When Republicans Attack

The McCain TV ad “Special” contains what may be the most disturbing sequence of all official ads. Whether this juxtaposition is random or chosen is up to the viewer to decide.

First the ad:

Like “Celebrity” and many previous ads, “Special” mocks the media glitz of Obama’s televised messages, specifically the recent 30-minute special. The McCain campaign’s response juxtaposes shots of Obama on stage with problems like the failing economy and terrorism (punctuated visually by bright blasts of light, and aurally by popping noises–ostensibly the sight and sound of flashbulbs).

Here is the troublesome segment, divided into 26 frames (the video is shot at slightly less than 30 frames per second, so this sequence lasts less than a second). The frame numbers are 267-292, and the timing is 8.907 seconds to 9.741 seconds.

Frame 267

Frame 268

Frame 269

Frame 270

Frame 271

Frame 272

Frame 273

Frame 274

Frame 275

Frame 276

Frame 277

Frame 278

Frame 279

Frame 280

Frame 281

Frame 282

Frame 283

Frame 284

Frame 285

Frame 286

Frame 287

Frame 288

Frame 289

Frame 290

Frame 291

Frame 292

…

Here is a video version of the above frames:

Although the juxtapostion of soldier firing gun and Obama may be accidental, the direction of the burst of light transition (to the right of the gun, like gunfire, then left to right like a bullet emerging from Obama’s head), along with the timing of the sound of the flashbulb popping, suggests a subliminal association that would be extremely unsettling if it was intentional. (Replay the commercial and notice the timing of the bursts here and when the image of Obama at the end.)

And if the association was accidental, why did the filmmakers (who have lavished attention on each frame of other commercials) not notice the disturbing possibility and edit the transition?

If you’ve been following our analyses of visual distortions in McCain’s ads, the following frames from the latest ad, “Joe the Plumber,” (in the same style as the “Acorn” ad) need no commentary.

The ad itself (link if embedded version doesn’t load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmZ3o0Di7Go)

…

SELECTED FRAMES

…

Smoke from mouth:

Frame 566, 18.885 seconds

…

Small horn on head:

Frame 568, 18.952 seconds

…

Fire from hand:

Frame 578, 19.285 seconds

Frame 578, 1:56.297

…

More fire from hand:

Frame 581, 19.386 seconds

…

Fire from eyes:

Frame 583, 19.452 seconds

…

Transition to second monster:

Frame 812, 27.093 seconds

…

Just as you suspected (if you’ve believe the McCain rhetoric), Obama’s not from around here.

Frame 818, 27.293 seconds

…

Frame 819, 27.327 seconds

…

Frame 820, 27.360 seconds

…

Frame 821, 27.394 seconds

…

Frame 822, 27.467 seconds

…

Large horn on head:

Frame 844, 28.861 seconds

…

Frame 897, 29.929 seconds (end of ad)

(Frames 885-896 have similar distortions of Obama’s left eye and left cheek.)

After setbacks in the polls, the McCain campaign staff has released a series of visually complex (and deliberately disorienting) TV and web ads: Dangerous, Ambition, and Ayers (embedded below). All three use panels of frames with bogus frame numbers to give the impression of continuity and objectivity, when in fact images are juxtaposed in an extremely subjective manner, to create guilt by association. When Republicans Attack will analyze each of the three commercials in detail, but as a fourth installment of the Subliminal Shenanigans series, we’ll concentrate on eight contiguous frames in the Ayers ad.

Here’s the entire ad:

…

The ad uses several swish pans, but the most interesting occur after the frame at 16.154 seconds (frame 484), and continues for four frames:

Frame 486, 16.221 seconds

In the above shot, the left frame depicts the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a project that had both Ayers and Obama on its staff. Here is how the National Review Online article (the source used in the Ayers ad) characterizes the challenge:

Even more intriguing, in 1995 Ayers won a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation — matched two-to-one by public and private contributions — to promote “reform” in the Chicago school system. He quickly brought in Obama, then all of 33 and bereft of any executive experience, to chair the board. With Ayers directing the project’s operational arm and Obama overseeing its financial affairs until 1999, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in public education.

In the half-frame to the right of the Annenberg image is the Pentagon, described in the “Ayers” ad as a target of Ayers and the Weather Underground. The stage is set for the Obama / Ayers image distortions that follow:

Frame 487, 16.255 seconds

Frame 488, 16.288 seconds

Frame 489, 16.321 seconds

The beginning of the Obama / Ayers skull heads.

…

Frame 490, 16.355 seconds

Frame 491, 16.388 seconds

The full death-head distortion, which lasts 3 more frames.

…

Frame 492, 16.421 seconds

Frame 493, 16.455 seconds

The skulls at their clearest.

…

Frame 494, 16.488 seconds

The last of the distorted images.

…

Frame 495, 16.522 seconds

The swish pan ends, and the images lose their distortion (though the photos are hardly flattering, and of course Obama’s and Ayers’ undistorted smiles are all the more frightening after the previous frames).

Not content with mere negative images of Barack Obama, the Republican Attack Machine stepped up its subliminal attack in the new 30-second TV ad, Dome.

…

…

The ad’s overt narrative is that Obama’s big government tax increases will put the nation in danger. (For an objective analysis of the ad’s misrepresentations, see FactChecker’s discussion, “There He Goes Again“).

…

Washington is represented as a battleship casting its shadow onto the nation:

Frame 77, 5.117 seconds

…

The sinister shadow of the Capitol darkens unsuspecting homes with “painful taxes.”

Frame 202, 13.425 seconds

Frame 229, 15.219 seconds

…

At the helm of this menacing craft is Barack Obama:

Frame 99, 6.579 seconds

…

depicted in transitions to and from the above shot as a skull grinning beside a pinkish-red (pinko?) Capitol::

Frame 83, 5.516 seconds

Frame 141, 9.371 seconds

…

(Notice how if the above 2 shots were photographically negative, the eye sockets would be mostly white, not black. Obama’s face is whitened and the eyes darkened to create the sinister image.)

…

Who is the target of the Skyrocket of Taxes?

Frame 275, 18.277 seconds

…

A sleeping infant wearing a pristine white t-shirt, oblivious to the Skyrocket’s threat.

Frame 317, 21.068 seconds

…

But fear not, a superhero appears miraculously. His eyes, unlike the hollow sockets of the evil Skyrocket commander, beam out blinding light to dispel the shadows and protect sleeping Americans.

Frame 398, 26.452 seconds

…

As the final frames state, “Change is coming.” But will this change be revealed by the light of truth, or concealed by the shadow of subliminal manipulation?

The latest McCain ad, “Disrespectful,” gives new meaning to the phrase “negative campaign ad.” Several transitions segue into photos of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden from (literally) negative images. Notice also how frequently the shots cut off part of Obama’s and Biden’s heads.

Frame 82 5.455 seconds

Frame 83 5.521 seconds

Frame 86 5.721 seconds

Frame 88 5.854 seconds

Frame 114 7.584 seconds

Frame 121 8.050 seconds

Frame 144 9.580 seconds

Frame 151 10.45 seconds

Frame 194 12.906 seconds

Frame 199 13.239 seconds

Frame 248 16.499 seconds

Frame 254 16.898 seconds

Negative  Language:
The phrase “How disrespectful,” spoken by a chiding female narrator, recalls the old stereotype of the uppity Black man (see frame 121) dissing the white woman. The commercial also uses negative terms like “celebrity” (i.e. a superficial attention getter); “star is fading”; “lashed out”; “desperately”; “wrong.”

Misrepresentation:
The ad implies that Obama “dismissed” Palin as good looking (frame 121), when in fact the remark came from Biden, and in a humorous, self-deprecating way, with the audience about his own looks, (see Jake Tapper’s ABC blog entry and Andrew Romano’s Newsweek commentary).