Re-Visualizing the Dangers of Smoking

In 2003, American poster companies airbrushed the Beatles’ iconic Abbey Road album. The reason? To remove Paul’s barely recognizable cigarette. While this was, perhaps, an overzealous move by anti-smoking campaigners, it reflects our society’s recognition that popular culture can promote smoking as a fun, cool lifestyle. Moreover, it reflects an “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” approach for combating the cigarette industry. This approach is often taken to prevent impressionable young adults from smoking. Last week I was pleasantly surprised to see another approach in a Daredevil comic I chanced upon at a book sale. Instead of hiding cigarettes, the artist confronts readers with them as a group of smokers are surrounded by fragments of Surgeon General’s Warnings found on cigarette cartons. Compared to the visuals throughout the rest of the issue, this panel also contains the greatest use of drab, grimy colors. Not a very pleasant picture. While confronting the public with the dangers of smoking instead of hiding them is not unique (indeed, the Surgeon General’s Warning is one example), using the Surgeon General’s Warnings as cigarette smoke and ashes promotes a visual literacy in readers. Whereas one may ignore the cigarette carton’s warning label as soon as she pockets the carton, specters of the warning remain, haunting the smokers. Thus, readers are invited to see the Surgeon General’s Warning as not merely a label to ignore as soon as it is out of sight, but intrinsically linked with smoking itself. In short, the warning is unavoidable.

Image from Daredevil: Wakeup, issue #16 (2002).

“Cool Hand” FBR

Take a moment to read this image.

**In case it the fine print is difficult to read, it says, "According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, animal research has helped extend our life expectancy by 23.5 years. Of course, how you choose to spend those extra years is up to you."

Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) is an organization founded during the early 1980s to promote animal research. It was around this time that the animal rights movement was starting to build momentum. When I first encountered this image, I was struck by how easily the FBR was able to “play it cool.” Not only does the FBR acknowledge that its research has served its enemies well, it does not really care if they spend those extra 23.5 years angrily protesting. The FBR does not seem interested in getting all flustered over their enemies.

This image is striking to me because the FBR’s unwillingness to argue with the activists effectively stonewalls any animal rights counterargument. Instead, it opens the protesters up to ridicule for fighting against something that has improved their lives. A reasonable question to ask, then, is: How is someone supposed to argue against an image such as this? By all accounts, if one has faith in science and wants to live longer, it is pretty compelling.

I think one can effectively counter-argue this poster by revealing how it presents a “cool hand.” To begin with, the credibility of the scientists is bolstered by their precision—note that they have added 23.5 years, not 23 or 24—despite the fact that no one, save, perhaps, very young children reply that they are “[x] and a half” years old. For adults half a year, age-wise is rarely given any consideration. The image itself also serves to bolster the FBR’s credibility in several ways. First, the accusations on the pickets are rather mild. “Animal research” carries far less charge for moral outrage than vivisection. Initially, vivisection referred to experimentation on live animals, basically cutting up dogs to see how the blood pumped through their veins and arteries, but now it is frequently used to describe any form of animal testing. Not only are the accusations rather mild, they are all verbal. Typically, animal activists employ images of suffering animals to advance their argument. Yet, none of the signs contain a picture of a suffering animal. Thus, the scientists are able to render the animals invisible, and by extension, their experimentation. By not depicting animals, experiments, or even the scientists themselves, the FBR allows viewers to concentrate on the group of animal activists, who are pushing against a police line with its partially visible words, “Do not cross.” Thus, our 1st Amendment right notwithstanding, this image suggests that animal activists are dangerous to (American) society. But it is a qualified danger; the ridicule that the image opens the activists suggests that they are naive. Finally, there is the FBR’s use of a black and white photograph instead of color. By using black and white, the image creates a distancing effect between the viewer and the subject, thereby making the activists more difficult to identify with.

Ultimately, by understanding how the FBR builds its own ethos while dismantling that of the animal rights activists, one can recognize the FBR’s poster for what it is—a “cool hand.”

(Note: To be sure, I do not want to claim that animal rights activists possess a monopoly on truth. Rather, I am more interested in how the FBR manages to construct a powerful ethos.)

Save the (Silent) Children and Animals

We have all seen them. The commercials on television asking for one dollar a day. When I was younger, these commercials were exclusively directed toward children in third world countries. Today, the lions share of them are now devoted to abused cats and dogs. In many respects, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has effectively troped the Christian Children's Fund's (CCF) strategies. Not only do these commercials share the same formal qualities, but a NY Times article reported that the ASPCA commercial starring Sarah McLachlan raised $30 million alone--ASPCA's annual budget is around $50 million! (While I cannot find any figures revealing how effective CCF commercials are, I suspect that lately the ASPCA has been more financially successful.) In this post, I want to draw attention to the similar portrayals of children and pets in these commercials. More importantly, however, I want to begin questioning why these similarities matter. To jog your memory, here are two standard commercials produced by each:

Christian Children's Fund
ASPCA

Perhaps the most obvious similarity is the request for a small amount of money to improve the life of a suffering child or animal. In both cases, the children and animals are portrayed as dirty, disheveled, and needing love and medical treatment. Another similarity is the photograph that the donor will receive (although this particular CCF commercial does mention this, they and other child sponsorship organizations, e.g., Compassion International, are famous for it). Despite the ASPCA's nonreligious orientation, they echo the religious underpinnings of the CCF commercials through McLachlan's song, "In the Arms of an Angel." Even the cages in the ASPCA commercial are reminiscent of the fences that the children often hide/stand behind in the CCF commercial.

A favorite technique used in both videos is a close-up shot of the face. Indeed, the CCF's narrator and McLachlan aside, one could argue that the eyes of the children and animals do all the talking. Yet, notice, too, that neither the animals or children say much of anything. Having watched a number of these CCF commercials, I can attest that one never hears a child speak, except as some unintelligible background noise. The same goes for animals, albeit for more obvious reasons. Thus, in both commercials, these suffering children and animals are completely spoken for by another.

The ASPCA's imitation of the CCF commercial reveals a lot about our society's portrayal of children. Indeed, by noting their similarities one is better able to recognize the extent to which children are spoken for and seen as needing assistance. To be sure, anyone who has been around children understands that they do need some guidance. Children do not recognize their limits and often hurt themselves. What is troubling, however, about this commercial is that it does not bother to listen to children, to hear their (side of the) story. When children in the commercial speak, it is unintelligible and generally off-screen. Similarly to animals, children are meant to be seen and not heard. When one considers that the individuals producing the commercial have the power to edit anything a child might say, and thereby use it to the CCF's advantage, this critique is even more damning. It's not simply that the CCF is trying to control the childrens' story. They do not want the children to vocalize it.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

*At this point, it is difficult for me to generalize how common this "silent-child" portrayal is, though I suspect that it may be common technique for humanitarian groups.

**I also suspect that some readers may contend that the children are unable to speak English. Hence, the silent treatment. However, having sponsored several compassion children years ago and gone on mission trips, I know that foreign children often know how to speak English. Indeed, when it comes to learning a new language, children have an easier time than adults. Thus, if the CCF wanted to, they could have found a child say something intelligible to an English-speaking audience.

***To be sure, there are a lot of variables at play in this commercial. For instance, race and gender play an important role. Feel free to comment about these below if you want. However, for the sake of better understanding child identity I have decided to limit my discussion accordingly.

"Canada's Shame"

Please Note: This 45-second video contains graphic images.

In my last post I pointed out how PETA’s reliance on spectacle can lead to the invisibility of the animal. Today I want to focus on a brief video PETA produced in which the animal is visible. If there is an iconic image of the animal-rights movement, it may very well be that of a Canadian hunter about to club a baby seal. The startling contrast between the seal’s cuteness and the carnage left by hunters looking to sell a seal skin coat greatly contributes to PETA’s appeals to save the seals. In this post, I explore the significance of the video’s music and cutting, and how the video shapes the identity of baby seals and hunters.

The video’s opening music underscores the baby seals as tranquil animals at peace with nature. The woodwind score is light, ethereal, and happy. One could easily imagine it serving as the background music to a scene of the countryside in spring--that is to say, emphasizing nature's rebirth. This mirthful music, however, shifts to the steady beat of a drum after a helicopter flies over a baby seal. Before examining the significance of the drum beat, it is important to briefly note that the camera angle of this helicopter shot positions the helicopter as though it were a predator overcoming its prey (the seal). The speed and grace of the helicopter stands in direct contrast with the clumsiness of the seal as it ambles toward the viewer.

For most of the video, the drum beat falls on the exact same moment as the cuts between scenes (the only exceptions are during the written text). The first time we see a hunter, his hakapik makes contact with the seal at the sound of the beat. While this theme is not developed in every instance, the drum beat may connote hunters swinging their hakapiks, thereby connecting the drum beat with violence. A metaphorical type of violence also exists in the connection between the drum beat and scene cut, inasmuch as the viewer’s gaze is abruptly cut short with each pounding of the drum. Significantly, the first few clips of a hunter hitting a seal are some of the bloodiest images in the bunch. These first few clips quickly drive home the point (no pun intended) that the violence is disturbing. They also help the audience imagine the spray of blood during distant shots.

Finally, it is worth examining the portrayal of the seals and hunters. As noted above, the seals are seen as tranquil, cute creatures. They are also portrayed as fully cognizant of the danger they are in. This is suggested by the seal scream and the blood-red “Canada’s Shame” icon. In this icon, the baby seal is shown craning its neck up in recognition of the hunter. More importantly, it has its mouth open wide, as though it were screaming in terror or pleading for its life. Not only are the hunters portrayed as violent, the scene of one slipping and falling in his eagerness to kill suggests that they are also clumsy. The emphasis on clumsiness or incompetence in animal abusers is a common strategy employed by animal rights activists. Beyond serving to refute those who would argue that hunters, scientists, farmers, etc., kill animals efficiently so as to minimize pain, it undermines the ethos of those who hurt animals. It is hard to respect someone who cannot do his or her job properly.

Vegan Love and the Word Made Flesh

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the most well known animal rights organization today. Playing no small role in PETA’s fame is its frequent use of spectacle, which tends to confront viewers with animal abuse or titillate them with scantily clad women. The photograph above, from their Valentine’s Day “Fur out—Love In” tour in the Midwest, is clearly an attempt at the latter. Viewers are likely to first notice the banner that proclaims “Vegans Make Better Lovers” and the two “lovers” (models really) wearing only lingerie while kissing. The coats worn by the woman and teenage girl, who hold the banner behind them, provide a clue as to the current chilly temperature (indeed, the “lovers” are also wearing gloves).

For anyone familiar with the “rule of three,” whereby you repeat a message three times to ensure that it is processed by the recipient, the attempt to correlate a vegan diet with better lovemaking may be seen as a success. This image, however, belies a fundamental flaw in PETA’s attempt to make their rhetoric "sexy." Although this is part of their “Fur out—Love In” tour, nowhere in this photograph is any mention made against wearing fur. The likelihood that one might intuit an anti-fur message from gazing on nearly naked models is rather slim. In their attempt to make animal rights "sexy," PETA has lost sight of the nonhuman animal. Perhaps the banner women are frowning because they notice this.

It may be worth considering Lady Gaga's outfit at the 2010 MTV Music Video Awards. While her decision to wear animal flesh was not to protest animal abuse, I think that it provides a useful contrast to PETA's attempts to make animal rights "sexy." Granted, sex appeal is still an important part to Lady Gaga's meat dress. Nonetheless, her outfit manages to confront the viewer with the raw flesh of nonhuman animals. In a largely ambivalent blog entry on Gaga's dress, Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder and president of PETA) noted, "The stunt is bringing lots of people to PETA.org to download a copy of our vegitarian/vegan starter kit, so I guess we should be glad" (PETA Files, 9/13/10). Whether PETA will begin imitating such apparel is unlikely. PETA should be mindful, however, not to lose sight of the nonhuman animal while trying to make animal rights "sexy."

Photos from: Peta.org; Dailystab.com