Semiotic Print Advertisement Analysis

The advertisement I have choose to analyze is an ad to stop smoking. The image shows two cigarettes upside down with quite a large amount of smoke coming from them. The denotative level of meaning that comes from this image is that it's just two cigarettes and that smoking is bad for you. But the connotative level of meaning is that its a symbol of the twin towers on the day of the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001. 

This symbol can be interpreted all over the world as this image of the twin towers has been seen everywhere. We can even see in the image how one of the cigarettes is burning quicker than the other further representing the twin towers. The cigarette on the left is representing the north tower which the plane crashed into at 8.46 a.m, and the cigarette on the right represents the south tower that the plane crashed into at 9.03 a.m. The syntagmatic axis is very important here. If the two cigarettes were in the opposite order it wouldn't look very like the twin towers the day they got hit so people could take a different meaning from the image. 

The large amount of smoke coming from the cigarettes is a signifier and the signified is the image of the smoke that came from the twin towers on that day. The blue background of the image also further indicates that this is a symbol of the twin towers as it represents the skyline in new york that day. This blue background is on the paradigmatic axis. If you took out this blue background and replaced it with a different color like red or yellow it wouldn't look like the new york skyline and therefore it could give it a different meaning. 

Everyone in the twin towers who was above where the ash is in this picture died where the people below the ash had a chance to survive. This could be related back to get people to stop smoking where the people who keep on smoking the cigarette further will die but if they stop now they have a chance of survival. 

You could also look into this further in terms of myths that are present in society. These myths are also culturally specific. The world trade centre would have been seen as a symbol of economic might and represented the elite and powerful in America and New York. Back in the 1960's smoking would have been associated with powerful businessmen and seen as a sign of style. Most notably, advertising execs in Madison Avenue which we can see in the TV series 'Mad Men'. But now smoking is no longer stylish or associated with the workplace just like the twin towers no longer represent the powerful in America. The terrorist attacks showed that America is weak and cigarettes can be associated with the weak also. 

At the very bottom left hand corner of the ad we can see some writing. It says 'Terrorist related death since 2001 11,377 + tobacco related deaths since 2001 30,000,000'. This could be something that would really hit home with some people. Smoking related deaths are preventable. The ash that fell from the sky that day caused a lot of people breathing problems whereas on a daily basis people are still choosing to put this into their bodies. 

I think this is a very controversial ad as it would bring back lots of painful memories for some people but I also think it's a very powerful ad and it would definitely get the message across to others.

Sources:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0913_TVsymbol.html

http://www.canada.com/stylish+smoking+sign+times/7754257/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

Semiotics

This week we revisited semiotics from first year and then looked at it in a bit more detail also. Semiotics can be defined as the study of signs but it can be applied to paintings, advertisements, posters, films, songs, etc. We use semiotics everyday without even thinking about it by using gestures, e.g. tapping your wrist with your finger where a watch should be could signify to someone that they are late. As a media student I need to be able to look at semiotics within texts as the construction of meaning, whether this is a preferred meaning or an authored meaning. Semiotics relies on a shared societal and cultural understanding of conventions. For example if we see a film trailer that shows us funny clips we go to see that film expecting it to be funny. If we went to see it and the film was scary, people would get a shock because this is not the accepted semiotic conventions. This is communicated through arrangements of music, lighting and camera shots. Here are two examples of comedy film trailers made to look like thrillers.

The Hangover

Dumb and Dumber

Margritte makes the point that we forget that signs and symbols are all around us because we see them as 'things'. He states that an image or a sign of a 'thing' is not the 'thing' itself. We generally don't take the time to look at the signs and symbols for a deeper meaning or understanding.

There are different levels of meaning:
Denotation is the most immediate level of meaning, the basic or literal meaning.
Connotation is the second order of meaning. It reflects values that are attached to a sign. Likely to be culturally specific.

According to de Saussure signs are organsied into codes in two ways:
A Paradigm is a vertical set of units from with the required sign is selected.
A Syntagm is the horizontal chain into which units are linked to make it meaningful.

Advertisements use culturally desirable paradigms to get people to buy their product. Viewers know that if you buy a product you will not be like the person portrayed in the image so advertisers need to be clever with their use of signs to make the product look desirable to the audience. They also have to ensure that these signs adhere to the cultural conventions of the audience. In my next blog I will look at a specific advertisement in more detail.

Interviews - a case study

The interview I'm using as my case study is Dr.Phil interviewing Dina Lohan, the mother of troubled Hollywood actress Lindsay Lohan. I've taking the first 20 mins of this interview to analyze. Before the interview begins a VT is played of Dina where she summarizes her life with her kids and her husband, who apparently abused her, and claims to be 'just a normal mom that juggles everything'. She then says the purpose of the interview is to set the record straight because there are so many stories out there about her and her children and she wants people to hear her story and nobody else's. She says she wants to shed some light on herself and on Lindsay. It's very much pushed from the beginning that this is an exclusive interview and that this is something thats happening for the first time. I think all of this is used to draw the viewer in and let them know what to expect. But then the interview itself takes a completely different turn and becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. Dr Phil admits himself at the start that what he thought would be a normal in depth interview turned into something entirely different.

When the interview begins everything seems normal. Dr.Phil tells Dina that he wants to give her a chance to tell her story and set the record straight so people know who she is. Dina then seems to 'stall' by asking 'Are we to camera now, we're rolling?' She then goes into some detail about her past and turns to the camera and says 'Can we cut?' and she covers her face. She then asks again 'Is this rolling?' Dr.Phil tries to relax her by telling her to take a deep breath. I think she has gone into this interview with an agenda of making herself look like a victim. She talks about domestic abuse but because of how 'strange' her behaviour is, I feel that the audience won't connect with this or have sympathy for her. She comes across like she is drunk or on drugs during this interview.

At around the 7 min 30 sec mark Dr.Phil summarizes what Dina has said already about her relationship with her ex husband. I think he does this so the audience can get an understanding of what she has said. He is forced to operate under the constraints of her behaviour so he needs to summarize for the viewer.

At the 8.30 mark Dr.Phil asks her what was the lowest point. She then starts crying and covers her face and asks can they stop because she doesn't want to be on camera, but then she continues to answer the question making it look like attention seeking, playing the victim again (agenda).

The next question he asks her she tries to avoid by saying 'next question' but he just asks the same question again and she answers it. He doesn't let her get away with not answering the questions. He's firm with her but tries to make her feel comfortable. She then asks can she go home and he tells her she can do whatever she likes. You can see here that while he's not letting her get away with not answering questions he's also not willing to put up with this behaviour, as he reminds her that she was the one who wanted to do this interview to put everything behind her. He stays very relaxed and encourages her to keep going or she will regret it.

After this he then asks her what she wants to talk about, trying to make her feel in control, but she says you tell me you have the list. She then continues to talk about her ex husband saying he pays no child support and sees Lindsay as 'the goose that lay the golden egg' and that he never talks about his other children. Her agenda here is to make her husband look like the bad guy. We can then see how Dr.Phil is being neutral and wants to show the viewer both sides to this story by telling her that that's exactly what her ex husband, Michael Lohan, says about her, that her relationship with Lindsay is financial and she uses her.

At 11.50 Dr.Phil summarizes again what Dina came to talk about. She says she doesn't want to talk about something and he calls her out by calling back to her all the reasons why she wanted to do this interview. She tells him that she's being honest and he says 'no your not', he doesn't let her away with anything. From this point on he calls her out on everything she's doing. He tells her she's using words she doesn't know the meaning of. She calls him 'you people', and he responds by saying he's a highly trained professional, he's knows how to interview people and that he's not the media. He asks her again why is she here. He knows this interview means more to her than it does to him.

She tries to avoid questions again by commenting on his shoes so he calls her out again. He tells her that everything she is doing is a 'dodge' and she deflects everything. He summarizes how she keeps stalling asking about the cameras rolling and he calls her a 'phony' and a 'fraud'. At this point she sticks her finger up at the camera. This is around the 16 min mark. The interview continues where she keeps interrupting him and she keeps trying to put across her point or agenda that she just a normal person and she continues to play the victim by saying it's 'hard'. He describes her as 'flitting' around.

Throughout this interview we can see the interviewer using formulation because of the constraints they are under. You can also see how the interviewer is neutral. He tries to keep her calm and relaxed while also calling her out on what she's doing. I think by doing this he is getting the audience on his side. We can see erratic behaviour from the interviewee where she is avoiding questions by crying, playing the victim, changing the subject and stalling. She is also pushing her own agenda. But the interviewer doesn't let her get away with this. The interviewer in this case comes across as the better person.