FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Eyes Put a Spell on You

During the last couple of weeks, I’ve been bemused at my own confusion regarding the logo for the Discovery Channel’s Ted Koppel-hosted 9/11 program “The Price of Security”. Every time I saw the logo on the subway or on TV my first thought was “do those eyes belong to Koppel?” Each time I would assure myself that no, it didn’t make sense to put him in there, and I would move on to whatever next image was being beamed to me. This quick and easy interpretive moment was short-circuited this Sunday as I leafed through the first section of the New York Times and noticed two full-page ads not far from each other: one was the ad for the ABC controversial mini-series “The Path to 9/11″(A8) and it bears a striking resemblance to the other, for “The Price of Security” (A18).

This repetition made me slow down and tease out some possible significance (I still don’t think they’re Koppel’s peepers). How did they get to be virtually identical (eyes peering through a crack in a US Flag object)? Did ABC and Discovery (who do not share the same owners) use the same marketing campaign? One need not lapse into an explicitly conspiratorial explanation, a scoffing dismissal of staff laziness, a simple coincidence theory, or a Jungian analysis of synchronicity and collective unconscious to ask: “what’s going on in these images?” The following analysis may seem excessive in its speculation, but given this remarkable repetition in the world of security imagery, excess is precisely what is needed. The flood of imagery over the last few days begs for immediate attention.

An Alchemical Tale of “Two” Logos.

Who are these shadowy subjects? In each ad the eyes belong to a hidden identity. In the Koppel ad, they seem to belong to a generic white man, one whose graying, well-groomed sideburns indicate some kind of State agent. The ABC ad is more ambiguous-do those piercing brown eyes and rough fingernails belong to a terrorist menace or to a law enforcement agent? For now, let’s assume the latter (the expression in the eyes is almost identical), but I’ll return to the former possibility at the end of the analysis.

Let’s begin with the US Flag, which seems to be a background but is in actuality a broad foreground. We can see the significance of this expansive foreground with a simple substitution. Instead of the Stars and Stripes, what if a checkered keffiyeh surrounded the eyes? We would be led to identify the figure as a Palestinian, even Muslim, threat. What if it were less idiosyncratic, say an all-black background? We could still find our Islamic fundamentalist if we so chose, now in the female form of the niqab. But we could also expand this public secret figure to include Subcomandante Marcos, a generic Black Bloc participant, even a Ninja warrior. But somehow the US Flag does not signify in this way-it disappears into the horizon even more than the blackest night does. Here is the first mystery of the logo: how does something so blatant disappear so easily?

We are left with the eyes. Locked into an almost hypnotic gaze, we wonder: who is this mysterious generic white man, and why is he looking at us? In the Discovery ad, he is peering through venetian blinds. Is he peering into someone’s home? This is how we would typically imagine surveillance operating, with all of the attending anxieties over violations of freedom and privacy. But given that these are blinds, it makes more visual sense to say he is peering out from the inside. Is this a stakeout? Maybe. More likely a “safe house”, and not only in the technical sense of an official law enforcement sanctuary (in which the eyes would belong to a guard).

Rather, it is the mundane safe house. Perhaps a new Homeland Security motto is in order: “every house a safe house!” The figure thus does not present a threat to us-he protects us from threats. Instead of being a source of anxiety, the eyes belong to someone who is going to secure us. Here we face the second mystery: the transmutation of a violator into a shield.

Also, we need to point out the obvious (in fact, because it is hidden in plain sight). The figure is hiding behind the flag. One could extend this to say he is wrapping himself in the flag, but there’s no need to go this far in our reading: it is enough to note that the figure is not protecting the Stars and Stripes. One need not be a nationalist to appreciate the significance here. This shadowy state agent stands between the safe house inhabitants and the flag; he is a mediator. And in ABC’s case, this job may require tearing the flag itself. But this interpretation is haunted by its double: as viewers of this ad we are positioned outside of this safe house (looking into the eyes of the mediator). We are the threat. We are on the other side of the flag, which now stands between us and the shadowy protector. Putting these two readings together we can stake a claim on the third mystery: we are in two places at the same time. We need to be protected from ourselves.

Now we can briefly return to the alternate interpretation of the ABC ad’s eyeballs, and insert the terrorist figure behind red white and blue curtain number one. This opens a new can of worms, if not a Pandora’s box. While I leave the intricacies of this puzzle to other players (much more rewarding than Sudoku, I find), I will end with an opening gambit. Interpreting ABC’s figure as a terrorist at first blush highlights the difference from Discovery’s counterterrorist agent. This black/white contrast is not as stark as it appears. The legacy of counterinsurgency colors our reading here, where now we see an image of mimicry, where one has to know and become a guerrilla to fight them.

Somewhere in these mysteries, in the solve et coagula, in the hall of mirrors embedded in the pages of the NYT, we can begin to understand how the simplest pedestrian images display the public secret processes defining politics and ourselves today. More importantly, knowing what we’re up against allows us to sharpen our conceptual tools into weapons.

JACK BRATICH is assistant professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University. The current issue of the journal Cultural Studies (a special issue devoted to Homeland Security) contains an article by him titled, “Public Secrecy and Popular Security: A Strategic Analysis.” In his spare time, he is an amateur cultural cryptologist. He can be reached at jbratich@rci.rutgers.edu

 

 

More articles by:
July 19, 2018
Rajai R. Masri
The West’s Potential Symbiotic Contributions to Freeing a Closed Muslim Mind
Jennifer Matsui
The Blue Pill Presidency
Ryan LaMothe
The Moral and Spiritual Bankruptcy of White Evangelicals
Paul Tritschler
Negative Capability: a Force for Change?
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: ‘Social Dialogue’ Reform Frustrations
Rev. William Alberts
A Well-Kept United Methodist Church Secret
Raouf Halaby
Joseph Harsch, Robert Fisk, Franklin Lamb: Three of the Very Best
George Ochenski
He Speaks From Experience: Max Baucus on “Squandered Leadership”
Ted Rall
Right Now, It Looks Like Trump Will Win in 2020
David Swanson
The Intelligence Community Is Neither
Andrew Moss
Chaos or Community in Immigration Policy
Kim Scipes
Where Do We Go From Here? How Do We Get There?
July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail