Structuralism – Todorov & Propp

.

I chose an article (about the X Factor) in The Sun Newspaper (November 10^th) for my print-based Media object, as I thought it would be interesting to apply Propp’s and Todorov’s narrative theories to something that is (arguably) factual. I feel Propp’s theory cannot be applied to factual Media Products such as the article. Unlike books and films which have typical narratives, articles are being reported as opposed to being told and are seen as factual. For my AV-based product I observed the film Chicago (2003). I chose this because as well as enjoying the film, I know that the format and particular characters are likely to fit with Propp’s theory well.

When looking at Todorov’s theory, the initial equilibrium isn’t necessarily present. Typical of this Media Form and where Celebrity Culture is integral, it is reported for consumers who want ‘gossip’ – which will invariably always start with a disequilibrium. In this particular article, the disequilibrium is about X Factor being rigged. This is made known to the readership by the headline and the following introduction elaborating the story. Establishing the Recognition Stage was difficult, but I thought the act of using Dermot O’Leary’s comments could be an example, as these quotes are used to back-up and enforce the article as a whole, namely its believability factor. As well as this, it states that ‘around 1,200 fans have complained to ITV and Ofcom’ and it has received bad reception on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The Stage that follows is The Restoration Attempt, where in this case it reports Cheryl Cole was ‘unavailable to comment’ and Nicole Scherzinger (once guest judge) agreeing that contestant Treyc is justified in thinking she was ‘unfairly treated’. The constant use of these verbatim quotes give the audience the impression that these celebrities involved are ‘attempting’ to restore the equilibrium, however it does not hint at what they are actually doing to restore it. Despite this, they need to be seen to be saying the right type of thing as it’s likely the only worry they and they’re publicists have is about the image they portray of the celebrity e.g. Cheryl Cole. I feel the next stage, The Equilibrium Restoration, is a rarity within newspaper articles. This is because reports/articles on Celebrity Culture wouldn’t be as appealing to the audience if they had a resolution. Unlike films or books, consumers don’t pay much towards newspapers and they expect less from it as a Media Platform. It is seen as light entertainment and an insight into how scandalous or, in this case, contrived The Media and Celebrity Culture is. The stories are typically about minor Celebrities that only exist due to the aptly named Demotic Turn – the mass production of celebrity. ‘Gossip’ articles such as these adhere to Graeme Turner’s statement, ‘fame has been disconnected from achievement… DIY Celebrity’.

Todorov’s Equilibrium Theory can be studied and applied to the majority of films, Miramax’s film Chicago is no exception. To represent the first stage, Mise-en-scene is used to show the Chicago jazz club on a typical and ‘average’ night, thus illustrating the Equilibrium. It moves on quickly to the Disequilibrium  to keep the audience hooked, showing the main character (Velma) being in a hurry and ripping down a poster aggressively. This continues by showing her turning up to perform by herself and having to wash her blood-covered hands. The Recognition is then shown by Roxie talking to Velma in prison with all the other inmates, followed by The Restoration Attempt of them all trying to get out of prison with the help of the lawyer Billy Flynn. Finally, they get out of jail and the Equilibrium is restored.

Above is a brief of the plot, illustrating how it supportively follows the linear narrative structure that Todorov explains in his Equilibrium Theory. In the way of Propp’s Character Theory, listed below is what Character Functions I typecast the film’s characters as:

The Villain – Velma Kelly
Hero – Roxie Hart
Villain – Fred Casely
Villain – Detective
The Helper – Amos Hart
The Dispatcher – Billy Flynn

Character Functions such as these and the many others Propp identified are still very prominent within films and other fictional Media products. This is because even if an audience are seeing a ‘new’ and ‘original’ film for example, they will, to an extent, still expect a particular arrangement (genre conventions etc). Having these basic stereotypical characters makes a Media product easier to follow and puts the audience at ease as they can be safe in the knowledge that the product will not lead them out of their comfort zone. As well as this, they also help to move the storyline along, especially with particular Character Functions being selectively introduced before/after others to create a desired impact. Invariably, it is fundamental to include these Hegemonic Character Functions in order to make a profit.

72-Hour University Lib Dub Challenge (Group A)

Vulnerable Audiences?

.

Using my Cabinet of Curiosity, I was asked to consider the following propositions:

• In what ways could More! magazine ‘influence’  the minds of a vulnerable audience?
• What possible negative ‘effect’ does More!  magazine have on the audience and society?

Within the Media, magazines have had a huge stigma about influencing young women for a while now, and there is heavy criticism about even children reading them. Whether it is down to these magazines or not, the sexualisation of our culture is increasing, especially where young girls are concerned. Children want to be older so dress and read magazines aimed at older women (such as More!) and older women want to be younger so dress accordingly, which only further influences these children’s minds. Magazine companies know they receive a secondary audience of younger girls and young teenagers, but they’re not going to respond as at the end of the day themselves as well as the companies they advertise are gaining more profit.

Magazines such as More! help to perpetuate the obsession society seems to have with Celebrity Culture, which is becoming increasingly prominent in younger generations. Arguably, this isn’t the worst example compared to similar magazines, but they all show airbrushed and size zero images on most pages; be it a fashion shoot, article or advertisement. The main problem with images of this nature is that the audience, in this case young girls, possess a sense of verisimilitude when viewing these simulacra’s – hence the constant association and reputation surrounding magazines and eating disorders. I feel the objectification of women is more apparent in other Media forms (namely the music industry), but these magazines don’t help and only seem to accelerate body image issues – for vulnerable audiences male and female.

Another side of the argument is that it is used as explained in the Uses and Gratification Theory, for personal identity in particular. Young girls may read these magazines to gain knowledge about fashion, make-up and men only because they feel lost and have the need to fit in with their peers and society in general – they feel the need to conform. Some people may not see it this way however and believe in individuality and the Pluralist view, but I seem to of acquired a more Marxist view on the Media. I understand it may appear that due to new hybrids and divergence has led to the concept of fragmented audiences, but I fear this is a façade in itself to make individuals feel like individuals. Magazines create False Consciousness by filling their pages of the ‘latest’ fashion crazes and how to wear them to suit particular figures or at particular events. It makes the audience feel as if they are individual, when in reality they’re being subliminally influenced to buy all the same ‘fashionable’ products that are probably only there in the first place because the magazine got paid by the companies selling the product. Maybe this is a negative view, but nothing within the Media is straight-forward anymore; it’s very contrived.

Audience Research and Hegemonic Ideologies

.

Within my A3 Key Concepts group, we were asked to create a provocative statement publicly and then assess the response we received. We chose to create a Facebook group with the title ‘I hate Soaps… Do you?’. We chose this title after discussing many other ideas, however in hindsight I feel it was too broad as it became problematic when people’s answers didn’t give a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Because of this, we had to have an option of liking ‘Some’ Soaps or as some people said they don’t hate Soaps they just ‘Dislike’ them. We also had the issue of not receiving as many responses as we wanted (10 male and 10 female), however with the time we had this was difficult, as well as the approach we chose. I feel that just using a Facebook group was a bad idea, for one we all ended up inviting the same age groups and most didn’t co-operate and take part, which both helped limit our research and analysis. If we were to do this again, I would have us change the title to make it more specific, as well as giving a set of standard questions that they had to answer. I feel this would’ve made it more interesting and gave us more to compare and contrast, making our findings more significant and applicable. To make the results clearer to understand, we created separate Pie Charts for Male and Female. Even though we only got 20 results and this isn’t a very good representation, the results we got seemed to back-up the stereotype that women watch more Soaps than men. However more men than we expected said they didn’t hate Soaps or that they watched some. From this, I looked at the advertising put on in the Breaks for all Soaps (bar Eastenders) and they’re predictably, mostly aimed at women.

Soaps appeal to people so much as it (and every other Media product) adheres to the Cultivation Theory, using simple techniques such as Mise en Scene with more complex and subliminal methods like projecting Hegemonic Ideologies. A recent example of this is in Eastenders, where they breeched the taboo of having a homosexual Muslim (Syed) involved in a love affair. But, as with all gay characters in the Media, they are portrayed badly to some extent. In this case he is shown to be promiscuous (love affair), in the wrong (gay Muslim) and a liar (in a relationship with a woman). Around the time this happened, there was a lot of controversy, but a lot of people were impressed which the BBC approaching this topic. It was a gamble, but unlike every other channel, they need to have fair representation as they need to keep the British viewers content. Even so, the storyline as with every other gay storyline, ended badly. He has to move house and at some point get’s knocked to the floor and trampled on when there’s a fire at the pub (The Queen Victoria). So it appears that it’s good the representation exists, but similarly in other Media forms like films such as Brokeback Mountain and Philadelphia, it always ends badly somehow for the homosexual characters. This is the Hegemonic Ideology shining through, with the Media saying it’s fine to be gay, but life will be worse somehow because of it – e.g. The Nuclear Family and ideal lifestyle they like to portray will not be achieved.