Taste and South Park.

A persons “taste” in Television is the types of programs and shows they enjoy, and how they measure up in a perceived hierachry of quality, either individual opinions or a more roughly defined social standing point on how it fits into high or low culture. Having “good taste” means enjoying and engaging with programs that fit the accepted “canon” of whichever group the discussion is taking place (ranging from your own self assessment of taste, a group of peers or society at large). Having bad taste “one simply must consistently make choices which offend offend those with good taste” (Brooks, 1982 pp. 9)

South Park is a Comedy Central long running animated comedy show, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The series is known for both its simplistic (fake)paper-cutout style animation and its crude, outrageous and politically incorrect subject matter, and the latter is the subject of most of the discussion about the show.

The show has been the topic of many debates about taste, including whether or not the shows humour is in good taste, and if the show itself is worth looking at from any angle other than the lowest form of entertainment. Early into South Park’s life, it was already contenscious and “a few critics have blasted it as “witless,” “lame,” “gross and unfunny” (Span, 1997).

Over its 18 (19 currently airing) seasons, these type of criticisms have been common place for South Park, and it has garnered a reputation and stigma of being something only designed for teenagers, and not to be payed any attention by those who have “good taste”. This is a reaction to South Park’s vulgar language and obscene content, which are seen by many as immature and beneth them.

However, the series is not universally regarded as an example of low culture, and over the almost two decades that South Park has been on the air, countless academic or scholarly essays have been written about it, examining it in depth or using it as an example for a discussion point about an issue. Yet all these academic writings have one thing in common:

Quotes like these

“than its crudely stereotypical and even crassly juvenile depictions of the racial Other would suggest….” (Chidester, 2012).

“and (what I perceived to be) the general poor taste of the cartoon” (Richardson, 2004 pp. 692).

And many more, similar variations appear across almost every academic piece of writing done about South Park, even though the authors are treating South Park as something worthy of study, they are writing as if they are the only ones doing so. Even if South Park isn’t thought of as low culture, it is assumed everyone else thinks of it that way. It is so widely accepted in society that South Park is low culture and poor taste in television, that any deviation from that needs a disclaimer.This pre-concived notion that there is nothing of cultural value in South Park is the reason for the surprised and almost amazed tone of articles and papers which look into South Park and examine its connection modern day culture and relation to such issues as race or language.

This provides an interesting look at the narrowing of the gap between high and low culture, which over time are gradually becoming indistinct (at least in the eyes of academics). South Park works as an examples that a television program, or any piece of artwork, can be crude and low-brow, yet also worthy of the time and study by academics and not nesisarily thought of as bad taste.

References:

Richardson, K. 2004. “Addicted to democracy: South Park and the salutary effects of agitation (reflections of a ranting and raving South Park junkie)”. Journal of Adolescent and Adult literacy, Vol. 47(8), pp. 692-697

Span, P. 1997. “On the Cussing Edge; `South Park’ Pushes the Taste Envelope”, The Washington Post, D.C. 

Chidester, P. 2012. “Respect My Authori-tah”: South Park and the Fragmentation/Reification of Whiteness”, Critical Studies in Media Communication. Vol. 29(5).

Brooks, W. 1982. “On Being Tasteless”. Popular Music 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 9–18. 

Reflecting on my TV watching habits over the semester.

HERE you can see my Weekly “diaries” about my TV watching from the start of Week 8 to the end of Week 13.

From my time use diaries, several patterns emerge, and trends appear. The most obvious one being that I watch 90% of TV alone, which is a result of living alone, and the only times I watched TV with other people were when I was staying with family, or during a lecture for this subject. Television isn’t a very social pastime for me, and the shows that I watch do not lend themselves particulary well to group disuccsion whilst watching (which is something I am not overly fond of anyway).

Meanwhile, I also engage in rapid and elongated consumption of TV shows on non traditional mediums (DVD, Streaming services etc..), for example I watched the next 7 episodes of True Detective in mere days following watching the Pilot in the TV cultures lecture, and all 10 episodes of Better Call Saul in under a week. My frequency of these “binge watch shows” varies radically, if I am currently engaged with a show I will watch it with extreme frequency, often late into the night “just one more”ing. However once I am done with a show, I do not immediately find another, and often go weeks or even months without having a show in which I get super into it and watch a season in a week.

Another emergent pattern is that there are 3-4 shows that I watch regularly on free to air television, Good Game, Chaser’s Media Circus, Gruen and Doctor Who, interestingly all on the ABC. These are the only shows that I watch with a mind to their schedule, as in if I am doing something else at home I will stop to turn on the TV and watch them. However their prevalence in organizing my life extends only so far, whilst I will stop browsing the internet, playing video games or other entertainment based activities, they will not influence any greater decisions that extend beyond my apartment, such as going out or anything important such as staying late at RMIT to finish an assignment.

This is because all of those shows are easily avalible on other platforms for “catch up” watching, in all of these cases, ABC iView. This means that although I intend to watch them at their designated time, and will stop what I am doing to put my almost undivided attention towards them, if for some reason this is impossible there is nothing lost and no need to worry as they are readily avalible to watch on other platforms.

Along with those shows, the rest of what I watch on free to air TV has a much different level of engagement, things like The Simpsons, Futarama and Bob’s Burgers run one after to other on a Wednesday evening, and while I enjoy those shows, I do not engage my attention to them fully as they are 99% likely to be episodes I have seen before. Instead they are more of background noise, usually on when I am doing other tasks such as cooking, eating, cleaning etc… Attention is divided between whateer it is that I am doing, and the show, due to the relatively non-complex plots and familiarity missing a few lines of dialogue or keeping my eyes of the TV for a minute doesn’t have a major impact on the viewing experience, but they work as good background entertainment whilst doing menial activities that do not require my full attention all of the time, as well as serving as a rough indicator of time, as a new episode (the structure is Simpsons, Futarama, Simpsons, Futarama, Simpsons, Bobs Burgers) indicates that 30 minutes has passed.

Beyond even that there is a third subset of shows that I watch with an even lower amount of attention payed towards them. The things that inadvertently come on after something I want to watch has finished and I neglect to turn the TV off. I payed these shows so little attention that I couldn’t even remember what they were called when I went to fill in the time use diary the next day, something to do with prisons or something. These shows are less than a distraction and more-so a result of laziness, with me opting to do stuff on my computer or phone with some background noise rather than turn it off.

True Detective and Anthology series.

True Detective is a HBO crime drama series revolving around the solving of murders and mysteries in a serial lasting 8 episodes. Unlike other complex narrative programs such as The Soprano’s or Breaking Bad, True Detective is an anthology series, and while each individual episode is tightly connected to the ones that precede and follow it, the seasons themselves are only tangibly connected under name and  general subject matter.

The anthology format has multiple benefits and downsides compared to the continuous, long running style of a traditional narrative-based television show. One such benefit is the ability to cast actors in pivotal roles, who may not want to be a part of multi-year contract, instead doing a small number of episodes without worrying about possible scheduling issues that came arrise years into the future. Without its anthology format, True Detective would not have been able to cast “movie stars”, such as McConahugey and Harrelson “who wouldn’t commit to an ongoing series” (Wienman, 2015). The anthology format also allows the show to keep fresh, and avoid drawn, pointless or repeated story aspects that can negatively affect long-running complex narrative shows such as Breaking Bad (Wienman, 2015). “Tv writers are better at crafting beginnings than middles or endings”…”and the seasonal anthology is 90% beginnings” (Wienman, 2015).

However, this constant revival and change has some negative aspects as well, if a show changes from one season to another, the audience may not enjoy the next season of the show, and without continuing story archs from the season that they did, have little reason to watch.

The first season of True Detective which aired in 2014, starred Matthew McConahugey and Woody Harrelson playing Louisiana Detectives Rustin Cohle and Martin Hart, unlike a traditional television series, after the 8 episode season was complete, the next season did not continue to follow the antics of Rust and Marty. Instead it followed an entire new cast of characters, in a different location and was stylistically different to the first season. The second season of True Detective now starred Colin Farrel and Vince Vaughn, and was stylistically different from the first season. The show no-longer switched between varying time periods, and the music choices being vastly different in terms of genre and tone.

The second season of True Detective was much maligned by fans, and received far less critical praise than the first. These screenshots from Metacritic.com show that season 1 was rated on average 87/100 by professional critics, and had an average public user rating of 9.2/10.

Meanwhile, season 2 received an average rating of 61/100 from critics and 6.4/10 from users.

This disappointment from fans and drop in perceived quality is the result of True Detective changing from its first season, but it cannot be treated as a new or unique show because of the series label, meaning that it will always be compared to the first season. A common complaint about True Detectives second season is that it is trying (and in the eyes of many) failing to “summon the spirit of the first season”, but somehow lacking the “rare alchemy of factors” that made the first season so well received and that Season 2 “is not the same” (Goodman, 2015, pp.84).

This is the result of the debacle which plagues all entertainment mediums, not just TV. If a follow-up to something is too similar, it will feel stale and likely not capture the sense of originality of its predecessor, but if a sequel/second season/follow-up is too different people will complain that it lost what made the original appealing.

As a seasonal anthology, True Detective is not immune to these criticisms, but its format does allow more flexibility. As if one season is disappointing, it doesn’t necessarily affect future seasons because it can start anew, without having to continue anything that was not received well.

References

Goodman, T. 2015, “Season two of HBO’s anthology crime series, now starring Colin Farrel, Rachel McAdams and Vince Vaughn, seems to be suffering from try-hard syndrome” Hollywood Reporter, vol. 421(21)  pp. 84

“True Detective: Season 1”, Metacritic < http://www.metacritic.com/tv/true-detective > [Accessed on 26/10/15]

“True Detective: Season 2”, Metacritic < http://www.metacritic.com/tv/true-detective/season-2 > [Accessed on 26/10/15]

Weinman, J. 2015, “Now for something completely different”, Rogers Publishing Limited, Toronto.

Blog Post 2

(Lack of) Scheduling in relation to Arrested Development

Scheduling and routine have always been important parts of human life, especially in broadcast television, programs have always traditionally had a set timeslot each week, and people or families would timetable their evening around what TV shows they wanted to watch, and this routine or schedule would be relevant for a long time, until a season of a show finishes.

While regular scheduling can give a program an engaged audience who knows precisely when the next installment will appear, non regular scheduling can do the opposite, upset and frustrate viewers who have no idea when they should expect more content. This is especially true in a series that has over-arching plots and continuity between episodes, rather than standalone stories that can be viewed in any order and still make sense.

Arrested Development is an American sitcom created by Mitchel Hurwitz that follows the misadventures of the wealthy Bluth family. Arrested Development differed from most comedy programs of the era, Arrested Development was “a new kind of sitcom: one using a character narrator and an unlocked, hand- held camera, and one without a laugh track” (Barton 2015, pp 199). Its biggest difference was that the entire plot was conceived before production and it was to have a serialised structure so each episode would follow on the from the last.

While the show did contain a narrator that helped remind audiances of major plot points from earlier episodes, most of the smaller or “hidden” call-back jokes and foreshadowing was only noticed by those who had seen every prior episode and had a good memory of their content. To fully enjoy and appreciate the show, the audience needed to have regular interaction with the show, this is why scheduling is important.

Looking at this chart you can see that it was not infact given regular scheduling. Gaps between episodes up to 5 weeks long, a seemingly random distribution of 1-4 episodes on a single day.

If regular scheduling and routine are important for an enjoyment of a television program, then Arrested Development was doomed. Scheduling of TV has traditionally helped in organising our lives, as we base flexible activities around those which cannot change (i.e. a TV show’s timeslot). A show with set times that dont follow any reasonable organisation makes this impossible. A viewers could not, for example, create an evening timetable of watching television and include Arrested Development, as some weeks it was absent, and others it took up 4x its standard block.

Not only was show robbed of any reasonable flow between episode but it was also hampered by “Fox’s decision to air some of the episodes out of their intended order, causing confusion for a number of viewers.” (Barton 2015, pp 237).

Scheduling has been a cornerstone of Televison as a medium since its inception, but as much as a weekly burst of new content is associated with the traditional TV experience, the creators intentions or the fans enjoyment is null and void when compared to getting good ratings.

It is interesting (but probably unsurprising) to note, that Arrested Development’s 4th season was exclusively for Netflix, releasing every episode at the same time. That however, is enough content for an entire new blog post.

 References:

Barton, KM 2015, A State of Arrested Development : Critical Essays on the Innovative Television Comedy, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, N.C.

Blog Post 1

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver and engaging with the online community.

John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight one of the latest examples of the increasingly popular phenomonum of satirical news shows. Oliver covers a variety of topics each week in short segments, before dedicating the majority of his 30 minute timeslot to cover a singular issue in greater depth.

Oliver’s content and presentation style are both informative and humorous, taking serious topics and events and discussing them while simultaneously lampooning those involved and making jokes about the events/issue at hand.

The show focuses heavily on engaging the audience and encouraging virality. To aid in the humorous approach to covering stories, the show uses graphics in the top left corner often filled with humorous images that accompany what Oliver is discussing, often using photoshopped images to make people or events seem ridiculous, using a similar style to “memes” or “reaction images” popularised on online forums and social media. Other times short video clips are used, sometimes to explain the topic and other times purely for comedic effect, sometimes going to (relatively) large effort for a joke.

For example in the segment on the NCAA, covering how players are paid nothing even when appearing in licensed products such as video games, a satirical commercial for such a game was produced for the show (begins at 18:20 in this clip from the official Youtube channel).

It included 3D animation, voice-over work and fake boxart, this lengthy foray into fake video game commercials adds nothing to the serious discussion of the issue, it is merely a recap of all the previous discussion rolled into something very funny, very memorable and most importantly very sharable.

This meshes well with Last Week Tonight as the show relies on its online presence for a large portion of its audience. The official Youtube channel has over two million subscribers and videos regular receive over 6 million views, screen shots and small segments are shared on social media for their “hilarious, but true” value.

However, the most obvious example of this is the hashtags that are created by the show, usually as mockery of a famous company or individual related to the episodes main topics.

In this lengthy segment ( relevant section beginning at 15:25) the Tobacco, a new mascot for the Marlboro cigarette company is suggested, a diseased lung named Jeff. Oliver also asks the audiance and viewers at home to “help out” and spread the image via the hashtag #jeffwecan, in an attempt to place the image of a “diseased lung wearing a cowboy hat” when Marlboro is googled.

The attempt succeeded and this image still remains the no.1 result when searching for “Marlboro Mascot” on the internet, and remains in the top 30 for searches of “Marlboro”. This proves not only the effectiveness of spreading messages through social media, but also the audiences willingness to do so.

By engaging in, and promoting internet culture and deliberately encouraging virality in his content John Oliver starts voluntary “activism”, increased audience engagement with the show and an impressive amount of free advertising for his brand and HBO.