On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:15 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:01 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> And it would shock people, which is what television is supposed to do. >> >> Supposed to do? Inform, educate, entertain, sure. Sell products, in >> the American broadcasting model. Shock may happen in one of these >> contexts, but it's not a primary purpose. > I just want to clarify what JW has pasted above, which is a conflation > of excerpts from posts from two different authors (Kevin and myself). > Kevin of course can speak for himself - my sense of his original point > was not that TV exists just to gratuitously shock people, but in part > to challenge and provoke and stimulate debate (something along the > lines of ERM's "teach... illuminate...and even ... inspire".
Well, realistically, television exists to sell beer and ED medication. That is its primary purpose. My response is essentially that of Harlan Ellison. In the world of art, where television has the constant potential to exist, great art should challenge the audience's sensibilities. It should push the creative envelope and evoke strong emotion and stronger thought -- or it isn't doing its job. Yes, it can enlighten and inspire and inform and all the things listed in previous posts to this thread, but if you have a potential audience of millions and you aren't trying to shake them up (or wake them up), you are doing them a disservice. I do not deny that television exists for other purposes, some nobler than others. But, brother, if among those, you aren't trying to set the world on fire, you're wasting everybody's time. Nothing gratuitous about it. I love it when I find a show that captures my attention. I love it when I find characters so compelling and stories so complex that I cannot tear myself away, not for food, not for e-mail, not for an actual life. And more often than not, in those instances, what has me enthralled is something that enrages me or offends my senses. The fall and rise of Andy Sipowicz on "NYPD Blue." The rise and fall of Londo Mollari on "Babylon 5." The death of Henry Blake on "MASH." The intervention episode of "Titus." The opening gambit of "Brooklyn South." Virtually the entire second season of "Rescue Me." The "Nevada Day" two-parter of "Studio 60." "City on the Edge of Forever" on "Star Trek." There was nothing gratuitous about any of the above. There was intent involved, and a driving purpose to do more than sell beer and ED medication. We can be the most educated, informed, and entertained people who ever lived, but if nobody tries to light a fire underneath us, what is the point? We should have opinions. And those opinions should be constantly challenged. We should be partisan, because through healthy debate, our opinions can be strengthened and, sometimes, even changed. When I say television is supposed to be shocking, it shouldn't be just for the sake of provocation. It is because of what can potentially follow the shock. Conversation. Debate. Action. You know, the stuff that dreams are made of. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
