*TV makes me sick*
HRH1962
noblewoman at the Congress of Vienna: "Music makes me vomit". TV is just a
medium. It's much more aggressively commercialized than it was in its golden
age - try watching a few shows from the '50s and '60s with the original ads and
compare them to what you see today - and it's getting worse. But that doesn't
mean the medium itself is worthless. There's been some great stuff made for
TV, even American TV, even recently. For example, the George C. Scott version
of "A Christmas Carol" is my favorite of all the filmed versions.
--
Heather Henderson
HRH...@aol.com
http://scc.net/~heather
HRH1962
>Jeez, you're a bunch of absolutists.
There's only one of me here and I'm not an absolutist.
>What about "99% of TV makes me sick"?
>What's "just a medium" mean? Is it akin to "ripping the wings off flies is
>just behavior"?
1) it means what it says, and 2) no, I don't think so.
>Is there nothing intrinsic to the medium?
There are plenty of things that are "intrinsic to the medium". Shittiness is
not one of them. Granted, most of modern-day TV is shitty, but that's a
reflection of the audience, not the medium.
>What about the way it may affect your brain?
Oh come on. TV "as a medium" doesn't affect your brain any differently than
film.
Jim Collier
[Disses McCluhan]
> There are plenty of things that are "intrinsic to the medium". Shittiness is
> not one of them. Granted, most of modern-day TV is shitty, but that's a
> reflection of the audience, not the medium.
[...]
Must be Biblical Epic Weekend on AMC.
For the conjunction of some truly shitty film and TV, I might
recommend "David and Bathsheba" with Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward
(1951), playing on AMC right this minute. There might have some
winky-poo going on between Hayward and Peck. Maybe they rehearsed
off-camera. But you'll be rooting for the Philistines before it's
over.
I see "Salome" (Rita Hayworth) is on the docket for later, which
is even campier except it's got that nice Dance of the Seven Veils
("boom-tiddly-boom-tiddly-boom-boom-boom") which I think may have been
snuck into the real story by someone named Strauss. My alternate title
is "A Princess Gets Ahead". Gave some too, but that's not in the
authorized version.
Jim
Lewis Mammel
> For the conjunction of some truly shitty film and TV, I might
> recommend "David and Bathsheba" with Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward
> (1951), playing on AMC right this minute.
In opposition to that, what would you cite as the apogee of your
TV experience? Mine was the Hubble repair mission coverage on
C-span. I was transported.
"I watched it for a little while -
I love to watch things on TV"
Lou Reed - Satellite of Love
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Larisa Migachyov
> HRH1962 <hrh...@aol.com> wrote:
> : This is a silly statement, reminiscent of Nicolson's quote of the Russian
> What's "just a medium" mean? Is it akin to "ripping the wings off flies is
> way it may affect your brain?
Well, the medium of images on a screen does affect the brain in powerful
ways - but I do think that the problem with TV is the content rather than
the medium itself. One can, for instance, use the TV to watch films or to
watch home movies. I see the problem as being the content rather than the
medium - the content, and the cultural context of TV, are entirely
disgusting.
As for brainwashing - I agree that TV is best suited for that, because
Americans watch it so much, and appear not to mind commercials every 12
minutes. But the same kind of subtle brainwashing can be carried out over
a different medium - radio, for instance. Or even live performance.
--
Larisa Migachyov http://www.stanford.edu/~lvm
HRH1962
>Why does 'TV
>makes me sick' have to mean 'each and every program on TV makes me sick'?
If you meant "Most of TV makes me sick", you should have said that. I'd have
agreed with you. But that's not what you said.
>TV is an institution, and its meaning is far wider than the sum of its
>programs, and certainly wider than a handful of decent shows.
Clarify, please. What is the "meaning" of TV?
>Why "just" a medium? Is that medium as in seance? It
>really was the Count, not me, I'm just the medium?
Basically, that's right. The medium isn't to blame. It can be used to create
good art. Most of the time it isn't - but then again, the same can be said for
any other medium.
>: There are plenty of things that are "intrinsic to the medium". Shittiness
>is
>: not one of them.
>
>Well, I politely disagree.
Fine, but maybe you can explain why.
>: Granted, most of modern-day TV is shitty, but that's a
>: reflection of the audience, not the medium.
>
>Okay, most of it is shitty, but that has nothing to do with the medium of
>TV. The medium is purely accidental to its content. You sure you want to
>take that line? The shittiness of "most" of TV has nothing to do with the
>fact that it's a mass medium? That it's a medium for advertising products
>nationwide?
It's used for that, certainly, but it doesn't have to be.
>:>What about the way it may affect your brain?
>
>: Oh come on. TV "as a medium" doesn't affect your brain any differently than
>: film.
>
>Are you sure? The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces exactly
>the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why would that be,
>seeing that the technology is different?
How is the technology different?
Michael Zeleny
>>From: Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu>
>>>>What about the way it may affect your brain?
>>>Oh come on. TV "as a medium" doesn't affect your brain any
>>>differently than film.
>>Are you sure? The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces
>>exactly the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why
>>would that be, seeing that the technology is different?
>How is the technology different?
Silver or chrome versus scan lines, toots. From the vantage point of
molecular resolution afforded by film stock, the difference of image
quality between Doom and HDTV is negligible. Of course, cheapskate
video transfer productions made popular by film school yahoos vitiate
this distinction, as they correlatively degrade all creative aspects
of the motion picture medium.
Cordially -- Mikhail Zel...@math.ucla.edu * M...@ptyx.com ** www.ptyx.com
God: "Sum id quod sum." ** 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046
Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." * 323.876.8234 (fon) * 323.876.8054 (fax)
Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." **** www.alonzo.org
established on 2.26.1958 ** itinerant philosopher * will think for food
HRH1962
>I didn't say "TV makes me sick" at all. That was Lew's paraphrase.
Whatever.
>TV as an institution keeps
>people at home and segregated from each other, unlike movie theaters and
>theaters in general.
So do books.
>It promotes passivity. It manipulates peoples'
>desires, both in and without commercials.
So do movies.
>Many parents use it to sedate
>their children.
Yes, TV has a mesmerizing effect, but the kids would be equally sedated
watching Disney movies.
>:>Why "just" a medium? Is that medium as in seance? It
>:>really was the Count, not me, I'm just the medium?
>
>: Basically, that's right. The medium isn't to blame. It can be used to
>create
>: good art. Most of the time it isn't - but then again, the same can be said
>for
>: any other medium.
>
>I find that incredibly naive.
Don't you believe that it's possible to make good art on TV?
>Are we really back to form/content
>distinctions? Is there really nothing in a medium that fosters anything
>more than other things?
I hope your obtuseness here is deliberate.
>:>: There are plenty of things that are "intrinsic to the medium".
>Shittiness
>:>is
>:>: not one of them.
>:>
>:>Well, I politely disagree.
>
>: Fine, but maybe you can explain why.
>
>I did.
Where?
>:>: Granted, most of modern-day TV is shitty, but that's a
>:>: reflection of the audience, not the medium.
>:>
>:>Okay, most of it is shitty, but that has nothing to do with the medium of
>:>TV. The medium is purely accidental to its content. You sure you want to
>:>take that line? The shittiness of "most" of TV has nothing to do with the
>:>fact that it's a mass medium? That it's a medium for advertising products
>:>nationwide?
>
>: It's used for that, certainly, but it doesn't have to be.
>
>Oh no? You have a plan for having it taken over by charity, perhaps?
There's nothing that says TV has to be a vehicle for commercials.
>: The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces exactly
>:>the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why would that be,
>:>seeing that the technology is different?
>
>: How is the technology different?
>
>Huh? You don't think projection and TV imaging are different from each
>other?
Sure they're different, but not in any way that's relevant to this discussion.
HRH1962
>HRH1962 <hrh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu>
>
>>>>>What about the way it may affect your brain?
>
>>>>Oh come on. TV "as a medium" doesn't affect your brain any
>>>>differently than film.
>
>>>Are you sure? The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces
>>>exactly the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why
>>>would that be, seeing that the technology is different?
>
>>How is the technology different?
>
>Silver or chrome versus scan lines, toots.
Indeed. Now how does the brain react differently in each case?
tejas
> >makes me sick' have to mean 'each and every program on TV makes me sick'?
>
> If you meant "Most of TV makes me sick", you should have said that. I'd have
> agreed with you. But that's not what you said.
>
> >TV is an institution, and its meaning is far wider than the sum of its
> >programs, and certainly wider than a handful of decent shows.
>
> Clarify, please. What is the "meaning" of TV?
>
> >really was the Count, not me, I'm just the medium?
>
> Basically, that's right. The medium isn't to blame. It can be used to create
> good art. Most of the time it isn't - but then again, the same can be said for
> any other medium.
>
> >is
> >: not one of them.
> >
> >Well, I politely disagree.
>
> Fine, but maybe you can explain why.
>
> >: reflection of the audience, not the medium.
> >
> >Okay, most of it is shitty, but that has nothing to do with the medium of
> >TV. The medium is purely accidental to its content. You sure you want to
> >take that line? The shittiness of "most" of TV has nothing to do with the
> >fact that it's a mass medium? That it's a medium for advertising products
> >nationwide?
>
> It's used for that, certainly, but it doesn't have to be.
>
> >
> >: Oh come on. TV "as a medium" doesn't affect your brain any differently than
> >: film.
> >
> >Are you sure? The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces exactly
> >the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why would that be,
> >seeing that the technology is different?
>
> How is the technology different?
Film is a series of pictures. TV is a series of dots that appear to
be pictures.
--
TBSa...@richmond.infi.net (also te...@infi.net)
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
tejas
> I see "Salome" (Rita Hayworth) is on the docket for later, which
> is even campier except it's got that nice Dance of the Seven Veils
> ("boom-tiddly-boom-tiddly-boom-boom-boom") which I think may have been
> snuck into the real story by someone named Strauss. My alternate title
> is "A Princess Gets Ahead". Gave some too, but that's not in the
> authorized version.
I once saw a religious pageant at a fiesta in Zacatecas where John
the Baptist was cleverly beheaded live.
Phyllis Chamberlain
How come two days have gone by and no mention of Marshall McLuhan and "The
Medium Is the Message."? His books were very thought-provoking at the time.
When I bought my new computer in December, it was out of the bedroom, into
the living room, positioned where I can also see the big TV. This is fun.
I can watch/ could watch, the war in Kosovo on CNN all day long while
messing around on the computer. The computer is near the kitchen and the
wine bottle.
Sile, if you've given up being a frau/ German, you'll also have to give up
masocism. "Comfort and fun -- morality in a nice society," originally
written as an objection, but now come true.
You must see "An Englishman Abroad," with Alan Bates, before you condemn TV.
I watched 1-1/2 hours of Roy Orbison the other night. Also mysteries and
cop shows, of course. Any one who ever bought a car better not be seen
criticizing TV. I often wonder where "foreigners" heads really are,
especially after I saw "Miss Saigon."
Phyllis
tejas wrote in message <3759AD...@richmond.infi.net>...
tejas
>
> I have to get into this.
>
> How come two days have gone by and no mention of Marshall McLuhan and "The
> Medium Is the Message."? His books were very thought-provoking at the time.
I thought about it but refrained. But with Silke; what do you expect
from
someone from a country where the broadcast media is controlled by the
post
office? Grnated, the German post office is more efficient than ours, but
the
"Rundfunk"?
(I think that's the word.)
Great things I have seen on TV:
Out-takes from MONTERREY POP with Electric Flag (Mike Bloomfield,
Harvey
Brooks, etc) playing the the crap out of DRINKIN' WINE SPODI-O-DI.
"pass that bottle to me.."
David E. Latane
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Yes, but on Usenet, you still talk to each other.
So you think. But perhaps some of us are experiments in AI.
D. Latane
ObMovieNotCompleted: Kubrick's "AI"
paschal
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, David E. Latane wrote:
> f
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> > Yes, but on Usenet, you still talk to each other.
>
> So you think. But perhaps some of us are experiments in AI.
I decided long ago that all of you are. It simplifies things, to
assume that everyone here is basically the same "person" even if it's
not true. You sure all act uniformly weirdly.
-P.
ObMovie just seen: "A Bug's Life" - marvelous, witty, cute, endearing,
amazing; and even has Randy Newman singing at the end. But what was
with those light-up mushrooms? I never heard of anything like that...and
Mr. Wright says they played around somewhat with ant-biology; but,
nevermind. It's a great movie, I highly recommend it. I have
only bought two or three videos since videos were invented (I'm sort of a
hermit) but I'm gonna buy this one.
Lewis Mammel
> >
> >Are you sure? The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces exactly
> >the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why would that be,
> >seeing that the technology is different?
>
> How is the technology different?
Try this if you dare. Clench one end of a heavy wooden ruler in your
teeth while looking at a CRT, and plunk it. Far out! Also, instant
headache time.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Susan Young
>
> >From: "Phyllis Chamberlain" <ph...@earthlink.net>
>
> >How come two days have gone by and no mention of Marshall McLuhan and "The
> >Medium Is the Message."?
>
Oh, why not? It's one of my favorites. But to do it effectively, someone would
have to dig up Mr. McLuhan and have him do the Usenet equivalent of stepping
out from behind a piece of scenery to defend his views. I dibs the Diane
Keaton role. I can roll my eyes and sigh with exasperation real good. I can
think of lots of possible r.a.b. candidates for both the boring pedant role
and the Woody Allen role. Maybe we could do an all-female version (except for MMcL)
Susan
HRH1962
>How come two days have gone by and no mention of Marshall McLuhan and "The
>Medium Is the Message."?
We didn't want this thread to turn into that scene from "Annie Hall".
Larisa Migachyov
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :> HRH1962 <hrh...@aol.com> wrote:
> :> : This is a silly statement, reminiscent of Nicolson's quote of the Russian
> :> : noblewoman at the Congress of Vienna: "Music makes me vomit". TV is just a
> :> : medium. It's much more aggressively commercialized than it was in its golden
> :> : age - try watching a few shows from the '50s and '60s with the original ads and
> :> : compare them to what you see today - and it's getting worse. But that doesn't
> :> : mean the medium itself is worthless. There's been some great stuff made for
> :> : TV, even American TV, even recently. For example, the George C. Scott version
> :> : of "A Christmas Carol" is my favorite of all the filmed versions.
> :>
> :> What's "just a medium" mean? Is it akin to "ripping the wings off flies is
> :> way it may affect your brain?
>
> : ways - but I do think that the problem with TV is the content rather than
> : the medium itself. One can, for instance, use the TV to watch films or to
> : watch home movies. I see the problem as being the content rather than the
> : medium - the content, and the cultural context of TV, are entirely
> : disgusting.
>
> be separated this neatly.
I've watched Russian TV as a child. I don't remember all that much of it,
but there were no commercials, the movies that they showed were pretty
decent (though, as a child, I didn't pay too much attention), and the
whole thing was much more worth watching than American TV, I think. Also,
the culture didn't encourage using the TV as a babysitter; as a child, I
watched TV maybe for 10 minutes at a time, every other day or so (because
they didn't show cartoons all that often). There was no canned laughter,
no crude sexual jokes, and no violence. There was some propaganda, but it
was easy to ignore.
The medium is just glowing dots on a screen. It can be used to show
broadcasts of operas and plays - the only time I watch TV these days is to
catch the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts; it can be used to show places,
animals, and people that the average person is not likely to encounter
very often; it can be used to explain interesting ideas. The fact that
the media empires in this country use it to brainwash the public with
commercials and canned laughter and disgusting sexual jokes does not mean
that this is the only thing TV is good for.
For that matter, if I miss a lecture here at Stanford, I can take a
videotape of that lecture and watch it on a TV screen; does this change
the content of the lecture? Or the way I perceive it?
> : As for brainwashing - I agree that TV is best suited for that, because
> : Americans watch it so much, and appear not to mind commercials every 12
> : minutes. But the same kind of subtle brainwashing can be carried out over
> : a different medium - radio, for instance. Or even live performance.
>
> To a degree. But live performances take you out of your house and into the
> company of others. They also tend to be limited in time, and they make
> lousy babysitters. Radio doesn't provide you with images; basically, you
> have to supply them yourself, hence you are doing more than you do when
> you watch TV.
Not that much more, surely. And I don't know about you, but as a
primarily auditory thinker, I find radio commercials to be just as
annoying as TV commercials - the jingles stick in my mind well. And do
you really think up images when you listen to the radio? I know I don't.
Larisa Migachyov
>
> Lew thinks it's the economic and social centerpiece of the world, just to
> give you an example of possible scope here. TV as an institution keeps
> people at home and segregated from each other, unlike movie theaters and
> desires, both in and without commercials. Many parents use it to sedate
> their children.
USENET as an institution keeps people at home and segregated from each
other. It promotes passivity and carpal tunnel syndrome. It throws out
incredible amounts of nonsense in front of people's eyes. Not many
parents use it to keep their kids out of trouble, but they soon will.
> : Basically, that's right. The medium isn't to blame. It can be used to create
> : good art. Most of the time it isn't - but then again, the same can be said for
> : any other medium.
>
> I find that incredibly naive. Are we really back to form/content
> distinctions? Is there really nothing in a medium that fosters anything
> more than other things?
In what country? Watch foreign TV, and see what should be done with this
medium.
> :>: Granted, most of modern-day TV is shitty, but that's a
> :>: reflection of the audience, not the medium.
> :>
> :>Okay, most of it is shitty, but that has nothing to do with the medium of
> :>TV. The medium is purely accidental to its content. You sure you want to
> :>take that line? The shittiness of "most" of TV has nothing to do with the
> :>fact that it's a mass medium? That it's a medium for advertising products
> :>nationwide?
>
> : It's used for that, certainly, but it doesn't have to be.
>
> Oh no? You have a plan for having it taken over by charity, perhaps?
Well, i rather like public TV; especially when they broadcast operas. I
also like some of the miniseries that they've shown. So maybe, charity is
not such a bad idea.
> :>:>What about the way it may affect your brain?
> :>
> :>: Oh come on. TV "as a medium" doesn't affect your brain any differently than
> :>: film.
> :>
> :>Are you sure? The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces exactly
> :>the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why would that be,
> :>seeing that the technology is different?
>
> : How is the technology different?
>
> Huh? You don't think projection and TV imaging are different from each
> other?
Can the brain really tell the difference? And if it is the glowing dots
on the screen that are so evil, why are you staring at a computer screen?
Run! Hide! It's about to brainwash you!
Puss in Boots
>>> I guess you confused yourself when you clipped my lead sentence:
Puss in Boots:
>> No, I don't think so. You suggested that it was a mistake
>> to call TV "crud" because that would be a judgement on the
>> world waiting for your kids. But what if that world _is_ gonna
>> be a cruddy one? In that case the judgement would be
>> accurate. You seem to be saying it's against to rules to
>> comment on the crudiness, even the _potential_ crudiness of the
>> world. But since when has the world been exempt from
>> criticism?
Lew:
> Well, you misread me, if I may invoke authorial privilege. The thought
> was that SINCE this blanket condemnation had weighty consequences, it
> ought to be carefully justified. "So what if it has weighty consequences,
> maybe it's true" is your response, and it does nothing to provide the
> sought for explanation, as I pointed out.
[...]
I'll be glad to take your word about what you meant to say,
but you need more than authorial privilege -- you need the
Presidential privilege Reagan and his handlers invoked when the
Great Communicator made one of his usual boners: "The
President misspoke himself" was the line. ("_What_? He pissed
himself?!" "No, Grandma, that's not it." "Turn that up! I
can't hear!" "Gran, the neighbors are already complaining they
hear Dan Rather halfway down the block...")
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
>How come two days have gone by and no mention of Marshall McLuhan and "The
>Medium Is the Message."? His books were very thought-provoking at the time.
I'm sure you were too.
-- Moggin
Jim Collier
>
> Jim Collier wrote:
>
> > For the conjunction of some truly shitty film and TV, I might
> > recommend "David and Bathsheba" with Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward
> > (1951), playing on AMC right this minute.
>
> In opposition to that, what would you cite as the apogee of your
> TV experience?
Hmm. A police chase through the streets of West Los Angeles
that diverted into Brentwood, egged on by one or two helicopters. I
poked my head outside to see the suspect turn into the driveway
next door, make a U-turn, followed by approximately five LAPD
black-and-whites each of which politely executed the same maneuver and
then all of them were off in the same direction from which they had
come. "Hi, mom!"
> Mine was the Hubble repair mission coverage on
> C-span. I was transported.
Jim Collier
Larisa Migachyov
> :>
> :> : How is the technology different?
> :>
> :> Huh? You don't think projection and TV imaging are different from each
> :> other?
>
> : Can the brain really tell the difference?
>
So, it is the dots on the screen vs. projection on a movie screen that you
think make TV cruddy?
> : And if it is the glowing dots
> : on the screen that are so evil, why are you staring at a computer screen?
> : Run! Hide! It's about to brainwash you!
>
> I think I'm starting to underttand why you're all so defensive... you
> think that when I call TV crud, that means that I'm calling TV-watchers
> cruddy. That's silly. For heaven's sake, I publicly admitted to a weakness
> for instant mashed potatoes not so long ago. I just never thought I
> should have to call them haute cuisine.
> But sinc you seem hell-bent to get personal -- I do quite a few
> things I consider cruddy and low-level harmful; and quite a few things I
> consider low-level harmful for myself but high-level harmful for my kids.
> I have a fondness for some cruddy food (the infamous potatoes, but also,
> twice a year, a hot-dog with mustard, ketchup, mayonnaise, and relish,
> from a street stand). I read some cruddy books, and some of my bubble-bath
> is not of the highest quality, either. Sometimes, I spend to much time on
> Usenet, and some of the posts I've written didn't make me feel very good
> in retrospect. At the same time, I don't wear polyester, I don't use
> store-bought pie-crusts, I don't over our hardwood floors with
> wall-to-wall, and I don't watch TV.
For that matter, I don't watch TV myself. My arguments were more in the
"medium vs. message" vein. I agree with you that 99% of what is shown on
American TV is complete and total crap. However, I do not think that it
is the medium that is to blame, but rather the media empires and the
American public who puts up with it.
HRH1962
>HRH1962 <hrh...@aol.com> wrote:
>:>From: Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu>
>
>:>I didn't say "TV makes me sick" at all. That was Lew's paraphrase.
>
>: Whatever.
>
>Huh?
You appear to be defending the statement.
>:>TV as an institution keeps
>:>people at home and segregated from each other, unlike movie theaters and
>:>theaters in general.
>
>: So do books.
>
>Yes. TV and books have some things in common; so do radio and TV; so do
>movies and TV. They also are all different and, imo, better than TV in
>various ways.
So if TV has these things in common with other media, what is its special
"meaning"?
>:>It promotes passivity. It manipulates peoples'
>:>desires, both in and without commercials.
>
>: So do movies.
>
>Sans the commercials every 10 minutes, you mean.
Movies have a lot of commercials. Product placement is a big deal.
>:>Many parents use it to sedate
>:>their children.
>
>: Yes, TV has a mesmerizing effect, but the kids would be equally sedated
>: watching Disney movies.
>
>But you would have to take them out of the house, and you would have to
>stay with them, since you can't drop your two-year old off at the movies.
If you're one of the ten or twelve people in the US who don't have a VCR.
>What's with the maniacal quibbling?
Who's being maniacal?
>:>:>Why "just" a medium? Is that medium as in seance? It
>:>:>really was the Count, not me, I'm just the medium?
>:>
>:>: Basically, that's right. The medium isn't to blame. It can be used to
>:>create
>:>: good art. Most of the time it isn't - but then again, the same can be
>said
>:>for
>:>: any other medium.
>:>
>:>I find that incredibly naive.
>
>: Don't you believe that it's possible to make good art on TV?
>
>I do.
Well then, how am I "ridiculously naive"?
>:>Are we really back to form/content
>:>distinctions? Is there really nothing in a medium that fosters anything
>:>more than other things?
>
>: I hope your obtuseness here is deliberate.
>
>Look, you say "just a medium," and when I asked you what you meant by
>"just," you said "what it says." When I asked you by analogy whether you
>are trying on the rhetoric of the seance, you said yes. So, no, I'm not
>being obtuse. I still would like to hear what you mean by "just a medium."
I've already explained it, but let's try again. TV is a medium. It's neutral.
It can be used for good art and it can be used for trash. When it's used for
trash, the blame falls on the creators and the consumers of the trash, not on
the medium itself. The problem with demonizing the medium, as you are doing,
is that it takes the heat off the people who have the power to change things.
It's also unjust to those people in the TV business who are genuinely committed
to making good art. They do exist.
>:>: Fine, but maybe you can explain why.
>:>
>:>I did.
>
>: Where?
>
>Went right by you, apparently. Above.
You failed to explain why you think TV is inherently shitty as a medium.
>: There's nothing that says TV has to be a vehicle for commercials.
>
>No? We are talking about TV, the institution, right? Who finances it? How
>does it pay for itself?
Presently it's largely (though not entirely) funded by commercials; however,
that's not something required by the nature of the medium. The funding could
well shift to the more direct method of pay-per-view.
>:>: The brain reacts to the way TV images are produces exactly
>:>:>the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why would that be,
>:>:>seeing that the technology is different?
>:>
>:>: How is the technology different?
>:>
>:>Huh? You don't think projection and TV imaging are different from each
>:>other?
>
>: Sure they're different, but not in any way that's relevant to this
>discussion.
>
>Are you sure? You did a medline search on that one?
Hey, it's your argument - you produce the evidence.
Jim Collier
> > >makes me sick' have to mean 'each and every program on TV makes me sick'?
> >
> > If you meant "Most of TV makes me sick", you should have said that. I'd have
> > agreed with you. But that's not what you said.
> >
> > >TV is an institution, and its meaning is far wider than the sum of its
> > >programs, and certainly wider than a handful of decent shows.
> >
> > Clarify, please. What is the "meaning" of TV?
> >
> > >really was the Count, not me, I'm just the medium?
> >
> > Basically, that's right. The medium isn't to blame. It can be used to create
> > good art. Most of the time it isn't - but then again, the same can be said for
> > any other medium.
> >
> > >is
> > >: not one of them.
> > >
> > >Well, I politely disagree.
> >
> >
> > >: reflection of the audience, not the medium.
> > >
> > >Okay, most of it is shitty, but that has nothing to do with the medium of
> > >TV. The medium is purely accidental to its content. You sure you want to
> > >take that line? The shittiness of "most" of TV has nothing to do with the
> > >fact that it's a mass medium? That it's a medium for advertising products
> > >nationwide?
> >
> > It's used for that, certainly, but it doesn't have to be.
> >
> > >
> > >: Oh come on. TV "as a medium" doesn't affect your brain any differently than
> > >: film.
> > >
> > >the same way as it reacts to the way film is produced? Why would that be,
> > >seeing that the technology is different?
> >
> > How is the technology different?
>
> be pictures.
Both are pixel arrays, although the spacial resolution of photographic
film is superior to present-day television.
Jim
HRH1962
>Larisa, I grew up in "a foreign country." Some of the programming is
>better, yes. It doesn't change the basic troubles with the medium itself.
If the medium is so tragically flawed, how does good programming get made?
>I think I'm starting to underttand why you're all so defensive... you
>think that when I call TV crud, that means that I'm calling TV-watchers
>cruddy.
I don't care about that. The problem is that your sweeping generalizations
don't make sense. Your dismissal of an entire medium shows an astonishing
ignorance.
> But sinc you seem hell-bent to get personal --
Actually, nobody's gotten personal in this thread except you.
>At the same time, I don't wear polyester, I don't use
>store-bought pie-crusts, I don't over our hardwood floors with
>wall-to-wall, and I don't watch TV.
If you don't watch TV, how are you in a position to criticize it?
Jens S. Larsen
TV set in the mean time, so...
Silke-Maria Weineck:
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>> Lew thinks it's the economic and social centerpiece of the
>>> world, just to give you an example of possible scope here. TV
>>> as an institution keeps people at home and segregated from
>>> each other, unlike movie theaters and theaters in general. It
>>> promotes passivity. It manipulates peoples' desires, both in
>>> and without commercials. Many parents use it to sedate their
>>> children.
>> USENET as an institution keeps people at home and segregated
>> from each other. It promotes passivity and carpal tunnel
>> syndrome. It throws out incredible amounts of nonsense in
>> front of people's eyes. Not many parents use it to keep their
>> kids out of trouble, but they soon will.
> Yes, but on Usenet, you still talk to each other. And you have to
> use your imagination quite a bit, since it doesn't present you with
> the visuals to go with, say, personalities.
Why is it a good thing to have to use one's imagination in consuming
cultural products? Isn't it more important if the producer has used it?
> As I said to Heather, many of TVs adverse effects also apply to
> other media. I cannot think of a single one (save video games) that
> combines _all_ of them.
Not all, actually: video games aren't interrupted every ten minutes
for commercials.
>>>> Basically, that's right. The medium isn't to blame. It can
>>>> be used to create good art. Most of the time it isn't - but
>>>> then again, the same can be said for any other medium.
>>> I find that incredibly naive. Are we really back to
>>> form/content distinctions? Is there really nothing in a medium
>>> that fosters anything more than other things?
>> In what country? Watch foreign TV, and see what should be
>> done with this medium.
> Larisa, I grew up in "a foreign country." Some of the programming
> is better, yes. It doesn't change the basic troubles with the medium
> itself.
We can also turn the form/content discussion against ourselves. Both of
you admit that the content of your views are formed by your childhood
experiences. It would do some of the other discussion participants well
to do the same, rather than taking their personal experience as universal.
>> Well, i rather like public TV; especially when they broadcast
>> operas. I also like some of the miniseries that they've
>> shown. So maybe, charity is not such a bad idea.
> Nobody said it was a bad idea. But it's unrealistic as long as we
> are talking about the institution called TV.
It's infrastructure. Why couldn't it be payed via taxes, just as
highways and schools?
[...]
--
Jens S. Larsen
tejas
>
> tejas <tbsa...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
But with Silke; what do you expect
> : from
> : someone from a country where the broadcast media is controlled by the
> : post
> : office? Grnated, the German post office is more efficient than ours, but
> : the
> : "Rundfunk"?
> : (I think that's the word.)
>
> everywhere, and Springeria abounding.
But don't these all have to be registered? Do they come with child-proof
locks? My friends who work in Germany have e-mail access, but they
find it's cheaper to send a snail-mail letter than to use this
medium. But their company doesn't allow them personal e-access. They'll
read my e-mail, but they say it costs an arm and leg to send an
e-missive.
tejas
>
> tejas <tbsa...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
from a country where the broadcast media is controlled by the
> : post
> : office? Grnated, the German post office is more efficient than ours, but
> : the
> : "Rundfunk"?
> : (I think that's the word.)
>
> Oh, gee, Ted, you, too? That's about ten years ago... Satellite dishes
> everywhere, and Springeria abounding.
I must admit that back in the early daze of MTV, that cable channel
had a weekly show of German rock videos which were more interesting
than the US variety of vid being made..
HRH1962
>HRH1962 <hrh...@aol.com> wrote:
>: So if TV has these things in common with other media, what is its special
>: "meaning"?
>
>TV surely has more than one meaning. I gave you some examples.
Yes, but as I pointed out, the characteristics that you chose for your examples
are shared by other media.
>This is
>getting very repetitive. I do not expect you or anyone to agree with my
>views on TV,
OK, then quit trying to justify them.
>and I'm puzzled by the emotionality that's coming out here
>(which is funny, of course, since Lew accused me of being emotional about
>this).
You're the one being emotional, ranting about the evils of TV. My original
statement was that the medium can be used to make good art. I don't see why
that's so controversial.
. I
>don't make too much of a difference between TV and videos when it comes
>to the babysitting angle of it all.
You should, because in your VCR you can control the content. Using TV as a
babysitter is a problem when parents don't control the content and they rely on
broadcast programming, which is usually bad. But nowadays you can easily
obtain good stuff via videos.
>: Well then, how am I "ridiculously naive"?
>
>Sigh. As I said. In believing that there is such a thing as "just a
>medium" that can be neatly separated from its use.
So we disagree. For my part, I think you're being absurd and irrational when
you focus on the medium itself, as though it has an evil mind of its own, while
ignoring the fact that individuals *choose* to create shitty programming and
audiences *choose* to watch it. It's the people who are responsible for the
bad content, not the medium.
>: I've already explained it, but let's try again. TV is a medium. It's
>neutral.
>: It can be used for good art and it can be used for trash. When it's used
>for
>: trash, the blame falls on the creators and the consumers of the trash, not
>on
>: the medium itself. The problem with demonizing the medium, as you are
>doing,
>: is that it takes the heat off the people who have the power to change
>things.
>: It's also unjust to those people in the TV business who are genuinely
>committed
>: to making good art. They do exist.
>
>I would like you to think a bit further here.
I've thought a great deal about it.
>You yourself have granted
>that TV (if not run by the state, I suppose) produces a lot of trash. Now,
>do you think this is really and truly accidental to the medium, or do you
>think that there is something in the medium that influences what it's used
>for?
It's not in the medium, no. If I owned the only TV in the world and
programming was designed for my taste, Jerry Springer wouldn't exist. However,
this is not the case. There are a lot of tasteless people in the world, and
they want to see Jerry Springer, so he's on the tube.
>You're a smart woman, but I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a
>Paul Lanier impersonator, and I can't figure out why.
You're amusing when you're patronizing.
>[...]
>
>: You failed to explain why you think TV is inherently shitty as a medium.
>
>No, I didn't fail to explain. Apparently, you're not convinced, and that
>is, of course, your prerogative. In brief, I think that TV (as a medium
>_and_ as an institution) combines a number of factors that predispose it
>towards shittiness. As I also said, each single one of these factors can
>also be found in other media, but theater, radio, music (live or not),
>books, movie theaters, horse races also differ from TV in, to me, fine and
>important ways.
Which you haven't explained.
>I'm writing about this to get away from the "good
>art" angle -- this simply isn't about 'good art,' to me.
Then get out of the discussion, because that's what I'm talking about.
>: Presently it's largely (though not entirely) funded by commercials;
>however,
>: that's not something required by the nature of the medium. The funding
>could
>: well shift to the more direct method of pay-per-view.
>
>Is it required by the nature of the institution?
Obviously not, since there's a lot of programming produced by public TV.
>And would "pay-per-view"
>increase the quality of the programs offered, you think?
It could well do so. Concerned viewers could pick and choose which shows they
want to support.
>[...]
>:>
>:>Are you sure? You did a medline search on that one?
>
>: Hey, it's your argument - you produce the evidence.
>
>Sure, one word: Pokemon. 700 kids or so in seizures. Your turn.
Is that the best you can do? That tells me nothing about the difference
between the brain's reaction to TV and film. Seizure-inducing images can be
created in film as well as video.
David E. Latane
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, tejas wrote:
> But don't these all have to be registered? Do they come with child-proof
> locks? My friends who work in Germany have e-mail access, but they
> find it's cheaper to send a snail-mail letter than to use this
> medium. But their company doesn't allow them personal e-access. They'll
> read my e-mail, but they say it costs an arm and leg to send an
> e-missive.
They can probably get cheap e-mail now through the .yu domain.
D. Latane
ObUS Gov't official quoted in today's Washington Post: "We own all the
Balkans now and we're not going to leave until it looks like the rest of
Europe."
HRH1962
>HRH1962 <hrh...@aol.com> wrote:
>: If the medium is so tragically flawed, how does good programming get made?
>
>Hello? Heather? You there? Having followed the thread? Is this all about
>programming, to me?
Does this mean you don't want to answer the question? I'm truly trying to
understand what you're talking about, hence my query. It sounds like you're
saying "The medium is rotten - the fact that good programming exists is
irrelevant." This is a ridiculous view, so I'm sure I must be misunderstanding
you. TV can't be a medium without programming.
> Btw, I said "better," not "good."
Meaning...? What TV programming do you consider "good"?
>Some of the Czech kids' stuff is
>pretty great, though. Still can't say that I'd prefer my kids watching
>that instead of reading a book or helping me plant stuff in the garden.
>Again, personal idiosyncrasy, okay? That value thingee?
Fine. I'm not claiming you have to.
>:>I think I'm starting to underttand why you're all so defensive... you
>:>think that when I call TV crud, that means that I'm calling TV-watchers
>:>cruddy.
>
>: I don't care about that. The problem is that your sweeping generalizations
>: don't make sense. Your dismissal of an entire medium shows an astonishing
>: ignorance.
>
>Well, no, they show an astonishing capacity to disagree with you.
Indeed, you've been remarkably disagreeable in this thread, and to no good
purpose.
> As I
>said, I worked in TV. I worked in print journalism, too. And I watched a
>lot of TV, in different countries.
If so, I'd expect you to have a much more intelligent and informed viewpoint on
TV.
>The ignorance charge makes you look a
>bit helpless, and I don't think you want to go with it.
"Helpless", hmm, that's interesting.
>:> But sinc you seem hell-bent to get personal --
>
>: Actually, nobody's gotten personal in this thread except you.
>
>That's simply not true. Lew started out by calling me a freak,
Lew's not in this thread. Check the header.
>Larisa
>dragged in my Usenet practice, you are calling me ignorant. WHere did I
>get personal?
You got personal with phrases like "incredibly naive" and "maniacal quibbling".
It doesn't bother me, but it sure looks like violent overreaction on your
part. I didn't say anything insulting to you, did I?
>: If you don't watch TV, how are you in a position to criticize it?
>
>I did watch TV. In the past.
Forgive me, but I'm not terribly impressed with this credential.
>I think you should disengage, Heather, you
>seem upset.
Do I? I suspect your snarly mood is coloring your observations.
Lewis Mammel
>
> <singing> "Just don't watch! Just don't watch!"
>
> Yes, that's a "Simpsons" reference; I no longer have any thoughts of
> my own, just innumerable "Simpsons" lines running through my head.
Darmok and Jelad at Tenagra!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
> Film is a series of pictures. TV is a series of dots that appear to
> be pictures.
That's like saying, "A table is furniture, but a chair is
a collection of sticks that appears to be furniture."
Lew Mammel, Jr.
HRH1962
>HRH1962 <hrh...@aol.com> wrote:
>: Yes, but as I pointed out, the characteristics that you chose for your
>examples
>: are shared by other media.
>
>And as I pointed out to you, no other medium shares all of them. Duh.
So what?
>:>This is
>:>getting very repetitive. I do not expect you or anyone to agree with my
>:>views on TV,
>
>: OK, then quit trying to justify them.
>
>Excuse me? I can't justify my views because you don't agree with them? Do
>you want to rephrase this in any way, perhaps?
No. You don't appear to be interested in convincing anyone, just in making
statements and then snapping at people who disagree with them.
>I'm not ranting in the least. I am calmly stating my position on TV.
You don't act calm.
>I
>haven't attacked anyone who disagrees with me. Unlike you.
Where have I attacked you?
> It doesn't change what bothers me about the practice of plonking
>little kids in front of TVs, though.
Not what I'm talking about.
>For my part, I think you're being absurd and irrational
>when
>: you focus on the medium itself, as though it has an evil mind of its own,
>while
>: ignoring the fact that individuals *choose* to create shitty programming
>and
>: audiences *choose* to watch it. It's the people who are responsible for
>the
>: bad content, not the medium.
>
>But I don't focus on any one aspect. I focus on three things: the medium,
>the institution, and the content.
You're evading the issue.
>If I owned the only TV in the world and
>: programming was designed for my taste, Jerry Springer wouldn't exist.
>However,
>: this is not the case.
>
>And your hypothetical is possible, given the nature of the medium? Come
>on, Heather...
So your point is that the nature of the TV medium is that it is ubiquitous and
everyone watches it, therefore it caters to the "lowest common denominator"?
OK, but that would be a good thing if everyone had great taste.
>:>I'm writing about this to get away from the "good
>:>art" angle -- this simply isn't about 'good art,' to me.
>
>: Then get out of the discussion, because that's what I'm talking about.
>
>Does this strike you as an odd comment, seeing that you entered a
>discussion I was involved in?
Not at all. I spun off a new thread.
>:>:>Are you sure? You did a medline search on that one?
>:>
>:>: Hey, it's your argument - you produce the evidence.
>:>
>:>Sure, one word: Pokemon. 700 kids or so in seizures. Your turn.
>
>: Is that the best you can do? That tells me nothing about the difference
>: between the brain's reaction to TV and film. Seizure-inducing images can
>be
>: created in film as well as video.
>
>These ones? Really? Again, you're sure?
Yep. I remain unconvinced by your argument.
Lewis Mammel
> ........... At the same time, I don't wear polyester, I don't use
> store-bought pie-crusts, I don't over our hardwood floors with
> wall-to-wall, and I don't watch TV.
"... and I don't wear rubber watches, but I do go to Taco Bell!"
Hey, I guess I don't need TV when I've got Silke.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
> :>Sure, one word: Pokemon. 700 kids or so in seizures. Your turn.
>
> : Is that the best you can do? That tells me nothing about the difference
> : between the brain's reaction to TV and film. Seizure-inducing images can be
> : created in film as well as video.
>
> These ones? Really? Again, you're sure?
http://whatis.com/framerat.htm
30/sec for TV, 24/sec for movies. ( If you step through a video of
a movie you'll see that every sixth frame duplicates the one before
it, adjusting the average fequency. )
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Chamber/8469/seizure.html
Shows the actual pokemon seizure image, slowed down. It looks like it
pulls a red "window shade" over a blue screen in about 6 frames, for a frequency
of about 5/sec. Using 5 frames instead of 6 in a movie would give almost
exactly the same frequency, 4.8/sec, so I see no reason why the same
effect wouldn't obtain. BTW, the page mentions that there is still some
skepticism whether seizures were actually induced - presumably something
happened, though.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
tejas
You have a narrow view of furniture.
ObExample: The Beanbag Chair
tejas
in video verite' is pretty nauseating. World class wingeing.
But Dweezil & Ahmet Zappa's THE HAPPY HOUR is amusing.
Larisa Migachyov
> :>
> :>Look, you say "just a medium," and when I asked you what you meant by
> :>"just," you said "what it says." When I asked you by analogy whether you
> :>are trying on the rhetoric of the seance, you said yes. So, no, I'm not
> : I've already explained it, but let's try again. TV is a medium. It's neutral.
> : It can be used for good art and it can be used for trash. When it's used for
> : trash, the blame falls on the creators and the consumers of the trash, not on
> : the medium itself. The problem with demonizing the medium, as you are doing,
> : is that it takes the heat off the people who have the power to change things.
> : It's also unjust to those people in the TV business who are genuinely committed
> : to making good art. They do exist.
>
> that TV (if not run by the state, I suppose) produces a lot of trash. Now,
> do you think this is really and truly accidental to the medium, or do you
> think that there is something in the medium that influences what it's used
> Paul Lanier impersonator, and I can't figure out why.
Hmm. I think that the media empires that control TV have gradually, over
decades, gotten the public accustomed to more and more crude and
disgusting programming. There is nothing inherently crude and disgusting
in the device itself. I can use the same TV, connected to a VCR, to watch
wonderful movies, videotaped lectures, and operas or plays.
Incidentally, does German TV have commercials?
> : You failed to explain why you think TV is inherently shitty as a medium.
>
> No, I didn't fail to explain. Apparently, you're not convinced, and that
> is, of course, your prerogative. In brief, I think that TV (as a medium
> _and_ as an institution) combines a number of factors that predispose it
> towards shittiness. As I also said, each single one of these factors can
> also be found in other media, but theater, radio, music (live or not),
> books, movie theaters, horse races also differ from TV in, to me, fine and
> important ways.
> I was thinking of this discussion when I went to Stella's ballet
> recital yesterday. Her whole school up on stage, many of them solo (not
> her, she was on for about 20 seconds out of 1 1/2h, don't get me wrong)
> and quite a few of them shouldn't have by the standards of TV (or the
> standards of classical ballet, for that matter). They weren't very good,
> and lots of them had entirely the wrong bodies. But it was live, there was
> a tenderness in the room (a pretty large, pretty crowded auditorium) that
> actually made me cry at some point, and it produced, apologies for the
> sappiness, community. I'm writing about this to get away from the "good
> art" angle -- this simply isn't about 'good art,' to me.
Well, for that matter, the same accusation can be made about theatres. I
took part in an amateur performance once that might not have been good
enough for a professional theatre - most of the actors were amateurs. And
yes, there was a feeling about this performance that one wouldn't
experience in a professional theatre. So, is theatre inherently shitty as
a medium, too?
> :>: There's nothing that says TV has to be a vehicle for commercials.
> :>
> :>No? We are talking about TV, the institution, right? Who finances it? How
> :>does it pay for itself?
>
> : Presently it's largely (though not entirely) funded by commercials; however,
> : that's not something required by the nature of the medium. The funding could
> : well shift to the more direct method of pay-per-view.
>
> Is it required by the nature of the institution? And would "pay-per-view"
> increase the quality of the programs offered, you think?
Well, that same institution in Russia was funded by the government. I am
not sure how Germans do it. Public TV here is funded by taxes and
donations. Commercials aren't the only way to pay for TV programming.
> :>Are you sure? You did a medline search on that one?
>
> : Hey, it's your argument - you produce the evidence.
>
> Sure, one word: Pokemon. 700 kids or so in seizures. Your turn.
Videogames are responsible for a lot more seizures, I think;
videogame-induced epilepsy is a recognized disease. And for someone prone
to seizures, even a fluorescent light flashed at the right frequency will
induce one.
Lewis Mammel
>
> Lewis Mammel:
>
> >>> I guess you confused yourself when you clipped my lead sentence:
>
> Puss in Boots:
>
> >> No, I don't think so. You suggested that it was a mistake
> >> to call TV "crud" because that would be a judgement on the
> >> world waiting for your kids. But what if that world _is_ gonna
> >> be a cruddy one? In that case the judgement would be
> >> accurate. You seem to be saying it's against to rules to
> >> comment on the crudiness, even the _potential_ crudiness of the
> >> world. But since when has the world been exempt from
> >> criticism?
>
> Lew:
>
> > Well, you misread me, if I may invoke authorial privilege. The thought
> > was that SINCE this blanket condemnation had weighty consequences, it
> > ought to be carefully justified. "So what if it has weighty consequences,
> > maybe it's true" is your response, and it does nothing to provide the
> > sought for explanation, as I pointed out.
>
> [...]
>
> I'll be glad to take your word about what you meant to say,
> but you need more than authorial privilege -- you need the
> Presidential privilege Reagan and his handlers invoked when the
> Great Communicator made one of his usual boners: "The
> President misspoke himself" was the line.
I didn't misspeak, you misread. I never made the connection which
you inferred. Originally, you didn't even claim this, content to
say "You seem to be saying...". Now you want to blame me for your
misapprehension. Honestly, I made a simple query, which you elided
( twice now! ) in favor of putting words in my mouth so you could pretend
I had to retract them and then mock me for it. You're just so sleazy
I could spit.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
midtown neon
DELatane: So you think. But perhaps some of us are experiments in AI.
Hey, David! That's my family you're talking about!
and, as for SMW ... we are not ALL talking to each other.
neon, m.
midtown neon
VCR's.
but of course we never watch it.
neon, m.
Sue kelso
Jeffrey A. Del Col
In a previous article, hrh...@aol.com (HRH1962) says:
>>From: "Phyllis Chamberlain" <ph...@earthlink.net>
>
>>How come two days have gone by and no mention of Marshall McLuhan and "The
>>Medium Is the Message."?
>
>We didn't want this thread to turn into that scene from "Annie Hall".
>
You're too late.
J. Del Col
--
1789 The new pagans meant at Paris to resurrect the old--
willfully ignorant of the classic people
who, ignoring Aurelius, demanded more artful public death--
and copied them faithfully.
Sue kelso
Suzanne wrote:
> <singing> "Just don't watch! Just don't watch!"
>
> Yes, that's a "Simpsons" reference; I no longer have any thoughts of
> my own, just innumerable "Simpsons" lines running through my head.
>
> Suzanne
> _____________________________________________________________
> Eavesdropping, list-making, misanthropic, paranoid insomniacs
> do things right if they're let alone, but the strain of
> pretending to like people will destroy them every time.
> (Florence King)
tejas
>
> In a previous article, hrh...@aol.com (HRH1962) says:
>
> >>From: "Phyllis Chamberlain" <ph...@earthlink.net>
> >
> >>How come two days have gone by and no mention of Marshall McLuhan and "The
> >>Medium Is the Message."?
> >
> >We didn't want this thread to turn into that scene from "Annie Hall".
> >
>
> You're too late.
When do we unleash the lobsters?
HRH1962
>at home, here ... we have cable, a dish, two tuners, three TV's and two
>VCR's.
>
>but of course we never watch it.
You will when I come to your house for the Fred Astaire Festival.
Lewis Mammel
> I just thought of a mind experiment -- can anybody here imagine a
> painting of a child watching TV that would strike you as a joyful scene?
That's a good one. What came to my mind is not a painting but it is
a vivid image to me. My kids were watching Battlestar Galactica while they
sat in boxes and played spaceship. My son was quite involved, even though
he had his back to the screen on the floor in front of me. I guess you
could paint that. At one point I called his attention to the big battle
scene, but he only glanced at it and continued his play, which nevertheless
was derivative of the TV show.
Of course, this supports your point as much as it refutes it, but TV doesn't
have to master us. My kids often played this way, sometimes not even in the
room. I would turn the TV off, and they would come running in - "Hey, we're
watching that!" I'd turn it back on and they'd run out of the room again.
( happened at least once, anyway - one tends to generalize. )
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
> I just thought of a mind experiment -- can anybody here imagine a
> painting of a child watching TV that would strike you as a joyful scene?
Further, as provocative as this challenge might be, it is rather loaded
against TV, since it is a pretty much an internal experience. Thinking a little
more generally about the possibility of joyful TV watching, I'm led to
answer that I did have many such experiences, all associated with the
fifties ideal of "family viewing". Sharing a common focus did provide
me with a feeling of closeness with my parents. I'm thinking in
particular of the old Disneyland, and the Bell System Science series.
I hate Disney now, because of their overreaching, and because they
OWN Winnie-the-Pooh, which irks me no end. It was all there implicitly
even in those days, I suppose, but I digress.
Those Disneyland shows were infinite to me, in a sense, in the same way
that the Felix the Cat comicbook in the back of our car was - there was
always more. Watching them with my parents in the living room was a
serene and joyful experience for me. I might mention Laurel and Hardy's
Babes in Toyland while we decorated the tree, and other Christmas
programming. A lot of this - like Perry Como - was interesting to me
only because my parents liked it.
I heard a talk radio host harping on what a lie the Ozzie and Harriet
show was, which notion was promulgated, of course, by Pleasantville
of late, riddled with calumnies as it was. My feeling is that this itself
is a lie - that whole fifties thing really happened.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
> Well, for that matter, can anyone imagine a painting of a child reading a
> book that would strike you as a joyful scene? In either case, the child
> in question is deeply absorbed in something, and probably doesn't express
> joy by dancing and jumping up and down.
I think there's a real point to this. As a matter of fact I see many depictions
of children reading, which are always endearing in some way. Our public library
recently placed two bronze statues of a boy and a girl reading. The imagery
of a TV set is somehow threatening and dominating in relation to a child
viewer. 'Poltergeist' expresses the idea taken to the limit. There are depictions
of children watching TV that are more or less neutral, I guess, but the TV itself
is definitely a separate presence in a way that a book is not.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
midtown neon
Now, how did you know? I taped all of the Astaire-Rogers ones ... and
the significant dance sections from most everything Astaire else.
I know what you mean re Cyd Charisse and 'balance'. Gene Kelly thought
so too.
The famed "Begin the Beguine" with Eleanor Powell ... has lots of taps
in it ... but ... on the whole ... I'll take Rogers as Fred's ideal
partner any day. anytime. anyplace. anywhere.
Astaire-Charisse are a very ... stylish ... couple. and that's nice,
but ... for me ... a surface event. Astaire-Powell show lots, lots of
technique ... and no romance. Really a cold number.
Astaire-Rogers were so great for so many reasons ... for this thread,
the most pertinent being ... that they were so unalike. It was that
space between wherein was the chemistry.
neon, m.
midtown neon
etc.
POKEMON. The one which alledgedly sickened children watching it, in
Japan, last year, and which was fairly well replicated on a recent
Simpsons (their visit to Japan) recently ... is astonishingly effective
as a disorientation tool, if watched long enuf. (less than 30 secs.!) Of
course there are diff. threshold levels for times of endurance, for
times endured.
High contrast intensity of yellow and white fan-blade shaped strobe-like
motion patterns ...
You have to see it to believe it.
In fact ... Highly recommended for anyone seriously involved in this
discussion. If you don't see it, you don't know what you're talking
about in terms of contemporary tech vis.-perceptual processing.
It's like pokes in the eye, not with the points of sharpened sticks,
hardened in the fire ... but with a FLAT VISUAL FIELD.
Unbelieveable! Try it. Understand.
neon, m.
Larisa Migachyov
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> [...]
>
> : Hmm. I think that the media empires that control TV have gradually, over
> : decades, gotten the public accustomed to more and more crude and
> : disgusting programming.
>
> conversation, perhaps cofusingly.
I see. But that's not the medium, but the content.
> : There is nothing inherently crude and disgusting
> : in the device itself. I can use the same TV, connected to a VCR, to watch
> : wonderful movies, videotaped lectures, and operas or plays.
>
> That's not TV, to me, that's VCR. And while I agree that that's better
> than most of TV programming, I still think it's _inherently_ inferior to
> watching to opera on stage.
Well, sure. But since not all of us are rich enough for opera season
tickets, some of us will just have to make do with this. And I don't
think that I'd want to watch a movie on stage; stage adaptations of movies
don't work very well.
As far as TV vs. VCR - well, it's all shown on the same TV screen, right?
It's the same medium. The content is different.
> :> I was thinking of this discussion when I went to Stella'sballet
> :> recital yesterday. Her whole school up on stage, many of them solo (not
> :> her, she was on for about 20 seconds out of 1 1/2h, don't get me wrong)
> :> and quite a few of them shouldn't have by the standards of TV (or the
> :> standards of classical ballet, for that matter). They weren't very good,
> :> and lots of them had entirely the wrong bodies. But it was live, there was
> :> a tenderness in the room (a pretty large, pretty crowded auditorium) that
> :> actually made me cry at some point, and it produced, apologies for the
> :> sappiness, community. I'm writing about this to get away from the "good
> :> art" angle -- this simply isn't about 'good art,' to me.
>
> : Well, for that matter, the same accusation can be made about theatres. I
> : took part in an amateur performance once that might not have been good
> : enough for a professional theatre - most of the actors were amateurs. And
> : yes, there was a feeling about this performance that one wouldn't
> : experience in a professional theatre. So, is theatre inherently shitty as
> : a medium, too?
>
> You must have read me to imply that it was good _because_ it was bad. I
> meant it was good _even though_ it was bad. I do experience live theatre
> differently than TV or Video, no matter how good or bad. I hope that
> clears up this specific misunderstanding. Come to think of it, I _have_
> wondered at the audience in US theaters. It'd be tempting to say that they
> treat the cast as if they were on TV, and maybe there's even something to
> that, but there might be other reasons for the strange apathy that seems
> to characterize much of live performance here.
Hmm. Strange apathy? I haven't noticed the audience being very apathetic
in US theatres; they might not throw tomatoes, but they are involved in
what is going on nonetheless.
sayan bhattacharyya
>:> That's not TV, to me, that's VCR. And while I agree that that's better
>:> than most of TV programming, I still think it's _inherently_ inferior to
>:> watching to opera on stage.
As often happens when I follow "culture wars" kind of debates like this
one on rab, I am amused no end to see how the implicit
limited-to-first-world terms of the debate circumscribe the discussion.
To those who are arguing that "it is the nature of the medium" that
it tends to keep people away from each other and destroys community
because something about people stay at their individual homes instead
of congregating socially as in a movie theater or theater, consider this:
In many third-world countries, often there would be a SINGLE tv set in
the entire village, and the entire village would *congregate* to watch
it, -- happens all the time in rural India.
Thus, there is nothing "specific to the medium" which makes it an
asocial (or asocializing) medium. It's the economics of its use
(how many tv sets per capita in the society, the price of a tv
set compared to per capita GDP, etc) that is more relevant than
anything "inherent" to tv as a medium.
>: Hmm. Strange apathy? I haven't noticed the audience being very apathetic
>: in US theatres; they might not throw tomatoes, but they are involved in
>: what is going on nonetheless.
>
>Well, different perceptions, then. I'm almost always amazed at how stingy
>the audience here is with curtain calls. The first few times I saw the
>cast disappear after one bow, I thought people hadn't liked it.
The notion of curtain calls seem entirely to do with convention and
little to do with audience engagement. It is a cultural thing. In India,
for example, (traditionally) the notion of a curtain call simply does
not exist. When a performance is over the audience claps, the performers
retire and that's it, you go home after that. (This does not mean that
the Indian audiences are any less engaged. This hide-and-seek game of
standing and clapping and the performers periodically popping out
from the wings to come out and bow, which I first encountered in the
USA, has always seemed rather ridiculous to me for the simple reason
that I did not grow up with it. It does not mean that I am an apathetic
viewer).
Larisa Migachyov
Distribution:
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :> : There is nothing inherently crude and disgusting
> :> : in the device itself. I can use the same TV, connected to a VCR, to watch
> :> : wonderful movies, videotaped lectures, and operas or plays.
> :>
> :> That's not TV, to me, that's VCR. And while I agree that that's better
> :> than most of TV programming, I still think it's _inherently_ inferior to
> :> watching to opera on stage.
>
> : Well, sure. But since not all of us are rich enough for opera season
> : tickets, some of us will just have to make do with this. And I don't
> : think that I'd want to watch a movie on stage; stage adaptations of movies
> : don't work very well.
>
> No, I wouldn't want to do that, either, even though it might be a fun
> genre to start. How was the Wizard of Oz trajectory? I know the book and
> the movie, and I've recently seen the play.
> But I'd prefer to watch the movie in a (decent) movie theater
What's the difference? Except for the screen size, that is.
> You're right about the economic angle, of course. I accept that
> even when it comes to babysitting... I know a lot of mothers (and I'm sure
> there are fathers, too) who simply couldn't get by if they couldn't plonk
> their kids in front of a TV every once in a while. Still hate to see it.
> I just thought of a mind experiment -- can anybody here imagine a
> painting of a child watching TV that would strike you as a joyful scene?
Well, for that matter, can anyone imagine a painting of a child reading a
book that would strike you as a joyful scene? In either case, the child
in question is deeply absorbed in something, and probably doesn't express
joy by dancing and jumping up and down.
> : As far as TV vs. VCR - well, it's all shown on the same TV screen, right?
> : It's the same medium. The content is different.
>
> Same screen, yes. Same medium, no. Same box, but not same transmission.
If I videotape a TV show, and watch the videotape on my VCR, will it
magically change into something worth watching?
> :> You must have read me to imply that it was good _because_ it wasbad. I
> :> meant it was good _even though_ it was bad. I do experience live theatre
> :> differently than TV or Video, no matter how good or bad. I hope that
> :> clears up this specific misunderstanding. Come to think of it, I _have_
> :> wondered at the audience in US theaters. It'd be tempting to say that they
> :> treat the cast as if they were on TV, and maybe there's even something to
> :> that, but there might be other reasons for the strange apathy that seems
> :> to characterize much of live performance here.
>
> : Hmm. Strange apathy? I haven't noticed the audience being very apathetic
> : in US theatres; they might not throw tomatoes, but they are involved in
> : what is going on nonetheless.
>
> Well, different perceptions, then. I'm almost always amazed at how stingy
> the audience here is with curtain calls. The first few times I saw the
> cast disappear after one bow, I thought people hadn't liked it.
Could be a geographical difference as well. I know I've seen plays with
more than one curtain call.
Jim Collier
> I'm thinking in
> particular of the old Disneyland, and the Bell System Science series.
> I hate Disney now, because of their overreaching, and because they
> OWN Winnie-the-Pooh, which irks me no end. It was all there implicitly
> even in those days, I suppose, but I digress.
I suppose you have in mind the demonstration of a nuclear chain
reaction, consisting of a table surface covered with mousetraps.
Each trap had a ping-pong ball positioned so that the ball would pop
up into the air when the trap was unsprung. And the result of setting
off one of the traps was a chaotic release of quantum energy packets,
i.e., packets with the energy of metal springs imparting energy to
flying balls and returning to lower states.
Yes, it was a very clever demo. That was about 1958. A friend of
mine about 3 years older was inspired by that to do something similar on
one of those Philbrick plug-board analog computers that his father
brought home. He made what amounted to a bunch of one-shot amplifiers
that triggered each other, and the judges at the Valley Science
Fair that year were impressed enough to give him $100. Seemed like
he introduced randomness into which one-shot was the next to be fired,
but I don't remember how he implemented it now.
Jim
Michael S. Morris
Silke:
I just thought of a mind experiment --
can anybody here imagine a painting
of a child watching TV that would
strike you as a joyful scene?
Now this is so much bullshit, Silke.
Of course any such a painting would
be painted in the first place in order
to condemn television, materialism,
mass culture, etc., etc., etc.. Artists
are a much more politically narrow and
dogmatic community than businessmen
even. But, yeah, I remember growing
up watching lots of television, and the
fondest scene I'd paint of a child
in front of the TV would be, say, when
I was about 6 and my brother 4 watching
"World of Disney" on Sunday night---Dad
would have made the popcorn just before
that, and Chris or I would be in
Dad's lap in the big chair, the other
of us on the floor guarding the popcorn
from Buffy, our Cocker Spaniel. Mom would have
her own bowl in her chair.
Anyway, yeah, I basically agree with
(what I think is) your main point---TV
mostly sucks. But the reason it mostly
sucks in fact is exactly the same reason
we have a President proclaiming that "studies
have shown" for 30 years the adverse effect
of the depiction of violence on children---
we as a society do not believe ourselves
morally free or responsible for what we do
in the first place. That is why we buy
programming which stinks, as long
as it promises to us with every ad
to relieve us of all responsibility for
what we do.
I also agree that a movie seen on video
can never equal the experience of a film
seen in a cinema. Nevertheless, from being
essentially TV-less, we deliberated and
then went out and bought one a couple of
winters back, because we love to watch films,
and because there are hundreds
we want to see and want our children to see,
that we know we will never be able to see again
in a movie theater. The TV makes some very
great art accessible to us--ordinary joes---
that would not be accessible to us in any
other way. Come to think of it, that
aspect of your elitism makes me pretty
darn mad---I've seen the Pierre Boulez-
conducted Ring at Bayreuth in its entirety
on television. Someday it may even
happen that I shall afford to be able
to attend in person, but then I am financially
much better off than average for an American,
let alone for a human resident of planet Earth.
The TV makes a lot that is great available
to us that would be available to us now
in no other way.
Mike Morris
(msmorris@netdirect,net)
HRH1962
>Anyway, yeah, I basically agree with
>(what I think is) your main point---TV
>mostly sucks. But the reason it mostly
>sucks in fact is exactly the same reason
>we have a President proclaiming that "studies
>have shown" for 30 years the adverse effect
>of the depiction of violence on children---
>we as a society do not believe ourselves
>morally free or responsible for what we do
>in the first place. That is why we buy
>programming which stinks, as long
>as it promises to us with every ad
>to relieve us of all responsibility for
>what we do.
Too complicated. The answer is simple: the majority of people like to watch
shit.
>I also agree that a movie seen on video
>can never equal the experience of a film
>seen in a cinema.
Get a big-screen TV with stereo hookup and turn out the lights. Enjoy the
pleasure of not sticking to the floor.
Michael S. Morris
Heather:
Get a big-screen TV with stereo hookup
and turn out the lights. Enjoy the
pleasure of not sticking to the floor.
It will never, can never, be the same.
The difference is one of formality of
access, hieratic approach. One has
to make an *outing* to go to the movies.
One is, or ought to be, there on time,
and one remains silent during the film
and avoids even getting up to go the
bathroom if at all possible. One can
get interrupted by a telephone solicitor
while watching a video at home. One can
watch movies while undressed, etc.. This
means that one can never, ever pay a film
as much attention on a VCR as one could in
a theatre. Hey, it's OK, we watch videos
all of the time---I'm just agreeing with
Silke that the experience is necessarily
less fine than the experience of seeing the
same film in a theatre, where it was made
to be shown. By the way, I have a theory
that the failure to appreciate this intrinsic
difference between a film and a video is
why more and more people behave in movie
theaters with the informality and lack of
attention they are used to bringing to videos.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Lewis Mammel
>
> Lewis Mammel wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking in
> > particular of the old Disneyland, and the Bell System Science series.
> > I hate Disney now, because of their overreaching, and because they
> > OWN Winnie-the-Pooh, which irks me no end. It was all there implicitly
> > even in those days, I suppose, but I digress.
>
> I suppose you have in mind the demonstration of a nuclear chain
> reaction, consisting of a table surface covered with mousetraps.
I do remember that. It was on Disney, right? Tomorrowland and the
marvelous future of atomic energy. I actually remember my mom telling
me to pay attention to that part. I think this clip is in Atomic Cafe.
There was a space one which depicted a moon orbiting crew sending
down a flare which revealed a strange formation, shades of the
Martian face. And how about Pecos Bill? ... and all those Davy Crockett
followups. Remember Elfego Baca? ( also 1958 ) My Dad liked him.
Played by Robert Loggia! How about that.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Puss in Boots
>>>>> I guess you confused yourself when you clipped my lead sentence:
Puss in Boots:
>>>> No, I don't think so. You suggested that it was a mistake
>>>> to call TV "crud" because that would be a judgement on the
>>>> world waiting for your kids. But what if that world _is_ gonna
>>>> be a cruddy one? In that case the judgement would be
>>>> accurate. You seem to be saying it's against to rules to
>>>> comment on the crudiness, even the _potential_ crudiness of the
>>>> world. But since when has the world been exempt from
>>>> criticism?
Lew:
>>> Well, you misread me, if I may invoke authorial privilege. The thought
>>> was that SINCE this blanket condemnation had weighty consequences, it
>>> ought to be carefully justified. "So what if it has weighty consequences,
>>> maybe it's true" is your response, and it does nothing to provide the
>>> sought for explanation, as I pointed out.
Moggin:
>> I'll be glad to take your word about what you meant to say,
>> but you need more than authorial privilege -- you need the
>> Presidential privilege Reagan and his handlers invoked when the
>> Great Communicator made one of his usual boners: "The
>> President misspoke himself" was the line. ("_What_? He pissed
>> himself?!" "No, Grandma, that's not it." "Turn that up! I
>> can't hear!" "Gran, the neighbors are already complaining they
>> hear Dan Rather halfway down the block...")
Lew:
> I didn't misspeak, you misread.
Well, that's what we're reduced to arguing about. I tried
to avoid it by saying that we must be having a
misunderstanding. Nobody gets blamed, we all go home happy. I
also explained what I thought you had meant, giving you the
opportunity to say something like, "No, that's not it -- here's
what I was driving at..." But you had to be a jackass.
> I never made the connection which you inferred.
You did, tho; I wasn't making a leap. You said TV is the
"economic and social centerpiece of the modern world," and
concluded that "deeming it 'crud' is a severe moral judgment on
the world that your children will be living." Given the
premise, that follows nicely enough, but it's no objection -- a
cruddy world deserves to be called cruddy, n'est pas? You
reply that's not what you meant. O.k. I'm not saying it is so
what you meant -- I'm taking your word.
> Originally, you didn't even claim this, content to
> say "You seem to be saying...".
Yep -- I offered you "authorial privilege" even before you
asked for it. I'm still offering it right now. You're
telling me that you meant something different and I'm believing
you, no problem.
> Now you want to blame me for your misapprehension.
You want to blame me for your misarticulation. Or did you
really mean to rule out thinking which concludes that the
world is cruddy? I'm taking your word you meant something else,
but that's the other possibility here: you made an
embarrassing statement, then tried to slide out from underneath.
> Honestly, I made a simple query, which you elided
> ( twice now! ) in favor of putting words in my mouth so you could pretend
> I had to retract them and then mock me for it. You're just so sleazy
> I could spit.
I didn't delete your question. I quoted it at least twice
and I gave a simple, straightforward response.. You asked,
"...in what way is TV automatically 'crud?'" I replied that it
isn't, in those exact words. ("It isn't.") But now I'm a
sleazeball and you need a spittoon. Lemme guess: this must be
Usenet.
-- Moggin
HRH1962
>Heather:
> Get a big-screen TV with stereo hookup
> and turn out the lights. Enjoy the
> pleasure of not sticking to the floor.
>
>It will never, can never, be the same.
>The difference is one of formality of
>access, hieratic approach.
Nah. It's so much more enjoyable to watch the movie at your own leisure. It's
a vast pleasure. I wallow in the riches of my local video store.
>By the way, I have a theory
>that the failure to appreciate this intrinsic
>difference between a film and a video is
>why more and more people behave in movie
>theaters with the informality and lack of
>attention they are used to bringing to videos.
The people you're talking about are idiots, which makes for a much simpler
theory.
Larisa Migachyov
> Sunday, the 6th of June, 1999
>
>
> Get a big-screen TV with stereo hookup
> and turn out the lights. Enjoy the
> pleasure of not sticking to the floor.
>
> It will never, can never, be the same.
> The difference is one of formality of
> to make an *outing* to go to the movies.
> One is, or ought to be, there on time,
> and one remains silent during the film
> and avoids even getting up to go the
> bathroom if at all possible.
You must be luckier at movie theatres than I am. Every time I go to the
movies, there's always some idiots babbling loudly enough to disturb,
crunching their candy/popcorn/whatever, and pointing laser pointers at the
screen.
Jim Collier
>
> Jim Collier wrote:
> >
> > Lewis Mammel wrote:
> >
> > > I'm thinking in
> > > particular of the old Disneyland, and the Bell System Science series.
> > > I hate Disney now, because of their overreaching, and because they
> > > OWN Winnie-the-Pooh, which irks me no end. It was all there implicitly
> > > even in those days, I suppose, but I digress.
> >
> > I suppose you have in mind the demonstration of a nuclear chain
> > reaction, consisting of a table surface covered with mousetraps.
>
> I do remember that. It was on Disney, right? Tomorrowland and the
> marvelous future of atomic energy.
I think that's right.
> I actually remember my mom telling
> me to pay attention to that part. I think this clip is in Atomic Cafe.
>
> There was a space one which depicted a moon orbiting crew sending
> down a flare which revealed a strange formation, shades of the
> Martian face. And how about Pecos Bill? ... and all those Davy Crockett
> followups. Remember Elfego Baca? ( also 1958 ) My Dad liked him.
> Played by Robert Loggia! How about that.
I remember Crockett and Pecos Bill but not the others. I got little
out of TV, and my parents didn't tolerate more than a few hours a week
of it. "Twilight Zone" which came on in the fall of 1959 was the one
show that I watched faithfully week after week from the very first
episode. I was already in high school (I was two years ahead of my age
group, beneficiary of going to a private school where my mother taught),
but it wasn't a hit with the other kids in my grade until the second
season in the fall of '60.
I was pretty active in Moonwatch, the satellite ephemerides-charting
program during those years. Fortunately, I got permission to show
up late at Moonwatch sessions on Friday nights after TZ had aired,
or I missed them entirely. My father was peeved that I considered
a lowly television show as important. The only legitimate reason he
could see for a kid watching TV was if he was planning to go into
the TV production biz, and since his cousin's husband was in the TV ad
business, he'd be calling him to find out what I should be watching.
Very utilitarian, my pop.
Jim
HRH1962
>HRH will come to my house for the Fred Astaire Festival. O.K.!!!
It's a date, babe. So where is your house?
>Astaire-Charisse are a very ... stylish ... couple. and that's nice,
>but ... for me ... a surface event.
Really? To my mind you can't get any sexier than the way they were together in
"Band Wagon" and "Silk Stockings". Who can resist Cyd and her stunning legs?
I've heard that the early TV specials with Barrie Chase are even better, but I
haven't located them yet. Working on it.
>Astaire-Powell show lots, lots of
>technique ... and no romance. Really a cold number.
Yes, she's a cold fish. Not a good match.
>Astaire-Rogers were so great for so many reasons ... for this thread,
>the most pertinent being ... that they were so unalike. It was that
>space between wherein was the chemistry.
Perhaps. There was indeed a chemistry. But it's not as satisfying to me as
seeing Fred strut his stuff with a dancer who's at his level.
tejas
>
> Larisa Migachyov wrote:
>
> > Well, for that matter, can anyone imagine a painting of a child reading a
> > book that would strike you as a joyful scene? In either case, the child
> > in question is deeply absorbed in something, and probably doesn't express
> > joy by dancing and jumping up and down.
>
> of children reading, which are always endearing in some way. Our public library
> recently placed two bronze statues of a boy and a girl reading.
Here in Richmond, VA, there is a bronze statue of Arthur Ashe holding
a tennis racket in one hand and a couple of books in the other. (See
Tony Horwitz' CONFEDERATES IN THE ATTIC for a full account of this
piece of public art that makes Socialist Realism look good). Below
him, a couple of chirren are grasping at his ankles. When my children
saw it, they said: "Why is Arthur Ashe keeping those books away from
the children and will he whack them with the tennis racket?"
tejas
LE SHOW (there's a website, too.) He's the voice of Montgomery Burns
etc. on The Simpsons. I think he was also a member of SPINAL TAP.
Jeffrey A. Del Col
In a previous article, lhma...@ameritech.net (Lewis Mammel) says:
>Jim Collier wrote:
>>
>> Lewis Mammel wrote:
>>
>> > I'm thinking in
>> > particular of the old Disneyland, and the Bell System Science series.
>> > I hate Disney now, because of their overreaching, and because they
>> > OWN Winnie-the-Pooh, which irks me no end. It was all there implicitly
>> > even in those days, I suppose, but I digress.
>>
>> I suppose you have in mind the demonstration of a nuclear chain
>> reaction, consisting of a table surface covered with mousetraps.
>
>I do remember that. It was on Disney, right? Tomorrowland and the
>marvelous future of atomic energy. I actually remember my mom telling
>me to pay attention to that part. I think this clip is in Atomic Cafe.
>
>There was a space one which depicted a moon orbiting crew sending
>down a flare which revealed a strange formation, shades of the
>Martian face. And how about Pecos Bill? ... and all those Davy Crockett
>followups. Remember Elfego Baca? ( also 1958 ) My Dad liked him.
>Played by Robert Loggia! How about that.
The flare illuminated a feature called the wall on the moon. I'll
dig up the exact name sometime today.
And don't forget, those space adventures featured --the-- rocket scientist
himself, Wehrner von Braun.
fido
> A good antidote to disfunctional media is Harry Shearer's radio show
> LE SHOW (there's a website, too.) He's the voice of Montgomery Burns
> etc. on The Simpsons. I think he was also a member of SPINAL TAP.
I was surprised when Our Maureen had to go down into the basement to watch
news on TV. For my money radio is doing a much better job here - none of
that "pickies at 11" crap. Click & Clack is followed where i live by a
rather pleasant show called Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. NPR seems to hsave
a better grasp of what the medium is all about than there TV cousins. Why,
even Jim Lehrer is at least supportable on the wireless.
--
fido
Ted Samsel
: SMW: Yes, but on usenet, you still talk to each other.
: DELatane: So you think. But perhaps some of us are experiments in AI.
: Hey, David! That's my family you're talking about!
Adobe Illustrator? Arc/Info?
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net (or tbsa...@richmond.infi.net)
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
paschal
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Michael S. Morris wrote:
> But, yeah, I remember growing
> up watching lots of television, and the
> fondest scene I'd paint of a child
> in front of the TV would be, say, when
> I was about 6 and my brother 4 watching
> "World of Disney" on Sunday night---Dad
> would have made the popcorn just before
> that, and Chris or I would be in
> Dad's lap in the big chair, the other
> of us on the floor guarding the popcorn
> from Buffy, our Cocker Spaniel. Mom would have
> her own bowl in her chair.
When my family used to stay up and watch
Guy Lombardo on New Year's Eve, it was
quite a joyful scene, and would make a
nice painting. We always found some way to
use the gifts we'd gotten at Xmas to make
noise at midnight - bells on bikes,
toy plastic ukeleles...
-P.
Maureen Scobie
> I was surprised when Our Maureen had to go down into the basement to watch
> news on TV. For my money radio is doing a much better job here - none of
> that "pickies at 11" crap. Click & Clack is followed where i live by a
> rather pleasant show called Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. NPR seems to hsave
> a better grasp of what the medium is all about than there TV cousins. Why,
> even Jim Lehrer is at least supportable on the wireless.
>
> --
> fido
Francis, Sir, it was but a minor excursion, a diversion from the mortal
tedium of my days upstairs. The challenge of the descent, the
anticipation of the climbing forth, the tremor of spiders. For news (if
I really want to know and that is not always the case) there is CBC
radio, AM and FM. That is the source of much of the music, too. Shelagh
Rogers by day.
I live in near silence much of the time, alert to the snoring of the
cat, the rustling of the Aucuba japonica against the north side of the
house, the snap of the newspaper landing on the front porch, the hum of
the iMac. (Now there's the subject for a black velvet, wide-eyed
painting: matron poised over keyboard staring at her own words appearing
letter by letter on the hum-machine.)
Currently reading David W. McFadden's _An Innocent in Scotland_ (1999).
Another one of those "all the tedious people I met at the
bed-and-breakfast stops." H.V. Morton is much in his mind as he travels.
H.V.Morton might be a better read. McFadden's book is not a nasty read,
pleasant, yea, even, if one is in the mood for it.
Maureen, Yours
Michael S. Morris
Larisa:
You must be luckier at movie
theatres than I am. Every time
I go to the movies, there's always
some idiots babbling loudly enough
to disturb, crunching their
candy/popcorn/whatever, and pointing
laser pointers at the screen.
No, I am not luckier at all, as should
be clear from what followed, as well as
the "ought to be". But the informality of
their behaviour, and the lack of attention
they are paying to the film comes from their
treating the film like they do a video at home.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Ted Samsel
: : Silke:
: : I just thought of a mind experiment --
: : can anybody here imagine a painting
: : of a child watching TV that would
: : strike you as a joyful scene?
: : Now this is so much bullshit, Silke.
: : Of course any such a painting would
: : be painted in the first place in order
: : to condemn television, materialism,
: : mass culture, etc., etc., etc..
: That's what I'm saying, Mike. So it's our shared bullshit. There are such
: paintings about reading, about playing sports, even about watching sports
: -- not that I'd hang them on my living room walls, but they are possible.
: There are paintings that glorify the vilest things, but there aren't any
: that glorify TV. I think that's interesting.
There are some paintings with TVs in them. What do you mean by glorification,
BTW?
Jens S. Larsen
> Lewis Mammel <lhma...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :> I just thought of a mind experiment -- can anybody here
> :> imagine a painting of a child watching TV that would strike you
> :> as a joyful scene?
I've actually seen one -- but that was on TV and animated, so it
probably doesn't count.
> : Further, as provocative as this challenge might be, it is rather loaded
> : against TV, since it is a pretty much an internal experience.
> I know. I think what I'm getting at is that there is a tacit understanding
> about TV that precludes that kind of aestheticizing. TV can produce
> memories - in fact, all foreigners I know talk about how excluded they
> feel when US-Americans break into "the shows of yesteryear" rhapsodies,
> but the act of watching itself doesn't seem to produce nostalgia.
It does in Denmark. We had a show for children with two puppets (the
frog Kaj and the parrot Andrea) and a singing moderator Poul (Kjøller)
back in the seventies; some years ago Poul Kjøller did a tour with his
old songs, and that was a marvellous success with his old fans, even
though the cult around him had a ring of mild irony to it. Come to
think of it, TV _can_ be used to get people out of the house.
> I've ever heard anyone say, "gee, I'm so busy I don't get to watch
> any TV anymore, shame that," as they might say (and do say) about
> reading books or going to the theater or hanging out with friends in
> a bar.
Then again, I've seen people here leaving a party in the linguistics
department to watch a Lars von Trier TV series ("Riget" about a
Copenhagen hospital; I think it's been exported to English-speaking
countries, but I don't remember the translated title).
All in all, the Danish TV-programs are just like Carlsberg: probably
the best in the world. A pity that most of the fiction actually sent
in Danish TV is American and British crime series.
--
Jens S. Larsen
Richard Harter
Now that is a truly dubious thesis. Unsatisfactory movie audiences came
into being the first time a movie was shown to more than one person at
once.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
Q. What's the difference between a bagpipe and a trampoline?
A. You take off your shoes when you jump on a trampoline.
midtown neon
level."
She was hot, she was cool, she was chrome, she was plastic, she was all
lit up and glowing, and she never moved her feet ... while Fred danced
circles around her.
neon, m.
midtown neon
I say Lou Lehr.
"Monkeys is de kwaziest people!"
neon, m.
HRH1962
>There are such
>paintings about reading, about playing sports, even about watching sports
>-- not that I'd hang them on my living room walls, but they are possible.
>There are paintings that glorify the vilest things, but there aren't any
>that glorify TV. I think that's interesting.
Where are the paintings that "glorify" watching films, talking on the
telephone, and using the Internet?
HRH1962
>Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>: Distribution:
>: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>:> But I'd prefer to watch the movie in a (decent) movietheater
>
>: What's the difference? Except for the screen size, that is.
>
>Screen size matters. Also (and I've said this so many times now, I can't
>understand why it's not going through), it takes you out of the house and
>into public space.
So what if it takes you into public space? What's so great about that? Why
shouldn't movie-watching be a private experience like reading a book?
>:> : Hmm. Strange apathy? I haven't noticed the audience being very
>apathetic
>:> : in US theatres; they might not throw tomatoes, but they are involved in
>:> : what is going on nonetheless.
>:>
>:> Well, different perceptions, then. I'm almost always amazed at how stingy
>:> the audience here is with curtain calls. The first few times I saw the
>:> cast disappear after one bow, I thought people hadn't liked it.
>
>: Could be a geographical difference as well. I know I've seen plays with
>: more than one curtain call.
>
>Yeah, I've seen some, too. It just doesn't seem to be the rule, and it
>always puzzles me.
My observation is the opposite - there are usually too many curtain calls,
especially on Broadway, where the people have shelled out big bucks to be there
and are trying hard to convince themselves that they've had a transcendent
experience.
"It's much better than 'Cats'! I'm going to see it again and again!"
Ted Samsel
: >From: Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu>
: >There are such
: >paintings about reading, about playing sports, even about watching sports
: >-- not that I'd hang them on my living room walls, but they are possible.
: >There are paintings that glorify the vilest things, but there aren't any
: >that glorify TV. I think that's interesting.
: Where are the paintings that "glorify" watching films, talking on the
: telephone,
Norman Rockwell did some of these.
and using the Internet?
Robert Williams (an underground cartoonist & surrealist) may have done one
of these.
HRH1962
>sayan bhattacharyya <bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>: Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>[...]
>: In many third-world countries, often there would be a SINGLE tv set in
>: the entire village, and the entire village would *congregate* to watch
>: it, -- happens all the time in rural India.
>
>Fair enough, Sayan. I'm really talking about how TV works in the US here.
So you're not talking about TV as a medium - you're talking about the American
TV industry, which is a different subject.
Dylan Bryan Dolman
>
>
> Get a big-screen TV with stereo hookup
> and turn out the lights. Enjoy the
> pleasure of not sticking to the floor.
>
Roger Ebert suggests that watching film induces an alpha state, while
watching video induces a beta state. No idea where he gets this idea, or
how it would work.
Dylan
=dbd=
Don Tuite
> Yes, it was a very clever demo. That was about 1958. A friend of
> mine about 3 years older was inspired by that to do something similar on
> one of those Philbrick plug-board analog computers that his father
> brought home. He made what amounted to a bunch of one-shot amplifiers
> that triggered each other, and the judges at the Valley Science
> Fair that year were impressed enough to give him $100. Seemed like
> he introduced randomness into which one-shot was the next to be fired,
> but I don't remember how he implemented it now.
Severe ground bounce? Or metastability if he violated setup and hold
criteria?
How did he monitor the opamps to show what they were doing?
Don
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
David J. Loftus
Wow, this thread took off while I had my back turned, and I missed a lot
of stuff.
It's interesting to see people get so huffy on the subject, especially in
this venue. As I said on some other thread, I did not own or watch any
television for most of my life and only in the last year or so have
raised my viewing to the lofty amount of six to eight hours a week. But
I fully agree that most of us would be better off -- civilization would
be better off -- without it.
Heather asked Silke the difference between movies and TV. I believe
there is an essential difference in the physics, but it's been about 20
years since I read
ObBook: _Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television_ by Jerry Mander
so it's hard for me to remember the details: something about movies
consisting of reflected light versus television involving the flight of
electrons directly from the cathode ray tube to the retina ... but I
don't remember the significance of this. I've been trying to find a
hardcover copy of the Mander to own for decades, now, and have so far
failed.
As for differences between the movie experience and TV, Mike Morris
raised some good ones. The complaints about audience behavior tend to go
with the content; if you're going to see cheap thrills like those one
often gets on the tube, you'll get the audience that goes with them.
Crowds -- well, ticket buyers -- at the alternative and foreign flicks
tend to be more respectfully silent.
I'm not sure Mike or anyone else put enough emphasis on the shared
experience of seeing a movie with an audience. The audience around you
can help to rouse your emotions far more than a couple members of one's
family. In fact, in some cases one might be more comfortable responding
emotionally among a bunch of strangers than in front of loved ones. (On
the other hand, it can be a bracing and instructive experience to find
oneself guffawing in a crowded but otherwise silent theater.)
David Loftus
Michael S. Morris
Richard:
Unsatisfactory movie audiences came
into being the first time a movie was
shown to more than one person at
once.
Perhaps, but I am convinced that they have gotten
worse in the last ten years than they were in
the twenty before that.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Jim Collier
>
> On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 04:57:43 GMT Jim Collier <ct...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it was a very clever demo. That was about 1958. A friend of
> > mine about 3 years older was inspired by that to do something similar on
> > one of those Philbrick plug-board analog computers that his father
> > brought home. He made what amounted to a bunch of one-shot amplifiers
> > that triggered each other, and the judges at the Valley Science
> > Fair that year were impressed enough to give him $100. Seemed like
> > he introduced randomness into which one-shot was the next to be fired,
> > but I don't remember how he implemented it now.
>
> Severe ground bounce? Or metastability if he violated setup and hold
> criteria?
Have not the slightest. In analog computer days, germanium diodes
were used to provide shot-noise sources which had to be greatly
amplified. Philbrick had a noise source, but at that age, I didn't
have a sophisticated understanding of my older friend's setup.
>
> How did he monitor the opamps to show what they were doing?
He used flashlight bulbs or maybe railroad lantern bulbs. You could
get a 20-volt pulse with zero-DC out of those Philbricks as I learned
a few years later, but that would probably have to be attentuated. He
had maybe 20 or 30 lamps, enough to convey that something was going on.
Dunno now if he provided for an envelope decay, that is, something
that showed the reaction tapering off after all the nuclei were "used".
Those blinking bulbs people use today for Christmas decorations have
relaxation oscillators.
Jim
paschal
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> No, sorry, that's an example about a specific show -- as I said, that
> kind of nostalgia certainly _does_ exist. I tried to get
> at the fact that nobody ever says, "oh, god, rememeber when we were young
> and we watched all that _TV_?"
I often remember when I was young and participated, via TeeVee,
in many important national and communal events: I remember staying
up to watch my first election returns with my dad, when Kennedy
became prez; I remember watching and being greatly affected by
every moment of the coverage of Kennedy's assassination and funeral
ceremonies. We were even watching when Ruby shot Oswald. I remember
watching when we first set foot on the moon; seeing nearly every minute of
the Watergate hearings; getting up very early to watch the Prince and Lady
Diana wed; and then, sadly, seeing the funeral of the Princess. There
definitely *is* a kind of nostalgia connected to our memories of
television-watching (especially our memories of watching tv in a more
innocent and straightforward era) when through television, people and
nations came together and found communion at important moments.
As for another kind of nostalgia, I remember watching stuff with my
brother - the old "Sky King" series, the original "Star Trek", Captain
Kangaroo, the first time I saw Judy Garland in "The Wizard of Oz." (I'm
especially nostalgic for the nights we'd all gather round to watch Judy's
TV show, and hear her sing about being "born in a trunk"; and all the
nights we watched Jackie Gleason, and the Ed Sullivan show - I can still
feel the tingle, at seeing the Beatles for the first time! It was a
whole new THING!) Even today, some of the most fun times I spend with my
brother are watching television - we put those critters on Mystery Science
Theatre to shame.
I guess I'm most nostalgic for a time when the talking-heads on tv were
people like David Brinkley and others who had real depth and character,
and came across to a much greater extent than today as trustworthy. I
believed that I could largely trust the honor of the individual people
giving us the news, back in those days. Nowadays, I have very little
respect for almost anyone I see spouting on the tv news. That's not the
fault of the medium, it's the fault of people, who put pretty faces and
snazzy delivery ahead of professional accomplishment and integrity.
Just looking at the kinds of sets they use now, for news shows,
gives a good indication of where everyone's head is really at. And I
laughed myself silly this morning, seeing Geraldo Rivera rolling around on
the ground behind soldiers in Kosovo...
I largely gave tv up for about twenty years, for various reasons; and came
back to it a few years ago. But I'm not sure I'm ever going to feel
nostalgic about the kind of tv-watching I'm doing now; and if I wind up
shooting my tv, it's not going to be the fault of the neutral medium, but
of the people who program it and who seem more every year to care only
about ratings and dollars.
I remember reading an article some years ago, in which an actress (either
Mary Pickford or Lillian Gish) recounted a long-ago conversation she had
with D.W. Griffith, when the film industry was in its infancy. Griffith
told her that this new medium had the power and potential to utterly
change the world for the good. That was true, and it's still true, of both
film and television. But it all depends on the values, honor and
integrity of the people who manipulate the media and speak through them.
There's still a lot of good stuff out there. There's a hell of a lot
of absolutely degenerate stuff that is destroying us, too. So far, the
weeds seem to be choking the flowers; but I'm determined to be an
optimist. I also make a great point of exercising the power of
*choice*.
-P.
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>: The notion of curtain calls seem entirely to do with convention and
>: little to do with audience engagement. It is a cultural thing.
>
>Sure. And we're talking about this culture here where curtain calls are
>the conventional way of expressing appreciation and contributing to the
>whole performance of which the audience is a part.
Ok, I see your point now. Yes, I think you're right.
>The refusal to dress up
>glamorously is part of the refusal to take this part.
But what about those who really do *not* have glamorous dresses?
For example, I don't even know how to tie a tie and don't own a
single decent suit. Should this keep me away from classical music
concerts? That seems unfair.
Susan Young
> :> Well, different perceptions, then. I'm almost always amazed at how stingy
> :> the audience here is with curtain calls. The first few times I saw the
> :> cast disappear after one bow, I thought people hadn't liked it.
Perhaps they didn't.
> : Could be a geographical difference as well. I know I've seen plays with
> : more than one curtain call.
> Yeah, I've seen some, too. It just doesn't seem to be the rule, and it
> always puzzles me.
It seems to me to lessen the effect of the whole applause-curtain call-ovation
routine if mediocre performances and outstanding ones are treated the same
(and I suppose by definition the majority of performances are average...the
ones that take my breath away are the ones I stand up and yell and blister my
hands clapping for).
Susan
Richard Harter
>Monday, the 7th of June, 1999
>
>
>Richard:
> Unsatisfactory movie audiences came
> into being the first time a movie was
> shown to more than one person at
> once.
>
>Perhaps, but I am convinced that they have gotten
>worse in the last ten years than they were in
>the twenty before that.
But Michael, you have gotten of an age where everything is worse in the
last ten years than they were in the twenty before that. You are in
that inbetween age when you are old enough to have nostalgia and too
young to recognize it for the lying snake that it is.
ObNotabook: Tom Swift and his Electric Grandmother
Dylan Bryan Dolman
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> : And I don't
> : think that I'd want to watch a movie on stage; stage adaptations of
movies
> : don't work very well.
>
> No, I wouldn't want to do that, either, even though it might be a fun
> genre to start. How was the Wizard of Oz trajectory? I know the book and
> the movie, and I've recently seen the play.
The book was first, a huge hit, then there were various stage shows and a
silent movie, then the Garland movie which was only a modest hit until it
became an institution when shown on TV. The musical you see today is based
on the movie, not the book (Glinda and Good Witch of North conflated, etc).
Successful movie-to-stage adaptations include A Little Night Music (based
on Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night, it's the show "Send in the Clowns"
is from, and one of the best musicals ever except for the sucky, sucky book
scenes), 42nd Street and La Cage aux Folles. And Disney's Lion King is
supposed to be much better than the movie, but then it'd have to be.
Dylan
=dbd=
David J. Loftus
Oh, by the way. Moggin called Lew a jackass.
I believe Paschal has sole ownership of that epithet round these parts.
David Loftus
Chris Loar
> Richard:
> Unsatisfactory movie audiences came
> into being the first time a movie was
> shown to more than one person at
> once.
>
> Perhaps, but I am convinced that they have gotten
> worse in the last ten years than they were in
> the twenty before that.
I believe this is true. And I do believe that
audiences now behave as though the local multiplex
were no different in character from their living
room.
To wit: I've recently noticed groups of people at
some of our local multiplexes who engage in a
behavior that closely mimics a standard couch-potato
practice: sitting on the couch with the remote and
flipping through the channels to see what's on.
These crowds will enter the theater at some random
point in the film, sit down and watch anywhere from
five to twenty minutes of the flick, and then wander
out, presumably to sample another channel in another
darkened room. Typically, the group will behave as
though they were on their own sofa, remote in hand;
they blather loudly about whether they've seen this
actor on that TV show, who within the frame has nicer
breasts, etc. They'll also sometimes try to piece
together the plot based on what they're watching at
the moment.
--
Chris Loar
Claremont Graduate University
Boredom is the dream bird that hatches the egg of
experience.
--Walter Benjamin
paschal
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, David J. Loftus wrote:
>
> Oh, by the way. Moggin called Lew a jackass.
>
> I believe Paschal has sole ownership of that epithet round these parts.
Damn Straight (to quote another one...)
-P.
Christa Fidel
Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>That's hardly the point -- the point is that, in my experience, an image
>of a kid watching TV is as a rule sad, disturbing, cynical, etc. But if
>someone knows of a counter-example, let's hear it.
Well, if an artist had been peering in my window in the early
'80s while I was watching the Celtics win their NBA championships,
they could've got quite a convincing picture of a joyful
child watching TV.
Christa Fidel
chr...@io.com
Chris Loar
> As for differences between the movie experience and TV, Mike Morris
> raised some good ones. The complaints about audience behavior tend to go
> with the content; if you're going to see cheap thrills like those one
> often gets on the tube, you'll get the audience that goes with them.
> Crowds -- well, ticket buyers -- at the alternative and foreign flicks
> tend to be more respectfully silent.
If only this were universally true. Living out here on the fringes of LA
County, cinematic pickings can be pretty lean, so it's always exciting when the
local multiplex picks up something interesting; it saves a half-hour drive down
to Pasadena, or a 45-minute trip out to Hollywood.
Or it used to be exciting. My experience over the last couple of years is that
these pictures tend to attract the sort of young folks that show up at the
theater not knowing what they'll watch. When _Phantom Menace_ is sold out,
they wind up in the theater and try to sit through _Beseiged_ without getting
bored. They don't seem to be able to do it. Regrettably, instead of leaving
when the boredom sets in, they'll often try to liven things up with witty
commentary, laser lights, or conversation that's hopelessly tedious and, in any
case, irrelevant. Which is why it's often worth driving down to Pasadena to
see films with an audience that's at least snooty enough to keep its collective
trap shut while the celluloid is running.
On the other hand, one of the best cinematic experiences I've ever had was
watching _Terminator 2_ in a theater on the South Side of Chicago. Audience
participation was mandatory and loud. Ancient Rome was in the air.
> In fact, in some cases one might be more comfortable responding
> emotionally among a bunch of strangers than in front of loved ones.
A friend of mine recently rented _Boogie Nights_ and watched it with his
girlfriend and his girlfriend's father. I gather this particular father rates
about a 7.5 on the Puritan Richter scale. I also gather that comfort did not
play much of a role in the evening's proceedings.
Chris Loar
> Larisa Migachyov wrote,
>
> : What's the difference? Except for the screen size, that is.
>
> Screen size matters.
And screen shape. The cinema screen is a wider rectangle than the present
television standard, so cinematographers and directors can do different things with
the space. Not to mention the problems associated with squeezing a movie screen
onto a TV screen.