Case Study 3

  Tom Odell

Another Love  

 The concluding piece of media text, I have chosen to analyse is a song by Tom Odell called ‘Another Love’ I will be looking into how the micro features like:  camera choices, sound and mise en scene, fit into the generic conventions of a music video. As well as stating the intuition and its importance to the video. Additionally I will connect this with audience theory, and what purpose does the performer have; whilst incorporating codes and conventions through audience pleasure. All this is in preparation for when I begin to produce my own music video.  

Institution

 The video ‘Another Love’ by Tom Odell was published on the 5^th of November 2012. The video was directed by Bella Monticelli, who does not have a high or established record of previous film making; but had her major break through with the release of this video.

  This video was produced by Gareth Thomas who has worked on a number of alternative media text’s such as Eliza Doolittle’s big when I was older’, The Vaccines' If You Wanna’ and many more. The editor of this video is Kit Wells who used Final Cut, the production company for this video is HSI London who have risen in popularity, through their diverse range in video productions: from ‘Kanye West’s Love Lock Down’,  ‘James Blunts I really want you’, Pixie Lott’s Boys and Girls, to the ‘Gorillaz Andre 300’ video, and many more.

  

  The company was founded by Stavros Merjos in 1986, from then on the company began to gain esteem; for its diverse range of work and high profile bookings in artists. The company has conglomerate branches in London, Los Angelis and New York, and a strong list of contacts from esteemed directors and high music executives: has allowed the company to expand into a multiplatform powerhouse in music production.

Audiences Theory/tech-convergence

We are directly connected to the artist from the offset, as the scene begins with a close up of Tom Odell directly looking at us. This has been masterfully executed by Monticelli and Thomas throughout the text, as Tom is singing directly to the audience, some might conclude that this is a form of textual schizophrenia but it is a combination of a highly constructed narrative in dissemination around the artist who is in constant eye contact with the viewer. This has been accomplished in the determination, that the audience have a connection to the artist. As an audience we can identify the narrative playing out around him, but we are still in direct focus and eye contact with Tom Odell.

 The Uses and Gratifications Model can be applied to this text: as throughout this clip we are presented with themes of love and compassion playing out around Tom. All from who we assume to be his lover, as an audience we receive pleasure from this text however the leitmotif then changes with the music into anger and aggression; which places the audience into a more uncomfortable position, this use of audience positioning has been carried out purposely, as we are provided with emotions, we have experienced at some  point in our lives. This gives the audience power as they are choosing to identify with aspects or all of this video; and are using the text to fulfill a need, that they are connected to it emotionally, instead off being used by it.

 This also denotes Stewart Halls Reception theory: in that the text in this video has been coded with meaning by Monticelli and Thomas who want to portray a message, to the audience. Which is then to be decoded by them to receive either a positive, negotiated, or negative reading of the text, from research I have been able to identify audiences have a positive reading of the text as they understand the message and have  a connection to the meaning.

I have been able to establish this from the technological convergence of media text today; as this video has over 10 million views on YouTube and 71,000 likes over a dismal 1,000 dislikes the reaction from people to this video is expressive especially in how they feel, by having a positive discussion with comments such as “Most likely the best song of this whole year.” and “I love this song I have such a strong connection to it”; as well as having a strong popularity on social media platforms such as being liked 251,576 and shared 203,989 on Facebook, Tweeted 14,252 times on Twitter and 1,850 on Google Plus One. This serge in technological popularity allows me to see audience reactions to media texts, and I have been able to identify a positive reading of this text. This has become a highly useful tool for production companies in assessing what sells to consumers.

 ‘Roland Barthes Grain of Voice’ theory can be related to this piece of media text, as Tom Odell has formed his own identity through the way that he sings. He is not one your overly produced stars, but has his own way of expressing his voice and has established his own quirky music style as a trademark in helping him to connect with audiences; his style of music is identified as Folk Indie-Pop.

  What connects this video to Roland Barthes theory, is that he states that the meaning is identified through the singer; who is connoting a narrative through the lyrics they are singing. This captures the audiences especially if the artist is directly singing to the audience, this is an exact representation of what is being portrayed in Odell’s video. In addition the audience’s visualisation of the video how audiences can be captured by aspect of this video, and find that they can connect memories of their own life to it. 

 Narrative/Codes

 The Narrative has been carefully constructed, as Monticelli and Thomas are trying to represent new ideas to their audience; and have cleverly achieved this through an interesting plot which contrasts with certain narrative conventions. For example there are no cuts from the artist back to the narrative as the narrative unfolds around the artist. Where this video does follow some conventions is it that the artist is in the video singing directly to the audience this contrast the ‘Hello Brooklyn’ Video I looked at where no there was no artist performance. 

 One of the key symbolic signifiers I noticed, taking place thought out this video; are the flowers next to the artist. They are a sign they are a signifier for the disruptive relationship the artist has, with the woman in the video; and the referent is how relationships are difficult in the real word; they can start off well, but can turn bad near the end, just like the flowers do.

   This video also follows some of Vernallises theories on narrative in that the video is a visual repose to the song, which it is as it tackles conations of love and anger.  Also the resolution is not too clear at the end, which also connotes what Vernallis states.  

 Micro/Macro

  The camera work begins with a deep close up; this connotes Andrew Goodwin’s theory of how it is important to get close up of the artist so audience can connect with them. Also the sequence begins and ends in a close up; this has been carried out on purpose so that we are visually connected to the artist for start to end. 

  The camera movements are quite slow, in order to be in keeping with the pace of the artist lyrically. The camera pans out slowly from a close up into a mid-close up, and then a wide shot and mid-shot of the artist; and we can begin to establish the mise en scene: which connotes an apartment studio room with not many furnishing.

  The editing has been utilised through parts of the sequence at 1:35 the woman fades out who we assume is hid girlfriend, this fade has been used to signify time passing by, the camera stays still on a wide shot of the room with artist in his chair, the editing has then been used to fade-in furnishings, this signifies their relationship of her moving in.

  The camera work is quite alternative, and does not follow generic conventions in music video filming. In the first part of the song: 0:00 until 1:39; the camera slowly pans-out. This represents the more content part of their relationship, which is also shown though the lighting in the mise en scene which is light and ambient, as well as the props such as the flowers are still fresh, his companion is showing him affection: she is dressed in white to represent her purity and their happiness... 

  ... However this changes at 1:56 as the camera now begins to slowly pan in the mise en scene shifts and the lighting becomes a bit more low key, her clothes are darker from white now to black and grey; this has be done purpose to show the change in the artist’s voice: his anger and frustration. Then at 2:16 the camera stops at a mid wide shot this has been done on purpose so we focus on the action taking place around the artist, as this abrupt, stop in fluid motion in panning, makes us as an audience feel more on edge and uncomfortable. . . 

  … As the lyrics become more agitated so does the diegesis, as the actions of the women at 2:26 hitting the artist, is portrayed through the camera work as it shakes when she hits him. This has been done so the audience feel as thou they are in his position.

  From then on-wards the camera work is shaky to signify their relationship. Then as the camera pans-out, the mise en scene begins to drastically change at 3:07 the lighting becomes increasing dim, so do the prop the vase of flowers begin to die: like their relationship.