Quality vs. Relevance?
From your viewings of All in the Family, Good Times, Maude 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?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lentz, Norman Lear's shows All in the Family, Good Times and Maude could all be considered "relevant" television shows as they essentially responded to the social and political sphere of the 1970s. MTM on the other hand was considered a "quality" television show as it ultimately promised to advance the text aesthetically. MTM focused mainly on feminism and improving the image of womanhood through well developed character interactions, i.e., Mary's job at WJM-TV, portrayed her as an independent, hard working single woman as she successfully managed her job among her many other co-workers consisting mostly of men. Norman Lear's three shows brought up tough topics of gender, race and ethnicity, i.e., in Good Times, when the Evans family was struggling to pay their rent, the youngest son Michael jokes about a white man always having a dollar. I honestly find the whole "quality" vs. "relevance" argument a bit misleading as I believe that all four of these television shows qualify as both relevant and quality shows. I guess Lentz ultimately believes that race was a little more relevant in the 1970s as the country had just gone though the Civil Rights Movement, while women were fighting for equal rights since the 1920s and even earlier. All in all, I find it hard to differentiate between "quality" and "relevance" as the meaning of both words are so similar to one another.
ReplyDeleteWhile all these shows could be considered relevant based on topic, it’s important to note the Lentz’s conceptual theory behind the terms “relevant” and “quality”. Relevant doesn’t mean the themes of shows were based on what was more important during the 1970’s but a pushed term that was closely associated with college students in the 60’s demanding for schools to make changes by increasing minority students as well as creating curriculum that reflected their interest as well i.e. Women Studies and African American Studies came about. It’s a discourse about representation itself and in response Lear’s sitcoms offered content that interested CBS to feed into the era of “relevant” (mostly to boost ratings to not much surprise) and recreate a mission statement surrounding it.
ReplyDeleteLear’s show All in The Family and Good Time’s was considered relevant because it was associated with undervalued terms such as cheap, videotape, illiterate, obvious, satirical, and alienating. These shows in contrast with Mary Tyler Moore Show were seen as to be visually muddy, dirtier, flat and two dimensional, and extraordinarily staged i.e. the high-key lighting tended to washed over everything. In addition to the aesthetics of the content the shows contained content that was considered “real”; not necessarily moral or polite, a reality that was allowed to shock and audience, and shows that were mostly seen to introduce race relations and discuss further in depth. Archie’s character in All in the Family frequently made comments surrounding not only his whiteness but fought to establish his own differences of other identities surrounding him. Good Time’s a spin off of Maude reminded the audience of the differences of adversities that a poor black family living in the projects faces compared to those of the privileged whites around them. M
TM’s The Mary Tyler Moore Show was the complete opposite and took the racially neutral approach and instead focused on the new dynamics of an modern womanhood. The show offered illusions of natural light, mise-en-scene of bourgeois, and was a more tidy environment. MTM was considered more noble, more ethical, and more intelligent than Lear’s shows. The content was less shocking, civilized, held with higher regard when covering sexual modesty. This was the image of MTM and therefore deem as quality content. I believe Maude can be arguably both but leans more to quality; Lentz’s reads Maude as a feminist who attempts to be sensitive to her racial privilege as a white woman. The screening that we watched in class was evident of this.
From the viewings and the readings of Lentz’s essay, I think Norman Lear’s shows differed from MTM’s in terms of the category it belongs to. Lear’s All the Family, Good Time and Maude is considered more a “relevant” shows since it’s more responsive to social and political milieu in the 1970s. It helps to engage viewers in different manners in terms of the topic it touches on such as abortion, race, poverty, etc. It’s more relatable to people because of the representational realism that it embodies. It aims to create a spectacular effect to the audience in terms of its realism.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to them is the MTM’s show, it’s more regarded as a “quality” show since it relates more with feminism issue. The main characters are women and the love affair, the relationships issue is all in direct relation to womanhood and gender politics. In terms of the aesthetics, the MTM’s show have higher quality in the camera operations and mis-em-scene. The stage is quite stable and the camera movement between different shots are smoother compared with the Lear’s show. The color of the film is saturated and lighting is soft too.
Lentz see these productions as differing since they reveal the production of an opposition between the representation of gender and race politics on television.
I believe that both Norman Lear’s and MTM’s shows could be considered relevant because of the specific topics they both displayed. Norman Lear’s Maude, Good Times, and All in the Family were centered on topics dealing with class, race, and other problems that were mirrored in real life. However, each of their approaches were different. In terms of setting, each were different. Maude’s household was always tidy, bright lights, and the characters were able to move around to other settings. The characters live a comfortable lifestyle. In both All in the Family and Good Times (Maude spinoff), the characters were only shown in either one or two locations throughout the episode. Unlike its predecessor, The Evans Family in Good Times were shown not having a nice lifestyle and resorted to go on welfare when they faced money problems. MTM’s The Mary Tyler Moore Show focuses on a woman who works in a male dominated field. Race problems were not addressed at all.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lentz’s piece, she defines “quality” television in relation to the representation of gender and “relevant” television to problems that were happening in real life (i.e. race and college students wanting more minorities to enroll in colleges).
Lentz argues that the difference between MTM and Norman Lear’s productions involved critical analysis of thematics and the medium of television itself. Commentary on the difference was discussed as “quality” vs “relevance”. To him and critiques of the 1970s, “Quality” programming by MTM offered an improvement in the quality of the production itself with focuses on formal elements yet also feminine themes. “Relevance” programming, like our three screenings this week, dealt thematically with the problems and passions of the times, meaning racial and political discussions. The problem with these distinctions is that this narrows the genre of each show to only a set of characteristics. Maude, as a “relevant” show, dealt with abortion and how its legality meant cultural changes in America. However, it also portrays a female-dominated cast with strong feminist overtone. The idea of each production only fitting into one category is too narrow-minded, especially considering how 1970s sitcoms began to experiment with all sorts of family combinations. To Lentz’s credit, MTM’s “quality” programming did see an upgrade from a production standpoint, but the themes of both sides converged and intertwined as the culture of the 1970s shifted. Female leads, issues of race, political debates: these were included in many shows, and to distinguish a singular company or producer as only having one underlying theme discredits the forward thinking that each side was attempting to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteComing back to this, I want to still express that Lear's sitcoms were still very "old" in terms of visuals, and so this distinction in quality makes sense. But in terms of relevant themes, femininity is discussed on each side.
DeleteLentz describes shows that are quality as shows dealing with feminism and femininity. In addition to the content of the shows, they were also thought to have a better overall production quality and be visually pleasing to the eye. This meant that there was stronger writing that involved thorough character development, as well as pleasing aesthetics, meaning brighter colors, better lighting, and increase in camera angles and movement. Lentz then describes relevant shows as shows dealing with relevant issues. Instead of painting the perfect, picturesque family, these shows deconstructed what the American family consisted of. Quality show sought out to deal with real life, depicting problems in marriages, struggles with alcoholism, and civil rights issues (focusing mainly on race and race relations).
ReplyDeleteNorman Leer’s shows were considered relevant in comparison to Mary Tyler Moore (MTM) shows as the the production levels differed heavily different. Leer’s shows look as though a lens of dirty is fixed on the camera. The colors are muted when contrasted with MTM, as Leer’s television scape seems to be made from doom and gloom. In addition, the characters are not well developed. Both Archie and Maude are stereotypes created to make fun of conservative and liberal archetypes. Their characters never evolve or change, staying stagnant throughout their shows. They are not supposed to evolve, as each show’s premise is based off of its main character’s quirks and personality traits, requiring the character’s to be two dimensional and typical. Additionally, Leer focused on topics like abortion and redlining (redistricting based on “socioeconomic” reasons [race]), making the content of his shows relevant to the current social climate
The main difference between the two lies in the relevance of the topic within the social realm. For example, shows that depict that norm, that is the typical familial paradigm that shows a patriarch, a homemaker wife, and other additions to the nuclear family. A show that would depict this type of living would be characterized as "relevant," in that its subject matter to conducive to the current state of society and suburban culture that can be found in shows like Maude and Good Times. "Quality" on the other hand can be seen as a subgenre of television in that it departs from the normal paradigms of gender roles. In this case, MTM not establishes female agency within a recognized patriarchal society, but also complements it with male complacency and female prowess in the home. The "Quality" factor here seems to refer to the beginning of a shrinking gender gap within the social and domestic realms. And what better way to project that message than through the mass consumed television?
ReplyDelete