alyssasilverbergmit3222 - Tumblr blog

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

The New Yorker Festival: Reed Hastings on Inventing the Future of Television (2016)

Watching Reed Hastings speak about the future of Netflix was extremely interesting. The interview was, of course, extremely biased as many of his answers felt smooth enough for investors to digest, but David Remnick from the New Yorker asked some intriguing questions, not all of which were answered directly by Hastings.

The first deflected question I noticed was about viewing movies, as an art form, on a laptop rather than on a large screen in a movie theatre. Hastings went on to suggest that two-thirds of Netflix viewing still happens on TV (which seems like a much larger statistic than I would believe) and went on to speak about how amazing the picture quality on TVs are today. I would’ve been interested to hear what his opinion on laptop viewing is because personally, I watch Netflix on my laptop almost 100% of the time, and it shocks me that I am able to watch many large-budget Netflix films on such a small screen. I have often wondered what watching a movie like “Bird Box” would have been like in a theatre and if it would have gained the popularity it did on Netflix. Bird Box is an interesting example because it immediately went almost viral- internet users creating memes, challenges, and more from concepts in the movie. Would people have been so inclined to see the movie if they had to go to a movie theatre and pay to see it there? I’m not exactly sure.

Speaking of movie theatres, Hastings argued that he’s not trying to compete with movie theatre films but that he “feels bad” for the industry- in that the oligopoly movie theatre industry is “strangling” the innovation of film. This was something I had not thought about prior to today, and Hastings made some convincing arguments. He said that smaller films that would be better served directly distributed to consumers are wiped out due to the rules of movie distribution and that there’s been much for innovation in the television industry because they do not have these constraints. Does this mean the future of entertainment is more television shows? If not, how can the film industry ensure that it is not only Marvel blockbusters getting all the attention and profit in movie theatres? Maybe movie theatres need to accept their fate.

Lastly, when asked about the future of Netflix and their competition, Hastings mentioned that, broadly, their competition was “anything on a screen,” and that any time spent watching linear television, browsing Facebook, etc. is time not spent on Netflix. This makes a lot of sense to me now, and it is obvious in Netflix’s marketing how they work hard to keep you on their page for as long as possible. With binge-able original shows, automatically starting the next episode, and creating other social media ads to bring you back, it is all very strategic.

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

Flowers (TV Show)

The TV show Flowers was extremely interesting to watch as a Canadian viewer. Before streaming services, almost 100% of the television I viewed was North American. When Netflix came into the mainstream and my family purchased a subscription, I would find myself watching shows I thought would be American but ended up being British. It’s firstly obvious from their accents, but besides this, there are distinct characteristics of British television that can be odd to the average North American viewer. Rebecca Nicholsan (2018) for The Guardian summed this up perfectly: “In the very first minutes of the sitcom Flowers, Julian Barratt’s character, Maurice, a depressed children’s author, ties a noose to a tree, slips it round his neck and jumps from a chair. The branch snaps almost immediately. “Fuck’s sake,” he grumbles and trudges back inside.”

Flowers is definitely an example of absurd, dark British humour that, in my opinion, would be difficult to find popularity within North American audiences. The characters themselves are extremely absurd almost in a “theatre of the absurd” way- where sometimes you are not entirely sure what is going on or why. In a way, it is a perfectly imperfect way to watch mental illness unfold on screen- in a way that makes you feel slightly uncomfortable at times. Maurice’s character struggles with mental illness throughout the first season in a way that is often ignored by many and frustrates the viewer. Feeling a sense of empathy towards the main character and wishing you could just yell at the characters “help him!” is a profound way to continue to open up discussions around the way mental health is treated in everyday life.

As a North American viewer though, I would struggle to understand how the series gained enough popularity to garner further episodes. Surely, North American audiences would feel too uncomfortable with the style of sitcom Flowers presents. Nicholsan (2018) for the Guardian writes on this: “Barratt [who plays Maurice] says that after the first series, viewers seemed receptive to its balance of comedy and pain (and at times the second series is very painful indeed). ‘It’s very much at the forefront, isn’t it, the mental health aspect? I suppose most of us are going through something like this, especially in this country, where we have a particular sort of emotional brittleness and lack of ability to speak about things. The themes are quite overt and powerful and painful, but obviously, that undersells the comedy within.’” It is clear that British viewers may be slightly more open-minded than those of us who are looking to soothe our discomfort with easy humour and escape.

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

I Love Lucy, All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, & Mohawk Girls

Watching four different TV shows this week while thinking about the lens of gender and sexuality was really interesting. Watching shows from different time periods was especially eye-opening because they were not all what I expected them to be.

In the episode of I Love Lucy, equal rights for women and men is used as a gag to plot the entire episode. I wasn’t surprised that the men in the show were adamant on explaining why women should hold their places in the home, but I was surprised that a show in its time took on the challenge of gender equality and played with it while also experimenting with social commentary. While Lucy seems like a hilariously regular character today, she must have been much further along the future political spectrum in terms of her thoughts on gender equality when she decides to stand up for her rights with her husband. Although the show goes through a few gender stereotypes and gags, the underlying social commentary was something that must have been extremely subversive in its time.

The first episode of All in the Family was also interesting to watch. I had seen clips of the show before but never in its entirety. Archie’s character did not even take a single breath in between spewing his hardened capitalist beliefs and creating a character we see often today in MAGA hats. Although certain characters in the show are known for social commentary on politics and race, both female characters knew their place in the home and didn’t comment on it. Gloria was an archetypal ditsy blonde waiting for her husband to make something of himself, and Edith was a typical housewife who essentially puts up with Archie’s ridiculousness with the occasional comeback for comedy’s sake.

I really enjoyed watching the first episode of the Mary Tyler Moore show. I really loved Mary’s character and you could tell that the show was something she created for audiences to relate to her experiences. Although it is extremely liberating to see a show centred around a single woman in the workplace, many gender stereotypes still existed in the episode, likely with purpose. Mary’s new boss at the news station, Lou, seems misogynistic when he interviews her and almost ignores the fact that she begins working there. This experience is likely one that many women at the time could relate to.

Lastly, Mohawk Girls is a more modern TV show based in a Mohawk reservation outside of Montreal. It was really eye-opening to watch a fictional TV show about First Nations women in the present as they’re a minority that barely gets represented in the media today but are filled with rich stories. The issue of cross-cultural marriage is one that seems archaic but still exists today in lots of communities including my own.

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

Network (1976)

Not only was prophecy a theme of the entire movie, but watching Network in 2019, 43 years later, most of its prophecy has come true. Unfortunately, Howard Beale’s prophecies were not meant to bring joy to viewers but rather anger and frustration.

One theme from Network that still continues today is the irresponsibility of the Television industry and the lack of regard for human life within it. in Network, the network executives refuse to believe that Howard Beale needs treatment after he announces that he was going to “blow his brains out” on live TV. Instead, younger executive Diana decides that he needs his own TV show since his ratings were about to go through the roof. You can see this happening all over the media landscape today. Many reality TV producers will choose ratings over the needs of the contestants- portraying them as evil or scandalous through editing and select omitting of clips that would lend the viewers to believe that the reality stars are in fact, more boring in real life than they appear on the show. This even continues into the influencer marketing space, where many beauty influencers will exploit themselves for sponsorships and eventually feel the backlash of this like influencer Essena O’Neil, who admitted that social media was not her real life and was bad for her mental health because it “consumed her.” In Network, you can see how exploiting a person for profit (Howard’s own TV show) can lead to the eventual downfall of that person.

Another interesting theme that Nicholas Barber for the BCC in 2016 points out is that the ambitious producer in Network Diana essentially creates the sparks of modern reality TV. Barber writes, “But the most prophetic part of Network has little to do with Howard. Running alongside his story, there is a sharper, funnier subplot concerning Diana’s other brainwave: The Mao Tse-Tung Hour. Her idea is a weekly drama series about a real revolutionary group, the Ecumenical Liberation Army, which incorporates footage of genuine crimes committed by the ELA itself. In short: Diana invents modern reality television.” You can see throughout Network how this idea of Diana’s wreaks havoc, since introducing the idea of reality television to any sane person before the era of reality television would be a crazy concept. Who would want their life constantly recorded and broadcasted for the entire world to see?

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

Cathy Come Home (1966)

I was surprised by how ahead of its time Cathy Come Home was for 1966. The issues it raises about homelessness, mental health, and welfare are ones that are just beginning to become de-stigmatized in 2019. Unfortunately, the series struck home for many who watched it, even though it was extremely well rated. A review by Gerard Fay in The Guardian from 1966 read: “If it is a question of rating, I rate it in class one - but with a heavy heart because it should not be possible in Harold's Heaven to present such a play without being accused of falsehood. I could see no falsity in it, unfortunately.”

In this way, Cathy Come Home can be described as part of the meta-genre. The website Genre Across Borders defines meta-genre from the work of Giltrow: “Giltrow (2002) introduced the term "meta-genre" to describe "situated language about situated language" (p. 190). More generally, she describes meta-genres as “[A]tmospheres of wordings and activities, demonstrated precedents or sequestered expectations" that surround a genre and indicate how readers and writers should appropriately take it up" (Giltrow, 2002, p. 195).” Cathy Come Home speaks to how relatable viewers found the piece although it was fiction- since the movie had small references to everyday life including side conversations that the audience could only hear half of, or how it felt as though it was filmed like a documentary.

Going back to the comparison between the topics discussed then, in 1966, versus today in 2019, another author from The Guardian Clare Allan shared her thoughts on the movie’s topics in 2016, the 50th anniversary of Cathy Come Home: “I wasn’t born when the film was first shown, yet the sense of hopelessness it conveys, the spectre of the individual smashed repeatedly against the rocks of a rigid, impersonal system is shockingly familiar. Familiar, too, is the misattribution of blame to the individual, rather than acknowledging the wider causes of their situation.” What is most upsetting to me is the fact that in over 50 years, we haven’t changed much as a society. Although I don’t have the experience of being a British citizen, watching a family descend into homelessness for reasons out of their control felt all too familiar in terms of how we now have to recognize homelessness is systemic rather than born out of laziness.

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

(Dr.) House (M.D.)

I decided to watch the first few episodes of the first season of House M.D. (or Dr. House, or House depending on which titling you prefer.) I had seen a few episodes while it was on the air as my Dad loved the show, but had mostly forgotten about it. I’m not a huge fan of medical shows or dramas as the fake surgeries, blood, etc. tend to ward me off of them but I knew that I had enjoyed House in the past so I decided to give it a go now, many years since I’ve seen it.

At least in the first season, the show is almost purely episodic without a narrative connecting each episode. From what I can remember this seems to change in later seasons but I understand that this plotline was essential for getting the show off the ground.

The show follows Dr. House who is an extremely skilled diagnostician who happens to also be a miserable loner and also happens to always be right. Each episode follows a case that Dr. House is put on since no one is able to figure out the diagnosis. Throughout the episode, there are many failed attempts by House and his team until House eventually has an epiphany and figures it out to eventually cure the patient.

There are many reasons why I think people are drawn to a show like House. First of all, personally watching it I couldn’t stop halfway through the episode. I was so anxious to find out what the final diagnosis was and if House was going to figure it out. Even though he does every time I’m still doubtful every episode. I watched the first five episodes fairly quickly making the show really binge-able since I was so anxious to see what would happen each time.

Secondly, I think a factor that led me to continue watching the show was an underlying feeling of relief that these patients weren’t me. Most of the cases in the show I have to believe are extremely rare and dramatized for television, and I think the fact that they’re dramatized for television speaks to the fact that audiences like to experience the anxiousness without the real consequences.

To be fair there are a few main characters who are seen throughout the show that the audience may have some interest in getting to know, but at least in the first season, the show doesn’t focus too much on them. Also, in my opinion, the anti-hero House wouldn’t be an interesting character if it weren’t for his medical epiphanies at the end of each episode.

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

The Office (U.S. and U.K.)

I have seen the U.S. version of The Office a few times over. I have always been aware that there was a U.K. version of the show that proceeded the U.S. version but never had the interest to watch it. Now after watching both, a few things surprised me.

First of all, I realized how Americanized the U.S. version of The Office is while using almost the exact same characters and plotlines. I applaud British television for its underhanded humour and jokes that make you think before you laugh. Although The Office isn’t exactly sophisticated, I realized how unsophisticated the U.S. version is. I originally thought that the U.S. version of the show was highly sophisticated. I compared The Office to other U.S. comedies that I didn’t find as funny as I grew older; comedies that had laugh tracks spelled out the jokes to the audience or were mostly crude. Compared to the U.K. version, the U.S. version of The Office can be comparable to those assumptions in some aspects. For example, one of the biggest differences I noticed was between the characters Gareth Keenan (U.K.) and Dwight Schrute. (U.S.) It is quite obvious that Dwight was modelled off of Gareth’s character since both characters get into prank wars with Tim (U.K.) or Jim (U.S.) and in the first episodes, both versions have Tim/Jim put Gareth’s/Dwight’s stapler in a jello mould. I noticed that I found Gareth’s character just as humourous as Dwight, but Dwight’s character is remarkably heightened for U.S. audiences as the show progresses. In the U.S. version, Dwight has a very distinctive character voice and has a present odd backstory about owning a beet farm. Gareth’s character lands most of the same jokes while having a pretty usual army background and small nerdy tendencies. It’s obvious that U.S. networks want to ensure that every bit of their audiences are able to get the show’s joke whereas U.K. audiences may have to work for it sometimes.

Another interesting point that I noticed was the taboo humour used in both shows, but especially in the U.K. version. A very fair reason for this could be that the U.K. version of The Office is slightly older and therefore audiences were more accustomed to taboo humour and crude jokes, but watching it today was a bit difficult. It made me notice how much taboo humour has changed over time even drastically in the last 10-20 years. In my opinion, taboo humour can be hilarious when done properly, but not all humour ages well with time.

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

Left of the Dial (2005)

I found it really interesting to watch a documentary about talk radio since it is a subject I feel I don’t know too much about. Besides my Dad constantly listening to Howard Stern in the car as I was growing up, I wasn’t aware of any other type of talk radio. As I grew older I got the sense that the talk radio that still existed was overrun with right-wing, conservative personalities but that was mostly due to the media attention given to people like Alex Jones.

What I found intriguing about Left of the Dial was how vulgar a liberal radio station was willing to be. I always conflated the vulgarity of talk radio to conservative hosts but I began to understand that, as a medium, radio has to present loud personalities in this era in order to be heard. Air America was competing with these conservative stations for listener’s time, and in our society, the most entertaining, loud, and controversial host will win.

This is why host Randi Rhodes shocked me the most at first. The documentary showed her screaming over callers to get a point across, not listening and trying extremely hard not to use profane words in her vulgar commentary on America’s political situation and its current Bush presidency. I was so surprised about what happened after her first broadcast on Air America. She was extremely unprofessional and I was certain that the producers and staff were storming into the recording room to tell her to take it down a notch. On the contrary, they were so impressed with the number of people listening in, the phone ringing off the hook, and congratulated her on a job well done. I started to understand then that listenership, calls, and ratings were so important at the time because the show needed all the ears (and money) it could get.

Dan Jackson’s article “The Last Days of Shock Jocks: How a Mad World Drowned Out Radio Loudmouths” speaks about how “Being an edgy, rule-breaking radio host isn't what it used to be. For one thing, the young men and women who used to worship cranky shock jocks as gods aren't as glued to their radios as they once were.” I agree with this statement; I think someone like Randi Rhodes would be a bit off-putting to her target liberal audience today as opposed to 2004, but I also agree with Jackson that these personalities have shifted mediums to places like Twitter and YouTube. I think someone like Randi would become a YouTube star in a very short amount of time, given how expressive and emotionally driven she was in the documentary.

[alyssasilverbergmit3222]

The New Yorker Festival: Television and Politics (2013)

The Panel on Television and Politics from the 2013 New Yorker Festival was made up of a really interesting mix of TV show writers and showrunners including W. Kamau Bell, Armando Iannucci, Michelle King, Robert King, and Shonda Rhimes. The focus on politics in Television focused mainly on their fictional shows (Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell, Veep, and The Good Wife, and Scandal respectively) but the conversation wove its way into real life politics rather fluidly, which I find extremely interesting.

There was a decent amount of conversation about the left-leaning political nature of most TV political dramas. Some arguments were made like, for example, on the panel when Bell explains his opinion: “I don’t think right-wing people do jokes really. They see it somehow unconstitutional if you question in any way what they think.” I started to think about this reasoning a bit more after the writers on the panel spoke about it and I found this HuffPost article by Stephanie Marcus really eye-opening. The panel happened in 2013 before Trump was president, so even though these writers were aware of the way right-wing viewers felt about their shows they didn’t do anything about it. Now, under the capitalist system dictated by ratings and views, things may have to change. Marcus (2017) writes,

“Back in December, ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey told audiences at the Content London media summit that the network was questioning its programming philosophy in the aftermath of Trump’s victory. ‘With our dramas, we have a lot of shows that feature very well-to-do, well-educated people, who are driving very nice cars and living in extremely nice places,” she said. “There is definitely still room for that, and we absolutely want to continue to tell those stories because wish-fulfillment is a critical part of what we do as entertainers. But in recent history, we haven’t paid enough attention to some of the true realities of what life is like for everyday Americans in our dramas.’”

Marcus (2017) also notes that many political dramas such as Scandal, Quantico, and Designated Survivor saw a decrease in their viewership after Trump was elected while cable news networks saw a huge increase in theirs when reporting on whatever new sensationalized news was coming out of the White House.

The line between fictional and real politics on television is becoming more blurred than ever as Hollywood execs, writers, and producers begin to realize that there is a massive part of the U.S. that does not agree with the political leanings of their characters. Maybe it’s not fair to say that right-wing viewers can’t “take a joke” but instead using their worldviews as a stepping stone to new stories.