Carol Vernallis

Carol Vernallis says the camera in music video seems to mimic the way we view sonic space... do you agree? Do you think we are conditioned by music video to read sonic space in particular ways?
I would agree as we are more likely to just listen and view the images as more of something to keep your eyes busy rather then being the main focus. Even though music video can alot of the time be very jumpy and not continuous, we manage to make the links between images.
She suggests that the jumping camera focus is like the camera in place of our eyes, doing what we do when we listen. 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 would agree because in film you can choose to focus on another subject in the shot as the shots are normally longer giving your eyes to intake more where as music video throws shots at you very quickly so normally it would take many viewings before the audience can start to notice other things to that of the dominant reading.
She says music video is more like listening than viewing - do you agree?
I would agree as I don't know anyone that would choose to watch a music video because they like the video if they didn't like the song, however unlike normal listening your ears are pushed to listen to certain things by the images. Such as when a music video shows a drummer doing a fill your more likely to listen into that then the singing or guitar at that one point.
"We compensate imaginatively for what we do not see in the frame" - Agreed?
I would agree as music video is very disjointed so when we see two things which don't run into each other completely we create a link between the two. It's like if we see a ball and then a smashed window, it would be natural for us to create the link that the ball smashed it.
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?
I disagree as I can't see that a CU is always needed as a stable point as it is much more interesting to carry on at these 'peaks' rather then getting there then showing less exciting imagery. Music video isn't meant to be completely stable so why would it need to have this shot throughout. It is good to have beauty shots and CU's as it is the artist who needs to be shown off, however it doesn't mean this has to be compiled of only one type which it constantly goes back to.
Is the viewer "sutured (stitched) into the diegesis of the film world through the editing"?
I think to a degree they are as with performance it makes the audience feel they are actually there singing and playing there music, however i don't think it can be said that they feel too involved as it jumps around too much and doesn't have to have continuity which creates unrealistic videos.
Music video is freer in terms of viewer identification and perspective - agreed?
It depends on the video. Some directors will display a video which has many different viewings but another may only have one reading which the director forces on the audience. One video may be based on a concept where one person reads it as showing sadness but another may read it as happiness. I believe that both film and music video have the scope to be free but it is up to the director whether it is or not.
Carol Vernallis believes the image alone cannot tell the story - do you agree?
Definately. The music should always come first and the video second. Sometimes the image can tell a story but it is not the whole story that you get from seeing the video and hearing the music.