Rolling Stone Magazine’s pick for the 2008 Democratic candidate: Presidential Propaganda pumping a “New Hope”

          In recent months our country has witnessed one of the most heated battles over the democratic candidacy in American history. The historical impact of this campaign has generated an amazing amount of press coverage. We are living in the dawn of a new era in American society; for the first time in our country’s history we are seeing two breakthroughs in equality. This of course is brought about by democratic candidates Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. This is the first time our country has seen an African American male candidate and Caucasian female as frontrunners for the presidency. The media in our country has turned this monumental accomplishment in human equality into a complete circus. They have emphasized every negative aspect in both campaigns often focusing specifically on race. For this reason, I have decided to look for propaganda in recent campaign images.

          In every winning election there is great propaganda produced by both those who support the candidate and those who oppose the candidate. Because there is such a rivalry between the democratic candidates, this election has produced an overwhelming amount of propaganda. I will focus on one media source that has made up their corporate mind on who their publication will support in the next presidential election. This magazine has been on the cutting edge of music, pop-culture, and political debate since it was first published in 1967. Since Rolling Stone (RS) was first printed, it has focused on music and politics in the U.S. The magazine is not solely an entertainment magazine but has helped shape political coverage that we experience today. As a forerunner in the political debate, RS’s opinion has a huge influence on the political climate. The magazine’s campaign support is very important and almost crucial to getting ahead in the election. That is why I have chosen to focus on their images and cartoon propaganda for this paper. All the images I have chosen come directly from the pages of RS.

          RS has turned their focus and support to Senator Obama. Every recent issue for the duration of 13 months, has included either an article in support of Obama or an article bashing Senator Clinton. These articles have not only pinpointed their support through the use of writing, they have produced some propaganda images as well. Because images are often more powerful and reach more people on a subconscious level, it is important to take a close look at what the magazine is presenting through visual persuasion. For this assignment I have chosen two example images to evaluate. One is a RS cover featuring Obama and the other is a RS cartoon of Clinton. Both images, as well as the article’s content, tell the same story: America needs Obama and Clinton is corrupt and dishonest.

          In the angelic image of Obama on the RS cover viewers are able to see the great lengths RS has taken to create pro-Obama propaganda.

 

Context:

          This image came from the cover of the March 20, 2008 edition of RS.  The image is accompanied by the article’s heading “Barack Obama, A New Hope.” This article highlights Obama’s campaign strategy and why the author feels Obama is the only person who can help our country in the future. I chose this image because of its angelic feel and the importance it holds to the future of Obama’s campaign. The image is an obvious piece of propaganda in favor of Obama for president.

History:

          At this point in the primary, Obama is in a tight race for the democratic candidacy. In light of the recent bad press associated with Rev. Jeremiah right the pressure on Obama from the media has greatly increased. For the past 20 years Wright has been Obama’s pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. According to an ABC Online News article published on March 13, 2008 “Wright has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”” (ABC news.com) Rev. Wright’s remarks were the catalyst for a heated debate about Obama’s intentions and religious values. One week later RS conveniently published this article which praised his hope for our future.

Personal Reaction:

          I find the cover to be comical. I can’t really take it serious. It screams “PROPAGANDA, PROPAGANDA!” Unfortunately it may be viewed as the truth, causing it to be more powerful than the information in the article. I imagine people standing in line at a checkout stand or looking for a magazine in the magazine isle. People then see the cover and pick up a copy. They read the words “Barack Obama, A New Hope” while taking in his god-like image as a man. They are instantly swayed and they don’t even read the article or look into why he is a new hope. They only remember “Obama” and “hope” causing them to vote without substance or knowledge of the candidates. This is what’s wrong with propaganda; it persuades people’s emotions and actions. They never have to put any effort into finding out if they are right or wrong.

Technical: Lighting and Framing

          This image is photo-shopped to the point where the original photo would be unrecognizable. The creative geniuses behind this photo created a bright light which places an angelic presence on the head and shoulders of Obama. His face is lit very well with a soft light coming from in front of his face. The key light is diffused allowing his face to be well lit but not washed-out. Behind Obama and slightly over his head is an extremely bright light that whips around his back and shoulders. This light causes his neck and shoulders to shine as though he is emitting this power from his god-like presence.   The shot is framed at a medium shot in an up-close focus. The image shows him from the mid-stomach up. His body is slightly left of centered but the focus is close, causing him to take up most of the cover. There is only one shadow. It is an attached shadow on the bottom of his chin. Other than that there are no shadows, this adds to his angelic presence. The Image fades from extremely bright at the top to a very dark blue at the bottom. This shows the light is coming from above, as if God is blessing or ordaining him as president.  Obama looks past the audience and into the future. He has a strong stern look on his face as if he is pondering the future of America.

Meanings:

          Let’s start with his clothing. Obama is dressed in a professional suit and tie. His jacket is a navy blue, his shirt is white with a red tie. These colors make up the American flag, a symbol for freedom, capitalism and democracy. By wearing these colors he is representing American freedom. Although it is not shown in the picture, the audience can tell he has his hands placed on his hips by the way his elbows are bent. This is the ultimate jester in an authoritative stance. By placing his hands at his hips he stands strong and proud, the fundamental element of power. He is standing as someone who is strong enough to be president of the U. S. The background of the photo is a very light blue. This resembles blue skies developing ideas of peace and tranquility to the audience. They see the blue sky and feel as though everything is safe and perfect. The sun is shying and there are no clouds in the future. There is a bright white light breaking around his head and shoulders. This holds a couple of meanings. One is that he is a god-like figure. The image looks as though Obama is in fact a god who is emitting this lighting –like power from his sheer presence. The other could be a blessing from God. This could be viewed as God’s power and favor being bestowed upon him. It is as though God is forecasting him as our savior. His eyes create lexical lines which transcend the audience, causing them to feel as though he it looking past them and into the future of the country. The words “A New Hope” create ideas in the audiences’ head which assure them that Obama will be the one to save them.

 Ethical, Cultural, and Critical:

          Because RS is a privately owned entertainment magazine I can’t find anything ethically wrong with the cover. I do however question their motives. I am less likely to trust the opinions presented in the article. If the magazine is willing to go to such great lengths to make Obama look like a god I have a hard time believing anything in the magazine. I see their work as bias; therefore I don’t feel I can trust the content. Culturally I think that the image plays to the young audience of the magazine. The flash and shock value aid in persuading younger adults into supporting Obama or at least buying the issue. Critically I find this piece of propaganda amazingly effective. This image totally works for what the magazine wants it to. This image works both to show support of the candidate as well as draw people into buying the issue. It is amazing what society can and will do to sell a product.

Context:

          This cartoon accompanies an article in RS titled “The New Nixon; Hillary has taken her strategy straight out of Tricky Dick’s paranoid, press-bashing playbook.”  The article ran in the February 7, 2008 edition. The article ran just after the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada.

 

History:

          The debate took place shortly after Obama’s win in Iowa, which proved to be a major win for the Senator. In the article Clinton is belittled and chastised for using a strategy of press bashing, similar to President Richard Nixon’s. Clinton and her strategists blamed the media for her loss in Iowa and the magazine took it to heart. This caused them to write the article and accompanied it with an image of pure anti-Clinton propaganda. This is not at all out of the ordinary for RS which has littered the magazine with many different anti-Clinton propaganda images throughout the primary.

Personal Reaction:

          My initial reaction to the photo is very similar to that of the Obama cover. I find it comical and entertaining. I find this image to be funny in a different way than that of the Obama picture, in that, this one is meaning to be funny. It is poking fun at her strategy by comparing her to Nixon, the ultimate insult. The artist took that idea and created an image that exaggerates both of their physical qualities.

Technical: Lighting and Framing

          The artists drew this picture with the key light coming from the right of Clinton. This is seen as the light is brighter on her right. Clinton is drawn at a waist shot from a medium focus. There are some attached shadows under her chin going down her left arm. This suggests there is some sort of diffused light coming from overhead. The drawing frames her in the center but leaves little headroom, creating a claustrophobic feeling to viewers.

Meanings:

          This photo contains a large number of meanings which aid the drawing in its pursuit of anti-Clinton propaganda. Starting with the face, viewers notice her black swollen eyes. These give an untrustworthy aspect to the character. Because her eyes are black and swollen, viewers see her as an evil other, on drugs, or lacking sleep for some reason. She is also scowling at whoever’s out of the picture. Her eyes point off camera causing the audience to wonder who she despises. Next Clinton is drawn with a huge nose and large chubby cheeks. These are understood by the American audience as facial characteristics of Nixon. This is how the artist has decided to draw a parallel to the ex-president. From her cheeks she is dripping sweat or drool, depending on your interpretation. This could mean she is sweating over her hatred for the press or she could be seen as drooling fool. Her shoulders are hunched in poor posture unlike the proud and upright way Obama is presented. At the bottom of the drawing her hands are clinched tightly not crossed together as seen in pictures of powerful characters. This shows the audience she is tense or nervous and not in control. The drawing makes Clinton seem as though she is an ugly powerless character, full of contempt. These are not characteristics of someone who should be president.

Ethical, Cultural, and Critical:

          Ethically this photo falls under the same protection as the Obama photo. Although it presents Clinton in a very dark and negative light, it is protected under the First Amendment. Though I don’t exactly agree with the article or the drawing, it does not break any ethical guidelines of the magazine or they would not have printed it. It does, however make use of American culture by combining exaggerated facial qualities of two U.S. politicians.  Here the audience sees the lighter side of American culture, where we are completely free to poke fun at our leaders. Critically, I think that it is a skewed, yet funny, way to view Clinton and her campaign strategy. I also feel it is a little harsh to compare her campaign to one of the biggest presidential flops in American history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s Questionable

I’m not completely sure, but I think this week is our last “That’s Questionable” assignment. In regards to this possible celebration I have decided to do something different. I am going to pose a topic that some of “YOU” may find questionable. The topic is along the lines of what we have been discussing in class about hidden meanings in film. I am giving you my ideas about the video, which some of you may find questionable. Hopefully this will create some sort of “great debate.” Or some of you will think I’m lame. Either way, this video is major-league-kickass!

 

 

 

I always though of this song as a statement on the difficulties of a relationship, but the video completely flips that idea on its head. The video starts with Pat Benatar riding on a buss. She is contemplating, but what? The video jumps from a fight she recently had with her father to her walking through a prostitute ridden area of a city. So, is she remembering why she left her father’s control, or is she regretting leaving because she is finding how hard city life is. Either way I don’t think it goes along with the lyrics. In these early scenes she goes in to the subway in the same innocent closes that she left her home and rode the buss in. Then she emerges the subway an empowered woman in total kickass 80’s clothing and it seems as though she has possibly taken a job as a prostitute. When she is in the bar I think she is making a statement that she no longer needs a man in her life to make her own decisions. The city life has freed her from her father’s control. That’s the reason for the clothes. She also pushes a man who she is dancing with away, showing she does not need a man’s protection through love to be strong. She goes on to challenge a man (pimp) who is mistreating one of the girls in the bar. Her challenging of him empowers the other women and they kick his ass in an epic 80’s dance battle. “He totally gets served.” And the women take to the streets, free from male domination. So is Benatar making a statement about male oppression in relationships?  I see this as a statement that men are oppressive figures in society, especially toward women. Because of an aggressive nature, men turn everything into a battle over power. This is true of love, thus creating love as a battlefield. The women in the video recognize this and know they must fight back to free themselves from men’s oppression. What is interesting about their revolt is they use their femininity to defeat their oppressor. This is shown through the dance battle. The women defeat the men using their femininity to their advantage. Their display of female power causes the men to retreat and women are saved by this. Or is this Benatar’s feminist answer to Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video.

 

What do you think is going on? Being a part of male society, I may have it all wrong. Either way enjoyed the video because it made me smile.

 

A New Face of Evil; Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh

 

Context

The Coen brother’s creation of assassin Anton Chigur in their 2008 film “No Country for Old Men,” represents all that is the “evil other.”  Chigur, played by Spanish actor Javier Bardem, is a dark immovable character void of mercy and humanity. He kills those he is hired to with skill, void of emotion. If you are unlucky enough to cross his path, the judgment of his coin toss is absolute, so don’t bother explaining to him that “he doesn’t have to do this.”  The scene I put up is to give you an idea of Chigur’s mannerisms. From watching the scene you should feel a subtle chill go up your spine, followed by a wave of uncomfortable emotions as you wonder what he was going to do to the store clerk. I wish my writing was profound enough to give you that feeling, but it’s not. Therefore I put it up for all to see, and share in honoring a new face of evil.

History

The film’s villain Chigur, is hired to hunt down a sum of money that was lost in a drug deal gone bad. The money was found by Llewelyn Moss, played by Josh Brolin, a character who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because he decides to keep the money and go on the run, Chigur is sent after him. Chigur, who represents the polar opposite of what is considered to be normal, kills anything that gets in his way. This leads him on a series of brutal murders in search of Moss. Once he finds Moss there is a fair amount of violence which ends…well I don’t want to ruin the film for you. Simply understand the character represents “the other” in many ways which will be explained in this blog.

Personal Reaction

When watching this scene for the first time I felt very uncomfortable. The blank expression on his face compounded by his monotone speech habits caused me to see him as a man who lacks all real emotion and compassion. As he mentally breaks down the store owner I began to feel the old man’s nervousness. At one point I wished he would just kill him and get it over with. This scene presents a sort of torture, which Chigur puts us all through. I find this character to be one worth remembered in the records of great cinematic villains.

Technical:

Lighting & Framing

As far as lighting is concerned, there isn’t much. The scene makes use of the natural light pouring through the store’s windows. The light coming through the windows illuminates only one side of the two characters faces. Because Chigur is wearing dark colored clothes companied by his dark eyes and hair, there is very little for the light to reflect off which causes him to remain mostly in the shadows. His dark presence is contrasted by the old man, who’s dressed in light neutral colors. These light clothes allow more light reflection, causing the audience to see him as a neutral character. Because Chigur remains in the dark, the audience understands him as an evil presence. The Coens are making use of an American social identity that relates dark with evil; dark being the absence of light.

The scene is framed in a medium shot so the audience feels close to the characters, as if they are in the scene watching this in the first person. The shot shows the characters from the waste up. This shows the audience that their faces are an important element of the shot. This makes their facial expressions the most important visual element of the scene. The store clerk face continuously changes from confusion, frustration and fear. These are human qualities. They show the audience that this man feels emotion and is suffering at the hands of Chigur’s speech. Chigur expression, on the other hand, never changes. This show the audience he is void of emotion. He could care less what happens to this man. Because he lacks these emotional qualities, the audience associates him with the other. The audience can not associate with him; therefore he is understood to be evil. The shot of the scene switches back and forth between the store clerk and Chigur. When it does this the audience sees both the back of one character and the front of the other. This is done to keep the audience’s attention on who ever is speaking.

Meanings

There are many meanings in this scene which I have previously touched on. One is the dark lighting on Chigur, which is seen as mysterious or evil in our culture. The lack of emotion on his face allows the audience to see him as lees than human or evil. His encounter with the store clerk creates a mental torture for both the clerk and the audience. The darkness of his eyes leads the audience to believe he has no soul; his dark eyes being the signified meaning of one who has no soul. As the audience watches this film they are at constant battle with Chigur’s lack of regard for the norm. He is dark, emotionless, and he murders people for hire and probably fun. These are overtly opposite functions of normal behavior.

Ethical, Cultural & Critical

I guess this scene is done ethically. It’s not a documentary, which states they are telling the truth about this person and it is rated R by the MPPA. I guess those qualities make the scene ethical. The scene is completely associated with American culture. It takes place in Texas, the most American cliché state in the U.S., and Chigur breaks American norms for behavior and moral fortitude. Critically I think that the Coens created a monster. He is a terrifying character. He is psychotic and sadistic while at the same time he seems completely sane. This causes me to fear his presence because his intentions are not fully understood.

That’s Questionable

Last week we watched a short part of Disney’s rendition of “Aladdin.” We were looking for stereotypes and some pointed out turbans and camels and sand. These are stereotypes of the Middle East, but are they necessarily a bad thing? I mean it is a kid’s move and it is supposed to be entertaining. Men in the Middle East do wear turbans, once rode camels and live in a desert. These aren’t negative things at all, they are truths. As for the sleazy sales men being a negative stereotype of Middle Eastern men, well the guy is trying to sell a f@&%in’ magic lamp that houses a f#&$in’ magic genie. I don’t thing this is a negative stereotype of Middle Eastern men it is a stereotype of people who blow smoke up you’re a$$ and try to sell you a magic. ‘NOUGH SAID!

Something worth looking at

Saudi Arabia Information and History (All information was copied from the National Geographic web-page)

Saudi Arabia occupies most of the Arabian Peninsula and is the largest country in area in the Middle East—but 95 percent of the land is desert. Mountains running parallel to the Red Sea slope down to plains along the Persian Gulf (called Arabian Gulf by Arab states). Below the arid landscape, oil has made this desert kingdom one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

The oil-enriched economy has brought some 5.6 million resident foreigners—mostly from Arab states or South Asia. The mismatch between the job skills of Saudi graduates and the needs of the job market, as well as constraints on employment for Saudi women, are reasons for the large number of foreign workers. Unemployment for Saudi males is high.

Pumping the lifeblood of industrial economies, Saudi Arabia exports more oil than any other nation and holds 25 percent of the world’s proven reserves. To increase non-oil exports, economic diversification emphasizes more dependence on manufacturing and on irrigated farming, which draw on limited underground water supplies.

King Abd al-Aziz Al Saud merged warring Bedouin tribes to form Saudi Arabia in 1932. Succession has fallen in turn to his sons, governing through consultation with others in the royal family, religious leaders, and technocrats. A major supporter of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war, the country served as operations base for coalition forces. Relations with the U.S. were strained after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—carried out mainly by Saudi citizens. In this conservative society, underpinned by Islamic law, women live in veiled segregation. Saudi Arabia is keeper of Islam’s most sacred cities: Mecca, where the Prophet Muhammad received the word of Allah, and Medina, where Muhammad died in A.D. 632.

ECONOMY

Industry: crude oil production, petroleum refining, basic petrochemicals, cement.
Agriculture: wheat, barley, tomatoes, melons; mutton.
Exports: petroleum and petroleum products.

Text source: National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eighth Edition, 2004

 

 

Women of the Middle-East

Popularized by the elite of seventh-century Arabia, the facial veil and head covering worn by a woman on the beach at Jiddah contrast with youngsters’ colorful dresses. Veiling became fashionable during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, perhaps in imitation of his many wives, who covered themselves in public at his request.

—From “Women of Saudi Arabia,” October 1987, National Geographic magazine

 

Context          

I took this photo from the National Geographic website. I felt that of all the places I could search, they would have the least bias photos. When I found this photo, I truly felt I had found one that represented Arab womanhood. I see this as an unbiased photo which captures a moment in typical Arab woman’s day. Look hard, but you will be unable to see any signs of American hatred in the photo.

History

Well… Like most American males between the ages of, let’s say, 0-100 I really do not know much about the Arab culture. I am, how do you say, ignorant to their customs and traditions. What I do know, is that the veil is to be worn by women when they leave the home of their husbands. I know that veils worn by Bedouin women, like the one seen in the photo, are among the strictest of the Arab world. The only reason I know this is because I read the article it came from. As you read from the passage above, the veil came about around the time of Mohammad and has since become a mandatory tradition for many women in the Middle East.

Personal Reaction

This photo goes against what we see every day in the media; hatred of America and oppression of women. It shows Arab women playing and smiling.  Could it be that there is happiness in this part of the world? “Hell no.” Some may say. “These are oppressed women who need to be liberated…Those aren’t smiles on the young girl’s faces they are holding back their tears of oppression.” The truth of the matter is not everyone in the Middle East hates America, just as not every woman faces great oppression. This is not to say that there are not women who face terrible atrocities and oppression every day. I’m simply asking for people to consider another’s culture before you blurt out something that could be seen as ignorant. To me this photo is doing just that. It shows veils are a part of Middle Eastern culture and they have parks and playgrounds at the same time. They do in fact go outside and enjoy a suicide-bomb-free day. Americans have such a skewed view of the Middle East. This is something our media is in part to blame. I enjoy this photo because it captures a moment in a day at the park, just like those we have here, on the other side of the world.

Technical (Lighting and Framing)

The photo doesn’t use any special lighting. It is simply taken some time during the day and makes use of the natural sunlight. There are very few shadows. Some attached shadows are seen attached to the poles of the swing set and the woman in the veil. The shot looks as though it was taken at distance, using the focus of the camera lens to capture the scene. The three subjects are centered pretty well. When looking at the photo viewers notice none of the subjects are in the perfect center. This allows the viewer to see that there is not one subject more important than the other. This picture is framed to show three Arab women of different ages having a good time in a park.

Meanings

There are many meanings in this photo which are worth looking at. The most obvious is the black clothing worn by the woman to the right of the photo. She is dressed in black with a black veil covering most of her face. The signified meaning of her clothing is understood as a part of Arab culture and religion. The sand in the photo reinforces American stereotypes, while the young girls in colorful dresses help to break them down. This opens the door for a better understanding of their culture.

Ethical, Cultural and Critical

I find this to photo to be an ethical depiction of Arab women. I think it shows America what it is like to for an Arab woman to leave her home, while refraining from negative stereotypes. The picture captures the cultural essence of Arab women and shows them in a positive manner. Artistically the photo is plain, but I think that is what makes it a truthful photograph.

 

 

Scene Explication “Gangs of New York”

 

The scene I chose to write about comes from Martin Scorsese’s film Gangs of New York. This scene takes place about the mid point of the film and is a powerful conversation between the movies central characters Bill “the butcher” Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DeCaprio.)

 

Context

          The scene opens showing Amsterdam lying in a bed with his back to the camera. He is awakes to find Bill sitting in a rocking chair watching him sleep. He sits up in the bed and Bill tells him why he can’t sleep. At this point in the film Amsterdam has taken employment from Bill and is working his way up the ladder of Bill’s gang of hoodlums. This scene takes place after Amsterdam has saved Bills life earlier in the evening. Bill is troubled by the attack, causing him to seek comfort in Amsterdam. The plot development in this scene is crucial to understanding what Scorsese is doing with the film. Bill explains how, years earlier, he killed the only honorable man left on earth. This man happens to be Amsterdam’s father. Unknown to Bill, Amsterdam only saved him to kill him himself.

 

History

          The film takes place in the “Five Points district in New York. It’s 1863 and lower Manhattan is run by gangs, the most powerful of which is the Natives, headed by Bill “The Butcher” Cutting. He believes that America should belong to native-born Americans and opposes the waves of immigrants, mostly Irish, entering the city. It’s also the time of the Civil War and forced conscription leads to the worst riots in US history.” (IMDB) Amsterdam is the son of an Irish priest and seeks revenge from Bill. This causes him to take employment under Bill so that he can get close enough to kill him.

 

Personal Reaction

          This scene is a very powerful scene where the audience gets to see a large amount of foreshadowing. This scene is very intense because the audience knows more than Bill which leaves them with an unsettled feeling as he tells Amsterdam the story of his father’s death. It also paints the villain of the film as a human being. At this point the audience begins to sympathize with his character, which is a technique that takes an enormous amount of talent as a writer and director. As you read my analysis it will become clear why I feel this is such an important scene in the film which contains many symbols and meanings.

 

Technical and Symbols

          Both characters are shot from a medium point of view with the characters placed in the center of each shot. There is not much light in the scene. The only light comes from a soft light in the background which suggest natural moon light coming through the windows. This is to show the audience that it is very late at night, a time when most people are asleep; all but the troubled Bill. The camera never shows both characters in the same shot until the final shot of the scene. The scene simply switches from Amsterdam as the focus to Bill as the focus. This is to show their opposing forces. By never showing them together the audience sees how they are at war with each other, even tough Bill has no idea. It makes you feel distant from the characters through the distance created by the shots.

          In this scene Bill is wrapped up in an American flag while Amsterdam is wearing some shabby rags. This suggests the power over people Bill has. He stands as a symbol of American power, especially over the shabby poor Irish. Their attire in the scene completely exemplifies the conflict going on in the film which is the struggle between native born Americans and influx of immigrants.

          In this scene Bill tells a story of how he killed the last honorable man. The audience knows this is Amsterdam’s father, but Bill has no idea. This causes tension for Amsterdam because he knows who Bill is speaking of. This becomes a foreshadowing element to the actions of Amsterdam. Bill tells him that men with honor no longer exists, this foreshadows the cowardly way in which Amsterdam will try to assonate Bill later in the film. Their discussion is important in understanding that Amsterdam has no honor and until he becomes honorable he will be unable to defeat his enemy.

          In the final shot of the scene Bill stands and kisses Amsterdam on the head and tells him he never had a son. This implies Bill looks to him as a son. This causes internal conflict for Amsterdam and further paints him as a coward.

          Day-Lewis’ presence of Bill Cutting in this scene demands power and causes the audience to both respect and fear him. He is both a leader and sadistic killer. Watching this scene causes me to feel uneasy and at this point I hope that Amsterdam changes his mind and does not kill him. This is accomplished through all of the techniques of film the cast and director use. Without a dynamic performance from Day-Lewis and Scoresese’s talented ability to capture the performance and accompany it with hidden elements, the scene would not have been such a great success.

 

 

 

That’s Questionable

Midterms 

While I understand there needs to be a way for professors to evaluate our work and knowledge of the subject, a test’s portrait of a student’s knowledge and progress is questionable. Take myself for example. I am terrible test-taker. When it comes time for the exam I tense up and I can’t remember the simplest of terms,  but if I were to been involved in a conversation that I did not know was being graded, I would probably sound as though I have mastered the subject. Test are a part of college tradition and they will be here long after we are gone, but take a moment to think of their value and you will find it’s questionable. 

Reno Style

Context 

I decided to write about the tattoo counter-culture in Reno, so I went to owner/tattoo artist Jon McCann, who agreed to let me take photos at his tattoo shop Absolute Tattoo. This is the shop where most of my friends go to get their tattoos and I know the artists who work there pretty well. I wanted to capture as many sub-culture icons as possible so I staged the photo in the manner you see here. 

History 

Tattoos have been around pretty much as long as man, but they are fairly new to American culture. Until recently they were a thing for sailors and bikers but in the past few years they have evolved into a part of pop-culture. It is not uncommon to see young adults, from every demographic, walking around campus with a tattoo showing. These people make up a mainstream fad. Having a one or two tattoos has become popular among young adults but the tattoo counter-couture makes having tattoos a way of acceptance. McCann, featured in the photo, has been tattooing professionally for all of his adult life and he opened his own shop about tree years ago.  Personal Reaction I am involved in the Reno tattoo culture and I am glad to see more people are accepting tattoos as a form of self-expression. Most of the people I spend my free time with have multiple tattoos and belong to different counter-cultures in Reno. From Straight Edge kids, to skateboarders, to artists these are the sub-cultures that make up the tattoo counter-culture.

Technical Lighting and Framing: 

I did not set up any extra lighting for this photograph. I simply made use of the natural light coming in through the window as a back light. There is some overhead light coming from the florescent lights in the ceiling. The light that is reflecting off the tattoo artist is from the flash of my camera.When framing the photo, I wanted the tattoo artist and the client to be the main focus of the viewer. That is why neither of them are in the center of the photo. By placing them at either side of center, viewers will focus on both subjects, allowing them to be equally important to the photo. The placement of the photo was important because I wanted the viewer to see the full-sleeve tattoo of the artist as well as the large tattoo he is working on. Also from the angle of the photo, viewers can see the large tattoo the client already has on his left side.In the foreground sits another tattoo artist at Absolute. He is heavily involved with the Straight Edge culture and I wanted to place him in the photo for that reason. He chose to wear a hockey mask which is common paraphernalia among Straight Edge youth. I wanted him in the photo to show the diversity of tattoo cultures in Reno.  

Meanings: 

The signifier in this photo is simply a man tattooing another man while a third man watches in a hockey mask. The signified meaning here is a representation of the tattoo counter-culture. What separates these individuals from most people with tattoos is the size and number of tattoos they posses. Those who are part of the culture feel they must set themselves apart from others who have tattoos by getting larger tattoos like the one which take up most of the client’s torso. They also look to posses as many tattoos as there is room for. Most tattoo people have most their bodies covered in ink. The black hockey mask is a common thing for Straight Edge kids to wear to shows. I don’t really know why this is but it is a large part of their scene. 

Ethical, Cultural and Critical 

For some, tattoos are a way to break ethical and cultural standards. In other countries tattoo are a way of life while in the U.S. they can be looked down upon; this is how the counter-culture is created. Some people in Reno feel they must separate from the norm and tattoos are how they do it. As far a Straight Edge goes, Reno is a town with a big drug and alcohol problem. Being Straight Edge is one way for kids to break a social norm and create their own counter-culture. As long as we live in large communities we will have individuals who feel they must find their own path and leave the majority, this creates sub-cultures. Understanding a population’s sub-culture is essential to understanding the larger culture that makes up that region.   

That’s Questionable

I don’t know what to make of some of the videos our guest speaker showed us. Well, not all of them, just one in particular.  The one that stuck with me was the one about Osama bin Laden. I had a hard time with the line about helping one terrorist catch another terrorist. Now I get they are saying the U.S. government terrorized their people in the past, but how cliché. To call us terrorist is a little extreme and completely insensitive to the thousands of people, including Native Americans, who died on 9/11. She also cut the clip short, about the time it seemed the video was about to make a turn to show Native Americans taking advantage of their own people as well as “White Men.” HMMMM, what did she think we would get out of the clip she showed us? If we could have watched the whole video, we may have seen more to the topic, other than “you and I are just as guilty of terrorism as bin Laden.”