Structuralist Theory Mock
According the Claude Levi-Strauss, texts convey their meanings through a system of binary oppositions. Evaluate this structuralist theory. Refer to the set episodes of Humans and The Returned in your response. [30]
There are many representations within 'Humans'. Firstly, they present Anita from a body bag, showing that she is essentially in captivity, being held without freedom or free will, which is already a demonstration of a binary opposition. When Anita is first presented as the bag is unzipped, it is presented as a spectacle, she is first and foremost judged by her superficial qualities, such as attractiveness. This is further backed up by how the camera pans down to her posterior as Joe drops back, walking behind her. This blatant show of sexuality and objectification shows how women are generally represented within this series. As Anita is a Synth, some of the male characters may assume that it is okay to sexualise her, after all, she doesn't have emotions, and comes with an 18+ booklet. This line of thinking also falls in with Bell Hooks feminist theory, Anita is of Chinese descent, and therefore she is even further oppressed and sexualised, as she is firstly a woman and secondly a person of colour. Furthermore, she is essentially soulless, a blank slate until she is bonded to Joe, after which she essentially leaves the grasp of the institution that had previously captured and enslaved her, and joined the family. The idea of the modern day nuclear family is present here, and this is diametrically opposed to the faceless institution. Within the institution itself, the mise-en-scene has a large focus on a sanitary, hospital-like and slightly sinister appearance, all of the rooms and shots are well lit, and it appears to resemble something out of an Orwellian nightmare, with various synths being placed around the premises doing specific jobs such as chopping food, 'a fancy one', as it is referred to by the family. This brings about the ideas of another binary opposition; appearance vs. reality, the institution is laid out in the most pleasing and 'safe' way - there is no room for the mind to wander about whether all of this is ethical, considering that the synths are made to be as human as possible, they are just presented in the most consumer friendly way as possible.
The whole setting of this scene is very futuristic, the synths are dressed in identical and basic garments, almost like something that would be seen out of an old sci-fi movie. The family, on the other hand, are dressed and move more naturally, an organic sense that is portrayed well by the actors, this directly conflicts - and in effect, diametrically opposes the synths, portraying a sense that 'the future is now', and the past and the present are at arms with each other. The family, however, do not seem to mind this, as they wilfully go about their business of buying a Synth (Perhaps this works as an allegory for the slave trade), unknowing about the darker issues within the institution, such as Anita being a synth that has developed free will, and she has been captured and sold off, sent out to auction without her consent, which furthers the allegorical nature of this show.
I believe that Claude Levi-Strauss' theory of structuralism works well within this brief clip, as there are many pieces of the narrative that can be diametrically opposed to each other, all of the binary oppositions, such as the ones stated above, help to add and further the meaning in the show, and this leads to creating a strong narrative, the most pertinent of which being the idea of man vs. machine. While this is a topic that has been covered almost to death within science fiction, I still think that it is interesting how Humans puts an interesting spin on it, I think that the idea of having your free will suppressed and being sold into the captivity of an unknowing family is an interesting plot device, and it works well both as an allegory for slavery, considering it can be paired with both classic and contemporary slavery, as well as almost a warning for the future, because ideas like this and the pursuit of creating life is very dangerous in and of itself, and this can be seen all over the short clip I am analysing, synths lined up in a warehouse with no free will, easily replaceable (which can be seen within the first episode) creates an interesting contrast between young and old, as Anita has been purchased without the knowledge of Laura, the mother of the family (thus setting up another binary opposition, leading to conflict between those two). The conflict between Anita, a synth who has been purchased (representing her as a utility, or an appliance - further objectification) and Laura, a working mother who is trying the best for her children despite not being able to be present at home all the time is portrayed in a sense that Laura doesn't want her role to be replaced by technology. This plays into Sigmund Freud's theory of the Madonna / Whore complex. Anita is seen as motherly and caring above all else, she reads the youngest child stories and does domestic work around the house, with a sexuality that has been suppressed by her manufacturers, yet can be revealed through other functions (The 18+ booklet for example). By all intents and purposes, she falls heavily into the Madonna figure. On the other hand is Laura, she isn't as sexualised by the characters as much as Anita is, yet she tries to be as motherly as she can be, despite working from home. In comparison to Anita however, who is listed as a 'basic domestic model' by her salesman (yet again showing oppression and having gender roles imposed on her), she isn't as caring or present for her children, who appear to show slight resentment for her. All of this also brings into question more conflict between captivity and freedom, having someone's will imposed on you and your own stripped away poses the question of whether they can still be seen as human, an ideology that the institution seems to adhere to completely. "When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man." quotes Anthony Burgess, and this is a quote which I feel is directly correlated to the Synths in this show.
On the other hand of this quote however, are the synths who do have a choice, such as Niska, Frank, and Fred. While they are separated in the episode, they typically group together, alongside Leo. Leo adheres to the typical constructs of masculinity, as demonstrated by Liesbett Van Zoonen's theory. He is the active male protagonist of the story, never seen in the same place twice, he shows great strength and is seen as the 'Alpha Male' of the group, all of the free-thinking synths still look up to him, through way of intra-diegetic gaze, they respect and do not sexualise them, which Leo reciprocates in return. This is a clear diametric opposition to some of the other male characters, such as Joe, or the male seen in the brothel. They do not follow many of these constructs, and therefore are less masculine.
There are many representations within 'Humans'. Firstly, they present Anita from a body bag, showing that she is essentially in captivity, being held without freedom or free will, which is already a demonstration of a binary opposition. When Anita is first presented as the bag is unzipped, it is presented as a spectacle, she is first and foremost judged by her superficial qualities, such as attractiveness. This is further backed up by how the camera pans down to her posterior as Joe drops back, walking behind her. This blatant show of sexuality and objectification shows how women are generally represented within this series. As Anita is a Synth, some of the male characters may assume that it is okay to sexualise her, after all, she doesn't have emotions, and comes with an 18+ booklet. This line of thinking also falls in with Bell Hooks feminist theory, Anita is of Chinese descent, and therefore she is even further oppressed and sexualised, as she is firstly a woman and secondly a person of colour. Furthermore, she is essentially soulless, a blank slate until she is bonded to Joe, after which she essentially leaves the grasp of the institution that had previously captured and enslaved her, and joined the family. The idea of the modern day nuclear family is present here, and this is diametrically opposed to the faceless institution. Within the institution itself, the mise-en-scene has a large focus on a sanitary, hospital-like and slightly sinister appearance, all of the rooms and shots are well lit, and it appears to resemble something out of an Orwellian nightmare, with various synths being placed around the premises doing specific jobs such as chopping food, 'a fancy one', as it is referred to by the family. This brings about the ideas of another binary opposition; appearance vs. reality, the institution is laid out in the most pleasing and 'safe' way - there is no room for the mind to wander about whether all of this is ethical, considering that the synths are made to be as human as possible, they are just presented in the most consumer friendly way as possible.
The whole setting of this scene is very futuristic, the synths are dressed in identical and basic garments, almost like something that would be seen out of an old sci-fi movie. The family, on the other hand, are dressed and move more naturally, an organic sense that is portrayed well by the actors, this directly conflicts - and in effect, diametrically opposes the synths, portraying a sense that 'the future is now', and the past and the present are at arms with each other. The family, however, do not seem to mind this, as they wilfully go about their business of buying a Synth (Perhaps this works as an allegory for the slave trade), unknowing about the darker issues within the institution, such as Anita being a synth that has developed free will, and she has been captured and sold off, sent out to auction without her consent, which furthers the allegorical nature of this show.
I believe that Claude Levi-Strauss' theory of structuralism works well within this brief clip, as there are many pieces of the narrative that can be diametrically opposed to each other, all of the binary oppositions, such as the ones stated above, help to add and further the meaning in the show, and this leads to creating a strong narrative, the most pertinent of which being the idea of man vs. machine. While this is a topic that has been covered almost to death within science fiction, I still think that it is interesting how Humans puts an interesting spin on it, I think that the idea of having your free will suppressed and being sold into the captivity of an unknowing family is an interesting plot device, and it works well both as an allegory for slavery, considering it can be paired with both classic and contemporary slavery, as well as almost a warning for the future, because ideas like this and the pursuit of creating life is very dangerous in and of itself, and this can be seen all over the short clip I am analysing, synths lined up in a warehouse with no free will, easily replaceable (which can be seen within the first episode) creates an interesting contrast between young and old, as Anita has been purchased without the knowledge of Laura, the mother of the family (thus setting up another binary opposition, leading to conflict between those two). The conflict between Anita, a synth who has been purchased (representing her as a utility, or an appliance - further objectification) and Laura, a working mother who is trying the best for her children despite not being able to be present at home all the time is portrayed in a sense that Laura doesn't want her role to be replaced by technology. This plays into Sigmund Freud's theory of the Madonna / Whore complex. Anita is seen as motherly and caring above all else, she reads the youngest child stories and does domestic work around the house, with a sexuality that has been suppressed by her manufacturers, yet can be revealed through other functions (The 18+ booklet for example). By all intents and purposes, she falls heavily into the Madonna figure. On the other hand is Laura, she isn't as sexualised by the characters as much as Anita is, yet she tries to be as motherly as she can be, despite working from home. In comparison to Anita however, who is listed as a 'basic domestic model' by her salesman (yet again showing oppression and having gender roles imposed on her), she isn't as caring or present for her children, who appear to show slight resentment for her. All of this also brings into question more conflict between captivity and freedom, having someone's will imposed on you and your own stripped away poses the question of whether they can still be seen as human, an ideology that the institution seems to adhere to completely. "When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man." quotes Anthony Burgess, and this is a quote which I feel is directly correlated to the Synths in this show.
On the other hand of this quote however, are the synths who do have a choice, such as Niska, Frank, and Fred. While they are separated in the episode, they typically group together, alongside Leo. Leo adheres to the typical constructs of masculinity, as demonstrated by Liesbett Van Zoonen's theory. He is the active male protagonist of the story, never seen in the same place twice, he shows great strength and is seen as the 'Alpha Male' of the group, all of the free-thinking synths still look up to him, through way of intra-diegetic gaze, they respect and do not sexualise them, which Leo reciprocates in return. This is a clear diametric opposition to some of the other male characters, such as Joe, or the male seen in the brothel. They do not follow many of these constructs, and therefore are less masculine.
Comments
Post a Comment