By Andrea Fahmy (anfahmy@vassar.edu)
I bet you’ll never guess what happened this Sunday.
Well, you’re wrong. It was the Superbowl, of course!
I thought since we’re all taking this lovely class on Semiotics and Mediation, it would be cool to unpack our favorite part of this famous American pastime–the commercials.
The Chrysler 200 and the Volkswagen 2012 Passat both came out with successful commercials this year. Looking through the linguistic lens Chandler provides for us, we can see how semiotics plays an integral role in the effectiveness of advertising.
Check out these videos and keep reading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuhQdQov6IQChandler says, “While images serving such communicative purposes may be more ‘open to interpretation’, contemporary visual advertisements are a powerful example of how images may be used to make implicit claims which advertisers often prefer not to make more openly in words” (49). In chapter two, he addresses how advertisements mediate between reality and the representation of reality: “As advertising, propaganda and commodification set in, the sign began to hide ‘basic reality’. In the postmodern age of ‘hyper-reality’ in which what are only illusions in the media of communication seem very real, signs hide the absence of reality and only pretend to mean something” (81).
Keeping these two quotes in mind, what “implicit claims” are these advertisers making through the representation of their product? Why is it more effective to hide explicit meaning and rely on tacit signification? If we agree with Peircian’s triadic model of the object (what is represented), representamen (how it is represented), and interpretant (how it is interpreted), we follow the assumption that meaning derives from interpretation. So, to what interpretation do these commercials lend themselves?
First, both of the commercials feature iconic (not in the semiotic sense), well-known characters—Eminem and Darth Vader. It’s not just any man driving the Chrysler down the street, it’s the worldwide-famous American rap artist, whom a vast majority of the population is going to recognize. The ad is drawing on Eminem’s pre-established value as a sign, just like the Volkswagen commercial uses the reputation of Star Wars’ Darth Vader as a “worldwide pop culture phenomenon” to promote their product. Neither of these characters are inherently linked to either car brand, but the automakers create those associative ties in order to sell not just their product, but an ideology. “People attach ‘symbolic values’ to television sets, furniture and photograph albums which are not determined by the utilitarian functions of such mundane objects” (55). The objects themselves do not provide interpretative meaning–this is culturally prescribed in a conventionalized sign system. In this way, the material entity of the car is transformed into the sign of a status symbol.
Besides the characters, what other sign devices do the advertisements employ to market their products? The commercials combine a variety of factors to flesh out the aesthetic nature of the ad–like music, word choice, and images. Music, in particular, I think is a fascinating topic of discussion. Chandler classifies music under the category of “imputed contiguity,” an emotionally-evocative, non-referential sign. How is music used in these commercials and for what purpose?
Jumping off what someone above me said about not having a common understanding of signifiers: the Crystler commercial’s signs become a lot more interesting if you know a little bit about Eminem. Knowing that he’s from Detroit and that, moreover, the song that is playing in the background of the commercial is the Oscar winning song from the barely-fictionalized biopic about his rise to fame deepens the tension between respectability and staunchness that the car is supposed to symbolize, the heart of the American dream. The very opening of the ad roots not only asserts the power of the car by associating it with a traditional and outdated view of blue-collar honesty and the American dream, but also with the intro of a song that depicts a man’s prayer, at his lowest point, to become someone rich and famous–which is the story of Eminem that the movie and the song depict. The song, the color desaturation of the visuals, the rags-to-riches story that is Eminem’s life–all of these associate the car with one of the most fundamental, unattainable, and problematic concepts in the country.
The tones of the commercials are strikingly different, and I think that a look at the two companies paying millions of dollars for these ads to be aired may help. First, Chrysler. This commercial seems like it should come from Chevrolet or Ford with “its the hottest fire that makes the hardest steel, that hard work, and conviction,” inspiring feelings of pride and determination. But the message of self-advancement devolves with the ambiguous phrase, “when it comes to luxury, its as much about where it’s from, as who it’s for. Now we’re from America, but this isn’t New York City.” Chrysler’s motivations aside (not much relation to Denver, whereas Denver is Chevrolet’s headquarters) the who of “who it’s for” implies that “where it is from” (the brand, foreign or domestic) is just as important as the person who owns the car. It becomes about you, and the people of Detroit, fighting for the commitment to luxury.
These conflicting symbols create a serious tone as scenes of infrastructure and American flags are flashed under and instrumental of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself.” Chrysler’s signs have resounding undertones with the workforce that “built America” but there is the lather of luxury, ultimately unattainable to many of these people, starting at just $20,000. Second, Volkswagen. The commercial is affective; the German motor company was able to hit a soft-nerve with Super-bowl fans. The symbol of childhood dreams, often unfulfilled or becoming realized through parenting, works well with the allure of the “magic” push-to-start feature on many new luxury cars. But this is not hard to watch and you laugh at the end, enthused with the child. Not as much with the Chrysler commercial; you are left with uncertainty, unable to interpret the symbols and the company’s justification in using them.
*I just wanted to add, after I watched it again, that the narrator says “folks…who don’t know what we’re capable of” over footage of the figure/ice skater, & that evoked thoughts of the struggles of women athletes against gender bias: are they trying to create a connection between feminist struggle and their own against stereotypes of poverty & non-luxury?
and blue-collar working people. The words “steel,” “hard work and conviction,” the painting of factory workers and the statue of the iron fist drew associations, for me, with communist imagery. Advertising propaganda making associations with propaganda. Yet somehow it doesn’t come off as un-American, but rather makes you think of 19th and early 20th Century America, when the Midwest was an active center of factory production. Also, by superimposing the word “luxury” simultaneously with footage of a well-dressed black man walking down the street, it would seem as though they are trying to replace outdated mental associations in their viewers.
The choice of Eminem is another powerful symbol. But it’s not just Eminem the man they are trying to associate their cars with, but the movie 8 Mile. In the movie, starring Eminem, a guy from Detroit of low socioeconimic status makes it through hard work and staying committed to his aspirations. The symbol drawn is an allegory between the plot of the movie and the intended transformation of their company. The choice of song, the Grammy winning “Lose Yourself” is also a powerful sign and helps to further cement all of the above symbols: it is Eminem’s most successful single, and was used in the movie soundtrack.
But after all, the “signs hide the absence of reality and only pretend to mean something.” Has Detroit changed in the way they’re representing it? And does that even matter, if the new symbology is strong enough?
The Chrysler commercial is attempting to change the symbols that American’s associate with Detroit – crime, poverty, and to reinvent it as a city of true American values of hard workmanship,
I found it really interesting that the main message in the Chrysler commercial focused on luxury, but that the images focused on power. The statue of the fist, the man holding up the golden globe, the tall buildings (made to appear taller by focusing the camera so that it looks up at the buildings from the ground), and the other images do not really seem to have very much to do with the idea of luxury. The narrator starts off by asking what Detroit knows about luxury, then launches into a description of how tough Detroit is. He then begins talking about luxury again without making a clear connection between the power of Detroit and luxury. Power and luxury can be seen as symbols of prosperity and are generally viewed as positive. Thus, because the two ideas were placed in juxtaposition to each other, the viewer may associate them with each other (and with the product) even though there is no real link between the ideas. The viewer may not even notice that the ideas do not have a logical connection.
The narrator also makes a point of saying that “This is not New York City, or the Windy City, or Sin City,” giving these cities a negative connotation and defining Detroit by what it is not, a concept Saussure uses to explain language and signs (a word or concept is defined by what it is not rather than by what it is). In doing so, the narrator implies that Detroit is better than these other cities and tries to make Detroit a symbol of luxury and power. The narrator also compares Detroit to America in an attempt to evoke patriotic feelings (another positive association as the commercial is geared toward Americans and was broadcast at an event that is itself symbolic of America).
Furthermore, the words at the end of the commercial, “Imported from Detroit,” are another attempt to form an association between the car and luxury. The word “imported” generally has connotations of luxury as things that are imported are often rare or special in some way because they have to come from somewhere else. In this manner, the commercial plays with the psychology of linguistics, and, as Saussure says, so much of linguistics is psychological and is based on mental concepts and interpretations.
What struck me most about the Chrysler commercial was how it was completely detached from reality. Why did Eminem just walk in on a chorus singing his song? We don’t know. But it doesn’t matter, because apparently this is Detroit, where music and pride are more important than a rational chain of events, or so says the commercial. This idea harkens back to Chandler’s discussion of our “suspension of disbelief” when viewing media, and the strange paradox of how we can accept events on the screen while knowing they’re not real (Chandler, 66).
But one who might live in Detroit, for example, might not be so easily dazzled by this flashy car commercial; likewise, soldiers viewing glamorized depictions of military action as portrayed in recruitment campaigns might be somewhat disdainful of the portrayal. Are certain people immune to “suspension of disbelief” in certain cases, and does the same apply for subjective interpretation of other forms of signage, not necessarily media-based? This would imply that many signs possess empty signifiers (Chandler, 78), and are in fact based more on “free play” (Derrida, 79) and subjective perception. Though, admittedly, it is more difficult to argue about the exact nature of Detroit as opposed to the Apple logo.
Speaking as someone who wouldn’t have recognized Eminem without help, I think this aptly demonstrates some of the trouble you can get into when people do NOT share a common understanding of signifiers. To me, the fact that the commercial featured Eminem was irrelevant because I didn’t make the connection until after I finished watching the commercial. I was far more interested in the statue imagery, particularly the things like the hanging arm with a fist, which to me summed up the “power” themes the ad was carrying; and also the images of dilapidated buildings and low-income neighborhoods. I suppose the contrast between the nice, shiny car and the degraded buildings in the background was supposed to make the viewer visually connect the dots, sort of evoking the idea that the ones who best understand comfort are those who have little of it; which in itself is a particular kind of ideology which might not transmit to everyone who sees this commercial, if the viewer is unfamiliar with this idea or not used to thinking of things with those terms. Symbology is probably the most basic way to communicate, as it tends to go past all sorts of verbal filters that most adults have developed and go straight for some deep-seated core ideas, but this ad is a good one to take apart to see where things can go wrong as well.
First watching the Volkswagon commercial, I thought it was just cute and gimmicky–mixing two things people love (cute kids and Star Wars). While Volkswagon may have chosen Darth Vader as a familiar sign that many viewers can identify with, I would guess there is some relevence to the music associated with Darth Vader.
Like Andrea said, music can evoke strong emotions that could persuade potential customers to feel a certain way about the product. It could go either way; the music has an imposing, powerful feel that could leave viewers with an image of the car as something strong and important. They could like the embodiment of power the car represents. On the other hand, what if a viewer feels very strongly about the evil character of Darth Vader and is affected negatively by the music played during the commercial?
Eminem says “this is Motor City, and this is what we do.” Who ‘they’ are and what they ‘do’ is unclear. Are they the residents of Motor City or are they Motor City itself (“this is Motor City”)? It may be that what they ‘do’ is simply be the Motor City. But what is the Motor City? Why… it’s us….
Is what we have here a series of empty signifiers referencing themselves in a circular fashion? Maybe… not exactly. Because this quick analysis ignores the imagery and music that charges this commercial. The images partnered with the music (two medium mixing… something we haven’t talked much about yet), evoke feelings of grandeur, determination, pride (and much more) that kind of float about until Eminem provides signifiers loose enough to capture these evocations. In this way, the words signify all that the images and music do, emotively, but also historically, socially, economically, materially — which is a lot, too much to talk about here.
And note that not once is “Detroit” spoken in the Chrysler commercial. If speech is privileged over writing, could this be a tactic to impose the nostalgia and grandeur associated with “Motor City” upon a signifier that signifies a less savory concept of Detroit?
I remember watching the Eminem commercial and snorting a little at the idea of associating Detroit and luxury.
I mean no offense to Detroit and its population, but just as Eminem and Darth Vader have accrued value as signs, so has Detroit. I’ll refer you to the recent events in Detroit, Oregon, which narrowly voted against a ballot that would change its name to Detroit Lake. (http://tinyurl.com/6acjg9w) Residents of the city wished to dissociate themselves from the crime, poverty, and failing auto industry that Detroit is symbolic of. That the residents of a completely different city felt the effects of Detroit, Michigan’s negative connotations is a testament to the power of Chandler’s “symbolic values”.
Can Detroit successfully reinvent itself as a producer of luxury?