1. The Effects model tackles social problems backwards- E.G. How can you consider the effect on audience without looking at their background info.
Desensitisation- when an audience has got used to seeing something. For example, if someone has had a bad life, and are used to seeing violence, doesn't mean that they will be a violent person themselves.
2. The Effects Model treat children as inadequate.
the issue raised in this discussion was that half of the class are still 17, and the other are already 18. Technically, a child is someone under the age of 18. Yet we all equally have our own opinions and voices when it comes to discussing media. Therefore classing anyone under the age of 18 as inadequate is a huge loss in a range of audience view points.
3. Assumptions within the effects model are charactorised by barely concealed conservative ideology.
Civilised messages and meanings we associate with. Appropriate messages.
For example, assuming that everyone agree's that some things shouldn't be shown before 9pm.
The problem with this theory is that some may argue that their kids stay up past 9pm, and therefore can watch if they like the programmes after the watershed. Another theory is that most kids have televisions in their rooms. This means that they can put their television on whenever they like and watch whatever they like.
Therefore, the audience are in charge, we get to decide what to watch, not what the 'rules' say we can watch.
4. The Effects Model inadequatley defines it's own objects of study.
- for example, this means that they get to choose what to study, and from what they choose (which would probably be something that has a lot of negatives to it) they only focus on the bad things about the topic of study, not the good thing.
Therefore it is all completely biased, and we wouldn't get to hear the other side of the argument in the study is.
5. The Effects Model is often based on artificial elements and assumptions within studies.
With evidence from the last point, this means that the effects model is based on opinions, there are no facts within their theory. They are fake assesments.
The problem with this one is obvious, we aren't given actual facts, just theories and opinions made up from the Effects Model. Therefore how can we believe what is true, and what is just an opinion?
6. The Effects Model is often based on studies with misapplied methodology.
Similar to the last point, this means that this is just the way they do the research. It shows that the ways they choose to do the research is just, once again, opinions.
7. The Effects Model is selective in it's critisisms of media depictions of violence.
For example, the news.
10 years ago, the news wasn't allowed to show any pictures of the dead or violent crime.
But now, for example, a few days ago in the news, there was a video shown of the Taliban shooting down innocent passer by's. These shocking images are all over the news now, so this shows how the news has changed dramatically in the past decade.
This point means that the effects model works like the news did 10 years ago, it isn't realistic in what they depict in terms of violence or crime.
8. The Effects Model assumes superiority to the masses.
This suggests that people are affected by what they see in the media, and this leads to the violence in the community that is depicted in films or the news.
The truth is that almost no one says they are affected by the media in those terms. In actual fact, everybody has a sense of violence from different things, whether it be from a violent background, or violent friends or bullying. But people don't admit this.
This is why the effects model assumes that people are affected by the media, as people don't admit to their violent lives.
9. The Effects Model makes no attempt to understand meanings of the media.
This just shows that the Effects Model doesn't look deep enough into a situation. They don't attempt to try and understand the audiences, and the impact of the media on them. The whole idea is that they assume, amd that their theories are just based on those assumptions, and opinions, as they don't try to understand anything to do with the media.
10. The Effects Model isn't grounded in theory.
This means that the effects model has NO theoretical meanings. It only looks at the outcome, not all the theories and facts in between. The glamourise the situations.
In conclusion, The Effects Model does not explain media consumer's thoughts. It is all based on interpretations and opinions. NO FACTS.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Friday, 10 September 2010
Post 4- Genre as a media concept
http://klsmediadepartment.blogspot.com/2010/09/genre-as-media-concept.html
For our opening sequence, we decided to do a teen drama/psychological thriller. In terms of the link above, I will refer these debatable questions to my own opening sequence.
- In discussion today in class, we got involved in a group debate on each bullet point that were given to us by Robert Altman. On the first bullet point, we all agreed that genres act in a typical way so that audiences recognise certain conventions to that genre.
As an example, we gave the newly released film 'The Expendables' to discuss. We found that the trailer for the film was filled with explosions, guns, and big American stars. Therefore we decided that the film conforms to the male audience for the over 30's because of the stars used and the explosive, over the top patriotism.
As a group, we decided on our genre's together before we made the script. Therefore our opening sequence was deliberately made for a teenage audience. We decided upon this as we are school students, and wanted to make a sequence we thought would appeal to us, and the rest of our colleges.
Because of this, our conventions shown in our sequence automatically appeals to a teenage audience. The conventions that we chose to decide upon were a full young adult cast, parties and popular music. Generally, these conventions are associated with a teen audience, which, therefore, were easily recognisable to our target audience.
- In group discussions, we found that some agreed and disagreed on the third point of the slide. Some of the class mentioned that some genres do use predictable conventions, so that it is completely clear to the audience what genre it is, and who the film is for. However, some people disagreed, saying that a lot of independent film producers, or new producers tend to use conventions that aren't typical, and this is how sub-genre's are created.
For example, the film 'SAW' is a sub-genre of Horror. Most people refer to it as a 'thriller', as it doesn't have all the typical conventions of a horror, and has more blood and gore in it. Therefore a sub-genre was created and given to the film.
We also discussed that because of the films that do prefer to stay away from a typical genre, that may not be so recognisable for audiences, that this is what attracts a 'niche audience'
As a group, we wanted to steer away from what was typical of a teen drama, so we decided to add in a psychological element. Not only this, we decided to have the character that does have the mental disability to have 2 friends that are considered 'popular' in the sequence. This breaks away from typical conventions, as a boy who is considered to have a mental illness is normally portrayed as unpopular among a group of teenage people.
- We discussed in class that some some texts do share characteristics that, referring back to the first point, the audience can relate to and recognise. Some however did discuss that some genre's have mutated to incorporate different genre's. This is in order for the creation of a sub-genre.
We agreed that in our opening sequence, that there are some characteristics which people would clearly recognise as a teen drama. This was deliberate, as it draws in our target audience. The psychological sense of the opening sequence widens the range of audiences that would want to watch the rest of the film.
- The quote that Genre's are ideological was a much debatable one in the class discussion, as we all decided that Producers have power over their film, what genre's go into it and that we are TOLD what the genre is by the producers of films. But we also discussed that the audience have the ability to make up their own mind about what genre's and sub-genre's have appeared in a film, therefore the audience hold a certain power over the films genre's. So it can be debated either way.
In our questionnaire that we made for our opening sequence, we asked on it what people thought the genre of the sequence was. This was in order for the audience to make up their own minds over the genre's presented in the sequence, and although we did deliberately chose certain characteristics to be shown in the sequence to be recognised, many people responded that it was too difficult to pin point one genre, as there were certain aspects of different genre's within the sequence. This is the exact response that myself and the group were looking for.
- The idea that genre's aren't located throughout history was strongly disagreed on in the class, as we decided that some genre's are extremely recognisable in history. We conversed over the suggestion that we can see a development of genre through history, for example, Westerns were highly popular in the 50's, but since then, have died out. And although they aren't around as much, some elements of western are still seen today in more recent films.
For example, the film Back To The Future part 3, distributed in 1990, has elements of western in it, even though it is typically known as a sci-fi comedy film. This was extremely popular in it's time, even though westerns weren't as popular in the 1990's.
Referring to our opening sequence, teen drama's have only recently become popular. This is another reason as to why we chose a teenage drama, as it is widely popular among people our age.
- The idea that genre critic's are distanced from the practice of genre, or it's working was a difficult topic to discuss in class. At first the class were debating on what the quote really meant.
Soon we agreed that to some extent, the critics need to look at genre from an outsiders perspective. Therefore they cannot be caught up in the genre categorization, if they need to criticize it. This makes a critic distant from the working of genre, as the idea of drama is to draw people's attention to a certain group of people interested in that genre.
- As a group, we decided that the majority of the class agreed with the statement by J McDougall, as audiences tend to put films into logical natural patterns. This is why we have genre, as the audience recognise certain objects, texts and people to belong from a certain genre. Which is how we generally decided from one genre to the other.
- As a noun, a genre is what it is. As an example, we chose a table as an example, saying that a table is a table and can't be anything else. Whereas genre as an adjective is more difficult and tends not to be used in this way in every day life. You can easily describe a film by saying, it has blood, guts and gore in it. Hence genre would make more sense being a noun, as instead, most people when explaining a film start off with saying it is a 'horror'. Therefore, genre is categorized as a noun, rather than an adjective.
A Philosophical question:
In my opinion, I would choose to have the Tomato Puree in the 'condiment's isle, near the tomato ketchup's and mayonnaise's. Some people in the class said that they would have it next to the pizza bases, or where all the pasta sauces are kept.
The question got the class in a long discussion about how us as audiences, and how we perceive different things. We are used to what we know, and where different supermarkets choose to put their products. If they were shelved in different places we would probably get confused. But it all depends on what supermarket you are used to going to and where they place their products. Therefore as a tomato puree purchasing audience, we are influenced by supermarkets decisions about where they place their products, and therefore us thinking where this certain product should be placed.
This idea links back to how audiences are percieved, and how films are packaged to fit certain audiences needs and what they look for in a film.
There are suggestions that genre is limited for the audience, as producers are forced to follow certain rules of genre, and as they have the final say as to what genre's go into their film, this leads to a 'regulated variety'.
I disagree with the statement that because of this, it reduces audiences desires, as in the end it is their decision to what films they choose to see. However, I agree that it can sometimes limit as to what choices audiences have to see in the cinema. Despite this, the audience always have alternative choices. For example, independent films explore new and strange sub-genre's that attract hybrid audiences. Therefore, as an audience member, you have the choice to see a film that regulates the variety, conforming to the majority audience and what they typically expect. Or you can become part of a hybrid audience, to have different experiences in film genre's.
For our opening sequence, we decided to do a teen drama/psychological thriller. In terms of the link above, I will refer these debatable questions to my own opening sequence.
- In discussion today in class, we got involved in a group debate on each bullet point that were given to us by Robert Altman. On the first bullet point, we all agreed that genres act in a typical way so that audiences recognise certain conventions to that genre.
As an example, we gave the newly released film 'The Expendables' to discuss. We found that the trailer for the film was filled with explosions, guns, and big American stars. Therefore we decided that the film conforms to the male audience for the over 30's because of the stars used and the explosive, over the top patriotism.
As a group, we decided on our genre's together before we made the script. Therefore our opening sequence was deliberately made for a teenage audience. We decided upon this as we are school students, and wanted to make a sequence we thought would appeal to us, and the rest of our colleges.
Because of this, our conventions shown in our sequence automatically appeals to a teenage audience. The conventions that we chose to decide upon were a full young adult cast, parties and popular music. Generally, these conventions are associated with a teen audience, which, therefore, were easily recognisable to our target audience.
- In group discussions, we found that some agreed and disagreed on the third point of the slide. Some of the class mentioned that some genres do use predictable conventions, so that it is completely clear to the audience what genre it is, and who the film is for. However, some people disagreed, saying that a lot of independent film producers, or new producers tend to use conventions that aren't typical, and this is how sub-genre's are created.
For example, the film 'SAW' is a sub-genre of Horror. Most people refer to it as a 'thriller', as it doesn't have all the typical conventions of a horror, and has more blood and gore in it. Therefore a sub-genre was created and given to the film.We also discussed that because of the films that do prefer to stay away from a typical genre, that may not be so recognisable for audiences, that this is what attracts a 'niche audience'
As a group, we wanted to steer away from what was typical of a teen drama, so we decided to add in a psychological element. Not only this, we decided to have the character that does have the mental disability to have 2 friends that are considered 'popular' in the sequence. This breaks away from typical conventions, as a boy who is considered to have a mental illness is normally portrayed as unpopular among a group of teenage people.
- We discussed in class that some some texts do share characteristics that, referring back to the first point, the audience can relate to and recognise. Some however did discuss that some genre's have mutated to incorporate different genre's. This is in order for the creation of a sub-genre.
We agreed that in our opening sequence, that there are some characteristics which people would clearly recognise as a teen drama. This was deliberate, as it draws in our target audience. The psychological sense of the opening sequence widens the range of audiences that would want to watch the rest of the film.
- The quote that Genre's are ideological was a much debatable one in the class discussion, as we all decided that Producers have power over their film, what genre's go into it and that we are TOLD what the genre is by the producers of films. But we also discussed that the audience have the ability to make up their own mind about what genre's and sub-genre's have appeared in a film, therefore the audience hold a certain power over the films genre's. So it can be debated either way.
In our questionnaire that we made for our opening sequence, we asked on it what people thought the genre of the sequence was. This was in order for the audience to make up their own minds over the genre's presented in the sequence, and although we did deliberately chose certain characteristics to be shown in the sequence to be recognised, many people responded that it was too difficult to pin point one genre, as there were certain aspects of different genre's within the sequence. This is the exact response that myself and the group were looking for.
- The idea that genre's aren't located throughout history was strongly disagreed on in the class, as we decided that some genre's are extremely recognisable in history. We conversed over the suggestion that we can see a development of genre through history, for example, Westerns were highly popular in the 50's, but since then, have died out. And although they aren't around as much, some elements of western are still seen today in more recent films.
For example, the film Back To The Future part 3, distributed in 1990, has elements of western in it, even though it is typically known as a sci-fi comedy film. This was extremely popular in it's time, even though westerns weren't as popular in the 1990's.
Referring to our opening sequence, teen drama's have only recently become popular. This is another reason as to why we chose a teenage drama, as it is widely popular among people our age.
- The idea that genre critic's are distanced from the practice of genre, or it's working was a difficult topic to discuss in class. At first the class were debating on what the quote really meant.
Soon we agreed that to some extent, the critics need to look at genre from an outsiders perspective. Therefore they cannot be caught up in the genre categorization, if they need to criticize it. This makes a critic distant from the working of genre, as the idea of drama is to draw people's attention to a certain group of people interested in that genre.
- As a group, we decided that the majority of the class agreed with the statement by J McDougall, as audiences tend to put films into logical natural patterns. This is why we have genre, as the audience recognise certain objects, texts and people to belong from a certain genre. Which is how we generally decided from one genre to the other.
- As a noun, a genre is what it is. As an example, we chose a table as an example, saying that a table is a table and can't be anything else. Whereas genre as an adjective is more difficult and tends not to be used in this way in every day life. You can easily describe a film by saying, it has blood, guts and gore in it. Hence genre would make more sense being a noun, as instead, most people when explaining a film start off with saying it is a 'horror'. Therefore, genre is categorized as a noun, rather than an adjective.
A Philosophical question:
In my opinion, I would choose to have the Tomato Puree in the 'condiment's isle, near the tomato ketchup's and mayonnaise's. Some people in the class said that they would have it next to the pizza bases, or where all the pasta sauces are kept.
The question got the class in a long discussion about how us as audiences, and how we perceive different things. We are used to what we know, and where different supermarkets choose to put their products. If they were shelved in different places we would probably get confused. But it all depends on what supermarket you are used to going to and where they place their products. Therefore as a tomato puree purchasing audience, we are influenced by supermarkets decisions about where they place their products, and therefore us thinking where this certain product should be placed.
This idea links back to how audiences are percieved, and how films are packaged to fit certain audiences needs and what they look for in a film.
There are suggestions that genre is limited for the audience, as producers are forced to follow certain rules of genre, and as they have the final say as to what genre's go into their film, this leads to a 'regulated variety'.
I disagree with the statement that because of this, it reduces audiences desires, as in the end it is their decision to what films they choose to see. However, I agree that it can sometimes limit as to what choices audiences have to see in the cinema. Despite this, the audience always have alternative choices. For example, independent films explore new and strange sub-genre's that attract hybrid audiences. Therefore, as an audience member, you have the choice to see a film that regulates the variety, conforming to the majority audience and what they typically expect. Or you can become part of a hybrid audience, to have different experiences in film genre's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)