Jay Rosen (2006),’The People Formerly Known as the Audience’, PressThink blog, June 27. 

I found this article very useful in reflecting on how nowadays the relationship between media producers and consumers have become blurred. We are now in an information age where the mouthpiece for society is passed around like a communal joint and when someone makes a good point we all nod and move on.

As someone who grew up with the internet readily available I had never really thought of myself as an pure audience member whose role only consisted of consuming. I like to think of the modern relationship between maker and consumer as a sushi train restaurant. Each dish (media texts) move around the tasters (audience) on a mini train creating a constant stream of interesting visually delectable platters. The ever moving train (our news feeds) allows us to see a wide spread of food BUT we are the ones with the power to consume, and in turn recommend what we eat. In a way the eaters have the most power as we are the ones who decide what becomes popular. Naturally the most favoured dishes disappear quickly and this high demand is noticed by the chefs who then create more of that popular dish. This can explain maybe we there are so many damn superhero movies at the moment.

Also without audiences nothing goes viral which means The Ellen show has no viral videos to feature.

Vsauce one of my favourite youtubers investigated the history of clapping; why we do it, what it means and how its meaning has changed over time. I think that if we look at the history of clapping; an activity originally used to show curtesy and appreciation of a live act, we can track the shift in power in the media.

He says that clapping is a “a collective social gesture which we in groups to express admiration.” People used to have to see orchestras play music live in order to appreciate their favourite symphonies; but now with recorded music its so much easier to become an audience of one.  With more entertainment than ever and technology that allows us to “cacoon” our consumption of it in solitude it would seem like our ability to “clap” as a crowd would diminish. But to me that is far from the truth.

• A highly centralized media system had connected people “up” to big social agencies and centers of power but not “across” to each other. Now the horizontal flow, citizen-to-citizen, is as real and consequential as the vertical one.

Instead of applauding in real life in substitution we have accumulative liking, sharing and commenting on content online. As Michael says, we create a “digital applause” as an ersatz applause.

“The intensity of these relationships can be described as sitting somewhere on a continuum from strong ties with shared intentionality to incidental production by strangers, captured through shared interfaces or agents, sometimes unconscious byproducts of other online activity”

Before reading this, I had never thought of online “non-interactive” activity as a form of collaboration. This is because I don’t often see others as having a similar goal to me especially when we haven’t met.

This reminds me of pinning boards on Pinterest. Boards are a compilation of photos and links to more pages organised by topic. On Pinterest like a communal cork board you can pin and unpin sources. Other can view your board and then take your pins and place it on theirs. In a way, although not very personal, all Pinterest members are  working together to create similar goldmines of photos. When I first made an account I found that it was very easy to find some treasures already nicely compiled for me. Soon enough people were pinning from my own boards.

Mob mentality can be dangerous especially online. Derren Brown’s show demonstrates how quickly a group of dehumanised people can escalate to violence and deliberately harming others. On his show he gives people masks and sits them in a group as an audience.

But on the other hand mob mentality can be good. It has become a trend to make FAKE “social experiment” Youtube videos that shame a particular group of people or are very biased in proving common view. They gain views because as cruel humans we enjoy watching others become embarrassed online. If we were to see this happening in real life we would act as individuals and intervene. On youtube where generally our only trace of identity is our user name and chosen photo we can indulge in prank videos all we like. However, the ever chaotic comment section sometimes proves to be useful in exposing videos for what they really are. On some videos more observant viewers point out flaws and the injustices of the video. The up voting system youtube has where you can like a comment so it stays atop the mountain of comments to be seen by all the viewers allows particular viewpoints to be shared. In a way this is a form of teamwork as the more educated viewers are helping others shine the light on the truth. Popularising vital information about the falsities of sensationalist media through anonymous up voting is one of the greater parts of strangers “working together” for the sake of avoiding ignorance.

Week 4’s readings were surprisingly sciencey for what I thought was just a pure media course. But this diversity of this course has been delightful so far anyway. Film is made up of audio and visual stimuli (unless of course you went to Shrek in 4D at movie world*)

Because vision is our primary sense we perceive EVEN AUDIO through our eyes first. So behold the curious McGurk Effect!

ADD MORE FROM READING HERE

Back to the film side of it, a brilliant example of how visual and audio can work together to create a compelling effect is the sound edit in Jurassic Park (1997) directed by Steven Spielberg. After her daughter is attacked, her moth screeches. The soundtrack also swells with high-pitched whiney violins which help blend the screaming. This sound slowly changes into a train screech, as it cuts to the man yawning. We immediately join the sound to his open mouth as if he is screaming, even though the sound doesn’t how he would scream normally. This shows that visuals dominate our film experience, but sound can be used to trick us.

*shrek in 4D: I’m terrified of horror movies so seeing the haunted house short film was borderline torture. The 4d aspect was quite refreshing literally as we were splashed with water when goop was shown on screen. And a sadistic tickle device under our chairs set off when we were shown creatures on screen.

McKee, Robert. (1997). ‘The substance of story.’ In Story: Style, Structure, Substance, and the Principles of Screenwriting. New York, USA: HarperCollins, pp. 135-154

This reading made me rethink the way I read stories and see films with the idea of seeing the world from the protagonists point of view, and looking through their lens out at their world. This seems more fulfilling and insightful than looking down at the character and at their circumstances. I used to think “well if I were them I’d…” now I think more “I can see why they are choosing to do that.”

For example with Cast Away (2000) directed by Robert Zemeckis, as Chuck Nolan is pushed the the edge of his humanity in isolation, we all wonder: “what would I do?”

Focussing on the narrative, Chuck’s antagonist is time, and the catalyst is his own desperation. I find this film interesting because all the motivation and obstacles are abstract and internal. For example to combat loneliness he comforts himself by creating a volleyball pal who pushes him through the toughest times. We do not hear Wilson the volleyball talking, but he becomes a character we care about.

Frustration as a catalyst for action is very evident in the scene where he starts a fire. As Rabiger states his will is “powerful enough to sustain desire through conflict” and cause “irreversible change.” We see Chuck become excited, starting out optimistic, break down in agony and giving up. Then we see him try again with new sticks and flint; we cry and laugh at his success as he dances around in flaming glory. It is interesting that there are no immediate external pressures pushing him to start the fire, which proves that a story’s pacing is determined not just by the world’s reaction, but the core of his character.

Rabiger also says that the protagonist should “pursue the object of desire convincingly.” This is particularly important for Chuck as we see him slowly decline to an existential state as he loses hope. He continues to toss up between giving up or making a drastic leap of faith. Tom hank’s realistic portrayal of a man pitted against one humanity’s most excruciating timeless questions, “to be or not to be”

I never thought I would try and relate Macbeth to Cast Away but there it is.

To me Chuck’s choice to go out sea for a last sliver of a chance at being found, encapsulates the idea of the protagonist needing to hold onto hope to propel the narrative. We can all see ourselves in Chuck.