Carol Vernallis

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?

Like my peers, I too fail to understand what "sonic space" is, and looking online and on other blogs I've also had no joy in getting further to that elusive definintion. I'll ask Miss B.


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?

I do agree to an extent. In music video, the object is to set the image of the song, the director is placing his own (or the bands) interpretation for the audience on the video, and the editing enforces this, it's so dramatic and obvious that the image is really imprinted on the mind. With film, there is less memorable editing techniques, and the directors image is hence not shoved down the audiences throats, leaving a bit more room to postulate on meaning. I presume this is done to maximise its freshness in the short term memory of the audience.


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

I can see what she is suggesting, but don't agree fully. Music video in my eyes add something, another layer if you will to a song, this could be the bands or the directors vision. Some people enjoy the song but not the video however... so it must be said that it must add a factor the fan dislikes. However due to the unique nature of music video in that it is a compliment to the song it could be described as listening.


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

Much like the exercise we did with Ms T last year with the film Secrets and Lies, where we were asked to write a description of a character with just an image, and when we saw the film it was startling how much of a difference there was between our first and second descriptions. This is similar to music video, as the images are so brief we are forced to fill in the blanks.


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 agree. The money shot is crucial to any film. It provides a climax to the audiences titillation, seeing their idol up close is one of the main attractions of watching the video. However she does rather exaggerate the effect with flowery language.


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

Definately, the editing dictates what the viewer sees. They could be completely misled by editing, as it is manipulative in that it onlys shows you what the director wants you to see. The viewer is very much interwined with the video because of this.


Music video is freer in terms of viewer identification and perspective - agreed?

All in all music video gives the director more freedom, but for the viewer it's more forced upon you, and the editing is so quick and unique you don't have so much freedom to visualise.



Carol Vernallis believes the image alone cannot tell the story - do you agree?

I disagree, it can tell the story, but it will not be as complete. You lose a lot of the mise-en-scene, similarly to if a tense scene had no tense background music. You lose an element of the image of the scene, and this is similar in music video, as the narrative is weakened.