From the “Little Aussie Bleeder” to Newstopia: (Really) Fake News in Australia (Harrington, 2017)

Growing up in Hong Kong without steady access to English-language programmes (which meant I grew up not watching a lot of television until I was a teenager through the internet), my understanding of news satire was informed by watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on YouTube up until, well, now. 

That also meant that my understanding of news satire wasn’t to satirise the conventions of news itself – Oliver does criticise the media, but they often aren’t the main subject of his segments – but instead was a format for one to discuss topics and to be informed. The segments were meticulous and specifically designed as a call-to-action; by drawing attention to these topics, shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver were ‘edutainment’. 

I was also aware of the existence of late night television shows, in that there were hosts like David Letterman who’d have comedic monologues or sketches or interviews or performances, a variety show in the tradition of old television entertainment in the United States (for example, people like Milton Berle who’d host similar programs). However, I was raised with the notion of fictional entertainment for the primetime audience. In Australia, there was a larger emphasis on shows that weren’t necessarily fictional, but still scripted. The massive proliferation of reality television in Australia is interesting to me as scripted television is the default – Australian network television feels dominated by reality programmes. 

In Melbourne Tonight, mentioned in the reading, is seen by Harrington as “an important starting point for any discussion of Australian “fake” news” (pg. 28). Personally, I disagree with this because the late-night format is so different from fake news shows / news satire. Although I recognise the intent of subverting form that Harrington identifies, I still think that fake news programs in Australia cannot be set at a starting point from In Melbourne Tonight – especially given Harrington clarifies all Australian light entertainment television was affected. 

Compared to The Norman Gunston Show, which I think did affect the news satire genre. 

https://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/curated/john-farnham-norman-gunston-show

Norman Gunston is very much like Stephen Colbert’s self-titled character, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s Ali G, Borat, and Bruno characters in that by making his character comedic – in Garry McDonald’s case, a bumbling, ill-informed and fame hungry host – he satirises elements of the variety show genre. In the linked clip, John Farham’s performance of You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling is ultimately stifled by Gunston’s attempt to share / steal the spotlight. His dubious vocal ability (and nevertheless persistent belief in it: “What a voice! Your’s is good, too” – Gunston to Farham), elaborate set, clumsiness, and ad-libs made Farham laugh so much he could barely make it through the performance. By making a fool of his character, he is directly satirising the idea of celebrity culture in relation to the host. Although performances were made for the benefit of the public to enjoy the music, in this case, Farham’s, hosts like Gunston interject to increase their own public visibility. They become celebrities themselves, and for Gunston, is part of his comedic persona. 

Compare this to something Ruth (you) showed us in class. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7L0MfhlowU

Stephen Colbert’s interjection to the song removes the audience from the song and seeks to promote his own celebrity, but I think isn’t necessarily as self-effacing as Gunston’s performance in the earlier clip. This type of clip is what I feel McDonald was trying to satirise. That isn’t to say Colbert makes fun of himself through his mere presence, but he certainly takes performing this song seriously and competently – the joke is his participation and competence alone. 

Or more accurately, this type of clip. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64iZmkaoueI

But honestly, James Corden is infamous for this behaviour (see: Carpool Karaoke). His show is what other shows seek to satirise.

BLOG 1

BLOG 2

BLOG 3

BLOG 4

 

🙂

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver – “Boris Johnson”, first aired July 28, 2019

The episode begins with a runner about the mating of the foxes of Kent (basically English red foxes) – a repetitious joke to get us into the actual episode topic, Boris Johnson’s impending ascension as the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, successor to Theresa May, and ostensibly Britain’s guide through Brexit, a topic Oliver has made two previous segments on in the past three years, and has roundly criticised for being short-sighted, sold without basis in fact, and wildly irresponsible.

This therefore functions as an episode that not only refers to its previous episodes on a related topic – Johnson recurs in the other segments, specifically when addressing the infamous red bus with the quote “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave”, which was proven to be misleading given the UK earns far more per week than it gives from its partnership with the EU. Referring back to the tutorial, it was discussed satire creates an ‘in-group’, or regular audience that would come to make contained intertextual connections between the segments, but the segment would also need to work function as a stand-alone instalment.

A lot of the jokes Oliver makes tend to rely on the juxtaposition he creates with crude language or mature themes – a common joke setup is to begin with a news clip that creates a set-up (Johnson revealing the Queen’s message to him as PM), and following up with a joke that seems out of character for the clip, as if to lampoon either the Queen’s status, Johnson’s gaffe, or just to make a dumb joke.

Oliver begins his analysis strongly. By starting it with Johnson’s appearance,

 

A small extract of some planning for a news story – 

NEWS STORY: Hong Kong Protests, in the style of an English-language Pro-Chinese propaganda news show

 

Based off of Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update, The Eric Andre Show, The Colbert Report – specifically, a parody of state-run media serving to impose an ideology

• Parody of a state-owned English-speaking TV channel covering the Hong Kong protest
• Interview being like an interrogation
  • “Interviewee wanted to remain anonymous,”the interviewee is wearing a bag.
• The host being swapped between cuts because they show democratic sympathies
• Blame ‘Western’ influences 
  • “Western military tactics” – using umbrellas to protect themselves, is not Chinese, but they also need to be Chinese (irony)
  • ‘Western’ protesters are trying to separate Hong Kong again

This is what I think would be a good example of news satire through parody. Specifically, I think state-run media in China greatly affects public opinion, and would sway the national population against the population of Hong Kong through general falsehoods and manipulation. There is no free press, no freedom of speech, and no way for a general Chinese audience to either understand what’s happening objectively, or even to want to do so.

I think this is ripe for parody. I think by using parody to valorize the efforts of the anti-democracy movement, you’d be able to expose the inherent inhumanity of a autocratic regime such as China’s. There are multiple hypocritical approaches one could take to expose China, such as its reliance on Western markets but objection to Western values, its simultaneous adoption of Western ideals whilst blaming Hong Kong protesters for using Western ideals, governmental entitlement, the incompetence of the police force that is nonetheless dangerous in part because it is incompetent, its continuous emphasis on the rule of law whilst working with triads to illegally repress Hong Kong protesters, a nascent threat of military occupation and martial law similar to its efforts to expand its nautical borders, the use of violence to prevent violence from protesters when there is very little evidence of the latter and only evidence of the former, the dismissal of the stupidity of the protesters in comparison of both the incompetence of its law enforcement versus the ingenuity of protesters (for example, the police throwing tear gas at themselves against protesters disabling canisters by way of traffic cones and water)…

and so on and so forth.

There’s a lot to write. I’m glad the group chose this topic. I grew up in Hong Kong, and this means a lot to me personally. I think this drive will motivate me to do well.

I’ve decided that I want to try and be the writer for the production.

I think writing for the news show is the most enjoyable part of the production, because I think it’s the part with the most creativity, or at least the greatest expression of this creativity. That’s not to say the contributions of the production team aren’t invaluable – having done the practical today, the separate roles of production may seem small but all come together to create a cohesive, coherent, and full end product – but there is very little room to be creative in this space.

The director, as far as I have observed, tends to make decisions to maximise the writer’s and performer’s contribution. This means choosing when graphics are overlaid, which cameras to use, where the performer may be going or what their intent would be as to the delivery of hey would you look at that the written material. The graphics designer is working directly off of the written material, which either specifies exactly what an image may be, or else should accommodate the needs of the script. There is some creativity in terms of the overall vision and coherence with the rest of the piece, but this is better handled by the director who’d work with the graphic designer. A performer or interviewee does express themselves, and may do so according to the overall feel of the script. However, I do think at least for news satire, the persona developed depends a lot on the written material, especially in the studio. There is creativity in the performer in unscripted content such as interviews or segments, but there are also limitations due to writing – often, interviews are conducted using talking points conveyed well in advance, and segments such as Stephen Colbert at the RNC for The Daily Show are tightly edited and may have had some planning involved (and also, it is unlikely anyone here has Colbert’s talent and/or experience).

The writing is where I think the creative voice is most prominent, at least in news satire. The content of the script dictates the pace, tone, and effect of the satire. Ultimately, I’d much prefer to write because I think that’s where the most creativity is required, and it’s where I think I can have the most impact.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver – “Boris Johnson”, first aired July 28, 2019

The episode begins with a runner about the mating of the foxes of Kent (basically English red foxes) – a repetitive joke to get us into the actual episode topic, Boris Johnson’s impending ascension as the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, successor to Theresa May, and ostensibly Britain’s guide through Brexit, a topic Oliver has made two previous segments on in the past three years, and has been roundly criticised for being short-sighted, baseless in fact, and wildly irresponsible. 

This therefore functions as an episode that not only refers to its previous episodes on a related topic – Johnson recurs in the other segments, specifically when addressing the infamous red bus with the quote “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave”, which was proven to be misleading given the UK earns far more per week than it gives from its partnership with the EU. Referring back to the tutorial, it was discussed satire creates an ‘in-group’, or regular audience that would come to make contained intertextual connections between the segments, but the segment would also need to work function as a stand-alone instalment. 

A lot of the jokes Oliver makes tend to rely on the juxtaposition he creates with crude language or mature themes – a common joke setup is to begin with a news clip that creates a set-up (Johnson revealing the Queen’s message to him as PM), and following up with a joke that seems out of character for the clip, as if to lampoon either the Queen’s status, Johnson’s gaffe, or just to make a dumb joke. 

Oliver begins his analysis strongly. By starting it with Johnson’s appearance, he assumes basic knowledge from a predominantly American audience. The focus on appearance also serves as an important role later on, as Oliver reveals Johnson frequently manipulates his appearance and perception to distract British constituents and appear more British-eccentric as opposed to high-class educated yuppie. 

A lot of this analysis creates a set-up – Johnson’s anecdote of making ‘crate buses’ to relax – and then revealing it was actually a way to try and misdirect Google searches of the bus instead of showing his association with the red bus three paragraphs above, with this story instead. 

He builds up to a climax about 40% through wherein he says “once you realise what he’s doing, it makes you question everything you’ve previously thought about him”. The opening of the news broadcast was focused on telling jokes at the expense of Johnson, recalling relevant events he’s been involved in, and essentially playing up to his media personality until it doesn’t, and instead deconstructs this personality. This not only serves to frame any previous conceptions of Johnson under a new light, but also to frame any following discussion. 

This is shown when Oliver recounts a gaffe of Johnson’s, who had referred to those who’d wear a burqa as resembling “bank robbers”. Johnson, when meeting with journalists that came to receive a statement, evaded any attempt at giving one and instead offered them tea. The media fell for this trap. 

Another device Oliver uses is comparison. Oliver compares Johnson’s inability to use his charm in an international setting such as Brexit negotiations with Hugh Grant’s romantic lead archetype (ostensibly one familiar to US audiences) tasked with negotiating with terrorists aboard the United 93 plane during the 9/11 attacks. Oliver’s impression here seeks to lampoon both the comparison, but also to highlight Johnson’s feebleness as a result of comparison. I will say personally that the comparison seems shocking for its own sake, and a bit offensive without any real purpose. 

One popular trope Oliver uses is a call-to-action. This has taken the form of a children’s book, a church, websites, petitions, or even a debt relief spectacular. However, this isn’t always necessary, and isn’t present in this segment as ultimately, there isn’t much of a call-to-action for an American audience regarding Brexit or Johnson. The segment therefore doesn’t incentivise a call to action, and instead only seeks to educate. 

From tutorial material: “the purpose of satire is not negativity but positive change. The satirist can channel that anger, contempt, etc. by enunciating a particular “truth” or “standard” of rightness” (Schutz in Gray, Jones and Thompson, p. 12). This expectation isn’t always present in these types of shows, simply because it either isn’t necessary, would have a small impact, or would be tiring if continuously used. 

I think parody is a really interesting function to deliver satire, especially in the context of a news show.

I say this because of my limited background in news satire. I primarily consume Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj, both shows that heavily use satire, feature Daily Show alumnus, and most importantly, do not seek to parody a format. Rather, their format is earnest and a call to action, but does not seek to parody, and instead explores satire through uses of satirical techniques such as diminution, simile, and exaggeration.

This means in their broadcasts, the hosts’ function more earnestly, and as such encourage a closer connection with their audience.

This quote: “satire and parody are different from traditional punchline-oriented late-night comedy not only in form and content, but in effects on normatively positive political outcomes like participation” (Hoffman and Young, 2011, p.159) belies an expectation that there is a separation in formats that is no longer as pervasive. Late night shows such as Late Night with Seth Myers and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert use satire frequently; politics is much more important in popular culture and its consumption, and audiences will tend to seek out content that affirms their position. The quote itself comes from a time when politics perhaps wasn’t as relevant, nor when satire was as pervasive – Colbert, Myers, Oliver, Minhaj, and Bee all originated from satirical shows like Daily Show and Saturday Night Live (particularly, Weekend Update), and so their popularity now is an indicator of the now-mainstream appeal of news satire. 

However, in researching, I think the parody of a news show is inherently more interesting, at least in creating my own project. I think parody is a really effective way to satirise something, whilst paying homage to it. If something is worth being parodied, then there must be something that attracts an audience, or a specific type of audience – The Colbert Report specifically uses tropes of right-wing political commentary shows as to show their flaws or lapses on logic, much of which originates from using a trope and exposing its fallibility.

Ideally, I’d like to pursue some type of propaganda news network to satirise current affairs. As a resident of Hong Kong, I feel very strongly for the protesters fighting for the rights of the public against one of the most powerful governments in the world. I think one way to fight against this system would be to create a fake news show that would be pro-China, as if from the perspective of a state government attempting to appeal to Western markets. This would seek to show the propaganda techniques used by State television in China, but also expose its flaws and extents.

To reach this point, I’d need to understand the tropes by itself; before I can parody anything, I need to make sure I can do it in earnest.

Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-HX8eSwZEA&feature=youtu.be

I joined a group with Elin, Phuong, and Xiyuan (Xi Yuan) for the second part of this assignment. They asked me to join up with them as they liked my video and felt I could help them with their editing, as well as to help produce (i.e. they wanted to include Phillip Le Liu, my white whale, to their project and so wanted me along for the ride). I also had general experience with shooting as well as strong Premiere and basic After Effects skills.

For the task, I felt it was important to have one creative voice, and chose it not to be mine. Elin is a strong leader and knows what she wants, and I knew my technical skills were more important than to have a conflicting vision. This meant that I helped produce, shoot, write, and edit the project instead of dictating it. I did help make suggestions throughout the project in regards to creative decisions, especially in post-production stages where I could better organise and sort content.

I often challenged Elin in regards to some creative decisions, as well as communication. She’s incredibly dedicated and always present, which is a far contrast to me as I compartmentalise a lot – I cannot multitask well, and so find the best way for me to work is to only focus on one task at a time. This led to a few misunderstandings where I hadn’t responded to Elin, and created conflict. This was resolved over time as we came to appreciate our individual working styles, and what they brought to the table.

We worked on all the questions together. Their questions to Lisa were adapted through using my initial questions I had planned for Phillip to create a more coherent final piece. Although they wanted to include a focus on Chinese culture as well – Elin and Xiyuan are both of Chinese descent, as am I – there wasn’t much of a place for it as not only was there a lack of information in regards to the use of the theatre for Chinese events, but also wouldn’t have made sense in the overall construction of the work. The question was asked to Phillip, but was not included in the final piece as it did not make sense.

There were two main shooting days. For these days, either myself or Elin had contacted the person (Philip or Marc Morel), organised the shoot time, and had questions ready for them. For the first shoot, I helped set up the lights and sound, and filmed on a separate camera. This shot was not used as it was significantly grainier and did not look as nice as Phuong’s shot (RIP me). I found that shoot quite relaxing, as we all knew what our roles where and were focused on making sure Philip had as easy a time as possible. He did (inadvertently) undermine us by asking if we had done this before – yes, Phil, we have – but was gracious with his time and his answers that he brought along on a conveniently tucked away iPad. Philip was included as I thought a government perspective

On the other day, we were in the studio with Marc Morel. He’s a funny character who tended to go on tangents and make jokes, just having a good time. For this, we had different lighting than to the prerecorded interview with Lisa French. This created a more cinematic feeling for the interview but contrasted with the lighting for the other two. I personally liked the lighting here. He moved around a lot, which meant we had to try and encourage him to be a little less always on than he was. Although it was filmed in the same place Lisa’s interview was, it differed a little bit. Additionally, the questions were similar to Phillip, but had a slight focus on his role as a venues manager.

I felt I had the most individual contribution to the overall project in post-production. What I mean is I felt I had the most creative control in the editing process, the most individual personal contribution. My editing contribution was to rearrange questions that were answered by Philip, Marc, and Lisa, as well as to organise all the footage compiled by Phuong and Xi Yuan. I was quite comfortable with organising footage into a way that makes sense coherently, as well as cutting around to make everything as compact and seamless as possible. This meant rearranging the questions to make sure the flow of the documentary made sense, as well as cutting away a lot of extra material and making sure all three of our interviewees shared screentime. Some guests were easier to edit around than others, but it made sure we could make things as seamless as possible. As a consequence, some footage would be jerky by itself and move around abruptly, almost all of which we hid behind other compiled material (as well as a few barely noticeable jump cuts). It also meant making sure we didn’t repeat ourselves, and to leave room for certain set-pieces (for example, Marc’s quick history of The Capitol itself, set to organ music)

I also organised about half of the compiled material by Phuong and Xi Yuan into the rest of the interviews. This included creating animations for all of the interviewees featured in After Effects, as well as helping create little sequences in terms of showing videos or images onscreen that not only were relevant to the interviews, but also were able to cover up the various cuts for the interviews too. It also meant making simple animations for some images to ensure the visuals were dynamic; recall to Assignment 1, where I said that oral histories need to be dynamic – especially for a setting like The Capitol, where the visual appeal is so strong, it becomes necessary to accentuate the marvels at The Capitol.

Overall, I think our project is quite strong and resembles other professional features as best as it can. The project strives to be an accurate, standard account of The Capitol, and I think accurately and succinctly captures a strong scale in regards to what The Capitol represents for RMIT, students, and the City of Melbourne.

Recall back to the first assignment. I felt many people would be focusing on The Capitol in regards to its legacy of glamour and success, of a bygone time where the theatre was an event and not so homogenised, uninfluenced by event blockbusters.

Instead, I felt the most interesting part of The Capitol theatre was the parts of its history where its status diminished in the eyes of the public. This could’ve included the early 1960s when Hoyts had let its lease expire, and thus an exploration into the efforts to save The Capitol theatre, but instead the period that interested me was from 1992 to 1997, when a Chinese theatre company began operating The Capitol theatre. This was interesting to me as it lent itself to investigation – there was no available information from anywhere in regards to the identity of the theatre owners, which group was operating the theatre, or even to whom the lease had belonged.

As such, to approach this topic, I decided to create an oral history by framing a series of interviews against contrasting images of The Capitol, Chinese items of cultural significance, and an example of the types of films that may have been shown at The Capitol during this period of time.

To begin with, I sought to get interviews from the theatre group, but as stated previously, I could not find any record of the group aside from brief asides in written history records.

Following a conversation with Mark Poole (oh, hi Mark!), I sought to interview Phillip Le Liu, who had been in contact with a Chinese theatre group to lease The Capitol theatre. However, although he initially had responded to my emails with enthusiasm, he stop answering my emails and so could not interview him.

I also sought to interview someone from the Arts Centre in Melbourne, as well as to film stock footage. However, the earliest possible date they are available is June 3rd. And so, I could not interview them either.

The Museum of Chinese Australian History did let me film in the museum after paying an entry fee, but even after continuous emails and personal correspondence at the museum, was declined an interview with any curator.

I was able to contact and interview a local Chinese Theatre group affiliated with the University of Melbourne, which was formed in 1993 – just a year after the lease at The Capitol. I thought their perspective would be useful and give insight to the role The Capitol had played.

I decided to try and use split-screen for this assignment; it was essential to have visual appeal as it may be played without sounds. The interview was conducted in Chinese, which requires subtitles regardless and so met the requirements as well. The use of split screen allowed me to show multiple images on screen:

1. Footage of The Capitol arcade
2. Footage from the Chinese Museum
3. Footage from a Chinese film Spring in a Small Town (1948) (Public Domain)
4. Interview footage

The interview begins without showing them on-screen, before coming in later. The façade was used at the beginning of the video to allude to the lobby of the past, as well as to serve as a background for the context provided at the beginning. The music fades in shortly after – it is also public domain music. The contrast of The Capitol and the Chinese museum serve to emphasise the connection between them, as well as how culture is both different and shared between the two. The use of Spring in a Small Town (1948) is to serve as an example of the films the Chinese theatre would’ve shown (it is regarded as one of China’s greatest films), an allusion to the past to compliment the idea of tradition in the interview footage, and to allude to Chinese culture and film together. This is so when the interview footage comes in at the end, it serves to tie everything together in relation to The Capitol. The interview was 10 minutes long, but I took a short snippet of it. This ended with a light-hearted joke to fade out the history.

This works as oral history as the interview recounts a personal experience. Although it wasn’t directly related to The Capitol, the use of complementary footage sought to create a connection as some people didn’t respond to my requests for an interview. All together, the clips create a story and context into why the Chinese theatre would have shown Chinese films without actually finding them, or really anyone with first-hand experience with The Capitol.

Again, as stated in Assignment 1, oral histories have evolved to be more self-driven and visually appealing. I sought to emulate that in my assignment, especially considering the parameters in which it would’ve been shot. Furthermore, I felt that the interview I was able to get served to underline the connection Chinese students such as myself feel to our culture even as we’re living in another country, which again with the use of complementary clips serve to link this to the Chinese Theatre group at The Capitol.

PART ONE:

 

Linda Shopes begins her article ‘Making Sense of Oral History’ as such: ““Oral History” is a maddeningly imprecise term” (Shopes, 2002, p.1). In essence, the definition of an oral history is the retelling of memory, a recorded recounting of history where subjects either recount or remember specific events that occurred to them, or their experiences in regards to an universal event. As we know it and its application to our field, oral histories must be recorded.

 

Personally, I think oral history is precise in its definition. It requires discipline in its style, but can be permuted upon. This is especially prevalent when assessing modern oral histories. Although Shopes describes the oral history as “at its heart, a dialogue” (Shopes, 2002, p.3) between the interviewer and the interviewee, I think oral history as a medium has expanded to include self-guided oral histories.

 

Certainly, given our capacity and the tasks set ahead for us as media practitioners in ‘The Capitol’, it is expected that we follow Shopes’ guideline. However, this does not account for the role of the audience in consuming media in the sense that they have independent reactions to the history.

 

For example, Joanna Bornat states “it’s about their experience, and so their past” (Bornat, 2015), but only in the format of the interview. Although I am no expert and boast no PhDs, this is a limited framework. Certainly as directors we will guide the conversation, but as much as this is true of us to guide the narrative, there is the element of the narrative finding itself through the subject’s own exploration.

 

This can be seen in modern interpretations of oral history online. YouTube is one of the predominant modes of media consumption among millennials and Generation Z. The vlog is often self-guided and many times takes on the format of a guided oral history. This is especially prominent in the era of the personality, where oftentimes people have their experiences recounted with the addition of visual aids.

 

Furthermore, this broad term of oral history can be applied to the medium of podcasts, wherein oftentimes interviews take on the mode of an oral history of recounting. This isn’t even to mention the written oral histories that have existed in books and now take the form of articles online, or even self-guided histories where people use their own experience to create. Nowadays, media creation isn’t as limited by resources, and many ametuer creations rival or even surpass professional creations.

 

In another Shopes paper discusses the oral history as a text, and how there must be equal consideration to both the role of the experience and the role as a researcher to accurately record history. In particular, she refers to a quote by Alessando Portelli describing the reliability of his oral sources: “errors, inventions, and myths lead us through and beyond facts and to their meaning” (Portelli, 2010). Shopes states this approach tends to ignore the responsibility as creators to find the truth in oral history. Instead, she advocates for a balance – “both the ‘facts’ of experience and the subjective rendering of experience are types of evidence” (Shopes, 2014, p. 267).

 

This, again, I disagree with. The simple act of recording alters and affects the reliability and portrayal of history. Although there is a duty to truth in the role of the interviewer – if that exists, given discussion above – I believe that narrative is the most important part to storytelling, and so to oral history. Memories are often imperfect and beautiful, and Portelli uses this understanding of oral histories reliance on the personal experience to create a personal story. When looking at events of historical significance grandiose and personal, it is the intimate details which paint the richest picture.

 

From this, my personal interpretation, of oral history is our dedication to retelling the memories of our subjects. Traditional conventions of oral history that treat it as a historical document or record are flawed, and other modes of understanding should account for the democratization of content creation. Ultimately, oral histories will continue to be a dominant mode of expression of our personal experiences, but it up to practitioners to adapt to modern tastes (as they already have begun to) for both creative and commercial success.

 

Bibliography:

 

Portelli, A. (2010) Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories, The: Form and Meaning in Oral History. New York. Suny Press.

 

Shopes, L. (2015) Insights and Oversights: Reflections on the Documentary Tradition and the Theoretical Turn in Oral History, The Oral History Review, 41(2), p. 267. doi:10.1093/ohr/ohu035

 

Shopes, L. (2002) What is Oral History? History Matters: The U.S. Survey on the Web.

3. 1-3. Retrieved from http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/oral/

 

PART TWO:

 

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqa8p1xbjds

 

This video, titled “The Time Kanye and Ninja of Die Antwoord Played Basketball at Drake’s”, or alternately “Ninja in Banana Pudding” is an example of an oral history that uses the character of Ninja and his voice to inform the visual aesthetic of the completed piece.

 

Ninja’s story is engaging because he uses a lot of visual imagery in his storytelling, which Muizon not only remains faithful to in his animations, but uses them as jumping off points. Sometimes, while Ninja doesn’t specifically speak of any type of visual (e.g. describing himself listening to “Started From The Bottom for the first time), Muizon still adds animated scenes (for instance, Drake shown firing handguns whilst shown doing his dance from his ‘Hotline Bling’ video, a reference to the 2014 meme).

 

The shots intercut between Ninja narrating the story and animated illustrations to accompany Ninja’s story.  The animations that accompany the video underline the lurid and surreal reality of the celebrity, and is used to portray contrasting perspectives, context, or to add beats to the story – frequently, the animations create new images that go unspoken.

 

To preface, I don’t know anything about Ninja, but I am familiar with Drake and Kanye West. However, this oral history succeeds because of Ninja’s bemused delivery, the juxtaposition between Ninja’s appearance against his role as the ‘straight man’ in the story, and the animations by Julien Jourdain de Muizon supplementing Ninja’s storytelling. The role of oral history here is admittedly lighthearted, and certainly a lighthearted and modern approach.

 

I selected this example as I felt it best represented the direction I believe modern oral histories have become and will continue to develop from. Oral histories are often shown online through the medium of the online video or podcast, and are optimally designed to be able to be consumed in as little sittings as possible. They also must be able to be compressed – in a sense, memeable, as the more easily you can show a short GIF of it online, the higher its exposure, and thus the more likely it will succeed commercially. This short video’s use of animation is easily memeable; the use of celebrity in the animations make it recognizable and understandable.

 

This oral history inspires me because I think this is where oral histories are headed; an interview by itself is simply not engaging enough when presented on screen by itself for most subjects, as most interviewees lack stage experience to be wholly engaging. Although in this example Ninja is shown to be very dynamic (frequently jumping up, moving around, acting as the other characters in the story), the animations intercut are yet another avenue to supplement Ninja’s oration.

 

PART THREE:

 

Summarily, considering both previous posts, my work in this studio will seek to incorporate a personal story or recollection whilst emphasising visuals. Nowadays, the oral history must compete with more types of content, and so I’ll be striving to create something with visuals that supplement the interview and can be compressed easily / have the potential to go viral.

 

Considering the parameters of the task, where we have to create something that could be presented at The Capitol where we may not be able to hear the video in a busy lobby, a oral history with strong visuals is vital for conveying the message of the interviewee without losing any of its core identity.

 

However, I do think there will be an emphasis on The Capitol as a structure, which would then forego the intimacy that I believe in integral to all stories. There’s a reason why Titanic is about Jack and Rose, but also so much more, all contributing to the sweeping epic that captures the feeling of the catastrophe instead of a dogged historical retelling.

 

As of writing, I want to explore the period where a Chinese Theatre group operated out of it during the 1990s. This is certainly a low point in regards to The Capitol and its prestige. However, I think exploring this early instance of multicultural theatre would be interesting and relevant to today, and finding these actors and directors to ask them about The Capitol at this point in time would be enlightening especially as it gears up to be reopened.

 

This interview style of their personal recollections can be intercut with footage of Chinese Theatre, which would enhance the visual aspect. Hopefully there are Chinese Theatre companies which would permit us to film part of their performance or backstage, which would complement their experiences of the past. We could also advertise this to people who can only speak Chinese and English as well.