Introduction
While archival audiovisual material is frequently utilized to further media literacy education, archives themselves are often absent from the greater discourse. Archivists, especially audiovisual archivists, are tasked with preserving; digitizing; describing; and making accessible these archival motion picture films, videos, and sound recordings and thus represent important stakeholders in media literacy education. While audiovisual archivists often house material considered to be aesthetic wonders, archivists also recognize that not all audiovisual media are created equally. Archivists must reckon with collection items that contain offensive language, images, or broadly contain harmful messaging. Understanding these materials through an archival lens not only necessitates placing them within historical context, but also recognizing the state in which these materials have persisted to exist. Why is audiovisual media preserved, what methods are used, and what factors determine these reasons? Audiovisual archivists could provide lengthy answers to these questions if given the opportunity, and yet they are rarely posed as a matter of media literacy
In their essay, “A Field Guide to Media Literacy Education in the United States,” Michael RobbGrieco and Renee Hobbs have outlined the dominant paradigms of media literacy education and the professional fields often associated with them. The protectionist paradigm to media literacy–often practiced by professionals in public health and reformers–aims to provide individuals with critical skills to analyze media fed to them on a daily basis and recognize the messaging sent. The empowerment paradigm, on the other hand, emphasizes building skills that enable students to create and engage with media in order to make them active and well-informed citizens.
Archival audiovisual media may be utilized within either paradigm, and audiovisual archivists are capable of discussing the importance of preservation within each strand. For instance, if a piece of legacy media espouses regressive ideology, preserving and studying it in a contemporary context can shed light on how power structures have and have not changed over time. Additionally, Erin Passehl-Stoddart has written about how engaging with cultural artifacts can foster historical empathy for those alive during the time of that media’s production.
Understanding that audiovisual media is created for a specific audience during a specific time period is a tenet of media literacy, but preservation of that media often benefits groups of people distinct from its original audience. Articulating why and how archival film and video is saved over time underscores the broader impact this material has. Anirudh Deshpande notes in his piece on films as historical sources that audiovisual media can color memory of societal events as well as serve as a display of cultural attitudes. As such, reflecting upon how documentation of such events and attitudes are still accessible must take into account the original intended audience and meaning, but also recognize that preservation of the media is essential to engage in critical analysis from a distance.
Audiovisual archivists can thus inform methods of media literacy education, especially when they are providing the materials. Providing resources such as glossaries, timelines, and information about original media format can further contextualize the audiovisual media students are watching. Altogether, providing additional information about the world and technology broadens the scope of what media is and how it has developed over time. Contextualizing media in this way for media literacy students stands to instill a sense of audiovisual materials as cultural artifacts that should be preserved for a better sense of historical empathy and awareness.
Case Study: HIV/AIDS in the 1980s
In a recent project at the Rockefeller Archive Center, Education Program Manager Marissa Vassari, Audiovisual Archivist Brent Phillips, and I identified two VHS videotapes from the 1980s located in the Ford Foundation records. The first title, Sex, Drugs & AIDS (1986) was produced by O.D.N. Productions. According to The New York Times this was the first videotape about AIDS to be distributed to schools and was “largely financed” by the New York City Board of Education. The video was intended to be distributed to eleventh grade classrooms in May of 1986 but was shelved due to concerns by Board members that the video did not strongly emphasize abstinence. A second video, The Subject is: AIDS, was produced in 1987 to address this issue.
Nevertheless, both versions are extremely similar in content and structure and feature actor Rae Dawn Chong as she explains HIV transmission and AIDS to a teenager audience. As Chong notes in her opening monologue, “There’s a lot of wrong information going around about AIDS and that’s dangerous, so I’m gonna tell you what AIDS is; how you get it, how you don’t get it, and how to be safe.” Chong spends the entirety of the video detailing two primary avenues of transmission–drug use and sexual activity. She shares screen time with other “talking heads” who explain how they contracted the virus, as well as dramatization sequences featuring teenagers contemplating whether or not to engage in sexual activity and individuals who regret their homophobia after a gay person they knew died from the virus. These two latter dramatization sequences are “modular” and are seemingly what Board administrators originally took issue with, as they differ between Sex, Drugs & AIDS and The Subject is: AIDS. Chong’s tone is serious yet friendly, and the other portions of the videos use various visual and narrative techniques to either evoke empathy from viewers, or “other” certain individuals on screen.
The use of these formal and visual techniques makes these two videos apt choices for media literacy students to analyze. As Paul Eisloeffel claims, vintage film (and video) sources contain “cultural and societal motifs” that students may still identify with or find relevant. For instance, toward the beginning of both videos a short montage is featured to emphasize the idea that HIV/AIDS is not spread like the common cold. Paired with a catchy and upbeat soundtrack, scenes of high school students juxtaposed with reappearing text, “AIDS IS HARD TO GET” underscore the everyday activities teenagers may still enjoy. Quick cuts of teenagers sharing makeup, holding hands, wrestling, and more grace the screen with celebration, culminating in a party sequence with dancing teens. The montage is not explained verbally. Indeed, after its conclusion Chong simply says, “Okay, get it? That’s what you don’t have to worry about.” The inclusion of this montage is a creative decision meant to intuitively communicate that sharing food and/or other objects is of no concern.
Identifying discrete aspects of these videos–such as the soundtrack and various shot-types–and how they work in tandem to deliver ideas should strengthen students’ critical ability to analyze the ways communication is achieved through audiovisual media. Certain ideas or methods of communication can be discerned simply through watching these video media. If students intuitively understand what is trying to be said through montage, they ought to explain how this is accomplished. However, audiovisual archivists should not take for granted that students and teachers are equipped with the language to properly analyze legacy audiovisual material. Providing students and teachers with a glossary/controlled vocabulary of visual media terms, such as ‘close-up,’ ‘high-angle shot,’ ‘long shot,’ etc., can be an effective way to give language to how audiovisual content is constructed, evokes ideas, and communicates its message.
Furthermore, beyond identifying cinematographic elements, identifying traits (or presumed traits) of individuals presented on screen is a way to recognize cultural attitudes at the time the media was created. For instance, in a video detailing the risks of contracting HIV/AIDS during the 1980s, one could ask why every couple depicted in the montage is heterosexual?
These questions about social attitudes extend throughout the entirety of each video, notably through the exchanged dramatization “modules” which mark the primary differences between the two versions. In Sex, Drugs & AIDS, when Chong encourages young people to talk to friends before having sex, three female dancers gather in a rehearsal studio to do exactly this. The conversation begins with the first dancer telling her friends about a new boyfriend, and how she wants the other two to meet him. The conversation quickly turns to sex as the first dancer confirms she is sleeping with him. A second dancer confides that she is thinking about having sex and inquires what birth control method the others use. The first dancer explains she is on the pill, “it’s the easiest.” A third dancer looks on in disbelief, finally admitting she uses condoms. The remainder of the segment follows the girls arguing about the advantages of condoms, with the first dancer often scoffing at the thought of using them or even discussing birth control with her boyfriend.
“How do they protect you against diseases?” “Because it’s a barrier, it keeps the virus from passing through, that’s all.”
“Where do you get them, where do you go?” “You go to the drug store and you buy them!”
“No, I don’t [talk to my boyfriend about birth control]. Why should I?” “If you can’t talk to him you shouldn’t be having sex with him.”
The third dancer insists they use condoms or don’t take the risk.
While this conversation is sparked by three girls discussing their sex lives, the segment in The Subject is: AIDS is initiated by three girls in a high school corridor after their health class, where they “actually talked about AIDS and sex.” Immediately the first girl to speak asserts she is waiting to have sex. A second girl announces she has had multiple conversations with her boyfriend but is unsure if she is ready. A third girl says she uses both condoms and the pill and spends most of the segment telling her friends they do not have much to worry about as long as they are safe. In this version two teenage boys join the conversation, only briefly, to unequivocally state that they would use a condom if they were to have sex. While this version follows a similar avenue of awkwardness and skepticism about condoms and uncertainty about being ready for sex, it also includes the first girl’s ending remarks, “That’s why the safest thing to do is not have sex at all, like me. I don’t have to worry.”
What Audiovisual Archivists Can Provide
Much like the previously mentioned montage, a lot of information about these two segments can be surmised by merely watching them. They are shot mostly at eye-level, understandably straying away from shot-types that evoke senses of power and vulnerability. However, additional information about the production of the videos can further contextualize the time frame from which they were created. Consistent with The New York Times’ reporting, the addition of the final remarks about abstinence signals that stakeholders wanted this message to be specifically highlighted.
Recognizing context is an area where archivists can extend vital expertise as it relates to media literacy education. Audiovisual materials not only depict social and cultural attitudes, they also necessarily emerge from cultures at specific points in history. Providing a historic timeline and background information about impactful events can help contextualize Sex, Drugs & AIDS, and The Subject is: AIDS beyond deciphering what is merely depicted. For instance, students may be able to discern that homophobia was at a high level in the mid-1980s based on the inclusion of stories about straight people regretting past interactions with gay people. Additional information such as President Reagan’s early refusal to acknowledge the virus and the eventual formation of activist organizations such as ACT UP could broaden the scope of how students understand how homophobia was embedded into the cultural fabric and impacted the spread of the virus. Providing additional primary and secondary sources could do so as well, as these materials often contextualize each other. Audiovisual materials need to be situated within the broader historical landscape from which they were created in order to understand them fully.
As such, audiovisual archivists understand media as unique cultural artifacts. Most educators and students will access legacy audiovisual material via an .mp4 upload to YouTube and may not recognize why noting the sources’ original format is vital information for media literacy plans. Both Sex, Drugs & AIDS and The Subject is: AIDS were created and distributed on VHS during the mid-1980s. This fact provides a much different context than, say, a sex education film produced on 16mm film during the 1960s. The time frame afforded to these different elements raise points about the possible issues and/or arguments explored in either video or film, but this information also carries with it the history of distribution for each format. The production and “boom” of VHS tapes during the 1980s meant that educational content could be easily produced and distributed. This technology was readily accessible for educators as well. Instead of using a 16mm film projector teachers could simply use a tape deck in order to screen the content for their class. The differences between the two formats not only account for different production techniques, but the history of media technology has a large and important bearing on who received information through media and how they consumed it. Moreover, this could yield a conversation about where students could access information before the Internet was available.
Conclusion
The videos used in the above case study are apt options for their visual and historic richness, but these qualities can be found in a variety of archival media. These are some of the foremost reasons audiovisual archivists preserve legacy media and make them accessible. While understanding contextual information has been considered a tenet of media literacy education, archival preservation has not–despite being an issue inextricably tied to analyzing legacy media in current day scenarios. Integrating information that audiovisual archivists find central to their work, such as a controlled vocabulary and noting original format, can bring an archival lens into media literacy education and broaden the understanding of how media both impacts – and is impacted by – the culture it is created within.