They're coming for you!

In the cult classic horror film, The Night of the Living Dead released in 1968, the dead return as flesh eating ghouls causing panic among the living. After analyzing this film through Stuart Hall’s essay “The Work of Representation,” constructed meanings rely on social and historical contexts, yet I find that these meanings are not so different now from its premiere almost 45 years ago. Critics claim the representation of homicidal ghouls symbolizes the cutthroat nature of capitalism, which still remains a heated debate among democrats and republicans in our present economy. Feminists argue that the lead female character, Barbra, portrays a weak heroine dependent upon men. However, in her defense as helpless, I understood her character as one in a state of shock that gave her humanistic qualities. In a way she became a zombie because of her depressed emotional state over the loss of her brother. This shows the connection of the living and the dead and their similar catatonic presence. She didn’t simply move on and leave him behind like he never existed as others might have, but she mourns him becoming a type of zombie herself. She also loses her life going to fight off the zombies to save another woman showing her bravery. The other female costar, Judy, leaves the safe house to accompany her boyfriend in the ghoul-infested yard in hopes to make an escape. In my opinion these women showed as much strength as the men at certain times, especially in comparison to the weak husband, Harry Cooper, who selfishly put his life as top priority leaving the others out to dry. Critics also praise the director George Romero for casting an African American man as the lead in a cast of white European-Americans, but black people still rarely lead a cast of predominantly white actors. I believe the dominant discourse is still very similar to that of 1968, and the very things viewers questioned then we still question now.

You fear what's in your own heart

Another intriguing element in the film is the role of the media. The first thing each person notices in the house is the radio and what the broadcasters are saying about the epidemic. The radio acts as a lifeline to the outside world relaying the message that there is still a sane humanity. From now back to the sixties media holds the power, as Hall writes, “that in certain historical moments, some people had more power to speak about some subjects than others” (42). Here we can see the everlasting powerful voice of the media. Even the concerned mother leaves her dying child’s side to watch the television broadcast of what’s going on in the world outside of the attacked house. Right after the broadcast is over they all agree to follow the journalists advice and leave their confine in search of the government safe houses. No questions asked their knowledge of what’s happening outside does not hold as much value as the national news, but in reality they know just as much as anybody out there. The lead hero, Ben, knows that the ghouls fear fire because of personal experience, not from information he received from the news. In this sense Ben should be seen as more powerful and knowledgeable, but the voice of the media reigns true. Here we see another one of Hall’s points: “knowledge linked to power, not only assumes the authority of ‘the truth’ but has the power to make itself true” (49). To this day media holds the image as a voice of truth, but clearly this position can be questioned considering everyone dies after following their advice. As viewers the truths we take from this film vary on personal experience, but we construct these truths through specific social and historical contexts, which haven’t changed too dramatically over the years. Romero presents timeless themes that shake viewers and question our sense of morality in times of mass hysteria.

Room for one at the Bates Motel

“We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven’t you?” The famous words stuttered by Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcock’s suspenseful masterpiece Psycho. The eerie motel keeper and faithful momma’s boy shakes viewer from the moment he opens his mouth. For those of you who haven’t seen this classic thriller (please do so asap) it opens up with a young woman Marian who goes on the run after stealing forty thousand dollars. She pulls over for the night at the Bates Motel run by Norman and his mother, but during her stay she gets brutally murdered. At first viewers believe its Norman’s mother slashing off characters until it is discovered that his mother has been dead for years. Norman actually has a split personality living as both his mother and himself, while his mother’s stuffed body remains sitting by the window in her rocking chair.

Norman’s creepy persona is clearly conveyed through his twitchy mannerisms and stutter. He instantly represents a sheltered fragile man with no social skills hidden away from society with no connection to reality. To me the scene that solidifies his madness is when him and Marian eat dinner in the parlor. He speaks about his taxidermy hobby, while Hitchcock brilliantly cuts to shots of his stuffed birds hanging along the wall. The stuffed birds represent puppet like passive figures watching his madness progress. Most Hitchcock films focus on voyeurism and the idea of being watched and Norman is Marian’s peeping tom. Hitchcock builds this myth with point of view shots between the stuffed birds and Norman and Marian nervously looking in her rear view mirror. Eyes are everywhere and no place is safe.

The view we are given of the house is always at an angle and shows its isolation from the rest of the world. The bizarre house gives off an essence that tells people to stay away from this strange place because it doesn’t conform to what’s considered normal, and Norman’s far. The visual images in this film channel more meaning than the words, which is a crucial aspect to horror films. Viewers know how to classify certain scenes even without volume. We know there is something suspicious about the house because we are only given one image of it from a distance. Our limited view breeds a sense of mystery because we fear what we do not know. In film the camera has the power over the viewer to create meaning and show the audience specific shots while leaving others out to build suspense. Hitchcock does a beautiful editing job to move the plot and at the end we are left with all the answers in Norman’s psychotic twisted grin. Norman embodies the myth of the outcast and the psychotic behavior that takes over hermits.

Too scared to look away?

The local news runs a genius business: scare people so badly that they will be too afraid to leave their house, forcing them to watch television all day. Now I must admit I’m not really into watching the news, I’m more of an NPR junkie when it comes to getting information. Perhaps it’s the soothing monotone voice that NPR requires of their reporters that reels me in because after viewing so much news I felt overwhelmed. When I watched three news programs this week I felt bombarded with images and voices yelling at me to think a certain way or be afraid of something else. This weekend I checked out American’s News HQ (a branch from the Fox network), CNN Newsroom (owned by TBS), and 7 News at 6 (NBC local news). Now after watching 3 hours of the news I heard the same stories! From the GOP election, riots in Syria and Greece, illnesses, fires and to the top story of the hour… Whitney Houston’s death, it was all the same. Each program added some cutesy personal stories in between the tragedies trying to ease our sorrows before hearing about another death or violent protest.

Every program’s topics functioned around violence and death. The funniest thing I witnessed was before each commercial break the broadcaster would mention the lead they had gained on serial killer. They made this plug three different times before cutting to a commercial and they never even told the story! They would drop this line hoping for viewers to stay glued to the screen, and they probably did, but with no answers. The main difference between all of these programs isn’t about content, but the tone and direction each story takes. The startling images upset you and the broadcaster tells you why. Fox was conservative, CNN leaned liberal, and the 7 News might as well have been an infotainment show. Each person told me what to think while flashing a big grin. Watching Fox was brutal; I think a liberal watching a Fox news program feels similar to Superman touching kryptonite. You couldn’t even get a coherent story without the broadcasters battling and cutting each other off before they could get a word out. I felt embarrassed watching such awkwardness and lack of journalistic professionalism. But hey we can’t all be as smooth as Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone…

End note: watch the news with a clean slate and construct the story outside of your own mind from all different perspectives. Don’t let the code of fear that broadcasters promote control your view of the world. At the end of the day it’s not how you view the world anyways, it’s how you live in it.

Bowling for Columbine

In Michael Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine he addresses the United State’s gun policy and the repercussions of this legislation throughout the country’s history. Personally I’m not a huge fan of Moore, but his approach is to agitate viewers to drive his point. Viewers should not hesitate to see this film if they aren’t a Moore fan because this documentary focuses on uprooting common perception of crimes in the U.S. with real statistics. He offers a view outside of the mainstream media that disrupts American viewers’ perspective of gun violence.

In my opinion the most shocking fact that Moore presented were the amount of deaths in each country caused by guns. The U.S. had a whopping 11,127. And yeah I just said whopping because every other democratic nation had numbers in the hundreds. The difference is astronomical, and throughout the film Moore discovers why.

The main reason people owned a gun was for their own protection. A member of the Michigan Militia told Moore that it’s “American tradition to be armed,” and if you didn’t possess a gun then you’re an irresponsible citizen with no means of protection. People fear crime because of the constant stream of images they receive in the media, yet crime rates are going down. Moore calls out the media for hyping up stories about killer bees, Y2K, and poisoned Halloween candy, and he also pays a visit to the creator of the hit show Cops.

Moore confronts the creator about his popular recurring story line of showing black and Latino men being arrested more than any other race. The creator claimed that he didn’t know how to tell any other story. This is the story constantly being told to American viewers: crime is rampant and guns are the answer.

But how do viewers internalize this message? Power lies in the gun not the person. A young man Moore interviews says that he was placed at number 2 most likely to call a bomb threat, and he thought that at least he was number 2 at something in his town. Guns get attention and people listen to your gun if they ignore your voice. When Moore asked Marilyn Manson what he would say to the Columbine shooters, Manson said he wouldn’t tell them anything just listen because nobody else did. Moore does a great job at telling all sides of the story (clearly pushing his opinion), but with skilled montage editing techniques he paints a convincing picture of the United State’s disturbing gun policies compared to other nations.