UPDATE JUNE 14TH 2012: SOME THEORISTS + HOW TO APPLY
Judith Butler + gender performativityFairclough (discourse)
framing as 'the other'
Hegemony + 'the other'
Daniel Chandler [genre theorist] + positioning audience
Bechdel test
Laura Mulvey + male gaze
Carole Clover + final girl
Queer theorist Judith Butler has written about how gender and sexual identities are wholly artificial constructs; concepts which do not have any objective meaning or exist in nature, but which we learn to perform through the reinforcement of acceptable, ‘normal’ behaviour through videos such as ours. We were aware of reflecting common stereotypes and encouraging such ‘performativity’ of gender, as Butler would put it, but felt that it was necessary to stay within the dominant discourse (as Fairclough would put it): we had fit within the expectations of the genre and our stated audience even if this meant being consciously heterormative, and indirectly contributing to the hegemonic perception of homosexuals as 'the other'. This highlights that genre is more than a neutral means of categorising content. Daniel Chandler has also raised similar points, arguing that genre texts provide a “reading position” for audiences; embedded within texts are assumptions about the 'ideal reader', including their attitudes towards the subject matter and often their class, age, gender and ethnicity.
We failed/passed the Bechdel test (The Bechdel Test: In order to pass, the film or show must meet the following criteria: 1 It includes at least two women, 2 who have at least one conversation, 3 about something other than a man or men). Only 7% of films are directed by women. (more here)
Feminist film critic Laura Mulvey famously coined the concept 'male gaze' in 1975. Again, there is a tension between the desire to create a recognisable genre text (vital to marketing and the commercial prospects of most films), and to more generally give the audience what they want, whilst squaring this with the knowledge developed over two years of media studies of how the media manipulate and objectify women on screen! [Carole Clover's final girl concept was a riposte to Mulvey; she felt horror films actually represented a mixed representation of females: objectified, sexualised often nude female victims (screan queens) but the actual hero was typically an unglamorous, typically academic (remember Laurie Strode panicking because she's forgotten her chemistry book in Halloween?) female] ----if film, discuss your final girl/scream queen and any countertyping used. This next point (on Mulvey) is taken from feedback on a sample 1a essay by ConorO:
We also went against convention somewhat, and we created a binary opposition to Laura Malvey’s Male Gaze theory (1975), as the frontman of our band was male [maybe… you weren’t really objectifying Sam. Female performers are objectified by being represented at least partially through shots which focus on individual body parts – Sam’s face was always in shot; female performers’ buttocks, legs, cleavage etc are often shown in isolated shots. At the diegetic start of the iconic Welcome to the Jungle video by Guns n’Roses we follow singer Axl Rose’s gaze and slowly pan up the long legs of a woman in high heels (a ‘hooker’ stereotype’) to her buttocks … and then cut away. There’s no need to show her face as she’s simply not important. That’s an eg of objectification. Regarding the AS you could also judge yourself against the Bechdel test (see this; (2nd post)],In addition to Carole Clover's objections that Mulvey was overlooking the final girl in her critique of horror films [Mulvey's original focus was on these; her idea has been applied to every type of media text since], there is a more general objection to the so-called "Screen theory" that Mulvey is linked to: their simplistic view of the audience as passive.
[ORIGINAL POST]
Some initial guidelines on this (we'll look at how to apply specific theory, especially the framework of David Gauntlett, and perhaps ideas such as Judith Butler's 'performativity', later)
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE: TAKE A STEP BACK
This is YOUR work, YOU've created it, YOU're being asked to analyse it ... but its vital you try to step back from it, and view it as you would have the AS exam clip. To put it another way, look at it as if you weren't a young person from Yorkshire.
THE STARTING POINT: IDENTIFY POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS
Consider which social groups/collective identities (think about the links to the other section of the exam) you have represented. You may not have consciously planned much of your representations, but even so ask yourself if you have represented any of the following:
- Gender
- Age
- Ethnicity
- Sexuality
- Class and status
- Physical ability/disability
- Regional identity
We'll explore below what factors you might be considering within this.
INFLUENCES ON YOUR REPRESENTATIONS?
Denoting/listing possible identities you've represented in some way is one thing; what might you discuss in terms of influences behind these - if you like, what factors shaped this aspect of your Media Language?
- DEMOGRAPHICS + ACCESS - In the context of schoolwork, it was natural most of you .....[TO COMPLETE]
The following is one of several very useful documents from Mick Googan's uploads to http://www.slideshare.net/mickgoogan/presentations
08. G325 Section A Q1B Representation
From Charis Creber:
View more presentations from Alleyn’s School Media Studies Department.
No comments:
Post a Comment