Second Chance

Thinking through"If By Chance We Meet Again" (the second portion of the This American Life clip), I am once again struck by the ways in which Ira Glass produces these shows and turns them in unexpected directions--although the twist has, in some ways, become utterly conventional. In watching through it again this morning, it occurred to me just how much media was a presence. For example, it opens with series of Polaroid shots of the bull, then moving to the television clip, news cameras were discretely present at the announcement of the cloning, etc. All of these things were there, but uncommented-upon, in some cases just outside of the frame. And it all seemed so natural, a very commonplace sort of occurrence that has become naturalized in our current social context.

I must admit that I was a little shocked that they skinned Chance: I could never imagine being in that position with regard to pet that I loved. I think the fact that they chose to do this simply exacerbated the tension that exists for how we (the audience) are supposed to see the bull, the category of relationship we're supposed to place him. If he were "livestock" (a term that had not occurred to me until it emerged in class discussion), then skinning would be relatively appropriate. If he were a pet, I think it becomes more difficult: taxidermy tends to be a practice oriented toward 'hunted' animals rather than 'domesticated' animals (both ideologically loaded categories). And, I have a sense that stuffing a pet is relatively uncommon in the U.S. (I'm reminded of the Roald Dahl story "The Landlady" when thinking about it, which suggests to me that its not so common in Britain either). But for animals that are unambiguously pets (even if they lack an "owner") such as a dog or cat, I suspect that there's definitely a social stigma attached. If the bull were a family member, then the state would step in if it were skinned. The statement that the wife makes when holding Chance's skin (pelt?): "Its just so sad seeing him... he's empty" still resonates with me.

Finally, with regard to the production practices of something that's a documentary or ethnographic film: the contingency (or serendipity) of something momentous happening like the rancher being gored by the bull while the camera was there to film the aftermath. I imagine that its not so different from fieldwork: you work with what presents itself, but how you represent it is also very important. What would the segment have been without that portion?