A2 Media Studies | Narrative Theory in Documentaries

I will be looking at narrative theory in my chosen text which is an extract from a Channel 4 aired documentary 'Britain's Benefit Tenants' and will be discussing the narrative theories depicted in the text whether they are applicable or not.

Vladimir Propp (1928)

In 1928, Propp had published his own ideas on character types such as listed below after studying various folk tales and legends from different countries and discovering generic character types identified in his studies.

What character types are in the narrative of the video you have studied?

Supposedly, the only character types I was able to identify in the narrative of the extract I have studied is the 'donor' and 'villain' character types which Propp identified in his theory, followed by six other character types including the following:

• Hero
• Dispatcher
• False hero
• Helper
• Princess
• Father

The 'donor' character type is shown in the narrative of the extract (supposedly) as the council members are coming to the house and looking at the rubbish inside the basement of the house, which suggests that the benefit tenants possibly think that the council members are looking to help him in his situation.

The 'villain' character type is shown in the narrative of the extract as there's a possible suggestion that the oppositional reading (Stuart Hall, audience positioning, 1973) is mostly given by the viewing audience and middle demographic of the documentary and it could suggest that this reading is given as the director did not intend an oppositional response as the council members could be putting a negative light on the benefit tenant.

How useful is applying Propp's character types to your video, and why?

Having viewed the video I have chosen several times, I have found that applying Propp's theory to the text is only useful to a certain extent. This is because I have only been able to identify two out of the six listed character types that the theorist has discussed in the text, so whilst applying the theory is useful, to a certain extent, it's not so useful.

Can you think of any reasons it might be limiting and narrowing to read your text like this?

A reason that it may be limiting and narrowing to read my text in the perspective of Vladimir Propp could be because there isn't much to discuss within my chosen text where as mentioned before, only two out of the six listed types were able to be discussed when viewing the extract.

Claude Levi-Strauss (1958)

In 1958, Levi-Strauss was interested in how much of the world is described in terms of binary opposites, these generically consisted of good/bad, night/day and  light/dark. He also noticed that the oppositions tended to structure texts including stories, plays and films.

What character types are in the narrative of the video you have studied?

Conforming to Strauss' theory, I think that the character types that I would be able to identify in the video I have studied are low class and high class. This is because the council members are very well dressed with upper classed clothing whereas for the benefit tenants, they are wearing very lower classed clothing which could be because they're living on benefits and cannot buy that many clothes to wear.

What binary oppositions are useful theory to apply to your video's narrative/character types?

The binary oppositions that I have identified which are useful to the video's narrative are good/bad and light/dark. These are useful to apply to the video because supposedly there's good from the council members investigating the torn up property filled with rats and there's bad from the audience press and the condition of the property, as well as the filmmakers possibly putting the family in a negative light, in accordance to the audience.

Light and dark is identified in the video as most of the extract shows darkness, the lighting in the documentary scene is mostly low key and a torch is eventually needed to navigate around the darkness seen within the video, with the benefit tenants being constantly referred back to in the frame, it could suggest that the filmmaker is putting the tenants in a dark/negative light as mentioned before.

Is there any reason that picking out binary opposites might limit you in understanding the meanings in your production?

A reason that picking opposites which Levi-Strauss has discussed may limit my understanding of the meanings in my production would be because I may not be able to identify a lot of binary opposites in the practical/production that I'm going to make.

Roland Barthes (1970)

Roland Barthes was interested in concepts such as negotiated meaning between institution and audience, when discussing storylines. The negotiated meaning is very similar to that of what Stuart Hall discussed with the negotiated, preferred and oppositional readings. Barthes was most known for his code which is known as the 'enigma code' and in its most basic form, it's the hook or mystery to be resolved for audiences. An example of this would be a serial which makes use of the old 'come back next week to find out what happens' which is also often used in trailers for new films.

What meanings are produced by your narrative?

A meaning which is produced by the narrative of my text would be the negotiated meaning, which almost contrasts to what Stuart Hall discussed about audience positioning as mentioned before. The negotiated meaning is produced within a text as audiences may feel completely opposite to what the filmmaker prefers whereas other people may feel how the filmmaker prefers how audiences feel when watching the text.

The narrative of my chosen text creates feelings of anger and sympathy, with accusations that the filmmaker is putting the benefit tenants in a 'negative light', creating anger and that the benefit tenants are living life far worse than anybody expected, hence creating emotions of sympathy.

What cultural meanings/experiences could a viewer bring, that may influence them to read your text differently?

A viewer may read my text differently with the backing of cultural meanings/experiences as they could have experienced something similar to this as a child or at one point in their life and wouldn't have been filmed during the process. An oppositional response may be given as the filmmaker may be, as mentioned before, accused of being put into a negative light.

Todorov (1969)

In 1969, Todorov suggested that there were five individual stages to a narrative, these stages consisted of:

1. Equilibrium
2. A disruption of the equilibrium caused by an event
3. A realisation that a disruption has occurred
4. An attempt to repair the damage of the equilibrium
5. Restoration of the equilibrium which may possibly become a new equilibrium

How does this apply to your narrative? How useful is it to understand your text?

This applies to my narrative as in the beginning, everything seems normal with people walking around the area and the disruption occurs when the narrator addresses to an issue in the neighborhood where people are stealing wheelie bins. This is then realised by a benefit tenant as he mentions that it costs around £15 for a wheelie bin and the council don't accept rubbish that isn't in a wheelie bin, an attempt to restore the damage caused to the narrative is then shown as the council members come into the house to address to the problem which could suggest they are around to provide the restoration to the equilibrium of the narrative, which not shown as much in my chosen text.

It's very useful to understand my text in terms of what Todorov has discussed, the clip has various scenes which are specific to the stages in which he has discussed as well as the micro elements in the clip, which allows me to take the elements and scenes apart to put them into the stages of Todorov's narrative theory.

Why could putting your storylines into Todorov categories be quite limiting?

This can be quite limiting because sometimes it may occur that it might not be possible to split up a piece of media text into the five stages that the theorist has discussed. An example of this may be that an extract may depict all stages but one or two, a disruption in the equilibrium may occur but it may not be realised in some media extracts and attempt to repair damage caused to the equilibrium may not be attempted. Putting this into a simplistic context, it may occur that one or two of the stages are probably not addressed to by the filmmaker in media texts.

Jean-Francois Lyotard (1984)

In 1984, Lyotard was against looking at narratives in a piece of media as one big narrative and other traditional ways of thinking about the subject (e.g. Todorov) were flawed. He argued that narratives were becoming increasingly fragmented and that they become stories within stories which are also known as micro narratives.

How many narratives (stories) can you identify in the video you have studied?

In the video I have studied, I can identify up to two narratives. The first narrative is addressed to in the beginning of the text where the narrator and benefit tenant addresses to an ongoing issue with wheelie bins in the area. The second narrative is addressed to when the narrator explains that the house is overran by rats and the council members are in the property to investigate the issue.

Can you offer any explanation of why you think that number of narratives occur in your video?

I think only two narratives occur in my video/text as the narrator significantly discusses about these issues (wheelie bins being stolen and rats overrunning the house), I also think this because the video is only almost two minutes long and there isn't much to see but a lot to discuss with as there are around 4-5 scenes which provides the viewer with a lot of information in which he/she can talk about.

Overall, how far do you agree with Lyotard's theory, as applied to your video that you have studied?

I would agree with Lyotard's theory in the video I have studied to a certain extent as whilst it's helpful and understanding to link Lyotard's theory to my video, it also isn't so helpful as there are very little narratives to discuss about in the video.

Final Questions

Which theory from Lyotard, Barthes/Hall, Levi-Strauss and Todorov was most useful to analyse your narrative?

I would say that Todorov was the most useful to analyse my narrative, this is because I was able to quickly separate the video into the five different stages such as what I have discussed before, using microelements to back up my response.

Which theory was least useful to analyse your narrative?

I would say that Propp was the least useful to analyse my narrative with, there is very little to discuss with applying his theory to my narrative. I was only able to identify not even half of what Propp discussed in his theory as I only managed to identify two character types that he has found in his studies.

Why are Lyotard and Todorov more useful when analysing a documentary?

Both of these theorists are more useful when analysing a documentary because in comparison to Propp, there are no character types or clear stories in documentaries though however there are a lot of mini-narratives (e.g. voice overs throughout the documentary which provides information and learning to the viewer (Possible link to how documentaries adapt to the Uses and Gratifications theory 1974 by Blumler and Katz)). Furthermore, linking to the mini-narratives, this is evident as Lyotard discusses that there are meta-narratives which consist of stories within stories meaning it could be the victim's story, the bully's story or the expert's opinion. Todorov is useful to a certain extent though not as useful as Lyotard because there isn't a clear story from start to end in documentaries.