Effects model

 The effects model:

The effects model, also known as the hypodermic needle theory, claims that the media is like a hypodermic needle; it injects ideas, attitudes and beliefs into the audience who, as a passive consumer, have little choice but to be influenced.

Following this model, if an audience were to watch something violent, they will believe that violence is more acceptable / normal and will act in a similar way. If an audience sees a woman washing up on a TV show, or somebody in another stereotypical role, they are more likely to believe that theses stereotypes are actually true / irrefutable. 

Another, more prevalent example is reading about terrorist attacks by an extremist group associated with a certain faith. Reading these things as a passive consumer makes one more inclined to generalise all members of said faith as members of the extremist group. 

The effects model is usually thought to be a negative thing, as the above examples imply. Even if the ideas and beliefs that the media project are considered positive, such as promoting gender equality, the power that the mainstream media holds against passive audiences is immense.

This model is still a very prominent theory used by many politicians, parts of the media and religious organisations to attribute violence to the consumption of media texts (quite ironic how religious groups do this, considering they are very much influenced by ancient texts)

Despite this, there are still no psychological experiments to date that prove a link between the consumption of certain media (eg. video games) and violent behaviour.

A passive audience is an audience that is not actively trying to get something out of the content that they consume. An active audience would be an audience that searches for content to gain something (see uses and gratification theory).

The effects model is the main cause of moral panics, which is when there is an outrage in the media about the effect of a particular text (whether it's a new violent video game or recent video on YouTube) will have on audiences. The implication in these moral panics is that the behaviour exhibited in the text will be imitated by audiences.

Link to music video:  Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines

The 2013 number one "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke is generally considered misogynistic and sexist on the basis of "trivialising consent" and "promoting rape culture". The explicit version of the music video was pulled from YouTube,  but the "censored" version still includes sexually suggestive content, as well as images of bestiality and drug use.

 

The lyrics of Thicke's Blurred Lines are certainly questionable; lines such as "you're an animal, it's in your nature" and the infamous repetition of "I know you want it" definitely have connotations of pressuring somebody into doing something they don't want.

The music video for the song is no better, with the 3 women featured in the video all wearing little clothing (bikinis + short shorts) and in a few shots, only skin-coloured underwear. In the explicit version, there are reportedly more shots of the women topless or in skin-coloured thongs. The men, in comparison, are all dressed in suits with not even short sleeves. 

There are also shots including live animals and stuffed animals, which are stroked and caressed which, in an interview with Thicke himself, alludes to bestiality.

Linking this to the effect model, the moral panic that this song and video created upon their release was that the song encourages non-consensual acts and the sexual oppression of women. Many were outraged that such a sexist song was playing on radios across the country, worried that it would lead people, especially impressionable children, to think less of women and be more inclined to commit non-consensual acts.

When this song came out and I heard it for the first few times, I was only 8, and had absolutely no idea what the lyrics meant. I personally was, at least in my opinion, not in any way influenced by the song in terms of my opinion of women. Of course this does not speak for anybody else as I was but one case. 

The song remained popular for many years, playing on radios as recently as last year (from what I can remember), and throughout the years, as I learned what the message of the song was, I was still mostly unphased. To date, I do not think that the song incites non-consensual acts or anything of the kind, just as I do not think that games like GTA and DOOM incite violent acts.

This view denying the moral panic is shared by a number of journalists as well as Thicke and Pharrell.

Jennifer Lai from Slate Magazine notes that while the video "undoubtedly objectifies women", lyrics such as "go ahead / get at me" and "I'm just watchin' and waitin'" actually empower women by "putting the ball in her court" and inviting the woman to make the first move.

Thicke supports this idea, claiming on The Today Show that the song is "actually a feminist movement within itself. It's saying that women and men are equals as animals and as power."

Pharrell seconds the idea of equity in an interview with NPR,  selecting the lyric "that man is not your maker" and saying that "the power is right there in the woman's hand. That man - me as a human being, me as a man, I'm not your maker. I can't tell you what to do."

The video's director, Diane Martel, had another take on the video's intentions, claiming that it was "meta and playful" in a satirical kind of way

"Look at Emily Ratajkowski's performance; it's very funny and subtly ridiculing. That's what is fresh to me. It also forces the men to feel playful and not at all like predators. I directed the girls to look into the camera; they are in the power position."

"I don't think the video is sexist. The lyrics are ridiculous, the guys are silly as f*ck."

Overall, it seems that the artist's intentions, or at least what they claim to have been their intentions, were more positive than what many critics believe. What is clear, however, is that they did intend for it to get a lot of publicity. They certainly achieved that, with controversy skyrocketing the already successful song. I think that they intended for it to be misconstrued, but perhaps with that idea they may have made the song and video more derogatory and more sexual than initially planned.

Shot types and camera movements:

Shot types:

Blurred lines uses a range of shot types from full shots to close-up shots. It does not use any long or extreme long shots, as the setting of the video is a pure pastel pink colour, meaning that there is no need to establish the surroundings of the subject, or their position within it.

The framing of shots in the video changes as often as the shot size. There are many single, two, three and group shots, with both dirty and clean examples. 

Examples (in no particular order)

(clean two shot, medium-close up) 

(clean single close-up shot)

(medium shot, dirty single)

(full shot, group shot)

The sheer variety of the shots in the video get across the style of the video, which is very carefree and relaxed, with a message akin to "do whatever you want" (further explored below).

Movements:

Throughout the video, the camera is handheld, giving shots a slight shake to them. This is likely done to convey the laid-back, casual nature of the song and complements the "messy smart" attire of the men in the video, as well as their very casual and improvised dancing.

In one of the shots near the start of the video, Pharrell turns from looking left to looking right, and the camera pans right as he moves to retain looking space in the frame. If the camera didn't move, the looking space would be disrupted and the frame would appear tight and claustrophobic.

Right after that pan, there is a group shot that slowly zooms in, emphasising the presence of the subjects in the frame. Zoom shots are used liberally in the video for the same purpose of increasing focus on the subjects of the frame.

Later in the video, there is a downward tilt shot to reveal more of the frame and change the emphasis from the subject's heads to their torsos.

Other small pans and tilts are used in combination with the handheld style to create somewhat disorganised and varied shots, which again highlights the casual and perhaps careless theme that is presented in the song and in many other elements of the video such as costume and choreography. 

It is this casual carelessness that perhaps caused the moral panic as discussed earlier, as the artists may have gone too far in terms of the shock value they wanted to create.