Sunday, November 2, 2014
MTM vs. Lear
From your viewings of All in the Family, Good Times, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show and your reading of Kirsten Lentz’s essay, how do you think Norman Lear’s shows differed from MTM’s? Why do you think the term “quality” was often used to refer to MTM’s shows and “relevance” to label Lear’s programs? How does Lentz see these productions as differing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Quality" referred usually the the aesthetic techniques employed by the MTM TV shows. With "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" you had a much higher production value that could be afforded due to their larger budget. When viewing "All in the Family" you see how the camera's weren't as sophisticated as MTM's. Meanwhile, "relevance" referred to Norman Lear's insistence on his shows focusing on popular, even controversial topics of its times. Compare "Good Times", which directly focuses on the issues of poor black Americans, versus MTM, which has a black character but at no point approaches his race. Similarly, "All in the Family" had the prejudiced main character as a focal point to discuss race, usually with the goal of showing him in the wrong (and with the unintentional side effect of perhaps appealing to people similar to him). While race/class etc was the main storyline of each episode for Lear's shows, MTM went in the opposite direction to almost never bring up the topic. But that's not to say MTM was necessarily wrong it its approach. Like what "I Spy" did earlier, making a point through omission can be argued as another form of improving cultural biases. By having black and women characters occupy the same spaces as typical white male characters, without ever showing any difference, MTM also was attempting to be as "relevant" as the other shows.
ReplyDeleteIn the discourse about quality television and relevance television of the 1970s, MTM productions and Norman Lear are among the first to be referenced, with MTM being associated with quality and Lear with relevance. Both Lear and MTM stand out in relation to previous television shows because the shows are not mindless entertain; rather, they make clear, intentional statements. With Norman Lear’s productions came a critique on relevant societal issues. For example, in his shows, Lear would include controversial subjects such as race, homosexuality, abortion, etc. During the rise of Civil Rights, Women’s Liberation, and other progressive movements, Lear would use his shows to criticize the older generation’s lack of acceptance for newer ideas. Although both Lear and MTM made references to feminism in their shows, MTM is considered quality because the purpose was not to address societal issues. For example, in the Mary Tyler Moore Show, support for women’s rights was in the show but not to the same degree as Lear’s productions. Based on Lentz’s essay, MTM did not strive to critique society, rather to legitimize television as a medium. In addition to the progressive ideas seen in the show, there also is the self-reflexivity of television as a medium. The Mary Tyler Moore Show criticized other television styles in order to set it apart from the “vast wasteland” of television.
ReplyDeleteLentz's argument about the disparity between Norman Lear's shows which elicited a sense of "relevance" and Mary Tyler Moore's production company, MTM's that had a certain degree of "quality" came down to the difference between method and content. For Norman Lear's shows like "All in the Family" and "Good Times", the essential aspect of these programs was the social relevancy that their episodes addressed, and the topical issues that became to subject matter. In one episode of "All in the Family" for example, Archie Bunker is trapped with a group of people of different cultures and in his close mindedness, learns to cope. In "Good Times" the show is centered on a low- income African-American family who, in the particular episode we saw, have to come up with the rent money- which possibly gave a more honest portrayal than what some criticized "Julia" for portraying. For MTM shows, the issues at hand, at least in the episode we watched, never leave the circle of television and the issues that are specific to broadcasting. And for this, shows like MTM, according to Lentz, lack in relevance. What Lentz points out is that there is a certain increase in the quality of the shows which utilize crisp, white, lighting, and feature very clean and modern looking sets.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lentz, quality television was dedicated to the promise of improving television aesthetically. On the other hand, relevance promised that shows would become more responsive to social and political issues prominent during the 1970s. I think these differences are on display when comparing All in the Family and Good Times to The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Norman Lear’s programs all focused on racial, social and political issues prevalent at the time. In All in the Family, Archie Bunker was often used to highlight prejudice and racial tension. Additionally, in Good Times, the reality of life as an African American in the 1970s is articulated much better than earlier series like Amos ‘n’ Andy and Julia. Alternatively, our viewing of The Mary Tyler Moore Show clearly represented a shift in aesthetic quality from the other sitcoms. Lentz argues that even though MTM series offered new or modernized depictions of femininity and womanhood, they did so in order to further highlight and promote the idea the television was improving as well. Like the progressing ideas towards women the series’ portrayed, the aesthetic of the shows was also improving.
ReplyDeleteNorman Lear’s programs and The Mary Tyler Moore Show both addressed social issues of their time, but did so in different manners.
ReplyDeleteNorman Lear’s shows were very blunt in their delivery. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that Good Times was setting out to address the issues facing African Americans at the time. When the show was created and when each script was written, that was what was on the show makers’ minds. The show was to explore racial barriers, so all the characters were black, and just about every line was racially motivated; to the point where some were incredibly forced.
The Mary Tyler Moore Show, on the other hand, presented the same issues in a much more subtle way. The show made silent statements in having the weather man be African American, and to have him be seemingly the most competent of the news anchors. There was obviously some intention behind the casting choice, but the show (at least not in the strike episode) does not go out of its way to showcase it. There is no line in the show that addresses the fact that he is black, it is just to be taken as a granted.
I would agree in the term “relevance” for Lear’s shows, because they were founded on a strive to be relevant, the shows subsisted on nothing but relevance, covering issues of the day. I do not, however, agree that Mary Tyler Moore should not also fall in the category of relevant, it is just that it went about it in a much less self-serving way.
From a theoretical perspective, the fundamental ideological distinction between the aesthetic of quality and the aesthetic of relevance may be characterized as a feminist “politics of the signifier” on one side (quality), and a pro-race relations “politics of the referrent” on the other side (relevance). These two positions are really just two sides of the same coin - opposing approaches to a politics of representation.
ReplyDeleteLet’s foreground this esoteric opposition with a quick review of what we mean by “politics of representation”. The politics of representation is an historical discourse Lentz traces through the 70‘s. Two schools, Derrida’s semiology, and representative democracy, both position “representation” as the act of depicting some chosen object or idea, or referrent, through an abstract symbol, or signifier.
During the 1970’s, social demand for progressive politics reached new levels of enthusiasm. Both the feminist and civil rights movements demanded change - both movements interpolated by television studios in order to create demographics that could be sold new television programming to. This manifested in two new television brands: “quality” television, and “relevant” television, each appealing to different demographic groups, each highly politicized attempts to appeal to marginalized identity groups within the social strata.
“Quality” television aligned itself with the feminist movement through re-tooling television’s intrinsically self-reflexive potential. As Lentz notes, television is constantly referring to itself, but this had been seen as a gimmick-laden, vacuous strategy. By creating a new, self-aware aesthetic codified through a revaluation of feminity based around a discourse of cultural femininity, television programs could simultaneusly critique the state of television and the state of gender representation, calling for the emancipation of each.
“Relevant” television aligned itself with the civil rights movement in order to appeal to the demand for an integrated democratic body among the youth of America. As Lentz notes, youth population - a growing social force, demanded integration not only within the physical social sphere, but also on an abstract, representational level in their educational curricula. TV networks caught onto this demand for representational democracy and saw it as an opportunity to draw in a youth audience disaffected by a stagnating television industry, so they created programs representing issues of race in order to represent realignments within the social strata.
Lentz writes that MTM and Tandem are differentiated by due to their representations of gender politics and racial politics. The tandem shows focused on race issues and brought race to the forefront earning it the title of relevant programming, whereas MTM shows such as the Mary Tyler Moore show put the focus on feminism in tv, and was more concerned with the visual aesthetics of the show putting it in the quality category. The differentiation between the two seems simple but the two companies also had many similarities in what they were able to accomplish. The two created situational comedies that helped bring relevance to the genre and earn it prestige and recognition rather than being dismissed as just another comedy. Furthermore, they paved the way for more shows of those kind and allowed for a diversification of tv from the same old same old programs that had been the norm for so long. Quality and relevance are part of the same coin used for discussing tv, the other is always present even if unseen.
ReplyDeleteNorman Lear’s shows were very different from MTM shows in that they dealt with political and racial issues in a much more aggressive manner, whereas Mary Tyler Moore dealt with such topics more subtly. Norman Lear’s shows find much of their humor in talking about race, which is very evident in the episode of All in the Family we screened in class when they are in the elevator. Good Times dealt exclusively with race as it followed a lower-class African American family. Mary Tyler Moore dealt with such topics, but didn’t find humor in them. For example, the weatherman was African American but no one ever mentioned it. I think because Lear’s shows like All in the Family, and Good Times were bolder in dealing with racial issues they were labeled as “relevant.” On the other hand, Mary Tyler Moore may have been viewed as “quality” because its lack of racial and social problems might have made it easier and possibly more enjoyable to watch.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to popular television shows in the 70’s, two words have been used by Kirsten Lentz to describe them: Quality and Relevance. To start, the Mary Tyler Moore Show is described as being “quality” in the eyes of Lentz for its impact on the television world. The show’s larger budget enabled the show to have a more sophisticated look on camera than other shows and validate television as an entertainment venue, but lacked a real social voice on issues other than femininity. This is where “relevance” comes in. Lentz, while mindful of the advances that the Mary Tyler Moore Show made, says that Norman Lear’s shows tackled larger social issues of the time period. For example, All in the Family was a show that depicted a white family and used a comedic approach to show how racial stereotypes and prejudices are incorrect and bad for society. The same can be said for Good Times and how it used comedy and drama to depict African-American life and the struggles that they may face in the real world. Both programs enabled future shows to build on the groundwork laid before them and merge the two approaches to make content that is both quality and relevant.
ReplyDeleteMary Tyler Moore’s shows tend to differ from Norman Lear’s in their focus on political issues. As Kirsten Lentz’s essay discusses, the use of the word “quality” was used to describe MTM’s shows and “relevance” for Lear’s due to their content and the way in which they confront the issues of the shows content. As we saw in the screening, and discussed during lecture, Lear’s shows directly addressed social issues. The episodes of Maude screened in class dealt with Maude’s decision to have an abortion, the episode of Good Times screened in class discussed the issues faced by a working class, black family living in the projects, and the episode of All in the Family screened forced Archie Bunker’s character to confront his preconceived notions about Puerto Ricans, African Americans, and women. These shows are marked by their direct and confrontational approach to the issues they face. Lear’s shows, while skirting around uncomfortable words like “abortion,” directly discussed the differing opinion on why women should or should not get abortions, why and how African American families faced difficulties living in poorer neighborhoods, and the casual racism held by many members of the older generation, as represented by Archie Bunker. The Mary Tyler Moore Show, by contrast skirted around social issues even in episodes directly relating to important, and relevant, social issues such as workers’ rights and the role of unions in the workplace. Instead of exploring the issue in any depth, MTM’s show portrays the writers’ strike and the subsequent strikes in sympathy for the writers as easily solved and forgotten. The major plot of the episode does not revolve around the writers’ strike but on whether or not Lou, Mary’s boss, will be able to deliver the news, and whether he will be sober enough to do so. By the end of the episode, the strike has ended and everyone is happy again, despite the potentially interesting and compelling issues the strike could have presented had it lasted more than an episode or had the writers chosen to address the issue of Mary having to cross a picket line in more depth. Lentz sees the productions differing much as they have been described above: while Lear’s shows focused on and magnified important, and in many cases controversial, social topics in surprising depth for a comedy show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show gave social commentary a secondary role in its narratives, if that. MTM’s shows adhered to the standards for comedy set forth by previous generations of television broadcasts, hence the use of the term “quality” being used in conjunction with the productions, as opposed to a reputation for “relevance” which Lear’s focus on social commentary earned his shows.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed in class, there is a big shift from the content of the Mary Tyler Moore show and Lear’s lineup. Lear’s shows use gain their comedy from outright addressing the issues. Mary Tyler Moore gain its comedy from dressing up its issues in jokes. This is where the debate of quality vs. relevance stems from. Lear shows are labeled “relevant” because of their ability to openly state the issues they are addressing. Their topics include abortion, living in the projects, and deeply ingrained racism. Because these topics were the issues of the time, the show has more social relevance than other shows that did not address these issues. One such example is the Mary Tyler Moore show. The episode screened for class addressed the implications of a writers and actors strike. However, the issue was used simply for comedic material, not as an obvious commentary about who is in the right during a writers strike. We sympathize with both parties and therefore the show takes no stance on its issues, sacrificing its relevance. It is label “quality” for just this reason. For one, it was gifted a high budget and therefore looked better, but its ability to abstain from a stance makes the show more easily accessible to people from all walks of life. This increases its marketability and therefor its “quality”.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting point that Lentz makes in her article is that of "quality" relating very closely to whiteness and to the more covert strategies with which MTM dealt with its issues. As has been the case seemingly throughout history, the powers that be are more willing to accept anything else before granting equal status to women. The race issues that Norman Lear dealt with were apparently undeniable. MTM, on the other hand, was consistently praised for its "quality," which, in this young man's underdeveloped opinion, is a simple tactic to distract from the real issues with which the show dealt. Rather than the focus of discussion being on the social issues, the show's "quality" status distinguished it from more socially driven shows, which further delayed progress for women's cultural liberation. While I do understand the appreciation for the ability to deal with issues delicately, but just because the show doesn't take a stance doesn't mean that the issues should be ignored.
ReplyDeleteAesthetically speaking, the MTM show, was ground breaking. The quality of the show is what set it apart. MTM, according to Lentz, was primarily concerned with the visual quality of the program, where Lear was less concerned. Lear, on the other hand was focused on the relevance of his comedy in the society at the time. He dealt with issues from racism to gender equality. He was able to play with these issues in a comedic form, yet also comment on them. this is why he is considered to have more "relevance." In terms of "quality," I don't want to call it cinematic, but in a way it truly is. the show had a larger budget and was more concerned with the aesthetic value of the program.
ReplyDeleteShows like All in the Family and Good Times differ from The Mary Tyler Moore Show in both aesthetic and topic choice. The term “quality” often referred to The Mary Tyler Moore Show due to the camera and footage quality and realistic, but warm look. On the other hand, All in the Family and Good Times did not feature this film like quality, and looked muddy like a video tape. Furthermore, the topics represented on each show differ depending on their classification. All in the Family and Good Times are classified under the term “relevance”. The Mary Tyler Moore Show was classified under the term “quality”. The Mary Tyler Moore Show was classified in this way due to the fact that it’s programming improved the representation of females on television. All in the Family and Good Times focused on social issues of the times. Good Times revolved around issues affecting lower class black families, while All in the Family featured some of the many racial prejudices. In this way, race and social class were the main focal points in Norman Lear’s shows, where The Mary Tyler Moore Show acted like these issues did not exist. They placed black characters in the space and did not draw attention to their race.
ReplyDelete