The Blogulator: My Final Post?

My Final Post?

I do not wish it to be so, but whispers out of London are pointing to yes. Check out this story from the Sun-Telegraph:

Late Tuesday night, an aging-but-still-young bloguleer turned against his peers in an American shock horror. After a string of posts heralding 30 Rock as the peak of comedy and Tina Fey as a stereotype-breaking glamour model, upstart "DoktorPeace" delivered an earth-shaking verdict from the underbelly of his mother's basement. Proclaimed the salacious snapper, "The Office remains a superior show, and Tina Fey is no more than an Average Anne." Some bystanders attest that he added, "And get rid of those thick-rimmed glasses already! Wire-rims are a forgotten evolution."

Says DoktorPeace, "Mothers are ugly!"

None of his so-called Blogulator cohorts could be reached for comment. Authorities assume the worse, saying the appalling opinions of Mr. Peace likely asphyxiated his former friends'; that is, if he didn't do the deed with his own hands."

Although he utterly failed in tact, the rogue did manage to pique the interest of gutter-grubbing reporters. Only those who had been previously embedded with our honoured British troops, though, could sustain the Doktor's assault. Many are even considering referring the incident to the Hague, citing violations of the Geneva Convention.

Following, if you dare, is the disgusting litany shamelessly propogated by DoktorPeace to an unsuspecting public:

The Office is frustrating, yes. It's departure from the original concept is noticeably running thin, and many of the characters tread on the precipice of absolute cartoon-ization. Michael Scott is nowhere near as sympathetic as David Brent, with his childlike antics at Phyllis's wedding and straight-up rudeness in the "blind dating" episode being downright unbelievable. Jan's character has gone off the deep end in more ways than one, and the Jim-Pam situation is largely untenable over such an expanded, nebulous timespan. This generation has already experienced its Ross and Rachel, and it's hard for the new, meta-viewing public to really buy into another such affair.

However, the redeeming moments of The Office make me forgive its many shortcomings. I like watching Stanley respond to Business 101 bulls*** that I (in my 3 months of working) have already been scolded for hinting at (there is no need for a dress code when I have no contact with customers). I loved watching Toby run away from his Pam encounter, which, overplayed as it was, had been built up to enough in previous episodes that I could accept and enjoy it. The one-off, crazy Michael-Jan dinner parties are indeed disappointing, but any segment that resonates the real depression/absurdity of modern office life is a plus plus.

Meanwhile, 30 Rock is doing a fine job delivering the funnies. The chart describing how animated girls continually get hotter until a certain level of CGI kills them really connected with my core concerns. Overall, though, the show only resonates with me on a pure joke level. I don't really care for any of the characters, not hoping for or expecting major change from any of them. Tina Fey's character is a step above Sex and the City, but not much. She's a woman in a powerful position who's obsessed with a relationship. Sure, I'll accept that we're all desperately seeking acceptance from the preferred gender on some level, yet there is very little subtely to her predicament. And I do not understand her "bald male friend" character at all. He only appears every once in a while to tell her something obvious. He is definitely a ghost.

Tracy Morgan always brings the crazy quirk, and the show likes to twist his posse to play on stereotypes (although that reverse logic is kind of a stereotype in itself. Academic-sounding black folk is crazy!) Alec Baldwin continues to surprise and amuse me, too; but these remain cartoon characters. Maybe I should like them more because they're openly operating in a make-believe world, versus The Office's insincere attempts at real drama, but I don't.

I suspend my disbelief enough to make The Office work for me. I cannot get 30 Rock to advance past "fun background noise," whether it be during one of my intense workouts where I sweat and ladies love it, or whether it be prior to a wedding. True, I don't really care what happens to the Scranton bunch anymore, and I'm more interested in how the producers develop the show than what actually develops. But something about the atmosphere there excites me that just doesn't exist in 30 Rock.

It may be because my dad was born in Scranton. It's probably Pam's breasts.

DoktorPeace cultists contest that this last point, which seemingly undermines a bulk of his argument, is completely fabricated. Of course, their objections should be taken with a grain of depurified salt, as these "people" are one in the same with those who helped the Doktor set fire to an orphanage and begin various genocides. The Sun-Telegraph is currently seeking donations to put towards the assassination of this pop culture criminal. To aid the cause, please click on our advertiser's links.
*************************

News Alert with Chopper Zoom!: Remember when I rambled about the Prince of Persia games a while back, mentioning that blockbuster, Bruckheimer movies are coming? Well, Hollywood has chosen its Persian Prince: Jake Gyllenhaal. Why him? Because real Iranian actors suck!

Welcome to Tehran. Enjoy our Roses of the Prophet Mohammed.

Labels: DoktorPeace, Movies, TV

This entry was posted by DoktorPeace, on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. You can leave your response.

Dave | 9:21 AM |

For a couple of seconds I thought you were moving to London and I swear to god I was about to grab a net and capture you before you could get to the airport. Good thing I read the next line or two or you'd be in a lion cage on a steam train climbing a hill during a thunderstorm right about now.

Good stuff - only thing I'd like to officially react to is that I'd say Tracy Morgan's crew being super intellectual sometimes isn't really just a play on smart black people and that being wacky. Rather, I think its a play on smart members of an entourage to some rapper/actor (and that being wacky). That entourage member who stands in the background, riding squarely on their friend's coat tails while drinking Crystal and wearing platinum chains has become a weird-ass archetype all its own. The fact that those entourage members are actually smart, and good advisers, flips that on its head and delivers countless laughs.

"Dude, you've been in your office for three months!"
"WHAT?!?!?!?"

DoktorPeace | 9:27 AM |

Yeah I was a little unsure about whether to include that or not, cuz I still get laughs out of it. And point taken on the entourage-not-race stereotype. I guess I think it's more "in danger" of becoming a stereotype, as I've seen it recurring more and more (like every time I rewatch Starsky & Hutch).

Unknown | 9:30 AM |

Doktor, you're fired.

DoktorPeace | 10:19 AM |

Sigh... I'll pack this afternoon, after I inform little Peacy that he won't be getting that tricycle he wanted oh so very much.

Sean | 11:17 AM |

Oooh, you know what your problem is?
Follow me here.

Don't take an academic/sociological analysis approach to television. It takes all the fun out of it. I mean, the entire medium is subject to so many studies and gripes and problems. You could attack any show with some ideology.
Ex. a feminist critique of S&TC...
an afro-american studies critique of any show ever where a black character is featured OR not featured committing crime...
a marxist critique of the wealthy/lazy bluth family of arrested development..

my point is, all that academic learning is just baggage that clouds your eyes from enjoying television.
the thing to do is point out these problems to another grad-student during commercial, but completely ignore them during the actual show. there are countless shows that i can only enjoy by ignoring the glaring problems. (south park, american dad, king of queens re-runs when i'm totally bored, HIMYM).

would you really want all shows on television to be sanitized, utopian visions of the world? do you want jim and pam to run off to africa with brangelina (sp?) to feed the whales?
that would be awful (though one show of that nature would actually be funny). i read some article a while back about how 'all in the family' reruns out-performed 'diff'rent strokes'. tv is funnier when it's not all sugar-coated and silly. i can't remember the focus of my rant. and i hate comments that drag. my bad.

the point is: 30 rock rules, the office drules.

Lady Amy | 1:01 PM |

Is half the fun of blogging, pointing out the glaring problems with movies or television?

Dave | 1:33 PM |

Agree with Sean 100% - it drives me nuts when people try to take lessons about our culture away from tv, or when they examine tv as a means to examine a culture. What you take away from any media is so subjective and personal, trying to say that it represents anything larger is a tough sell in my book.

Brigitte | 2:43 PM |

can't use TV as a means to examine our culture? chris, why haven't you jumped on this? hello? buzz? uncle frank? uncle frank, is this a joke? i was all excited to see the debate...come on blog readers/contributers! don't tell me you're too busy "working."

while i agree that overanalysis (or perhaps any analysis?) takes away from enjoyment of television, i don't think you can go so far as to say that it is not worth analyzing or looking at as a means of examining culture...i think that tv is a perfect way to look at trends etc. in our culture, and it's also a powerful vehicle for perpetuating stereotypes...let's not be too hasty in undermining tv's potential to impact us. i think there's definitely a shared experience going on, not just a totally isolate personal experience.

Lady Amy | 2:50 PM |

Totally agreed. Looking at television/movies/etc. with a critical eye is very important. If TV didn't have the potential to represent anything larger or influence us as people, why do advertisers spend millions of dollars on commercials?

Dave | 4:19 PM |

I really don't agree that it's important to study tv at all. Advertisers spend money on tv ads because... people see them? Sure, there may be some people out there who will see that commercial for Shakey's one too many times and suddenly become brainwashed into liking it, but I think most of the time it's more about introducing new products, sales, features, brands, whatever (or simply keeping your brand in front of people so they recognize it later).

There are certainly programs out there that represent our world in a good way, some that specifically try to and some that randomly do it, but 20 years from now somebody will try to claim that America in the 2000's was such and such a way because in this one episode of 30 Rock the character Tracy Jordan did this or that, which is very similar to the behavior exhibited by the character of Ted on How I Met Your Mother, blah blah blah. And I think that is dumb. This is silly entertainment, and you could say that the fact that we find it entertaining means that it can be used to sort of reverse-examine who we are or whatever, but even if you allow that, you'd only be talking about the <1% of the country that enjoys any given show.

Its like saying Wicked is sexist, and was a popular stage show in Chicago in 2005, and since I lived in Chicago in 2005 I must be sexist. (I have absolutely no idea if Wicked is sexist - I never saw it. Just a random stupid example.) (And I'm totally sexist.)

I went through four years of this in college in a comm arts program, and the entire time we were examining old shows and people were going on and on about how this character is always standing in the foreground, which clearly shows that America in the 1950's was afraid of that character's race or whatever it was that day. Its just silly, and while I agree that TV has a powerful influence, I argue that the single driving factor is money, and very few people involved in making the decisions care about how tv depicts (or influences) our culture.

Another example, if you used tv as a way to identify / examine trends in American culture, you could say that from 1995-2005 lots and lots of people suddenly began working as doctors and police examiners. You'll say that's stupid, and that clearly just because the shows are about that thing doesn't mean that the people watching them held those jobs. Then you'll pick out some other trend from the shows and say that the DO represent real life. It's all subjective and pick-and-choose.

I'd say the value to studying tv comes more from using it as a point of friction to discuss other ideas. Go ahead and use it as a point of reference to discuss culture, but don't draw conclusions based solely on it.

Dave | 4:21 PM |

Note to add to the end of paragraph 2 - that <1% of America who likes a show also like it for different reasons.

chris | 4:38 PM |

Wow what a terrible day to be insanely busy teaching the feminist/marxist/reader response literary lenses to teenagers!!!!!

And yet, how apropos...where to start where to start...

1) With every new Doktor post, I feel Six Lines Productions encroaching more and more on our blog! (They are an inescapable force, are they not, Doktor?)

2) We've had basically this same debate in varying levels of vehemence several times this year on the Blogulator. I personally cannot comprehend consuming media without analyzing it socially, because you cannot escape society. Live in your own fantasy escapist world all you want, I suppose, but I get just as much joy as I do intellectual stimulus from ripping apart media at the seams (plus I thought that was the whole point of writing about media - as Amy pointed out). Everyone here is writing about media sociologically, whether they like to admit it or not, because honestly, that's the only way to write about media without reducing ourselves to just posting "Office good 30 Rock good too but not as good I dunno why."

For instance, when you're deconstructing Conan's predictable antics, you're simply talking about the archetypes of a late night talk show (and thereby questioning and challenging the social status quo of late night programming) rather than the archetypes/stereotypes of, say, race vs. entourage representations in 30 Rock. Why can't we all just admit we've all been ruined by education too much to forgo watching media with a close eye?

3) That was a long number 2. I apologize.

4) I understand the character adoration that The Office successfully developed in the first few seasons and that 30 Rock hasn't attempted the same kind of attachment for its viewers. However, The Office's original premise (mockumentary, obviously extended for way too long - what idiot documentarian is going to film an Office crew for 5-6 years?) needs this for the show to work - the whole point of the show is to show the deeply human side of a dreary Office job (just as it is to make us laugh at dopes who unfortunately wind up in this kind of atmosphere). 30 Rock offers no reason to make us attach ourselves to its characters - these are the dopes of the elite celebrity class that we don't want to sympathize with and the people who we should sympathize with but can't because they are the dopes who convince themselves it's okay to work with/date them. It's a postmodern comedy - aiming to both fit into and break stereotypes to an absurdist degree, while The Office is a realist comedy that attempts (often unsuccessfully, as you've pointed out in Michael Scott's development) to infuse absurdity while still keeping the characters sympathetic.

Maybe I should have just made this my post for Thursday night. Oh well, too late.

Sean | 4:41 PM |

I agree with Dave to the max. I also am a product of the same comm arts program.

However, I do enjoy making generalizations about the target audience of any given show based on the advertisements. I believe I have mentioned this before.
Day-time TV is for losers.

Dave | 5:03 PM |

Chris, do you really analyze tv sociologically as you watch it? Like you're watching a TMNT rerun and thinking about what the pizza represents? Or what the writer was trying to tell you by having Rocksteady wear those shades? We've got to get your brain turned off sometimes!

Maybe I'm magic, but I never consider the socio-political-economical-whatever implications of GREEK...

(Or maybe GREEK is magical...)

(Yes. It is.)

chris | 5:31 PM |

Did you pass science, Dave? Because the brain doesn't TURN off lest youze dead! OH DISS.

You're confusing basic symbolism and auteur theory with sociological analysis. They're not the same at all. I doubt the pizza symbolizes anything or that the writers consciously intended to imply meaning through a pair of sunglasses. However, though I haven't watched TMNT in forever, but if I did, you're damn right I'd be looking at how April is always saved by the masculine turtles, perpetuating a male-driven hero complex in children's programming. I'd also be looking at how the turtles are taught a simple material-less Buddhist lifestyle by Splinter (they live in a sewer and only wear headbands for clothes and are taught Gandhi-esque peace mantras!) but it unfortunately comes in conflict with their teenager tendencies to want to fit in with the rest of the commercialist junk food and sex-obsessed world they live in, such as gorging on pizza, or fighting in an attempt to impress April rather than for the more noble quest of peace. Man I could write a awesome paper about the mental torment of Raphael alone!

I find it hard to believe that you don't think while watching Greek. Even when watching something ironically or just to laugh at it, those cogs are turning, realizing the ridiculousness of portrayal of fraternities and their members (isn't one of them gay? talk about commentary!), the jock vs. nerd epic struggle, the coming of age story, I could go on...we laugh at things like Greek, Lifetime movies, or even The Penguin Movie (yes even silly movies we made several years ago!) because we implicitly understand their connections to our society, and thus it makes us laugh. You may not enjoy writing about this, detailing the processes of the brain as it absorbs pop culture, but we do, and you obviously enjoy reading about it, because you're commenting here. I don't go to sports blogs and comment, "I don't enjoy when people write about sports!" do I?

Dave | 6:43 PM |

Yeah, no, I was just being dumb with those examples, but the thing is, your examples are exactly as ridiculous to me. I do not think about such things while watching GREEK (or really any television). It blows my mind that if you watched an episode of TMNT right now that you'd actively be thinking about that.

I guess it just comes down to how you like to take things in - I'm a different kind of giant nerd, and I really do get lost in fictional worlds a lot. I think I usually judge and relate to things by the rules of their own world (or just not worry about it, as I would with The Penguin Movie). There are certain types of media that merit active watching, and then there is The Penguin Movie.

Comics are a great example of something you can experience within the rules of its own world (as I would), or something you can look at through a critical eye and relate back to the real world every step of the way (as you would). In my experience, the later usually results in people getting upset about things that they find offensive in stories that aren't supposed to have ties to the real world. Then they typically argue that everything is tied to the real world, and that's the only way to experience anything, and then I dissagree, and then hit 'submit'. :)

I strongly disagree with the idea that the only way to discuss/experience media is to relate it to the real world. We can have conversaions about media and story telling and character development and whatever else without having to resort to "April is always saved by the strong men and that is sexist". Personally, I think that is silly, but I certainly wouldn't mind discussing why Donatello is my favorite turtle (and it would have nothing to do with the way he depicts smart teenagers, and the effects that has today). There's plenty of that going on right on this blog, in fact. (I think we're missing each other here a bit, because the thing I'm complaing about basically never appears on this blog.)

When you say that shows are funny because of humor which is defined in our culture, I agree. That IS true - of course humor is definied in the real world. That's fine, but that's not what I'm railing against. Yes, humor is definied outside of TV. So is language, the passage of time, the clothes worn, etc. So in this way, TV is framed by rules that are established in the real world. But all of those things just run in the background - they are not ties that one draws while watching a show. What I'm saying takes it too far is trying to disect the arbitrary decisions made within a show and trying to claim facts about the real world based on them.

DoktorPeace | 6:51 PM |

1. Yes, Chris. Six Lines Productions stretches its tentacles into all facets of my being (which means something completely different if you watch the kind of anime I do).

2. I'm surprised my post somehow led to this. Maybe the use of the word "stereotype" started it off, but I intended to discuss fictional character stereotypes; not so much the comparison of archetypes to real people. Nor did I mean to imply that I think about any of these things constantly while I watch a show. I was trying to justify (to myself and readers) why I somehow still enjoy The Office a lot more than 30 Rock, and my best explanation may in fact have been that I connect with the show because my dad was born in Scranton.

That said, I think the complete separation of any entertainment (including television) from the real world is insane. Yes, silly arguments about where-people-stand- implying-racial-inequality can be annoying and posthumously contrived. I'm pretty annoyed by a current video game debate surrounding the Resident Evil 5 trailer, where some people are thinking way too hard about what amounts to a 2-minute marketing clip (that I love).

But media definitely reflects culture to some level. Consider these queries:
Why is French cinema so different than American cinema?
Why do shows about fat men with hot wives who always argue with each other always find an audience?
Why do so many shows feel the need to provide an obvious narrative relaying the protagonists' inner monologue?
Surely answers to these questions reflect something about the people producing and consuming the media.

Heck, the simplest argument I can make for "understanding culture through entertainment" being a real thing is: Sometimes I'll read an old book or see an old movie, and I'll run across a hilarious joke, and I'll think to myself, "Wow. I didn't know this kind of humor resonated back then." Maybe that helps me realize that we're not so different now and then, but I think it also helps me understand the olden days - days often fictionalized through nostalgia - on a more human level.

DoktorPeace | 6:54 PM |

(PS I commented while Dave was posting his most recent diatribe, which is why I don't respond to anything therein).

DoktorPeace | 6:56 PM |

PPS And I'm too lazy to comment again. So I'll conclude by revealing something about my personal society:

I LOVE YOU ALL!

Dave | 8:00 PM |

Haha, yeah, sorry to hijack your post like that :P

chris | 11:18 PM |

I agree that people can make irrelevant and arbitrary sociological analyses of TV shows, just as people can make bad art, unfunny TV shows, and poorly designed web sites, but calling out the whole act of sociological analysis is confounding to me. Specifically regarding this post, I think it's very straightforward, acceptable, and thought-provoking to, for instance, look at how race and gender are presented in 30 Rock because there are very oblique references to each within the dialogue of the show. I think it's very safe to say that Tina Fey and company aren't just going for laughs when making 30 Rock. They're commenting on gender, race, class, political, and archetype roles - every episode is littered with references: Thomas Jefferson having sex with his slaves, Tracy Jordan telling black people to play pool instead of vote so McCain can win the election, the list goes on...I don't think it's obtuse in this example to "go there, sister."

So yes, sometimes it can get silly, but I don't think that you can ever say something CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be analyzed. Different texts lend themselves better to analysis and different readers do better/worse jobs of analyzing, but in the end, everything is made by humans, who live in a reality, upon which they entirely base any fictional creations that spring from their loins. Thus, nothing can be solely escapist entertainment. Even when you watch something because your dad grew up in that city or because you also went to college and thought fraternities were hilariously dumb, you're using a reader response lens, applying your view of the world to the world within the text you're consuming. That is a social consumption of media, whether you want it to be or not, whether your mind actually thinks these thoughts as you watch it or not, it's happening in the recesses of your brain which control your prejudices (ex. race, gender), your outlook on life (ex. class, religion), and your personal past, present, and future.

In sum, I love you all too.

DoktorPeace | 12:27 AM |

According to facebook, here is the ultimate result of this discussion:

"Chris removed Babel from his favorite movies."

THE ARCHIVES

Dave | 9:21 AM |
For a couple of seconds I thought you were moving to London and I swear to god I was about to grab a net and capture you before you could get to the airport. Good thing I read the next line or two or you'd be in a lion cage on a steam train climbing a hill during a thunderstorm right about now.

Good stuff - only thing I'd like to officially react to is that I'd say Tracy Morgan's crew being super intellectual sometimes isn't really just a play on smart black people and that being wacky. Rather, I think its a play on smart members of an entourage to some rapper/actor (and that being wacky). That entourage member who stands in the background, riding squarely on their friend's coat tails while drinking Crystal and wearing platinum chains has become a weird-ass archetype all its own. The fact that those entourage members are actually smart, and good advisers, flips that on its head and delivers countless laughs.

"Dude, you've been in your office for three months!"
"WHAT?!?!?!?"
DoktorPeace | 9:27 AM |
Yeah I was a little unsure about whether to include that or not, cuz I still get laughs out of it. And point taken on the entourage-not-race stereotype. I guess I think it's more "in danger" of becoming a stereotype, as I've seen it recurring more and more (like every time I rewatch Starsky & Hutch).
Unknown | 9:30 AM |
Doktor, you're fired.
DoktorPeace | 10:19 AM |
Sigh... I'll pack this afternoon, after I inform little Peacy that he won't be getting that tricycle he wanted oh so very much.
Sean | 11:17 AM |
Oooh, you know what your problem is?
Follow me here.

Don't take an academic/sociological analysis approach to television. It takes all the fun out of it. I mean, the entire medium is subject to so many studies and gripes and problems. You could attack any show with some ideology.
Ex. a feminist critique of S&TC...
an afro-american studies critique of any show ever where a black character is featured OR not featured committing crime...
a marxist critique of the wealthy/lazy bluth family of arrested development..

my point is, all that academic learning is just baggage that clouds your eyes from enjoying television.
the thing to do is point out these problems to another grad-student during commercial, but completely ignore them during the actual show. there are countless shows that i can only enjoy by ignoring the glaring problems. (south park, american dad, king of queens re-runs when i'm totally bored, HIMYM).

would you really want all shows on television to be sanitized, utopian visions of the world? do you want jim and pam to run off to africa with brangelina (sp?) to feed the whales?
that would be awful (though one show of that nature would actually be funny). i read some article a while back about how 'all in the family' reruns out-performed 'diff'rent strokes'. tv is funnier when it's not all sugar-coated and silly. i can't remember the focus of my rant. and i hate comments that drag. my bad.

the point is: 30 rock rules, the office drules.
Lady Amy | 1:01 PM |
Is half the fun of blogging, pointing out the glaring problems with movies or television?
Dave | 1:33 PM |
Agree with Sean 100% - it drives me nuts when people try to take lessons about our culture away from tv, or when they examine tv as a means to examine a culture. What you take away from any media is so subjective and personal, trying to say that it represents anything larger is a tough sell in my book.
Brigitte | 2:43 PM |
can't use TV as a means to examine our culture? chris, why haven't you jumped on this? hello? buzz? uncle frank? uncle frank, is this a joke? i was all excited to see the debate...come on blog readers/contributers! don't tell me you're too busy "working."

while i agree that overanalysis (or perhaps any analysis?) takes away from enjoyment of television, i don't think you can go so far as to say that it is not worth analyzing or looking at as a means of examining culture...i think that tv is a perfect way to look at trends etc. in our culture, and it's also a powerful vehicle for perpetuating stereotypes...let's not be too hasty in undermining tv's potential to impact us. i think there's definitely a shared experience going on, not just a totally isolate personal experience.
Lady Amy | 2:50 PM |
Totally agreed. Looking at television/movies/etc. with a critical eye is very important. If TV didn't have the potential to represent anything larger or influence us as people, why do advertisers spend millions of dollars on commercials?
Dave | 4:19 PM |
I really don't agree that it's important to study tv at all. Advertisers spend money on tv ads because... people see them? Sure, there may be some people out there who will see that commercial for Shakey's one too many times and suddenly become brainwashed into liking it, but I think most of the time it's more about introducing new products, sales, features, brands, whatever (or simply keeping your brand in front of people so they recognize it later).

There are certainly programs out there that represent our world in a good way, some that specifically try to and some that randomly do it, but 20 years from now somebody will try to claim that America in the 2000's was such and such a way because in this one episode of 30 Rock the character Tracy Jordan did this or that, which is very similar to the behavior exhibited by the character of Ted on How I Met Your Mother, blah blah blah. And I think that is dumb. This is silly entertainment, and you could say that the fact that we find it entertaining means that it can be used to sort of reverse-examine who we are or whatever, but even if you allow that, you'd only be talking about the <1% of the country that enjoys any given show.

Its like saying Wicked is sexist, and was a popular stage show in Chicago in 2005, and since I lived in Chicago in 2005 I must be sexist. (I have absolutely no idea if Wicked is sexist - I never saw it. Just a random stupid example.) (And I'm totally sexist.)

I went through four years of this in college in a comm arts program, and the entire time we were examining old shows and people were going on and on about how this character is always standing in the foreground, which clearly shows that America in the 1950's was afraid of that character's race or whatever it was that day. Its just silly, and while I agree that TV has a powerful influence, I argue that the single driving factor is money, and very few people involved in making the decisions care about how tv depicts (or influences) our culture.

Another example, if you used tv as a way to identify / examine trends in American culture, you could say that from 1995-2005 lots and lots of people suddenly began working as doctors and police examiners. You'll say that's stupid, and that clearly just because the shows are about that thing doesn't mean that the people watching them held those jobs. Then you'll pick out some other trend from the shows and say that the DO represent real life. It's all subjective and pick-and-choose.

I'd say the value to studying tv comes more from using it as a point of friction to discuss other ideas. Go ahead and use it as a point of reference to discuss culture, but don't draw conclusions based solely on it.
Dave | 4:21 PM |
Note to add to the end of paragraph 2 - that <1% of America who likes a show also like it for different reasons.
chris | 4:38 PM |
Wow what a terrible day to be insanely busy teaching the feminist/marxist/reader response literary lenses to teenagers!!!!!

And yet, how apropos...where to start where to start...

1) With every new Doktor post, I feel Six Lines Productions encroaching more and more on our blog! (They are an inescapable force, are they not, Doktor?)

2) We've had basically this same debate in varying levels of vehemence several times this year on the Blogulator. I personally cannot comprehend consuming media without analyzing it socially, because you cannot escape society. Live in your own fantasy escapist world all you want, I suppose, but I get just as much joy as I do intellectual stimulus from ripping apart media at the seams (plus I thought that was the whole point of writing about media - as Amy pointed out). Everyone here is writing about media sociologically, whether they like to admit it or not, because honestly, that's the only way to write about media without reducing ourselves to just posting "Office good 30 Rock good too but not as good I dunno why."

For instance, when you're deconstructing Conan's predictable antics, you're simply talking about the archetypes of a late night talk show (and thereby questioning and challenging the social status quo of late night programming) rather than the archetypes/stereotypes of, say, race vs. entourage representations in 30 Rock. Why can't we all just admit we've all been ruined by education too much to forgo watching media with a close eye?

3) That was a long number 2. I apologize.

4) I understand the character adoration that The Office successfully developed in the first few seasons and that 30 Rock hasn't attempted the same kind of attachment for its viewers. However, The Office's original premise (mockumentary, obviously extended for way too long - what idiot documentarian is going to film an Office crew for 5-6 years?) needs this for the show to work - the whole point of the show is to show the deeply human side of a dreary Office job (just as it is to make us laugh at dopes who unfortunately wind up in this kind of atmosphere). 30 Rock offers no reason to make us attach ourselves to its characters - these are the dopes of the elite celebrity class that we don't want to sympathize with and the people who we should sympathize with but can't because they are the dopes who convince themselves it's okay to work with/date them. It's a postmodern comedy - aiming to both fit into and break stereotypes to an absurdist degree, while The Office is a realist comedy that attempts (often unsuccessfully, as you've pointed out in Michael Scott's development) to infuse absurdity while still keeping the characters sympathetic.

Maybe I should have just made this my post for Thursday night. Oh well, too late.
Sean | 4:41 PM |
I agree with Dave to the max. I also am a product of the same comm arts program.

However, I do enjoy making generalizations about the target audience of any given show based on the advertisements. I believe I have mentioned this before.
Day-time TV is for losers.
Dave | 5:03 PM |
Chris, do you really analyze tv sociologically as you watch it? Like you're watching a TMNT rerun and thinking about what the pizza represents? Or what the writer was trying to tell you by having Rocksteady wear those shades? We've got to get your brain turned off sometimes!

Maybe I'm magic, but I never consider the socio-political-economical-whatever implications of GREEK...

(Or maybe GREEK is magical...)

(Yes. It is.)
chris | 5:31 PM |
Did you pass science, Dave? Because the brain doesn't TURN off lest youze dead! OH DISS.

You're confusing basic symbolism and auteur theory with sociological analysis. They're not the same at all. I doubt the pizza symbolizes anything or that the writers consciously intended to imply meaning through a pair of sunglasses. However, though I haven't watched TMNT in forever, but if I did, you're damn right I'd be looking at how April is always saved by the masculine turtles, perpetuating a male-driven hero complex in children's programming. I'd also be looking at how the turtles are taught a simple material-less Buddhist lifestyle by Splinter (they live in a sewer and only wear headbands for clothes and are taught Gandhi-esque peace mantras!) but it unfortunately comes in conflict with their teenager tendencies to want to fit in with the rest of the commercialist junk food and sex-obsessed world they live in, such as gorging on pizza, or fighting in an attempt to impress April rather than for the more noble quest of peace. Man I could write a awesome paper about the mental torment of Raphael alone!

I find it hard to believe that you don't think while watching Greek. Even when watching something ironically or just to laugh at it, those cogs are turning, realizing the ridiculousness of portrayal of fraternities and their members (isn't one of them gay? talk about commentary!), the jock vs. nerd epic struggle, the coming of age story, I could go on...we laugh at things like Greek, Lifetime movies, or even The Penguin Movie (yes even silly movies we made several years ago!) because we implicitly understand their connections to our society, and thus it makes us laugh. You may not enjoy writing about this, detailing the processes of the brain as it absorbs pop culture, but we do, and you obviously enjoy reading about it, because you're commenting here. I don't go to sports blogs and comment, "I don't enjoy when people write about sports!" do I?
Dave | 6:43 PM |
Yeah, no, I was just being dumb with those examples, but the thing is, your examples are exactly as ridiculous to me. I do not think about such things while watching GREEK (or really any television). It blows my mind that if you watched an episode of TMNT right now that you'd actively be thinking about that.

I guess it just comes down to how you like to take things in - I'm a different kind of giant nerd, and I really do get lost in fictional worlds a lot. I think I usually judge and relate to things by the rules of their own world (or just not worry about it, as I would with The Penguin Movie). There are certain types of media that merit active watching, and then there is The Penguin Movie.

Comics are a great example of something you can experience within the rules of its own world (as I would), or something you can look at through a critical eye and relate back to the real world every step of the way (as you would). In my experience, the later usually results in people getting upset about things that they find offensive in stories that aren't supposed to have ties to the real world. Then they typically argue that everything is tied to the real world, and that's the only way to experience anything, and then I dissagree, and then hit 'submit'. :)

I strongly disagree with the idea that the only way to discuss/experience media is to relate it to the real world. We can have conversaions about media and story telling and character development and whatever else without having to resort to "April is always saved by the strong men and that is sexist". Personally, I think that is silly, but I certainly wouldn't mind discussing why Donatello is my favorite turtle (and it would have nothing to do with the way he depicts smart teenagers, and the effects that has today). There's plenty of that going on right on this blog, in fact. (I think we're missing each other here a bit, because the thing I'm complaing about basically never appears on this blog.)

When you say that shows are funny because of humor which is defined in our culture, I agree. That IS true - of course humor is definied in the real world. That's fine, but that's not what I'm railing against. Yes, humor is definied outside of TV. So is language, the passage of time, the clothes worn, etc. So in this way, TV is framed by rules that are established in the real world. But all of those things just run in the background - they are not ties that one draws while watching a show. What I'm saying takes it too far is trying to disect the arbitrary decisions made within a show and trying to claim facts about the real world based on them.
DoktorPeace | 6:51 PM |
1. Yes, Chris. Six Lines Productions stretches its tentacles into all facets of my being (which means something completely different if you watch the kind of anime I do).

2. I'm surprised my post somehow led to this. Maybe the use of the word "stereotype" started it off, but I intended to discuss fictional character stereotypes; not so much the comparison of archetypes to real people. Nor did I mean to imply that I think about any of these things constantly while I watch a show. I was trying to justify (to myself and readers) why I somehow still enjoy The Office a lot more than 30 Rock, and my best explanation may in fact have been that I connect with the show because my dad was born in Scranton.

That said, I think the complete separation of any entertainment (including television) from the real world is insane. Yes, silly arguments about where-people-stand- implying-racial-inequality can be annoying and posthumously contrived. I'm pretty annoyed by a current video game debate surrounding the Resident Evil 5 trailer, where some people are thinking way too hard about what amounts to a 2-minute marketing clip (that I love).

But media definitely reflects culture to some level. Consider these queries:
Why is French cinema so different than American cinema?
Why do shows about fat men with hot wives who always argue with each other always find an audience?
Why do so many shows feel the need to provide an obvious narrative relaying the protagonists' inner monologue?
Surely answers to these questions reflect something about the people producing and consuming the media.

Heck, the simplest argument I can make for "understanding culture through entertainment" being a real thing is: Sometimes I'll read an old book or see an old movie, and I'll run across a hilarious joke, and I'll think to myself, "Wow. I didn't know this kind of humor resonated back then." Maybe that helps me realize that we're not so different now and then, but I think it also helps me understand the olden days - days often fictionalized through nostalgia - on a more human level.
DoktorPeace | 6:54 PM |
(PS I commented while Dave was posting his most recent diatribe, which is why I don't respond to anything therein).
DoktorPeace | 6:56 PM |
PPS And I'm too lazy to comment again. So I'll conclude by revealing something about my personal society:

I LOVE YOU ALL!
Dave | 8:00 PM |
Haha, yeah, sorry to hijack your post like that :P
chris | 11:18 PM |
I agree that people can make irrelevant and arbitrary sociological analyses of TV shows, just as people can make bad art, unfunny TV shows, and poorly designed web sites, but calling out the whole act of sociological analysis is confounding to me. Specifically regarding this post, I think it's very straightforward, acceptable, and thought-provoking to, for instance, look at how race and gender are presented in 30 Rock because there are very oblique references to each within the dialogue of the show. I think it's very safe to say that Tina Fey and company aren't just going for laughs when making 30 Rock. They're commenting on gender, race, class, political, and archetype roles - every episode is littered with references: Thomas Jefferson having sex with his slaves, Tracy Jordan telling black people to play pool instead of vote so McCain can win the election, the list goes on...I don't think it's obtuse in this example to "go there, sister."

So yes, sometimes it can get silly, but I don't think that you can ever say something CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be analyzed. Different texts lend themselves better to analysis and different readers do better/worse jobs of analyzing, but in the end, everything is made by humans, who live in a reality, upon which they entirely base any fictional creations that spring from their loins. Thus, nothing can be solely escapist entertainment. Even when you watch something because your dad grew up in that city or because you also went to college and thought fraternities were hilariously dumb, you're using a reader response lens, applying your view of the world to the world within the text you're consuming. That is a social consumption of media, whether you want it to be or not, whether your mind actually thinks these thoughts as you watch it or not, it's happening in the recesses of your brain which control your prejudices (ex. race, gender), your outlook on life (ex. class, religion), and your personal past, present, and future.

In sum, I love you all too.
DoktorPeace | 12:27 AM |
According to facebook, here is the ultimate result of this discussion:

"Chris removed Babel from his favorite movies."

leave a response

My Final Post?

MORE TV BLOGGYNESS

MORE TV NETCASTINESS

THE ARCHIVES

SUBSCRIBE

My Final Post?

var a = 22; if(a == 0) {document.write('no comment');} else if(a == 1) {document.write('1 comment');}else{document.write(a+' comments');}

MORE TV BLOGGYNESS

MORE TV NETCASTINESS

THE ARCHIVES

SUBSCRIBE