Thursday, July 7, 2011

Power of Film as a Medium

Video has quickly become one of the favorite mediums to complete the communication process with audiences whether they be large in size, distance, or any combination therein.  In this article, Brian Ott analyzes the affects that cinema has on the viewer as a form of communication.  Ott looks to the 2006 film, V for Vendetta has his example of film having the ability to “…enlist and mobilize viewers at a visceral level…” 

Ott states that when analyzing the rhetoric of any message being presented, it is the type of medium chosen to send the message that either makes or breaks the communication process.  Film has the unique ability to not only appeal to our visual and auditory senses, it appeals to our humanity and deep into our emotions.  Ott describes this phenomena as “Because of its hybridized mode of expression involving music, sound, speech, and moving images, cinema is among the most figural and thus sensual of the arts.”  By using sound effects, soundtracks, and brilliantly planned camera angles, film makers can manipulate the feelings and perceptions of their audience and make them feel like they are walking around the scene and viewing it firsthand.  This type of integration with audience is not possible with any other means of communication.  If you saw a guy walking up on stage and delivering a speech with sound effects, visual effects, and a soundtrack, you would have a hard time believing anything that he had to say because it was so out of the ordinary.  In the cinema world however, this over-stimulation of the senses allows the audience to feel like they are interacting with the story.

Ott, B. L. (2010). The visceral politics of V for Vendetta: On political affect in cinema. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27(1), pp. 39-54.  

Zuckerberg vs. Obama... Who Wins the Buzz Award?

Two “first” events  occurred yesterday afternoon within an hour of each other in the online world.  First, Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerberg took the online stage (via a live streamed webcast on the site) in order to announce the newest product to join the social networking site, video chat supported by Skype.  While many had been waiting and expecting this announcement to occur, it still incurred a lot of buzz. 

An hour later, President Obama held the first live streaming town hall meeting via Twitter.  Twitter users could ask the president questions by using a specific hashtag in their posts and Obama would tweet his answer back to them. 

Both events had a huge amount of publicity about them leading up to the start of each event.  So who was out-tweeted?  Surprisingly, it was the president.  Jive Social Media Engagement conducted the buzz analysis and determined that Zuckerberg received over three times as much buzz for his expected (and leaked) announcement than the president did in attempt to connect with Americans individually.

These results made me step back and think for a moment.  Why do we care more about the ability to video chat with our friends over Skype than we do with getting our thoughts, opinions, and questions about the state of our country and economy answered by the man in charge?  Perhaps everyone who has a real interest in politics was too busy watching the live feed of the Casey Anthony trial online and forgot the tweet-along.  Even she got more online buzz than the president.  Do we not care that much about politics, or do we just care a little more to see if a woman suspected of killing her child will get the shock of her life?  Perhaps, it is just a reflection of which social site we prefer.  Facebook outweighs Twitter significantly in the user numbers, so maybe people just didn’t want to sign up for Twitter to have their voice heard.