My brother wrote a post on violent tv. [Go read it. I'll wait.]
I disagree. And I disagreed to the length that it wouldn't fit in the comment box.
So I think this argument has a few flaws.
Reality TV, earlier TV, and
graphic imagery
First up, reality TV rose to prominence in the oughts, not the 90s and I
don't think Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Survivor or American Idol really
fits into your argument about sex, drugs and violence. Cops might, but it
started in the 80s, as did America's Most Wanted. Yes, Cheers is a happy,
non-violent show, but that’s pretty true of all comedies, even today. MASH and
Murder She Wrote may not have had graphic images, but they certainly dealt with
dark topics. I would agree that graphic images started with cop and doctor
shows, such as ER, NYPD Blue, Homicide, X-Files, Twin Peaks, and St. Elsewhere, (Picket
Fences?). Granted, I haven’t seen a lot of older shows. I don’t know how
violent Magnum PI, Remington Steele, Miami Vice, or Hill Street Blues were. I
do know that most critics think that the majority of older shows weren’t as
well written as the better shows of today. (Also, in terms of popularity, soap
operas dominated the 80s, but as their themes of killing off twin brothers to
sleep with someone who came back from the dead have not changed today, I’m going to
disregard them here.)
Yes, there are graphic images on tv. And yes, the networks can now show
more graphic images than a few decades ago. But graphic images aren’t limited to
television; they are in movies, graphic novels, video games, theater, and in
fiction, non-fiction and song lyrics, for those with active imaginations.
As for the rise of the horror genre in television (see: American Horror
Story, The Walking Dead, Hannibal, Dracula, Sleepy Hollow,
True Blood, Hemlock Grove, the upcoming Penny Dreadful), it is certainly new to
have so much good horror tv (not that the list above is all good), but horror
is also a long-established genre, with the Twilight Zone, Tales from the Crypt,
the Outer Limits, Hammer House of Horror, Dark Shadows, Kolchak the Night
Stalker, Strange Paradise, Supernatural (the 70s British one), and Friday the
13th, not to mention miniseries like Salem’s Lot or IT, or horror
comedies like the Addams Family or the Munsters.
As for gangsters, pimps and drug dealers being the top rated… that isn’t
really true. Most of the shows you go on to list (Dexter, the Wire, Boardwalk Empire
and Oz) are all on niche cable channels. Breaking Bad, at its absolute peak, hit 10.3
million, for a 5.4 rating. In other words, less than football every week (if
you want to talk about violence…) The show only broke 2 million viewers once in its first four years.
Last season’s highest rated dramas were: NCIS
(protagonists: cops), the Following (the FBI – but violent!), Grey’s Anatomy (doctors),
Revolution (post-apocalypse survivors), Once Upon a Time (Snow White), NCIS:
LA (cops again), Person of Interest (dubious government workers? Possible anti-heroes?),
Criminal Minds (FBI/Cops?), Glee (show choir!), Elementary (detective), and
Scandal (white house intrigue?) The shows with the most critical acclaim, that
come to dominate discussions about tv such as this one, are still not as watched as The Voice or
The Bachelor.
Furthermore, I don’t think that you are making the argument that the rise
of graphic or violent television leads to lack of social involvement. If
anything, it seems to me that the rise of reality TV contributes more to lack
of critical thought, hyper-focus on d-list ‘celebrities’, and general
complacency.
As for those current dramas…
The Wire and Hannibal actually don't focus on the bad guy. As much as the
Wire can be said to have a lead character, it would be McNulty, the cop, and as
much time is given to the dock workers, politicians, teachers, neighborhood
children, and reporters as the gangs. And the focus on the criminal element, if
anything, serves to humanize them and investigate the societal causes and
pressures of the drug trade. I would actually argue that the Wire (although I
think at times overrated), is one of the most important social dramas ever
produced. No other show has focused on the failures of the American dream - the
war on drugs, our educational system, the collapse of blue collar industries – the
way this show did. If any drama of the last 25 years were to affect positive
social change, it would be this one. And I would argue that it probably did
cause people to take more of an interest in social change than if they hadn’t
watched.
As for Hannibal, he is the supporting character to Will Graham, who is a thoroughly
decent person. I can't speak to the Sopranos, because I've never seen it, or
Mad Men, but if you look at other shows in TV's new golden age, you've got
Deadwood (lead character: sheriff), Sherlock (Byronic detective hero), Friday
Night Lights (Football Coach), The Good Wife (lawyers – well, ok – kinda evil
by definition), Homeland (CIA agent), Justified (US Marshall), and Lost (ummm…
depends on who you like, but I would say most people went with the reformed con
man. Technically the lead was a doctor). I have heard that Downton Abbey is
diminishing returns after season 1, but I think the lead there is a good earl?
House was more Byronic hero than anti-hero, given that he was a doctor (and also
a sherlock). I haven’t seen Big Love, but a polygamist and not an otherwise
criminal there (I think). Six Feet Under – funeral home operators. Flawed, but
not morally corrupt. If you head back farther, you get emmy nods for Boston
Legal (lawyers), Grey’s Anatomy (doctors), Heroes (…), The West Wing (the most
idealized president ever), 24 (mercenary? I don’t really know), and CSI (cops)
for the last 10 years. Game of Thrones is interesting because I have yet to see
consensus on who anyone is rooting for. Maybe Daenerys, who is all about
freeing slaves and having awesome dragons. Maybe Tyrion for being clever. There
are certainly evil characters, but not anti-heroes in the vein of Tony Soprano
or Walter White.
If you were to look at all the scripted dramas available, I don’t think
that the focus on anti-heroes or bad guys would outweigh the regular or good
people. I haven’t seen the Americans (spies), Southland (cops), Treme (musicians?), Parenthood (regular
family?), Fringe (FBI?), the Killing (police), Alphas (mutants?), Luck
(gamblers), or Sons of Anarchy (violent bikers), but there you’ve got the focus
on the bad guys in maybe half. As for Doctor Who, Orphan Black, Glee, Smash, the Newsroom,
Nurse Jackie, Shameless, Skins, Once Upon a Time, Grimm, Rescue Me... you have some unlikeable characters, but only one or two anti-heroes in that bunch.
Yes, Boardwalk Empire focuses on gangsters, but (it is mostly boring and) I
don’t think anyone really aspires to be Nucky. After all, the one character who
did so was killed off. Dexter is closest to fitting the mold you describe
(although the show gleefully kills off all other wrong-doers). But Dexter's end
is bleak and the show takes the stance of Dexter getting what he deserves for
being a monster.
On Breaking Bad, which is totally brilliant, Walter White doesn't become
an anti-hero, he becomes the villain, and sparked far more conversations about
morality and choices than any other piece of pop culture I can remember. Even
Jesse, who many if not most viewers actually cared about, is quite literally
tortured for his sins. It isn't a show that glorifies violence or criminality.
For what they've done, the characters are punished in equal measure.
House of Cards probably fits the anti-hero genre. So far, Spacey has
experienced set-backs, but has yet to fall entirely. I haven’t seen Damages,
but Glenn Close might actually be an anti-hero, so score one for gender
equality (I don’t know how she ends up). Other shows that might have an antihero-focus:
The Shield, Californication, Low Winter Sun, Ray Donovan, the Blacklist, and the
Borgias.
But I do think it is important to make the distinction between unlikeable
or flawed characters, anti-heores, and violent shows. (Not that these
categories don’t overlap in some shows. From hearing reviews, it sounds as if
Weeds features an anti-hero, but I haven’t heard that it is particularly
graphic or violent. Likewise, most cop and doctor dramas feature graphic images,
but come down on the side of morality and social order, and feature heroic,
flawed or Byronic, but not amoral protagonists.
Furthermore, an anti-hero, in classical definition, is inferior to the
viewer for lacking the qualities of a typical hero protagonist. Viewers may enjoy watching Kevin Spacey plot and scheme, but they also feel morally superior to him.
As for two others you mentioned:
Oz – absolutely violent and with very few moral or in any way redeeming characters.
But also interspersed with real information about the prison system in America –
overcrowding, incarceration and recidivism rates, etc.
Law and Order? You can make the case that it, particularly SVU, and shows
that ape the format (Criminal Minds, the Following) do as much reveling in the
violence as prosecuting the offenders. But I think you can also make the case
that these shows often serve a similar function as murder mysteries. Yes, there
is violence as the primary plot driver, but justice reigns in the end. I can’t
find the essay, but Aaron Elkins once wrote about the fact that people enjoy
murder mysteries because they are actually lighter reading than a lot of other fictional
literature. Yes, they delve into the seamy side of life, but everything gets
wrapped up in a nice little bow by the end, in a way that real life, and
nihilistic, dark or cynical fiction, do not.
Additionally, Warren Ellis wrote a really interesting article recently on why we need violent stories.
And I would again make the point that those watching HBO and Showtime - the majority
of the violent, anti-hero focused shows - are likely more intelligent and more social
aware and involved than those watching reality tv or Two and a Half Men. I
wonder if there are any sociology studies to that effect…
Television as medium
Besides, isn't it much better to have well-crafted art than the
(by-in-large) wasteland of television before our time? TV isn't thought of as
high art (see your Bill Hicks quote at the bottom), but the masses don't have access to
going to the theater on a weekly basis. (And the dark leanings of plays and
operas could easily be a separate essay. I mean, hello Shakespeare’s tragedies.
Blood will have blood indeed.) However, the masses now DO have easy universal
access to well-written, well-crafted art. Some may choose to watch Real
Housewives rather than the Good Wife, and that speaks volumes about IQs and
personal choices in this country, but I don’t think the proliferation of
well-written dark dramas can be classified as a bad thing.
Yes, people could read more, and it might exercise their brains more than
watching television, which is a mostly passive exercise. (Less so with the rise
of social networking and live tweeting, but still. More on that in a moment.) But take a look at EW’s top
100 books of the last 25 years. The Road is #1, which I think is not a bad
choice; it is an incredible book. But that book is DARK. And violent. #2 –
Harry Potter, the Goblet of Fire and the rise of Voldemort. #3 – Beloved – slavery, rape, and
madness. #6 – Mystic River – child abuse and murder. #7 – Maus – The Holocaust.
#13 – Watchmen. #16 – The Handmaid’s Tale. Etc.
My point is that a lot of good art is dark and violent. It isn’t limited
to television. And neither are anti-heroes (Merchant of Venice, Clockwork
Orange, and many noir detectives spring to mind.)
Societal Implications
I think that you are trying to make the point that people should be
spending their time being politically involved, rather than watching tv. Or
that tv watching is no longer passive, because good storytelling has made
people care more and become more involved in what they are watching (I would argue that is a good thing). Or that
your students should care more about modern slavery than Breaking Bad.
Yes, people should be more politically involved.
But I don’t think television can be sourced as the reason that people are not.
Furthermore, television is a break for most people. You write; “We have so much strong emotion on our
televisions, we've saved none for the realities we must conquer to make our
world a better place.” Look. I’m sure you think I watch too much TV. But
I spend the largest part of my week working, and I am actively working on a daily basis to make
the world a better place. If a nurse wants to come home and watch American
Idol, you know? He’s worked a full shift making the world a better place. Who
cares how he unwinds?
And being wrapped up in your entertainment is hardly new
to tv. People crowded the docks for Dickens' new installments. People shunned Arthur
Conan Doyle after the Reichenbach Fall. There were literally men wearing mourning
dress in the days after it was published. People care about fictional characters. Deeply. And that is a blessing,
because it teaches empathy. Far more frightening are the societal fringes and
religious groups that ban books and television and music.
As Neil Gaiman wrote; “The second thing fiction does is
to build empathy. When you watch TV or see a film, you are looking at
things happening to other people. Prose fiction is something you build up
from 26 letters and a handful of punctuation marks, and you, and you alone,
using your imagination, create a world and people it and look out through
other eyes…. And while we're on the subject, I'd like to say a few words about
escapism. I hear the term bandied about as if it's a bad thing. As if
"escapist" fiction is a cheap opiate used by the muddled and the
foolish and the deluded, and the only fiction that is worthy, for adults
or for children, is mimetic fiction, mirroring the worst of the world the
reader finds herself in. If you were trapped in an impossible situation, in an
unpleasant place, with people who meant you ill, and someone offered you a
temporary escape, why wouldn't you take it? And escapist fiction is just
that: fiction that opens a door, shows the sunlight outside, gives you a place
to go where you are in control, are with people you want to be with; and more
importantly, during your escape, books can also give you knowledge about the world
and your predicament, give you weapons, give you armour, real things you can
take back into your prison. Skills and knowledge and tools you can use to
escape for real.”
[This essay is also worth a read: http://martinweigel.org/2013/08/19/the-cultivation-of-empathy-why-we-need-fiction/]
As for your students, a couple of things. One, your particular school. Your kids are – and please correct me if I’m wrong – in most cases dealing with some very real individual issues. They aren’t going to have the same bandwidth to care about hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa as a privileged, upper class school (Hello activism clubs at prep schools…)
There are two Mark Morford articles that come to my mind. One, Ask Me about My Agony, has this to say: “the karma of the world is not yours to solve.” (If I start quoting any larger pieces, I end up with 3/4 of the essay.) I’m not saying your teaching is bad, but if you are covering the death penalty, genocide, and slavery all in the course of a semester, I could easily see how students might shut down. How on earth are they to shoulder such ills? Have a hope to making a dent in any of them? Are you saying they are a bunch of losers for not somehow solving societal problems that date back millennia? (Also, are you saying they should be out protesting, because I’m pretty sure they can’t just wander off campus…)
The other essay is
this; No Twinkies Please.
“All problems, illnesses,
joys, bouts of sadness over even the most commonplace of things, these have a
decidedly potent charge, a valid role to play. All issues of the day, whether
it is the death of a relative, a bloody war in a faraway land, all the way on
down to feeling upset that one of the cast of “Real Housewives” might reduce
her breast implants, these all have a spot on the continuum. But as the wise
ones say, you gotta discern.” I would hope, if asked, that your one student
would recognize where involvement in a fictional show falls on the spectrum of
issues to care about. If not, well, he needs to learn. I mean, is that not a
teachable moment? Teenagers still feel things so immediately and so vividly that
they have to learn how to prioritize emotions (your boyfriend breaking up with
you is a not a good reason for suicide, etc.)
In fact, any media studies major would make the argument that television is an important part of our cultural dialogue, for both teenagers forming their world view and adults refining theirs. Most narrative shows, at least at some point, comment on ideologies or social problems. As one paper put it; “it is television as a whole system that presents a mass audience with the range and variety of ideas and ideologies inherent in American culture.” Additionally, and apologies for the Wiki-links, but I think when discussing the effect television has on consumers, you also have to state how you believe people are consuming that media. I don’t think you are suggesting that viewers behave in an hypodermic way, because that rhetoric is mostly used in the “people who watch violent tv are going to commit violent acts” way. The Uses and Gratification theory may be more applicable. It sounds as if you are concerned that people watch tv for simple entertainment or escaping stresses, rather than information or identification? (Or maybe identification with the wrong types of characters?) (Or, using the Katz, Gurevitch and Haas definitions, you worry that people are watching television for affective and tension release needs.) But as I stated previously, I don’t think that escapism necessarily leads to complacency. And I think that empathy from fiction can only be a good thing.
Do we need political change? Indubitably. Is protesting the best way to achieve that change? Probably not. Will the TV we watch make a difference? Maybe only when it comes to discussing the 24-hour editorial news cycle.
I don’t think empathizing with a serial killer like Dexter makes me a better or a worse person when it comes to being politically involved. I mean, it might say something about my political bent – I can empathize with a person unlike myself, therefore I believe in welfare and immigration reform. And yeah, I don’t have a theoretical issue with the death penalty, because I think a murderer’s life is forfeit. (I think politically in this country it doesn’t work, obviously.) (If anything, I’m now less inclined to believe in the death penalty because of an episode of Oz that absolutely destroyed me.)
In sum, don’t blame societal ills on Breaking Bad. It’s one of the better things America has produced recently.
“Seeing a murder on television… can help work off one’s antagonisms. And if you haven’t any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some.” – Alfred Hitchcock.
“One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.” – Kurt Vonnegut.
In fact, any media studies major would make the argument that television is an important part of our cultural dialogue, for both teenagers forming their world view and adults refining theirs. Most narrative shows, at least at some point, comment on ideologies or social problems. As one paper put it; “it is television as a whole system that presents a mass audience with the range and variety of ideas and ideologies inherent in American culture.” Additionally, and apologies for the Wiki-links, but I think when discussing the effect television has on consumers, you also have to state how you believe people are consuming that media. I don’t think you are suggesting that viewers behave in an hypodermic way, because that rhetoric is mostly used in the “people who watch violent tv are going to commit violent acts” way. The Uses and Gratification theory may be more applicable. It sounds as if you are concerned that people watch tv for simple entertainment or escaping stresses, rather than information or identification? (Or maybe identification with the wrong types of characters?) (Or, using the Katz, Gurevitch and Haas definitions, you worry that people are watching television for affective and tension release needs.) But as I stated previously, I don’t think that escapism necessarily leads to complacency. And I think that empathy from fiction can only be a good thing.
Do we need political change? Indubitably. Is protesting the best way to achieve that change? Probably not. Will the TV we watch make a difference? Maybe only when it comes to discussing the 24-hour editorial news cycle.
I don’t think empathizing with a serial killer like Dexter makes me a better or a worse person when it comes to being politically involved. I mean, it might say something about my political bent – I can empathize with a person unlike myself, therefore I believe in welfare and immigration reform. And yeah, I don’t have a theoretical issue with the death penalty, because I think a murderer’s life is forfeit. (I think politically in this country it doesn’t work, obviously.) (If anything, I’m now less inclined to believe in the death penalty because of an episode of Oz that absolutely destroyed me.)
In sum, don’t blame societal ills on Breaking Bad. It’s one of the better things America has produced recently.
“Seeing a murder on television… can help work off one’s antagonisms. And if you haven’t any antagonisms, the commercials will give you some.” – Alfred Hitchcock.
“One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.” – Kurt Vonnegut.
No comments:
Post a Comment