That took forever

She may have a valid point here and there (of course many people, including some on this board, have already beaten her to it) and she was nice enough to mention there should be a black bachelor and a black bachelorette. But ultimately this felt to me to be really another writeup by a black woman about how networks don't treat black women as objects worthy of devotion. Throwing the bit about a black bachelor seemed to be just cover. Her heart is concerned with black women which was why she brought up statistics about the percentage of black women who don't get married. Its kinda like me writing an article about giving black males more of a chance at winning TV game shows simply because the employment rate amongst black males is relatively high. I bet if ABC decided to do a black bachelorette but passed on an opportunity to do a show featuring a black bachelor, this same writer would be overjoyed and praise the "progress", all the while excusing the lack of a black bachelor show with a comment about how things don't change overnight.
 
Human beings are pattern-seeking animals, so storytelling is second nature for us, as we need a way to organize complex thoughts (e.g. love) and actions into compelling narratives. The oral tradition (griot) in Africa and European novel are two primary examples of how we've explained love to each other for centuries.

Although some cultural critics are quick to dismiss television and film as inferior means for storytelling, I have yet to reach a full conclusion.

My problem resides in the level of expense that goes into producing television shows and films, in relation to what comes out of the other end. For all the grandiosity that surrounds these cinematic tales, are we really getting good stories out of it? Sometimes yes, but what about our understanding of love that gets fashioned from these productions? For one thing, given that TV and film seek uniformity for the purpose of marketing to the widest audience possible, most representations of love are rather bland and well-recycled. To the point of those who would like to see more "mixed" unions in TV and film, you can latch your point to my analysis.

Furthermore, how does it bode well for the future of filmed storytelling and the concepts it's suppose to elucidate when so much of it is tied to a distracting (and vacuous) celebrity culture?

Always brilliant and all ways brilliant,

Saty
 
My only response to you, Saty, is "don't shoot the messenger".

There's no reason why television can't be a commendable conduit of entertainment, culture and information. The problem is its easily digestible format which reduces the quality to the lowest common denominator. Unlike literature, which assumes a certain level of intellectual capacity from the participant (literacy), television and film can be enjoyed by (essentially) everyone. That, I think, is the problem. Getting information from television is a one-way transaction with the watcher simply absorbing the message. Reading, by comparison, requires the imagination of the reader to create the imagery.

I might have caught part of an episode of one of these TV shows once (by accident). The entire concept seems far too contrived to offer any reasonable insight. If there was a real relationship unfolding on television, perhaps it would be worth watching? Perhaps not?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom