Signature Event Context

Sensationalism and the Media

           -The magazine and newspapers dealing with Jeffrey Dahmer are perfect examples of sensationalism.  They focus on the most gruesome aspects of his acts as opposed to all of the pieces to the story.  For instance the news clip and the magazines focus on the necrophilia and cannibalism parts of the story, and paid little to no attention to his childhood or any other background information.  These particular mediums are used to frighten, warn and slightly inform.  They are supposed to frighten you because the more frightening paper, or an interview is the more likely people are to purchase it.  They are also to warn in that they bring attention to things the victims might have done differently to avoid this run in with a serial killer.  They also are intended to inform slightly.  While they mainly focus on sensationalizing Dahmer’s acts, they still pay attention to key aspects of the events.  While sensationalism is not the greatest form of informing the masses, it is still useful due to the rapid widespread of information.  These magazines might have done a little over kill but they still served a purpose.

           -The Dirties and My Friend Dahmer did a good job at an oppositional technique of afore mentioned articles, a more matter-of-fact look at the events leading up to the atrocity, the backstory if you will.  This technique is useful because it informs the public on key factors to look out for in their own society to avoid these horrible acts being repeated.  They demonstrate that serial killers and mass murderers don't have to put off such a monstrous vibe, they could be anyone.  This is a frightening fact, so these pieces could be seen as techniques aimed at the scare of their viewer, or reader, in this way.  But this piece serves mostly as a warning to the general populous.  The main warning in The Dirties is basically to be kind to everyone because you never know what is going to set who off.  Whereas My friend Dahmer is mainly meant to inform.  The author even states that he doesn't think the Dahmer should have been dealt with differently after his crimes, but it's possible to sympathize with a serial killer.  This doesn't mean you believe that what they did was ok, it simply means that you can recognize something innately human in them and that that recognition can allow for some basic human sympathy.

Thoughts on Aspects of, The Dirties, directed by Matt Johnson:

As the character of Matt progresses with his filming obsession it becomes easier for Matt to lose touch with reality.  Various moments indicate that he sees the world more as a film than as real life.  One of which is the scene where he and Owen are standing on the cliff together and he is only able to focus on filming aspects as opposed to actual conversation with a real person.  This is when Matt’s disconnect with reality can be seen visually as pointed out by Owen.  By making his life a movie, with himself and those around him as the characters, he can create a world where only his sense of morality matters.  In this world of black and white, he sees himself as the hero defeating the villains, not the troubled teen murdering bullies.  Also he can escape guilt by making everything in his life make believe.  This lost sense of reality can truly be seen in the final scene where he is gunning down ‘the Dirties’, also know as his fellow classmates.  He is confused when everyone runs in terror after his first shots are fired; he states that he only wishes to kill the bad guys.  This blatant inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality may have been made easier by his obsession with film, but when it comes to shootings there are many complexes underlying factors at work as well.  The same disconnect with reality can be seen with Dylan in the columbine murders.  The continual rehearsal made it easier for him to shift into the guise of the hero fighting bad guys, just as Matt did in the film.  They come in outfitted with weaponry almost as if they were in a movie and they were busting some criminals.  By distancing themselves in this way, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, were able to go through with the murders/suicides on April 20th, 1999.

           The motives of such horrific crimes are hard, if not impossible, to emotionally understand but they are often relatively simple understand intellectually.  In the case of Matt, Dylan, Owen, and Eric, they are all motivated by similar aspects of society, to commit the atrocities for which they are given infamy.  The bullying each one of them experiences is a key factor in that it makes dehumanizing their victims all the more simplified.  This violence in their every day life seeped into their subconscious and combined with their mental instability.  Said mental instability may be due to the daily isolation, problems at home, and/or many other factors that have been linked to murder as an act of a mentally unstable individual.  In regards to Jahar there are a few contributing factors to his malicious act. One is his loyalty to his brother, and need to prove said loyalty though complete, and utter, dedication to his brother’s cause.  Also a factor is the religious aspect of his life, in that religion has long been a motivator for acts of murder, massacre, and genocides.  And his brother’s interpretation of said religion, created the perfect recipe for an impressionable young man to commit a horrific act of violence, such as the Boston Bombings on April 15th, 2013.  Manson’s motivation is a tale as old as time, the idea of racial supremacy.  Driven by his bigoted superiority complex, Manson manipulates his followers into committing several murders in the hope that it would start a race war.  The justification that the shooters most likely used was that they were making the school and the world a better place.  Though there is no justification for the taking of a human life unless it is undiluted self-defense, it is plain to see what types of justifications are in specific types of killers’ heads.    In the case of the bombings they were arguably no less justified than the countless innocent people who died in numerous military acts by the U.S. government.  That being said the bombers may have done this for their country, their people, or themselves.  Once again it is not a legitimate justification, just a possible reason in the killers mind.  Lastly, the Manson murders were fairly basic; they believed themselves the superior race and therefor entitle to cleansing, in the most grotesque sense of the word, ‘their’ country.

           All killers on this planet have at least one thing in common, they are of the human race but deviate from the accepted social norms.  The high school shooters were teenagers, who were bullied in high school, that is a connection that most people can share.  This connection can possibly make them seem less monstrous and more human.  In the case of Jahar, he attended college just like anyone else with friends and interests in his school.  And Manson was considered an extremely charismatic man, whom was able to speak with and manipulate people from all walks of life.  This complicates the understanding of their crimes, through the creation of a moral dilemma that would not exist if one were simply vanquishing a monster.  These are people, who may have murdered due to; at least in part, the society, which beat down, oppressed, or didn’t necessarily meet their standard of living.  Looking at these murders’ side of each event may be difficult and confusing but it also allows for a very important realization.  These murderers could be anyone, and therefor measures can be taken in order to, at least, try and prevent further acts of terrorism from occurring in the future.

Does this all sound familiar? Watch the film and you’ll see just how big of a bite American horror story took out of this idea!

I saw, Get Out, directed by Jordan Peele one of the last days it was in theaters, and I thought it was fantastically horrifying and surprisingly relevant.

A surreal depiction of the reason for black aggression and defense in social circumstances surrounded by upper class white people, meant to demonstrate the anxieties created by a society where in the color of you skin dictates not only your place in society but your safety.

Throughout the beginning of the film the audience is met with the common narrative of the fear of, specifically, a black man meeting his white girlfriend’s parents.  The man’s name is Chris Washington played by Daniel Kaluuya and his girlfriend Rose Armitage is played by Allison Williams.  The concerns seem unfounded as the common narrative is that though things are weird for a while eventually the black man is accepted into the family.

As the film progresses it becomes clear that things are not right with the black people working for Rose’s family.  The characters are reminiscent of hostages, and some even warn him to get out.  These warnings definitely scare Chris but he shakes it off as paranoia until it is almost too late.  This is a real fear that exists within communities of color.

The scene at the end when the protagonist and his (one presumes at this point) ex girlfriend both see a cop car at the end.  The audience undoubtedly feels the loaded nature of cops happening upon a violent scene involving a black man and a white woman.  If they didn’t they would get the idea once seeing the protagonist raise his arms in innocence and the ex girlfriend (psycho-killer) reaching out for ‘help.’  In fact it is the best friend,  Lil Rel Howery, played by Rod Williams, is in the cop car and thus our protagonist is saved and the stigmatization is tossed to the side.

This film is undoubtedly a reaction to the current political situation within the community.  The issue of many police across the country making snap judgements with racism at the heart of said decisions, resulting in innocent people of color’s lives lost.  This film allows for a clear political statement to be felt as opposed to announced.  If you are a person who does not understand the concerns of people of color in regards to law enforcement this film will allow you the perfect opportunity to learn without being put down for being ignorant.

Pairing the insightful vision of director Jordan Peele with the film’s overall entertaining and thrilling aspects, I’d say this is a great film for anyone mature enough to handle brutal scene’s of violence.

Side note:

The manner in which this film operates, where the audience is tempted continuously to look away due to the blood and violence, reminds my of a statement Dario Argento made about his film, Opera.  The killer in his film tapes nails under the protagonist’s eyelids, this is a commentary Argento is making about movie goers and the urge to turn away.  Though it is understandable to want to avert one’s eyes, it is imperative that the viewer watch, for much of the commentaries horror film makers are attempting to make comes through in these scenes.  The job of the viewer in this instance is to deal with the uneasiness, look and think.  This idea is continuously present in the film, Get Out, in that we don’t want to see the brutalizing of a human being but we need to in order to understand the severity of the trouble they face in everyday life.

In Amy Borden's chapter, "QUEER OR LGBTQ+ On the question of inclusivity in queer cinema studies," she discusses the multifaceted representation of queer people, that is those who fall along the spectrum between the hetero homo binary (or outside of it completely).  She initiates her conversation with a depiction of the manner in which LGBTQ cinema has approached representation of queer peoples by discussing Swoon's reenactment of Rear Window's introduction of Grace Kelly's Lisa.  She later elaborates on the difference between queer and LGBTQ+ representations in cinema, "Queerness recognized in the counter cinema practices of art and avant-garde cinema helps differentiate between queer cinema and an LGBTQ+ cinema that mainstreams LGBTQ+ identities. LGBTQ+ cinema draws from classical Hollywood style-narrative closure, spatial and temporal coherence, and a cause and effect plot-to build mainstream and community-oriented films that work to normalize LGBTQ+ characters." (102)  She is saying that the technique of reenactment and genre identification with thriving areas of mainstream cinema in a given culture is a strictly LGBTQ+ technique to normalize the community into the currently established system.  This is the second cinema that Getino O. and F. Solanas discussed in their piece Toward a Third Cinema, in that it does not call for a change in the system or revolutionary acts but it does call for more toleration and understanding (an idea not far from, "TheLiberal Western," chapter of Edward Buscome's, 'Injuns!': Native Americans in the Movies.) The queer approach towards cinematography is much closer to the 'third cinema' in Gettino, O and F. Solanas's discussion in it's breaking from the classical narrative structure.  Towards the end she posits, "The destabilization of the individual to question the singularity of identity is the primary motivation behind queer cinema studies' resurgent valuing of practice over representation." (105) synthesizes the idea that queer cinema is the revolutionary of the two approaches in it's dismantling of the current system of representation.

I wonder if films like, Hedwig and the Angry Inch would be an accurate representation of queer styles of representation or if not what would? I also wonder if, Paris is Burning and Mosquita y Mari are similar to this discussion of LGBTQ+ representation, or if not which are?  I also wonder if any of this is truly revolutionary enough to count as third cinema, or if there is any crossover between thrid cinema and queer of LGBTQ+ representations of non-heteronormative ways of life.

In Tom Gunning's chapter, "The Cinema of Attraction[s]: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde," he discusses this idea of the 'cinema of attractions' as the dominant mode of filmmaking before 1906.  This way of filming is one in which the director is simply trying to show something, not unlike a side show at a carnival.  This sort of filming is present in many of the works we viewed, such as Mary Irwin Kiss, Serpentine Dance, Boxing, Baby Fed, Train Arriving at a Station, Sioux Ghost Buffalo Dance, etc.  These films have little to no narrative and often show the viewer something they may not have been able to see in real life.  

This sort of presentation is inherently objectifying in that the viewer looks, the performer performs, and there is no attempt at connection.  The, Sioux Ghost Buffalo Dance, is exemplifying the problematic nature of this sort of presentation.  Tom Gunning argues that this sort of film making didn't disappear with the introduction of the monolithic narrative techniques of the early 19th century, it simply went underground into realms like avant-garde cinema.  

In discussing Eisenstein's earlier theatrical analysis he states his definition of the sort of attraction he is talking about, "An attraction aggressively subjected the spectator to “sensual or psychological impact.” (p. 384)  This is clearly present in films of the time, such as, Train Arriving at a Station, where the audience was said to experience intense fear of bodily harm.  

Do you believe this lens can be applied to films today?  Is it present at least in part in dominant cinema? Why, or why not? If so, where?  And if this is the goal of a film today is it often considered mainstream filmmaking or more underground?

In Bill Nichols's chapter, "How Have Documentaries Addressed Social and Political Issues?” He underlines the inherent difficulties of representation of the other, he posits, "As Winston notes, the urge to represent the worker romantically or poetically, within an ethics of social concern and charitable empathy, denied the workers a sense of equal status with the film maker.  The filmmaker kept control of the act of representation; collaboration was not in the air. (Nichols, 213)  He discusses this dis-junction between the portayor and the portrayed by introducing the dichotomous nature of representation of the 'other' in documentary-style film making.  Nichols does so by first addressing the idea of personal biases and governmental interests causing pathetic representation of the worker in some films, then juxtaposes it with opposing representation of acts of resistance by workers as means of solidarity.  

Moving into a discussion of how the documentary film maker approaches the many sided issue of otherness portrayed.  He goes on to discuss the visual naturalization of personal bias and societal norms as major issues in representation.  The despotic tactic of hegemony is to make itself seem organic and 'others' seem inorganic through there differences and once more that those differences are weaknesses (noble/ignoble savage, celluloid maiden, 'male gaze' as objectification->degradation).  Dziga Vertov's Kinopravada (film truth) approaches documentary style as a manner breaking from narrative techniques to use the aspects of film not shared by other media in order to portray new ways of being that are clearly possible as they were captured in every day life in their 'life unawares.'  While he sought after this form of representation, it is difficult to say he was entirely successful if only for the fact that the film is cut and spliced and he still chooses in what direction the camera will move, thus introducing a number of personal biases into his representation.  After a number of steps the discussion moves to John Grierson who focuses on the oration quality of the documentary; a technique that Nichols later discusses as a guiding voice orienting our perspective to align with the directors (I think it feels like the voice I think with telling me how to feel or look at a situation in alignment with the director's bias).  Then onto Joris Ivens who believed in the purposeful manipulation of shot and settings to display a metaphorical truth as opposed to the hands off oratory approach.  He underlines that Ivens enlisted the help of workers whose struggle he was depicting as an attempt to subvert the difficulty of the question Nichols initially asks, "How may we represent or speak about others without reducing them to stereotypes, pawns, or victims? (Nichols, 212)  He stresses the issue that in attempting to create a unifying work the director caused a reinforcing of stereotypes wherein the portrayed is meant to stand for the whole of where they come from.

What style of documentary do you think Fake Fruit Factory by Chick Strand, The House Is Black by Forough Farrokhzad, and Images of the World and the Inscription of War by Harun Farocki, fall under and is this representation successful in conveying a clear political statement that urges the viewer to go forth and do something about the issue?  Why or why not? And by what means does the director meet or fall short of this end goal of a sort of visual performative utterance?

Side Note: In Giorgio Agamben's work, "What is a People?" he discusses this issue of an obsession with totalizing structures and their attempt to create a uniform self and the innate consequence of otherification.

In her work on the oppositional gaze, author bell hooks discusses the idea of a totalizing representation of the black body by white filmmakers.  This is clearly present in the Minstrel type show by Edwin Porter, Laughing Gas, the female character is initially very scared of the dentist and then acts wild for the rest of the show.  Her representation alone is totalizing as, in the beginning of the film, she is the only black character.  The people the viewer is supposed to identify with are the white spectators on screen who laugh at the simple mindedly portrayed black woman.  Then it goes a step further by depicting a black male counter to the female who exhibits the same traits while not under nitrous oxide.  This shows that she is not behaving this way because she is a boisterous woman on laughing gas, rather because she is black.  This is point is even further driven home with the all black church, they all become erratic and start acting like her as well.  

The main difference, as both white and black spectators in the film are laughing because of her, is that the white spectators are laughing at the spectacle whereas the black people are joining in on the behavior.  Taking this totalizing representation into account, what is your take on black representation in, Monster's Ball?  Is it another totalizing representation because of the black family who struggles due to the father's incarceration?  Is it sexist because the black female falls apart without a man in her life?  Is it a forward representation of the struggle of being black in a country that is designed to oppress you?  Is the romance a tribute to the intrinsic equality of man in matters of love, or another moment of heteronormative white patriarchy using the difficulties of oppression to his advantage?  Why, or why not, for any of these?  Can opposing points be true at the same time?  How would bell hooks see this representation and how would she recommend we use the oppositional way of looking to challenge it if it is in fact problematic?