Read the article and answer the question

17 December 2014

Literature Review

Since the rise of the modern film industry, media has directed much of its attention on targeting a child audience. With this came a new topic for discussion in academic circles. My focus deals with the way in which children’s film industries use particular methods for covertly accomplishing their agendas. This topic includes a multitude of contexts that must first be considered before the final research question can be addressed. For example, before discussing the methods various individuals will use to influence children through film, one must consider the nature of children’s film. How can a particular film be especially suitable for a child and thus influence his or her perception of the world? Furthermore, how many factors drive children’s film producers, and if there are multiple incentives, how do they rate in importance to one another? Questions like these are connected to my main research question in that they help to provide a broader and thus more realistic outlook on the circumstances surrounding the children’s film industry.

Many scholars have expressed their own personal opinions on these matters. Regarding the nature of the films themselves, the majority of scholars insist that children are a prime target for industries due to their extreme vulnerability in the kinds of things they are exposed to through the media (Howarth, 2012; Hudson, 2008; Silva, 2010; Wagner, 1957; Wood, 1979; Zornado, 2008). Indeed, a child’s perspective has barely had the opportunity to develop into a complex collection of experiences that can clue him or her in on various aspects of reality. In this way, a child exposed to fantastical elements is more easily to be captivated, a child who sits in front of a colorful scene is more easily made interested, and certainly, a child who is introduced to new ideas is more likely to consider them and then adopt those new ideas as his or her own. The opportunity to gain a child’s attention with very little effort seems to be a central concept in whatever method is used in children’s media.

While nearly all scholars recognize the nature of children’s film based on the fundamental aspects of children themselves, namely, curiosity, some tend to focus on a child’s inquisitiveness as being merely a positive aspect (Howarth, 2012). The fact that a child seems to naturally want to learn more about the world around him or her provides a host of ways to help that child develop as a unique individual. Indeed, although this can be the case, a view as limited in scope as this fails to address the opposite side of the spectrum where there are equally numerous opportunities to influence children, but in a sense which fails to consider the needs of children first. In one view, the motive is fairly neutral in terms of ethical assessment; the kinds of films produced are directly linked to the kinds of things a child wishes to see (Silva, 2010; Wood, 1979). Irene Wood (1979), who does hold this view, states that there is even more to it than this. While the desire of trying to give children what they want is neutral, it is often fueled by another ulterior motive, which is to maximize profits. The base motive, then, is to acquire as much revenue as possible, which can only be done if children are satisfied with what they receive.

Roberta Silva (2010), on the other hand, though she does recognize the tendency for there to be a lack of true concern for the children themselves, more heavily stresses the detrimental effects that producing films based merely on the hopes of pleasing children can have on their perspectives. Wood recognizes this as well, though she tends to focus more on the corrupt nature of the producers themselves. Silva asserts that though a relevant cultural product can be a boost to self-improvement, often, it really just reinforces stereotypes. Wood, however, believes that the more negative effect of increasing marketability gives way to the discouragement of creativity. While both are equally valuable insights on the repercussions that more or less neutral motives within the film industry can have on children, the scope is once again limited. In this case, the perspectives are two separate pieces of a whole.

Robert W. Wagner (1957), like Wood and Silva, presents a similar viewpoint concerning secondary motives. Wagner claims that children’s film is produced in a particular way to reach as wide of an audience as possible, which then allows a more strategic approach to the economic aspect of the children’s film product. However, unlike Wood, who heavily stresses money as the drive for creating a film in which children are given what they want, Wagner primarily focuses on the audience within this context. As a result, his belief presents the way in which so-called children’s media tries to reach as broad of an audience as possible as being the main factor for why children are experiencing a lack of what they need from film. With much of the audience being composed of adult individuals, children have no choice but to view things that are more appealing to adults. Wagner’s approach comes closer to the actual effects that film has on its child audience. While money impacts the method that in turn affects the child, it is the factor driven by the desire to maximize profits that more directly impacts the outcome of any children’s film. Wagner’s strength lies within his acknowledgment of multiple ulterior motives while focusing on the more dominant one in terms of which has a closer link to the children themselves.

Again, though, Wagner only discusses one of the many possibilities of more closely related factors that can deprive children of what they need in film. Though directing the content of the media towards a wider range of people does create a larger distance between the relevant content and the child viewer, this aspect is not the one which has the most negative impact on the child who views a particular film.

Simon Hudson, David Hudson, and John Peloza give a more negative outlook on children’s media in general. They defend the claim that “children do not have the formal operational skills to test principles logically” (Hudson, 2008, p. 291). In their eyes, the topic of motives behind children’s media deals heavily with an ethical issue in that their argument implies that deception plays a key role in ensuring an effective means by which children become familiarized with various ideas. However, their explanation states that the appealing ideas presented serve only as a means of ensuring the sale of products. In this regard, advertising is the central theme in the distribution of media aimed at child audiences. Yet this scope is limited in that it only allows for instances in which products are clearly being marketed. Children’s media, though, typically contains very few instances of direct advertising. Normally, if there is advertising, the promotion is rather obscure within the context of the film. Though it does occur, more often than not, deception within the media has the purpose of swaying the viewer’s mindset toward a given direction. This concentrated focus is precisely the way a producer can assert his power over a vulnerable child through the fueling his or her own agenda.

Similarly, Zornado (2008) declares that children’s film is a process in which “reproduction becomes the end all and be all of the child's training at the hands of the adult” (Zornado, 2008, p. 4). In this way, the purpose of children’s media is more than simply being pure entertainment. In fact, according to Zornado, all forms of media have this forcing of ideas upon the viewer due to the way that each story contains an imbedded message of what is right and wrong based on the construction of the creator. Zornado goes on to further describe how the passive nature of film in relation to the viewer creates an environment where the viewer is subject to the ideas of the producer alone. When viewing the piece, the audience can do nothing but go along with the world of the story. In this way, the ideas regarding what is right versus wrong and truth versus falsity is in fact forced upon the viewer through the masking of elements that are supposed to seem purely fantastical.

Zornado, I think, addresses the issue I am trying to research the closest. Since the producer of a children’s film piece creates the rules within his or her own work, it is only natural to assume that many producers would use this opportunity to their own personal advantage. Still, I do believe that Zornado does not discuss this idea to its full extent. What he fails to discuss is that often times producers will create a film that is supposed to make the audience feel as if they are being encouraged to uniquely express themselves in their own way, but in reality, does the exact opposite. In other words, instead of the ideas within a film being a natural cause of a certain individual shaping that film, children’s media is characterized by the manipulation of its audience by the producers acting as if they are giving children the benefit of choosing their own paths when really they are telling those children exactly how they should behave.

Like Zornado asserts, many institutions do outright demand that children accept a certain set of ideals. It is far worse, though, when those institutions are more passive in their approach. If it is clear that an institution is corrupt in the way it deals with the people it targets, then it is far easier to raise awareness to the situation. Yet when institutions forcefully impose their ideals upon children through covert methods, the downfall of the child as a result of that influence is far more likely to go unnoticed for a longer period of time.

Since the topic of children’s media is so broad in its comprehensive scope, there will always be more to research to conduct as time goes on and new issues arise. At this point, more attention needs to be directed toward the manipulative tendencies of children’s media and how it impacts the child, both in the child’s present and in the child’s future. How is the relationship between a child’s naivety and the opportunities to connect with that child based on his or her curiosity related to the strategies adults undertake in order to produce child-specific content? What type of stimulus results in a child behaving a certain way based on the way in which the media is able to connect with him or her? As more tools are developed to create more opportunities for individuals to spread their ideas, children will continue to be prime targets of the perpetual movement that seeks to accomplish the agenda of swaying others toward a certain line of thinking. At a time like this when the world is developing at a faster rate than it ever has before, the future well-being of children is a vital aspect to ensure the continuation of a healthy development within our society. Therefore, any significant factor which contributes to a child’s growth is a necessary area of study to allow for the continuation of productivity in our fragile world.

Works Cited

Howarth, Michael, and Wynn Yarbrough. “Children's Media [Special Issue].” Interdisciplinary Humanities 29.1 (2012): 3-6. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.

Hudson, Simon, David Hudson, and John Peloza. “Meet the Parents: A Parents' Perspective on Product Placement in Children's Films.” Journal of Business Ethics 80.2 (2008): 289-304. JSTOR. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Silva, Roberta. “The Risk of Conformity: Representing Character in Mass Market Fiction and Narrative Media.” International Research in Children's Literature 3.1 (2010): 75-91. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.

Wagner, Robert W. “Film: The Case for Children’s Films.” Audio Visual Communication Review 5.2 (1957): 476-82. JSTOR. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.

Wood, Irene. “…While Children’s Films Struggle for Innovation.” American Libraries 10.6 (1979): 345, 47. JSTOR. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.

Zornado, J. “Children's Film as Social Practice.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 10.2 (2008): MLA International Bibliography. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.