Narrative Theory

Theories involving narrative challenge the world of literature and storytelling that we know today. Five famous narrative theorists: Vladimir Propp, Tzvetan Todorov, Levi Strauss and Roland Barthes. Are all extremely influential challengers of narrative structures, each of them have developed theories that are still referred to or used in today's cinema.

Let's begin with Vladimir Popp:

One example could be Star Wars, but it's very easy to apply to almost anything:

This theory can even be related back to the story of King Arthur and other stories of ancient legend, Arthur is helped by the magical helper (Merlin) and given his magical sword to go on his quest.

TZVETAN TODOROV

Tzvetan Todorov's theory is the idea that each movie has a balance, it should always return to the balance “Equilibrium”

He believes that the story begins in the equilibrium state, where everything is fine and dandy; then everything will deteriorate from there. He states that all stories follow the exact same path as this.
These are the stages:

Stages: -Equilibrium- Disruption- Realization- Restored Order- New Equilibrium

An example of this theory in action could be the movie: The Incredibles.

Equilibrium: The movie begins with 'the golden age' superheroes in control while crime is at an all time low.   

Disruption: Superheroes are outcast after Mr Incredible is sued for saving someone trying to comment suicide

Realisation: The world realises that they are hopeless without superheroes 

Restored Order: The remaining superheroes defeat Syndrome and his giant robots

New Equilibrium: The last superheroes take control of the city once more, things are different; but peace is restored.

CLAUDE LEVI STRAUSS

Claude was a social anthropologist, he studied many myths and legends amongst tribal cultures. He specifically analysed and examined how stories and narratives mirror society's values and beliefs. The theory mainly entails of the idea that there is a clear good and evil in literature, an obvious right and wrong. This is usually referred to as "Binary oppositions" 

One example used in modern cinema would be Avatar:

Firstly you have the Na'vi people:

The native people who live in the forest, then you have the RDA:

These are the invaders, the ones who want to kick the natives out of their homes to mind the minerals below the planet. 

Even though the film never specifically states that the RDA are the bad guys, you understand that morally their mission classifies them as the bad guys. 

Even though the film begins with the main character (Jake) serving under the RDA, we see him switch sides after a difficult power struggle. And it's clear that he's transferring to the 'good' side, even if it's never obviously stated.

This entire scenario is a relatable phenomenon to most audiences, it is similar to the destruction of jungles and forests for hunting or wood collecting purposes that happens in real life. 

The majority of society would just naturally determine that the RDA are the bad guys for kicking the natives out of their hope and destroying their forests, it is our society's moral compass translated into the world of film. 


ROLAND BARTHES

Roland Barthes was a French literary theorist, as well as a philosopher and critic. He explored a very wide range of fields and actually influenced the development of schools. 

His codes theory involves the idea that media texts are really actually complicated ball's of yarn so to speak, and we as an audience need to analyse and unravel it ourselves. 

Enigma act

The enigma act refers to a point in a narrative where tension is built up purposely, the audience isn't supposed to know what's coming next; making them suspenseful.  

The word enigma gives it away, it is something the audience isn't supposed to be able to solve immediately, leaving them guessing. An example would be the movie Prisoners: 

The movie opens with two little girls being kidnapped, there is no indication what so ever as to how it happened. And the film even tries to throw you off sometimes, giving you different ideas as to where the girls are. This is an enigma because nothing is clear to the audience, it's very much an immediate mystery. 

Semantic code (Actual detail)

The semantic code refers to anything that is made clear to the audience, if something happens; the audience understands it immediately. This might be seeing someone getting shot, you know they're going to be injured. 

This essentially refers to information that drives the story forward.

Symbolic code (What we see) (Learnt culturally) 

The symbolic code is where this is conflicted, symbols are not obvious; they are learnt culturally. This means that everyone will have their own reaction to what they see. During a film, specifically the enigma phase, different audiences will have different ideas depending on what they see, this is because everyone has different experiences that fuel their thoughts.

Advert analysis 

What distinguishes adverts from other kinds of TV programming?

Adverts always present a product or business, the intent is not to entertain; but rather to sell a product to an attentive audience. It is different from other TV programming because there is no second episode after the short broadcast, it is simply a short clip that attempts to convey the product.

What kind of images would we expect to see?

As an audience, you come to expect similar ‘storylines’ in adverts. There is for example, commonly a problem or dilemma that is then solved by the product. For example: Heartburn tablets, Washing up liquid, Gum, Deodorant. The kind of image you expect to see is of a normal societal life, the adverts usually attempt to appeal to an audience realistically. Showing a realistic portrayal of modern life that an audience might relate to. You can also expect logos and slogans appearing specifically near the end.

What kind of characters do we tend to see?

You tend to always have a main character in a crisis or dilemma, then the hero character arrives to save the day with their product. The hero is commonly a cartoon or animated character.  You tend to have some kind of hero, a villain character- which can also be the dilemma- and then the magical helper that saves the character with their product.

What sort of expectations do you as audiences have?

As an audience you’re likely to have negative expectations of an advertisement, you might be potentially uninterested. You’d expect it to be aimed at you, whatever the product it may seem as if it’s tailored to you.

Can you identify the different kinds of adverts?

Adverts often follow similar formats, but the different kinds of presentations you can expect are: Promotion, Demonstration, Celebrity endorsement, narrative, problem.

How do advert styles merge with one another pastiche or parody adverts?

Some adverts adopt a pastiche approach, this means that they are respecting something from past. A parody would be something that makes fun of the existing item. An advert might make fun of the fact that it's an advert, making it light hearted.

Analysing fairy adverts 


Let's take a look at some Fairy adverts, seeing how they- and the people within them- are represented.

Taking this early advert first from the 1960's, where it depicts a mother and her daughter conversing over the bottle of Fairy:

The advert presents a mother explaining Fairy liquid to her questioning daughter, the first thing being enforced here is the stereotype that the woman would be the one to do all the washing up. There is no man present, but we assume that it is a nuclear family; this is our signified response as an audience. Another stereotype they are fulfilling is that the mother and daughter have a stronger relationship than the opposite genders in the family. It is the daughter with her, rather than the son. And it is as if she is teaching her daughter about the product she should be using when she's older.

The mother states that the product is very soft, and great for her hands. This is the denotation, but the connotation is that we understand she's saying this because women are going to appreciate a product that doesn't damage their hands.

Let's now compare it to the advert released in 2015:

This advert presents a similar story, we see a parent and their child talking about the liquid bottle; this time the boy wants to use it to create a toy rocket.

The first thing to notice is the opposite to the first advert, the parent and child are both male this time. It presents once more the idea that family of the same gender get along better. Also, the boy wants the bottle to create a rocket. This is a signifier, the boy wanting to play with the bottle instead gives off a signified reaction because it seems to be following the stereotype that a boy would want to play with toys but the girl wouldn't; or maybe even shouldn't. It appears to present that the girl is preparing for the future, while the boy just wants to play.

Another thing to notice is this signifier:

Firstly, notice the Fairy bottle appearing. This is an Icon; it is physically presenting the product; revealing it to you without making it obvious.





Notice the woman washing up in the background, as an audience you are going to assume this is the mother. The signified reaction is likely to be that you assume that this is a nuclear family; it is almost as if it's in place to negate the possibility of your signified reaction being that seeing the boy and his dad alone means that they are alone and the mother is gone; A single father.

This is a symbolic sign, a symbolic sign refers to something that is culturally learned; not obvious to the uncultured eye. A nuclear family is an example of this, it's normal in today's cultural society, so it's something we've learnt to understand. We are just going to assume that this is a cultural norm.

Hypodermic Needle Theory

Hypodermic Needle Theory 

Originally booted in the 1930's; the theory refers to the idea that an audience can be controlled as if they are a passive being, it assumes they're sponges that simply soak up information.

It negates the free will and personality of the audience as individuals and assumes that they don't have opinions of their own. Rather than think for themselves, it determines that they'll simply follow and believe what they're told.

It follows the idea that anything they teach audiences will be set in stone; it adopts the theory that audiences are empty and totally open to information.

Diagram

The diagram above depicts someone being fed- and believing- totally false information.


Example

A prime example of this being utilised to the fullest would be propaganda, specifically Nazi Germany propaganda:

Propaganda is documentation that was hung around like advertising, it presents a mission or campaign like the Nazi or Communism agendas.

The propaganda would usually present the agenda of the party with very strong language and a strong focus on the idea that the party are the 'good guys'

They often also depict that the opposing party are the 'bad guys' l, for example. Communism posters would convey that Capitalism is cruel and evil.

In the terms of Nazi propaganda, it would feed the idea that Hitler and his regime are all mighty and heroic. While their opponents are in fact the bad guys.




So what does this mean for the audience? Presenting this Nazi propaganda to a member of the public who might not have much of an opinion on the world war is going to make them immediately believe it.

The point of the theory is that it presents potentially false information as if it's factual in the hopes that people will believe it unconditionally, it assumes that there will be no resistance in whether audiences believe what they're seeing or hearing.

Reception theory

The reception theory refers to the idea that viewers will react differently to the same media text; it is the idea that there are 3 specific ways in which an audience will take in the information. Specifically, whether they decide if they agree with it or not:

-Dominant reading

-Oppositional reading

-Negotiated reading

A dominant reading refers to when the viewer is totally submissive to what they are hearing, this can be compared to the previous theory (The Hypodermic needle) because of it’s belief that an audience will just believe and succumb fully to what they’re hearing.

This normally would apply to news watchers, somebody hearing a news report would believe whatever is accounted as facts.

An oppositional reading refers to someone who would strongly oppose to what they’re hearing, hence the “Opposition”

It could be compared to an audience member watching a political rally and determining that what they’re hearing is absolutely false, particularly if they’re listening to someone who opposes they’re beliefs.

Finally a negotiated reading refers to a balance between the two, the viewer might understand and accept what they’re hearing but they’ll still hold they’re own opinion on the subject.

This could be related to something like religion, a listener might agree with the idea of religion; but fall under a different belief. Meaning they’ll accept what they’re hearing, but it’s up for debate.

This diagram depicts a news report (The media text) being consumed by three different people.

The bottom left (Dominant) Chooses to accept it without question.

The top right (Negotiated) Chooses to accept it, but holds his own slightly alternate opinion.

And the bottom right (Oppositional) Isn't having it at all, he's choosing to reject the information.

Passive and Active audiences 

The difference between a passive and active audience member is determined by how they would react to a media text, as stated above.

A passive consumer is identical to the dominant reading, if listening to a news broadcast: The passive listener would just accept and believe what they're hearing without challenging it or questioning it for a second.

While the Active audience plays an active part in how the media text is received, if they listened to the same news broadcast. They'd challenge what they're hearing potentially from they're own life experiences.

News companies strive to reach the passive consumer, the audience members whose desperate for some juicy gossip and wouldn't necessarily mind if it's a small stretch of the truth.

The active audience is going to act on what they see, take this graph:

This graph shows a scale from a passive audience member to an active member, in this case. It is involving a violent news report.

Notice that the passive audience is just listening to what they're hearing, they don't seem to express an opinion for themselves on the report. They instead just listen to the news unconditionally, as the graph progresses you can notice that the audience member is becoming more involved and affected by the report. Up to the point where the audience member is so involved that they decide to protest and rebel against what they're hearing.

An active audience member might also copy or re-enact what they're hearing, they learn from this feeding of news so they may very well learn something wrong. In a super radical case, it is possible that showing a crime on TV in a lot of detail and under a spotlight is going to spawn more cases of that crime. It'll perhaps inspire people or show them simply how easy it might be.

Uses and Gratifications

The theory of uses and gratifications refers to the idea that an audience holds the power to bend and alter media by their usage, particularly the way in which they react to it.

One way to explain this would be how as an audience we demand more content revolving around our interests as a consumer, If you were a Star Wars fan, you'd prefer a new Star Wars movie over a chick flick.

If we relate it to the news, an example would be how news companies are fully aware that the best coverage of the most juicy news is going to entice new audience members. Audience members who might be desensitised to violence due to pop culture and want to actually see this Hollywood level of drama conveyed through the news.

But this doesn't only apply to the news, this also happens in any other media outlet. Let's take a look at some advertising for new two movies for example:

Firstly we have Baywatch, the most important thing to note in this poster is the small amount of things that are  going on.






You aren't given any visual context to anything, the actor and actresses don't seem to represent anything other than sexuality. And the colour scheme is very simplistic, relying primarily on red, white and black.





Let's compare it to a very different film, and it's extremely different poster:

You can immediately notice a difference in detail, the first thing that might stand out is how many more characters there are. Also, the poster is divided into 2 or 3 points of interest, where different things are being highlighted.



There are some things in this poster that can only be seen upon close examination, for example; the original stormtrooper design down below, The classic ATAT's (Large walking machines at the bottom) Or the almost hidden Darth Vader face at the top right.




It's not a poster that can be understood upon first glance, it is very likely that once a Star Wars fan's eye has met the poster, they're going to take a look in further detail, then noticing these small little touches.



The explanation for why these posters are so different is not because of how different the films are, but mainly because of how different the audience will be. Not to say that someone couldn't enjoy both, but the posters are both made to attract the eyes of very different audiences.

The Baywatch poster is made for a modern sex culture, utilising sexy undressed characters to grab the attention of an easily impressed audience.

Where as the Star Wars poster is made for a more 'Nerdy' culture, the poster doesn't shy away from giving a viewer a lot of detail on the movie. It is essentially a mood board of things that Star Wars fans want to see in their movie.

Both of the posters were designed by people who understand both of these audiences what is going to really attract said audiences interest.

Bowling For Columbine

Negotiated Reading:

The entire documentary focuses on the purpose of being against guns and the right to bare firearms, even if at some points it isn’t explicitly clear; The director (Michael Moore) makes it obvious that he blames the gun culture of America for the horrors of Columbine.

The reason I agree with him is that even if the documentary is ultimately quite manipulative in it’s message, he covers a massive range of points and variables that together build up into one big finale: The horrific school shooting.

He covers the idea that the two boys responsible were in fact really sad people, people failed by the awful school system that made them feel worthless.

He approaches the horror from angles beyond simply the fact that they shouldn’t have been able to acquire weaponry.

One clip I’ve looked at is a moment where Michael enters a bank to apply for an account, upon signing up; he is given a gun. Even if the footage is edited to make it appear like he’s given the gun immediately when really he’d have to wait. The point still remains; the very idea that he is given a gun for simply signing up to a bank is an outrageous disaster.

The reason I have a negotiated reading is because of how he fakes the idea that he is given the gun immediately, it makes the situation more dramatic and unbelievable. But it is not totally dedicated to the truth, in a scenario as serious and horrific as this you want to be totally dedicated to the truth. Coming from all angles in the absolute truth to really get to the centre of  what the problem really is. Making a shock factor element like this really forces his anti-gun agenda, rather than really honing in on EXACTLY what the prevalent problem might be.

Negotiated is absolutely the directors preferred reading.

Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cglnvXzitOQ

Dominant Reading

At some points, I have a totally dominant reaction to the documentary. Take this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHOq-6Mdu4

This scene presents how easy it is for someone to hide guns just on their person, it specifically shows how a school boy with baggy clothes and how he can hide a whole arsenal of guns within them.

This includes a collection of small handguns, and even larger weapons; an automatic gun and even a full sized Shotgun.

This is a dramatic segment, because it presents simply how easily a student could bring weapons into their school.

It really sells the idea of America being too comfortable with guns and having too much leeway, a student could hide these weapons of massacre without anyone noticing.

This is a totally dominant reading for me; the purpose of the entire film is to present the idea that guns are too easily accessible for Americans. And this sells the point in the strongest way possible. It shows you how it’s kind of a disaster of a situation.

Oppositional Reading

Though it is not a personal opinion of mine, there is an oppositional argument to be made with the documentary. As mentioned in the first point, Michael Moore sometimes goes a bit over onto the dramatic side when trying to sell his points. People who agree with the ownership of guns might be aggravated by the documentary. It sometimes takes an approach that almost says that the ability to have guns is the source of America’s problems, take this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF1Da6MCUC4

In the beginning of this clip, Michael is interviewing somebody at warehouse housing missiles. He presses the man and compares owning a gun to owning nuclear weapons. Saying that there is no difference between owning nuclear weaponry and encouraging the Columbine massacre. It’s an extremely dramatic statement that might anger some viewers, making them totally oppositional.

Moral Panic

Moral panic refers to the state of fear among the public created specifically by news reports, if a news broadcast is released that presents a dramatic, violent, scary or otherwise horrifying scenario. The public is going to react in a panicked manner, being afraid of what might happen next, even afraid for their own safety.

Moral panic primarily relates to when the public essentially over-reacts in the panic, for example. As mentioned earlier, the panic may very well encourage further action. Showing a school shooting in a gratifying manner, could encourage a repeated act.

In a more likely case, showing a religious based crime; terrorism etc. Could drive groups to have hatred towards the religion, creating more crime.

Mean world syndrome

The mean world syndrome refers to someone’s vision of the world after watching the news; news broadcasts are always made to be as dramatic as possible. Having the juiciest stories for as long as they can be dragged out. If you are someone who only watches the news, this is going to give you an extremely wrong view on the world. Showing you that dramatic violence etc. is a common occurrence. Perhaps making you feel less safe in your home, even if it was perfectly safe.

The news gives you the impression that the world is a harsher place that it really is, this can be compared to Bowling For Columbine. This is because of how Michael really goes out of his way to present that guns are pure evil, guns are the cause of all America’s problem and it is an absolute tragedy that they are allowed on the streets. It is debatable whether this is actually an overdramatisation. Meaning that the documentary gives you mean world syndrome by conveying the idea to you that America really is as bad as he presents because of the guns.

Comparing The Sun and The Times

The Sun and The Times are extremely different newspapers, even if they post articles of exactly the same story; they're likely to take incredibly opposite routes to get there. This is primarily because of how different the audience is for both papers, the editors design the articles with the eyes of their target audience in mind. They take into account how they might attract the reader into the stories.

Let's take a look firstly at how they both present articles on the U.S elections:



Here is the page in The Times, the main things to notice are the headings that are used and the statistics visible at the top of the left page. Notice also the manner in which the blocks of text are laid out all down the page, it's quite a daunting amount of text upon first glance. But with a story of this magnitude, The mature readers of the times would come to expect this level of article.
Let's now compare this to an article from The Sun:



You can immediately notice a stark difference in the way the page is structured, notice firstly how the page is no longer covered in text. The blocks of text are neatly packed into a box and would be easy to follow. The giant title of the article is also positioned near the centre of the page. You can assume from this that the audience is younger or even of a lesser attention span, the title sums up the entire article where as the statistical information in The Times was given in an informative chart. The title is also in a far bolder font, making it almost impossible to not notice. The conventions that the Sun uses to create an article follows a much more simple and clear approach. It technically uses a brighter colour code with larger photos and larger text, it also chases a symbolic design (Where the signifier resembles the signified) because of the use of photos like the Jennifer Lopez one. It tries to appease to a pop culture audience.

The differences in photos are also notable, The Times uses a very topical and relevant photo. It shows Hilary in a conference hall seemingly whispering into somebody's ear, you could assume from this that it's trying to convey a bit of mystery around her as a character; especially considering the contents of the article and how it explains the whole FBI scenario.

Now if you look at the photo for The Sun, it's a giant photo of Jennifer Lopez. The purpose of this is clearly because the article makes reference to how Jennifer is backing Hilary, it's making it clear that she's a supporter of Hilary. So why is it more important than a photo of Hilary? My theory would be that Jennifer is a pop culture icon, the article is trying to grab the attention of a younger generation who would appreciate Jennifer and her opinion.

So why are the newspapers so different? Let's take a look at some factual statistics that might back up my theory of the age difference between the two.

These charts represent the age and social classes of the readers of The Sun, it's interesting to notice how varied and balanced the age demographic is for the "print" and how common the 65+ classification is.

Compare this to the The Sun's PC online news service, notice how the age is significantly younger. You've got a high percentage of 15-34 year olds, and then from 35 onwards.

At first glance it may seem like these stats for The Times readers are fairly similar, but that's not the case. notice how the purple on the circle is significantly larger. This is stating that 65+ aged readers make up 35% of the readership rather than The Sun's 25.9%

The next thing to compare would be the social demographics of the two, notice how in the Sun the highest percentage demographic is DE adults (This is the lowest class) where as in the Times the highest percentage is AB adults (The highest class)

Compiling this information together, you can determine that:

-The majority of Times readers are elder wealthy people
-The majority of Sun readers are younger more poor people

Newspaper companies obviously take this crucial information into account when creating their articles, if you return to the articles displayed above. You can notice how the articles are just presented for a whole other generation. The Times is very text heavy and the text is just all over the page, the language is also very informative.

Where as the Sun has very neat little packed blocks of text with a use of a more simplistic language, the language is also very persuasive and a bit playful. The key things to notice on the Sun's page are these words:

"RUMP V TRUMP"
And
"ELECTION SHOCK"

The language is trying to entice a more simplistic eye, perhaps someone who's easily entertained. Someone craving a bit of drama.

Newspapers trying to aim for higher or lower class people could be classified as identifying them through their work life.
You might say for example, that someone with a higher pay check has had a better education. And is therefore more likely to understand complex English language.

With the information I've received about target audiences, here's my crack at a magazine cover that would appeal to both audiences.

Firstly, we have the cover that would appeal to Sun readers:

This is the kind of cover you might expect, with bait style text thrown all over the page. The language used would be extremely dramatic in the attempt of attracting the readers.

Now let's take a look at a Times reader cover:

With Times readers, you would expect a much more formal approach. The language is formal and immediately to the point. You know the content of the magazine, but it is not overwhelming. And it is by no means trying to bait readers in by using over the top dramatic language.

Another thing to notice is my male focused approach on the design of the magazine, this is through discovering that the Times has a largely male dominated demographic.

So what kinds of magazines would both types of readers actually be interested in? Here are two mood boards to represent that, firstly we have the Sun readers:

You can immediately notice an identical approach in use of language, notice especially the bottom four from the left.

"I'm Pregnant!"
"MURDER!"
"BAIT TRICK FOR BIG FISH"
"FAMILY TRAGEDY!"

Now compare it to Times Readers magazines:

There's a lot of informative and descriptive language, but nothing made to bait audiences.
Despite the "Ready to kick on!" on the Horse and hound cover, none of the language is a deliberate excitement provocation, it simply informs you what's in the magazine you're about to read.

So how do newspaper companies discover the audiences they're going to focus on? They do this through a technique known as methodology. There are many methods to go about gathering this information, but methodology focuses on a detailed interview.

The interview is a very personal approach to this research, it is a continuous survey involving over 33,225 interviews a year with adults aged at least 15. Interviewees are randomly selected and the interview is done within their own home. On average the interview can take roughly 27 minutes and it covers what they're interested in from a list of newspapers and magazines, it also covers their online activity and some personal information about them.

Here's an example of the questions asked in the survey, notice how they poke at what the reader might be interested in seeing the magazine. This allows them to decide what content they'll be displaying clearly on the page.

You can for example relate this back to the Sun article with Jennifer Lopez, the use of a pop icon would please both the fashion and pop audience.

If I had to give advice to a new magazine called News UK for example, regarding how they can determine who their audience is and if their magazine is achieving it's goal. I would offer these research tips, firstly:

-An interview
An interview like the one above can give you a detailed insight into a considerable amount of personal information regarding your chosen interviewee, with all of this personal information you can begin to build a magazine that focuses on specific interests.

-A focus group
A focus group consists of the interviewer and a group of specific (or purposefully random) people, it is essentially an interview but with multiple people.