Tag Archives: television

Critic compares quality and appeal of current TV shows and movies

Posted on by

A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times, compares the television and movie industries. He seems to suggest that television, particularly in light of a poor summer movie season, has pulled ahead in creativity and captivating its audience:

The salient question is this: Will any of the movies surfacing this fall provoke the kind of conversation that television series routinely do, breaking beyond niches into something larger? This bad summer movie season, in what seems to be one of the best television years ever, reinforces a suspicion that has been brewing for some time. Television, a business with its own troubles, is nonetheless able to inspire loyal devotion among viewers, to sustain virtual water-cooler rehashes on dozens of Web sites and to hold a fun-house mirror up to reality as movies rarely do.

Look back over the past decade. How many films have approached the moral complexity and sociological density of “The Sopranos” or “The Wire”? Engaged recent American history with the verve and insight of “Mad Men”? Turned indeterminacy and ambiguity into high entertainment with the conviction of “Lost”? Addressed modern families with the sharp humor and sly warmth of “Modern Family”? Look at “Glee,” and then try to think of any big-screen teen comedy or musical — or, for that matter, movie set in Ohio — that manages to be so madly satirical with so little mean-spiritedness.

I swear, I’m not trying to horn in on my colleagues’ territory. But the traditional relationship between film and television has reversed, as American movies have become conservative and cautious, while scripted series, on both broadcast networks and cable, are often more daring, topical and willing to risk giving offense.

One wonders what has happened with both the television and movie industries to lead to this outcome. This could be just a temporary blip (maybe just a spurt in creativity in television shows?) or perhaps it signals something that will last longer.

A quick thought: a number of the TV shows that Scott mentions as noteworthy are ones that take advantage the extra time that television shows have to tell their stories. Even the best movie can only go on for so long and with most clocking in at two hours or under, writers and directors are limited in what can be conveyed. Story arcs are important to these superior television shows and viewers can invest more time (which leads to more conversations, deeper attachments, more money to be made in advertising, etc.).

Seeing TV tropes as a kind of programming language

Posted on by

A new season of television is nearly upon us. Some of the new shows will survive, many will not. Most of the shows will draw upon established television tropes. (How many procedural shows do we need??)

In the midst of these tropes, Scott Brown of Wired suggests we shouldn’t expect novelty but instead should look for something else:

But here’s an original thought. Let’s embrace the standard semantics of tropery—let’s stop seeing a welter of clichés and instead call it what it is: a programming language. The site [tvtropes.org] was launched by a computer programmer, and the coder’s ethos comes through: Seeing all of TV (and film and literature and theater and manga) history written in Trope, you begin to understand how these story widgets—standard, reusable parts like phonemes or Legos or the basic codons of DNA—can be arranged and rearranged to create something unique.

This is an interesting perspective – instead of focusing on what is being repeated, viewers should examine how writers and producers use their creativity to rearrange the existing pieces of the existing television corpus.

This article reminds me of some other recent news, particularly that about college students and plagiarism. What some research has found is that some students have difficulty accepting the argument for intellectual property; they see content as sharable and open. What matters more then is taking existing content and putting it together in new ways.

Brown suggests “originality is dead.” I hope not. But perhaps taking his advice will make watching similar-but-slightly-different television shows more palatable.

A new kind of TV heroine

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal reports that television executives are moving ahead with shows that feature a new kind of heroine:

The show reflects new thinking among television network executives: Their core audience—female viewers—want to see a woman take down the enemy, preferably with a little bloodshed along the way. The approach overturns years of belief that violent shows turn off women who prefer to watch earnest nurses, headstrong housewives or quirky career women.

Viewers who grew up with video games and Angelina Jolie action movies are driving the types of shows networks will debut this month and redefining how the classic TV heroine is portrayed.

The market research behind this also found that women tend to think men have gotten wimpier on TV and in movies. Therefore, female characters need to come in and take control.

This article also hints at a question about causation: it is media that drives these images (as the article suggests, through Angelina Jolie action movies) or is it that the culture’s image of women has changed to the point where media now needs to reflect it? It probably works both ways but television and movie executives want portrayals of women that are going to make money.

Show about upper income workers draws upper income watchers

Posted on by

Season Four of Mad Men kicked off this past weekend. Ratings were good (2.92 million viewers) and the show attracted a large proportion of wealthy viewers. Mediaweek reports:

If Mad Men’s numbers can’t compete with high performing cable fare like TNT’s The Closer and Rizzoli & Isles––both of which are averaging around 7.4 million viewers through two episodes each––or USA’s Burn Notice (5.67 million) and Royal Pains (5.46 million), the show does attract a disproportionate spread of high-income supporters. Per Nielsen, approximately 48 percent of Mad Men’s audience is comprised of people who boast annual household income of $100,000 or more.

While it’s not a perfect comparison, USA’s entire suite of original series draws nearly a third (32 percent) of its deliveries from viewers in the 18-49 demo with annual incomes of $100,000 and up.

After seeing this report, I would be curious to see the income figures for other popular television shows. Compared to many television dramas and comedies which seem to aim for a broader audience and so often include more average families and workplaces, Mad Men presents a more upper-class setting. I would assume there are splits between social classes in regards to what television shows are popular.

Even if Mad Men does present compelling and worthy story lines examining the complicated world of the 1960s (and critics do seem to like it), is it just making a presentation for mainly upper class viewers? At the same time, the show also presents an image of “the good life” (and the downsides of it) which could appeal to many.

I’m guessing these income figures appeal to advertisers.

(Full disclosure: I have only seen a few minutes of the show though I have read several appraisals by critics.)

“It’s like they took my essence, bottled it, and poured it all over the car.”

Posted on by

This line comes from one of the Toyota Sienna commercials featuring a family that truly does see itself reflected in their minivan. A number of the advertisements are quite humorous – but this single line would sum up the advertising pitch for many consumer products: “this product reflects your truest and best self.”

Enjoy.

Quick Review: The Wire

Posted on by

I finished watching the last season of The Wire over the weekend. Quick observations before I provide some links to academics and sociologists commenting on the show, one that several critics have deemed “the best TV show ever.”

1. The City of Baltimore is truly part of the story. Unlike many shows that use a “bland big city” for the background, this show digs deeper into the place.

2. Multi-faceted view of the situation and complicated stories. Each season attempts a slightly different angle including children and the media (seasons 4 and 5). There are consistent characters through all the seasons but each season keeps adding a little more as a new perspective is developed. Not a fast-moving show.

3. Some fascinating characters. Jimmy McNulty – a detective that perhaps only loves his cases. Stringer Bell – a gang leader who is also taking business classes at night to improve his skills. Officer Daniels (who moves up the ranks during the show) unwilling to “juke the stats” to please his bosses. Many more to name.

4. The police are just as deep into the drugs and violence as the gangs. From consistent violence to “Hamsterdam” to cover-ups to “juking the stats” to impressive detective work, the police are not simply geniuses or people who can shoot better. In fact, the police rarely shoot – a problem with many cop shows since most real-life police rarely or never fire a gun in the line of duty.

4a. The politicians are similarly involved. The goal: get as much positive credit for change while minimizing negatives that happen when you are in charge.

5. Somewhat hopeless ending – new people on both sides, the gangs and police, come in, take the place of those before, and similar battles are fought. Some of the kids get out and many do not. A good number of the police are ruined. The politicians try to use whatever they can to get ahead. Money and power are what people want and just their means of pursuing them are different.

6. Sociologically, a lot of the show seemed similar to Sudhir Venkatesh’s books on life on the South side of Chicago: American Project, Off the Books, Gang Leader for a Day.

Some commentary from other sociologists:

1. Sudhir Venkatesh talking about the show with “real thugs”.

2. A short collection of reviews from Racism Review.

3. The Guardian UK summarizes an academic conference on The Wire.

4. Slate.com writing about academic courses on the TV show, including  noted sociologist William Julius Wilson teaching such a course at Harvard.

5. Two sociologists comment in Dissent in 2008 (and participate in a broader discussion) and then expand on their thoughts in City and Community.

I’m sure there is more out there. It is rare to find any media creation that receives praise from so many in providing a realistic portrayal of city life.