Friday, October 31, 2008

OBAMA SMASH!

I know we aren't at the video/computer game section of the class, but I felt with all of Chun's examples of media coverage of the election I feel I have to include this:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/31/mercenaries-2-gets-political/#more-4712

Yes, you can blow up the world as either Obama or Palin

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Boom!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHDVSW5OpI4

In relation to Joyrich's Hypermasculinity article and the article on TV sound, I want to examine a show that my (very masculine) friend put on during some down time and a drink. This show, Destroyed in Seconds from the Discovery Channel is one of many sort of "live camera" TV catastrophe shows, in this case focusing on technological and natural disaster that (as they claim) happens in a matter of seconds (as opposed to feral animals, wild criminals, etc). Since every spectacle happens only in a matter of seconds, they take their time to rewind, replay, analyze, and dissect the horror inside out.

In contrast to Good Morning America or soap operas, these shows focus so much on the visual spectacle, calling for rapt attention of the gaze, lest the viewer "miss something". The replays serve to emphasize the importance of making sure the viewer catches every detail. Yet the disembodied sound narrative is necessary to carry out the act of precise analysis and almost scientific authority to explain this all to us. And just as these disasters are slowed down and analyzed for us, they are also shot at us at a pace of one per every one to three minutes. The onrush and sheer amount of videos given to us between each break shell shock us, until every explosion looks the same, yet each one is meant to incite, excite, glue, sensationalize, and horrify. Furthermore, the fact that most of these videos are taken by home cameras, surviellance cameras, etc. parallels to TV's own lack of high visual quality, such that part of the spectacle is the video's grainy "realness".

This is certainly a masculine show, but does this show cut against the grain of "essential television qualities" of sound and feminine reception? I would argue the opposite, for I think shows like these that are non-narrative, fragmented, and ADD also build upon inherent qualities of the TV as medium, and very much reinforce the visual over the aural. However, this does not negate Joyrich or any of the other theorists, but rather merely serves to reinforce the idea that television is full of polysemy.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Tonight Show

I am really interested in the relationship a commercial has to both the other commercials surrounding it as well as to the program it "interrupts."  So, i tuned in to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on NBC thinking that this was the best way to see "mainstream" advertising.

What I found interesting is that I saw a series of commercials all focusing on the home/family, immediately before and after an interview with Sarah Silverman.

The first commercial was a Verizon commercial, you know the one where the dad goes in to work and asks his secretary what his schedule is and he is essentially spending the day texting his family.  Then, it was a local commercial about carpeting your home.  Finally, and this is the best... a commercial showing a family around the breakfast table.  The mother is silently tidying up the kitchen while the father respectfully "asks the tough questions" of his teenage daughter who missed curfew for a (gasp!) boyfriend.  I thought this was going to break into a joke, but it was actually sponsored by the Church of Latter Day Saints.  Then immediately to Sarah Silverman...

...who dives into making fun of Sarah Palin's giant family and the way she brings the kids all over the campaign trail.  Then she talks about her "The Great Schlep" video which I'm sure lots of people have seen and its fairly edgy.  

The next commercial segment begins with a depression medication, then goes into MetLife so "your family can watch its dreams bloom," then 2 plugs for NBC shows, then a car commercial, then a commercial for local politician (senator?) Jack Reed talking about "working Rhode Island families."

And then back to Sarah Silverman making sexual innuendos. 

So whats the deal?  Is NBC just screwing up and surrounding a controversial figure with family-values propoganda?  Is there some other way to understand this particular flow?

The Allure of Live TV

Feuer's argument about liveness being the ideology of television struck a particular chord with me in light of the recent Olympics. Although the time difference between America and China made live coverage extremely impractical, American news corporations lobbied to have popular events (like swimming and gymnastics) take place in the morning in China, so that they would be live during primetime broadcast on the east coast of the U.S. I read about this in the paper while the Olympics were going on, and I was quite surprised to find that American news companies were actually able to pull that off.

But despite being aware of the impracticalities of live broadcast (and perhaps the undue attention to American TV in the scheduling of certain events), I found myself completely a victim to the allure of live broadcast. I remember staying up until ridiculous hours of the early morning to watch how events turned out (in live time), even though I knew I had to get up early in the morning and the events would likely be replayed or put on youtube.

Even more interestingly, my sister (who is very into swimming) made a big to-do about us recording all of the swimming events for her, because she was hiking in the widerness while the Olympics were going on. But when she got back, she barely watched any of the recorded footage. Something about it not being live made it much less interesting to her.
In the spirit of television's fragmentation, my post tonight is incredibly fragmented. A few main points came up for me with this week's readings.

First of all, I was very interested in Feuer's use of the word "aura" in describing the videotape as eliminating aura, as well as the relationship between aura and the sense of liveness we see in television. It seems to me that the images shown on television have some semblance of aura whereas the images of a film do not; regardless of the ways in which television can manipulate these events - in terms of replaying them over and over again, using slow-motion, etc. - the fact that they ocurred once - and once only - in time has an organic and authentic quality, a uniqueness, to it, that film cannot.

Secondly, I was really in the relationship between spectator and television, and the relationship between this relationship and that between spectator and film. When Feuer discusses Good Morning America, she discusses how David Hartman acts as a link between us and the guest he is interviewing. She writes: "David sets the circuit of address: he may look into the internal monitor and he may look at us; but the guest looks only at David - so that David mediates all discourse. The format denies the possibility of direct address from the interviewee to spectator" (18-19). In this sense, it seems that television does not offer its spectators the same ability to conquer the individuals onscreen as does film. In film, the spectator can possess the female celebrity, both directly and indirectly. In television, by contrast, there is only indrect contact with the indvidual being interviewed, and indirectness underscored by the technical shots used in these interviews. I guess the issue that came up for me in observing this relationship is how television seems to overpower its spectator, yet previous texts we have read equate television with femininity and film with masculinity.

Lastly, in the readings and in the lecture, the idea of aperture kept on coming up in relation to television, contrasting the closure of film. However, I remember aperture as being an element of counter cinema, and I am curious about the relationship between the aperture of counter cinema and the aperture of television.

...Broadcast news makes me want to kill myself... (alternate: makes my brain melt)

For some reason I thought we were supposed to do the flow analysis thing of the half hour of TV we watched, and even though no one else did that (so I'm guessing I misheard), since I already did it, I'll just post that.  It's pretty interesting--it's like the normal fragmentation of tv on crack (as there's a new story like every 10 seconds minimum pretty much), but there's distinct themes that run across sections of a few of the segments to keep it semi-continuous even though it's shifting stories so rapidly (i.e., the illusion of continuity to disparate subjects).

Anyways, here's a half hour NBC news (with commercials!--from 5:53-6:23 today):

-man driving in car, reporter says you can save gas by driving manual cars.  It goes back to the woman in the studio to end the story.
-commercial--two men fishing, talking about bank--New port fed.  One of them is getting tangled up in his fishing line as he talks about his current bank which is bad or something.
-political ad for Jack Reed--images of him talking and shaking hands with happy, smiling people.  He's for cutting taxes, creating jobs, alternate energy, lower healthcare costs.
-commercial--man bowling--Alzheimer's ad--his wife is confused at the bowling alley--prescription Arecept--image of old people happily going on boat, then at the beach.
-Back to the show--Image of fire burning in Florida.
-image of gunshop--man in studio says gun sales are up in the bad economy--people feeling unsafe
-lead singer of Bare Naked Ladies arrested for coke possession.  Image of him in courtroom.
-high heels race--image of drag queens
-man in studio--then reporter giving preview of what's to come
-Access Hollywood commercial--tonight at 7:30--something about a "spooked stage" and "psychic medium"
-Political add against Question 1--woman at hospital
-ad for potato bacon soup--images of soup and other things up close.  White background.
-Toyota ad--zero financing--cars driving up and then away.  White background.
-NBC news intro. animation/graphic
-quick previews of stories to come (go by to fast for me to write even a bit about)
-ethics case dropped against Bill Irons--image of hime--back to studio--to reporter in Providence.  Reporters talking to Irons.  Shot of ethics commitee
-Back to studio--man talking--something about Urciuoli (someone's last name)
-mother charged in child abuse case--his father had already been charged
-Fed. cuts interest rate--image of capitol building--images of Wall street--market closes down despite rate cut--graphic of stock market
-back to studio
-reporter--talking about people trying to unionize
-interview--female busdriver talking about efforts to unionize (she's fighting for it)
-reporter outside hospital--nurses vote to join union
-woman talking about healthworker unionization
-rescue workers rallying outside hospital, trying to unionize
-woman in studio
-reporter in Providence--in front of workers picketing against change in healthcare plans (from Blue Cross to United Healthcare)--crowd booing mayor as he walks by
-interview with mayor--says he's confused with reaction, that the plan is good, that it will save taxpayers 8 million dollars.
-reporter says many taxpayers agree with mayor
-interview--woman saying she doesn't get how people can say that, people won't have healthcare.
-man in studio--Rhode Island students protesting new fee increases
-graphic--statement from RI College
-gambling sales down--images of various gambling games--graphic of lottery sales (they're down)
-traffic update--reporter in different location, in front of screen--graphic of roads, dotted lines represent traffic, the color of the lines the amount of traffic.
-weather update (in different location, in front of screen)--wind speeds fairly high--says cold will stop soon though.
-previews of news to come: cats found abandoned in tupperware containers, troops headed for Iraq, some others I didn't catch
-RI bank ad
-Jack Reed ad--same as earlier one
-Nissan ad--advertising fall sale--car showroom
-NBC news --advertising it's radio show
-tomorrow on NBC news--state worker story--something about stealing taxpayer money--that's all i caught
-woman in studio--soldiers going to Iraq--images of soldiers, American flag waving in the wind
-family members of soldiers/soldiers talking about leaving--how hard it is
-police officer had his badge, gun, other police items stolen from his truck at his home by teenagers--he was suspended without pay for a week
-image of construction workers taking down bridge--reporter assures us it's only supposed to last a few days
-next at 6--cats abandoned in tupperware (again)
-Cerrones GM-car ad
-carpet and flooring ad-man installing-->happy couple in newly furnished house.  Ends with cartoon and song.
-Ad-man says Democrats in control of congress are taking to much taxpayer money--urges people to vote Republican
-bath splash showroom ad--images of bathroom stuff
-Cerrones GM ad again--this time he's in front of 4 cars.
-studio-cats
-reporter-they were in bad shape--image of cat scratching itself--person who left them unknown--interview with woman saying where she found the containers they were in--outside animal shelter--workers there describing how bad their condition was--images of cats in cages scratching--says in a month or so people who want to adopt them can
-reporter gives a number to call to adopt them
-elementary school closing--kids will be transferred to other schools--images of school--teachers to lose jobs, apparently like a similar event recently.
-mayor and recycling coordinator taught recycling to kids at a public elementary school
-author of Scooby Doo and You (I have no idea) talking to kids
-image of dog dressed like skunk--woman in studio (or maybe a reporter) asks for people to send in their Halloween photos
-weather report--graphic of globe (mostly North America)--image of jetstream--cool air here currently will be replaced by warm air brought by the jetstream--but, tonight cold--images of clouds

...and thank god, that's the last of it.

9/11 Coverage and Flow

Raymond Williams talks about how important flow is in broadcasting. According to Williams, stations deliberately plan out their entire schedules, making sure that there is a continuous flow throughout their broadcast. Whether there is a commercial, promo, news, or a serial show on, the continuity remains. Rick Altman adds to the theory of flow, showing how the soundtrack of the broadcast lets the viewer know when to pay attention.

The coverage of 9/11 seemed to be an instance where the flow of the broadcast was interrupted. The reason for this seems to be that the events of 9/11 were so extreme that the stations did not plan for them and had no plan in place to deal with them. Normal news happens without the stations knowing what is coming, but in general they are prepared to respond to it. During the coverage of 9/11, the broadcasters were shocked and often seemed to be at a loss for words. This led to lots of time where there was no sound at all. According to Altman, this would lead to a loss of flow and the viewer would not be able to tell what was happening. Part of the problem ws that there was very little new information to report on, even though the stations clearly had to stay on the same topic. There seemed to be attempts to reinstate the flow by offering new information, but this led to times when they had to redact what was said, such as the car bomb going off in Washington. The stations also had a limited number of clips to show, and ended up playing the same clips over and over. This also contributed to the lack of flow and seemed to diminish the "liveness" of the broadcast, despite the fact that it was breaking news and basically was live.

One concept that the 9/11 coverage did reinforce was the one of intertextuality. Like any breaking news, all of the stations were focused on the same thing, even to the extent that some were showing the exact same shots. Watching any of the news stations would have provided the same information and news.

Television Theories_ monotonous view?

I feel as if the views that we have covered so far are mainly focused in the domain of the U.S. ... I would be interested in expanding the view onto the international level. I am watching the broadcast from France 24, BBC, etc. Will post the review soon. 
I had never really taken a step back and thought about the unique media that is television. A film lasts about two to three hours... during this time, one may be completely immersed in the characters, plot, etc... but afterward, the film is over (with the rare exception of a sequel or something of that sort). Many actors get several leading roles, so we as an audience think that we know them on a familiar level.

Television is like film.. amplified. Multiplied by ten billion... but put in the background. We are constantly bombarded with images-- familiar faces of stars who we think we know personally, commercials telling us what we need to buy, plot lines that are all too familiar... just with a different twist.

We become so accustomed to our television that some don't even bother to turn it off. It's just background noise... We also become accustomed to the characters who we see on our shows. I have told people numerous times that when I grow up I want to be Olivia Benson (from Law and Order SVU). In reality, she doesn't exist (although this is idea is hard to grasp-- I love Olivia...).

How did this happen? Why are we so connected to this little box?? Without it, would we be missing a sense of imagined community within our city, state, country...???

Movies on TV

To me, one of the most striking things about television commercials is the way they manage to reduce feature length movies into small enough fragments to fit in with the text of TV. The full film is reduced into a minute-long skit, filled with shots from the movie. There are quick characterizations, usually through repeated situations. Consider an advertisement for Role Models, an upcoming feature. First, we are told of Danny and Wheeler's mandatory community service, and forced time spent with youths, then their formal punishment: karma in the form of excessively precocious children. The only bit left out, is Danny and Wheeler's ultimate realization of the good in the kids, which we are all programed to expect. Essentially three full acts are played out in a minute long bit: perfect for television consumption.

"Rip...he's no ordinary cat..."

So, as I'm writing this right now I'm watching Goosebumps on Cartoon Network, a show which during my childhood days honestly used to give me nightmares. Why? Because Law and Order is boring and I've already seen the episode of the Daily Show. 

The context of the episode(which is ironic) is a girl TV actress, Allison, starring in a very poor satire of the Exorcist revolving around some kind of zombie cat. The girl is, of course, a drama queen who knows bounds, and leaves the set to study her lines. She runs over an eerily similarly mutilated cat, named Rip, that belongs to a family who doesn't own a television because "they lie," and so they live in a very pre-television era setting and have no idea who Allison is. The cat then proceeds to haunt the girl actress and everyone thinks she's going crazy and she sorta is....then the episode ends, what the hell?

The episode after is conveniently the next part, I have to watch it...I am sucked into the flow of children's programming...

While watching, the commercial and societal structures implemented into the flow are so amazingly obvious due to its targeted audience, which makes perfect sense. Catching and retaining the focus of a child is so much more difficult than that of an adult and there is much done to compensate for this.

Within the show the sound advance, a concept which I could not quite grasp at first, was blatant. While I write this I can hear the crescendo and tremolo of synthetic strings which foreshadows a mutilated demon cat under the blanket Allison is reaching for. When the show pauses and resumes there are always goofy shorts to transition back into the show, utilizing familiar cartoon ghosts and xylophone sound bites that serve well to alert me the show is doing something and I should look.

The commercials are colorful and commanding, fluffy creatures saying "ask your parents to buy me today," some involving relevant social contexts, Holloween, Election season, parodies of popular songs, many images of tv within a tv, and action figures, all of which tell me that I am in control of the image, that I can even own the image (and physically touch them in the case of an Iron Man figure which tells me "his power can be mine"). This is almost a direct correlation with Altman's quote:

"we turn towards the screen to complete our sense of the star's presence"(575) or the image, hero athlete, and in this case is Iron Man.

In response to the 9/11 footage which I found to be shockingly brutal even still, I found it annoying that despite the severity and brute trauma of the event, the competition between channels was still quite evident. Each station seemed frantic to interview the most important people they could find, quantity of interviews over quality, the captions were all the same but the banner graphics and transitions were still colorful and distracting. At one point the Rhode Island news station ran a banner which at the end asked viewers to "stay tuned for complete coverage!", overtly competitive. The voices of the internal audience, the anchors, still sounded monotonous and directed which really pointed a cold, mechanical feel in the people whom are supposed to be warm and human like. However, I did notice that the coverage was completely soundless/musicless at times which really added reality impact to the footage which says something about how the absence of sound is just as powerful as sound weapons themselves.

Question: Has the modern television era with its overabundance of sound turned silence into a powerful symbol of reality and sound into an emblem of professional superficiality?

I guess its more of an opinion than a question.

So now my blog is tremendous but the end of the story is ridiculous. Get this...Allison begins turning into a cat because Rip is apparently stealing her life force and they go back to Rip's owners to find a solution to the problem. Turns out that Rip is actually the product of a failed genetic experiment and this mother who has become half of a cat person, its nasty. Allison is expected to suffer the same fate in which the magnificent line is shared "its not so bad...you get used to it." blah blah blah, Rip is killed, the effects are reversed and the event is turned into a TV show. The show ends with Allison being a good person and her best friend randomly eats a mouse revealing an incredibly annoying second cliff hanger ending.

Double aperture...I change the channel only to find futurama...the flow never stops



Television Is My Friend

The first time I ever saw a guest actor in a famous TV show was a special episode of Friends when Brad Pitt made an appearance. I figured that since Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were married, they assumed it was a cool idea to have him on the show. At the time (mostly because of my age), it seemed like plain old fun, no publicity or hidden intentions.However, it is evident that this is not true. As White allows us to see, these appearances have a different agenda.

White gives a lot of examples of TV shows weaving their plot lines together. When I read these examples I was reminded of a MadTV skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JImyMGNQSs ) which joins the shows Grey's Anatomy, House, and ER. The main characters of this show interact hoping to save a patient. Although a skit meant to mock these shows, I think they had a good idea. Had it been a little (or a lot) less stupid and with the real actors, the skit would have shown the bizarre cases and remedies that House shows, the dramatic and comedic aspects of Grey's Anatomy, and the drama and action that keeps you on your toes of ER.

This strategy gone bad can be seen in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Not being a fan of these shows my information might be in correct, but the main characters seemed to be dating each other. Buffy was not an actual character on Angel and neither was he in Buffy. Now I'm not aware of when exactly these shows started mixing (was it because both shows were at their best, etc.) but I do know that it became so complicated that they had to break up the character's relationship. This basically shows that although it is a good idea to join shows and have guest appearances, its best if its kept at a minimum of an episode.

I feel that shows are no longer doing this as much as White's article leads us to believe. However, guest appearances are still being made. This happened a lot in Will & Grace. You would see Jack trying to be a back up dancer for Jennifer Lopez or Janet Jackson or Will dancing to the music of Footlose with Kevin Bacon. There are also many episodes in which one of the main characters meets an actor and insists they are the character they play on TV. Not only bringing attention to the actors, but the shows they are on.

Both Harold & Kumar movies, for example, have Neil Patrick Harris play a drug and sex obsessed version of himself. Harold and Kumar would idolize Neil Patrick Harris. These characters would act like crazy fans, just like we would. I feel like this may have more impact. They are telling us that these actors are worthy of being written into the show. However, they aren't going to play the server or love affair, but themselves. They are so "awesome" they are worthy of having these fictional characters be obsessed with them.

On one last note, big name companies have been taking this idea to advertise their products. White mentions Robert Young/Marcus Welby, M.D. promote Sanka decaffienated coffee, and Neil Patrick Harris promoting Old Spice comes to mind. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TusJ8HSLaUs)