I’m compelled by several aspects
of Caldwell’s stab at a “critical industrial studies” version of television’s post-convergence
forms. His scrutiny the ubiquitous term “content” to refer to media texts; the expansion
of traditional textual analysis to account also for the industry ‘at large’;
his granular look at the many ways in which production cultures affect televisual
texts; Caldwell incorporates all of this and more in this chapter informed by
what he refers to in passing as a Geertzian method. And it’s this invocation of
anthropology that most interests me. Geertz is perhaps most well known for his
contributions to interpretive anthropology and its emphasis on thick description,
a particularly fine-grained mode of ethnography. Caldwell’s piece is clearly neither
ethnography nor thick description – but it does suggest how such approaches might
be put to work in media studies.
This is most apparent in his (stellar,
stimulating) discussion of specific aspects of the production process such as pitching
and writers’ rooms. His discussion is compressed and cursory, distilling
information gleaned from trade journals and tabloids into astute insights about
the terms in which aesthetic decision-making gets done in a producorial capacity.
The potential for an ethnographically richer appraisal of TV’s producer function
is clear. Even in the compressed form of analysis that Caldwell offers, a
number of refreshing gains are made towards the project of linking analysis of televisual
form in actual “communities and cultures of production.” His discussion of pitching
establishes the authorial function of producing that has so often been neglected.
Anyone who was worked, however tangentially, in film/TV production knows that
texts are made long before the first frame has been filmed. A continuous stream
of discourse – in the form of script coverage, pitch meetings, the back and
forth of drafts and rewrites – inserts the producer into the text, bestowing on
them an authorial function, even though the trace of their presence will go unmarked
in the final text that airs. Cultures of production, as Caldwell brilliantly
notes, are not incidental to TV form; they are basic to it.
Your comment made me rethink about the potentiality and usefulness of the updated conception of authorship in film and media studies. Thinking about the specific production cultures helps us to reconsider the dynamism of the cultural creation process, as well as shed light on understated creators, including the context of female authorship considering the limited participation of women as filmmakers or media creators.
ReplyDelete