Foreign tube watching

I admit that I enjoy watching foreign television. The reason is not that it has better or different programs than my local one.  In fact, the format of most television shows worldwide is fairly similar both due to the universality of human nature and tendency to copycat successful programs and of equally poor quality. For that matter, I don’t even have to fully understand the language to enjoy the television as any child can tell you. In my countries, I could guess, often successfully, the meaning of many words.  For example, Russian is very helpful in understanding Polish while Italian is a cousin of Spanish. By contrast, in China, I understood absolutely nothing and was mesmerized by the tube.

First of all, I enjoy the tone of the speech, which reflects the nature of the language and people as well as the agenda of the television stations. For example, most characters in English tend to speak quietly and even respectfully. At the same time, they often are mocking the same institutions and customs they are respecting.  This is a nice contrast to the argumentative and loud nature of Israeli television. Chinese television is owned by the government and is therefore very nationalistic and proud. Aside from great military victories and impressive scientific and economic achievements, they also proudly present many shots of Chinese food production and preparation, always in a loud fashion (to my ears).  Thus, I was able to see parts of China that I would and will never visit in person. Not having lived in the United States for some 30 years now, the TV in the United States is interesting in terms of how the language and emphasis has changed. I can see by the words and message that America is much more critical and direct than it used to be.

The national differences are also reflected in the local version of internationalized programs.  The French version of Master Chef focuses on the artistry of the food while the Israeli program focuses on the past and present personal situation of the participants. The tone of the original Japanese Iron Chef is straight out of the classic Samurai Movies while the American one resembled sports broadcasting. In the Israeli The Voice, exotic is expressed by an ultra-orthodox singing rock while in China strangeness was represented by a black Chinese-African singing Frank Sinatra in English (and singing it well, it should be noted). I would not say “lost in translation” but instead “localized in translation”.

Finally, the aspect of foreign television I enjoy most is the commercials. Ads reflect the 

concerns and psychology of the people.  For example, based on the frequency of the ads on UK television, the Baby Boom generation is very concerned about paying for funerals while those in their twenties are having a hard time getting accepted for a credit card. French commercials focus on food, health and losing weight, no surprise. Apparently, death and credit are of no concern. Americans appear to be hypochondriac as every third commercial (or so) sells some drug, faithfully and rapidly reading through the long list of potential side effects and ultimately encouraging people to consult their doctor, of course.

So, while I am not a big fan of spending much time in hotel rooms when I travel, circumstances sometime lead to dead time, which I profit from by watching TV. I am amused, surprised, educated and even entertained by programs whose words I barely or do not understand at all as I learn about the culture, psychology and concerns of that place. In short, foreign television is much more interesting and educational than my local local one, just like the proverbial lawn.

Bunker living?

Watching TV today is a bewildering experience.  With the formal choice of hundreds of channels and programs in multiple languages, both new series and reruns, recorded versions of missed programs and multiple means of viewing them, from 88” television screens to tiny telephones, deciding what to watch on a given evening can be a daunting decision. It almost is too much for a person tired from a long day of work and simply desiring to switch off the brain.

On a collective scale, aside from a few events, such as the Super Bowl or Academy Awards ceremony, it is impossible to guess what a coworker or friends watched the previous night.  It literally could be anything. The viewing experience has become extremely personal.  Before I can share my experience, I have to inquire what the other person’s choice was.

I remember of the days of limited choice, 1960’s and 1970’s. The United States had 3 channels (CBS, NBC and ABC), not including the rerun channels, which did not count. Israel had one while France had two. Cable and Internet streaming did not exist. The only alternative to TV was radio, not exactly a visual experience, and movie theatres, which required getting dressed and leaving the house.

While certainly lacking today’s choice and abundance of program options, the TV of yesteryear had a bit of a unifying effect.  Everybody knew who killed JR. In Israel, no weddings were scheduled on Sunday or Thursday night because of Dallas and Maccabi Tel Aviv European basketball games. Colleagues could begin a conversation by mentioning their impression of the last MASH with reasonable certainty that the other person had seen it.  A life basketball or baseball game (Saturday morning, PST) on TV was special. TV was not gourmet but most people shared the same taste, albeit not by choice.

It is not my intention to want to regress to the age of limited choice. I enjoy today’s luxury of being able to watch all 162 games of my beloved Pirates (although I am not that masochistic to actually do so). I would even argue that nothing has really changed in terms of content.  The Gershwin song was and still is relevant: we got plenty of nothing.  Yet, with this blossoming of media forms, society has lost of a bit of its cohesiveness, a shared experience linking young and old, rich and poor.  We did really care to know who killed JR, even in today most of us can no longer remember. In a certain sense, to quote Archie Bunker, “those were the days.”

Detective perspective – Ironside vs. Gibbs

Television provides a perspective of society, granted a circus-mirror one with some distortion. Viewing reruns of the 1960’s (1967-1975) detective series Ironside brought into focus how much society had changed in 50 years, especially in the background of a modern equivalent, NCIS.  Both series featured gruff crime-solving top police officers but working in completely different worlds.

The visual difference is the world around them. Ironside’s San Francisco has no Japanese or European cars or any vehicle smaller than a small yacht or more aerodynamic than a box. Apparently, the traffic and parking situation in SF was much better than as he has no problem finding a parking spot for his van, which resembles a Brinks armored vehicle. As for the clothes, no show is complete without one set of psychedelic colored garments just to remind us that hippies existing in the 1960’s. Curiously, there is almost no mention of the Bay Area gay community. Apparently, this was a bit risqué then

The social interactions reflect a major shift in the status quo.  Ironside has quite a different rapport with his assistants than Gibbs with his chief aides. Politically correct has definitely changed over more than half a decade. Gibbs may be direct and blunt in his critique of his team but it is directed at their work. He certainly does not question their genetic background and is even supportive of women in his own way. By contrast, Ironside is downright abusive to his female and black assistants. At least once an episode, he remarks that if she stops being so female, she should might make a good cop. Today most women would not put up with such verbal abuse and sue the department.  Even worse, Ironside treats Mark, his personal aide, not much better than a slave, feeling free to wake him up any time and constantly questioning his intelligence.  Mark in return often expresses resentment but for some reason does not quit the job or tell Ironside what a jerk he is. In the 1960’s, apparently, female and black officers still had to prove themselves and were willing to accept such abuse, at least in TV land.  What is more disturbing in a way is that, as a kid, I didn’t find this dialogue offensive. Audiences have changed also.

In terms of police work, the series are a world apart. In NCIS, McGee and DiNozzo have instantaneous access to all sources of information due to the computer while the lab can supposedly identify traces of anything. Alas, Ironside and his team had to use their feet (and chair) and head. They had to physically get all information and figure out whodunit on the basis of motive only without any micro tools. Life was much slower but much simpler too in TV crime. The criminals themselves in Ironside’s day were much less likely to call for lawyers or be involved in organized crime.  Ironside also felt much safer as AK-47’s were not typical tools of the criminal trade.

The world has truly changed since Raymond Burr was replaced by Mark Harmon. In terms of race relations and social tolerance, it has become better. On the other hand, TV land criminals were much less of a public threat in the days before Ben Laden and friends. I am looking forward to seeing detective shows 40 years from now.  What will there be, robots?