I am so relieved to read abut the decision made by U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker to strike down California’s Proposition 8.  I’d still like to think the proposition only passed in the first place because the language was confusing.  Wait, vote ‘yes’ to allow marriage, right?  No, no, dear.

However, what I found most interesting about the story, and what might be most telling (and horrible) about the way California’s population really feels about the issue, are the two contrasting photographs run by the two most important newspapers on this issue:  the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times.  Significantly enough, these are also the only major papers to post a single photographic image with their lead story, as opposed to the more balanced “photo slide show” option  chosen by the Sacramento Bee and the Orange County Register.

So in this post, my contribution to the subject will be a close reading of these two photographs and an analysis of how they might reveal some insight on how this issue is perceived by these two cultural poles of Californian culture.

The San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Chronicle Prop. 8 Story Photograph

The lead story in the San Francisco Chronicle was accompanied by a photograph of Molly McKay and John Lewis encircled by cameramen holding their lenses from a high angle as Molly high fives a disembodied arm, which frames, in a nearly perfect triangle, John’s open-mouthed expression of joy, while a smaller Asian woman peers up at Molly with smiling eyes.

There are a lot of interesting things to talk about with this image, but I am going to focus on the three aspects that I find most powerful in communicating its ideological position: the camera angle, and the color scheme, and, most importantly, the disembodied arm giving Molly a high five.

The Camera Angle

The image is taken from a high angle, and as a result, it is absolutely crowded with people, most of whom have their arms raised to hold a camera.  There is very little white space, or space inhabited by inorganic material (the buildings in the background).  What you see is alive, whether it be a tree, a human being, or some yellow grass in the distance.  This may seem insignificant, but I believe it adds to the overall message the image sets out to convey.  The focus of the image is on life and the central (literally) victory of the moment.

It is also significant that Molly is under the gaze of various camera equipment.  In a photograph that is so crowded with bodies, one can’t help but notice the mechanized apparatus’ being held in the air.  It is as if to say, the mechanical, neutral eye of the system is focusing on Molly from a higher position (after all, the courts rule higher than an individual citizen), while the only person in the image looking directly at her is notably looking up at her (and also notably a minority woman).

I’ll apologize in advance if I’m veering too much into the realm of metaphor and symbolism while reading this image.  I don’t believe that any reading of any text can escape that.  Molly McKay is not a real person as far as this issue goes.  No one knows her favorite breakfast cereal or her taste in movies and really, no one cares right now.  She and John are merely symbolic elements in a push to change a threatening law that affects a lot of people, so I’m treating them that way.

Albrecht Durer's Christ with Doctors

It is beyond the scope of this blog post to get really into this, but I just wanted to bring up another image that this photograph instantly reminded me of.  Notice how, in the painting by Albrecht Durer on the right, the central figure is surrounded by people and disembodied heads, and how the main “event” of the painting, could be said to be the strange configuration of hands.

I’m not going to say Molly is depicted as a Christ figure exactly, but… it’s something interesting to think about as far as reading the image is concerned.

The Color Scheme

Here, it is as though the photograph were a planned portrait and I think it’s amazing how easy it is to read.  The bodies surrounding our central figures are all wearing dark and muted colors.  This has an almost chiaroscuro effect on the image.  Against the earth tones and dark colors of her surrounding suits and cameras, Molly stands out in all white, victorious.

Historically, the color white has signified innocence or purity of heart (like the white knight).  How interesting that this image captures Molly’s celebration as she’s shrouded in white clothes, as though to signify that Molly is an innocent participant in an injustice.

The Disembodied Arm

This brings me to the part of this photograph that I find the most interesting: that crazy arm coming out of nowhere to give Molly McKay a high five.  I won’t go into the details, but there is this concept in film studies that Kaja Silverman writes about called “suture.”  I’m sure a very interesting paper could be written about this image and a more thorough treatment of this concept but for the purpose of this blog post, let me just summarize what I need you to know.

When you look at an image, you have a one perspective (the angle the image is taken from).  The viewer is seamlessly bound (or, “sutured” if you will) to that point of view and projects him/herself into the position behind the camera.  Lots of interesting stuff can be deduced as a result, particularly having to do with gender, but lets just say that here, in this image, especially since that disembodied arm is gender neutral, the viewer is sutured to the celebratory high five and bound to the completion of that slap (one could even argue that the slap hasn’t occurred because we still have a ways to go in terms of the judicial process of negating this proposition).  The viewer is clearly meant to be included as a participant in this victory, as s/he is sutured into the body of the person giving Molly a high five.

A Moment of Victory

So there you have it: the image in the San Francisco Chronicle reads pretty easily as a celebratory moment full of human connection and life, championed against an indifferent mechanism of justice, and a dark background, and thoroughly inclusive of the viewer.  I would venture to read the ideology of this image as pretty straightforwardly in favor of the court’s ruling today and therefore in favor of gay rights in general.

The Los Angeles Times

Now look at the single photograph run above the lead story in The Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times Prop. 8 Story Photograph

I’d say the two images broadcast a very different message.  I want to look at three of the same aspects in this image and compare them to the image above: the camera angle, the color scheme, and the fragmented body parts.

A Different Camera Angle

One of the most obvious points of difference between the two images is the camera angle.  Where, in the first photograph, we see a high angle, full of bodies, the photo in the L.A. Times shows a low angle with sparsely few people.

Traditionally, a high angle is interpreted as giving its subject authority.  This kind of angle makes people appear taller and often exemplary stand-ins for an ideal.

With that in mind, how are we to interpret this image?  It would seem that the most important image in the frame, at least the one with the most real estate, is the Philip Burton Federal building in the background.  Its hard angles and solid concrete ascend beyond the edges of the image.  It is the embodiment of mathematical order and authority, with its intricate rectangular windows and graph-like design.

The stark angularity of the window frames on the building’s exterior convey a subtle but very telling message in this image.  Notice which objects conform to the building’s lines and which ones conflict with them.  Though the American flag is in an imperfect shape, the top edge is in nearly perfect uniformity with the building’s perspective lines.  The largest sign, “MARRIAGE = MAN + WOMAN” and the arm that holds it up is clearly in line with the building, as is the couple – the man pulls his supposed wife into the space within the windows behind them.

Which signs don’t quite go along, and thus stand out?  Well, the “WE DESERVE THE FREEDOM TO MARRY” sign starts out okay with the wooden stick holding it up, but the sign completely disrupts the order of angles surrounding its edges.  The same is true for the gay rights advocate’s arm and the canted angle of the black and white sign he is holding.

Second to the building, the only figures we can see completely and with any authority are the man and (presumably) wife on the left hand side.  Clearly, we are meant to view this couple and the institution behind them as the ultimate sources of authority in this image.

Clearly we are meant to notice the authoritative power of Federal Building

How About That Color Scheme?

Leaving aside the fact that this image seems to be taken in a completely different weather system as the one above, although they were taken in the same place, I’d like to point out that the man and woman are dressed in black and white.  As though the issue at hand were as simple as the difference between these two tones.  Can we blame them?  Isn’t viewing the issues of gender and sexuality as black and white, with absolutely no shades of gray in between, a major part of the disagreement on both sides of this issue?

The clothes are two-toned, the signs are two-toned, the building in the background is seemingly made up of only two tones, what we can see of the gay rights advocate is that he is only wearing one color, and there is not a minority in sight – only these three white people.  This is a stark photograph, lifeless, and devoid of any natural beauty (we’ve seen the other photograph, we know they have trees across the street).

The Disembodied Head

The couple in the photo appears incredibly human.  The man is smiling, we can see their unobstructed torsos and his arm spreads out to the left, which opens his chest signifying an open, “nothing to hide” attitude.  The gay right’s activist, who is markedly outnumbered in this photograph, is fragmented to such an extreme degree, that all we can see is a few body parts (a shin, a forearm, and his head).  His figure “hides” behind a political sign, and he wears dark sunglasses, signifying a closed, “something to hide” attitude.  He is also sitting to the left of the American flag, but hey, that’s kind of a no-brainer.

A Moment of Defeat

The ideology conveyed by this photograph is unmistakable.  In this distinctly contrasting, easy to understand, black and white issue, the only disruption to American order and values comes from the figure of the shifty gay rights activist, who fragments the institution of marriage and is in the minority opinion.  Although the story was practically the same, the attitudes told in each of these contrasting images couldn’t be more different.

Although I wish I could say proposition 8 only passed because too many people misunderstood how they were supposed to vote, the darker truth may be that there is a strict divide within this state on the issue.

I couldn’t import this chart to the blog, but take a look at this data.  The vast majority of voters in favor of the proposition were located in Southern California.  Perhaps proposition 8 was portentous of the kind of political environment we were about to uncover during Obama’s terms as President.  California, like the rest of the country, is deeply, and determinedly divided on a lot of issues.  Although we would like to think there is room for constructive discussion and a unified resolution, that doesn’t seem possible, or even practical when a call for change is at stake.

Although I am not a political junkie, or an expert on the legal issues surrounding Proposition 8, hopefully I was able to contribute something to the overall discussion in my own way.

Please comment if you found this article worthwhile or interesting.  I’d love to expand on or challenge some of these readings with the community.