Genre is a way of categorising a text through style and form. It is vital to be able to categorise texts in this way - both for production and analysis. Most students associate genre with film, and indeed this is where categories can be most easily identified.
I would argue that while genre is more commonly applied to discussions of film, the concept can actually be applied to any media text as a way of explaining categories and paradigms. I am going to use it here to discuss my website which I produced for the AS portfolio.
It would be easy to make note of superficial similarities or differences in websites to make them fit into a specific genre. To do this is what Rick Altman (1995) calls the semantic approach - (although he was writing about films).
Instead Altman encourages a syntactic approach which is to ask - why? So I will explain the purpose of the similarities.
Industry websites have certain genres because each industry sector has a different function and so their websites must serve a different purpose. While most websites do function as a marketing tool it would be wrong to assume that this was their only function.
At marketingcharts.com there is a chart titled, ‘Top 10 Site Genres’ (March 2010) and the list includes Finance, Sports & Recreation, Home and Garden and Entertainment. Email is the top site genre closely followed by General Community.
So the marketing industry is already categorising sites, presumably because it helps them sell advertising space on these sites.
Genre has also been a key marketing tool for film promoters because they can connect films with big advertisers and with audiences
Campaign websites are easily identifiable by their paradigms. They all share a common theme which is to help others. The iconography they use must persuade the audience that the campaign is worthwhile and motivate them to get involved. To make this easy for the audience, they share a certain structure.
My website theme was recognisable as belonging to the campaign genre because of the mission statement. It was to get people aware of the dogs that need help, and to encourage them to donate to the charity to help the dogs to live a happy life and even adopt a dog into a caring family.
The iconography made the site recognisable as belonging to the campaign genre because the images were of the dogs looking happy and of them looking cute to persuade the audience to donate. For example my home page featured a range of images of dogs looking happy, cute and friendly, communicating the idea that the campaign has made a difference to many dogs lives.
In addition to the images audiences can see persuasive language and key verbs such as ‘donate’ ‘help’ ‘support’ which are all expected in this genre.
The structure of my website is recognisable because it has a ‘safe’ three-column structure and has all the links a campaign site needs to promote and to enable the audience to get involved or donate. The navigation bar has a donate, get involved and an information button which reads, ‘Paws 4 Thought’.
Audiences like site genres because it helps them navigate sites quickly. They expect a site in a particular genre to contain certain and recognisable paradigms. For young people, the assessment of the site may also be based on how inventively the genre paradigms are used.
If you look at campaign sites aimed at teenagers there is sometimes evidence of innovation in the design but the theme, structure and iconography still make them instantly recognisable as a campaign site. Talk to Frank for example uses more flash and has an interesting way of accessing the information from the main image, but the conventional structure is still evident.
The concept of genre is therefore applicable to websites and it is already extremely important to both the Institutions their audiences. Both are given a sense of safety by genre. The institutions have financial safety knowing they are investing money on a format that already works. For site visitors, the safety is of having their expectations of the navigation experience met by the site they choose to visit.
Thursday 9 December 2010
Friday 19 November 2010
Essay 2 redraft
Improved in lots of ways, well done. Two key ingredients missing though - media effects and to change the way you've written about nature vs. nurture. This has prevented it from entering level 4.
Level 3
Level 3
Explanation/analysis/argument (12-15 marks)
Candidates adapt their learning to the specific requirements of the chosen question well, in the main. The answer offers a sensible, mostly clear balance of media theories and knowledge of industries and texts, with a proficient attempt at personally engaging with issues and debates.
Use of examples (12-15 marks)
Examples of theories, texts and industry knowledge are connected together in places, and a clear argument is proficiently developed in response to the question. History and the future are discussed with relevance.
Use of terminology (6-7 marks)
Material presented is mostly informed by contemporary media theory, articulated through use of appropriate theoretical terms.
Relatively straightforward ideas have been expressed with some clarity and fluency. Arguments are generally relevant, though may stray from the point of the question. There will be some errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar but these are unlikely to be intrusive or obscure meaning.
Tuesday 16 November 2010
I could argue that ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ reflects the culture and masculinity of this time, however other people can argue that it is ‘just a film’ for entertainment only. For some film theorists, the film is thought to reflect the moment of ‘new laddism’, Professor of European Cinema, Dr Mary Wood (2007) says it is 'representing an aggressive reaction to feminism, anxieties over male roles and the glorification of consumer culture’. So it appears that some believe the film communicates an important message about how British Males were feeling about their role in society at the time. When any media text is thought to contain a powerful message that might influence behaviour, a moral panic often ensues. But how much power can a film actually have over the behaviour of its adult male audience?the question and sets up your argument]When the film came out in the 1990’s the reception from people differed considerably as a film like this had not been presented to the public before. People either thought that it was a great representation of the culture in Britain at this time or people thought that it could in fact influence people to behave like the characters. For example, through my research I found from the BBC, it shows that the film was a great hit in the US, with a critic from the New York Post saying “It’s an utterly original, funny, exuberant and unpretentious crime caper with perfectly pitched performances”. However other critics thought differently, such as Total Film, with their critics saying “it is little more than sound and fury” and arguing that the British film industry is “entering into a state of rude health”.
‘Lock, Stock…’ is known as a Gangster light film, (Steve Chiball (2008) this means that is an easy going, and enjoyable story line because it is so exaggerated and unrealistic. Gangster heavy films are where the characters are more realistic and the storyline is believable, it also creates the depth of feeling, which ‘Lock Stock…’ most definitely doesn’t. This witty film makes the storyline funny and we know that it is exaggerated. The masculinity within the film is also exaggerated which makes people think that is funny and not serious. An example of this is when the women gets punched in the face by the man, in any other film that is more realistic the audience would find this quite horrifying that a man could do that with no care in the world. However because the film makes the men so exaggerated and violent the audience can find it funny and don’t have to take it seriously.Although it was made to be a funny and unrealistic film, some people could find it offensive and disagreed that the ‘new lad style’ was any good. For example, in the Sunday Times a writer called Bryan Appleyard complained that the film was ‘sexist and fascist’ and he thinks that the film caused a rise in violent crime.However, this raises the question, did ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ rise crime in Britain and make Britain more violent or was the film in fact a representation of what Britain was like already? I personally think that Ritchie was exaggerating what Britain was like already, not to make people violent but to make a good, enjoyable film that is easy to watch.Since films have began masculinity has played a very important role, especially in the earlier years, ladies were hardly used in film, only for the male gaze or for the man to save to show his masculinity. Writing in the 70s, Laura Mulvey argued that cinema was set up for men. Films were made with a male viewer in mind so the star had to be a man that a male audience would want to identify with and the male star would be the protagonist, the active character that drives the story forward. The woman would be in the film as a love interest or someone who had to be rescued or both, but she was nearly always a passive character, she had to be good to look at but didn't drive the story. In ‘Lock Stock…’ it is very much a film set up for a male audience; the masculinity is defined through the violence, lack of emotion and the lack of women. There is in fact only three women in the film who all play very small roles. There is the pole dancer who is shown in the background of one of the scenes, which is very much used for the male gaze, there is also the card dealer, who is women who clearly has authority over the men, but is only in it for a short scene and then there is the drugged out girl with one of the men. She is insignificant in the film and shows masculinity as she has to be looked after by the men. For example, she gets punched by one of the men, which shows the care free emotion of the ‘gangsters’ in the film. This film shows that women were insignificant in films in the 1900’s which also supports Laura Mulvey’s theory.Laura Mulvey is a theorist that believes women are only used in film for the male gaze she insists all the women are passive and films and are used as ‘objects’, whereas the men are active. Her theory suggests that all the women are vulnerable and need the men to come along and help them. ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ also suggest this theory, as the pole dancer is for the male gaze, and is looked upon as an ‘object’ and all the women are very much insignificant in the film. The film also brings up the argument of ‘Nature vs Nurture’, is it the nature of the environment that has made the characters gangsters or was it how they were brought up? In the film one of the main characters called Big Chris, who is played by Vinnie Jones has a son called Little Chris. Through the relationship they have, Big Chris always guides Little Chris of how he is a gangster and tries to teach him his way, Guy Ritchie tries to portray the idea that to be a gangster it comes from the nurture. However I also feel that it tries to get the point across that because all the people are within the environment of gangsters, it is there nature to be one.In conclusion I feel that ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ represent the male identity in Britain in the 1900’s through the violence and masculinity. I think that Guy Ritchie tries to make the point that men should be free to be masculine and more ‘laddish’ rather than some of the ideas that some of the new theorists. ? I think it represents the British culture in the 1900’s through the gangsters, however it shows it through a funny and unrealistic story line.
What does the film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Ritchie 1998) tell us about male identity in
‘Lock, Stock…’ is known as a Gangster light film, (Steve Chiball (2008) this means that is an easy going, and enjoyable story line because it is so exaggerated and unrealistic. Gangster heavy films are where the characters are more realistic and the storyline is believable, it also creates the depth of feeling, which ‘Lock Stock…’ most definitely doesn’t. This witty film makes the storyline funny and we know that it is exaggerated. The masculinity within the film is also exaggerated which makes people think that is funny and not serious. An example of this is when the women gets punched in the face by the man, in any other film that is more realistic the audience would find this quite horrifying that a man could do that with no care in the world. However because the film makes the men so exaggerated and violent the audience can find it funny and don’t have to take it seriously.Although it was made to be a funny and unrealistic film, some people could find it offensive and disagreed that the ‘new lad style’ was any good. For example, in the Sunday Times a writer called Bryan Appleyard complained that the film was ‘sexist and fascist’ and he thinks that the film caused a rise in violent crime.However, this raises the question, did ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ rise crime in Britain and make Britain more violent or was the film in fact a representation of what Britain was like already? I personally think that Ritchie was exaggerating what Britain was like already, not to make people violent but to make a good, enjoyable film that is easy to watch.Since films have began masculinity has played a very important role, especially in the earlier years, ladies were hardly used in film, only for the male gaze or for the man to save to show his masculinity. Writing in the 70s, Laura Mulvey argued that cinema was set up for men. Films were made with a male viewer in mind so the star had to be a man that a male audience would want to identify with and the male star would be the protagonist, the active character that drives the story forward. The woman would be in the film as a love interest or someone who had to be rescued or both, but she was nearly always a passive character, she had to be good to look at but didn't drive the story. In ‘Lock Stock…’ it is very much a film set up for a male audience; the masculinity is defined through the violence, lack of emotion and the lack of women. There is in fact only three women in the film who all play very small roles. There is the pole dancer who is shown in the background of one of the scenes, which is very much used for the male gaze, there is also the card dealer, who is women who clearly has authority over the men, but is only in it for a short scene and then there is the drugged out girl with one of the men. She is insignificant in the film and shows masculinity as she has to be looked after by the men. For example, she gets punched by one of the men, which shows the care free emotion of the ‘gangsters’ in the film. This film shows that women were insignificant in films in the 1900’s which also supports Laura Mulvey’s theory.Laura Mulvey is a theorist that believes women are only used in film for the male gaze she insists all the women are passive and films and are used as ‘objects’, whereas the men are active. Her theory suggests that all the women are vulnerable and need the men to come along and help them. ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ also suggest this theory, as the pole dancer is for the male gaze, and is looked upon as an ‘object’ and all the women are very much insignificant in the film. The film also brings up the argument of ‘Nature vs Nurture’, is it the nature of the environment that has made the characters gangsters or was it how they were brought up? In the film one of the main characters called Big Chris, who is played by Vinnie Jones has a son called Little Chris. Through the relationship they have, Big Chris always guides Little Chris of how he is a gangster and tries to teach him his way, Guy Ritchie tries to portray the idea that to be a gangster it comes from the nurture. However I also feel that it tries to get the point across that because all the people are within the environment of gangsters, it is there nature to be one.In conclusion I feel that ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ represent the male identity in Britain in the 1900’s through the violence and masculinity. I think that Guy Ritchie tries to make the point that men should be free to be masculine and more ‘laddish’ rather than some of the ideas that some of the new theorists. ? I think it represents the British culture in the 1900’s through the gangsters, however it shows it through a funny and unrealistic story line.
What does the film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Ritchie 1998) tell us about male identity in
Thursday 4 November 2010
Essay 2 Feedback.
Low Level 3 (C-). Presented some critical ideas and theory, some sense of argument. What was lacking was a structured argument and constant reference to the question. It feels like you stopped answering the question and just decided to write about a few connected things. This is probably why you've missed out on Adorno and Fiske (to explain the relationship between the media product and the audience reading), Gauntlett on Media Effects theories (how has the director been influenced, would the film have any influence on male identity?), Nature Vs Nurture (again, would this film as part of the gangster cycle (1997-2001) and alongside lads mags like FHM and Loaded, tell us anything about males were feeling at the time and if they would have any impact on male identity in the 1990s?). Have another go.
I could argue that A lot of critics feel that ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ reflects the culture and masculinity of this time, however other people can argue that it is ‘just a film’ for entertainment only. For some film theorists, the film is thought to reflect the moment of ‘new laddism’, a theorist called Professor of European Cinema, Dr Mary Wood (2007) says it is 'representing an aggressive reaction to feminism, anxieties over male roles and the glorification of consumer culture' where the right shoes and fashionable clothes indicated status”. So it appears that some believe the film communicates an important message about how British Males were feeling about their role in society at the time. When any media text is thought to contain a powerful message that might influence behviour, a moral panic often ensues. But how much power can a film actually have over the behaviour of its adult male audience? [Take out the black text. This is then how your intro should read, you need a strong intro which addresses the question and sets up your argument]
When the film came out in the 1990’s the reception from people differed considerably as a film like this had not been presented to the public before. People either thought that it was a great representation of the culture in Britain at this time or people thought that it could in fact influence people to behave like the characters. For example, through my research I found from the BBC, it shows that the film was a great hit in the US, with a critic from the New York Post saying “It’s an utterly original, funny, exuberant and unpretentious crime caper with perfectly pitched performances”. However other critics thought differently, such as Total Film, with their critics saying “it is little more than sound and fury” and arguing that the British film industry is “entering into a state of rude health”. You should also discuss the Sun quote here and perhaps bring up the issue of class in British Cinema.
‘Lock, Stock…’ is known as a Gangster light film, (you must say whose idea this is, Steve Chiball (2008) this means that is an easy going, and enjoyable story line because it is so exaggerated and unrealistic. Gangster heavy films are where the characters are more realistic and the storyline is believable, it also creates the depth of feeling, which ‘Lock Stock…’ most definitely doesn’t. This witty film makes the storyline funny and we know that it is exaggerated. The masculinity within the film is also exaggerated which makes people think that is funny and not serious. An example of this is when the women gets punched in the face by the man, in any other film that is more realistic the audience would find this quite horrifying that a man could do that with no care in the world. However because the film makes the men so exaggerated and violent the audience can find it funny and don’t have to take it seriously.
Although it was made to be a funny and unrealistic film, some people could find it offensive and disagreed that the ‘new lad style’ was any good. You need to explain why it was a problem i.e. no consequences, all a bit of a laugh and therefore OK etc. For example, in the Sunday Times (year?) a theorist x writer called Bryan Appleyard complained that the film was ‘sexist and fascist’ and he thinks that the film caused a rise in violent crime. Did he back this statement up with evidence? Comment. However, this raises the question, did ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ rise crime in Britain and make Britain more violent or was the film in fact a representation of what Britain was like already? If you pose a question you need to answer it!
Since films have began masculinity has played a very important role, especially in the earlier years, ladies were hardly used in film, only for the male gaze or for the man to save to show his masculinity. Writing in the 70s, Laura Mulvey argued that cinema was set up for men. Films were made with a male viewer in mind so the star had to be a man that a male audience would want to identify with and the male star would be the protagonist, the active character that drives the story forward. The woman would be in the film as a love interest or someone who had to be rescued or both, but she was nearly always a passive character, she had to be good to look at but didn't drive the story. In ‘Lock Stock…’ it is very much a film set up for a male audience; the masculinity is defined through the violence, lack of emotion and the lack of women. There is in fact only three women in the film who all play very small roles. There is the pole dancer who is shown in the background of one of the scenes, which is very much used for the male gaze, there is also the card dealer, who is women who clearly has authority over the men, but is only in it for a short scene and then there is the drugged out girl with one of the men. She is insignificant in the film and shows masculinity as she has to be looked after by the men. For example, she gets punched by one of the men, which shows the care free emotion of the ‘gangsters’ in the film. This film shows that women were insignificant in films in the 1900’s? which also supports Laura Mulvey’s theory.
Laura Mulvey is a theorist that believes women are only used in film for the male gaze she insists all the women are passive and films and are used as ‘objects’, whereas the men are active. Her theory suggests that all the women are vulnerable and need the men to come along and help them. ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ also suggest this theory, as the pole dancer is for the male gaze, and is looked upon as an ‘object’ and all the women are very much insignificant in the film. This needed to be earlier (see above)
The film also brings up the argument of ‘Nature vs Nurture’, is it the nature of the environment that has made the characters gangsters or was it how they were brought up? In the film one of the main characters called Big Chris, who is played by Vinnie Jones has a son called Little Chris. Through the relationship they have, Big Chris always guides Little Chris of how he is a gangster and tries to teach him his way, Guy Ritchie tries to portray the idea that to be a gangster it comes from the nurture. However I also feel that it tries to get the point across that because all the people are within the environment of gangsters, it is there nature to be one. This should be about the affect the film has on the audience formation of identity, not about the characters.
In conclusion I feel that ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ represent the male identity in Britain in the 1900’s? through the violence and masculinity. I think that Guy Ritchie tries to make the point that men should be free to be masculine and more ‘laddish’ rather than some of the ideas that some of the new theorists. ? I think it represents the British culture in the 1900’s? through the gangsters, however it shows it through a funny and unrealistic story line. Come on, stronger stuff needed here Becky! Summarise your argument to answer the question, include reference to theory.
Wednesday 20 October 2010
What does the film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Ritchie 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990’s?
A lot of critics feel that ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ reflects the culture and masculinity of this time, however other people can argue that it is ‘just a film’ for entertainment only. The film is thought to reflect the moment of ‘new laddism’, a theorist called Mary Wood says it is “representing an aggressive reaction to feminism, anxieties over male roles and the glorification of consumer culture where the right shoes and fashionable clothes indicated status”.
When the film came out in the 1990’s the reception from people differed considerably as a film like this had not been presented to the public before. People either thought that it was a great representation of the culture in Britain at this time or people thought that it could in fact influence people to behave like the characters. For example, through my research I found from the BBC, it shows that the film was a great hit in the US, with a critic from the New York Post saying “It’s an utterly original, funny, exuberant and unpretentious crime caper with perfectly pitched performances”. However other critics thought differently, such as Total Film, with their critics saying “it is little more than sound and fury” and arguing that the British film industry is “entering into a state of rude health”.
‘Lock, Stock…’ is known as a Gangster light film, this means that is an easy going, and enjoyable story line because it is so exaggerated and unrealistic. Gangster heavy films are where the characters are more realistic and the storyline is believable, it also creates the depth of feeling, which ‘Lock Stock…’ most definitely doesn’t. This witty film makes the storyline funny and we know that it is exaggerated. The masculinity within the film is also exaggerated which makes people think that is funny and not serious. An example of this is when the women gets punched in the face by the man, in any other film that is more realistic the audience would find this quite horrifying that a man could do that with no care in the world. However because the film makes the men so exaggerated and violent the audience can find it funny and don’t have to take it seriously.
Although it was made to be a funny and unrealistic film, some people could find it offensive and disagreed that the ‘new lad style’ was any good. For example, in the Sunday Times a theorist called Bryan Appleyard complained that the film was ‘sexist and fascist’ and he thinks that the film caused a rise in violent crime. However, this raises the question, did ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ rise crime in Britain and make Britain more violent or was the film in fact a representation of what Britain was like already?
Since films have began masculinity has played a very important role, especially in the earlier years, ladies were hardly used in film, only for the male gaze or for the man to save to show his masculinity. In ‘Lock Stock…’ it is very much a masculine film; the masculinity is defined through the violence, lack of emotion and the lack of women. There is in fact only three women in the film who all play very small roles. There is the pole dancer who is shown in the background of one of the scenes, which is very much used for the male gaze, there is also the card dealer, who is women who clearly has authority over the men, but is only in it for a short scene and then there is the drugged out girl with one of the men. She is insignificant in the film and shows masculinity as she has to be looked after by the men. For example, she gets punched by one of the men, which shows the care free emotion of the ‘gangsters’ in the film. This film shows that women were insignificant in films in the 1900’s which also supports Laura Mulvey’s theory.
Laura Mulvey is a theorist that believes women are only used in film for the male gaze she insists all the women are passive and films and are used as ‘objects’, whereas the men are active. Her theory suggests that all the women are vulnerable and need the men to come along and help them. ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ also suggest this theory, as the pole dancer is for the male gaze, and is looked upon as an ‘object’ and all the women are very much insignificant in the film.
The film also brings up the argument of ‘Nature vs Nurture’, is it the nature of the environment that has made the characters gangsters or was it how they were brought up? In the film one of the main characters called Big Chris, who is played by Vinnie Jones has a son called Little Chris. Through the relationship they have, Big Chris always guides Little Chris of how he is a gangster and tries to teach him his way, Guy Ritchie tries to portray the idea that to be a gangster it comes from the nurture. However I also feel that it tries to get the point across that because all the people are within the environment of gangsters, it is there nature to be one.
In conclusion I feel that ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ represent the male identity in Britain in the 1900’s through the violence and masculinity. I think that Guy Ritchie tries to make the point that men should be free to be masculine and more ‘laddish’ rather than some of the ideas that some of the new theorists. I think it represents the British culture in the 1900’s through the gangsters, however it shows it through a funny and unrealistic story line.
A lot of critics feel that ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ reflects the culture and masculinity of this time, however other people can argue that it is ‘just a film’ for entertainment only. The film is thought to reflect the moment of ‘new laddism’, a theorist called Mary Wood says it is “representing an aggressive reaction to feminism, anxieties over male roles and the glorification of consumer culture where the right shoes and fashionable clothes indicated status”.
When the film came out in the 1990’s the reception from people differed considerably as a film like this had not been presented to the public before. People either thought that it was a great representation of the culture in Britain at this time or people thought that it could in fact influence people to behave like the characters. For example, through my research I found from the BBC, it shows that the film was a great hit in the US, with a critic from the New York Post saying “It’s an utterly original, funny, exuberant and unpretentious crime caper with perfectly pitched performances”. However other critics thought differently, such as Total Film, with their critics saying “it is little more than sound and fury” and arguing that the British film industry is “entering into a state of rude health”.
‘Lock, Stock…’ is known as a Gangster light film, this means that is an easy going, and enjoyable story line because it is so exaggerated and unrealistic. Gangster heavy films are where the characters are more realistic and the storyline is believable, it also creates the depth of feeling, which ‘Lock Stock…’ most definitely doesn’t. This witty film makes the storyline funny and we know that it is exaggerated. The masculinity within the film is also exaggerated which makes people think that is funny and not serious. An example of this is when the women gets punched in the face by the man, in any other film that is more realistic the audience would find this quite horrifying that a man could do that with no care in the world. However because the film makes the men so exaggerated and violent the audience can find it funny and don’t have to take it seriously.
Although it was made to be a funny and unrealistic film, some people could find it offensive and disagreed that the ‘new lad style’ was any good. For example, in the Sunday Times a theorist called Bryan Appleyard complained that the film was ‘sexist and fascist’ and he thinks that the film caused a rise in violent crime. However, this raises the question, did ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ rise crime in Britain and make Britain more violent or was the film in fact a representation of what Britain was like already?
Since films have began masculinity has played a very important role, especially in the earlier years, ladies were hardly used in film, only for the male gaze or for the man to save to show his masculinity. In ‘Lock Stock…’ it is very much a masculine film; the masculinity is defined through the violence, lack of emotion and the lack of women. There is in fact only three women in the film who all play very small roles. There is the pole dancer who is shown in the background of one of the scenes, which is very much used for the male gaze, there is also the card dealer, who is women who clearly has authority over the men, but is only in it for a short scene and then there is the drugged out girl with one of the men. She is insignificant in the film and shows masculinity as she has to be looked after by the men. For example, she gets punched by one of the men, which shows the care free emotion of the ‘gangsters’ in the film. This film shows that women were insignificant in films in the 1900’s which also supports Laura Mulvey’s theory.
Laura Mulvey is a theorist that believes women are only used in film for the male gaze she insists all the women are passive and films and are used as ‘objects’, whereas the men are active. Her theory suggests that all the women are vulnerable and need the men to come along and help them. ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ also suggest this theory, as the pole dancer is for the male gaze, and is looked upon as an ‘object’ and all the women are very much insignificant in the film.
The film also brings up the argument of ‘Nature vs Nurture’, is it the nature of the environment that has made the characters gangsters or was it how they were brought up? In the film one of the main characters called Big Chris, who is played by Vinnie Jones has a son called Little Chris. Through the relationship they have, Big Chris always guides Little Chris of how he is a gangster and tries to teach him his way, Guy Ritchie tries to portray the idea that to be a gangster it comes from the nurture. However I also feel that it tries to get the point across that because all the people are within the environment of gangsters, it is there nature to be one.
In conclusion I feel that ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ represent the male identity in Britain in the 1900’s through the violence and masculinity. I think that Guy Ritchie tries to make the point that men should be free to be masculine and more ‘laddish’ rather than some of the ideas that some of the new theorists. I think it represents the British culture in the 1900’s through the gangsters, however it shows it through a funny and unrealistic story line.
Friday 24 September 2010
Essay 1 feedback
High level 3 - High C/Low B
This essay presents a clear understanding of the question and you have adjusted your answer accordingly. You clearly understand the theories and can use contemporary examples to support your points. You have structured your essay clearly to provide elements of both arguments. You need to engage on a more personal level with the question in order to get a level 4/A. This would mean adding something different - a new angle or an example of your own for instance.
This essay presents a clear understanding of the question and you have adjusted your answer accordingly. You clearly understand the theories and can use contemporary examples to support your points. You have structured your essay clearly to provide elements of both arguments. You need to engage on a more personal level with the question in order to get a level 4/A. This would mean adding something different - a new angle or an example of your own for instance.
Friday 17 September 2010
Media power vs People power
Media power vs People power
One of the biggest debates of media culture can be pulled together in one question; does the mass media have a significant amount of power over its audience, or does the audience ultimately have more power than the media? Out of the many debates, there are two main people who argue each side, Theodor Adorno and John Fiske. Adorno believed that the power of the mass media was enormous over the power of the audience, however Fiske argued that people have power over the media, arguing that people choose what they like, and have the power to make things popular.
Theodor Adorno (September 11, 1903 – August 6, 1969) was a German sociologist, philosopher and musicologist. He went to Frankfurt school of social theory along with his friend Max Horkheimer, whom he later wrote a book with. Adorno fled from Frankfurt to New York and Los Angeles when the Nazis took power in the 1930’s. Adorno’s antipathy towards the mass media would have probably been increased by seeing that Hitler had been able to use to media for propaganda. Also another crucial point, was that Karl Marx predicted (in the middle of the nineteenth century) that workers were going to recognize their unfair treatment, and overthrow the rulers and factory owners. However, instead the workers of the world seemed happy, they had decent films to watch, and songs to listen to which made them happy, even if there work was not that rewarding.
John Fiske (born in 1939) is a media scholar, he concentrates on popular culture, mass culture and television studies. He has also wrote eight books, including ‘Power Plays’, ‘Power Works’ and ‘Understanding Popular Culture’. Fiske has the complete opposite opinion to Adorno, arguing that the audience has power.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote a book called ‘Dialetic of Enlightenment’ (1947), this book referred to the mass media as the ‘culture industry’, this was to indicate its nature as a well-oiled machine producing entertainment products to make profit. All the products of the culture industry got called ‘exactly the same’, they argue that the products may seem different, but they are an illusion. This point can relate to ‘Axis of Awesome’; they are an Australian comedy act and they performed a song showing that most of the famous and popular songs that have been released all use the same 4 chords. This illustrates Adorno and Horkheimer’s point, showing that all the songs appear different, however they can be seen as the same. They believe that any person looking for entertainment has to have what the culture industry offers them, they can choose what they like, but only what is offered. They argue that because people have never had anything different, we want more of the same.
“The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object” (Theodor Adorno)
However, John Fiske argues, “popular culture is made by the people, not produced by the culture industry”. He wants to show that people are individuals with their own taste, and they are not drones. Fiske disagrees with Adorno’s saying that we’ve been tricked into liking pop music, Fiske says that we like pop music because it is what is genuinely popular a that time. He backs up his argument saying that record and film companies make more flops than they do hits, proving that audience chose what they want and like, not what they are made to.
A case study on Madonna shows us the points of view from both Theodor Adorno and John Fiske. For Adorno, Madonna would illustrate his point that the culture industry can mass produce one product and then successfully be able to sell it to an audience of ‘passive’ consumers. However Fiske is the opposite, he would argue that Madonna has sold so many albums because she has an ability to connect with the audience and although her albums may be units sold to the record label, it is unique and the people that buy it want to buy it because they enjoy it, and have their own meaning towards it.
Another case study that Theodor Adorno and John Fiske could argue over is the X factor. The X factor is a singing talent competition, where the public vote for a winner who is then offered a contract in the music industry. Adorno could argue that all of the x factor winners in the past since the talent show begun have been exactly the same. This is because the songs and singers that are produced (in Adorno’s words ‘churned out’) are very similar using mostly only the four chord formula, that I previously referred to using Axis of Awesome’. However John Fiske, an extreme people power believer could disagree with with Adorno completely. He would argue that, yes maybe the singers and songs are similar, however the audience are the ones that choose them selves who they want to win, therefore meaning they have their own opinion and choose what they want to.
In conclusion, Adorno and Fiske both have very different arguments, this is probably why they are the most known theorists for the argument; is media power stronger than people power? I personally, can relate to ideas from both of them and I feel they both have very good points; therefore I couldn’t favor one of the theories more than the other. I feel that people do have their own opinions and choose what they want to hear, however I also feel that the media offers us a range of different genres, which they feel will be popular.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)