"Everything popular is wrong." Oscar Wilde
There is a school of thought that anything that is popular cannot possibly be good. Such individuals maintain that anything created for the masses must be inferior by its very nature. Quite simply, "popular" culture (movies, television, comic books, popular music, et. al.) must be of a lesser quality than "high" culture (the stage, ballet, painting, and so on).
Of course, what these critics often ignore is the fact that much of what is counted as high culture is also a part of popular culture. The Dukes of Hazzard, a prime example of low culture if there ever was one, is a part of popular culture, but then so is the art of Picasso, a prime example of high culture. In my mind, popular culture is simply those artistic works which are well known and appreciated by a large number of the population.
Although it is not as prevalent today, this line of thought is still relatively common. For all that it is now taught and studied at universities, television is still not thought of as a form of art by many. It took the cinema decades after its development before it was accepted that a film could be a work of art, and even then there are those who would maintain that the cinema does not qualify as art. Such cultural elitism is still very much a part of our society.
Indeed, as popular culture continued to grow in both quantity and influence in the 20th century, there were those intellectuals who felt the need to strike back. In a 1939 issue of the Partisan Review, in his essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch," art critic Clement Greenberg differentiated between the avant-garde and kitsch. For Greenberg the avant-garde (which for him included Picasso, Rimbaud, and Yeats) was revolutionary, while kitsch (which for him included commercial art, pulp fiction, comics, and Hollywood movies) was "vicarious experience and faked sensations." Writing later, in 1960, in his essay "Masscult and Midcult," also published in the Partisan Review, writer and philosopher Dwight MacDonald differentiated between masscult or "mass culture" (culture as relayed through mass media) and high culture. He maintained that masscult "...offers its customers neither an emotional catharsis nor an aesthetic experience..." He also claimed that masscult "...doesn't even have the theoretical possibility of being good." It must be pointed out that MacDonald was not completely opposed to popular culture; he thought of Charlie Chaplin and Rodgers and Hart's works as "high culture."
Not all intellectuals believed that popular culture was necessarily evil. In the Februrary 1949 issue of Harpers, art historian and social critic Russell Lynes took a definite stand against the culture elite or "snobs." Writing only four years later than MacDonald and in the very same publication (the Partisan Review), in 1964 Susan Sontag placed Greenberg's kitsch on a pedestal in her article "Notes on 'Camp.'" She attacked the cultural elite, maintaining that "The man who insists on high and serious pleasures is depriving himself of pleasure..." Sontag's essay was a timely one. It was in the Sixties that pop culture gained a modicum of acceptance, in the art of Andy Warhol and the works of Jules Feiffer. In 1969 the Popular Culture Association, an organisation of academics dedicated to the serious study of pop culture such as comics, movies, and music, was founded. It is to be noted that since the Sixties, the serious study of television, comic books, popular magazines, and other pop culture artefacts has gained a foothold at major universities.
There can be no doubt that to some degree or another critics such as Greenberg and MacDonald are right. Much, perhaps most, of what is created for enjoyment by the masses is inferior in nature. I do not think that anyone is going to argue that the above cited Dukes of Hazzard is a work of art any time soon. That having been said, the idea that everything created for the masses cannot possibly be good (to paraphrase MacDonald) holds little merit, as I can think of examples of works that were created for the masses that are now regarded as classics.
While MacDonald argued in Masscult and Midcult" that mass culture was a phenomenon primarily of the past 200 years, I would maintain that it has probably existed in some form since the invention of the printing press. Indeed, if we need look for an early example of a mass culture artist, there is probably no better candidate than the works of William Shakespeare. Although now regarded as part of high culture, Shakespeare's works began as a part of pop culture and are still a part of it. While I have little doubt that Shakespeare set out to write the best possible plays he could, I rather suspect that the primary reason for writing them was as a form of mass entertainment. Indeed, William Shakespeare was not below giving in to popular tastes and even writing for specific tastes. It is to be noted that Shakespeare turned Richard III into a base villain, which had been the Tudors' stance since they took power. It is also to be noted that he wrote The Merry Wives of Windsor at the request of Elizabeth I, who was a huge fan of the character of Falstaff. That Shakespeare was popular there can be no doubt. His plays were first printed during his lifetime (the First Folio dates to 1623). Despite his popularity and while he received a good amount of praise during his lifetime, Shakespeare was not revered as the monolithic playwright par excellence as he is now. And his reputation shrank in the 17th century when he was considered inferior to such playwrights as Ben Johnson and John Fletcher. It wasn't really until the 18th century that his repuatation began to recover. Shakespeare is a prime example of someone whose work was part of pop culture and remained part of pop culture while becoming a part of high culture. It would be ludicrous to think that Shakespeare's plays somehow increased in quality following his death. Instead it seems more likely that as time passed, critics and the masses both realised just how good the Bard really was.
A better example of works that have come to be regarded as classics even though they were created for mass consumption may be found in the arena of cinema. Just like the summer blockbusters of today, Universal's 1931 movie Frankenstein was created to appeal to the masses and to make money doing it. While there can be little doubt that director James Whale had artistic intentions for the film and set out to make the best film he possibly could under the circumstances (even on Frankenstein Whale had his share of studio interference), there can be little doubt that Universal meant for the film to be a money maker (a blockbuster in today's term) first and any artistic pretensions were definitely secondary, if not tertiary. Universal achieved their goal of making money on the film with a vengeance. Frankenstein was the Star Wars of its day. There were often queues of people stretching around city blocks to see the movie. In its first release it made $12,000,000. That might not sound like much now, but accounting for inflation it would be around $400,000,000 in today's dollars. Frankenstein was not hailed as a masterpiece upon its release in 1931, although it did receive some favourable reviews. It was not even nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture of 1930-1931 (which went to Cimarron, a forgotten movie which has not aged well at all). And yet, over 75 years after it was made, James Whale's Frankestein is counted among the greatest movies of all time. It has even been included in the National Film Registry as a movie which is "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant."
Another example is another horror movie from the Thirties. The original 1933 film King Kong was, like Frankenstein, a blockbuster in its day. It did an enormous amount of box office; in fact, it had the biggest opening of its time. While director Merian C. Cooper was a documentarian who had made such movies as Grass and Chang, his goal with King Kong was not to educate, but to entertain. While I have no doubt that Cooper set out to make the best possible movie he could with King Kong, I very seriously doubt that he thought it would be hailed as a cinematic masterpiece upon its release. And it was not. While overall King Kong received glowing reviews, no one declared it anything more than a good adventure movie or a good horror film. Yet, over the years, it has become considered one of the greatest movies of all time. In the American Film Institute's 2007 edition of their 100 Years… 100 Movies, it ranked at #41. Time Magazine included it in their "All-Time100 best movies" list. It became part of the National Film Registry in 1991. For a movie that was initially a blockbuster in its day and counted merely as a good adventure yarn, that is doing very well indeed.
As one last example of something popular which has gone on to be regarded as classic I turn my view to the world of music. When The Beatles first emerged in Liverpool and later when they set foot in America, they were regarded as a phenomenally popular band, but one that played pop music nonetheless. Intellectuals were not declaring their music the greatest of all time, nor where comparisons to Bach and Beethoven in the offing. Many thought that they would simply be a flash in the pan, popular for a brief time, only to be forgotten a year or two later. Even as their career continued and it became clear just how revolutionary their music was, The Beatles were regularly snubbed at the Grammy Awards; ultimately The Beatles won only a small clutch of Grammies, some of them for technical categories such as Best Album Cover/Package and Best Engineered (Non-Classical) Recording. Over the years, however, The Beatles' reputation has grown. In fact, today their music is studied at universities across the world. Even today, when many in the intellectual elite would be loath to credit rock music as art, The Beatles have gained some degree of acceptance among them.
Ultimately, it would seem that works created for the masses are capable of ascending their origins to become true works of art. Contrary to the claims of both Greenberg and MacDonald, it would seem that some works of mass culture are capable of evoking emotional responses from individuals and, even further, of providing an aesthetic experience for them. It is doubtful that the works of Shakespeare, Frankenstein, King Kong, and the music of The Beatles would be so highly regarded today if they were not genuine works of art. Quite simply, neither the means of production nor the medium in which a work is produced determines whether it is a work of art, but rather the quality with which it was made.
Indeed, I would say that what can make a difference between a work of art like the 1931 version of Frankenstein and mere Hollywood product like The Dukes of Hazard are two factors. The first is the intent with which a work was made. There can be little doubt that John Lennon and Paul McCartney did not write their songs simply to make money, nor does it seem they wrote them simply for the enjoyment of the masses. Rather, it seems to me that The Beatles had true artistic aspirations. Why else would they have experimented with recording and even demanded of producer Sir George Martin the creation of sounds that had never been heard before? Quite simply, it was not enough to create songs that were pleasing to the masses, The Beatles sought to create songs that would last for ages.
Even when the intent of an artist is not necessarily to create a masterpiece, their work can still ascend from the status of mere product to a work of art. With Night of the Living Dead, George Romero did not set out to make a film that would be regarded as a horror classic. Romero and his crew's goal was to simply make a commercial film that would at least earn back its budget and with any luck make a profit. While he wanted Night of the Living Dead to be a good movie, he had no aspirations of it being a work of art. In fact, he has said that at the time he was not an auteur, but merely a student or apprentice who stole what would work for him (from an interview in Hollywood Gothique). He even admits to taking inspiration from Richard Matheson's classic novel, I Am Legend. Indeed, upon its release the film received mixed reviews, some of them downright hostile (Vincent Canby of The New York Times called it a "...junk movie..," while Pauline Kael praised it). Yet today Night of the Living Dead is considered one of the greatest horror movies of all time. It became part of the National Film Registry in 1999, and was ranked at #93 in the American Film Institute's AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills list. In VH1's "50 Greatest Horror Movies" list from 2006 Night of the Living Dead came in at #2. What made Night of the Living Dead one of the greatest horror movies of all time was the work that Romero and his crew put into it. Even if Romero was only learning as a filmmaker and borrowing much of what he needed from other sources, he still sought to make the best movie that he possibly could. This is what sets Night of the Living Dead from mere exploitation movies made simply for a profit and even Hollywood blockbusters simply made for the same reason. Night of the Living Dead was made with loving care, and it shows.
Ultimately, there may always be those who turn their noses up at popular movies, books, music, and so on, even when they are of a higher quality than most. I suppose that there will always be those who insist that the stage is better than the cinema and that Picasso is better than Norman Rockwell. In the end, however, it is time that will determine victor. After all, the art film which critics praise today may be forgotten 75 years from now, while the latest Hollywood blockbuster may be remembered as a classic. It seems to me that ultimately it is not the source or even necessarily the intent with which a work is made, but the hard work, diligence, care, and talent it takes to make it. In the end, much of pop culture can be every bit as good as that of high culture.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The New Fall TV Season
As hard as it is to believe, it will soon be September. And among other things, September means the start of a new TV season. At least to me this coming fall TV season seems better than most, although it does seem to me that the networks are still debuting a lot of shows that I simply am not interested in. Starting with the youngest network (the CW) and going to the oldest, then, this is my opinion of some of each network's offerings.
The CW: It seems to me that the CW has been determined to prove to all of us that the merger of UPN and the WB was a grave mistake. Never mind that they have cancelled their two best shows (Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars), but they haven't debuted too much of interest since the merger took place. This season is no different. In fact, I think that the fledgeling network is still a bit too dependent on reality shows, competition shows, and similar TV series. As proof, just look at the reality/competition shows they'll be airing this season, both old, returning shows and brand new ones: America's Next Top Model. Beauty and the Geek (which should be titled Beauty and the Nerd--see my post on the topic), Crowned, and Online Nation. For those of you who don't know, Crowned and Online Nation are the two newcomers. Crowned is a mother/daughter beauty competition (think Miss America--the Series). As such, it hold little interest to me. I rather suspect that it will be the same for other viewers. After all, we have seen just a bit too many competition type shows the past several years. As to Online Nation, it features the latest videos from the World Wide Web each week. Honestly, I just can't see how a show can succeed showing what anyone can simply find on YouTube, IFilm, or any number of other web sites.
As to the CW's other new shows, there aren't too many that spark my interest. As a genre show Reaper stands out. The show centres on a young man who finds out upon turning 21 that his parents sold his soul to the Devil when he was still an infant. As a result he must serve as a bounty hunter tracking down souls who have escaped from Hell. I must admit the show sounds a bit derivative--Brimstone meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But it was created by two veterans of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. What is more, the pilot was directed by a fellow named Kevin Smith. Reaper could then be worth checking out. The only other CW show which interests me at all is Life is Wild. Life is Wild follows an American veterinarian and his family who move to a South African game preserve. It is based on the British show Wild at Heart, although both the British series and its new, American remake remind me of a show I loved as a kid called Daktari. Its creators have interesting resumes as well. Among them they've worked on the original British show, Wild at Heart and the movie Mansfield Park. It's difficult to call, but I'd at least say that Life is Wild has possibilities.
Fox: As usual, Fox is debuting a few new sitcoms which they will probably cancel within a month after the new fall season has started. As to shows that actually have a chance to last a bit longer, they seem largely derivative. Among these is Nashville, yet another reality series. Nashville follows a group of young people as they try to climb the ladder of both the country music industry and high society. Honestly, the show does not sound that interesting to me. The same can be said for another reality series, Kitchen Nightmares. The show follows chef Gordon Ramsay from Hell's Kitchen as he visits another problematic restaurant each week. Quite frankly, this sounds like something that should be on TLC, A&E, or another cable channel instead of a broadcast network. I honestly don't see it lasting.
As bad as Nashville and Kitchen Nightmares sound, they don't sound as bad as Don't Forget the Lyrics. It is a game show on which people must remember the lyrics to songs. Sound familiar? It should, as it's the same premise as NBC's summertime hit The Singing Bee. Knowing how long it takes to develop series, I know it is probably not a ripoff of The Singing Bee, but the premise is so similar that it is probably doomed to failure.
This isn't to say that Fox doesn't have some interesting shows. K-Ville is a police drama following officers in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, created by NYPD Blue veteran Jonathan Lisco. There hasn't been a good police drama on television for some time beyond The Shield (police procedurals don't count), so K-Ville could be interesting. Another show that could turn out to be good is The Next Great American Band, from the producers of American Idol. This series is essentially American Idol, but focusing on bands instead of solo singers. Depending on the bands who are competing and how they execute it, this show does have possibilities. Sadly, the only other new show which interests me on Fox has been pushed back from a fall premiere to debuting at mid-season. New Amsterdam follows a New York homicide detective who also happens to be immortal (he started out as a soldier in the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam). It was created by a veteran of both Six Feet Under and Lost, so the series has possibilities.
ABC: I really don't know which is worse--the fact that ABC's programmers granted Grey's Anatomy yet another season or the fact that they greenlighted a spinoff from the series, Private Practice. Given the quality of Grey's Anatomy, I have no real faith in its spinoff either. That having been said, Cashmere Mafia could be nearly as bad as Private Practice might be. The show follows female executives in New York City as they juggle their lives with their careers. If it sounds a bit like Sex in the City, keep in mind that show's creator Darren Star numbers among the executive producers of Cashmere Mafia. As to the creator of Cashmere Mafia, Kevin Wade's resume does not inspire a lot of confidence in me. While he was one of the writers on Meet Joe Black, a movie I've always liked, he has also worked on Mr. Baseball, Junior, and Maid in Manhattan, movies I don't like. Between Darren Star and Kevin Wade's credits, I suspect Cashmere Mafia may not have the highest quality for a TV show.
Fortunately, ABC's other newcomers show a bit more promise, although I must admit that I have mixed feelings about Women's Murder Club. It is based on a series of books by James Patterson (one of my favourite authors), following an assistant district attorney, a homicide detective, a medical examiner, and a newspaper reporter (all of them women) as they investigate crimes in San Francisco. The show's creators Sarah Fain and Elizabeth Craft have written for both The Shield and Angel. Ultimately, Women's Murder Club is a combination police procedural and legal drama, two genres with which network television have been glutted of late. No matter how good the scripts are, I am then afraid that Women's Murder Club might come off as more of the same thing we've seen on television for the last several years.
Big Shots follows the life of a CEO, which doesn't sound particularly interesting, but it was created by Jon Harmon Feldman, who also created Tru Calling (a show I always liked) and a veteran (as co-producer) of The Wonder Years. Big Shots then has some potential. I have rather more hope for Pushing Daisies. The show follows a man who can bring things back to life with but a touch (if he touches them again, they go back to being dead). Besides having an interesting premise, Pushing Daisies is the creation of Bryan Fuller, a veteran of Heroes, Wonderfalls, and the Star Trek franchise. What's more, critics who have seen the pilot having given it good marks. This could possibly be the best show of the new season.
Another contender for best new series could be Dirty Sexy Money. The show was created by playwright Craig Wright, who has also worked on Six Feet Under and Lost. Among the show's producers number X-Men director Bryan Singer, who is also a producer on House (the best show on network television besides Lost). Dirty Sexy Money has an interesting premise: a young, earnest lawyer is hired by one of New York's richest and, unfortunately, most corrupt families. As a dramedy, it definitely has possibilities.
ABC also has the only new sitcom which interests me this season. Cavemen is a spinoff of those Geico commercials featuring, well, cavemen. It follows the adventures of a group of Neanderthals who simply failed to evolve as they struggle with modern society. The premise sounds interesting--it is the sort of goofy concept that television would have come up with in the Sixties. Unfortunately, it is also a concept that could go either way. Cavemen could be uproariously hilarious. It could also be dismally bad. It is definitely a show that falls in the "wait and see" category.
CBS: There was a time when CBS deserved its reputation as the Tiffany Network. Sadly, this coming season is not one of them. In fact, this fall the network is debuting what could possibly be one of the most offensive shows of all time: Lord of the Flies--the Series, I mean, Kid Nation. The show has already received its fair share of bad press. CBS has been accused of bending child labour laws in New Mexico to make the series. Some children accidentally drank bleach. A mother has complained that her daughter was left untreated for burns from splattered grease. I'll admit that I have never cared for reality shows, but this one just reeks of irresponsibility. Indeed, I imagine William S. Paley is spinning in his grave.
Fortunately, Kid Nation seems to be only truly offensive show on CBS this season. The worst that can be said of the network's other new shows is that many of them are rather lacklustre. Viva Laughlin is a musical dramedy based on the BBC serial Blackpool. The men who adapted it for the American screen Bob Lowry and Peter Bowker boast no credits of note, and its only executive producer of note is actor Hugh Jackman. In the past musical dramas have not faired well on television (anyone remember Cop Rock?) and the credits of the show's producers do not inspire any real faith in me. I am guessing that Viva Laughlin could see an early cancellation.
Cane shows a bit more promise. It essentially follows the Hispanic equivalent of The Godfather, the head of a thriving sugar business in south Florida. Unfortunately, the credits of its producers don't really impress me, save for actors Jimmy Smits and Jonathan Prince (and even then, that is their credits as actors, not producers). Ultimately for me, Cane falls in the "wait and see" category. The same cannot be said for Big Bang Theory. The network's only new sitcom, it centres on two nerdy physicists whose world is shook up when a gorgeous new neighbour moves in. The concept does not sound particularly interesting to me. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing NBC would have scheduled in between the good shows on Must See TV back in the Nineties. Its creators. Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, have mixed resumes. Between the two of them they have worked on some truly good shows: Roseanne, Dharma and Greg, Star Trek: Voyager, and Gilmore Girls. Sadly, they have also worked on some pretty mediocre shows: Grace Under Fire, Cybill, and Two and a Half Men. Worse yet, Lorre was one of the creators of Two and a Half Men. That alone doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me with regards to The Big Bang Theory.
One show I was looking forward to on CBS, Moonlight, might not be as good as I had hoped it would be. Moonlight follows a private investigator who is also a vampire. Now this is the same ground covered by both Forever Knight and Angel, but Moonlight has a decent pedigree. One of its creators, Ron Koslow, worked on Beauty and the Beast (the Eighties cult series, not the Disney movie). That having been said, critics who have seen the pilot gave it scathing reviews. While the show looked promising on paper to me, it seems to me that it might actually be one of the worst shows of the news season over all. This is sad, as it means that this is the one time Tiffany Network has no shows of note for this coming new season.
NBC: The good news is that NBC has left its Thursday night comedy lineup of My Name is Earl, 30 Rock, The Office, and Scrubs intact. The bad news is that I suspect viewers might have very mixed feelings about their new shows. It seems to me that when they have people with a good resumes working on a show, that show has a less than interesting premise. And when a show has an interesting premise, the resumes of those involved are less than good.
Their Monday night lineup is a perfect example of this. It leads off with Chuck. Chuck is about a computer nerd who accidentally downloads sensitive government information into his brain. As a result he finds himself working with a sexy superspy based on the data now in his mind. There hasn't been a good spy series since Alias went off the air, and Chuck sounds like it could be fun. Unfortunately, Josh Schwartz is one of the creators of the show. For those of you who don't recognise the name, he also created The O.C., a show which never much impressed me. It is possible that Schwartz's talents were wasted on what yet another forgettable teen drama, so Chuck could have possibilities. Then again, give the quality of The O.C., it may also prove to be a complete waste of time.
Bionic Woman, also on Monday night, is the opposite of Chuck: it is a show with an uninteresting concept, but with a fairly decent pedigree. Bionic Woman is a reimagining of the Seventies series The Bionic Woman, a show I hated even as a kid. Indeed, I really can't see much of interest that can be done with the concept. That having been said, the man who is reimagining it is David Eick, who was also behind the reimagining of Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-Fi Channel. While the new Battlestar Galactica doesn't particularly impress me (it is a good show, but not a remarkable one), he is also a veteran of Spy Game (a very good series that aired only briefly on ABC back in 1997--it remains one of my favourite shows) and Hercules: the Legendary Journeys. It is possible, then, that Eick may be able to do more with the show's premise (which I find rather dull and old hat) than I think anyone possibly can. I am hoping Bionic Woman will surprise me.
Journeyman is a lot like Bionic Woman in having an uninteresting premise, but in also having someone with good credits working on it. Journeyman follows an individual who travels briefly (a few years at most) back in time to improve the lives of people. The concept sounds unoriginal and derivative to me--in fact, it seems in some ways reminiscent of Quantum Leap. That having been said, its creator, Kevin Falls, worked on both The West Wing and Sports Night, two shows which are nothing to sneeze at. Its supervising producer and line producer have worked on Alias and The West Wing respectively. While the concept doesn't seem particularly interesting, the people working on it have some fairly good resumes between them. It might turn out better than one would expect from its premise.
The new show to watch on NBC could be Life. Life follows a police officer who was framed for a murder he didn't commit after he is cleared of the crime. The series' executive producers include veterans of Heroes, House, The X-Files, and the Eighties revival of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, among other shows. With a fairly solid production team and a fairly interesting premise, Life could prove to be the best new show on NBC.
Over all, I think this new fall TV season could be better than most. There are several series debuting which show promise and a minimum of reality shows and police procedurals of the sort that have filled network television schedules in the past several years. As of now, I am predicting that the best new shows on television will probably be Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money, K-Ville, New Amsterdam, Life, and Reaper. As to the shows that will possibly be the worst, Kid Nation has to be one of the worst shows ever conceived in the history of the medium. As to the other shows that could possibly be the worst, I would count: Crowned, Online Nation, Kitchen Nightmares, Private Practice, and Cashmere Mafia. As to which network has the worst lineup this fall, that dubious honour goes to the CW. Sadly, the second oldest network, CBS, also seems to have the second worst lineup. That having been said and even though the network boasts what must be the worst single show of the season (Kid Nation), it isn't that their shows necessarily appear to be bad, but more that most of them seem as if they will be mediocre. At least NBC, ABC, and Fox all have shows that look like they will be good.
One positive sign in this coming season is that there are indeed several shows that have potential. I am truly hoping that, despite my mixed feelings, such seris as Bionic Woman, Chuck, Women's Murder Club, and Life will turn out to be quality shows. In fact, if every show that has possibilities actually turns out to be good, then this could be one of the best fall seasons ever. I suppose all we can do is wait and tune in.
The CW: It seems to me that the CW has been determined to prove to all of us that the merger of UPN and the WB was a grave mistake. Never mind that they have cancelled their two best shows (Gilmore Girls and Veronica Mars), but they haven't debuted too much of interest since the merger took place. This season is no different. In fact, I think that the fledgeling network is still a bit too dependent on reality shows, competition shows, and similar TV series. As proof, just look at the reality/competition shows they'll be airing this season, both old, returning shows and brand new ones: America's Next Top Model. Beauty and the Geek (which should be titled Beauty and the Nerd--see my post on the topic), Crowned, and Online Nation. For those of you who don't know, Crowned and Online Nation are the two newcomers. Crowned is a mother/daughter beauty competition (think Miss America--the Series). As such, it hold little interest to me. I rather suspect that it will be the same for other viewers. After all, we have seen just a bit too many competition type shows the past several years. As to Online Nation, it features the latest videos from the World Wide Web each week. Honestly, I just can't see how a show can succeed showing what anyone can simply find on YouTube, IFilm, or any number of other web sites.
As to the CW's other new shows, there aren't too many that spark my interest. As a genre show Reaper stands out. The show centres on a young man who finds out upon turning 21 that his parents sold his soul to the Devil when he was still an infant. As a result he must serve as a bounty hunter tracking down souls who have escaped from Hell. I must admit the show sounds a bit derivative--Brimstone meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But it was created by two veterans of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. What is more, the pilot was directed by a fellow named Kevin Smith. Reaper could then be worth checking out. The only other CW show which interests me at all is Life is Wild. Life is Wild follows an American veterinarian and his family who move to a South African game preserve. It is based on the British show Wild at Heart, although both the British series and its new, American remake remind me of a show I loved as a kid called Daktari. Its creators have interesting resumes as well. Among them they've worked on the original British show, Wild at Heart and the movie Mansfield Park. It's difficult to call, but I'd at least say that Life is Wild has possibilities.
Fox: As usual, Fox is debuting a few new sitcoms which they will probably cancel within a month after the new fall season has started. As to shows that actually have a chance to last a bit longer, they seem largely derivative. Among these is Nashville, yet another reality series. Nashville follows a group of young people as they try to climb the ladder of both the country music industry and high society. Honestly, the show does not sound that interesting to me. The same can be said for another reality series, Kitchen Nightmares. The show follows chef Gordon Ramsay from Hell's Kitchen as he visits another problematic restaurant each week. Quite frankly, this sounds like something that should be on TLC, A&E, or another cable channel instead of a broadcast network. I honestly don't see it lasting.
As bad as Nashville and Kitchen Nightmares sound, they don't sound as bad as Don't Forget the Lyrics. It is a game show on which people must remember the lyrics to songs. Sound familiar? It should, as it's the same premise as NBC's summertime hit The Singing Bee. Knowing how long it takes to develop series, I know it is probably not a ripoff of The Singing Bee, but the premise is so similar that it is probably doomed to failure.
This isn't to say that Fox doesn't have some interesting shows. K-Ville is a police drama following officers in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, created by NYPD Blue veteran Jonathan Lisco. There hasn't been a good police drama on television for some time beyond The Shield (police procedurals don't count), so K-Ville could be interesting. Another show that could turn out to be good is The Next Great American Band, from the producers of American Idol. This series is essentially American Idol, but focusing on bands instead of solo singers. Depending on the bands who are competing and how they execute it, this show does have possibilities. Sadly, the only other new show which interests me on Fox has been pushed back from a fall premiere to debuting at mid-season. New Amsterdam follows a New York homicide detective who also happens to be immortal (he started out as a soldier in the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam). It was created by a veteran of both Six Feet Under and Lost, so the series has possibilities.
ABC: I really don't know which is worse--the fact that ABC's programmers granted Grey's Anatomy yet another season or the fact that they greenlighted a spinoff from the series, Private Practice. Given the quality of Grey's Anatomy, I have no real faith in its spinoff either. That having been said, Cashmere Mafia could be nearly as bad as Private Practice might be. The show follows female executives in New York City as they juggle their lives with their careers. If it sounds a bit like Sex in the City, keep in mind that show's creator Darren Star numbers among the executive producers of Cashmere Mafia. As to the creator of Cashmere Mafia, Kevin Wade's resume does not inspire a lot of confidence in me. While he was one of the writers on Meet Joe Black, a movie I've always liked, he has also worked on Mr. Baseball, Junior, and Maid in Manhattan, movies I don't like. Between Darren Star and Kevin Wade's credits, I suspect Cashmere Mafia may not have the highest quality for a TV show.
Fortunately, ABC's other newcomers show a bit more promise, although I must admit that I have mixed feelings about Women's Murder Club. It is based on a series of books by James Patterson (one of my favourite authors), following an assistant district attorney, a homicide detective, a medical examiner, and a newspaper reporter (all of them women) as they investigate crimes in San Francisco. The show's creators Sarah Fain and Elizabeth Craft have written for both The Shield and Angel. Ultimately, Women's Murder Club is a combination police procedural and legal drama, two genres with which network television have been glutted of late. No matter how good the scripts are, I am then afraid that Women's Murder Club might come off as more of the same thing we've seen on television for the last several years.
Big Shots follows the life of a CEO, which doesn't sound particularly interesting, but it was created by Jon Harmon Feldman, who also created Tru Calling (a show I always liked) and a veteran (as co-producer) of The Wonder Years. Big Shots then has some potential. I have rather more hope for Pushing Daisies. The show follows a man who can bring things back to life with but a touch (if he touches them again, they go back to being dead). Besides having an interesting premise, Pushing Daisies is the creation of Bryan Fuller, a veteran of Heroes, Wonderfalls, and the Star Trek franchise. What's more, critics who have seen the pilot having given it good marks. This could possibly be the best show of the new season.
Another contender for best new series could be Dirty Sexy Money. The show was created by playwright Craig Wright, who has also worked on Six Feet Under and Lost. Among the show's producers number X-Men director Bryan Singer, who is also a producer on House (the best show on network television besides Lost). Dirty Sexy Money has an interesting premise: a young, earnest lawyer is hired by one of New York's richest and, unfortunately, most corrupt families. As a dramedy, it definitely has possibilities.
ABC also has the only new sitcom which interests me this season. Cavemen is a spinoff of those Geico commercials featuring, well, cavemen. It follows the adventures of a group of Neanderthals who simply failed to evolve as they struggle with modern society. The premise sounds interesting--it is the sort of goofy concept that television would have come up with in the Sixties. Unfortunately, it is also a concept that could go either way. Cavemen could be uproariously hilarious. It could also be dismally bad. It is definitely a show that falls in the "wait and see" category.
CBS: There was a time when CBS deserved its reputation as the Tiffany Network. Sadly, this coming season is not one of them. In fact, this fall the network is debuting what could possibly be one of the most offensive shows of all time: Lord of the Flies--the Series, I mean, Kid Nation. The show has already received its fair share of bad press. CBS has been accused of bending child labour laws in New Mexico to make the series. Some children accidentally drank bleach. A mother has complained that her daughter was left untreated for burns from splattered grease. I'll admit that I have never cared for reality shows, but this one just reeks of irresponsibility. Indeed, I imagine William S. Paley is spinning in his grave.
Fortunately, Kid Nation seems to be only truly offensive show on CBS this season. The worst that can be said of the network's other new shows is that many of them are rather lacklustre. Viva Laughlin is a musical dramedy based on the BBC serial Blackpool. The men who adapted it for the American screen Bob Lowry and Peter Bowker boast no credits of note, and its only executive producer of note is actor Hugh Jackman. In the past musical dramas have not faired well on television (anyone remember Cop Rock?) and the credits of the show's producers do not inspire any real faith in me. I am guessing that Viva Laughlin could see an early cancellation.
Cane shows a bit more promise. It essentially follows the Hispanic equivalent of The Godfather, the head of a thriving sugar business in south Florida. Unfortunately, the credits of its producers don't really impress me, save for actors Jimmy Smits and Jonathan Prince (and even then, that is their credits as actors, not producers). Ultimately for me, Cane falls in the "wait and see" category. The same cannot be said for Big Bang Theory. The network's only new sitcom, it centres on two nerdy physicists whose world is shook up when a gorgeous new neighbour moves in. The concept does not sound particularly interesting to me. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing NBC would have scheduled in between the good shows on Must See TV back in the Nineties. Its creators. Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, have mixed resumes. Between the two of them they have worked on some truly good shows: Roseanne, Dharma and Greg, Star Trek: Voyager, and Gilmore Girls. Sadly, they have also worked on some pretty mediocre shows: Grace Under Fire, Cybill, and Two and a Half Men. Worse yet, Lorre was one of the creators of Two and a Half Men. That alone doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me with regards to The Big Bang Theory.
One show I was looking forward to on CBS, Moonlight, might not be as good as I had hoped it would be. Moonlight follows a private investigator who is also a vampire. Now this is the same ground covered by both Forever Knight and Angel, but Moonlight has a decent pedigree. One of its creators, Ron Koslow, worked on Beauty and the Beast (the Eighties cult series, not the Disney movie). That having been said, critics who have seen the pilot gave it scathing reviews. While the show looked promising on paper to me, it seems to me that it might actually be one of the worst shows of the news season over all. This is sad, as it means that this is the one time Tiffany Network has no shows of note for this coming new season.
NBC: The good news is that NBC has left its Thursday night comedy lineup of My Name is Earl, 30 Rock, The Office, and Scrubs intact. The bad news is that I suspect viewers might have very mixed feelings about their new shows. It seems to me that when they have people with a good resumes working on a show, that show has a less than interesting premise. And when a show has an interesting premise, the resumes of those involved are less than good.
Their Monday night lineup is a perfect example of this. It leads off with Chuck. Chuck is about a computer nerd who accidentally downloads sensitive government information into his brain. As a result he finds himself working with a sexy superspy based on the data now in his mind. There hasn't been a good spy series since Alias went off the air, and Chuck sounds like it could be fun. Unfortunately, Josh Schwartz is one of the creators of the show. For those of you who don't recognise the name, he also created The O.C., a show which never much impressed me. It is possible that Schwartz's talents were wasted on what yet another forgettable teen drama, so Chuck could have possibilities. Then again, give the quality of The O.C., it may also prove to be a complete waste of time.
Bionic Woman, also on Monday night, is the opposite of Chuck: it is a show with an uninteresting concept, but with a fairly decent pedigree. Bionic Woman is a reimagining of the Seventies series The Bionic Woman, a show I hated even as a kid. Indeed, I really can't see much of interest that can be done with the concept. That having been said, the man who is reimagining it is David Eick, who was also behind the reimagining of Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-Fi Channel. While the new Battlestar Galactica doesn't particularly impress me (it is a good show, but not a remarkable one), he is also a veteran of Spy Game (a very good series that aired only briefly on ABC back in 1997--it remains one of my favourite shows) and Hercules: the Legendary Journeys. It is possible, then, that Eick may be able to do more with the show's premise (which I find rather dull and old hat) than I think anyone possibly can. I am hoping Bionic Woman will surprise me.
Journeyman is a lot like Bionic Woman in having an uninteresting premise, but in also having someone with good credits working on it. Journeyman follows an individual who travels briefly (a few years at most) back in time to improve the lives of people. The concept sounds unoriginal and derivative to me--in fact, it seems in some ways reminiscent of Quantum Leap. That having been said, its creator, Kevin Falls, worked on both The West Wing and Sports Night, two shows which are nothing to sneeze at. Its supervising producer and line producer have worked on Alias and The West Wing respectively. While the concept doesn't seem particularly interesting, the people working on it have some fairly good resumes between them. It might turn out better than one would expect from its premise.
The new show to watch on NBC could be Life. Life follows a police officer who was framed for a murder he didn't commit after he is cleared of the crime. The series' executive producers include veterans of Heroes, House, The X-Files, and the Eighties revival of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, among other shows. With a fairly solid production team and a fairly interesting premise, Life could prove to be the best new show on NBC.
Over all, I think this new fall TV season could be better than most. There are several series debuting which show promise and a minimum of reality shows and police procedurals of the sort that have filled network television schedules in the past several years. As of now, I am predicting that the best new shows on television will probably be Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money, K-Ville, New Amsterdam, Life, and Reaper. As to the shows that will possibly be the worst, Kid Nation has to be one of the worst shows ever conceived in the history of the medium. As to the other shows that could possibly be the worst, I would count: Crowned, Online Nation, Kitchen Nightmares, Private Practice, and Cashmere Mafia. As to which network has the worst lineup this fall, that dubious honour goes to the CW. Sadly, the second oldest network, CBS, also seems to have the second worst lineup. That having been said and even though the network boasts what must be the worst single show of the season (Kid Nation), it isn't that their shows necessarily appear to be bad, but more that most of them seem as if they will be mediocre. At least NBC, ABC, and Fox all have shows that look like they will be good.
One positive sign in this coming season is that there are indeed several shows that have potential. I am truly hoping that, despite my mixed feelings, such seris as Bionic Woman, Chuck, Women's Murder Club, and Life will turn out to be quality shows. In fact, if every show that has possibilities actually turns out to be good, then this could be one of the best fall seasons ever. I suppose all we can do is wait and tune in.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Weekly World News Is Alive and Well in Kalamazoo
The supermarket checkout counter might never be the same. With its August 27th issue, the Weekly World News. the outlandish tabloid that featured stories about aliens and Elvis, will cease publication. It will still be available online, but the Weekly World News will no longer haunt the supermarket checkout line.
The Weekly World News was founded by American Media, after the National Enquirer had changed to colour printing, as a means of keeping the Enquirer's old black and white press in use. The tabloid inherited more than the Enquirer's old printing press. Before 1969. when the National Enquirer shifted its focus to celebrity gossip and human interest stories, the National Enquirer basically two sorts of stories. The first, for which it was most famous, were lurid tales of mothers eating their own babies and madmen slicing up their dates and storing the remains in a freezer. The second were outlandish stories of alien beings, UFOs, and creatures such as Bigfoot. It was this second sort of story for which the National Enquirer had been known that the Weekly World News made wholly their own. While the mainstream media might focus on politics and government and other tabloids might focus on celebrity gossip, it was the outre that was the speciality of the Weekly World News.
Over the years the tabloid had featured a number of bizarre headlines. Aliens were a favourite with the Weekly World News. The paper reported that several U.S. Senators were, in truth, aliens. At various times it also reported various aliens visiting important dignitaries. Naturally there were the tales of alien abductions. But the Weekly World News covered more strange creatures than aliens from outer space. Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, vampires, and a variety of other odd critters got their due in the tabloid.
For the most part the Weekly World News eschewed the sort of stories other tabloids might report about the rich and famous. When it did cover famous individuals, the stories were clearly too far fetched to be believed. One issue from the Nineties reported that Hilary Clinton had adopted an alien baby. Another reported that Abraham Lincoln was really a woman. The Weekly World News perhaps got more mileage out of Elvis Presley than any other celebrity. Following his death in 1977, the tabloid would regularly proclaim that Elvis was not dead. In the Nineties, it would print the "news" of Elvis's "real" death, Of course, it must be kept in mind that, according to the Weekly World News, not only did Elvis live beyond the time that history tells us he died, but so did Adolph Hitler, Marilyn Monroe, and John F. Kennedy.
The Weekly World News also created its own recurring characters. Perhaps none gained as much fame as Bat Boy. Bat Boy was a half human, half bat creature discovered in a cave in West Virginia by Dr. Ron Dillon. Bat Boy first appeared in the pages of the Weekly World News in 1992. Over the years he has enrolled in college, been knighted by Queen Elizabeth, ran for governor of California, and endorsed Al Gore as president. Bat Boy proved so popular that an off Broadway musical based on the character, entitled Bat Boy, was produced in 1997.
Another regularly featured character was P'Lod. P'Lod is an alien from another world who seeks to advise politicians on Earth in order to insure our continued well being. Not only did P'Lod advise politicians, but he could apparently pick the winner of any presidential campaign. The Tabloid also reported that P'Lod had an affair with Hilary Rodham Clinton.
In its 28 years in existence, the Weekly World News became very much a part of American pop culture. In the movie Men in Black it is cited as having "the best damn investigative reporting on the planet"--the characters in the film actually use it for leads on their cases. On the TV series Supernatural the heroes not only impersonated reporters from the Weekly World News in one episode, but figured importantly in another episode (as publicity for the show, the Weekly World News even interviewed its fictional heroes). A short lived Sci-Fi Channel series, The Chronicle, about a tabloid that investigates strange stories (which also happen to be real) was obviously based on the Weekly World News.
Ultimately, it is difficult to say what caused the demise of the Weekly World News. It is possible that the paper suffered from competition with the World Wide Web. Let's face it, if one want to read about aliens these days, all he or she has to do is google it and he or she will have several different web sites to choose from. Indeed, I have no doubt that there are probably blogs out there that specialise in what was once the World Wide News's stock and trade.
I must admit that I have never had much use for supermarket tabloids. I have little interest in the private lives of celebrities and, even if I did, I would have little reason to believe the stories printed in the Enquirer or the Star. That having been said, I always loved the Weekly World News. While its stories were no more true than those of other tabloids, its stories were also so outlandish that they could not possibly be true. In some respects the Weekly World News was not so much a tabloid as it was a parody of a tabloid. I mean, who could not get a laugh out of the Bat Boy being hunted by the FBI or Elvis was living in Kalamazoo, Michigan or P'Lod having an affair with Hilary Rodham Clinton. The Weekly World News could be funnier than most sitcoms. I am guessing that is why the tabloid's demise is receiving so much coverage. And why I will miss it. People got a laugh out of the Weekly World News and loved them for it. Is it any wonder then that people are mourning its passing? I doubt the Enquirer or Star would be so mourned. No, the supermarket checkout counter won't be the same.
The Weekly World News was founded by American Media, after the National Enquirer had changed to colour printing, as a means of keeping the Enquirer's old black and white press in use. The tabloid inherited more than the Enquirer's old printing press. Before 1969. when the National Enquirer shifted its focus to celebrity gossip and human interest stories, the National Enquirer basically two sorts of stories. The first, for which it was most famous, were lurid tales of mothers eating their own babies and madmen slicing up their dates and storing the remains in a freezer. The second were outlandish stories of alien beings, UFOs, and creatures such as Bigfoot. It was this second sort of story for which the National Enquirer had been known that the Weekly World News made wholly their own. While the mainstream media might focus on politics and government and other tabloids might focus on celebrity gossip, it was the outre that was the speciality of the Weekly World News.
Over the years the tabloid had featured a number of bizarre headlines. Aliens were a favourite with the Weekly World News. The paper reported that several U.S. Senators were, in truth, aliens. At various times it also reported various aliens visiting important dignitaries. Naturally there were the tales of alien abductions. But the Weekly World News covered more strange creatures than aliens from outer space. Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, vampires, and a variety of other odd critters got their due in the tabloid.
For the most part the Weekly World News eschewed the sort of stories other tabloids might report about the rich and famous. When it did cover famous individuals, the stories were clearly too far fetched to be believed. One issue from the Nineties reported that Hilary Clinton had adopted an alien baby. Another reported that Abraham Lincoln was really a woman. The Weekly World News perhaps got more mileage out of Elvis Presley than any other celebrity. Following his death in 1977, the tabloid would regularly proclaim that Elvis was not dead. In the Nineties, it would print the "news" of Elvis's "real" death, Of course, it must be kept in mind that, according to the Weekly World News, not only did Elvis live beyond the time that history tells us he died, but so did Adolph Hitler, Marilyn Monroe, and John F. Kennedy.
The Weekly World News also created its own recurring characters. Perhaps none gained as much fame as Bat Boy. Bat Boy was a half human, half bat creature discovered in a cave in West Virginia by Dr. Ron Dillon. Bat Boy first appeared in the pages of the Weekly World News in 1992. Over the years he has enrolled in college, been knighted by Queen Elizabeth, ran for governor of California, and endorsed Al Gore as president. Bat Boy proved so popular that an off Broadway musical based on the character, entitled Bat Boy, was produced in 1997.
Another regularly featured character was P'Lod. P'Lod is an alien from another world who seeks to advise politicians on Earth in order to insure our continued well being. Not only did P'Lod advise politicians, but he could apparently pick the winner of any presidential campaign. The Tabloid also reported that P'Lod had an affair with Hilary Rodham Clinton.
In its 28 years in existence, the Weekly World News became very much a part of American pop culture. In the movie Men in Black it is cited as having "the best damn investigative reporting on the planet"--the characters in the film actually use it for leads on their cases. On the TV series Supernatural the heroes not only impersonated reporters from the Weekly World News in one episode, but figured importantly in another episode (as publicity for the show, the Weekly World News even interviewed its fictional heroes). A short lived Sci-Fi Channel series, The Chronicle, about a tabloid that investigates strange stories (which also happen to be real) was obviously based on the Weekly World News.
Ultimately, it is difficult to say what caused the demise of the Weekly World News. It is possible that the paper suffered from competition with the World Wide Web. Let's face it, if one want to read about aliens these days, all he or she has to do is google it and he or she will have several different web sites to choose from. Indeed, I have no doubt that there are probably blogs out there that specialise in what was once the World Wide News's stock and trade.
I must admit that I have never had much use for supermarket tabloids. I have little interest in the private lives of celebrities and, even if I did, I would have little reason to believe the stories printed in the Enquirer or the Star. That having been said, I always loved the Weekly World News. While its stories were no more true than those of other tabloids, its stories were also so outlandish that they could not possibly be true. In some respects the Weekly World News was not so much a tabloid as it was a parody of a tabloid. I mean, who could not get a laugh out of the Bat Boy being hunted by the FBI or Elvis was living in Kalamazoo, Michigan or P'Lod having an affair with Hilary Rodham Clinton. The Weekly World News could be funnier than most sitcoms. I am guessing that is why the tabloid's demise is receiving so much coverage. And why I will miss it. People got a laugh out of the Weekly World News and loved them for it. Is it any wonder then that people are mourning its passing? I doubt the Enquirer or Star would be so mourned. No, the supermarket checkout counter won't be the same.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Vip, mio fratello superuomo (Vip, My Brother Superman)
It is sad a fact of life that most Americans are not aware of the good, even great, foreign films that have been made since the advent of film. This is even more true of animated feature films. Indeed, for the most part I seriously doubt the average American can even name very many animated movies beyond the Disney oeuvre, a few Ralph Bakshi titles, and more recent films from other studios.
Nowhere is this fact more tragic than with regards to an Italian, animated feature released in 1968 entitled Vip, mio fratello superuomo (Vip, My Brother Superman to we Anglophones). Vip, My Brother Superman was the second feature film made by animator Bruno Bozzetto. Born in Milan, Bozzetto is Italy's greatest animator, his fame having spread far beyond his native country. Bozzetto is known throughout Europe, not just for his feature films but for his most famous creation, Signor Rossi (Mister Rossi to we Anglophones). The star of seven shorts and three feature films, Signor Rossi is as well known in Europe as Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse are in the English speaking world. In the United States, Bruno Bozzetto is perhaps best known for the feature film Allegro non troppo, his 1977 homage/parody of Disney's Fantasia.
For those who have seen Allegro non troppo, Vip, mio fratello superuomo does for superheros what that film did for Disney movies. Quite simply, it is a hilarious send up of the genre. In Vip, My Brother Superman, the Vips are a line of superhumans who have defended humanity throughout the ages. The last of the line are two brothers: Supervip, who looks like the typical superhero complete with such powers as superhuman strength and the ability to fly, and Minivip, who is near sighted, short, and lacks any sort of super powers beyond the ability to fly a few feet off the ground. The Vips stumble upon a nefarious plot by the crazed supermarket tycoon Happy Betty, a plot which could threaten the entire world.
As might be expected, Vip, mio fratello superuomo gets a good deal of mileage out of parodying superheroics. Minivip not only lacks any extraordinary powers, but is not particularly the most agile person around either. Supervip is about as straight laced as they come, so much so that a kiss from a pretty girl can drive him up the wall. Indeed, it is the relationship between the two brothers that makes much of the movie so enjoyable. Although they look nothing alike and one of them lacks super powers of any sort, Supervip and Minivip are very close and compliment each other perfectly. Quite simply, while Supervip is the brawn, Minivip is the brain.
It should also come as no surprise that Bozzetto doesn't save all of this barbs for the superhero genre alone. Indeed, while Vip, My Brother Superman is perhaps best described as a supehero parody, its fiercest attacks are made on our consumerist culture and the mass production it takes to maintain that consumerist culture. Of course, Bozzetto also takes aim at a number of other targets, among them psychiatry, commercialism, and celebrity worship.
Vip, mio fratello superuomo is certainly a departure from the Disney style of cel animation to which most people are accustomed. Indeed, Bozzetto's style at this point in his career is decidely late Sixties. There is such an array of textures and colours that the film could almost, but not quite, be described as "psychedelic." In fact, one of the best things about the movie is the design of its characters and its backgrounds. That having been said, in some respects its animation is also the downfall of Vip, My Brother Superman. At times it seems a bit too limited. Here it should perhaps be kept in mind that Bozzetto was not working with the sort of budgets that Disney had on their films. Given what he had to work with, it may be a wonder that the animation is as good as it is.
Sadly, Vip, My Brother Superman is not widely available in the United States. I found it on one of those dollar DVDs so common at WalMarts and supermarkets. In fact, I think it is available on more than one dollar DVD, one of them under the title The Super Vips (a title under which it was released here in the States at one point). For those who want a much better DVD of the movie, the official version is available through import (complete with English subtitles).
Nowhere is this fact more tragic than with regards to an Italian, animated feature released in 1968 entitled Vip, mio fratello superuomo (Vip, My Brother Superman to we Anglophones). Vip, My Brother Superman was the second feature film made by animator Bruno Bozzetto. Born in Milan, Bozzetto is Italy's greatest animator, his fame having spread far beyond his native country. Bozzetto is known throughout Europe, not just for his feature films but for his most famous creation, Signor Rossi (Mister Rossi to we Anglophones). The star of seven shorts and three feature films, Signor Rossi is as well known in Europe as Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse are in the English speaking world. In the United States, Bruno Bozzetto is perhaps best known for the feature film Allegro non troppo, his 1977 homage/parody of Disney's Fantasia.
For those who have seen Allegro non troppo, Vip, mio fratello superuomo does for superheros what that film did for Disney movies. Quite simply, it is a hilarious send up of the genre. In Vip, My Brother Superman, the Vips are a line of superhumans who have defended humanity throughout the ages. The last of the line are two brothers: Supervip, who looks like the typical superhero complete with such powers as superhuman strength and the ability to fly, and Minivip, who is near sighted, short, and lacks any sort of super powers beyond the ability to fly a few feet off the ground. The Vips stumble upon a nefarious plot by the crazed supermarket tycoon Happy Betty, a plot which could threaten the entire world.
As might be expected, Vip, mio fratello superuomo gets a good deal of mileage out of parodying superheroics. Minivip not only lacks any extraordinary powers, but is not particularly the most agile person around either. Supervip is about as straight laced as they come, so much so that a kiss from a pretty girl can drive him up the wall. Indeed, it is the relationship between the two brothers that makes much of the movie so enjoyable. Although they look nothing alike and one of them lacks super powers of any sort, Supervip and Minivip are very close and compliment each other perfectly. Quite simply, while Supervip is the brawn, Minivip is the brain.
It should also come as no surprise that Bozzetto doesn't save all of this barbs for the superhero genre alone. Indeed, while Vip, My Brother Superman is perhaps best described as a supehero parody, its fiercest attacks are made on our consumerist culture and the mass production it takes to maintain that consumerist culture. Of course, Bozzetto also takes aim at a number of other targets, among them psychiatry, commercialism, and celebrity worship.
Vip, mio fratello superuomo is certainly a departure from the Disney style of cel animation to which most people are accustomed. Indeed, Bozzetto's style at this point in his career is decidely late Sixties. There is such an array of textures and colours that the film could almost, but not quite, be described as "psychedelic." In fact, one of the best things about the movie is the design of its characters and its backgrounds. That having been said, in some respects its animation is also the downfall of Vip, My Brother Superman. At times it seems a bit too limited. Here it should perhaps be kept in mind that Bozzetto was not working with the sort of budgets that Disney had on their films. Given what he had to work with, it may be a wonder that the animation is as good as it is.
Sadly, Vip, My Brother Superman is not widely available in the United States. I found it on one of those dollar DVDs so common at WalMarts and supermarkets. In fact, I think it is available on more than one dollar DVD, one of them under the title The Super Vips (a title under which it was released here in the States at one point). For those who want a much better DVD of the movie, the official version is available through import (complete with English subtitles).
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Cinema Killed the Radio Star: How Elvis Presley's Movies Nearly Ended His Career
I don't think there can be much argument that Elvis Presley was the biggest music star to emerge in the Fifties. Elvis wasn't exactly an overnight sensation. He had spent two years on the legendary Sun Record label making records that had only a little initial impact before switching to RCA. It was his first record at RCA that would be his breakout hit. "Heartbreak Hotel" spent eight weeks at #1 on the Billboard singles chart and sold over a million copies. For the next several years Elvis would have a string of hits that was unmatched in the United States. Even a stint in the Army could not dethrone a man who would be dubbed "the King of Rock 'n' Roll."
While the Army caused no lasting harm to his career, it is a common belief that Elvis Presley was at the top of the rock 'n' roll game until the Fab Four arrived from England, after which Presley's career languished. Actually, this is not entirely true. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was released December 26, 1963. The Beatles made their legendary, first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964. And yet Elvis still had four top twenty hits and one song that went to #1 ("Blue Christmas") on the Billboard chart in 1964. While Elvis's career wasn't what it used to be (in 1957 every single he released went to #1), it was hardly languishing. I think that while it is safe to say that The Beatles probably had some impact on Elvis's popularity, it was not what nearly brought his career to a halt.
The question, then, is that if The Beatles and the other British Invasion bands did not nearly crush Elvis's career in the Sixties, what did? I think the answer most likely lies in a place far from Liverpool, a placed called "Hollywood." Quite simply, Elvis's very own movies had more of a negative effect on his career than The Beatles ever did. It was quite natural that with Elvis's unprecedented success in the mid-Fifties that the film industry would seek him out. It was in 1956 that producer Hal Wallis, a Hollywood veteran who had produced movies from Casablanca to My Friend Irma, saw one of Elvis's performances on Stage Show (the first TV show on which he ever appeared). Wallis was convinced the young singer could become a movie star and contacted his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. After a screen test, Wallis signed Elvis to a three movie deal. His first film, Love Me Tender, was a Western about the Reno brothers in which Elvis occasionally sings. Released on November 15, 1956, Love Me Tender did very well at the box office, despite mixed reviews.
Although the image in the minds of most people of Elvis Presley movies is that of films set in exotic locales with situations contrived just so Elvis can sing (usually to animals or small children), this was not the case with his earliest movies. Although, with the exception of King Creole and Jailhouse Rock, none of Elvis's films probably qualify as classics, his earliest films were of a more serious nature than his later ones. Following the lead of Love Me Tender, his films Jailhouse Rock, Loving You, King Creole, Flaming Star, and Wild in the Country were all dramas with musical interludes. The story lines in Elvis's early movies could be quite good and his roles in those films actually gave him a bit more to do than sing. And often the films featured some great musical sequences. Indeed, the sequence for the song "Jailhouse Rock" in the movie of the same name is arguably one of the greatest of all time.
With Elvis's success in films, it was quite natural that not long after his return from the Army in 1960 he and Colonel Parker decided to concentrate on the singer's film career. In some respects it must have seemed like a win/win situation. After all, the movies could earn money at the box office while the singles and soundtrack albums associated with the films could burn up the Billboard charts. Unfortunately, this is not the way it turned out. The turning point was a movie released in 1961, Blue Hawaii. Blue Hawaii would be Elvis's highest grossing movie of all time. It also set a precedent for the majority of Elvis Presley movies to come. Indeed, it was the first of what Elvis would call his "travelogues." Quite simply, it was a musical comedy set in an exotic location (Hawaii) with a plot that was more or less an excuse for Elvis to sing at different points in the film. As to the music, the soundtrack of Blue Hawaii featured no outright, rock 'n' roll numbers, although it would provide Elvis with two memorable songs ("Can't Help Falling in Love with You" and "Blue Hawaii"). Sadly, most of Elvis's films for the next several years would follow the lead of Blue Hawaii. Most of them would have contrived plots in exotic locales with an absolute minimum of rock 'n' roll numbers. While there would be exceptions (such as the Western Charro, in which Elvis doesn't sing), the majority of the films Elvis made in the Sixties used Blue Hawaii as a template.
Even relying upon the Blue Hawaii formula, Elvis's career might not have suffered as badly as it did were it not for a decline in quality of the films and, worse yet, the songs in those films. It was arguably the movies whose quality slipped first, with such weak entries as Girls! Girls! Girls! and Fun in Acapulco. Even then the songs could be quite good. "Return to Sender" came from the soundtrack for Girls! Girls! Girls!, while "Bossa Nova Baby" came from Fun in Acapulco. Unfortunately, the songs would begin to decline in quality as well. Signs of this could be seen as early as Blue Hawaii, which featured one of his worst numbers "Ito Eats." Sadly, "Ito Eats" would be more a sign of things to come than either "Can't Help Falling in Love with You" or "Blue Hawaii." In fact, as the Sixties continued, songs such as "There's No Room to Rhumba in a Sports Car (from Fun in Acapulco)," "Do the Clam" (from Girl Happy)" and "Signs of the Zodiac (from The Trouble with Girls)" would become increasingly more common in Elvis's films. In fact, by the time of Elvis's final two movies (The Trouble with Girls and Change of Habit), one would be hard pressed to find a good song in an Elvis movie.
The decline in the quality of Elvis's songs was reflected in their performance on the Billboard charts. In fact, a decline in Elvis's performance on the singles charts can be seen before The Beatles came to America. From 1956 to 1962, Elvis would have at least one #1 single a year, sometimes more than one. In 1963, however, Elvis did not hit the #1 spot on the Billboard singles chart at all. His songs still did respectably well that year ({"You're The} Devil in Disguise" went to #3 on the chart, while "Bossa Nova Baby" went to #8), but it was perhaps a sign of erosion in Elvis's career. In 1964 Elvis would have only one #1 hit, "Blue Christmas." From 1964 to 1969, Elvis would not even have one single to go to #1 on the Billboard chart. Worse yet, as the Sixties wore on Elvis's singles would be hard pressed to even make the top ten, let alone hit the #1 spot on the Billboard singles chart. The lowest point in Elvis's musical career could well have been the years 1967 to 1968. Of the four singles Elvis released that year, only two hit the Top Forty, and, for an artist who once had multiple #1 hits in a year, I don't think it can be said that either those two songs did particularly well. "Indescribably Blue" only went to #33. "Big Boss Man" did even worse, barely cracking the Top Forty at #38. Nineteen sixty eight would be even worse. Out of six singles released, only one would break the Top Forty--"U.S. Male" at #28. If at any point in Elvis's career could he have been called a "has been," it would have been the years 1967 to 1968.
It seems to me that the decline in Elvis's musical career in the Sixties was directly linked to the quality of the songs in his movies and even the quality of the movies themselves. With "Blue Hawaii" a formula was hit upon in which Elvis could simply be placed in a situation in an exotic locale, no matter how contrived, and still sell movie tickets. With the movies growing poorer and poorer in quality, it would only be a matter of time before a lackadaisical approach would be taken in the choice of songs for Elvis's movies as well. Quite simply, the quality of any given song did not matter as much as the fact that Elvis was singing it and it fit the particular movie it was in. This was probably made even worse by the fact hat Colonel Parker and Elvis had decided to concentrate on making movies instead of recording. By the mid-Sixties the only songs Elvis was recording were for his movies. This meant that Elvis was recording fewer songs than he ever had before. Fewer songs meant fewer chances to do well on the Billboard charts. When combined with the fact that the songs Elvis was recording for his movies were often sub par, the chances that Elvis could have a hit single were reduced considerably.
While it is simply not possible that Elvis Presley could ever have been forgotten, I rather suspect that if his career had continued upon the course on which it had been set in the Sixties, he would have eventually been viewed as a washed up, formerly great, rock 'n' roll singer. Fortunately, an event in 1968 would change all of that. It was in October 1967 that Colonel Parker entered negotiations with NBC for a Christmas special featuring Elvis to air during the 1968-1969 season. Colonel Tom Parker thought it should be a typical Christmas special of the sort so popular in the Sixties in which Elvis would simply sing various holiday tunes, similar to those made by such big names as Andy Williams and Bing Crosby. On the other hand, executive producer Bob Finkel and director Steve Binder thought the special was a chance to return Elvis to something of his former glory. Quite simply, they wanted to use the special as an opportunity to display Elvis's talents performing some of the greatest hits of his career. The special, eventually titled Elvis (but afterwards referred to as "Elvis's '68 Comeback Special" by most people), aired December 3, 1968 on NBC. Not only was the special widely lauded by critics, but it was one of the highest rated programmes for the 1968-1969 season.
I think it is safe to say that the TV special Elvis revitalised Elvis Presley's career. Nineteen sixty nine would see Elvis hit the charts with three top ten hits ("In the Ghetto" went to #3, "Suspicious Minds" went to #1, and "Don't Cry, Daddy" went to #6). Although not seeing the success he had in the Fifties, Elvis's name was regularly seen on Billboard charts in the Seventies. That same year saw Elvis return to making live performances, breaking records in Las Vegas. He would also take up touring once more, making a number of live appearances across the United States from 1969 to 1977. After 1969, the worst that could be said about Elvis is that perhaps he was a bit out of touch with the rock music of the time.
In the end the movies Elvis made in the Sixties would not bring an end to his career, although it seems likely that they could well have. As the quality of his films declined, so too did the quality of his songs. Worse yet, the only songs he recorded from the mid-Sixties onwards were for his movies. As a result Elvis nearly disappeared from Billboard charts. Sad as it might seem, the man who was once the King of Rock 'n' Roll could not even hit the Top Ten on the Billboard singles chart in the late Sixties, let alone score a #1 hit. If the TV special Elvis had never been made (or if it had been a typical Christmas special, as Colonel Parker had planned), then it seems possible that the career of the former King of Rock 'n' Roll could have languished until the end of his life. Fortunately, that was not the case.
While the Army caused no lasting harm to his career, it is a common belief that Elvis Presley was at the top of the rock 'n' roll game until the Fab Four arrived from England, after which Presley's career languished. Actually, this is not entirely true. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was released December 26, 1963. The Beatles made their legendary, first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964. And yet Elvis still had four top twenty hits and one song that went to #1 ("Blue Christmas") on the Billboard chart in 1964. While Elvis's career wasn't what it used to be (in 1957 every single he released went to #1), it was hardly languishing. I think that while it is safe to say that The Beatles probably had some impact on Elvis's popularity, it was not what nearly brought his career to a halt.
The question, then, is that if The Beatles and the other British Invasion bands did not nearly crush Elvis's career in the Sixties, what did? I think the answer most likely lies in a place far from Liverpool, a placed called "Hollywood." Quite simply, Elvis's very own movies had more of a negative effect on his career than The Beatles ever did. It was quite natural that with Elvis's unprecedented success in the mid-Fifties that the film industry would seek him out. It was in 1956 that producer Hal Wallis, a Hollywood veteran who had produced movies from Casablanca to My Friend Irma, saw one of Elvis's performances on Stage Show (the first TV show on which he ever appeared). Wallis was convinced the young singer could become a movie star and contacted his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. After a screen test, Wallis signed Elvis to a three movie deal. His first film, Love Me Tender, was a Western about the Reno brothers in which Elvis occasionally sings. Released on November 15, 1956, Love Me Tender did very well at the box office, despite mixed reviews.
Although the image in the minds of most people of Elvis Presley movies is that of films set in exotic locales with situations contrived just so Elvis can sing (usually to animals or small children), this was not the case with his earliest movies. Although, with the exception of King Creole and Jailhouse Rock, none of Elvis's films probably qualify as classics, his earliest films were of a more serious nature than his later ones. Following the lead of Love Me Tender, his films Jailhouse Rock, Loving You, King Creole, Flaming Star, and Wild in the Country were all dramas with musical interludes. The story lines in Elvis's early movies could be quite good and his roles in those films actually gave him a bit more to do than sing. And often the films featured some great musical sequences. Indeed, the sequence for the song "Jailhouse Rock" in the movie of the same name is arguably one of the greatest of all time.
With Elvis's success in films, it was quite natural that not long after his return from the Army in 1960 he and Colonel Parker decided to concentrate on the singer's film career. In some respects it must have seemed like a win/win situation. After all, the movies could earn money at the box office while the singles and soundtrack albums associated with the films could burn up the Billboard charts. Unfortunately, this is not the way it turned out. The turning point was a movie released in 1961, Blue Hawaii. Blue Hawaii would be Elvis's highest grossing movie of all time. It also set a precedent for the majority of Elvis Presley movies to come. Indeed, it was the first of what Elvis would call his "travelogues." Quite simply, it was a musical comedy set in an exotic location (Hawaii) with a plot that was more or less an excuse for Elvis to sing at different points in the film. As to the music, the soundtrack of Blue Hawaii featured no outright, rock 'n' roll numbers, although it would provide Elvis with two memorable songs ("Can't Help Falling in Love with You" and "Blue Hawaii"). Sadly, most of Elvis's films for the next several years would follow the lead of Blue Hawaii. Most of them would have contrived plots in exotic locales with an absolute minimum of rock 'n' roll numbers. While there would be exceptions (such as the Western Charro, in which Elvis doesn't sing), the majority of the films Elvis made in the Sixties used Blue Hawaii as a template.
Even relying upon the Blue Hawaii formula, Elvis's career might not have suffered as badly as it did were it not for a decline in quality of the films and, worse yet, the songs in those films. It was arguably the movies whose quality slipped first, with such weak entries as Girls! Girls! Girls! and Fun in Acapulco. Even then the songs could be quite good. "Return to Sender" came from the soundtrack for Girls! Girls! Girls!, while "Bossa Nova Baby" came from Fun in Acapulco. Unfortunately, the songs would begin to decline in quality as well. Signs of this could be seen as early as Blue Hawaii, which featured one of his worst numbers "Ito Eats." Sadly, "Ito Eats" would be more a sign of things to come than either "Can't Help Falling in Love with You" or "Blue Hawaii." In fact, as the Sixties continued, songs such as "There's No Room to Rhumba in a Sports Car (from Fun in Acapulco)," "Do the Clam" (from Girl Happy)" and "Signs of the Zodiac (from The Trouble with Girls)" would become increasingly more common in Elvis's films. In fact, by the time of Elvis's final two movies (The Trouble with Girls and Change of Habit), one would be hard pressed to find a good song in an Elvis movie.
The decline in the quality of Elvis's songs was reflected in their performance on the Billboard charts. In fact, a decline in Elvis's performance on the singles charts can be seen before The Beatles came to America. From 1956 to 1962, Elvis would have at least one #1 single a year, sometimes more than one. In 1963, however, Elvis did not hit the #1 spot on the Billboard singles chart at all. His songs still did respectably well that year ({"You're The} Devil in Disguise" went to #3 on the chart, while "Bossa Nova Baby" went to #8), but it was perhaps a sign of erosion in Elvis's career. In 1964 Elvis would have only one #1 hit, "Blue Christmas." From 1964 to 1969, Elvis would not even have one single to go to #1 on the Billboard chart. Worse yet, as the Sixties wore on Elvis's singles would be hard pressed to even make the top ten, let alone hit the #1 spot on the Billboard singles chart. The lowest point in Elvis's musical career could well have been the years 1967 to 1968. Of the four singles Elvis released that year, only two hit the Top Forty, and, for an artist who once had multiple #1 hits in a year, I don't think it can be said that either those two songs did particularly well. "Indescribably Blue" only went to #33. "Big Boss Man" did even worse, barely cracking the Top Forty at #38. Nineteen sixty eight would be even worse. Out of six singles released, only one would break the Top Forty--"U.S. Male" at #28. If at any point in Elvis's career could he have been called a "has been," it would have been the years 1967 to 1968.
It seems to me that the decline in Elvis's musical career in the Sixties was directly linked to the quality of the songs in his movies and even the quality of the movies themselves. With "Blue Hawaii" a formula was hit upon in which Elvis could simply be placed in a situation in an exotic locale, no matter how contrived, and still sell movie tickets. With the movies growing poorer and poorer in quality, it would only be a matter of time before a lackadaisical approach would be taken in the choice of songs for Elvis's movies as well. Quite simply, the quality of any given song did not matter as much as the fact that Elvis was singing it and it fit the particular movie it was in. This was probably made even worse by the fact hat Colonel Parker and Elvis had decided to concentrate on making movies instead of recording. By the mid-Sixties the only songs Elvis was recording were for his movies. This meant that Elvis was recording fewer songs than he ever had before. Fewer songs meant fewer chances to do well on the Billboard charts. When combined with the fact that the songs Elvis was recording for his movies were often sub par, the chances that Elvis could have a hit single were reduced considerably.
While it is simply not possible that Elvis Presley could ever have been forgotten, I rather suspect that if his career had continued upon the course on which it had been set in the Sixties, he would have eventually been viewed as a washed up, formerly great, rock 'n' roll singer. Fortunately, an event in 1968 would change all of that. It was in October 1967 that Colonel Parker entered negotiations with NBC for a Christmas special featuring Elvis to air during the 1968-1969 season. Colonel Tom Parker thought it should be a typical Christmas special of the sort so popular in the Sixties in which Elvis would simply sing various holiday tunes, similar to those made by such big names as Andy Williams and Bing Crosby. On the other hand, executive producer Bob Finkel and director Steve Binder thought the special was a chance to return Elvis to something of his former glory. Quite simply, they wanted to use the special as an opportunity to display Elvis's talents performing some of the greatest hits of his career. The special, eventually titled Elvis (but afterwards referred to as "Elvis's '68 Comeback Special" by most people), aired December 3, 1968 on NBC. Not only was the special widely lauded by critics, but it was one of the highest rated programmes for the 1968-1969 season.
I think it is safe to say that the TV special Elvis revitalised Elvis Presley's career. Nineteen sixty nine would see Elvis hit the charts with three top ten hits ("In the Ghetto" went to #3, "Suspicious Minds" went to #1, and "Don't Cry, Daddy" went to #6). Although not seeing the success he had in the Fifties, Elvis's name was regularly seen on Billboard charts in the Seventies. That same year saw Elvis return to making live performances, breaking records in Las Vegas. He would also take up touring once more, making a number of live appearances across the United States from 1969 to 1977. After 1969, the worst that could be said about Elvis is that perhaps he was a bit out of touch with the rock music of the time.
In the end the movies Elvis made in the Sixties would not bring an end to his career, although it seems likely that they could well have. As the quality of his films declined, so too did the quality of his songs. Worse yet, the only songs he recorded from the mid-Sixties onwards were for his movies. As a result Elvis nearly disappeared from Billboard charts. Sad as it might seem, the man who was once the King of Rock 'n' Roll could not even hit the Top Ten on the Billboard singles chart in the late Sixties, let alone score a #1 hit. If the TV special Elvis had never been made (or if it had been a typical Christmas special, as Colonel Parker had planned), then it seems possible that the career of the former King of Rock 'n' Roll could have languished until the end of his life. Fortunately, that was not the case.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
A Change in the Summer Movie Season
Traditionally the summer movie season ran from Memorial Day to Labour Day. This was the time when Hollywood would release their biggest movies. That having been said, for the past several years it has seemed more as if the summer movie season has ran from early May to July 4, with very few blockbusters being released after that (I wrote about this phenomenon last year). That having been said, this year has been different. Not only have movies that could be considered blockbusters been released in August, but movies have actually done better in August than they have the past several years.
Generally speaking, the past several years late July and August have not been a period when big Hollywood movies have been released. More often than not it has consisted of smaller films and family comedies; however, this year has been different. The Simpsons Movie, widely expected to do well, was released in late July. This summer also saw the release of threequels in two different franchises (The Bourne Ultimatum and Rush Hour 3). It saw a well done fantasy movie with a good budget (Stardust) and a "teen" comedy set in the Eighties that would actually seem to appeal more to people in their thirties and forties (Superbad) as well. None of these movies are typical fare for August
What is remarkable is that many of these films did remarkably well. While none of them quite matched the numbers generated by the summer's earlier blockbuster releases (Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End), some of the movies have done very well at the box office. So far The Simpsons Movie has pulled in $165,271,443. The Bourne Ultimatum has earned $164,694,690. Rush Hour 3 has made $87,676,529. This weekend Superbad did very well at the box office for a late summer comedy; it earned $33,052,411. These are fairly remarkable numbers for late summer movies. particularly when one considers that the box office winner of the same weekend last year, Snakes in the Plane, only earned $13,806,311 for that weekend
Of course, not every movie released late this summer has done well. Stardust, based on a Neil Gaiman novel and featuring such heavyweights as Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer, has only earned $19,493,894 in two weeks. The Invasion, just released last week, only earned $5,951,409 this weekend. It would seem that this summer is not so different from other summers that every movie is going to do respectably well this late in the season.
Still, the box office numbers for films from The Simpsons Movie to Superbad are far higher than those have usually been seen late in the summer for the past many years. Enough that I have to wonder that the movie summer season is not changing again. While the success of such early films released in early May as Twister, The Mummy, and Spider-Man have insured that it will never again begin as late as Memorial Day, I have to wonder that in the coming years we won't see the end of the summer movie season shift back to Laobur Day weekend or, at least, the end of August. Speaking as someone who has always enjoyed going to the movies, and who has not liked seeing every single big movie concentrated in the months of May and June, I can certainly hope so.
Generally speaking, the past several years late July and August have not been a period when big Hollywood movies have been released. More often than not it has consisted of smaller films and family comedies; however, this year has been different. The Simpsons Movie, widely expected to do well, was released in late July. This summer also saw the release of threequels in two different franchises (The Bourne Ultimatum and Rush Hour 3). It saw a well done fantasy movie with a good budget (Stardust) and a "teen" comedy set in the Eighties that would actually seem to appeal more to people in their thirties and forties (Superbad) as well. None of these movies are typical fare for August
What is remarkable is that many of these films did remarkably well. While none of them quite matched the numbers generated by the summer's earlier blockbuster releases (Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End), some of the movies have done very well at the box office. So far The Simpsons Movie has pulled in $165,271,443. The Bourne Ultimatum has earned $164,694,690. Rush Hour 3 has made $87,676,529. This weekend Superbad did very well at the box office for a late summer comedy; it earned $33,052,411. These are fairly remarkable numbers for late summer movies. particularly when one considers that the box office winner of the same weekend last year, Snakes in the Plane, only earned $13,806,311 for that weekend
Of course, not every movie released late this summer has done well. Stardust, based on a Neil Gaiman novel and featuring such heavyweights as Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer, has only earned $19,493,894 in two weeks. The Invasion, just released last week, only earned $5,951,409 this weekend. It would seem that this summer is not so different from other summers that every movie is going to do respectably well this late in the season.
Still, the box office numbers for films from The Simpsons Movie to Superbad are far higher than those have usually been seen late in the summer for the past many years. Enough that I have to wonder that the movie summer season is not changing again. While the success of such early films released in early May as Twister, The Mummy, and Spider-Man have insured that it will never again begin as late as Memorial Day, I have to wonder that in the coming years we won't see the end of the summer movie season shift back to Laobur Day weekend or, at least, the end of August. Speaking as someone who has always enjoyed going to the movies, and who has not liked seeing every single big movie concentrated in the months of May and June, I can certainly hope so.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Nothing with a Tree: Madison Avenue's Obsession with Young Urban People
For the past thirty years or so, Madison Avenue has pursued a demographic of individuals 18 to 49 years of age, preferring those who live in urban areas the most. Given the dependence of the television networks upon Madison Avenue for their revenue (most of which comes from advertising), the networks naturally started to cater to those who were aged 18 to 49 years of age living in cities.
I am not sure how Madison Avenue decided that individuals aged 18 to 49 living in big cities were the most desirable demographic at whom to direct commercials and TV shows, but it had to be decades ago. When Oliver Treyz was president of ABC (the American Broadcasting Company) from 1956 to 1962, he constantly used demographic data to show that ABC was the network that appealed the most to individuals in the 18 to 49 age group. He campaigned for Nielsen to not only keep ratings on the number of households viewing shows, but to start keeping demographics of how old the viewers were and where they were from. Treyz argued that viewers in this age group were more likely to spend money on a variety of items. Unfortunately, I don't know if Treyz had developed these ideas on his own, or if he was simply following the ideas of the advertising agencies on Madison Avenue.
Regardless, in maintaining that demographics should have an impact on television broadcasting, he would seem to have had some influence. From the beginning of network broadcasts in 1946 well into the Sixties, Nielsen did not keep demographics on viewers.Until the late Sixties they simply measured how many households were watching any given show. And until the Sixties advertisers did not target their commercials to specific groups of people. By the late Sixties, however, all of this had changed. Nielsen started keeping track not only of how many households watched any given show, but how old those people were and where they lived. And advertisers would start creating advertising campaigns with specific demographics in mind.
Sadly, this would have an immediate impact on network television. The first sign that demographics were starting to matter in television broadcasting came in the 1969-1970 season. The Red Skelton Show had been on the air for nineteen seasons. It also ranked #7 in the top rated shows for the season. The Jackie Gleason Show had also been a mainstay of CBS for years. And while its ratings were not as high as that of The Red Skelton Show, they were still respectable. Regardless of their ratings, CBS cancelled both shows due to the fact that Skelton and Gleason's viewers were simply too old. Most likely the expense in producing both shows probably played a role in their cancellation (indeed, Red Skelton's contract stipulated that he received a salary raise each year) as well, but there can be little doubt that CBS would have dealt with the expense of the shows if they had appealed to a younger demographic. The Red Skelton Show would return that fall on NBC, only to be axed again at the close of the 1970-1971 season.
While the 1969-1970 saw demographics used as an excuse to cancel two shows, it would be the 1970-1971 season that would make it clear that demographics were playing as much of a role, if not more, than the ratings. What is worse is that the 1971-1972 season would see the implementation of the FCC's Prime Time Access Rule, issued in 1970.The Prime Time Access Rule reduced the amount of network programming that local stations could air in prime time. Whereas for most of television's history until that time the networks would air three and half hours worth of network programming (7:30 PM EST/6:30 PM CST to 11:00 PM EST/10:00 PM CST), they were now restricted to three hours worth of network programming (8:00 PM EST/7:00 PM CST to 11:00 PM EST/10:00 PM CST). The FCC believed that the Prime Time Access Rule would increase diversity on local stations, allowing them to air different sorts of shows in 7:30 PM EST/6:30 PM CST time slot. As history shows, this did not happen, as the 7:30 PM EST/6:30 PM CST time slot has been a haven for game shows and network sitcom reruns ever since. Regardless, because of the Prime Time Access Rule, the networks had to cancel many more shows than they ever had before.
Unfortunately, CBS in particular decided to rely upon demographics to decide which shows stayed and which shows left. The 1970-1971 season was the year of what has become known as "the rural purge." It was during that season that CBS cancelled nearly every one of its remaining rural oriented shows: The Beverly Hillbillies, The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour, Green Acres, Hee Haw, The Jim Nabors Show, and Mayberry R.F.D. Not only were shows that skewed more to a rural audience cancelled, but so were shows whose audiences were older: The Ed Sullivan Show, Family Affair, and Hogan's Heroes. At the time CBS Vice President of Programming, Fred Silverman, said of the mass cancellations, "The time has come to go big city as opposed to hayseed." Others saw it differently. Pat Buttram (who played Mr. Haney on Green Acres) commented, "It was the year CBS killed everything with a tree in it." CBS was not alone in cancelling shows because they believed their demographics to be undesirable. ABC cancelled The Lawrence Welk Show because its viewers were simply too old.
While none of the cancelled shows pulled in the ratings that The Red Skelton Show had in the 1969-1970 season, some of them were still doing quite well. Mayberry R.F.D. and Hee Haw ranked in the top twenty shows for the season. And history shows that both Hee Haw and The Lawrence Welk Show were obviously still popular. Both shows went into syndication immediately following their cancellations. Hee Haw would run for another 21 years. The Lawrence Welk Show would run in original syndication for eleven years before its reruns started appearing on PBS in 1986, where it has been ever since. Of course, I don't guess I need to mention that many of the reruns of many of the shows would go onto very successful syndication runs; The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, and Hogan's Heroes have been a staple of local stations and cable channels ever since.
Since that time viewers would be hard pressed to find shows meant to appeal to either rural folks or older people on network schedules. Not long after the rural purge had taken place, The Waltons was a big hit for CBS. Later in the same decade there would be The Dukes of Hazzard (a show which probably owed more to city people's stereotypes of Southern, country folk than country folk themselves--I have never liked that show). More recently there has been King of the Hill, Reba, and My Name is Earl. Shows featuring older people have been much, much rarer. Off the top of my head, I think the most recent shows whose lead characters are older have been The Golden Girls, Murder She Wrote, and Matlock.
Of course, I assume that most people would be like me in wondering why Madison Avenue and the television networks would so covet the attention of young, urban audiences. Well, there actually are reasons for it, even if I believe those reasons to be flawed. Much of it has been the view expressed by ABC President Oliver Treyz way back in the early Sixties, that young urban viewers are more likely to spend money on a variety of items. Unlike older people or people living in small towns and the country, they have less of a sense of brand loyalty; that is, they are more likely to switch brands. Another view that has consistently been expressed by Madison Avenue and the networks is that young, urban viewers have more disposable income. That is, they have more money to spend on various items. Finally, they are believed to be more likely to buy things on impulse than either older people or people living in rural areas.
The problem with this is that it doesn't seem to hold true. Indeed, I remember when I was in college being puzzled by the idea that young, urban people had more disposable income than anyone else. As a college student and later as a young twentysomething, I did not have the money to blow on items that I did not absolutely need. And it seemed to me that my fellow twentysomethings were all in the same boat--none of us had money to spare on a large array of commercial products. It just seemed to be common sense to me that people above the age of thirty, even above the age of sixty, would have more money to spend than people in their teens and twenties. What made Madison Avenue's insistence that the 18-49 age bracket was the demographic to pursue even odder is that, insofar as I know, neither Madison Avenue nor the television networks have ever conducted studies or surveys to prove any of this. It would seem that the one industry in America that thrives on studies and surveys never bothered to conduct either to prove one of their firmest convictions!
Indeed, of late there have been several studies which show what many of us already knew from common sense--the individuals who have the most money to spend are actually older. As executive vice president for research and planning at CBS, it is David Poltrack's job to keep track of those demographics important to the networks and Madison Avenue. And over the years he has concluded that Madison Avenue and the networks have been wrong in pursuing the 18 to 49 year old demographic to the exclusion of all else. Quite simply, older people buy more items than younger people. The demographic Madison Avenue and the networks should want the most is then the exact opposite of the one they do want--they should be going for the people over fifty! Currently it is individuals over fifty who have the most disposable income. In other words, rather than making commercials and TV shows for Generation Z, the advertising industry and the networks should be making commercials and TV shows for the baby boomers.
Of course, there is still the matter of brand loyalty. It could be that younger people are more likely to switch brands than older people, but to what extent I am not sure that anyone can say. In fact, I rather suspect that brand loyalty develops while people are still very young. I know that while I was still a child I determined that I preferred Coca Cola to Pepsi and Nestle to Hershey. I assume many of my readers have read about the recent study in which three to five year olds overwhelmingly identified food coming from McDonalds bags as tasting better than anything else. While I suspect that a young person is more likely to change brands than an old person, it seems to me that in both cases they are already loyal to certain brands and not that likely to change brands regardless of advertising.
So far I have simply dealt with the issue of age; there is still the matter of Madison Avenue and the television networks preferring urban dwellers to country dwellers. Just as younger people are supposed to have more disposable income than older people, so too are city folk supposed to have more disposable income than country folk. Indeed, I have even read claims that the fans of the rural shows of the Sixties could not afford the items advertised on those shows! Now I will admit, there are probably more millionaires living in cities than in rural areas, but then it seems to me that most of the commercials on network television are directed towards the middle class, not the wealthy. After all, when was the last time that an ad for Bentley or Cartier aired on prime time network television? Most of what is advertised on television are common items that nearly every American uses and can afford: soap, food, clothing, and so on. It seems to me that most of the items Madison Avenue shills on network television are as easily affordable for people living in rural areas as they are for people living in cities. There has also been the claim that people living in rural areas are less likely to change brands than people living in urban areas. Again, I seriously doubt that given how early brand loyalty is developed in Americans.
Now I suppose that there might be those who will argue that more people live in cities than in the country, moderately sized cities, and small towns, but it seems to me that this could well be untrue. Indeed, I have always suspected that even now more people live in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas than big cities (or simply put, urban areas). I am not sure at what point the average American considers a city to have ceased being a moderately sized one and become a big one (that is, an urban area), but for me it happens when a city has a population of over 100,000. I will admit that to a degree for any given person what is considered "urban (that is, a "big city")" and what is considered "rural (the "country")" is largely subjective.
At any rate, to test my theory, I checked the percentage of people living in cities above the size of 100,000 to the total population of people of three different states (Iowa, Illinois, and New York). It turns out that only a little over 10% of the entire population of Iowa live in cities over 100,000 in population (not surprising, as there aren't many cities over 100,000 in Iowa). That means the majority of Iowans live in moderately sized towns (of which there aren't many in Iowa), small towns, and rural areas. Illinois has a higher percentage of city dwellers than Iowa; 28% of all Illini live in cities over 100,000 (and most of those live in Chicago), still fewer people than living in moderately sized cities and rural areas. Even in New York, home to the New York City (still the largest city in the United States), the majority of people live outside urban areas, although it is a greater number than either Iowa or Illinois. In New York 47% of the people live in cities over 100,000. This means that over half of all New Yorkers live in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas as opposed to big cities.
While I will admit that my approach was probably not the most scientific (perhaps I should have checked the populations of all 50 states, although that would be time consuming), but I think it could point to a possibility that the United States is not as urban as we have been led to believe. Quite simply, it seems to me that the majority of Americans live in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas, areas most people would not class as "urban." Since very few TV series in the past thirty years have even been set in moderately sized cities, let alone small towns or rural areas, I think it is safe to say that Madison Avenue and the networks have been ignoring the majority of Americans (in fact, sometimes I think that they are ignoring everyone living outside New York City and Los Angeles). Now I am no businessman, but I would think this is foolish. By creating shows that appeal to individuals living in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas, both Madison Avenue and the networks could increase their revenue dramatically. Let's face it, 100 people living in a small town, with a moderate income, each buying a bar of soap will raise more money for a soap manufacturer than one person living in a big city, with a huge income, buying one bar of soap.
It seems to me that Madison Avenue's idea that those between the ages of 18 and 49 living in urban areas are the most desirable demographic is then fundamentally flawed. This would not be so sad if it was not for the fact that it has had a dire affect on network television in the past thirty years. Two of my favourite TV shows were rural shows from the Sixties (The Andy Griffith Show and The Beverly Hillbillies), and I love King of the Hill. Sadly, rural shows on network television have been few and far between. And while I do fall into the 18 to 49 year old demographic, I must say that I have enjoyed shows featuring older people (The Golden Girls numbers among my favourite sitcoms). Of course, shows featuring older people have been ever rarer than those set in rural areas. In fact, it seems to me that Madison Avenue and the networks often skew their commercials and TV shows to the youngest people in the 18-49 year old demographic, if not younger. After all, I rather suspect that all those teen dramas that aired on the WB (now the CW), not to mention Grey's Anatomy, are not made for people my age.
Of course, all of this may be besides the point. Shows such as The Beverly Hillbillies, The Golden Girls, and King of the Hill have lasted for a reason. Quite simply, they are good shows. In fact, I rather suspect that many people living in big cities watch King of the Hill and many people under the age of 50 watch The Golden Girls. Rather than creating shows to appeal to a specific age group, then, perhaps the networks should simply concentrate on creating quality TV shows. If they are any good, then young people in urban areas will watch them, regardless of the ages of the characters or where they live.
At any rate, regardless of the impact it has had on network broadcasting, I honestly believe that in directing commercials and TV shows to people living in urban areas and between the ages of 18 to 49 is simply bad business. In targeting commercials and TV shows to people between the ages of 18 to 49, Madison Avenue and the networks have been ignoring those people who really have the disposable income to buy a wide array of items--those over the age of thirty and especially over the age of fifty. In creating commercials and TV shows with appeal to urban dwellers, they have ignored the majority of Americans, whose sheer numbers are really too large to ignore. It seems to me that if Madison Avenue and the networks want to make more money, then they are going to have to change their approach. They are going to have to give up targeting those between the age of 18 to 49 living in urban areas.
I am not sure how Madison Avenue decided that individuals aged 18 to 49 living in big cities were the most desirable demographic at whom to direct commercials and TV shows, but it had to be decades ago. When Oliver Treyz was president of ABC (the American Broadcasting Company) from 1956 to 1962, he constantly used demographic data to show that ABC was the network that appealed the most to individuals in the 18 to 49 age group. He campaigned for Nielsen to not only keep ratings on the number of households viewing shows, but to start keeping demographics of how old the viewers were and where they were from. Treyz argued that viewers in this age group were more likely to spend money on a variety of items. Unfortunately, I don't know if Treyz had developed these ideas on his own, or if he was simply following the ideas of the advertising agencies on Madison Avenue.
Regardless, in maintaining that demographics should have an impact on television broadcasting, he would seem to have had some influence. From the beginning of network broadcasts in 1946 well into the Sixties, Nielsen did not keep demographics on viewers.Until the late Sixties they simply measured how many households were watching any given show. And until the Sixties advertisers did not target their commercials to specific groups of people. By the late Sixties, however, all of this had changed. Nielsen started keeping track not only of how many households watched any given show, but how old those people were and where they lived. And advertisers would start creating advertising campaigns with specific demographics in mind.
Sadly, this would have an immediate impact on network television. The first sign that demographics were starting to matter in television broadcasting came in the 1969-1970 season. The Red Skelton Show had been on the air for nineteen seasons. It also ranked #7 in the top rated shows for the season. The Jackie Gleason Show had also been a mainstay of CBS for years. And while its ratings were not as high as that of The Red Skelton Show, they were still respectable. Regardless of their ratings, CBS cancelled both shows due to the fact that Skelton and Gleason's viewers were simply too old. Most likely the expense in producing both shows probably played a role in their cancellation (indeed, Red Skelton's contract stipulated that he received a salary raise each year) as well, but there can be little doubt that CBS would have dealt with the expense of the shows if they had appealed to a younger demographic. The Red Skelton Show would return that fall on NBC, only to be axed again at the close of the 1970-1971 season.
While the 1969-1970 saw demographics used as an excuse to cancel two shows, it would be the 1970-1971 season that would make it clear that demographics were playing as much of a role, if not more, than the ratings. What is worse is that the 1971-1972 season would see the implementation of the FCC's Prime Time Access Rule, issued in 1970.The Prime Time Access Rule reduced the amount of network programming that local stations could air in prime time. Whereas for most of television's history until that time the networks would air three and half hours worth of network programming (7:30 PM EST/6:30 PM CST to 11:00 PM EST/10:00 PM CST), they were now restricted to three hours worth of network programming (8:00 PM EST/7:00 PM CST to 11:00 PM EST/10:00 PM CST). The FCC believed that the Prime Time Access Rule would increase diversity on local stations, allowing them to air different sorts of shows in 7:30 PM EST/6:30 PM CST time slot. As history shows, this did not happen, as the 7:30 PM EST/6:30 PM CST time slot has been a haven for game shows and network sitcom reruns ever since. Regardless, because of the Prime Time Access Rule, the networks had to cancel many more shows than they ever had before.
Unfortunately, CBS in particular decided to rely upon demographics to decide which shows stayed and which shows left. The 1970-1971 season was the year of what has become known as "the rural purge." It was during that season that CBS cancelled nearly every one of its remaining rural oriented shows: The Beverly Hillbillies, The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour, Green Acres, Hee Haw, The Jim Nabors Show, and Mayberry R.F.D. Not only were shows that skewed more to a rural audience cancelled, but so were shows whose audiences were older: The Ed Sullivan Show, Family Affair, and Hogan's Heroes. At the time CBS Vice President of Programming, Fred Silverman, said of the mass cancellations, "The time has come to go big city as opposed to hayseed." Others saw it differently. Pat Buttram (who played Mr. Haney on Green Acres) commented, "It was the year CBS killed everything with a tree in it." CBS was not alone in cancelling shows because they believed their demographics to be undesirable. ABC cancelled The Lawrence Welk Show because its viewers were simply too old.
While none of the cancelled shows pulled in the ratings that The Red Skelton Show had in the 1969-1970 season, some of them were still doing quite well. Mayberry R.F.D. and Hee Haw ranked in the top twenty shows for the season. And history shows that both Hee Haw and The Lawrence Welk Show were obviously still popular. Both shows went into syndication immediately following their cancellations. Hee Haw would run for another 21 years. The Lawrence Welk Show would run in original syndication for eleven years before its reruns started appearing on PBS in 1986, where it has been ever since. Of course, I don't guess I need to mention that many of the reruns of many of the shows would go onto very successful syndication runs; The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, and Hogan's Heroes have been a staple of local stations and cable channels ever since.
Since that time viewers would be hard pressed to find shows meant to appeal to either rural folks or older people on network schedules. Not long after the rural purge had taken place, The Waltons was a big hit for CBS. Later in the same decade there would be The Dukes of Hazzard (a show which probably owed more to city people's stereotypes of Southern, country folk than country folk themselves--I have never liked that show). More recently there has been King of the Hill, Reba, and My Name is Earl. Shows featuring older people have been much, much rarer. Off the top of my head, I think the most recent shows whose lead characters are older have been The Golden Girls, Murder She Wrote, and Matlock.
Of course, I assume that most people would be like me in wondering why Madison Avenue and the television networks would so covet the attention of young, urban audiences. Well, there actually are reasons for it, even if I believe those reasons to be flawed. Much of it has been the view expressed by ABC President Oliver Treyz way back in the early Sixties, that young urban viewers are more likely to spend money on a variety of items. Unlike older people or people living in small towns and the country, they have less of a sense of brand loyalty; that is, they are more likely to switch brands. Another view that has consistently been expressed by Madison Avenue and the networks is that young, urban viewers have more disposable income. That is, they have more money to spend on various items. Finally, they are believed to be more likely to buy things on impulse than either older people or people living in rural areas.
The problem with this is that it doesn't seem to hold true. Indeed, I remember when I was in college being puzzled by the idea that young, urban people had more disposable income than anyone else. As a college student and later as a young twentysomething, I did not have the money to blow on items that I did not absolutely need. And it seemed to me that my fellow twentysomethings were all in the same boat--none of us had money to spare on a large array of commercial products. It just seemed to be common sense to me that people above the age of thirty, even above the age of sixty, would have more money to spend than people in their teens and twenties. What made Madison Avenue's insistence that the 18-49 age bracket was the demographic to pursue even odder is that, insofar as I know, neither Madison Avenue nor the television networks have ever conducted studies or surveys to prove any of this. It would seem that the one industry in America that thrives on studies and surveys never bothered to conduct either to prove one of their firmest convictions!
Indeed, of late there have been several studies which show what many of us already knew from common sense--the individuals who have the most money to spend are actually older. As executive vice president for research and planning at CBS, it is David Poltrack's job to keep track of those demographics important to the networks and Madison Avenue. And over the years he has concluded that Madison Avenue and the networks have been wrong in pursuing the 18 to 49 year old demographic to the exclusion of all else. Quite simply, older people buy more items than younger people. The demographic Madison Avenue and the networks should want the most is then the exact opposite of the one they do want--they should be going for the people over fifty! Currently it is individuals over fifty who have the most disposable income. In other words, rather than making commercials and TV shows for Generation Z, the advertising industry and the networks should be making commercials and TV shows for the baby boomers.
Of course, there is still the matter of brand loyalty. It could be that younger people are more likely to switch brands than older people, but to what extent I am not sure that anyone can say. In fact, I rather suspect that brand loyalty develops while people are still very young. I know that while I was still a child I determined that I preferred Coca Cola to Pepsi and Nestle to Hershey. I assume many of my readers have read about the recent study in which three to five year olds overwhelmingly identified food coming from McDonalds bags as tasting better than anything else. While I suspect that a young person is more likely to change brands than an old person, it seems to me that in both cases they are already loyal to certain brands and not that likely to change brands regardless of advertising.
So far I have simply dealt with the issue of age; there is still the matter of Madison Avenue and the television networks preferring urban dwellers to country dwellers. Just as younger people are supposed to have more disposable income than older people, so too are city folk supposed to have more disposable income than country folk. Indeed, I have even read claims that the fans of the rural shows of the Sixties could not afford the items advertised on those shows! Now I will admit, there are probably more millionaires living in cities than in rural areas, but then it seems to me that most of the commercials on network television are directed towards the middle class, not the wealthy. After all, when was the last time that an ad for Bentley or Cartier aired on prime time network television? Most of what is advertised on television are common items that nearly every American uses and can afford: soap, food, clothing, and so on. It seems to me that most of the items Madison Avenue shills on network television are as easily affordable for people living in rural areas as they are for people living in cities. There has also been the claim that people living in rural areas are less likely to change brands than people living in urban areas. Again, I seriously doubt that given how early brand loyalty is developed in Americans.
Now I suppose that there might be those who will argue that more people live in cities than in the country, moderately sized cities, and small towns, but it seems to me that this could well be untrue. Indeed, I have always suspected that even now more people live in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas than big cities (or simply put, urban areas). I am not sure at what point the average American considers a city to have ceased being a moderately sized one and become a big one (that is, an urban area), but for me it happens when a city has a population of over 100,000. I will admit that to a degree for any given person what is considered "urban (that is, a "big city")" and what is considered "rural (the "country")" is largely subjective.
At any rate, to test my theory, I checked the percentage of people living in cities above the size of 100,000 to the total population of people of three different states (Iowa, Illinois, and New York). It turns out that only a little over 10% of the entire population of Iowa live in cities over 100,000 in population (not surprising, as there aren't many cities over 100,000 in Iowa). That means the majority of Iowans live in moderately sized towns (of which there aren't many in Iowa), small towns, and rural areas. Illinois has a higher percentage of city dwellers than Iowa; 28% of all Illini live in cities over 100,000 (and most of those live in Chicago), still fewer people than living in moderately sized cities and rural areas. Even in New York, home to the New York City (still the largest city in the United States), the majority of people live outside urban areas, although it is a greater number than either Iowa or Illinois. In New York 47% of the people live in cities over 100,000. This means that over half of all New Yorkers live in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas as opposed to big cities.
While I will admit that my approach was probably not the most scientific (perhaps I should have checked the populations of all 50 states, although that would be time consuming), but I think it could point to a possibility that the United States is not as urban as we have been led to believe. Quite simply, it seems to me that the majority of Americans live in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas, areas most people would not class as "urban." Since very few TV series in the past thirty years have even been set in moderately sized cities, let alone small towns or rural areas, I think it is safe to say that Madison Avenue and the networks have been ignoring the majority of Americans (in fact, sometimes I think that they are ignoring everyone living outside New York City and Los Angeles). Now I am no businessman, but I would think this is foolish. By creating shows that appeal to individuals living in moderately sized cities, small towns, and rural areas, both Madison Avenue and the networks could increase their revenue dramatically. Let's face it, 100 people living in a small town, with a moderate income, each buying a bar of soap will raise more money for a soap manufacturer than one person living in a big city, with a huge income, buying one bar of soap.
It seems to me that Madison Avenue's idea that those between the ages of 18 and 49 living in urban areas are the most desirable demographic is then fundamentally flawed. This would not be so sad if it was not for the fact that it has had a dire affect on network television in the past thirty years. Two of my favourite TV shows were rural shows from the Sixties (The Andy Griffith Show and The Beverly Hillbillies), and I love King of the Hill. Sadly, rural shows on network television have been few and far between. And while I do fall into the 18 to 49 year old demographic, I must say that I have enjoyed shows featuring older people (The Golden Girls numbers among my favourite sitcoms). Of course, shows featuring older people have been ever rarer than those set in rural areas. In fact, it seems to me that Madison Avenue and the networks often skew their commercials and TV shows to the youngest people in the 18-49 year old demographic, if not younger. After all, I rather suspect that all those teen dramas that aired on the WB (now the CW), not to mention Grey's Anatomy, are not made for people my age.
Of course, all of this may be besides the point. Shows such as The Beverly Hillbillies, The Golden Girls, and King of the Hill have lasted for a reason. Quite simply, they are good shows. In fact, I rather suspect that many people living in big cities watch King of the Hill and many people under the age of 50 watch The Golden Girls. Rather than creating shows to appeal to a specific age group, then, perhaps the networks should simply concentrate on creating quality TV shows. If they are any good, then young people in urban areas will watch them, regardless of the ages of the characters or where they live.
At any rate, regardless of the impact it has had on network broadcasting, I honestly believe that in directing commercials and TV shows to people living in urban areas and between the ages of 18 to 49 is simply bad business. In targeting commercials and TV shows to people between the ages of 18 to 49, Madison Avenue and the networks have been ignoring those people who really have the disposable income to buy a wide array of items--those over the age of thirty and especially over the age of fifty. In creating commercials and TV shows with appeal to urban dwellers, they have ignored the majority of Americans, whose sheer numbers are really too large to ignore. It seems to me that if Madison Avenue and the networks want to make more money, then they are going to have to change their approach. They are going to have to give up targeting those between the age of 18 to 49 living in urban areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
