Week 13 - The Progression of Television

Televisions had only just come out when my dad was a kid; the whole family sat around together and watched some ‘family friendly’ programs and they bonded through this shared experience. Back in those days, people only had one television and it was watched infrequently (i.e. just for the evening news and maybe a family show on Saturday night). Fast forward 50 years and we are being saturated by the ‘idiot box’. I remember a line from Disney’s The Kid where the protagonist’s eight year old self pays him a visit – when he put’s his younger self in front of the TV to ditch him for a while the kid says “holy smokes… you have 99 channels and there’s nothing on!” My father’s generation would have been put off by that and would have read a book or (god forbid) have gone outside to interact with others. Now we’ll watch whatever is on television – regardless of whether or not it’s any good or if we like it. Why? Because it’s something to do when we’re bored, it’s a mindless activity where we don’t have to think or work hard.

Bruce Willis and Spencer Breslin in The Kid (2000)

Now I don’t mind watching mindless trash on television every once in a while, and although the TV can be educational (The Discovery Channel in small doses can raise your IQ and overall general knowledge) but from my observations, the next generation is one that has been babysat by the TV. Sure, it keeps kids quiet in the short term when parents or other significant adults are busy (how many of us remember watching movies in primary school while the teacher marked our tests?) but the consequences of being inundated with a mass media content that children are unable to handle has it's ramifications. I’ve seen prep kids recite the TV guide (along with parroting adult content they don't understand - but that's a different debate); I’ve watched a three-year-old sit and stare mesmerised at a blank screen for thirty minutes (I was amazed she sat still for that long) and I’ve seen plenty of tantrums from school aged kids who have failed to make it home in time for their favourite TV shows.

Experts in the UK back up these observations. According to research, young children who spend more than the recommended time in front of the TV (and other screens such as Ipads and Laptops) are more likely to face a wide range of problems in later life. These include social anxiety, obesity, deficiencies in Vitamins A and D, shorter than average attention spans and sleeping problems. In some extreme cases, the brains scans of children who exposed to excessive screen time have found the technological radiation has had a similar effect to those usually found in adults with alcohol abuse. Health professionals in the UK recommend that children under 3 should have no more than 30 minutes of screen time a day, 4-8 should be limited to 90 minutes and that older children and teens (9-17 year olds) should suffice with a 3 hour limit.

A friend who works in a bookshop has noticed that there are books dedicated to helping parents ween their kids off television. Tips include having a “TV Reduction Plan” with steps including rewarding outside play and removing all forms of technology from their bedrooms.

This issue hasn’t happened overnight or in a vacuum; but what changed from my father’s generation? Was it that it became more accessible and integrated into our routines over time? Was it the wide range of content that was offered to young people on TV and with the downfall of radio that drew people in by the thousands? My guess was that it’s a combination of a hyper-consumer culture that waits for no one, in conjunction with a sliding slope of declining lifestyle choices that’s compounded the problem.

These days watching television doesn't even have to involve owning a television! you can re-watch last night's show in your own time on the device of your choice; download a show from an overseas TV channel for free - there are even websites and social media forums which encourage viewers to network online while they are watching television! Being spoilt for choice, no wonder the next generation is being inundated with content.

Featured Image
The Kid, n.d. image viewed 10.10.13 <http://photos.lucywho.com/the-kid-photo-gallery-c14493631.html>

Week 12 - Popular Culture Romanticising Crime

A while back my sister’s boyfriend came over to our house and brought over his external hard-drive, which was full of his favourite TV shows. I noticed a distinct pattern as I scrolled through the titles – Dexter, Breaking Bad, Underbelly, The Wire and Boardwalk Empire were just a few that caught my eye. What do all these shows have in common? Yes, most of the shows mentioned have been critically acclaimed for excellent acting, deep and diverse characters, not to mention thrilling storylines. However, the more important point is that all of these “stories” were told from the criminals’ point of view. The audience is led on a journey with the protagonist (a serial killer, a drug dealer or crime boss) as they go about their business – breaking the law for personal gain. The police are shown as less intelligent or another obstacle (their primary concern is how to stay ahead of other bad guys). Now before I get any further some of you will be reading this and going “ease up Tiger, it’s just television; a scripted fantasy. Let him watch the idiot box in his down-time, I’m sure he’s seen worse on the news.” I will admit crime is shown on our screens every night at 6pm and what happened to these people certainly isn't fantasy. It's a very harsh reality that a passive news audience rarely consider.

 Take the drama Dexter, which has aired it’s final episode in late September – now Dexter is scientist for the police and is also a serial killer who kills murder’s and other psychos in his spare time. Dexter’s creator Jeff Lindsay, who in a 2011 interview said that he was concerned about people getting the wrong idea about his protagonist. "Some believe that Dexter cares about justice. Dexter doesn't care about justice, he cares about killing… he’s dangerous.” Yet the comments on the online transcript of the interview tend to ignore the message with one poster saying he idolised the protagonist, saying that he had a code and only killed other serial killers. “because he has a code that makes us feel better about him [doesn’t change things]. He’s not nice.” This is where I put a red alert - if he was a character on any other crime show on commercial television he would have been arrested and jailed within 45 minutes; or possibly spread out to a double episode if producers wanted to heighten the drama. But real life doesn’t have a set of producers; they don’t get to decide how the story ends. What about Dexter’s wife and son? What about the wives and sons of people he killed? What about their story? Dexter is not in the boat alone. Breaking Bad follows a terminally ill chemistry teacher Walt and his partner Jesse as they enter the world of making crystal meth. I will give it to the cast and crew, they do their best to keep it accurate, with former criminals saying unpalatable events from the show, such as dissolving bodies in acid, are common place with international drug cartels; which in comparison make the Mafia look like Catholic schoolboys. Closer to home the first season of Underbelly was banned in Victoria as they didn’t want the potential jury pool to be influenced by storytellers. Carl Williams, his associates and the rest of Melbourne’s crime families become instant celebrities and secret underworld meetings and their politics and methods became public knowledge. The public couldn’t get enough of them and it was all the talk around the water cooler the next day. Yet, these were not some fictional characters dreamt up out of the blue – these real events, these were cold-blooded killers who cause havoc on our streets without any thought of who might get caught in the crossfire. But why do we even have this issue in the first place? Why is our society so enthralled with stories of criminals and their exploits? Is it because we want an outlet from our normal, mainstream life and this looks dangerous and exciting? Is it something about a bad boy turning us on? Is it a sign that our culture is being psychologically fractured and morally degraded by crime and violence and we are looking for meaning in fiction? Or is it as simple as the fact that we came from a penal colony where something in our subconscious tells us to root for the bad guy? My sister’s boyfriend goes one step further – it’s a place where we can channel our anger (after all who hasn’t had a bad day and wanted to kill someone?) and other primal emotions. It reminds us that life’s not fair with having to hit us over the head with it. In some weird way there are parts of the characters we empathise with because they are flawed individuals who contend with the human experience and make decisions every episode. Other than that, it provides great television and a break from the mindless wave of reality television.

Featured Image: cc licensed flickr photo by Tom Francis (NC  SA) http://www.flickr.com/photos/pentadact/1485863236/

Week 9 - Nature versus Nurture

As this is a free post I’ve decided to go for a topic that’s a little different. Awhile back I was introduced to a new television show called Orphan Black by my best friend while I was over having dinner at her place. For those who are unfamiliar with the show, it’s a Canadian sci-fi drama about clones. What is slightly ironic about this situation is that my best friend is an identical triplet and spent most of her high school existence being called one. The show focuses on three main clones as they struggle deal with many complex topics including nature vs nurture, mental illness, identity, legal, social and bodily rights along with the overarching question am I real? While my best friend doesn’t have all these questions to answer, the nature vs nurture topic is something that we can both relate to – partially due to our background.

Orphan Black (BBC America, 2013) 

This is probably a good time to mention that I’m a triplet and we’ve been part of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research’s multiple birth study as they’ve tracked us from childhood and used us as test subjects to help them answer the nature vs nurture debate. Over the years they’ve measured us, photocopied our hands, tested our tastebuds, taken blood and hair, given us complicated memory games to complete and stuck us in an MRI machine to look at our brains just to name a few. Unlike my best friend who they really want to test, I’m fraternal (which means that we didn’t hatch from the same egg) are part of the control group. So we can completely empathize to the characters as they were treated like lab rats. 

While on an ice-cream break in between episodes I asked her about what it was like to be called a clone. She vividly recalled in a Year 10 Biology lesson that the student teacher emphatically stated that identical triplets didn’t exist (they were all in the room) and that it was a genetic mistake, causing the rest of the class to explode into laughter. This gave a selection of immature teenage boys plenty of ammunition to use over the next few weeks. Naturally she took it in her stride, the next day bringing in the framed piece of paper from the hospital lab saying that they were monozygotic triplets - 99.9% identical and while the incident didn’t effect her, it did have an effect on her sister Wendy*, who as far as I know became withdrawn in that particular class and now heavily dislikes this anecdote being told. This is where the nature vs nurture question comes into effect – how is it that three sisters who are genetically identical and raised together have such varied reactions to a situation? Are personality traits genetic, is it environmental or is it a mixture of the two?  As much as I’ve been led to believe that it’s 50/50 – I’ve read a study from German scientists that traits such as resilience and stubbornness are up to 75% genetic. Not to mention the countless studies of identical twins separated at birth which showed IQ, education, job choice, grooming, partner preference and tastebuds as just some of the traits that were almost identical, despite the fact they were raised in polar opposite environments. So the jury is still out on that one.

While they may look the same they have extremely different characteristics that make each of them unique: one had a stronger accent and passion for languages, one was very direct with her communication and tried every trick in the book to physically stand out from her sisters, while the other creative and more laid back then the other two and was a little more sympathetic with the mistaken identity issue. I used to be able to tell them apart from 20 metres purely by body language, how they walked, what they had for lunch and what company they kept. Everyone else knew one of them and then took a wild guess or tried to see the identifying mole to get the right name.  

She also remembered how good it felt when she went to university for the first time that she was referred to by her first name rather than as “one of the triplets”. I can relate to this as members of my extended family still do this when they introduce me at family functions.

Not that it’s all doom and gloom – they have been able to pull the sister swap off with very few people noticing, a feat that I would never be able to do. I find the show interesting as the characters inter-change with each other and how they react under different circumstances. Can’t wait for season 2!

*Name changed 

Featured Image
Offical Orphan Black Poster by BBC America, tvdb image by cedell: http://thetvdb.com/banners/posters/260315-4.jpg (Copyright BBC America, 2013)