Sunday, April 29, 2012
Slow Jamming with the President
A great Late Night with Jimmy Fallon clip to end (start?) the week. Enjoy!
Money or Quality? What's the Difference?
What is it about us that makes us want to watch TV about people making or having money? Why is money such a large factor into what is interesting? I have come to this realization that money is a huge factor in television. When I say it now, it probably sounds obvious. Money is a factor in so many aspects of everyday life. But I find almost discouraging to actually think about how wealth can help a show, and how the lack of it can deeply injure a show. There are so many shows that have the creative capacity to be an excellent show, but the money is not there, either with audience viewership or with funding from the network. It can be quite damaging to a show and ultimately end something very good.
I have always been a strong believer in second chances, which is exactly what a lot of shows need. As I've said many times on this blog, pilots are almost never a good representation of the how good (or bad) a show will be. There is so much that goes into a pilot. Introducing all the characters, setting up what the show will be about, intriguing enough viewers to want to sit through another episode, and most importantly, gaining enough viewers to allow the network to continue the show. Whether a show is the absolutely phenomenal or painfully horrible, the number of viewers is all that counts. This is because many advertisers will pay to have their ads on TV during a show that has their target audience, which is usually the majority of TV watchers anyway. This is where networks and eventually TV shows get their money. Of course, if a show is really good, viewers will usually follow anyway. But what about a show that is creative and good, but doesn't capture the audience needed to receive sufficient funding?
Community is a great example. One of the few innovative and unique comedy shows today, and yet it is constantly struggling to receive enough viewers to stay on air. This reminds me of a psychology term known as cognitive dissonance, when you have conflicting thoughts that bring you discomfort. For instance, if you know that smoking causes lung cancer and your grandfather died from smoking, you may experience cognitive dissonance if you too begin smoking. The fact that Community is a great show and it was taken off air for a mid-season hiatus, makes me experience this psych term. This show is so great, but it doesn't reach out to the audience that is most profitable. Because of this, networks try to shut the show down. They want the best bang for their buck.
Obviously I'm not saying networks are evil and they are hurting television creativity, but this system can be annoying to the regular television viewer. Sure good shows are getting hurt, but what about the crappy shows that stay on? The huge audiences that tune in to watch the various singing, dancing, and bitch-slapping competitions continue to boggle my mind. Yes that's right, I'm talking about reality television. It's pretty much the only thing that still keeps networks like NBC (The Voice and America's Got Talent) and FOX (American Idol) alive. I obviously love other shows a lot more than reality, so to see that these are the shows the Americans latch onto and watch the most is quite discouraging. Why doesn't anyone like a good story anymore? Why are people so obsessed with watching reality? To take advantage of reality TV's popularity, networks are popping them out left and right because advertisers want put their ads with those shows. Now there are reality shows than ever! What does that do? It leaves less money and less time slots for the shows that I and other people who enjoy good TV love.
What if their was a solution? What if networks got their money from some other source besides advertisers. How amazing would that be. Not only would shows be more free to express their creativity, but the audience would free of the perpetually hated commercial break! It would be a utopia. Literally. The system is what it is. If ads didn't pay them, someone else would. But how would they measure how much to pay them? Now by how many fan letters or Emmy nominations they receive. They would continue to be paid according to their ratings and unfortunately that's just the way television has to work.
I have always been a strong believer in second chances, which is exactly what a lot of shows need. As I've said many times on this blog, pilots are almost never a good representation of the how good (or bad) a show will be. There is so much that goes into a pilot. Introducing all the characters, setting up what the show will be about, intriguing enough viewers to want to sit through another episode, and most importantly, gaining enough viewers to allow the network to continue the show. Whether a show is the absolutely phenomenal or painfully horrible, the number of viewers is all that counts. This is because many advertisers will pay to have their ads on TV during a show that has their target audience, which is usually the majority of TV watchers anyway. This is where networks and eventually TV shows get their money. Of course, if a show is really good, viewers will usually follow anyway. But what about a show that is creative and good, but doesn't capture the audience needed to receive sufficient funding?
Community is a great example. One of the few innovative and unique comedy shows today, and yet it is constantly struggling to receive enough viewers to stay on air. This reminds me of a psychology term known as cognitive dissonance, when you have conflicting thoughts that bring you discomfort. For instance, if you know that smoking causes lung cancer and your grandfather died from smoking, you may experience cognitive dissonance if you too begin smoking. The fact that Community is a great show and it was taken off air for a mid-season hiatus, makes me experience this psych term. This show is so great, but it doesn't reach out to the audience that is most profitable. Because of this, networks try to shut the show down. They want the best bang for their buck.
Obviously I'm not saying networks are evil and they are hurting television creativity, but this system can be annoying to the regular television viewer. Sure good shows are getting hurt, but what about the crappy shows that stay on? The huge audiences that tune in to watch the various singing, dancing, and bitch-slapping competitions continue to boggle my mind. Yes that's right, I'm talking about reality television. It's pretty much the only thing that still keeps networks like NBC (The Voice and America's Got Talent) and FOX (American Idol) alive. I obviously love other shows a lot more than reality, so to see that these are the shows the Americans latch onto and watch the most is quite discouraging. Why doesn't anyone like a good story anymore? Why are people so obsessed with watching reality? To take advantage of reality TV's popularity, networks are popping them out left and right because advertisers want put their ads with those shows. Now there are reality shows than ever! What does that do? It leaves less money and less time slots for the shows that I and other people who enjoy good TV love.
What if their was a solution? What if networks got their money from some other source besides advertisers. How amazing would that be. Not only would shows be more free to express their creativity, but the audience would free of the perpetually hated commercial break! It would be a utopia. Literally. The system is what it is. If ads didn't pay them, someone else would. But how would they measure how much to pay them? Now by how many fan letters or Emmy nominations they receive. They would continue to be paid according to their ratings and unfortunately that's just the way television has to work.
Comic Books & TV
Ah, the comic book. One of society's surefire ways of determining the "nerd" in the room. When someone confesses their love for such a book, it is never really accepted well by their peers. I know. This is all news to you... The people that choose to spend their time reading comic books are viewed as "weird" or "nerdy," but what if there was some redemption? What if there was a way they could show the world that their comics weren't so weird? There is! And they have been doing it for quite some time.As many already know, there have a great deal of movies adopted from comic books. From the very successful movies like Batman and Spiderman, to the recent unsuccessful ones like Green Lantern and Captain America. Even with these faults, there have been many more successes. What does this have to do with television? In television there are a lot of less successful shows that reach out to the general public like the good movies do. Most of the comic book movies are popular not only for those who read comic books, but with everyone. The Dark Night movie from the Batman series is a great example because it did absolutely phenomenal in the theaters, regardless of the fact that it was adopted from a comic. So are there any TV shows that match this success? Unfortunately not. In fact, I doubt there has ever been a show in history that came even close to the success of the Batman movies.
Today, there are many cartoons that try to recreate favorite comic books onto the TV screen. But these shows reach out to a very small crowd compared to other shows. There are also some shows that don’t go the cartoon route, but unfortunately most of them still do not do well. Human Target, created two years ago, is an example. I honestly did not really like this show either, so don’t think I’m trying to be an advocate. Instead of using cartoons, the show was shot in a normal setting and adapted ideas from the comic book. The show actually didn't really follow the comic, so the unsuccessful run was probably not disappointing to many people.
So am I saying there are no good TV shows, out there today, based on a comic book? Yes. Ha, just kidding. What do you think this was post was for? Just a month or so ago I began watching a popular show entitled The Walking Dead about a post-apocalyptic world filled with zombies. Sounds like a nerdy comic book right? In all honesty, the show is really fun to watch and has really interesting content. I'm not one for a lot of violence, but the show is more than just people going around and killing zombies. It deals with the social and psychological tolls this new way of life has on the remaining civilians. The interactions that take place, both with the crazy zombies and the community fighting for survival, has made this show really good an ultimately popular with a large audience.
What does this say about society? That people will watch movies and TV about comic books, but look at those who actually read the book as nerds? Does this make any sense? Probably. I think I have somewhat of an explanation. There is a difference between those who read those books and the average person who watched one of the adaptions. Typically those who actually read those comic books, obsess over it. That's why they are called nerds. When someone obsesses over something to an extent that people might find them a little strange, you might consider them a nerd. This makes me a little uneasy because by that definition I could probably be considered a nerd for television... To some, the sad amount of time I spend learning about TV could be considered nerdy. But I do not talk about it with all my friends at all times. In fact, most of friends rarely take interest in my obsession. I'm not a nerd because I don't let this love I have consume my life.
I seem to be rambling. In summary, television is
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Dear Internet: Cracked.com
Dear Cracked.com,
I recently read your article about Jimmy Fallon entitled, oh that's clever.. Jimmy Fallon. Unfortunately I randomly clicked on your website to find this article. As a fan of the comedian, I was very upset to find that you began this article with, "no one is entirely sure why this smirking weenis is allowed to be in movies and TV shows. The "Fallon Fallacy" is also named after him." And after a not so glamorous picture of him saying, "here he is, looking even dumber than usual." Wow. Who wrote this again? Some comedic genius the works for a website that no one has ever heard of? Talking about Jimmy Fallon like you're better than him? Here's a little something I have to say to you.
First of all, starting off your article with "just the facts" and then listing five completely false statements about Fallon is NOT LISTING THE FACTS. Ok, you may be right that Fallon was not the best actor on SNL. But let me see here. There are a lot of VERY successful people today who were not very good on SNL either. Hmm. Sarah Silverman? Robert Downey Jr.? Ben Stiller? They did not do well on SNL, and yet they are doing very very well now. How do you explain that?
Secondly, I will have to agree as well with Fallon not doing very well in the movies. Let's face it, he's not the best actor. But he's not the worst either. They don't just take anyone on SNL, and Lorne (Lorne Michaels, the exectuive producer and creator of SNL) liked him enough to make him a late night show. Do you have to be an amazing actor to be an amazing comedian? I think a lot of writers and stand-ups would beg to differ with that notion.
And don't you dare attack his late night show. Let us look at the recent Emmy and Comedy Awards nominations. Hmm. I don't see Jay Leno, David Letterman, or any other late night talk show host other than Conan (a given) and the other guys on HBO, Comedy Central, and SNL (I know that's not a network, but I'm listing it anyway). Wait. Jimmy Fallon is nominated? Thats 's correct. Why? His show is so innovative and genuinely funny. They don't do the same thing every week with different jokes. The writing team, Fallon included, keeps it fresh. They have new bits and new material each week. Of course they also have reoccruing ones like "Thank-You Notes" and "Slow Jamming the News", but that's becase they are very successful and they don't get old with the audience. Oh and by they way, when you use Metacritic for all of your proof, and your judging the show by only the first season, you're an idiot. You think all late night shows start out really well? Like they're just going to be perfect at a show none of them have done before. Why don't you try it? Oh wait you can't. You make stupid articles for Cracked.com.
"Oh, so maybe just the writing staff is funny, but Jimmy Fallon sucks!!" That's my guess what your next response would be. Well, that could be true. Except for the fact that most of the time he has specific jokes written out and then expands into his own sort of improving. And the audience laughs? And the show does well? Maybe if the show sucked and all it had were the jokes he read from a cue card, I would believe you. But you're wrong! Fallon is constantly joking around. And are you aware that he was a "Weekend Update" anchor. They don't just choose anyone for that job. They choose people that can actually write and get the job done. Funny people.
And Fallon doesn't have good interview skills? That may have been true in the beginning. Let's face it, that first episode is kind of hard to watch. But he has gotten 50 billion times better. Guests on the show are constantly professing how genuinely nice Jimmy is. Guests that aren't just trying to be nice. When someone impersonates Fallon they imitate someone being really annoyingly nice. That's because it's true and guests are always trying to tell the viewers that it's not just some fake persona Fallon puts on for the show. Interviewing people is a skill. A skill that Jimmy will continue to get better at. If his guests are constantly agreeing he is really nice, he is obviously doing something right. He is making them feel comfortable, which is probably the most important thing a host must do to conduct a successful interview.
So Cracked.com, maybe you should start watching what you say about people who are way more famous and talented than you are. I don't mind reading editorials, but when you are being blatantly rude and calling Fallon "just a penis," I take offense. You sound like you want to be a comedian someday. Show biz is all about networking. So stop bitching and start appreciating real comedy.
Sincerely,
TVblogger
I recently read your article about Jimmy Fallon entitled, oh that's clever.. Jimmy Fallon. Unfortunately I randomly clicked on your website to find this article. As a fan of the comedian, I was very upset to find that you began this article with, "no one is entirely sure why this smirking weenis is allowed to be in movies and TV shows. The "Fallon Fallacy" is also named after him." And after a not so glamorous picture of him saying, "here he is, looking even dumber than usual." Wow. Who wrote this again? Some comedic genius the works for a website that no one has ever heard of? Talking about Jimmy Fallon like you're better than him? Here's a little something I have to say to you.
First of all, starting off your article with "just the facts" and then listing five completely false statements about Fallon is NOT LISTING THE FACTS. Ok, you may be right that Fallon was not the best actor on SNL. But let me see here. There are a lot of VERY successful people today who were not very good on SNL either. Hmm. Sarah Silverman? Robert Downey Jr.? Ben Stiller? They did not do well on SNL, and yet they are doing very very well now. How do you explain that?
Secondly, I will have to agree as well with Fallon not doing very well in the movies. Let's face it, he's not the best actor. But he's not the worst either. They don't just take anyone on SNL, and Lorne (Lorne Michaels, the exectuive producer and creator of SNL) liked him enough to make him a late night show. Do you have to be an amazing actor to be an amazing comedian? I think a lot of writers and stand-ups would beg to differ with that notion.
And don't you dare attack his late night show. Let us look at the recent Emmy and Comedy Awards nominations. Hmm. I don't see Jay Leno, David Letterman, or any other late night talk show host other than Conan (a given) and the other guys on HBO, Comedy Central, and SNL (I know that's not a network, but I'm listing it anyway). Wait. Jimmy Fallon is nominated? Thats 's correct. Why? His show is so innovative and genuinely funny. They don't do the same thing every week with different jokes. The writing team, Fallon included, keeps it fresh. They have new bits and new material each week. Of course they also have reoccruing ones like "Thank-You Notes" and "Slow Jamming the News", but that's becase they are very successful and they don't get old with the audience. Oh and by they way, when you use Metacritic for all of your proof, and your judging the show by only the first season, you're an idiot. You think all late night shows start out really well? Like they're just going to be perfect at a show none of them have done before. Why don't you try it? Oh wait you can't. You make stupid articles for Cracked.com.
"Oh, so maybe just the writing staff is funny, but Jimmy Fallon sucks!!" That's my guess what your next response would be. Well, that could be true. Except for the fact that most of the time he has specific jokes written out and then expands into his own sort of improving. And the audience laughs? And the show does well? Maybe if the show sucked and all it had were the jokes he read from a cue card, I would believe you. But you're wrong! Fallon is constantly joking around. And are you aware that he was a "Weekend Update" anchor. They don't just choose anyone for that job. They choose people that can actually write and get the job done. Funny people.
And Fallon doesn't have good interview skills? That may have been true in the beginning. Let's face it, that first episode is kind of hard to watch. But he has gotten 50 billion times better. Guests on the show are constantly professing how genuinely nice Jimmy is. Guests that aren't just trying to be nice. When someone impersonates Fallon they imitate someone being really annoyingly nice. That's because it's true and guests are always trying to tell the viewers that it's not just some fake persona Fallon puts on for the show. Interviewing people is a skill. A skill that Jimmy will continue to get better at. If his guests are constantly agreeing he is really nice, he is obviously doing something right. He is making them feel comfortable, which is probably the most important thing a host must do to conduct a successful interview.
So Cracked.com, maybe you should start watching what you say about people who are way more famous and talented than you are. I don't mind reading editorials, but when you are being blatantly rude and calling Fallon "just a penis," I take offense. You sound like you want to be a comedian someday. Show biz is all about networking. So stop bitching and start appreciating real comedy.
Sincerely,
TVblogger
Saturday, April 21, 2012
A New Segment
In Tina Fey's book Bossypants, Fey dedicates a chapter to responding to some of the comments from haters she found on the internet. That chapter was probably my favorite of the whole book because she did not take cheap shots at them. She made very smart and clever remarks that were very sarcastic and hilarious. Recently I read a nasty article about Jimmy Fallon. As most of you know already, I am a big fan of Fallon. So I decided to start a little segment, named after the chapter from Bossypants, entitled "Dear Internet." My next post will begin this segment. I will probably not continue regularly because there aren't really that many articles that make me that angry. I'm obviously not famous, so there aren't people commenting about me on the internet like people did for Fey. Plus, it doesn't have a ton to do with actual TV. Just the people who are associated with it. But because I wanted this to have a good name and explain what exactly it was, alas I am beginning this segment anyway. Just for fun, I'm going to include one of my favorite Fey responses. If you would like to purchase Fey's book, check it out here!
Posted by jerkstore on PerezHilton.com: "In my opinion Tina Fey completely ruined SNL. The only reason she's celebrated is because she's a woman and an outspoken liberal. She has not a single funny bone in her body."
Fey's response: Dear Jerkstore,
Huzzah for the Truth Teller! Women in this country have been over-celebrated for too long. Just last night there was a story on my local news about a "missing girl," and they must have dedicated seven or eight minutes to "where she was last seen" and "how she might have been abducted by a close family friend," and I thought, "What is this, the News for Chicks?" Then there was some story about Hillary Clinton flying to some country because she's secretary of state. Why do we keep talking about these dumdums? We are a society that constantly celebrates no one but women and it must stop! I want to hear what the men of the world have been up to. What fun new guns have they invented? What are they raping these days? What's Michael Bay's next film going to be?
When I first set out to ruin SNL, I didn't think anyone would notice, but I persevered because, like you trying to do a nine-piece jigsaw puzzle, it was a labor of love.
I'm not one to toot my own horn, but I feel safe with you, jerkstore, so I'll say it. Everything you ever hated on SNL was by me, and anything you ever liked was by someone else who did it against my will.
Sincerely,
Tina Fey
P.S. You know who dose have a funny bone in her body? Your mom every night for a dollar.
Quoted from:
Fey, Tina. Bossypants. New York: Little, Brown and, 2011. Print.
Posted by jerkstore on PerezHilton.com: "In my opinion Tina Fey completely ruined SNL. The only reason she's celebrated is because she's a woman and an outspoken liberal. She has not a single funny bone in her body."
Fey's response: Dear Jerkstore,
Huzzah for the Truth Teller! Women in this country have been over-celebrated for too long. Just last night there was a story on my local news about a "missing girl," and they must have dedicated seven or eight minutes to "where she was last seen" and "how she might have been abducted by a close family friend," and I thought, "What is this, the News for Chicks?" Then there was some story about Hillary Clinton flying to some country because she's secretary of state. Why do we keep talking about these dumdums? We are a society that constantly celebrates no one but women and it must stop! I want to hear what the men of the world have been up to. What fun new guns have they invented? What are they raping these days? What's Michael Bay's next film going to be?
When I first set out to ruin SNL, I didn't think anyone would notice, but I persevered because, like you trying to do a nine-piece jigsaw puzzle, it was a labor of love.
I'm not one to toot my own horn, but I feel safe with you, jerkstore, so I'll say it. Everything you ever hated on SNL was by me, and anything you ever liked was by someone else who did it against my will.
Sincerely,
Tina Fey
P.S. You know who dose have a funny bone in her body? Your mom every night for a dollar.
Quoted from:
Fey, Tina. Bossypants. New York: Little, Brown and, 2011. Print.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Internet & TV: A Future of Minimal Difference
Today, the internet has become everyone's new best friend. Whether you're checking Facebook or sending an email to a colleague, the internet has become a dominant aspect of everyone's lives. What does this have to do with television? As internet and television have both advanced over the years, they are gradually becoming one. That's right, I'm talking about sites like Netflix, Hulu, even Youtube! Let's not forget the sites of networks as well, NBC, ABC, etc. These sites show clips and even full episodes of many of our favorite shows. And this number is growing. More and more people using the internet alternative.
Television is a medium that I don't think could ever be replaced with a simple computer screen. Watching TV on a computer is a completely different experience than watching it on an actual television set. I all honesty though, that is mostly what I do. In fact, I watch pretty much all my shows on the computer. But I would never want the normal television to leave! I watch TV on the internet because it's more conventient. I can choose when I want to watch it. I can watch when it best fits my schedule. But there is just something truly amazing about our plain old television sets. How would live shows work? How would we turn on our computers to watch the daily news? How can a family sit around a computer screen to watch their favorite show? Yes, there are some flaws to this trend.
But what if all of those questions could be answered? They can be and someday they probably will. I have a feeling that in the future, a lot more shows will look to the internet to get their viewership. Yes, there will still be live TV, but most of it will be news and reruns. The best part is that TV will become apart of the internet. When you want to watch your favorite show you can simply watch it immediately from your TV at any time.
How will people learn about new shows? Of course there will still be commercials occurring, and the live TV will still be showing these shows. TV and internet will no longer be separated. Television will be internet. This is obviously just a guess, but I have a very large suspicion that this will most likely be our future. It's kind of scary, but kind of exciting as well. I can't wait for the day when I don't have to wait for the episode I want to watch to be on the internet. I can't wait for my favorite TV shows to be more accessible to more people. Television as we know it will always be changing. This is truly why I love TV. With new shows, more technology, and changing audiences, it will never be the same.
Television is a medium that I don't think could ever be replaced with a simple computer screen. Watching TV on a computer is a completely different experience than watching it on an actual television set. I all honesty though, that is mostly what I do. In fact, I watch pretty much all my shows on the computer. But I would never want the normal television to leave! I watch TV on the internet because it's more conventient. I can choose when I want to watch it. I can watch when it best fits my schedule. But there is just something truly amazing about our plain old television sets. How would live shows work? How would we turn on our computers to watch the daily news? How can a family sit around a computer screen to watch their favorite show? Yes, there are some flaws to this trend.
But what if all of those questions could be answered? They can be and someday they probably will. I have a feeling that in the future, a lot more shows will look to the internet to get their viewership. Yes, there will still be live TV, but most of it will be news and reruns. The best part is that TV will become apart of the internet. When you want to watch your favorite show you can simply watch it immediately from your TV at any time.
How will people learn about new shows? Of course there will still be commercials occurring, and the live TV will still be showing these shows. TV and internet will no longer be separated. Television will be internet. This is obviously just a guess, but I have a very large suspicion that this will most likely be our future. It's kind of scary, but kind of exciting as well. I can't wait for the day when I don't have to wait for the episode I want to watch to be on the internet. I can't wait for my favorite TV shows to be more accessible to more people. Television as we know it will always be changing. This is truly why I love TV. With new shows, more technology, and changing audiences, it will never be the same.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Women of SNL
For the past few months I have been learning a lot about Saturday Night Live. It began with one book, Live From New York by Tom Shales and James Miller. This 600 page book is filled with interviews of anyone who has ever touched SNL in any way. It was so interesting to read and I have learned so much from it. So for AP Lang, we has to write a book review essay that talks about a topic and incorporates a review of the book we read.
Although this may sound like a somewhat easy task, it. was. not. The hundreds of interviews I read from the book were helpful, but very hard to compile together in an essay that actually made a point. Think of all the random facts about the show that are floating around in my head. The names of every cast member in 1975, the story of how Victoria Jackson was hired, what happened after Lorne left, and soooo much more. These facts that have accumulated in my mind are pretty much pointless unless I can put them into my essay with a purpose. So that's what I attempted to do. Of course, not all fo them were actually put in, but I did try to put in as much detail as I could.
So what is the point of this blog post? A question I often have to ask myself.Well nonexistent readers, I will tell you! One very interesting aspect of the book, that was also included into my essay, was the misogynistic actions of cast members and writers on the show. That's right. When the show was conceived in 1975, there were three female performers and very few female writers. Not a huge deal right? Wrong! Those women were not treated well. Many of the men on cast thought they were "unfunny." John Belushi, a well known cast member, is less well known for his acts of sabotage against sketches written by women. As Jane Curtain, another cast member, said: "Their (women on SNL) battles were constant. They were working against John, who said women are just fundamentally not funny. So you'd go to a table read, and if a woman writer had written a piece for John, he would not read it in his full voice. He felt as though it was his duty to sabotage pieces written by women."
Why did men act this way? Why did they treat women like they were inferior? Well, it has a lot to do with the time period. Apparently this is theme week because my last post was about Mad Men in the 60's, and now I'm talking about 70's where there was also discrimination against women. Although definetly not as much. Although not all men can be put into this generalization, a large portion continued to be in the mindset that women were inferior. Women continued to be paid less and on SNL had a tougher time getting sketches onto air. Did they give up? Heck no! As Geneane Garafola put it, "Life is a boys’ club. So SNL is a reflection of that. But Molly Shannon and Ana Gasteyer and Cheri Oteri and Rachel Dratch and Tina Fey kicked ass. They came in and would not be denied." She was reffering to a later period of SNL, when some really heavy hitters came in and changed how a lot of people thought about women comedians.
In all honesty, I hate having to even talk about this. The fact that this even happened, and that it still happens today, really disturbs me. I will say that I am so very grateful for the very strong women that have paved the way for my generation. I don't know if I would've been able to do the same. It's so comforting to know that women before were able to pull off successful working lives. Thank you to the women on Saturday Night Live, and to any other woman who as persevered through the male-dominated world with grace.
Although this may sound like a somewhat easy task, it. was. not. The hundreds of interviews I read from the book were helpful, but very hard to compile together in an essay that actually made a point. Think of all the random facts about the show that are floating around in my head. The names of every cast member in 1975, the story of how Victoria Jackson was hired, what happened after Lorne left, and soooo much more. These facts that have accumulated in my mind are pretty much pointless unless I can put them into my essay with a purpose. So that's what I attempted to do. Of course, not all fo them were actually put in, but I did try to put in as much detail as I could.
So what is the point of this blog post? A question I often have to ask myself.Well nonexistent readers, I will tell you! One very interesting aspect of the book, that was also included into my essay, was the misogynistic actions of cast members and writers on the show. That's right. When the show was conceived in 1975, there were three female performers and very few female writers. Not a huge deal right? Wrong! Those women were not treated well. Many of the men on cast thought they were "unfunny." John Belushi, a well known cast member, is less well known for his acts of sabotage against sketches written by women. As Jane Curtain, another cast member, said: "Their (women on SNL) battles were constant. They were working against John, who said women are just fundamentally not funny. So you'd go to a table read, and if a woman writer had written a piece for John, he would not read it in his full voice. He felt as though it was his duty to sabotage pieces written by women."
Why did men act this way? Why did they treat women like they were inferior? Well, it has a lot to do with the time period. Apparently this is theme week because my last post was about Mad Men in the 60's, and now I'm talking about 70's where there was also discrimination against women. Although definetly not as much. Although not all men can be put into this generalization, a large portion continued to be in the mindset that women were inferior. Women continued to be paid less and on SNL had a tougher time getting sketches onto air. Did they give up? Heck no! As Geneane Garafola put it, "Life is a boys’ club. So SNL is a reflection of that. But Molly Shannon and Ana Gasteyer and Cheri Oteri and Rachel Dratch and Tina Fey kicked ass. They came in and would not be denied." She was reffering to a later period of SNL, when some really heavy hitters came in and changed how a lot of people thought about women comedians.
In all honesty, I hate having to even talk about this. The fact that this even happened, and that it still happens today, really disturbs me. I will say that I am so very grateful for the very strong women that have paved the way for my generation. I don't know if I would've been able to do the same. It's so comforting to know that women before were able to pull off successful working lives. Thank you to the women on Saturday Night Live, and to any other woman who as persevered through the male-dominated world with grace.
My Weekly Wonders: Mad Men
Last weekend I came down with a flu that stuck me in bed for the majority of the Easter holiday. Although my sickness was not happily accepted, it did give me an opportunity to continue a long lasting tradition. Whenever I'm sick, whether it's a few days or a week, I feed into my guilty pleasure and begin watching a new show. This probably sounds like an unhealthy obsession that contains no productivity, but honestly when I'm sick there is no way I can be productive. So, in order to follow my past tendancies, I began watching Mad Men, a show I have been meaning to watch for quite some time. Here are my thoughts.
Although I wish I could say I would have liked the show regardless of the buzz around it, I'm not sure. If you haven't lived in a cave for the past few years, you know that Mad Men is a widely successful show that has won numerous awards and hearts of audience members around the world. Whether you needed that cliche introduction or not, there you go! Anyway, the show is based around a 1960's advertising agency in New York called Sterling Silver. As it's genre title would alude to, the show holds much drama. Their office consists a lot of drinking, smoking, and of coursea few a lot of jokes thrown in about women and Jewish people. But hey! It's the 60's. It's what they did back then apparently.
The main character on Mad Men is Don Draper, sort of the head honcho of the advertising agency, but not the main boss. I definetly don't know any terminology for what his position is, sorry! Anyway, I really enjoyed the pilot for this show because Matthew Weiner (the creator of the show, name pronounced wy-ner!) introduced Draper in a really intriguing way. He showed him in the various stages of his day, a visit to an old lover, meeting a new secretary, coming up with a pitch to a tobacco company on the spot, and having a drink and flirting with a female client. By the end of the show, Draper drives back to where we realize is his home and all of a sudden he is greeted by his wife and he kisses his children good-night. Although not something that makes you gasp exactly, I thought it did have an innovative shock value because of Draper's player-esque personality traits that we watched throughout his day. From the first episode Weiner sets up a relationship of Draper and the audience. We know about the many lives he lives, and gradually crave to see more.
So who is this Matthew Weiner, and why do I keep talking about him? Although I have never mentioned him on my blog, he has always been one of those people I have admired and wanted to learn about. He worked on Sopranos, another hugely successful and very well done show. He's kind of become my obsession, especially after I started watching Mad Men. I think this is partly due to my envy of his position. Getting to work on a show is one thing, but an amazing one is another. And it's not like he "got" to do anything, he truly has the talent and amazing writing capabilities that have gotten him there.
Anyway! Sorry for the creepy fan-girl paragraph... You might be thinking, "why is she so late on watching this show that has been wildly successful for four years?" Or maybe your still wondering "who the heck is this Weiner guy she keeps talking about?" Either way, Mad Men has always been on my list of shows to watch. It's not like I have an infinite amount of time to watch shows! Okay, summer doesn't count. In all honesty, last weekend I saw Mad Men on Netflix and got really excited. I have wanted to watch the show for a while now, but I wasn't sure if it was on the internet somewhere (sadly I never have time to watch anything on actual TV). We'll see if I actually have time to continue watching the show, or whether I will have to painstakingly wait until summer to continue it. In summary, the show is great. I love the writer. Yes, I'm slow on trends.
Although I wish I could say I would have liked the show regardless of the buzz around it, I'm not sure. If you haven't lived in a cave for the past few years, you know that Mad Men is a widely successful show that has won numerous awards and hearts of audience members around the world. Whether you needed that cliche introduction or not, there you go! Anyway, the show is based around a 1960's advertising agency in New York called Sterling Silver. As it's genre title would alude to, the show holds much drama. Their office consists a lot of drinking, smoking, and of course
The main character on Mad Men is Don Draper, sort of the head honcho of the advertising agency, but not the main boss. I definetly don't know any terminology for what his position is, sorry! Anyway, I really enjoyed the pilot for this show because Matthew Weiner (the creator of the show, name pronounced wy-ner!) introduced Draper in a really intriguing way. He showed him in the various stages of his day, a visit to an old lover, meeting a new secretary, coming up with a pitch to a tobacco company on the spot, and having a drink and flirting with a female client. By the end of the show, Draper drives back to where we realize is his home and all of a sudden he is greeted by his wife and he kisses his children good-night. Although not something that makes you gasp exactly, I thought it did have an innovative shock value because of Draper's player-esque personality traits that we watched throughout his day. From the first episode Weiner sets up a relationship of Draper and the audience. We know about the many lives he lives, and gradually crave to see more.
So who is this Matthew Weiner, and why do I keep talking about him? Although I have never mentioned him on my blog, he has always been one of those people I have admired and wanted to learn about. He worked on Sopranos, another hugely successful and very well done show. He's kind of become my obsession, especially after I started watching Mad Men. I think this is partly due to my envy of his position. Getting to work on a show is one thing, but an amazing one is another. And it's not like he "got" to do anything, he truly has the talent and amazing writing capabilities that have gotten him there.
Anyway! Sorry for the creepy fan-girl paragraph... You might be thinking, "why is she so late on watching this show that has been wildly successful for four years?" Or maybe your still wondering "who the heck is this Weiner guy she keeps talking about?" Either way, Mad Men has always been on my list of shows to watch. It's not like I have an infinite amount of time to watch shows! Okay, summer doesn't count. In all honesty, last weekend I saw Mad Men on Netflix and got really excited. I have wanted to watch the show for a while now, but I wasn't sure if it was on the internet somewhere (sadly I never have time to watch anything on actual TV). We'll see if I actually have time to continue watching the show, or whether I will have to painstakingly wait until summer to continue it. In summary, the show is great. I love the writer. Yes, I'm slow on trends.
Friday, April 13, 2012
When There's Nothing Left to Say...
As I sit here trying to think what to blog about next, I realize that I have never really had writer's block for this blog. I know, I know, it's crazy. How can one girl have so much to say about her mere 17 years experience with television? I wouldn't go so far to say experience. It's been more of an exposure. Anyway, how can I always have something to talk about? Isn't there only so much I can say? Well, I'm starting to realize this. A problem that most of my classmates have been facing for quite sometime while writing on these blogs, is something I am finally taking on. So where am I going with this blog post? I'm bringing up a topic that really is pushing its relevance to this blog. It may still have to do with TV, but let's face it, I just want to watch videos of this on Youtube. What is this supposed topic? Bloopers!
What are bloopers? Well, bloopers are are scenes actors acted out but messed up. You know, once and awhile this sort of thing happens. No, this happens frequently. Those amazing actors you see on your TV set are not perfect. I think in comedy especially, bloopers are a given. Think about the scenes that make you laugh in a TV show. Those scenes are funny to the actors too, probably even more so because they are experiencing it in real life. So maybe they laugh, or mess up a line. The camera is rolling. Of course that footage is not put into the show. So where does it go? The fans want to see it! No worries. The bloopers we all want to see go on the show's DVD extras, or something I enjoy even more, Youtube.
And now what you've all been waiting for. Here are some of my favorite bloopers!
What are bloopers? Well, bloopers are are scenes actors acted out but messed up. You know, once and awhile this sort of thing happens. No, this happens frequently. Those amazing actors you see on your TV set are not perfect. I think in comedy especially, bloopers are a given. Think about the scenes that make you laugh in a TV show. Those scenes are funny to the actors too, probably even more so because they are experiencing it in real life. So maybe they laugh, or mess up a line. The camera is rolling. Of course that footage is not put into the show. So where does it go? The fans want to see it! No worries. The bloopers we all want to see go on the show's DVD extras, or something I enjoy even more, Youtube.
And now what you've all been waiting for. Here are some of my favorite bloopers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)