Multimodality of the TV Format
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2021-4171-AJMMC – 1 Apr 2021 1 Multimodality of the TV Format 2 3 This article analyses the multimodal construction of various global TV 4 formats and the modes through which the format negotiates reinforcement of 5 its ideological bases, innovation, change and unlimited semiosis. 6 Theoretically, this work draws on social semiotics, multimodality and 7 political economy. Methodologically, it applies semiotic analysis to really 8 popular global formats. The results show that the format is an extraordinary 9 and powerful example of multimodality which speaks the global language of 10 signs. On the one hand, different languages and forms of communication 11 reinforce its ideologies, such as competition, primacy of money, 12 objectification of human bodies and consumerism; but the format also puts 13 forward a kind of self-propaganda; in many cases, in fact, its communication 14 aims to support and promote itself, even when this contradicts other 15 messages of the system; it is by being successful that producers make more 16 money, become more successful, may further influence the audience, and so 17 on. On the other hand, the languages and the forms adopted continually 18 renew the format, change the relationships between signifier and signified, 19 and create new symbols.This unlimited semiosis allows the format to refresh 20 or adapt its image, get more audience and remain competitive in the market. 21 22 Keywords: TV format, Who wants to be a millionaire, Wheel of fortune, 23 Multimodality, Social Semiotics 24 25 26 Introduction 27 28 This article analyses the multimodal character of four global TV formats: 29 Wheel of Fortune, The Price Is Right, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and 30 MasterChef. The first two titles were created before the 1990s and in this 31 article they are thus considered as belonging to the first generation of the 32 global format; the other two products, conversely, were conceived and 33 commercialised from the end of the 1990s onwards, the era that here is called 34 the second generation of the format. The three aims of this study are firstly, to 35 explain how writing TV formats has changed from the first to the second 36 period; secondly, how the new narrative of the digital media have contributed 37 to this change; and, thirdly and more in general, how telling stories has 38 changed over these years. Finally, a final section also adds a critical view to 39 this TV genre. 40 The format is in a state of flux, as it renews its modes by continuously 41 producing new meanings, activating what in semiotic terms is called 42 “unlimited semiosis.” Conceived by Umberto Eco, who worked on Charles S. 43 Peirce's (1931) previous reflections, unlimited semiosis is the continuous 44 adaptation of the sign to changing conditions, from societal to political, from 45 aesthetic to historic. Unlimited semiosis continually allows the sign to change 46 its meaning (Eco, 1976: 71-72). Drawing on this theory, this article argues that 47 the format is an extremely flexible text that adapts its various modes to 48 different aims. Thus, in creating TV formats the writer has a series of 1 2021-4171-AJMMC – 31 MAR 2021 1 instruments that may combine in different ways. How this combination has 2 changed over the years thanks to the new media is the focus of this study. 3 4 5 Literature Review 6 7 This study is interested in the mutual exchange between multimodality and 8 society. In fact, on the one hand “in order for something to „be a mode‟ there 9 needs to be a shared cultural sense within a community” (Bezemer and Jewitt, 10 2010: 184). On the other hand, cultures may be influenced by modes, which 11 may shape new trends and habits (Kress, 2010). 12 The format is a sort of matrix containing all the elements forming a show. 13 In a text called bible, the TV writers responsible for the project precisely 14 explain the various parts forming the concept, including details of narrative 15 structure, duration, settings, music, dressing codes, languages, and even non- 16 verbal languages adopted by the hosts. Thus, we may say that the bible is a 17 multimodal text. This matrix is experimented with by a couple of TV channels 18 and, if successful, it is sold all over the world with the agreement that only a 19 few of its elements may be changed by the acquirer and almost always with the 20 green light of the original producer. Usually, the changes between the original 21 and the various versions of a format are motivated by the needs and 22 preferences of specific, national audiences. However, the first aim of the 23 format is to sell globally (Thompson, 1990; Steemers, 2004; Chalaby, 2009). 24 To do so, formats must be the right combination of universal narrative 25 structures, as narrative is “international, transhistorical, transcultural” (Barthes, 26 1977: 79), and specific cultural elements, as any good narrative must be based 27 on familiar structures (Hodge and Kress, 1988: 230). Thus, the format also 28 relies on recognisable elements, cultural beliefs and ideologies (Brennan, 2012: 29 86). 30 The format has an interesting history, really illuminating in understanding 31 the intrinsic nature of its multimodality. Until the 1980s, in fact, TV was 32 among the most important media and the format was one of its powerful 33 weapons. However, after the rise of the internet and of the new media, 34 television has been included on the list of the “traditional” media along with 35 radio, newspapers, magazines and others (Doyle, 2013). Here, “traditional” is 36 an elegant way of saying “old,” as these traditional media adopt a 37 unidirectional form of communication, also called top-down, which implies 38 that there is a unique and powerful source that sends the message to a passive 39 receiver. Since the 1990s, the new media have turned this form of 40 communication into something old. In fact, the internet, social media and all 41 the new ways of communicating rely on a multidirectional form of 42 communication, also called bottom-up, in which there is not a unique sender, 43 but all the users are in turn senders and receivers, the audience is active and 44 may react to the message, and the system allows almost every person to 45 become a producer of messages (Author, 2016). Writing for these media is 46 relevantly different from writing for the old TV, as in the new media the author 2 2021-4171-AJMMC – 31 MAR 2021 1 and the members of the audience continually exchange their roles. 2 Importantly, the new media have taken communication closer to the 3 human brain. In fact, the new, bottom-up communication is based on multiple 4 connections (the links of the websites, for example). In this new scenario, the 5 completeness of communication is proportional to the number of connections 6 given to the user. A website is richer when it offers many links and more 7 interaction to the users, and a social medium is more powerful when it connects 8 the user to a higher number of other users, sources, and media. This 9 multiplicity of connections is exactly the way in which our brain works (Carr, 10 2010). This means that, with the new media, we communicate with the same 11 way as we think. 12 TV is the newest medium among the “traditional” one, but its metaphorical 13 DNA does not permit it to become multidirectional. While the new media are 14 able to communicate as we think, TV still functions as a low-developed brain 15 or an ill mind. Also the format suddenly became redundant. What to do, then? 16 This article argues that multimodality has been the desperate attempt of 17 television to keep up with the new media. As a result, since the late 1990s 18 writing formats has become something more similar to writing for the new 19 media. 20 Finally, this article also draws on critical approaches to the media. Modes 21 may also have political value, either supporting or challenging dominant 22 political views (Fleitz, 2009). In his late studies, Pierre Bourdieu (2003 and 23 2005) has demonstrated that neoliberal policies have concentrated the power in 24 a few hands and that technology and the media are fundamental weapons that 25 guarantee the consolidation of power. Moreover, Bourdieu (2003 and 2005) 26 sees globalisation as the expansion of the economic field to the entire world. 27 This must be linked to the concept of new television, developed by Eco (1983) 28 and Francesco Casetti and Roger Odin (1990). Since the 1980s, a new kind of 29 TV has taken its place in Europe, the so called neo-televisione (new television). 30 It is characterised by neoliberal approaches to commerce and business, a 31 positive representation of consumerism, and an abundance of advertising and 32 globalisation. 33 34 35 Methodology 36 37 Multimodal analysis is an immense and multifaceted method. It may 38 include any form of investigation and link to any cultural, aesthetic, social, 39 political or historical discipline. The specific form of analysis that this study 40 adopts relates to social semiotics, and is called social semiotic multimodality, 41 which “aims to shed light on how people use modal resources in a certain 42 social context” (Fortanet-Gómez and Crawford Camiciottoli, 2015: 1). In this 43 study, it is adopted to analyse the various modes of the analysed formats. 44 However, this research also draws on the opposition between the 45 syntagmatic and the paradigmatic dimension of signification.