Hall's theory of the process of television communication as a process of encoding and decoding through meaning structures comes to an interesting conclusion that I'll apply to Flight of the Conchords: that "broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages in the form of a meaningful discourse" and thus, on the viewer's end, "decoded meanings ... 'have an effect,' influence, entertain, instruct or persuade, with very complex perceptual, cognitive, emotional, ideological or behavioral consequences" (165).
Looking at the scene of the party and song we analyzed in depth today, it's easy to say that it was entertaining, and below the surface, a scathing parody of love songs and the culture of 'hooking up' in America; this is what we have decoded. The first question I'd like to pose is, how can we trace Hall's process (fig. 13.1, p. 165) backwards in an attempt to elucidate the "frameworks of knowledge" and "meaning structures" (encoded) used in the production of that particular song? Hall states that the "meaning structures" on the production and reception side may not be the same (166) but certainly they must be related, tied together with a common sense of pop culture--without appeal, the decoded message would fall flat. What I'm trying to grasp at here is what Hall calls the "moment of transformation into and out of the discursive form" (166). It causes imperfect transmission, "distortions" or "misunderstandings" from the "lack of equivalence between the two sides in the communicative exchange" (166).
We deconstructed the song "Most Beautiful Girl in the Room" to such detail and I have to wonder--does this make us more equivalent to the production side? Did we get somehow inside the minds of Bret and Jemaine, did we gain an insight as to their purposes for the song? How does the production crew of the show fit into their creative message? What about the guiding force of HBO? Or was it all a misunderstanding, a distortion, is it possible to read too much into something like this hilariously parodized love song? I had never heard of Jemaine being "ogreish" or more ethnicized before today's class, but the revelation has distorted my view some.
One way that we can gain a familiarity with the production side and--I would think--try to avoid distortions or misunderstandings is through simple loyalty. The show has a great many running jokes; it would seem that all the characters have repeated behaviors that we laugh at, they entertain us on their own but also by the merit that we can see them coming. This ties to the show Lost--I'm not an avid viewer by any means, but there is a framework of knowledge that is constructed from the very first episode of the show, a whole convoluted and complicated world is the result, and it seems to shut out the potential first-time viewer if they attempt to enter a new episode without a command of the framework. It's all coded as meaningful discourse, but it is aimed in a way that anyone attempting to decode without the proper knowledge is left in the dark--how does this affect viewership? Certainly it works, as it's an immensely popular show, but how can they justify to their network TV infrastructure a show that doesn't seem to have a method for increasing its fan base? DVD is one outlet, but the model of Lost seems to be increasingly oppositional to Hall's model (from a commercial standpoint) as the number of episodes and seasons increases.
5 comments:
let me try and decode some of this.
to answer your first question, i think that the "meaning structures" that contain such distortions you describe are in fact connected by common appeal. however, they are reciprocally connected also by these very distortions, this "lack" (to borrow a important psychoanalytic term) that lies in the gap between production/signifier and reception/signified. the lack produces anxiety within the viewer to reconcile the very disjunctive nature of Bret and Jermaine's dialogue (the ships-passing-in-the-night style of communication, where a mischaracterization or misunderstanding by one produces an entirely new focus of the conversation). This anxiety is sutured by the songs, the music video nature of how the episode flows, which are the only truly explanatory portions of the show ("its usually not this dirty in my place", "you are a top 3 beautiful girl on the street, depending on the street", etc.). I do not think that participating in decoding the song or the episode places us onto the production side; instead, we lie within this lack, not totally involved in the reception or the production.
This is a good beginning to an important discussion. Sam, I am curious about your turn to psychoanalytic theory and particularly the idea of lack as being significant in the ways that the meaning of the sign is, according to Hall, always a process of negotiation. I think you raise some good points that we should take up in class, especially around the idea of anxiety, which also needs further explanation.
to the question of whether or not our ability to decode the encoded messages of television shows makes us part of the production side, I would say that the answer is yes and no. It is apparent that there is a very cyclical manner to the production in the arena of media, and that the beginning and end to this is questionable. Do we react to shows because they have meaning that the production studio decided to create on their own, or do we react because the TV studio took messages that they knew would be popular [created essentially by and for the viewer]. In this, I believe that the viewer is at the same time both receiving and creating this same signal which is why it makes sense that we should feel as if we are part of the production side of the images we see on TV and in other media.
Also I believe that it takes some prior knowledge of any coded message to truly understand it's meaning otherwise one can receive the "wrong" message. If you have no prior knowledge of whatever you are seeing, it will not make sense no matter how intelligent person is, you need some frame of reference for the image to make sense and then to further explore it's deeper meaning.
A comment on the Lost bit- I know exactly where you're coming from because Lost is definitely a show you would have had to watch from the beginning, and not miss a single episode to be able to follow. However, I don't think that the show necessarily shuts out the first time viewer if the viewer jumps in midseason because of a few things. First of all, Lost can be such a compelling and questioning show that I can see how even watching a single episode in the fourth season can hook someone. And if they do get hooked, there are plenty of ways for them to catch up with the current season. With the technology of today (which is a whole other culture in itself I suppose) and the internet in general, it makes it very easy to watch whatever show you want whenever you want to watch it. I had a couple of friends last year, for example, who watched every single episode of Lost on the internet because they wanted to catch up with the current season and they finished all the other seasons before the season premiere. Not something I would do...but it does increase that shows fanbase nonetheless.
I really want to respond to the questions you posed about the love song parody. Did we somehow get into the minds of Bret and Jermaine with regards to this song? Was it meant as this much of a parody or did we simply read too far into it?
I think that on one level everything can be decoded to mean something other than what it actually is. Humans read codes wrong, that's why there is a two fold process in codes: encoding and decoding. Are we wrong to say it is a parody on a love song and that this is the intended purpose? Simply for laughs? I don't think we are wrong. I think at the very least the ability to become this engaged with a text such as this song from the show is proof that codes are clearly present everywhere.
Furthermore, I want to make the point that what is intended and what is subconsciously present are not always the same. Hall says that "often broadcasters are concerned that hte audience has failed to take the meaning as they - the broadcasters - intended." There is a recognized fact that codes are not always decoded as one would want them to be. Do you therefore need to think about every possibility that someone could potentially come up with for the meaning of what it is that you say or do? That's a lot of theory with only a small dose of reality in the long run. I think that the theory Hall is getting at is that there is a "dominant" meaning behind a lot of texts but that it does not make that meaning right.
Post a Comment