Sunday, November 2, 2014
MTM vs. Lear
From your viewings of All in the Family, Good Times, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show and your reading of Kirsten Lentz’s essay, how do you think Norman Lear’s shows differed from MTM’s? Why do you think the term “quality” was often used to refer to MTM’s shows and “relevance” to label Lear’s programs? How does Lentz see these productions as differing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I did not see much of a difference between what was deemed as "quality" television in our viewings at first. However, I did not understand the definition of "quality" vs "relevance" as they were used during the time. "Quality" refers to the visual and aesthetics quality. "Relevance" refers to the content of the shows and the integration with relevant social topic and issues. Lentz argues that the main difference between Norman Lear's shows and MTM's was that MTM's shows had a higher quality whereas Normal Lear' show had more relevance.
ReplyDeleteAn example of the higher quality in MTM's shows is the Mary Tyler Moore Show. First of all, the focus of the television show was on a strong, female character unlike many of the previous television shows. The episode we watched showed her providing for herself, working in management, living alone, etc. It improved the image of feminism There were also strides in technological advances, filming styles, etc. This deemed the Mary Tyler Moore show of "high quality" according to Lentz. Whereas, All in the Family was noted as "relevant" because of the issues that the show focused on. The episode we viewed dealt with issues of women drinking alcohol, generational shifts in ideas, racism (towards hispanics and blacks, specifically), etc. I specifically believe that the television show sought to really change racial representation. Therefore, it was of "relevance" according to Lentz.
One of the social issues that Lentz focuses on is the idea of feminism and the changing role of women. Although the MTM's and Norman Lear's show take a different angles to improve the quality of television, both television helped to improve the public image of television as well as transform sitcoms, "making it [the sitcom] more complex and more responsive to the social and political changes".
According to Kirsten Lentz, the main difference between the shows of Norman Lear and those of MTM is described as quality television versus relevance programming. Lear’s shows All in the Family, Maude, and Good Times are described as being relevant while MTM’s The Mary Tyler Moor Show is described as being quality. Quality programs helped improve television’s image in terms of better representations of women while the relevant programs were more responsive to social and political issues.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these groups of shows were more complex and responsive to social and political changes than other shows of the time. The main difference comes in the way they deal with these issues. Lear’s shows were more confrontational and transparent about their approach. In the episode of All in the Family we watched, for example, Archie Bunker clearly discussed his intolerance with race. In The Mary Tyler Moore Show, on the other hand, was much more subtle about race. The weather anchor was a black man, but there wasn’t any discussion about it, the character was not differentiated from any of there other ones. This exemplifies the more subtle approach the MTM shows took when discussing social issues on their shows. The relevant shows of Lear addressed social issues in a forward way, while MTM’s shows did it in a way that was less direct and confrontational.
To be honest, I could not exactly tell the difference between Norman Lear's shows and MTM's shows during the viewing. It is only after I read Lentz's essay did I understood the differences. Basically MTM's shows were of a higher "quality", in the sense that it portrayed women in a better light and therefore made television more favorable among its audience. For instance, in the episode of Mary Tyler Moore show that we watched, the female lead is a strong independent woman. This portrayal was rather uncommon at that time, therefore MTM gained considerable favor among female viewers and feminists. On the other hand, we have Norman Lear's shows, which Lentz described as being more "relevant", in the sense that they touched on the predominant socioeconomic issues at that time. For instance, the episode of All In the Family that we watched talked about racism towards people of color (blacks) and people of different ethnicities (such as the hispanics).
ReplyDeleteBoth MTM and TAT Production were independent production companies that introduced social and political issues into situation comedy. According to Lentz's article, MTM produced quality shows that improved images of womanhood whereas Lear, the head of TAT Productions, produced relevant shows that improve racial representation in the 1970s. MTM's shows were associated with "quality" because it produced shows, such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show, that helped to improve the public image of television through a self-reflexive critique of the medium of television. The show presented The Six O'clock News as a bad show and The Mary Tyler Moore Show itself as a good show through the characters of Ted Baxter, a narcissistic and stupid character. Lear's shows, which were known as "relevance" programming, also improved the public image of television through representational realism. There was no more obvious and incomplete programming. Unlike the “raceless” The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Lear's shows, such as All in the Family and Good Times, focused more on racial issues rather than gender issues. Shows produced by MTM and Lear were like a direct response to Newton Minow's "the vast wasteland" speech, in which Minow condemned television executives for creating trash or unvalued programs. Lentz differentiated shows by MTM and Lear through comparing the content and class aesthetics of The Mary Tyler Moore Show to the content and class aesthetics of All in the Family.
ReplyDeleteAlthough all three sitcoms presented somewhat similar casts and story lines, according to Lentz's essay, the shows differed where MTM's shows possessed higher "quality" while Norman Lear's shows had more "relevance". Lentz defines "quality" as the level of both physical and visual aesthetics within the show. She describes "relevance" as pertaining to relevant social issues of the time. Although the shows served similar functions, it is these fundamental traits that separated MTM and Norman Lears' shows.
ReplyDeleteAn example of social "relevance" in a Norman Lear show is All in the Family, as it focused on issues of racism, shifts in female power dynamics, in for example alcohol consumption in the episode we watched in class. An example of "quality" in an MTM show is in the Mary Tyler Moore Show, where the show surrounded a technologically advanced television station, where a female character played a strong managerial role. In the episode we watched, she held her own when facing obstacles, such as a station strike, and accomplished her goals independent of male intervention, demonstrating a progressive female representation on TV.
Before reading the Lentz reading, I did not quite see the differences in the shows in terms of “quality” and “relevance” that were mostly discussed. The biggest part of the shows that I realized was different were the aesthetics, which are discussed quickly in the reading. Right away, I noticed the yellow/brown coloring of All in the Family compared to The Mary Tyler Moore Show, along with the less sophisticated atmosphere. Before reading the article, I would have attributed just this to the idea that this show is labeled as “quality”. The reading further expanded my idea of this word by labeling it as a feminist form of television. In this show, television tried to align itself with the feminist movement. Its main idea was that television was a form of media that needed to show the world what it could do, breaking the barriers that had been previously imposed on it. In this way, it used the idea that feminists and television were both working against the same issues, and could beat these issues using a television show. This was “quality”, mainly because of the show’s juxtaposition of itself against “less quality” shows, as in its laughter at its own pretend news program, The Six O’Clock News. Meanwhile, Lear’s shows were labeled as “relevant”. They played on the idea that realism should be what is shown on tv compared to feminism’s idealism. During this time period, many of the younger generations were pressuring their educational institutions to have more relevant material for them to study, such as African American studies. These television shows took the younger population’s idea of “relevance” and gained viewers by playing on that idea.
ReplyDeleteI thought that one of the most interesting points made in Lentz's article is the relationship between Mary Tyler Moore's television show and femininity. She points to the struggle of television to gain "equal" footing as a medium, comparable to women trying to gain an equal footing to men (a subject in MTM's show). Through MTM's attempts for the "equality" of television, the show attempted to set a new standard for the sitcom. It focused on the hallmarks of quality, including complex stylings of the physical show and the development of its characters.
ReplyDeleteMTM's logo was another major point for Lentz. She felt that MTM's parody of the MGM lion was another example of television attempting to prove its worth to other mediums. MTM's logo was more feminized, and invoked the coziness of domestic space versus the usual hyper-masculinity and elitism of the movies.
Across from the MTM shows were the Lear shows, known as relevance television. Influenced by student demands for academia to change classes to reflect the right now, CBS smartly looked to capture this demographic with "relevance" television. Lear's shows became such a part of the national discussion that 3 of its characters were featured on Time Magazine.
Lear's shows looked to push the envelope of taboo issues, but race was one of the main points. Good Times showed what life could be like for an African-American family in the projects, a sort of response to shows like Julia that featured "white-washed" black life. Race was prevalent in all of the shows, from Archie Bunker's contention with those different to Maude's interaction with her housekeeper.
However, MTM and Lear would occasionally intersect on issues of things like sexuality. Quality and relevance could both discuss sexuality, but Maude and All in the Family were more willing to push the bounadries of what could be accepted. Press articles would even commend MTM for her restraint on the show as opposed to Maude's open talk about abortions and the gay character in All in the Family.
MTM's shows were focused on improving quality, both of womanhood in America and the television sitcom, through character development and representations of a middle-aged career woman. Lear's shows instead looked at the issues of the days through the lenses of specific archetype characters.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBy Lentz’s definition, “quality” refers to production values, aesthetics, and the advancement of feminism. “Relevance" refers to the representation of different social groups and political issues.
ReplyDeleteMary Tyler Moore is a perfect example of a “quality” program, considering that its visual palette was tied to a big city, it had high production values, and that there was a diverse cast in terms of age, gender, and race. In addition, the show was fronted by a strong female character who deals professionally with the antics of her office and provides for herself. The show rarely provides specific or biting commentary on the different social groups it represents, but its city sheen and positive reinforcement of a female character gives it the “quality” that Lentz describes.
Norman Lear’s shows, on the other hand, are less sexy but place social issues and their critiques of them up front. When the black family at the center of Good Times is struggling to pull through financially, the show follows individual members as they try to find cash in their own ways. All in the Family directly mocks Archie Bunker for his bigoted attitude and pushes for inclusivity between people of all races in the elevator episode we watched. While these shows may not tout the “quality” of Mary Tyler Moore they are “relevant” as far as Lentz is concerned.
The differences in Norman Lear's and MTMs shows were a bit cloudy to me until I read Lentz's article. In Lentz's article about quality vs. relevance, she defines quality as simply the aesthetics of a television show, and she defines relevance as television shows that were more relatable to ongoing events and also addresses the social issues of the time. Lentz states that Norman Lear's shows had more relevance in its programming whereas MTMs shows had more quality.
ReplyDeleteThe term "quality" was frequently used in reference to MTM's shows. Part of why I think this is is due to the fact that the shows, like Mary Tyler Moore, made television more likable to audiences because it showed women in a better way. This also improved the image of television to the public.
The term "relevance" was frequently used in describing Norman Lear's programs because they addressed and critiqued social issues, and this was the shows' main points. Race was the biggest social issue that the shows spoke to, one example being the Good Times which showed the struggles of an African American family trying to survive.
While Mary Tyler Moore’s shows provided a new look on feminism and gender equality, Norman Lear’s tended to focus on the issues surrounding race and racial equality. In Lent’s article, she claims “quality” television sought to improve the art form, while “relevance” attempted to reflect the social and political issues of the era. Lentz argues MTM/ shows reflect quality television for a few reasons. In terms of style, MTM’s shows were much more vibrant, with more extravagant lighting schemes and prettier sets. In addition, The Mary Tyler Moore Show represents quality TV because it portrays feminism within the show and through the symbolism of television self-reflection. An example of this is when Ted Baxter messes up the 6 O’clock News during the union strike. By comparing Ted to feminism, the show could reveal the parallels of “the problems with television’s image to problems of gender representation.”
ReplyDeleteNorman Lear’s shows represented “relevance” programming because it was the first time a producer brought up topical issues such as racism, homosexuality,extramarital sex, etc. Lentz argues these shows associate with relevance because they brought up heated issues relevant to the time in a comfortable, comedic setting. Archie Bunker, for example, was a key player in reflecting these issues through his narrow-minded, and often offensive, racist remarks. However, this allowed people to think about the current issues at the time in a comfortable setting, revealing the “relevance” aspect of TV.
"The Mary Tyler Moore Show" was often seen as the first "quality" television show because of how it was much more complex than most other sitcoms or television shows at the time. It had much greater characterization and depth than Norman Lear's shows which usually starred stereotypes of some sort or characters who would just espouse his beliefs. "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" also had a general sense of continuity between episodes, giving them a more movie-like quality that was missing from Norman Lear's productions. Norman Lear made up for this lack of "quality" by being more relevant. His shows like "All in the Family" and "Good Times" tackled more political and social issues that "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" didn't bother delving into. While many people enjoyed Norman Lear's shows and how they took on certain relevant issues of the time, other people simply wanted a show with good, funny characters who left the political and social commentary at the door. A big difference that Lentz saw between MTM productions and Norman Lear productions was how MTM shows empowered their characters like Mary in "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" rather than using them to advocate a certain opinion on a controversial subject. Beyond that are the obvious production differences such as film versus videotape, quality of lighting, colors, and mise-en-scene, sexual restraint, speech mannerisms, and class status. Lentz believes that despite the obvious differences between MTM shows and Norman Lear shows, they are both essential to understanding the culture of the 1970s because they contrast each other so well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike others have mentioned, Lear’s and MTM’s shows differed by how they treated controversial issues. For example, Lear’s programs featured very open dialogues (and often very direct) dialogues about race. Specifically, in the screening of All in the Family, Archie and the rest of the people trapped in the elevator confront each other’s racial prejudice without any visible hesitation. Lear’s programs, because of this, have a much more gritty and in my opinion, realist tone to them. MTM’s programs were not verbal on the issue of race, instead they made a silent statement about workplace integration with a black weatherman, who speaks newscaster English and is treated just like everyone else on their staff. This portrayal is much more in the line of Julia, a show criticized for its lack of authenticity and unwillingness to be political in a very polarizing time in the United States. When MTM tried to tackle the issue of racism directly, as Lentz points out in her article, it is viewed by the audience as “un-Mary like.” (66)
ReplyDeleteI think the word “quality” is used to describe MTM shows and “relevance” is used to describe Lear’s programs because of the agency of the characters to discuss and experience social issues of the early 1970s. For example, MTM featured Mary Richards as a woman holding a management position at a news station at at time when the news was heavily male-dominated. The show depicts this as Mary improving on The Six o’ Clock News’ image on gender equality issues, and by larger association improving on the quality of television as a whole on the same issue. Mary, being a white woman, does not really have the agency or the experience to discuss other issues, and when she does, the audience does not really believe her and she is considered “un-Mary like.” Mary does not hold any identity that gives her character any authenticity or authority to talk about issues outside the feminist sphere, and when the show ventures out of this sphere, it is received as unrealistic. However, when the show stays within the sphere, the show has a very high quality and realistic depiction of someone in Mary’s position. Conversely, in Lear’s programs, many of the characters hold identities that make their conversations and depictions much more realistic and closer to the people greatly affected by the issues Lear’s programs explored. Many of Lear’s characters were solidly working-class, and therefore more likely to be exposed to (and concerned by) issues of racism and classism, and have realistic opinions and reactions to them.
I was also interested in the definitions of the terms "quality" and "relevance." Saying that one is quality and the other is relevant sounded like apples and oranges to me. But I think the point was that the shows that didn't have quality made up for it with relevant content. The shows with quality created a more respectable art form from television. While the easier way to capture the attention of an audience is to provide content of relevant interests. Relevant political and social issues of the day increased content value. Both can be used in positive ways for social movements and representations of minorities on television which were beginning to change. Television was overcoming past hurdles. Both were used to make television into something better, more appreciated, and more useful in society.
ReplyDeleteDuring the screening, I noticed that ‘All in the Family’ and ‘Good TImes’ were distinct from ‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’ (MTMS) in terms of aesthetics and, to an extent, narrative structure. The Norman Lear programs looked like they were shot in a different format than the MTM show, and as Lentz indicates in her essay, this was indeed the case. ‘All in the Family’ and ‘Good Times’ were shot on videotape, whereas MTMS was shot on film. This gave MTMS a different look, one that can be characterized by a higher contrast ratio and therefore a more cinematic quality. The Norman Lear programs, on the other hand, look brighter and have less dramatic lighting. Furthermore, these programs relied upon cheeky one-liners and punchlines to generate comedic effect, whereas MTMS employed more advanced scenarios to drive the humor in the show.
ReplyDeleteLentz illuminates the distinctions between the Norman Lear programs and the MTM shows in order to properly define their significance to the 1970s television sitcom genre. She describes the “quality” of MTMS, which had an independent thinking, self-initiating woman in the lead role. Part of the “quality” includes the high number of production values in the show, such as Mary Tyler Moore’s skyrise apartment. Key to her argument is the idea of self-reflexivity. She explains how television was considered inferior to the more masculine medium of cinema. The premise of MTMS centered around the production of a nightly news program. Due to its low quality and ridiculous performances by the male newscasters, it was often a primary source of humor. In this way, it made MTMS as a whole look good in comparison.
Lentz then details the notion of “relevance” in the Norman Lear programs. She mentions how these programs arose from an increase in college students calling for more diverse representation on television. ‘All in the Family’ and ‘Good Times’ sought to improve images of race on television and therefore foregrounded issues of race.