it's not tv

Last week, in my discussion of television and/as therapy, I forgot to mention an important facet of this analogy. That is, that in psychoanalysis, in order to facilitate transference, the therapist becomes (whether subconsciously or consciously) the “subject supposed to know” in the eyes of the patient. This is not to say that the therapist is actually in the know or knows deep secrets about the analysand, but that the analysand begins to believe in the therapist’s superior facility over the patient’s unconscious thoughts. In regards to television, I could posit that shows are sometimes approached as more veracious than real life (who hasn’t thought, at least fleetingly, “well that’s not how couples act on [pick you show of choice], so we must be doing something wrong”); however, while television may approach that “subject supposed to know” status, it’s really the internet that’s already there. Or is it just me who gets angry with Google if it can’t find exactly what I’m looking for? We expect a lot from the internet as a form of collective intelligence: to know what we’re looking for, to have solutions to our problems, to understand our perspective, etc… But I’m starting to get off-track here, because we’ve come to expect more and more from television too these days. In fact, we often expect television to not be television at all. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

Traditionally, television is a commercial medium and a serial one. Among a few other things, I would argue that television’s episodic structure—the cycle of shows, one after the other, along with the weekly repetition of new episodes of the same show—defines it as a medium. Obviously, there are a few exceptions to the weekly configuration: television movies, news programs (usually daily), competitions (i.e. American Idol’s extra elimination shows), rerun marathons, etc. However, even these exceptions fall within the overarching cyclicality of the medium as a whole, and most shows of a certain ilk (read: narrative shows) stick to a weekly format.

Lucky for HBO, then, that “it’s not TV” (as its tagline proclaims), so it can undermine some of the very qualities which make television television. First, there are no commercials, which is certainly part of the appeal of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime. Secondly, HBO can offer shows like In Treatment, which I mentioned last week and which attempts to imitate daily life more closely than most narrative shows. Instead of a once-a-week condensation of goings-on in the character’s lives, In Treatment airs five nights a week for half-an-hour, showing a slightly abridged version (25 minutes instead of the conventional 50) of a therapist’s session with his patients. Each day's show corresponds to a different patient and on Fridays the therapist, Paul (played by Gabriel Byrne), goes to his own therapy session. Thus, In Treatment eschews the weekly televisual format in favor of the professional therapeutic format—the same patient only once a week, but different patients each day, offering us more fully developed characters and long blocks of time in which to contemplate them without the distancing breaks of either parallel action or commercials.

Of course, even before In Treatment, there were ways to mold television to our will, to subvert both the episodic structure and the commercial interruptions. The earliest manifestations of this subversion came in the rather clumsy form of television shows on VHS, which quickly (thankfully) evolved into TV-on-DVD and On Demand (digital cable’s answer to popular “commercial-free” networks like HBO and perhaps an attempted stop-gap against DVD sales curbing actual television viewing). And, of course, who can forget DVR and the beloved TiVo.

TiVo, especially, has enough cultural relevance that it’s still routinely mentioned in television shows themselves—which I don’t doubt has something to do with strategic, wily product placement. Unlike TV-on-DVD and Netflix’s Watch Instantly feature—both industries which could theoretically give people a reason to cancel their cable—TiVo necessitates a cable subscription and indulges viewers with that ever-seductive mirage of choice. Instead of being forced to watch whatever’s on TV, have to schedule yourself according to certain shows, or, god forbid, have to set a cumbersome VCR, with one click of a button TiVo records what you want when you want it and may even suggest other shows based on what it thinks you like.

In an amusing episode from Sex and the City’s final season (1997-2003, episode 6.2, “Great Sexpectations"– another HBO show, this one used the pay cable, not-TV system to its advantage by showing a fair amount of nudity rather than altering episodic convention), the character of Miranda panics when her nanny accidentally deletes her entire TiVo hard drive. Still recovering from a break-up with the father of her child, Miranda can’t quite fathom losing the only thing that’s there for her whenever she needs it in whatever way she wants it: her TiVo. Eventually, Steve, Miranda’s ex, fixes her TiVo much to her relief, and all is well with the world. However, TiVo’s seductive allure remains a constant, prompting Alex Richmond over at Television Without Pity to explore her own love of TiVo in her recap of the aforementioned episode:

TiVo is an amazing invention; it's really taught me a lot. I'm working on a story called "Lessons TiVo Has Taught Me," which include being selective, learning to let go, when to dump shit you know you don't really need, and really focusing on something. When I first got TiVo, I felt so liberated; I was forever freed from commercials, and no longer a slave to the delayed instant gratification of watching the news live. I can now watch a half-hour show in twenty minutes by zapping the ads, but now if I watch TV and am on the internet at the same time, I know I'm missing a lot. So, because of TiVo, I choose carefully and know when to move on. It's changed me.

I’m personally torn about the TiVo/DVR technology. On the one hand, how wonderful to be able to walk up to my television, sit down, and watch exactly what I’m in the mood for when I’m in the mood for it. On the other hand, how tragic to lose the adventure of flipping channels, the chance operations of what’s on now that I associate with television and, indeed, with some of the pleasure I get out of the medium. And if a machine’s making all my choices for me—what I might like to watch, what’s ready to be discarded, etc.—what’s the point of having all those other options? Television spoils us for choice, but doesn’t TiVo just encourage us back into a bunch of niche markets?

Of course, then there are new internet-based programs like Hulu, which serve as repositories for all the legal streaming video of television shows, films and favorite clips provided by various networks and production companies. This television-on-demand-online may be my favorite it’s-not-TV format because it keeps my television adventure—flipping channels on the actual set—intact, while allowing me the choice to watch something I really want to watch when I want to watch it. The best of both worlds. But if television isn’t only on television anymore, is it still television? Is this a “if a tree falls in a forest” kind of question? (Does anyone care?) Or do we have to come up with a new name, like, webervision? Telenet? Intertelevisinet?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(NEXT WEEK: “IMHO,” in which I engage in a self-reflexive exploration of television bloggers—how we write about what we see.)

Read more...

playing the mom card

Postfeminist wisdom would have us believe that the feminist movement is a thing of the past. Women fought for their rights and they won and now women can do anything they want to do, from being a homemaker with three children to running for the Presidency. Not only that, but we’re told that any struggles contemporary women may face on account of their sex/gender—harassment, discrimination, domestic violence, body dysphoria, etc.—are individual issues, not due to endemic socio-cultural conventions. Putting aside for a moment that these above statements are rather ludicrous (American women by-and-large may have more choices these days about the paths their lives will take, but they’re still hemmed in by gendered cultural norms and expectations), I want to spend some time today thinking about the postfeminist (tele)visual heroines of the late 1990s and 2000s.

Actually there are at least two types: first, the career-oriented, hyper-femme thirty-something who has spent her life playing the field and/or working her way up and suddenly finds herself at a loss when she realizes she wants a husband and a family (think HBO’s astoundingly popular Sex and the City (1998-2004), with a film coming out this May marking its continued appeal). Even shows that don’t explicitly have that Sex and the City feel (i.e. the never-ending romantic comedy approach) often employ this character-trope. For example, 30 Rock’s Liz Lemon (NBC, 2006-present) spends as much of her time stumbling over her mess of a love life as she does dealing with the shenanigans of her boss (Alec Baldwin) and a hilarious ensemble cast. In one particularly telling episode, Liz (played by the brilliant Tina Fey) unintentionally steals a baby from a coworker when her biological clock begins to tick too loudly (again, this baby-envy theme has a filmic version, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler’s comedy Baby Mama, coming out in April).

This obsession with family, husband and/or babies leads me to the second type, my actual focus today: Moms. Shows like Desperate Housewives (ABC, 2004-present) showcase the current televisual mother-fetish, and more recent incarnations such as Cashmere Mafia (ABC>, 2008) and Lipstick Jungle (NBC, 2008-present) try to combine the career-oriented, swinging single girl type with the mom/wife character with mixed results. NBC’s Medium (2005-present), a crime show with more serious subject matter than the above lifestyle shows, considers how Allison Dubois, a psychic mother-of-three, balances her paranormal career with her family. Even reality shows are weighing in, with offerings like Your Momma Don’t Dance (Lifetime, 2008-present)—not to be confused with its unofficial companion-show My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad (NBC, 2008-present)—and The Secret Life of a Soccer Mom (TLC, 2008-present).

Compellingly, The Secret Life takes the career-first-than-scrambling- to-find-love theme of Sex and the City and turns it on its head. Only two episodes have aired so far, but the central premise promises to stay the same if we believe TLC’s promotional materials and the show’s website: each week, a woman who has found a wonderful husband and had several beautiful children is given the chance to go back to the career she chose to leave behind when she had kids. It’s important to note that these women aren’t/weren’t necessarily homemakers by profession—meaning that they (or at least the first two women, a former fashion design and a former chef) had successful careers before they became wives and/or mothers. The Secret Life allows them to take a break from their full-time jobs as moms and go back out into the working world for a week while their husband takes care of the kids and manages the house, all the while believing his wife is at a spa as part of a nonexistent reality show that rewards stay-at-home mothers.

The tagline for The Secret Life, which shimmers on the screen at the start of each episode, reads, “For anyone who has put their dreams on hold…your time has come,” and the show seems intent on showing mothers what they’re missing in their long-abandoned careers. It’s a curious premise. Ostensibly, it gives women a chance to see what they left behind—the path not taken—but the two women so far have been offered jobs after their week-long, secretive trial run and have had to make tearful decisions about whether to go back to work or stay home with their kids. This once in a lifetime opportunity to reclaim the past is fraught with problems—sometimes it’s just not that simple to reinvent yourself and your family. For example, tonight’s mother, Katie, would have loved to go back to work as a chef in one of LA’s top restaurants; however, even though her husband and toddlers encouraged her to go for it, she ultimately decided to stay home because she didn’t feel the family could bear the financial burden of putting two boys in daycare full-time. Tearfully, Katie lamented that if the timing had been better…things might have been different.

This “choice” is a very sharp double-edged sword, and television developers seem to find more and more inventive ways of manipulating the dichotomy already faced by women between what they want and what’s expected of them in and by society. I wanted to conclude this post with a discussion of Fox’s new show—still on the fence, I think, concerning its renewal for next season—Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008-present). However, I think the title character’s dystopic rendering of the American mother as a violent, stoic, gun-totting protectress will have to wait until next week. This show begs the questions: What if motherhood is no longer a choice but an inevitability, and your facility as a mother is the only thing that stands between humanity and an apocalypse? Where do we stand on the career versus family debate then?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(NEXT WEEK: “This American Life.” A meditation on television families—those we choose and those we are born into.)

Read more...