Narratives and 9/11 reports

.

Where narratives in films are concerned they are typically linear and adhere to Todorov and Propp. However as the well-equipped media student I find myself to be (please no laughing), I am aware this is changing. With the increasing crossover hybrids we are being subjected to, it’s no surprise narratives are becoming more creative and (arguably) more interesting. Films such as Memento, 500 Days of Summer, Inception, Pulp Fiction and Sliding Doors are all seen to be rebelling against the standard codes and conventions of typical narratives. Some would say these are a more, how shall I phrase it, intelligent type of storyline; but surely this is more just due to the increase in concentration that’s needed to follow it as oppose to a direct reflection of the demographic. Don’t get me wrong, Inception was a ground-breaking production in its own way and all kinds of audiences would’ve viewed it, but I personally don’t feel it was as ‘different’ as made out. Most producers seem to create these narratives that may be slightly unusual, market them as an amazingly innovative original concept and therefore sell a lot of cinema tickets.  Personally I feel let down by the majority of these – Inception was good, but after so much hype I was only to be disappointed.

Aside from this demographics were discussed and I was asked how I feel about the representation of mine in the media. Continuing our talk on genres, we considered the rom-coms and how they represent the male roles and the female (potentially my demographic). This genre seems to show women in a positive (but feminist) light and makes it incredibly relatable with all the realistic situations that occur e.g. Bridget Jones eating ice-cream when unhappy etc. This genre’s narrative is highly predictable and because of this it is easy to watch without too much of a thought process, I find I can pretty much miss half of it and still understand it! However if I were to miss parts of Pulp Fiction, I would guarantee my consequent confusion and thereafter unbelievable frustration. It is obvious the codes and conventions of this almost hybrid narrative style generates a lot more interest than typical genres hence why they are constantly being produced. But as with all genres most ideas are being repeated and therefore it’s making these new and amazing conceptualised films only as good as its predecessor – originality is definitely a challenge.

.
9/11 reports (see bibliography for URLs)
As we were reminded repeatedly in our seminar and rightly so, the topic of narrative does not only apply to films. For example many advertisements include them as well as, in this case, news stories. The topic of 2001’s 9/11 terrorist attacks was no doubt one of the most reported events in the last decade and even in my nineteen years of being on this earth (I’m quite sure I remember nothing before the age of 10 but that’s beside the point). Either way the coverage was phenomenal as one would expect, but the difference between the live news and the 10 o’clock news is striking. As I’m sure you’re thinking this is to be expected, but after analysing them closely it became clearer and I noticed key variances I may have overlooked otherwise.

The main difference is that of the script, or there lack of, as the news commentary is expected to be of a particular standard where sentences are concerned. The live clip may be ‘breaking’ news but this led to the quality of report being sacrificed, especially as the reporters had no real knowledge of the event. On the other hand, the BBC clip is retrospective news and there is a typical news story narrative to it. This is alongside a footage montage of reasonable quality and (in my opinion) unnecessary first-hand accounts from already traumatised public who would probably rather do anything else than talk about their current situation. The backstory of the towers is also given with various statistics about the employee population and the known/potential fatalities, making for a script full of yet more disheartening and excessively over-the-top emotive language.

The absence of a narrative in the live report can in a way been seen to be surprisingly advantageous because as the viewers are seeing the footage at the same rate as the reporters, there is an instant connection between institution and audience. This makes it a lot more personal, especially when the comments made by the reporters are likely to reflect how the audience are feeling too. It also has less organisation and therefore minimal opportunities to script and arrange phrasings potentially biasing the report. This is unlike the BBC narrative which includes well thought out editing, camerawork, shot selection and carefully selected political clips. Now I realise how cynical this sounds but yes, I truly believe, even the news uses mediation to their advantage.

Bibliography

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKZqqSI9-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPh7ECq9sc0&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLF72AD22BC05DFF3B