Core Response #4

In her essay, “Television While You Wait,” Anna McCarthy explores the abundance of Televisions (screens) that plague our communities. Screens appear in waiting rooms–specifically in hospital waiting rooms, car service waiting rooms, dentist’s offices, airports, and so on. Do we notice them? Do they make our waiting times easier? Less stressful? If we are watching and consuming a narrative, then are we still waiting?

            Anna McCarthy notes that dentists have reported that patients have stated that their procedures unfold quicker if they are distracted by watching a movie. The article claims that numerous doctors have discovered how to turn the TV into a marketing tool. One that makes their patients feel distracted. With this opportunity to grab the patient’s attention, dentists have learned how to commodify waiting. For example, one doctor placed advertisements of himself on laserdisc and then screened these ads in the lobby of his practice. This commodification of waiting is nothing new. In this short response, I would like to argue that movie trailers in movie theaters act as a form of TV–they are short lived advertisements that form a flow of commercials that is a part of the movie going experience. In this way, the trailers segue into the film. This is commonplace.

            Trailers for upcoming films are a part of the process for waiting for the feature film. The ritual of arriving at the movie theater, waiting in line at the concession stand before the movie has begun has not changed. Posters for the upcoming films plague the theater house. Now there are screens in the movie theater lobbies playing trailers. Now there are LCD screens displaying high resolution movie posters–inside and outside of the cineplex. There is no need to replace the paper 27x36 movie poster when a new movie is released. This is better for the environment and allows the poster industry to stay current, within seconds the poster (or what may now have to be called a graphic) can change.

            Trailers are short commercials that are meant to not look like commercials. They are designed to be short segments that showcase the plot of the film by using footage of the picture without spoiling the movie. As the moviegoers wait for the main attraction, the lights in the theater are not fully dimmed. The theater’s (e.g. Regal, Cinemark) graphic or short clip stating their watching policies: phones must be tucked away in one’s purse or pockets, does not precede the trailers. The trailers are meant for people to discuss what films they want to see next. E.g. “oh, that film looks good, let’s see that one” [father to daughter].

            In the theater we are stuck waiting for a film, but in reality, we are sucked into an endless vision of flow. From trailer to trailer, to main attraction and back again. We are waiting for the film we have paid to see. But watching the trailers and selecting the films we hope to see when they come out translates to: we are still waiting for the upcoming attraction, we are still waiting even when we leave the theater. We are excited for the film that we pointed out to our family member during the trailers. That is the new film that we are waiting for. And when we see that new film, a new trailer will spark our interest. We will wait to see that one.

            Anna McCarthy is correct. We never enjoy the entertainment. Instead we are waiting for the next entertainment. Locked in a redundancy of waiting. David Foster Wallace figured this out in his 1996 novel, Infinite Jest. Himself or Dr. Incandenza directed “The Entertainment,” and once someone watches it, they are hooked for life. They are entranced, they cannot look away from Incandenza’s film. This is what TV is. This is what life is. Waiting.