Visual Cultures (FI109)
BA in Film Studies Year 1, Department of Film and Television Studies
Spring 2015
Module Leader: Dr. Helen Wheatley
Aims and Learning Outcomes
This module aims to give first year students in Film Studies an introduction to visual cultures and,
in particular, to proximate media forms and questions of medium specificity. The module aims to
complement and enrich your year one work on film. It will also equip you to follow a televisionfocused strand of study through the honours years of your degree, should you so choose, as the
first term offers you an introduction to some of the key issues and debates in Television Studies.
The first part of the Spring term will introduce you to Television Studies and will concentrate on
theories of television as a medium (television flow, address, intimacy, television in the age of ‘new
media’). In the rest of this term, the module aims to develop your skills in the critical textual
analysis of television, and to enable you to describe, discuss, and analyse what might be
understood as a ‘televisual aesthetic’. By the end of the module, you should be able to offer clear
and precise critical analyses of a wide range of television programming, both orally and in writing.
You should be familiar with several key critical approaches within Television Studies, and be able
to mobilise and critique a range of theories of television in order to perform your own analysis of
this key medium and its programmes and viewing cultures. Whilst you will be able to concentrate
in more detail on specific histories of television and its genres in the year two module, Television
History and Criticism, your textual analyses of television programming should also begin to be
enriched by an understanding of the historical and national contexts in which programmes were
made and broadcast. We will concentrate primarily on UK and US television on this module.
Teaching and Learning Methods
Some of you may have studied television at school, perhaps as part of a Media Studies A Level,
which will have given you a great starting point for this module. However, the way in which we
approach and study television will probably differ significantly from this experience. The module
will be taught through a combination of lectures, screenings, seminars and small group work.
Preparatory reading (and viewing) will be required for each week’s sessions, and is essential. It is
not possible for lectures and seminars to cover every interesting and significant aspect of the texts
we will study and their institutional and cultural contexts. For this reason, you should aim to read
as broadly as possible around our topic area each week, to supplement what you are offered in the
lecture. This document, and lecture handouts, will suggest areas of further interest for you to
pursue. The degree to which you have followed up these suggestions will be evident in your
assessed and examined work, and in your seminar contributions. It is important that you
contribute fully to seminar discussion in an informed manner. If you find ever find seminars or
lectures difficult, please arrange to see me and we will discuss ways of managing these important
aspects of your learning.
The lecture handout is designed as an aide-memoire, and is not intended as a substitute for taking
notes or for attendance at lectures, screenings and seminars. We will view programmes once only,
in order to have time to see a range of material. As we are focusing on the close textual analysis of
television programming in the latter part of the module in particular it is essential that you take
detailed notes during screenings. Learning to manage television viewing in a scholarly context
is a critical part of your development on this module. You will learn in this term to separate out
the viewing that you do for pleasure and the analytical viewing that you do at university and
elsewhere. That is not to say that the course will not be pleasurable; I hope you will enjoy the
selection of fascinating programming I have chosen for you.
Timetable
Below, you will find a more detailed breakdown of the timings for each week’s sessions, which will
vary from week to week, depending on the length of our screening materials (you must,
therefore, check this timetable weekly when planning around these sessions); as you will see,
our televisual object of study ranges from short pieces of documentary television, to long-running
serial drama. In broad terms, though, our meetings will be as follows:
Wednesday (A1.27): 10-11 (lecture); 11-1 (screening)
Thursday (A1.25): 10-12 (screening); 12-1 (seminar 1); 1-2 (seminar 2)
Assessment
The module will be assessed through a combination of essays and an unseen end of year
examination. The essay questions for this term are given below and the essay is due in on 2nd
March (week 9). Essays must be submitted both in hard copy form and in electronic form via the esubmission system. Hard copies should be handed in to the Film and Television Studies
departmental secretary Adam Gallimore, in A0.12, by 12.00 on the day of the deadline. Essays
must be submitted anonymously (but identifiable by your student number at the top of the page)
and in duplicate. Extensions may only be given by the Senior Tutor, Professor Ed Gallafent, in
advance of the deadline. You will need to fill in an extension request form on Tabula through
Start.Warwick. If the extension is agreed, you will be provided with a new deadline. An essay
submitted late without an extension will receive a penalty of a 5% reduction of the mark per day.
Please refer to pages 20 and 21 in the UG Student handbook in the link below:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/film
Essay questions
This 1,500 word essay is an exercise designed to test and develop your skills in the critical viewing
of, and writing about, television. You are not expected to do extensive research in preparation for
this essay but you are expected to engage with a small amount of relevant critical literature (as a
guide, 3-5 pieces of reading should be cited, though more and sometimes less might be also be
acceptable in some cases – please come and see me if you are unsure). In many of the questions
below you are instructed to offer an analysis of a short extract or extracts of programming. As
detailed in the question, short means no longer than 4 minutes, but might also mean a much
shorter extract than that (in the past, some of the best assessed work on this module has focused
on extracts of less than a minute in length). It might be useful to think about this assignment as
drawing on your dual skills of close textual analysis (honed in this course in relation to television
but also, in relation to film, in Basic Criticism) and understanding how reading theory and criticism
might enhance/challenge our own readings of the audio-visual image (developed in this module in
relation to television, as on TOMI in relation to film).
Good essays will have the following features:
 A logical structure with a proper introduction and conclusion
 Evidence of in-depth engagement with the relevant critical literature
 Clear and accurate exposition of all key theoretical/critical terms.
 Detailed analysis of your chosen programme/s or extract/s.
 A clear sense of how your examples relate to each other and the critical literature at hand
1. Discuss what aspects of television’s address to its viewers we might consider to be mediumspecific. Your answer should include the analysis of one, two or three short extracts from a
programme or programmes (no longer than 4 minutes each) as well as a discussion of the
relevant critical literature.
2. Is Raymond Williams’ concept of ‘flow’ still a useful term for the description and analysis of the
textual identity of television? Your essay should address key theoretical literature on the
television text as well as analysing specific examples of television programming/flow.
3. Offer an analysis of one or two short extracts (no longer than 4 minutes each) of programmes
that might be considered ‘event television’, and consider the ways in which they construct their
eventfulness. Your essay should address key theoretical literature on event television.
4. Focusing on one episode, analyze the narration used in a programme characterized by narrative
complexity. In what ways does its narrative structure have an impact on potential viewer’s
engagement? Your analysis should be supported by a discussion of the relevant critical
literature.
5. Is there such a thing as EITHER (a) television specific space OR (b) television specific sound? Your
answer should include the analysis of two or three short extracts from a programme or
programmes (no longer than 4 minutes each) as well as a discussion of the relevant critical
literature.
6. Offer an analysis of television’s representation of place. Your answer should include the analysis
of one, two or three short extracts from a programme or programmes (no longer than 4
minutes each) as well as a discussion of the relevant critical literature.
7. Offer an analysis of one or two television performances (either presenting, appearing, or acting
on television). Your analysis should be supported by a discussion of the relevant critical
literature.
Contacting me
My office is A022 and I will always have an Office Hours signup sheet next to my door. You are very
welcome to come and see me whenever you need to. It is a good idea to come and see me if you
are feeling unsure or unclear about any aspect of the module, or if you would like help in planning
your essay or at revision time. I may also suggest in my feedback on your essay that you come and
see me to discuss a particular issue in your writing, and I would strongly urge you to follow up on
this. Whilst, unlike school, you will not be given feedback on drafts of your work before final
submission, help in the planning stages and talking through any problems in the finished essay and
acting on advice given will really enable you to make improvements in your work, and get better
results.
You can also email me on Helen.Wheatley@warwick.ac.uk to make arrangements and to let me
know if you are going to be absent from a session for any reason. I am not permitted to answer
long questions about essays by email, nor to discuss exams, but I will always make time to see you
if you indicate that you need to talk about either of these things.
Television: viewing, reading, understanding
Week 1: What is television? What is television studies?
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11.25: Lecture
11.30-1: Screening - Ghostwatch (BBC Television, 1992)
10-11: Screening – Most Haunted (Living, 2002-2011)
11-12: Seminar 1
12-1: Seminar 2
Reading

Charlotte Brunsdon (1998) ‘What is the television of television studies?’, in Christine Geraghty
and David Lusted (eds) The Television Studies Book, London: Arnold, pp. 95—113.
Further Reading (N.B. Your weekly further reading lists are far from exhaustive but suggest the
most sensible ‘next steps’ – doing your own further research will always further enrich your work).



John Ellis (2000) Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty, London: I.B. Tauris,
Chapters 2 & 3 on ‘witness’, pp. 6-38.
Jeffrey Sconce (2000) Haunted Media: Electronic Presence from Telegraphy to Television,
Durham: Duke University Press; Introduction, pages 24-26 of Chapter 1, Chapter 4, pages 124133 at least.
Paddy Scannell (1996) ‘Eventfulness’, in Radio, Television and Modern Life, Oxford: Blackwell,
pp. 75—92.
Week 2: Television and ‘flow’
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11: Lecture
11.05-12.55 Screening: ITV morning ‘flow’ including This Morning (Granada
Television for ITV, 1988-) and some digital ‘flow’
10-11.15: Seminar 1
11.15-12.30: Seminar 2
Reading
 Raymond Williams (1974) Television, Technology and Cultural Form, London: Fontana, Chapter
4 ‘Programming: distribution and flow’
 Horace Newcomb and Paul Hirsch (1983) ‘Television as a cultural forum’, Quarterly Review of
Film Studies (Summer); also collected in Newcomb (ed.) (1987) Television: The Critical View
(Fourth Edition), New York: Oxford University Press.
 John Thornton Caldwell (2003) ‘Second-shift media aesthetics: programming, interactivity and
user flows’, in A. Everett and J.T. Caldwell (eds) New Media: Theories and Practices of
Digitextuality, New York, Routledge, pp. 127-144.
Further Reading
 Nick Browne (1984) ‘The political economy of the television (super) text’, Quarterly Review of
Film Studies 9, 3; also collected in Newcomb (ed.) (1987) Television: The Critical View (Fourth
Edition), New York: Oxford University Press.
 John Corner (1999) ‘Flow’, Critical Ideas in Television Studies, Oxford: Clarendon Press
 John Ellis (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video, London: Routledge, Chapter 7
‘Broadcast TV as Cultural Form’, pp. 111—126 & Chapter 8 ‘Broadcast TV as sound and image’,
pp. 127—144
 John Fiske (1987) ‘Segmentation and flow’, Television Culture, London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 99-105.
 Jostein Gripsrud (1998) ‘Television, broadcasting, flow: key metaphors in TV theory’, in
Geraghty and Lusted (eds) The Television Studies Book, pp. 17-32.






Margaret Morse (1990) ‘An ontology of everyday distraction: the freeway, the mall, and
television’, in Mellencamp (ed.) Logics of Television, pp. 193—221.
Horace Newcomb and Paul Hirsch (1983) ‘Television as a cultural forum’, Quarterly Review of
Film Studies (Summer); also collected in Newcomb (ed.) (1987) Television: The Critical View
(Fourth Edition), New York: Oxford University Press.
Martin Rieser and Andrea Zapp (2002) The New Screen Media , BFI
William Uricchio (2005) ‘Television’s Next Generation: Technology /Interface Culture / Flow’ in
Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition eds.: Lynn Spigel and Jan Olsson, Duke
University Press
Mimi White (2003) ‘Flows and Other Close Encounters with Television’ in Parks and Kumar(eds)
Planet TV: A Global Television Reader New York University Press, pp. 94-110
Helen Wood (2007) ‘Television is happening: Methodological considerations for capturing
digital television reception’ in European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10 (4) available online via
library website (search for journal title)
Week 3: Television, time and national address
Wednesday
Thursday
10-10.55: Lecture
11-1: Screening - Extracts from The Royal Wedding (BBC1,
2011); London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony: Isles of Wonder (BBC1, 2012);
10-12: Screening - Extracts from Big Brother (Endemol for Channel 4, 20002010) from Big Brother Africa (MNet, 2003), The X Factor (Syco/Talkback for
ITV1, 2004)
12-1: Seminar 1
1-2: Seminar 2
Reading



John Corner (1995) ‘Television as public communication’, in Television Form and Public Address,
London: Edward Arnold, pp. 11—31.
David Cardiff and Paddy Scannell (1987) ‘Broadcasting and national unity’, in James Curran,
Anthony Smith and Pauline Wingate (eds) Impacts and Influences: Essays on Media Power in the
Twentieth Century, London and New York: Methuen.
Karen Lury (2005) Interpreting Television, London: Arnold, Chapter 3: ‘Time’
Further Reading
On public address

Paddy Scannell (1996) ‘Eventfulness’, in Radio, Television and Modern Life, Oxford: Blackwell,
pp. 75—92.
On reality television








Jonathan Bignell (2006) Big Brother: Reality TV in the Twenty-First Century, Palgrave Macmillan
Anita Biressi and Heather Nunn (2005) Reality TV: Realism and Revelation, Wallflower Press.
Ib Bondebjerg (1996) ‘Public discourse/private fascination: hybridisation in ‘true life story’
genres’, Media, Culture and Society 18: 27—45; also collected in Newcomb (ed.) (2000)
Television: The Critical View, (Sixth Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 383—400.
Available online here: http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/18/1/27.full.pdf+html
Annette Hill (2005) Reality TV: Factual Entertainment and Television Audiences, Routledge.
Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn (2004) Understanding Reality Television, Routledge.
Richard Kilborn (2003) Staging the Real: Factual TV Programming in the Age of Big Brother,
Manchester University Press.
Ernest Mathijs and Janet Jones (2004) Big Brother International: Formats, Critics and Publics,
Wallflower Press.
Susan Murray and Laurie Oulette (2004) Reality Television: Remaking Television Culture, New
York University Press
On liveness


Jane Feuer (1983) ‘The concept of live television: ontology as ideology’, in E. Ann Kaplan (ed.)
Regarding Television: Critical Approaches – An Anthology, Los Angeles: AFI, University
Publications of America, Inc. pp. 12-22.
Mimi White (2004) ‘The attractions of television: reconsidering liveness’ in Nick Couldry and
Anna McCarthy (eds) MediaSpace: Place, Scale and Culture in a Media Age
On globalisation








Alan Tomlinson (1996) ‘Olympic spectacle: opening ceremonies and some paradoxes of
globalization’ Media, Culture and Society, 18: 4, 583-602
Robert C. Allen and Annette Hill (eds) (2004) The Television Studies Reader (Routledge) – see
the section on ‘Spaces of Television’
Michael Curtin (2002) ‘Globalisation’ in Toby Miller (ed.) Television Studies (BFI Publishing)
John Hartley (2006) ‘Television and Globalisation: National and International Concerns’ in G.
Creeber (ed.) Tele-Visions: An Introduction to Studying Television
Timothy Havens (2006) Global Television Marketplace, BFI
Albert Moran and Justin Malbon (2006) Understanding the Global TV Format, Intellect
Lisa Parks and Shanti Kumar (2003) Planet TV: A Global Television Reader (New York University
Press)
John Sinclair and Graham Turner (2004) Contemporary World Television, BFI
On Diana’s funeral

Mick Hume (1998) Televictims: Emotional Correctness in the Media AD (After Diana), London:
InformInc.


Annette Kuhn et al. (1998) ‘Special debate: flowers and tears – the death of Diana, Princess of
Wales’, Screen 39,1. Available online here: http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/1.toc
Robert Turnock (2000) Interpreting Diana: Television Audiences and the Death of a Princess,
London: BFI; see in particular Chapter 4 ‘The funeral’, pp. 91—124.
Week 4: Television narration and narrative structure
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11: Guest lecture by Dr Sofia Bull
11-1: Screening – Dallas (Lorimar Productions, CBS, 1978-1991); 24 Hours in A&E
(The Gardenn Productions Ltc, Channel 4, 2011-present).
10-11.30: Screening – CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (Jerry Bruckheimer Television,
Alliance Atlantis, CBS, 2000-present); Seinfeld (Castle Rock Entertainment, NBC,
1989-1998).
11.35-12.35: Seminar 1
12.40-1.40: Seminar 2
Reading


Jane Feuer (1984) “Melodrama, Serial Film and Television Today”, Screen, 25(1), pp. 4-16.
Jason Mittell, (2006) ‘Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television’, The Velvet
Light Trap, No. 58, pp. 29-40.
Further reading
 Paul Booth (2012) Time on TV: Temporal Displacement and Mashup Television New York: Peter
Lang Publishing).
 John Caughie (2012) “Television and Serial Fictions” in David Glover and Scott McCracken
(eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Popular Fiction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 50-67.
 Elizabeth Evans (2011) Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media and Daily Life. New York:
Routledge, particularly Chapter 1: “Transmedia Texts: Defining Transmedia Storytelling”, pp.
19-39.
 Henry Jenkins (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York and
London: New York University Press).
 Derek Johnson (2009) “The Fictional Institutions of Lost: World Building, Reality and the
Economic Possibilities of Narrative Divergence”, in Roberta Pearson (ed.) Reading Lost:
Perspectives on a Hit Television Series, New York: I.B. Tauris, pp. 27-50.
 Amanda Lotz (2013) “House: Narrative Complexity”, in Ethan Thompson and Jason Mittell
(eds.) How to Watch Television, New York and London: New York University Press, pp.22-29




Jason Mittell (2009) “All in the Game: The Wire, Serial Storytelling and Procedural Logic” in
Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (eds.) Third Person: Authoring and Exploring Vast
Narratives, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 429-38.
Angela Ndalianis (2005) “Television and the Neo-Baroque” in Lucy Mazdon and Michael
Hammond (eds.) The Contemporary Television Serial, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press,
pp. 83-101.
Sean O’Sullivan (2013) “The Sopranos: Episodic Storytelling”, in Ethan Thompson and Jason
Mittell (eds.) How to Watch Television, New York and London: New York University Press,
pp.65-73.
Jeffrey Scone, “What If: Charting Television’s New Textual Boundaries” in Lynn Spigel and Jan
Olsson (eds.) Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition (Durham: Duke University
Press), pp. 93-112.
Week 5: Television space
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11: Lecture
11-12: Screening –The Royle Family (‘The Queen of Sheba’) (BBC1, 2006)
10-12: Screening – Oz (HBO, 1997-2003); Election Night 2010 (BBC1, 2010)
12-1: Seminar 1
1-2: Seminar 2
Reading


Raymond Williams (1989) ‘Drama in a dramatised society’, in A O’Connor (ed.) Raymond
Williams on Television: Selected Writings, London: Routledge
Karen Lury (2005) Interpreting Television, London: Arnold, Chapter 4: ‘Space’ – N.B. It is most
important that you start with reading this chapter as it relates to the work we will be doing
both this week and next.
Further reading



Charlotte Brunsdon (1981) ‘Crossroads – notes on Soap Opera’, Screen 22, 4: 32--7, also
collected in her Screen Tastes.
Richard Dyer et al (1981) Coronation Street, London: BFI Monograph 13.
Christine Geraghty (1991) Women and Soap Opera: A Study of Prime Time Soaps, London: Polity
Press.






Michele Malach (2008) ‘Oz’ in Gary R. Edgerton and Jeffrey P. Jones (eds) The Essential HBO
Reader (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky)
Brett Mills (2005) Television Sitcom (London: BFI)
Robin Nelson (2007) ‘Between global and national: 24 and Spooks; Buried and Oz’ in his State of
Play: Contemporary ‘High-End’ TV Drama (Manchester: Manchester University Press)
Garry Whannel (1989) ‘Making a spectacle out of politics’ Broadcast, Oct 27, 19.
Helen Wheatley (2005) ‘Rooms within rooms: Upstairs Downstairs and the studio costume
drama of the 1970s’, in Catherine Johnson and Rob Turnock (eds) ITV Cultures: Independent
Television Over Fifty Years (Maidenhead: Open University Press) pp. 143-158
‘Invisible Television: Programmes and Genres’ special issue of Critical Studies in Television, 5:1
(Spring, 2010): available online here:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/manup/cstv/2010/00000005/00000001
Week 7: Television place
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11: Lecture
11-1: Screening – The Colony (BBC, 1964), Survivor (CBS, 2000-)
10-12: Screening – your examples
12-1: Seminar 1
1-2: Seminar 2
Reading



Joshua Meyrowitz (1989) ‘The Generalised Elsewhere’ Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
6:3, 326-334.
Paul Long (2011) ‘Representing Race and Place: Black Midlanders on Television in the 1960s
and 1970s’ Midland History, 36:2, pp. 262-277
Jennifer Bowering Delisle (2003)’ Surviving American Cultural Imperialism: Survivor and
Traditions of Nineteenth–Century Colonial Fiction’, The Journal of American Culture, 26:1, 42-55
Further reading



Mark Andrejevic (2004) ‘Survivor and Uncanny Capitalism’ in his Reality TV: The Work of Being
Watched Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield
Milly Buonnano (2008) The Age of Television: Experiences and Theories Intellect (particularly
chapters 1 and 7)
Tony Bennett et al (eds) (1981) Popular Television and Film, Open University Press – see the
section on Gangsters, pp. 71-80







Lez Cooke (2012) ‘Regional Broadcasting’ in his A Sense of Place: Regional British Television
Drama, 1956-82 Manchester University Press, 19-44. N.B. There is some further discussion of
Gangsters later on in this book too.
Laura Hubbard and Kathryn Mathers (2004) ‘Surviving American empire in Africa: The
anthropology of reality television’ International Journal of Cultural Studies 7:4, 441-459.
Andrew Kirby (2009) ‘A Sense of Place’ Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6:3, 322-326.
An Kuppens and Jelle Mast (2012) ‘Ticket to the Tribes: culture shock and the ‘exotic’ in
intercultural reality television’, Media, Culture and Society 34, 799-814.
Ishita Sinha Roy (2007) ‘Worlds Apart: nation-branding on the National Geographic Channel’
Media Culture Society 29: 569
Matthew Smith and Andrew Wood (2003) Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and
Reality Television McFarland- particularly Vrooman’s essay
Rebecca Weaver-Hightower (2006) ‘Cast Away and Survivor: The Surviving Castaway and the
Rebirth of Empire’ The Journal of Popular Culture, 39:2, pp. 294–317
Week 8: Television performance 1 – Being/Presenting
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11: Lecture
11-12: Screening - Face to Face (‘Gilbert Harding’) (BBC, 1959-62)
10-11.30: Nigellisima! (BBC2, 2012) Take Me Out (ITV, 2011-)
11.35-12.35: Seminar 1
12.40-1.40: Seminar 2
Reading


Karen Lury (1995-6) ‘Television Performance: Being, Acting, Corpsing’, New Formations 26
Frances Bonner (2012) Personality Presenters (Farnham: Ashgate) – there is an ebook version of
this linked from the Library’s website – concentrate on Chapter 1 ‘What do presenters do?’
Further reading



James Bennett (2010) Television Personalities: Stardom and the Small Screen (London:
Routledge)
Frances Bonner (2003) Ordinary Television: Analyzing Popular TV (London: Sage)
Charlotte Brunsdon (2005) ‘Feminism, postfeminism, Martha, Martha, and Nigella’ Cinema
Journal, 44:2, 110-116.





Jeremy G. Butler (ed.) (1991) Star Texts: Image and Performance in Film and Television (London:
McFarland)
Joanne Hollows (2003) ‘Feeling like a domestic goddess: Postfeminism and cooking’, European
Journal of Cultural Studies, 6:2, 179-202.
Andy Medhurst (2000) ‘Every wart and pustule: Gilbert Harding and television stardom’ in
Edward Buscombe (ed.) British Television: A Reader (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 248-264.
Rachel Moseley (2001) ‘‘Real lads do cook - but some things are still hard to talk about'. The
Gendering of 8-9’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 4:1, Jan, 2001
Niki Strange (1998) ‘Perform, educate, entertain: Ingredients of the cookery programme genre’
in Christine Geraghty and David Lusted (eds) The Television Studies Book (London: Arnold) 301312
Week 9: Television performance 2 - Acting
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11: Lecture
11-1: Screening – ‘A Night Out’ (Armchair Theatre, ABC 1960)
10-11.30: Screening – Girls (Apatow Productions for HBO, 2012-)
11.35-12.35: Seminar 1
12.40-1.40: Seminar 2
Reading



Jeremy G. Butler (2007) ‘Building narrative: Character, Actor, Star’ in his Television: Critical
Methods and Applications (Routledge) - most important
Lez Cooke (2003) ‘Popular Drama and Social Realism, 1955-61’ in his British Television Drama: A
History (London: BFI) pp. 29-55 – if there’s time
Claire Perkins (2014) ‘Dancing on My Own: Girls and Television of the Body’, Critical Studies in
Television: The International Journal of Television Studies, 9:3 – if time
Further reading


ABC Television Ltd. (1959), The Armchair Theatre: How to Write, Design, Direct, Act and Enjoy
Television Plays, Weidenfield & Nicolson
Charles Barr (1997) ‘ “They Think It’s All Over”: The Dramatic Legacy of Live Television’, in J.
Hill and M. McLoone (eds.) Big Picture, Small Screen: The Relations Between Film and Television
(University of Luton Press)







James Bennett (2010) Television Personalities: Stardom and the Small Screen (Routledge)
Jeremy G. Butler (ed.) (1991) Star Texts: Image and Performance in Film and Television (London:
McFarland)
John Caughie (2000) Television Drama: Realism, Modernism and British Culture (Oxford: Oxford
University Press) especially his section on television acting (219-225)
John Caughie (1991) ‘Before the Golden Age: Early Television Drama’, in John Corner (ed.)
Popular Television in Britain, (London: BFI)
Lez Cooke (2003) ‘Popular Drama and Social Realism, 1955-61’ in his British Television Drama: A
History (London: BFI) pp. 29-55
Christine Cornea (ed.) (2010) Genre and Performance: Film and Television (Manchester:
Manchester University Press)
Helen Wheatley, ‘“And now for your Sunday night experimental drama”: Experimentation and
Armchair Theatre’ in L Mulvey and J Sexton (eds) Experimental British Television (Manchester
University Press, 2007)
Week 10: Television sound
Wednesday
Thursday
10-11: Lecture
11-1: Planet Earth (BBC/Bayerischer Rundfunk/Westdeutscher Rundfunk, 2006); This
is England ’88 (episode 1) (Channel 4, 2011)
10-11.45 Screening – This is England ’88 (episode 2 & 3) (Channel 4, 2011)
12-1: Seminar 1
1-2: Seminar 2
Reading


Rick Altman (1987) ‘Television sound’, in Horace Newcomb (ed.) Television: The Critical View
(Fourth Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 566—584.
Karen Lury (2005) Interpreting Television, London: Arnold, Chapter 4: ‘Sound’
Further reading




Derek Bousé (2000) Wildlife Films (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press) – particularly
chapters 1 and 2.
Michel Chion (1994) Audio-Vision: Sound on Screen (Columbia University Press)
Kay Dickinson (2004) ‘My Generation'? Popular Music, Age and Influence in Teen Drama of the
1990s’ in Glyn Davis and Kay Dickinson (eds) Teen TV: Genre, Consumption and Identity
(London: BFI)
K. J. Donnelly (2005) The Spectre of Sound: Music in Film and Television (BFI)




Martin Fradley, Sarah Godfrey and Melanie Williams (eds) (2013) Shane Meadows: Critical
Essays Edinburgh University Press (particularly the last two chapters)
Simon Frith (2002) ‘Look! Hear! The uneasy relationship of music and television’ Popular Music,
21:3
Michele Hilmes (2008) ‘Television sound: Why the silence?’ in Music Sound and the Moving
Image, Vol 2 No 2, 152-161
Helen Wheatley, ‘The limits of television? Natural history programming and the transformation
of public service broadcasting’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(3), August 2004, pp.325339