Audience theories research

Here is a collection of different theories I found on the internet when researching audience.

The first is the 'Two step flow' :
Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet analysed the voters' decision-making processes during a 1940 presidential election campaign and published their results in a paper called The People's Choice. Their findings suggested that the information does not flow directly from the text into the minds of its audience unmediated but is filtered through "opinion leaders" who then communicate it to their less active associates, over whom they have influence. The audience then mediate the information received directly from the media with the ideas and thoughts expressed by the opinion leaders, thus being influenced not by a direct process, but by a two step flow. This diminished the power of the media in the eyes of researchers, and caused them to conclude that social factors were also important in the way in which audiences interpreted texts. This is sometimes referred to as the limited effects paradigm.

Mode of address :
Still in line with the active audience idea is the concept of mode of address. This refers to the way that a text speaks to us in a style that encourages us to identify with the text because it is 'our' kind of text. For example Friends is intended for a young audience because of the way it uses music and the opening credits to develop a sense of fun, energy and enthusiasm that the perceived audience can identify with. This does not mean that other groups are excluded, merely that the dominant mode of address is targetted at the young. Mode of address can even be applied to entire outputs, as in the case of Channel Four which works hard to form a style of address aimed at an audience which is informed, articulate and in some ways a specialised one. Newspapers, too, often construct their presentation to reflect what they imagine is the identity of their typical readers. Compare The Sun and The Guardian in this context.

'The Truman Show' analysis

When watching 'The Truman Show' I struggled to pinpoint a genre as it doesn't specifically fit into any category. At first, I felt it was a comedy but then the revelations about Truman's 'fake' life and his reactions gave it a sub-genre of a drama. The whole series of deaths and upset, aswell as Truman's dramatic anger and reactions made me think it was a comedy-drama.

Throughout the film it was clear 'The Truman Show' broke most theorists conventions. For example Vladimir Propp's theory of stock characters included in almost every narrative, doesn't specifically apply to 'The Truman Show'. Although you assume Truman is the 'hero' and the 'stolen lover' from his teens is the 'princess' the other characters are almost made out all to be villains. All of the characters are lying to Truman and producers of the show even attempt to kill Truman in order to stop his escaping his 'bubble world'. There is no 'helper' or any of Propp's stock characters.

The same applies to the binary opposites theory created by Levi Strauss. You have the obvious good vs evil, with Truman being the good and the producers of his world being the evil, and of course the light vs dark that works alongside it. Aside from that there are no other clear binary opposites

However 'The Truman Show' does include Roland Barthes semiotics. At the very start of the film, a piece of film set falls into the middle of the road, and the audience immediately recognises this is a sign, that all in Truman's world is not as it seems. The secretive camera angles adds to this. Throughout the film you work alongside Truman, discovering more signs that suggest the issues with Truman's world.
ROLAND - SIGNS/SEMIOTICS