Week 3.
Continuing the discussion from this week’s lecture about film and TV as a language, I discovered that viewing film as a language suggests that the audience analyses the images and how they are constructed in films. TV being a language evokes that audiences will gain an understanding of TV programmes through narrative so that they are able to identify meanings of images and sound. Ellis’ reading focuses on broadcast TV as sound and image, compared to cinema image. The reading also reflects on the importance of sound when it comes to having the audience’s attention.
Additionally, although TV image and cinema image include the similarity of providing entertainment for the public, ‘TV does not encourage the same degree of spectator concentration, there is no surrounding darkness… no large image… no rapt attention’ (Ellis, 1982). This indicates that TV almost acts as a form of media that audiences aren’t forced to pay much attention to. TV is ‘treated casually’ (Ellis, 1982), as it is something people tend to have on in the background when they’re not planning on watching it or when they are occupied by other forms of media and activities. However, cinema requires all attention and focus because Ellis suggests that it is ‘guaranteed a centred viewer’ (1982). This is because of the much larger screen, placement of seats and set rules of people not being allowed to use their devices or communicate while in the cinema room.
Moreover, Ellis discusses TV narration like in Smith’s reading, although its focus is on film theory and how it is a language. In terms of film narration, Smith indicates that films are constructed in a way that communicates a shared understanding with its audience. ‘Films are, for the most part, pretty easy to understand’ (2000). This conveys that films don’t normally require a lot of knowledge and thinking in order to understand the narrative and events that take place. The author then goes on to debate cinema as a language. He implies that cinema with the use of speech provides audiences with an interest and better understanding of cinema images. ‘Verbal communication came more and more to be seen as the heart of a film, with montage and mise en scene as mere effect’ (Smith, 2000). This highlights the importance of sound with the moving images on the screen. Without sound the real purpose of film and its role to entertain its audience would simply not happen.
The main ideas and thoughts I have taken from this week’s readings are the clear differences between TV and cinema. This has given me an idea of a research topic into what audiences prefer when it comes to consuming their media texts. Do they rely and make more use of TV than they do cinema?
Continuing the discussion from this week’s lecture about film and TV as a language, I discovered that viewing film as a language suggests that the audience analyses the images and how they are constructed in films. TV being a language evokes that audiences will gain an understanding of TV programmes through narrative so that they are able to identify meanings of images and sound. Ellis’ reading focuses on broadcast TV as sound and image, compared to cinema image. The reading also reflects on the importance of sound when it comes to having the audience’s attention.
Additionally, although TV image and cinema image include the similarity of providing entertainment for the public, ‘TV does not encourage the same degree of spectator concentration, there is no surrounding darkness… no large image… no rapt attention’ (Ellis, 1982). This indicates that TV almost acts as a form of media that audiences aren’t forced to pay much attention to. TV is ‘treated casually’ (Ellis, 1982), as it is something people tend to have on in the background when they’re not planning on watching it or when they are occupied by other forms of media and activities. However, cinema requires all attention and focus because Ellis suggests that it is ‘guaranteed a centred viewer’ (1982). This is because of the much larger screen, placement of seats and set rules of people not being allowed to use their devices or communicate while in the cinema room.
Moreover, Ellis discusses TV narration like in Smith’s reading, although its focus is on film theory and how it is a language. In terms of film narration, Smith indicates that films are constructed in a way that communicates a shared understanding with its audience. ‘Films are, for the most part, pretty easy to understand’ (2000). This conveys that films don’t normally require a lot of knowledge and thinking in order to understand the narrative and events that take place. The author then goes on to debate cinema as a language. He implies that cinema with the use of speech provides audiences with an interest and better understanding of cinema images. ‘Verbal communication came more and more to be seen as the heart of a film, with montage and mise en scene as mere effect’ (Smith, 2000). This highlights the importance of sound with the moving images on the screen. Without sound the real purpose of film and its role to entertain its audience would simply not happen.
The main ideas and thoughts I have taken from this week’s readings are the clear differences between TV and cinema. This has given me an idea of a research topic into what audiences prefer when it comes to consuming their media texts. Do they rely and make more use of TV than they do cinema?
References
Ellis, John (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video, Routledge: London - pp. 127-159
Ellis, John (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video, Routledge: London - pp. 127-159
Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey (2000) ‘How films mean, or, from
aesthetics to semiotics and half-way back again’ in Gledhill, C and Williams,
L. (2000), Reinventing Film Studies. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
No comments:
Post a Comment