TELEVISION CULTURES
BLOG POST 3
REFLECTION

In this reflection, I will focus on how the ways I watched TV shows has changed, and also focus on what certain lectures and readings have made me think about whilst watching particular shows and genres (specifically weeks 6, 8 and 9).

Within the span of three months, my viewing habits have changed drastically multiple times, with me abandoning ways in which I viewed shows, returning, and  then also finding new mediums.

Since a young age, the way in which I followed TV shows would be through DVDs. I would buy every season and the collection of different series would stack up. My reasoning for this was that I would only need to buy it once, and can watch the episodes over and over again (plus… special features!) They would be a prime source of how I got to these shows, even though that would sometimes mean I was a year behind the initial release on U.S TV and online.

This was not to say that I never watched TV on TV itself. This was a daily evening activity I did with my mum. I just watched different shows to what I had on DVD. Watching everything from the 5 o clock news, to the 6 o clock news, to more news on The Project. 7:30 were times when the big shows were on such as The Bachelor, Masterchef, The Voice, and ofcourse… The Bachelorette which aired at the end of September, and had my mum and I hooked from the beginning, all the way to the teary, (heartbreaking) end. These became routine viewings and bases of conversation throughout the night.

When Netflix made it’s huge arrival in Australia, one of my friends told me I had to sign up and that it screamed my name. Simply because I was known to be an avid watcher of many, many shows. At first look, it was all very satisfying – with various shows and movies to watch and what SEEMED was a never-ending selection. That was until I searched up “the difference between American Netflix and Australian Netflix” and a bundle of bricks fell on my head to realise that we had been, as the Vietnamese proverb says, “frogs sitting at the bottom of wells think that the sky is as high as a lid”… in other words, what we had was NOTHING compared to the endless, vast option that the U.S members had! As I slowly realised the shows that I actually wanted to follow were non-existent for (legal) Australian users, I abandoned Netflix. I now go on other streaming sites to watch different dramas and shows from other countries.

Now to some thoughts I had during certain week’s lectures.

Week 6 had me wanting to know why it is that particular shows are categorised as “quality television” whilst others are said to be “middlebrow material” (having only a moderate degree of intellectual substance).

In an online article by Eve Ng, titled ‘Telling Tastes: (Re)Producing Distinction in Popular Media Studies’ (week 6), it was said that The Wire (HBO) was “identified as a favourite amongst media scholars” for both consumption and critical analysis, whereas shows such as CSI and NCIS (both CBS shows) failed to “fulfil” narrative, social and political aspects.

In Jason Mittell’s essay, ’Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television’ which was a reading for week 8, he also states that HBO has built its reputation based upon “narratively complex shows” such as The Sopranos, Six Feet Under and once again, The Wire. These shows are said to offer an alternative option to conventional television, which have simpler and less inviting storylines.

Are scholars of popular media and culture discriminating? Who are they to say what is “quality television” and what is unworthy of watching and analysis? Who invented these taste hierarchies that have shamed so many people into hiding their love for reality television or casual sitcoms?

“Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier”, French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu famously noted.

It all depends on how the viewer sees the world and how they watch and understand the given show. A person can watch shows that would be deemed “good taste” such as Game of Thrones but have no real concept of what is happening, what the storylines, symbolisms and political themes mean, would that person still be put into the category of someone who has “good taste”? And then there is another person who religiously watches a sitcom, and is able to give a long and extensive shot-to-shot extract of a scene that is no longer than 3 minutes, analysing cinematography, camera techniques, acting and mise-en-scene, would  that person still be looked down upon, simply because the show wasn’t on HBO?

Jason Mittell nicely writes about this in his ‘On Disliking Mad Men’ essay (week 9), wanting to voice his opinion on talking about a show that has no appeal to him but not wanting to “condemn other people’s tastes”. Although wrong, it is difficult for writers to discuss their disliking without “convincing viewers that the pleasure they take in the show is somehow false or unwarranted”. Mittell clearly states that he is here to “share, not argue”. As a fan of Mad Men myself, I was left non-offended after reading this essay, because like my second blog post about audiences said, it is plainly all a matter of taste.

References:

Flow, Eve Ng. 2010. TELLING TASTES: (RE)PRODUCING DISTINCTION IN POPULAR MEDIA STUDIES. [ONLINE] Available at: http://flowtv.org/2010/12/telling-tastes/.

Jason Mittell. 2010. On Disliking Mad Men. [ONLINE] Available at: https://justtv.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/on-disliking-mad-men/.

Narrative complexity in contemporary American television, Jason Mittell, Velvet Light Trap, Fall, 2006, Issue 58, p.29(12)

Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice, Harvard University Press, 1984 [1979]. 

TELEVISION CULTURES:
BLOG POST 2
AUDIENCES + MATTERS OF TASTE

The ‘Uses and Gratification Theory’, which was explored and discussed by media theorists Jay Blumler and Elihu Katz in 1974, identifies the way people use the media. This theory suggests that audiences are active consumers in this communication process between the producer and the consumer. They choose media texts such as films, television shows, books, etc to gratify their own needs and interests. This is where the idea of audiences and matters of taste discussed in the week 6 lecture comes into play. Audiences and their matters of taste go hand-in-hand as being extremely powerful in having a say as to what is shared on mass media. The primary example being if very few people are watching a show, or are sending in complaints about a specific advertisement, then the show or the advertisement may be taken off air.

Every show thrives on their fans and active participants. Fans are people who become highly involved in the development of both the storyline, the characters, and most of the time, the actors themselves. Strong emotions are felt towards the show and this brings them to begin reading into theories and backstories, alternative plots and the actors and actresses’ lives.

Fans of one show can help other shows gain more followers, simply because the viewers want to follow the work of their favourite celebrities.

‘Roommate’ is a South Korean reality TV show, which features eleven celebrities, coming from different work backgrounds, living together in a share house. Unlike the television show, ‘Big Brother’, where people are also sharing one house, these South Korean celebrities are not forced to be confined in this one house. They go to work, go out to eat and do their own thing as per usual, but use the large house as their new home, where sixty cameras watch them share the kitchen, living room, washrooms, and household tasks. Friendships quickly build and they become a family. And unlike ‘Big Brother’, it does not involve a group of noisy, egotistical people who are fighting to remain in the spotlight inorder to get votes from viewers to win the title of being “best housemate”.

The way in which ‘Roommates’ has been affected by audiences and their matters of taste were of both positive and negative nature. Although the show received an influx of interest by international viewers, therefore being hosted on streaming websites such as ‘DramaFever’ and ‘Hulu’, the show failed to keep their own South Korean audiences, and therefore was forced to be cancelled after the second season. It was said that people lost attraction to the show due to its “lack of direction” or highly scripted nature.

Reality TV shows have sparked an increasing number of audience members over the past years. Reality TV encourage people to believe they are watching a script-less film in which they can interact with and heighten the viewing experience. Audiences and fans of a show can call in to vote for who they want to see more of, or can follow contestants or celebrities on social media such as Twitter or Instagram. The ideas of the people on screen exceeding the boundaries of the screen and that there is a sense of liveness are what appeals greatly to viewers. Reality TV is “much more seductive (than other types of programming) because it seems much more real, much less orchestrated” says S. Shyam Sundar, a professors of communications.

Even though so many researches have found that the number of audiences for reality television are large and people have become accustomed to following the lives of contestants on social media as though it is their own, people still feel the need to overly justify the reasons for them watching such shows, or even deny their interest inorder to maintain a reputation of “good taste”.

So how does one define “good taste”?

It definitely depends on you who you are, what you like and how you see the world and what you see is “good”. Good taste can almost be contagious, and there is always a pressure that most people feel towards what they watch and what they don’t watch. When asked what a person’s favourite show is, if the answer was to be a reality show, they would immediately feel the need to follow it up with “I know, I know… but it’s fun to watch” or “I only watch it when my family does”. It’s hard to find somebody who will freely embrace their love for reality TV show because it seems to be some sort of morale offence and cultural discrimination!

There is no need to pretend you only watch certain shows because “there was nothing else on” or you just wanted something “trashy” to watch, each person has their own matter of taste and that should’t be shamed. Honestly, reality TV shows are are good sources when analysing editing, camera techniques and sound, and how that can affect the way audiences view certain characters and how it can so easily change the entire storyline. Ways in which people change or grow, depending on their circumstance is another aspect that can be watched and analysed in reality televisions, such as ‘Roommate’. It isn’t all poor quality junk.

TELEVISION CULTURES
BLOG POST 1
‘TRUE DETECTIVE’ SCREENING + GENRE

‘True Detective’, an American anthology crime-drama television series, written by Nic Pizzolatto, is a show broadcasted on the HBO network. Season 1 tells viewers of both the work life and personal lives of detective partners, Rust Cohle and Martin Hart, whilst they work their first case together involving a serial killer in 1995.

The genre of the show is a mixture of crime, thriller, mystery and neo-noir.

The opening scene of the pilot episode immediately tells the audience that ‘True Detective’ is a crime show, (if the title hadn’t already given it away). As the camera zooms into the vast sugarcane field to reveal a not-so-sweet murder scene, where the young female victim is bound, blindfolded, with a crown of tree roots and antlers on her head and painting down her bare back. This view comes as a familiar, stereotypical scene to audience members who are used to crime shows, with many policemen, detectives and investigators gathered at the scene of the crime, in uniform, writing down evidence and taking photos. The fact that Cohle says “this will happen again”, indicating they have a serial killer on their hands, makes the show a thriller, because this then forces the audience to anticipate the next murder; keeping them on the edge of their seats.

Unlike shows such as Law and Order, Criminal Minds or CSI, ‘True Detective’ is not the type to give the audience a happy ending at the end of each episode – it will stretch out to the entire season. The show has much more depth and goals than simply finding out who killed who, such as delving deeply into the personal lives of the characters and discussing truths about the human condition.

The mystery genre of the show has less to do with the actual murder, and more to do with the mysteries into why Cohle and Hart are as troubled as they are, and more realistically, why the two have not spoken for over a decade and are now being questioned in the present day.

Rust Cohle in the pilot is set up to be the more enigmatic, hard-to-interpret half of the pair. He speaks in metaphors and philosophical expressions. What was frustrating though is that his partner, Martin Hart did not allow him to freely say what he wanted to say without shutting him down and belittling his thoughts. Describing the Texan town, Cohle says that “this place is like somebody’s memory of a town, and the memory is fading. It’s like there was never anything here but jungle.” Interesting, right? Tell me more, right? Yet his partner, without any subtlety or respect, retorts with “stop saying shit like that. It’s unprofessional”, even though he is the one who says Cohle can be too quiet.

The mystery continues to Hart’s character itself. Why is it that he is unable to listen or so quickly disregards in wanting to know about his partner’s personal life? This happens again, later in the episode, when Cohle comes over for dinner and Hart’s wife asks why he knows nothing about the person he is working with, yet she was able to know about his past within a couple of minutes of conversation.

Another way that Hart keeps his distance from Cohle, even to the present day as they are being questioned, is by describing him as a “good detective” – never a “good man”, a “good friend”, but only speaking about him as though he has no other life but to be a “good detective”.

A scene that emphasises both the mystery genre of the show and the neo-noir/ Film Noir genre, is when Martin Hart comes home late at night from another disturbing day at work. As Hart leans on the door frame of his young daughter’s bedroom, watching over as she sleeps, he sips on his drink. The mystery here is that the scene involves a juxtaposition, Hart as a loving father with his innocent daughter, and Hart as a troubled criminal investigator who is trying to forget the horrors of his job. (Forgetting the horrors by allowing himself to see the most pure thing in his life? Or is this a way of showing his regret after doing something that would affect his family negatively.) Film Noir movies and shows often contain the element of an anti-hero with a conflicted past, trapped in difficult situations. This is both the characters in the show. Other elements of neo-noir/ Film Noir include low-key lighting to emphasise shadows, in which this scene clearly portrays.

Not much is revealed in the pilot episode of ‘True Detective’, but just enough to leave audiences who are interested in crime, thriller, mystery or neo-noir genre’d shows, craving more.