I live in a household that has satelite dish television. I watch it. A lot. I used to watch it more. When I first moved in I would lie on the couch 'till 2am exploring the magical options of late night television. There are 300 channels being sent to my house. What does one do with that many choices?? I'v learned that 300 channels are useful if you want to catch the Asian Variety Show (a Bollywood version of Entertainment Tonight.) If you want to watch music videos you've got four channels to choose from -- as long as you're willing to watch between 11pm and 4am. If that dosn't do it for ya, Disney broadcasts on three channels 24 hrs a day and there's always Food Network, TCM, Animal Planet, and non-stop Law & Order on TNT.
I'v watched so much television that now I'm starting to notice things about it. I'm not talking about little things one notices, like the way The Men's Channel never plans or posts their programming. (It's always just a crapshoot. If you turn on The Men's Channel your liable to see anything. Sure it's all boring stuff like tractor pulls and hunting shows and infomercials about rototillers, but it's always a surprise.) And I'm not here to tell you that everything on Lifetime is a bizarre fairy tale for housewives. (Bizarre because it all too often involves abusive husbands, horrible circumstances, and sensitive bearded men tearfully over-acting. Why would one want to watch things like this?) or that all of the original series by Showtime are about shallow self-righteous people being horrid. Nope, what i'v been noticing is something a little more all-encompasing. I'v noticed that television is careful to not be too good.
Yup. You heard me. They strive to maintain a strict mediocracy. Which is not to say there aren't talented actors, writers, directors, and such working on television programming. I belive there are many very talented people in the industry. But I also am starting to think that there is something/someone who works very hard to ruin any chances of a show being too good. What about the good shows, you ask? What about the brilliant shows with well-developed characters, fine actors, and clear directorial vision? What about those?
Those shows, my friend, the shows which somehow miraculously make their way through the laborious burecratic mediocraty machene, those shows are cancelled. The networks work pretty hard to make sure they have a good reason to cancel 'em too. They move the time slots around so the average viewer can never manage to see it more than once. They pick the worst episode and re-run it five times in a row. They tamper with the sponsors, the time slot, the contracts, they try to interject some element of awfulness (like another child or a talking dog), they do everything they can to make the show not succeed. The only time they condescend to not cancel a really good show is if no one watches it. (see Arrested Development.) A cult favorite and critic's darling do not a mainstream sucess make. Which is just fine with them.
As you can see, I'm building up quite a head of steam on this little conspiracy theory of mine. I'm quite proud. I love paranoid crackpot ideas. Could listen to 'em all day. Which brings me to my point -- why. Why would T.V. be best served bland? Why do they not just pander to the lowest common denominator (which is understandable) or the sensational (which is sort of fun) but to the determinedly average? Well, I belive it's because television programming is designed to provide the viewer with a lack of resolution.
It's sort of like the entertainment equalent to salty potato chips. Or milk chocolate. Or lemonade. You have some and as soon as it's done your mouth isn't quite satisfied (because it's too salty or too milky or too sugary) and you want some more. Instinctively, and without thought, you reach for that next chip, that next Hershy's kiss (w/ caramel), that next glass of too-sweet-sour drink, the next hour of television. And when you reach the end of that next hour do you think to yourself, "Aaah. That was satisfiying. Now I can turn the television off and go be productive!"? No. No you don't and you probably never will. You'll instead feel just a touch unsettled, a bit unresolved. Perhaps the happy ending of the last hour wasn't quite happy enough, or perhaps some of the actors responces rang false and you don't quite believe they meant what they said. Maybe the storyline introduced some disturbing images and so you're thinking about the conflict of the story far longer than the theoretical resolution. Or maybe it was just a really boring episode of Hogan's Heros and you wonder who's idea it was to make a comedy about a German concentration camp.
To prove my point, let's examine a selection from the new fall television schedule. "Bones" is a show about a forensic anthropologist, which is actually pretty cool. What's better, it has David Boreanaz in it. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Boreanaz is the actor formerly known as "Angel." The premire of this show was in a prime slot right before "House." Everything is set up to be perfect, to become a burgeoning science/mystery/crime franchise for Fox. And yet... it's not all that great. The stories are cool. The science is neat. The sidekicks and lab assistants rock. All of the Washington D.C. officals are actual people and act like politicians. David Breanaz is georgus and human and smart and can act. So what makes this show mediocre? Emily Deschanel. That's right. Of all the seething hordes of actresses available to play this role, they picked someone who can't act. She's got one face and she sticks with it. (In the photo she's the one who looks like a big-jawed skeleton w/ bad hair. the one on the left.) As an example there's a scene in the premire where Mr. Breanaz is "arguing" with Deschanel in the close confines of a shooting range booth. It's written beautifully and all the (theoretical) sexual tension should be simmering close to the surface. The director set up the shot prefectly, and Mr. Breanaz even goes so far as to do that "leaning" thing. (you know, leeeeaning....) My roomate walked into the room at this point, observed Deschanel's complete lack of responce to Breanaz and flatly stated, "She's a lesbian. That's the only possible way someone could NOT have chemistry with that man. Wait, no, on second thought, lesbians would react to him too."
I laughed pretty hard. Anyway, if you watch it you'll see further proof that television is designed to keep your couch potato backside exactly where it is. I'm going to start working on my crackpot Media Conspiracy! theory newsletter right now so let me know if you want to subcribe. Well, okay maybe I'll start working on it after "House" is over....
