This is my first blog post as an up-and-coming television critic. My perspective and knowledge on the subject of television criticism is very new. Some people may look at television criticism as being opinion only; however, there are three key points that I want to discuss when talking about television criticism: my goals for doing television criticism, my view on television being an object of study, and how I intend to relate to the readers and viewers.
The first point I want to discuss is my goals for doing TV criticism which are very simple. I want to be able to have a voice—and not one of those annoying voices that claims outrageous ideas and opinions just because they think they know what they’re talking about or they want to create controversy, but a voice that is educated and persuasive. I want people to look to me for advice on certain subjects and to not to be led astray by what others are thinking. However simple this goal may be, there is a new “critic” that pops up on a daily basis chanting and preaching his/her “new, improved and innovative” ideas. I don’t want that to be me. O’Donnell (2007) says that a criticism should be a deeper understanding of something. The critic should go beyond the face value to understand culture and society. This is exactly what I want to do (4). Being able to describe, interpret, and evaluate is also very important (Sillars and Gronbeck 7). Similarly, Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) talk about the “because-clause,” significance, relevance, and coherency all playing a part in criticism and my goal is to use those points when making a critique (6). As O’Donnell (2007) says, the goal of criticism should be to advance you from fundamental sensations (laughter, relief, fight, shock, tension, or relaxation) and move you to a more critical awareness which will enable you to illuminate production practices and enhance your understanding of culture, human nature, and interpretation (3). Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) state that what I say should matter and be worthwhile. It should have significance. My criticism should also be coherent (19).
New perceptions. That’s something that I want to achieve. Butler (2002) mentions polysemy, meaning television carries a lot of different meanings (6). This was something of interest to me. As an uneducated viewer, I tried to look at the different views a certain type of television show was trying to create. It’s hard to put other views into perspective.
A heightened sense of knowledge is also one of my goals for television criticism. Just the fact that I will begin to get more out of something is so exciting and new. I do, however, need to understand and acknowledge that texts are always open to multiple interpretations (O’Donnell 6).
The second point I want to address is television as an object of study. I think we, as the public, can acquire much information and explanations by studying television. To do so, we need to research television. Television plays a huge role in determining people’s thoughts and beliefs. I want to be able to analyze a television program in order to understand how it works, which is a very big goal of criticism (O’Donnell 9).
Another way to look at the relationship of television as an object of study is to look at television’s effect on society. This creates a lot of anxiety. The displacement of culture and the distortion of politics are two different kinds of anxiety we can get by viewing television. Television is sometimes looked at as dedemocratizing society. We know that it has an impact on society, but we just don‘t know what that impact is (Corner 5).
On the other hand, Butler (2002) searches for the controversy towards television and time instead of meaning (8). Both authors do, however, agree that television is controversial which makes it an object worth studying.
Thirdly, I want to discuss how I intend to relate to my readers. First and foremost is relevance (Sillars and Gronbeck 11). Why should a certain reader read my blog? The main thing I have going for me in this category is that I think I’m good at reaching all types of people. I don’t try to be anything I’m not. I try to put myself in other people’s shoes and think about what kind of views or discourses they have.
Brunsdon (1993) mentions a way I can relate to my readers. It is called a transparent relationship. This means that critics and viewers are on the same “side” against some other side. It is writing about a shared experience or view. Once a reader feels more on my “side,” I can introduce new ideas and thoughts without the fear of losing an audience. When readers have a feeling of companionship with the critic, they will judge less and be more apt to take the critic’s side and defend the critic. I want to formulate this kind of relationship with my readers (312).
In conclusion, my goals for TV criticism can be summed up with the word knowledge. I use the word knowledge because, as soon as I gain the knowledge of criticism, everything else will start falling into place. I feel as if we need knowledge to understand television as an object of study. We need to realize that everyone who enjoys television is watching it through a different context. I will use others’ ideas to educate myself in order to relate to the viewers.
Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.
Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.
Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
If It’s Not Broke, Don’t Fix It
The creator of the show, Seth MacFarlane, has been as influential on my adolescent and young adult life as my boyfriends, parties, and the Violent Femmes. I owe to him much of my wittiness (yes, I’d like to think I have a little). Not only did his creation, Family Guy, teach me important life facts, such as how taking Tylenol can cancel out birth control, but also small things like maybe Death is really just a bitter sarcastic faceless man (not so scary, huh). In my mind, Macfarlane can do no wrong (minus the first season of American Dad… really?!).
MacFarlane was born on October 26, 1973. He studied animation at the Rhode Island School of Design[1]. The setting of Family Guy is in Quahog,
MacFarlane is not only the creator of Family Guy, but he also created American Dad and the Cleveland Show. MacFarlane is the animator of the show, and he is also works as a composer, producer, actor, singer, writer, comedian, voice actor, and director on his series.
Some of the elements that characterize MacFarlane’s work are his use of nonhuman characters, pop culture references, flashbacks, cut-aways, montage sequences, and how he ties all of his shows together.
MacFarlane identifies himself as a science fiction fan which would explain his use of nonhumans as characters. On all of MacFarlane‘s series, there is a nonhuman main character. In Family Guy, Brian is the
All of MacFarlane’s cartoon shows are also known to reference popular fiction in movies, television, and humor. The episode “Spies Reminiscent of Us”, the third episode of the new season, is spoofing the movie Spies Like Us. This episode starred
American Dad’s whole theme references pop culture. It is spoofing President George W. Bush’s policies. In Hogwarts American Campus (American Dad!), the show makes a pop reference to the Harry Potter series.
Family Guy’s opening song is done in an Archie Bunker, All in the Family, way, and the Cleveland Show’s opening song is done in the same manner as The Jeffersons. This is very interesting because The
Another one of MacFarlane’s signatures is his cut-away ability. An example of this would be in Back to the Woods (Family Guy) when James Woods steals Peter’s identity. Lois sneaks away to talk to Peter and talks about how James Woods can’t cut-away to random acts in history like Peter can. This is a great scene because it shows just how important this signature is to the Family Guy show.
Cutaways and flashbacks are very important to MacFarlane’s signature. All Peter (Family Guy) has to say is, “it was like this one time when I …” and you will have a cut to the time he is talking about. In the Cleveland Show, Cleveland also cuts back to past events when describing history. In The One About Friends (Cleveland Show) episode, Cleveland cuts to his past and his ability to make friends.
MacFarlane’s shows also use montage sequences. In The One About Friends (Cleveland Show), Cleveland finds the kids playing with his shoes and goes into a montage of him at the mall singing and dancing and buying new shoes. In Spies Reminiscent of Us (Family Guy), there is a Peter montage about using
MacFarlane is noted for tying his shows together. An obvious example of this is on the last episode of the seventh season of Family Guy.
The Cleveland Show and Family Guys aren’t the only shows that have intertwined. In Lois Kills Stewie (Family Guy), Stan and Avery (from American Dad!) meet Stewie. In Family Guy’s, Meet the Quagmires, Roger (alien from American Dad!) makes a cameo.
Having seen possibly every older Family Guy episode ever made, I feel as if I know what is going to happen by heart. Only seeing a few American Dad episodes and the first premier episodes of the Cleveland Show leads me to believe that MacFarlane has a formula, and he obviously sticks with it. All three of MacFarlane’s shows on the air right now are very similar. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Why My Opinion is Better than Yours
This is my first blog post as an up and coming television critic. My perspective and knowledge on the subject of television criticism is very young. Some people may look at television criticism as being opinion only; however, there are three key points that I want to discuss when talking about television criticism: my goals for doing television criticism, my view on television as being an object of study, and how I intend to relate to the readers and viewers.
The first point I want to discuss are my goals for doing TV criticism. My goals for doing TV criticism are very simple. I want to be able to have a voice. Not one of those annoying voices that claims outrageous ideas and opinions just because they think they know what they’re talking about or they want to create controversy, but a voice that is educated and persuasive. I want people to look to me for advice on certain subjects and to not to be led astray by what others are thinking. However simple this goal may by, there is a new “critic” that pops up ever single day chanting and preaching his or her “new, improved and innovative” ideas. I don’t want that to be me. Being able to describe, interpret, and evaluate is also very important (Sillars and Gronbeck 7). Similarly, Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) talk about the “because-clause”, significance, relevance, and coherency all playing a part in criticism and my goal is to use all of those points when making a critique (6).
New perceptions. That’s something that I want to achieve. Butler (2002) mentions polysemy, meaning television carries a lot of different meanings (6). This was something of interest at me. As an uneducated viewer I tried to look at the different views a certain type of television show was trying to create. It’s hard to put other views into perspective. Butler (2002) talks about how segments of televisional flow can be thought of as a text that weaves together multiple meanings (7). This statement rings very true to me. I want to be able to understand how one show can mean so many different things to so many different people and still be popular.
A heighten sense of knowledge is also one of my goals for television criticism. Just the fact that I will begin to get more out of something is so exciting and new. I do, however, need to understand and acknowledge that texts are always open to multiple interpretations (O’Donnell 6).
The second point I want to address is my view of television as an object of study. I think we, as the public, can acquire much needed information and explanations by studying television. Now what I mean by that statement is that to look at why society is the way it is, we need to research television. Television plays a huge role in determining people’s thoughts and beliefs. I want to be able to analyze a television program in order to understand how it works, which is a very big goal of criticism (O’Donnell 9).
Another way to look at the relationship between television as an object of study is to look at televisions affect on society. Television dedemocratizes society. There is a split between high culture and low culture. TV puts out new meanings onto things. We know that it has an impact on society, but we just don‘t know what that impact is (Corner 5).
On the other hand, Butler (2002) searches for the controversy towards television and time instead of meaning (8). Both authors do, however, agree that television is controversial which makes it an object worth studying.
Thirdly, I want to discuss how I intend to relate to my readers. First, and foremost, is relevance (Sillars and Gronbeck 11). Why should a certain reader read my blog? The main thing I have going for me in this category is that I think I’m good at being on the same level as people. I don’t try to be anything I’m not, meaning I’m not going to feed anybody bull to make myself sound better and more educated than I actually am. I feel as if this is a very good way to be (in my opinion). To relate to someone you have to know how they look into certain situations. You have to put yourself in their shoes and think about what kind of views or discourses they are viewing the same thing. As O’Donnell (2007) says, the goal of criticism should be to advance you from fundamental sensations (laughter, relief, fight, shock, tension, or relaxation) and move you to a more critical awareness which will enable you to illuminate production practices and enhance your understanding of culture, human nature, and interpretation (3). . Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) state that what I say should matter and be worthwhile. It should have significance. My criticism should also be coherent (19).
Brunsdon (1993) points out that there are three categories of relationships between the critic and the viewer. First is transparent, which means that critics and viewers are on the same “side” against some other side. Second is hegemonic, which is when critics and viewers are separate and distant. The third is fragmented and that is when there is not necessary relationship between the critic and the viewer. Now I obviously want to work on my transparent part of the relationship (312).
In conclusion my goals for TV criticism can be summed up with the word knowledge. I use the word knowledge because as soon as I gain the knowledge of criticism, everything else will start falling into place. I feel as if we need knowledge to understand television as being an object of study. We need to realize that everyone who enjoys television is watching it through another context. I will use others ideas to educate myself in order to relate to the viewers.
References
Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.
Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.
Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
The first point I want to discuss are my goals for doing TV criticism. My goals for doing TV criticism are very simple. I want to be able to have a voice. Not one of those annoying voices that claims outrageous ideas and opinions just because they think they know what they’re talking about or they want to create controversy, but a voice that is educated and persuasive. I want people to look to me for advice on certain subjects and to not to be led astray by what others are thinking. However simple this goal may by, there is a new “critic” that pops up ever single day chanting and preaching his or her “new, improved and innovative” ideas. I don’t want that to be me. Being able to describe, interpret, and evaluate is also very important (Sillars and Gronbeck 7). Similarly, Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) talk about the “because-clause”, significance, relevance, and coherency all playing a part in criticism and my goal is to use all of those points when making a critique (6).
New perceptions. That’s something that I want to achieve. Butler (2002) mentions polysemy, meaning television carries a lot of different meanings (6). This was something of interest at me. As an uneducated viewer I tried to look at the different views a certain type of television show was trying to create. It’s hard to put other views into perspective. Butler (2002) talks about how segments of televisional flow can be thought of as a text that weaves together multiple meanings (7). This statement rings very true to me. I want to be able to understand how one show can mean so many different things to so many different people and still be popular.
A heighten sense of knowledge is also one of my goals for television criticism. Just the fact that I will begin to get more out of something is so exciting and new. I do, however, need to understand and acknowledge that texts are always open to multiple interpretations (O’Donnell 6).
The second point I want to address is my view of television as an object of study. I think we, as the public, can acquire much needed information and explanations by studying television. Now what I mean by that statement is that to look at why society is the way it is, we need to research television. Television plays a huge role in determining people’s thoughts and beliefs. I want to be able to analyze a television program in order to understand how it works, which is a very big goal of criticism (O’Donnell 9).
Another way to look at the relationship between television as an object of study is to look at televisions affect on society. Television dedemocratizes society. There is a split between high culture and low culture. TV puts out new meanings onto things. We know that it has an impact on society, but we just don‘t know what that impact is (Corner 5).
On the other hand, Butler (2002) searches for the controversy towards television and time instead of meaning (8). Both authors do, however, agree that television is controversial which makes it an object worth studying.
Thirdly, I want to discuss how I intend to relate to my readers. First, and foremost, is relevance (Sillars and Gronbeck 11). Why should a certain reader read my blog? The main thing I have going for me in this category is that I think I’m good at being on the same level as people. I don’t try to be anything I’m not, meaning I’m not going to feed anybody bull to make myself sound better and more educated than I actually am. I feel as if this is a very good way to be (in my opinion). To relate to someone you have to know how they look into certain situations. You have to put yourself in their shoes and think about what kind of views or discourses they are viewing the same thing. As O’Donnell (2007) says, the goal of criticism should be to advance you from fundamental sensations (laughter, relief, fight, shock, tension, or relaxation) and move you to a more critical awareness which will enable you to illuminate production practices and enhance your understanding of culture, human nature, and interpretation (3). . Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) state that what I say should matter and be worthwhile. It should have significance. My criticism should also be coherent (19).
Brunsdon (1993) points out that there are three categories of relationships between the critic and the viewer. First is transparent, which means that critics and viewers are on the same “side” against some other side. Second is hegemonic, which is when critics and viewers are separate and distant. The third is fragmented and that is when there is not necessary relationship between the critic and the viewer. Now I obviously want to work on my transparent part of the relationship (312).
In conclusion my goals for TV criticism can be summed up with the word knowledge. I use the word knowledge because as soon as I gain the knowledge of criticism, everything else will start falling into place. I feel as if we need knowledge to understand television as being an object of study. We need to realize that everyone who enjoys television is watching it through another context. I will use others ideas to educate myself in order to relate to the viewers.
References
Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.
Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.
Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)