A celebração do casamento do Príncipe Carlos com Camilla Parker Bowles: mediação e mediatização

Tendo presente a relação que o discurso estabelece com a sociedade como um todo, este artigo procura analisar o modo como a monarquia britânica representou o segundo casamento do Príncipe Carlos e o modo como os media construíram os relatos do acontecimento desde 10 de Fevereiro a 9 de Abril de 2005 relativamente a assuntos mais vastos, como sejam as relações de poder, as estruturas económicas dos jornais e a cultura popular. Foi dada particular relevância aos aspectos multifuncionais do discurso (por exemplo, as funções ideacional, interpessoal e textual), o que requer uma leitura contextualizada de um duplo processo de mediação: por um lado, a organização da cerimónia levada a cabo pelo Palácio de St. James e a sua subsequente estratégia para atingir um fechamento monológico e, por outro, as representações discursivas da imprensa britânica, abertas a uma polifonia de vozes e a vários enquadramentos discursivos.

The wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles: royal mediation and press mediatization

Bearing in mind the relationship between discourse and society at large, this article addresses the way the British monarchy represented Charles’s second marriage and the way the media constructed their accounts in the period from 10 February (announcement) until 9 April 2005 (wedding) in relation to wider issues such as power relations, newspaper economic structures and popular culture. Particular attention is paid to the multifunctional features of discourse (i.e. its ideational, interpersonal and textual functions), which requires a contextualized reading of a dual process of mediation: on the one hand, the staging of the ceremony by St. James’s Palace and its strategy for attaining monologic closure and, on the other hand, discursive representations by the British press open to a polyphony of voices and discursive frames

The tricks of the trade (un)exposed

One of the filmic trends which has been neglected by the Academy Awards is the metacinema, which for practical purposes I will consider to be a cross between the complexities of the self-reflexive cinema (highly connoted with modernism) and the Hollywood Film (the classical films about the urge to ‘make it’ in Hollywood). Indeed, these films have always existed and some, as Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1950, USA) and Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001, FRA/USA), have even made it to the ceremony, but were, predictably, defeated in the main categories, by other more ‘serious’ or less self-reflexive products. The United States has always insisted on not revealing the tricks of the trade while, ironically, generating films that deal with this theme, in order to cater to the curiosity of the metacinema-inclined spectator. For this reason such films are usually about the universe of cinema but not its medium, at least not in a way that discloses the operations of the technical apparatus. Why are these films not viewed as serious enough and artistic enough to be awarded Oscars by the Academy in the categories of Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Cinematography? Are they being discarded for the same reasons that comedy and musicals usually are? Or are they being punished for being too unveiling? Or is the industry going for commercial products that can easily be pushed on a global scale and make a profit?