Using this advertisement or the screening from class as an example, discuss how Ernie Kovacs’ artistic experiments with television sound (or silence), aesthetics, and timing dialogue with growing concerns about television’s noisiness and commercialism?
I guess the best example to use to contrast the Ernie Kovacs show and commercial would be the I love Lucy episode we had watched in class. The director has Lucy rehearse her lines for Vitameatavegamin (which is already a ridiculous mouthful to say) that is sponsoring her husband’s show and wants her to say her lines even faster. She does this and what is already a mouthful becomes a blubbering mess (with the help of the products effects of course). Kovacs plays with how wordy and repetitive commercials are by having an announcer say obscure things surrounding the cigars, even dropping them without saying a word about the cigars. This seemed similar to the Lonesome Rhodes commercial where he jokes about his sponsor, yet it makes the commercial more memorable and less like a sponsor trying to sell their product to the viewers. Commercials/sponsoring seems so obviously out of place and even though Kovacs is announced to speak on behalf of the brand his silent gag still seems like part of the show and there doesn’t seem to be a negative view of the product as well. Not only throughout her Vitameatavegemin episode but the show itself Lucy makes loud noises, either yelling or whining while Kovacs’ on the other hand uses physical comedy to produce sounds. His show just seems more artistically thought out while I love Lucy is out to get laughs and ratings.
Ernie Kovacs’ television specials aired on TV during a time where viewers were bombarded by overly loud commercials, fake canned laughter, and other scandals that “virtually destroyed faith in TV’s status as a document” (Spigel 183). Kovacs’ “Silent Show”, however, seemed to feed off of this “disgust” and loss of faith—playing up the fact that television is a constructed form of entertainment and most programs at the time existed to sell various products. Using the above commercial as an example, we can see that Kovacs does the exact opposite as the advertisers from the Texaco Star Theater program (and most likely all other advertisers from the time)—Kovacs remains entirely silent during the commercial, and instead uses silent comedy to entice the viewer into actively watching the advertisement. Although Kovacs does not treat his product with the most “respect”—dropping the cigars into a pool of water—this more relaxed form of displaying a commercial product, I think, must have been a breath of fresh air to the viewers of the time. Instead of shoving the product in your face, Kovacs uses the product to create another skit for his show, ultimately enticing the viewer further instead of blatantly telling his audience to go out and buy a pack of Dutch Masters.
After viewing Ernie Kovac's show I was quite surprised at how much it depicted today’s commercialism and entertainment industry. With the use of silence, aesthetics, and comical dialogue, Ernie created a new form of entertainment media that even I enjoyed in the 21st century. Because of this daring move, he allowed producers, scriptwriters, and even actors a change to break “normal” everyday productions and add in creativity to appeal to the audience. We as a nation rely heavily on audio and video aspects due to the demand of television, though I wonder if we ever stop to appreciate the small things like silence…Ernie takes this medium and brings it to another level while at the same time creating a popular and productive advertisement for viewers. The ad was original and it highlights the power that is within sound. The “I Love Lucy” episode also shows how immensely television commercial ism is viewed and how society can grab the idea without sharing words. When Lucy became overwhelmed by the power of the healthy supplement, her strong desire to be on television slowly faded away and she missed her opportunity to promote the product. From the outside looking it, the audience laughed at the comedy, though it was a powerful tool to get people to purchase the product (if that commercial was actually released to the public). Overall Ernie and Lucy both have different ways in utilizing commercialism properties and because of them; future productions and commercials have forever been changed in more comical and artistically creative ways.
Ernie Kovacs was very innovative in comparison to other television programs in the 1950s for multiple reasons. Among these were his use of an anti-aesthetic, silence, and unconventional titles. His humor was based less in dialogue and more in context, actions, and natural occurences. For example, in comparison to I Love Lucy, which relied heavily on her high pitched voice and obnoxious mannerisms as a means of comedy, while Ernie Kovacs used silence and the context of the silence in order to breathe new life into the noisy, conventional television shows of the era. Ernie also is able to comment on commercialism in his cigar ad. Much like his actual television show, he uses silence and trick photography in order to create humor. His commentary is really prevalent when comparing him to other ads, such as the Carnation milks ads. Through his lack of dialogue, he was putting forth the notion that sitcoms, and even television in general, was becoming uniform in its reliance on dialogue and overdramatic and often recycled gestures. Commercialization was running rampants on television and his form of advertising was subtle and witty rather than blunt and obnoxious. That's what sets him apart from his contemporaries.
I’d like to start this post out by first disagreeing with several of the previous comments who point to I Love Lucy as a primary negative example of TV noise and commercialism at the time. Yes I do agree that Lucille Ball is loud. Yes I know that in contrast to Ernie Kovacs, her show might not have been “artistically” thought out. I think what we need to remember, however, is Vitameatavegamin was not a real product. This was not a commercial built right into the episode like the Carnation Milk ads in the Burns and Allen Show. For this reason I think we can and should look at this I Love Lucy episode as a comedic jab from Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz to the advertising industry. For example, let’s look at two elements of her “commercial” in the show. First off, the name of the product is Vitameatavegamin. There. Right off the bat this product has almost no credibility due to a nonsensical name we know people thought was ridiculous back then from the studio laughter we hear. Secondly, we can look at Lucy’s script for the commercial. In it she asks people if they “poop out at parties,” which is more nonsense meant to mock the scripts of actual period commercials. Also she mentions that this supplement “tastes just like candy” and drinks some showing us it definitely does not. The dialogue is meant to point out the exaggerated claims and almost blatant lies companies are pervading through their advertisements. All in all, I don’t think anybody here would disagree that I Love Lucy was experimentally more conservative than Ernie Kovacs use of silence throughout TV and its commercials, but I think it would be wrong to discount Lucy entirely from commenting on importants things in the industry such as noise and over-commercialism.
I think you're absolutely right. To dismiss Lucy as loud and commercialized is to miss the point of the episode completely. I feel that, in many ways, Kovacs and Ball are pointing out the same fundamental flaw in commercialism, though their approaches differ. Kovacs' approach is understated and self-deprecating and therein lies the comedy. Ball's volume and dialogue help to highlight the pervasiveness of commercials in American life. They each point out that commercials are overwrought through parody.
As far as the discussion on noise, though, there is no question that these two diverge significantly. This divergence nonetheless helps to illustrate the idea that commercialism in America is rampant.
In my opinion, I was extremely refreshed to watch Kovacs’ commercial as it was not only reflective to the same sort of humor many commercial companies use today, but it contrasted so dramatically the various shows and productions generated from this era, specifically I Love Lucy. To begin, the use of a narrator who speaks in place of the Ernie Kovacs creates humor with his dry, almost sarcastic monotone voice. Further, while Kovacs plays off what the narrator is saying and adds additional facial expressions, adding to the humor and comedy of the scene, the viewer is still focused on the narrator and what he is saying. This connection makes the viewer feel like the narrator is talking directly TO them instead of the Kovacs talking AT them... This element is critical to advertising today.
Further, this Kovacs commercial is unlike the advertising content that was being produced at this time. For example, the I Love Lucy “advertisement” for Vitameatavegamin plays on very different elements of humor to sell their product and keep viewers involved. The humor in I Love Lucy’s commercial is created from Lucy herself. The repetitive nature of her words and actions during the rehearsal and later inability to accurately pronounce words and function properly is what is humorous. The product itself is immaterial during this scene. Therefore, the dry humor and strength of advertisement in Kovacs holiday cigar commercial appeals to me more as a consumer as well as a viewer.
The reason that Kovacs’ more “minimalistic” approach was so effective was not just because of its innovative usage of sound, aesthetics, and timing, but because of its juxtaposition to the more popular “in your face” methods. Even today, while watching commercials or television, we are often inundated by loud noises, bright colors, and over animated movements. After awhile, consumers grow accustomed to these gimmicks, and they figuratively (and literally) tune them out. An advertisement such as this one, sandwiched between two that are perhaps much more boisterous, would certainly create a striking contrast. In a sense, silence can be much more commanding than blaring noises. It’s this philosophy that Kovacs has employed—in a culture of sensory overstimulation, subtlety is key. It implies that there was much more analysis and thought put into the project, much more conscious artistic decisions being made, and a sense of self-editing that continues to be greatly underappreciated. Personally, I prefer humor that uses such subtlety. I feel that it gives the viewer/consumer more credit than blaring catch phrases, which I can find quite cloying. Instead of treating consumers as some kind of easily manipulated subordinates, Kovacs’ style puts them at his level. His wink-wink nudge-nudge sensibility was intelligent and groundbreaking. In terms of comparing Kovacs to I Love Lucy, well, it’s like apples and oranges. Two completely different styles of humor. Lucy’s has its merits, obviously…she was one of the most successful comediennes to ever be on television. There’s something to be said for that. However, Kovacs’ style reins it in, which I find to have a more timeless effect.
The narrator’s voice in place of Kovac’s voice added to the humor of the commercial greatly. The synthetic laughter in the background also created another level of humor, as that is not a generally used advertisement practice. The narration takes on a voice of god type feel, however, Kovac’s responds to the narrator with his actions, changing the feel of the advertisement and forcing it to play out more like a skit rather than a commercial. The voice over, however, also spoke directly to the audience, creating an intimate connection, much like advertisements do today.
In the Vitameatavegamin ad in the I Love Lucy episode, Lucy ads an element of humor to the commercial, more plot related than reflective of real life advertising. The nature of the show’s plot is that she is always getting herself into outrageous situations, and although she did bring that same craziness to the commercial, that was not necessarily reflective of common advertisement practices of the time period. Her script for the commercial in fact exploits the claims and loaded promises that advertisers made. It poked fun at ads rather than revering them. The humor in the Kovac’s ad, however, also plays to this same dynamic, making it more reflective of television than standard advertisements.
Audiences were beginning to become upset with the nature of television by the end of the 1950s. This was due to several complaints about quiz shows being scripted and unrealistic and commercials being rigged to sound louder to audiences than the actual television show. This latter of these complaints was especially a problem, for people were fed up with advertisers’ techniques to manipulate the minds of the audience. Ernie Kovacs understood where the audience was coming from and decided to counteract the noisiness of television and make a show that was nearly completely silent. With his show, Kovacs was able to develop a method in which television could be just as entertaining when silent as it was when people were talking. Kovacs even made fun of how noisy television could be during sketches, such as when every movement he makes creates a loud noise that interrupts a high society gentleman’s club. As for advertisements, Kovacs again teases the television industry by not necessarily advertising his product (cigars), as involving the product in an entertaining skit. Although the skit can place the product in a negative light, Kovacs is able to make the advertisement more memorable, and the audience’s love and understanding of Kovacs creates that much more desire to buy the product in which he advertises.
At first glance, I saw the ad as a comedic sketch. After reading many responses, I found it interesting that a lot of students contrasted Ernie’s performance with Lucy’s performance. While both performances certainly were different, I think each media text served the same duty: to mock commercialism. As a consumer, I know I remember ads that are simple and funny. In I Love Lucy, the excessive talking and perky attitude is boring and expected. The show proved just how ridiculous that aesthetic is. Our reading suggested that commercialism painted television as the “bad guy”. Still, it was television that made fun of itself. Seeing Ernie and Lucy imitate its own kind says how commercial television affected the public. People were not stupid. They saw the pushy motives behind fake, noisy, and annoying television ads. Today we deal with annoying advertisement even more so. Now they haunt our browsers, pop up on our cell phones, and yell from our televisions. There’s no hiding from them. To me, advertisements just provide comedians with more material. I enjoyed watching Kovac’s performance. He, for one, says nothing about the product. It’s not until the end of the commercial when a simple tagline is dropped by a background dialogue. I would argue that this mode of advertising is much more effective than the outlined, perky front desired from Lucy’s performace.
One thing I’m really surprised about in television in this time period is the use of commercials in television programs. Commercials in this time period were boring informational ads such as the Carnation Milk ad shown in class that did nothing but bore the audience to sleep. Kovacs’ advertisement and the I Love Lucy segment shown in class last week both poked fun at television advertisements in different ways. Kovacs portrayed himself as a silent character who did nothing but drop his product in the water. He even has the narrator say random things that have nothing to do with the actual product. In I Love Lucy, Lucy showcases a product called Vitameatavegamin. While rehearsing, she is repeatedly told to speak loud and clearly, to be as vivid as possible, and to taste and enjoy the product, to which she very much dislikes. This makes fun of a lot of commercials in that what the advertiser says about the product is quite the opposite (Lucy says that the product tastes like candy while in actuality, it tastes really bad.) In general, I believe that Kovacs and Lucy see television advertisements as problems. By portraying advertisements through creativity, they are sending a message to the people that television commercials could in fact be entertaining rather than be plain and boring.
In this advertisement, Ernie Kovacs went against the traditional selling model for products. Although he used silence on his part (not a word is spoken by Kovacs during the segment), the ad itself is hardly silent. The announcer speaks in a manner typical of that of a 1950s spokesman, but the words he says is where Kovacs’ innovation comes in. Giving the announcer quotes like “everybody’s a little bagged” catches the audience off-guard because 1950s advertisements only used the most wholesome language. Kovacs further used his creative freedom as a way to make the ad fully embedded in the comedic style of his titular variety show. When the announcer hands the ad off to Kovacs, he awkwardly drops the cigars and it is revealed he’s standing in a small pool. This all adds to the comedic value of the bit, but does nothing to prove the worth and quality of Dutch Masters cigars. The company gave Kovacs the freedom to do this. Presumably they thought they could attract Kovacs’ demographic best if they followed suit the comedic stylings of his show, rather than pay him more money to do a traditional spot, a la what the “Vitemetevegimine” segment in I Love Lucy so brilliantly spoofed.
Ernie Kovacs was very innovative in his use of silence and comedic timing as entertainment. His humor focused on his physical presence and various actions rather than heavy dialogue that could be found in most telefilms in that era. Kovacs went against the norm in television and used his silence as well as facial expressions as effective tools for entertaining audiences. Viewers were captivated by his ability to tell a story or jokes through his actions. Most television and commercials were deemed noisy due to the dialogue-heavy comedy and the ads wanting to get their message across directly to people at home. In telefilms such as “I Love Lucy”, the humor was based on around jokes made by the main cast. Most episodes did not have slap-stick comedy or humor focused on the actions of the characters. A variety of commercials were not based around actions either, but rather actors in the ads talking about the product and how it functions. Audiences at home were overwhelmed by the constant chatter that was occurring, and Kovacs brought a fresh, new direction to television. Viewers at home enjoyed his silent take on comedy and the inventive ways that could make people laugh.
I guess the best example to use to contrast the Ernie Kovacs show and commercial would be the I love Lucy episode we had watched in class. The director has Lucy rehearse her lines for Vitameatavegamin (which is already a ridiculous mouthful to say) that is sponsoring her husband’s show and wants her to say her lines even faster. She does this and what is already a mouthful becomes a blubbering mess (with the help of the products effects of course). Kovacs plays with how wordy and repetitive commercials are by having an announcer say obscure things surrounding the cigars, even dropping them without saying a word about the cigars. This seemed similar to the Lonesome Rhodes commercial where he jokes about his sponsor, yet it makes the commercial more memorable and less like a sponsor trying to sell their product to the viewers. Commercials/sponsoring seems so obviously out of place and even though Kovacs is announced to speak on behalf of the brand his silent gag still seems like part of the show and there doesn’t seem to be a negative view of the product as well. Not only throughout her Vitameatavegemin episode but the show itself Lucy makes loud noises, either yelling or whining while Kovacs’ on the other hand uses physical comedy to produce sounds. His show just seems more artistically thought out while I love Lucy is out to get laughs and ratings.
ReplyDeleteErnie Kovacs’ television specials aired on TV during a time where viewers were bombarded by overly loud commercials, fake canned laughter, and other scandals that “virtually destroyed faith in TV’s status as a document” (Spigel 183). Kovacs’ “Silent Show”, however, seemed to feed off of this “disgust” and loss of faith—playing up the fact that television is a constructed form of entertainment and most programs at the time existed to sell various products. Using the above commercial as an example, we can see that Kovacs does the exact opposite as the advertisers from the Texaco Star Theater program (and most likely all other advertisers from the time)—Kovacs remains entirely silent during the commercial, and instead uses silent comedy to entice the viewer into actively watching the advertisement. Although Kovacs does not treat his product with the most “respect”—dropping the cigars into a pool of water—this more relaxed form of displaying a commercial product, I think, must have been a breath of fresh air to the viewers of the time. Instead of shoving the product in your face, Kovacs uses the product to create another skit for his show, ultimately enticing the viewer further instead of blatantly telling his audience to go out and buy a pack of Dutch Masters.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing Ernie Kovac's show I was quite surprised at how much it depicted today’s commercialism and entertainment industry. With the use of silence, aesthetics, and comical dialogue, Ernie created a new form of entertainment media that even I enjoyed in the 21st century. Because of this daring move, he allowed producers, scriptwriters, and even actors a change to break “normal” everyday productions and add in creativity to appeal to the audience. We as a nation rely heavily on audio and video aspects due to the demand of television, though I wonder if we ever stop to appreciate the small things like silence…Ernie takes this medium and brings it to another level while at the same time creating a popular and productive advertisement for viewers. The ad was original and it highlights the power that is within sound. The “I Love Lucy” episode also shows how immensely television commercial ism is viewed and how society can grab the idea without sharing words. When Lucy became overwhelmed by the power of the healthy supplement, her strong desire to be on television slowly faded away and she missed her opportunity to promote the product. From the outside looking it, the audience laughed at the comedy, though it was a powerful tool to get people to purchase the product (if that commercial was actually released to the public). Overall Ernie and Lucy both have different ways in utilizing commercialism properties and because of them; future productions and commercials have forever been changed in more comical and artistically creative ways.
ReplyDeleteErnie Kovacs was very innovative in comparison to other television programs in the 1950s for multiple reasons. Among these were his use of an anti-aesthetic, silence, and unconventional titles. His humor was based less in dialogue and more in context, actions, and natural occurences. For example, in comparison to I Love Lucy, which relied heavily on her high pitched voice and obnoxious mannerisms as a means of comedy, while Ernie Kovacs used silence and the context of the silence in order to breathe new life into the noisy, conventional television shows of the era. Ernie also is able to comment on commercialism in his cigar ad. Much like his actual television show, he uses silence and trick photography in order to create humor. His commentary is really prevalent when comparing him to other ads, such as the Carnation milks ads. Through his lack of dialogue, he was putting forth the notion that sitcoms, and even television in general, was becoming uniform in its reliance on dialogue and overdramatic and often recycled gestures. Commercialization was running rampants on television and his form of advertising was subtle and witty rather than blunt and obnoxious. That's what sets him apart from his contemporaries.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to start this post out by first disagreeing with several of the previous comments who point to I Love Lucy as a primary negative example of TV noise and commercialism at the time. Yes I do agree that Lucille Ball is loud. Yes I know that in contrast to Ernie Kovacs, her show might not have been “artistically” thought out. I think what we need to remember, however, is Vitameatavegamin was not a real product. This was not a commercial built right into the episode like the Carnation Milk ads in the Burns and Allen Show. For this reason I think we can and should look at this I Love Lucy episode as a comedic jab from Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz to the advertising industry. For example, let’s look at two elements of her “commercial” in the show. First off, the name of the product is Vitameatavegamin. There. Right off the bat this product has almost no credibility due to a nonsensical name we know people thought was ridiculous back then from the studio laughter we hear. Secondly, we can look at Lucy’s script for the commercial. In it she asks people if they “poop out at parties,” which is more nonsense meant to mock the scripts of actual period commercials. Also she mentions that this supplement “tastes just like candy” and drinks some showing us it definitely does not. The dialogue is meant to point out the exaggerated claims and almost blatant lies companies are pervading through their advertisements. All in all, I don’t think anybody here would disagree that I Love Lucy was experimentally more conservative than Ernie Kovacs use of silence throughout TV and its commercials, but I think it would be wrong to discount Lucy entirely from commenting on importants things in the industry such as noise and over-commercialism.
ReplyDeleteI think you're absolutely right. To dismiss Lucy as loud and commercialized is to miss the point of the episode completely. I feel that, in many ways, Kovacs and Ball are pointing out the same fundamental flaw in commercialism, though their approaches differ. Kovacs' approach is understated and self-deprecating and therein lies the comedy. Ball's volume and dialogue help to highlight the pervasiveness of commercials in American life. They each point out that commercials are overwrought through parody.
DeleteAs far as the discussion on noise, though, there is no question that these two diverge significantly. This divergence nonetheless helps to illustrate the idea that commercialism in America is rampant.
In my opinion, I was extremely refreshed to watch Kovacs’ commercial as it was not only reflective to the same sort of humor many commercial companies use today, but it contrasted so dramatically the various shows and productions generated from this era, specifically I Love Lucy. To begin, the use of a narrator who speaks in place of the Ernie Kovacs creates humor with his dry, almost sarcastic monotone voice. Further, while Kovacs plays off what the narrator is saying and adds additional facial expressions, adding to the humor and comedy of the scene, the viewer is still focused on the narrator and what he is saying. This connection makes the viewer feel like the narrator is talking directly TO them instead of the Kovacs talking AT them... This element is critical to advertising today.
ReplyDeleteFurther, this Kovacs commercial is unlike the advertising content that was being produced at this time. For example, the I Love Lucy “advertisement” for Vitameatavegamin plays on very different elements of humor to sell their product and keep viewers involved. The humor in I Love Lucy’s commercial is created from Lucy herself. The repetitive nature of her words and actions during the rehearsal and later inability to accurately pronounce words and function properly is what is humorous. The product itself is immaterial during this scene. Therefore, the dry humor and strength of advertisement in Kovacs holiday cigar commercial appeals to me more as a consumer as well as a viewer.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that Kovacs’ more “minimalistic” approach was so effective was not just because of its innovative usage of sound, aesthetics, and timing, but because of its juxtaposition to the more popular “in your face” methods. Even today, while watching commercials or television, we are often inundated by loud noises, bright colors, and over animated movements. After awhile, consumers grow accustomed to these gimmicks, and they figuratively (and literally) tune them out. An advertisement such as this one, sandwiched between two that are perhaps much more boisterous, would certainly create a striking contrast. In a sense, silence can be much more commanding than blaring noises. It’s this philosophy that Kovacs has employed—in a culture of sensory overstimulation, subtlety is key. It implies that there was much more analysis and thought put into the project, much more conscious artistic decisions being made, and a sense of self-editing that continues to be greatly underappreciated. Personally, I prefer humor that uses such subtlety. I feel that it gives the viewer/consumer more credit than blaring catch phrases, which I can find quite cloying. Instead of treating consumers as some kind of easily manipulated subordinates, Kovacs’ style puts them at his level. His wink-wink nudge-nudge sensibility was intelligent and groundbreaking. In terms of comparing Kovacs to I Love Lucy, well, it’s like apples and oranges. Two completely different styles of humor. Lucy’s has its merits, obviously…she was one of the most successful comediennes to ever be on television. There’s something to be said for that. However, Kovacs’ style reins it in, which I find to have a more timeless effect.
The narrator’s voice in place of Kovac’s voice added to the humor of the commercial greatly. The synthetic laughter in the background also created another level of humor, as that is not a generally used advertisement practice. The narration takes on a voice of god type feel, however, Kovac’s responds to the narrator with his actions, changing the feel of the advertisement and forcing it to play out more like a skit rather than a commercial. The voice over, however, also spoke directly to the audience, creating an intimate connection, much like advertisements do today.
ReplyDeleteIn the Vitameatavegamin ad in the I Love Lucy episode, Lucy ads an element of humor to the commercial, more plot related than reflective of real life advertising. The nature of the show’s plot is that she is always getting herself into outrageous situations, and although she did bring that same craziness to the commercial, that was not necessarily reflective of common advertisement practices of the time period. Her script for the commercial in fact exploits the claims and loaded promises that advertisers made. It poked fun at ads rather than revering them. The humor in the Kovac’s ad, however, also plays to this same dynamic, making it more reflective of television than standard advertisements.
Audiences were beginning to become upset with the nature of television by the end of the 1950s. This was due to several complaints about quiz shows being scripted and unrealistic and commercials being rigged to sound louder to audiences than the actual television show. This latter of these complaints was especially a problem, for people were fed up with advertisers’ techniques to manipulate the minds of the audience. Ernie Kovacs understood where the audience was coming from and decided to counteract the noisiness of television and make a show that was nearly completely silent.
ReplyDeleteWith his show, Kovacs was able to develop a method in which television could be just as entertaining when silent as it was when people were talking. Kovacs even made fun of how noisy television could be during sketches, such as when every movement he makes creates a loud noise that interrupts a high society gentleman’s club. As for advertisements, Kovacs again teases the television industry by not necessarily advertising his product (cigars), as involving the product in an entertaining skit. Although the skit can place the product in a negative light, Kovacs is able to make the advertisement more memorable, and the audience’s love and understanding of Kovacs creates that much more desire to buy the product in which he advertises.
At first glance, I saw the ad as a comedic sketch. After reading many responses, I found it interesting that a lot of students contrasted Ernie’s performance with Lucy’s performance. While both performances certainly were different, I think each media text served the same duty: to mock commercialism. As a consumer, I know I remember ads that are simple and funny. In I Love Lucy, the excessive talking and perky attitude is boring and expected. The show proved just how ridiculous that aesthetic is. Our reading suggested that commercialism painted television as the “bad guy”. Still, it was television that made fun of itself. Seeing Ernie and Lucy imitate its own kind says how commercial television affected the public. People were not stupid. They saw the pushy motives behind fake, noisy, and annoying television ads. Today we deal with annoying advertisement even more so. Now they haunt our browsers, pop up on our cell phones, and yell from our televisions. There’s no hiding from them. To me, advertisements just provide comedians with more material. I enjoyed watching Kovac’s performance. He, for one, says nothing about the product. It’s not until the end of the commercial when a simple tagline is dropped by a background dialogue. I would argue that this mode of advertising is much more effective than the outlined, perky front desired from Lucy’s performace.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I’m really surprised about in television in this time period is the use of commercials in television programs. Commercials in this time period were boring informational ads such as the Carnation Milk ad shown in class that did nothing but bore the audience to sleep. Kovacs’ advertisement and the I Love Lucy segment shown in class last week both poked fun at television advertisements in different ways. Kovacs portrayed himself as a silent character who did nothing but drop his product in the water. He even has the narrator say random things that have nothing to do with the actual product. In I Love Lucy, Lucy showcases a product called Vitameatavegamin. While rehearsing, she is repeatedly told to speak loud and clearly, to be as vivid as possible, and to taste and enjoy the product, to which she very much dislikes. This makes fun of a lot of commercials in that what the advertiser says about the product is quite the opposite (Lucy says that the product tastes like candy while in actuality, it tastes really bad.) In general, I believe that Kovacs and Lucy see television advertisements as problems. By portraying advertisements through creativity, they are sending a message to the people that television commercials could in fact be entertaining rather than be plain and boring.
ReplyDeleteIn this advertisement, Ernie Kovacs went against the traditional selling model for products. Although he used silence on his part (not a word is spoken by Kovacs during the segment), the ad itself is hardly silent. The announcer speaks in a manner typical of that of a 1950s spokesman, but the words he says is where Kovacs’ innovation comes in. Giving the announcer quotes like “everybody’s a little bagged” catches the audience off-guard because 1950s advertisements only used the most wholesome language. Kovacs further used his creative freedom as a way to make the ad fully embedded in the comedic style of his titular variety show. When the announcer hands the ad off to Kovacs, he awkwardly drops the cigars and it is revealed he’s standing in a small pool. This all adds to the comedic value of the bit, but does nothing to prove the worth and quality of Dutch Masters cigars. The company gave Kovacs the freedom to do this. Presumably they thought they could attract Kovacs’ demographic best if they followed suit the comedic stylings of his show, rather than pay him more money to do a traditional spot, a la what the “Vitemetevegimine” segment in I Love Lucy so brilliantly spoofed.
ReplyDeleteErnie Kovacs was very innovative in his use of silence and comedic timing as entertainment. His humor focused on his physical presence and various actions rather than heavy dialogue that could be found in most telefilms in that era. Kovacs went against the norm in television and used his silence as well as facial expressions as effective tools for entertaining audiences. Viewers were captivated by his ability to tell a story or jokes through his actions. Most television and commercials were deemed noisy due to the dialogue-heavy comedy and the ads wanting to get their message across directly to people at home. In telefilms such as “I Love Lucy”, the humor was based on around jokes made by the main cast. Most episodes did not have slap-stick comedy or humor focused on the actions of the characters. A variety of commercials were not based around actions either, but rather actors in the ads talking about the product and how it functions. Audiences at home were overwhelmed by the constant chatter that was occurring, and Kovacs brought a fresh, new direction to television. Viewers at home enjoyed his silent take on comedy and the inventive ways that could make people laugh.
ReplyDelete