Given the seeming disagreement between Newcomb & Hirsch and Gitlin on whether TV
provides a genuine space for discussion and opposition, I began thinking about which types
of programs include more discussion and which include more hegemonic thought. I found myself
questioning prestige/quality TV the most, since the often controversial and immoral characters
on shows like The Sopranos hardly represent an ideal citizen. And yet, we are made to sympathize
with them almost constantly. How do we read this ambivalence, as an opportunity to question our
own moral standings in the world or as a cathartic warning against doing these immoral acts in real life?
provides a genuine space for discussion and opposition, I began thinking about which types
of programs include more discussion and which include more hegemonic thought. I found myself
questioning prestige/quality TV the most, since the often controversial and immoral characters
on shows like The Sopranos hardly represent an ideal citizen. And yet, we are made to sympathize
with them almost constantly. How do we read this ambivalence, as an opportunity to question our
own moral standings in the world or as a cathartic warning against doing these immoral acts in real life?
Newcomb & Hirsch’s analysis of “Betty, Girl Engineer” also includes a sense of ambivalence, as they
argue that the problematic ending does not erase or undo Betty’s initial empowerment. Here, I think
valence is rather important, since Betty’s generally positive desire to become an engineer is different
from Tony Soprano’s generally negative act of bashing someone’s head in. While Newcomb and
Hirsch’s analysis is not entirely generalizable here, Tony’s actions do present a kind of rupture that
allows for discussion and potentially even the formulation of public opinion. In making sympathetic
a traditionally unsympathetic mobster, the audience is presumably disgusted at their own alignments,
which would then, ideally, lead to a questioning of dominant ideological values that would make him
unsympathetic. Put more simply, if I do indeed like Tony Soprano, then what is it about my regular
system of values that tells me that this is wrong?
argue that the problematic ending does not erase or undo Betty’s initial empowerment. Here, I think
valence is rather important, since Betty’s generally positive desire to become an engineer is different
from Tony Soprano’s generally negative act of bashing someone’s head in. While Newcomb and
Hirsch’s analysis is not entirely generalizable here, Tony’s actions do present a kind of rupture that
allows for discussion and potentially even the formulation of public opinion. In making sympathetic
a traditionally unsympathetic mobster, the audience is presumably disgusted at their own alignments,
which would then, ideally, lead to a questioning of dominant ideological values that would make him
unsympathetic. Put more simply, if I do indeed like Tony Soprano, then what is it about my regular
system of values that tells me that this is wrong?
At the same time, however, Tony could easily be a case of domesticating opposition. His
likeable-ness (at least, for me) comes from his domesticity, his regular life that works in conjunction
with his mob life. It is as if his banal marital problems with Camilla makes his outrageous criminal
acts easier to understand. Likewise, his criminal acts are filtered through his family issues, which
everyone presumably has and can therefore relate to. The show literally domesticates opposition,
distilling the mob life into an acceptable and understandable form. The show creates an illusion of
opposition (in the form of criminality) only to reinforce the traditional structures of nuclear and extended
families. Put simply, there is no escaping from the hegemonic family; in fact, in leaving the law and
order of regular life, a mobster is even more embroiled in the values he might have thought he was
leaving behind.
likeable-ness (at least, for me) comes from his domesticity, his regular life that works in conjunction
with his mob life. It is as if his banal marital problems with Camilla makes his outrageous criminal
acts easier to understand. Likewise, his criminal acts are filtered through his family issues, which
everyone presumably has and can therefore relate to. The show literally domesticates opposition,
distilling the mob life into an acceptable and understandable form. The show creates an illusion of
opposition (in the form of criminality) only to reinforce the traditional structures of nuclear and extended
families. Put simply, there is no escaping from the hegemonic family; in fact, in leaving the law and
order of regular life, a mobster is even more embroiled in the values he might have thought he was
leaving behind.
Overall, my readings of The Sopranos seem to have left me no more in agreement with either
arguments. The two readings have, however, made me realize that one of the main reasons for
my love of prestige TV is this sense of discussion and opposition, however false it might be.
While the news might engage in a rhetoric of top-down instruction, prestige TV engages in the
rhetoric of ambivalence and doubt.
arguments. The two readings have, however, made me realize that one of the main reasons for
my love of prestige TV is this sense of discussion and opposition, however false it might be.
While the news might engage in a rhetoric of top-down instruction, prestige TV engages in the
rhetoric of ambivalence and doubt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn one of my undergrad classes on Italian gangster films, we discussed The Sopranos in the light of films with the same theme such as The Godfather. There are more portrayals of Tony's domestic life than those of characters in gangster films, which can be seen as television-specific. The effect is said to make his supposedly immoral acts seem more acceptable. Yet we also have mixed feelings toward characters in gangster films even if their domestic life is rarely portrayed. Usually we wouldn't define mob members in films like The Godfather trilogy as villains; the audience expresses sympathy and even admiration. So I wonder whether it is a question about genre or the difference between tv and film (a tv-specific question or a genre-specific question?)
ReplyDeleteRobert Warshow's essay, "The Gangster as Tragic Hero" might give us something of an answer as to why we love Tony Soprano. He writes, "No convention of the gangster film is more strongly established than this: it is dangerous to be alone, for success is always the establishment of an 'individual' pre-eminence that must be imposed on others, in whom it automatically arouses hatred; the successful man is an outlaw. The gangster's whole life is an effort to assert himself as an individual, to draw himself out of the crowd, and he always dies 'because' he is an individual; the final bullet thrusts him back, makes him, after all, a failure".
ReplyDeleteWhile Warshow notes the life of the gangster is inextricably linked to the city (and he's talking film, not TV), his central claim is that the gangster is nonetheless universal, more so than the cowboy in a Western or an astronaut in a sci-fi film. "The gangster film comes much closer. In ways that we do not easily or willingly define, the gangster speaks for us, expressing that part of the American psyche which rejects the qualities and the demands of modern life, which rejects 'Americanism' itself." The Sopranos locates, and literally domesticates these concerns in residential New Jersey — not quite a city proper. While racketeering, arson, fraud, and "waste management" might give us vicarious thrills, it's more likely that discussions of cultural import center around suburban ennui, generational schisms, raising two very different children, and touring colleges in Maine. When The Sopranos aired, it was appointment television (I remember my parents sent my to bed strictly on Sunday nights). Understandably, this recognition on the part of the producers likely informed some of their further dabbling in familial melodrama.