7.11.2007
The MediaLog MediaFix: NBC "Flow" from 1983
The concept of television "flow" is one that has gained great currency within academic television studies. Basically, flow is the idea that TV is constituted by a constant flow of images and sounds that take the form of different televisual elements (such as segments of programs, interstitial items such as promos and stations IDs, and commercials). It is this flow, much more than any programs or specific type of program, that characterizes television as a medium.
This clip is an example of televisual flow, here in a segment from NBC from August of 1983. The segment begins with the opening of "NBC News Digest," a sample of the kind of interstitial news updates that networks used to offer in the days prior to 24-hour cable news. (Featured news stories include an upcoming space shuttle launch and the military conflict in Beirut, Lebanon.) The flow also includes commercials for Airborne Express, Pepsi Free, and Burger King, a brief local news promo, and, at its very end, the opening title for an NBC movie.
(Length: 2 mins. 34 secs.; video source: YouTube)
6.21.2007
The MediaLog MediaFix: Local Cleveland Newscast from 1977
The three clips in this MediaFix, viewed in order (top to bottom), comprise the entire late-evening local newscast from Cleveland television station WJKW for September 2, 1977. Quite apart from its news content, the newscast is a fascinating example of how local news was presented in the late-1970s, sort of the media equivalent of a prehistoric insect preserved in amber.
From the hairstyles and clothing styles of the anchors (including a female weatherperson) and the chromakey backdrop for the news set to the vertically-sliding weather charts (in a pre-computer graphics era) and use of motion picture film for some of the news reports, the program seems quaint now but serves as a valuable example of the contemporary norms of local news and of the evolution that this kind of broadcast has gone through in the thirty years since. Interesting too is the report on gas prices which expresses relief that rates are back down around the 60 cents per gallon range (!) and the newscast-ending editorial, a kind of segment that is virtually never seen anymore, especially at the local level. With commercials not included, the entire length of the newscast runs about 22-23 minutes, and it's worth the time to get a glimpse of news presentation from this past era.
(Video source: YouTube)
6.20.2007
O'Donnell Unlikely Host for "Price is Right"
Much has been made in the last week or so about Rosie O'Donnell, newly unemployed due to her hasty exit from "The View" in May, having interest--and longtime host Bob Barker's endorsement--in being the new host for "The Price is Right." James Poniewozik, "Time" magazine's TV critic, commented on O'Donnell's prospects today on his blog "Tuned In." "USA Today" also featured a short piece in today's edition on the possibility of O'Donnell hosting "Price." The "USA Today" piece offers quotes from O'Donnell's blog in which she claims to love the game show and from Barker in which he says O'Donnell's knowledge of the show would make her a good host.
With all due respect to the recently retired Barker, I beg to disagree. O'Donnell would be a horrible host for "Price." Whatever one thinks of O'Donnell (and my sense is that most people either love her or hate her, with little middle ground--although personally I am merely ambivalent), her personality type and public persona is entirely out of place for the hosting job of "Price is Right." Any show that O'Donnell has been a regular on has been all about her: her eponymous daytime talk show was certainly so, as was her brief stint moderating "The View." On these programs, her self-centeredness was both appropriate and a strength. For several years, she reigned as the "Queen of Nice" due to the engagement and quirkiness she demonstrated on her daytime talk show. More recently (and after her exit from the closet as a lesbian), her transformed, less-nice persona--which includes an easily riled contentiousness--was on view on "The View," where her one-year stint as moderator helped to carry the show through its post-Meredith Vieira transition.
These qualities that made her a great daytime talk show host and moderator would make her a horrible daytime game show host, especially for "The Price is Right." O'Donnell would be tempted to indulge in self-centered banter and misplaced commentary while hosting "Price," which requires a fast-paced job of emceeing and a host who subordinates his or herself to the pricing games at hand. If allowed to indulge in this way, O'Donnell would wreck the show's timing, and if restrained from such indulgences, she would likely get quickly bored and testy with the gig. Her pre-existing public persona and reputation can do nothing but damage "Price"; Bob Barker became so beloved as the game show's host because his identity as such was (almost) the only thing for which audiences knew him.
Finally, I think that the producers and network for "The Price is Right" have no intention of looking at O'Donnell seriously as "Price" host, for all of the reasons I have detailed. Her flirtation with the job is just that: her flirtation, one that is going to be disregarded by those making the decision on the next "Price is Right" host. And as for Barker's endorsement, James Poniewozik of "Time" succinctly summarizes how much import that holds by reminding us that David Letterman was Johnny Carson's choice of replacement when he retired from "The Tonight Show," and most people know what happened in that case.
With all due respect to the recently retired Barker, I beg to disagree. O'Donnell would be a horrible host for "Price." Whatever one thinks of O'Donnell (and my sense is that most people either love her or hate her, with little middle ground--although personally I am merely ambivalent), her personality type and public persona is entirely out of place for the hosting job of "Price is Right." Any show that O'Donnell has been a regular on has been all about her: her eponymous daytime talk show was certainly so, as was her brief stint moderating "The View." On these programs, her self-centeredness was both appropriate and a strength. For several years, she reigned as the "Queen of Nice" due to the engagement and quirkiness she demonstrated on her daytime talk show. More recently (and after her exit from the closet as a lesbian), her transformed, less-nice persona--which includes an easily riled contentiousness--was on view on "The View," where her one-year stint as moderator helped to carry the show through its post-Meredith Vieira transition.
These qualities that made her a great daytime talk show host and moderator would make her a horrible daytime game show host, especially for "The Price is Right." O'Donnell would be tempted to indulge in self-centered banter and misplaced commentary while hosting "Price," which requires a fast-paced job of emceeing and a host who subordinates his or herself to the pricing games at hand. If allowed to indulge in this way, O'Donnell would wreck the show's timing, and if restrained from such indulgences, she would likely get quickly bored and testy with the gig. Her pre-existing public persona and reputation can do nothing but damage "Price"; Bob Barker became so beloved as the game show's host because his identity as such was (almost) the only thing for which audiences knew him.
Finally, I think that the producers and network for "The Price is Right" have no intention of looking at O'Donnell seriously as "Price" host, for all of the reasons I have detailed. Her flirtation with the job is just that: her flirtation, one that is going to be disregarded by those making the decision on the next "Price is Right" host. And as for Barker's endorsement, James Poniewozik of "Time" succinctly summarizes how much import that holds by reminding us that David Letterman was Johnny Carson's choice of replacement when he retired from "The Tonight Show," and most people know what happened in that case.
5.23.2007
"On the Lot" is Off the Mark
"On the Lot," the new TV show from realitymeister Mark Burnett and Hollywood legend Steven Spielberg, is the latest attempt to translate the ambition and skills of a particular group of individuals into reality television. The result is entertaining in a rubbernecking, trainwreck sort of way, not so much as a legitimate view into the creative processes of filmmaking.
The premiere episode (which aired Tuesday night after the first night of the "American Idol" finale; the Fox network is no dummy) started with fifty aspirants for the grand prize of a $1 million development deal at Dreamworks Pictures. After an initial task in which each contestant was given a log line for which they had to develop and deliver a pitch, the field was narrowed to 36.
The episode was filled with the kind of reality TV conventions that populate all of Burnett's programs (which include "Survivor" and the now-defunct "The Apprentice"). We got "up close and personal" glimpses at select contestants, including a Texas family man with two kids for whom "On the Lot" is supposedly his "last chance" to make it in Hollywood (he apparently wasn't trying too hard before this if he lives in Texas) and an Indiana boy who is seen strolling along the railroad tracks in his hometown (something I'm sure he really does on a regular basis). We got alternating pulsatingly tense or langorously melancholy accompaniment music, depending on whether the footage being shown was meant to be tense or melancholy. We got dramatic sweeping crane shots of the contestants getting a bus tour of Hollywood and walking along a studio lot. We got contrived stand-up segments in which a contestant discussed their emotions about the proceedings or the details of the task at hand (evidently, reality show contestants just naturally speak in a fashion that effortlessly provides exposition for such matters).
Along with all of this we got ticking clocks (figuratively speaking) as contestants rushed to prepare their pitches, tearful (or, alternately, confident) confessionals from contestants, and earnest platitudes from the three judges (my favorite: film director Garry Marshall wishing, during the contestant pitches, that someone would pitch lunch). Marshall was joined in the adjudicating by fellow director Brett Ratner and Princess Leia herself, Carrie Fisher. Their motivations for participating in such a contrived endeavor are unclear; Marshall and Ratner perhaps owed Spielberg favors, while Fisher, unfortunately, was probably just in need of work.
Traces of Spielberg himself were conspicuously absent from the premiere of "On the Lot," which suggests any number of things: his involvement in the show begins and ends with having lent his name and prestige in exchange for fiduciary gain; he was initially involved but then bailed when it became clear that "On the Lot" was off the rails; or the producers are saving any mention or appearance of the auteur for carefully rationed moments that can by hyped as excessively as his association with the program was during the promotional run-up to the premiere.
One of the chief problems with "On the Lot" is one that has plagued other Burnett productions, especially "The Apprentice." Namely, the tasks and the dynamics of those tasks have no resemblence to how filmmaking actually works or to how these contestants might be asked to practice filmmaking were they to win the grand prize. In both "The Apprentice" and "On the Lot" the flawed formula is the same: contestants are given severely time-limited tasks in which they are forced to work with their competitors to achieve an artificial goal. In "The Apprentice," this meant that contestants butted heads with each other over power and division of labor to accomplish questionable business goals. In "On the Lot," a similar unrealistic dynamic obtains when the aspiring directors are grouped in threes and asked to complete a short film in 24 hours, all while trying to co-direct their project. This task made for some fiery footage of contestants in conflict with one another, but has no resemblence to an actual film set on which the director is also a dictator whose authority is rarely challenged even by studio executives or producers who might have grounds to do so. Also unrealistic is the overnight pitch preparation for concepts that were essentially drawn out of a hat; its hard to imagine both the circumstances under which a film director might be asked to this and also the benefit for the aspirants for having done so.
It's hardly news, though, that reality television isn't realistic. Perhaps "On the Lot" will get better as the summer weeks go by, but I'm not holding my jodphurs in hopes that it will. A few more weeks down the road the contestants will at least begin working as solo directors rather than as one-third of a director, like they did in the premiere. Hopefully it has occurred to the producers that at some point they ought to actually show the home audience some (all?) of the films that the contestants have been making. And, maybe, just maybe, Spielberg will show his face at some point during the competition--although if he's smart, he'll remain off the lot.
The premiere episode (which aired Tuesday night after the first night of the "American Idol" finale; the Fox network is no dummy) started with fifty aspirants for the grand prize of a $1 million development deal at Dreamworks Pictures. After an initial task in which each contestant was given a log line for which they had to develop and deliver a pitch, the field was narrowed to 36.
The episode was filled with the kind of reality TV conventions that populate all of Burnett's programs (which include "Survivor" and the now-defunct "The Apprentice"). We got "up close and personal" glimpses at select contestants, including a Texas family man with two kids for whom "On the Lot" is supposedly his "last chance" to make it in Hollywood (he apparently wasn't trying too hard before this if he lives in Texas) and an Indiana boy who is seen strolling along the railroad tracks in his hometown (something I'm sure he really does on a regular basis). We got alternating pulsatingly tense or langorously melancholy accompaniment music, depending on whether the footage being shown was meant to be tense or melancholy. We got dramatic sweeping crane shots of the contestants getting a bus tour of Hollywood and walking along a studio lot. We got contrived stand-up segments in which a contestant discussed their emotions about the proceedings or the details of the task at hand (evidently, reality show contestants just naturally speak in a fashion that effortlessly provides exposition for such matters).
Along with all of this we got ticking clocks (figuratively speaking) as contestants rushed to prepare their pitches, tearful (or, alternately, confident) confessionals from contestants, and earnest platitudes from the three judges (my favorite: film director Garry Marshall wishing, during the contestant pitches, that someone would pitch lunch). Marshall was joined in the adjudicating by fellow director Brett Ratner and Princess Leia herself, Carrie Fisher. Their motivations for participating in such a contrived endeavor are unclear; Marshall and Ratner perhaps owed Spielberg favors, while Fisher, unfortunately, was probably just in need of work.
Traces of Spielberg himself were conspicuously absent from the premiere of "On the Lot," which suggests any number of things: his involvement in the show begins and ends with having lent his name and prestige in exchange for fiduciary gain; he was initially involved but then bailed when it became clear that "On the Lot" was off the rails; or the producers are saving any mention or appearance of the auteur for carefully rationed moments that can by hyped as excessively as his association with the program was during the promotional run-up to the premiere.
One of the chief problems with "On the Lot" is one that has plagued other Burnett productions, especially "The Apprentice." Namely, the tasks and the dynamics of those tasks have no resemblence to how filmmaking actually works or to how these contestants might be asked to practice filmmaking were they to win the grand prize. In both "The Apprentice" and "On the Lot" the flawed formula is the same: contestants are given severely time-limited tasks in which they are forced to work with their competitors to achieve an artificial goal. In "The Apprentice," this meant that contestants butted heads with each other over power and division of labor to accomplish questionable business goals. In "On the Lot," a similar unrealistic dynamic obtains when the aspiring directors are grouped in threes and asked to complete a short film in 24 hours, all while trying to co-direct their project. This task made for some fiery footage of contestants in conflict with one another, but has no resemblence to an actual film set on which the director is also a dictator whose authority is rarely challenged even by studio executives or producers who might have grounds to do so. Also unrealistic is the overnight pitch preparation for concepts that were essentially drawn out of a hat; its hard to imagine both the circumstances under which a film director might be asked to this and also the benefit for the aspirants for having done so.
It's hardly news, though, that reality television isn't realistic. Perhaps "On the Lot" will get better as the summer weeks go by, but I'm not holding my jodphurs in hopes that it will. A few more weeks down the road the contestants will at least begin working as solo directors rather than as one-third of a director, like they did in the premiere. Hopefully it has occurred to the producers that at some point they ought to actually show the home audience some (all?) of the films that the contestants have been making. And, maybe, just maybe, Spielberg will show his face at some point during the competition--although if he's smart, he'll remain off the lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)