Carol Vernallis article

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 don't understand what "sonic space" is, and I can't seem to find a definition online. I've tried to guess what it could mean, but I can't come to a conclusion, so for now, I can't answer this question....


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. I think that when you watch a music video, there is no opportunity to create your own mental pictures because the visuals created by the director are constantly changing, which doesn't give your mind enough time to look outside the Director's choice. With film, because the shots are longer, the audience can create mental pictures and look outside the Director's choice more easily, however even then, it is difficult.


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

I disagree. I think music video is more like viewing than listening because you watch a music video to see what vision the band had for their song, and to see if your interpretation of the song matches theirs. If you wanted to just listen to the song, you would, but if you specifically watch a music video, then you are viewing it, not listening as much.


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

Yes, I agree. If you see a quick shot of a bearded man, a baby, and a passport, you automatically try to fill in the blanks in your mind, creating links between the images. For example you might think the bearded man was going to fly to visit this baby, or maybe he is taking his baby on holiday.


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?

Yes I agree. The CU, or "beauty shot", is a stable point. We are drawn into the face of the performer, it is one of few still shots, and provides familiarity with the artist and shot type.


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

Yes I think this statement is true. The editing creates the narrative. The order in which shots are displayed created different meanings. For example, if there were shots of a couple standing together, and an explosion. If the shot of the couple was first, the meaning could be that the couple are blown up. If it was the other way, then the couple would be seen as onlookers, a totally different meaning...


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

Music video is freer for the director, but for viewer perspective I would argue that it is less free since you are shown exactly what perspective the Director wants you to see, and the shots are so short that you don't have time to contradict them or think of it from a different perspective.



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

Yes I agree. If you watched a music video without the music, you wouldn't really know what tone it was supposed to create. For example in a film, if there is an image with no music, often you may not understand what it is meant to mean. Music creates a mood, and without a mood, you can't tell a story.




Well, I think that Carol Vernallis definitely has some insight into music video construction, however a lot of it is complex, and difficult to understand.