CCS 313
Blog Post #2
Two
decades ago, television was still second-best to cinema. There may still remain
some snobs out there who will turn their chins up on the claims that television
is the better bet these days, but there's no denying the increasing credibility
and esteem that television these days hold. With the previous Emmy's (forever
the angsty younger brother to the prestigious Oscars) awarding shows like Breaking Bad and True Detective, it's evident that TV has entered a new Golden Age. But
when the discussion of the difference between cinematic and televisual
spectatorship is brought out, the success of these shows do not play with these
key differences. Instead what causes critics to claim to have forgotten Fool's Gold and praise Matthew
McConaughey, is the employment of impressive cinematography and strong writing,
the same tools that movies work with. To divulge the differences between the
two mediums, we should shift our attention from the shining diamonds to the rhinestones.
In
"Spectatorial Flanerie," Friedberg lists out the points in which
cinematic and televisual spectatorship differs. One of this being the
inactive/active audience. Friedberg explains the relationships between the
viewer and image is "relatively passive." This is not the case with
television, where reality TV competitions have allowed audiences to interact.
This interaction has existed since the rise of popularity of singing
competitions, where the advancement of a competitor relies on the votes that
are either called in, sent in a text, or even have a chance for instantlysaving a favorite singer via twitter. But the interaction doesn't end with American Idol and The Voice. Big Brother has been a leader in audience interaction,
where the viewers can pick certain challenges that the competitors take on. But
I want to focus on the encompassing entertainment world that is WWE.
Earlier
this year, Vince McMahon, the CEO of WWE, launched his passion project to the
world. The WWE Network is a subscription based online service, that offers 24/7
access to various shows, a hefty archive, and the project's selling point:
every one of the company's pay-per-view shows. McMahon has made quite a
statement to the future of television by making this move. By opting out of a
cable network, which was once considered the badge of media legitimacy, McMahon
has shown faith that the future of television lies beyond the television set.
This opinion, however, was not simply formed by the success of the big leaders
of online services like Netflix and Hulu. Prior to the network, WWE already had
a large presence online, and the reason why the company is still successful is
because they play into the freedoms that televisual experiences allow.
The WWE combines two of the freedoms that
Friedberg discusses, the mobilization of the audience and interactive
relationship between viewer and image. The company has taken social media to
its full advantage, trying to connect to the next generation of fans and play up
the entertainment half of sports
entertainment. Their YouTube channel, which garners hundreds of thousands
of views, continues storylines and allow their stars to further showcase their
characters to the fans. Weekly, either Raw
or Smackdown, the company's live
shows that still run on television schedules and are not offered on WWE Network
because of prior deals with networks and Hulu Plus, trends on twitter. The
company also uses twitter to allow the fans to interact with the live shows
themselves, asking them to make matches or decide on the parameters of planned
matches. They also have allow fans to make those choices on the WWE mobile app.
Another one of Friedberg's points is that television runs on reruns and
although, WWE prides itself on not having them, the shows are often riddled
with flashbacks to earlier shows or events that occurred in pay-per-views. This
way, the audience is always engaged with the material.
It's
easy to follow the model of movies and have your show be claimed as episodic
movies, but it's impressive to fully take advantage of the possibility of
television as the WWE universe has. As a result of their course of action, it's
not simply a show to be passively watched weekly, but something that needs
active engagement.
Works Cited
No comments:
Post a Comment