Comparison of Communication Studies Textbook and Website on Film Production - Essay Example

Comparative critical review: Marsen, S. (2006) Communication studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. And Kidd, V.V. (1998) To Shape and Direct the Audiences Point of View: Production Appeals, Available at:http://www.csus.edu/indiv/k/kiddv/ProductionTechniques.htm(Accessed: 3rdMay 2015). Needed to improve: The other reviewer you used (Cook…) is too general as they are not reviewing these two sources. So you may keep one or two, others needed to change the structure in order to make it without the reviewer. You could perhaps find is either source used as recommended readings for film/ communication studies in first year undergraduate. Word length: 1500- 2000 Improve your sentence type, and vocabs Be more concise Be aware of fragment This essay will seek to compare and contrast two sources in relation to their purpose, organisation structure, comprehensiveness, use of sources, and credibility. Both the sources deal with the concept of film productions, albeit from different perspectives. Production can be defined as various phases or stages that needed in the completion of media products, including audio recordings, television, video, and film (Millerson and Owens, 2009). Moreover, production is one of the fundamental aspects in film, hence it is important for film students to understand it. In the ‘Communication Studies’ book, Marsen (2006: p.150) illustrates the codes which involved in the production stage of film shooting and their effects, whereas in the webpage ‘To Shape and Direct the Audience’s Point of View: Production Appeals’, Kidd (1998) explores the different techniques used in media production. Generally, the book source is more effective for use by pre-graduate and undergraduate students in developing their arguments because of its organisation and comprehensiveness. On the other hand, the website source is more effective for more advanced students because it uses more sources. Both authors state their purposes within the text, which is to examine the process of production. The book chapter’s aim is to discuss the effects produced by codes, which arise due to the technical nature of medium on films (Marsen, 2006: p.150). The aim is written in a short paragraph and is focused mainly on one idea; the effect produced by technical codes used to tell the film’s stories. From the beginning, the reader has a clear idea of the author’s main purpose, which makes it easier to understand the information provided in the rest of the article. Both undergraduate and pre-undergraduate students would find this source easy to use, specifically as its aim is clear from the beginning. Similarly, the website source also has a clearly stated aim that focuses the author’s argument on production techniques. Nonetheless, the aim is not stated in the beginning and the reader has to read through until the seventh paragraph in order to understand what the author wanted to cover in the article. Generally, an author should paint an overall picture of their work by including a broad statement of their desired and general outcomes in the paper’s purpose. The website author paints a clear and concise picture that identifies production appeals as the expected outcome from the article. In this case, she identifies that the article will describe the different techniques used in production and informs the reader that these techniques are described individually (Kidd, 1998: p1). The aim of the article is not as concise as the one provided in the textbook source, specifically because it takes almost seven paragraphs for the website source to state its aim, compared to the former source that states its aim in the first paragraph. As such, a pre-undergraduate student may find this source more difficult to use, especially in understanding how the paper is structured. In relation to the organisation of both sources, the contents of the textbook and the website are both divided into different sections. In the textbook sub-chapter on production, Marsen (2006) divides their discussion into different sections, each of which deals with one code used to tell stories in a film and the effect they have on the film’s outcome. These codes are covered in individual parts include the shot, camera angle, lens and camera, lighting, camera movement, and scene composition (Marsen, 2006: p.150-156). This organisation structure may help the reader understand how each code influences a film story. Moreover, it also determines how the reader understands the main message being communicated with the author. A pre-undergraduate student would find this source useful to place the discussion on production into the wider context of film. The website source is organised in a similar manner to the textbook in that it is divided into different sections. Both undergraduate and pre-undergraduate students prefer to get to the author’s main message without having to trawl through too much material, which helps them find the appropriate section they are looking for more efficiently. Thus, the detailed background information at the beginning of the webpage may cause the reader to lose interest in the article. Although the webpage’s title is ‘...production appeals, the author does not specifically identify this topic until the end of a long introductory section. Nevertheless, once Kidd (1998) introduces the concept of production appeals, the webpage’s organisation is similar to that of the textbook source. For instance, each production technique is discussed in a different section with headings. In addition, most of these sections also have sub-headings, such as the section on the camera’s viewpoint that has various sub-sections like field of view, camera angle, camera focus, and camera movement (Kidd, 1998). Pre-undergraduate students would find the webpage source difficult to use because it is not placed into context, which means that they have to understand the topic under discussion first. Once a student is comfortable with a source’s organisation, it is important to establish the credibility of an author in order to determine the source’s quality, particularly where the source is meant for use in a research project or in completing a graded assignment. The textbook source is written by Sky Marsen, who achieved a doctorate in management communication, also being a renowned literary theorist and linguist with serval published works in areas of communication and language; thus, her book on communications studies is credible as she has expertise in this area. As such, Sky Marsen is a credible author on how to communicate messages and stories using different media forms like films. This source may be used for background reading by both pre-undergraduate and undergraduate students, specifically because the author’s expertise in the area being discussed is provided in the book. Correspondingly, the website source author, Virginia V. Kidd, may also be considered a credible author in the field of production. Ascertaining the credibility of a website author is more difficult than in the case of textbooks. The author’s expertise is not included in the webpage and, therefore, this information had to be retrieved from other sources. In this instance, the author is Virginia V. Kidd, who graduated with a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in Communication studies. Furthermore, she was also a lecturer at California State University. Hence, this demonstrates her credibility as an authority on technique used by film producers in appealing to the audience’s point of view. In addition, her experience as a high school drama teacher also contributes expertise knowledge in the production process, making her focus on production techniques more convincing. Virginia V. Kidd’s article is hosted by an .edu website (Kidd, 1998), which asserts its credibility compared, for example, to sources hosted by .com websites. Undergraduate students would find this source useful as both a background reading and in the development of their argument because of the article’s orientation to the author’s area of expertise. Another important aspect of credibility is the use of external, reliable sources, especially as using external sources helps the author to establish their point and to influence readers to accept their points of view. Marsen (2006) uses external sources very sparsely across the entire sub-section on the production in film. The first two external references are included in the theory on the shot as a production code, specifically to support the author’s assertions on the close-up as an important form of shots in production. These references are drawn from Grodal’s ‘Moving Pictures: a New Theory on Film Genres, Feelings, and Cognition’ (1997) and Phillip’s ‘Film: an Introduction’ (1999), which the author provides at the end of the chapter on film on form of references. However, the only other source used in this source involves a reference to the Steven Spielberg movie Jaws (1975), if it is possible to consider this as a source (Marsen, 2006: p.154). There are no other sources and this may reflect negatively on the credibility of the author’s assertions. As such, the undergraduate student can only use this source for background reading because the author fails to validate their argument using external sources. The website source, on the other hand, has numerous source materials used in support of the author’s assertions on the different forms of production techniques used in appealing to audiences. Indeed, incorporation of credible sources into academic sources enhances credibility of a specific work in the eyes of the reader, while using a greater variety of sources also makes the message more persuasive. Kidd (1988) accomplishes this better than Marsen (2006), utilising more than twenty references in developing the author’s argument. Moreover, these sources are integrated into all sections of the article with the exception of the summary, which makes sense because there are no new assertions being made by the author in the summary section. Additionally, Kidd (1998) uses diverse sources in support of her argument, including books, peer-reviewed research articles, and newspaper reports from major news media, for example, Newsweek (Kidd, 1998). For both pre-undergraduate and undergraduate students, this makes it easier for the reader to ascertain that the information provided by the author is not too biased, while also ensuring that the writer draws information from different perspectives and formats. Finally, both sources are comparable in terms of their comprehensiveness. The textbook source is more comprehensive of the two references, especially given that the chapter on film production is part of a wider discussion on film in communication studies. It is clear that the textbook source is not generalist in nature and is mainly aimed at students of communication studies, rather than non-specialists. This can be identified through its use highly specialised jargon used in communication studies, such as technical codes like camera angles and scene composition (Marsen, 2006: p.152). Moreover, the textbook source is comprehensive because it goes into in-depth and appropriate detail about every significant aspect of the production codes topic as stated in the introductory section. However, Marsen (2006) uses summary style wherever possible in order to provide as much information as she can, which may reduce the source’s comprehensiveness. As such, this source might only be useful for background reading, especially for undergraduate students. The website source, on the hand, is less comprehensive compared to the textbook source. Nevertheless, this is not a negative aspect because websites have limited publishing space and need to retain a reader’s attention in a medium with hundreds of other websites. However, while looking at the website source in relation to the limited publishing space, it could be argued that this website is relatively comprehensive because it covers the different techniques of production that influence media’s appeal to the audience. The information in the website source is as specialised as that in the textbook source. Furthermore, the source also provides a broad overview of production techniques in form of sections and sub-sections (Kidd, 1998). Similar to the textbook source, , the website also narrows its focus on production techniques and uses jargon that is highly specialised, such as camera angles, framing, and directional forces. This makes the webpage source more useful in developing an argument for undergraduate students, especially combined with its use of different sources. In conclusion, the textbook source’s organisation into different chapters, sections, and sub-sections, as well as its comprehensiveness and its credibility make it a good background-reading resource for both undergraduate and pre-undergraduate students. However, its lack of outside sources makes it unsuitable for undergraduate students in developing their argument. On the other hand, the webpage source, while not as well organised and comprehensive as the textbook source, is a good resource for developing an argument because of the author’s credibility and use of outside sources. References: Kidd, V.V. (1998) To Shape and Direct the Audiences Point of View: Production Appeals, Available at:http://www.csus.edu/indiv/k/kiddv/ProductionTechniques.htm(Accessed: 26th April 2015). Marsen, S. (2006) Communication studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Millerson, G., Owens, J. (2009) Television Production. Google Books [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M-1Fb8B4USkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Millerson+The+technique+of+television+production&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LBA9VeudLMKtacCbgMgC&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Millerson%20The%20technique%20of%20television%20production&f=false(Accessed: 26th April 2015). Read More