It is four weeks into this gig as Arts columnist; it figuresthat I should give some print as to why television consumes mybrain. The state of TV programming today contains none of theartistic elements of film and rarely packs the emotional punch.
First, before I delve into my column, a clarification: The titleof this column is not pronounced "Wolly and the Teevee." If itwere, I would have spelled it that way. Instead, that last wordrhymes with "leave." Why? In the classic fifties television program"Leave it to Beaver," the titular character's brother was namedWally. Beaver Cleaver's good friend Eddie would come over and askhim. "Hey Wally! Where's the Beav?" And so, there you have it,Wolly and the Teev. As in, rhymes with Beav.
Moving on.
I had a lively conversation with one of the Arts editors abouthow almost all modern coverage of television, whether it be fromthe business side or in a critical review, has a "hate to love" or"love to hate" aspect to it. It is rare to find any show, outsideof HBO programming, that doesn't lower the bar of expectations.
This explains why the biggest problem with television today islowered expectations. That's why the newest GEICO ad, in itscampaign of spoofing other TV ads with the "gotcha" punch of"saving 15 percent or more on your car insurance," works so well.The advertisement starts off by showing a newly married couplehaving to live in a house that is half the size of a normaldomicile. The "show" is called "Tiny House," and the couple beginsbickering in a way that is all too familiar with reality televisionviewers. The ad is astonishingly believable and memorable, so kudosto the GEICO advertisers, but I think it reveals something deeperabout reality TV.
To state the obvious, reality programming dominates networktelevision. The success of the whole genre is predicated on thebelief in the worst. In the epic struggle of tragedy vs. triumph,there will always be bystanders rooting for each side. Realityshows appeal to the inner being in everyone who cheers on"tragedy." The joy of watching "Survivor" or "The Apprentice" isnot in watching the good guy win, but in seeing the bad guy lose.This carnal desire to see "cruelty" imposed on those who deserve itmakes television so easy to hate and easy to love at the sametime.
"The Biggest Loser" is a new NBC show that epitomizes thecritic's dilemma with today's television programming. In theseries, twelve grotesquely obese contestants compete to see who canlose the most weight. "'The Biggest Loser' becomes the biggestwinner walking away with a healthier body - and $250,000," saysNBC.com. Ostensibly, the show is about fat people shedding pounds.In reality, it is about laughing at human beings with a weightproblem. It's almost as bad as "The Littlest Groom."
As a viewer or a critic, there's a moral conundrum. You can'thate the show because it is giving people a chance to lose weight,be healthier and earn some money. But you can't love the showbecause it denigrates its contestants, belittling them for youramusement.
So the follow-up question is, "Why write about TV if it is sobad?" We are the generation of the unbridled expansion oftelevision. Our parents grew up with three networks (NBC, ABC,CBS); our older siblings and cousins enjoyed a handful more withthe emergence of cable. In our lifetimes, television diffusedthroughout all aspects of our daily routines, whether we watched asa child or not.
I grew up in a household without cable. Perhaps now I'mcompensating for it in this weekly column by discussing cablepersonalities Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly. But it is the cablenetworks that are steering the direction of television as awhole.
In our youth, we saw the beginning of a war on CNN, theevolution of a criminal trial on CourtTV, the emergence of the"me-first" mentality in sports on ESPN. Partisan opinion becamenews reporting on Fox News Channel and the concept of "instantnostalgia" was born on VH1. Cable television has forced networktelevision to adapt to the newer competition. Unfortunately, thereaction was in the form of low-cost, low-risk and low-brow realitytelevision.
Is there any hope? Can TV surpass our expectations and maketuning in a guiltless pleasure? The successes of HBO's intelligentprogramming, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "The Sopranos" among them,has influenced the networks in positive ways. "DesperateHousewives" is giving fresh blood to moribund ABC; the irresistiblywitty "Arrested Development" looks to gain speed following its Emmyvictories last month. Television might be on the rebound, and couldpossibly renew our belief in the best.
