Dear all,
Just dusting off the brain cells and thinking again about classes. I hope your "break" is going well and you have lots of great assignments for me to read.
I'm gearing up for my cinema run of Brother Number One (on the 22nd Sept), and would appreciate any outreach you can do amongst your circles. Opening in Auckland at the Bridgeway and the Rialto which are great cinema for it. So will update you. I also have my inaugural lecture as a Professor next Thursday which you are all welcome to attend.
Professor Roger Horrocks will be our guest on Monday. He is a towering though under-appreciated figure in the New Zealand media scene. He began Film Studies at UoA while the discipline was still a marginal element of the English department and now of course we are a thriving department thanks to his guidance. He was also on the board of NZOA and was the one that proposed and supported the music video scheme that has given a lot of support to musicians and filmmakers alike. Plus he was a founder of the NZFC, and has worked as a screenwriter, producer, filmmaker etc. He is also a scholar and a commentator on public policy, often writing reviews and policies for various institutions, from the state of documentary to film archiving. Of late, his own research has focused on an experimental filmmaker and "kinetic sculptor" Len Lye who was born in Christchurch in 1901 and had an extraordinary ex-pat career in the US and UK.
In terms of some questions to mull over:
What do you understand as the "Reithian" legacy and does that still engage you as a TV watcher?
How can television make a distinction between a consumer and a citizen and are you aware of how you are addressed through television?
How often do you watch free to air television through a regular schedule and how often do you prerecord or download?
Is television watching a way you bond with your family and friends?
Godard says there is an irony: when you watch a film in a darkened cinema, you believe you are alone even though you are surrounded by many, whereas when you watch television, sometimes on your own, you feel you are part of a larger "family" or nation of watchers. Think over this statement.
Laurence Simmons articulates a dystopian and utopian thread present from the origins of television in New Zealand. Sometimes this can be called a "moral panic". What concerns and possibilities were expressed through these respective threads?
Firstly, I don't really 'watch' television (i.e. sit in front of a television set) anymore. The last I did that was because I did a paper called 'Reality Television'. Thanks to online downloading of shows, which our Dear Government has so dutifully criminalized, my viewing pleasure was never dictated by television schedules. I used to download and then watch shows at my leisure, and as many times as I wanted. I suppose that makes me more of a consumer than a citizen. And under the 'SkyNet law' it also makes me a bad citizen.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the Reithian legacy three keywords come to mind - inform, educate and entertain. And for some silly reason that always reminds me of Sesame Street...anyways I digress. Personally I still watch television shows that aim to inform, educate and entertain, but for that I'll have to surf between three different channels. This may sound like the perspective of a pessimist but with time the imperatives to inform and to educate have taken a backseat (this is true for NZ at least) and the onus now is on television to pull audiences as a medium designed for banal spectacle. The increased emphasis nowadays is on the entertainment quotient and the rage that is Reality television bears testament to that.
I agree with Aalia，since PC came into my life ,I seldom whtch TV any more ,when I was at home， I only watch local news when I had my supper.I can say after the introduction of new media ,TV has become peripherization.Take me as an example, if I use computer, I can do a lot of other things besides watching TV programe ;I can watch TV by computer while chat with my firends with IM or SNS .But sometimes ,in order to get a sense of happy ,I must watch TV with my family members,such as on the Chinese New Year' s Eve,accoring to the tradition of my family ,we will sit together and watch TV.In my opinion ,TV as a kind of media ,has changed our living style ,we can be more closely with familiy members or friends ,but that was just the memory of my childhood.After the PC is introduced ,it seems that we become seperate again. Although currently there is some commercial channel is setted,yet I prefer to pay for the on-line programe rather than commercial channel. I have got an deeply impression that all things showed on TV should not be charged because TV programe should be free in my impression. I am fraid I can only be a citizen in terms of watching TV rather than the consumers because I always get imformation via internet rather than TV ,in that case ,watching TV is just a way of entertainment ,I cannot "consume" the programe except for the aim of leisure,even when I watch news ,I just enjoy the process.If I get some intersting or important news ,I will search them via Interner. To be frankly , I cannot distinct film and TV play exactlly ,I think they just the same except for the length and the showing place.But it is true that watching TV could give me the sense of animated or cheerful ,if I go somewhere and live in an inn by myself, the first thing I will do after I enter the room is to turn on the TV for fear of lonely.
ReplyDeleteI find myself sitting in front of the television set a lot more today compared to say three years ago. Firstly, the introduction of "MY SKY HDI" and a 50" inch plasma TV to go with it has changed that whole television watching experience for me. The advantage of MY SKY HDI and the fact that I can record all my favourite shows/sports/movies and view it at my own convenience has definitely kept me pinned to my television set. Simultaneously, I also downloaded or streamed my favourite shows online and relied heavily on TVNZONDEMAND before the introduction of MY SKI HDI.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aalia's summary of the Reithian legacy. However, the introduction of new media has perhaps seen a shift away from "inform" and "educate" with more shows portraying that "entertain" element. The news and channels like Discovery, National Geographic, History etc are the only informative channels/programmes today.
Television watching for me is definitely a way I bond with my family and friends, especially when viewing big events like the recent 2011 RWC Opening Ceremony.
TV watching is definitely the way in which I could bond with my family members. Due to the gap between generations, watching TV might be the last form of daily entertainment I could share with my parents or, sometimes, grandparents.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that was the only reason why I watched TV. Normally, instead, I downloaded films/TV drama episodes before I came to NZ. But now I watch TV shows here in NZ just to improve my English and to get a better understanding of local culture and people's everyday life. I believe it is a good way and I think it really works. Now I wish I could have more free time to setting in front of TV screen.
When it comes to Godard's argument, I think the primary reason of the irony lies in the environment. When sitting in a dark cinema/theatre, we could easily concentrate on the screen and ignore those people around us because we simply can't see them clearly. Plus, the screen is huge and the volume is usually high, which could easily catch our attention. The very environment the cinema creates for audiences is to engage their attention with the cinematic world on screen. Furthermore, now we have IMAX and 3D, they could provide a more "overwhelming" environment for audiences and "force" them to focus on the film and "protect" them from any distractions of "outside world". Thus, when we're watching a film in a theatre, we're alone because almost all our attention is consistently directed/guided to the big screen, not to others sitting around us.
ReplyDeleteThe environment of TV-watching is quite different. The screen is relatively small, the volume is usually not that high, and the room is not necessarily dark. Sitting in front of TV, we couldn't get that "alone" feeling as sitting in a dark cinema. Plus, even though we are alone at home, we know that someone else - no matter how far away from us - is simultaneously watch the same programme. Let alone some live TV shows could just give us a "live" feeling that we're part of the event. That might be the reason why we feel we're part of a larger "family" or nation of watchers when we're watching TV. We could share the joy together with anyone in the country by watching the same TV programme - just like what we could do with our real family members.
I think it is interesting to think about whether the television treats it's audience as a consumer or a citizen. I would like to think that it is more of the former nowadays than the latter. Or they can just be assuming that every citizen consume one way or another. Honestly, there's not much of an informing function of the television anymore. Instead of being informed of some ground breaking news on television, I believe most people would have got their breaking news and being informed on other platforms such as twitter or Facebook.
ReplyDeleteBack to the consumer versus citizen argument, I think recent discourse of television would imagine it's audience to be a consumer to certain extent. John Ellis has argued that the discourse of television has always imagine it's perfect audience in order for television flows and programming to be effective, and to be able to sent out the message that they intended to to their imagined audience. And in recent television development, I would say that their imagine audience has switched to imagine every household and audience as consumers, and the functionality of television as a medium that inform the masses has somehow, significantly reduced due to the rival of other platforms.
The distinction between consumers and citizens are increasingly being blurred. To certain extent, I think we are being address as both, simply judging by the fact that television programming mixing things together, such as the morning or breakfast show on television during weekdays, that pretty much juggle between news, weathers, household product placements, cooking shows that encourage certain consumption patterns and behavior,and so on. From this I think it shows us that television can be argue addressing us being both the citizen and the consumers.
I do watch free to air television quite often but I rarely download any of it.
I do agree that television is a good way to bond with your friends and family because I remember John Ellis (yes again!) mentioned that television is like the hearth of the family, or it has replaced the hearth of the family. What he meant was that before the emergence of television, family used to sit together in front of the hearth and interact, and now, people just sit around the television like they used to sit in front of their hearth. Just that the fire was replaced by the flickering lights that the television projects. What he essentially arguing is that television became a focal point for friends and family, and before the emergence of other platform, we often find ourself asking our friends and family questions like: have you watch bla bla bla show yesterday? And television became a form of social grooming and bonding.
Unfortunately I was unable to attend yesterdays class. If anyone has a set of notes, and would be willing to send me a copy, I'd be very appreciative. My Uni email is: amac241@aucklanduni.ac.nz.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Reithian legacy, I would summarise this as balanced and educational broadcasting. I would say pockets of such broadcasting still exist on television. Though, finding these pockets on just the Freeview channels alone might be quite a search.
I cannot see how any major private broadcaster could perceive its audience as citizens rather than consumers. To do otherwise would be 'economic suicide'? That is not to say these broadcasters cannot provide 'Reithian' content - just that they wouldn't make a thing of it. The only way television could make this distinction would be if it were private with a government assigned charter.
As for personal habits, I'd say I almost never watch free-to-air broadcasting. In fact for the last five years or so I did not watch TV at all. Though, like Sio, I now have a Sky recorder and more channels available to me so have found myself paying a bit more attention to the screen. Mostly I watch recorded Rialto films - I'm not sure if you could still call this television? The only 'live' TV I watch would be sport and news.
ReplyDeleteAs for bonding over TV? No, I don't treat watching TV as a social interaction. Feeling connected to other watchers/the spectator community? Nope, though I can understand how this feeling might be generated in others.
Simmons cites the political debate over TV which somewhat boiled down to television as a education/communication tool vs. TV as detrimental to the mental/physical health of the nation. Take a sample of any random viewer and any random nights broadcasting and I would fear the evidence would indicate the dystopian eventuality?