| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 04/08/2008 : 15:13:51
Just some transatlantic musings, really. As you know I transplanted myself from NYC to the UK some 40 years ago -- with a slight nearly two year return to LA in the mid-1970s.
Anyway, I often think about the subtle cultural differences between our two nations divided by the common language. No, this ain't about politics!
There's something that took me a long time to 'get' about the British attitude towards Americans. Yeah, I guess it's somewhat patronizing, but that's not really it.
Here's what occurred to me as an example:
[not all] Americans say Paris, France; Rome, Italy; Geneva, Switzerland.
And Brits do their inner smile, that beneficent smile of amusement, the same one you'd flash to a 3-year-old announcing for the first time that rain is wet, as though s/he'd discovered the fact.
Most Americans don't 'get' that, but I think it's as close as I can come to explaining how the Brits feel about the Yanks - most of the time. When silly politics and such doesn't get in the way.
Ramble, ramble through the bramble. Hey ho!
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 04:54:48
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Big Brother would have to be the worst show ever made
You obviously haven't seen My Family!
Your family has a TV show?
 |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 18:00:40
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Big Brother would have to be the worst show ever made
You obviously haven't seen My Family! |
| turrell |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 15:35:49
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Okay, there is reality TV and there is reality TV.
You must be referring to MILF Island. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 06:18:54
Okay, there is reality TV and there is reality TV. Things like Survivor and Big Brother call themselves reality TV but they have nothing to do with reality.
Then there are the quasi-reality TV shows like the singing/dancing/cooking/misc. talent contests. I don't call them real reality shows because the winner is chosen by the public.
The only true "reality" TV show I know of is The Biggest Loser (and its international equivalents). This is a real reality show because the winner wins on his/her own personal achievements and nothing anyone but they themselves do has any affect on the outcome. Yes, they have trainers and dieticians but trust me, it is all up to them exactly how hard they work and while trainers and dieticians help, they aren't the ones losing the pounds.
|
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 00:08:31
Big Brother would have to be the worst show ever made and anyone that watches it should be shot and then shot again, maybe even shot a third time. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 21:37:35
Talking of reality v. scripted television and British v. American quality, my two favourite programmes are Seven Up (and sequels) and Six Feet Under. There was a time when following ordinary lives was innovative! And the latter is the type of drama I mentioned above which we simply don't have here. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 21:32:36
In response to the later posts, yes, reality T.V. is certainly a money-saving measure. That would be O.K. if the saved money meant that other higher-quality programmes could be made, but I'm not sure that's true of all networks. I do enjoy some of it, but there has to be some semblance of reality, for example Big Brother here can be watched 24 hours a day and thus the housemates can only(!) be manipulated rather than misrepresented. The house makeover ones are the worst as far as I'm concerned because (i) they have actually distorted the housing market and (ii) I find them very depressing since I will never be able to afford to buy a place (yes, I know I could just switch off!). |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 21:25:03
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I repeat: THE YOUNG ONES.
I'm too young for this. I'm not saying that British television is better - American flashy drama is certainly far better (although gritty drama here is at least as good as in the U.S.) and many specific programmes of all genres are better. It's just that this difference in style struck me, especially the fact that despite our reserved image British television is more relaxed. As a further example, American guests on British chat shows frequently note that they can say fuck and cunt: although the latter is usually bleeped out even here, one gets the impression that the American programme-makers would be more stern about it. |
| randall |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 20:01:00
Livie, the current spate of shitty reality shows, which began in the mid-90s, can be directly traced to the LAST writers' strike, in the late 80s. The nets essentially said, hmmm: let's see if we can do shows "without" "writers." Of course, reality shows actually have writers too, but the suits are trying very hard to obstruct their unionization.
Like Democrats, WGA members can reliably be counted upon to shoot themselves in the feet as frequently as possible. I loved that they begged the Stewart/Colbert production company for membership, then refused to negotiate with that same entity when they struck last year, claiming their beef was now with their corporate owners. Dickweeds. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 19:36:21
Outside of Dancing with the Stars, which, for some perverse reason, I love, I don't watch the "reality shows." The talent search shows are all right, but most of them don't appeal to me. However, shows such as The Bachelor, Beauty and the Geek, Joe Millionaire, The Average Joe, The Bachelorette - all serve to set up a further dichotomy between an actual normal person and the pretty, fit, hand-picked cast put forth as run of the mill. They are as far from real as I am from the moon, and they are ultimately demeaning - not so much to the participant (although that's true enough) as for the viewer, as we sit and watch the thin and buff fight for... what?... a complete stranger who won't marry them anyway? Pass the popcorn, no wonder we're an overweight nation. The same goes for the competition based reality shows such as Survivor, The Amazing Race or Big Brother - the contestants are hand-picked, the setting is controlled and all it amounts to is unscripted drama. If I wanted that, I'd go visit my sister and niece.
I won't even attempt to address the personal makeover shows, which are, more or less, "Let's Humiliate Frank, He's (Fat / Ugly / Drugged Out / Dysfunctional / Styleless / A Loser Anyway)." Exploitation TV as far as I'm concerned, and much less focused on helping someone than on getting ratings. I'd lump Dr. Phil, Montel Williams and, yup, the actually fictional Jerry Springer Show in here.
What all of this does is effectively substitute for true production of entertainment. I have to wonder just how many actors are unemployed because TV networks are opting more and more for less costly drivel at the expense of good dramatic television programming. I do know that our friend John, who worked steadily for many years in small film and tv supporting roles had to pursue a real estate license in order to pay the bills, since reality TV has cut back drastically on the demand for actors in those roles. Those roles don't have the million dollar paychecks and there are hundreds of people who are losing jobs due to "reality programming." And I wonder just what will be in store when, for example, E.R. ends its run next year. "The Amazing Unemployed Auto Factory Worker Tries McDonald's"? For all the derision sometimes focused on Stephen King, television is moving more toward "The Running Man" all the time. Can "The Truman Show" be far behind? |
| randall |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 19:16:25
I repeat: THE YOUNG ONES. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:57:36
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
To us, Americans (e.g. in the audience of television shows) seem overenthusiastic and fake (whooping away at the most fractionally funny lines), whereas to Americans we come across as cold, reserved and underenthusiastic/unsupportive.
I was thinking some more about this, and I really do think there is a strange converse whereby British television is in fact much more free-flowing and spontaneous. Many talk shows seem much more stilted and contrived than our own chat shows. A more extreme case is various kind of reality T.V. Even shows with very similar formats (e.g. talent shows) seem to have the American presenter sticking to a script that does not sound like their own words. And those of the type like Beauty and the Geek and Average Joe are really quite different to what we would have here, even though the former has had a series here. The presenter just seems completely out of place and false. I also know that they artificially film some scenes for 'entertainment purposes'. This has to be announced in advance here, and seems much worse than some of the falsifications which were treated as scandals here. In fact, I remember that some Americans on here felt that those incidents were no big deal.
Unlike the audience whooping, which I can empathise that some people might like, I cannot really imagine how anybody could prefer the more obviously set-up style to an apparently natural one. However, presumably viewers prefer that, or people wouldn't make programmes that way. |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:46:18
quote:
Originally posted by duh
Back when I worked as a clerk in a camera store, customers had no idea of what I was speaking of when I said the name of the store, "The Lens Cap." I pronounced it correctly as "lehns cap." My fellow Kansas understood what I was referring to only if it was pronounced as 'The Lins Cap.' Otherwise, they thought I was saying "landscape."
Are there a lot of South Africans there?! |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:45:08
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
There are two different things being talked about here - historical classes and economic classes.
Hhmmm, I'm not sure. I realised after posting that my message was a bit inconsistent, as to start with I didn't think about the fact that the increased fluidity is still really generational, i.e. people cannot really change their own class. It's thus not a straightforward economic issue. |
| duh |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:06:29
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
The point about British class is that it's not fluid and has nothing to do with money. If the queen - unlikely scenario - somehow lost all her wealth and got a job as a sales woman, she'd STILL belong to the aristocracy.
I don't know why y'all don't fire the old bat and her inbred kin and make them get real jobs. |
|
|
