Bragging about TV- Page 2

[Calvin]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 4:29pm

It was a jab at FCC chair Newton Minnow, who gave the famous "TV is a vast wasteland" speech. (now imagine the "the more you know" star flying across the screen)

eta - joe gets the cookie! Updated On: 6/10/09 at 04:29 PM

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 4:33pm

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 4:38pm

Maybe, Reginald.

There are probably more people who hate live theatre than dislike TV, however. If you dislike a medium and have reasons why, is that bragging? Well, maybe to some people it is. So be it. It is not intended as such, but people are different.

I've owned a couple TVs and never used them and gave them away. I used to keep one behind my couch and some of my friends who came over would ask where my TV was and I'd just tell them it was behind the couch, and they would be surprised anyone would have their TV there. Personally I think that is kind of humorous, remembering back. I like distinct personality traits or idiosyncrasies in people because I think that is what gives them their character. If everyone were the same it would be boring.

One of my friends wrote a play about three characters and one of them was a man who was onstage all the time and did nothing but watch TV all the time in his apartment no matter what happened. That was his name as I recall, "TV Man."

I consider it more that I am sticking up for live performance as a higher art form and deserving of one's attention and appreciation.

Look at the many magazines devoted to TV and how few there are to theatre so I know I am not in the majority.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:00pm

Trumpeting intellect. Hm.

If I had the solution for world peace then I would think I had something to trumpet. But I don't.

And I don't think whether you prefer live theatre or TV would make any difference in that regard.

Pehaps intellect trumpets itself, I don't know. But if you have an intellectual bent you can't shut it off, if you have some knowledge you can't remove it, nor would you want to. I have had to play a leadership role in some of the things I do and I have been reading that one of the burdens of leadership is loneliness and I think I understand that. And the artist is always on the outside looking in because I think it is their nature.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:01pm

Yes, but you're not claiming indifference to TV; you're expressing antipathy. And superiority for a medium you prefer.

I like theater, too (and, frankly, watch very little broadcast TV). But I don't consider them to be competing alternatives.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:04pm

I believe they are in competition, Reginald, so you and I disagree.

The two mediums compete for people's time.

And the two compete for acting talent such that we lose stage talent to TV because its pay is higher.

[Calvin]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:10pm

TV for most people is a cold medium. Theatre is a hot medium (well, except for the crowd I saw Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with a few years ago). They can only compete in the loosest sense.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:12pm

We do disagree, then. I couldn't possibly see live theater everytime I feel the need for entertainment; neither the theater's schedules nor mine (not to mention my wallet) would allow for that.

But leaving that aside, by your logic everyone has to pick just one art form. Frankly, I'd rather that everyone was reading. Others might say "How could you go to the theater when you could be in a museum looking at paintings?"

I just don't think that's how life works. I'd be sad if it were.

But that's just one man's opinion.
Updated On: 6/10/09 at 05:12 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:20pm

No, Reginald, I am not suggesting picking only one art form. I go to museums and to me there are things TV does well like presenting the Olypmics and there are some good shows. I like to see good film and paintings and I like all the fine arts including architecture and cooking.

I do have the luxury of living in a city that makes it possible to see live theatre and opera about every day if you wish to for very little money, less than seeing a movie. This is fortunate and I appreciate it, but I also moved here from a very far distance to be able to see so much theatre and to do this and it wasn't easy.

I agree, Calvin, theatre is a "hot" medium and it's eciting knowing that things could go wrong but somehow a casts generally manages to pull of a lot of amazing things every night.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:26pm

Watching TV does not mean one doesn't appreciate or support live theatre. I love theatre, but to be honest, in the past 7-8 years, most television shows have provided higher quality in entertainment, direction, writing and performances than 75% of the shows I've paid to see on stage. Believe it or not, there is an art to television just as there is to theatre and film. Simply because a performance is live, doesn't make it better or more artistically sound (or even exciting). For example, my parents and I saw a fabulous production at a reputable Chicago theatre and purchased season tickets to five shows due to our excitement in the show we had just seen and our desire to to attend more theatre and find a regular source for quality theatrical performances. The second show was abominable, but had no intermission, so we stayed for the whole damn thing. The third show was a disappointing production of one of my favorite plays. I left at intermission and my parents later reported that they wished they had as I saw "the good part". The fourth show was a thriller that was totally devoid of chemistry and suspense. We all left at intermission. None of us bothered to even attend the fifth show. I can think of probably a hundred television episodes that aired during the same period that were far more worthy of our time, not to mention our money. Needless to say, we'll not be renewing our subscription.

Updated On: 6/10/09 at 05:26 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:30pm

See, but for me, watching TV is something I usually do when I'd be home anyway -- the weeknights I'm home relaxing, as I'm winding down for bed, etc. And as I said -- it's a cold medium, so I'm usually doing something else while I'm watching it: cooking/eating dinner, getting freelance work done, etc., so I don't really see it as a competitor for my time.

There's nothing on TV, short of the once-a-year events like the Tonys or Oscars, that I would actually alter my schedule to be able to watch. (and even those I'd just regulate to the DVR if something more exciting came along for that evening)

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:32pm

I agree, Mister Matt.

There can be good or bad shows in both mediums.

That said though, the best theatre and opera I have seen for me have transcended the TV shows I've seen as just more exciting.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:32pm

I guess I don't get why TV is the one medium that supposedly prevents you from doing other things.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:44pm

Yeah, the two mediums don't compete for my time at all. If I want to see a show in a theatre, I can record something I want to see on TV and watch it after the theatre. Or in the morning as I get ready for work, when theatres generally have no performances. Or any time I wish. I have never NOT attended the theatre because there was something on TV that I like. Not once. There are lots of reasons for me not to attend the theatre, but TV has never been one of them. As for TV taking away talent from the stage, then how is it we consistently have talented actors on the stage? Especially those who take time out of their film and TV shooting schedules to make time for performing on stage. If someone chooses to leave theatre for film or TV, it's not as if there is a permanent artistic void created in the universe preventing others from taking their place. It's all part of artistic evolution. For that matter, I guess death would as much a competitor for theatrical talent as television, if not more so.

Updated On: 6/10/09 at 05:44 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:45pm

I explained that above, Reginald.

I can't shut out the constant sound vying for attention. You can probably ignore it when you are focusing on something else. It distracts me and I don't want to listen to the commercials or give it my attention, I prefer the peace without it.

This is so with TV and some recorded music. I do not mind someone singing around me or in the apartment beside me (so long as they have a decent voice that holds a tune). The live singing doesn't bother me at all or distract me, in fact I enjoy it. I don't know why one kind of sound is so much better than the other but I really like singing in natural voice.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:48pm

That's very odd. It sounds like you're actually limiting yourself artistically by not being open to recorded sound and visuals, which make up such a huge percentage of the performing arts. As for the commercials...DVR. I haven't sat through commercials in years.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 5:53pm

No, I love visuals, I'm very visual.

You can get plenty of visuals without TV.

I think that'd be the best way to watch a show, with your DVR. Yes, mute and fast-forward.

Oh, I did see one show while at my Mother's this year that I really enjoyed. The Dog Whisperer. Loved Cesar and all his dog & pet owner behavior stories. (And I'm a cat person, generally, though allergic to them now.)

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 9:03pm

Let's go back to talking food and (music and art), NOM! Eminently more interesting (to us, anyway - ha!)

[degrassifan]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 9:38pm

Thanks for bringing this subject up. I dislike people that brag about not watching tv or not having the time to watch it. If you can find time to surf facebook, then I'm sure you have time to watch tv.

I'm a very proud tv watcher. And yes, I read books too.

"I thought watching The Hills made me hip..."

Haha, you know it!

[jasonf]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 7:45am

My father and stepmother are two of those who brag about not watching TV. Somehow whenever they say it they sound like they're better than watching TV. And yet...they've watched several series on DVD, have a huge TV in their living room, and whenever a TV is on in someone's house they are visiting they can't stop watching it.

I agree with Joe that those who brag about not watching TV ALWAYS give off that sense of superiority (and Nom, you're REEKING of it) as though they are better than the masses because they don't "lower" themselves. In fact, especially in recent years, there is a LOT of quality on television. I'm a self-professed media junkie - movies, tv, theater, internet, books - all of it. TV has had some of the absolute BEST entertainment and art of all the media mentioned above. There have been several shows (Lost, The Sopranos, True Blood) that I would even say are equal to or better than many so-called "great" novels I've read.

Honestly, I don't get people who say they don't have time for this stuff. Of all those things, the only one I ever really schedule for is the theater (and the occasional movie if it's a social event). With DVRs, the internet, itunes, DVDs - television is as versatile time-wise as books are. I've NEVER not done something social or work-related because of a television show.

Is there crap on TV? Absolutely. But that's why we all have those handy-dandy remote controls. That's why we all have a choice. You don't like something, don't watch it. But condemning the whole medium makes you no better than someone who says "I hate theater."

Updated On: 6/11/09 at 07:45 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 8:21am

if only nom saw bww as tv...

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 9:29am

All I know is that my life would have been infinitely poorer without Lucille Ball, Ed Sullivan, the sitcoms of Norman Lear, "Roots," "Seinfeld," "Masterpiece Theater," "Holocaust," Johnny Carson, "Roseanne," Britcoms, "Family Guy," and "Live from the Met."

And watching didn't keep me from reading, from Paul Auster to Stefan Zweig. (And for the record, liking Agatha Christie never kept me from reading Borges.)

I'll spare you the list of life-enhancing experiences I've had as a theater-goer, but I will say that owning and watching TV never hindered my making it to Times Square, the West End, or Lincoln Center.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 2:39pm

Actually, if you put someone down like that, that means you are the one claiming to be superior, so I disagree with you, and think that you need to look in the mirror and see why you feel the need to do that. Where does that need come from? What kind of insecurity would make you feel put down because someone else likes or dislikes something like TV?

People don't like questions like that but the artist holds up the mirror.

Nobody else needs to like the things that you like.

[mauriposa]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 2:58pm

As a grad student, I've met a ton of pseudo-intellectuals who definitely brag about not watching TV. I think it comes from insecurity. There's so much pressure to be original and intelligent in grad school that they think dissing television is a quick way to gain some clout. These same people looked down on me when I wrote an academic paper about culture and I Love Lucy, as if it weren't a worthy project because I wasn't investigating some barely discussed 18th-century travel guide. They were snooty and condescending, but all I saw were people who didn't respect themselves enough to respect me.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/11/09 at 3:12pm

TV is part of culture.

No reason it can't be studied or written about.

It provides a lot of jobs.

Thought I would just reek that out to you. Updated On: 6/11/09 at 03:12 PM