"A Blog In Review"

A final hello to all! It is now time to look back on what I – ahem – we have been discussing thus far, and to perhaps draw some final conclusions on structuralism and its application. Throughout the blogging process I have made clear cases for structuralism and its relevance. It can be seen that through the metaphor of the iceberg, that there are certain deep and surface structures that exist in all medium, from a painting to a movie. What you see is not always the whole story! I have also made it clear that the structures of langue and parole play a large part in governing a medium with the rules of the game (langue) and the way one decides to use those rules (parole).

The first example we encountered was Bond, James Bond. Here it was evidently illustrated that every Bond film and novel follows a very strict, similar arrangement. We had the 9 “moves” within each film and from there could imagine every Bond movie and think of where those scenes exist. I even posted a video of the 15 Best “Bond, James Bond’s” to make it clear that any scene from any movie could be from any of the Bond’s, (if we ignore the actor changes). It is evident that the James Bond series relates directly to structuralist thought. There are the deep structures within each Bond film, and through knowing these prior to watching a movie, the viewer is ensured that they are going to enjoy the film.

Next we encountered sitcoms, a formulaic 22 minutes of television. There are the set 8 character types that I outlined, and from there one can see that almost all sitcoms fall under this structure. Again, the structuralist mindset reined supreme. By understanding what to expect from ay given sitcom, their success is guaranteed (for the most part). The deep structures of the 8 character types relate to us as we understand them because we have seen them before (in other sitcoms). Another point for structuralist thought!

Round 3 were Star Wars and Joseph Campbell’s Hero With A Thousand Faces. In his book, and through a deconstruction by Douglas Mann, it became clear that when there is a story that involves a hero, there is a very distinct structure that these tales tell. The stages of the story exemplify this. This is by far the most shining example of structuralism, as the story of the hero does not only apply to Western media, but myths and tales from across the globe.

Next I gave a little piece of my mind about structuralism, concluding that it has both positive and negative issues. And in my final example, I discussed how videogames could be considered structuralist. Through their content, format and plot many games follow the same guidelines or structures.

Finally, in my previous post I offered possible refutation for structuralism. The most shining issue being that of the ambiguous existence of the unconscious. I believe in the unconscious and so therefore, I feel strongly towards structuralism. I hope through this blog you have gained some insight into structuralist thought and that when you watch further media products you will try to view them with a structuralist mind set. This will hopefully allow you to make your own decisions on media products, making you an active viewer and consumer.

News and Notes: Thanks for reading. Hope you had a blast! I'll end with not a video post but a link to a great documentary by BBC. It address the epic of the Iraq war. How it was fought on the battlefield and within the government. Visit: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrbushswar_2008-03-25

Refuting Structuralism

Now that I have exhausted a large amount of structuralism and structuralist ideology and examples I think it is a good a time as any to discuss possible flaws in the structuralist argument. In this instance I will again turn to Dominic Strinati and a chapter he wrote about some of the key problems. For this he turns directly to Levi-Strauss (picture) and his structuralist arguments. Strinati writes that Levi-Strauss’s ideas, “lack empirical validity” (107) and that his ideas are, “supported by a highly selective and very partial use of examples, that they are simply not based upon sufficient evidence or that they are so constructed as to be resistant to any kind of empirical refutation” (107). I guess I have to support Strinati here, but with hesitation. This is because in the case of any argument anyone may make, they will obviously select examples that support their case as opposed to ones that don’t. So while this claim is valid by Strinati, it can be made for any theory.

Another complaint that Strinati highlights is that Levi-Strauss’s, “ideas are too abstract and theoretical” (107). He argues that Levi-Strauss is too wrapped up in his theoretical “cerebral exercises” (107) and that he does not place enough focus on empirical research. I would disagree here with Strinati. Perhaps, this is true for Levi-Strauss’s research, but I think that through the examples, texts and theories I have cited that there are real, true, empirical and substantial reference points for structuralism. And by outlining these I have made it clear that I am not just taking part in brainstorming or cerebral exercises like Strinati suggests.

Strinati points out two more problems with Levi-Strauss. “First, it neglects the material process of production whereby societies reproduce themselves, and thereby reproduce their cultures. Second, it reduces culture to a mental structure and so neglects its complexity and its historical and social specificity” (Strinati 107). I feel as if Strinati has a point here, specifically his first about cultural reproduction. Perhaps structuralism is not a theory that applies to a person’s deep-rooted unconscious. Maybe as Strinati suggests, it is just that cultures copy themselves on a consistent basis. Maybe there are only a certain set of ideas and they just get repeated because that’s the way culture is. I still believe that this would be structuralism it would just be accidental structuralism.

Finally, and I feel most suitable for the final criticism, Strinati asks how anyone can understand and quantify structuralism if it appeals to our unconscious. Strinati asks, “How is it possible to validate the causal influence of something which is unconscious?” (109). This is a great point and brings back the idea of he iceberg. The deep structure and unconcious being the iceberg that is under the water. Does this exist and what affect does it have. Does the submerged iceberg part really matter? The unconscious is unknown. Does it exist? How does it work? All these claims can lead to answers that render structuralism useless, as there may be no unconscious for structuralist ideas to appeal to. So I guess the structuralist debate boils down to an unconscious belief? What do you think readers? Let me know!

News and Notes: This is hilarious. DRAMATIC LOOK GOPHER!, enough said.

Time to Power Up: Structuralism in Videogames

Hey, Max here with a quick check-in. Today I’ve decided to tackle structuralism in a medium not often discussed, videogames. Videogames are a very new medium and only recently have begun to receive academic acknowledgment and support, and even still it is fleeting support. In many cases it is determined that videogames are not art in the same way that movies, music and books can be. I would argue this is wrong as many newer games are aesthetically pleasing and plot driven enough to rival a painting or movie narrative. Recently, a game such as BioShock attempts to draw on real human emotion throughout the game play. Furthermore, games like Super Mario Galaxy can only be described as “pretty.”

Now with videogames, structures are more apparent within the actual construction and style of game. For example, a first person shooter style game has a very distinct structure. You are the hero of the game and use a first person view through their eyes. There is a main enemy and you need to get to it, kill it, and more times than not, save the world. Now first, one can see that perhaps not on intention, but by accident, these styles of games partially use Campbell’s hero’s journey. Especially the different characters that I outlined in previous posts. Perhaps not all are used but in a game there is typically the hero, a mentor figure, some jesters and definitely a villain. Additionally, in more futuristic style games there may be a special force that you as the main character harness. Now by adhering to a first-person shooter style structure, a video game company can ensure that a gamer would like their game because he or she is already accustom to the first-person shooter style. Leading to a consumer to say, “oh man, another first-person shooter, I gotta get that game.” In the videogame industry however, I would argue that structuralism is important and if anything, crucial. This is because there are set videogame structures that work well for gaming. By using these consistently gamers know what to expect. The flip side here however, is that the first-person shooter style game has been overdone so many times that they have become homogenized and standard. It is important for videogame production companies to utilize not only set structures, but innovate upon these ideas. Examples of innovation (not only in first person shooters) include:

BioShock: In the game you can change the hero’s DNA and the game also offers a choose your own story style narrative

Call Of Duty (any): perfected the war style game

Super Mario Galaxy: Pushed the boundaries of gravity, and 3D in the gaming world

Pong: by default, as the first home gaming system

Rock Band: took music style games to the next level with interactive guitar, microphone and drums

The Sims: First game of it’s type. Allowed players to create a new version of themselves and live out a fantasy life

Spore: A game not released yet but promises to be the most innovative game ever. You create a species and watch it evolve and adapt in a growing environment, starting out as just a spore.

And that’s just to name a few, as many games have helped shatter pre-existing structures.

It can also be noted that videogames are a great example for langue and parole. The langue can be seen as the game itself. The levels, the physics engine that controls the rules of the environment, the ranges of motion a character has, etc. All of these can be seen as the rules that govern the game. YOU are the parole, as you move throughout the game and play, work and operate within the confines of the games langue.

Finally, it can be seen that structures in games are most apparent with games that spawn sequels. For example, the Halo series has become quite structured and standardized. Halo 2 differs very slightly from Halo 3 other than new levels and a few new weapons. On the whole they are shockingly similar as the narrative and game play do not change very much. Bungie (creators of Halo) have mastered a formula, not much different than Campbell and use it to create countless Halo games that amount to huge profits.

An even better example may be the Super Mario series. Here you are ALWAYS the hero, Mario. You ALWAYS have to save the princess. You ALWAYS, encounter the same villain. The only change Mario has ever made is that he has moved from the 2D Nintendo and Super Nintendo to the 3D Gamecube and Wii. Here are the characters that Campbell outlines and their Mario incarnations.

Hero	Mario
Mentor (Magician)	N/A
Goddess	Princess Peach
Villain (the Dragon)	Bowser
Rogue	Luigi?
Jesters & Tricksters	Luigi, Toad
Magical Power	Power of the Mushroom

Clearly structuralism exists within gaming, but to what extent and to what force is to be determined.

News and Notes: Some Baudrillard, because we all love hyperreality!

Into The Mind Of The Blogger...

So you’re probably sick and tired of my preaching. You’re wondering, “does he practice what he preaches? (like my man Barry over there-->) Does he completely believe all this structuralism mumbo jumbo?” And the answer is yes and no. On the one hand, I believe in the inherent structures, the deep and surface theory makes sense to me and I can see it in movie and TV shows. So yes, I believe in the idea of structuralism. However, sometimes I must question its importance and affect. First, the importance of something like structuralism I feel is always questionable. I guess it’s the question of, “now that we know about these structures where do we go from here?” One way to look at it (perhaps the more optimistic idea) is to use these structures both deep and surface in the formulation of new media and stories. Now that we know about the Hero’s Journey, use it to our advantage to create a truly fantastic tale that’s entirely new. Then again, is it actually new, as it just uses they old plot points. Similarly, should we be enraged if a movie production company uses Joseph Campbell’s book to make a movie guaranteed for success, regardless of production value, special effects and so on.

The other side – and the more pessimistic angle – would be that nobody cares or gives a s@%#t about these structures and they are meaningless. At times I think like this. I mean, sure Star Wars uses Campbell, but to what purpose should I care? Shouldn’t I be happy that movie creators are making conscious attempt to make a movie that I’m going to. Is it not a good thing that I’m going to like a movie before I walk into the theatre? Isn’t that the goal of the movie?

I think this whole debate comes down to an age-old discussion of human agency. How much control do WE as humans have and how much are we affected by our societal, cultural and surrounding influence? I am always a supporter of human agency. Maybe this is naïve of me, but I feel like I make my own decisions on likes and dislikes and that regardless of deep structure I can decide for myself. This throws out the whole Structuralist debate then and since I side with structuralism as well, looks like I’ve got to create a dual-model that incorporates both. So what would this look like and how could I explain it? Here goes!

We have these structures, they set up consistent stories, consistent themes and consistent ideas that as humans, we can relate too. But every human is different, everyone has different likes and dislikes so from that perspective we are all affected by structuralism differently (some more, some less). Interesting right? So maybe the hero’s journey appeals more to me than Joe Schmo over there, but maybe Joe Schmo is more in tune with the structure of the romantic comedy or love story? I guess I’m suggesting human agency structuralism, where the informed viewer can understand that these structures exist and appreciate them. In this case, by knowing about the structures, you as a viewer, would gain added enjoyment from the given media as you could discuss these structures and their importance? Now I want to hear from you. What’s your idea of structuralism? Do you feel affected by it? Let me know…..bye for now!

News and Notes: If you’ve never seen Will It Blend, then it’s now time to end that travesty. Classic viral video. He blends an iPhone! Some sort of statement against technology? Maybe! Hilarious? YES!

"May The Structuralism Be With You"

Welcome back world. Today we tackle the pantheon of structuralism in Joseph Campbell’s Hero With A Thousand Faces. Additionally, since his book was first published in 1949, and its over 400 pages, I will also utilize Douglas Mann’s article “The Hero with a Thousand Faces and its Application to Star Wars.” If you havn’t seen Star Wars then your going to have a problem here. Also, you live under a rock and should culture yourself.

It must be noted that in almost all cases I have been against the structuralism in whatever medium I have been discussing. I am still opposed to the idea; however, in the case of Star Wars I think I’m ok with it. By utilizing Campbell’s book George Lucas was able to weave a tale that transcends time. Star Wars will always be popular regardless of time and space. This is BECAUSE Lucas used the hero’s tale that Campbell outlines. So here, structuralism isn’t so awful but when many people start to use Campbell’s book, mimic Lucas’ tactic, then I get concerned. So what exactly is this Hero With A Thousand Faces? Let’s start with an explanation from Campbell of what he’s trying to do.

“Throughout the inhabited world, in all times and under every circumstance, the myths of man have flourished; and they have been the living inspiration of whatever else may have appeared out of the activities of the human body and mind. It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation” (Campbell 3).

Now, in the following 400 pages Campbell outlines all his stages of the hero’s journey. I will use Star Wars as an example as Douglas Mann has outlined them quite clearly. While you read them think of other movies that follow this formula. Moreover, try and see how by using this set of rules of langue a movie writer would easily be able to appeal to our deep structure and unconscious to get us to like said movie or story.

So here are the 17 stages and where they appear in the Star Wars Trilogy. It must be noted that they do not appear in order in Lucas’ tale, but are still all there.

1. Call To Adventure: Luke watches Leia’s hologram on Tatooine
2. Refusal of Call: Luke says he needs to stay and help with harvest on Tatooine
3. Supernatural Aid: Obi-Wan rescues Luke from sandpeople
4. Crossing of the First Threshold: Luke’s aunt and uncle killed, Luke leaves Tatooine.
5. The Belly of the Whale: When Luke, Han and Leia are trapped inside the trash compactor
6. Road of Trials: Light-saber practice, rescue Leia from jail cell
7. Meeting with the Goddess: Luke meets Leia
8. Woman as Temptress: Not Literal here, Luke is tempted by the dark side
9. Atonement with the Father: “Luke I am your father”
10. Apothesis: Luke becomes a Jedi and can harness the force
11. The Ultimate Boon: The Death Star is destroyed (out of order)
12. The Refusal of the Return: Luke wants to stay to avenge Obi-Wan during shoot-out in docking bay
13. The Magic Flight: The Millennium Falcon escapes from Death Star + tie fighters
14. Rescue From Without: The Millennium Flacon shows up during the battle, saves Luke
15. Crossing the Final Threshold: The Millennium Falcon fights a running battle with tie fighters
16. Master of Both Worlds: Luke destroy the Death Star, the force is with him
17. Freedom to Live: Victory ceremony at end of 1^st movie.

(Mann 2008).

So instead of listing The Matrix examples I found a YouTube video that goes through them with clips from the film. It’s the perfect video and a reason I love YouTube and the Internet. The stage names are a little different but the point is still the same. Enjoy!

On top of the stages listed above, there are distinct characters that can be drawn out from the hero’s tale. They are as follows… (with examples from Star Wars, The Matrix, and my own example Lord Of The Rings and again cited from Douglas Mann)

Character	Star Wars	The Matrix	LOTR (my example)
Hero	Luke Skywalker	Neo	Frodo Baggins
Mentor (Magician)	Obi-Wan + Yoda	Morpheus	Gandalf
Goddess	Princess Leia	Trinity	Arwen
Villain (the Dragon)	Darth Vader	Agent Smith	Sarumon + Sauron
Rogue	Han Solo	Tank + Cypher	Aragorn
Jesters & Tricksters	Chewbacca + Droids	Mouse	Mary, Pippen + Gimli
Magical Power	The Force	Control of the Matrix	The Power of the Ring

Now that you have the information to analyze the movie. Take some time to think about YOUR favourite action hero adventure. I bet you all the above characters are present, in fact, I guarantee it. Many will argue that these are just types of people and that you couldn’t have a movie without a hero, a comedian, a goddess and so forth. This is obviously valid but it’s the argument that by having these elements you will like the good movie before you step into the theatre, regardless of its production value, plot, etc. What do you think? Is it good for a movie to make sure I like it before? Or should movies take a chance once and a while? Sometimes the chance pays off, sometimes it doesn’t. But it would be nice if more chances were taken. Also, send me your favourite hero movie with the 17 stages or characters and I’ll post it next time around. Anyways, that’s all for now…..tootles.

News and Notes: A great video from Robot Chicken that's a hilarious Star Wars parody for any fan. Also check out the parody by Family Guy its new and just out on DVD.
Great show and video. Enjoy!

Sitcom: The 22 Minute Menace

Greetings readers! I’m back, this time with a less documented example of structuralism. In my previous two posts I have used some academia to validate my claims. As literature is low on structuralism within pop culture in the manner I’m discussing it, it’s time for some of my own criticism and issues. I’ll return to academia later with Joseph Campbell’s A Hero With A Thousand Faces and it’s application to Star Wars and other hero journey’s like Lord of the Rings and O’Brother Where Art Thou (all great movies and if you haven’t seen them, get off your chair and rent now, actually no, just buy them, you’ll thank me later!)

So who’s the culprit? The offender, the perpetrator, the guilty party, the criminal, the wrongdoer, the villain? (ßLike my use of the synonym tool!) Well, today it’s a plague that has been sucking our lifeblood for my whole life, and many of yours. Today we tackle SITCOMS!!!!!!! Yes, that’s right, you thought you loved these families because they are cute and comedic, but in reality, it’s only because the first ever sitcom and one being developed right now are the same! And these show are insanely popular. Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory are some of the highest rated shows on T.V. (not sure why) and shows form the past like I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Cheers, Fraiser, Roseanne, Fresh Prince of BelAir, Family Matters and many others were all incredible popular at their time. While many of the above titles are finding newfound revival in the TV DVD boom!

Well, let’s lead with this video. Two random people, well not random, I’m sure there important writers, I’ve just never heard of them talking about a sitcom….what do they have to say first? The second speaker, Russ says there is no definition. I think he’s jaded and wrong. But I’ll refute him later



Ok so what’s wrong with the sitcom you’re asking? I mean, their funny, family shows that almost anyone can watch. There is little kid humour (fart jokes, kids doing stupid things, and slapstick style “oops I hurt myself” style jokes), there is sophisticated humour (a la Frasier), there are funny full cast family moments and even an occasional “appeal to the heart” style episode where you have that warm fuzzy feeling leftover. And that’s all fine and dandy. I also find there are always the same sets….living room, kitchen, school, parent’s work, bathroom maybe and then a few different depending on the program.

But what bothers me most is that I found this book, (yea I know I promised no books but I found one!) called The Eight Characters of Comedy: A Guide To Sitcome Acting and Writing and I had to complain about it. Now first, it’s crazy to me that the book has both acting AND writing help. Are they not two different things entirely? I guess they relate, fine, moving on. But in the book Scott Sedita talks about 8 stock characters in Sitcoms. (Note: I didn’t get or read the book but found some snipits on the all-mighty Internet, the site I used was http://www.sitcomacting.com) To me it was bothersome that an entire genre can be broken down into only 8 archetypal characters, to me that’s, for lack of a better word, uncool. Here are the 8 characters and while you read them think of any sitcom, there is a character that is everyone of these people. In fact, IDEA! After every one I’m going to list some examples, for no other reason than it seems fun! Let’s use…..Friends, (a show I was not always fond of, but has grown on me recently…)

1. The Logical Smart One: Ross Geller
2. The Loveable Loser: Chandler or Ross
3. The Neurotic: Monic
4. The Dumb One: Joey
5. Bitches and Bastards: Rachel
6. The Materialistic One: Rachel
7. The Womanizer/Manizer: Joey
8. The In Their Own Universe One: Phoebee & Chandler

As you can see, even though there are some repeats and cross over types, the archetypes fit. I think you can extrapolate on your own for other examples in sitcoms. Now I guess you’re wondering, “Max (if that is your real name), who cares. I like these shows, isn’t that the point?” And on the one hand it is. But on the other, how great is it when a show breaks down these archetypes and formulas and does something entirely new with the genre? Like when a new movie breaks old molds and does something we’ve never seen before? For Example, when Quentin Tarantino made non-linear movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. New thing, very popular, the only downside is now that formula of non-linearity has been copied ad nauseum, to a point where at times it’s just silly when movies do it.
For a sitcom example I would use Arrested Development, a show that was not popular, didn’t draw the right advertising demographic,
was cancelled but has received a lot of DVD and online support leading to rumors of a possible movie. I guess this is a plea to media creativity and the commons. Please continue to come up with new ideas, new ways to entertain and I promise we will watch and support you. I also think media companies need to help here. I know profits and audiences are an important aspect, if not THE most important but how can we put aside a profit of 2 million for a better show that only makes 1.5 million? I don’t know if this will ever happen, but it’s a plea that would lead to better shows. Maybe a show can do both? I would cite ABC’s Lost as one of these. It’s new, innovative, interesting, provocative, challenges drama borders while also making tons of money. I don’t know what the balance is but if others can mimic it please do so. Do you have any suggestions out there Internet? Lemme know…..

News and Notes: So, the YouTube awards are over. Here’s is the site. (www.youtube.com/ytawards) All the videos command a watch without question! I’ve posted what I think is the best one below. But also check out the winner in the adorable category.

The Name's Rosenberg, Max Rosenberg

AAAAAND, we’re back. Hope you enjoyed Foucault and Chomsky. I particularly like how Foucault is so frank about power structures, no sugar coating there!

Anyways, I’m here with the first Structuralist culprit! None other than the double agent, Bond, James Bond.

First off, before I divulge into the plot structure, all the Bond movies have a few repetitions that I have noticed they are as follows:

1. The Gun Barrell
2. “The names Bond, James Bond”
3. “Shaken Not Stirred”

Now, these are NOT the things I am concerned about. They are just Hollywood character gimmicks, they do not appeal to our deep unconscious structures like structuralism suggests. They are catchy things to make people expect certain things from the movies. What is more important here is the writings of Umberto Eco who provides a structuralist analysis of the Bond Films. I was unable to procure a copy of Eco’s writing, so a Strinati summarization and my own paraphrasing will have to do folks!

Ok, so Eco breaks down the Bond novels (and movies by their association and similarity) and his, “concern it to uncover the invariant rules governing the narrative structure” (Strinati 91). It can be seen that what Eco is doing is trying to unearth the ‘langue’ of the Bond series. From there, each movie institutes its own ‘parole’, uses the rules but changes the plot a little. As Strinati explains, “these rules ensure the popular success of the novels and their appeal to a cultural elite. As popular culture, the novels are based upon an underlying structure which makes the popular” (91). So you see, by using this structure, you as the viewer are already set-up to enjoy/like the movie because of these rules that the Bond films use. For Eco, “the 007 saga – a success which, singularly, has been due both to the mass consensus and to the appreciation of more sophisticate readers” (Strinati 91). Strinati continues when he writes, “This ‘narrative’ structure presumably connects at some unconscious level with the desires and values of the popular audience, for each cog or ‘structural element’ of which this machine is composed, is assumed to be related to ‘the reader’s sensitivity’” (91).

So what are these structures in the 007 series? Well, there are 9 of them and here they are! (notice the chess language of “check”) Strinati does note that these elements do not always appear in this order but DO appear at some point!

1. M moves and gives a task to Bond
2. Villain moves and appears to Bond
3. Bond moves and gives a first check to Villain or Villain gives first check to Bond
4. Woman moves and shows herself to Bond
5. Bond takes Woman
6. Villain captures Bond
7. Villain tortures Bond (reveals master plan)
8. Bond beats Villain
9. Bond, convalescing, enjoys Woman, whom he then loses. (Strinati 92).

It must be noted that the recent Bond film Casino Royale does not fit this structure as much. The Woman ends up back stabbing Bond, which is not part of the 9 points. This was purposeful as they tried to make a new style Bond, as Royale was more of an origin tale. Additionally, I presume the new Bond movie, Quantum Solace, will also differ slightly.

Eco suggests that, “there is no basic variation, but rather the repetition of a habitual scheme in which the reader can recognize something he has already seen and of which he has grown fond […] the reader finds himself immersed in a game of which he knows the pieces and the rules – and perhaps the outcome – and draws pleasure simply from the following minimal variations by which the victor realizes his objective” (Strinati 93). I don’t know about you, but this speaks such truth! I mean, I realize that 007 is going to survive, he’s not going to die, he’s going to get the villain but STILL I watch the movie, STILL I like it. Is that wrong? Let me know your thoughts in the comments section. I find that I like watching how Bond is going to get out of his predicaments, and even when all hope is lost he escapes! I guess I’m at a crossroads. I know these structures exist, which anger me. But conversely, I like the Bond movies! AHHHHHH! I think Strinati explains this phenomena when he writes that, “the universal character of the structure which lies behind and explains the popularity of the Bond novels” (93) and “they express a universal structure of basic oppositions which, because it is universal, will ensure popular success” (94). So I guess you as the viewer are as they say, shit out of luck before the first title sequence even comes on! Hope you like James Bond, wait you have no choice!

Again, I will leave off with a final quote:

“The popular success of the Bond novels is accounted for by the idea that the mass audience is unknowingly in tune with the universal themes which are evoked” (Strinati 94).

News and Notes: Also, here is a video that I think summarizes well too! Don’t all these scenes look like they could be from the same movie (well, minus the different actors)!