On a recent version of the SAT, there was an essay question about the implications and impact of Reality TV on American society. Ten years too late, SAT board - if I'd had that prompt, maybe I could have gotten into an Ivy, or (gasp!) Stanford.
Students have inevitably taken up arms against the question. I completely agree with their complaints: someone who watches Reality TV will have a much easier time responding. A student knowledgeable about the genre could provide, or at least have in mind, specific examples that would support their argument or even help them form a convincing response. (For instance, they could mention how awful it is that the cover of this week's People Magazine features Brad and Emily's rocky engagement while confining the tragedy in Japan to the sidebar, just above the discussion of Kate Middleton's bikini body). So yes, the question is unfair.
But too freakin' bad.
Reality TV does have an impact on our society, for better or worse, and as informed citizens, high school students should be able to discuss it. Not that they shouldn't also be informed about politics and the global economy (etc. etc. etc.) but that doesn't preclude an an awareness of television culture. In fact, pop culture is the easiest of any "subject" to learn - it's the most accessible (literally and intellectually) and takes the fewest brain cells to process (though probably kills the most). I'm not suggesting that sixteen-year-olds should be forced to watch Jersey Shore and America's Next Top Model, or that they need to know that first-ever Survivor winner, Richard Hatch, is back for another stint in prison. But they should absolutely be able to form a clear argument about one of the most important American cultural phenomena.
And really, now that the SAT is out of 2400, no one over the age of 18 really knows what your score means anyway.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Episode 611
Jury duty is second only to filing taxes on the list of Things Americans Hate to Do. I'm here to change that. Having spent the past two days at jury duty, I can say with confidence that it is one of the most entertaining things I have ever done (take that as you will). Why write about it here? Because I would like to propose that it becomes a new TV show: a spin-off of The Office and Parks and Recreation that documents the jury selection process in a suburban courthouse.
I don't know quite how to describe the absurdity that ensued (although everyone knows a version of it), so instead, I'll just list off a few things I learned - or that I knew, but were confirmed for me - observing the process.
1) All Americans are either pretentious, crazy, or stupid (or some combination of the three): I knew it would all be downhill when so many people couldn't follow instructions that the administrative assistant had to lecture a room full of functioning adults on how to fill out a form.
2) As a general rule, people are not good liars, especially when it comes to pretending to be prejudiced (which is surprising, given that most of us are, in fact, quite prejudiced).
3) People who like to schmooze should not be allowed to be judges: I could elaborate, but let's just say this Phil Dunphy of a character referred to every female in the room - ages 18 to 80 - as "young lady."
4) Conciseness is not a strong suit of most Americans. If you're going to BS your way out of serving, please do it immediately, and save everyone else the time. A fifteen-minute story about how you were pulled over by a police officer 23 years ago and how the experience has tainted your view of traffic violations really isn't in anyone's best interest. I have never thought the words "TMI" more in my life.
5) The sixth amendment should be further amended: in addition to "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury," the defendant should have "the right to a private room and a television to watch all six seasons of LOST (or the equivalent) while the jury selection process is taking place." As if being on trial isn't enough.
In this new show (which will air in Two and Half Men's old time slot), the judge, clerk, bailiff, recorder, and attorneys would be recurring characters, while the defendant and potential jurors would change each time (but of course there would be the Dwight Schrute of the group who came un-summoned to every selection - with the hopes of being seated - just to be a good citizen).
Basically, Jury Duty will be like The Office, but with no windows and the risk of perjury.
I don't know quite how to describe the absurdity that ensued (although everyone knows a version of it), so instead, I'll just list off a few things I learned - or that I knew, but were confirmed for me - observing the process.
1) All Americans are either pretentious, crazy, or stupid (or some combination of the three): I knew it would all be downhill when so many people couldn't follow instructions that the administrative assistant had to lecture a room full of functioning adults on how to fill out a form.
2) As a general rule, people are not good liars, especially when it comes to pretending to be prejudiced (which is surprising, given that most of us are, in fact, quite prejudiced).
3) People who like to schmooze should not be allowed to be judges: I could elaborate, but let's just say this Phil Dunphy of a character referred to every female in the room - ages 18 to 80 - as "young lady."
4) Conciseness is not a strong suit of most Americans. If you're going to BS your way out of serving, please do it immediately, and save everyone else the time. A fifteen-minute story about how you were pulled over by a police officer 23 years ago and how the experience has tainted your view of traffic violations really isn't in anyone's best interest. I have never thought the words "TMI" more in my life.
5) The sixth amendment should be further amended: in addition to "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury," the defendant should have "the right to a private room and a television to watch all six seasons of LOST (or the equivalent) while the jury selection process is taking place." As if being on trial isn't enough.
In this new show (which will air in Two and Half Men's old time slot), the judge, clerk, bailiff, recorder, and attorneys would be recurring characters, while the defendant and potential jurors would change each time (but of course there would be the Dwight Schrute of the group who came un-summoned to every selection - with the hopes of being seated - just to be a good citizen).
Basically, Jury Duty will be like The Office, but with no windows and the risk of perjury.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Episode 610
I assume Mel Gibson is sending Charlie Sheen some great, big thank-you flowers right about now. Charlie Sheen has created a mockery of himself more than I - or anyone else - could possibly do, so it's not really even worth trying to be witty about it. Lucky for me, someecards has already taken care of that and has captured, in seventeen distinct one-liners, how much America hates the beast and more importantly, Two and a Half Men.
Because Charlie Sheen has given TV a bad name, I want to propose an antidote: seven-year-old Riley Chandler. These four minutes and seven seconds redeem television (and humanity) from every ill He Who Shall Continue to Be Named (on Every News Outlet in America) has ever committed. This is almost better than baby pandas cuddling with their moms.
Because Charlie Sheen has given TV a bad name, I want to propose an antidote: seven-year-old Riley Chandler. These four minutes and seven seconds redeem television (and humanity) from every ill He Who Shall Continue to Be Named (on Every News Outlet in America) has ever committed. This is almost better than baby pandas cuddling with their moms.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Episode 609
I'm writing this while sitting on the floor of SFO, waiting to board my flight to LAX (four-hour delay and counting). As much as I love the people-watching, this does mean I'm missing Thursday-night TV, including an episode of The Office called "Threat Level Midnight." (Can. Not. Wait.) To console myself, I'm going to write about a few things I loved this week on TV:
1) Michael Emerson on Parenthood. The one drawback of that otherwise flawless show is (and my driver in LAX agrees) the one-note portrayal of Max, the middle-schooler with Asperger's. I'm not sure if it's the fault of the writers, the directors, or the child actor with a tremendously difficult role to play, but Max - who should be one of the show's more dynamic and sympathetic characters - falls flat. In any case, Michael Emerson (with just the right amount of Ben Linus in him) guest starred in this week's episode as a man with Asperger's - and he gave one of the most nuanced performances the show has ever seen (which is saying a lot given the knock-out talent on the regular cast). It's worth checking out (hulu.com - sorry for lack of links, I'm writing this old-school Notes style and will even if you don't follow the show. P.S. Can we agree that Michael Emerson is the Christoph Waltz of the small screen?
2) The new feedingamerica.org ad campaign. This is a little less exciting when I can't link to examples, but let's just say that Taye Diggs, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck made me want to pick Feeding America next time they ask me to choose a cause at Whole Foods. Commercials for charities that don't rely on Sarah McLachlan songs to elicit the tears are always okay in my book.
3) Elmo showing Padma who's boss. The stars of Sesame Street were the (best) guest judges (ever) on Top Chef: All Stars this week. The challenge was to make cookies worthy of Cookie Monster. When one chef made a cookie with cinnamon and it was mistaken for cardamom, Padma, in true attempted-snobbery style, informed the Muppets that "cinnamon and cardamom come from the same part of the world." Elmo then retorted with what every viewer was thinking (and I quote): "TMI."
Speaking of TMI, my butt is a bit sore from all this floor-sitting, so it's time to wrap up and take a stroll. Hey, it could be worse; it's 10:45pm on a Thursday - I could be watching Outsourced.
1) Michael Emerson on Parenthood. The one drawback of that otherwise flawless show is (and my driver in LAX agrees) the one-note portrayal of Max, the middle-schooler with Asperger's. I'm not sure if it's the fault of the writers, the directors, or the child actor with a tremendously difficult role to play, but Max - who should be one of the show's more dynamic and sympathetic characters - falls flat. In any case, Michael Emerson (with just the right amount of Ben Linus in him) guest starred in this week's episode as a man with Asperger's - and he gave one of the most nuanced performances the show has ever seen (which is saying a lot given the knock-out talent on the regular cast). It's worth checking out (hulu.com - sorry for lack of links, I'm writing this old-school Notes style and will even if you don't follow the show. P.S. Can we agree that Michael Emerson is the Christoph Waltz of the small screen?
2) The new feedingamerica.org ad campaign. This is a little less exciting when I can't link to examples, but let's just say that Taye Diggs, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck made me want to pick Feeding America next time they ask me to choose a cause at Whole Foods. Commercials for charities that don't rely on Sarah McLachlan songs to elicit the tears are always okay in my book.
3) Elmo showing Padma who's boss. The stars of Sesame Street were the (best) guest judges (ever) on Top Chef: All Stars this week. The challenge was to make cookies worthy of Cookie Monster. When one chef made a cookie with cinnamon and it was mistaken for cardamom, Padma, in true attempted-snobbery style, informed the Muppets that "cinnamon and cardamom come from the same part of the world." Elmo then retorted with what every viewer was thinking (and I quote): "TMI."
Speaking of TMI, my butt is a bit sore from all this floor-sitting, so it's time to wrap up and take a stroll. Hey, it could be worse; it's 10:45pm on a Thursday - I could be watching Outsourced.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Episode 607
Maybe it's because Modern Family has been on a too-long hiatus, or maybe it's because of my blatant obsession with all-things-celebrity, but the other night, I had a dream that I met Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Mitch) and we became fast friends. It felt incredibly real, because, in the dream, I was appropriately starstruck and shocked at how quickly he warmed up to me. Cam was there, too - we also got along, but he was a little wrapped up in some other dream-weird activities.
In any case, it got me thinking - people always ask which celebrities you would want to meet, and the dream made me realize that the important criteria should not be fame or, say, utter hotness, it should be relatability. Because how much would it suck to meet George Clooney, only to find out that you can't hold a conversation with him (let alone point to Darfur on a map)?
But how can you know who you would be able to relate to? I mentioned before how celebrity interviews can be illuminating - and I think this is the key. Be sure you relate to the actor, not just the character. For instance, I love Ron Swanson, but on an interview on Conan recently, Nick Offerman (the actor behind Ron Swanson) listed off a few of his pet peeves, and I fit the people-he-hates bill just about perfectly...particularly in the "flip-flop sandal"-wearing category.
Luckily, based on interviews, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, and Ty Burrell all still make the cut. They might (might!) be funnier than me and at a slightly different life stage (maybe I'd fare better as a middle-aged man...), but I think they'd appreciate my jokes as much as the next guy. That is, not at all.
In any case, it got me thinking - people always ask which celebrities you would want to meet, and the dream made me realize that the important criteria should not be fame or, say, utter hotness, it should be relatability. Because how much would it suck to meet George Clooney, only to find out that you can't hold a conversation with him (let alone point to Darfur on a map)?
But how can you know who you would be able to relate to? I mentioned before how celebrity interviews can be illuminating - and I think this is the key. Be sure you relate to the actor, not just the character. For instance, I love Ron Swanson, but on an interview on Conan recently, Nick Offerman (the actor behind Ron Swanson) listed off a few of his pet peeves, and I fit the people-he-hates bill just about perfectly...particularly in the "flip-flop sandal"-wearing category.
Luckily, based on interviews, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, and Ty Burrell all still make the cut. They might (might!) be funnier than me and at a slightly different life stage (maybe I'd fare better as a middle-aged man...), but I think they'd appreciate my jokes as much as the next guy. That is, not at all.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Episode 606
Remember the good old days when parents were protesting against Dawson's Creek's "sexual frankness?" Pacey is sleeping with his teacher! Jen said penis! Dawson admitted to "walking his dog" to Katie Couric! (Okay, that last one is actually kind of traumatizing, but for entirely different reasons.) Well, it's no revelation that we are now a far cry from the tame raciness of the 90s: sex, drugs, and rock and roll are all the Network Formally Known as The WB can talk about. Until today, I might have argued that 90210 and Gossip Girl were leading the pack in showing Mothers Against Dawson's Creek who's boss. And then I saw the commercial for Vampire Diaries - one phrase, two words, three syllables -- immeasurable implications:
CATCH VD.
What I find most fascinating about this slogan, other than its undeniable brilliance, is the fact that most of the demographic that watches Vampire Diaries probably had to Google "VD" to get the double entendre, yet every adult who would be mortified by the implication doesn't even have to think twice. I think Perez Hilton put it best (if I had a nickel for every time I heard that...) when he said: "And the Parents Television Council loses its mind in 3…2…1…"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)