Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Get Smart
In The New York Times Magazine, Steven Johnson argues that TV today rewards intelligence like never before:
Consider the cognitive demands that televised narratives place on their viewers. With many shows that we associate with ''quality'' entertainment -- ''The Mary Tyler Moore Show,'' ''Murphy Brown,'' ''Frasier'' -- the intelligence arrives fully formed in the words and actions of the characters on-screen. They say witty things to one another and avoid lapsing into tired sitcom cliches, and we smile along in our living rooms, enjoying the company of these smart people. But assuming we're bright enough to understand the sentences they're saying, there's no intellectual labor involved in enjoying the show as a viewer. You no more challenge your mind by watching these intelligent shows than you challenge your body watching ''Monday Night Football.'' The intellectual work is happening on-screen, not off.
But another kind of televised intelligence is on the rise. Think of the cognitive benefits conventionally ascribed to reading: attention, patience, retention, the parsing of narrative threads. Over the last half-century, programming on TV has increased the demands it places on precisely these mental faculties.
He makes a compelling argument, though he ignores some of the most demanding programs on television (Deadwood, The Wire) and lavishes praise on one of the most heavy-handed (The West Wing). But if you want to argue that TV in general is getting smarter, I suppose you'd do better to cite a middlebrow hit than a smart cult show. (On a similar note, he asserts that today's reality shows demand more thought than yesterday's lowbrow equivalents, and makes an interesting argument that the reality genre has been influenced by video games.)
We can all pick at details that Johnson might have gotten wrong (the comments section is open!), but I'm glad to see the major media at least recognizing the smartification of American pop entertainment. 10 or 15 years ago, Newsweek ran a story on how "dumb" popular culture had purportedly gotten, a claim it tried to back up by citing what were actually some of the era's sharpest satires: Not only was the reporter upset with Beavis and Butt-head, but the cover illustration included a headshot of Bart Simpson. Maybe the press is getting smarter, too.
|4.24.05 @ 1:53PM|#
Johnson is correct that the plot twists of some television shows
are quite complex and require cognitive work to fully follow (say
the plot twists in your average detective show). And any assumption
that most people in today's world would be reading and discussing
... say Shakespeare ... if not watching tv are absurd (a society of
course already adapted to t.v. viewing). They would probably end up
doing things that are *even less* cognitivly stimulating at least
on the surface.
However, some arguments against t.v. are of the "medium is the
message" type rather than a critique of content. They either focus
on how aspects of television are distruptive to complex cognitive
thought (similar to Gato's critique of the education system). Or
they get absoultely reductive about it and focus on the brainwaves
produced (and extrapolate far and wide and from such (accurate?)
primary data).
|4.24.05 @ 3:32PM|#
The sitcoms he mentioned don't require more from the audience
than the Jack Benny Show, The Honeymooners, Make Room for Daddy, I
Love Lucy or the Dick Van Dyke Show.
...I think Syd Caesar's Your Show of Shows expected more from the
audience than most sitcoms do today.
I think the cop shows of yesteryear were Westerns, and the typical
western, from Bonanza to the Big Valley, Gunsmoke and Rawhide, had
as much of a plot as cop shows do today, I think. I don't think you
could shoot an episode of the Wild Wild West in such a way that a
general audience today would understand what was going on.
A multitude of channels has allowed for some targeted shows, but
those are the exception rather than the rule. ...and the good ones
tend to die prematurely. Homicide died while Nash Bridges marched
on; Farscape died amidst the birth of a new Star Trek series. The
later a Star Trek episode was shot, from whichever series, the more
time the characters spend explaining to the audience what the
characters are doing as they're doing it. That didn't happen in
black & white Lost in Space episodes or even in Space: 1999. If
you couldn't figure the plot out--tough luck. It sure as hell
didn't happen in the Twilight Zone
...I've heard this argument in regards to music in the past--that
multi-track recording was creating a generation of harmonic
geniuses. I don't buy it. I might buy that blogging, e-mail, etc.
has made the American public a more literate bunch, but I'd have to
see some evidence. At what grade level are they writing the LA
Times now?
|4.24.05 @ 4:29PM|#
He didn't mention much in the way of sitcoms, but he really
should have pointed to Arrested Development to support his
thesis.
This show has *tons* of interwoven plot threads, lots of very
subtle humor, and it can be quite raunchy. It's far and away more
sophisticated than anything from the 'glory days' of TV.
Unfortunately AD doesn't have much of an audience, but that doesn't
change the fact that it's very intellectually demanding of its
viewers.
Warren|4.24.05 @ 5:11PM|#
My roommate never missed an episode of Beavis and Butthead. I
even sat through their movie. As far as I'm concerned, they got old
after thirty seconds and never redeemed themselves. They only had
one joke (heh heh heh heh) and never approached "smart" or even
"satire". The B&B spin-off 'Daria' on the other hand was very
smart. Unlike everything else on MTV, it couldn't possibly have
been written by the junior-high detention class (any fifteen
seconds of any episode is convincing on this count).
As far as 'shows require more thinking now than they use to', I'm
not buying it. There has always been well written entertainment
that requires you pay attention. In addition to what's been
mentioned above I'll add, 'The Muppet Show', quite possibly the
most well made television of all time.
I also contend that the best cognitive TV is found at CSPAN and
PBS. Not that there isn't garbage there as well, but it's where the
very best TV is produced.
|4.24.05 @ 5:14PM|#
"This show has *tons* of interwoven plot threads, lots of
very subtle humor, and it can be quite raunchy. It's far and away
more sophisticated than anything from the 'glory days' of
TV."
...So if it's raunchy, it's sophisticated?
I don't wanna pick a fight here, but Arrested Development is about
as subtle as Lancelot Link. I like Arrested Development, but it
isn't subtle. ...and I'm not so sure the plots are so sophisticated
either.
Look, I'm not going to tell you that there aren't good shows and
good scripts on television, or that every script from the ol' days
is better than every script now. If you want to point to some old
shows that had rotten scripts, I'd point to Green--I can't believe
it's in re-runs--Acres. What an awful show! The plot stinks, the
acting stinks--so what? That doesn't mean there weren't other good
shows on at the time. (Although the 60's were a hard time for
televison and film both I think.)
...when people programmed television back in the circa 50's, they
made assumptions about the sophistication of their audience just as
programmers do today. It looks to me like the guys in the ol' days
had a higher opinion of their audience than programmers do today.
...I suppose this may be a function of the television having been
recently introduced; maybe not everyone could afford a television
when they first came out--I don't know. At any rate, I don't see
much in the way of evidence that audiences or television plots are
more sophisticated now.
...I would also argue that the average episode of Arrested
Development has more characters than sub-plots, just like The
Simpsons, The Waltons, The Big Valley, The Brady Bunch, Taxi, Hill
Street Blues, Father Knows Best, M*A*S*H, Eight is Enough, etc.
|4.24.05 @ 5:26PM|#
I think a lot of it might just be a virtuous cycle, where as
television becomes more respectable, even prestigious, TV attracts
better writers, who write better TV, et cetera. As recently as two
decades ago, television scriptwriting was largely percieved as hack
work, suitable only for people who couldn't make it writing movies
(which, in turn, was a profession for people who couldn't do "real"
writing).
Now, I think people realize that TV writing can be serious, and
damned good, and talented writers looking for an outlet are more
likely to seriously consider feeding the idiot box. And that's just
the ones already in the market - with the advent of
internet-enabled fan culture, and the resultant popularity of fan
fiction, we'll soon be at a point where a good share of a
generation of writers effectively cut their teeth writing spec
scripts. As someone who's moving to LA in two months to try and
make it as a screen scribe, I can't say I'm looking forward to even
more competition, but as someone who watches and enjoys good TV, I
couldn't be happier.
|4.24.05 @ 5:31PM|#
I don't wanna pick a fight here, but Arrested Development is
about as subtle as Lancelot Link.
I've never seen LL, but I really do think AD is subtle. First,
unlike many sitcoms, there's no laugh track. Second, much of what
Michael and his mother say is very understated, but
very funny. There's very little punch in those punchlines.
(Sure, GOB and Buster are slapstick.)
As for raunch, the author of the article claimed that, while modern
shows are more violent and sexy, perhaps we shouldn't be judging
their worth (negatively) according to those standards. AD is yet
another example of that.
And having watched the first season in quick succession, I feel
very confident in saying that there are lots of plot lines -- but
really not that many characters! Many of the jokes are only funny
when you know the previous thread that is being alluded to -- maybe
this is why the show has had trouble catching on. In any case, the
show asks the viewer to remember lots of old happenings in order to
get the joke.
Tim Cavanaugh|4.24.05 @ 6:14PM|#
First, unlike many sitcoms, there's no laugh
track.
And no laughs either, if you ask me. Count me among the indifferent
masses where Arrested Development is concerned. I appreciate their
keeping Jeffrey Tambor off the dole, but I've never even been
tempted to smile by this show.
|4.24.05 @ 6:20PM|#
Everyone wants to believe that their pet show is
smart.
Including the brain-damaged schmuck who watches According to
Jim
|4.24.05 @ 6:37PM|#
Arrested Development is about the only reason to turn on the
boob tube anymore. As clever as it can be, it is still not thinking
material. I still have to classify it as 'turn off the brain and be
entertained'. That fullfills(sp) a need, we men anyway need to
recharge our dopamine receptors periodically. X-Files was as close
to a 'thinking' show as I watched ( I am unfamiliar with most of
the above shows in this thread ) but, again, I would still classify
that as 'T.O.T.B.A.B.E.'.
There is some programming on Discovery, History, TLC, Cable News,
even PBS which you have to engage a bit, think, and form an
opinion. Some of this can be 'smart', but a lot could also be
classified as 'brainwashing'. But still, you have to think to
separate the facts from the spin.
|4.24.05 @ 6:50PM|#
Gotta agree with Ken Shultz.
The Cone of Silence is sheer, unadulterated, genius.
|4.24.05 @ 7:40PM|#
This entire theory cries out for an application of Sturgeon's
Law. When we only had 3 or 4 networks offering programming, TV
may have seemed more of a vast wasteland than a discriminating
viewer of today would put up with. When one has 8 skillion channels
to flip through, even the 10% that isn't crud can be too much tube
for one boob. But don't forget that back in the day one could opt
for Omnibus or Playhouse 90 instead of the
Friday Night Fights or pro wrestling.
Kevin
|4.24.05 @ 9:24PM|#
Stevo-
The cone of silence was used for secret communications between
agents in Get Smart. The joke being that the echo caused
by two people conversing under a large inverted wok rendered speech
incomprehensible.
Of course, when Max and the Chief were travelling, they had to use
the "portable cone of silence", two connected deep-sea diving
helmets.
You had to be there. :)
Franklin Harris|4.24.05 @ 10:01PM|#
I think Stevo was making a joke. But you missed it by that much.
|4.24.05 @ 10:02PM|#
I wonder how much credit Babylon 5 should receive for pioneering
the sort of television as described in the article.
Its the first show I can remember on American TV, outside of some
soaps, which was multithreaded without tons of exposition or
flashing arrows and had a fairly well-definied arc.
|4.24.05 @ 10:26PM|#
I wonder what to think about the claim that media today requires
more thought outta the viewer. On the one hand, as Sir Robert says,
most TV is 'T.O.T.B.A.B.E.'. The same could be also be said of
supposedly sophisticated means of entertainment like books and
plays. I mean, how often do you read a book and try to guess what
will happen next, versus just passively enjoying what happens? On
the other hand, the internet really is interactive. With things
like blogs, most of the fun comes in hitting up the comments
section, which in turn requires you to turn on your brain, figure
out your opinion, and commit it to the electronic page. As Johnson
says in the article, conventionally clever media has a tendency to
be like 'Fraiser'-- sure the jokes are kinda well thought out, but
once you hear them and figure it out, that's it, the thinking is
over. All the hard work was done by the guys who wrote the script.
The work of the audience is relatively small. Whereas with blogs,
phase one is figuring out what's being said, phase two is figuring
out what you think about it, and phase three (optional) is
commenting on what you've figured out.
Anyhow, my take on it all is that blogs, in spite of heralding the
destruction of News Media As We Know It, are for the most part a
positive development for the promotion of thinking by the
masses.
Now, as to whether we're going to end up liking what it is the
masses think up�
|4.24.05 @ 10:27PM|#
Come now. You're not going to suggest that something like "No
soup for you!" is more creative than K.A.O.S.
Ninety-nine percent of comedy today is just a bunch of stand-ups
re-hashing their lame acts. The acting is as wooden as a cigar
store Indian.
Anything with Buck Henry associated with it is miles beyond any
dreck on tv today.
Next you'll try to tell me that Dick van Dyke tripping over an
ottoman was smarter than "would you believe..." I beg to differ!
:)))))
Xmas|4.24.05 @ 10:46PM|#
Beavis & Butthead was great simply for all of the
GWAR references.
-X(scumdog)mas
|4.24.05 @ 11:06PM|#
"Next you'll try to tell me that Dick van Dyke tripping over
an ottoman was smarter than "would you believe..." I beg to
differ!
Did you see the episode where Dick wakes up and his head is a head
of cabbage?
...Didn't you ever watch Alan Brady tear into chrome-domed Mel?
What about Buddy and Sally! huh? ...What about Buddy!
|4.25.05 @ 1:04AM|#
TDvDS could be very clever. Remember the "walnut"
episode?
Besides, MTM in capri pants was very nice to look at.
Kevin
|4.25.05 @ 9:33AM|#
Airwaves used to be the only thing out there, so any show had to
be engineered to be moderately appealing to everyone and offensive
to no one. A more certain guarantee of slapstick carrying the day,
I can't imagine. You can't be smart and completely
uncontroversial.
We aren't there anymore. Give me McNulty's drunken binges, or give
me death!
|4.25.05 @ 10:33AM|#
My it's because I'm was 10 years old at the time, but I alway thought Mission Impossible was the most complicated show on television.
|4.25.05 @ 1:28PM|#
The holy troika of Joss Whedon shows (Buffy the Vampire Slayer,
Angel and Firefly) were all-above average in intelligence.
Dan
|4.25.05 @ 1:41PM|#
I finally saw The Office for the very first time this weekend. Now I'm a fan. Smart-funny, and all the better for not having a laugh track.
Dan H.|4.25.05 @ 2:41PM|#
The top of my 'smart TV' list would have to be
Deadwood. It takes effort to even follow the dialog, which
sounds very Shakespearean in a profane way and is even commonly
written in iambic pentameter. The plots are deep, the characters
devious, and there's always several levels of machination going on.
It often takes a couple of viewings to piece together everything
that happened in a given episode.
Fantastic television. Best show I've seen in years.
|4.25.05 @ 2:55PM|#
I think there is more of everthing. Yes, there is a raft of good
shows lately. But most of what the networks run, and cable for that
matter, is still garbage: witness the enduring popularity of
mindless reality shows, awful 24 hours news, infomercials, bad
movies with all the good parts cut out, etc.
Watching "24" may keep the brain sharp, but watching "The Bachelor"
just rots it.
Jesse Walker|4.25.05 @ 6:04PM|#
I've never seen LL, but I really do think AD is subtle.
First, unlike many sitcoms, there's no laugh track.
The real innovation of Arrested Development is that it's
the first sitcom without a laugh track that still feels like it's
got a laugh track. It's a very heavy-handed show, and after three
tries I still haven't found it funny.
|4.25.05 @ 7:23PM|#
And any assumption that most people in today's world would
be reading and discussing ... say Shakespeare ... if not watching
tv are absurd (a society of course already adapted to t.v.
viewing).
Of course, the idea that it takes much mental effort to understand
Shakespeare's work (aside from the effort required to translate the
archaic speech patterns) is itself a bit absurd.
|4.25.05 @ 10:03PM|#
Hey, even Shakespeare wrote scenes full of slapstick and dirty
innuendo to please the groundlings. I'm sure some in the expensive
seats liked those, too.
Kevin
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245