Blog Post 1

Blog Post 2

Blog Post 3

Coming into this practical exercise I felt rather confident that our preparative work would see us receive our desired result. With a clear understanding of what was required of us to produce our planned aesthetic, we were able to come prepared with our EVS footage, Graphics, music and set design plan. Having planned a solid 3 round structure with two contestants, a judge and a leading host, I anticipated this to run smoothly. Upon viewing the final result of what we produced, I was rather satisfied with the outcome, considering the particular challenges we faced in the control room. My experience in the control room saw some confusion among myself, fellow control room members and those on the floor. From this experience I realised that there were a few gaps in our preparation.

My experience as the vision switcher on this show was quite challenging, as communication amongst the different roles in the control room was hindered by lack of consideration for the control room process. Our production saw the utilisation of stings and graphics that were sent to the onset screen. This worked well, however we would have seen a much better result if we devised a more rigid plan for those in the control room. This would have ensured that there were no awkward delays or quick switches between cameras, due to confusion and sporadic decision making.

Having to consider many things at once, myself, the evs operator, gfx operator, sound room operators and director found ourselves becoming confused due to a lack of synchronisation amongst each other, and with personnel on the floor. Due to the absence of a written plan that specified when to que graphics, evs footage and sound, we found ourselves unsure when to throw to particular visuals. Due to this, we were basing our cues off the timing of the talent. In turn, this affected the overall flow as talent was waiting for cues from the floor manager, who was in communication with us. 

Upon reflection on this experience, I think we did well to produce a final result that maintained a clear structure. Considering we had some difficulties backstage due to a lack of consideration for the execution of technical elements, I think we did well to find solutions in a live setting. Understanding that the nature of live television requires you to think on the fly, our production would have benefited from having a more solid understanding of the duration of each sting and a concise plan for cutting to the judge and host at the beginning and end of each round. However, understanding that the nature and concept of our show was strongly based around improvisation, it was harder to anticipate the exact timing of things. Next time it would be wise to spend more time working out to swiftly manage all visual and audio assets beforehand and place more consideration on the technical execution of the show. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed this exercise. Having a more complex format to manage, I feel like I received many positive takeaways from the trial and error in this experience.

In Week Five’s in class discussion my group spoke about the distinctions between game shows and quiz shows, and how among the two, hybridities can be seen when looking at this style of TV production. Both game shows and quiz shows generally have some sort of pay off or incentive that encourages participation. Focussed more on general and academic knowledge, the quiz show generally follows a question and answer based format, while the game show focuses more on skilled based activities, luck and chance and are generally more physical. While this is the case, both elements can be seen in some shows, creating a hybrid of the two formats. 

My group’s discussion also brought up the idea of genre and format and how the two differ. When dissecting text such as movies and fictional television, it is often easy to identify elements which align with particular genres. However, when looking at reality television, particularly the game show and quiz show, we find that this specific style of television is often categorised based on its fictional nature and lack of overt authorship. Though often viewed as homogeneous, many facets of differing reality television formats create distinguishable factors that allow for variation in style. Reality television generally follows particular formats and works within objective restraints. For example, game shows and quiz shows are driven by the frameworks which they follow and are not particularly drama based. However this is not necessarily an explicit element to all reality television. While fictional based television is heavily based on format, it doesn’t mean genre is absent. Depending on the format of particular shows, genre may be what the format is based around. For example, dating shows are romance based and physical challenge game shows may fall under a sporting genre but these elements still fit within the restraints of the format.

In Week Four’s reading by Ben Lamb, titled Narrative Form and the British Television Studio 1955–1963, I was particularly interested in the portion of the reading that spoke about how the material design of studio production coincides with the mise-en-scène of fictional narrative forms in sitcoms and studio dramas. This reading spoke about the role of set design and how its basic conventions are transferable across studio dramas and sitcoms. In the case of sitcoms, conservative approaches to set design see the set act as merely a back-drop that provides an identity to the on screen narrative. However, as these types of production are dialogue based, further meaning provided by mise-en-scène has the set and props play a subservient role in the conveyance of narrative. 

As described by the reading, studio-shot dramas and sitcoms are forms of light entertainment, thus sharing similar visual aesthetics. While the role of material design in studio productions is an important element of mise-en-scène, as it provides the narrative with an identity by providing a setting, its main function is to act as supplementation to on screen action performed by the characters. Key features of studio dramas and sitcoms see minimal engagement with spatial depth and have character engagement occur in close proximity. By having action played out in the foreground of the shot, with the use of minimal camera movement and utilisation of mid-shots, it ensures that there is a primary focus on character interaction and dialogue. I particularly found Lamb’s explanation about the occupation of a shot’s foreground as being an important element that maintains character simplicity. With little attention placed on spatial depth and or object within the space, script meaning is tainted by additional action that could possibly provide extra meaning to the text. Lamb speaks about this as being key features seen in Dixon of Dock Green. However this is also consistent with many examples of other sitcoms and studio dramas.