How Long form dramas came into being.
Terrestial
TV
Schedule content was fixed (reliant on
analogue (radio wave technology as pre the internet)
Viewing experience was communal (families
watched the same/similar content) as content was transmitted via Radio waves.
Dramas developed to encourage regular
viewing
Program content with high audience
numbers secured revenue via advertising.
Advertising revenue or PSB income (TV
license) pays for drama for e.g. a typical Eastenders episode costs £141,000
Historical cultural and economic
contexts.
•HOC
belongs to a genre called Long form television drama. (LFTVD)
•LFTVD
(Game of Thrones, HOC, etc.) are
characterised by high production values.
•Series
one and 2 of the HOC costs an estimated
$100 Million for the first two series (26 episodes) to produce.
•By
comparison Eastender’s
costs £29.9
million a year for 212
episodes. (source:)
•Referring
to the revision notes page 146, the cost of production of this High end Drama
(HOC) is linked to
–Sourcing
highly skilled actors
Kevin Spacey
–Cinematic
styling camera work
Wide shot
-Lighting
and editing
Low-key
Stop motion
Time lapse
-Complex
narratives (multi-stranded) (Barthes)
Many subplots
-Composed
music
Task spend some time in reflecting on the
drama and identify examples of the above linked to the HOC.
The prime contexts influencing medium
language in television dram may be ideologies such as:
•
•Individualism:
e.g. focusing a drama on an individual protagonist
•Consumerism:
e.g. judging characters on their possessions or desirability of their
lifestyles
•Patriarchal:
power and the challenge to this by feminism e.g. using or refusing to use
women’s bodies as objects, or narratives that present a male, female or gender
neutral perspective
•Racism
and ethnocentrism and the challenge to those from multiculturalism and
internationalism, e.g. narratives that present a mono cultural,
multicultural or minority perspective
(page 156 OCR revision notes)
Task Identify the ideologies underpinning
the media language in the house of cards.
House of card's is a political drama set in modern day Washington. The main characters Frank, Clare, Peter, Zoe all are represented in various different ways using media language and different theories relating to the plot.
Frank Underwood, is an cold and calculated upper class politician fighting his way to clime up the ranks to gain more power. from the first scene we see him in he is presented as someone of concern but ruthless nature. He uses a car crash on a dog as a metaphor for his views and idealisms, stating that 'there no point for useless pain', this already shows he's willing to do what it takes if he thinks its the right thing to do. Frank sees himself a the 'plumber' of congress, we know this through his own personal monologue through out the episode, his aim is to progress In power. There is a juxtapositional, scene goes from Frank at a opera theatre then cuts straight to him playing shooting game, goes from elegance to abrupt violence shows contrast in Franks mixed personalities.
Create an essay Analysing the
main characters
•
•Frank
Underwood
•Clare
Underwood
•Peter
Russo
•Zoe
Barnes
•
Apply theory/academic arguments showing
how the characters are represented.
Discuss the underlying ideologies which
apply to the House of cards and the characters
Identify specific examples (of media
language) which support your arguments
Use appropriate terminologies in
discussing the media language
House of card's is a political drama set in modern day Washington. The main characters Frank, Clare, Peter, Zoe all are represented in various different ways using media language and different theories relating to the plot.
Frank Underwood, is an cold and calculated upper class politician fighting his way to clime up the ranks to gain more power. from the first scene we see him in he is presented as someone of concern but ruthless nature. He uses a car crash on a dog as a metaphor for his views and idealisms, stating that 'there no point for useless pain', this already shows he's willing to do what it takes if he thinks its the right thing to do. Frank sees himself a the 'plumber' of congress, we know this through his own personal monologue through out the episode, his aim is to progress In power. There is a juxtapositional, scene goes from Frank at a opera theatre then cuts straight to him playing shooting game, goes from elegance to abrupt violence shows contrast in Franks mixed personalities.
Claire Underwood is Franks wife. I believe she is used in this episode to subvert expectations of female stereotypes which is that females are usually emotionally weak and are only used for sex appeal and interest. She is seen to have a lot of mental power over her husband as she is the catalysis for Franks greatness, there a team. Claire is also seen to have a ruthless nature as she unapologetically decides to cut off half her staff for the grater good, willing to do what it takes just like her husband.
Zoe Barns is represented in her first scenes as a reporter that desires to be taken more seriously as a female reporter and set on more serous assignments, this is a similar mindset to Frank as they both wish to progress in there respective fields. She also uses Van Zoonen's theory ,that women's body's are looked at as sexual objects in western culture, to her advantage by trying to control Frank by wearing revealing clothing when she meets him. Eventually her and Frank decide to work together to better both there careers
Peter Russo is presented already as someone who is irresponsible and shows a lot of unprofessionalism as he is in a meeting but is flirting on the phone to his partner. Throughout the episode he is seen getting drunk and having sexual affairs and getting into legal problem with the law due to drunk driving despite his high valued job. Due to his mistakes he gets blackmailed by Frank forcing him to become a pawn in his plan, in the scene the camera pans up wards to show Frank standing over Peter which visually displays his vulnerability in this situation showing Frank to have power over him as he demands for his 'unquestioning loyalty'.
No comments:
Post a Comment