Abu-Lughod said it best; "more than any other form of mass media...television brings a variety of vivid experiences of the non-local into the most local of situations, the home" (Abu-Lughod, 377). For over 50 years, televisions have brought stories from all across our world, and even fictitious worlds, into the homes and lives of countless people. All this availability to television has raised a few questions worth asking. Is there a need for censorship in television? And how does it affect the creativity of the people responsible for making the shows on television? Everyone is familiar with the beautiful actress, the handsome actor, the savvy producer, but who are the people who work to make these movies available to everyone? Is there work any more or less significant to the entire process?
Abu-Lughod talked about a popular Egyptian serial called "Hilmiyya Nights", which was a television series that followed the ups and downs of a normal Cairo neighborhood. The show started in the 1940's and went up into present day. It was extremely popular in Egypy, and was most closely related to the American Soap Opera. Abu-Lughod stated that Hilmiyya Nights promoted "national unity" because it was the first time the Egyptian people were able to easily relate with the show. The show's main objective was to give the country a modern history lesson, the good and the bad history. There were things such as war, drugs, and raids depicted in the show, and many politcal parties sought to censor some of the material from the public. Do these parties have the right to be doing this? I understand in American culture things like vulgar language and nudity are censored on national television, but it does not seem right to leave out key parts the history of a country just because some political parties don't want the public to be aware of what has gone on
Vicki Mayer introduced the notions of "producers as creatives" and "sponsoring selves". Mayer took a trip down to Manaus, Brazil, located in the heart of the Amazon, to meet with factory workers that assembled televisions. She met a very short woman named Terezinha, who worked at a technology company with technology rights for Mitsubishi Electric. She put all the electrical units into televisions and stated "I did everything that goes into the TV and gives it life" (Mayer, 35). She is paid at a much lower salary that the owners of the factory, but has more of a hands on responsibility to every television than most people at the company. There are so many people that are integral in the process of making and selling TVs and most of their hard work goes unseen.
Mayer's second article talked about the new age of reality TV casters and their jobs as workers who are "sponsors" in the new TV economy. Reality casters differ from regular TV casters, as Mayer states, because they need to distinguish between the performer and performance, and need to find something specific in each character. These reality shows have gained popularity mainly because it is supposed to show a real life interaction between people. Shows like "The Jersey Shore" are an example of this success because it gives the audience a sense of a different way people live their lives. But how "real" are these reality shows? One can argue about what is and what is not staged in these shows, but ultimately when you watch a reality show, you get a sense that you're not just watching something acted out, but that you are just watching how friends interact during their daily routine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think reality shows pose an interesting question on creativity. As defined by Joas, "creative actions [are] sanctioned as creative by society from those actions that are not" (Mayer, 32). In other words, the idea of creativity exists only in relation to banal, non-creative things and is determined as such by the masses. In the case of television, the masses determine if a show is innovative, but more importantly, if it is entertaining. Therefore, TV producers create shows with the masses in mind: how to keep the masses entertained; what they expect to see; what they don't expect to see; how much they are willing to take, etc. Ultimately, the masses do not want to see something so creative and unfamiliar that it takes more energy to absorb the show than just to mindlessly enjoy it. So just as the factory workers in Manaus have to find their own small versions of creativity on the assembly line, TV producers have to find their own ways to create something new while satisfying the masses.
As Abu-Lughod explains, the power of television is that it brings " a variety of vivid experiences of the non-local into the most local of situations, the home." (377). While reality television supposedly brings everyday life into light, what television needs to be successful is a vitality and liveliness that is greater than day-to-day life. Shows like "The Jersey Shore" or "The Hills" supposedly give us a peak into how another population lives, though it is apparent that these realities have be subject to producers' own "creative justice". While showing the more boring aspects of a celebrity's day may actually be more poignant and thought-provoking for viewers, people do not want to come home from a boring day at work to watch a celebrity having his or her own boring day. We want to believe that their lives are better and more entertaining than our own. Television, like the assembly line, has its own limitations that we all must work with in. Producers must balance their desire for success with their desire for creativity with the desires of the masses. Likewise, the masses must accept that, in order to be entertained, their reality shows may need to be somewhat staged and glamorized. I think an interesting question here is if we are beginning to expect a different level of glamour and drama in our own realities as a result of being so habituated to the drama of tv "realities".
The concepts of creativity and censorship in television were common threads in the articles this week. ‘Ukasha’s popular Egyptian serial, Hilmiyya Nights, “sought to teach and enlighten” Egyptian citizens, especially the poor believed to be uncultured and outside the urban centers. While the series was compared to the American soap opera in its utilization of “the spectacle” and stock characters such as the femme fatale, it was also unique in that it provided an “explicit social and political commentary on contemporary Egyptian life.” The depiction of a Nasserist viewpoint and the implicit anti-Sadatist framing of events in the serial led to much criticism and attempted censorship by the government. And yet, many sympathizers argued for the brilliance of ‘Ukasha’s serial, as a “superb artistic achievement” rather than a “political tract.” ‘Ukasha fought the censors who desired to protect the citizens from politically, morally and religiously offensive comment by requiring cuts and commenting on the screenplay. Many of the cuts were overridden, however the idea of censorship and its place in undermining the creativity of serial writers and producers is important.
The idea of censorship of creativity came up again in Vicki Mayer’s first article on “Producers as Creatives.” Below-the-line workers in Manaus, Brazil, expressed the different ways in which they transformed the monotonous assembly line work they performed in television set production factories. While managers and supervisors permitted “sanctioned creativity,” creative acts that fell within the confines of the factory dynamic and did not subvert authority or common practices, those acts such as singing, talking, chewing candies, and speaking up about improvements not in line with superiors’ desires, were deemed unsanctioned and even subversive. These creative acts often came with high risks and punishments such as expulsion and blacklisting. Here, not the producers of television serials, but producers of television sets themselves were censored in the amount of “creativity” they could exhibit on the line. Interestingly enough, the workers themselves did not use the vocabulary of creativity, and did not see their actions as such, even though Mayer interpreted them in this way.
In her second article, “Sponsoring Selves,” Mayer discussed the role of reality television show casters in the commodification and reification of casts, and their existence as the new “sponsors” of television programs. While the casters had an amount of autonomy in scouting and recruiting potential cast members for their shows, they were ultimately beholden to the “EPs” who would write and direct the final show. Thus they engaged in the dance of forming relationships with potential cast members while simultaneously representing cast members as objects and “selling” them to the producers in order to remain valuable and employed. The gendered nature of this work was interesting too, as it called to mind the gendered nature of the assembly line work in the first article. Both jobs were feminized and certain characteristics: meticulousness, agility, compassion, were sought and deemed “essentially female” in both caster and line positions.
Overall, the articles distinguished a variety of positions in the hierarchy of television production and illuminated the degrees of creativity allowed and enacted in each, as well as the anxieties and criticisms faced by casters, line workers, and producers alike.
-Sarah Schulman
The concepts of creativity and censorship in television were common threads in the articles this week. ‘Ukasha’s popular Egyptian serial, Hilmiyya Nights, “sought to teach and enlighten” Egyptian citizens, especially the poor believed to be uncultured and outside the urban centers. While the series was compared to the American soap opera in its utilization of “the spectacle” and stock characters such as the femme fatale, it was also unique in that it provided an “explicit social and political commentary on contemporary Egyptian life.” The depiction of a Nasserist viewpoint and the implicit anti-Sadatist framing of events in the serial led to much criticism and attempted censorship by the government. And yet, many sympathizers argued for the brilliance of ‘Ukasha’s serial, as a “superb artistic achievement” rather than a “political tract.” ‘Ukasha fought the censors who desired to protect the citizens from politically, morally and religiously offensive content by requiring cuts and commenting on the screenplay. Many of the cuts were overridden, however the idea of censorship and its place in undermining the creativity of serial writers and producers is important.
The idea of censorship of creativity came up again in Vicki Mayer’s first article on “Producers as Creatives.” Below-the-line workers in Manaus, Brazil, expressed the different ways in which they transformed the monotonous assembly line work they performed in television set production factories. While managers and supervisors permitted “sanctioned creativity,” creative acts that fell within the confines of the factory dynamic and did not subvert authority or common practices, those acts such as singing, talking, chewing candies, and speaking up about improvements not in line with superiors’ desires, were deemed unsanctioned and even subversive. These creative acts often came with high risks and punishments such as expulsion and blacklisting. Here, not the producers of television serials, but producers of television sets themselves were censored in the amount of “creativity” they could exhibit on the line. Interestingly enough, the workers themselves did not use the vocabulary of creativity, and did not see their actions as such, even though Mayer interpreted them in this way.
In her second article, “Sponsoring Selves,” Mayer discussed the role of reality television show casters in the commodification and reification of casts, and their existence as the new “sponsors” of television programs. While the casters had an amount of autonomy in scouting and recruiting potential cast members for their shows, they were ultimately beholden to the “EPs” who would write and direct the final show. Thus they engaged in the dance of forming relationships with potential cast members while simultaneously representing cast members as objects and “selling” them to the producers in order to remain valuable and employed. The gendered nature of this work was interesting too, as it called to mind the gendered nature of the assembly line work in the first article. Both jobs were feminized and certain characteristics: meticulousness, agility, compassion, were sought and deemed “essentially female” in both caster and line positions.
How does this idea of gendered work play into the hierarchy we see in the television industry? How is class a factor as well, and in reading these articles how has your perception of reality t.v casts and television serials changed?
Is censorship of creativity, although potentially stifling, important in keeping order and efficiency in a nation and a factory? Is censorship of creativity more, less, or equally inhibiting for producers of serials than for producers of sets?
-Sarah Schulman
In response to what Sarah said, the role of pro-feministic attitude in "Hilmiyya Nights" from Abu-Lughod's article undoubtedly played a role in its widespread success. Defying traditional roles and cultural values associated with women, two of the main characters are successful female college graduates and another is even a heroin addict (385). Censorship would have undoubtedly muted some of the positive social messages that resulted in the widespread critical acclaim of this show, but Abu-Lughod does not hesitate to point out the political tension raised by the article amongst the various newspapers and poltical parties present in Egypt. From a deontological standpoint, it follows that the social message being conveyed and the resulting increased societal freedom of women is worth the cost of minor backlash politically. Contrarily, from a traditionalist, religious standpoint the advent of this television show would have caused great unrest. This is particularly true due to the fact that Egypt is a predominantly Muslim country and that the Egyptian constitution declares Islam as the official religion. In Islamic societies, there exists a complex relationship between women and their religion. Overall, women tend (depending upon specific beliefs) to acquire more submissive roles than men- seeing women on "Hilmiyya Nights" defy these dictated roles of normality could be the same phenomena we see today when we watch unusual families in shows such as "Wife Swap" (from our discussion in class). If this is the case, the causes for the show's popularity suggested by Abu-Lughod could be rewritten to include the human tendency to be fascinated by abnormality.
I find that this point, the point that we tend to be fascinated by the juxtaposition between normality and abnormality, is extremely pertinent to Mayer's second article on the production and creation of reality television. Whilst reading, I found it ironic that the very job of the Reality Casters discussed in the article is to find an actor who can convey a realistic scene whilst simultaneously maintaining enough distance from normality that the audience does not cease to pay attention. The casters require stories to be told "visually expressive ways" (117) to maintain this attention, something that is not necessarily true of our everyday life that we may consider 'actual' reality. Casters "talked about needing a character with a 'twist' or a 'difference'", which helps expose this fundamental, fascinating paradox of reality TV- many enjoy watching it because it allows them to see someone 'different' from themselves and most other people (much like an anthropologist enjoys making the familiar unfamiliar). This is not to say I would remotely make the argument that reality television resembles ethnography, but this appears to fascinatingly be the pseudo-goal of the caster casting to feign diversity (117).
Reading the lead blog posts, initial responses, and selections for this week made me think of the ways in which a reality television obsession is a natural development. While Abu-Lughod discussed primarily soap operas, she alluded to a common thread between American and Egyptian television. She writes, “What makes Hilmiyya Nights seem most like American prime-time soaps is that it partakes of the element of spectacle. The costumes are lavish, the sets sumptuous, and at least some of the women characters extravagantly glamorous and fashionable” (Abu-Lughod, 380). I completely agree with this. As Rachel said in her post, “TV producers create shows with the masses in mind: how to keep the masses entertained; what they expect to see; what they don’t expect to see; how much they are willing to take, etc. Ultimately the masses do not want to see something so creative and unfamiliar that it takes more energy to absorb the show than just to mindlessly enjoy it.” It seems current American reality television is the perfect mix between these two points. Reality shows often feature the lives of the relatively rich and famous. The entire “Real Housewives” franchise is predicated on “the spectacle” of people so seemingly close to us, we imagine it actually could be us. As Mayer explains, “reality casters’ work mirrors that of television sponsors, in that reality casters seek potential talent as a commodity” (110). Perhaps these reality television shows thrive because at the same time the viewer is attracted to the spectacle, they believe they could be the potential talent too.
In other words, as Ian suggested, flirting with the line between normality and abnormality explains precisely the success of reality television. The next step in television is not, as Abu-Lughod suggests, bringing “vivid experiences of the non-local into the most local of situations, the home” (377); however, it is bringing local experiences of others into one’s own home. This could be considered the natural progression of television – maybe reality television is not an ethnographic source, but the trends within our society can show a lot about our culture.
In looking at what John said, I like the quote that he expressed by Abu-Lughod saying that television does bring a variety of experiences directly into peoples homes across the world. Its interesting to look at everything that goes into these television shows and movies behind the scenes. Sure, all the actors are going to get recognized, but the people that actually bring these shows into peoples homes is everyone working on the program except for these stars.
The story displayed by Vicki Mayer is an interesting one, talking to the lady and how she really believes that when she puts these mitsubishi televisions together, she is giving them life and is in fact responsible for bringing televisions to homes.
Reality shows, as John said are interesting to look at and are surprisingly popular in most cases because people can relate and it is supposed to be "real life" situations and events that occur. I believe that most of these reality televisions shows are in fact staged in some way or another with each event, but at the same time I continue to watch them and enjoy them alot more than I feel I should.
The creativity of television and its shows was talked about alot in the articles this week. I believe the whole idea of creativity is not exactly how creative it is but is how entertaining it is to the public. If a television show is entertaining and gets a lot of viewers each time it is on, it would be deemed creative.
Going off of Jillian’s post, I was curious about the connection between creativity and the presentation of “reality” within reality television.
There is no formulaic method to creativity and television programming success. Mayer explores this in the second article about reality television. Struggling to find a respected role in the television industry, reality television programmers search for the “commodity” that viewers seek when they turn on the television. Ultimately, casters have to understand people: they have to understand the auditioners and they have to understand the audience. To “understand” them, casters must objectively grasp auditioners’ personalities and foresee interactions between them and the audience. As the past blog post said, the creativity lies in the programmers ability to chose the characters which will portray the circumstances in a foreign, yet approachable and vulnerable way. In Hilmiyya Nights, the writers chose a variety of characters to do so: “Not only do we have at
the centre of the drama a femme fatale who is also a crafty and financially ruthless
aristocrat turned businesswoman, but also the long-suffering and moral wives and
mothers of key male figures, the educated daughters of rich and poor pursuing
professional careers while trying to manage love lives, and the odd belly-dancer.” Viewers could find at least one character that they mainly identify with, while still “experiencing” a variety of characters that they do not identify with. In casting, the creativity lies in a producer’s ability to visualize their goals and mobilize (human) resources to accomplish them.
On a different note, without the literal production of televisions, the “reality” of reality television which we grapple with would not exist. In the first article, “Producers as Creatives,” Mayer discussed the material and social environments that foster creativity. As exemplified by the workers’ tactics for increasing production and surviving the days, mandane, resource-limited tasks can yield creative results. Additionally, social conditions, such as the suppression of individual expression, create motivation to improve circumstances and instill a sense of pride in those that succeed in doing so. I found this applicable to the workers at the “higher” end of the television production spectrum. That is, even television shows with the best, most famous actors, producers, and seemingly limitless resources seem to fail, while (rarely) television shows with no-name actors and inspired producers are able to succeed and find their niche. Through adversity, creativity becomes a means of survival.
I would like to expand on Ian’s analysis of the role of women in “Hilmiyya Nights” in the context of the Egyptian societal attitudes towards woman as well as the climate of state censorship against subversive material, even with the relative freedom of the press that had existed under Mubarack. As Ian mentions, Egypt is a predominantly Msulim country, and the government (as well as the censors) tend to hold rather conservative views regarding gender roles (although not to the extent of countries such as Saudi Arabia or Yemen). There is a general expectation for women to be submissive to men, and it is unusual for a woman to marry many men over the course of her life. Abu-Lughod notes that television “[gave] women, the young, and the rural as much access as urban men” to stories and idea from the outside world, and perhaps as a result of this increased access, Egyptian serials began to target the female demographic more aggressively with female characters that were strong-willed and defiant of the system that was in place. Interestingly, the two strong female characters pointed out by Abu-Lughod both fell from grace after their rebellious attitude, but the author states that “None of the poor women who admired Nazik or the dancer ever mentioned the moral lesson of the fall; rather, they seemed to take vicarious pleasure in these women's defiance of the moral system that keeps good women quiet.” The viewers were selective in their appreciation of the messages of these television dramas.
Do you believe that by operating in an environment where content that was deemed morally or politically offensive could be censored, the producers of these types of media which are directed towards a demographic without a great deal of political power (women) would abide by the mores of the culture just enough to not get censored, but not enough to dampen the subversive message that it carries? When serials like Hilmiyya Nights promote lifestyles and behavior that censors would find objectionable, do the consumers often appreciate the context in which the media is produced and abstract from the censored product the core of what the producer was trying to say?
Post a Comment