Aberrant Decoding and the Wizard of Oz

Aberrant decoding is “when a message that has been encoded according to one code is decoded by means of another” (Aberrant Decoding, 2009). Basically, it is when messages are intended to be delivered one way and are received in another way by the audience. The audience reads the text in an unpredictable way, producing a “deviant meaning”, somewhat like a conspiracy theory (Aberrant Decoding, 2009).

This can happen because of the semiotics or symbols in a film being interpreted to mean various different things by various different people in an audience. For example, the use of a spider’s web in a film could, to one person, be a symbol of being trapped, where as to another it could just be setting the scene a being somewhere old and dusty. Meanwhile, the director may have intended it to symbolise the work of a very clever character. These two people would have very different views of the film as a whole because of their different interpretations, while the director intended a whole other different thing.

“The Wizard of Oz” (1939) is an example of aberrant decoding in cinema. Though the film is, on the surface, just an adventure story about a young girl and her dog that get picked up and carried away by a tornado to a fantasy land called Oz, there have been many attempts at going deeper and figuring out the “real” meaning (when in fact, it could just be intended how it is seen).

One of these interpretations is what makes “The Wizard of Oz” a symbol of gay pride in today’s day and age. Here are some examples of people’s interpretations of the symbols in the film:

• The song “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” is linked with the rainbow symbol of the gay pride flag.
• Kansas is considered a “homophobic” or less accepting state, so many closeted homosexuals could understand the desire to want to leave the ranch in Kansas, for somewhere freer. “We’re not in Kansas anymore!”
• Dorothy’s grayscale home is considered “lonely, authoritarian and heteronormative”, while Oz is presented as a place of “excitement, transgression and positive difference” (Gabriel, 2012).
• Oz, however colourful and exciting, is also dangerous and risky. This is considered a symbol of the consequences that could be faced by coming out.
• The Scarecrow comments during the film that “some people do go both ways”.
• The song “Come out, Come out” sung by Glinda when Dorothy arrives in Oz.
• The Cowardly Lion’s song “I’m afraid there’s no denyin’, I’m just a dandy lion (Kenrick, 2011).

For a look at a slightly “different interpretation of “The Wizard of Oz” trailer, follow this link… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou-WEqdzdyE

Every film has the potential to fall victim to aberrant decoding, just like “The Wizard of Oz” and that’s because all audience members are different. No two people are the same and the internet has made it possible for us to share our different perceptions of things, thus giving us the chance to develop these theories further and making them more commonly known. Regardless of whether we have the mode’s of communication to share our ideas, as long as we have the freedom of imagination, these different ideas will always exist and so will aberrant decoding.

REFERENCES

 

Aberrant Decoding. (2009). Retrieved November 2, 2013, from Communication: http://communication-education.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/aberrant-decoding.html

 

Gabriel, A. (2012, July 19). Opinion: Queerphobia, bigotry and the Wizard of Oz. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from So So Gay: http://www.sosogay.co.uk/2012/opinion-queerphobia-bigotry-and-the-wizard-of-oz/

 

Kenrick, J. (2011). Gays and Musicals. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from Musicals 101: http://www.musicals101.com/gay4.htm

 

Levy, E. (2005, July 27). Wizard of Oz: American vs Universal Messages. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from Emanuel Levy: http://emanuellevy.com/comment/wizard-of-oz-american-vs-universal-messages-5/

 

What is all this GCSB business?

In light of the controversial passing of the GCSB bill earlier this year, I, like many others that I spoke to, was left a little bit confused. Somehow, something was convincing me that it was very wrong, a bad idea to say the least. However, if somebody asked me what, I honestly wouldn’t really know what to tell them other than “the government might spy on me” but that wasn’t really of any concern to me due to my relatively limited internet capabilities.

For this reason, I sought some clarification. What  the heck is the GCSB? Who’s watching me? What is to become of me now that we’ve all fallen victims to this infamous GCSB bill? Is this the end?

What is the GCSB?

• Government Communications Security Bureau

• It is a government department that contributes to the national security of New Zealand “by providing information assurance, cyber security, foreign intelligence and assistance to other government agencies”.
• Its main functions are collecting and processing intelligence (which is information of military/political value), distributing intelligence, IT security, technology and administration.
• It was created in 1977 by Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, combining the roles of the Communications Security Committee, the Combined Signals Organisation and the Security Intelligence Service.
• In the year 2000, the GCSB became a government department.

(newzealand.govt.nz, 2013)

Kim Dotcom and the GCSB…

In 2005, Kim Dotcom founded a website called MegaUpload. On this website, users could upload anything of their choosing and publish the links to share it with a wider audience. This included anything, such as music and videos.  The website was estimated to have approximately 150 million registered users, as well as 50 million daily users.

However, in 2012 Dotcom was arrested and MegaUpload shut down following one of the largest criminal copyright enforcements ever by the US FBI. The website was alleged to pirate entertainment content and had earned more than US $175 million in criminal proceeds, costing copyright owners approximately $500 million (Johnston, 2012).

In 2011, the FBI contacted the New Zealand police with a request for assistance in the MegaUpload investigation, which lead to the GCSB’s involvement in spying on Dotcom, as well as his eventual arrest.

There was much controversy over this arrest for a couple of reasons…

• Dotcom has NZ residency so should have been “off-limits” to the GCSB under laws banning the agency from spying on locals.
• Dotcom “had no criminal intent when users of MegaUpload shared copyright infringing material” and so claims to effectively be innocent (One News, 2013)

So, how does this effect me??

Well, following this, the government was prompted to amend the GCSB act of 2003, creating the notorious GCSB bill which was passed in early August of 2013. Essentially, the amendment was to make it legal to spy on anybody in New Zealand, including citizens and residents. Prior to the bill passing this could only be carried out under a warrant. It was created to make incidents like what happened with Kim Dotcom legal.

The GCSB can now “spy on New Zealanders under the guise of preventing cyber attacks or on behalf of law enforcement agencies.” However, John Key insists that it is “totally incorrect” that “the Government effectively through GCSB will be able to wholesale spy on New Zealanders”.

10 years prior to the GCSB bill 88 Kiwis were “illegally” spied on by the GCSB but there were never any prosecutions. However, it is also worth noting that cyber intrusions have risen from 90 to 134 in the last year and in the last 12 months cyber crime cost New Zealand $625 million (Vance, 2013).

Laws like this effect hugely the way we use the media. The internet is one of our biggest sources of all things media related these days and now, with laws such as this hanging over our heads, I think there will be some fear leading to restrictions on what we do with it. There is an element of protection for New Zealanders in this law amendment (it is “necessary to protect New Zealanders from terror attacks”) and John Key has assured that the new laws do not mean that mass surveillance will be carried out. However, I think the amended laws have the potential to halt any progress that we had been making in terms of media advances and the flexibility and new found audience control we have over the internet, as we all grapple to figure out “what is OK for me to do?”

I think only time can tell what the outcome will really be.

 

References

Johnston, K. (2012, January 21). Megaupload attempting to get back online. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from Stuff.co.nz: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6293542/Megaupload-attempting-to-get-back-online

newzealand.govt. (2013). Retrieved September 29, 2013, from Government Communications Security Bureau: http://www.gcsb.govt.nz/

One News. (2013, August 30). Kim Dotcom labels lack of GCSB charges ‘corrupt’. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from TVNZ: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/kim-dotcom-labels-lack-gcsb-charges-corrupt-5549586

One News. (2013, August 29). No charges laid over GCSB’s illegal spying of Dotcom. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from TVNZ: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/no-charges-laid-over-gcsb-s-illegal-spying-dotcom-5548375

Vance, A. (2013, August 20). Demystifying the GCSB bill: Spies and lies. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from Stuff.co.nz: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9064984/Demystifying-the-GCSB-bill-Spies-and-lies

 

Gender Roles in the Media

In class, we discussed gender roles in the media, specifically in pop-culture. I noted that it didn’t really seem like there had been any change to the gender stereotypes being used in the media, even though society seems to be working harder and harder to achieve a mind frame of equality. The question arose “If the mentality towards gender in society is changing, then why is media/pop culture not reflecting these changes?”

The first thing that I wanted to find out was if society was actually changing to accept any gender in any way that they choose to present themselves, or if we’re just deluding ourselves into thinking that equality is legitimate. Here are some of the statistics that I found to support the idea that we are becoming an equal society:

• Women make up 47% of the work force.

• 59% of all tertiary graduates in 2009 were women.

• The percentage of families with both men and women in work has risen from 52% in 1991 to 64% in 2006.

• 92% of families believe a father should be as heavily involved in childcare as the mother.

• 1 in 5 women between the ages of 35-39 do not have children today, compared to 1 in 20 in the 1970s.

• 76% of women in 1995 were working outside the home, in comparison to 50% in 1970.

(EEO Trust, 2010)

However, as well as these statistics in support, I was interested to discover equally as much evidence to support the opposite conclusion – that we aren’t making as much progress as we think we are.

• 65% of Americans believe that women are discriminated.

• Women are paid less and are in lower positions than men in the work place. In a 1995 survey among 500 companies, only 90 had women as their chief executives.

• Women, even when working outside the home, are still perceived as the primary caregivers for the children.

• Women do 20 hours of housework in an average week in comparison to men’s 10.

• 38% of American women have a problem with the idea that they have the right to a career but are still ruled by old gender roles.

(faqs.org, 2013)

Though I found that most of the statistics I found were in regards to the older population I also found some trends apparent in the gender roles that children under four are exposed to from their parents alone. It has been shown that baby boys are actually the more likely of the two genders to die in infancy and are more fragile than baby girls. However, according to studies, parents respond faster to the cries of their baby girl. The tendency is to fear for the safety of baby girls, whereas boys are encouraged to explore.

“According to Dr. Benjamin Spock, people are likely to appreciate girls’ cuteness and boys’ achievements. For example, a girl may receive the comment, “You look so pretty!” for the outfit she is wearing. While this compliment isn’t harmful in itself, repeated over and over the message the girl gets is that she is most appreciated for her looks, not for what she can do. Boys, on the other hand, are praised for what they can do–“Aren’t you a big boy, standing up by yourself!” Many parents encourage and expect boys to be more active, to be more rough-and-tumble in their play than girls. A boy who does not like rough play (and so goes against the gender role he has been assigned) may be labelled a “sissy.” A girl who prefers active play to more passive pursuits may be called a “tomboy.””  (faqs.org, 2013)

I think this information in itself almost answers the question. We are stuck in old ways of thinking, despite the fact that the law now says we’re all equal and the media reflects this. The structure of commercials for example, is simple in order to be understood quickly by a wide range of viewers and one of the most simple things that we are able to recognise is gender stereotyping. It makes sense to us and we recognise the intention quickly, so the gender roles become the perfect tool. The problem is, is that our perception of gender roles is developed before we reach kindergarten age and by the time we reach that age the estimate is that the average child has been exposed to 5000 hours of television including 80,000 commercials (YWCA, 2011).

So does this mean that the media are encouraging this perspective? Given the information that I’ve found I would say this is so but only to a degree. I think that we’re stuck in a cycle at this point where we can’t move forward or backward. The media won’t change because the recognition of stereotypes is what works for them. The people won’t change because we grow up with the media as one of our primary teachers. It takes a risk to change, and for the media there currently isn’t any large commercial value in making a change because gender stereotypes are what is easiest. Though the small changes are slowly encroaching (such as handsome men cleaning in an Ajax commercial instead of your average housewife), we still have a large leap and a long journey ahead of us before we note any drastic change.

That doesn’t mean to say however, that there is no hope and so I leave you with this from Debra Pryor and Nancy Nelson Knupfer…

“If we become aware of the stereotypes and teach critical viewing skills to our children, perhaps we will become informed viewers instead of manipulated consumers”.

References

EEO Trust. (2010). Family and Gender Roles will continue to evolve. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from EEO Trust: http://www.eeotrust.org.nz/content/docs/reports/business_benefits/Family%20and%20gender%20roles%20will%20continue%20to%20evolve.pdf

faqs.org. (2013). Gender Roles. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from faqs.org: http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/8/Gender-roles.html

Wolska, M. (2011). Gender Stereotypes in Mass Media. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from Krytyka.org: http://krytyka.org/gender-stereotypes-in-mass-media-case-study-analysis-of-the-gender-stereotyping-phenomenon-in-tv-commercials/

YWCA. (2011). The Media . Retrieved November 1, 2013, from YWCA Girl Space: http://ywcagirlspace.ca/articles.php?subject=46

Why did I choose the opening scene of “Contact”?

Opening Scene of “Contact” directed by Robert Zemeckis (1997)

Watch the full scene here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXqOBMICkdA

At the beginning of the “Interpreting Media” course, we were asked to present one of our favourite scenes from a film. Admittedly, I’d only watched “Contact” the weekend before the class, but was immediately taken by the opening scene, for a number of reasons.

First of all, its beautiful to look at. The animation is brilliant, the colours are stunning and I feel like I could look at it forever and still find new things, which is fascinating because its all so real.

That is the second reason why I like it so much. This opening scene is almost entirely accurate. All of what is shown actually exists in space right now (though there have been some minor adjustments for convenience’s sake).

The third thing that I loved about this scene was that it is very clever, which also links into the accuracy of the scene. Sound/radio waves take some time to move through space, so we find as we move through space and get further from the Earth that the songs/radio we hear are getting older. The sound also highlights some important events in Earth’s history, which contribute to the overall feel of the scene for me.

The feeling that I get is just how small we are as human beings. We worry about these issues (like presidents getting shot, man landing on the moon) which, in the scheme of things – the gigantic unfathomable, universal scheme of things – are trivial. I find it incredibly humbling, not to mention well done.

I could probably watch this scene over and over and every time fall into absolute silence in awe of it.

REFERENCE –

Review: Contact. (2011, March 05). Retrieved September 1, 2013, from Bad Astronomy: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/contact.html

The very first blog…

Ta da!!!!