Entertainment Weekly - a really solid publication, I might add; check it out if you're not in the habit already - is currently running an article picked up from Reuters (and, let's face it, anyone who notices TV patterns), asking the ever-elusive question: why ain't there no love for mid-season shows? You know, those programs that get premiered some time in January and rarely live to see the light of September. Some are good (Canterbury's Law, New Amsterdam, Eli Stone), some are great (Raines), and most, like the rest of network TV, are just, well, there - but that's not necessarily the death of a show. A lot of people really enjoy averages and mediocrity; they're often entertaining. But I digress.
As far as the bad shows that premiere mid-season, the cause of death seems obvious: they suck. They're too bad even to be on Fox. As far as the great, the good, and the average go, let's look at the alibi given by the networks: the boogeyman of bad ratings.
What's a good rating these days? Well, Fox seems pretty content to cruise on the success of American Idol, which averages around 25 million viewers per...episode? What do you call an "episode" of reality TV? A segment? Please toss in some ideas when you leave a comment, I'm very curious now. Anyways, 25 million. Million! That's like 25 Saskatchewans! Canterbury's Law is averaging just under 7 million (or 7 Saskatchewans) per episode, which is considered poor ratings and thus its unceremonious banishment to Friday nights and subsequent cancellation (personally, I fail to see how this makes sense when Fox has nothing better, numbers-wise, for that Monday time slot until Prison Break returns). And New Amsterdam is stayin' alive with 10.1 - though, as mentioned in my previous post, it too is getting the Friday night treatment when it returns, again in mid-season, next year.
Now, to myself, who admittedly has no knowledge of how ratings and advertising affect the life and death of network programming, 7 million fans seem like a good enough reason to keep a show on the air. And with Idol picking up any slack, you'd think there would be more cause to give mid-season a fighting chance. Also to consider is the fact that Canterbury and NA are attracting viewers who aren't necessarily watching Idol - there are some completely different audience factors going on here. Which raises another question: if Fox wants to focus on attracting the audience that watches Idol and The Moment of Truth, why are they even picking up dramas anymore? The network clearly doesn't have the patience to see whether or not the new shows will catch on, when they won't even distribute complete half-seasons anymore.
I'm trying to write a half-decent opinion piece here, but, as you can tell, I'm having a really hard time today, because good and great shows being given the shaft due to what I perceive as nothing more than old-fashioned impatience and greed makes me angry - as and artist and an appreciator. So, my apologies for this rant-y little thing,; I promise I'll give you something next time. In the meantime, I'll be sure to enjoy tonight's new episode of New Amsterdam, and await your comments, or lack thereof. Rachel, you wanted me to start this blog-thing...where are you??? Ah well, it feels good to get this stuff off my chest, even if no one's reading. Isn't that what blogging's all about?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
New Amsterdam: Girls Gone Normal!
I hope you've all been faithfully watching New Amsterdam, because all the signs of its untimely demise are present. Fox has announced that it won't be aired again until January 2009, and then only in the accursed Friday 9pm time slot. Really, Fox, if you hate New Amsterdam and don't want it anymore, you can just say so.
Anyhoo...
I also hope you've been watching because nowhere else on network TV will you see such normal women as the policewomen of New Amsterdam. John's partner, Det. Eva Marquez (Zuleikha Robinson, pictured with Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), is delightfully well-adju
sted. Though the daughter of a policeman, she doesn't appear to have any reason to hate her father or feel pressured by his legacy. She handles her job, and the precinct's resident cliche sexist slacker cop, with skill and grace. She handles John, who is fully honest with her about his past, with grace and a grain of salt, as she assumes he's just a harmless, good-natured teller of tall tales. Det. Marquez is no angry she-male, nor brimming with grrrrrrl power - she's just....normal. Like most of the women you and I know.
Adding to the fun is the precinct captain, who I can't seem to find a credit for. She, also, is normal! And her interactions with Eva in this week's episode were delightfully real, as the captain tried to convey to Eva that being the only two women at the station didn't mean they would be best buddies - all the while completely unaware that this has obviously never cost Eva any sleep. Hilarious and relatable, free from malice and melodrama, I look forward to seeing the captain in enough episodes to actually be credited somewhere.
I haven't mentioned John's love interest, because I feel she's the weak link - the writers are really rushing her character along, and we all know that rushed = cliched. Now, this could just mean that she's a red herring and they don't want to waste any time on her so we can get to the real One...
In other news:
Who else is super terrifically happy with the news that Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) will be supplying all of our Scotty needs for the new series of Star Trek prequels?
Anyhoo...
I also hope you've been watching because nowhere else on network TV will you see such normal women as the policewomen of New Amsterdam. John's partner, Det. Eva Marquez (Zuleikha Robinson, pictured with Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), is delightfully well-adju
sted. Though the daughter of a policeman, she doesn't appear to have any reason to hate her father or feel pressured by his legacy. She handles her job, and the precinct's resident cliche sexist slacker cop, with skill and grace. She handles John, who is fully honest with her about his past, with grace and a grain of salt, as she assumes he's just a harmless, good-natured teller of tall tales. Det. Marquez is no angry she-male, nor brimming with grrrrrrl power - she's just....normal. Like most of the women you and I know.Adding to the fun is the precinct captain, who I can't seem to find a credit for. She, also, is normal! And her interactions with Eva in this week's episode were delightfully real, as the captain tried to convey to Eva that being the only two women at the station didn't mean they would be best buddies - all the while completely unaware that this has obviously never cost Eva any sleep. Hilarious and relatable, free from malice and melodrama, I look forward to seeing the captain in enough episodes to actually be credited somewhere.
I haven't mentioned John's love interest, because I feel she's the weak link - the writers are really rushing her character along, and we all know that rushed = cliched. Now, this could just mean that she's a red herring and they don't want to waste any time on her so we can get to the real One...
In other news:
Who else is super terrifically happy with the news that Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) will be supplying all of our Scotty needs for the new series of Star Trek prequels?
Friday, March 21, 2008
I Am Legend (And So Can You!)
I Am Legend is:
a) a zombie film;
b) a vampire film;
c) an apocalypse film;
d) a character study;
e) a cautionary semi-moral tale;
f) a touching story about a man and his dog, or
g) all of the above!
The answer is, of course, "g", and if that sounds like too much for one film, well, suprisingly, you're hearing wrong.
I Am Legend is based on a book that's been already remade twice, with classic horrormeister Vincent Price and classic, um, heston Charleton Heston taking turns as military researcher Robert Neville on his quest to turn back the tide of a deadly mutant virus. In Will Smith's version, the virus is the result of a cancer cure gone amok that's shown a 90% global kill rate. When New York turns out to be Ground Zero, the government quickly evacuates as many as possible - including Neville's wife and young daughter - before bombing the bridges...which, unfortunately, does absolutely nothing to stop the airborne virus. But it was a good try.
It goes without saying that Neville is among the 10% of the naturally immune population, otherwise there would be no story. Alone in a New York City desolate save for infected people, wild animals, and his dog, Sam, Neville spends his days hunting for food, working in his lab to find a cure, and waiting at a pier for other survivors to respond to his looping radio message - all before the sun comes down. The infected mutants are light-sensitive, and only come out to play after dark.
We've known for at least a decade now that Will Smith is so very much more than another pretty face. I could go on about his acting, but let's just say that it is, as always, brilliant, subtle, and natural. And kudos to the director for not letting the dog upstage him. The shots of Times Square, Broadway, Central Park, and Union Station decaying and completely abandoned are breathtaking and bring to mind the montage from 28 Days Later of London's busiest locations, dead and empty - the aerial shot spanning several city blocks especially so. My only quibble with the film lies here, in that they seem to go on too long - he's alone, we get it, he's doing a fine job of conveying that; yes, seeing these places abandoned is extremely impressive, but overkill is so easy to do here.
The story catalyzes in the third act with a deus ex machina that's been almost universally booed by critics, with the ones who didn't boo it accusing the film of a "Hollywood ending". I understand why so many people felt this: because in this film, the deus ex is actually Deus - and if you refuse to accept that, the ending will feel quite lazy indeed. It's pretty funny, really, that so many people can't wrap their heads around an actual deus ex. This is a prime example of why stories work best when you accept the world they are working in, as opposed to interacting with it only in the sphere of your worldview.
I Am Legend obviously doesn't bring anything new to the table - the story is, after all, some 50 years old - but it is well done, and for a zombie/vampire horror film, the physical horror is pretty tame. I'm looking forward to seeing the director's cut with its alternate ending.
Bottom line, it's not the best apocalyptic/zombie/etc. film out there. But it is good, and an enjoyable (as enjoyable as this genre can be) watch.
a) a zombie film;
b) a vampire film;
c) an apocalypse film;
d) a character study;
e) a cautionary semi-moral tale;
f) a touching story about a man and his dog, or
g) all of the above!
The answer is, of course, "g", and if that sounds like too much for one film, well, suprisingly, you're hearing wrong.
I Am Legend is based on a book that's been already remade twice, with classic horrormeister Vincent Price and classic, um, heston Charleton Heston taking turns as military researcher Robert Neville on his quest to turn back the tide of a deadly mutant virus. In Will Smith's version, the virus is the result of a cancer cure gone amok that's shown a 90% global kill rate. When New York turns out to be Ground Zero, the government quickly evacuates as many as possible - including Neville's wife and young daughter - before bombing the bridges...which, unfortunately, does absolutely nothing to stop the airborne virus. But it was a good try.
It goes without saying that Neville is among the 10% of the naturally immune population, otherwise there would be no story. Alone in a New York City desolate save for infected people, wild animals, and his dog, Sam, Neville spends his days hunting for food, working in his lab to find a cure, and waiting at a pier for other survivors to respond to his looping radio message - all before the sun comes down. The infected mutants are light-sensitive, and only come out to play after dark.
We've known for at least a decade now that Will Smith is so very much more than another pretty face. I could go on about his acting, but let's just say that it is, as always, brilliant, subtle, and natural. And kudos to the director for not letting the dog upstage him. The shots of Times Square, Broadway, Central Park, and Union Station decaying and completely abandoned are breathtaking and bring to mind the montage from 28 Days Later of London's busiest locations, dead and empty - the aerial shot spanning several city blocks especially so. My only quibble with the film lies here, in that they seem to go on too long - he's alone, we get it, he's doing a fine job of conveying that; yes, seeing these places abandoned is extremely impressive, but overkill is so easy to do here.
The story catalyzes in the third act with a deus ex machina that's been almost universally booed by critics, with the ones who didn't boo it accusing the film of a "Hollywood ending". I understand why so many people felt this: because in this film, the deus ex is actually Deus - and if you refuse to accept that, the ending will feel quite lazy indeed. It's pretty funny, really, that so many people can't wrap their heads around an actual deus ex. This is a prime example of why stories work best when you accept the world they are working in, as opposed to interacting with it only in the sphere of your worldview.
I Am Legend obviously doesn't bring anything new to the table - the story is, after all, some 50 years old - but it is well done, and for a zombie/vampire horror film, the physical horror is pretty tame. I'm looking forward to seeing the director's cut with its alternate ending.
Bottom line, it's not the best apocalyptic/zombie/etc. film out there. But it is good, and an enjoyable (as enjoyable as this genre can be) watch.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Alligator (bubblegum) Pie
Since you've done such a good job slogging through two long and dense posts, here's a nice relaxing diversion to soothe your weary mind: New Zealand comic duo Flight of the Concords! Yeah!
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bill C-10: Sympathy for the devil?
Surely by now you've heard some of the flap about the recent amendment to Bill C-10 - the tax bill, not to be confused with the Criminal Code Bill of the same name and number (thanks for making it easy, government!). The general idea of the amendment is that the federal government shall have the power to deny tax credits to films that it deems "contrary to public policy" - in other words, that are decided by the ministry to have excessive and/or exploitative sex, violence, etc.
You can bet that the liberal media, the bloggers, the filmmakers, and ACTRA and the DGC all have their knickers in a serious twist. 9 out of 10 journalists are decrying this amendment as (gasp!) censorship. What we aren't seeing in the papers is an explanation of what the amendment does, how it affects Canadian filmmakers, and what the tax credits actually do. This is probably because no one outside of the political arena can actually make heads or tails of the bill, which is available online for all to see - you can slog through it here, and good luck to ya.
First, let's talk about tax credits. A tax credit is an amount deducted directly from income tax otherwise payable, ie., it's the stuff you don't receive a refund for because you were automatically refunded it by way of never having to pay it. The way this affects Canadian filmmakers is in their ability to secure loans to complete their projects: for example, a when a producer applies for a bank loan, the bank regards the tax credit they will in theory receive as affecting the borrower's ability to repay. The "in theory" part is what's so important here: filmmakers can only apply for tax credits after the project is complete and has been submitted to the government to ensure its qualification for the credit.
So far as I can tell, all the fuss is hidden away deep in Part 2, and reads as follows:
Maybe telling filmmakers they have to rely more on their own wallets will lead to better Canadian movies. In college, I've seen a curious correlation between who pays for tuition and how hard a student works: that is, typically, the students who are financing their tuition through work, or loans they'll be responsible for repaying, put more effort and integrity into their studies than students who are cruising on Mum and Dad's dollar, because they have an intimate understanding of the value of their money, and want to get the most out of it. I don't think it would hurt the lackluster Canadian film industry to be forced to work the same way. At the end of the day, the Canadian government and the taxpaying public are not responsible for film production or distribution or fulfilling someone's artistic vision. But they help anyway, and, under the new legislation, they will continue to help.
The fact is, this legislation is nothing new. My opinion is, its also not the doomsday death of the industry being predicted. Let the thoughts and comments begin!
You can bet that the liberal media, the bloggers, the filmmakers, and ACTRA and the DGC all have their knickers in a serious twist. 9 out of 10 journalists are decrying this amendment as (gasp!) censorship. What we aren't seeing in the papers is an explanation of what the amendment does, how it affects Canadian filmmakers, and what the tax credits actually do. This is probably because no one outside of the political arena can actually make heads or tails of the bill, which is available online for all to see - you can slog through it here, and good luck to ya.
First, let's talk about tax credits. A tax credit is an amount deducted directly from income tax otherwise payable, ie., it's the stuff you don't receive a refund for because you were automatically refunded it by way of never having to pay it. The way this affects Canadian filmmakers is in their ability to secure loans to complete their projects: for example, a when a producer applies for a bank loan, the bank regards the tax credit they will in theory receive as affecting the borrower's ability to repay. The "in theory" part is what's so important here: filmmakers can only apply for tax credits after the project is complete and has been submitted to the government to ensure its qualification for the credit.
So far as I can tell, all the fuss is hidden away deep in Part 2, and reads as follows:
'Canadian film or video production certificate' means a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that Minister is satisfied that[...]
| ||||
This seems pretty straightforward, except for the part about "public policy" and what the heck that entails. More on that later.
In response to the media spouting such doomsday pronouncements as "Bill c-10 Could Spell the End of the Canadian Film Industry" - thanks, CityTV News, for that levelheaded, balanced, informative reporting! - the Honourable Josee Verner, minister of (amongst other things) Canadian Heritage and thus directly responsible for Canadian media guidelines released a statement saying that this is meant to close the existing loophole that allows filmmakers producing content "that may be subject to prosecution" to be technically eligible for tax credits under the Income Tax Act. Minister Verner also notes that, in 2002, this same amendment was introduced under the Martin Liberal government. In fact, that 2002-2003 amendment reads almost completely analgously to the current Conservative amendment - observe paragraph 3(b), and yet somehow no one made a fuss when the Liberals pushed for the exact same restrictions. I can only assume that parliament was either dishonest with its disclosure of information at the time - unlikely, as it's dangerously illegal - or that no one complained simply because of the erroneous idea that "liberal" equals always standing up for what's best for the people. In the end, all the Conservative government's really done is succeed in passing an amendment the previous Liberal government failed to pass - maybe they're just jealous.
It must also be noted that this amendment was passed with the support of all parties. The most shameful backpedaling in the face of the media's excoriation of this amendment comes courtesy of NDP heritage critic Bill Siksay, who claims that he didn't know about the amendment when he voted in favour of the bill, and told CBC news that "to hear now that there may be a clause in it that will allow the government to censor the creative process in Canada comes as a significant shock and surprise." Trying to make himself look like a good guy by telling the voting public that you don't bother reading or listening to the bill you're voting for? And the journalistic media supports him for announcing that he votes irresponsibly in the House of Commons? Shame, shame, shame. I can't stomach the pols who try to disassociate themselves from policy that proves unpopular.
Now, back to "public policy". Minister Verner stated in her address that this amendment would only apply to excessive or gratuitous violence, not "mainstream films like Eastern Promises." Now, I haven't seen Promises, but I'm familiar with director David Cronenberg's work and I think we can all agree that if the government has pledged to continue giving tax credits to the sort of violence in Cronenberg's work, then the industry really has nothing to fear. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) defines gratuitous violence as being irrelevant to the development of character, or to the advancement of the theme or plot - this gives filmmakers an immense amount of leeway! Still using Cronenberg as an example, his 2005 film A History of Violence included a dream sequence in which Viggo Mortensen's character blew away Ed Harris' character with a shotgun, after which the Harris character continued to speak while lying on the floor with a bloody, visceral mess where his chest used to be. Was it extremely violent? Oh yeah. Was it relevant to character development? For Mortensen's character, absolutely.
So...where does this fit in to "public policy"? Well, A History of Violence is somewhat of a sloppy, weak film, but it serves its purpose to expose violence for the horrific, destructive thing that it is. This seems to fit well with federal legislation regarding the prosecution of violent acts, which by extension denounces them as bad and wrong, and also stands in agreement with the CBSC policy that a production shall not glorify or glamourize violent acts. At the same time, it must be said that it is always awkward to claim "public policy", as 20 people can live on the same street and have nothing in common - in other words, it's hard to speak for a populace that has such an extreme diversity of moral and political standards. However, "public policy" is the government's democratically given right and responsibility. Every nation has a broad moral operating code that is upheld by its government's decisions.
Now, the Big Deal: Is C-10 censorship?
I say, no.
Censorship, again thanks to Merriam and Webster, involves forbidding public distribution of media deemed offensive or objectionable - the key word here being forbidding. No changes have been made to Canadian legislation regarding the distribution of film and television material, or regarding what can or can't be legally depicted on screen. In my opinion, reserving the right to deny tax credits is similar to a parent allowing their child to go see a movie with their friends, but refusing the child's request for spending money. The parent isn't forbidding their child to see the movie, they're simply making them come up with the money on their own. And I should point out that the tax credit only applies to productions that cost more than $500,000 to make. I have a hard time believing that most of the soppy Canadian dramas being produced have a good excuse to cost more than that - the Academy Award-winning Irish production Once cost around $150,000 CDN to make and is twelve to fifteen times better in its writing, directing, acting, and editing than any Canadian-produced drama I've watched to date.
In response to the media spouting such doomsday pronouncements as "Bill c-10 Could Spell the End of the Canadian Film Industry" - thanks, CityTV News, for that levelheaded, balanced, informative reporting! - the Honourable Josee Verner, minister of (amongst other things) Canadian Heritage and thus directly responsible for Canadian media guidelines released a statement saying that this is meant to close the existing loophole that allows filmmakers producing content "that may be subject to prosecution" to be technically eligible for tax credits under the Income Tax Act. Minister Verner also notes that, in 2002, this same amendment was introduced under the Martin Liberal government. In fact, that 2002-2003 amendment reads almost completely analgously to the current Conservative amendment - observe paragraph 3(b), and yet somehow no one made a fuss when the Liberals pushed for the exact same restrictions. I can only assume that parliament was either dishonest with its disclosure of information at the time - unlikely, as it's dangerously illegal - or that no one complained simply because of the erroneous idea that "liberal" equals always standing up for what's best for the people. In the end, all the Conservative government's really done is succeed in passing an amendment the previous Liberal government failed to pass - maybe they're just jealous.
It must also be noted that this amendment was passed with the support of all parties. The most shameful backpedaling in the face of the media's excoriation of this amendment comes courtesy of NDP heritage critic Bill Siksay, who claims that he didn't know about the amendment when he voted in favour of the bill, and told CBC news that "to hear now that there may be a clause in it that will allow the government to censor the creative process in Canada comes as a significant shock and surprise." Trying to make himself look like a good guy by telling the voting public that you don't bother reading or listening to the bill you're voting for? And the journalistic media supports him for announcing that he votes irresponsibly in the House of Commons? Shame, shame, shame. I can't stomach the pols who try to disassociate themselves from policy that proves unpopular.
Now, back to "public policy". Minister Verner stated in her address that this amendment would only apply to excessive or gratuitous violence, not "mainstream films like Eastern Promises." Now, I haven't seen Promises, but I'm familiar with director David Cronenberg's work and I think we can all agree that if the government has pledged to continue giving tax credits to the sort of violence in Cronenberg's work, then the industry really has nothing to fear. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) defines gratuitous violence as being irrelevant to the development of character, or to the advancement of the theme or plot - this gives filmmakers an immense amount of leeway! Still using Cronenberg as an example, his 2005 film A History of Violence included a dream sequence in which Viggo Mortensen's character blew away Ed Harris' character with a shotgun, after which the Harris character continued to speak while lying on the floor with a bloody, visceral mess where his chest used to be. Was it extremely violent? Oh yeah. Was it relevant to character development? For Mortensen's character, absolutely.
So...where does this fit in to "public policy"? Well, A History of Violence is somewhat of a sloppy, weak film, but it serves its purpose to expose violence for the horrific, destructive thing that it is. This seems to fit well with federal legislation regarding the prosecution of violent acts, which by extension denounces them as bad and wrong, and also stands in agreement with the CBSC policy that a production shall not glorify or glamourize violent acts. At the same time, it must be said that it is always awkward to claim "public policy", as 20 people can live on the same street and have nothing in common - in other words, it's hard to speak for a populace that has such an extreme diversity of moral and political standards. However, "public policy" is the government's democratically given right and responsibility. Every nation has a broad moral operating code that is upheld by its government's decisions.
Now, the Big Deal: Is C-10 censorship?
I say, no.
Censorship, again thanks to Merriam and Webster, involves forbidding public distribution of media deemed offensive or objectionable - the key word here being forbidding. No changes have been made to Canadian legislation regarding the distribution of film and television material, or regarding what can or can't be legally depicted on screen. In my opinion, reserving the right to deny tax credits is similar to a parent allowing their child to go see a movie with their friends, but refusing the child's request for spending money. The parent isn't forbidding their child to see the movie, they're simply making them come up with the money on their own. And I should point out that the tax credit only applies to productions that cost more than $500,000 to make. I have a hard time believing that most of the soppy Canadian dramas being produced have a good excuse to cost more than that - the Academy Award-winning Irish production Once cost around $150,000 CDN to make and is twelve to fifteen times better in its writing, directing, acting, and editing than any Canadian-produced drama I've watched to date.
Maybe telling filmmakers they have to rely more on their own wallets will lead to better Canadian movies. In college, I've seen a curious correlation between who pays for tuition and how hard a student works: that is, typically, the students who are financing their tuition through work, or loans they'll be responsible for repaying, put more effort and integrity into their studies than students who are cruising on Mum and Dad's dollar, because they have an intimate understanding of the value of their money, and want to get the most out of it. I don't think it would hurt the lackluster Canadian film industry to be forced to work the same way. At the end of the day, the Canadian government and the taxpaying public are not responsible for film production or distribution or fulfilling someone's artistic vision. But they help anyway, and, under the new legislation, they will continue to help.
The fact is, this legislation is nothing new. My opinion is, its also not the doomsday death of the industry being predicted. Let the thoughts and comments begin!
the super terrific happy hour has landed
ter.rif.ic
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin terrificus, from terrēre to frighten
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin terrificus, from terrēre to frighten
- Date: 1667
1 a: very bad : frightful b: exciting or fit to excite fear or awe (terrific thunderstorm)
2: extraordinary (terrific speed)
3: unusually fine : magnificent (terrific weather)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrific
By popular demand, to appease my adoring fan - and provide a more suitable outlet for my endless media reviews on facebook and, by extension, hopefully spur more active discussion, I give you, with great pleasure, the Super Terrific Happy Hour All-Media Blowout!
56 points to whoever identifies the popular media reference present in the blog title.
As an artist, and by extension a student of culture, I am fascinated by the media and all it entails. Messrs. Merriam and Webster define media as "a medium of cultivation, conveyance, or expression", and as the title of this blog suggests, that covers a broad spectrum indeed. There are some - and I've met a few of you, I know who you are! - who would uncharitably describe me as a "media whore". I find this expression utterly bizarre, as a) immersion in one's culture is a normal and laudable endeavour, and b) if I got paid every time I check cnn.com, we'd live in a very fine house with two cars in the garage. The bottom line, as I see it, is that the media and all it entails is an essential part of living in today's society, and absolutely critical for someone like myself who seeks to make a living as an artist, relying on an intimate familiarity with the pulses of culture in order to succeed and make meaningful contributions.
And yet, I have met several established artists who almost boast about their disconnect from the media: they don't watch TV - this includes news and current affairs programs. They only watch European or "artsy" films. They don't vote. They don't read works of fiction. I don't understand these people, but perhaps I understand the root of their revulsion. "Media" has become a byword for low things - it's contemporary common usage is in reference to tabloid journalism, mediocre films, violent video games, misogynistic lyrics, and general electronic things that spur people to violence or depravity; for example, juvenile crime is often flippantly blamed on "the media". So perhaps it makes sense that some people find "the media" repulsive...but that, in my opinion, is equivalent to saying that because you met three Chinese men who were real jerks, all Chinese men are jerks by association. It's an attitude of ignorance, and that's nothing to celebrate.
Books are fascinating. Television is fascinating. Film is fascinating. Journalism is fascinating. Marshall McLuhan famously (and I believe quite truthfuly ) said that "media is the extension of man". It seems like an obvious statement, so why the large percentage of the populace that feels such a disconnect?
Back to more personal notes. When I say this is an all-media blowout, I mean it. This blog will review and discuss TV, film, books, comics, websites, video games, music, current affairs, that elusive corner of the media for which we loftily reserve the name "art", and whatever else is available and applicable. My desire and purpose is equally to share a joy and spur discussion; to uncover and study the world around as thoroughly as possible. I'm very excited about the prospects of this, and really do hope that this blog attracts many readers for the sake of a greater diversity of debate. So tell all your friends!
That wraps up this edition. Next time on the Super Terrific Happy Hour All-Media Blowout: Bill C-10. What is it, what does it say about public film funding, what does is really mean for the industry, how does it compare to public funding internationally, and, most importantly, is it really censorship? Say tuned!
2: extraordinary (terrific speed)
3: unusually fine : magnificent (terrific weather)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrific
By popular demand, to appease my adoring fan - and provide a more suitable outlet for my endless media reviews on facebook and, by extension, hopefully spur more active discussion, I give you, with great pleasure, the Super Terrific Happy Hour All-Media Blowout!
56 points to whoever identifies the popular media reference present in the blog title.
As an artist, and by extension a student of culture, I am fascinated by the media and all it entails. Messrs. Merriam and Webster define media as "a medium of cultivation, conveyance, or expression", and as the title of this blog suggests, that covers a broad spectrum indeed. There are some - and I've met a few of you, I know who you are! - who would uncharitably describe me as a "media whore". I find this expression utterly bizarre, as a) immersion in one's culture is a normal and laudable endeavour, and b) if I got paid every time I check cnn.com, we'd live in a very fine house with two cars in the garage. The bottom line, as I see it, is that the media and all it entails is an essential part of living in today's society, and absolutely critical for someone like myself who seeks to make a living as an artist, relying on an intimate familiarity with the pulses of culture in order to succeed and make meaningful contributions.
And yet, I have met several established artists who almost boast about their disconnect from the media: they don't watch TV - this includes news and current affairs programs. They only watch European or "artsy" films. They don't vote. They don't read works of fiction. I don't understand these people, but perhaps I understand the root of their revulsion. "Media" has become a byword for low things - it's contemporary common usage is in reference to tabloid journalism, mediocre films, violent video games, misogynistic lyrics, and general electronic things that spur people to violence or depravity; for example, juvenile crime is often flippantly blamed on "the media". So perhaps it makes sense that some people find "the media" repulsive...but that, in my opinion, is equivalent to saying that because you met three Chinese men who were real jerks, all Chinese men are jerks by association. It's an attitude of ignorance, and that's nothing to celebrate.
Books are fascinating. Television is fascinating. Film is fascinating. Journalism is fascinating. Marshall McLuhan famously (and I believe quite truthfuly ) said that "media is the extension of man". It seems like an obvious statement, so why the large percentage of the populace that feels such a disconnect?
Back to more personal notes. When I say this is an all-media blowout, I mean it. This blog will review and discuss TV, film, books, comics, websites, video games, music, current affairs, that elusive corner of the media for which we loftily reserve the name "art", and whatever else is available and applicable. My desire and purpose is equally to share a joy and spur discussion; to uncover and study the world around as thoroughly as possible. I'm very excited about the prospects of this, and really do hope that this blog attracts many readers for the sake of a greater diversity of debate. So tell all your friends!
That wraps up this edition. Next time on the Super Terrific Happy Hour All-Media Blowout: Bill C-10. What is it, what does it say about public film funding, what does is really mean for the industry, how does it compare to public funding internationally, and, most importantly, is it really censorship? Say tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)