A Production of An inspector calls.

A Production of An inspector calls

As a fan of theatrical production I was pleased to find that I would be analysing a well known play as part of my GCSE English course. The production that I viewed of "An Inspector Calls" was a television version. I occasionally feel that television versions of valued productions sometimes kill the playwrights intentions, to entertain and to stimulate the audience.
When I read "An Inspector Calls" I had my own version in my head to help me imagine the play in the way that I hope J.B. Priestley would have wanted it to be perceived. Unfortunately when I watched the television version of "An Inspector Calls" I felt it didn´t actually give the play justice to its intentions. However, that was only my opinion.
At the beginning of the play, J.B. Priestley gives a very elaborate and detailed amount of stage settings, lighting and character descriptions. I feel that these were so detailed as Priestley wanted the mood of the first scene to linger through out the whole play. For example "The general effect is substantial and heavily comfortable, but not cosy and home like." I felt that this was actually taken in to account as the extremely large table was the central point of the beginning. The size of the table showed that although the characters were a family, they weren´t close, not even to eat and celebrate with each other.
At the very beginning we entered the production by being led through some very grand doors, to feast our eyes on a 'perfect´ family enjoying a family celebration. I liked this technique as it gave a sense of intrusion that made you intrigued to find out what was going on with in the family atmosphere. In the production I felt the wealth of the family was portrayed extremely well. The set was authentic and traditional to the early 20th century. The rich colours and costumes were excellent ways of showing the wealth of the characters. You could plainly see from the maid clearing the table to the indulging in cigars and port that this 'happy´ family were very very wealthy.
They were also portrayed very well to be pleased with themselves, just as in the stage direction at the beginning. Being so happy and 'pleased with themselves´ made a good cover for the deceit and corruption hid behind the silk cravats and elaborate gowns.
Authur Birling (Nigel Davenport) is shown to be a very proud man who is keen to show off his self made wealth. In the performance I viewed I thought his accent was a degree over done. His gestures and speeches showed that he was a very proud man. In the performance it was shown that he was ecstatic about the arrangement with his daughter Sheila and his business rivals´ son, Gerald Croft. At the end of the play I questioned why Birling was so pleased with the engagement. From remarks such as "perhaps we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together- for lower costs and higher prices" this makes me think that this is a comfortable arrangement as he knows that his business rivals will soon be part of the family. It also suggests that he is aware that the arrangement will lead to bigger profits, which leads to more wealth. This unfortunately leads to more greed at the expense of those less fortunate. It is showing that he´s selfishly concerned more with his wealth than with his daughters happiness. Birling is also very concerned about his social status, especially about his proposed knighthood. Aurthur Birling is shown to be a very self concerned man.
When he discovers that he started the pandemonium with the dead girl, he feels he can not accept responsibility. He says "she´d had a lot to say - far too much- she had to go." This shows that although Birling may be a self made man he´s become greedy as he´s forgot where he came from. I think he may have took too much off his own medicine " ….a man has to make his own way and has to look after himself." He has no respect for the lower class which is why he sacked 'Eva Smith´ and "cannot accept responsibility" for her death.
I felt that the performance could have made a bigger and more dramatic effect of her death. Most of the actors didn´t seen too bothered that somebody had died. I feel that the death of somebody is such an emotion that is extremely powerful that the actors could have showed more emotion.
Margaret Tyzack made a very good job of showing Sybil Birling as a very cold hearted women with no remorse of her actions towards the 'girl´. Her cold looks and stern voice made her come across as the vindictive middle aged woman of the performance. The actress shows well how Mrs. Birling was so untouched by such a sad event, even if it was a hoax. The actress made a good job at showing how Sybil Birling felt her family were near to perfect, when actually she couldn´t have been further from the truth. The irony in the play came across well as Mrs. Birling told the inspector to "go and look for the father of the child. It´s his responsibility." When the child in question was actually her very own Grandchild. This was when she was questioned on her actions of rejecting 'the girl´s´ plea for help from the Brumley Women´s Charity Organisation, the charity that Mrs. Birling so happened to be in the seat of. Mrs. Birling was the only character who remained untouched by the inspectors harsh but true words.
Sheila Birling (Sarah Berger) was shown as a young woman who actually realised what the intentions of Inspector Goole were. I thought she looked a bit young for the part but nevertheless she played the part well. Berger could have put more emphasis into the scenes where Gerald was concerned. The actress showed well how Sheila appeared to be the voice of reason within the play. It seemed as if the director wanted Sheila to appear as a dainty character who felt responsible for the death of the girl. Even when Inspector Goole was exposed she seemed concerned over her family´s actions. Unlike the other characters who laughed it off, those characters who seemed more concerned about business arrangements and themselves.
Eric (David Sibley) however I felt was the downfall of the performance. I felt that he was too old to play the part of Eric. I had visioned him as a wealthy bachelor, not a 30 something shabby chap in a tuxedo. He didn´t put enough emphasis into his emotional scenes with his mother (Act 3). I also feel that Eric´s intoxicated behaviour could have been emphasised more. It seemed as if David Sibley was very unemotional and didn´t even try to get into the part of Eric Birling. In Act 3 when Eric finds out that his mother refused the 'girl´ any help, I imagined this to be really intense. Unfortunately I felt it quite disheartening. Even though Priestley gives stage directions "nearly at breaking point" about Eric´s behaviour. I felt the performance was let down in a way. Especially when Eric said "damn you, damn you." I was hoping that this would be fierce and through glowing eyes of intensity. Instead it was more of a pussy growl with a twitch of temperament. I also fell that Eric´s mystery was not shown very well. Lines such as "suddenly I felt I just had to laugh" and "Yes, I remember……," - "Nothing." These lines weren´t preserved long enough to show the irony of the play. Remarks such as this hint at the 'mystery´ of the rest of the play. It shows that although the Inspector has not yet called, Eric already has something on his conscience that is making him feel guilty.
I feel that the Inspector had the most important role of this play. In this performance the Inspector was played by Bernard Hepden, and very well indeed. In this play Priestly was using Inspector Goole as a conscience calling to the other characters. This was shown well in the performance through Inspector Goole´s attitude and the other characters responses.
Gerald Croft was also played well by Simon Ward. In the play he appeared to be the perfect gentleman, about to marry into a perfect life with the perfect partner. However as shown in the performance he was also tangled in a web of lies, deceit and corruption. Simon Ward used a variety of facial gestures to show the character´s part well. Especially when Sheila said 'He knows everything´ about the Inspector. On the face of it Gerald appears to regret what happened with he 'girl´. However I don´t think Gerald was very good when proving that Inspector Goole was a hoax.
The aim of 'An Inspector Calls´ is to make people more aware of how they treat others. As in 'every action has a consequence´. It was a performance that was a revolution that ended very bitterly. The play was written in 1945, yet it was set in 1912. Therefore J. B. Priestley had the benefit of hindsight, as we can see from comments about the titanic and how there was no possibility of war. This hindsight was shared with the viewer, as we could to see what Priestly was hinting at.
The play was symbolic. In the play I thought it was very clever the pun of the inspectors surname. 'Goole´ could be linked with either fool or ghoul. Fool to show that the Birlings and Gerald Croft were fools and ghoul because the inspector him self was actually one. I felt he was more of a collective conscience of the family because they had all at least committed one of the seven deadly sins. These are pride, covetousness, lust, envy, glutton, anger and sloth.
J.B Priestley is attacking the privileges of class in this play. He is saying that there should be more equality and we shouldn´t take our lifestyles for granted. We also should take responsibility for our actions or we could end up in an awful situation, just as the Birlings and Gerald did when they received the phone call at the end to say an inspector was on his way round.
I liked this cliff hanger ending as the audience gets to decide the next act in their conscience. It was done well in the play as the characters were shown to be absolutely stunned. Then the titles rolled for the end cue, leaving the viewer with the opportunity to change their ways now, before it´s too late.
The production did actually get J.B Priestley´s view of responsibility across well. Birling in one of his profound and longwinded speeches actually says, " a man has to make his own way - has to look after himself- and his family too, of course, when he has one - and so long as he does that he won´t come to much harm. But the way some cranks talk and write now, you´d think everyone has to look after everyone else, as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a bee hive - community and all that nonsense ….. a man has to mind his own business, himself and his own." This view ended the family in the awful position that they did with Inspector Goole. Ironically J. B Priestly is actually describing himself as a crank from Birlings views.
Even though the Birlings are subjected to such a grilling over their thoughtless actions by the inspector some of them still didn´t realise the intentions of Inspector Goole. He is trying to make them aware and responsible of their actions towards others. Sheila Birling does actually try to show her family as the Inspector fed her a greedy portion of humble pie. That is the problem; greed. The characters have become far too greedy. They feel that the lower classes are so different and far apart from them. Sad really when something so horrible such as suicide occurs. Without the inquiry they would have had no idea of what they did.
It seems as if money makes Authur Birlings´ world go round. When Inspector Goole repeatedly talks about the girl lying dead on the mortuary slab it is supposed to create an image of pity and sadness to any human with a soul. However Arthur Birling actually says: " I would pay thousands, thousands …" Money cannot buy you everything, it can not even turn back time. The Inspector even points this out by saying "you´re offering money at the wrong time Mr. Birling."
The Inspector makes it very clear in Act 3 that the Birlings were responsible for the death of that girl. Mr. Birling started it and Mrs. Birling ended it, all down to their very own self concern. Even if it was a hoax, it is still clear that what they have done is still wrong, to who ever it effected.
The Inspector leaves by telling the family that it is too late to change what they have done, they must live with their sins forever. They cannot even say 'sorry´ to the once pretty, but now very un-pretty girl they all thought they knew. She had been pretty but their sins and actions turned her into the un-pretty pregnant mess that lay stone cold dead on the mortuary slab.
The inspector gives a very long analysis of the Birlings actions as he leaves. He talks about how we are members of one body and should take care of each other. I feel this speech is all what Priestley is trying to say in this one speech given by the inspector, the conscience of the play. He says that if this lesson is not learned then they will be taught it "in fire and blood and anguish". This was said excellently in the production. He had a stern look on his face that made my hairs stand on end, as it was so harsh yet meaningful. It showed exactly what Priestley wanted, to show the audience and the Birlings that if they don´t take notice now then the consequences will get worse, as in war. War with blood, fire and anguish. Like the one Priestley served in himself. Perhaps this play was J. B. Priestley´s feelings of World War I, an emotion unleashed in his writing.
Over all the production was fairly well done. I don´t think Priestley would have turned in his grave, yet I don´t think he would have gave it a standing ovation. His views and criticisms did come through in the production. The play was a moralistic mystery that made the audience think. It gives you time to change your actions towards others. That is before an Inspector calls on you, to teach you in 'blood and fire and in anguish.´

Eva smith

Speaking & listening assignment

Eva Smith \ Daisy Renton

This is a preview of the whole essay

Eva smith

Speaking & listening assignment

Eva Smith \ Daisy Renton

Eva was a young girl in her early twenties, she was apparently very pretty and also very poor, her lifestyle is completely contrasting to the rich, upper-class and somewhat pompous Birlings. This although is the only information that is obvious about Eva Smith, she is a bit of an enigmatic character like the Inspector. A lot of information about Eva and the Inspector are unknown and a lot of the details are left for you to think about yourself. At the end of the play Priestly leaves a lot of Important questions unanswered and leaves a lot to the imagination, you can't even be sure that Eva \ Daisy ever existed and if they did they were probably not the same people. I think this is a good technique as it makes you really think about the play and acknowledge the characters and story line of the play.

Despite the vague details we do know that all the main characters in the play came in contact with a woman, in all instances this woman was quite attractive, enough to make Eric & Gerald intimately involved with her and enough to make Sheila jealous of her good looks.

The first thing we find out about Eva Smith is that she is dead,
"Two hours ago a young woman died in the infirmary she'd been taken there this afternoon because she'd swallowed a lot of strong disinfectant.
Burnt her inside out, of course........ She was in great agony". (inspector)
This indicates that events that had previously occurred (later discussed in the play) had driven her to take her own life. She must have been very desperate and felt so insignificant, she must have felt like no-one cared about her, she may as well not exist. She must have been through a lot of bad experiences to have such lack of respect for her own life, which appeared to be going nowhere. an overall feeling of Worthlessness leaving her feeling she'd nothing left to live for. The way she ended her life was very painful, to kill herself in such a way shows haw much she didn't care about her own life and she would end it in any possible way.

Although being poor she wasn't a lazy person, she wanted to achieve all she possibly could and had great ambition, according to Mr. Birling she was a diligent worker. Also she isn't the kind of girl who will be pushed around or unfairly treated. While working for Birling she felt she was being exploited, Eva felt she wasn´t getting what she deserved and was being unfairly paid. So Eva and some other people she worked with confronted Birling in order to get a pay rise. This shows courage and determination as in them days it was very rare for somebody like Eva to stand up to the upper classes, These factory workers were often treated like slaves and just tools to do the work, not real people. When denied fairer wages the workers went on strike, again showing she wouldn´t give up in a cause she believed in, the strike didn´t last though and she was sacked. This also shows she was strong willed and wouldn´t stop something she believed in even though she had no money and the consequence could leave her out of a job.

She was then at her most vulnerable, living hand to mouth with nothing to call her own, still she didn´t give up and with persistence and perseverance got herself another job. A better one too, working at a fashion shop as an assistant. She was now doing OK for herself when along came Miss Sheila Birling, Apparently Sheila was trying a dress on that looked very good on Eva but didn´t suit Sheila at all. "This girl (Eva) ....had held the dress up as if she were wearing it. And it just suited her. She was the right type for it. Just as I was the wrong type. She was a very pretty girl too." Sheila then filed a complaint about Eva. "I was very rude to both of them, and then I went to the manager and told him this girl had been very impertinent.......... I couldn´t be sorry for her". So once again by no fault of her own Eva was sacked, the innocent girl who was a very good person was once again mistreated.

After being so unlucky Eva decided it was about time she made a fresh start and decided to change her name to Daisy Renton. At this point she was extremely poor and hadn´t a penny to her name, still she had dignity and appeared not one to degrade herself, she appeared a better person than the thieves and prostitutes she was forced to be around. Then one day by stroke of chance after being rudely intimidated at a local dingy bar she met Gerald, he rescued her from almost certain poverty and got her a place to stay and gave her a bit of money. She apparently latched on to this man for he seemed kind and caring to her. He was her salvation as Sheila says out of sarcasm, "you were the wonderful Fairy prince". All Gerald really did was exploit and abuse Eva and as he says she was his mistress, he never really loved her he was very fond but not true love, whereas Eva was overwhelmed with how he saved her. Gerald treated her as a mere mistress to have sex with. When Gerald became bored and the relationship became inconvenient she was kicked back onto the streets, Eva took this with dignity and was "very gallant" she knew it wouldn´t last. She said she had been her happiest in the time she spent with Gerald although I believe she must really have been angry, just to proud to admit it.

She went away for a while to remember her good times but soon returned, just as poor as ever with no friends, money and an overall sense of worthlessness still no-one would help and even when she requested aid it was turned down, Then once again she met one of the characters from the play, Eric once again at the palace bar, she was involved in prostitution and Eric made love to her a few times with no love involved. Then she found she may be pregnant with his child.
She didn´t want to marry him as she knew they weren´t in love, this again I think shows dignity. Eric proposed to give her some money, sort of to get rid of her, about 50 pounds which was a lot of money in them days. Eric then stole this money from his fathers office. But Eva wouldn´t accept the money she felt she didn´t need his charity and still had some dignity, pride and respect for herself. Although that was the last of Eva the next thing we here is how she was dead.

Overall Eva seems an, as the inspector says ,"A pretty, lively sort of girl, who never did any one any harm." Every one she came into contact with mistreated her and unfairly treated her taking a girls whole life and neglecting it.
I think whether or not the girls were all the same people is insignificant, the main point is how every small event can change a persons life, no matter if your the poor street scum or societies finest. The book makes a statement about the people of the world and how inconsiderate they can be. And as the inspector states consider all the Eva and John Smiths of this world.

In what Sense Is the Inspector a real Character?

After watching an Inspector calls, I am sure it is obvious to any one who watches it that the inspector is not what he seems at all. At first you have no suspicions of the Inspector, but as the play gradually moves on it slowly dawns on you that the Inspector might be an impostor. In this essay I am going to write about a few different points, and who the Inspector might be. All of my theories may be correct but we will never know which theory is actually right. The Inspector is obviously as real as all the other characters in body and can eat and drink and is solid. I know that J.B.Priestley became very interested in the fourth dimension and time. That is why I think that the inspector may have gone back in time or there might have been a time slip of some sort to make sure that these people new what they had done. Another theory might be that the Inspector represents truth and is not a real person at all but just a representative of justice. I think that this is a very plausible idea and probably Priestley's own thought. I think that the Inspector gives it away when he gets far too emotional and worked up about things. A real police inspector would not get so involved. Here is an extract from the play, at the end of Act 2 where the Inspector gets too involved: Inspector: "(very sternly) Her position now is that she lies with a burnt-out inside on a slab. (As Birling tries to protest, turns on him.) Don't stammer and yammer at me again, man. I'm losing all patience with you people. What did he Say? Here the Inspector gets to emotional about such a small thing. I also think that a real police inspector would treat Birling with more respect. It is true what Birling says about him being a public man and telling the chief of police because he is a friend. Here is an extract were the Inspector treats Birling with disrespect; it is near the beginning of Act 2: Sheila: (urgently, cutting in) You mustn't try to build up a kind of wall between us and that girl. If you do then the Inspector will just break it down. And it'll be worse when he does. Mrs B: I don't understand you. (To Inspector.) Do you? Inspector: Yes. And she's right. Mrs B: (haughtily) I beg your pardon! Inspector: (very plainly) I said Yes-I do understand her. And she's right. Mrs B: That, I consider to be a trifle impertinent, Inspector. Here the Inspector does not treat Mrs B. with the respect a police inspector would. I think there is a possibility that the Inspector could be Eva Smith and just goes back to haunt them. This maybe quite far fetched by I would not rule it out completely, because if it were true then it would explain everything. Another quite reasonable explanation would be that the "Inspector" actually phoned them up and pretended to be the police just to give them one last scare. I think that a real Inspector would leave far more formally rather than just storming out: Inspector: But just remember this. One Eva Smith has gone-but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. Good night. He walks straight out, leaving them staring subdued and wondering. Sheila is still crying. Mrs Birling has collapsed into a chair. Eric is brooding desperately. Birling, the only active one hears the front door slam, moves hesitatingly towards the door, stops, looks gloomily at the other three, then pours himself out a drink, which he hastily swallows. Here I firstly think that he leaves far too informally to be a convincing Inspector. Secondly I think that when he is coming to the end of his final speech he becomes too emotional to be a real person. I feel he almost knows what is to come and as if he does this a lot to people. In conclusion I think that the Inspector is as real as every one else in the play but I think that he represents justice or truth and is a form of angel or something along those lines. While watching this play I enjoyed it immensely and I am very glad I have seen it. This play is more than just a detective thriller and you really have to look closely at it before you fully understand it. I am sure that there will always be a sense of mystery about this play; who was the inspector? What was the Inspector? Will we ever know?

Compare several adverts looking at the ways they aim to influence their intended audience

Discuss in relation to feelings/experiences using particular ads as examples to support your view.

In today's world, adverts have a great deal of influence over what we buy and do. Nearly everywhere we go some type of advert bombards us. For example, there are adverts on buses, on television, in magazines and on the street. Most of the time I feel like a prisoner to them, because their power of persuasion is amazing. This essay will compare a number of adverts which advertise mountain bikes. Half of the adverts are from "Mountain Biking UK" (professional mountain biking magazine) and the other half are from "FHM" (men's magazine).

All adverts vary depending on many things, including what type of magazine it's in. Of course, the genre of the magazine will determine its audience and all adverts are geared towards a certain target audience. If the advert was in Mountain Biking UK it would be far more detailed, and would include things like spec sheets, pictures of famous riders, and special technical components. This would because the target audience would be interested in and could identify with the product and the message the advert portrays. It would probably also be aimed at a professional mountain biker, because if someone won a competition on a company's bike, it would be extra publicity for that company.

However if we had the same company advertising in FHM, the advert would be very different. It would be much more plain and simple, and would include things like a picture of the bike, a slogan, company name, and maybe a small section that has some specifications in it. This is because most people who read FHM wouldn't really care that a national champion won on that particular bike, or that it has a LX group set, and a mavic/hope wheel set up. Mainly all they would care about, is which bike looks the best, gets them from A to B, and if it's in their price range. In my opinion this is a very good way of reaching the preferred target audience.

The backgrounds in the ads are usually linked to what type of bike it is, what type of riding you do on that bike, and what type of audience will see the ad. If it were a town bike, the background would obviously be in the town or city, mainly aimed at people who would cycle to work or to the shops. If it were a cross-country bike the background would be in the countryside, rolling hills and gravel tracks, aimed at people who would cycle for fitness or fun. And the same goes for all other types of bikes, downhill, freeride, dirt jump and BMX.

Bike adverts usually include a slogan; these are mainly linked with three things, going fast, winning, and adrenaline. Which in my opinion attacks the right areas of a mountain biker's head. This is because most people, who buy the nice expensive, very high performance bikes advertised, would usually enter competitions, or have a very great enthusiasm for Mountain Biking as a sport. So they would want to buy a bike that went fast and helped them win or just improved their personal performance. Therefore, if they saw Steve Peat (who is world wide #2 and British #1) riding a GT DHI, they would be influenced to buy that bike, because it has helped the British champion to his crown. However the large majority of people only want bikes to get from a to b. In this instance companies approach advertising their product differently, perhaps stressing their products cheep or good value rather than it's good performance and guarantees. Often because the audience that this type of bike is not interested in these type of things.

Nearly all of the adverts have men advertising the product, this might be a sexual approach to influence more women (or men) to buy there bike by putting young, famous and good looking male riders on there bike. This actually surprises me greatly, I would actually expect there to be more female riders to advertise bikes than male, because men are usually more influenced by sexual suggestion, than females. It may be because the magazine has a mainly male audience, and it would appear that they would be more influenced by somebody who wins, than by somebody with a big chest.

On the other hand it might just be the fact that there are more famous male riders than female. Some people would perhaps suggest this type of advert appeals to men because it portrays a macho image that they would like to have and so subconsciously think that if they buy this certain product it will boost there own personal macho image. However I don't agree with this. Personally I buy products because they improve my bikes performance not my street credibility. I think this because some people use the personalities in their adverts as role models, therefore suggesting that if a professional uses a certain product it has to be good.

Another factor of adverts is the way it is laid out. In FHM most of the adverts have primary colours of black or white, and the Secondary was red. This might be by coincidence, or it might be that black and white show of the bike more than other colours. Another thing that I noticed was the positioning of the product and product name, mainly the product was in the bottom half towards the left-hand side, and the product name was in the bottom right. Again this might just be by coincidence, but it is more likely too have something to do with the side of adverts that appeals to the audience's subconscious, and the way our mind takes things in.

As with all aspects of adverts the colour and layout is used to create an effect. Making certain aspects of the advert stand out often does this. In MBUK the colour scheme and layout is far more loud and colourful than in FHM, it is more like an explosion on the page. This would appeal to the audience of MBUK because the advertisers believe that they are more subconsciously influenced by bold /colourful slogans that do not require a great deal of thought. The advert would include a picture of there team rider, the teams achievements, spec sheets, the product, pictures of the team in action, sponsors, phone numbers, websites, slogans and other little things that make certain adverts unique. Nothing has any particular place; it's all just there. In FHM the adverts are more subtle and sophisticated.

In FHM the slogan of an advert would probably concentrate on a product's value for money i.e. "Unhinged, Deranged. Financially astute", this is because most people who read FHM would be looking for a cheap and cheerful bike. But in MBUK the slogans will be aimed at the three main targets mentioned earlier, going fast, winning, and adrenaline i.e. "Getting to the front is one thing, staying there is another" and "Here the only limit on speed is yourself".

In conclusion I've found out that the use of adverts to sell products are so effective because they play on your subconscious image of how you see yourself, and tap into an aspect of the audience's lifestyle. They do this by varying their adverts depending on what type of audience will see it, and what type of product they are selling. For example, a bike company would not stress a bike's high-speed performance if their target audience were OAP's. As long as there is competition to be the best there will always be adverts, and no matter what people think of them, they are here to stay.

Examine the Various Techniques Used by Advertisers

Examine the Various Techniques Used by Advertisers. Consider How These Techniques Are Used To Persuade Or Inform Their Target Audience Using At Least 3 Examples

Courtesy of www.Revise.it

Chris Haley

The way in which advertisers target people's insecurities and desires is increasingly prominent in all forms of the media. Television adverts, magazine adverts and billboards are hard to escape in modern society and influence people more than many people realise. Adverts can raise issues that are not normally considered or show radical images to create controversy; making people talk about the product and therefore raising awareness of it. This can be an excellent form of promotion and has been seen in many advertising campaigns such as that of the 'United Colours Of Beneton.' They have used this technique in a number of campaigns including a very recent billboard one in which a photo of a convict on death row is displayed along with the persons name, how he will be executed and what he did to deserve it. This produces many emotions in the viewer including pity and a feeling that the person deserves the punishment. This conflict of emotion is what makes the viewer of the advert take note and the association with the large logo makes the company name stick in the mind.

An example of a more typical advert comes from 'Sky View,' a listings magazine for satellite viewers. It is sent free to subscribers of SKY monthly if they pay thirteen pounds or more for their selected package. This means the target audience ranges from lower middle class to the high upper class and people of all ages, male and female. The colour glossy nature of the advert makes it seem glamorous and exciting as well as expensive which adds a sense of extra value to the product being advertised. The fact that the advert is also full page adds to this effect. The advert in question is for a mobile phone company called 'First Line Mobile'. The main technique used in this advert is simple but effective; an image of a scantily clad female grabs the attention of the average male. Society is in a stage where 'lad-ism' is promoted in many ways and consequently there is no guilt or embarrassment associated with the desire or even staring at the female anatomy, in fact, it is promoted and expected from men in this modern society. The appearance of the woman is important: tanned, smiling and generally good looking. This promotes the idea that she is living a good life and since she is holding the product she is associated with it to the extent that the product is seen to be, in part, the source of her good fortune. In this respect the advert appeals to not only the general male population but the female also. The way in which this is just selling the lifestyle rather than the product is very effective, much is left unanswered about the product but the audience may have already been persuaded. The advert boasts the handset's best features however the important factors in buying a mobile phone such as call costs are not addressed.

The theme of the advert is of a mainly adult nature. The reason for this is the fact that the target market for the product is over eighteen since the product must be purchased over the phone with a credit card. There is always a reluctance of the public to start ringing up companies unless they are really interested in the product. This advert leaves a lot of questions about the product but since they have already been swayed by the images in the advert they are prepared to call to find out about the product they already want to buy.

The other main feature of the advert is the caption at the top of the page. "It says I love you." The display on the phone also actually says "I Love You." This message is manipulating the basic human need to feel wanted and loved. People see the phone as a direct way of becoming popular and this adds to the desire of the phone, which is rapidly building. The promotion continues with the bulleted points: a description of the phone including the word "sexy," which adds even more to the image of the product. The promotion continues by playing on the public's dislike of signing the 12 month contract and shouting about there not being one. The public also generally love the word 'FREE' and there are two examples of this in the advert. The handset is free and there is "Free home delivery." The image of the product is further improved with the appearance of the words "As seen on T.V." Since television adverts are much more expensive and generally associated, in Britain at least, with reputable companies and sophisticated products and therefore suggesting this product falls into this categorisation. There is also the appearance of a recognisable logo, which further adds confidence in the product and the company producing it. There is a quotation on the page that the company is "Britain's biggest direct mobile phone company," giving still more propaganda about the company. The final way in which the product is promoted in this advert is the appearance of the quotation "This offer is not available in shops." This gives the feeling of the product being something different and new. This allows people to be part of the mobile revolution and conformist whilst still having their own identity with a different product to most.

The advert I examined next is that of the 'Millennium Experience.' It comes from the same magazine as the previous advert and consequently has the same audience. It chooses two main images to display in the full-page advert with a large caption at the top. The caption is a clever pun on the idea of having an outer body experience, which is seen to be an incredible and wondrous experience and the well publicised body zone in the dome involves a journey through the inside of the body. The way these images tie together is clever and witty. This also rubs off on the image of the product. The amazement of the innocent young child in the foreground of the advert shows how incredible the experience is. The child is portrayed as being innocent with blonde hair and blue eyes showing his purity to the extent people will feel he is genuinely gawping in awe at the 'Millennium Experience.'

The advert has a recognisable logo, in the top right hand corner, of the 'Millennium Experience' company. A logo is an excellent tool for instilling confidence in the general public. Another technique to make the reader of the advert feel confident in the product is showing off technology. The tickets are available on the Internet and through National Lottery retailers, showing how professional the organisation is. The advert also gives the reader a sense of fear that they will never get to see this amazing exhibition as it lasts for only one year. It tells the reader "It's time to visit," making them feel they must take action now in buying a ticket.

I felt that the most effective of these adverts was the mobile phone promotion. This is down to the way it appeals to the minds of male readers so effectively and the way that the image of the product takes precedence over the actual product itself. This is an extremely effective way of advertising in cases where people are not likely to be persuaded just by seeing the product. I consider this an intelligent method of selling but I would consider it slightly unethical as it is deliberately trying to mislead and take attention away from the product. The advert is nevertheless effective in it's intention.

Media Coursework: Comparison of Two Television Advertisements

The two advertisements that I have chosen to compare are for Robinson's orange drink and Norwich Union loan company. I chose these because I saw that the two company's marketing techniques are similar, and they use similar persuasive methods in their campaigns.

The Robinson's advert starts with a small child jumping around next to a woman who we presume is a relative sitting on a bench. All through this advert a simple, nursery rhyme-like piano tune is playing. These people are on an empty path next to the Thames. Trees line the avenue and you can see the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben in the background. It is a bright summer's day and the child is wearing a red and white dress with her hair tied in a red bow. The camera is quite far away and zooms into the child as she takes a glass filled with an orange drink. The relative asks: "Do you know what the capital of England is?" The little girl grabs the glass with both hands and takes a sip. She glances at the woman for a moment and then looks upward in thought.

The scene then changes to what we presume is the child thinking. This is in black and white, a contrast to the bright colour film we have just seen. The child is in a classroom wearing a scholarly cap and gown. There is a large clock towards the back, a large blackboard and the girl is standing on a large wooden table. She is balancing on one leg and pointing to the writing on the blackboard. It reads the word 'England', written in chalk with the capital 'E' emphasised. The child is pointing to this letter.

The scene then suddenly changes back to the little girl next to the Thames in colour film. She thinks for another moment and then announces with a proud smile: "E".

The location changes at this point to an Antenatal ward of a hospital. A different little girl, who has short blonde hair, is sitting with who we presume are her mother and baby brother on fold up chairs. Above their heads there is a sign that reads 'Antenatal'. The camera is quite far away. The family is sitting to the right of the shot and a doctor in a white coat walks past. Then, a woman walks on with a man following her, from the right to the left of the screen. The woman is pregnant and wearing a flowing skirt with a cardigan, which tightens round her bump. The man following her has a large stomach and is wearing a shirt tucked into his trousers which accentuates it. The camera changes angles and appears to be just behind the mother on the child's left. It zooms into the child, who has a small smile on her face.

The scene then changes to what we presume this child is thinking. This part is also in colour. The background appears to be hand drawn and coloured in and there are clouds floating across the screen. There is a tunnel of people, leading down to what looks like a maternity ward with a red door. There is a line of women on the left and a line of men on the right. They are all wearing hospital gowns. It looks as though everybody on both sides is pregnant - they all have large stomachs. A woman brushes her hair out of her face as the camera pans from left to right. The man closest to the camera is rubbing his stomach. The location then changes back to the hospital as the camera is zoomed in on the little girl and she is saying: "Do mummies have girls and daddies have boys?"

The scene then alters to a shot of a kitchen window with a white painted window frame. There is a vase full of sunflowers on the sill, and a metal old-fashioned tap. An empty glass is also on the window sill and a hand pours some of the advertised orange concentrate into it. The camera zooms in slightly as the glass is filled with water. There is a blue sky outside and the glass reflects the sun to make a clean and sparkly looking reflection concentrated at a point. As the water is poured it also sparkles and glistens. The voice-over at this point says: "Robinson's Original. Now with five new vitamins". It is read by a young woman's voice and is motherly and attractive.

The location then suddenly changes to a little boy with red hair who is leaning with his head on his hand. There is a glass of the orange drink in the foreground of the shot. The boy is looking up at a wire cage that is next to him and contains a hamster which is sniffing around. In the background there is a blue sky with a few fluffy white clouds. The boy says: "Grandad, when Colin dies, will he go to Devon?". As he starts to say this, the scene changes to what we presume again to be what the boy is thinking. It is in colour. There are fields, the sea and clouds which look to be all hand drawn and coloured. There is a white wooden signpost which is pointing to three directions. One reads Falmouth, on Torquay, and the other is indistinguishable. From the back of the shot towards the front, a hamster with angel's wings floats towards the direction of Torquay.

The location then changes back to the kitchen window. The sky is still bright blue. There is a bottle of Robinson's Original on the window sill. It is glistening in the sun and the concentrated reflections are oscillating. The voice-over reads: "Robinson's Original, now with vitamins. Feed their imagination". The advertisement lasts for thirty seconds.

The Norwich Union advert begins with a shot of a large, old, intricately decorated building which is reflecting light from the sun on its walls. The reflection shrinks suddenly. The camera is near to the ground, looking up at the building. The sky is blue. The scene then changes to a close up of a middle aged man's face. He looks up slightly, and his whole face changes. There are lots of indistinguishable voices. The camera shot changes to the man, standing, looking around at the buildings. He looks lost and out of his depth. The sun peeks from behind the grand building. The man's voice says: "To be a doctor". The camera angle continuously changes, and then stops at the camera looking up at the buildings again.

The location then changes to a field with a little girl standing, looking upward and shielding her eyes from the sun. The camera zooms out and fades to a brief view of a bustling library bathed in blue light. The location then changes again to see a shot of the man from behind, walking along and empty corridor, again looking lost. His shoes make a metallic sound on the floor which echoes. There are large windows which give lots of light, and the corridor looks either like a hospital or university. The man's voice then whispers "to become a doctor".

The location then returns to the field. The man and a woman are lying on their fronts facing each other, there arms intertwined. Their noses are touching and they look very in love. We presume that the woman is his wife.

The scene then changes back to the man peering into a lecture in what we now know is a university. The camera is quite far away. You then see a close up of the man's face and what the man is seeing through the lecture theatre's window. The lecture is full and the lecturer is using a projector. The man says, "I was wondering how long it takes to become a doctor?", as the camera switches to a shot of the projector. It is flashing and it has anatomical drawings on it. The lecturer replies to the man saying, "Five years undergraduate, one year clinical", as you see the man sitting on the lecturer's desk and the lecturer standing next to him in the lecture theatre. The camera is at the back of the room behind the seats.

The scene then changes to the staircase in the university. The lecturer finishes his answer as they are walking down it. The area looks busy. The picture then fades to a camera angled above a desk with someone working on it. The person runs their fingers through their hair, deep in thought, pen in hand.

The location changes to the man walking down a busy corridor, seemingly in the opposite direction to everybody else. His shoulders nudge the people going the other way. He still looks lost and a bit depressed. The camera then changes angle to the man's view. You can hear his voice saying "Six years".

You then see the man walking down a cobbled street. He is on a mobile phone saying "Five years undergraduate, one year clinical". At the bottom of the screen from this point it says in small writing: "regulation by the Personal and Investment Authority. Norwich Union can only advise on its own products. www.norwich-union.co.uk". The man is walking at normal speed but the 'traffic' of people alongside him is so fast it is blurred.

The location then changes to a kitchen - a woman is sitting at a table. She looks deep in thought and she is leaning on her arm. The camera moves down to see what she is doing. "Six years" she says. She is doing a sum, obviously adding up how much it would cost. You can see a number multiplied by six. She underlines it and a blue light dances across the paper.

The location changes again to outside in the field. The man and girl from earlier are leaning against a tree branch. The girl in looking into the distance (perhaps dreaming) and the man is looking at her. He looks proud and loving. A voice over is saying: "Sometimes a dream is worth investing in. Norwich Union helps millions of customers invest".

The scene then changes to the field at dusk. The girl is doing cartwheels and handstands in the distance. You then see the man walking along the cobbled street. A close up of his face shows him smiling. The writing at the bottom of the screen fades.

The location changes again to the fields. The family are walking through them towards the back of the shot. They fade and appear walking toward the front of the shot. The scene changes to the girl laying on a tree branch. The camera is close to her face. She starts to say: "Mum, Dad? You know I said I wanted to be a doctor?" The camera changes angle to behind the girl. She is sitting astride the branch. You can see her parents laying on a red check blanket next to the tree. The light fades slightly. A close up is seen of her hand resting on the branch. She lifts her finger slightly and puts it down again. "Yeah?", her parents say in unison. There is a close up of the girl leaning against the 'V' shape of the tree. She looks content. There is a shot further back of the tree on its own, in a dim light. The camera returns to the girl leaning as she says: "I really do". The shot changes to the parents laying on the blanket. The mother is holding a piece of paper and the father is holding a book. They look at each other and smile. The father says "Great" with a smile. The screen then fades to a yellow background and the Norwich Union logo appears. The slogan: 'Together we're stronger' appears at the bottom. Its texture makes it appear as though it is written in chalk A female voice says "Together we're stronger. Norwich Union." The voice sounds motherly and caring. The advert lasts for 37 seconds.

I think the two advertisers shared their angle from where they were coming from in their promotion. They both relied heavily on the effect that the image of children have on the general public. The reflex reaction that most people have when children are involved is the desire to protect them, and to urge and encourage them to go as far as they possibly can. The two promoters made great use of this in both the adverts.

In the Robinson's advert, the general message is that if you give your child this orange drink you will allow them to explore knowledge, and nourish their minds. This is shown throughout the advert in the way the children are always asking questions. I think that this is trying to touch the viewer, especially those who have children. This commercial is almost exclusively aimed at parents of young children, this is its target audience, and makes use of the fact that all parents want what is best for their children. It shows inoffensive, tidy, seemingly perfect children who have all 'adorably' misunderstood a minor detail that they have been told.

The first child's scene is all linked to patriotism. The great majority of the viewers will be zealous about their country, and the advert hints at the fact that the little girl is too. In the background of the scene, you can see English landmarks: Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. The little girl (after taking a sip of the drink, which they happen to have in the middle of the street), thinks of the capital letter of the word 'England' instead of the capital city. She has misconstrued something that makes the viewer supposedly think she is charming. In the child's mind, she is wearing a cap and gown, showing the reader that she is intelligent and willing to learn, both desirable traits for your children. The reaction to this would be, the promoter hopes, laughter and a universal 'ahhh'. Because the child took a sip of the drink before her answer, it is seen as a trigger for what she just said.

The next little girl shows this again. Her reaction to the man and woman who both have large stomachs, is that they are both pregnant. This is what you would automatically think if you didn't know better, and this then makes you want to inform the child as this shows she needs instructing and nurturing.

The continual perfect images of the children throughout the advert aim to endear them to you, and encourage the feeling of paternal or maternal benevolence.

The little boy with red hair is also shown in this way. His question shows a slight misunderstanding which encourages a humorous image. The way the hamster is shown as an angel on his way to Devon tries to provoke laughter, and in this attempts to leave the viewer with a pleasant memory of the product.

I think that the publicist used children's drawings in the 'Antenatal' child and the hamster child's thoughts in order to promote the idea of innocence and adolescence further. The image of these clean-cut children is perhaps refreshing to a parent. They will want to protect their family from things that are happening in the world, and in this advert, they can see inculpable, safe children in everyday occurrences. This will be reassuring for them, and project a good image for the product. This idea is also shown in the choice of music. Throughout the advert, a simple, child-like piano tune is playing, promoting innocence and freedom from artificiality.

The actual product only appears twice in the advert: once approximately two thirds of the way through, and once at the end. The first time you see the product, it is shown to be eye-catching and attractive. The bottle is placed on a window sill, next to a vase full of sunflowers, in a clean, old fashioned kitchen. It is bright and puts across a wholesome image, which is in tune with the theme of the advert as a whole. As the drink is poured you are aware of the blue sky outside and the sun's reflection on the bottle glistening. This is accompanied with a voice-over telling us about the vitamin content. The woman's motherly voice saying this helps elevate the product's credibility, because a parent's main concern is whether their child is consuming things that are doing them good, and this 'mother' is telling us that the product contains things that are good for them. This will therefore encourage the viewing parent to buy Robinson's Original.

You don't then see the bottle again until the end of the advert, when you are briefly shown again. It is still glistening, promoting a clean, fresh semblance. You hear the voice-over again, reminding us of the vitamins, and adding on the slogan: "Feed their imagination". This is a key point in the advert because it is using guilt and the feeling of obligation to sell the product. It is basically proclaiming that in order for a child to fulfill their capabilities they will need to drink Robinson's Original. The parent will feel compelled to buy the product because they want what is best for their child.

Many of the ideas and techniques that I have just mentioned are present in the Norwich Union advert. Some things are different though, for example the overall theme of dreams and ambitions that exists in the Norwich Union advert. This is first shown when the father is looking up at the university building. His facial expressions indicate that he is in awe of the place and he is looking up in wonder. The camera is positioned close to the ground looking up which gives the impression of triviality and insignificance, because the man is seen as small.

The whole image of the university is that it is daunting and something that the man (or child) is not part of. This is also seen in the way that the man is looking into the lecture from outside, being apart from the university lifestyle.

The way the university is seen as bustling and busy also contributes to this idea of intimidation. Throughout the advert, there are many incomprehensible voices, all talking at once, which leads to a confusing portrayal of the place. This unpleasant feeling is seen to subside when the man is walking along the street and the throng of people are traveling in slow motion. This is after the man has collected the information he needs, the solutions to his problems are being planned out and going to the university is becoming more feasible.

Another way that this is shown is in the camera techniques. The scenes change very fast between each other, and this leads to a confusing effect. In addition to contributing to the daunting feeling, this engages the viewers attention. The first time you see the advert, the scenes change so quickly, that you don't see everything and have to be very vigilant to understand the advert at all. I think that the advertiser did this so that the viewer would want to see the advert again so that they could digest it fully. This is good for the promoter because then the television audience will be more observant and the service will be advertised better.

The camera techniques also show you the happenings as if you were there. Sometimes they show you as the man, sometimes as a bystander. This aims to bring you closer to the situation.

The first similarity that you see in the two adverts is the use of children and the effect that they have on the viewer. The reaction to want to nurture that child is used to this promoter's benefit too. At the beginning of the Norwich Union advert, you are firstly led to believe that perhaps the man wants to go to the university, but the short view of the little girl tells you that it is her. The image is short but stays with you throughout the advert. The girl is looking into the distance, and this is symbolic of her looking to the future. The girl looking into the distance is also shown alter in the advertisement.

This is where the 'guilt' technique is used: the parent will want to provide their child with the best chances for their future. As the voice-over says later "Sometimes a dream is worth investing in", they are basically saying, 'is your child worth it?'. Obviously any parents answer would be yes.

The man shows the realisation that he has of the hard work needed in: "To be a doctor. To become a doctor." He gets across that there needs to be time and effort (and evidently money) put in for dreams to be realised. This is reminding the audience of that fact, so that the rest of the advert can be appreciated. He also shows that things can get in the way of that dream in the scene where he is walking along the corridor. He is walking in the opposite way to everyone else, and they are in his way. This is symbolic of the obstacles that they will face. He eventually gets by however, and this is also metaphorical of life's struggles. Or that is what they want you to think anyway.

These sacrifices are also shown in the way that the mother is working out the cost of the studies. "Six years", she says with doubt. It is obviously a problem and it is beginning to be solved as there is a blue light dancing on the paper. This is the point where the actual advertisement of Norwich Union begins, and they proceed to tell you their aims. the man's face is shown after this, and instead of looking bewildered as he has done before, he is smiling. Apparently all of his problems have been solved.

The family shown in the advert are depicted as 'perfect'. There is obviously a lot of love within their relationships and the parents show signs of adoration towards their daughter at certain points, for example when the father and daughter are leaning on the tree branch. This is a similarity to the other advert. As the family is seen as perfect, the viewer will of course want this for their family. This would make you feel terribly guilty if you were forced to say no to your child, if they wanted to accomplish their goals, because of financial problems, thus encouraging the viewer to get financial aid from the company.

There is also a similarity in the fact that scenes of learning and discovery are shown in both adverts. In the Robinson's advert it is with the first little girl in the cap and gown, and with this advert it is with the university, and the person working at the desk. These images both aim to show the characters as people worthy of your emotion, and they do this by gaining your respect in their pursuit for knowledge. The child in the Norwich Union advert is also seen as lively. Her cartwheels in the latter part of the advert are images of vitality.

The ending of the advert is very important. It shows the girl to be determined, and shows the viewer that the parents have invested in the child's dream. It makes you think that she has changed her mind, but in the end shows her to be more decided that ever. The parents also seem very happy about her decision because they have been helped by Norwich Union.

In my opinion, neither of the adverts are very effective. The Robinson's advert is very condescending and actually expects you to think that giving your child this orange drink will make them more intelligent and make them say all those 'delightful' things that the children said in the advert. I'm not sure that anybody would respond to this type of advertising, simply because the idea is so absurd, but perhaps the inclusion of the fact that there are vitamins in the drink would boost sales.

The Norwich Union advert wouldn't work for a different reason. I don't think the director's technique of using confusing camera angles accomplishes what it was intended to. Instead of holding the viewers attention it encourages them to look away, because it is much too puzzling for a thirty second advert. For this assignment I spent many hours watching it over and over again, and only towards the end did I pick up every little detail. The way it is made is very inventive, but perhaps is too arty for a prime-time commercial break.