Firstly, it should be stated that in my short twenty one years I have managed to rack up a relative abundance of life experiences, but among those I cannot count having ever seen more than a single episode of Law and Order, as such I may not carry the required level of certification for this post.

The title “Law and Order” itself implies a lot about the defining ideology of both the show and the viewers that watch it (it isn't called “Crime and Disorder”). The show is presented as a window into how the system ensures that everybody adhere to a basic set of socially accepted principals and rules of conduct at a base level. People who watch the show do so on some level because they agree with this code, however the show is not actually about the difference between right and wrong but the procedure involved with ensuring everybody who begs to differ from that code gets their just desserts.

While the show is told from the perspective of those who enforce the law in its various stages, the viewer retains the role of “television viewer” and thus the social identity of the observer at the 'moment of decoding.' “Television viewer” is probably in itself an entire demographic at this point. Because, as Stuart Hall mentions, the show is created by many different people subscribing to many different ideologies and, at its level of consumption, is received by only one person, the message taken by the consumer at the 'moment of decoding' is often either a reconstructed version of the original message or even something completely different from the message which was originally intended. The medium of television often differs from other media in that it requires a large number of people to progress from initial conception to the television screen and therefore has the potential to be far more ambiguous in terms of the message sent out than media produced by a single person or a handful of people. This often has the effect of creating a message which panders more to a dominant ideology and which, when re-constructed by the consumer, assumes the ideology particular to that particular viewer's particular vision of whatever the dominant ideology is, varying by demographic and personal taste.

Hall states that “certain codes may, of course, be so widely distributed in a specific language, community, or culture, and be learned at such an early age, that they appear not to be constructed- the effect of an articulation between sign and referent- but to be naturally given. Simple visual signs appear to be given a 'near universality' in this sense, though evidence remains that even apparently 'natural' codes are culture-specific” (511). Police/legal procedural shows are not a new phenomenon and those who create them probably give them much thought- at the moment of encoding- to how the show is interpreted, but not to how that interpretation reflects on the culture performing the interpretation. In order for a show to be successful it must maintain a large enough viewing base to either garner money from advertising or carry a strong enough reputation that people are wiling to pay to see it. For this reason viewers of such a widely successful show such as “Law and Order” usually take two different readings of a viewing: the one in which the dominant message of 'Law and Order' is accepted wholly, or the aforementioned one in which it is accepted partially, with the viewer placing his own personal vision of the dominant ideology on top of the one put forth by the show, usually dictated by demographic or personal preference. People who reject outright whatever message the show puts forth probably will not watch it, but these people must be in a minority in order to account for the show's success.

Dominant ideology is not therefore, in terms of the larger cultural picture, determined or perpetrated at the 'moment of encoding' by the creators of television-based media but at the moment of reconstruction by the individual consumer. Hall states that “Traditionally, mass-communication research has conceptualised the process of communication in terms of a circulation circuit or loop. This model has been criticised for its linearity sender/message/receiver for its concentration on the level of message exchange and for the absence of a structured conception of the different moments as a complex structure of relations. But it is also possible (and useful) to think of this process in terms of a structure produced and sustained through the articulation of linked but distinctive moments- production, circulation, distribution, consumption, reproduction. This would be to think of the process as a 'complex structure in dominance...'” (508.) Law and Order is therefore part of a complex cycle through which dominant ideology is refreshed and re-interpreted at the moment of decoding and then re-produced at the moment of encoding.

http://www.zoom-in.com/media/graphics/blog/content/soprano_poster_season6B.jpg

Barthes would respond to this image from CNN by disassembling it into two categories: that which is actually in the picture and the myth which arises from examining the picture. “Every object in the world can pass from a closed, silent existence to an oral state, open to appreciation by society, for there is no law, whether natural or not, which forbids talking about things. A tree is a tree. Yes, of course. But a tree as expressed by Minou Drouet is no longer quite a tree, it is a tree which is decorated, adapted to a certain type of consummation, laden with literary self-indulgence, revolt, images, in short with a type of social usage which is added to pure matter.” Barthes would say that the image has speech, says something, isn't just a collection of objects and people framed from a particular vantage that all happened to be in the same place at the same time. The mere fact that the image was taken from CNN asserts this. It was most likely used to further illustrate events described within an article which, without the image, would have said far less.

It is possible to deduce the image's meaning by examining various cultural signifiers that existing therein. Principally, we have an Iraqi flag painted on to what remains of a recently destroyed wall. An American soldier peeks around the corner of the section of wall over a large automatic firearm. Beyond him there is rubble and what appears to be some kind of guard tower, abandoned. Further still there is a road with a single individual standing on it, and beyond that another wall. The denotative code here has to do with what the scene says to Westerners exposed to the Iraq war. Regardless of one's opinion of that war, several aspects of the image say the same thing. The photograph is definitely a view of the Middle East as seen through the photographic lens of the West, not the other way around. The lone soldier finds himself standing in something of a mess. Destruction is a major theme here, as is confusion. The soldier appears to have poked his head around one destroyed wall only to be confronted by another wall. There are no enemies in sight, just an enormous mess. The linguistic code here is quite interesting: the only text is the Soldier's name on his helmet. Unlike in most war photos the soldier is not anonymous, but rather the most familiar looking part of the frame. The other text is the writing which is part of the Iraqi flag; a national icon but incomprehensible to one who does not speak the language and has no prior knowledge of the country.

Barthes asserts that myth is primarily a semiological system. He also states that within any semiological system exists a relationship between a signifier and a signified. What exists in this image is a relationship between the aspects of the image itself and the culture which interprets them, which led to the creation of the image itself. However it is not so simple as that. “Take a bunch of roses: I use it to signify my passion. Do we have here, then, only a signifier and a signified, the roses and my passion? Not even that: to put it accurately, there are here only 'passionified' roses. But on the plane of analysis, we do have three terms; for these roses weighted with passion perfectly and correctly allow themselves to be decomposed into roses and passion: the former and the latter existed before uniting and forming this third object, which is the sign. It is as true to say that on the plane of experience I cannot dissociate the roses from the message they carry, as to say that on the plane of analysis I cannot confuse the roses as signifier and the roses as sign: the signifier is empty, the sign is full, it is a meaning.” The same applies to the image here. The image is essentially as mentioned above just a collection of objects and people viewed from a particular angle which all happened to be in the same place at the same time long enough for a photographer to capture it. However, the purpose of capturing the image exists within the image but also existed before the image. Like the roses, the image can be separated into the image of the soldier itself and its cultural connotations. The image and its meaning are at the same time inseparable, because in many ways the image is its meaning, and certainly would not exist without it.

In his essay Rhetoric of the Image Roland Barthes states that only images from advertisements will be studied, “because in advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional.” Images from advertisements present an interesting study because all of the image's subtle language has not only been placed there on purpose, but has been put there with mathematical precision designed specifically to elicit reaction from potential consumers. This is an aspect of advertising which everybody is aware of on some level but which people do not necessarily consider to the degree that it actually exists. Literally every single part of an advertisement is designed to further the thought the ad is trying to instil. In visual ads such as the printed one for The Sopranos, the denotative and connotative codes are inextricably linked. “The linguistic message can be readily separated from the other two, but since the latter share the same (iconic) substance, to what extent have we the right to separate them? It is certain that the distinction between the two iconic messages is not made spontaneously in ordinary reading: the viewer of the image receives at one and the same time the perceptual message and the cultural message” (36). This is especially true of ads for entertainment which exists within a visual medium such as television. It is sometimes true that icons of pop culture become so ingrained in society's collective conscious that they become signs for themselves; in this particular ad Tony Soprano is a sign for Tony Soprano.

Upon closer examination one can dissect the image into the various messages it puts across. The ad's denotative code consists of the image of Tony Soprano, a suit wearing male pattern baldness sufferer, looking both contemplative and suspect while the Statue of Liberty and the sun's reflection on the Hudson are visible over his left shoulder. Some geese can be seen just over his right. In terms of connotative code the expression on Mr. Soprano's face implies shady dealings and a cold, calculating nature. His suit implies power, success: this character's aforementioned shady dealings have been prosperous. The statue and the geese speak of immigration, the cultural melting pot of New York City, as well as opportunity and of a slightly warped interpretation of the 'American Dream.' The monochromatic color scheme implies drama, as well as the contrast between good and evil. It is unclear which side Tony chooses but his eyes are looking away from the source of light in the image. The cloudy skies show the beginnings of a storm and appear to reflect whatever Tony is brooding on in a full blown pathetic fallacy. There is little text on the page apart from large black letters which say “The Final Episodes,” echoing the ad's epic tone, broadcast dates, and the only part of the image not printed in black and white, text reading “Made in America.” The double entendre here fortifies the slightly corrupt take on the 'American Dream' and ads a touch of dark humor. It is also probably worth noting that nowhere on the ad does the phrase “The Sopranos” appear. It may be that James Gandolfini's character is ingrained enough into the collective pop culture woodwork that at this point no introduction is required, but it certainly signifies that the ad is not aimed at people who have never heard of The Sopranos before (such people probably exist), and implies that the final episodes will not be anything new, implying rather that what the happy viewer already knows, loves, and expects from the show will come to a dramatic close.

Barthes also mentions how the ad he discusses, an ad for Panzani brand food products, attempts to emphasize the signs which represent Italy. “A second sign is more or less equally evident; its signifier is the bringing together of the tomato, the pepper and the tricoloured hues of the poster; its signified is Italy or rather Italianicity. (34)” Even more interestingly, Barth points out that these things do not establish actual “Italianicity,” but one as defined by an international vision (the ad is French) of what Italianicity might mean, and a vision based largely on tourist stereotypes at that. Barthes then mentions that even the name itself is designed to implant thoughts of Italy in a non-italian consumer base, as the name Panzani would not actually stand out amongst Italian consumers. “An Italian would barely perceive the connotation of the name, no more probably than he would the Italianicity of tomato and pepper.” (34) This is interesting when applied within the context of the Sopranos ad. Just as the Panzani ad attempts to convey a sense of Italian-ness, the Sopranos ad attempts to convey a sense of both Italian-ness and American-ness. Just as the name Panzani would not stand out amongst Italian consumers, neither would “The Sopranos.” The name is similarly tailored to evoke thoughts of Italian-ness amongst international consumers. The Statue of Liberty similarly conveys Americana, New York City, and the cultural hodgepodge therein. An Italian family Family in New York City combined with the image of James Gandolfini evokes at least in terms of American entertainment images of The Sopranos.

Two Quotes from The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction:

“...for the first time – and this is the effect of the film – man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.”

“Magician and surgeon compare to painter and cameraman. The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web. There is a tremendous difference between the pictures they obtain. That of the painter is a total one, that of the cameraman consists of multiple fragments which are assembled under a new law. Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers, precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art.”

The novelty (or perhaps contrivance) of The Blair Witch Project can essentially be likened to its unique use of perspective. The first of the two quotes above from Walter Benjamin's essay places the reception and thus interpretation of art onto the perspective from which the recipient views the piece in question. In a live performance, the essence of Macbeth is inseparable from that of the actor who merely portrays him. With the advent of film as a pervasive form of mass culture the camera forms a sort of mediator between the performance and the audience: much of the meaning of the events transcribed on screen is dictated by the camera. In doing so a sort of self-conscious detachment is created, alienating many of the visceral elements of watching a film that arise from experiencing a situation first hand, and effectively altering what Benjamin refers to as the 'aura' of the performance.

This, however, is the nature of film in general. In the second quote Benjamin compares film to painting as much as to live performance. As with painting, another art in which a mediator exists between artist and consumer, a filmmaker generally tends not to replicate reality exactly nor obfuscate it completely, but rather to create a representative version which may or may not speak to deeper, more personal truths, either about the artist or about the human condition, or is at least entertaining. Where the two mediums differ is that painters are aware of this divide and actively employ it as a part of their trade. On the other hand, filmmakers arrive at this place by attempting to come as close to reality as possible, or by filtering reality as recorded by the tools of their trade to their own specific vision. As such, film can in many ways be seen as the art of channeling reality. Thus, to a modern audience film would appear the more relevant medium.

Where The Blair Witch Project comes into all of this is that it attempts to remove, at least partially, this mediator between the audience and the performance. Ironically, it goes about achieving this by making the audience aware of the camera's presence. Most films are shot and edited to be viewed as though the camera weren't there, giving the audience a sort of god's perspective. This enables the viewers to witness all of the proceedings effectively but unrealistically, as though looking through a portal into an alternate universe. Blair Witch counters all that by being as self-conscious as possible. The camera becomes a sort of silent fourth character carried along by the actors and actively telling the story to the audience, making the experience of watching the film more akin to the experience of being told a story by an actor in a live performance and resurrecting some of the aura that Benjamin is referring to. This worked perfectly, so well that upon watching the film many viewers expressed feeling cheated, as though they had been convinced something had happened which hadn't. This may of course have had a lot to do with the advertising campaign, which I believe for awhile actually claimed Blair Witch comprised of actual recovered footage.