Jane Denson, 10/1

        After our class discussion of Walter Benjamin, I would argue that I have a better understanding of cultural theory as we know it and further study it. His analysis of mechanical reproduction seeping its way into other industries and areas of life was perhaps what struck me the most. Reading his work for the second time, I feel as though his dissection of the roles that photography and cinematography play in mass reproduction and imitation was rather enlightening of the bigger picture of Postmodernity. In his text, he essentially insinuates that this phenomenon can feature a political charge and must not be observed with an absent mind, which points to the notion that we should not be consuming mass reproduction without thinking critically of it and what it offers beneath the surface.

        

        As someone who has a deep passion for film, Benjamin's observations and theoretical insight into the world of cinema have made me much more aware of the texts I engage with. Lately, I seem to always look for elements of foreshadowing, symbolism, character tropes, etc. whenever I witness any film. It actually has become a fun activity for me, especially with horror works in particular. Speaking of the horror genre, I believe that there is a correlation to both Benjamin's ideas and our class' collective perspective on the images we viewed. In film, it becomes clear that in (mainly) the horror genre, reproduction and the notion of authenticity manifest through sequels. If you look at any slasher franchise, many people would go as far to say that sequels put them into an early grave. This likely stems from the following movies either cheapening the authenticity of the original or damaging what made the original so great in the first place. Not only that, but the debate regarding this topic is even more polarizing when it comes to remakes, which are argued to completely undercut the authenticity of the original film.

        The final piece of Benjamin's writing that I want to touch on from last class is this quote: “[the camera] permits the audience to take the position of the critic, without experiencing any contact with the actor” (Benjamin, 1935, p. 42). Here, I feel that it is important to mention that this implies that the audience is taking on the gaze of the camera when they view a film or televised program. It is this idea that helps us recognize and grapple with the notion of voyeurism, as well as how it infiltrates the cinematic realm, since it appears as though a majority of consumers of these types of text do not realize what the camera is actually accomplishing. I know that from my studies of films from the 1920s-1940s, voyeurism, or the (sexualized) objectification and observation of a certain person, social group, or thing, was a central aspect of most, if not, all of them.