** The state of Television ! ** Your Views
Well, at the risk of ranting…
In the US, there has been a lot of consternation (at least when election time rolls around) regarding explicitness in TV, movies, music and video games. Most of this has been directed at violent material, since there’s already a Puritanical bent in US society against sexuality. Seems that people keep insisting that whatever other people see on television, they’re going to run out and imitate. While it’s true that there’s not a lot of entertainment out there that shows the results of violence — the emotional turmoil it causes, the devestating effect it can have on people’s lives, etc. — I think it’s an oversimplification to say that the depiction of explicit violence or explicit sex necessarily propels others to act in similar fashions. There are weak-minded people out there that would take their inspiration to commit heinous acts from *any* source, whether it’s a TV program, a rap album, the Bible, or their neighbor’s dog commanding them to kill. We in the West are, and always have been, pretty crazy folks, and just need any excuse that’s handy to go off the rails and wipe out a McDonalds full of customers, for example. Plus, as Frank Zappa so correctly pointed out during the whole PMRC hearings debacle, There are more love songs than any other kind of song out there. So why don’t we all love each other, if media affects us as pronouncedly as various “moral guardians” would like us to believe?
So, with that in mind, the only thing that should be considered inasmuch as the relative explicitness of any program would be whether or not someone would find it personally distasteful. And that’s not a good enough reason to tone down entertainment. What one person finds distasteful or offensive is perfectly acceptable to another, so it’s pointless to try and second-guess the tastes of anyone. If people don’t like something, or find it too over-the-top for their tastes, they shouldn’t watch it, they shouldn’t read it, and they shouldn’t listen to it. If a significant enough number of people are not watching a program, then it will go under. Simple as that. If programs that are more explicit succeed in the marketplace, this type of programming should be encouraged, but strict attention should be paid to what makes these programs *work*. Is it the explicitness of the content or is it what surrounds the graphic sex and/or violence? The programming on HBO is, for the most part, extremely realistic in its presentation of sexual and violent acts, and doesn’t shy away from showing the full deal. [i]Sex and the City, The Sopranos, Oz [/i] and [i]Six Feet Under[/i] — just to take the Sunday night line-up — deal with sex and violence in honest, open, and real ways. And they’ve succeeded, in part, by not playing down to their audience. They trust that the audience is intelligent enough to understand the content and its context. Their storylines are morally ambiguous and not “preachy” (as opposed to other entertainments that may offer you some nudity or violence, then make sure that you feel as guilty as possible for looking at it), and let the viewer decide for him or herself how to feel about things.
Now, I’m not saying that everything should be as realistic or meaningful as possible. There’s more than enough room at the table for mindless yocks as well. There’s room for all approaches, whether the aim is high or low, in any genre of television programming, and the *last* thing on anyone’s mind should be whether or not it’s going to offend folks out in the sticks. The question should, instead, be “does it work in context, or are we just showing people screwing for the sheer sake of showing people screwing?” If this is considered, there will always be programming for those who find graphic displays of sex or violence offensive, and programming for those who don’t.
–Aleck
[ 27-08-2002: Message edited by: Aleck ]