2.05.2007

The Cultural Divide

This post is one that I've been meaning to write for a few weeks now, but it keeps getting away from me. After watching last night's Super Bowl however, there have just been too many glaring reminders to put this off any longer.

Dear Readers, there is a cultural divide in America and it's growing every day. Some of you will already know what I'm talking about, those of you who, like me, are in the minority. But most of you will probably have no idea what I'm talking about because like most of America, you are in the majority. Let me use some interesting moments from last night's Bowl to illustrate this cultural divide.

Three specific things caught my eye last night. The first was a commercial for CBS's hit sitcom Two and a Half Men, proudly advertising the show's status as television's most-watched comedy. Then, there was the commercial for Criminal Minds, or what TV Guide calls "TV's Best Drama." And last, though certainly not least, there the Super Bowl Halftime show starring Prince as Freddy Mercury, Jimi Hendrix, Dave Grohl and some Hispanic lady in a purple bonnet.

Now you might be wondering, "But Jonah, what do those three things have to do with a so-called cultural divide? They all seem fine to me." Please allow me to explain.

We are living in an age of extreme cultural division between the intelligent, artistic entertainment of the few and the mindless spectacle entertainment of the many. Two and a Half Men is the country's #1 comedy? Seriously? For those of you who know me, you'll know that there's nothing I hate on television more than CBS. There is not a single show on that intelligence-forsaken network that I watch. I don't watch any of the 9 CSI's or crap reality shows or formulaic sitcoms or any of the dime-a-dozen military dramas. CBS is an example of what often makes me despise this country, with its entire primetime television schedule based around safe, non-risk taking, non-form advancing, recyclable drivel for America's idiot masses. And yet it's the #1 NETWORK IN AMERICA??? It makes me want to throw up.

Other things that make me want to throw up: ABC. Aside from Lost (which I am looking forward to blogging about this coming Thursday), there is not a single show I watch on this equally vapid, mind-numbing network. Ugly Betty? According to Jim? The George Lopez Show? Do you know people who watch these shows? If so, are they mentally retarded or just from the South? I'll cut ABC a little more slack than CBS, since I do have some respect for Grey's Anatomy, but I still hate its guts. It's as if CBS and ABC are committed solely to preserving the status quo; in twenty years, we'll be studying the idiocy of these television shows in the same way we now laugh at the campiness and stupidity of our old favorites like Miami Vice or Full House.

If you're like me, then the only network tv you really watch is NBC and Fox (in that order). NBC is without a doubt the most intelligent and cutting-edge network on television right now. Without NBC, we'd be stuck in a land of multi-camera sitcoms with laugh tracks, procedural dramas, and stupid shows about attractive middle-aged women and the stupid things they do in different stupid settings. Take a look at NBC's current schedule and you'll find all of network tv's best shows, excluding Lost and a small handful from Fox. First and foremost, NBC Thursday's "Comedy Night Done Right" has recaptured all the magic of "NBC's Must-See TV Thursday" of yore. With it's four hilarious back to back comedies, Thursday night has regained its former glory and become the second best night of tv (With 24, Prison Break, Heroes and Studio 60, Monday's are just too awesome). With the critical and popular hits My Name is Earl, The Office, Scrubs, and 30 Rock, NBC has placed itself at the forefront of television comedies. These are the only live action comedies on tv today that take any sort of risks or offer any sort of meaningful entertainment. These shows push the envelope in terms of format, content, writing, acting, directing-- you name it.

While at times these shows might not seem like much (especially Earl), you have to give them credit for at least trying to be different, for attempting to do something new with the medium of television. If you don't watch these shows regularly, set your Tivo from 8-10 this Thursday (all shows are new this week!) and give it a shot. All are episodic serials (meaning that while there are some greater story arcs carried throughout the season, each episode is pretty much self-contained), so you won't feel like you've missed too much. And even if you don't enjoy all or any of the shows, you can at least give yourself a pat on the back for trying something new and culturally relevant.

Aside from it's comedies, NBC also offers some of tv's best drama with shows like Heroes, Friday Night Lights (the best show on tv that you aren't watching), and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Yes, it still offers standard procedural fare with its 7 different Law & Order's and it's countless attempts at successful reality tv (with Deal or No Deal as one of the network's biggest smash hits). But you can't blame them for needed to keep up with the crap put out by CBS and ABC. Even though it's not something I particularly enjoy in a tv show, I admire NBC for being the only network to have politically and socially relevant programming on the air. From E.R's several episode arc about the genocide in Darfur, to Studio 60's discussion of television censorship, to last week's Scrubs about the war in Iraq, NBC is constantly addressing important issues, while other networks are content to poop out the same old worthless garbage over and over.

And sadly, the division doesn't end when your television is off. How many people do you know who actually like Prince? Does anyone really think he's a good singer, or that his weird feminine jumpsuits are actually cool? His performance at the Super Bowl was a perfect example of the corporate-driven moronic majority that I've been talking about:

His set-list was comprised of horrific 30-second covers of other people's songs, followed by his hit song "Purple Rain" from like, twenty years ago. Talk about a recycled culture. And the worst part is, I bet most of America really enjoyed it, happy to have the same crap they've already been hearing for years being pumped back into their ears once more by a far superior artist. Of course, CBS showed us numerous shots of the crowd happily and enthusastically enjoying the show, which is pretty much exemplary of how this culture works in the first place. "See everyone, isn't this fun? All the other happy boys and girls love this stuff, and so should you!" It reminds me of a certain argument I always use when I have this debate with someone. Think about Britney Spears, one of America's best-selling recording artists in her day. How many of you really thought she was the best singer? How many of you thought her talent was equal to the amount of success she received? My guess is nobody really thought she was the best, but because MTV and US Weekly and other crap like that told us she was the best, and since EVERYONE else already liked her, hell, we did too, even if she didn't deserve it.

Back to Prince: Notice how the best part of the show was the cool lights and smoke effects? That's Majority Culture in a nutshell: all spectacle and no substance. Put a famous name, a famous song and some screaming fans on CBS and it doesn't matter what the hell the entertainment actually is because people are going to watch.

The trend even extends to The Great White Way, where absolutely horrific shows like The Wedding Singer, Tarzan and The Producers are consistently more popular than groundbreaking, innovative shows like the incomparable Spring Awakening. Broadway more than any medium these days is an example of our shitty recycled culture, where the bottom line is the dotted line upon which you sign your soul away for cash. Over half the shows on Broadway are either revivals (Les Mis is frickin back already?), musicalized versions of movies (most of which we didn't like all that much anyways), or pop music compilations from formerly popular artists like Mamma Mia's ABBA or Ring of Fire's Johnny Cash. What once delivered so many gloriously innovative and relevant shows has since become a wasteland in which only a handful of truly important new musicals can emerge.

Now, I don't mean for this to sound condescending or elitist because its not like people who are in the majority are stupid and people who are in the minority are smart (although this is often the case). It's just that the majority of people in America do not demand enough from their entertainment and are happy to be fed the same, dull, formulaic content over and over again. Well, if my blog has one goal, it's to tell you to STOP! Demand more from your tv, from your movies and from your music! Look outside of the I-Tunes store homepage, or Desperate Housewives or A Night At the Museum. We are in a golden age of media, my friends. I truly believe this. Everyday, a small collective of innovative producers, writers and performers are trying their hardest to create something challenging and new, something that offers you a fulfilling experience every single time you watch or listen, and they are most definitely succeeding. Don't settle for Prince and Britney when you can have Umphrey's McGee or Corinne Bailey Rae. Don't watch Cheaper By The Dozen (yes, I hate Shawn Levy) when you can watch Little Miss Sunshine. Don't go see Beauty and The Beast when you can see Spring Awakenings. Don't settle for CBS when you can change the channel to NBC. Stop settling for the safe and easy majority; we've got a nice spot on the minority side with your name on it.

6 comments:

Will B said...

Jonah,
Interesting premise, but consider the numbers. It's easy to get wrapped up in these things when you're comparing them on relative scales, but only about 10% of America watches the most popular TV show, American Idol. In a country with at least 300 million people (and undoubtedly many more with the number of illegal immigrants not dwindling), nothing is watched by a significant portion of the country.

TV, by nature, is going to always appeal to the most mainstream tastes because it is passively consumed and culturally lazy. Yet when even the most popular show and the vast majority of others are only watched about about 6-7% of the population, noticing the difference in their ratings misses the point. The relativity of viewership only matters to advertisers, the amount people watch the different shows is less interesting culturally than the very fact that they're watching TV at all.

What's more fertile for debate in my mind is the notion that nothing is actually that popular.

Will B said...

Also, one addendum:

I guess that my main point is that expecting network television to be on the cultural vanguard is a fool's errand. Sure there are examples of some shows being better than others, but network TV is specifically intended to be mainstream fare. It has to appeal to the widest audience possible and quality is only important insofar as it can attract an audience.

Anonymous said...

Will- I agree that network tv is for the most part manufactured for the reasons you listed, which is why I urge people to watch the shows that don't do that, like Friday Night Lights or 30 Rock. I'm not arguing that television needs to change-- rather that intelligent viewers can and should expect more from their tv, because high quality programming is being produced and is out there for us to watch.

As for the notion of popularity, of course its a relative term. The only things that universally popular are air and water. So when I discuss popular tv shows, of course I can only be referring to their relative popularity within the tv viewing public aka (for the most part), middle to upper class america.

Will B said...

I just don't see the point of complaining about mainstream media like that. Television offers many different people many different choices none of which are popular among a sizable mass of people. Just because a show that is in your opinion inferior has larger relative popularity, is as I said, besides the point. If every show had the same appeal to the same audience, the business of television would fail. Shows, with rare, rare exception, are only on the air if they appeal to enough people to make money. So long as shows you like attract enough of an audience to stay on the air, what does it matter?

Expecting cultural choices from an outwardly and explicitly commercial medium sets you up to fight a battle that you'll never win. At worst, you'll be elitist and at best, you'll be championing the causes of things people don't care about and ultimately have no societal value. My point has gotten much more philosophical than I intended, but I'm opposed to people complaining about the tastes of others. Someone might perceive television, as a medium, as incapable of containing anything intelligent, in the same way you perceive a crass TV show as being less intelligent and there's no way to say they're wrong if you use this line of argument. Once you start making negative value judgments on people's taste, it's a slippery slope that is impossible to defend. Cultural critique is only interesting to me when people explain why they like or dislike something; complaining about what entertainment other people like doesn't reveal anything or mean anything.

Also Friday night lights deserves its fate. Debuting a football show against Monday Night Football (as it was first programmed when it came out) is one of the dumbest decisions for a new show I can recall.

In any event, it's nice to have another spirited debate on your blog. Hopefully we can start to have some more voices pipe in :)

Anonymous said...

Gentleman, Gentleman. End of round 1.

Jonah, I have a couple of thoughts....

First, I actually really enjoyed Prince. I thought his performance was the most musically engaging in the past 3 or 4 years. I would much rather watch him than the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, or Janet/JT/Titty Ring, who in my opinion all flat out sucked. In comparison to them, I don't think he had a lot of spectacle on stage, besides those two hot dancers (they looked like twins...nice....) Sure they had the glow in the dark marching band, but he was basically carrying the whole show on stage by himself. His version of "All Along the Watchtower" into "Best of Me" was strange, but innovative nonetheless, and watching him shred his guitar solos in the pouring rain in 3 inch high heels was the true definition of rock. I think most of America was or has been offended my his ambiguous sexuality to either turn the tube off during half-time or completely zone it out. Plus, I don't think you're giving him enough credit as a musician whose career has spanned 4 decades and several different musical genres.

In terms of your post in general, I agree with your comments and Will's as well. I don't think the idea of a "cultural elite" is new in any way, and it's only appropriate that their role be played out in our most popular entertainment medium....only the future will tell how this divide will play itself out when computers and the internet become as available as the TV. The internet allows for greater freedom and choice, always a positive for the consumer. Jonah, isn't the cancellation of Arrested Development great evidence of everything you've been saying? Was it really too "smart" for the mainstream?

It is ironic you bring up these thoughts after the super bowl. Why? Because more than any other entertainment event, the super bowl is when we are most reminded of the importance of advertising and its cost. Thus, what we should all still remember is the even more bottom, bottom line: The TV was made to sell ads. TV shows are just the crack to hold us over until the next commercial.

Anonymous said...

A few points to address:

1- Friday Night Lights-- have you watched this show? It's fantastic. It deserves to stay on the air. A bad decision by NBC execs doesn't mean the show's creative team should suffer.

2. I don't think intelligence is a matter of opinion. No one is watching CSI and saying, "Wow, this show really connects with me on a deeply emotional level and makes me re-evaluate the way I think and feel about the world." And I don't even really mind CSI. I'm just trying to make the point that there are shows, like Freaks and Geeks for instance, that are art for art's sake-- shows that dare to be different and try to connect with you on a different level.

Do you really think that as a tv show creator, you're thinking "What crap can I make up that will make the most money?" I'd say the only shows who use that as their guideline are CSI spinoff type shows and reality television (which is, of all the genres, the most directly related to flat out making money).

I'd say that for the intelligent, creative minds in Hollywood, they're really trying to produce an engaging, emotional product and now more than ever, I believe they are succeeding.

Yes Jake, Arrested is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. So is a show like Seinfeld. These are shows that from the get-go wanted to offer audiences something different, something that flips the cultural norms we have all come to expect from our tv on its head. Seinfeld caught on with the mainstream. Arrested didn't. Oh well. The end results don't change the fact that both shows make for intelligent, compelling tv. I didn't even watch Seinfeld all that much when it was on, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate it as a high form of tv.

Who says we can't expect quality programming from tv? Just b/c most shows are all about the bottom line, that doesn't mean that all of them are. I mean, Arrested only lasted three years with horrible ratings b/c critics and fans loved the show so damn much.

I suppose you can say that you can't critique someone's taste, but I just don't think that's accurate. If someone, for instance, watches the Godfather and says, "That's a bad movie," they are flat out incorrect. They can say "I didn't enjoy that movie," but The Godfather IS artistically and fundamentally good movie. It's a matter of fact.

Likewise, saying that the medium of tv is incapable of producing intelligent content is just flat out wrong. While someone might not agree with the politics on The West Wing or might even hate the show, that doesn't change the fact that the show was smart and had something intelligent to say.

Basically, I think this whole argument has to be qualified. While network execs might be all about money, show's creators don't have to be. Many of them are not, and those are the shows I urge people to watch. Obviously, I'm in the minority and most people are going to watch their Deal or No Deal and be happy. That's their choice. I just want people to realize that there is an alternative and that they don't need to be passive, casual viewers of emotionally shallow content.

As for Prince, you're right, Jake- I should give him more credit for holding it down out there in rain. But it doesn't change the fact that many of America's most successful acts are longtime performers who keep performing their same old hits over and over. I'm sure there are people who only know Prince and are happy to listen to him forever. But like the tv, I just want people to know that there are new, innovative artists who are trying to do new things that are more deserving of our attention.