So I watched the wire for class... wow. It kind of threw me for a loop. I understand after class that it is a type of "cop" show, but it still really confuses me at the moment. I have a hard time associating with what is going on, I think it may be because the actual environment seems so important here, I find myself lacking to understand the whole picture. I initially thought (and believe it is in my last post) that the kids were separate, but when watching it again I have a hard time distinguishing from who is bad and who is good. It seems to be enticing the more I watch - but still I don't really get it.
I got a little more confused after Professor Anderson acknowledged that there were similarities between Law & Order: L.A. and The Wire. So I think that I am going to talk about what I understand about Law & Order first.
Law & Order obviously knows its audience and how to be successful. I found this episode to be extremely interesting. I like the change in caste, it adds something new to the format. The show is predictable in the way it introduces the plot, the "crisis", the interrogations throughout the hour time slot. The interlocking of characters prior to the crime is what always throws me for a loop, the relationship seems to be something either more/less than what you expect - and there is always more than one suspect. The appeal to this show is the format though, there is something predictable beside something so unpredictable that keeps viewers hungry for more.
Like we said in class, the conflicts/issues that carry across several episodes (insight into characters lives) keeps people wondering, while the crime comes to a close by the final scene of the epsiode.
The success of this show will not decline any time soon. I feel like The Wire may have even addressed this idea of invention and convention - trying to keep some of the same aspects, but changing it to be an entirely different show. Law & Order appeals to a HUGE audience, there is no need to change the structure of the show. The introduction of a new setting and new characters is all that is needed to spice up the same old things. I really liked this episode, and would also really like to start following the show. Because there is such a strong following, those who are already interested in the show are most likely going to be quickly "addicted" to the new series. Not only this, but new settings can also draw in a new audience, I find that some people (including myself) like to watch a show where I understanding the setting - more specifically, about the area where it is going on.
I hope to discuss The Wire more after class tomorrow, but I need some more guidance on what is going on in the show, its purpose, and the abstract structure.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Wire.. and HBO
When watching The Wire for this weeks classes I did not find myself to be entirely thrilled with what was going on. I couldn't figure out what made this show successful enough to have more than one season, well to have four! This was then emphasized by Tyree's article, saying that HBO was able to take risks with what they provided their viewers with because of subscriptions. This also reemphasizes what we had spoken about early, in that HBO appeals to a certain audience - one show that is not a big hit will not ruin them, but will show them that this genre is not going to be a great success (at least not in this form). So, after reading this I still wondered how they let it continue for as long as they did. AND there was reason number two, the episodes played multiple times a day, this allowing people to just catch it when they turned the T.V. on throughout the day, this did not force people to be available at a continuous, specific time - allowing the show to experience the success it did.
It was interesting to read about the use of camera, because I have found that the reaction of the scene, and opinion of what is going on usually relies on the why the shot is framed. As Tyree points out there are a lot of wide shots where we see the whole group. This allows me as a viewer to see how closely related the characters are to their environment - the importance of sticking with those who are close to you. Not only this, but the reality of the show, the need for one another. This also may create sympathy, I know it did for me. They are all fighting for the same thing, sometimes getting caught up in the wrong thing, but everyone is looking out for them in hope to turn this part of the city around.
I really think sympathy is an important issue here, essentially because it draws the viewer in to the drama of the show itself... maybe allowing the viewer to feel the need to be more involved in the viewing process.
I want to go back to the idea that HBO can be risky with new shows because people subscribe to the channel not a certain series. This really calls to me, because I think that it supplies such a niche market that individuals will try out a new show because they know that HBO has some idea of what they are interested in/attracted to. However, it puts the other broadcast networks at a severe disadvantage because people don't give new shows they dislike much of a chance, and therefore may lose viewers to these "niche networks" similar to HBO. Therefore we can see why The Wire was able to make it through four seasons.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
One more thing
I totally forgot to mention something else I've been thinking about since class last Thursday. I think it is interesting that House has absolutely no relevance to current events. However, Law and Order does an amazing job of turn over - from something actually happening and when it appears in their show. I find this incredible. I also think that because it is related to what is going on it is easier for people to connect with - or there is less work involved. Just a quick side note that I wanted to say, connecting last weeks discussion with this weeks viewing of House, but that's all I have for now.
House - always the same old guy
Since I was asked to watch an episode of House for class this week, I was thinking I would address some things about this show that draw me in, but also that make me want to run in the other direction.
Now, directly pertaining to this episode, it's a little to dramatic for me. The patients relationship with her brother is heart wrenching, however, the relationship and interactions between Dr. House and her parents is unrealistic and actually disturbing. Throughout the episode he down plays the parents decision making, and is quite frankly flat out rude to them in several different scenes. I found this to be demeaning to House's character and it did not add to the story line, but instead made me less interested in the episode. This is not the only time I have felt this way, the last episode (on Monday) lacked in the category of medical drama, and seemed to revolve greatly around House and Cudi's love life, and more so there opinions on taking their relationship farther. I understand that there is a certain amount of insight that needs to be given about the doctors in order to make the narrative flow, and not simply be choppy from one medical plot to another. However, the appeal of this show has to do with the many doctors it involves, all of their intimate and social lives - not just House. These episodes seem to purely revolve around House as a character, instead of a part of the narrative.
I have watched every season, and I will say that this does not happen often. However, another thing I noticed is that this girl was not only the significant medical plot of the episode... she is the only one I remember. Usually there are several remarkable stories (if the episode is taking the common structure of this genre), but this was different. I think it has to do with the show revolving more around how House is around Cudi now - or how he treats people that are not his patient. This may have been an attempt to alter something about the show, you know what I have to say? Why change it if it works.
I find episodes like this discouraging, I think the majority of this comes from the expectations that carry over from previous seasons. The show itself though I think is very unique still, in that the "compassionate" doctor role doesn't really exist in full force. I say this because House is not compassionate in any way, shape, or form - and he over rules those who he works with. It is a medical drama with a very cynical twist - and I think that this sometimes adds humor, but often draws questions and (as we discussed in class) for the viewer to play a role in figuring out the story... especially with the many different twists and turns the cases always take.
Now, directly pertaining to this episode, it's a little to dramatic for me. The patients relationship with her brother is heart wrenching, however, the relationship and interactions between Dr. House and her parents is unrealistic and actually disturbing. Throughout the episode he down plays the parents decision making, and is quite frankly flat out rude to them in several different scenes. I found this to be demeaning to House's character and it did not add to the story line, but instead made me less interested in the episode. This is not the only time I have felt this way, the last episode (on Monday) lacked in the category of medical drama, and seemed to revolve greatly around House and Cudi's love life, and more so there opinions on taking their relationship farther. I understand that there is a certain amount of insight that needs to be given about the doctors in order to make the narrative flow, and not simply be choppy from one medical plot to another. However, the appeal of this show has to do with the many doctors it involves, all of their intimate and social lives - not just House. These episodes seem to purely revolve around House as a character, instead of a part of the narrative.
I have watched every season, and I will say that this does not happen often. However, another thing I noticed is that this girl was not only the significant medical plot of the episode... she is the only one I remember. Usually there are several remarkable stories (if the episode is taking the common structure of this genre), but this was different. I think it has to do with the show revolving more around how House is around Cudi now - or how he treats people that are not his patient. This may have been an attempt to alter something about the show, you know what I have to say? Why change it if it works.
I find episodes like this discouraging, I think the majority of this comes from the expectations that carry over from previous seasons. The show itself though I think is very unique still, in that the "compassionate" doctor role doesn't really exist in full force. I say this because House is not compassionate in any way, shape, or form - and he over rules those who he works with. It is a medical drama with a very cynical twist - and I think that this sometimes adds humor, but often draws questions and (as we discussed in class) for the viewer to play a role in figuring out the story... especially with the many different twists and turns the cases always take.
Monday, October 11, 2010
CSI?... or is it something else
I feel like I could continue talking about CSI forever. There are so many aspects of the genre, and the show specifically that challenge typical narratives and use a different style to lay out the story. The visuals of the show is what I think attracts viewers. There is an intensity about the show that is very different and appealing to the eye - the colors that are used signify different intensity, and thus become an important part of the development of the show. Sue Turnbull challenges the idea that I have presented in her "THE HOOK AND THE LOOK" by saying that there are elements of the show that are visually very similar to past films in the genre. The editing of the entire show, from scene to scene, adds a lot of effect to the show (well obviously). I say this because the way they frame aspects of the show, the lighting, the choice of setting all really add up to develop a more complex visual - but it also allows the viewer to become more absorbed into the narrative world. The complexity of the visual draws people in, this is an important factor, time consuming in the production process, but, very easily attractive to those of us watching on our televisions, computers, ipods, iphones, and many other things.
There is a very potent part of the narrative that strictly revolves around the crime and everything involved with that (interrogation, investigation, court) all revolving around the police job, and the police victim/suspect relationship. However, this is a very developed narrative that also draws us into the lives of the police officers, although I feel this is very brief it continues through multiple series, and thus connecting the dots allows us to connect and understand their lives outside of their responsibility to the public, and the importance of their jobs.
After reading Turnbull I want to address this idea of being similar to, copying, or relying on past productions to create the show. I disagree with what I read by her because I think that in any genre this is going to exist. You know, to me every time a new series is developed and released there will be parts of previous shows that exist. Now, this is not repetitive and it is not wrong, it potentially uses things that worked and adds to it in order to make the success even greater. Therefore, to me it seems silly to point out these issues, I think it is inevitable. Not only do I feel strongly about this, but I also feel that CSI has great appeal - each episode has new appeal, but each time I introduce someone to it they can follow what is happening because it is very episodic, and the characters themselves are only introduced on the surface.
I'm a fan, and always have been.
There is a very potent part of the narrative that strictly revolves around the crime and everything involved with that (interrogation, investigation, court) all revolving around the police job, and the police victim/suspect relationship. However, this is a very developed narrative that also draws us into the lives of the police officers, although I feel this is very brief it continues through multiple series, and thus connecting the dots allows us to connect and understand their lives outside of their responsibility to the public, and the importance of their jobs.
After reading Turnbull I want to address this idea of being similar to, copying, or relying on past productions to create the show. I disagree with what I read by her because I think that in any genre this is going to exist. You know, to me every time a new series is developed and released there will be parts of previous shows that exist. Now, this is not repetitive and it is not wrong, it potentially uses things that worked and adds to it in order to make the success even greater. Therefore, to me it seems silly to point out these issues, I think it is inevitable. Not only do I feel strongly about this, but I also feel that CSI has great appeal - each episode has new appeal, but each time I introduce someone to it they can follow what is happening because it is very episodic, and the characters themselves are only introduced on the surface.
I'm a fan, and always have been.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Inside the world of CSI
I really just want to take a brief moment to wrap up on my thoughts from my previous post. Maybe donate a few words to clarifying things that I said, and broaden on CSI as a whole. In class yesterday I feel that some of things that I hade previously mentioned were reemphasized - particularly the consistent structure of a cop show. Although there is a very specific structure this is another element that I would say can almost be related to our discussion about Lost. Now, obvioulsy these are very different types of series, but, I will say that they both create involvement for the viewers outside of the show. In CSI there is this constant change in who we think the criminal is, and this is the game, allowing us to work our minds and continuously try to path out which way the specific episode is going to end up.
There are usually several interegations, however each time we are placed in this room we find ourselves one step closer (or at least thats what we, as viewers assume). The episodes never revolve around just one plot. Not only is their the main crime, but also the lives/problems of the suspects, as well as the lives and problems of the officials who hold the power. It is also important to realize that there is always some sort of power and resistance - whether it be constant between characters in a show, or just in the specific episode. This is one example of how we see importance in plots of the show other than the victims, criminals, and interegations.
CSI is very distinct in how it invovles the viewer. The way show uses special effects... usually recreating the scene in a slow rewind model, it intrigues the viewer and recreates something to connect the entire investigation to.
Another interesting to me, that I had never thought about prior to yesterday was the actual narrative arc of the show. This is the thing that actually pulls us through the episode from beginning to end. Since this series is typically episodical I feel like narrative arc is very important - because each narrative has to come from a beginning to a close.
Another thing we brought up is the fact that there was a huge "star" on the show. Obviously viewers see this quite often, but I had never associated it to the first or last episode, or the times when the networks receive ratings. I think that it was a brilliant idea to bring in Justin Bieber because he has a very large following at this point - and it starts out the season in a way that he may come back. He did not add to the show for me, but I can say that a large group of people I know were very captivated by the fact that he made a debut. It was almost like, is he an actor... or is he performing to give more or different appeal to the show.
As S. Cohen says, "sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, the series interrogates what the science brings to the evidence table as the truths of a case so that justice may - or possibly may not - be well served" (31). The interrogation is simply a way for them to reinforce the "evidence" in the interrogation room.
Quote extracted from: S, Cohan. It's All about the Evidence.
There are usually several interegations, however each time we are placed in this room we find ourselves one step closer (or at least thats what we, as viewers assume). The episodes never revolve around just one plot. Not only is their the main crime, but also the lives/problems of the suspects, as well as the lives and problems of the officials who hold the power. It is also important to realize that there is always some sort of power and resistance - whether it be constant between characters in a show, or just in the specific episode. This is one example of how we see importance in plots of the show other than the victims, criminals, and interegations.
CSI is very distinct in how it invovles the viewer. The way show uses special effects... usually recreating the scene in a slow rewind model, it intrigues the viewer and recreates something to connect the entire investigation to.
Another interesting to me, that I had never thought about prior to yesterday was the actual narrative arc of the show. This is the thing that actually pulls us through the episode from beginning to end. Since this series is typically episodical I feel like narrative arc is very important - because each narrative has to come from a beginning to a close.
Another thing we brought up is the fact that there was a huge "star" on the show. Obviously viewers see this quite often, but I had never associated it to the first or last episode, or the times when the networks receive ratings. I think that it was a brilliant idea to bring in Justin Bieber because he has a very large following at this point - and it starts out the season in a way that he may come back. He did not add to the show for me, but I can say that a large group of people I know were very captivated by the fact that he made a debut. It was almost like, is he an actor... or is he performing to give more or different appeal to the show.
As S. Cohen says, "sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, the series interrogates what the science brings to the evidence table as the truths of a case so that justice may - or possibly may not - be well served" (31). The interrogation is simply a way for them to reinforce the "evidence" in the interrogation room.
Quote extracted from: S, Cohan. It's All about the Evidence.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Crime Scene Investigation
Okay, this topic is one of my favorites. This is a series that I have found intriguing since the very start. This genre is very interesting to me, no matter how similar the different series are. Every episode begins with the crime happening and the viewer seeing the victim, dead, in whatever setting that the investigation will take place. Then the show progresses through certain suspects (usually several being wrong) then the accomplishment of finding who is responsible for the death of the person and usually some sort of motive behind it. This supporting what Dobson says, that the three series stick to a very strict narrative sequence. This allows the show to be predictable in the aspect of how things are going to happen, and it seems to be that I can focus more on the actually content of the show because I know how it is supposed to work. This genre is fairly typical - and it attracts a very large audience, therefore there is almost promised success if all aspects are followed in the way the narrative is told.
Dobson also points out this idea of graphic realism. Not only does the story seem true, but the actual images also are very realistic. It is not at all about the characters doing the investigation, it is purely interest in the individual narrative from episode to episode. This I also think allows me to connect to the story, because I am not busy dealing with the drama on the sideline between characters.
The realism of the show is also what attracts the audience. The framework of the criminal receiving punishment after the crime has been committed brings closure as well as an ending to the episode. There tends to be no cliff hanger in these shows, and the "bad guy" is caught - unlike shows/movies in the horror genre that often leave the killer somewhere to come back.
In the article of CSI as Neoliberalism we see that even though the punishment and seeing of the victim is real, the actual seeing of the crime is not possible. The timing of the introduction of the show is what also attributed to its success - the niche it fit into really a place that needed devlopment and something new to attract viewers.
For me CSI is all about the action packed hour that envelopes me. There is no part of the show that is not interesting. From the quirkiness of certain characters, the relationships they have with one another (purely work), and the interest in going behind the scenes. I'm not sure what is more inriguing to me, the narrative story or the lay out of the crime and the solution of it. It is actually be far my favorite show, and I will say that the complexity of the crimes is interesting - the way they figure it out is also different than any other experience.
Dobson also points out this idea of graphic realism. Not only does the story seem true, but the actual images also are very realistic. It is not at all about the characters doing the investigation, it is purely interest in the individual narrative from episode to episode. This I also think allows me to connect to the story, because I am not busy dealing with the drama on the sideline between characters.
The realism of the show is also what attracts the audience. The framework of the criminal receiving punishment after the crime has been committed brings closure as well as an ending to the episode. There tends to be no cliff hanger in these shows, and the "bad guy" is caught - unlike shows/movies in the horror genre that often leave the killer somewhere to come back.
In the article of CSI as Neoliberalism we see that even though the punishment and seeing of the victim is real, the actual seeing of the crime is not possible. The timing of the introduction of the show is what also attributed to its success - the niche it fit into really a place that needed devlopment and something new to attract viewers.
For me CSI is all about the action packed hour that envelopes me. There is no part of the show that is not interesting. From the quirkiness of certain characters, the relationships they have with one another (purely work), and the interest in going behind the scenes. I'm not sure what is more inriguing to me, the narrative story or the lay out of the crime and the solution of it. It is actually be far my favorite show, and I will say that the complexity of the crimes is interesting - the way they figure it out is also different than any other experience.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)