of the war, the soldiers are equally unclear, if less troubled by their ignorance. Wahlberg’s character, spouting military rhetoric about “stabilizing the region,” is given a taste of a concrete impetus for the war when confronted by an Iraqi soldier who pours oil down the American’s throat. The soldiers also demonstrate the way in which the Gulf War, as the first virtual war, seemed—for the American’s, at least—to strip away much of the brutality and reality of war. In Virtuous War, James Der Derian highlights that same dehumanizing effect of the war that so troubled Russell, writing that “the army was leaping into a realm of hyperreality, where the enemy disappeared as flesh and blood and reappeared pixilated and digitized on computer screens” [3]. In a war that was waged largely through aerial bombardment and came to be known as the “100-hour War”, many soldiers, such as those in the film, did not see action. As Jonze explains to Clooney, “The only action we seen [sic] was on CNN.” Not only is there a disconnect between the soldiers and the enemy, which Der Derian points to in the digitalized “disappearance”, but there is also a disconnect between the war as portrayed by the media and the “on the ground” experience of the soldiers.
To address the “dehumanization” of the enemy, Russell brings his soldiers (and the audience) face to face with Iraqi freedom fighters who had been encouraged by Bush to rise up against Saddam, but—due to the ceasefire and military policy not to get involved with the insurgence—were left to do so without support. Tortured and killed by Saddam’s army, the Iraqi civilians beg Clooney and his cohorts to help them. They need food and protection, and though initially unwilling, Clooney soon realizes that he is implicated in their suffering. While he does use the Iraqis for his own gain, agreeing to help them across the border in return for their help with the gold and with rescuing Wahlberg (who is taken by the Iraqi army), Clooney does give up the treasure in the end to convince the American army to let the refugees cross.
The visual presentation of the film is as thoughtful and revealing as its content. If the representation of the war by the military and the news media served to desensitize and dehumanize, the intention of “Three King”s is to resensitize and rehumanize. As Russell himself explains, he made a deliberate choice to limit the number of violent acts in the film in order to truly emphasize the brutality of each. In the salon.com interview, Russell says that he “wanted to make you feel like each bullet counted in a way,” which is why he showed the shootout between the Americans and Iraqis in slow-motion, tracing the trajectory of each bullet. He shows the murder of the Iraqi woman in slow motion as well, allowing us to see the blood that spurts from her head when she is shot, and to trace the ragdoll-like fall of her body to the ground. Russell spares us no blood.
As nimbly as the film weaves its political message with its wit, as much as it tries to undo what virtual war has done, we remain perplexed as to what to make of the fact that digital desensitization is to be fought with digital resensitization. Are there not limits to the extent to which the image can make us feel again what the image seems to strip from reality? In world dominated by the digital image, are our relations forever to be mediated through the digital? How can we reclaim the physicality, the empathy, and the immediacy that come from the face-to-face encounter?
1. Sragow, Michael. "King of "Kings" - Directors - Salon.com." Salon.com - Salon.com. Web. 12 May 2010. .
2.Der Derian, James. Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-industrial-media-entertainment Network. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Ari Folman’s Waltz with Bashir invites the viewer to ponder the power of forgetting after an individual has conducted violent atrocities. Interestingly, the ability to forget is not addressed on the part of the victims; rather, it is the perpetrators who are attempting to suppress their involvement in a brutal massacre. Waltz with Bashir follows an Israeli ex-soldier who attempts to piece together his part in the 1982 Lebanon War resulting in his eventual finding that he was a primary player in the Sabra and Shatila Massacre.
The movie opens with a vivid scene of a man being chased by dogs. He runs to the top of a building to escape. We soon understand that this is, in fact, a recurring dream for the man, as he tells a friend, Ari Folman, about it. Folman decides to further investigate, and, upon realizing that the dream is in fact a repressed memory, he travels the world talking to old friends and comrades to piece back the entire story. Only collectively, from snippets of memories recounted by various actors involved, can the Sabra and Shatila Massacre be reconstructed as a cohesive whole.
The film is highly effective in serving as a metaphor for the repression of this atrocity within the Israeli collective consciousness which was further propagated by the findings from the Kahan Commission. This report claims that Israeli soldiers were not held directly responsible for the massacre, but, instead, blame rested with the Phalangists. In only partially accepting responsibility, Israeli civil society was allowed to forget what happened while at the same time, making the memory of Israeli involvement a painful subject that evades the national consciousness. The film effectively suggests that sooner or later, willingly of unwillingly, these memories will surface, and it is inevitable that citizens will come to uncover the realities of the events. The very fact that the film was made in the first place, speaks to the idea that the atrocities cannot be denied and efforts at doing so are fruitless.
Waltz with Bashir is distinct from other documentaries in that it does not show live footage until the very end; besides these few seconds, it is entirely animated. In this sense, the film bears a closer resemblance to a movie than a documentary thereby distancing the viewer from many of the events that take place and making them appear less factual. This style of documentary-making complements the entire message of the movie: by appearing fictional, the factual basis of the film is not immediately apparent and thereby Israeli civil society – who we can assume is the target audience given that the film is in Hebrew – has time to absorb the events. Thus, the massacre only slowly starts surfacing within the Israeli public consciousness as they watch the film mirroring how Folman gradually begins to discover his own involvement in the war.
Having had the time to discover the reality of the massacre slowly, the viewer, together with Folman, is suddenly forced to discover the full reality of the Sabra and Shatila Massacre at the end. Just as Folman pieces all the information together and his memory appears complete, the footage of the aftermath of the massacre is revealed to the viewer. This transition is a rather jarring one: from the distance from reality that the animation creates to the painful understanding that the events in the film are, indeed, real. This method of the viewer mirroring the discoveries made by the protagonist not only allows the viewer to identify with Folman, but also leaves a lasting impression for the viewer.
The movie, in total, does a superb job of conveying how memory, when suppressed or distorted, can prevent us from accepting the truth. Folman’s comrade in battle recounts a memory of him watching his boat while he is with a naked woman out at sea; another man tells a story of waltzing in the middle of the street during a gun battle to shoot at the ‘enemy’ who is at the top of a building. The lines between reality and the dream world are often blurred in Waltz with Bashir, making the viewer unsure of which version of the story to accept and we come to realize that trying to discover the ‘real story’ is only as accurate as the memories from which they come. Thus, the film allows the viewer to question not only the source of the memories, but also come to understand the dementia associated with war.
Waltz with Bashir does an excellent job of prodding the viewer to revisit past events from a different angle and to uncover the ‘truth’ about them. It speaks to the ability of a country to conceal unfavorable facts from the public consciousness and allows us to realize the inevitability of discovery of the ‘truth’. It makes us question the moral judgments a country makes in the name of protecting its sovereignty. Just as Folman sets out on a journey of rediscovery, we, too, should attempt to become investigative journalists and dig into our countries’ past. Folman does a phenomenal job of blurring the lines between documentary and fiction, between reality and dream and keeps us questioning about the validity of stories recounted. Waltz with Bashir is a powerful film that is well deserving of the recognition it has achieved.
Footnotes
1. Report of the Kahan Commission on the Sabra and Shatila Massacres, February 7, 1983. [Online] Available http://www.mideastweb.org/Kahan_report.htm.
2. Waltz with Bashir. [Online] Available http://waltzwithbashir.com/film.html.
Thirteen days explores the historic moment of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This film follows the discussions and debates surrounding America’s response to the discovery of missiles in Cuba that could, within minutes, destroy many of America’s cities, including Washington. While the protagonist is Kenneth O’Donnell, aide to President Kennedy, the film was much less about the man, and much more about the decisions they, as an administration, made.
History
The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the major moments in the Cold War, a defining thirteen days which, if played incorrectly, would have resulted in catastrophic destruction, not only in North America, but potentially in other parts of the world as well, particularly Berlin.
Although the film was released in 2000, which gave it a great deal of distance from the actual events of 1962, the benefit of waiting some time was that tapes were released of the discussions that previously had not been made public, providing the filmmakers with a deeper insight into the reality of the events, which had not existed before.
Indeed, the filmmakers attempted to show a certain level of historic accuracy by using moments of black and white filming as an artistic choice to make certain parts of the film stand out, and particularly, to reflect historic images that live on in the American psyche even today. One particularly striking example is that of JFK, Bobby Kennedy and O’Donnell walking into the White House following a press conference at the end of the film.
However, moments of the film seemed to lose their historic accuracy. In particular, the army generals have a satirical role to play in the film. Their almost childlike desire to manipulate the situation to achieve their own agendas is laughable only because their actions are so blatant. A more subtle approach would have been, perhaps, more believable, if only because of the duplicity it would imply. Indeed, at one point in the film, O’Donnell shouts of the importance of loyalty to the Kennedys to another aide.
Politics
One of the most important choices the filmmakers made in this film was to show the entire events unfold from the perspective of the American President’s office. While watching the film, I found myself asking again and again, “but what was really going on in the Soviet Union? What was Khrushchev thinking? What were his actions indicating?” But, now, thinking critically about the film, I think that this was the right decision to make in order for the audience to really be immersed in the mind frame of the President’s office.
The decision to eliminate the soviet voice from this film had particularly interesting implications for the viewer. Although I knew what happened following the Cuban missile crisis, this film brought me to the understanding that the politicians were working with at the time of their decisions. They didn't have the complete picture.
One of the most important moments for me watching this film was when JFK speaks about a book he read which analyzed the movements of the different sides competing in WWI. During that war, he said, each side moved and fought, interpreting the other side's actions as being offensive or more generally indicating an intention that was, in fact, not true. As a result, however, the counter measures created the situation in which the previous situation which many were trying to avoid was created, making it a self fulfilling prophecy. JFK uses this example for his own experience, saying that his actions and each movement of the American army would indicate something to the Soviets, and as a result, he needed to make sure that the 'language' he was using (language in this case being the actions he takes) was conciliatory rather than inflammatory. He did not want a war, and he wanted to make sure his actions did not start one.
This film, although not a documentary, provided an important insight into real events that happened. This is an important aspect of media’s role in society, as has been noted again and again, it provides us with an understanding of the other. In this case, we understand better the decisions taken by leadership, the reality of their lack of information from the other side of a conflict, and their need to not only toe the line in international relations through dialogue, but also through behaviours that are read just as closely as the rhetoric and speeches that politicians make, if not more so.
Hands down, Apple's app store wins by a mile. It's a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I'm not sure I'd want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.
One topic that I will send to read and my friends
Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers,
You make blogging look like a walk in the park! I've been trying to blog daily but I just cant find writing material.. you're an inspiration to me and i'm sure many others!
Thank you for sharing this info on investments.
This is the best blog I've ever seen in my life! I really appreciate you taking the time out of your busy day to share your this with everyone.
Interesting thoughts here. I appreciate you taking the time to share them with us all. It's people like you that make my day :)
I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz reply back as I'm looking to create my own blog and would like to know wheere u got this from. thanks
Learning the guitar is much easier with a good guitar teacher? But what makes a great teacher?
It would be nice to see how those hot in 2009 fared in 2010. Because hot is many times by definition fad which needs to get moved aside for the new fad to develop or becoming prominent. But nice selection nevertheless. Congrats.
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing blog that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It is the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you want to acquired lots of links and I see lots of track backs?
i love all peopel lssl ototwueox and my name is and how old are you reviciicae
At this time we are making use of the Dermalogica, particular cleansing gel, ultra calming cleanser, soothing additive, collidal based mask, toner, moisturizer, and eye makeup remover. On several of my older clients I've come to seek out that they genuinely like the ultra calming cleanser over the special cleansing gel. My male clients also prefer it. The younger age females that I have often like the special cleansing gel far better due to the fact they it contains sapinarium which makes it foam and they appear to think that if there is no foam they may be not finding a good cleanse. I also use the multi vitamin exfoliant on my clients, I personally have not observed any final results on any of my customers. Another good issue is if you have an account Dermalogica provides totally free product knowledge classes. On the poor side the products which can be used a lot more frequently in larger quantities eg. massage creams, collidal mask, tend to run out quite swiftly and are really pricey.
Great list. I especially like the fact you put tim lincecum on there. He's a excellent pitcher but in my opinion doesn't get the recognition he deserves in MLB.
I've been using this perfum (Euphoria) for about two years and I enjoy it. I've tested almost all of the perfumes of this brand (Calvin Klein), and this one is the 1 that makes it possible for me use it on any ocassion, each day and night. This time I purchased it at a particular price since it came with out its original packaging; it comes the spray bottle along with a metal cap. I wouldn't purchase it if it were for a gift, but for my individual use, as this is a lot more than sufficient. It price me half the standard value.
I love maybelline!! Among the best drugstore makeup brands ever!! I will only use THEIR mascara and also the types that are available in those kits are my fave!! Super wonderful cost you got so lucky!!
Thanks for posting this useful information. This was just what I was on looking for.
This blog is cool, keep up the good work!
If you're looking to buy a Sole treadmill online simply enter Sole in the bestselling treadmill page search box and you should see these sole treadmills search results.
Heya, what a pleasant material in your site listed here %BLOGTITLE% Regards, Jason Reiff
I want to show thanks to this writer just for bailing me out of this particular trouble. Because of looking throughout the the web and meeting tricks which were not productive, I thought my entire life was gone. Existing without the approaches to the problems you've sorted out all through the site is a critical case, and those that might have negatively damaged my entire career if I hadn't come across your blog post. Your good skills and kindness in taking care of all the things was invaluable. I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't discovered such a solution like this. I'm able to now look forward to my future. Thanks so much for this high quality and result oriented help. I won't be reluctant to recommend the website to anyone who should have guidance on this issue.
Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.
I'm sculpting flowers for my and my MOH's bouquet out of Deco claycraft air drying clay (you'll find numerous sellers on Etsy that operate with this stuff…but it was more affordable for me to purchase the supplies myself and make them). I'm doing wheat for the bouts, and for the corsages I will also perform using the clay flowers, perhaps some wheat, and possibly some of the dried lunaria (silver dollars) I've stashed away. In the end, every thing may be a keepsake!
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my blog thus i came to “return the favor”.I'm trying to find things to improve my website!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!
Hudrends of people will agree with your opinion whoever many others will disagree. Anyway I appreciate your hard work.
This is my first time I come across to your site and candidly, your website are amazing website with include a set of knowledge that I have never read before this. I will subscribe and bookmark you sitebecause after this, it easier for me to come back and read new article that you post. Lastly, what can I said is please continue writing on your site because I know this website have a good and great future.
I found your site from altavista and it is eye-popping. Thank you for sharing such an incredible article...
All I can point out is, I'm not sure what to express! Except naturally, for the superb tips which have been shared with this blog. I can think of a trillion fun ways to read the articles or blog posts on this site. I'm sure I will eventually make a move making use of your tips on those things I could not have been able to touch alone. You were so innovative to allow me to be one of those to learn from your beneficial information. Please see how great I enjoy the whole thing.
Apple now has Rhapsody as an app, which is a great start, but it is currently hampered by the inability to store locally on your iPod, and has a dismal 64kbps bit rate. If this changes, then it will somewhat negate this advantage for the Zune, but the 10 songs per month will still be a big plus in Zune Pass' favor.
Ah just have fun as my friend Stanley Propper play only free games in your free time.
I admire when somebody compares and speaks the reality. There are inadequate numbers bold people on earth to stand all the way up for what they trust.
Good day! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group? There's a lot of folks that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Cheers
Usually I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this article really forced me to do so! Thanks, really nice article.
Trotz der breiten Unterstützung ist Jones’ Aufgabe jedoch alles andere als einfach. Die Erwartungshaltung ist offensichtlich: Die Weltmeisterschaft soll den Frauenfußball, der von den deutschen Medien noch immer rokettubeee.biz "porno izle"stiefmütterlich behandelt wird, entscheidend nach vorne bringen. Andererseits ist allen Beteiligten klar, dass die Welle der Euphorie, die die Herren-WM " http://www.rokettubeee.biz porno " 2006 hierzulande ausgelöst hat, nicht ein weiteres Mal über Fußball-Deutschland hereinbrechen wird.
Hi everyone I read the information you uploaded here and I wanted to point out you need to continue to add more content. It's very interesting to us readers and I will probably be back. I will post with my blogging friends. Keep it going! Home Remodeling in Wellington Colorado
Good info again, I dont skills you keep churning released content at a really high level.
Good luck getting people behind this one. Though you make some VERY fascinating points, youre going to have to do more than bring up a few things that may be different than what weve already heard. What are trying to say here? What do you want us to think? It seems like you cant really get behind a unique thought. Anyway, thats just my opinion.
great article, i certainly love this website, persist in this
Just to give you a picture, there are now between 500 billion and a trillion plastic replica Louis Vuitton handbags consumed worldwide each year. It is time for you and all the others have done their part to reduce this unacceptable level of waste.
A small amount of peoples have the guts to argufy this, glad to see you 're not one of them. Hold it up.
Such an excellent write-up!
You write by using such wisdom that may only be gained through real world experiences - you'll want to be proud of by yourself.
Cheap Louis Vuitton Replica Handbags to go the cool sports car or your baby is beautiful people to forget that the shoes will soon be relegated to the back of the cabinet that the new vehicle will be tomorrow’s yesterday
increase ejaculation amount how to improve sperm fertility increase ejaculate amount average sperm count in one ejaculation sperm booster ejaculate sperm low sperm count men causes of low sperm count male sperm production time increasing seminal output sperm count increase pills what produces seminal fluid increase seminal fluid naturally best food for sperm count foods that build sperm how to increase my sperm volume vitamins to increase sperm zero sperm morphology how to increase sperm quantity vitamins for sperm morphology
I just sent this post to a bunch of my friends as I agree with most of what you’re saying here and the way you’ve presented it is awesome.
What would we all do without the excellent suggestions you reveal on this blog? Who has the endurance to deal with essential topics just for common readers like me? I and my pals are very lucky to have your website among the types we generally visit. It is hoped you know how much we appreciate your working hard! Best wishes through us all.
Sorry for the huge review, but I'm really loving the new Zune, and hope this, as well as the excellent reviews some other people have written, will help you decide if it's the right choice for you.
Many thanks for your personal anxiety along with work! These things on the site can be superb. Also My spouse and i considerably value your current suggestions. Personally these are generally vital matters. Nonetheless cheers. Decent browse.
This is getting a bit more subjective, but I much prefer the Zune Marketplace. The interface is colorful, has more flair, and some cool features like 'Mixview' that let you quickly see related albums, songs, or other users related to what you're listening to. Clicking on one of those will center on that item, and another set of "neighbors" will come into view, allowing you to navigate around exploring by similar artists, songs, or users. Speaking of users, the Zune "Social" is also great fun, letting you find others with shared tastes and becoming friends with them. You then can listen to a playlist created based on an amalgamation of what all your friends are listening to, which is also enjoyable. Those concerned with privacy will be relieved to know you can prevent the public from seeing your personal listening habits if you so choose.
I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.Great stuff as usual.
pleasant article, my spouse and i undoubtedly enjoy this amazing site, carry on the item
You will find certainly plenty of information this way to consider. That is a fantastic denote raise up. My spouse and i provide you with the thoughts previously mentioned when standard encouragement although certainly there are issues just like the 1 anyone raise up where the most significant thing is going to be in the trustworthy great belief. My partner and i add?capital t know if recommendations include appeared all around things such as this, although I am certain that a employment is usually certainly recognized as a fair recreation. Equally boys and girls have the influence involving a little moment’s pleasure, through-out its day-to-day lives.
A handbag coach is more or less the image that we have when we think of Designer Discounts Handbags. There are few other things in this world that you say the same thing and now you have this image in your head says, more can one ever make a complete library possible.
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So nice to find somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. realy thank you for starting this up. this website is something that is needed on the web, someone with a little originality. useful job for bringing something new to the internet!
Replica Chanel Handbags worth buying a new bag in its sole discretion at reasonable prices.
If you think about new Fake Replica Handbags for the bus, the word comes to mind is an affordable luxury. This is because the car is in a position, status as a fashion designer, while remaining truly affordable for the average woman in search of elegant and feminine accessories.
Gifts for bridesmaids to come in a variety of goals, if it can be anything from necklaces, bracelets, earrings, to Whole Sale Fake Handbags .
You remember the old saying, lifelike sound reproduction so, one must ask, is it alive or is it Memorex? The fact is that the copy is so good to be confused with reality. It is an old adage but still sounds right. Especially if you used the situation of the industry of fake brand Fashion Replica Handbags today. The producers of fake bags, designer Nock-off are getting better and intelligent than ever to make these fake handbags.
Each Each delivers a bag of small children the kind of work that will be used to attach all of your needs for school and work are exhausted. Bags that are commonly observed in schools, backpacks and Buy Replica Handbags for lunch. Lunch bags promotion often brag about their impressions as cartoon characters. Also colors attract the eye of youth.
The High end replica handbags are great day and very successful promotional tool. Here are the reasons
A motivating talk may be valued at opinion. I do believe that you should generate more on this theme, it might be described as a taboo matter but generally everyone is too little to dicuss on these topics. To another location. Many thanks
I was very happy to find this web-site.I needed to thanks to your time for this wonderful learn!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I've you bookmarked to take a look at new stuff you weblog post.
Between my family and also my better half we have owned extra Various models of ipods through the years when compared with I'll depend, such as Sansas, iRivers, iphones (vintage & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, and so forth. However, the past decades I've truly settled down to at least one brand of players. The reason? Simply because I used to be willing to discover how well-designed in addition to enjoyment to implement the particular underappreciated (along with commonly mocked) Zunes are usually.
Styles due to the large selection of Designer Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags available online and the same provision or over the dress for women and make sure you choose a handbag designer, you know that you keep and the love for a very long time.
I was searching forever take an answer to this kind of topic and boom - your webblog is right there which has a solution.
I merely wanted to tell you how much I appreciate every thing you've provided to help enhance the lives of an individual in this subject matter. Through your current articles, I have gone out of just an amateur to an expert in the area. It's truly a homage to your work. Thanks
Thanks a milion for your personal concern and even attempts! These things onto your websites is without a doubt very good. Besides As i significantly recognize ones own creative ideas. In my opinion many are critical factors. Anyways many thanks. Very good read.
I have to let you know that I just read your site and I was astounded, so topical.
There are a lot of strange comments on here.
A pair of high boots with flat heels: These boots and Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags are high fashion right now and ideal for large women. While the heels are flat and small peaks accentuate its height.
This is often a wonderful blog, would you be interested in doing an interview about just how you designed it? If so e-mail me personally!
I came here to be entertain, but I got just that, the only gripe is, I could have more. Please continue posting. That i ask of you. Your one as well as within the best of avid fans. P.S. dont quit now ok, I got you stroke up for much more hehe.
You got fantastic nice ideas there. I made a research on the topic and got most peoples will agree with your blog.
I dont know what to say. This blog is fantastic. Thats not really a really huge statement, but its all I could come up with after reading this. You know so much about this subject. So much so that you made me want to learn more about it. Your blog is my stepping stone, my friend. Thanks for the heads up on this subject.
My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find most of your post's to be just what I'm looking for. Would you offer guest writers to write content for you personally? I wouldn't mind producing a post or elaborating on most of the subjects you write about here. Again, awesome web log!
Strange, your article shows up with a brownish hue to it, what color is the primary color on your site?
Thanks for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research on this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more clear from this post. I'm very glad to see such great information being shared freely out there.
you are in point of fact a just right webmaster. The web site loading velocity is amazing. It seems that you're doing any unique trick. Furthermore, The contents are masterwork. you've performed a great task in this matter!
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I'm quite certain I’ll learn many new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is fantastic blog. An excellent read. I'll certainly be back.
Hey there would you mind letting me know which web host you're utilizing? I've loaded your blog in 3 completely different browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most. Can you suggest a good web hosting provider at a honest price? Thanks, I appreciate it!
Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it's really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I will be grateful if you continue this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how can we communicate?
Thanks alot for that awesome site! I totally appreciate it! ECA Stacker
I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I don't know who you are but certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!
My brother suggested I might like this website. He was entirely right. This post truly made my day. You cann't imagine simply how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!
Loving a post could be like giving an optimistic opt for change, I will like every post I love, but no likes could be thrown away from me if I provide a good one to your blog. I tell you at this time, this has a good like from me.
I added your blog to bookmarks. And i’ll read your articles more often! Before this, it would be possible for the government to arrest you just based on whatever you were saying, if they didn't like it.
hello there and thank you for your information – I’ve definitely picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this web site, since I experienced to reload the site many times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I'm complaining, but slow loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and could damage your high-quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I am adding this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again very soon..
Heya i’m for the first time here. I came across this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and aid others like you aided me.
Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you may be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and will often come back in the future. I want to encourage you to continue your great writing, have a nice weekend!
Gracias por compartir su maestría en esta área. Hay mucho Info inútil en esto que flota alrededor y aprecio su trabajo duro.
There was this time when i had been bored stiff reading other's thoughts and opinions and mind through his or her blogging. But merely after a while after i got right here on your posts, the particular enthusiasm of reading as well as smiling on some people's everyday post seem to come back, my personal fascination has actually peaked once more all thanks to you actually my good friend. I think you'll continue doing this a long time. Good job my good friend.
Hi! Do you use Twitter? I'd like to follow you if that would be okay. I'm undoubtedly enjoying your blog and look forward to new updates.
Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.
I like the precious knowledge you be offering to your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and have my youngsters test up here generally. I'm fairly sure they're going to be informed lots of new stuff here than anyone else!
It is the best time to make some plans for the future and it's time to be happy. I've read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or advice. Maybe you can write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read more things about it!
My brother suggested I would possibly like this web site. He was once entirely right. This post actually made my day. You cann't imagine just how so much time I had spent for this information! Thank you!
It is an great article and i'm certain that it would have taken many your superior quality time to produce such an unique and latest content. Follows your site and will be useful if you may make more periodical and organized posting methods for newcomers like us.
Hi there,good blog publish. Infos are very fascinating and saves me quite a few time which i've invest in another thing instead of searching posts such as this :) Im waiting for more, bye :)
Well I found this on Digg, and I like it so I dugg it!
Hi, i feel that i noticed you visited my site thus i got here to “return the desire”.I'm trying to find issues to improve my site!I suppose its ok to make use of some of your concepts!!
Thank you so much for submitting this!
Thanks for your marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you are a great author.I will make certain to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back someday. I want to encourage you continue your great writing, have a nice evening!
Enjoying a post could be like giving a positive opt for change, I will like every post I love, but no likes can be wasted through me if I give a good one for your website. I tell you at this time, this has a good like from me.
Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I've really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again very soon!
I am no longer certain where you're getting your info, however great topic. I needs to spend a while learning more or understanding more. Thank you for great info I was looking for this information for my mission.
This site has lots of extremely helpful info on it. Thanks for sharing it with me!
Want LIFE INSURANCE? New, FREE service compares quotes to get you the best and cheapest policy w/ quick 30 second form -->> Buy Life Insurance
I found your site from wikipedia and read a few of your other blog posts.They are cool. Pls continue this great work. Later on other fantastic American rock acts such as Lynrd Skynrd, The Eagles, America, the Allman Brothers, and the Doobie Brothers would come on the scene and shake up the world with their string of hit songs.
More often than not I do not make comments on websites, however I will need to point out that this blog post really pushed me to do this. Fairly fine post.
Hey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Ie, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, very good blog!
I know this if off topic but I'm looking into starting my own blog and was curious what all is needed to get set up? I'm assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I'm not very web savvy so I'm not 100% certain. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
I am very happy to read this. This is the kind of manual that needs to be given and not the accidental misinformation that's at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this best doc.
Howdy! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could get a captcha plugin for my comment form? I'm using the same blog platform as yours and I'm having problems finding one? Thanks a lot!
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my website so i came to “return the favor”.I am attempting to in finding issues to improve my web site!I guess its good enough to make use of some of your concepts!!
eighty one; one hundred and
Very good post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and desired to say that we have really enjoyed reading through your site posts. Any and all way I’ll be registering to your feed and I we do hope you post again soon
I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you make this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz respond as I'm looking to construct my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. thanks
I've been studying your entries throughout my morning break, and I should admit the whole article has been very enlightening and really well written. I believed I'd mean you can know that for some reason why this weblog does not view well in Internet Explorer 8. I desire Microsoft may forestall changing their software. I've a query for you. Might you thoughts replacing blog roll links? That would be actually neat!
Just checking out your post on my brand new Samsung Phone , and I wanted to see if it would let me comment or if it made me go to a desktop to do that. Ill check back later to see if it worked.
This really solved my problem, thank you!
@chels I know what you mean, its hard to find good help these days. People now days just don't have the work ethic they used to have. I mean consider whoever wrote this post, they must have been working hard to write that good and it took a good bit of their time I am sure. I work with people who couldn't write like this if they tried, and getting them to try is hard enough as it is.
Hi and thanks so much for posting this!
Thanks, found the article on google, nice post fella
Abnormal this put up is totaly unrelated to what I was looking google for, but it was once listed on the first page. I guess your doing something right if Google likes you adequate to put you at the first page of a non similar search.
What i do not realize is in truth how you are no longer really a lot more neatly-liked than you may be right now. You're very intelligent. You recognize therefore considerably in terms of this topic, made me in my view consider it from a lot of various angles. Its like women and men aren't involved until it’s one thing to do with Lady gaga! Your personal stuffs great. Always handle it up!
I've been studying your entries all through my morning holiday, and I should admit the whole article has been very enlightening and rather well written. I believed I would let you recognize that for some reason this weblog does now not view well in Web Explorer 8. I want Microsoft could prevent changing their software. I have a query for you. Could you thoughts replacing blog roll hyperlinks? That will be in reality neat!
Some times its a pain in the ass to read what blog owners wrote but this internet site is very user genial ! .
Thanks a lot for your concern and efforts! This stuff on your website is wonderful. At the same time I greatly understand your ideas. In my position these are very important details. Nevertheless thank you. Good read.
Many thanks for your personal anxiety plus efforts! These things against your webpage is definitely amazing. In addition I actually greatly treasure a person's suggestions. Personally these are typically crucial matters. Nonetheless regards. Fine browse.
I am curious to find out what blog system you have been working with? I'm having some minor security issues with my latest site and I would like to find something more risk-free. Do you have any solutions?
I love the valuable data you be offering in your articles. I can bookmark your blog and feature my youngsters test up right here generally. I'm somewhat certain they will be informed loads of new stuff here than any one else!
Pretty component of content. I just stumbled upon your website and in accession capital to assert that I acquire actually loved account your blog posts. Anyway I'll be subscribing to your augment or even I success you get right of entry to consistently rapidly.
has changed in these steps.
%BLOGTITLE%, it is bullshit
Hello. Thank you for posting this!
I am really glad I have found this information. Nowadays bloggers publish just about gossips and internet and this is really frustrating. A good blog with interesting content, that's what I need. Thanks for keeping this site, I'll be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can't find it.
Hey this is a decent article . Can I use a portion of it on my site ? I would of course link to your site so people could view the full article if they wanted to. Thanks either way.
I don't even know what to say. This is fantastic!
Another popular collection is the Pontos collection. If you are looking for an ultra-modern with clean lines and details, this collection is for you. Clocks that make up this line are also attractive because they are unique.
Thanks!
Since they are not wealthy and many of us rely on a monthly salary, which it is difficult for us to pay a real famous Clock. But do not despair, help replica Best Replica Watches you, you enjoy a luxurious experience without paying much, ladies replica created especially nowadays more and more wonderful.
If you try to gain interest or of a specific attribute, ensure that you have a bag that hangs on the body such as eyes are pulled out the bag.
Know where to look designer Cheap Handbags Replicas are certainly a victory for all women. Addicted to Shopping really is a genuine warning to locations outside of things, the brand and the company are sold at a price low enough. Consequently, online shopping is the best way to buy things cheaply because many producers to sell their products online, than to vote in the shops.
Just right points?I would observe that as someone who really doesn't write on blogs much (in reality, this can be my first publish), I don't think the time period 'lurker' could be very changing into to a non-posting reader. It's now not your fault in the least , however possibly the blogosphere may just get a hold of a greater, non-creepy name for the 90% of us that enjoy reading the content material .
Simply wish to say your article is as astounding. The clearness for your put up is simply excellent and that i can assume you're an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to snatch your RSS feed to keep updated with coming near near post. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying work.
Where Is The Best Place To Buy Replica Handbags
I think this is among the most vital information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The website style is wonderful, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers
I just book marked your blog on Digg and StumbleUpon.I enjoy reading your commentaries.
Thanks for making the trustworthy attempt to give an explanation for this. I feel very sturdy about it and would like to be informed more. If it's OK, as you reach extra intensive wisdom, might you thoughts adding more posts very similar to this one with additional information? It might be extraordinarily helpful and helpful for me and my colleagues.
Very good post. I just came across your site and desired to say that we have genuinely enjoyed reading through your site posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I we do hope you publish again in the near future
I beloved as much as you'll receive performed proper here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an edginess over that you want be handing over the following. ill indubitably come more until now once more since exactly the similar nearly a lot regularly inside case you shield this hike.
Almost all I can point out is, I am not sure what to comment! Except needless to say, for the excellent tips which are shared using this blog. I could think of a trillion fun tips on how to read the content articles on this site. I'm sure I will ultimately make a move making use of your tips on those issues I could not have been able to handle alone. You had been so considerate to let me be one of those to benefit from your handy information. Please know how significantly I enjoy the whole thing.
Bonjour! Großartiger Weblog! Wenn Fatburner Nahrungsergänzungen sind stützend beim fixen Abbau von Körperfettdepots! Besten Dank!
Helpful info. Lucky me I discovered your site accidentally, and I'm stunned why this twist of fate did not came about in advance! I bookmarked it.
Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! By the way, how could we communicate?
This post remind me of a post I made on one of my blogs
wonderful issues altogether, you just won a logo reader. What might you suggest about your post that you simply made some days in the past? Any certain?
Hello there my friend. Is it feasible for me to save your weblog as i have visited?
Dude! This blog site is awesome. How can I make it look this good !?
Although some of theseDesigner Handbags Knockoff for sale, the actual treatment are more frequent, you’ll see people sell cheap imitations. So how can a fake Coach bag on the ground? It is not too difficult if you know exactly what you want.
i am to see you that you try your best to give information.keep it up!!!
I loved up to you will obtain performed right here. The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish. nevertheless, you command get bought an shakiness over that you would like be turning in the following. in poor health without a doubt come more until now once more since precisely the similar just about very steadily inside case you shield this hike.
You made certain good points there. I did a search on the theme and found the majority of people will consent with your blog.
Thanks for making the sincere strive to provide an explanation for this. I think very robust approximately it and want to learn more. If it's OK, as you attain more intensive knowledge, could you mind adding more posts very similar to this one with additional information? It might be extraordinarily useful and useful for me and my colleagues.
Thanks a lot for your concern together with initiatives! This stuff for your web-site is certainly very good. At the same time That i dramatically value an individual's ideas. In my position most are critical details. Nevertheless thank you. Beneficial read.
I don't always agree with everything you say, however you always get me thinking! Instead of arguing with you this time, I'll just say, "thanks for thinking"!
hi there, wonderful blog… genuinely like it and put into social bookmarks. maintain the good work
Hey! I'm at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the great work!
Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your site is very cool. I'm impressed by the details that you've on this blog. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for more articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found just the information I already searched all over the place and simply couldn't come across. What an ideal web-site.
I can see your point
This can be a great blog. Thank you for all of your hard work and the info you provide here.
I think other site proprietors should take this website as an model, very clean and magnificent user genial style and design, as well as the content. You are an expert in this topic!
I'm curious to find out what blog system you happen to be utilizing? I'm experiencing some minor security issues with my latest website and I'd like to find something more risk-free. Do you have any recommendations?
I feel that may be a fascinating element, it made me assume a bit. Thank you for sparking my thinking cap. From time to time I am getting such a lot in a rut that I simply feel like a record.
Hmm it looks like your website ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I guess I'll just sum it up what I had written and say, I'm thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I'm still new to the whole thing. Do you have any tips for newbie blog writers? I'd genuinely appreciate it.
Some genuinely interesting details you have written. Assisted me a lot, just what I was looking for : D.
Keep up the excellent work , I read few blog posts on this web site and I think that your website is rattling interesting and contains sets of excellent information.
I genuinely appreciate your work , Great post.
Please let me know if you're looking for a author for your weblog. You have some really great articles and I think I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I'd love to write some articles for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please blast me an email if interested. Kudos!
Aw, this was a really wonderful post. In concept I'd like to write like this also - taking time and genuine effort to create a great post... but what can I say... I procrastinate alot and in no way appear to get one thing completed.
Hi! Großartiger Weblog! Ergänzungen Fatburner Tabletten helfen beim wirksamen Abbau von Körperfettdepots! Lieben Dank!
You may have not intended to do so, but I believe you have managed to express the state of mind that a lot of men and women are in. The sense of wanting to support, but not knowing how or where, is something a lot of us are going through.
Whats up this is kinda of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I'm starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!
I am often to running a blog and i really admire your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your website and hold checking for new information.
Hey mate, thanks 4 writing but this post isn't vewable when using Safari it is showing only half the page.
Thanks for making the trustworthy attempt to provide an explanation for this. I think very strong about it and want to be informed more. If it's OK, as you reach extra extensive knowledge, might you mind adding extra posts very similar to this one with more information? It would be extremely useful and useful for me and my colleagues.
amazingly insightful post. If only it was as easy to implement some of the solutions as it was to scan and nod my head at each of your points :P
Thanks for taking the time to talk about this, I feel fervently about this and I take pleasure in learning about this topic. Please, as you gain information, please update this blog with more information. I have found it very useful.
I wanted to let you know, I think there's a problem with the RSS feed, it is not displaying properly in my RSS viewer. It simply started occurring earlier this week, did you change some thing on the website?
It’s actually a great and useful piece of info. I’m glad that you shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Hey just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your post seem to be running off the screen in Chrome. I'm not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I thought I'd post to let you know. The design look great though! Hope you get the issue fixed soon. Thanks
A friend of mine advised this site. And yes. it has some useful pieces of info and I enjoyed scaning it. Therefore i would love to drop you a quick note to express my cheers. Take care
To tell you the teuth, I was passing around and come across your site. It is wonderful. I mean as a content and design. I added you to my list and decided to spent the rest of the weekend browsing. Well done!
I am continually browsing online for articles that can facilitate me. Thanks!
The both of us really enjoyed your story. It appears like you've put a lot of effort into your story and the human race need much more of these on the Net these days. I do not real have a large deal to say in retort, I just wanted to comment to tell well done. marvelous post. i never thought of that.
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It's the old what goes around comes around routine.
זיקית הינה חברת החוויה האתגרית הגדולה כרגע המפעילה אטרקציות במרכז הארץ במחירים מיוחדים לארגונים, חברות, קבוצות ולקוחות פרטיים המעוניינים להגיע לימי כייף מרב הדרך בנוגע ל המסלול .
Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly comeback.
I’d have to allow with you one this subject. Which is not something I typically do! I love reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!
Isabel Parkes
INTL1800, James Der Derian
Literature Review: Empire & Media
17 February 2010
Literacy to Mobilize / Imagery to Weaponize: Questions surrounding Anderson and Keenan
The price of eternal vigilance is indifference.
- Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media
Benedict Anderson’s notion of a print culture-based, imagined community intersects with Thomas Keenan’s own of an image-centered public at various points along the axiom of international relations theory: here in an investigation of empire and media. The dialogue between the authors’ texts – Anderson’s Imagined Communities and Keenan’s articles, “Publicity and Indifference (Sarajevo on Television)” and “Publicity and Indifference: Media, Surveillance and “Humanitarian Intervention” ” – prompts questions that concern the masses, responsibility, and (in)action. Both texts investigate a non-privatized group, Anderson’s nation and Keenan’s albeit hazy public, yet the former encircles text and the latter image, a key divergence that Cynthia Weber’s International Relations Theory, and particularly her chapter on (Neo)Marxism, might help to reconcile. Accounting for both the “logic of capitalism” and “liberal political guilt,” it seems that today’s media empire, which emerges out of and intermingles with print and image-based sources, demands an even more diverse understanding of semiotics, history and political theory.
Anderson outlines his claim to nationalism in terms of culture. Along with the decline of religion and its sacred languages (ie. Latin), he explains in his opening chapters, the advent of print capitalism (the circulation of newspapers) largely catalyzed the birth of the nation in Europe. Thus in this case, one can understand the medium (print) as creating the empire (the nation). Capitalism and literati coincided and produced an “extraordinary mass ceremony: the almost precisely simultaneous consumption (‘imagining’) of the newspaper-as-fiction.” Anderson specifies this claim, explaining that print language “created unified fields of exchange and communication…, gave a new fixity to language…, and created languages-of-power.” The medium was in this sense productive and through simple, “calendrical coincidence” - that is, the “date at the top of the newspaper” - it created momentary yet regular ceremonies of reading, whereby each participant in the community would be conscious of the others’ simultaneous reading of relevant information. Thus Anderson describes “languages not as “emblems of nation-ness, like flags costumes, folk-dances and the rest…” but rather as possessing the “capacity for generating imagined communities, building in effect particular solidarities.” Where he diverges and Keenan takes root is in the transition between the feeling of solidarities and the reality of them, as well as in the materiality of the medium itself.
Keenan too, binds his thesis to culture: that of television and of the masses. It is a culture of sight, of looking and surveying, rather than one of reading and reflecting. His focus is decidedly more international, and his claim not so much about the forming of a community as it is about the failure of the public to respond to contemporary conflict. Here, we might first understand the empire (of the public, which he admits “is in need of serious rethinking”) as being moved and transformed by the medium (television) . Whereas Anderson plants his trajectory firmly in history - the travels of Marco Polo at the end of the 13th century, for example - Keenan rockets us into the all too recent “lesson of Bosnia… [whereby] a country was destroyed, and a genocide happened, in the heart of Europe, on television, and what is known as the world or the West simply looked on and did nothing.” The media, however much it exposes or brutalizes the image, was here unable to link knowledge to action for the public, and thus began “the mobilizing of shame.” But how does media – even with a barrage of images of civilians being shot, houses burned and more - not spurn us to action? Keenan also addresses this question in writing that “today cameras don’t simply represent conflicts but take part in them, [they] shape not only our understanding of them but our conduct,” pointing out the mobilization of shame not as part of an active role for the viewers, but rather the by-product of strange immobility. Our own agency as viewers and as a public has been outsourced by an object: “Things don’t happen unless a camera is there.” Media here is no longer in dialogue with (is no longer shaping) its empire – rather, it is reflecting and recycling knowledge to little avail, even arguably to indifference. Yet what Keenan insinuates here, he has indeed already outright expressed – at the start of his essay when he quoted Marshall McLuhan: “The price of eternal vigilance is indifference.” We read it once but arguably, did not foresee Keenan’s ironic intention: to repeat is both to diminish and to reinforce emphasis. Even as readers we have been indifferent to the indictment against us.
Yet a harmonious (and perhaps more optimistic?) chord between Anderson’s building up of community and Keenan’s stepping down from it might be struck later on in Keenan’s article “Publicity and Indifference: Media, Surveillance and “Humanitarian Intervention” ” when the author seeks to find the cause of the lack of public response to humanitarian crises in Bosnia and Somalia. He looks to the heart of the empire, in his terms, the public, and writes,“ “we” cannot be something given in advance, not the sum total of all of us somewhere or sometime, not a community or a people but rather something that comes after the image, a possibility of response to an open address” Thus he in fact suggests here that community builds up in response to an event, that it cannot precede the media (or the media-covered event) and be expected to reason with it. Media, again like Anderson first indicated, is a catalyst for this building up but not a seed for germination. After all, he continues, “images, information, and knowledge will never guarantee any outcome, nor will they force or drive any action. They are, in that sense, like weapons or words: a condition, but not a sufficient one.” Then granted the insufficiency of these indeterminable “conditions,” where does the future of media’s empire or the empire of media reside? If even on the camera-covered beaches of Mogadishu (1992: where, Keenan describes, the shocking abundance was of reporters and technicians not starving children or clan fighters), the “basic structures of ethics and American democracy – responsibility and deliberation” are made totally irrelevant and irrational, what role exists for media amidst the overproduction and overexposure of the image (total surveillance)?
Perhaps a final hint can be gleaned Cynthia Weber’s rather more extreme quotation of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s 2000 tome, Empire: “Empire is the new world order.” Their empire is a “virtual center,” “a non-place,” one more abstract than either Anderson’s materialized community based on “horizontal comradeship” or Keenan’s CNN-watching public. Hardt and Negri’s reasoning inhabits a postmodern, theoretical realm—it appears to be “foundationless, fluid and fragmented” and above all, part of a reinvigorated, NeoMarxist dialectic: operating amidst a series of clashes between the multitude and the world orderer, Empire. Here the “vigilance” that McLuhan penned does not drill in one direction – that is, from the media to a single event – but instead enters a binary contract between Empire and the ever-resistant, vigilant multitude. Hardt and Negri’s strength (and Weber’s too) lies in this broader understanding and acknowledgement of fragmentation.
And so perhaps it is precisely this fragmentation, this plurality, that each of our authors – Anderson through his languages of power, Keenan through his “temporally or rhythmically complex and heterogeneous” (image) surfaces, and Weber through her discussion of the ubiquitous empire – urges us to involve ourselves in. After all, it seems inevitable and in fact, foolish to not engage in this battle of speed between hyper-active media and lagging empire. Surely somewhere in between we are left with a chance to act and though neither image nor text will provide answers to questions of decision-making, “We are not quite out of time.”
Works Cited
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London, Verso: 2006
Keenan, Thomas. “Mobilizing Shame.” The South Atlantic Quarterly. 103:2/3. Spring 2004. Duke University Press. 14 Feb 2010.
Keenan, Thomas. “Publicity and Indifference (Sarajevo on Television).” Online. Internet. 13 Feb 2010: http://www.mlajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1632/003081202X63555?cookieSet=1
Keenan, Thomas. “Publicity and Indifference: Media, Surveillance, and “Humanitarian Intervention.” CTRL SPACE. Ed. Thomas Levin, Ursula Fohne and Peter Weibel. MIT Press: Karlsruhe. 545-561
Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. 2nd Ed. London, Routledge: 2005.