Disclaimer: The following clip may contain images and language not suitable for children.
This is the opening sequence from the controversial animated film "Logorama." The film, which was released in 2009 and won the 2010 Oscar for Best Animated Short, depicts a graphically violent series of events unfolding in contemporary L.A. What made the movie controversial is that the story is told entirely through the use of corporate logos and mascots. In fact the antagonist is a violent and foul mouthed Ronald McDonald who decides to embark on a bloody shooting spree for no apparent reason, and hold a restaurant full of people (ironically a Pizza Hut, by the way) hostage. Big Boy is cast as an adolescent, hormone crazed, waitress groping menace. And "harassment" is too mild a term to describe the conversation between Regular Pringles and Spicy Pringles regarding the same much abused waitress.
It's easy to see why the brands who created these logo's were not at all happy with this film. The film appropriates their logos to create characters who behave in ways decidedly un-commercial friendly. Generally product placement is a good thing. Product placement in an Oscar winning film is advertising gold. Brands shell out copious sums of money to have their products placed in popular movies or have their logo be briefly displayed in a film. In fact Morgan Spurlock financed his upcoming documentary on advertising imagery completely from the proceeds of product placement in said film. (You can learn more about that one here.) However, in Logorama, brands shelled out copious sums of money to (in attorney's fees) to shut the film down. That is because they didn't want the symbols of their brands associated with such shocking behavior. The filmmakers also faced backlash from some audiences who took offense to the movie's appropriation of heretofore wholesome and iconic mascots.
It is the reaction of those angry audiences that I find most curious. Of course the brands would be irked at the unauthorized re-deployment of their logos. But why should anyone else care if Ronald McDonald is a depicted as a violent sociopath? Or if the Pringles mascot has a misogynistic potty mouth? Perhaps it is the affordances Kress alludes to in Reading Images: Multimodality, Representation and New Media. These logos, symbols of their respective entities, have specific cultural meaning. They are intentionally designed to be appealing and non threatening to as wide a demographic as possible. There is a certain wholesomeness that is inherent in their design, which their creators hope we ascribe to the products that they're associated with. And we have. However, we've also ascribed that wholesomeness to the symbols themselves. Hence when some audiences see these beloved icons behave badly it's unsettling. Logo's are friendly and welcoming. They evoke familiarity and nostalgia. They certainly don't swear or commit crimes...at least not without ruffling quite a few feathers. Check out the full version of the film here.
In a way many of those logos do create a sense of nostalgia, but some of them evoke new meaning for me. Now that I’m more aware of the calorie count, sodium levels, and overall nutritional level of many of the fast food chains, their logos take on a new meaning. From one friendly and welcoming, they do become the menacing figures (in a different way of course and with much less street cred) from Logorama. I'd be interested to hear what Kress says about this type of change from a social semiotics perspective—when “when good logos go bad.”
ReplyDeleteTameka, I want to watch the whole movie but just the clip you posted at the beginning was powerful. You see how corporate America controls the landscape, physically and figuratively. I think it's apropos that Ronald McDonald is a bad guy. Just look at what McDonald's has done to heart-healthy oatmeal. Instead of these companies being up in arms, I think they need to take a long look in the mirror and examine what they're selling and how they treat their employees. But the fact that these companies feel threatened by this movie, proves how powerful their logos are. Very interesting post and I will watch the whole movie as soon as I have time.
ReplyDeleteBawwHaaHaa, that was awesome! Micky D is totally the Joker.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a a book by William Gibson called "Pattern Recognition". In it the protagonist, Case, is so sensitive to logos that she's incapacitated by a figure of the Michelin Man someone placed on her door knob just to torment her. She's more or less allergic to logos and has all logos removed from her clothing before she can wear them. And yet she's a professional "Cool Hunter". Gotta love the Gibson.
here is a link to an interesting segment that was on this weeks Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/06/sunday/main20039775.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea
It relates to the idea of using characters for branding. It is very interesting to think about how we begin to relate to corporate characters. Corporations are using the idea of character development in order to make the consumers more emotionally engaged with their product.
Another interesting artist to look up, who plays with turning the logos into a negative image is Ron English. You should look him up. His website is www.popaganda.com
Tameka, it is surprising--even to the person reacting--to learn the reactions that logos and other symbols elicit. He or she might say, "I didn't realize that I felt that strongly about _______." I had a seminary professor who said that he was at an outdoor community service when a strong wind blew over the flags on the stage. People stomped on the Christian flag in an effort to right the American flag, a symbol that carries strong semiotic value. Ala "Chariots of Fire," it would be interesting to ask the people who rushed to rescue the American flag if they thought that being an American was more important than being a Christian. They probably would disagree, but they have assigned more semiotic value to the national flag.
ReplyDelete