It has been very surprising to me how in class we have somewhat decided that Flashforward as the ultimate example of failed audience invitational programming considering, on paper at least, what potential the show seemed to have.  In the realm of the fictional world the show has not one but two online networks where people can join and share and get information, and yet ABC and the show runners seemed to completely miss the potential that these two outlets could provide for their program and their audience.  The “mosaic” website that they offered for fans to share their own fan-created flashforwards was uninteresting and ultimately provided no real enjoyment for anyone involved, and the alreadyghosts.com site was non-existent.  In thinking about how these two opportunities were underutilized it makes me think about what could have happened had they been utilized.  What is the effect of invitational programming, on both the program and the audience?

I begin by thinking about what mosaic could have been.  I think that the ideal use of the website (in the real world) could have been a give-and-take forum where fans could both get extra content about the show while also submitting their own.  Instead of having only fan-made flashforwards the show runners could have posted flashforwards from fictional characters in the show so that fans could read them and get the extra content, as well as relate their own fan-made flashforwards to the story world.  This would be an interesting approach in that it would provide a semi-read/write environment where fans could take content from the show and work in their own creativity to it, while giving the creators of the show some control over the way fans were participating with their programming.

In thinking about how this invitational programming affects the content of the show itself I think it is a tough balance.  In trying to make a show that encourages fan participation, you are essentially gearing your show to a smaller demographic of audiences.  By creating a show that encourages people to go online and participate it is very easy to alienate the more passive audience that do not wish to participate in the same manner.  My guess is that this was one of the causes for the eventual cancelation of Flashforward.  I also think back to a reading we did earlier in the semester about Lost writers and how while they appreciate the fan involvement and discussions about the show, that it is impossible to please everyone and that taking their insight too seriously inevitably ends badly.  This might be a inherent flaw in invitational programming.

As far back as I can remember teenage, high school, melodrama television programming has existed.  And whether it be watching reruns of Saved By the Bell, or guiltily watching The O.C. on DVD with kids who live on my hall, it is impossible to watch these shows without noticing the way in which cultures are represented in certain time periods.  Watching, Gossip Girl for our class was the first time I had seen the show, but I was taken aback (although I probably shouldn’t have been considering the class) but how much the show was projecting a culture of “millenials” and the way in which technology is infused in their lives.  To define them as millenials may be to broad, as the characters in the show do not represent all millenials but rather a sub-category of “teen-mill-enials.”  The reason I make this distinction is because I would be remiss to lump early-thirty-year-old computer programmers and bloggers into the same category has the catty high school gossip texters that were depicted in the show.  But I digress…

The point I am trying to make is not how to define these characters, but rather what they are depicting on the show.  Audiences watch a body of youth who are deeply attached to their mobile devices so as to stay in touch with up-to-the-minute information.  As a community they are learning important (at least to them) information together at the same time.  While this is a representation of a society and an audience that we live in now where everyone can receive real-time info at any given moment, I still think this is not the most important takeaways from the show.

The first issue illustrated by our screening that I think is significant is the idea of power and the weight of what is posted on the world wide web.  In one episode we are witness to gossip being posted online that results in student expulsion, parent uproar, and eventually faculty termination.  In this way the episode really gives evidence to the power of the blogger in society.  As simple as it is to post something on the internet (in this case it was done via text with no factual evidence given), the ramifications of that information being as public as it is are massive.  This represents a time in our culture when there really is a struggle for power amongst many parties including, the press, the authorities, institutions, bloggers, and readers.  We are in a transitional period where the rules are changing, and while the situation in Gossip Girl may be kind of insignificant and melodramatic the idea that is behind is much deeper and still unclear.

The second message I took away from the Gossip Girl episodes screened for class is much less subtle.  In the season finale we watched, where students try to expose who the Gossip Girl actually is, the episodes ends with Gossip Girl saying something along the lines of “you are all the Gossip Girl because without you this would not exist” (a bad paraphrasing perhaps).  This addresses another idea that we have been examining which is the necessity of audience participation and read/write culture.  The only reason why wikipedia, or heavily followed blogs, or transmedia practices work is because the community exists to fuel it.  Unlike TV programming in previous generations Gossip Girl is addressing this need for audience participation, both in a large sense for our culture and also specifically for itself.

The two episodes of Supernatural screened for class are two hours of television filled with self-referencial humor and a very “meta” analysis of fan culture.  In this fashion, the episodes address the relationships between the viewers and the producers of both Supernatural specifically and fan culture in general.  The easiest concepts to pick out are the ways in which the episodes poke fun at fan and producer alike.  Instances like the characters Sam and Dean scoffing at and not taking seriously the fans of their fictional selves, or when the author of the Supernatural books, Chuck, proclaims that he must be some kind of God who has cursed Sam and Dean to live out “bad writing.”  In these two examples, both the fans and the writers are belittled and laughed at.  It is necessary for both parties to have a sense of humor for these themes to go over well.  On the other hand there are definitely ways in which both viewer and producer are elevated and empowered.  The fact that the author, Chuck, ends up being a prophet protected by archangels illustrates the importance of the author, and the way in which multiple fictional Supernatural fans end up helping out Sam and Dean gives fans not only a feeling of empowerment but it is also a nod to the ways in which fans can function in a participatory way with the show (this occurs literally in the episodes, but can be seen for as a metaphor for fan participation outside of the episodes).

What are the repercussions of the way in which these cultures are imagined?

I think that there is a definite gender divide as a result of the representation of fandom in the show.  Women fans are represented as swooning girls in love (and often times sexually charged) with the fictional characters, whereas the men are depicted as wannabes who can only get happiness from (very poorly) imitating and living out the lives of other people.  I think in both cases, these gendered definitions of fans are insulting.

I think that another result of the themes from the episodes are an approval of certain types of fans but not others.  The only fans that are really accepted by the characters Sam and Dean (and maybe the producers of the show) are the two fans who end up helping Sam and Dean save the day, claiming some generic comment like “We had to help, it’s what Sam and Dean would have done,” and explain to Dean what the true meaning of the books are.  In this manner fans that appreciate the show, appreciate the message, and support the characters are fans that are appreciated.  Other fans, like the ones who make Sam/Dean sexual websites, or who only like to bash the books in public forums are put down in the two episodes.  In this sense, the show is really illustrating which kind of fans are respected and which ones are not.

Singin’ In The Rain is a film that provides both incredible entertainment, as well as a sophisticated self-examination of Hollywood culture both in a modern and historical sense.  The film illustrates an uneasy time in the history of cinema, when both fans of the film world and the industry itself were unsure where things were going in the business.  This uncertainty is a theme that has not really been shown in any of the other films we have screened so far this semester and it tells a lot about both fan culture and the industry of the time.

Unlike Movie Crazy, Prix de Beaute, and Purple Rose of Cairo where fan characters are illustrated as being caught up in the magic of cinema, Singin’ In The Rain shows a time in cinema history where studio heads, producers and actors alike were terrified of losing fans and unsure about what the future held for them.  Much like Juddery describes in his article, “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” silent film stars were losing their careers, screenwriters and directors were lost, and nobody knew what technological advances would stick and what would only be a brief fad.  Singin’ In The Rain does an excellent job of evoking nostalgia of the silent film era, and showing a scared, uneasy, and even sympathetic Hollywood.

The fans play an important role in the dynamic of the film.  Again, as Juddery describes, and as we have discussed with the start of fan magazines in the late 1910’s and early 1920’s, fans beginning to learn more about the actors and actresses that they saw on the screen represents a major shift in the Hollywood dynamic.  The character Lina represents the story of many silent film actors who struggled to maintain their image when their voices were recorded.  The idea that fans have a certain idea of what an actor/actress is like in real life, and that that idea affects how they respond to them on screen is one that is worth considering in modern times with the presence of gossip columns, celebrity blogs and sources like TMZ, but Singin’ In The Rain is very significant in that it provides commentary on this practice during the time in cinema history when this was most important.  The introduction of sound let the fan in even closer to the industry and its stars, and the shift had a huge effect on how fans appreciated/participated with cinema, and how the industry changed their content/production methods.

The film “42nd Street” illustrates a relatively straight forward, but nevertheless interesting dynamic between spectacle and narrative.  While the two are separated in a pretty clear way, the effect that it has on audiences is quite significant in that it is able to give the audience a feeling of participation.  Connected to this desire of participation is the idea of fandom which is addressed in the narrative of the film.  The combination of this fan culture narrative and the ability to hook audiences in with the spectacle/narrative balance, makes the film quite gripping for certain viewers.

As discussed in Pattullo’s reading, Busby Berkeley had a distinct choreographical and directoral style in his show-within-a-show, “backstange musicals.”  By separating the spectacle and the narrative in an aggregate way, viewers get the narrative behind the scenes look, and then a completely different performance spectacle.  This dynamic is very effective in that the audience feels like a part of the artistic process when they see the backstage narrative aspects, which very much adds to their enjoyment of the spectacle. An example of this separation in “42nd Street” is when are main characer Peggy is rehearsing for hours and hours to the point of collapse minutes before her performance, and yet during the actual dance numbers at the end of the film the character shows no sign of fatigue.  The musical numbers, while still within the realm of the narrative, are completely separate performances.

In terms of fan culture, the plot has much to do with the idea of real world fans getting their big break and rising to the top, much like the story we saw in “Prix du Beauté.”  Fan culture of the time, a predominantly feminine one, was filled with fans who idolized the films and the stars and dreamed to one day become one.  The story of Peggy who barely gets cast into the show in the first place and ends up becoming a star is a storyline that many fans would be interested in.  In addition, the behind the scenes aspects of the plot (even though they are about theater and not necessarily film) could give fans who were intrigued about the mystical filmmaking process a view of what actors, directors, and producers go through to make a show.  The participation effect discussed early is only more effective when dealing with an audience of fans who are already hungry to participate in the first place.

What I found most interesting about The Purple Rose of Cairo, in terms of our audiences class, was the exact moment when I felt the film and my role as an audience member shift.  For the first 15-20 minutes of the film I was a normal audience member, taken in by the story and characters of the film, letting myself be passive in the on-screen world. As soon as the Jeff Daniels character breaks the fourth wall (both in the fictional film, and in part the actual film) it was like I was snapped out of a trance and became very aware that I was in an audience, watching a film, and that this film had a meta message that I was supposed to be paying attention to.  In this sense I thought the film did a very good job of making me think about the act of moviegoing and the act of being a member of an audience.  Much like the Cecillia in the film who gets engulfed in the world of cinema until a character steps off the screen and turns her life upside down, I too was engulfed in the movie world until his departure from the screen.
While this was the way in which I felt the film addressed me as an audience member individually, I also thought the film provided some commentary on audiences collectively.  The response of the fictional audience in the film to the missing character (some outraged, some very interested) to me represented the spectrum of audiences, some of which do not like to deviate from the structure of classic cinema, while other are very interested in the alternative.  I also thought that the character Cecillia represented our culture as one that intently follows all of the stars and films of today.  In the end she finds that the real world and the actual actors/characters are way more complicated than the illusions of cinema which is something I think resonates in our media/celebrity fascinated society.