Questions From Carol Vernallis Summary

After reading the summary by Carol Vernallis i answered a few of the questions provided in order to get a better understanding of her theories:

3.8)Carol Vernallis says the camera in music video seems to mimic the way we view sonic space... do you agree? Do you think we are conditioned by music video to read sonic space in particular ways?

I do agree. I think that when we listen to things they need to be interesting and not boring. A sound needs to catch our attention for us to pick up on it amongst that other sounds and that is like a music video. There is so much scope and choice that it needs to be able to grab a viewers attention in a single second so that they will continue to hear it. Also sound is not one distinct thing. We normally hear many different things all mixed together at the same time, this is like a music video with many different types of shots all put together.

3.10)She suggests that the jumping camera focus is like the camera in place of our eyes, doing what we do when we listen. However, this is predefined for us by the Director - we have even less choice to look away/outside of the Director's choice than we do in film - do you agree?

Yes i do agree. We do jump from one sound to another when we listen to things and the sound that seems most interesting is what we focus on. I think that due to the short, snappy style of the music video it allows less time for the audience to focus on something else other than the music video. It holds our attention for the whole period of time with the quick cuts and unconventional shots. This is what the director has done purposely, therefore only allowing us to view what the director wants us to see. However in film, the shots are far longer and therefore gives the audience time to think and maybe lose interest.

3.23)She says music video is more like listening than viewing - do you agree?

Not entirely. I think the track makes up the bulk of the music video but the images create a story which keeps the viewer interested and makes them want to watch and therefore listen on.

3.33)"We compensate imaginatively for what we do not see in the frame" - Agreed?

Yes. We fill in the blanks with our imagination of what we would expect or like to see in context with the music video.

3.37)

3.39)The audience are kept separate from the music video world making it seem more fantasy like and unrealistic. It therefore allows the music video to be a lot more far fetched and wild.

3.41)

4.1)

4.6)The constant motion in a music video and the variances it shows mean that a strong CU is a stable point. The music video "brings us towards these peaks, holds us against them, and then releases us" - do you agree?

I think the CU is a stable point in the music video and it does revolve a lot around this. Usually the CU's are of the main singer of the band and as the music video is used to promote the band and track, the main singer is usually the focal point to advertise the band and remind the audience who they are watching.

4.12)Is the viewer "sutured (stitched) into the diegesis of the film world through the editing"?

Yes. The order in which the shots of the music video are edited together allows for them to be interpreted in a certain way by the audience. The way shots are edited together can create totally different meanings to the audience from the same set of shots so really it is the editing that makes us create a story.

4.14) Music video is freer in terms of viewer identification and perspective - agreed?
Not entirely. It allows a lot more imagination from the director due to its lack of rigid structure and story-line but in order for the audience to achieve this freer interpretation then they may need to watch it more than once.

5.6)Carol Vernallis believes the image alone cannot tell the story - do you agree?
Not entirely. Sometimes the images do create a story of their own but other times the lyrics and momentum of the music also need to be involved in order to give the story a meaning and sometimes even for it to make sense.