The ever growing similarities between fact and fiction, news and Hollywood, is the issue of this week’s reading. The author Geoff King uses a very sensitive event as an example of his argument. However the example of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the resulting documentaries/special news reports is a great example of how the news is unfortunately using Hollywood tactics to draw an audience.
It is extremely depressing that the news is increasingly trying “to be more like a movie” (King 2005, pg 50) and this fact is evident each time you turn on the news and even easier to spot when watching 60 minutes, Sunday Night or A Current Affair (not that I would consider the last two news programmes). “A Current Affair” is a particularly bad offender; it seems to borrow many qualities that King talked about that once were exclusively for Hollywood. Sound bridging is a technique A Current Affair uses almost every episode; also the use of ominous/suspenseful music is present in every episode. Every “exclusive” seems to be a classical narrative (bad guy causes disequilibrium, A current Affair solves the problem and creates a renewed equilibrium).
Cloverfield (2008) is a film I watched recently that felt realistic. The shaky footage of a hand-held video camera made it feel like a “home movie”. Cloverfield (2008) is also a movie that gave me something to relate to when I was considering Geoff King’s argument about Hollywood becoming more realistic. When watching the film and seeing the city of New York being destroyed I did think about the September 11 terrorist attacks.
King uses a variety of examples to support his argument that news is becoming more like Hollywood and vice versa. However the example I am very surprised that King did not use (which is not a contemporary one) is that of the broadcast of War of the Worlds (1938). This is where people hearing the radio programme actually thought what was being said over the radio was a real alien invasion.
Bibliography:
King, G., 2005, ‘”Just Like a Movie”?: 9/11 and Hollywood Spectacle’ in The Spectacle of the Real, Geoff King, Intellect Books, Bristol, pp. 47-56.
Monday 28 March 2011
Monday 21 March 2011
blog 3- writing
This weeks reading for me seemed to be rather ambiguous and for no apparent reason. The main argument I think they are trying to make is the nature of writing, how difficult and abstract writing can be and that it should even be apart of the sciences.
One of almost a dozen metaphors/analogies Metcalfe and Game use to explain writing is that “it takes a lot of will-power and hard work to be creative” (Metcalfe and Game 1996, p99) and to back up this argument they provide a quote from Benjamin “poetic work resembled a physical effort” (Metcalfe and Game 1996, p100). I will admit as a rational, 21st century, Australian male I am not very creative especially when it comes to literature. However at the risk of sounding ostentatious and/or narcissistic I do know what a physical effort is. I have climbed Mt Kilimanjaro (Africa’s highest mountain) as well as other significant mountains and I find it insulting to compare writing or anything to do with the arts to a ‘physical effort’.
To the rational person the next metaphor may seem odd but to the pretentious, mentally detached human beings Metcalfe and Game are this metaphor fits perfectly. The metaphor they use to explain writing is, riding a horse. They do explain the metaphor of course and it does make some sense. However it is a poor one and just suggests you could make an analogy out of anything (i.e. peeling an apple is like flying a space shuttle. I’m sure Metcalfe and Game could tell us how they are similar)
I do however agree with one thing they say and it also happens to be something that is explained clearly. That is the ritual one does before one writes. They give examples of the dishes must be cleaned before you sit down at your desk and write. This is definitely true for me but my ‘ritual’ which is cleaning my room/desk is for procrastination reasons, nothing to do with ‘clearing my head’ or anything else profound
In conclusion Metcalfe and Game intentionally go out of there way in this essay to confuse the reader. This essay is without a doubt the only one I have read that has more metaphors than paragraphs. The arguments were somewhat vague along with the entire document which does not help Metcalfe and Game when they are trying to assert that writing should be treated as a science. Even though they say no ‘formula’ should be applied to writing I feel it would have been a stronger argument if they tried to come up with one or at least argue a formula should be created.
Bibliography
Game, A. & Metcalfe, A., 1996, ‘Writing’ in Passionate Sociology, Sage, London, pp 87-105.
Monday 14 March 2011
Blog Two- reading
BLOG TWO- READING
Feminists along with an academic named Graeme Turner state that binary oppositions are problematic in regards to gender. Their position is that humans particularly ones that belong to patriarchal societies think of females as weak and emotional animals because our conception of a male is strong and rational. This I believe is a very long bow to draw and if it is true the theory is a physiological one, which Graeme Turner, Jane Stadler nor Kelly McWilliam are qualified to comment on.
The authors bring our attention to structuring absences which is “the systematic exclusion of particular identities or features of the world from media narratives”. They seem to be critical of the fact that minority groups within society tend to be under-represented in central roles. This is true, however they don’t give any examples of films where they do play a central role or they are the protagonist. Such films as Forest Gump (1994), Rain man (1988) and Philadelphia (1993) are example of films that are based around social minorities.
However binary oppositions and structuring absences are only two small aspects of narrative structure which is what this weeks reading concentrates on. The authors mainly focus on classical narration in films, television and games. They advocate that in a classical narration (which is one where there is an initial state of equilibrium then a conflict causes a disequilibrium which is then resolved creating a renewed equilibrium) an audience will side and feel sympathy for the protagonist even if he is evil and immoral. A great example of this is Lord of War (2005). Even though the protagonist Yuri Orlov sells arms to genocidal dictators and terrorists you still felt sympathy for him when his brother is killed, his parents disown him and wife and child leave him.
Stadler and Mcwilliam go on to highlight how narratives in television are different to narratives in film. They say that television shows are more “character driven” and that they “lack a well defined goal”. The T.V show House (2004-present) is a good example of this theory. Each episode in linear, there is a mystery illness that puzzles a medical team that is eventually solved by Dr House having some sort of epiphany (returning to a renewed equilibrium). The show focuses mainly around the development of Dr House especially his relationship with his superior. That is how the show is character driven.
Life on Mars (2008-2009) and Lost (2004-2010) are good exceptions to the rule of character driven television. The storyline is much more important to the audience than the individual characters.
Lost is also a great example for the fragmentation that is found in television shows. Each episode ends in more questions then it answered. However I think probably the best example of fragmentation in television is NCIS (2003-present). Just before every ad break it will play ominous music then cut to black and white leaving the audience “dangling” with anticipation of what will happen next.
In conclusion Stadler and McWilliam demonstrate clearly how narratives are constructed in film, games and television. They also address the distinctions in the narratives which have developed in the three.
Bibliography
Stadler, J. & McWilliam, K., 2009, ‘Screen Narratives: Traditions and Trends’ in Screen Media: Analysing Film and Television, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 155-183
Monday 7 March 2011
blog one week two
This particular section of a text book (Nick Lacey, 2009, pg 6-33) if information about “imagine and representation”, how we view an image and how we interpret that image. He states that we view the world around us with our eyes however “we must consider the difference between interpreting the world around us and analysing images” (Nick Lacey, 2009, pg12). He asserts that how an image is placed/taken can convey different meaning and that we use 8 aspects of NVC (non verbal communication) to extract the meaning from the text. To further emphasise his point he gives an example of an image of an attractive female actor “the low angle of the shot puts her in a position of dominance” (Nick Lacey, 2009, pg24). Which is how i also thought of her when i first saw the image. His argument that all texts will be viewed differently depending on a range of factors, the medium in which the text is viewed (eg cinema, T.V), the audience that it is intended for etc all contribute to how we will analyse that text. To support his claim he gives a variety of example that i see as proof of the notion that texts in fact have different meaning depending in the context in which we view them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)