On Sep 24, 8:42 am, drunkbastard74 <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Kevin, I couldn't disagree more. If I see "Hamlet," or look at "Guernica," or listen to "The Magic Flute," they're undeniably great works of art that push the envelope (or did at the time they were created), but they don't evoke strong emotion in me. (Maybe "Guernica" was intended to at one point, but that time has passed.) And certainly none of them shakes me up. Even if I think of the great works of television -- stuff by Serling, Chayefsky, or even more modern shows like "Homicide," "The Prisoner" (which I delighted is being rerun on IFC), or "The Wire," to name only three -- all of them push the envelope and aim at making the audience think, but I don't think any of them inspire emotion -- or at least not with me. The Greeks aimed to inspire fear and pity in their audiences, but I don't know that that's possible any more -- especially in the comfort of our living rooms. > 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. My mileage varies on all of these, but you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. > 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. I agree with you on the overall sentiment here, but also feel that the commercial nature of the medium makes such moments or series few and far between. > 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. I can't remember any TV show ever shocking me. I've been surprised -- delightfully so on some occasions, and not so much in others -- but shocked? Other than Jack Ruby shooting Oswald, I can't think of one such moment. Can you give me a list of yours? (Not to deny such moments have existed; I just can't think of any.) --Dave Sikula --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
