I was searching the web this afternoon and stumbled upon a very interesting article on Cracked.com about the ease of constructing an episode of House. House is a show that fits into Calabrese’s television narrative prototype of “Variation on a theme”. If you read the embedded image below, hopefully you can see how much House works this way (and enjoy a few laughs at this sarcastic and humorous article).

The original article can be found on Michael Swain’s blog on Cracked.com:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/write-your-own-house-episode/

As I was reading through the three articles that focused primarily on what defines the increasingly common television practice of narratively complex…well, narratives, I found interesting the discussion of what role the viewer occupies within television, particularly within the general framework of Newman’s PTS, Mittell’s concept of Narrative Complexity, and Ndalianis’ use of the “five narrative prototypes.” Each of the articles offer very similar notions of the role of the viewer and I’d like to outline some of those qualities right now.

Newman’s notion that “out of industry constraints comes aesthetic strategies” certainly operates on the level of the viewer. I mean, the primary goal of the television industry is to get people to tune in, and tune in consistently. So, Newman looks at the ways in which these PTS (Prime-Time Serials) are constructed so as to engage the viewer’s attention primarily through compelling characters and the “forging [of] an emotional connection with them.” For example, in episodic “Beats”, the point is to provide new information in order to amplify the viewer’s desire to know more. Another example would be the 4-act structure of television narratives (due to commercial breaks). In order to maintain viewer engagement, techniques such as plot twists and complications, recapping, and repetition all serve the purpose of keeping the viewer tied down to they’re seats, and, as Newman writes, “Rememeber your goal. It’s to pull ’em back from the refrigerator.” So, basically, Newman says that the television industry, one that requires a high level of viewer participation, structures its narratives in a way that maintains interest through gratifying and pleasureful emotional connections to the text.

Ndalianis discussion of the viewer’s role is likely the least comprehensive of the three articles, but she makes an interesting assertion that the rise of serial narratives has followed the rise of global economics, with corporations operating within a captialist system dominated by interactions with “multiple countries and multiple media.” She reckons that viewers are treated as consumers in a media market: the intended goal is to provide the consumer with a product that inspires further consumption (i.e. repeated viewing). More directly dealing with the multiplicity of global economics, Ndalianis asserts that viewers must be more capable of navigating multiple ‘texts’ in order to “give coherence to an individual episode with a series,” or just to give coherence to complex narratives and their multiple storylines that span across a series of episodes. What Ndalianis suggests is that viewers need to learn how to understand the complex narrative structures of the contemporary television serials. She is also suggesting that this is symptomatic of an important global shift, both culturally and societally.

I think that this insistence upon a more active viewer is very much in-line with Mittell’s article and his use of the “operational aesthetic.” The basic idea behind the operational aesthetic is a de-emphasis upon “what will happen?” and an emphasis on “how did he do that?” This notion automatically requires a more active viewer who can simultaneously engage with the storyworld while “marvelling” that its narrative construction. Put succinctly, the shows require a formally aware viewer who can recognize the narrative spectacles being shown before them. Mittell suggests that this style of viewer arises out of 1) fan cultures almost obsessive (maybe too strong of a word) viewing practices, 2) The implementation of time-shifting technologies (TiVo, DVR, DVDs) that place the control, literally and figuratively, in the hands of the viewer, and 3) the accessibility of information via the internet and the formation of a “collective intelligence” of devoted fans (i.e. Lostpedia: a wiki for everything LOST-related). Furthermore, one point Mittell makes concerns these formally aware viewers and their ability to “gain competency in decoding stories.” For example, in LOST, flashbacks are focused upon one character per episode (generally) and are cued by a nifty sound effect. A viewer who watches multiple episodes will recognize this technique and become to comprehend this particular intrinsic norm of the show.

In summary, what I think these three articles succeed in showing is how viewers of these complex serial narratives are formally aware of the spectacle they are seeing (a self-conscious device often used by the show’s collective “implied author”), are actively viewing, and continue to view based upon emotional connections with characters and the engaging question of “how did he do that?” (an engagement with narrative structure). My only question, and this is a very basic one, is how do viewer practices change across media? We’ve watched so many films in this course, how do viewer practices of film differ from those of television? This is a question Ioana and I posed in our discussion questions and I think would be an interesting and logical point to “dive in” to this topic. My sense is that the answer will be quite complex, with some major differences. While not going into too much detail because I am exhausted right now, I imagine that the mode of viewing (theatre vs. TV) affects things.  Roland Barthes talks about how the theatre lulls the spectator into a pre-hypnotic state, which is an affect not often felt in one’s livingroom. However, due to the accessibility of television and films on the internet, as well as, DVDs moving film viewing experiences from the theatre to the TV, film, as well as TV, is experiencing a shift towards more active “viewership.” If an increase in active viewing coorelates with the emergence of more complex narratives, I think that this trend is more evident is TV, but just by thinking about movies that we have seen thus far (particularly Memento and Mulholland Drive), film seems to be moving in that direction. I mean, the revelation that Mulholland Drive was a TV pilot turned film speaks volumes about A) TV’s propensity towards more complex narratives and B) the influence that TV is having on filmic narratives, specifically in Mulholland Drive‘s use of a TV narrative as a subjective representation of events from the mind of a delusional woman (if you wish to believe that theory, which is the simplest to accept, and thus I accept it). In that sense, Mulholland Drive uses the Neo-Baroque idea of open, polycentric format of serial TV, and reverts it into a subjective device of character with the model of Classical, Aristotelian narratives, which are self-contained and closed narratives.

That last paragraph was way more stream of consciousness then I intended, haha. Anyway, just some food for thought.

Mulholland Dr. has spurred numerous conversations since we saw the movie that have got me thinking more and more about the genius of this movie. I’ve always been a David Lynch fan (Blue Velvet is one of my favorite movies of all time) and had never successfully made it through the film before our screening, hence, I had never known that the “twist” was going to occur. This film, more than others we’ve seen, has led to many many conversations, and I was thinking about why that is. Why does Mulholland Dr. seem to elicit discussion and conversation days, and probably weeks after its initial viewing? And what are these conversations about?

For me, the conversations were not about interpreting the movie or comprehending the movie, but way more consistently about the experience of viewing the movie and and the question of “How it made me feel?” Once the blue box was opened and we, the spectator, were out of the “dream” world, I was so disoriented by that point that I gave up interpreting and comprehending; I just began experiencing. Since the fabula and syuzhet became incomprehensible, I think that my mind shifted towards an awareness of Bordwell’s notion of style and particularly how this style evoked an emotional response from me so rare, it seems, in contemporary Hollywood films of the present.

I want to talk about my emotional response to the “Winkies” sequence towards the beginning of the film because I feel like that unravels some of issues I want to get at. If I were to rank the scariest moments I’ve had while watching a film, this would rank in the top 5, without a doubt. Why is this moment so scary? The framing narrative about the dream (which cued me to that fact that when the man walked behind Winkies, he was certainly going to see the figure in his nightmares), the pacing, the POV shots, and the inevitability of the homeless-nightmare man sliding out from behind the wall. I also think this moment scared me so much upon first viewing because the film is not a horror film, so all of the schemata and extra-textual knowledge that a spectator comes with is absent. You are not expecting the fright. Think of it in another way: In “The Sixth Sense,” we are taught, from the beginning of the movie, that we are meant to be frightened, and that we’re dealing with death and ghosts, etc… Jumps and bumps and scares are expected. But its not the same way with Mulholland Drive.

My natural inclination upon leaving the screening was to find answers, you know, sort out in my head what actually happened in that movie, and I did find answers. But after having discussions with fellow classmates, why is there such an urge to comprehend the incomprehensible? What has stuck with me the most from this movie are two things: 1) images, details, and very small things that strike me in a way that cannot be described by words. I’m talking about Roland Barthes’ “Third Meaning” or the Impressionist’s notion of Photogenie. That undefinable, mysterious feeling that certain filmic images evoke in a viewer, but a feeling that our language cannot sufficiently explain. For example, ever since the movie, I’ve been thinking about the sequence where the guy spits out his espresso into a napkin. Just something about that sequence transcends the film in a way I can’t explain; you know, I recognize it by negation; my inability to describe it highlights its presence. I found myself feeling this way quite a few times during the film. 2) The second thing that sticks with me still is the overall emotional response I had to the film. I don’t feel like I need to fully comprehend the film, or need to interpret the film to look for meaning; I just need to (as cliche as it sounds) feel the movie and experience it. I found that I was able to separate myself from the fabula and syuzhet and solely let the style guide my experience and guide my emotional responses, and I don’t think that happens a lot. I’m interested to hear if anybody else had similar emotional experiences or if they experienced the film differently that I.

Topic:

1. Examine voice-over narration and its uses specific to Film Noir.

2. Examine voice-over narration in Neo-Noir

3. Examine the ways in which Neo-Noir uses voice-over narration (if at all) differently than the status quo Film Noir. Is there more subjective narration? Unreliability from the narrator? How is voice-over narration re-envisioned in Neo-Noir of the 1980s – 2000s and how does voice-over narration function differently in these films? Voice-over Narration, while primarily a narrational tool in Film Noir, also serves as one of many stylistic choices. While this next statement is not a fully formed idea yet, I wonder how Bordwell’s framework of Narration and Syuzhet + Style fits with Film Noir, since one of its distinct tools of narration is also an element of style? I’m not sure if the distinction is worth pursuing further.

Exposition

I will begin the research paper with a discussion of voice-over narration and narrators in Film Noir. I will explain these terms in their theoretical contexts primarily with the help of Sarah Kozloff’s essay, “Invisible Storytellers: Voice-Over Narration in American Fiction Film.” Terms will include (but are not limited to): homodiegetic, heterodiegetic, embedded narrator, first-person narrator, and Bordwell’s “fabula, syuzhet, and style.”

I also think that a brief explanation of Film Noir (i.e. how the genre formed, generic conventions, when it was prominent) should be included.

1. Kozloff lays out my intentions for the first section of the paper perfectly in a quote from her above essay:

We shall see that [voice-over] narration can serve a variety of functions, including recreating/referring to a novel’s narrative voice, conveying expositional information, and aiding in the presentation of complex chronologies. We shall also see that this type of narration can greatly affect the viewer’s experience of the text by ‘naturalizing’ the source of the narrative, by increasing identification with the characters, by prompting nostalgia, and by stressing the individuality and subjectivity of perception and storytelling.

I wish to use specific examples from quintessential Film Noirs to illustrate only those above qualities of ‘Noir’ narration that will be the most instructive for a comparison between ‘Noir’ and ‘Neo-Noir.’ The films to be used are central to the genre, and I believe that all use voice-over differently: Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, Sunset Boulevard, Mildred Pierce, The Big Sleep. Five films feels like too many; these examples may change once further research is done. Basically, the films that best allow for comparisons between Noir and Neo-Noir will be the ones used. Kozloff notes that in Double Indemnity, the focalizer, Walter Neff, provides voice-over through dictation into a Dictaphone (where as in the novel, Neff writes a memoir). Further, Kozloff notes how Sunset Boulevard uses voice-over in a more self-conscious manner, more so than most noirs. My basic goal of this section is to firmly establish the ways in which voice-over is commonly employed in Film Noir while providing concrete textual examples to highlight these attributes of voice-over narration. Other texts to be used will be J.P. Telotte’s book “Voices in the Dark: The Narrative Patterns of Film Noir,” Ian Cameron’s “The Book of Film Noir,” Mark T. Conrad’s “The Philosophy of Film Noir,” James Naremore’s “More than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts,” and Edward Dimendberg’s “Film Noir and The Spaces of Modernity.”

2. This section serves to examine voice-over in Neo-Noirs and their evolution. To start, a brief explanation of Neo-Noir and its attributes must be given. Admittedly, more research needs to be done to pinpoint Neo-Noir films that employ voice-over narration or other devices that function similarly (i.e., Memento’s black-and-white sequences discussing Sammy Jankis; The Usual Suspect’s framing narrative in the police station). These examples may not work, but what I am primarily interested in is how Film Noir of the 40s and 50s utilized voice-over narration, and then how Neo-Noir re-envisioned those functions of voice-over narration to complement their new style. An interesting case could be Blade Runner, where voice-over was used in the original cut, but in subsequent cuts has been removed. What were the advantages for the voice-over? Did removing them from later cuts diminish the spectator’s understanding of the narrating character and his circumstances? How were those same internal thoughts conveyed without voice-over? Potential films to be looked at include: Chinatown, L.A. Confidential, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Memento, The Usual Suspects, Reservoir Dogs. Including the books mentioned under section 1 above, the book “Neo-Noir: The New Film Noir Style from Psycho to Collateral” by Ronald Schwartz will be used.

3. This section is the least developed of all the sections because further research will need to be conducted. Once the movies are watched and studied, the task of this section is to look at the comparisons between Noir and Neo-Noir (with respect to voice-over and its overall narration) and then make inferences and hypotheses based on the information found. But, as I’ve stated before, I am most interested in examining the ways in which Neo-Noir uses (or doesn’t use) voice-over narration differently than classic Noir.

Hopefully, this description gives a clear, yet vague idea of what I aim to research and uncover via this research paper. Any ideas or insights would be much appreciated.

Let’s put it simply: Leslie and I are in love…with Pushing Daisies, and it was that mutual affection with a quirky show about the pie-maker Ned waking up the dead that brought us together on this project. I think my primary reason for liking the show is how different it is from mainstream TV programming, with the stylized mise-en-scenes, the interesting characters, the unique premise, the blending of the detective genre, and the humor, etc… Enough said.

Like Leslie mentioned in her post, we encountered some technical difficulties, which were frustrating, like spending hours in the library trying to get Snap Z to screen capture with sounds, to spending hours in Axinn using Snap Z, but having files too large to save to the desktop and having to start from scratch. I think that if anything good came from all that trial and error is that I now feel like a professional Snap Z wizard.

So, our basic idea was to take Ned, the innocent, shy, and lonely pie-maker, and make him a devious, calculating murderer (using only the first three episodes). We wanted to to use the story-book, third-person-omniscient-esque narrator and re-edit his narration in order to depict Ned as having been a murderer since his childhood. As Leslie mentioned, we tried to follow the intrinsic norms of the show: for example, beginning with childhood exposition and also employing “The Facts were these” when narrating a murder. Difficulties definitely arose because of editing around the sound, the music, and the dialogue, but I think what was important for Leslie and I was to construct a cohesive narrative solely using editing, that differed remarkably from the show itself.

So, here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWtiNvhbzKw . Enjoy