Genre and websites question 1b

Genre is a way in which text can be categorized using style and form. Being able to do this holds great importance both for production and analysis. The majority of students affiliate genre with films and music because it is easier to identify categories in this way. However I would argue that the same tool used to categorize film and music can be used to generalize any kind of media text and define them by categories and paradigms. I’m going to use genre to discuss my website which I produced for the as portfolio. Its very easy to make note of minor similarities of differences in websites to make them fit into a definitive genre. This is what Rick Alterman calls the semantic approach (1995). Instead Altman encourages a syntactic approach which is to ask- why? So I will explain the purpose of the similarities.

The industry websites have certain genres because each industry sector has a different function, so therefore their websites serve a different purpose. While most websites do operate as a marketing tool it would be wrong to assume that this was their only function. This is supported by entitled “Top ten site genres” (March 2010) a chart made by marketing charts.com. On this chart finance, sports and recreation, home and garden and entertainment and email are held as the closely followed by the general community.

So its evident that the marketing industry is already categorizing sites, most likely because it helps them sell advertising space on this sites.

Campaign websites are just as easily identifiable as films, based on the common themes and paradigms that are recognized to belonging under that particular genre of website. The iconography they use must persuade the audience that the campaign is worthwhile and motivate them to get involved. To make this easy for the audience, they share a certain structure. My website had a recognizable theme which obviously belonged to the campaign genre because of the mission statement which was “preserving animals in their natural environments”. To support this, the iconography used on the website depicted the basis of the genre because the images used to site were of healthy animals in well maintained facilities. These images conveyed the idea that the campaign had made a positive difference to the quality of life of the animals.

As expected in this genre, persuasive language like; “donate” and “help” are used to encourage people to support the movement. In comparison to other sites in this genre I would say that my website is relatively safe. Following an informal lay out with small chunks of info scattered around the page.

Placing sites into categories makes navigation on the part of the audience a lot easier. This is because they know what the type of paradigms to expect in a particular genre. For young people, the assessment of the site may also be based on how inventively the genre paradigms are used. If you look at campaign sites aimed at teenagers there is sometimes evidence of innovation in the design but the theme, structure and iconography still make them instantly recognisable as a campaign site. Talk to Frank for example uses more flash and has an interesting way of accessing the information from the main image, but the conventional structure is still evident. The concept of genre is therefore applicable to websites and it is already extremely important to both the Institutions their audiences. Both are given a sense of safety by genre. The institutions have financial safety knowing they are investing money on a format that already works. For site visitors, the safety is of having their expectations of the navigation experience met by the site they choose to visit.

Essay 2 Redraft Feedback.

Much improved. Now sitting comfortably in level 3. See my comments. Would like to have read more on backlash against femininity or influenced by appearance of 60s gangsters in the media again (Krays etc), or both?

Level 3

Explanation/analysis/argument (12-15 marks)

Candidates adapt their learning to the specific requirements of the chosen question well, in the main. The answer offers a sensible, mostly clear balance of media theories and knowledge of industries and texts, with a proficient attempt at personally engaging with issues and debates.

Use of examples (12-15 marks)

Examples of theories, texts and industry knowledge are connected together in places, and a clear argument is proficiently developed in response to the question. History and the future are discussed with relevance.

Use of terminology (6-7 marks)

Material presented is mostly informed by contemporary media theory, articulated through use of appropriate theoretical terms.

Relatively straightforward ideas have been expressed with some clarity and fluency. Arguments are generally relevant, though may stray from the point of the question. There will be some errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar but these are unlikely to be intrusive or obscure meaning.

What does the film lock stock and Two Smoking Barrels tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990’s?

The film in question was produced in 1998 by Guy Ritchie, since then it has been the object of much debate on [argued] whether the male profiles presented in the film were a reflection of the males in Britain at the time; or whether the film influenced male identity. The purpose of this essay is to identify “what it meant to be male” during the nineties; and how the Guy Ritchie film conveyed this. The question alone starts another argument; whether the media can affect how individuals form their identity [we see are selves], or whether we naturally have an idea of who we are from the minute we are born. This is otherwise known as the nature v nurture [theory] debate.

After watching the movie I came to the conclusion that the entire cast (predominantly male) seemed to have an extremely reckless and destructive attitude with no sense of responsibility or balance, rushing from one extreme to the other. Now, for a film with such themes to be successful there has to be an appreciation for the constant provision of violence from scene to scene. Basically the previously mentioned nurture argument supports that over time the exposure to such violence became acceptable; so much so that the audience actually had quite an appetite for such things. Although the film is within the gangster light category because it has comedic violence, (Steve Chibnall, 2009) some themes of the film are grossly violent, whether we want to admit it or not, films are a cultural representation of what is occurring in society. May they be grossly fictional or loosely based on real events; what we see on television and in the cinema are direct reflections of our aspirations, fantasies and even our realities. Personally I believe if a film is to obtain any success, the audience have to be able to relate to the majority of the cast and the situation they are in. If the audience can’t find any middle ground; effectively it would have no audience.

In one weekend, Lock Stock earned 143,321 dollars. Hold on! I forgot to add this was the turnover gained from the movie whilst it was being shown in just EIGHT American cinemas. Now in case you have forgotten, our American cousins (by nature) find British culture “quaint” and can rarely make sense of anything that is spoken in a cockney accent. So why would they flock to the cinema to watch a film which depicted a somewhat sideways look at British gangster culture? I would say it was because at the time during the tail end of 98; deep down inside the most rational and balanced male there was a burning desire to break away from the politically correct profile that had enveloped the country which no longer classed homosexuality as a disease. A country which had a new breed of male who had;

“...had enough of feminist ideas of what a man should be” (Mary Wood 2007) Before I continue I must say that by no means were these emotions felt by all males as a classified group; however they applied to enough for Guy Ritchie to make a “hit” film, which was warmly accepted by Britain thus making it a domestic blockbuster.

What does this film say about male identity in Britain during the 90’s? If we were to use theory to describe why this movie was so successful, I would say that this film supports [fitted with] the John Fiske school of thought; which would argue that the entertainment industry will only produce material that they know will be successful becuase there is an audience demand for it. [accepted as a reflection of current culture]. In other words, Ritchie’s Lock Stock was only successful due to Britain’s appetite for senseless and often unrealistic acts of violence. You could link to this media focus on 60s gangsters in the 90s - Kray Brothers etc. This is one way of explaining the appetite for violence or it could be that the 'new men' were tired of being 'soft'.

I would suggest that the gradual exposure is responsible for our acceptance of certain things; for example, the role women in films. During the 90’s (eight years before this film was released) a woman’s role in film was growing from strength to strength becoming comfortable in roles equal or sometimes even domineering over males. However Lock Stock takes a retrograde step and reverts to objectifying women. This links to Laura Mulvey’s theory (1975) which points out how woman are merely depicted in films as helpless damsels in distress. This is encapsulated in the film plainly by strip club scene when we are shown the conversation between the northerners and Hatchet Harry right hand man in the strip club from a male’s point of view. The “lads” seem to be incapable of concentrating and often find them selves drifting between the stripper on the pole and the conversation at hand. This scene alone encapsulates Laura Mulveys theory which states that women are placed in films just to capture the gaze of males; thus objectifying females them. All in order to make males seem more powerful. So far this follows the underlying theme of the film which has all male cast with the exception of a semi conscious girl, the previously mentioned stripper and a card dealer.

You should write a paragraph on Media Effects and/or nurture argument.

Then conclude with a summary which is a short answer to the question - identity is complicated. Include the fact that Fiske and Gauntlett rightly argue that people are constantly being bombarded with messages from the media but it is difficult to separate this influence from the influence of parents, peers and other significant people in a man's life. The problem is that once an ideology has been repeated enough times, from enough sources, people start to believe it is true.

What does the film lock stock and Two Smoking Barrels tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990’s?

The film in question was produced in 1998 by Guy Ritchie, since then it has been argued whether the male profiles presented in the film were a reflection of the males in Britain at the time; or whether the film influenced male identity. The purpose of this essay is to identify “what it meant to be male” during the nineties; and how the Guy Ritchie film conveyed this. The question alone starts another argument; whether the media can affect how we see are selves, or whether we naturally have an idea of who we are from the minute we are born. This is otherwise known as the nature v nurture theory. After watching the movie I came to the conclusion that the entire cast (predominantly male) seemed to have an extremely reckless and destructive attitude with no sense of responsibility or balance, rushing from one extreme to the other. Now, for a film with such themes to be successful there has to be an appreciation for the constant provision of violence from scene to scene. Basically the previously mentioned nurture supports that over time the exposure to such violence became acceptable; so much so that the audience actually had quite an appetite for such things.
Although the film is within the gangster light category (comedic violence) some themes of the film are grossly violent, whether we want to admit it or not, films are a cultural representation of what is occurring in society. May they be grossly fictional or loosely based on real events; what we see on television and in the cinema are direct reflections of our aspirations, fantasies and even our realities. Personally I believe if a film is to obtain any success, the audience have to be able to relate to the majority of the cast and the situation they are in. If the audience can’t find any middle ground; effectively it would have no audience. Slightly off topic, in one weekend,(now remember a weekend consists of only two days) the film in question earned 143,321 dollars. Hold on! I forgot to add this was the turnover gained from the movie whilst it was being shown in just eight American cinemas. Now in case you have forgotten, our American cousins (by nature) find British culture “quaint” and can rarely make sense of anything that is spoken in an English accent. So why would they flock to the cinema to watch a film which depicted a somewhat sideways (gangster light) Steve Chidnal 98-0l look at British gangster culture? I would say it was because at the time during the tail end of 98; deep down inside the most rational and balanced male there was a burning desire to break away from the politically correct profile that had enveloped the country which no longer classed homosexuality as a disease. A country which had a new breed of male who had “had enough of feminist ideas of what a man should be”-Mary Wood 07 Before I continue I must say that by no means were these emotions felt by all males as a classified group; however they applied to enough for Guy Ritchie to make a “hit” film, which was warmly accepted by Britain thus making it a domestic blockbuster. What does this film say about male identity in Britain during the 90’s? If we were to use theory to describe why this movie was so successful, I would say that this film fitted with the Fisk’s school of thought; which would argue that the entertainment industry will only produce material that they know will be accepted as a reflection of current culture. In other words, Guy Ritchie’s Lock, stock and Two Smoking Barrels was only successful due to Britain’s appetite for senseless and often unrealistic acts of violence.

I would suggest that the gradual exposure is responsible for our acceptance of certain things; for example, the role women in films. During the 90’s (eight years before this film was released) a woman’s role in film was growing from strength to strength becoming comfortable in roles equal or sometimes even domineering over males. However Lock Stock takes a retrograde step and reverts to objectifying women. This links to Laura Mulvey’s theory which points out how woman are merely depicted in films as helpless damsels in distress. This is encapsulated in the film plainly by strip club scene when we are shown the conversation between the northerners and Hatchet Harry right hand man in the strip club from a male’s point of view. The “lads” seem to be incapable of concentrating and often find them selves drifting between the stripper on the pole and the conversation at hand. This scene alone encapsulates Laura Mulveys theory which states that women are placed in films just to capture the gaze of males; thus objectifying females them. All in order to make males seem more powerful. So far this follows the underlying theme of the film which has all male cast with the exception of a semi conscious girl, the previously mentioned stripper and a card dealer.


Bibliography
Laura Mulvey
Steve Chidnal
Mary Wood

Essay 2 Feedback

Excellent potential but way off the word count so an unacceptable D for you this time. Ensure this essay is completed to at least 1200 words ASAP.
Always reference your points if they are someone elses ideas i.e. gangster light (author, year). Then put in the full details in the end notes.

What does the film lock stock and Two Smoking Barrels tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990’s?

The film in question was produced in 1998 by Guy Ritchie, since then it has been argued whether the male profiles presented in the film were a reflection of the males in Britain at the time; or whether the film influenced male identity during that time.Critics claimed that the film only reflected what was going on at the time whilst projecting themes that were widespread amongst British males at the time. The purpose of this essay is to identify “what it meant to be male” during the nineties; and how the Guy Richie film, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels conveyed this. The characters all seemed to have the same reckless attitude with no sense of responsibility or balance rushing from one extreme to the other. Based on the fact that there was no “in-betweener” in the cast I believe Richie was trying to make a statement. I would say that Richie was trying to cast an image of what a “Bloke” should be; by creating characters how seemed to have no limits or morals, this is displayed in the strip club scene when we are shown the conversation between the northerners and Hatchet Harry right hand man in the strip club from a males point of view. The “lads” seem to be incapable of concentrating and often find them selves drifting between the stripper on the pole and the conversation at hand. This scene alone encapsulates Laura Mulveys theory which states that women are placed in films just to capture the gaze of males; thus objectifying females them. All in order to make males seem more powerful. So far this follows the underlying theme of the film which has all male cast with the exception of a semi conscious girl, the previously mentioned stripper and a card dealer.

Whether we want to admit it or not, films are a cultural representation of what is occurring in society. May they be grossly fictional or loosely based on real events; what we see on television and in the cinema are direct reflections of our aspirations, fantasies and even our realities. Personally I believe if a film is to obtain any success, the audience have to be able to relate to the majority of the cast and the situation they are in. If the audience can’t find any middle ground; effectively it would have no audience.Slightly off topic, in one weekend,(now remember a weekend consists of only two days) the film in question earned 143,321 dollars. Hold on! I forgot to add this was the turnover gained from the movie whilst it was being shown in just eight American cinemas. Now in case you have forgotten, our American cousins (by nature) find British culture “quaint” and can rarely make sense of anything that is spoken in an English accent. So why would they flock to the cinema to watch a film which depicted a somewhat sideways (gangster light) look at British gangster culture?I would say it was because at the time during the tail end of 98; deep down inside the most rational and balanced male there was a burning desire to break away from the politically correct profile that had enveloped the country which no longer classed homosexuality as a disease. A country which had a new breed of male who had “had enough of feminist ideas of what a man should be”-Mary WoodBefore I continue I must say that by no means were these emotions felt by all males as a classified group; however they applied to enough for Guy Ritchie to make a “hit” film, which was warmly accepted by Britain thus making it a domestic blockbuster.What does this film say about male identity in Britain during the 90’s? If we were to use theory to describe why this movie was so successful, I would say that this film fitted with the Fisk’s school of thought; which would argue that the entertainment industry will only produce material that they know will be accepted as a reflection of current culture. In other words, Guy Ritchie’s Lock, stock and Two Smoking Barrels was only successful due to Britain’s appetite for senseless and often unrealistic acts of violence.

Shot sequence descriptions/ Story board
John Roberts


Shot one: long shot

Visual: Action Frame 360 degree snaps of my interviewees
Sound: shutter noise
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 10 seconds


Shot 2: deep focus

Visual: Static shot of students in school corridors
Sound: digetic sound
Effect: none
Music: none
Voice over: a voice clip describing the purpose of the documentary
Time: 20 seconds


Shot 3: deep focus

Visual: static shot of students in school corridors fades
Sound: digetic sound softens
Effect: fade to black
Music: none
Time: 5 seconds


Shot 4: medium close ups

Visual: short clip showing each interviewee performing their daily activity shot cuts
Out and back during transition of interviewees.

Sound: Digetic, voice over of interviewees introducing themselves
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 15 seconds








Shot 5: Mid-shot

Visual: Interview starts, over the shoulder shot (my) capturing interviewees mid torso
to head.
Sound: none
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 24 seconds


Shot 6: Mid-shot

Visual: Interview starts, over the shoulder shot (my) capturing interviewees mid torso
to head.
Sound: none
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 24 seconds


Shot 7: Mid-shot

Visual: Interview starts, over the shoulder shot (my) capturing interviewees mid torso
to head.
Sound: none
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 24 seconds



Shot 8: Mid-shot

Visual: Interview starts, over the shoulder shot (my) capturing interviewees mid torso
to head.
Sound: none
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 24 seconds



Shot 9: Mid-shot

Visual: Interview starts, over the shoulder shot (my) capturing interviewees mid torso
to head.
Sound: none
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 24 seconds
Shot 10: Mid-shot

Visual: clip ends, fade to black
Sound: none
Effect: none
Music: none
Time: 5

Essay 1 Feedback

Low level 3 - Roughly equates to a high C.
The essay offers a clear balance of media theories with a proficient attempt at personal engagement. A clear structure is developed in response to the question. Answer informed by theory with some reference to contemporary examples.

To develop essay: Mention Karl Marx, provide more examples i.e. Madonna, X Factor etc. To improve essay writing skills: Work with me on posing questions in an essay.