Deleuze’s ideas were more difficult for me to grasp this week, however what I did really start thinking about was whether or not I would contend his perception that the frame is either the geometrical or the physical. If I have the right idea in mind here, I would think that a frame of a person’s eyes in an extreme close up, straight on is a physical representation. Perhaps anything from a straight on angle close up could be considered a physical representation? Whereas, taking an image from a lower or high angle alters this perception away from what it may look like physically. However this idea of ‘physical’ – is it based on my idea of dimensions and accurate spatiality? There is a lot that you can manipulate within the frame, and also a lot that you can present as is (to an extent). However even with taking a photo of eyes, that is still geometrical – the oval shape of the eyes for instance – but there isn’t the illusion of space or the third dimension.
The ‘out of field’ concept, although quite vague to me, is also interesting. I suppose some of it could relate to semiotics – there can be more to the frame, purposefully representing different meanings and the connotation of different ideas. However this also concerns emotions that are inferred or that which we perceive… Deleuze is interesting and confusing, but will help me with my understanding of the frame the more I think about these ideas.
References
Gilles Deleuze, ‘Frame and shot’, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image (2005), Continuum.
‘Pretty Little Liars’ a teen drama mystery/thriller hybrid which centres many of it’s plotlines over the past five seasons over the question ‘who is ‘A’? ‘A’ in this case refers to an anonymous stalker who harasses and haunts the lives of four teenage girls. Feasey defines teen drama shows as those which “present texts that are deliberately and decisively about the lives, loves, trials and tribulations of the youthful protagonist.” (pp. 46, 2008) Additionally, Murphy describes that “thrillers often create suspense by the crudest method – simply by withholding information from the reader.” (pp. 13, 1999) Pretty Little Liars lies at the intersection of each of these.
Since the show’s conception in 2010, audiences have speculated alongside PLL’s four main characters about the identity of ‘A’, so much so that speculative fan engagement via the ‘second screen’ has become the watermark of the Pretty Little Liar’s fan experience.
Giglietto and Selva define ‘social TV’ as “the interactions among other viewers and between viewers, the characters, and the producers of the show enabled by the ‘second screen’ practise”. (2014). The ‘second screen’ referring here to the simultaneous experience of watching television while being active on computer and mobile devices, or anything involving a WiFi connection.
Pretty Little Liars brings a new meaning to the term ‘social TV’ as engagement through the second screen also encourages a kind of communal viewing experience. The collective search for ‘A’ builds hype and expectation, adding to the genre of mystery. Where the four main characters gasp at a the end of an episode when a new cliff hanger is made apparent, so too do the show’s viewers – and then they live tweet their shock and disbelief to the show’s actors, writers or their respective PLL fan communities. There is something about the chase of the answers and the ambiguity of the unknown baited by the the show’s social media campaigns which sparks endless interest.
Link: Fans were encouraged to ‘unlock’ a reaction video from one of the show’s actresses.
Pretty Little Liars is one of the most popular shows amongst the demographic of women aged 18 – 34, a group who’s constant level of connectivity to mobile devices may spark criticism or concern. Although it could be assumed that second screen use is distracting from watching the show, it seems as though multi tasking abilities allow viewers to participate with two screens simultaneously. The show builds a wider culture of viewer involvement in which fans begin to feel as though they, too are in on the hunt for ‘A’. Pretty Little Liars is very much so an example of spectatorship, which may not have been previously associated with T.V viewing.
To illustrate Pretty Little Liar’s impact on second screen use – Twitter noted that following the show’s summer finale in August 2013, the episode broke records for a scripted TV series, with 1, 973, 418 tweets. PLL fans are some of the most digitally devoted, and although they divide their attention between the screens, their attention is still directed toward the show as a whole. Social media tends to keep traditional television viewing going rather than inhibiting it, albeit through a cultural transformation of our viewing habits.
——————————————————————————————
References:
‘Pretty Little Liars’ finale: 1.45 million Tweets, 63.45 million impressions, according to NTTR’, 2014. Available from: <https://blog.twitter.com/2014/pretty-little-liars-finale-145-million-tweets-6345-million-impressions-according-to-nttr>. [Accessed: 11 August 2015]
Giglietto, F & Selva, D 2014, ‘Second Screen and Participation: A Content Analysis on a Full Season Dataset of Tweets’, Journal of Communication, Vol 64, p. 260. Available from: Wiley Online Library Journals [Accessed: August 10 2015]
Bruce F. Murphy . (December 1999). The Encyclopedia of Murder and Mystery . [Online] Available at: http://www.palgraveconnect.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230107359. [Accessed: 14 August 2015].
Feasey, Rebecca 2008, Masculinity and Popular Television, e-book, accessed 14 August 2015, <http://RMIT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=380402>.
Satirical news television made its popular conception in the 1990s and early 2000s with programming such as Brass Eye in the U.K (1997 – 2001).Though parodies of the news have existed for some four decades, many are most familiar with the slew of comedy and news satirical shows ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’, ‘The Colbert Report’ on Comedy Central, and most recently ‘Last Week Tonight’ with John Oliver on HBO.
Lubeck describes that “satirical news is often defined by its comedic nature, using deadpan humour to create what is called “fake news”, its underlying objective is to make statements about real people, events and trends, often with the intent of influencing change.” (2009)
Monologues from comedians such as Oliver are spoken at what could be described as a news desk, as he shuffles papers and commentates across from a small screen portraying the news story in question, adhering to many of the typical conventions of news broadcasts. Many of the footage included in the segment include news footage from mainstream news media sources such as Fox News, CNN or MSNBC. These monologues are often laced with a sense of disillusionment at the mainstream news, communicated through deadpan expressions as if to imply the “stupidity” of the program.
Satirical news programmes within this genre are often said to integrate comedy and journalism, so much so that the question arises as to where along the spectrum they fall between infotainment and the news that they attempt to satirise and criticise. To answer this, we must consider the origins of the genre. Grondin suggests that it was within the context of the war on terror that shows such as Stewart’s gained popularity, as political humour was used to cope via “publicly [externalising] feelings” (2012).
It seems as though those feelings expressed resonated sharply with viewers, and this continues to be the appeal today, with different political contexts. Consider for example Colbert’s coverage of news media response to multiple incidences of police brutality in the U.S in 2014.
Colbert manages to simultaneously, critique news media’s arguably bias coverage of these incidents, and the wider culture of denying the issues with race relations in the U.S. It seems as though, where viewers may be discontented with poor mainstream news programming, they turn to satirical news comedy for what they deem truthful depictions of news, albeit through the medium of sarcastic monologue. It is this satirical comedic performances which gives Colbert, and similar comedians, the ability to imply critique, poke fun at institutions, all the while bringing to attention serious issues such as police brutality.
Though outside of the realm of traditional presentation of the news, this mode of television is still informative – so much so that in 2014, a Pew Survey found that 12 per cent of America noted that ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ was their news source. (Gottfried, Jeffrey et. al, 2015) Though comedic, these kinds of satirical performances could be also be considered as infotainment, rather than just “the fake news”.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
References:
Grondin, D 2012, ‘Understanding Culture Wars through Satirical/Political Infotainment TV: Jon Stewart and The Daily Show’s Critique as Mediated Re – enactment of the Culture War.’, Canadian Review of American Studies, Vol 42, no. 3, pp. 351 – 352. Available from: Project MUSE.
Sterling, CH 2009, Encyclopedia of journalism, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, viewed 14 August 2015, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412972048.
Gottfried, Jeffrey et al. ‘As Jon Stewart Steps Down, 5 Facts About The Daily Show’. Pew Research Center. N.p., 2015. Web. 14 Aug. 2015.
I was absent from this week’s class on Thursday, but after looking through the readings and lecture slides, I’ve had a few thoughts spring to mind ~
Thinking about movement, ‘In the Mood for Love’ was definitely a more engaging film for me, and not only because it wasn’t as lengthy as L’Aventura, but it was the use of movement that did it – as Dan said, the film is like a dance. I have an appreciation for the still image, but ITMFL moved so continuously across the nooks and crannies and doors of the apartment that it gave a kind of voyeuristic feeling – like the audience is moving along in the scene as the characters are.
‘Toward a new aesthetic’ was a tough reading this week, but what interested me was the example of the scene from ‘The Matrix’ as an example of moving through bullet time by splicing images together. It messes around with the temporal qualities to establish the narrative timing rather than real time. I’m still trying to wrap my head around this, but I didn’t previously considering how movement affects perception of time and how it can be manipulated to change perception. In the opening scene of ITMFL, it seems like framing the show within these narrow hallways/door frames and then using the continuous editing gives off this atmosphere that everything and everyone is moving at a quicker pace, whereas in The Matrix, movement is manipulated to seem lengthy and slowed down so as to give off a computerised/non human look of the characters. I’m not sure if this is making sense, but I’m looking to explore more of this talk about movement in my essay this week – hopefully I will get the hold of the movement then! However, the point being that this examples of movement in the frame are helping me to understand how temporal qualities are effected.
What I found particularly interesting from this week’s reading was that Sontag identified the notion that the photograph is objective, where the drawing or painting may not be. The transparency of the photograph or frame is however not that simple, because, as she put it, photographs are still interpretations which are often drafted and thoroughly composed. This is further reiterated when discussing how the frame operates regarding perspective and focus and how the elements (lighting colour, composition etc.) work to define the way someone observing the frame sees it.
Not a lot is really transparent because the photographer has so much control – for example one of my fifty frames was of a treetop with the sky in the background. I had framed the image in such a way that the power lines were omitted from view. The photograph isn’t really comparable at all to what my eye could actually see, as I could just look downwards and see the power lines – the photograph was a complete construction.
The concept of Plato’s cave is fascinating to me – the artist can obviously manipulate the frame as to what they wish observers to see. This means that could either idealise the frame – on a small scale, by omitting the power lines I made my frame more ideal – or they can present only the negative, a less ideal point of view. The frame is very much a portal into not only what the image contains but also the artist’s perspective and their motivations. In this way I can see how photography, and artwork in general, is an ethics of seeing.
References
Susan Sontag, ‘In Plato’s Cave’, In On Photography (1979), Penguin, pp. 3-13.
Prior to the first studio session today I still had a relatively vague understanding of what the On The Frame studio would entail – the single word ‘cinematography’ came to mind. However after brainstorming some of the terms relative to what’s in the frame it’s starting to come together. What particularly interests me are composition, colour, staging, lighting and repetition. Admittedly, I am very much so a story person but I think it will be a welcome (though a somewhat daunting) challenge to delve deeper into more of the aesthetic/design intricacies of ‘the frame’. Colour and semiotics associated with colours always grab my attention in the frame and that is something I can easily warm to. However, I chose lighting as this has always challenged me as it’s a technical component I find hard to grasp – hopefully when I take my fifty frames I’ll get more comfortable with exploring lighting and it’s possibilities.
