Final: Images That Convey America’s Brand

When considering this final project, I wanted to do something bigger, or more challenging than what was expected. I felt it was best to correlate this project with something current in order for it to mean that much more to me. I decided that I wanted to figure out what image would best describe “America’s Brand” in the most positive way possible to those currently living in the Middle East. This was harder than I had thought. It seems most images of things American; seem to portrait us not necessarily in negative ways, but in a hostile or unwelcoming way. The image I chose had to be something where if I was a person currently living in the Middle East it would be productive in getting me to see the good that America has to offer. This was tough; I decided to flip it around in order to better find my answer. I asked myself, “What Middle Eastern image could better my view on their lifestyle”? I knew it would have to be something welcoming, meaningful, and well-known.

But there are certain issues one has to consider when trying to impose America’s brand on Middle Eastern people. We are in a time of crisis, (because apparently the war’s over) how does one seek to bring fourth America’s brand when the more “insurgents” we catch or kill, the more opposition we face from these Arab cultures? According to Charlotte Beers, who was hired by Secretary of State Colin L. Powel to bring forth a positive image of America to these Middle Eastern Countries, “The whole idea of building a brand is to create a relationship between the product and its user. We’re going to have to communicate the intangible assets of the United States–things like our belief system and our values”.

After reading this I narrowed my choices to several images that scream America. My choices were George W. Bush pictured on the USS Abraham Lincoln and Lady Liberty. The image of the President aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln portraits several things; it displays a large amount of American power in a very subtle way. The President isn’t dressed in battle fatigues or holding a weapon. George W. Bush is shown standing upon a podium dressed in a suite and tie smiling giving the audience thumbs up. This image conveys power, peace, order, and the ability to control a particular conflict. If I was a foreign national and seen this photograph, without having any prior knowledge of George W. Bush I would feel very comforted by this image.

The Statue of Liberty represents the core of American values and beliefs. The statue serves as a welcome to all visitors, immigrants, and returning American’s. The Statue of Liberty is one of the most recognizable icons of the United States. It is the key representative for liberty and the escape of oppression. It represents the American way but with open arms. From 1886 till about 1950, it was the first glimpse of America for millions of immigrants. The Statue of Liberty is one of the most powerful signifiers of freedom and the welcoming of different cultures and religions in the world. So, Instead of simply picking an image where the statue was shown, I decided to use one where the statue was shown in such a way where I think it could relate in a non hostile way with the cultures of the Middle East.

Image of George W. Bush on the USS Abraham Lincoln

Personal – I hate this photograph from the bottom of my heart. To me it shouts bullshit and is a disgrace to all of those who have died in this conflict. This image was intended to raise the spirits of Americans who were uneasy with the current conflict in the Middle East; undoubtedly it is fantastic public relations work. I’m not even sure if the President was aware of what type of ship he had landed on. Mind you, he did it on a Lockheed S-3 Viking as opposed to his helicopter, because White House officials claimed it was out of range (30 miles of the coast of California) not for theatrics. The thumbs up to me is the signifier, with the signified being deceit. The banner in the background says “mission accomplished”, which was later criticized for being false. Next thing you know the Presidents super hero PR team claimed the banner was meant to signify the safe return of the USS Lincolns 10 month voyage. I am a very proud American who plans on serving my country in the future. I would happily die for my Country or Countrymen if need be. However, I have chosen to wait till our current President is out of office before joining the armed services.

Historical – The President, George W. Bush Landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1^st, 2003, on a Lockheed S-3 Viking named Navy One. The President posed in flight suite with service men for some time before changing into civilian dress in preparation for his. In this image the President is giving a speech about the major combat operations in Iraq coming to an end. Behind him is a banner saying, “mission accomplished”. This was the first time in History that an active President of the United States of America had made a jet landing on a U.S. aircraft carrier.

Technical – The picture really is a work of art. You get the feeling when viewing this image that the President of the United States is great. You have the banner in the background saying, “mission accomplished”. And the President himself is smiling with his right thumb up. When looking at this photo you would think the President had went into harms way to make a speech to American troops. You would never guess that he was 30 miles off the coast of California. Even his “thumbs up” gesture seems to signify that everything is going to be ok. In the background there are an abundance of Service men and women whom seem to be praising him. Also, in the bottom right hand corner you can notice hands which seem to be giving him applause. The lighting in the image is natural lighting, with slight fall off upon his face which gives the viewer the idea that the President is on the same page as the rest of the people on the ship.

Ethical, Cultural, and Critical – Ethically, it’s possible to say that this image is both ethical and non-ethical. One may say that this image could help win the support of the American people who are against the war; because right or wrong it’s going to continue to go on, with or without their support. Another may say it’s completely non ethical due to the fact everything the image portrays is false. The “mission accomplished” banner is in the background, while no mission has been accomplished, due to the fact that there are still Americans in harms way. Also, the image gives the viewer the feel of the President being anywhere besides 30 miles within the American coast. Culturally this picture could say several things as well. If I was a person living in the Middle East, I must admit that this would be a great image for me to see. I would get the feeling that America will protect me and that this terrible conflict would eventually be over. I would see the most powerful man on the planet giving a thumbs up as opposed to a threatening gesture. I would look to embrace America because it’s willing to do the same for me. I would notice that he is on a very powerful piece of military equipment but that there are no weapons displayed anywhere. Critically I think this is a great piece of American Propaganda which displays the Brand of America very well. Which in this image are power, order, control, and peace.

Image of Lady Liberty

Personal – When I saw this image, the first thing that rushed over me was everything great about this country. No matter how we are currently depicted throughout the world, Lady Liberty seems to provide a reassurance that this country will forever be the best country on the planet. The image itself makes you feel protected and not threatened because Lady Liberty is holding a shield with the American Flag upon it as well as the flag itself as opposed to a sword. Also, Lady Liberty seems to be being protected by a Bald Eagle which serves as our nation’s emblem. I appreciate this photograph, and regardless of how cliché it may appear, I truly feel as if Lady Liberty is great at being deemed our countries brand.

Historical – The Statue of Liberty was given to the United States by the French people on October 28, 1886. It is located at Liberty Island New York and stands at 151 ft. tall, but on its pedestal it stands at 305 ft. The statue is one of, if not the most worldly recognizable symbol’s of the United States of America. It was constructed by Alexandre Gustav Eiffel and Eugene Violette-Le-Duc, and is made from pure copper. The statue serves as the signifier for liberty and the escape of oppression.

Technical – This is a much older iconic image, which seems as if its original intention was for positive United States propaganda. The photograph is an illustration and the artist seems to utilize natural light with a natural occurrence of falloff appearing on the right side of her clothing. A graphic vector seems to be in affect between the direction of the eagle’s eyes, the position of the face of Lady Liberty, and the slight tilt of the shield.

Ethical, Cultural, and Critical – Ethically I don’t see anything wrong about this image. I feel as if I were a Middle Eastern man or woman I would respect this image and what it stands for. Obviously the statue of Liberty is such a wildly recognizable icon and what it stands for that it would be hard for one to interpret this as a negative image. Culturally I could see where this image might have the potential to rub men or even perhaps women of Middle Eastern countries the wrong way. Because of the fact that the image is of a woman and possibly that she is not covered enough. Critically, I think this is a great photograph which really depicts the American Brand.

Out of all of the images that I have looked through, no others that I have seen portrayed the “American Brand” in such a positive fashion. I feel that great success could come from perhaps an updated or similar version of Lady Liberty that would make it Easier for Middle Eastern people to relate to. I feel that we are in desperate need to brand America in the most productive manner possible. And not just something to make us look good or as if we’re doing our job; but something that enables Middle Eastern people to truly believe in us as well.

That’s Questionable

 

What’s questionable to me is, is it possible for a news network to be unbiased?  Obviously, most of the news networks around the globe strive to be as unbiased as possible.  However, we have seen time and time again that these news networks can show bias.  Especially depending where in the world these news organizations are located.   This can be as simple as adding or subtracting a single word or phrase that can encourage the viewer to favorite a particular side of the story.  And who is ultimately responsible?  Is it the journalist or the news agency?  Should the news simply be spoken in a monotone fashion which simply states the facts?  For example, “Today this happened at this time.  That is all”.    

 

Al Jazeera compared with CNN

    CNN           Al Jazeera

After reviewing several articles from the CNN international section of their web site and that of Al Jazeera, I found one that was quite interesting. The article which I decided to compare between the news organizations was that of the recent bombing by U.S. forces which occurred in Somalia . I can tell you there is a definite difference by the way these two organization report the news. For starters, CNN’s title read as follows, “Airstrike kills Islamic Militants”. Whereas Al Jazeera’s tile reads, “US bombing kills Somali fighters”. Quite the difference just in a title. While CNN uses “militants”, Al Jazeera uses the word fighters. To me militants automatically sound threatening whereas “fighters” sounds patriotic. Also, Al Jazeera makes the claim right in the title that these Somali fighters were bombed by American, where CNN does not. The rest of the article is different on both ends as well.

CNN says, ” An airstrike has killed the military leader of an Islamic militant group in Somalia with close ties to al Qaeda, a spokesman for the group said Thursday. The strike also killed a high-ranking member of the Al-Shabab militia, which the United States considers a terrorist organization, said Mukhtar Robow, a militia spokesman.”

Al Jazeera says, “One of those killed is believed to be Aden Hashi Eyrow, the supposed head of al-Qaeda in Somalia, whose house was bombed. The leaders were members of al-Shabaab, the military wing of the Union of Islamic Courts.”

Furthermore, CNN reports that two leaders were killed with additional 6 dead leaving 6 more wounded in the bombing. Al Jazeera reports that there two leaders were killed along with 17 other individuals.

However, while the U.S. has been responsible for various bombings over the years in Somalia, it has yet to be confirmed. CNN explains this as opposed to Al Jazeera who simply says a U.S. air strike was responsible.

After comparing and contrasting these two stories it is very easy to see the bias in different news organizations.

The funny thing is, Al Jazeera’s picture for the story appears to be a threatening one, where CNN’s is non threatening.  You would think that after the difference in articles these pictures should be switched.

CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/05/01/somalia.airstrike/index.html

Al Jazeera article: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/05/01/somalia.airstrike/index.html

That’s Questionable

I would just like to understand why it is that we take certain perceptions into being “the other”.  I mean, I agree that black and reds have these “other” effects on me.  But what I would like to know is whay do they have these effects?  Why is it that shadows and dim light makes us percieve things as “the other”.  Why is it that light reflects everything as good.  Is it possible that literature over the years has forced us to feel these things when we see them?

The Other Evil

Personal – I chose Hans Gruber from Die Hard to serve as the face of evil for several reasons. His rival is none other than 110% bad ass John McClane, who is undoubtably good in this movie. Hans leads a German terrorist faction to the high-rise Nakatomi Plaza where he attemps to steal $640 million dollars in bearer bonds. Hans takes a large number of hostages who were there for a Christmas party and demonstrates his Evilness later on when he kills several LAPD officers and “cocky” Harry Ellis (known for the line “Hans, baby”).

Historical – This movie was made in 1988. I believe these terrorist were East German because the cold war was still in progress. This movie really made America/good (Bruce Willis) and East Germany/bad (Hans Gruber) but heads with America eventually triumphing over Evil. The “Cold War” undertones in this movie are are pretty evident throughout the course of the film.

Technical – This shot was taken at medium range with very low light.  You can see that the only light being used is from beneath him illuminating him at an upwards angle.  This creates a flash light effects which is popular in horror movies.  Also everything is black; the background and all of his clothes which seem to do a good jof at portraiting that “other” image (Not to mention the text at the top of the image).

Ethical, Cultural, Critical – Like stated previously in the Historical segment, this movie has Cold War undertones. This can lead some to believe that this movie is more culturally significant to our time than one might think at first glance. Some may even go to the length of saying that Die Hard may serve as some sort of U.S. propaganda. I think this film was done very well and was relevant to the times. It’s funny to think of Die Hard as comparing the U.S. with the problems we were having with the Soviet Union and there allies.

That’s Questionable

Before this assignment I completely thought that the way Arab women dressed demonstrated a sign of oppression.  After seeing several examples in the class room and hearing from others I began to wonder.  I started to understand that most of these women simply like dressing this way because it’s part of their culture.  And some have even gone to the length of stating that they feel as if Western women are the ones who are oppressed because of how exposed they are in our culture.  My question is, how is the way Arab women dress not a form of oppression, when if they were to dress like western women they would be shunned upon in their Social communities?

Arab Femininity

Personal – This is a picture of two Arab teenage girls posing after a game of soccer. You can see that they are wearing Adidas, which is a typical brand of soccer clothing. Also the girls each have a soccer ball in their hands. The two most important things in this photo however, is that they are wearing the traditional Arab garbs in order to cover themselves. This has to be extremely hard to do while playing soccer. Arab men would never have to wear anything like this. Also they have dismal looks on their faces, not very typical for young girls before or after a soccer match (even if it was a loss).

Technical – This picture is a snapshot taken during the daytime with a solid amount of natural light. It appears there is a fair amount of falloff upon the faces of the young girls. It is interesting to notice that both girls in the photograph fail to make eye contact with the camera.

Historical – I feel that this a more recent photograph of Arab women. I’m led to believe this because the girls faces are not entirely concealed and because of the name brand apparel which they are wearing. I also noticed that they have to wear clothing which conceals most of their bodies all of the time. It’s crazy to imagine playing soccer in hot weather while wearing such head attire.

Ethical, Cultural, Critical – While culture may defined as “ordinary, the expression of society, in its art, culture, and food. I feel as if attitude could be easily added to that list. Many times I have been introduced to pictures of Arab men who not only look at the camera but in some cases are hostile towards it. It’s kind of hard to look at this picture and notice how the girls aren’t making eye contact with the camera. While this picture is less dramatic, you can still notice the oppression on these girls faces.

Questionable

Lester asks “Will people continue to go to the movies.”  I would like to think so but this all depends on technology and how convenient it will be for people to continue to do so.  But I think it will be a long while before people stop going to the theater.  The movies are more than just a viewer watching a film.  It’s the whole experience, the entire ambiance.  Besides it’s a lot easier  and less creepy to ask a girl to a movie who your trying to get to know as opposed simply inviting her over.

Movie Scene Review

The movie which I chose to review was Kill Bill Volume 1. the scene I chose was the over dramaticized fight scene known as the “House of Blue Leaves”. I felt that this was a phenominal scene where the writer/director,Quentin Tarintino brought several elements into this scene that may be unknown to most viewers.

Personal – This scene is extraordinary. It starts off with Uma Thurman (who’s simply known as “the bride” while her name is kept from viewers the entire movie) cutting of the arm of the person who serves the one who she seeks revenge upon. The scene is extremely violent and over the top. In this blood sprays from extremities as if high pressure hoses had replaced arteries. The lead character in this scene battles appoximately 88 villians and easily defeats them all with her kung-fu and sword fighting skills.

Historical – This movie pays homage to old kung-fu movies and grindhouse films of the 70’s era. Also Uma Thurman wears a jumpsuit which is identical to that worn in Bruce Lee’s 1978’s Game of Death. Furthermore the master sword maker in Kill Bill is played by Sonny Chiba. Sonny Chiba is an old grind house and kung-fu legend and his reference in this movie makes it that much more memorable. Finally, the scene in the House of Blue Leaves is a tribute to the Japanese film Sex and Fury.

Technical – The film uses an array of light and unique settings in order to achieve dramatic effects.  In this particular fight scene the film switches from color to black and white when the sound of a shutter occurs. Then back to color after yet another shutter sound and the blinking of the main characters eyes.

Ethical, Cultural, Critical – This film was extremely violent but what movies now days aren’t?  The movie received an “R” rating so I feel it was ethically acceptable.  The movie as well as this particular scene utilizes several symbols.  The one which appears the most significant symbol is the marking on the sword of a mythological Chinese dog.  This signifier (the dog) signifies that it is a Hatori Hanzo sword which signifies death.  All in all I thought that it was a very creative movie with a great scene, it really took revenge to another level.

Questionable

What’s questionable about the subculture idea to me is that it’s all part of the bigger picture. In other words, certain subcultes comprised make up one culture. But how can so many different areas that are comprised of similar subcultures have different cultures? Maybe one could argue that certain cultures our sub cultures definition lies within the eye of the person who is out side of that culture.