In everyday life, external factors attempt to mold and shape who we are.  External factors include: television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, literature, advertisements, and government.  In Steward Hall’s essay, “Encoding/Decoding”, Hall discusses how television, specifically the media, targets a specific audience, and how these messages are interpreted by that audience.  Hall’s theory of encoding and decoding are applied to television, but can also be transferred and synonymous to films and to everyday life.  In the film, Denial, certain opinions are more dominant than others due to the various messages presented and their interpretations by society, which are utilized within the plot.

It is commonly thought that the process of mass communication occurs in a simplistic, linear fashion.  The cycle starts at the sender, who then producers the message, which finally ends up in the hands of the receiver.  According to Stuart Hall, this is not the case as the process of mass communication occurs in a cycle composing of: the production of the message, the circulation of the message, the distribution and consumption of the message, and the reproduction of the message (Hall 231).  This is the case as the cycle of mass communication is very complex and has many individual layers to it.  

To describe this process, Hall states: “The ‘object’ of these practices is meanings and messages in the form of sign-vehicles of a specific kind organized, like any form of communication or language, through the operation of codes within the syntagmatic chain of discourse.  The apparatuses, relations and practices of production thus issue, at a certain moment (the moment of ‘production/circulation’) in the form of symbolic vehicles constituted within the rules of ‘language’.  It is the discursive form that the circulation of the ‘product’ takes place.  The process thus requires, at the production end, its material instruments- its ‘means’- as well as its own sets of social (production) relations- the organization and combination of practices within the media apparatus.  But it is in the discursive form that the circulation of the product takes place, as well as its distribution to different audiences.” (Hall 231).  These lines from Hall’s essay are extremely important and are the focal point of his argument.  Hall begins by stating that there is a distinguished way in which society addresses ideas and presents language.  Society’s way of addressing ideas is crucial as this is how different messages reach their various audiences.  Hall continues by saying this presentation of language is what produces communication.  However, these ideas that are being presented must also include the foundation and ideas of the media outlet, which in turn produces a unique message.  This message that is presented by the media is then interpreted by the people.  Different people may perceive the message from the same media differently, but there is only one message the media is presenting.  In order to perceive the true meaning that is being presented by the media, one must be able to recognize the unique way in which the media is presenting its ideas.

Hall continues to explain this process by stating that: “In the moment when a historical event passes under the sign of discourse, it is subject to all the complex formal ‘rules’ by which language signifies.  To put it paradoxically, the event must become a ‘story’ before it can become a communicated event.” (Hall 232).  In these sentences, Hall argues that it is crucial to examine information by understanding their origins.  Applying this to media, Hall is saying that it is important to understand where the stories came from, instead of just understanding the message.

To fully understand the aspects of this communicative process, Hall states: “The codes of encoding and decoding may not be perfectly symmetrical.  The degrees of symmetry- that is, the degrees of ‘understanding’ and ‘misunderstanding’ in the communicative exchange- depend on the degrees of symmetry/asymmetry (relations of equivalence) established between the positions of the ‘personifications’, encoder-producer and decoder-receiver.  But this in turn depends on the degrees of identity/non-identity between the codes that has been transmitted.” (Hall, 234).  In these sentences, Hall explains how communication can be unsuccessful when audiences interpret the message of the producer in a way that was unintended by the producer.  This can be attributed to the discrepancies between the devices used by the producers to encode a message, and the devices used by the audience to decode the message.  

To further understand these discrepancies that cause unsuccessful communication, Hall relates this to three positions people take on the media.  “The first hypothetical condition is that of the dominant-hegemonic position.  When the viewer takes the connoted meaning… and decodes the message in terms of the reference code in which it has been encoded, we might say the viewer is operating inside the dominant code.” (Hall 240).  In this situation, the person fully interprets the message as it was intended to and no discrepancies between the sender and the receiver are present.  This position is the perfect position, but rarely happens.  “The second position we would identify is that of the negotiated code or position…  Decoding within the negotiated version contains a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions… while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules- it operates with exceptions to the rule.” (Hall 241).  This position is when the receiver recognizes the hegemonic position, but adapts it to reflect their own personal interests.  “Finally, it is possible for a viewer perfectly to understand both the literal and the connotative inflection given by the discourse but to decode the message in a globally contrary way.  He/she detotalizes the message in the preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework or reference.” (Hall 241).  This third position is the globally contrary position and it occurs when a message is broken apart to create a new message.  The receiver is in an opposite position from the dominant code and the receiver fully rejects the message.

These three positions that Stuart Hall explains are present in American society.  In America, we currently live in a hegemonic masculine society.  The model for this gender power and inequality is the white, educated, straight male.  (Zevallos).  This can often be depicted through the media and television.  One current example that influenced my masculinity as a child was World Wrestling Entertainment, more commonly known as WWE.  When I was young, I viewed this show as a source of entertainment, but I now realize the affects it has on young males.  In WWE, the hegemonic masculine position is vividly displayed.  Wrestlers are portrayed as physically large and muscular, aggressive, tough, and very strong.  Many young males watch this, and are thus externally influenced by these ideas.  This source of entertainment promotes bullying, humiliation, and aggression as socially acceptable behaviors for males.  This is just one of the many examples of the dominant hegemonic male being depicted by American television.   

The negotiated code position in American society for men are males that partly believe in the hegemonic male, but modify their viewpoint to reflect themselves.  An example of this would be men that are very expressive with their emotions or being overly concerned with their appearance (Zevallos).  These males may still be relatable to the dominant hegemonic position as they are heterosexual males, but they exhibit characteristics that aren’t apart of the “ideal” male.  These males’ viewpoints are modified to incorporate themselves into their viewpoint as males.  These types of guys often get made fun of by the dominant hegemonic position as they don’t completely fit in.  I’ve seen this happen personally as I knew a guy from my high school who fell into this position.  He was a white, upper class, heterosexual male, who happened to be a model.  He was often ridiculed as he was always perfectly groomed, and took great care in his appearance.  He didn’t fit completely in as he wasn’t a tough, strong, dominant man that society and television teaches men to be.  He is a prime example of the negotiated code position for males as he modified his viewpoint to incorporate his own identity.

The third and final position, the globally contrary man, would be a homosexual male.  Often times, society stereotypes these men into one category, but in reality, this is not the case.  This interpretation of homosexuals as falling into one category can greatly be attributed to television.  One example of this would be in the episode of Family Guy, Brian Does Hollywood.  Brian Griffin, one of the main characters, has a homosexual cousin named Jasper.  Jasper wears a pink shirt and talks in a feminine manner.  He often over emphasizes his words and makes sexual jokes. (Brian).  This stereotypical behavior of homosexuals is often shown in television and influences how homosexual males are viewed by other males in society.  This causes them to be in opposition with the dominant hegemony position, even though there may only be a few differences between the two groups.  This often leads to constant conflict and bullying from the dominant hegemonic male.

Many of Hall’s ideas are also vividly present in the film, Denial.  The introduction of this film begins with Professor Deborah Lipstadt discussing various reasons why people deny the Holocaust.  Professor Lipstadt is a teacher at Emory University in Atlanta, and is very passionate about Jewish studies.  Deborah states that the reasons people deny the holocaust include: there were no gas chambers found, the number of Jews that died could have been less than six million, and there is no substantial proof of this event.  In the upcoming scenes, Professor Lipstadt had published a book discussing the Holocaust, which included rude comments about David Irving, a Holocaust denier.   Professor Lipstadt was giving a speech about her book in front of an audience when David Irving interrupts her.  He says he will give anyone in the room $1,000 if they can find a document that proves the holocaust.  After, David Irving accuses her of libel and tries her in the English Court.  At the beginning of this film, it is evident that alternating opinions can cause conflict.  These alternating opinions often stem from personal beliefs.  Furthermore, personal opinions are often based off of literature, as depicted in this movie.  These personal beliefs and alternating opinions are examples of different positions people derive from external sources. (Denial)

Deborah Lipstadt was a passionate advocator of the holocaust.  In this situation, Deborah Lipstadt displayed the dominant hegemonic position.  It is evident that she utilizes the dominant hegemonic viewpoint of the holocaust as it is a known fact that this historical event occurred.    Professor Lipstadt states at the beginning of the film that, “Whatever the reason is that people become deniers, they often has an agenda which they won’t admit to.” (Denial).  This can obviously be associated to David Irving and his globally contrary position.  David Irving was an anti-Semite and racist who was a passionate denier of the holocaust.  This places him in complete opposition with Deborah Lipstadt and the majority of society.  He is in complete denial of the truth and expresses his viewpoint in his publications.  This provides the central conflict of the plot and shows how opposition can stem from personal beliefs.  (Denial)

After the central conflict is established, Professor Lipstadt decides to take Irving on.  She meets with British lawyer Anthony Julius to discuss the case.  She is appalled when Anthony informs her that there is no presumption of innocent in the UK, and it falls on her and her team of lawyers to prove that the holocaust did indeed happen.  The team ultimately decided that there were three ways in which they could combat the case.  They could argue that Irving misinterpreted Lipstadt’s words, the offending words weren’t as offensive as Irving took it, or the team could focus on Irving’s lies.  The first two positions were out of the questions as Professor Lipstadt clearly encoded her statements about David Irving in her writing in a way that could be decoded in only one obvious manner.  Deborah Lipstadt clearly attacked David Irving as she stated that she, “called him a liar and a falsifier of history.” (Denial).  The only way to approach this case was to prove that David Irving was in fact lying.

As the film progresses, the team sets out to prove that David Irving is in fact lying.  It was important for the team to analyze the original history of the holocaust as its original event as suggested by Stuart Hall.  By fully understanding this event, the team could then examine David Irving’s publications and find discrepancies between his works and history.  This was no easy feat and a team of researchers were used to look through his publications.  While this was occurring, Professor Lipstadt and Richard Rampton, one of her lawyers, visits Auschwitz to continue to search for evidence of the Holocaust.  The search grew weary as the crew discovered that evidence of the holocaust at Auschwitz had already been tampered with.  This is a major turning point in the film as Deborah Lipstadt begins to get emotional and starts letting her feelings get the best of her.  She begins to have trouble restraining herself in court, and grows more and more frustrated as David Irving is able to successfully represent himself.  After one of the days in court, a holocaust survivor comes up to Deborah and asks for her to put some of the survivors on the stand.  Deborah’s lawyers quickly shoot this idea down and Deborah grows increasingly restless.  Deborah also tries to convince her lawyers to allow her to speak on the stand, but this idea is also quickly denied by her team. (Denial)

The team finally thinks they got somewhere when they were able to show a drawing of the infrastructure of a gas chamber at Auschwitz.  David Irving quickly debunks this idea as he was able to show that there were no holes in the roof.  As there were no holes in the roof, there was no way in which the gas pellets could enter the chamber.  The phrase “no holes, no holocaust” was coined after and was placed around the city of London as propaganda.  This simplistic slogan was effective as it was easily interpretable by any audience.  This slogan depicted the false point that the holocaust didn’t happen.  The effect of this propaganda was a devastating blow to Professor Lipstadt and her crew.  David Irving was gaining more support and Deborah was ridiculed even more by people for being Jewish. (Denial) 

As the film comes to an end, Deborah and her crew of lawyers finally expose David Irving of distorting and manipulating evidence in his publications to please his own ideology.  This shows that Irving was operating under his own agenda, which gives Professor Lipstadt more credibility as she stated that all holocaust deniers operated under their own agenda at the beginning of the film.  David Irving’s personal agenda was that of being a racist, anti-Semite, and a distorter.  Professor Lipstadt’s exhausting trial is finally over, and she is finally at peace. (Denial)  

The film concludes with some final words from Deborah Lipstadt in front of the press.  Lipstadt states, “Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can’t do is lie, and expect not to be accountable for it.”  Deborah continues to talk and states that all opinions are not created equal.  She further validates this point by staying, “The earth is round, the icecaps are melting, and Elvis is not alive.” (Denial).  This is another one of Stuart Hall’s idea.  Certain meanings and are opinions are more dominant than others, and these hierarchy of opinions correlate with the hegemony society agrees to.

It can be properly stated that Stuart Hall’s ideas reflect onto society, and onto the film Denial.  In society, there are certain dominant positions.  Television and the media are utilized in society to formulate ideas of dominant positions.  These dominant positions are then interpreted by the receiver in a dominant hegemonic position, a negotiated code position, or a globally contrary position.  In the film Denial, dominant societal opinions were also evident.  These differences in positions can be exemplified by the conflict between Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving.  In this film, propaganda and dominant opinions also have a role in affecting societal views.  Stuart Hall’s ideas are synonymous to society and to the film denial as interpretation of messages by the receiver creates a hierarchal order of different perspectives and opinions in everyday life.
