Carol Vernallis

She suggests that the jumping camera focus is like the camera in place of our eyes, doing what we do when we lsiten. 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 with what she suggests, because during a film it is much easier to ose focus on a certain feature purely because the shots are much longer. Where as contrastingly in a music video the shots are much quicker paced and tight cut, which means there is less time for the audience to focus on anything but what is being shown during the music video. The tight cut shots and unusual imagery used is put in deliberately in order for them toe nsure the audience are enticed. it is much easier to realise earlier on in a film whether or not you are enjoying it, than it is on a music video.

She says music video is more like listening than viewing- do you agree?
I disagree with this comment. i think that the point of a music video is to see the attitudes of the bands and whether or not how they've decided to show their song would be the same understanding as yourself. i mainly disagree because us, as an audience, are given two choices in the first place, whether you just want to listen to the song or whether you want the visual plaesure of it too. if you didn't want to see it then you would easily just choose to listen to the track.

"we compensate imaginatively for what we do not see in the frame"- agreed?
I agree, because what we fail to see in a shot we will interpret our own way and imagine what we want to see. with the information missing, our minds will fill in the blanks by connecting together the information we already know.

"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. A strong CU is a stable point because it is this still shot in which we begin to feel at ease and more familiar to the artist. Because here we are being brought in closer to the performers face, we feel much more confortable watching them. Because we feel like they are drawing in the audience a lot more.

Is the viewer "sutured (stitched) into the diegesis of the film world through the editing"?
Yes i agree, because the editing is one of the main features of the music video. I think they are sutured into the diegesis through the editing because it is how the shots are positioned and paced that allows us to create the variety of stories. The editing of a sequence can really make a difference to the meaning of the film.

Music video is freer in terms of viewr identification and perspective- agreed?
I don't agree completely with this. Because although a music video is more flexible and viewers can be more lenient with their views, it is still quite a short time to have many shots and what you see is exactly what the director wants you to see. Adapting on the short time, there is not enough time during the quick shots to allow different viewer identification. What you see is what you get essentially. There is not enough time for us to create a different image from what we have seen.

Carol Vernallis believes the image along cannot tell the story- do you agree?
Yes i agree. An image does tell the story slightly, but alone a story cannot be portrayed. Imagine a video without the music, all you would see are the frames, but without the pace/tune of the song you would have no idead what the story was saying. Music is essential, it's what tells us how to feel, a faster paced song may be known as a happier song than a much slower paced one. So, although the images are constant, you cannot tell the mood of the story without the music.