Television within Sitcoms; The Simpsons

Television is not just the medium by which sitcoms are brought to us. In many cases, it provides the storylines that define the nature of the show. This should not come as a surprise considering the fact that most sitcoms are about families—and much of the action takes place within the families’ homes. As described in the lecture, television is always implied in sitcoms. Characters sit on their couch facing the camera and discuss what they are ‘watching’. Countless storylines have been based around this. Colin Tate described the television as a domestic medium in that it acts as a home appliance. He also described TV as a campfire because it is the place where people typically tell stories to each other. This would mean that within the home, television acts as ‘modern fireplace.’ Families gather around it and converse. It is therefore a perfect instrument in sitcoms, because they are generally about families conversing.

I generally don’t watch sitcoms, so like I did in a previous blog post, I’ll talk about The Simpsons. This show is probably the best example of television acting as a source of plot, because the show is almost entirely based around TV. And not in a good way. The Simpsons is a critique on the modern American family. Even in the opening credits, when everyone else is playing outside on a beautiful day, all the members of the family rush home to watch the television. Bart and Lisa’s favorite show, ‘Itchy and scratchy’ pokes fun at the violence children are subjected to on TV. Fictional news anchor, Kent Brockman has poked fun at countless broadcast journalists for everything from swearing on TV to simply being drab. The absence of television within the Simpsons would be simply be fatal to the show.

Here's a great clip of Homer poking fun at late night TV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPyk4QFyJ8

Shot Progression in 'Children of Men'

Though the first scene in the film, “Children of Men,” doesn’t follow the standard order of shot progressions, it still conveys all of the necessary information. Generally in films, the order of shots is long shot, medium shot, close-up. However, in the opening scene of Children of Men, the order of shots is medium shot, long shot, close-up.

The medium shot occurs in a café. Normally this shot would provide relationship information, but considering the fact that all the people in the café are strangers to the main character, there isn’t much information to convey. What the shot does show however, is that everyone sans the main character is upset. The news of Baby Diegos’s death has put everybody to tears, but Theo seems rather unmoved by the incident. If this were a close-up for example, one would not be able to tell that his mood contrasts the others.

As Theo exits the café, the camera moves to long shot. This is the orientation shot, and even without the text on the bottom of the screen, one would easily be able to tell this is London in the future. A red double-decker bus drives by, and futuristic advertisements are shown in the background. The long shot conveys loneliness by having Theo walk against the general current of everyone else on the sidewalk. This was seen in the first shot, too (the medium shot,) when we noticed that he is emotionless compared to everyone in the crowded café.

The third shot, the close-up shows the important details. In this shot, Theo puts his coffee on a mailbox, opens it, and pours in some whiskey. The details shown here tell us that due to his lack of emotion in the café and the fact that he puts liquor in his coffee in the morning, Theo is more than likely depressed. Alcohol seems to be his escape from a world that he doesn’t seem to care about anymore.

Children of Men is probably my favorite movie of the past decade. Here is great clip on the making of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A55xTYXMpI

Joan Crawford and the Classical Hollywood Star System

The star system of the classical Hollywood era was an important catalyst in making many films still regarded as masterpieces today. Under the star system of the 50s, studios had a certain set of actors under contract, which meant they could only act in films for that studio, unless a deal was made with another studio. Having reputable stars under contract was mandatory because they were, virtual products, and represented the studios more than the films did.

Having certain stars under contract led to genre films. This means that certain actors, at certain studios, only made one or two kind of films. For example, the Marx Brothers from Paramount would just about always act in comedies. Audiences would hear about the new Marx Brothers film and immediately come to the conclusion that it was a comedic movie put out by Paramount studios.

A great example of an actress that went through the stat system would be Joan Crawford. Discovered by MGM when she was only 20, Joan had everything the studio wanted; she could dance, sing, and act. She was known to be in films about young, fervent young girls trying to beat the odds of and make it in the real world. These ‘rags to riches’ stories were popular among women. Throughout her career she made 94 films, all 70 of which with MGM. At her peak she was one of the most well paid women in the world, but eventually her films started to loses their spark. She was put in fewer and fewer films, and there was little she could do about it-one of the major flaws of the star system.


Here's an MGM owned video of Joan singing and dancing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNZCJn9uIBk

Here's an interview from 1957:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIc2zcy1TvQ&feature=related

The Simpsons Vs. All in the Family

By comparing the infamous 1970’s sitcom, “All in the Family” with today’s “The Simpsons,” one can see how family-based television has evolved. The shows are similar in that they both have the same reoccurring characters, and they both attempt to confront their time’s pressing social issues. The main characters of both shows are there every week, and their family dynamic never changes, even through years and years of broadcasting. The issues they talk about are more or less similar, but The Simpsons talks bout them in more of a contemporary nature.

The most obvious differentiating factor between the two shows is technology. Modern day technology allows for The Simpsons to be animated, providing it with many options in terms of plot that weren’t available to the creators of All in the Family. In fact, most episodes of All in the Family take place completely within the family’s living room set, while in The Simpsons, the characters go on vacations to Japan, London, India, and several other locations that the characters in All in the Family could not due to obvious financial reasons.

Touching on what I talked about earlier, The Simpsons discusses similar issues to All in the Family, but in a present-day context. In the episode we watched of All in the Family, “Judging Books by Covers,” the show talks about homosexuality. It challenges the father figure, Archie’s views on “fags” by making one of his best friends a gay man. The same issues are discussed on The Simpsons, but in a more contemporary manor. Instead of talking about gay people in general, it pokes fun at anti-gay marriage proponents—an issue not generally being considered during the seventies.

Here's a poor quality clip from the gay marriage Simpsons episode. It also highlights some of the advantages of animation I talked about. I.e. holding a belt sander next to someone's face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TneHU7Sf8g

Here's a great NYTimes article on the episode:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/arts/television/21simpsons.html

Technogical Determinsm in Radio

Without many crucial technological advances made in the early 1920’s, the development, and prolongation of radio, as we know it today, would be completely different.

According to the theory of Technological Determinism, technology is the driving force behind social and cultural changes. Simply put, as technology develops we develop. Not the other way around. This applies not just to radio, but also to many other facets of media today. For example the invention of Internet and smart-phones allows us access to information and means of communication at all times of the day. The development of affordable TVs led to families owning more than one, and therefore watching more television in general.

In terms of Radio, the most important technological advancement was quite possibly the vacuum tube. This allowed for the transmission and reception of sound, voice, and music. This way, by the 1920’s, radio could be used by stores to advertise goods, news outlets to transmit bulletins, schools and churches to publicize their beliefs, and eventually, as David Sarnoff envisioned, the broadcasting of music. Technology developed further however, and as Technological Determinism would suggest, the invention of television in the 1940’s led audiences to shift their focus towards visual entertainment.

Here's a gret PBS page about the technological development of radio:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rescue/sfeature/radio.html

Cultivation in American Television

After studying the theory of Cultivation in terms of television’s effect on its viewers, it becomes clear that television has a direct influence on people's thoughts towards society.

The Cultivation theory argues that exposure to mass media creates a new set of opinions that are generally constant with the beliefs of others who view mass media. To simplify for this argument; according to the theory of Cultivation, people who watch a lot of television, tend to have similar (often incorrect) views to other frequent television viewers. This is because the media provide a consistent message to their viewers. These opinions can involve gender biases, racial stereotypes, and misconceptions towards violence.

An excellent example of this would be a study conducted by N. Signorielli and M. Lears, in 1992. They studied the effects of television in terms of the manifestation of gender roles among young children. Researchers asked the children which chores they thought boys should do, which chores girls should do, and which chores both genders should do. They found that the children who watched more tv had views more consistent to the ones presented in American television; such as, boys should mow the lawn and fix things around the house, and girls should do the dishes and help cook. It’s hard to ignore the obvious effects television had on these young children and their thoughts regarding gender.

Here's a link to a summary of Signorielli and Lears' study:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6486/Cultivation-Theory-and-Media-Effects.html

Framing in New Media

            In today’s world, the media’s ability to ‘frame’ issues leads to the provision of biased information to an unknowing audience.

            Framing is the act of shaping the way people think about an issue or person. New media uses this technique to virtually control public opinion. We are subtly supplied with films, television shows, newspaper articles, and other forms of media all with their own opinion and agenda. This opinion is unsuspectingly transferred to its audience—practically changing how the audience thinks. Competing opinions generally produce competing media, both of which have the intention of influencing its viewers’ perspectives.

                       

            American politics provides us with countless examples of framing. In 2008, leading up to the presidential elections, Barack Obama made a considerable speech about race. Using the responses made by just two media sources, we can see exactly how framing works. The New York Times—a typically liberal media source—published an editorial the next day that compared Obama’s speech to Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural address. After talking about the pressures on Obama leading up to the speech, the article said, “It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.” On the other hand, just hours later, Fox News aired a reaction to the speech saying, “This cannot be good for the presidential campaign, and it cannot be good for his own campaign.” These are two tremendously different reactions to the same speech. Why? Because they both have an agenda of trying to frame their viewers into thinking the same way they do—the way their either conservative or liberal benefactors want them to.  

Here's a link to a transcript of the original speech: http://obamaspeeches.com/E05-Barack-Obama-A-More-Perfect-Union-the-Race-Speech-Philadelphia-PA-March-18-2008.htm

Here's a link to the NY times reaction: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Here's a link to Fox News' reaction: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339250,00.html

Here's a link to a great video that touches on the same issues "Killing us Softy" did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U&feature=related