As our lives become more and more dependent on the internet, television has gradually began to make the transition to its new home. At this moment, as I write I have an episode of Rescue Me playing in the next tab from Netflix's "Watch Instantly" section. With our hectic schedules it has become increasingly difficult to find the time to watch our favorite programs during their initial broadcast. This used to be a horrible situation, as the only way to ever see the missed episode would be to see a rerun or by the DVD. Then tv stations began posting the episodes on their website. It became a perfectly good substitute that, when I happened to miss an episode of my favorite show, I could watch it the next day on the website; I practice I regularly utilized during the LOST years. At first the internet became a contingency plan used only when I missed the initial broadcast on television. The internet provided not only the opportunity to catch-up on episodes missed, but entire shows I never knew existed.
Using websites like fancast.com, I was able to watch the entire series of Deadwood four years after the series finale, and as HBO is hardly prone to airing reruns, chances are I would have never known the show existed. If you have never seen Deadwood, watch it! There are only 3 seasons and it is, in my opinion, HBO's best program to date. But back to my initial point, the internet has become an environment that has become a staple of television viewing. Our On-Demand culture has rendered us unwilling to abide by the schedules created by different channels, instead deciding where and when we wish to experience our favorite programs. It its first day as a publiclly traded company, the Chinese online television channel Youku nearly tripled in value, clearly demonstrating the marketability and popularity of online television.
No longer are we as viewers confined to the decisions of the producers, but instead we are able to watch what we want, when we want. The television has been replaced by the computer monitor, and the TV Guide has been replaced by the Netflix Queue. Current TV sets are essentially larger computer screens, therefore I believe that as time progresses, the interactive capabilities of the internet will continue to play and greater role in the television industry.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Magical Fairy Jobmother
In a time when the security of ones' employment is becoming increasingly uncertain, television has taken the next step in identifying with its audience through the creation of The Fairy Jobmother. In this program, unemployed adults have their personal lives evaluated by an employment coach with the task of changing the personal habits of the shows' subjects in order for them to re-enter the job market and find gainful employment.
This show is especially identifiable with the thousands of Americans who have recently lost their jobs and have yet to find a new means of income. The program asserts that everyone has unfavorable personal characteristics which are undesirable to employers, and by altering these behaviors they can make themselves more appealing in the job market. However while the show appears to be self-empowering, the Jobmother serves a very important purpose as a source of outside help. Rather than outright supplying participants on the show with a new job, the show seeks to help-them help-themselves, but with the help of a coach. Im sure many in this situation often wish they had outside assistance to offer them objective advice and a sense of direction, this show supplies the viewer with such a figure. Despite any differences between the character and viewer, there are certain circumstances and situations which can be related to by the audience, through which they can apply the show's lessons to their own lives.
This show is especially identifiable with the thousands of Americans who have recently lost their jobs and have yet to find a new means of income. The program asserts that everyone has unfavorable personal characteristics which are undesirable to employers, and by altering these behaviors they can make themselves more appealing in the job market. However while the show appears to be self-empowering, the Jobmother serves a very important purpose as a source of outside help. Rather than outright supplying participants on the show with a new job, the show seeks to help-them help-themselves, but with the help of a coach. Im sure many in this situation often wish they had outside assistance to offer them objective advice and a sense of direction, this show supplies the viewer with such a figure. Despite any differences between the character and viewer, there are certain circumstances and situations which can be related to by the audience, through which they can apply the show's lessons to their own lives.
The Inspiration of Oprah
For years, millions of Americans across the country have tuned in their television sets to watch their favorite cultural icon, Oprah Winfrey. While previously, some have failed to understand the appeal of this media giant, I being one of them, upon watching an episode of her show it quickly became apparent where the attraction is, Oprah is a living, breathing, walking, talking, personification of the American success story. Born into poverty, Oprah overcame the societal conditions which have previously hindered so many to become one of the most recognizable faces in the world. The stories on her show inspire hope in the audience and present them with the challenge that they too can accomplish as much as their beloved host. Oprah's stories focus on overcoming adversity and using ones own inner-strength to accomplish ones goals. Now one of my personal objections to Oprah is that she inspires false hope, unable to see how viewers were able to remain enthusiastic when it is impossible that they could all reach her levels of wealth and success; Oprah accomplishes this through her gifts. When Oprah presents her audience with a gift, she also supplies them with a new-found enthusiasm and optimism, one which she hopes they will apply to the rest of their lives and help in bettering themselves.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Surviving Each Other
While it might appear that the allure of Survivor rests in its personification of the Swiss Family Robinson, little focus is actually paid the actual survival aspect of the series. Rather, the shows writers choose to edit together stories that deal more with human nature. Obviously the contestants' enduring of the tribulations presented by their remote location is a key aspect of a given episode, the driving force each week is typically the interactions of the cast.
In the most recent episode of Survivor, a disgruntled teammate steals food from her tribe's cache and hides it in a secret location. Naturally for a real survivor, such a provocation would be of of the utmost importance, however this incident took up only a small portion of the episode. Instead the editors chose to focus on the competing alliances and individual conflicts between a core group of characters. Like other reality series that film each season in a different location, the environment is secondary to the characters in dictating the story's progression. The culture and ecosystem of Nicaragua play virtually no role in the story, with the exception of inspiring team names or the basis of a challenge, therefore the story never really changes.
It is because of these repetitive storytelling practices that Survivor is able to captivate such a large and devoted fan-base. While each new season of the series promises new drama in a new environment, only the casts' surroundings appear to change. Unlike scripted television series where a new direction in the story arc can antagonize the audience, Survivor essentially repeats the same narratives each and every season, placing new characters in a new setting. This repetition is comforting the audience however, as they're initial interest in the show will therefore not be challenged. Furthermore by being exposed to the same types of situations over and over again, the audience gains experience that becomes fundamental in dictating their experience.
In the most recent episode of Survivor, a disgruntled teammate steals food from her tribe's cache and hides it in a secret location. Naturally for a real survivor, such a provocation would be of of the utmost importance, however this incident took up only a small portion of the episode. Instead the editors chose to focus on the competing alliances and individual conflicts between a core group of characters. Like other reality series that film each season in a different location, the environment is secondary to the characters in dictating the story's progression. The culture and ecosystem of Nicaragua play virtually no role in the story, with the exception of inspiring team names or the basis of a challenge, therefore the story never really changes.
It is because of these repetitive storytelling practices that Survivor is able to captivate such a large and devoted fan-base. While each new season of the series promises new drama in a new environment, only the casts' surroundings appear to change. Unlike scripted television series where a new direction in the story arc can antagonize the audience, Survivor essentially repeats the same narratives each and every season, placing new characters in a new setting. This repetition is comforting the audience however, as they're initial interest in the show will therefore not be challenged. Furthermore by being exposed to the same types of situations over and over again, the audience gains experience that becomes fundamental in dictating their experience.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Walking Dead
This past Sunday AMC premiered the first episode of its new series, The Walking Dead, based on the comic book series of the same name. As all zombie movies tend to be relatively similar is many ways, one might assume that this genre lacks the ability to transcend into television like the buddy-cop or courtroom-drama. In fact, the first episode contained many themes and plot points as other zombie movies. Whether these movies ripped off the comic book, or the comic book ripped off the movies, the similarities are worth noting.
When protagonist Rick Grimes wakes up in the hospital, feeble and bearded, it bore a striking resemblance to the first scene of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. Both characters wake up in hospitals, and after calling for nurses' aid, discovers that the machines he is attached to are turned off and the hospital itself has been abandoned. They then proceed to leave their room, only to come across a bloody stumbling zombie, they ask for help, zombie attacks, protagonist scared. He is then left to discover that the society has broken down in the chaos of a flesh eating zombie outbreak that our government, and military were unable to stop, leading to the apocalyptic setting.
Now the protagonist will typically be rescued by a small group of well-armed survivors who teach them the rules of survival in the zombie universe. 1) Do not get bitten by a zombie. 2) Only trauma to the head can kill a zombie. This sequence can be seen in almost every zombie movie; 28 Days Later, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, etc.
Despite the numerous cliches within the premiere of The Walking Dead, it was actually pretty good. The show is set up so that its story-lines exist within this zombie overrun United States, however it balances its conformity to the formula and seemingly exhausted plot still remain entertaining through strong acting and excellent directing.
When protagonist Rick Grimes wakes up in the hospital, feeble and bearded, it bore a striking resemblance to the first scene of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. Both characters wake up in hospitals, and after calling for nurses' aid, discovers that the machines he is attached to are turned off and the hospital itself has been abandoned. They then proceed to leave their room, only to come across a bloody stumbling zombie, they ask for help, zombie attacks, protagonist scared. He is then left to discover that the society has broken down in the chaos of a flesh eating zombie outbreak that our government, and military were unable to stop, leading to the apocalyptic setting.
Now the protagonist will typically be rescued by a small group of well-armed survivors who teach them the rules of survival in the zombie universe. 1) Do not get bitten by a zombie. 2) Only trauma to the head can kill a zombie. This sequence can be seen in almost every zombie movie; 28 Days Later, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, etc.
Despite the numerous cliches within the premiere of The Walking Dead, it was actually pretty good. The show is set up so that its story-lines exist within this zombie overrun United States, however it balances its conformity to the formula and seemingly exhausted plot still remain entertaining through strong acting and excellent directing.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Where's the Music?
Within 5 minutes of watching your first episode of the Wire you'll certainly notice one thing, the silence. Unlike most television shows which play background music to set the tone of a scene, the Wire only plays music during the opening/closing credits. While it might seem that this silence would take away from the drama of the episode, or make the show's direction harder to follow, the lack of music actually serves to allow the tone to reveal itself. By removing background music from the editing process, there is a greater need for strong dialogue and good acting, so that the audience is still able to correctly interpret the episode's theme. The characters' words, and even their most subtle actions thereby become essential to the plot. The viewer is required to study the character more closely, and to familiarize themselves enough with the characters' personalities so that background music would be superfluous. Obviously not all television programs could survive with such raw production, I believe that the Wire's exceptional writing/casting develops the show's plot with no sound other than that of the street.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Wire and the Gray Area of Police Work
In typical depictions of Police work in television and film, we as viewers are confined to a universe of black and white; good cops versus bad cops, morality versus corruption. The ethically upright Officer risks his job and life in order to expose the misconduct of his fellow Officers in protecting the integrity of his destined profession. The corruption of his fellow Officers is driven by greed and societal apathy, existing as part of an underground Police conspiracy of vast economic wealth. However, the moral vacuum of this universe neglects the realities of both law enforcement, and human nature.
HBO's the Wire succeeds in addressing Police and criminals as being of being on opposite sides of the law, while sharing the same pains frustrations of life. The Police on the Wire do not fit the mold of the "cop in shining armor," as they typically commit acts of minor corruption and outright violations of the constitution in their quest for justice. Their misconduct however, is forgiven due to their sense of duty and commitment to justice....or is it? By showing the Police struggling with the political red tape of the legal system and increasingly menial nature of their profession, coupled with the tribulations they face in their personal lives, the audience is trained to accept this "corruption"; to view these Police as simply succumbing to their human nature. This is not to say that every Police Officer depicted on the Wire is corrupt, but the fashion in which they are portrayed places significant emphasis on the politics and bureaucracy of law enforcement; thereby excusing misconduct by Officers as necessary to achieving their ultimate goal.
HBO's the Wire succeeds in addressing Police and criminals as being of being on opposite sides of the law, while sharing the same pains frustrations of life. The Police on the Wire do not fit the mold of the "cop in shining armor," as they typically commit acts of minor corruption and outright violations of the constitution in their quest for justice. Their misconduct however, is forgiven due to their sense of duty and commitment to justice....or is it? By showing the Police struggling with the political red tape of the legal system and increasingly menial nature of their profession, coupled with the tribulations they face in their personal lives, the audience is trained to accept this "corruption"; to view these Police as simply succumbing to their human nature. This is not to say that every Police Officer depicted on the Wire is corrupt, but the fashion in which they are portrayed places significant emphasis on the politics and bureaucracy of law enforcement; thereby excusing misconduct by Officers as necessary to achieving their ultimate goal.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sherlock Holmes in the Cash Cab
One of the most interesting aspects of CSI is the consideration the writers take for their audience's ignorance. An episode begins with the illusive crime, in which the perpetrator and motive are unknown. Then beginning with the investigators initial tour of the crime scene and concluding in the interrogation room, they begin to reveal the what was once unknown. Information is revealed to the audience in three ways:
First are the specifics of the crime itself. This is typically revealed through the investigators analysis of the crime scene and the subsequent experiments on the evidence. Through this, they reveal exactly what caused the homicide, and how it was executed. Although in reality, their theories could be held as pure speculation subjective to further investigation, the audience is trained to accept the destectives' telepathy as fact, without further question. However, this still leaves the audience confused, as they are still ignorant to the rationale of the investigators' theories, and the nature/identity of the criminal in question, the writers proceed with their next method of educating the viewers.
Second is the knowledge necessary to understand the crime. As the vast majority of CSI's viewers are not trained in forensic analysis, nor are they educated in the specifics of sharks, vampirism, tea party politics, etc., the audience learns this necessary information through the characters' everyday conversation. While it might appear that a casual conversation between the characters regarding the history of vampires, or keeping sharks in captivity is designed as simple dialogue, it actually serves a more functional purpose. These conversations are intended to supply the audience with the necessary information to understand what the investigators are thinking, and why. By bestowing the viewers with these tidbits of information, they are placed on an equal level of intelligence as the investigators, and are better able to follow the investigation and formulate theories. But once again, the nature of the criminal still remains a mystery.
In the third component of analyzing the crime, the writers must reveal the criminal. This is done in the interrogation. The specifics of the interrogation room are best explained in my previous blog but here are the key points. When interrogating a suspect, the investigators/audience will either learn that they are the suspected criminal, or they will reveal information that will lead to the actual killer. Regardless of whom the true mastermind is, their motive is revealed here. Sometimes they narrate their intentions to the investigators, and sometimes the investigators narrate the motive to them as they exercise their 5th Amendment rights, but the interrogation room is where we meet the criminal, and we learn his/her true character.
CSI acts as both a mystery, and a trivia show. We are invited to join in the investigation of a murder, and along the way we are provided with investigators and Discovery Channel buffs, whose function is to supply us with the information necessary for the suburban housewife and geriatric grandfather can understand the complexities of forensic analysis and crime scene investigation.
First are the specifics of the crime itself. This is typically revealed through the investigators analysis of the crime scene and the subsequent experiments on the evidence. Through this, they reveal exactly what caused the homicide, and how it was executed. Although in reality, their theories could be held as pure speculation subjective to further investigation, the audience is trained to accept the destectives' telepathy as fact, without further question. However, this still leaves the audience confused, as they are still ignorant to the rationale of the investigators' theories, and the nature/identity of the criminal in question, the writers proceed with their next method of educating the viewers.
Second is the knowledge necessary to understand the crime. As the vast majority of CSI's viewers are not trained in forensic analysis, nor are they educated in the specifics of sharks, vampirism, tea party politics, etc., the audience learns this necessary information through the characters' everyday conversation. While it might appear that a casual conversation between the characters regarding the history of vampires, or keeping sharks in captivity is designed as simple dialogue, it actually serves a more functional purpose. These conversations are intended to supply the audience with the necessary information to understand what the investigators are thinking, and why. By bestowing the viewers with these tidbits of information, they are placed on an equal level of intelligence as the investigators, and are better able to follow the investigation and formulate theories. But once again, the nature of the criminal still remains a mystery.
In the third component of analyzing the crime, the writers must reveal the criminal. This is done in the interrogation. The specifics of the interrogation room are best explained in my previous blog but here are the key points. When interrogating a suspect, the investigators/audience will either learn that they are the suspected criminal, or they will reveal information that will lead to the actual killer. Regardless of whom the true mastermind is, their motive is revealed here. Sometimes they narrate their intentions to the investigators, and sometimes the investigators narrate the motive to them as they exercise their 5th Amendment rights, but the interrogation room is where we meet the criminal, and we learn his/her true character.
CSI acts as both a mystery, and a trivia show. We are invited to join in the investigation of a murder, and along the way we are provided with investigators and Discovery Channel buffs, whose function is to supply us with the information necessary for the suburban housewife and geriatric grandfather can understand the complexities of forensic analysis and crime scene investigation.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Interrogation Room
After watching a recent episode of CSI, it was brought to my attention how serious of a role the interrogation segments play. Although the first half of an episode is typically devoted to the insciting incident and subsequent investigation, the investigators typically enter the interrogation room without all the pieces of the puzzle. Naturally if they were able to completely solve the crime without interviewing suspects, there would be no need for the dramatic interrogation scene, but luckily, the characters' investigation abilities fall just short of clairvoyance to allow for that dramatic interrogation scene. Whether the suspect being interrogated is guilt or not, they're interview is essential in order to uncover the missing piece that will resolve the episode's conflict, whether that be a literal criminal, or the equally dangerous character's inner demons. Within the confines of the interrogation room, the jumbled story is pieced together so that the audience gains a sense of resolution; maybe the team catches a criminal, maybe a character regains their confidence, or maybe they put Justin Bieber in prison, the audience is satisfied regardless.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Go Back to Middle Earth
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/movies/02hobbit.html?_r=1&bl
While reading Michael Cieply's movie blog for the New York Times this weekend I came across a surprising and disturbing fact, as the blog's title said "Deal Near for ‘Hobbit’ Films in 3-D", my eyes immediately shot to my Collector's edition Lord of the Rings box set sitting on my DVD shelf, now worthless and incomplete. I saw each of the Lord of the Rings films in trailer and found them to be stunning. However, I have only seen each of the three films once and was not planning to watch them again for quite awhile, not because I did not enjoy them, but because the premise was difficult to remain engaged with for the very long time required to screen the whole movie. I thought the script was excellent, the acting was top-notch, and the visualization of the classic epic to be a great tribute to J.R.R. Tolken's books. But when discussing this famous trilogy I always come across several common frustrations among viewers:
1) The storyline for each film is essentially: walk, group divides in two, epic battle scene. Obviously this is an oversimplification of such a film but it remains true. While there are other elements of the plot of both drama and adventure, they exist in between these elements of the storyline.
2) The Middle-Earth accent is annoying and bothersome. While it may not bother some, I know I have a strong group of followers who believe the worst part of the Lord of the Rings films was Elijah Wood, I don't know if its his voice or overall lack of acting ability, but I think Samuel L. Jackson could would have played a better Frodo.
3) We're just kinda sick of Middle Earth. No offense to Peter Jackson, for the most part I enjoyed the films and I'm sorry that King Kong flopped, but that's no reason to go running back to the same formula.
While I understand the obvious financial motivation for MGM, Warner, and New Line to pursue making the Hobbit into a film franchise, I think it stands as a testament to the current state of the film industry. Rather than pursue new material and attempt to target a new audience with different imagination, they would rather stick to the formula and squeeze the cash cow for every last available dollar. One of my biggest pet-peeves of the film industry is the tendency to overuse and exploit the most original, and often most successful films. I was not a fan of the new Star Wars films, I disliked the second and third installments of the Matrix trilogy, I hated the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, and the fact that Jason Vorhees and Freddy Kruger are still alive is just an insult to movie goers. Nonetheless, while I'm sure the Hobbit will be a box office success and set numerous records, I'm also sure it will fall face-first in delivering the initial experience and will only serve to tarnish the audience's memories of their time in Middle Earth.
While reading Michael Cieply's movie blog for the New York Times this weekend I came across a surprising and disturbing fact, as the blog's title said "Deal Near for ‘Hobbit’ Films in 3-D", my eyes immediately shot to my Collector's edition Lord of the Rings box set sitting on my DVD shelf, now worthless and incomplete. I saw each of the Lord of the Rings films in trailer and found them to be stunning. However, I have only seen each of the three films once and was not planning to watch them again for quite awhile, not because I did not enjoy them, but because the premise was difficult to remain engaged with for the very long time required to screen the whole movie. I thought the script was excellent, the acting was top-notch, and the visualization of the classic epic to be a great tribute to J.R.R. Tolken's books. But when discussing this famous trilogy I always come across several common frustrations among viewers:
1) The storyline for each film is essentially: walk, group divides in two, epic battle scene. Obviously this is an oversimplification of such a film but it remains true. While there are other elements of the plot of both drama and adventure, they exist in between these elements of the storyline.
2) The Middle-Earth accent is annoying and bothersome. While it may not bother some, I know I have a strong group of followers who believe the worst part of the Lord of the Rings films was Elijah Wood, I don't know if its his voice or overall lack of acting ability, but I think Samuel L. Jackson could would have played a better Frodo.
3) We're just kinda sick of Middle Earth. No offense to Peter Jackson, for the most part I enjoyed the films and I'm sorry that King Kong flopped, but that's no reason to go running back to the same formula.
While I understand the obvious financial motivation for MGM, Warner, and New Line to pursue making the Hobbit into a film franchise, I think it stands as a testament to the current state of the film industry. Rather than pursue new material and attempt to target a new audience with different imagination, they would rather stick to the formula and squeeze the cash cow for every last available dollar. One of my biggest pet-peeves of the film industry is the tendency to overuse and exploit the most original, and often most successful films. I was not a fan of the new Star Wars films, I disliked the second and third installments of the Matrix trilogy, I hated the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, and the fact that Jason Vorhees and Freddy Kruger are still alive is just an insult to movie goers. Nonetheless, while I'm sure the Hobbit will be a box office success and set numerous records, I'm also sure it will fall face-first in delivering the initial experience and will only serve to tarnish the audience's memories of their time in Middle Earth.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Fans Get Involved
One of the most interesting and enjoyable aspects of the LOST experience is the amount of fan-generated content that exists on the web. Unlike many television programs, in which the producers keep a tight grasp on their intellectual property and terminate any unauthorized use of their work, a great deal of the LOST experience exists on the Internet. Prior to the beginning of every season, sneak-peeks and other web content were posted on the Internet to ease the withdrawal symptoms of its viewers. These tiny segments fell short of delivering the satisfaction of an actual episode, however they gave the viewer insight into what they were planning for the season, as well as posting footage from the cutting room floor that would not be featured in episodes.
Here is an examples of a sneak peak from season 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck_agBf5QKA
These videos encourage the viewer to over-invest themselves within the LOST universe in order to have any possibility of coming to understand the complexities of the mysterious island. In this video clip, we see a man who we know as Jacob talking to an unknown hospitalized woman, it is revealed that she in fact works for Jacob, and it is her duty to protect the remaining 6 candidates. Having seen the last season already I now know the significance of this interaction, however at the time it was shown to me I was blown away. While these tiny tid-bits of information offer no concrete insight LOST, they help to formulate the questions that the writers want the fans to be asking, leading them deeper into the LOST universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnpRsmSlvhU
Here is an examples of a sneak peak from season 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck_agBf5QKA
These videos encourage the viewer to over-invest themselves within the LOST universe in order to have any possibility of coming to understand the complexities of the mysterious island. In this video clip, we see a man who we know as Jacob talking to an unknown hospitalized woman, it is revealed that she in fact works for Jacob, and it is her duty to protect the remaining 6 candidates. Having seen the last season already I now know the significance of this interaction, however at the time it was shown to me I was blown away. While these tiny tid-bits of information offer no concrete insight LOST, they help to formulate the questions that the writers want the fans to be asking, leading them deeper into the LOST universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnpRsmSlvhU
Thursday, September 23, 2010
LOST as "Cult" Television
Within the first few minutes of an episode of LOST, one is aware that this show is not intended for the uneducated viewer. Not education on a academic scale, but educated in the story of LOST. Unlike most television programs, in which one can quickly deduce the gist of the story and characters of an episode by simply watching the opening credits, LOST targets a smaller audience. The audience that LOST targets is not flipping through the channels on Wednesday night hoping for a re-run of Seinfeld, but rather, an intent group of devout followers whose viewership of LOST keeps them keen to the shows many inside jokes and references. If this small, intense, "cult" audience misunderstood something from the previous week's episode, they have already scoured the internet for an answer of been enlightened of the message by one of their fellow LOST-ies. Aspects of the show such as the numbers, the significance of characters' names, the recurring theme of black and white, and tying together concepts and stories are the reason that these fans remain so loyal and intent. When referring to LOST, it is often said that you either love it, or haven't seen it. I certainly agree with this, especially in recalling my intitial introduction to the show. Several of my friends were re-watching the first season a few days before the second season premiered. I watched one episode, I didn't particularly like it. I watched another, I was more intrigued. By the third episode I was hooked, finishing the first season hours before the second season premier. LOST demands that its viewers watch every episode, and encourage using the internet to fill in missing pieces of the story, those who are willing to do this become avid members of the cult audience, thereby making them honorary passengers of flight 815.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Guys...Where Are We?: The Universe of L
In its pilot episode, LOST establishes that the inland on which it is set does not adhere to the traditional laws of nature or science, but its own unique universe. Much of LOST's appeal is that the viewer, like the program's characters, is being educated of these laws as the story develops. Pilot-mauling jungle beasts and jungle-dwelling polar bears invoke the same fear and curiosity in both cast and viewer, leaving both hungry for the next fragment of an answer to LOST's countless mysteries.
Unlike most television dramas, the characters of LOST do not have relationships preexisting their arrival on the island, therefore the progression of their characterization is experienced in the same manner by viewer and character alike. However with each episode's storyline typically focused on one central character, that episode's flashbacks serve to reveal information regarding that particular character's history, which might reflect into their experiences on the island. Therefore, the viewer witnesses characterization at two points on the time line: their present on the island, and their past via flashback. In the introduction of Reading LOST, Roberta Pearson argues that, "LOST's producers have come up with an entirely new construction of the televisual character, one in which every element of character is tied to the central narrative enigmas". The development of these characters is essential to the progression of the story. A character's experiences shape their personality, their personality dictates their actions, and their actions drive the show; the audience becomes so intrigued by these characters because their stories reveal greater insight into the series, and allow the viewer to hypothesize his/her own theory regarding the LOST's direction.
Unlike most television dramas, the characters of LOST do not have relationships preexisting their arrival on the island, therefore the progression of their characterization is experienced in the same manner by viewer and character alike. However with each episode's storyline typically focused on one central character, that episode's flashbacks serve to reveal information regarding that particular character's history, which might reflect into their experiences on the island. Therefore, the viewer witnesses characterization at two points on the time line: their present on the island, and their past via flashback. In the introduction of Reading LOST, Roberta Pearson argues that, "LOST's producers have come up with an entirely new construction of the televisual character, one in which every element of character is tied to the central narrative enigmas". The development of these characters is essential to the progression of the story. A character's experiences shape their personality, their personality dictates their actions, and their actions drive the show; the audience becomes so intrigued by these characters because their stories reveal greater insight into the series, and allow the viewer to hypothesize his/her own theory regarding the LOST's direction.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Light on the Medical, Heavy on the Drama
It seems that today, one can't turn on a television without coming across at least one medical drama. Between Scrubs, House M.D., Grey's Anatomy, ER, HawthoRNe, and Nurse Jackie, you would probably assume that by now the audience would have moved on, as at this point I would imagine they could complete most of these medical procedures themselves. However it seems that for every series finale there is a new crop of ill-conceived medical dramas waiting to take its place. These programs adhere to a strict formula; a combination of romance, medicine, and morality. The doctors date, it doesn't work out, they break up, they get back together. At this point in the show, I begin to wonder if being a doctor is as easy as dating your co-workers, but then there's the second part of the formula, the medicine. They don't have time to worry about the fact that J.D. kissed Carla (that's a Scrubs in case your not a fan), because there's a little girl who was just in a car accident and now all that petty stuff has to be put aside. But oh dear, she doesn't have health insurance. Now its time for the hard-headed liberal doctor and callous administrator's storyline, in which they'll argue as to whether or not to treat the little girl. Of course the Dr. Cox/House character will win, but don't you dare question their methods, after 5 seasons you just have to accept that they know what they're doing. Following the commercial break, the little girl will come out of surgery with no complications, the dating doctors will just continue the cycle until an attractive guest star comes on the show, and then the narcissistic doctor and apathetic can walk away from one another with that "I don't like you, but I respect you look". Now if you turn into ABC you can watch another hour of the same exact show.
It's not that I don't like medical dramas, I watched Scrubs for eight seasons and almost always enjoyed it. But just like The Office with Parks and Recreation, an almost identical program pops up to try to swindle an audience that is screaming for an encore. And although I grow tired of the endless arguing and repetitive medical issues, I take comfort in knowing that no matter how many of these shows they make, the doctors will always be attractive.
Family Guy meets Dr. House
It's not that I don't like medical dramas, I watched Scrubs for eight seasons and almost always enjoyed it. But just like The Office with Parks and Recreation, an almost identical program pops up to try to swindle an audience that is screaming for an encore. And although I grow tired of the endless arguing and repetitive medical issues, I take comfort in knowing that no matter how many of these shows they make, the doctors will always be attractive.
Family Guy meets Dr. House
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)