As argued in his essay entitled “Rhetoric of the Image”, pictures, according to Roland Barthes, will never be able to rid themselves of their denotative aspects. Barthes further contends that photographs always portray a second, cryptic message that is secretly layered within the image and can vary depending on the culture and experience of an individual. With this in mind, it becomes obvious as to why photographs were then introduced in newspapers as a means of illuminating the text. Yet, seeing as how images, to Barthes, are already biased, pictures no longer managed to elucidate the text they accompanied; they tragically became burdened by it. With the image of Michael Moore winning his Palme d’Or, one can see how text, through connotation and denotation, human perspective and culture, does indeed regulate the meaning of images.

To commence, the image of Moore with his award has powerful denotative and connotative messages. On the surface, this is a joyful picture of Michael Moore winning one of the most prestigious awards in filmmaking, the Palme d’Or. Moore looks serene and utterly content as he proudly displays his best directing award to the press and paparazzi in attendance. The smile on his robust face emphasizes the heartwarming sensation of victory. His hand is lifted ever so slightly, almost as if he is extending an olive branch. Overall, the photograph denotes a captured moment in Moore’s illustrious career that most humans would clutch onto with tightly clenched hands. Yet even before the text is examined, another concept is connoted almost as immediately as Moore’s joy is denoted. Moore is notorious for his no-holds-barred style of ripping into a particular political system and overpowering said system until it is a cruel mockery of itself. Those who have followed Moore’s career are well aware of the fact his Palme d’Or win is for the revolutionary and highly controversial Fahrenheit 9/11; a blatant attack on American President George W. Bush. Even though viewers might see this photograph as a moment of happiness, there is also a shadow of a doubt cast in the minds of the individuals who are aware of his anti-Bush stance. Moore won an award that debased an entire political institution and harshly critiqued a war that has claimed the lives of thousands of soldiers and civilians in both the United States and Iraq. We see a smile, yet we know Moore is secretly smirking. Also, the text exposes the political jab at Bush that so many have grown accustomed to. Not only is Moore addressing the concept of family in his caption by dedicating his Palme d’Or to his daughter, but he is also addressing the known, yet conveniently forgotten fact, that thousands of parents are losing or lost their children in Iraq and Afghanistan. By using the word ‘suffer’ with ‘children’, Moore not only manages to admonish the government, but he also evokes a powerful message that viewers cannot help but hear.

Furthermore, human perspective plays a crucial role in how this photograph is read. In “Rhetoric of the Image”, Barthes divides connotation into four spheres; two of which will be utilized in examining the picture of Michael Moore: the cognitive and the political. When one gazes upon the above-mentioned image, two very prominent objects are instantly seen: the Palme d’Or and Michael Moore. To begin with, cognitive connotation shows the Palme d’Or, the award accompanying the Cannes Film Festival. The Cannes Film Festival receives hundreds upon hundreds of film submissions each year and is infamously haughty and hard for a film to gain entry. The panel of celebrity judges is infamously picky and critical. If a movie does receive a Palme d’Or, one is automatically impressed. As well, the highest award one can achieve at Cannes is the best directing Palme d’Or, which Michael Moore is seen brandishing above. One is more than impressed with this feat, seeing as how Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary and not the typical Hollywood blockbuster that usually wins such an honor. Moore’s ability to slip into the foreground undetected is a staple characteristic of a Moore movie, which held true as he walked away from The Cannes Film Festival with not only the knowledge that his movie would succeed, but also an award, which reaffirmed his unarming ability to strike the often-unready hearts and minds of the awaiting populace. Mooreover, Moore himself is a widely recognizable director that begs caution and entices the curiosity of millions. To see him win such a well-known prize is to feel justice. Even those who are not familiar with Moore himself, can gaze upon said photograph and feel joy for the hardworking director. Yet, as soon as the text is introduced, a judgment is passed upon the smiling man. The discussed notion becomes true; text does indeed “burden the image with culture”. Once the caption is read, people begin to envision a completely new Michael Moore. Gone is the content man; in his place a cynical man. As Barthes explains, “The text directs the reader among the various signifieds of the image, [causing him] to avoid some and to accept others” (29). The reader “avoids” the fact Moore just won an impossibly complicated award and “accepts” the fact he is now and forever will be a Bush Basher (29).

Additionally, culture exercises its power in how humans view pictures. Barthes’ fourth sphere, political connotation, is a prominent aspect of everyday living. As with cognitive connotation, the picture reveals Moore and his award. Yet what is different is the text serves to accentuate the political controversy that both objects imbue. Moore is arguably the most politically contentious symbol since the swastika. He is notoriously affiliated with his anti-Bush statements and anti-war efforts, both of which are the key themes in his critically acclaimed Fahrenheit 9/11. Caption aside, the headline delves straight to the heart of what it is to be Moore: show, biz and politics. By having the headline gear the audience toward a political attitude, the image of Moore with his Palme d’Or becomes one of victory, but victory over censorship and adversity. Fahrenheit 9/11 was banned from almost every major studio in the United States. It was a miracle that the movie was even produced in the first place. To see Moore with the Palme d’Or is to see the hare smirking at the tortoise from the finish line at the end of the race. With the political connotations in place, Moore is not humbly displaying his award for all to see. He is displaying the award to prove he beat all the odds and managed to once again triumph over George W. Bush. Viewers can plainly see Moore’s hubris embodied in a snooty, archaic and unbearably artsy honor. The Cannes Film Festival itself is highly political. Movies that are either taboo or unnaturally controversial are more often than not rejected from the ballot. An example of the Cannes’ political nature is the fact Academy Award winner Ang Lee’s astronomically divisive Brokeback Mountain was refused at this year’s Cannes even though critics have been hailing the movie as groundbreaking. With Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 being accepted into Cannes as well as awarded, the political connotation is abundant and unapologetic; exactly what the text infers Moore to be.

In a nutshell, text does dramatically alter the way one looks at a picture. Whether it is in the denotative or connotative aspects or the influence of human experience and cultural sway, images will never be able to fully remove themselves from the power of the text that inevitably accompanies them. Yet the age-old adage still stands: is a picture worth a thousand words? This essay, on a multitude of levels, proves just that.