Lentz
introduces the idea of “quality” television and “relevant” television which
grew out the 1970’s industrial changes occurring in the television industry.
With the rise of independent production studios, the fall of this “network hegemony” where the
network would control the messages output by the television shows, and narrow
casting and segmentation first showing up, these two ways of looking at
television began to be discussed in literature about television. Often times,
they would discuss “quality” and “relevant” television together and discuss
their similarities, but Lentz’s argument is focusing on the differences between
the two discourses. Mary Tyler Moore
and the production company behind the show was seen as “quality” television and
focused on feminism and improving images of females on television, but
delivered this through a self-reflexive critique of the medium of television.
As Lentz discusses in her article, the most apparent critique of this is the
fact that Mary was an associate producer of a news station that always seemed
to have something going wrong. While the production company for the MTM show
wanted to present a more “modern” show of womanhood on television, they also
wanted present television as a more “modern” medium and leave behind the old
scandals of the 60’s. Mary works for an old-style news program that often has a
bumbling man in front of the camera, making mistakes. As Mary advances through
the television industry, she is putting a female face in power and creating
something “new” and “modern” which is exactly the image of television that Mary
Tyler Moore was trying to advance.
“Relevant”
on the other hand, wanted to ground its portrayal in the actual. Rather than a critique
of the medium, shows like All in the
Family paid more attention to racial issues situated in actual situations.
But shows like All in the Family didn’t
handle them quite as sensitively, and often showed controversial issues.
Relevant shows weren’t as high quality, often grainy, but attempted to treat
other issues rather than the hegemonic viewpoint on race, but too often divided
these issues into the “right” and “wrong.”
For our clips, they are the more contemporary representation
of “quality” television, like the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Liz Lemon also is
single and works in the television industry, much like Mary. But 30 Rock has more of a normalization that
a single woman in her 30’s has a job of power and also explores her dating life
more than the MTM show. It’s not weird that a woman is single on this show because
of the different time frames and different context around feminist issues. In
the longer clip, Liz Lemon brings up the idea of women dressing a certain way
in order to make others feel comfortable and being uncomfortable with the way a woman dresses and how that impacts
her image, which is a very debated topic among feminists today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ZFv6jsUMg
Great work summarizing Lentz's arguments. I particularly like the attention you paid to the way that quality television, and especially MTM, sublimated much of their discussion of social issues under a self-reflexive examination of TV as a medium in the attempt to present TV as a quality medium through the vehicle of feminism, which was experiencing a rise in mainstream credibility during the 70's.
ReplyDeleteI like the comparison of 30 Rock to MTM as it really does seem to be an inheritor of much of MTM was trying to do. I would be curious to know if you think it's actually changed that much under the surface changes of what comedy looks like and can say that it didn't in the past.