How was television figured as a “window on the world” during the period of 1948-1955, according to Lynn Spigel? Do you think television fulfills (or is portrayed as fulfilling) a similar role today? Take a look at this pre-war demonstration of British television and describe the aesthetics of this early experimentation with TV during the 1930s. How is the viewer positioned or addressed? How do the formal elements of this program compare to contemporary television?
The pre-war demonstration of British television had very interesting viewer dynamics and formality. First of all, the structure of the entire program as well as the purpose of program were laid out at the beginning. Therefore the viewers knew exactly what to expect. Additionally, the viewers are directly spoken to when the speaker says "as most of you know" and "those of you watching". This direct connection is not commonly used in TV today, I assume because TV is such a commodity everyone already knows what to expect. Additionally, TV programs today do not seem as formal. This program had a rigid structure and pacing as well as very factual information creating this sense formality. However, this program serves the function of allowing the viewer to explore and be a part of the world right from their home. TV today serves that function as well. Spigel uses the term "hyper-realism" to describe the fact that TV allows you not only to view events from all around the world, but you are able to see everything from the best angle possible. An example of this would be sporting events. TV sports program allow you to watch an event from your home and get a front row seat. This still holds true today. One of my favorite shows is Amazing Race, a reality game show where contestants race around the world completing different tasks, challenges, etc. This is one my favorite shows because I get to see countries and cultures that I will most likely never get to see myself. Additionally news reports also serve similar function because viewers are allowed to see situations occurring around the world that have the potential to affect their daily life. This ability to travel the world in your own home is a key factor into the development and popularity of TV. Television was truly a "window on the world" during the 40's and 50's, and it still is today.
Television was portrayed as a "window on the world" during the late forties and mid-fifties primarily because of its ability to "bring the outside in". Television brought the world to people's homes, which not only helped people eliminate the cost associated with traveling, but also achieved what technology strove to do -- eradicate physical distance. Many television advertisements made use of this to promote their products. For instance, women's magazines often displayed television sets in rooms with panoramic window views, or placed next to icons of spatial conquest, such as globes and maps.
With the rapid advancements in technology over the last 50 years, however, I feel like television is gradually losing its status as "window on the world". Technological advancements have not only made traveling over long distances faster and cheaper -- so many more people today have been on a plane as compared to fifty years ago, but have also paved the way for other forms of media to "bring the outside in", for instance you can simply click on your friend's photos of Rome on Facebook as opposed to watching a clip of Rome on television. Not to mention your friend's photos will probably give you a more realistic idea of Rome.
First and foremost, this clip of British television seems so much less aesthetically pleasing as compared to the television programs we are used to seeing in this day and age. It is neither in HD, nor is the screen 42 inches. There is also a blueish tint that seem to wash over everything on screen. However, despite all these imperfections, I feel like at its core, it still contains many elements of television we see today. The close-ups for instance, are still very much a key element in today's television program as well as films. Therefore, it can be said that the formal elements of this program are not that different from what we have today. The only difference, perhaps, lies in the execution. Contemporary television are able to render these elements much better, thanks to the advent of technology.
It is interesting to note how, at the beginning of the show, a voice addresses the audience directly, stating that the program is "for viewing rooms only" and that it is "not intended for home reception". The voice further states that the program is a survey for the programs that the BBC were transmitting at that time. Finally the audience is enlightened, or rather reminded that "television programs are not simply televised film transmissions". Although we no longer hear such things on television today (probably because, as Katherine pointed out, we already know what to expect), I feel like we do still have something similar -- the warning that goes along the lines of "for mature audiences only" that we sometimes hear before shows like Dexter begin proper.
Television was seen as the connection from the home to the outside world. Thus, it was portrayed as the "window to the world". It gave individuals the ability to remain connected to their surrounding communities without leaving the comfort of their home. In summary, television was seen as the connector between public and private spheres. Not only, could television transport the viewer to their neighboring cities, but it allowed them to view parts of the world that they may have not been predisposed to. Furthermore, along with Spigel's idea of "hyper-realism", television not only promised to bring an illusion of reality to audiences, but promised them a sense of being physically present at the program. Television also promised to not only deliver life-like quality to it's viewers but the best quality. This means the best seat in the house with the ability to see the action from far away, but also up close and personal. By addressing the viewer and breaking the 4th wall, television managed to personalize the television experience for it's audiences.
As we can see in the video of British Television, the hosts directly address the audience and inform them of all the programming that will be included in the broadcast. As we move on into the different scenes, the audience is given the best shots to see the performers and speakers. Coupled with close up shots of the performers talent and technique. These shots allow the viewer to feel like they are receiving the best view at the theatre. This televised broadcast is different from some of the American television Programs we watched in last week's screenings that there is usually a host still present in between the scenes and helping the viewer understand what is coming next, as we saw in Texaco Star when Milton Berle would stop and talk to the viewers in between skits. The broadcast is similar in the sense that vaudeville still has a strong influence on what kinds of skits and acts are shown on television.
In comparison to contemporary television there are programs which do provide a quick summary of what will be discussed and viewed prior to the start of the shows. We see these quick summaries present in news broadcast, talk shows, and even some serial dramas. For example, prior to the news broadcast there is a minute summary showing the top stories that will be covered and talked about during the duration of the program. Serial dramas utilize the summary recap differently however, instead of showing what will occur in this weeks episode it recaps the viewer on what occurred the previous week and the cliff hanger that will be answered in this weeks episode.
Lastly, television today still gives viewers the best seat in the house by providing a mix of far and close up views of the live action. Viewers can still feel like they are a part of the program and now because of the advances i technology, they are involved in more so then before. I think the television industry is always looking for more ways to incorporate the audience and we can certainly see that with the inclusion of social media sites like twitter in which the audiences can have a live interaction with the programming and celebrities of the show.
Post World War II, when women returned from the work force to the home, television became a window from the private sphere to the rest of the world. Spigal described this as a “utopian promise” to families that invested in the new technology, as the “window on the world” served the arguably disconnected suburban homes to the rest of the world. Of course, with any new “utopian” theory comes dystopian paranoia, which Spiegal described as, for example, the threatening “electronic eye”. While this associated fear may have dwindled over time, as television became an integral part of Americans’ lives, the intrigue for television content has truly proven the test of time. Thus, I would argue that television plays a very similar role today as it did during this period. An example of this is world news. It is through live video content that we are able to fully connect to what’s happening in, for example, Israel and Palestine. While this provides a very literal example of a “window on the world”, television still allows us to be anywhere, and be with any one in the comfort of our own living rooms. While television content has greatly changed since this period, what has not changed is our desire to use television in a very similar matter. As with other early American Vaudeville television shows, the narrator of this British show directly addresses the audience, and explains what they are about to see. However, the camera captures the image from different positions in a more cinematic-fashion. Unlike the early American shows, this show did not present itself like a filmed piece of live theater, and instead felt like a carefully pieced together narration. A combination of both this style, as well as the Vaudevillian American shows create many elements we see in modern television.
Spigel debates that television was a "window to the world" in many ways. Television was advertised as being able to take you outside while in the comfort of your own home. Anyone could be comfortable in the living room and at the same time be exposed to views of different countries, performances, and people. One example is when I Love Lucy went to Hollywood for a season, bringing the viewers at home a vacation within their own homes. It could also give the audience at home the best views of the actors, allowing them to see close up shots they would never get if they had actually gone out to a theater. I do believe that television can play a similar role today, but it just is not promoted in this way anymore. Many current television shows still take trips to different places all over the world. Game of Thrones is an example of a show that brings its viewers to many different beautiful places that many people will not see anywhere else in their lifetimes. This British television show is a variety show that has acts such as an orchestra, a tap dancer, and singing. It seems to be directed at an audience as if it is a real show in the theater, letting the audience sit at home and watch instead of having to leave the comfort of the living room. It varies from contemporary television in that the acts seem to flip from one to the next without much introduction. This made it have a choppy feeling that most shows today usually do not show.
Television was viewed as a “window on the world” because it brought in what was going on in different parts of the world to people’s living rooms, where it had never been before. Television eradicated distance - people could see very distant parts of the world just from their living room. Lynn Spigel discusses this when she writes about “hyper-realism,” where the viewer is considered to physically be “there,” there being wherever what is on the television is. She describes this as the viewers, without having to leave their living rooms, as having the best seat in the action - better than people who are actually at the event. In addition to this, she goes on to describe television at this time as having a way of including the viewer in the program. The breaks from the show’s sponsor acted as sort of an in-between the viewers and the cast of the show. The viewers, already having the “best seat in the house,” would be already involved in the show. Then, someone would break to talk about whatever product the show advertised. The people who would seemingly interrupt the show have a special status as “real people” who get to talk to the viewers through this window into their home. In addition to this, programs like The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show made the viewers aware that they (Burns and Allen) were aware that people were watching them.
In addition to this, television’s role as a “window on the world” took the home, previously a purely private space, where one would go to escape the outside world, and transformed it into public space. Spigel talks about this in different ways. One, she describes how owning a television transformed the home into a type of theater, where the arrangement of the furniture and other decor became important. Two, she describes television in relation to the mass suburbanization in post-war America. Not only did some early television programs depict a lifestyle that wasn’t always attainable to the average urban viewer, be it that they couldn’t afford it or they weren’t allowed to have it (for example, housing discrimination and redlining,) but it made people who were living this private property owning, suburban lifestyle aware that their homes and lifestyle had become part of the public sphere, or at least what people thought it should be like. This lead to domestic conflicts such as women comparing their husbands negatively to television actors and set up the path of television’s role as a tool of socialization.
Today, television still is portrayed as a window on the world. People can still see and experience things through it that they couldn’t otherwise. However, it definitely does not have the novelty that television had during the 1940s and 1950s. You can use the internet to find anything you could see on television, and much more. Television today is much more informal, and in my opinion very representative of the fact that television is treated as something that everyone has or had access to daily, and it isn’t a sign of privilege or wealth. However, television is much more interactive now due to social media and other technologies, so the world that TV brings in is much wider and inclusive than the one in the 1940s and 1950s.
The British program addresses the viewer very formally, and states who should be watching. It also tells the viewer what to expect from the type of broadcasts they would receive, and features a person addressing the viewer on screen for a significant amount of time about the program. The program, like others, acknowledges the viewer - for example, the two women said “Ladies and Gentlemen, the Television Orchestra.” In contemporary television, there is still this type of address, but it isn’t usually directly at the audience at home. In my experience, there is usually some type of audience at the source of the broadcast, unless it’s live or the fourth wall is being broken. The content also is very informational, which reminds me of programs on public stations like PBS.
My favorite phrase that Spigel used in her article was when she referred to TV as a “global village” in which people were brought together in their living rooms to experience the outside world. As mentioned in many of the previous comments, this was a time when families resorted to their own domestic utopias. Investing in a television set provided all necessary entertainment as well as opportunities to “travel” through TV shows: for example, when I Love Lucy spent a season in Hollywood. This video of pre-war British television is a great example of how the producers of television approached TV programs as if they were staged for a live audience. The direct address and positioning of song and dance numbers directly to the audience counters how TV is formally constructed today. This hyper-realism is amplified through close-ups in which the audience still receives the same live show sensation, but utilizing the abilities of the camera to show images up close, as well as through a specific lens. When we sit down to watch TV, usually we are only directly addressed when we are watching the news, reality programs, or commercials. The bulk of TV entertainment content today consists of narratives in which breaking the fourth wall is rarely apart of the program. Contemporary television pulls us in, encouraging us to lose ourselves in the program, whereas early TV encouraged a sort of viewer bonding, in which viewers engaged more with one another during the program – similarly to how one would enjoy a live performance.
As the british television demonstration so clearly presents, the idea of the "window to the world" is the ability to bring the casual forms of entertainment into the comfort of the home where they were previously not accessible. By casual forms of entertainment, I am referring to the activities which the demonstration so clearly takes the viewer through. Instead of traveling and/or paying to watch sports, an orchestral concert, live theater, singing performance, or even a fashion show, the television brings these forms of entertainment to the viewers. From the living room, a viewer is allowed access to this window of the outside world with added bonus of having the best seat, or according the Spigel, the sense of hyper-realism. But more than being subjected to the average entertainment viewers may already have access to outside the home, television allows the opportunity to travel beyond the realm of accessibility. The "window to the world" does indeed encompass "the world" as T.V. eliminates distance by broadcasting shows from places that can go beyond the borders of the country. Whereas the early british demonstration is very formal and directly addresses the viewer in almost every instance (as a potential way to disassociate itself with films), today's television often takes on the opposite effect. Besides news stations, and sports broadcasting, for the most part t.v. has taken on a form of entertainment very similar to that of cinema. Rather than be a "window to the world" where the viewers knows it is not associated, some shows hope to transport you to its world.
The formal elements of the television program show above are quite different from contemporary television broadcast today. The main difference that struck me almost immediately was that the characters portrayed on the screen were talking directly to the audience, telling them how the show would be constructed. There was no illusion or creation of characters we see in much of contemporary television today.
Spigel talks about a sense of hyper-realism in the reading we covered for class which is a sense a heightened perception of an event. The analogy he aptly conveys this idea through is a baseball game. When watching a baseball game on TV, one always has 'the best seat in the house'. An added layer on top of this hyper-realism is misenbyme in which one is watching as if they are not in one's own living room, for example, but in some sort of entertainment realm such as a theatre. However, the broadcast above does not convey a sense of hyper-realism or misembyme as well as we see contemporary television do so through tactics and strategies developed and sharpened over many years. One key difference is the advancement of technology that enables hyper-realism to be achieved through many cameras, advanced production techniques and universal technological adaptations that simply were not existent in the 1930's.
Lastly, the idea of a global village is one that resonated with me in the Spigel reading. Through the creation of TV, cultures began to traverse geographic boundaries, creating a connected community across the world. This was certainly beginning to come across but not yet fully in the early stages of television as portrayed in the above clip. I certainly think today TV's role still connects cultures, from BBC broadcasts to international sitcoms. References and newscasts can traverse far beyond seas and lands thanks to this advancement in technology and contemporary television. However, multimedia is certainly starting to change this realm of mass media broadcasting.
The pre-war demonstration of British television had very interesting viewer dynamics and formality. First of all, the structure of the entire program as well as the purpose of program were laid out at the beginning. Therefore the viewers knew exactly what to expect. Additionally, the viewers are directly spoken to when the speaker says "as most of you know" and "those of you watching". This direct connection is not commonly used in TV today, I assume because TV is such a commodity everyone already knows what to expect. Additionally, TV programs today do not seem as formal. This program had a rigid structure and pacing as well as very factual information creating this sense formality. However, this program serves the function of allowing the viewer to explore and be a part of the world right from their home. TV today serves that function as well.
ReplyDeleteSpigel uses the term "hyper-realism" to describe the fact that TV allows you not only to view events from all around the world, but you are able to see everything from the best angle possible. An example of this would be sporting events. TV sports program allow you to watch an event from your home and get a front row seat. This still holds true today. One of my favorite shows is Amazing Race, a reality game show where contestants race around the world completing different tasks, challenges, etc. This is one my favorite shows because I get to see countries and cultures that I will most likely never get to see myself. Additionally news reports also serve similar function because viewers are allowed to see situations occurring around the world that have the potential to affect their daily life.
This ability to travel the world in your own home is a key factor into the development and popularity of TV. Television was truly a "window on the world" during the 40's and 50's, and it still is today.
Television was portrayed as a "window on the world" during the late forties and mid-fifties primarily because of its ability to "bring the outside in". Television brought the world to people's homes, which not only helped people eliminate the cost associated with traveling, but also achieved what technology strove to do -- eradicate physical distance. Many television advertisements made use of this to promote their products. For instance, women's magazines often displayed television sets in rooms with panoramic window views, or placed next to icons of spatial conquest, such as globes and maps.
ReplyDeleteWith the rapid advancements in technology over the last 50 years, however, I feel like television is gradually losing its status as "window on the world". Technological advancements have not only made traveling over long distances faster and cheaper -- so many more people today have been on a plane as compared to fifty years ago, but have also paved the way for other forms of media to "bring the outside in", for instance you can simply click on your friend's photos of Rome on Facebook as opposed to watching a clip of Rome on television. Not to mention your friend's photos will probably give you a more realistic idea of Rome.
First and foremost, this clip of British television seems so much less aesthetically pleasing as compared to the television programs we are used to seeing in this day and age. It is neither in HD, nor is the screen 42 inches. There is also a blueish tint that seem to wash over everything on screen. However, despite all these imperfections, I feel like at its core, it still contains many elements of television we see today. The close-ups for instance, are still very much a key element in today's television program as well as films. Therefore, it can be said that the formal elements of this program are not that different from what we have today. The only difference, perhaps, lies in the execution. Contemporary television are able to render these elements much better, thanks to the advent of technology.
It is interesting to note how, at the beginning of the show, a voice addresses the audience directly, stating that the program is "for viewing rooms only" and that it is "not intended for home reception". The voice further states that the program is a survey for the programs that the BBC were transmitting at that time. Finally the audience is enlightened, or rather reminded that "television programs are not simply televised film transmissions". Although we no longer hear such things on television today (probably because, as Katherine pointed out, we already know what to expect), I feel like we do still have something similar -- the warning that goes along the lines of "for mature audiences only" that we sometimes hear before shows like Dexter begin proper.
Television was seen as the connection from the home to the outside world. Thus, it was portrayed as the "window to the world". It gave individuals the ability to remain connected to their surrounding communities without leaving the comfort of their home. In summary, television was seen as the connector between public and private spheres. Not only, could television transport the viewer to their neighboring cities, but it allowed them to view parts of the world that they may have not been predisposed to. Furthermore, along with Spigel's idea of "hyper-realism", television not only promised to bring an illusion of reality to audiences, but promised them a sense of being physically present at the program. Television also promised to not only deliver life-like quality to it's viewers but the best quality. This means the best seat in the house with the ability to see the action from far away, but also up close and personal. By addressing the viewer and breaking the 4th wall, television managed to personalize the television experience for it's audiences.
ReplyDeleteAs we can see in the video of British Television, the hosts directly address the audience and inform them of all the programming that will be included in the broadcast. As we move on into the different scenes, the audience is given the best shots to see the performers and speakers. Coupled with close up shots of the performers talent and technique. These shots allow the viewer to feel like they are receiving the best view at the theatre. This televised broadcast is different from some of the American television Programs we watched in last week's screenings that there is usually a host still present in between the scenes and helping the viewer understand what is coming next, as we saw in Texaco Star when Milton Berle would stop and talk to the viewers in between skits. The broadcast is similar in the sense that vaudeville still has a strong influence on what kinds of skits and acts are shown on television.
In comparison to contemporary television there are programs which do provide a quick summary of what will be discussed and viewed prior to the start of the shows. We see these quick summaries present in news broadcast, talk shows, and even some serial dramas. For example, prior to the news broadcast there is a minute summary showing the top stories that will be covered and talked about during the duration of the program. Serial dramas utilize the summary recap differently however, instead of showing what will occur in this weeks episode it recaps the viewer on what occurred the previous week and the cliff hanger that will be answered in this weeks episode.
Lastly, television today still gives viewers the best seat in the house by providing a mix of far and close up views of the live action. Viewers can still feel like they are a part of the program and now because of the advances i technology, they are involved in more so then before. I think the television industry is always looking for more ways to incorporate the audience and we can certainly see that with the inclusion of social media sites like twitter in which the audiences can have a live interaction with the programming and celebrities of the show.
Post World War II, when women returned from the work force to the home, television became a window from the private sphere to the rest of the world. Spigal described this as a “utopian promise” to families that invested in the new technology, as the “window on the world” served the arguably disconnected suburban homes to the rest of the world. Of course, with any new “utopian” theory comes dystopian paranoia, which Spiegal described as, for example, the threatening “electronic eye”. While this associated fear may have dwindled over time, as television became an integral part of Americans’ lives, the intrigue for television content has truly proven the test of time.
ReplyDeleteThus, I would argue that television plays a very similar role today as it did during this period. An example of this is world news. It is through live video content that we are able to fully connect to what’s happening in, for example, Israel and Palestine. While this provides a very literal example of a “window on the world”, television still allows us to be anywhere, and be with any one in the comfort of our own living rooms. While television content has greatly changed since this period, what has not changed is our desire to use television in a very similar matter.
As with other early American Vaudeville television shows, the narrator of this British show directly addresses the audience, and explains what they are about to see. However, the camera captures the image from different positions in a more cinematic-fashion. Unlike the early American shows, this show did not present itself like a filmed piece of live theater, and instead felt like a carefully pieced together narration. A combination of both this style, as well as the Vaudevillian American shows create many elements we see in modern television.
Spigel debates that television was a "window to the world" in many ways. Television was advertised as being able to take you outside while in the comfort of your own home. Anyone could be comfortable in the living room and at the same time be exposed to views of different countries, performances, and people. One example is when I Love Lucy went to Hollywood for a season, bringing the viewers at home a vacation within their own homes. It could also give the audience at home the best views of the actors, allowing them to see close up shots they would never get if they had actually gone out to a theater. I do believe that television can play a similar role today, but it just is not promoted in this way anymore. Many current television shows still take trips to different places all over the world. Game of Thrones is an example of a show that brings its viewers to many different beautiful places that many people will not see anywhere else in their lifetimes. This British television show is a variety show that has acts such as an orchestra, a tap dancer, and singing. It seems to be directed at an audience as if it is a real show in the theater, letting the audience sit at home and watch instead of having to leave the comfort of the living room. It varies from contemporary television in that the acts seem to flip from one to the next without much introduction. This made it have a choppy feeling that most shows today usually do not show.
ReplyDeleteTelevision was viewed as a “window on the world” because it brought in what was going on in different parts of the world to people’s living rooms, where it had never been before. Television eradicated distance - people could see very distant parts of the world just from their living room. Lynn Spigel discusses this when she writes about “hyper-realism,” where the viewer is considered to physically be “there,” there being wherever what is on the television is. She describes this as the viewers, without having to leave their living rooms, as having the best seat in the action - better than people who are actually at the event. In addition to this, she goes on to describe television at this time as having a way of including the viewer in the program. The breaks from the show’s sponsor acted as sort of an in-between the viewers and the cast of the show. The viewers, already having the “best seat in the house,” would be already involved in the show. Then, someone would break to talk about whatever product the show advertised. The people who would seemingly interrupt the show have a special status as “real people” who get to talk to the viewers through this window into their home. In addition to this, programs like The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show made the viewers aware that they (Burns and Allen) were aware that people were watching them.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to this, television’s role as a “window on the world” took the home, previously a purely private space, where one would go to escape the outside world, and transformed it into public space. Spigel talks about this in different ways. One, she describes how owning a television transformed the home into a type of theater, where the arrangement of the furniture and other decor became important. Two, she describes television in relation to the mass suburbanization in post-war America. Not only did some early television programs depict a lifestyle that wasn’t always attainable to the average urban viewer, be it that they couldn’t afford it or they weren’t allowed to have it (for example, housing discrimination and redlining,) but it made people who were living this private property owning, suburban lifestyle aware that their homes and lifestyle had become part of the public sphere, or at least what people thought it should be like. This lead to domestic conflicts such as women comparing their husbands negatively to television actors and set up the path of television’s role as a tool of socialization.
Today, television still is portrayed as a window on the world. People can still see and experience things through it that they couldn’t otherwise. However, it definitely does not have the novelty that television had during the 1940s and 1950s. You can use the internet to find anything you could see on television, and much more. Television today is much more informal, and in my opinion very representative of the fact that television is treated as something that everyone has or had access to daily, and it isn’t a sign of privilege or wealth. However, television is much more interactive now due to social media and other technologies, so the world that TV brings in is much wider and inclusive than the one in the 1940s and 1950s.
The British program addresses the viewer very formally, and states who should be watching. It also tells the viewer what to expect from the type of broadcasts they would receive, and features a person addressing the viewer on screen for a significant amount of time about the program. The program, like others, acknowledges the viewer - for example, the two women said “Ladies and Gentlemen, the Television Orchestra.” In contemporary television, there is still this type of address, but it isn’t usually directly at the audience at home. In my experience, there is usually some type of audience at the source of the broadcast, unless it’s live or the fourth wall is being broken. The content also is very informational, which reminds me of programs on public stations like PBS.
My favorite phrase that Spigel used in her article was when she referred to TV as a “global village” in which people were brought together in their living rooms to experience the outside world. As mentioned in many of the previous comments, this was a time when families resorted to their own domestic utopias. Investing in a television set provided all necessary entertainment as well as opportunities to “travel” through TV shows: for example, when I Love Lucy spent a season in Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteThis video of pre-war British television is a great example of how the producers of television approached TV programs as if they were staged for a live audience. The direct address and positioning of song and dance numbers directly to the audience counters how TV is formally constructed today. This hyper-realism is amplified through close-ups in which the audience still receives the same live show sensation, but utilizing the abilities of the camera to show images up close, as well as through a specific lens.
When we sit down to watch TV, usually we are only directly addressed when we are watching the news, reality programs, or commercials. The bulk of TV entertainment content today consists of narratives in which breaking the fourth wall is rarely apart of the program. Contemporary television pulls us in, encouraging us to lose ourselves in the program, whereas early TV encouraged a sort of viewer bonding, in which viewers engaged more with one another during the program – similarly to how one would enjoy a live performance.
As the british television demonstration so clearly presents, the idea of the "window to the world" is the ability to bring the casual forms of entertainment into the comfort of the home where they were previously not accessible. By casual forms of entertainment, I am referring to the activities which the demonstration so clearly takes the viewer through. Instead of traveling and/or paying to watch sports, an orchestral concert, live theater, singing performance, or even a fashion show, the television brings these forms of entertainment to the viewers. From the living room, a viewer is allowed access to this window of the outside world with added bonus of having the best seat, or according the Spigel, the sense of hyper-realism. But more than being subjected to the average entertainment viewers may already have access to outside the home, television allows the opportunity to travel beyond the realm of accessibility. The "window to the world" does indeed encompass "the world" as T.V. eliminates distance by broadcasting shows from places that can go beyond the borders of the country.
ReplyDeleteWhereas the early british demonstration is very formal and directly addresses the viewer in almost every instance (as a potential way to disassociate itself with films), today's television often takes on the opposite effect. Besides news stations, and sports broadcasting, for the most part t.v. has taken on a form of entertainment very similar to that of cinema. Rather than be a "window to the world" where the viewers knows it is not associated, some shows hope to transport you to its world.
The formal elements of the television program show above are quite different from contemporary television broadcast today. The main difference that struck me almost immediately was that the characters portrayed on the screen were talking directly to the audience, telling them how the show would be constructed. There was no illusion or creation of characters we see in much of contemporary television today.
ReplyDeleteSpigel talks about a sense of hyper-realism in the reading we covered for class which is a sense a heightened perception of an event. The analogy he aptly conveys this idea through is a baseball game. When watching a baseball game on TV, one always has 'the best seat in the house'. An added layer on top of this hyper-realism is misenbyme in which one is watching as if they are not in one's own living room, for example, but in some sort of entertainment realm such as a theatre. However, the broadcast above does not convey a sense of hyper-realism or misembyme as well as we see contemporary television do so through tactics and strategies developed and sharpened over many years. One key difference is the advancement of technology that enables hyper-realism to be achieved through many cameras, advanced production techniques and universal technological adaptations that simply were not existent in the 1930's.
Lastly, the idea of a global village is one that resonated with me in the Spigel reading. Through the creation of TV, cultures began to traverse geographic boundaries, creating a connected community across the world. This was certainly beginning to come across but not yet fully in the early stages of television as portrayed in the above clip. I certainly think today TV's role still connects cultures, from BBC broadcasts to international sitcoms. References and newscasts can traverse far beyond seas and lands thanks to this advancement in technology and contemporary television. However, multimedia is certainly starting to change this realm of mass media broadcasting.