Evaluate the relevance of Todorov's theory of narrative to long for television drama.
Through watching Season 1 of Homeland, it became evident that Todorov's narrative theory could be applied to individual episodes, much like films, and the season as a whole. I think that Todorov's narrative theory is very relevant to success of this popular crime drama because the way the director/writer followed Todorov's narrative theory ensured the audience was entertained( Blumer and Katz, 1973)by the rise and fall of suspense and tension.
Todorov's narrative theory argues that a successful narrative uses; equilibrium, disruption, resolution and new equilibrium to progress the narrative and engage the audience, my research into long term TV drama has shown me that this theory can applied but in a different way to which i had previously experienced with Hollywood films. This is because the way these texts are consumed is different, a film can easily follow Todorov's narrative theory in a short space of time (between 1 hour and 3 hours) where by a box set may continue over a number of episodes in a season. What i noticed this resulted in a way Todorov's theory being applicable to individual episodes but also the season as a whole, another key difference being the viewer was rarely left with a sense of satisfaction from resolution at the end of an episode, or season, because the nature of product needed to leave the audience on a cliff hanger (disruption) in order to sell future episodes or seasons.
Specifically, in terms of Homelands Season 1, unlike a Hollywood film that may have two- three disruptions, there were 41 disruptions to the narrative during the season averaging 3-5 disruption per episode; in terms of the relevance of this to a long term TV drama having this many disruptions was necessary to the success of Homeland because it was a crime drama that needed to keep building tension and keep giving audiences new red herrings to explore. Also, equilibrium and resolution were used to allow the tension to drop in order to make new disruptions more tense.
Homeland episode 1 started with the new equilibrium of Jess believing her husband, Brody, to have been killed in Iraq and she is shown to be moving on as she is in bed with Brody's best friend Mike; this later proves to be a disruption as it is revealed Brody has survived. Parallel editing shows another equilibrium, Carrie using her Intel guy for information; quickly a disruption shows this Intel guy getting killed. In short, Todorov's narrative theory is used to create tension and suspense at every turn to enrage audiences who want a tense crime drama narrative with lots of twists and turns.
As the season progresses, the main aspects that link to Todorov's narrative theory are using it to build suspense gradually throughout the whole season. I know this because during the first few episodes there was not as many disruptions but then as we went through the episodes the disruptions seemed to occur a lot more. The relevance of this is to make the audience stay engaged as the series goes on. The relevance to Todorov's theory to this is that the whole build up to this episode is huge and shows how Todorov's theory is effective to get the audience to keep watching the whole season. This last episode is a further disruption and leaves hundreds of more questions that can be solved in the following season.
To conclude I think that as the season progresses, the main aspect that link to Todorov's narrative theory is disruption with few equilibriums. Just as a disruption is resolved it is then quickly disrupted again leaving the audience then wanting to keep finding out if the disruption will ever be resolved. Since Homeland is a crime drama it is vital for the disruptions to never be completely resolved as the disruption ask more and more questions for the audience that they want to guess and find the answers they watch on. The more views that every episode get the more gross profit is being made.
Through watching Season 1 of Homeland, it became evident that Todorov's narrative theory could be applied to individual episodes, much like films, and the season as a whole. I think that Todorov's narrative theory is very relevant to success of this popular crime drama because the way the director/writer followed Todorov's narrative theory ensured the audience was entertained( Blumer and Katz, 1973)by the rise and fall of suspense and tension.
Todorov's narrative theory argues that a successful narrative uses; equilibrium, disruption, resolution and new equilibrium to progress the narrative and engage the audience, my research into long term TV drama has shown me that this theory can applied but in a different way to which i had previously experienced with Hollywood films. This is because the way these texts are consumed is different, a film can easily follow Todorov's narrative theory in a short space of time (between 1 hour and 3 hours) where by a box set may continue over a number of episodes in a season. What i noticed this resulted in a way Todorov's theory being applicable to individual episodes but also the season as a whole, another key difference being the viewer was rarely left with a sense of satisfaction from resolution at the end of an episode, or season, because the nature of product needed to leave the audience on a cliff hanger (disruption) in order to sell future episodes or seasons.
Specifically, in terms of Homelands Season 1, unlike a Hollywood film that may have two- three disruptions, there were 41 disruptions to the narrative during the season averaging 3-5 disruption per episode; in terms of the relevance of this to a long term TV drama having this many disruptions was necessary to the success of Homeland because it was a crime drama that needed to keep building tension and keep giving audiences new red herrings to explore. Also, equilibrium and resolution were used to allow the tension to drop in order to make new disruptions more tense.
Homeland episode 1 started with the new equilibrium of Jess believing her husband, Brody, to have been killed in Iraq and she is shown to be moving on as she is in bed with Brody's best friend Mike; this later proves to be a disruption as it is revealed Brody has survived. Parallel editing shows another equilibrium, Carrie using her Intel guy for information; quickly a disruption shows this Intel guy getting killed. In short, Todorov's narrative theory is used to create tension and suspense at every turn to enrage audiences who want a tense crime drama narrative with lots of twists and turns.
As the season progresses, the main aspects that link to Todorov's narrative theory are using it to build suspense gradually throughout the whole season. I know this because during the first few episodes there was not as many disruptions but then as we went through the episodes the disruptions seemed to occur a lot more. The relevance of this is to make the audience stay engaged as the series goes on. The relevance to Todorov's theory to this is that the whole build up to this episode is huge and shows how Todorov's theory is effective to get the audience to keep watching the whole season. This last episode is a further disruption and leaves hundreds of more questions that can be solved in the following season.
To conclude I think that as the season progresses, the main aspect that link to Todorov's narrative theory is disruption with few equilibriums. Just as a disruption is resolved it is then quickly disrupted again leaving the audience then wanting to keep finding out if the disruption will ever be resolved. Since Homeland is a crime drama it is vital for the disruptions to never be completely resolved as the disruption ask more and more questions for the audience that they want to guess and find the answers they watch on. The more views that every episode get the more gross profit is being made.
Comments
Post a Comment