Just a thought about Hollywood...
Ever since television stiff-armed its way into the entertainment industry in the 1950's, it has always been the equivalent of a second class citizen. The very same Hollywood that had been shunned by American "society" as unforgivably parvenu, that retreated from the east coast establishment to a no-name town in southern California had finally found a "middling sort". It was a classic case of the 6th grade loser fighting his way up the social ladder by mercilessly picking on the new kid in class, and a fascinating example of the fabricated emergence of a hierarchical society in the 20th century. And so it has remained for the past fifty years: you have the silver screen and you have sitcoms. I won't even mention soaps - scum of the industry caste, wretched troglodytes... you might as well be in pornography.
Yet I couldn't help but notice the wonderful irony of the industry pecking order at this year's Academy Awards. Let us keep in mind, the Oscars are the very pinnacle of the Hollywood year. Put on by one of the oldest trade establishments in the film industry, to win an Oscar is far more than just recognition of superior skill, it is to be knighted as an aristocrat amongst aristocrats. [As an aside, the New York Times recently ran a hilarious article on the absurdities of "Oscar Week Etiquette" that gives a sense of just how socially crucial this yearly ritual really is.]
This said, has anyone else noticed how enslaved the Oscars ceremony has become to television? The evening kicks into gear with the often-obnoxious, but decidedly obligatory, Red Carpet interviews, where the biggest names in Hollywood actually interrupt their hard-won traipsing (which is ENTIRELY different from strolling, I might add) to have a seemingly friendly chat with some of the most vile personalities in the business. Is this a case of magnanimous social charity - the shire's nobility tossing a few oily shillings into the gutter? With 60 millions viewers worldwide, I don't think the actors much care which way you spin it. Once inside, the host takes the stage and delivers his much-anticipated monologue directly to the television camera, making the quivering fear in John Stewart's eyes last night particularly palpable to those of us hundreds of miles away. And finally, as the awards show fulfills its prolonged course, the nail-biting action on and off the stage is periodically halted for commercial breaks! This being the case, last night Hollywood visionary Ang Lee had to wait on an advertisement for Bounty to claim his Oscar for Best Director and ascend the year's throne.
From scenes of Hogarthian Caricature to the Academy Awards...
Yet I couldn't help but notice the wonderful irony of the industry pecking order at this year's Academy Awards. Let us keep in mind, the Oscars are the very pinnacle of the Hollywood year. Put on by one of the oldest trade establishments in the film industry, to win an Oscar is far more than just recognition of superior skill, it is to be knighted as an aristocrat amongst aristocrats. [As an aside, the New York Times recently ran a hilarious article on the absurdities of "Oscar Week Etiquette" that gives a sense of just how socially crucial this yearly ritual really is.]
This said, has anyone else noticed how enslaved the Oscars ceremony has become to television? The evening kicks into gear with the often-obnoxious, but decidedly obligatory, Red Carpet interviews, where the biggest names in Hollywood actually interrupt their hard-won traipsing (which is ENTIRELY different from strolling, I might add) to have a seemingly friendly chat with some of the most vile personalities in the business. Is this a case of magnanimous social charity - the shire's nobility tossing a few oily shillings into the gutter? With 60 millions viewers worldwide, I don't think the actors much care which way you spin it. Once inside, the host takes the stage and delivers his much-anticipated monologue directly to the television camera, making the quivering fear in John Stewart's eyes last night particularly palpable to those of us hundreds of miles away. And finally, as the awards show fulfills its prolonged course, the nail-biting action on and off the stage is periodically halted for commercial breaks! This being the case, last night Hollywood visionary Ang Lee had to wait on an advertisement for Bounty to claim his Oscar for Best Director and ascend the year's throne.
From scenes of Hogarthian Caricature to the Academy Awards...
posted by Ned at 8:14 PM
3 Comments:
Ned,
You rightly note how Hollywood is increasingly dependent on a medium (television) which it has long derided as inferior.
This seems to be a general trend in celebrity culture. Witness Lindsay Lohan deriding the paparazzi as maniacal and dangerous while she is entirely dependent on tabloid culture for her fame.
However, back to the issue of Hollywood and television, I don't think the story is as simple as elitist film actors being hypocritically dependent on television. [I'm not suggesting this is your thesis, but I must set up a straw man somehow.]
Borrowing an argument from Stephen Johnson's book "Everything Bad Is Good For You", television quality has markedly increased in recent years. This is correlated with the increased interaction between the film and television worlds. The best shows on television (The Sopranos, 24, everything else on HBO, etc.) are much closer to film than traditional television in what they are trying to achieve.
In general, I'm optimistic about popular culture. With DVDs, Tivo, Netflix, Google Video, YouTube, etc., we have immediate access to more (and better) popular culture than we have ever had before in history. Not everyone will be a winner in this transition. As video on demand and home theaters proliferate, physical movie theaters will be obsolete for all but spectacle films. I'm not too upset about this, as seeing a movie in a theater is overpriced for the actual experience.
Is Ang Lee willing suffer the indignation of being preempted by paper towel commercials in order that more people may see Brokeback Mountain? Must high art remain exclusive? I'm voting no with small decisions everyday. In aggregrate, these decisions are having a big impact on Hollywood.
In response to Ned, John writes:
"Borrowing an argument from Stephen Johnson's book "Everything Bad Is Good For You", television quality has markedly increased in recent years. This is correlated with the increased interaction between the film and television worlds. The best shows on television (The Sopranos, 24, everything else on HBO, etc.) are much closer to film than traditional television in what they are trying to achieve."
I would like to add the caveat that not all television is experiencing this upward trend in quality. Note questionable programs such as "Trading Spouses: Your new mommy" and "Beauty and the Geek". Perhaps the pattern we are seeing is instead the polarization of a medium that was one equally accessible to all classes. Symbolic of the rest of our society perhaps, television is now sharply divided and becoming more so. Is the increased quality of certain programs allowing the elite classism of Hollywood to infiltrate a once nearly class-free American pastime?
Imagine a show such as Arrested Development being sacrificed to allow more room for Paris Hilton and Ashton Kutcher? In the end can we maintain both and if not which side will win?
Anonymous writes, "Perhaps the pattern we are seeing is instead the polarization of a medium that was one equally accessible to all classes. Symbolic of the rest of our society perhaps, television is now sharply divided and becoming more so."
Is television consumption becoming more sharply divided by class? don't think that class is the culprit, but I do think television consumption is being segmented. (And I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing.)
The rise of 100+ channels on cable and satellite, combined with the growth of Tivo, has allowed people to watch more shows they actually like. Instead of being forced to watch generic shows on network tv, now I have enormous choice in what I watch. This is causing segmentation, in that you don't have over 50% of households watching the same Roots, M*A*S*H, or Dallas special, all being able to talk about a common culture at the watercooler the next day. Instead, I can watch Iron Chef and discuss with other interested people online whether Sakai-san should have won the lobster battle.
Will American society break down because we are losing a common popular culture? I don't know, it's definitely one of the most important questions for the next 25 years. (A tangent: how will decreased common politics and news consumption by those of different political beliefs affect civic society? Is there even such a thing as civic society anymore?)
In response to the commenter, of course some TV is always going to suck, but the point is that there are more smart shows right now than there ever have been, and more people are watching shows they're interested in than ever before. The best part about the proliferation of media options is that we don't have to sacrifice good shows for bad shows. Arrested Development is popular on DVD, and its strong fan base has more power to keep the show from dying out than ever before. I don't think that popular culture is a zero sum game. Technology and markets are allowing all sides to win.
Post a Comment
<< Home