While one may view Son of Rambow as critique of media effects, or at least a representation of how media can effect children’s view of the world and their social interactions, it more surreptitiously and, honestly, ingeniously demonstrates a fundamental weakness of media effects as a critical framework. The majority of media effects research focuses on content and conjures to mind hordes of fretful politicians and parents wringing their hands over how violent, profane, and pornographic the media has become and why won’t someone just do something and save our children from becoming godless depraved sex-mongers. On the other hand many media effects researchers look at how communication happens and how opinions are changed. Even in these cases, the research seems to lack a fundamental basis in the elements media, particularly film, that differentiate them from common human interaction e.g. conversation. Film is story, but it uses unique means to manipulate that story that the media effects researcher seem to ignore. Much of film craft is related to controlling how the camera captures the image and moves from one image to another. There is an enormous amount of work and study into these techniques and how they communicate with the audience and yet media effect does not pay much attention to them.
Son of Rambow tells a story of media effects, but uses the technique of cinema to also comment on that. The commentary is not merely narrative or characterized, which is most of the “content” that media effects is concerned with, it is in the use of visual composition, that unique element of film, that tells the real story and actually defends media effects position whilst simultaneously critiquing it. While the narrative of the film focuses ostensibly on the effect on our protagonist of having viewed First Blood (He makes associates with a bully, he leaves his church, he alienated his family, he lies, etc. which are all arguably negative but ultimately lead to good [friendship, finding ones self]) through its visual composition, or cinematic elements, the film discusses the power of the opinion leader.
Katz and Lazarsfeld identify the role of the opinion leader as an individual who obtains information on a topic and then disseminate it to their peer and thereby influence the peers’ opinions on said topic. They say, “Certain people in every stratum of a community serve relay roles in the mass communication of [...]information and influence.” (31) These opinion leaders are not specific people, but a role that we play in our interpersonal relationships. Throughout the film we are introduced to individuals who play the role of the opinion leader. Different characters slide in and out of that role and show the fluidity of that role in interpersonal relations. The filmmakers do not simply present them on screen but use framing techniques and movement to clarify which character is the opinion leader in that moment.
In the opening scene of the film we see a group of religious people gathered outside a movie house (with the title First Blood) clearly displayed. Joshua, an opinion leader in his own right, asks Will Proudfoot to read a Bible verse. The actors are set far from the camera (deep focus) setting the audience at a distance from them. Will steps foreword, placing him very close to the camera and framed in the center of the shot. This establishes two things: first that Will is the protagonist and we should empathize with him making him an opinion leader, and secondly that he is uncomfortable with this position and uncertain as to what he should do. By placing him in this was the film entices empathy. We are more likely to agree with his position, feel his pain, and desire his success. This is important as the film reaches its close and believe that his choice is ultimately right.
The capturing of Didier’s image is equally effective in this way. There are multiple images of Didier walking or standing with a group of boys. He is framed center and also closest to the camera. We know by this that he is the opinion leader of the group. Regardless of the fact that the boys behind him are copying his walk and hair, the most convincing piece of evidence that he is the opinion leader is his position in the frame. On another occasion we see him riding his skateboard from left to right in front of a group of boys. While he is not framed center he is moving with the grain, leading the boys in the right direction. His opinion, while alien and foreign, is trustworthy to these boys. We believe that their following of him is justified because he’s going the right way.
The film also take opportunity to portray the transition of opinion leader to another. While well established that Didier is the opinion leader at the school that power transitions to Will in a remarkable scene. Will is brought to the chapel of the school. He sees Didier standing at the other end of the aisle. He produces a pistol and walks toward Will. Didier is on the right and Will is on the left. We can see that Didier is no real threat to Will because he is moving against the grain. In the following exchange Didier explains that he wants to be in Will’s movie. This changes the role of opinion leader from Didier to Will. The camera moves in and becomes a low-angle shot making Will seem larger, though he is shorter that Didier. This use of these techniques makes accepting the narrative elements of the story that support the concept of opinion leader easier.
The concept of an opinion leader is key to modern media effects research. However, if we ignore the cinematic elements of the film, we can lose sight of where the unique power of media lies; in its visual components. This is the true genius of the film. Through deft usage of cinematography, the filmmakers are able to discuss the insights and failings of media effects using the very elements that that research ignores. Perhaps media effects would gain greater support in the artistic community if it took into account the craft of the craft and not merely the content. I don’t think that there is an artist that believes that their art has no effect on their audience. Effecting your audience is the point. But focusing on content at the expense of the formal elements that make the art art is what alienates artists and many theorists from media effects. Which is why Son of Rambow is far more effective in discussing media effects than any number of essays ever could be.
No comments:
Post a Comment