Why do people talk such rubbish about Media Studies?
Homer Simpson - Article - "Angry parents accuse school of 'dumbing down' English by showing The Simpsons in class" (says the Daily Mail)
"Tories to tackle Media Studies Menace" (says the Independent)
Michael Gove (Education Minister) says - "entry rates for Media A-Level in 10 years have increased by 160%
Barnaby Leman (from The Guardian) - "'Worthless' qualifications give false hope to state pupils says Harrow Head"
Google article - "Media studies is shit"
Martin Baker - "Dons despair as students spurn Science in favour of 'Media Studies'"
Matthew Arnold (Headteacher of Rugby) - wrote a book about working class threats
Frank and Queenie Leavis - book - "Literature against pop culture"
Cause by the Media - Saving innocent kids from violence, tobacco, alcohol, sex and obesity
Tony Benn - "Only Democracy gives us that right"
Jon Kingsbury - "We're talking about a converged interactive Media industry. There's an increasing interplay between gaming, online, TV and films - it's all coming together"
Converged Media is more interactive...
Stuff to read
- David Gauntless
- Sonia Livingstone
- David Buckingham
- Annette Hill
- Michael Wesch
- Dan Gillmor
- Henry Jenkins
- Graeme Turner
Perfecting your production work
- Research and planning
- Blogging and evidence
- Ideas and feedback
- Logistics, equipment and production
Research
- Really look at examples
- Keep evidence of all your research
- Research every angle
- Conventions, audiences and institutions
Planning
- Things will go wrong
- Record all your planning in visuals
- Show the process of your 'journey'
Blogging
- Always use a blog (it allows you to link to examples)
Evidence
- Storyboards
- Animatics
- Recce photos
Ideas
- Keep the ideas simple
- Have a workable concept with realistic plans
- Try the '25 word pitch' or the 'lift pitch'
Feedback
- At all stages, get feedback from peers, teachers and others
Logistics
- People, places, props, costumes
- Get it done early - you may need to do it all again
- Rehearse and prepare
- Share contact details for all involved
Equipment
- Practice on it
- Prepare it
Production
- Always shoot extra for coverage
- Organise your material before editting
- Start with the big picture
Useful websites
www.artofthetitle.com - helps you create a nice flashy title
www.petesmediablog.blogspot.com - lecturer's media blog (very helpful apparently)
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Bianca's Essay...keywords
What are the different representations of women in adverts and how are they signified?
The representation of women can be positive: challenging the roles and expectations of women or negative: reinforcing a patriarchal society. This essay questions how and why these representations are constructed in an advert for Gucci Guilty Perfume and Stella Artois beer.
Firstly the Gucci advert is in widescreen which connotes a dramatic cinematic experience to engage its audience. More attention is gained by the female character first seen in the text and her protagonist is signified through this. The protagonist has female dominance which is signified through the use of colour- everything is in black and white while her hair is gold/blonde. This colour connotes gold, power and divinity signifying her importance in the text.
The use of intertextuality in this text will appeal to a particular audience. The film references a great deal to the neo film noir Sin City, with the use of colour and the female dominant femme fatale character. Sin City appeals to a male audience due to the action genre, this trailer could also appeal to the same audience due to the intertextuality. In terms of the Uses and Gratifications theory, a female audience might realise and accept the protagonist in the text is a form of escapism and also a male gaze, by theorist Mulvey, and therefore might aspire, from Young and Rubicam's 4Cs, to be the object of male gaze too.
Though the protagonist is an object of male gaze, it could be suggested that she sexually objectifies herself to tease the audience. The protagonist puts her leg into the frame of the shot. As she puts into the frame, it signifies self objectification, allowing the audience to fetishise her body. Another shot, a high angle, of their sexual activities signifies CCTV and spying which is voyeuristic. The fact she is on top signifies her control of the situation for both the male character and the audience.
Not only does the protagonist exert her feminity through self objectification she also presents herself as an anarchic character signified by adopting male stereotypes. The advert begins with a long shot of an unknown character speeding down the motorway, which stereotypically would be expected to be a male character. However, the audience's expectations are challenged when a medium shot of the driver shows to be a female.
In contrast, women are negatively represented in the Stella Artois text. The most obvious editing technique used in the advert is the split screen: one side shows the female getting dressed and the other side is of the beer getting "prepared". This use of split screen signifies that neither the beer nor the woman know they have been placed side by side. This puts the audience in position of control as they can voyeur the woman, in a socially acceptable way. Audiences may identify this control as patriarchy, and also identify with the unknown male character whose presence is felt within the text. This text then reinforces the idea of a patriarchal society and that women are subordinated by men.
Not only does the female share the screen with the beer, but the screen is split equally between the two "objects" which connotes the woman is equally objectified to the status of beer. It is suggested the audience is male due to the female and beer subject. Though the advert is targeted at men, it also negatively stereotypes men as people who have little respect for women which however is a dominant representation.
A range of close up shots of the female are used to fetishise her body. There is a close up shot of the female's leg slowly and elegantly rising from the bath tub. On one hand this could signify femininity and her control over it which is the oppositional reading. However, the more dominant reading is that her legs are an important part of the female body and connotes a male audience who can voyeur her body.
The text near the beginning of the trailer says "the preparation" which is an enigma code as the audience question "what event is the preparation for?". It is signified through the shots that the woman and beer preparation is for the male through the use of action codes. Action codes of both the preparation of the woman and the glass of beer are the same.
Women are represented as people who prioritise their looks and appearance, and this ad reinforces this ideology. Action codes including close ups of her: brushing her hair, doing her make up and putting on heels strongly represent women as image conscious. It could be said that the advert reinforces this representation, which is always seen in the media. Funnily enough, it could also be said that the media itself is the cause of this representation as this ideal, perfect woman is always represented in the media, and women feel they have to aspire to it.
In conclusion, both texts females are the protagonists and are sexually objectified for male audiences to fetishise and vouyer their bodies. However, while Gucci’s advert’s protagonist controls her sexuality through self objectification, the Stella Artois’ protagonist is objectified by an unknown but present male character.
In the Gucci’s ad, there are many examples in the text that signify the protagonist’s female dominance, but it is arguable whether this could be seen as a positive representation. The dominant reading is that the protagonist exerts her female dominance over the male challenging the historical patriarchal society and even subordinating males as easily manipulated and easily tempted by women and sex and this would favour feminism. However the oppositional reading which would favour the ideologies of the Stella Artois advert, might be that females can control their sexuality, but it is still for the male gaze and male dominant society.
The representation of women can be positive: challenging the roles and expectations of women or negative: reinforcing a patriarchal society. This essay questions how and why these representations are constructed in an advert for Gucci Guilty Perfume and Stella Artois beer.
Firstly the Gucci advert is in widescreen which connotes a dramatic cinematic experience to engage its audience. More attention is gained by the female character first seen in the text and her protagonist is signified through this. The protagonist has female dominance which is signified through the use of colour- everything is in black and white while her hair is gold/blonde. This colour connotes gold, power and divinity signifying her importance in the text.
The use of intertextuality in this text will appeal to a particular audience. The film references a great deal to the neo film noir Sin City, with the use of colour and the female dominant femme fatale character. Sin City appeals to a male audience due to the action genre, this trailer could also appeal to the same audience due to the intertextuality. In terms of the Uses and Gratifications theory, a female audience might realise and accept the protagonist in the text is a form of escapism and also a male gaze, by theorist Mulvey, and therefore might aspire, from Young and Rubicam's 4Cs, to be the object of male gaze too.
Though the protagonist is an object of male gaze, it could be suggested that she sexually objectifies herself to tease the audience. The protagonist puts her leg into the frame of the shot. As she puts into the frame, it signifies self objectification, allowing the audience to fetishise her body. Another shot, a high angle, of their sexual activities signifies CCTV and spying which is voyeuristic. The fact she is on top signifies her control of the situation for both the male character and the audience.
Not only does the protagonist exert her feminity through self objectification she also presents herself as an anarchic character signified by adopting male stereotypes. The advert begins with a long shot of an unknown character speeding down the motorway, which stereotypically would be expected to be a male character. However, the audience's expectations are challenged when a medium shot of the driver shows to be a female.
In contrast, women are negatively represented in the Stella Artois text. The most obvious editing technique used in the advert is the split screen: one side shows the female getting dressed and the other side is of the beer getting "prepared". This use of split screen signifies that neither the beer nor the woman know they have been placed side by side. This puts the audience in position of control as they can voyeur the woman, in a socially acceptable way. Audiences may identify this control as patriarchy, and also identify with the unknown male character whose presence is felt within the text. This text then reinforces the idea of a patriarchal society and that women are subordinated by men.
Not only does the female share the screen with the beer, but the screen is split equally between the two "objects" which connotes the woman is equally objectified to the status of beer. It is suggested the audience is male due to the female and beer subject. Though the advert is targeted at men, it also negatively stereotypes men as people who have little respect for women which however is a dominant representation.
A range of close up shots of the female are used to fetishise her body. There is a close up shot of the female's leg slowly and elegantly rising from the bath tub. On one hand this could signify femininity and her control over it which is the oppositional reading. However, the more dominant reading is that her legs are an important part of the female body and connotes a male audience who can voyeur her body.
The text near the beginning of the trailer says "the preparation" which is an enigma code as the audience question "what event is the preparation for?". It is signified through the shots that the woman and beer preparation is for the male through the use of action codes. Action codes of both the preparation of the woman and the glass of beer are the same.
Women are represented as people who prioritise their looks and appearance, and this ad reinforces this ideology. Action codes including close ups of her: brushing her hair, doing her make up and putting on heels strongly represent women as image conscious. It could be said that the advert reinforces this representation, which is always seen in the media. Funnily enough, it could also be said that the media itself is the cause of this representation as this ideal, perfect woman is always represented in the media, and women feel they have to aspire to it.
In conclusion, both texts females are the protagonists and are sexually objectified for male audiences to fetishise and vouyer their bodies. However, while Gucci’s advert’s protagonist controls her sexuality through self objectification, the Stella Artois’ protagonist is objectified by an unknown but present male character.
In the Gucci’s ad, there are many examples in the text that signify the protagonist’s female dominance, but it is arguable whether this could be seen as a positive representation. The dominant reading is that the protagonist exerts her female dominance over the male challenging the historical patriarchal society and even subordinating males as easily manipulated and easily tempted by women and sex and this would favour feminism. However the oppositional reading which would favour the ideologies of the Stella Artois advert, might be that females can control their sexuality, but it is still for the male gaze and male dominant society.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
TV Ad Analysis
This clip shows a positive representation of women. We see this in the way the man is struggling to parallel-park his car. Naturally, in today's patriarchal society, we expect there to be some stereotypical insult against women's parking skills, judging by how they have been criticised in the past. However, this advertisement takes a turn against this patriarchal mentality and shows the viewer that women can not only park safely, but can park better than men. It expresses the views of modern Feminists that women can do everything as well as men, if not better. The Mise-en-scene is derived from a comic scene created in the 1990s, where a woman was mocked for her driving skills after impossibly crashing into a gate and flipping her car upside-down.
The woman that gets out of the car wears high heels, which is the first glimpse we get of her. This build up creates a powerful atmosphere illustrating her as an authoritative figure as she walks towards the man's car in slow motion. The effect is used to create tension as the audience watches in suspense for who this mystery woman is. She is dressed in formal office-type clothing, which connotes that she is not the sterotypical woman who is known to have reckless driving skills, but is this powerful Feminist, looking down at the man in the car through the window. This advertisement sends a clear message to anti-Feminist males, that women do not have to show their flesh and skin to be considered powerful, or even beautiful.
It almost seems deliberate that she is shown to be blonde, judging by the stereotypical connotations of blonde women being less academincally able "bimbos". THis also cancels out the traditional subordinate view of blonde women driving cars, almost converting the male gaze into a female one. Furthermore, the female character in the commercial could be showing signs of Androgyny, as she is portraying herself as almost a masculine woman. However, some could argue that she has qualities of a traditional Femme Fatale; even though she is not dressed provocatively, she possessed the shiny blonde hair and power over the man. There is also a slight sense of Voyeurism depicted in the scene which would tend to attract male audiences. It uses ISA to bring across this message of passion and fetishization as we watch her heel hit the floor and the camera pan up her legs to show her waist
This commercial shows a negative representation of women and is of complete contrast to the previous one. First of all, it begins with a group of friends playing a prank on one of their mates, who leaves the car to urinate. The fact that the driver is male displays the stereotypical view of how cars should be handled.
However, the main sexist remark shown in this clip is at the end, where the car drives over the cliff and the viewer is informed that the ad is to promote an insurance company. The target audience would probabl be sexist males, who have a patriarchal, even in today's society. This is because they are most likely the only group of viewers who would find the commercial funny rather than indulting. It is surprising that, not only is the advertisement completely sexist, but the company itself is based around the view that insurance should exist purely for women's use. This centres on the previous clip, which opposed the view of the stereotypical woman driver and her lack of driving skills.
Therefore, this commercial shows women as subordinate by insulting the intelligence of women drivers. Some may argue that this commercial is more misogynistic rather than patriarchal, seeing as it displays an unnecessary dislike towards women and their driving skills. Furthermore, it uses ideological state apparatus to, in a way, “brainwash” the naive and feminist male audience that this is the way they should be thinking. Therefore, it could be argued that the creators try to manipulate audiences to fit the needs of their target audience.
Monday, 11 October 2010
Gender & Advertising (Research)
This commercial highlights the stereotypical representation of women that was visible in the 1970s. It shows a standard 70s housewife singing almost happily that her day of labour is over and she shall now relax using the perfume. The quote "I've been sweet and I've been good, I've had a whole full day of motherhood" refer to the behaviour associated with a housewife, and how she must serve to meet the pleasures of her family. She is then observed singing "But I'm gonna have an Aviance night" and moving in a sexual manner as she takes off her gloves and lets loose her hair. This brings out the Angel-Whore theory, where stereotypically, women are seen to be angels during the day, but whores in the bedroom. The commercial continues with the woman unbuttoning her shirt and her husband walking into the room, gazing at her in a sexual way, obviously connoting that he is sexually aroused by her perfume. Furthermore, this brings out a negative represenation of women as it reflects the kind of patriarchal society that once existed, and some argue still exists today.
This 1960s advertisement is quite controversial. It shows an elderly lady, possibly in her mid-70s sitting at a restaurant by herself. She is posisbly a well-spoekn dame, who is being served by men from left and right. Excited about the pickle she picks up from the serving tray, she breaks out in violence as she gives it a taste, clearly dislking its texture. She engages in violent activity which includes throwing items, tipping her table over, throwing and beating waiters etc. This shows a completely different side of women of the 60s, considering her old age she is still able to fight off over 4 waiters at the same time and manage to tip over tables and chairs. Therefore, this commercial eliminates the inferior representation of women and replaces it with a socially superior one. Not only is she shown as being the dominant, but the one that is feared, as seen by the hand shaking and hesitating to pass her the jar at the end of the commercial. Some could argue that this is a positive representation of women, as women are hereby seen as dominant, confident, powerful and able to defend themselves, whereas in many other commercials, they are seen as th inferior ones with no power.
Thus others could argue that this shows a negative representation of women, seeing as her persona is quite violent and aggressive. This could provide men with more sexist criticisms to use in future advertisement.
This is an advertisement showing a positive representation of men. The man walks right into his girlfriend's home, who automatically leaps on him with sexual arousement at the after shave that he is wearing. The idea of "Hai Karate" being the name of the after shave, as well as the name of a popular martial art, gave this commercial its kick. However, the use of the martial art comparison in the commercial seems to present the man as vain and macho. The connotations of the ad are that this product will allow all women to leap on you as the woman did in the text.
Gender & Advertising
1. What sort of images of women and men dominated advertising pre-1970s? Why was this the case?
Women were rarely shown in paid work. When they were it would usually be a stereotypical role e.g. the smiling secretary of hairdresser. Housewife images were still very common even after the 1950s. In the 1970s, of all ads featuring women, three-quarters were for kitchen and bathroom products. Women's ads were mainly concerned about beauty, cleanliness, family and pleasing others. Whereas men were only more concerned about achievement and having fun.
The reason for this may be that the third wave of Feminism didn't take its toll until mid 1980s/1990s. This meant that women's power was still restricted pre-1970s, allowing the men to remain socially superior. It is clear that the pre-1970s era was a much bigger patriarchal society than today. Therefore, the media industry was never targetted for sexist/misogynistic attacks on women, because of this male-dominant social norm that had been around for many years.
2. How did the advertising of the 1970’s continue to perpetuate the stereotype of women, despite depicting women in a greater range of roles?
Even though women's roles had increased in advertising, there was this element of, almost mockery, in doing so. The roles women were given were mainly family-orientated and concerned about "non-important" aspects of life. Therefore, although the range of roles were increased, they were not necessarily less stereotypical.
3. Can Gaye Tuchman’s quote regarding under-representation and the ‘symbolic annihilation of women’ still be applied in 21st Century advertising? If so, how?
Tuchman refers to American television in his quote, therefore it is important to consider this question in relation to solely American television. It could be argued that the 21st Century is continuing to follow in the footsteps of the 20th's patriarchal society. Sexist comedy has increasingly become more and more popular, and tends to be the humour of most men who grew up in the society where misogyny was at its peak. However, as with racism, sexist comedy could be described as being acceptible, purely for satirical use.
Because the 21st Century is an era of post-Feminism, it has become popular for advertisers to use ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) to invisibly naturalise these crticisms. Therefore, audiences are able to receive these messages covertly through media texts by means of brainwashing (hypodermic needle).
4. Do you agree that adverts, such as those for the 1990’s Boots No. 7, ‘It’s not make-up. It’s ammunition.’ campaign, are post-feminist (thereby representing women as better than men?). Explain your answer.
?
5. Is the representation of women by the media accountable for the results of a survey in which ‘women were up to ten times more likely than men to be unhappy with their body image’?
Yes, I believe the media is accountable. This is because the only reason women are uncomfortable and unhappy with their body image is because certain guidelines have been set by the media industry on how a woman should look/dress/walk/talk etc. Therefore, women have become increasingly self-conscious and worried that their body image will be less appealing to men than those advertised on television.
6. Is the contemporary representation of men in advertising perhaps also a negative one where they too are treated as sex objects?
It could be argued that, contemporarily, sexism is no longer an issue. The issue that would have risen from this sort of advertising would have been whether, with women having fought for many years for equality and the right to be treated as anything but sex objects, whether men should now have to do the same... the answer is no, as there is no longer a sexism issue because of the fact that they both almost cancel each other out negatively. Even though two wrong issues wouldn't make a right one, there is a sense of relaxation from both sexes on whether men are shown as being overly sexual in today's media landscape.
Women were rarely shown in paid work. When they were it would usually be a stereotypical role e.g. the smiling secretary of hairdresser. Housewife images were still very common even after the 1950s. In the 1970s, of all ads featuring women, three-quarters were for kitchen and bathroom products. Women's ads were mainly concerned about beauty, cleanliness, family and pleasing others. Whereas men were only more concerned about achievement and having fun.
The reason for this may be that the third wave of Feminism didn't take its toll until mid 1980s/1990s. This meant that women's power was still restricted pre-1970s, allowing the men to remain socially superior. It is clear that the pre-1970s era was a much bigger patriarchal society than today. Therefore, the media industry was never targetted for sexist/misogynistic attacks on women, because of this male-dominant social norm that had been around for many years.
2. How did the advertising of the 1970’s continue to perpetuate the stereotype of women, despite depicting women in a greater range of roles?
Even though women's roles had increased in advertising, there was this element of, almost mockery, in doing so. The roles women were given were mainly family-orientated and concerned about "non-important" aspects of life. Therefore, although the range of roles were increased, they were not necessarily less stereotypical.
3. Can Gaye Tuchman’s quote regarding under-representation and the ‘symbolic annihilation of women’ still be applied in 21st Century advertising? If so, how?
Tuchman refers to American television in his quote, therefore it is important to consider this question in relation to solely American television. It could be argued that the 21st Century is continuing to follow in the footsteps of the 20th's patriarchal society. Sexist comedy has increasingly become more and more popular, and tends to be the humour of most men who grew up in the society where misogyny was at its peak. However, as with racism, sexist comedy could be described as being acceptible, purely for satirical use.
Because the 21st Century is an era of post-Feminism, it has become popular for advertisers to use ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) to invisibly naturalise these crticisms. Therefore, audiences are able to receive these messages covertly through media texts by means of brainwashing (hypodermic needle).
4. Do you agree that adverts, such as those for the 1990’s Boots No. 7, ‘It’s not make-up. It’s ammunition.’ campaign, are post-feminist (thereby representing women as better than men?). Explain your answer.
?
5. Is the representation of women by the media accountable for the results of a survey in which ‘women were up to ten times more likely than men to be unhappy with their body image’?
Yes, I believe the media is accountable. This is because the only reason women are uncomfortable and unhappy with their body image is because certain guidelines have been set by the media industry on how a woman should look/dress/walk/talk etc. Therefore, women have become increasingly self-conscious and worried that their body image will be less appealing to men than those advertised on television.
6. Is the contemporary representation of men in advertising perhaps also a negative one where they too are treated as sex objects?
It could be argued that, contemporarily, sexism is no longer an issue. The issue that would have risen from this sort of advertising would have been whether, with women having fought for many years for equality and the right to be treated as anything but sex objects, whether men should now have to do the same... the answer is no, as there is no longer a sexism issue because of the fact that they both almost cancel each other out negatively. Even though two wrong issues wouldn't make a right one, there is a sense of relaxation from both sexes on whether men are shown as being overly sexual in today's media landscape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)