Monday, December 7, 2009

The Fab Four

Michael Patrick King moved to New York to start his career by doing standup and sketch comedy in the early 1980’s but now rarely performs. After his early success, King began writing plays and for television. Television quickly became King’s medium. His first major hit was with the sitcom, Murphy Brown, which was nominated for several Emmys largely due to his work, while King has also wrote for Will and Grace.
King’s shows have always had a focus on strong female characters. These female characters are portrayed as pro women, going against the grain of what society defines as the female role in society. With Sex and the City, King found a partner with HBO (Dawn, 2004). He created four professional women’s identities and personalities. The four single women connected with their audience by showing the struggles of defining themselves in society. The show was quickly praised for these attributes, as well as for the crispness of the writing and its glamorous costumes and settings. In addition, to his previous accolades, King was rewarded for his work by winning seven Emmys and eight Golden Globes for directing Sex and the City. With the success of "Sex" behind them, King and HBO have entered into a long-term relationship. He has a development deal with the channel and is forming a production company with fellow "Sex" co-executive producer John P. Melfi called Working Class (Dawn, 2004).
In King’s three main television series, the theme songs are all similar to one another. The meanings the theme songs evoke are spontaneous. The songs are spontaneous in the fact that if you are not listening closely at the sounds you may just think it is a bunch of random beats put together. Also, the pictures shown during the theme song are in no particular order. Specifically in Sex and the City the theme song is flirty and upbeat. Sex and the City uses higher pitch sounds to make the viewer feel happy and bubbly. These theme songs have enough impact with just the sound that no lyrics are required. King’s show themes have catchy jazz piano music playing in the background with no words, along with close- ups of all the characters without introducing them one by one. Once all the clips are shown, then the title of the show is then displayed across the screen. In Sex and the City, the close ups are more focused on items such as shoes, purses and abstract angles rather are shown than showing the characters themselves. King uses items that represent these women; their obsession with fashion. Will and Grace focuses more on the characters. On last similarity that all shows share is the type of shots used while filming.
Will and Grace and Sex and the City use a lot of medium shots and medium close ups through out the episodes. King uses medium close- ups when the characters are sitting down at a lunch or dinner. He focuses on one particular person eating and then pans back out to a medium shot. In my opinion, he does this to make the viewer feel that he or she is a part of the lunch outing. The viewer seems to be sitting down with the characters catching up on the latest gossip and relating it back to his or her life. In addition, this style of shooting is also used when the women are walking down the streets of New York (happens a lot in Sex and the City). With this type of shot, the viewer can grasp where they are, no questioning or wondering. King uses extreme close up for the bedroom scenes when the characters are kissing and just lying in bed. The viewer can feel the intimacy that is taking place on the screen. The love connection is visible between the two characters being shown. As a viewer you get an understanding of the female characters and their relationships with these men. In addition, King uses this shot when the women are holding hands with a male character.
One major difference Sex and the City has from Will and Grace and Murphy Brown is narration. Through the entire seasons of Sex and the City, Carrie Bradshaw (Sara Jessica Parker) is the narrator of every episode. When she is narrating, a lot of the time it is about what is taking place as she speaks and also about her column. It is typically her thoughts and seems realistic, not like it is something scripted. Her thoughts are also her pondering about certain topics. One specific episode, Do they shoot single people, don’t they?, Carrie is always discussing through her narration how it is better to be alone than fake it with a man. At the end of the episode while Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha are all being viewed doing an activity by themselves; Carrie speaks about how they have learned that it is better to be single, then do not need men to help them do things. Then the last shot of the episode is Carrie out to lunch with herself stating in narration, “After I was recycled and running away from a fear of being along, I decided to take that fear to lunch. So, I sat there and had a glass of wine alone. No men, no books, no armor and no faking.”
King shows all have varieties and similarities within them. The main similarity through out of his shows is the dominant women characters. All of his female characters have an array of attributes that give women a good persona. They are not dumb or ditsy. They are all successful in the working place and go against what society usually defines as a female role in society. Through King’s music selection and camera angles you can make the connection to all of his shows. King is a successful producer and can not wait to see the next thing that he gets his hands on!


Bibliography
"Milestones of King." Mar. 2007. 17 Oct. 2009 .
Randee, Dawn. Hollywood Reporter. 29 June 2004. 17 Oct. 2009.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

A Criticize Through My Eyes

I have always had a love for TV and my TiVo can prove it. TV produces great shows, one liners and crushes that we all come about loving and quoting. My love for the TV does not stick with one specific type of show. I like anything from your reality trashy TV, The Bachelor (which one day I hope to be on), to Grey’s Anatomy, Sex and the City, The Office and Gossip Girl. I hope that after reading this blog, you can have a better understanding and gratitude of your favorite TV shows and well as maybe mine, if I lucky. Through out my post I will discuss my specific goals for doing TV criticism, how I view television as on object of study of culture and last by not least I will let you engage in conversation with me and what’s happening in the TV world.

My goals for doing TV criticism are similar to that of a piece of writing written by, O’Donnell, which I have read in class. I want you and me to obtain a deeper understanding of the shows we both watch. I just do not want to watch them for enjoyment purposes. I want to be able to have an understanding of culture, human nature and interpretation like O’Donnell puts it. I will take specific shows to help better your understanding of those three concepts and how to put them to work. I am going to express my thoughts about these concepts from a particular show in a way that will engage you to keep reading more. In addition, I want to open a new door for you to think about TV. I want to give you insight to an aspect of a particular show (probably going to be one of my favorites since I am the one writing it) that you would have not thought of yourself. O’Donnell (2007) states, “As a critic, you become a transformer capable of generating new understandings and new awareness in the minds of other television viewers.” This is exactly why I want to be a TV critic for you. I want you as readers to consider my argument and ponder questions that you may not have thought about, if you had not read my blog. If I discuss a show that you are not a viewer of, I want you to become the number one fan of that show by the end or have a love/hate relationship with the show.

In the cultural stand point, TV is a medium in society that circulates within both high and low culture; it makes this assumption that it is split. TV produces shows for both. An example of low culture would be The Bachelor (what I get sucked into) or Real World that require no thought process to watch and are also regarded as “trashy TV.” High culture would be a ballet or the history channel. TV is a way of expressing and making meaning of what is taking place in society.

TV is a centripetal way (which means all meanings exist in a culture and television has a way of writing it) of going about thinking. Stating all meanings exist in a culture and TV has a way of writing it. I want to view shows and see the deeper meaning they are expressing in that particular episode or season. For example, we see how the ‘normal’ family is supposed to act and look like from shows such as According to Jim, Gilmore Girls and many others. Also, from television we can grasp what are the acceptable racial stereotypes and numerous other topics. Another author who we discussed in class is, Corner, who specifics with televisions studies. His article that we read in class deals with culture in the light of displacement of culture (4). Corner(1999) means by this, is how TV is a surveillance of what is going on in the culture by matching it to its own cultural penetration. The way that we act as a society and culture together is reflected then back on the television screen through our favorite and not so favorite shows. Culture is the main aspect that I am going to be looking at when viewing television as an object of study.

I want you as a reader to engage in conversation with me as we go about during the semester. I am going to make strong arguments with what I am discussing and if you totally disagree with me, I want to hear it. I am going to persuade all of my messages to you in ways that are relevant to you and to keep you interested for wanting more.

References:

Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.