In the Lectorial on Monday, Brian introduced the idea that technology can be socially disruptive. I think this point is very interesting, and it can definitely be substantiated. Technology has changed the way we live our lives. A simple example could be the invention of the telephone – instant communication across large distances was now possible, rather than writing a letter, waiting for that to be delivered, and that person having to send a letter back and repeat the process again.

The telephone changed the way we communicate for ever, but this didn’t mean that it was in any way a final stage of the evolvement of technology and culture. The introduction of mobile phones, and most recently smartphones, suggests that development of technology is a constant process that is always affecting the way we live our lives.

Technology has also allowed us to more easily cross not only physical distances, but also social distances. Before the Internet, a middle class Australian would never expect to bump into the President of the United States in the pub down the road. But on platforms such as Reddit AMAs (Ask Me Anything), anyone can head online and interact with famous and important people. I mentioned the president for a good reason: Barack Obama did an AMA a while ago, answering questions from ordinary people.

We are able to connect with people in ways we never have been able to before. This is significant in transforming us socially, as we are able humanise and empathise with strangers across the globe, and thus, technology is able to create a global interactive network that brings us closer together.

This article was posted online by Jay Rosen in 2006. He extolls the powers of the blog, hailing it the ‘modern printing press,’ due to its ability to give more authors a voice. Information can now flow form citizen to citizen, rather than from institution to citizen. Rosen contends that audiences are more powerful and active, and thus there is a ‘new balance of power.’

Interestingly, this article was posted 10 years ago, before social media, smartphones and Netflix became ubiquitous. The user communities that Rosen would be referencing back then, would have been replaced or morphed into different spaces. Yet, the argument he makes is increasingly relevant today, as audiences continue to interact with each other in different ways.

One of the responses, by Mark Howard, raises an interesting point to consider. Rosen’s article is quite aggressive in tone, suggesting that all audiences have a desire to be active and reclaim power from institutions. However, Howard considers that there is perhaps a subset of audience that wants to be passive, and indeed, there are media producers who depend on passive audience. Home shopping channels come to mind, for example.  If all audiences were critical of the media they were presented with, I doubt these channels would exist or make a profit.

Non-narrative documentary films can be presented in different types of form, which according to Bordwell and Thompson in Film Art: An Introduction, (2006), pp. 342-370.

Firstly, categorical form. These categories don’t have to be strict and exhaustive, they can blend with each other. These films may have simple and logical patterns of progression – however, they can also risk boring the audience if the categories are too dull. An example cited by Bordwell and Thompson is the film Gap Toothed Women, directed by Les Blank, who has chosen a category that is both interesting and broad enough to include a variety of women.

Rhetorical form is seen within a film where the filmmaker is presenting a persuasive argument. The filmmaker is trying to persuade an audience to have a certain opinion and act on it. There are different types of arguments, including arguments from source, subject centred arguments, and viewer centred arguments.

Abstract form and associational form are characteristic, but not limited to, of experimental film. A good example of abstract form is Ballet Mecanique (1923-1924), which is organised by shapes, colours, forms and music. Ballet Mecanique is interesting for me because it manages to make me feel incredibly uncomfortable – through a combination of discordant sounds and the odd combination of images. It is therefore very successful at shaping my experience of the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QV9-l-rXOE

Associational form relies on grouping images together to suggest ideas. Bordwell and Thompson compared some aspects of associational form to poetry, and techniques of simile and metaphor used within that.

I thought these are interesting ways of looking at non-narrative film. Some aspects of this had already been covered earlier in Introduction to Cinema Studies, so it was helpful to have further discussion about this to help me gain greater understanding.

M. Rabiger in Directing the Documentary (2009), p284-7, outlines the three act structure, or more broadly, ‘the escalation of pressure up to a crisis,’ that is present in most works of fiction, especially Hollywood cinema. Rabiger contends that this dramatic curve can be seen even in songs, dances, mimes and more, so I decided to test this theory with one of my favourite songs, ‘Never Going to Give You Up,’ by Rick Astley.

The song opens with an instrumental introduction, signalling the beginning of the First Act. This sets up the melody of the song that will be present throughout. The melody is upbeat, and instantly recognisable, communicating to the audience that the main scope and focus of this song is to be a chirpy pop song that will get stuck in your head all day.

The inciting moment for the song is perhaps when the vocals kick in, with Astley singing ‘we’re no strangers to love.’ The onset of these vocals starts to outline more clearly for the audience the narrative of the song, and the hypothetical conversation the lyrics are having with a different character, i.e. Astley’s love interest.

As the verse beings, the tension escalates, conveying the beginning of Act two. The lyrics outline Astley is ‘never going to give you up’, perhaps indicative, through the repetition of the verse, his struggle to make clear his feelings. We come to gain a greater understanding of the singer’s feelings and intentions, and are invited to feel empathy.

The climax of the song lies about three quarters of the way through, as the verse becomes constantly repeated, and eventually fades out until the end of the song, together with the instrumentals. Here the song is resolving itself, emphasizing the notion ‘I just want to tell you what I’m feeling,’ and released the tension of the dramatic arc that had been building up to this point.

Of course, the narrative of a song is very simplified compared to that of a film or documentary, but I think this demonstrates that Rabiger’s theory applies quite well even to popular music.