At 1:05 pm 3/5/99, Jeffrey T. Dean wrote:

>There have been Hollywood fictional films that depicted non-white male
>presidents: the president in _Armageddon_ was a black male, and I know that
>in another recent film the president was portrayed as a white female (I
>can't recall what the film was; anyone remember?).  I'm not sure that the
>fact that there are such examples (and there are probably more, and
>certainly will be others in the future) makes much difference re: ideology,
>however.
>
>With respect to learning how to understand various kinds of narrative,
>images, and editing techniques, the important point (that is, the point
>that several members of the list seem to have been trying to make) is that
>many Hollywood films - especially the action-adventure 'blockbuster' types
>- rely on what are probably *minimal* learning requirements, given that the
>images and narrative structures require little else for their comprehension
>other than what is required to comprehend human action in everyday life.
>The heavily reliance on sequenced images and sound effects makes these
>films easily comprehensible across diverse languages and belief systems
>(the central components of such representations make use of those aspects
>of human culture and perception that are widely shared).  This is one
>reason some film theorists are critical of treating film as if it were a
>language, with complex 'codes' that require prolonged exposure and use for
>comprehension.
>
>Jeff
>
>Then John Daigle wrote
>See Deep Impact and the short running sit-com "she's the chief." Short
>answer, Yes. Of course.

1) Thanks for the tips re. non-white, non-male fictional presidents. Please
excuse my ignorance - I must have been exercising my rights at the box
office. Nevertheless, I would still suggest that the answer is short
because the list is short, both in terms of numbers and historical range.
Indeed, from a Gramscian perspective, Hollywood's long tradition of
co-opting ideas, talent, and techniques which might once have been seen as
alternatives or even challenges to the status quo, is a necessary part in
maintaining its cultural hegemony. It needs to make movies which chime with
the desires and experiences of the audience.  This is where we, the
audience, have a limited degree of power over what is made available for us
to see. All well and good, Hollywood does produce some pictures I want to
see.
2) However, movies also influence how we make sense of our lives (and,
thus, how we act), particularly via the stories they depict.  Whilst I
would admit that the Hollywood 'method' is unsurpassed in terms of its
'reach' as a medium for stories, the pursuit of the mass global audience
has led to an ever-increasing diversion of resources to fuel the demand for
novelty and blockbusting spectacle.  To what end? In whose interests? What
some of us have a problem with (or is it just me?) is the degree to which
the industrial imperative to make movies ever bigger, louder, flashier, and
more spectacular etc., means that stories (often non-US, but still global,
if you will) to which the big budget Hollywood method is simply
inappropriate are unable to find an audience. (Although, I also avoided
it,the language analogy is good in one respect in that there are words
whose meanings, and thus associated experiences, cannot be translated into
other tongues, but nonetheless require usage if they are to survive.) From
a global perspective, the glorification of excess/waste upon which the
Hollywood process depends, is not simply a question of aesthetics, but
profoundly ideological/political in its ramifications.
Yours aye
Kris

Name    Kris Jozajtis
E-Mail  [log in to unmask]
Address:
Depts. of Religious Studies/Film and Media Studies
University of Stirling
Stirling
Scotland
FK9 4LA
Tel: 01786 473171 x.6201




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%