Sunday, October 6, 2013
'Low Brow' Genres
How does Horace Newcomb's essay complicate Newton Minow’s assessment of television as a “vast wasteland”? Why does he believe that 'low brow' genres such as the western can be more complicated than they seem? Do you agree? Perhaps give an example of a contemporary 'low brow' show and explain why it might or might not have social relevance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Horace Newcomb argues that the western as a genre has historically been a form in which “…the public experience… of nationalism and citizenship” has been represented (289). In the late 1950s and early 1960s (Minow’s speech being in 1961), this sense of nationalism in the context of political and social change was clearly reflected in western dramas. In response to critics who believed that “[the “hero’s”] stalwart positions – physical, moral, ethical, and at times political – were the rocks against which outlandish and troubled individuals crashed” (296), and people like McDonald who put a lot of stake in the downfall of the western genre, Newcomb argues that the so-called “predictability” of the western dramas, or the fact that they seemed to find easy solutions to complex problems is a misinterpretation of the text. First, he points out that the return and repetition of the central character or “hero” was in fact due to industrial circumstances as opposed to the intentional creation of a relatively dull character that finds himself over and over in undesirable situations. Newcomb also points out that even though westerns seemed to always end with a predictable shoot-out or the like, that the true final beats often featured unresolved mental anguish as a result of complex dilemmas or situations. Newcomb’s belief was that westerns offered a forum within which cultural dilemmas could be viewed and negotiated.
ReplyDeleteI think in the same way, there are currently “low brow” shows that create forums for cultural negotiation. The quintessential “low brow” genre of our time is Reality TV. Though it may be a stretch, take, for example, Toddlers & Tiaras, in my opinion an absolutely despicable show! What it can be seen as doing, though, is one, bringing to light a real culture, and two, opening up criticism and questions about the objectification of children all in the name of entertainment.
Newcomb argues that despite the mass popularity of the western during the 50s and early to mid 60s and each program’s relatively simplistic plot, that westerns did in fact tackle more serious issues than just “guy in a white hat and guy in a black hat shoot it out”. Newcomb states that because of the various factors contributing to the western’s popularity—the scheduling times, the genre, the characters—the western turned into a “locus of public display” (301), a perfect anthology program that could tackle a diverse range of social issues with relative ease. Newcomb argues that there is more to the western than “simplistic narratives of male power and dominance, glorifications of violence, or celebrations of national ego” (301), and that while certainly all westerns were not created equally, some were more complex to be labeled as “low brow”.
ReplyDeleteTo give an example of a popular contemporary “low-brow” TV show, the first show that pops into my mind is Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. At a first glance, this show is merely another exploitative reality show, capturing a working class family in its most brash and crude state and edited together to make the family members seem even more disgusting and unintelligent than they really are. But I honestly feel that this show is not given enough credit—true the content mainly relies on the hilarity of farting and other bodily functions, but this show also puts an overweight, not typically beautiful, and somewhat atypical family makeup on the air for millions of Americans to see. Honey Boo Boo, despite its ridiculousness, is a proponent of positive ideas relating to body image, familial love, and acceptance, something that I definitely wouldn’t immediately call “low brow”.
Newcomb begins his essay by relating westerns to his personal experience. He explains how from when he was young whether it was in the movies or on television Westerns was a big part of his childhood. Newcomb explains westerns to have "redefined our sense of nation and citizenship" (289). Westerns were extremely popular when the audience were not educated enough on race issues to understand what was really going on in these films and television shows. However, as the viewers became more aware because of their knowledge of nationality and citizenship the western genre began to dwindle. In this sense, western genres were more complicated than they seem. They are not just about cowboys, but they represent a nation that was important to the viewers, or so they thought. These 'low brow' genres show the nation differently than what they expected and they often portrayed racial issues to the public. This is also where the complications come in especially with the difference between how Newcomb explains these westerns and how Minow explains them as a vast wasteland. Newcomb complicates this vast wasteland by linking westerns to more issues regarding race and gender shown up in television and many other forms of media. It is our knowledge of these issues, not particularly the show itself, that is changing. We are becoming more aware of these issues, which complicates the show and makes us question what we are watching. I agree that westerns can be more complicated than they seem because “the genre and the programs became arenas for cultural conflict made visible” (302).
ReplyDeleteI think the previous two posts have done a great job of explaining how Newcomb presents the western as a genre that is more complex than it seems. I’d just like to add that Newcomb details that the western is often a study of “‘personality under stress’” that we see from the examples he writes about in the essay (290). In the first one, Newcomb details an episode of Trackdown that details the struggle of an Asian man who is being ridiculed by a local gang. Gilman, the local sheriff, warns the Asian man (who has purchased a pistol) that “‘a gun is violence’” and that “‘it’s hard to tell what a man’s going to do if he’s pushed hard enough’” (298). From the way the episode references racial tensions in America and to the way the discussion on guns and violence introspectively looks at the violence and dangers of the world the characters live in, Newcomb argues and we can see that the western genre is definitely more complicated than we are led to believe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Newcomb that typical “low brow” genres can be more complicated than they appear. Previous posts have pointed to reality television as a typical low brow genre that we can dissect to view more complexities and, while I do not disagree, I’d like to point out that cartoons fit this description as well. As a genre, cartoons are often designated by the public for children and nerd/fringe communities. There’s a certain stigma that people associate with watching cartoons that marks somebody as childish and immature. I, for one, have seen some of the most scathing political and social commentaries in animated shows such as Futurama, but if you’d like to argue that Futurama and shows like it (i.e. Simpsons, American Dad, Family, etc.) are targeted and watched by viewers who are not demographically children or nerds and do not prove my argument, the same can still be said of cartoons targeted at kids like Spongebob Squarepants and Adventure Time. If you are critically looking at these shows, you will see that the themes they discuss (for example: empathy, loyalty, friendship, corporate greed, etc.) are things that are very applicable to society today and not just something to dismiss as simply “for kids.”