Do awards shows actually mean anything? The Emmys and some other musings about meth cooks and bronzer…

After watching the millionth replay of the Emmys this past Monday and watching a slew of people I’ve never heard of walk the red carpet, I posed a question to myself: do these awards shows mean anything?

Okay, so I don’t mean “do they mean anything” in a sense that devalues the achievements of the winners, but more so the impact on public choice. The finest actors, actresses, writers and directors are going to be nominated and win, but does that really matter to people? Let’s look at Breaking Bad, the show that’s won multiple Emmys, most going to lead actor Bryan Cranston (very deservedly, I may add). Over in the States, season 3 premiered with a record-high for broadcasting station AMC of 2 million viewers. Meanwhile, Jersey Shore, a show that will bring down the entire infrastructure of the TV industry if it were even nominated for an Emmy, averages about 8 million viewers per episode. That’s a pretty sad fact considering the amount of effort that goes into producing a quality show like Breaking Bad and the limited talent/excess of bronzer that goes into ‘Joisy’.

Of course you can’t base an entire argument upon drama vs. reality, because the appeal of a show like Breaking Bad, a gritty, complex and often violent character drama, won’t have an appeal as broad as reality like Jersey Shore. I’d argue that Walt White portrays humanity bettet than The Situation does, but that’s an argument for another day.

Putting that aside, there are of course shows which receive both critical acclaim and ratings victories. Modern Family was the big winner this past Monday, picking up three Emmys on top of its continuation of being a ratings juggernaut internationally. The Big Bang Theory, which is now Australia’s favourite show according to Herald Sun (who is this “Australia’s” and since when does he/she speak for me?), picked up another win for the only reason the show is any good.

Returning to my initial prompt,however: do these awards mean anything to the public? Although the answer can be quite subjective, you’d have to lean towards “yes”. Pre-exising fans “no” – I know Supernatual is in no danger of an Emmy nom, but couldn’t give a flying stuff – however the prospect of luring new fans is meaningful. People hear how many awards a show has picked up or the great reviews it is getting and are “oh, wow, it’s got to be good” and give it a try. I’ve done this myself on multiple occasions – Lost, 24 (painfully struggling through season 7 as I type), Alias, 30 Rock, etc.That’s not to say awards govern everything – just because something gets an award doesn’t mean you’re going to like it or even want to watch it – I was bored out of my skull watching Six Feet Under (I’d prefer the band, even though they’re uninspired as well), and have no interest in watching Mad Men. The glories of subjectivity, I suppose.

Four blog posts for assessment

“Does political correctness ruin television?”

“Transnationalism and TV”

“The future of television: change is coming…?”

“Fan extremities – irrationality, taste and some disturbing fictions”

Does political correctness ruin television?

Watching the new series of Swift and Shift Couriers the other night, I couldn’t help but think why people criticise these “so wrong they’re right” kind of shows. It seems a lot of conservative people like to get their backs up about politically incorrect humour, that it stereotypes ethnic groups, degrades social values, etc. Now I can see how some of the humour could become misconstrued by the public, especially with the ever-fragile topic of race and ethnicity, but here are a few points to consider first:

• These shows are not created for the purpose of exploiting or belittling these sects of society, rather to play on the misconceptions others have about these social groups. For example, Pizza plays on the stereotype that people of Lebanese origin drive fast cars and deal drugs, where in real life we understand this is obviously not the case.
• Most times, the actors playing the groups being stereotyped are from that cultural or ethnic group themselves. For example, the character Pauly from Pizza/Swift and Shift is Maltese, and the actor who plays him, Paul Fenech, is also Maltese. I’m not saying this justifies the role, but rather shows that even people from that group can have a sense of humour about themselves. Obviously Chris Lilley is an exception with his character portrayals, which brings me to the next point…
• No group is left out, sticking to the notion “if one’s okay, they’re all okay”. Everyone from Middle Eastern origin to “dinky-di” Aussies are gaffed by these shows.
• These shows can actually educate us on the plights facing these communities. For example, in Helene Sobolewski’s article “Is Chris Lilley’s Angry Boys funny or offensive?”, published in the Adelaide Advertiser, executive director at the Australian Institute for Social Research and Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, John Spoehr, says these shows help to bring the issues that boys and men have to face living in modern societies due to its reach to such a vast audience.

Coming from an area with a large Lebanese population, hence having many friends who are Lebanese, I can tell you that the majority of them think shows like Pizza are hilarious as they either know someone or are themselves in some way like the stereotypes being portrayed. The rest are either indifferent to the show or have never heard of it. I can honestly tell you I’ve never met a person from any of these cultures who has been completely offended by Pizza, Angry Boys or any other shows which supposedly “degrade” cultures.

A solution? There’s not a problem. Or if there is one, it’s because conservatives are reading too much into things that aren’t there. You’ll only find racist messaging if you’re looking for it. Or here’s a solution that’s been around since the advent of the remote control: change the channel. See ya.

Fan extremities – irrationality, taste and some disturbing fictions

Let’s be honest here – many who watch TV do, or at least have at one point in time, become enamoured with a particular show or series. It happened to me (and many others) with Lost, a show which, while always seemingly unrealistic anyway, had an ending matched only by the concept of Dharma sharks and polar bears as the show’s most ridiculous aspects. But that still didn’t stop me from enjoying six seasons of Locke’s shiny top on my screen every week, nor from enjoying any other show with equally ridiculous *acting* flaws (Spartacus, I’m looking at you). But that’s just it – often the simple enjoyment of a show is taken to a whole new echelon when some people (arguably) take the concept too far.

After scanning through Ien Ang’s book Watching Dallas: soap opera and the melodramatic imagination (the one mentioned in the lecture), a few things stood out to me. The notion of the “Dallas net” is a constant one; an idea that, like a spider’s web, this show had ensnared people into its story, characters and plot. It seems to suggest an ideology of familiarity and personal relationship to the characters, that these characters portrayed in Dallas are relatable in some sense. One of the letters even makes mention of the division between fans, as one woman recollects being near a souvenir stand and seeing two mugs, one emblazoned with “I love J.R.”, the other “I hate J.R.”. The idea that fans are so irrationally drawn to a show, then to be further enticed by choosing sides within, really demonstrates the dedication some people have for certain shows.

A slightly more disturbing one comes from the sci-fi/horror series Supernatural, a show I’ve professed my love for many times in previous posts. The show has garnered quite a cult following over the years, with many a forum and fanfic created in dedication. With reference to the latter, though, is the slightly disturbing fanfic ideology known as “Wincest” (read at your own discretion), or the two lead characters, brothers Sam and Dean Winchester (and occasionally their father as well), umm… doing it. Now I’m not gonna judge people’s personal preferences, but… that’s just a tad disturbing. It makes be quite nervous to think that the writers of those “Wincest” pieces watch the same show I do. I mean, is it fandom to the extreme, or just personal preference (or just plain sick)? I will argue though that one bad fan doesn’t spoil the bunch. For example, millions of people aren’t going to stop listening to The Beatles just because Charlie Manson misinterpreted their lyrics, are they? It’s the same here – people take from and express the messages of shows in different ways, some more morally questionable than others, but it doesn’t mean we should stop enjoying these shows ourselves. See ya.

Plugging your gig: a new age of cross-media music-making

We all know, as viewers of television, that music is an important part of our viewing experience. It sets the mood for key scenes and events, and can really enhance (or occasionally deplete) the quality of a show. Usually, featured music is some kind of orchestral or other piece specifically designed for a show. The trend I’ve been seing (or hearing, rather) recently is the act of placing music by popular artists and bands instead of a soundtrack – a new age of cross-promotion. This concept in television isn’t new, obviously, but I feel it has never been as impactful as recent years.

I’ll start with the obvious one – Glee. Now I’ve never watched the show, and really don’t plan to, but I’ve seen enough advertising that I know numerous pop artists and bands have had their music featured in episodes of this ever-popular show. The benefits for both parties are obvious: the show gets ratings because of the artists, the artists get royalties/promotion for their music. But what kind of new-age of thought could this usher in? Could more shows follow suit, using licensed music instead of their own specifically-recorded soundtrack?

Current affairs broadcasts already use the former, often using licenced music in an attempt to satirically set-up a story. For example, using The Beatles’ song ‘Taxman’ in a story about a tax cheat. Now I’m not a music industry expert, so I have no idea how royalties work in a broadcast television sense, but it’s safe to assume that even by using an artist’s song, the promotion for them is instantaneous.

This cross-promotion is ever-presentin many other types of shows, including sports broadcasts and variety shows, morning shows and late-night talk shows, and even prime-time dramas (Entourage immediately springs to mind). I feel there is nothing wrong with this, however, as it doesn’t affect the quality of shows (with the exception of the footy) nor how they are perceived. See ya.

Transnationalism and TV

Today’s lecture (week 4) really brought up interesting points about how television is taken and adapted from its country of origin to suit its target audience. The concept of taking a popular show and adapting it towards a different market has always fascinated me, especially when it comes to the range of adaptations. Many successful localisations to Australia include and have included Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, and current heavyweight champion, Masterchef.

A particularly successful one, for example, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? had its beginnings in the UK in 1998, and has since been adapted and localised for over 100 countries worldwide. It is interesting not only for its success in its original adapted form, but for the amount of successful spin-offs, including Millionaire Hot Seat (the format we currently use) and 50:50. The reason for the overwhelming success of Millionaire can be debated, but a few reasons off the top of my head would include its accessibility by any age, gender or race, and its ability to work with the concept of the public viewing, allowing families or individuals to feel apart of the show through its Q&A format.

While there are many successful adaptations, there will always be those what were they thinking? attempts. One most relevant to Australia is the attempted localisation of popular Australian comedy series Kath & Kim to the United States. This show proved to be a hit here because it worked on the stereotyping of the everyday Australian. When it came to creating the version for the U.S., however, it failed dismally, being canned after a few episodes. Why? Because the cultural differences were too large. The characters portrayed in the show worked here because of the colloquialisms and likeness to the everyday Australian. Try to have an American actor/actress use similar vernacular, even in a more culturally similar sense to the audience the show is marketed towards,the divide between the original’s charm and the remake’s charm proves too much for a remake to be successful.

Transnationalism is good, but too much of it can be a bad thing. Localisation must be thought out carefully before being put into action, otherwise we’ll end up with more singing/dancing/cooking/weight-loss shows than we should be made to endure. See ya.

The future of television: change is coming…?

I found Jenkins’ interview with Brian Johnson to be quite riveting (albeit slightly disappointing learning he wasn’t this Brian Johnson). What I found most engaging, being a student from the CSIT discipline, were the technical aspects of the changing mediums; in particular, the concept of converting digital images to data. From a purely programming perspecive, the sheer amount of coding and constructing of algorithms to read and manipulate inputted data, not to mention the technologies to read something such as a football game, is mind-blowing. It truly demonstrates how far television and its technologies have come in the past 80 or so years.

Before we consider these technological innovations, however, one factor to be considered is a social one: people resist change. Whether it’s technological, political, social or religious, there will always be a sect of society resistant to change. Technologies will keep evolving, new mediums replacing previous ones, but there will always be those who refuse to go with the times. Is this a bad thing? Well, if I said yes I’d be a hypocrite, as many daily tasks I undertake are still done in a manner considered “outdated”, but only because I prefer it. Mine is a choice, whereas some others are simply afraid of change. The problem? Technology cannot evolve effectively while there is such a resistance to it. The industry still has to cater to many of its target audience because they are still watching analogue television, or don’t have an Internet connection. Trivialities? To the contrary; technology has evolved to a point where economical and geographical issues have been severely minimized. Take the National Broadband Network, for example; it is allowing more people than ever before to connect to high speed internet services for a relatively low cost. Usability is no longer an excuse, either, as most anyone from an eight-year-old to an eighty-year-old can jump online and access streaming TV, or access on-demand TV on a pay service like Foxtel or Austar with no relative difficulty.

Now I’m not saying change is always a good thing, but when done right after thorough reasoning and rationale, it’s what we all need in order to progress. See ya.