TV Realism

[Gregory A Welda]

On 16 Feb 1997, Kate Orman wrote:

> TV is notorious for the distorted picture of reality is provides - in TV
> land, there are almost no old people or Hispanic people. Women are almost
> always skinny, men are almost always tough. And everyone, with so few
> exceptions that they jump out at you, is straight. If an Asian or a black
> character or a gay character does appear, they're very often a stereotype.

I always find it interesting when people criticize TV for not being
realistic. TV has never been about realism. It is, and always has been,
about fantasy, and possibly ideology. Realism has nothing to do with it.

> Worse, young folks watching TV miss out on role models. Blacks are usually
> thugs, says the box. Gays are screaming faggots, or they don't exist.
> There's no-one to look up to, no heroes who are like you.

It is unfortunate that we assume that young people are going to TV for
their role models. That, I believe, is where our problems begin.

Again, when taken as fantasys, these images can become harmless. Despite
the fact that we know different, and more likely than not, the producers
know different through experience, does not address the underlying issues
of why these are the fantasies of those in power.

Also, I suspect that if we were to somehow, through some trick of
history, suddenly get 'realistic' images of people and the lives that
they lead, there would be those that would criticize it for being too
grim and unrepresenative, even tokenistic.

> A better variety of characters on TV - a bit more of a realistic mix -
> would make better TV. And it might save a lot of pain, as well, as our
> number one source of information acknowledges that gays and lesbians are
> not only common, but they're ordinary people instead of laughable
> caricatures.

I agree with you here.

Unless we, with our fantasies, are producing the images of Gays and
Lesbians, we are going to have to deal with poorly integrated tokens and
your laughable, yet possibly correct, caricatures. Otherwise, we will be
looking for images of ourselves through a heterosexual ideology, a friutless
and silly endevour.

> But as long as advertisers determine what goes to air, and the bigots
> threaten advertisers with boycotts, TV producers are likely to keep on
> playing it safe. :-(

Bingo! These images (fantasies) are not only heterosexual, they are now
post-capitalist.

<<NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM>>

worshiped,
Gregory but not
loved

[Kate Orman]

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970215...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>,

Gregory A Welda <greg...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>On 16 Feb 1997, Kate Orman wrote:
>
>> TV is notorious for the distorted picture of reality is provides - in TV
>> land, there are almost no old people or Hispanic people. Women are almost
>> always skinny, men are almost always tough. And everyone, with so few
>> exceptions that they jump out at you, is straight. If an Asian or a black
>> character or a gay character does appear, they're very often a stereotype.
>
>I always find it interesting when people criticize TV for not being
>realistic. TV has never been about realism. It is, and always has been,
>about fantasy, and possibly ideology. Realism has nothing to do with it.

With the exception of documentaries and maybe some cinema verite type
stuff, there's always going to be a gap between reality and what we see on
the box, or on the stage or the screen.

The question is - what kind of gap? How large? If, for example, only
women were ever allowed to appear on television, would you still defend
TV because it's not *supposed* to be realistic?

>> Worse, young folks watching TV miss out on role models. Blacks are usually
>> thugs, says the box. Gays are screaming faggots, or they don't exist.
>> There's no-one to look up to, no heroes who are like you.
>
>It is unfortunate that we assume that young people are going to TV for
>their role models. That, I believe, is where our problems begin.

Young people find role models in many places. However, for most people, TV
is the number one source of information about the world - fact and
fiction. What TV says and shows has a profound effect.

>Again, when taken as fantasys, these images can become harmless. Despite
>the fact that we know different, and more likely than not, the producers
>know different through experience, does not address the underlying issues
>of why these are the fantasies of those in power.
>
>Also, I suspect that if we were to somehow, through some trick of
>history, suddenly get 'realistic' images of people and the lives that
>they lead, there would be those that would criticize it for being too
>grim and unrepresenative, even tokenistic.

I'm sure there would - just as there's an uproar whenever a gay
character appears. :-) I don't think TV has to be unrelentingly gritty
and realistic to be *more* realistic than the bizarre world it currently
presents.

>> A better variety of characters on TV - a bit more of a realistic mix -
>> would make better TV. And it might save a lot of pain, as well, as our
>> number one source of information acknowledges that gays and lesbians are
>> not only common, but they're ordinary people instead of laughable
>> caricatures.
>
>I agree with you here.
>
>Unless we, with our fantasies, are producing the images of Gays and
>Lesbians, we are going to have to deal with poorly integrated tokens and
>your laughable, yet possibly correct, caricatures. Otherwise, we will be
>looking for images of ourselves through a heterosexual ideology, a friutless
>and silly endevour.

OTOH, given a free hand, the numerous gays and lesbians working in
mainstream TV and cinema could produce those images. Indeed, you don't
have to be gay or lesbian to create a realistic queer character, any more
than you have to be a Time Lord to write about Time Lords. :-)

>> But as long as advertisers determine what goes to air, and the bigots
>> threaten advertisers with boycotts, TV producers are likely to keep on
>> playing it safe. :-(
>
>Bingo! These images (fantasies) are not only heterosexual, they are now
>post-capitalist.

I don't think we're *quite* post-capitalism yet... :-)

--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman

[Christopher Chantler]

Gregory A Welda wrote:

> > TV is notorious for the distorted picture of reality is provides - in TV
> > land, there are almost no old people or Hispanic people.

Presumably you're talking about American TV - British TV is bursting with old
people.

> > And everyone, with so few
> > exceptions that they jump out at you, is straight. If an Asian or a black
> > character or a gay character does appear, they're very often a stereotype.

There are some who would argue that, on *British* TV, we see far more people
from ethnic communities than is proportionately realistic to the population of
the country. This comes from programme makers concentrating and drawing on the
experience of places like London and Liverpool, and not considering the towns,
cities and villages with very small ethnic communities, which makes up the
majority of the country. In America, it's a different matter, but the last
British census revealed that less than 5% of the population were from an ethnic
community, and most of them are concentrated in areas within large
conurbations. The proportion of ethnics on British TV is larger than their
actual representation in the population of the country. In this respect, the
opposite of American TV, British TV is misrepresentative.