To apply the theory of gate keeping to all forms of media would be a mistake. Gate keeping, according to the definition provided during Dill's presentation, proposes information is mediated so the experience can be controlled. While this approach is certainly true for advertisements, it may not be true for other forms of media such as film. Advertisements for a certain product are tailored to a specific message. For example, buy brand x because it is does this, which brands y and z do not, or look at this famous actor who also uses brand x. Advertisements are designed to be short and digestable (30 second commercials or single page advertisements), thus the message needs to be as controlled as possible to get the appropriate message across to the consumer of the media.
On the other hand, films (and television for the sake of argument) occasionally like to leave the media up for interpretation. In other words, the organization (i.e., editing, music, character development, cinematography, etc.) is structured in such a way to keep several avenues of interpretation open to the audience. In addition, many filmmakers depend on making films in this way to strengthen the word of mouth method of propagating their film to the public. One fine example of this is the concluding episode of The Sopranos. The final scene is constructed in such a particular way that the experience is left up to interpretation. There are several theories of what happens during and after the final scene of The Sopranos because the creators have tailored it this way. It is in this way that the experience is not limited. To combine these two approaches, the first stating that advertisements follow this theory of gate keeping and the second that films do not, how would an advertisement for the final episode of The Sopranos play out? Since the purpose of an advertisement would be to get consumers to subscribe to the product being sold, any advertisement for that final episode will be organized in such a way to not give away too much information, but to be tantalizing enough to get consumers excited to watch the episode.
the persuasive role of music
Having a very strong interest in cognitive psychology, the idea of cognitive dissonance between the visual and auditory aspects of film struck a chord. Isbouts' presentation mentioned the three dimensionality of visual information with auditory information (both sound effects and music) as one of the most important aspects of film. Without auditory information, film (i.e., movies) would just be moving images. The addition of sound, both sound effects and music, breathes a new wave of life to the image and adds emotion and other inexplicable feelings.
If auditory information does bring forward another dimension of film that would otherwise be lacking, how are we to compare the film experiences of deaf people to hearing people? (Perhaps this may be an interesting way to study the effect of music in film with an auditorily isolated population instead of merely pressing mute during playback of the film for those able to hear). Films for the hearing impaired do have captions that explain the sound effects and music being presented in the film. For example, the caption might read: "light breeze through rustling trees," or "music swells." If deaf individuals do indeed have a different experience in regards to the audio in a film, is it possible to bridge the gap between the audio experience of a film for those who are unable to hear versus those who can?
The short answer to this dilemma is yes, there is a difference in auditory experience for those who can hear a film's soundtrack than those who cannot. The more important question: would a deaf individual who has never experienced audio like a hearing individual care if anything could be done to enhance the film-watching experience? Obviously, this issue could go back and forth, but theoretically it is an interesting question to ask and an important issue to raise. Based on individual differences, people have vastly different experiences from the same kind of media.
how plugged in are you?
Many people are unable to imagine their lives without a mobile phone. And this is no surprise, as mobile phones have revolutionized the manner and speed with which we are able to stay in touch with people and the world. Wonder how the stock market is doing? Use your phone. Wonder who won the World Cup? Use your phone. Wonder if your husband went to the store and picked up dinner? Use your phone. Consumers can only hope that this technology was created to improve life and not take from it.
It is perhaps more interesting to not ask the question of why we cannot unplug but rather why we choose not to unplug. Arguably, no one is forcing you to purchase a mobile phone or to use a microwave instead of cooking dinner over a fire pit. On the other hand, these technologies have become the norm in our society and it seems foolish to think we would have life any other way. One could also argue that there are aspects of life that now require these technologies (e.e., a stock broker needs a computer to keep up to date information of the stock market for clients). If it is assumed we cannot unplug because we choose not to unplug, then life should not be interrupted if technologies were unplugged. Admittedly, life would look very different if families were preparing dinner over fire pits instead of ovens, stoves, and microwaves, but if the technology is there, why not use it?
Mobile phones make is easier to stay in touch with people but they also disrupt sacred moments, such as quiet movie theatres, family dinners, peaceful religious ceremonies, and driving safely. One specific aspect of mobile phones as a connecting and disconnecting technology is the phone book. Mobile phones are able to hold hundreds and thousands of contacts, information that we do not need to remember. How many phone numbers are people able to recall without the assistance of their mobile phone? Mobile phone books make it possible to connect all of this contact information but disconnect from the amazing cognitive power which is memory.
No comments:
Post a Comment