I think it would be interesting to look at how TV influences how a nation presents itself. Quantico for instance presents the FBI as an industry that only accepts the best of the best of the best of the best. Continually culling from their supposedly elite recruits. Shows like CSI and other procedurals and police dramas like Castle and even Brooklyn-Nine Nine irrespective of genre portray the police as singlemindedly determined to find the truth. As a force that refuse to accept confessions if there isn't evidence to back them up. Who will search for the truth inspite of all the evidence to the contrary if they find someone pleading their innocence. They will only accept a righteous confession as the final closing of the case.
They also rarely show people using lawyers. Laywers are seen as evil. Even seasoned spies when caught (Castle) confess to the police without a lawyer because the cops simply yell lies at them. Seating in interrogations is always across tables never invading someone's personal space until "Bad Cop" shows up to get physical.
Shows like The Whisperers are strangely patriotic and frame every decision as if based on the principles of the founding fathers. The decision to intern children without telling anyone is based on how they will be perceived in history.
There are many other examples and types but I believe these create a sense of righteousness in how America perceives itself. Quantico tries to humanize their character by giving them all secret flaws and having them share them with other characters at seemingly random times while at the same time having the most complex exams on a nearly daily basis that sound like a logistical nightmare. And while it makes sense in Sleepy Hollow for the founding fathers to come up constantly. It's odd that a show about aliens invading is so focused on the political theory rather than threat assessment. I think it does the accused a disservice in real life to never show people talking with their lawyers unless they're rich and (likely) guilty. It creates a general perception that the police can question you and you are obligated to answer them without representation.
Good topic! I see this in Law & Order all.the.time, too. There is some analysis that could be done with Althusser and the ideological state apparatus. Although, if someone selects this topic, I would stick to one genre of shows to analyze simply because examining several different genres might make the parts of article disjointed from one another. – Caitlin Ray9 years ago
I think it's important to look at multiple genres but I might stick to one facet of ideal perception and then look at it across the genres. For instance. You could look at legal representation and you can see it in dramas, mysteries, and comedies and see how they each do it similarly and how they do it differently. In TV defense attorneys are the devil to cops and attorneys are (usually) their buddies. I think it'd be important to highlight the importance of how defense attorney's work and are perceived in real life in comparison to how they are in TV. Or you could do a similar thing with interrogation, or evidence. – wolfkin9 years ago
Ah yes, I agree with this-legal representation across genres would probably work as an analysis because it has a common thread of "legal representation." The author would still need to tread carefully to not take up too much material. I agree that defense attorneys are often considered the cops (and therefore "the truth's" enemy). However, "The people" or the state attorney, are often on the same side as the cops and seem to also be the mouthpiece for "truth." – Caitlin Ray9 years ago
Netflix's Jessica Jones was released in November 2015 and has had a great response over the past few months. Mental illness is something the protagonist struggles with in the form of PTSD. The villain, Kilgrave, has the power to control the minds of others. He is also the cause of Jessica's PTSD and haunts her through just the knowledge of his existence. To what degree is Kilgrave representative of various forms of mental illness? Can the metaphor of Kilgrave=mental illness be extended to depression, anxiety, attachment issues, schizophrenia, etc.? Are certain aspects of mental illness shown in the show through him? (I.e. No one believes in his existence=mental health stigma, people who have been "kilgraved" constantly fear his return, etc.)
I'm very interested in your point about how people don't believe his effects are possible/exist, and it's true he can damage people's minds. However, I think that even an extreme extension of mental illness would not have the word-for-word control that Kilgrave has, or be quite so exterior to the victim/survivor. However I think that the therapy group touched on how it unsettled them that he sometimes made them indulge in their unacceptable desires. – IndiLeigh9 years ago
Perhaps not. However, I actually have severe depression, and I found that the show spoke to me on a very personal level, which is what prompted this topic. I feel like I lose control when I'm depressed, and it's a bit frightening, because I don't know what I'll do. I can try to stop the downswing, but sometimes it's impossible, and suicidal thoughts are hard to ignore. It's a bit like having a little Kilgrave in your head. – Laura Jones9 years ago
In an article by Into The Gloss, Lucy Hale, who plays Aria Montgomery on Pretty Little Liars said, "It’s important for young girls to realize things like we have fake eyelashes on, some of us have extensions, we have good lighting. It’s the same thing as Photoshop!" People who enjoy watching shows like Pretty Little Liars, Gossip Girl, Once Upon A Time, The Vampire Diaries, etc. can't help but think about the fact that the actors' makeup, hair, and clothes all look great. But where is the line drawn between what is natural and what isn't? Is there a way to teach people about behind-the-scenes tricks? Is there a message that can be sent out to the public that says a lot has to be done so that the camera catches it? (Even in a film like The Hobbit, Martin Freeman's robe was extremely bright and colorful because they needed to make sure the camera and filters could "pick it up.") Should audiences be made aware about the tricks to the trade via a disclaimer? On the flip side, is the emulation of their favorite actors/characters a positive thing? Isn't wearing makeup and getting "fixed up" fun? I'd love for someone to explore the pros and cons and what should or shouldn't be done about television's impact on body image.
I highly approve of this topic, because it comes at female body image and the perception of feminine beauty from the angle where it is causing the most confusion and lasting impression: make-up and costuming in film and television. There are some television shows and ongoing projects which explore makeup and costuming from a creative angle, but don't quite explore how it is used to fully transform a typical actress into what we see in the final product, and how huge the difference can often be. I also think that doing a one-time expose' on this sort of thing wouldn't really do the trick, because it would be here and gone within a few months. So there ought to be some sort of continuous thing, like maybe a type of promotional featurette that different TV shows can produce, which show how make-up, hair, costumes, and lighting are done, and show how "the magic" happens: maybe like a PSA series. And the message would always be to explain to those younger audience members watching, that what they see the characters wearing and looking like isn't something truly attainable in every day life, nor should it be everyone's goal. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Also, from the perspective of a filmmaker, knowing how the magic is done never ruins a film experience for me, or a television experience either. Seeing how every last detail was conceived and executed never breaks the veil because when it's done right, it still suspends my disbelief. I think it has to do with the editing and the sound design. If neither of those two things were effective, then I probably would notice all of the gears and wires and the illusion would die instantly. But otherwise, there's no harm in letting everyone in on the make-up techniques or the cinematography. It's deeply fascinating. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Agreed to the above - if filmmakers guarded their "tricks" of the trade as jealously as professional illusionists, there would be no behind-the-scenes special features or director's commentary added to DVDs (which I love). Another interesting take on this would be film vs. television and their differing attitude between revealing their magic; I wonder if there is data anywhere that gives an idea whether young girls' body image is affected more negatively by TV than by film. I'd venture a guess and say that it is. (As an aside, I've been thinking for a while that it's very interesting fake lashes have made a serious comeback from the '60s. They've been used in TV and film since then, but not since the '60s has the general public worn them regularly.) – Katheryn9 years ago
Angel, a spin off of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was for a time on par with its sister property. But it did not last as long as Buffy or get as much attention from fans (as far as I can guess). What are the differences between the shows that has caused this division?
I wonder if one of the reasons Angel didn't last as long was because we already knew his character. We got to know him in the first 3 seasons of Buffy, so there was no need to spend time going over his history when Angel got his own show. – rachelyzara9 years ago
One was about high school and the other was about the work world. Buffy was about standing up for oneself and one's principles, while Angel was about learning how to selectively use and abandon one's principles, for better or for worse. – joubert9 years ago
I think it would be helpful to write about how interesting it is that a show with a female protagonist lasted longer and was more successful than one with a male protagonist. There's this statistic that states that female-lead shows/movies make less profit than male-lead shows. I would definitely have a gander at gender! – itschlofosho9 years ago
Feminism has been a huge topic of conversation through 2014/2015. It's become a point of view in which to critically analyze our media, and led to new multifaceted stories. The Bechdel test is often used as the bare minimum; but what exactly constitutes a feminist story?
Great question! Although, I imagine it will be incredibly difficult to navigate given the varieties and history of feminism. For example, what is feminism? – Mitch9 years ago
14/15? what is this a school year? – wolfkin9 years ago
Because feminism is such a complex topic, I don't think there is any way to say a story is feminist or not while having everyone agree. Some stories break feminist code while still depicting feminist characters, and vice versa. – morleycigs9 years ago
I agree with the comments above in that this topic/ subject matter is very broad and complex. I would suggest narrowing it down to one specific facet of feminism in stories and/or writing. – Morgan R. Muller9 years ago
One in which egalitarianism, if not present in the setting, is the one goal for the protagonist. – ChrisKeene9 years ago
I don't want it to sound too simple, but if we narrow it to ''equal treatment'' i guess it has more to do with the most inherent characteristics of your characters than with your story. People are now talking about the role of female characters of Game of Thrones, who are, most of the time, the ones in control. Maybe GoT is not the best example, but my point is that, if you want to make a feminist story, perhaps the best thing to do is not to include dialogues or pivotal situations in the form of statements, but to make your characters be statements themselves.
However, as it have been said before, it is much more complex than that. – Ga5ton9 years ago
I would define a feminist movie as one which is female-centric, that is has a prominent female lead(s) and voice(s). I don't think feminist means that one woman has to speak for all women, but that her voice is heard to create, instead of "history", a "herstory" on any subject. – Munjeera9 years ago
I've noticed lately that, in my opinion, sitcoms are declining in quality, and networks appear to be abandoning them and going for different genres. I think shows like The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and The Wire have introduced a precedent for cinematic masterpiece that TV shows haven't had to meet in the past. Will this shift kill the sitcom, or other genres of shows for that matter?
I think it has to do with the changes to the medium. Because audiences can stream whatever they want on the internet, television networks no longer have to fill airtime with superficial humor and can delve into more complex projects. Also, the internet brought about a new wave of competition. The way sitcoms are being made is also changing. Laugh-track, three-camera shows (I Love Lucy, The Big Bang Theory) are being replaced with updated styles, like The Office, or Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Maybe they aren't dying, just transitioning? – joshuahall9 years ago
I have been thinking about this myself lately. I can re-watch Will and Grace and Friends repeatedly, but barely make it through one episode of these new "sitcoms." I have been speculating whether there is an association between the need to be politically correct and not offend people and the reduction in humorous shows. Nowadays it's all sexual innuendoes and crude jokes, no more intelligent jokes. – Catherine Conte9 years ago
In 2013, NBC got America's attention by producing The Sound of Music Live! Ratings went through the roof! Next was Peter Pan, and then The Wiz. Now Fox has done Grease Live with an audience and different locations. Who did it better? NBC or Fox? Explore the history of live televised musical theatre performances. Explore techniques, successes, and failures to determine who wears the live musical crown.
Netflix stands by its method of releasing an entire season of a show at once; House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt are all successful shows that have used this method. How will this change the television series model? Will cable television shows lag behind due to the extra space between each episode's release? Without the concept of screen time on a network, will we see more series produced exclusively for the web, where we have unlimited space and time for television shows? How will this change the structure of each show? Will dramas continue to end each episode with suspense to ensure the viewer's return, or save the big twists for the end of the season? And, as an afterthought, will cable shows garner more fans when they are released online for streaming, versus their original premiere on a network?
Netflix is taking advantage of its model and that's that people watch Netflix to binge. If they were to release an ep once a week, it might disinterest viewers and look for another completed show to watch (one that has multiple seasons). Broadcasters release an episode per week to get viewers to come back, and leave cliffhangers to tease them. It's simply understanding your structure and using it to your advantage. – YsabelGo9 years ago
Live television will always have its place, for the background noise or the effect of experiencing something with thousands of people at one. However, I do believe the quality will go down. We'll see less drama that relies on you watching every week and more comedy. People come to live television to watch for a bit and then walk away. Why watch a drama on television in the coming years when you can watch the whole story from beginning to end by losing a day? Netflix will change television styles to a mixture of suspense at each episode's end and saving the big twists. They've proved that both are excellent models for television. It just depends on what kind of show you're presenting. – casswaslike9 years ago
