Quite Interesting

The Post Modern Game Show

I have been told that there are two types of people in this world: those who know everything about one subject, and those who know a little about every subject. In a post-modern world, both of these kinds of knowledge are not enough to understand what is real and what is not. What I mean by this is the real is what we see as authoritative and what we see as necessary to learn how to govern society. That which is not real is seen as a facade to make it appear valuable next to knowledge. One manner in which we show that this façade of knowledge is in society is through television game shows. In this information age, gathering knowledge even from our daily past time shows our fascination for the facts; however, even game shows have advanced beyond the question and answer form. The authorities of game shows are no longer the producers and the game show hosts’; however, they are now the audience and the interaction they have with the show.
Previously, shows like Jeopardy and The Price is Right were the highest ranking in game shows. Today comedy turns these prizewinners into information-packed, phony quiz shows. Previously, game shows in a modern world had one main point of interest: points leading to money. Today’s game shows are still run by points, but in the end there is no money. In fact, the illusion of points awarded and taken away becomes a joke itself. In reality, having popular comedians as guests makes the show more interesting than having a “nobody” answer. An example of this post-modern quiz show is a BBC program called “Quite Interesting.” The host is England’s well renowned actor, Stephen Fry. The panels of contestants on the show are all comedians and always include the actor and comedian Alan Davies as the “idiot.” In contrast to “Quite Interesting,” Jeopardy’s only celebrity is the host, Alex Trebek, and the contestants are only common people.
Jeopardy opens with an announcer’s introduction of each of the contestants, stating their professions and if they are a returning guest. The audience applauds them, and everyone, including the contests, applauds as Alex comes from behind the colorful set. We see the camera swoop the stage as if someone grand has taken place at the front podium- this establishes Alex as the authority. Alex greets the audience and begins by either acknowledging the life stories of each contestant or notes that there is a returning guest. The returning guest has his or her winnings from the previous show flashed across the screen while the announcer proclaims the amount proudly. As you settle into this straightforward approach, you have a sense that this is a serious television show filled with knowledge and information. Something as simple as format of the show can change it’s appeal and audience completely. The serious tone of Jeopardy has an older age range and group that is interesting in knowing a little of everything. In opposition, “Quite Interesting” takes on a different tonality.
As QI (Quite Interesting) opens, you are welcomed by Stephen Fry in a Q shaped desk surrounded by two giant TV screens, colorful lighting, and the audience clapping. These signs are the usual signals of a television game show. However, you notice a few different ways the show is formatted verses Jeopardy. As the camera swoops in, it doesn’t show you the host as the important feature. Instead the audience itself is included as the main frame before the host or his comedic guests are focused on. The host and panelists are not applauding along with the audience and instead they are talking amongst each other. This disconnection of the audience from the panelists shows a different kind of authority and a different attitude all together from the seriousness of Jeopardy. QI is public broadcasting like Jeopardy, but it acts in favor of a younger crowd. The familiarity the viewer receives as you swoop through the audience invites you to come sit and listen to a group of friendly people chat amongst each other.
Stephen starts out the show with an introduction of what the particular episode is about (in this case, since it is Series F, it is about The Future) and continues to introduce the panel of comedians. At this point, if you have watched the show before, they only change the panel to a very few, select comedians in order to keep the show familiar; however, you will notice that the selection of comedians are not from a highly educated group. These comedians are from televisions shows that are meant for the younger crowd and those who go to comedy clubs. You know now this show is not for the kind of people who are interested in information, but those who want to be entertained by knowledge. This is the postmodern way of gaining knowledge – understanding everything through the new medias we have and the old forms of entertainment.
Following the introductions, each of the four comedians are assigned a buzzer with a particular, and funny sound relating to the theme – in this case The Twighlight Zone, the original Star Trek intro, the new Doctor Who intro, and finally, for Allen Davies, the Frank Sinatra song: Let’s Face The Music. Not only are the buzzers themed but Stephen and his guest comedians have a bricolage tied to them. They all wear a sash that connects you back to Star Trek and any previous sci-fi movies. This small but significant form of symbolism also signs to the audience that this show is meant form a particular generation.
As the questions begin, you notice the usual signs of a game show appear: the stack of cards in front of the host, the alarms going off as the contestant gets the question wrong, and the correct answers award with points. However, this game show in some ways becomes quite interesting compared to the old days of Jeopardy. First of all, when the questions are asked, the audience themselves are encouraged to answer as well as the contestants. The comedians try not to answer the question with any seriousness; instead, they attempt to make the answer even more outrageous and ask for worthless points anyways. By the time the first question is finally answered, the audience is roaring with laughter and you have learned more about the personal life stories of these comedians than the actual answer.
For Jeopardy, the money is the whole point of the game. If there was no form of prize money given out at the end of each show, there most likely would be no contestants. The rank of authority is determined by who has the most money in that particular moment of the show. The returning guest always has the first question choice from the board in Jeopardy. The answer also must be given in the form of a question such as “Who is Jim Morrison. This tone of voice shows a lesser authority over Alex who has the most leniencies when speaking to the audience and the contestants. This versus QI in which the more witty or interesting an answer, even if it is in fact wrong, will gain more points that the obvious or correct answer.
The wit and skill of the comedian proves more important than the points won throughout the game show; however, you gain so much more interest and information from this half an hour fake game show than a Q and A of Jeopardy. How could this be happening? The answer is simple: the interaction between host, guest, and audience has become more personal. This new form of game show is a mixture of comedians’ knowledge of interaction with the audience and forms of improv that have proven successful. The new quiz show has compiled the enjoyment of real life stories with interesting facts to create a new realm of knowledge.
As the show progresses, one of the comedians, Ben Miller, shows actual knowledge of how scientists are currently working with mass. Instead of letting him share his knowledge the other comedians act bored and mock him for his knowledge. Not only do they mock him, the audience laughs as Ben tries to redeem himself for being informative. In order to gain attention of the audience and the comedians back to his list of questions, Stephen Fry uses his wit to mock both Ben and the other comedians with the information given. In Jeopardy, none of the contestants are allowed to speak any further than their answers. If they produce an incorrect answer, they are punished by having money taken away instead of encouraged to explain their answer.
What makes QI a more valuable show is the information. Stephen not only gives out facts about the questions he asks, but also the ideas brought about by the comedians. For example, the question of “When were the first time capsules invented” is answered with the 1940s, Stephen refers to the Guinness Book of World Records. He then states that this is not only a time capsule but also an entire room meant to be open in 8113. The comedians are encouraged to ask questions about why this date is so specific and guess what is the reasoning. Once they have guessed, Stephen continues about what exactly is in the room. This is a more intriguing and satisfying view of what a time capsule is as opposed to a simple Q and A format on Jeopardy. What makes it even most fascinating is how the comedians use analogies in order to further the interest in the subject.
As the comedians continue their own conversations on science and astronomy, the point of astrology being “rubbish” is mentioned. At this point of the show, Stephen fry turns to the camera and states clearly “…anyone who believes in Astrology and is currently watching, is banned from watching QI.” This interaction with Stephen to the public pushes the boundaries of Jürgen Habermas’ public sphere. This public sphere is “…a space where citizens come together to debate and discuss the pressing issues of society” (definitions). As a sense of authority, Stephen allows the audience to overtake the next moment with applause and whistling. In Jeopardy, the only interactions that the cameras, or the viewers in front of the televisions, have are at the beginning and end of the show. This includes the contestants saying hello, Alex saying hello, and Alex saying goodnight to the camera. Stephen Fry welcomes you at the beginning and says goodbye to you at the end, but with a tonality of cheerfulness and with a silly quote to add some good humor.
While the audience dies down, Ben interjects Stephen’s next question with his knowledge of time travel. Instead of turning him into a pawn for a joke, Stephen comments on how his statements are valid and in fact should be applauded for “…being someone who is worth having on this show.” The irony of coarse being that the main point of being on Quite Interesting is to have a laugh about information instead of relaying back to the Q and A status. This reminder of a game show makes us question what will happen next and hints to us that this show might not be purely for our entertainment.
The only friendly atmosphere that Jeopardy portrays throughout the entire show is when Alex has an interview with each of the contestants. This may seem similar to QI’s friendly attitude, however, the contestants do not interact with each other, and they only discuss themselves with Alex. This one on one time is no more than a continuation of Q and A time for Alex. However, it is for the audience’s viewing pleasure to know the individuals- this is merely touching base with the post-modern ideal of a game show. So how do we tell at this point what is the real and what is the façade?
The final round of Quite Interesting is called “General Ignorance” and focuses mainly on Alan Davies’ answers. In a sense, you could call Alan the ignorant mass society. His answers are considered common knowledge and in fact entirely wrong. His reference is mainly the Internet, and his answers are given in short and simple comments with his personal stories being his main discussions. This is how we know the façade is showing itself. Alan is put on QI in order to represent those who are modern and have not made the jump into the post-modern world. Instead of asking more questions about questions, he is determined to know the straightforward answers that Wikipedia has given him. Although he tries desperately to prove Stephen wrong, his attempts are futile. However, the audience feels for Alan and the blows he receives from Stephen are softened.
As QI ends, Stephen gives out the points and the audience applauds. What’s quite interesting about this section is what the points actually are. If you watch the show only for the points given out, you cannot discern whether the point system works or not. First of all, there is no scoreboard like Jeopardy. Second, the points at the end of most QI episodes are in the negative range. And third, the audience has won on the random occasion for guessing an answer correctly. Unlike QI, Jeopardy has a money counter on the front of each of the contestant’s podiums. The fact of the matter for postmodern game shows is that points should in fact not matter. The real calculator for the success of a game show’s contestants is in fact that they have taught the audience something intriguing and useful. This is unapparent in Jeopardy because at the end of the show the contestants all stand together with Alex as if to show they are the importance of the show. At the end of QI, Stephen gives out a witty quote from history to end on a friendly note. You watch as the camera pulls away yet again from a group of people chatting amongst each other. You feel as if you are leaving a group of friends behind.
So, as postmodernism takes over our television shows, we can’t help but note game shows as an exception. The valuable points have been replaced by the viewer’s need to know more. How will we know what new game shows will turn up next? It will be quite interesting to find out.

Numberwang

Comedy’s core has turned into a world of intelligent silliness. A perfect example is the show “That Mitchell and Webb Look” from the BBC. A skit called Numberwang, which is a game show where people call out random numbers, became so popular that they made a history of how the game show came into existence. This “mock-umentary,” as the genre is called, takes a completely fake and nonsensical game show and turns it into a supposedly serious historical lesson. The host is dressed in a suit and talks directly to the camera as it follows him through a dark basement. The host keeps a serious tone while explaining that a man “continually had sex with the number eleven. He still swears to this day that is was sixteen.” The host then continues on about the history of Numberwang and how a mathematician had been the founder.
The show cuts to the mathematician, Bertrand Russell, is also dressed in a refined suit but as soon as he begins to speak you realize that it is complete gibberish. He explains his story of finding out “if it is or it is not Numberwang,” while holding a pipe and sitting on a box next to a leather chair. After babbling on for a few minutes he comes to the conclusion that a “on a desk, I saw a jug. In a flash of inspiration I knew I had solved it. Smashing the jug, lest anyone copy my work. I went across the halls to the room of my very good friend, Liechtenstein. I opened the door and I said to him, quite simply, ‘That’s Numberwang.’ As I remember, he cried.” This personal story turned into an ironic joke shows silliness altered into a moment of brilliance.
The mockery that Numberwang portrays is projected onto the reality of everyday life. After it’s discovery, Numberwang is used in newspapers, like Sudoku, and books are even made explaining the process in order to get “Numberwang.” The rationality of Numberwang is soon developed into a game show in which a robot named Collosum is used to determine “what is numberwang.” The hilarity of the robot is enhanced by the fact it tries to take over the world. In the end, it is noted that a picture of a chicken can only shut down Collosum.
After Collosum reeked havoc on the world, the show Numberwang took hold of television. It’s popularity rose and it began to show in other countries. At the end of the skit, the host makes a witty remark and looks to Collosum for a reply; however, the host finds that Collosum has escaped. Looking frantically through his pictures, the host finds that he has no picture of a chicken. In the end, Collosum takes over and kills both the host and the cameraman.

Lie To Me

How can we tell when someone is lying? The answer is in your face, literally! In the new Fox TV series “Lie To Me”, people’s micro-expressions, or split-second responses, are observed in order to determine if they are being truthful. If we took this show from an everyday viewers standpoint, we would find that this show has more than the simple level of “catching the bad guy.” Now, as an avid watcher of “Lie To Me,” I find that taking apart a simple scenario can take a drastic turn when one piece of evidence is presented.

The show starts with a man peering and leaning into you. You stare into his green eyes as he shows a slight smirk upon his face. As soon as he pulls away from you and begins to speak, you instantly have a sense of his character and that he stands as the dominating figure of the show. This man, Dr. Cal Lightman, sits back in his chair comfortably and casually begins his analysis of a prisoner who has planted a bomb in a black church. The close-up shots you receive of the prisoner are not that of intimidation, but of fear and the signs of nervousness. All of these statements about the show are true; however, how you react and take in the information presented to you is up to you as a viewer. Dr. Cal Lightman can seem intriguing to you with how long he stares at you. Why is he staring at you? Your response and curiosity is quickly cut ff with an answer: the prisoner. The mass of tattoos on the prisoner’s body makes him frightening, but he himself is frightening of Lightman. Lightman’s speaking quickly cuts off the information the show gives you to analyze. Snap judgments about how the show and how characters affect your emotions give you, the viewer, an ultimate choice to keep watching or let the ratings fail. The almost ADD feeling of this show, the constant guessing game on what micro-expressions mean, and the ultimate secrecy of people’s personal lives makes this show an instant hit.

Our culture today is based on not slowing down and a constant stream of information. If we do not receive information in the correct order, we need the time to stop and figure out what is wrong. In the episode Love Always, the South Korean ambassador is worried that he will be assassinated at his son’s wedding. As a viewer, we follow the main characters in finding the gunman at the wedding reception. As the gunshots go off, we are left in the dark about who does the shooting and who actually gets shot. At this moment we are blindsided by lack of information. What are we suppose to do? The viewer always gets the knowledge before the characters. This is when we yet again decide as a viewer if this lack of information is worth our time to see what happens. We are constantly being tested to see if we need the information to feel satisfied, which is why I feel Lie To Me is successful. Like Pavlov’s dog, we have been trained to receive the treat after the bell has been rung. In this case, the gunshot is the bell and the mystery being solved is the food. As a viewer, when we understand what the producer has done to our stream of information, we expect more of the same tricks to happen over time. This is how we know that the show itself is lying to us.

Blow-Up (1966)

The life of an artist has become an estranged world. This routine of

isolation and cutting off art as a social affair is obvious in the move Blow Up. The main character moves through one day hunting for constant self-motivation through the lives of others. Although he is interacting, he responds in a distant, crude manner. Previously, artists were seen as intellectuals that would welcome the idea of sitting at the coffee houses and mingle with the city life; however, this movie shows the step by step movements of an individual only seeking quick answers and critics in order to shorten human contact.

The individual being the main focus, we find his actions and the responses of other as if he is a rock star. Never needing to respond more than he wants, getting the girls, and drinking to his heart’s content, the solitary life is turned into a luxurious freedom from the need to be presentable. This new view of the artistic life brought about a change in how an artist sees him/herself, the work, and their process of working.
One intriguing characteristic of our main character is that we never see him in any other state but tired. We realize that in one day he has taken us multiple journeys, yet never slows down. We are constantly bombarded with simple pieces of information that would only seem to make the viewer tired as well. The feeling of being dragged tirelessly through each scenario with our main character, makes us understand why he sweats when he does, why he constantly needs to change his clothing, and why he leans, sits, and slumps so much. Our character conveys the artist’s life as a constant struggle not only emotionally through his work, but physically how he gets there.
If we did not follow the ups and downs in a single day of this man’s life, we would not comprehend the work that goes into a masterpiece. Before, art galleries would just place the masterpieces in front of us and let us move on- no questions asked. Now, we understand the artist as a storyteller without words. The isolated persona can show who they are without confronting the viewer.

MIDTERM - Beckham and Posh

Beckham and Posh

Denotations

David Beckham and Victoria “Posh” Beckham sit on the hood of a blue muscle car starring in your direction. Both look aware of your presence, but out the two of them, only Victoria is looking is meeting your eyes. Her pose is sturdy yet seductive, leaning her back towards David, but only resting between his legs on the car. She is only wearing what seems to be a mesh black bathing suit with no backing. She shows off her tattoo on her upper back while hiding her breast partially with her right arm. The right hand rests on her naked hip, which is tilted upwards slightly and away from you. Her hair is obviously bleached blonde, her skin is slightly tan, and her eyes have a tired look from the dark mascara and eye shadow. Her look, although slightly scornful, is softened by her pouty lips, which are slightly open.
David looks off slightly to the left of the viewer and has a slouched pose with his left arm behind Victoria. He still shows off his muscular, tattooed arm right arm to the viewer and slightly flexes it to prop himself forward. The tattoo on his arm is not of anything dangerous, but of an angel in the clouds. David’s only attire on this magazine cover is a pair of gold chains, dangling at his pecks, and wearing a pair of rugged blue jeans. Even though his body is leaning towards Victoria, David’s head stays propped up and turned towards the viewer. This posture shows that even in his relaxed state with his wife, he is still ready to fight. His look is slightly off from the viewer; however, his brow is down, denoting anger but not rage, while his lips stay firmly pressed together.

Denoted Text

The W (name of the magazine) is in large, bold and red at the top left corner of the magazine besides David’s head. The bottom of the W lines up across from Victoria’s eyes if you follow it across, making her the focal point of your attention. The idea of strong womanpower is shown in this connection between the W and Victoria. Her previous fame as a Spice Girl continues on today as an even more powerful role as a sexy, fit, and strong woman. This empowering W in line with her gaze makes you understand the seriousness of her intentions- don’t mess with me. On the top right, barely touching Victoria’s head, are the words Exclusive Access, in skinnier, red font. This placement instantly intrigues a viewer into thinking this is a secret into the lives of Victoria and David! However, as the reader continues, they find that it is instead about the “season’s ultimate shoe bags and jewelry,” stated in regular, black font. This connotation shows the connection between Victoria and her life as a fashion statement.
At the bottom, placed between the arms of the married couple, are the words Posh (blue) + (red) Becks (blue). The red plus sign between the names shows again the seriousness of their relationship. If you try to break up these too, expect a lot of trouble! This title is then followed by subtext in white: “When the Soccer Star Married the Pop Singer, it was a match made in British Tabloid Heaven. Now David (name in bold) and Victoria Beckham (name also in bold) are determined to become the new American Idols.” Not only have Victoria and David made tabloids in England, but also they plan to make a statement in America. The loudness and enduring attitude they try to set is shown in the boldness placed on their names in the text. They plan to show up not only in style, but also with a slight sense of malice.

Connotations
The sexual attraction of these two young, fit celebrities is shown with a touch of tension. Both are obviously within touching reach of each other, but neither seems to care for anything but the viewer’s gaze. So how do these two make such an impression on society? Knowing their background, Victoria is known for her over-the-top fashion and breast implants, while David is known for being a heartthrob who knows how to play hard. The idea of two muscularly fit sex symbols isn’t enough for the audience of today. They must be aware of their look and show character along with their sense of style.
One noticeable difference that keeps them from becoming too hard is their posture. Although their gazes denote a sense of danger, their posture has a different answer. David’s muscular body still shows a sign of weakness for love in that he is leaning over his beloved wife as if to shelter her from our gaze. Victoria’s eyes show a “get back” stare and an annoyed hand on her hip; however, her body also curls back to her man and exposes her tiny figure being turned away from our sight – as if to hide herself in modesty.
Victoria and David have the edgy attitude that gives them a feel of “look out America” to emphasize the description of “new American Idol” in the subtext. Both flash their tattoos, muscles, and sexual awareness to the world with a slight hostility in their gazes. They want to be seen as a threat, but not an unappealing entity – their fame is announced with a grain of salt for the public to taste.

"Ways of Seeing" - John Berger

The text you are reading right now will give you all the information you need. What if this statement could be placed into an image? All the information that you ever needed to know about the Civil War, or the Apollo 13 disaster, or how the interior of a heart looked was all present in a single painting. How we communicate or interpret information is a powerful tool. Visual communication has always been an important source of understanding and reasoning for humans. One image could lead to a memory or to a story we had previously heard. The important elements of visual media are how and who presents it; therefore, these key factors alter how we comprehend any information given to us.

In John Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” he states that the “silence and stillness” of paintings, sketches, and other stationary art are what make them striking. All the information that you would ever need sits perfectly still in front of you. You are the one who guides the eye and has the choice of seeing this piece of information, or, simply to walk away from it in entirety. However, these paintings, we must remember, are still man-made. The eye is still guided through the painting by means of composition.

Similarly, in film, the director guides us through a scene to the focal point of the story. The main difference between this moving media and a stationary painting is that information is given to us “unfolds in time,” Berger explains. This again relates back to the idea that in man-made information the artist has true “authority” over the work. However, the information that is given over time in a piece of film also differs from stationary art by giving only highlights of information.

If we look at a painting of a crowd from a standing still position, we will notice the crowd as a whole and our eye can move freely throughout the piece. If we instead took this painting and let the camera take over where our eye would go, we would find this painting to have a very different meaning. Zooming inwards, we would find, for example, highlighted by directional lighting, Jesus carrying a cross. Or, if we panned up to the back of the painting, a beautiful landscape with trees, hills, and calm skies. Each detail of the painting could be separated into a story and focal point of its own.

Now that you can see that visual communication is a powerful tool, learn to recognize how you have been guided to see the big picture or the details.

Obama's Inauguration

Panning across a sea of people, the CNN camera focuses for a moment on one individual: a young black girl holding a camera attentively in her hands. However, this little girl is not just anyone. The 44^th President of the United States of America’s daughter is whom the world is now transfixed on. This is sense of family being the focus, I feel, is a metaphor of Barack Obama’s Presidency. An individual that has been from the bottom up has finally brought the need for community into the light.

The humanity shown in this Inauguration has given the U.S. a sigh of relief. Tension seems to be lifted off the shoulders of many people as Barack speaks forthright and proudly. As Barack continues to deliver his speech, the camera reminds us of the vast amounts of people that have come to gather at this time. Interviews after the event reveal that not only are Americans part of this crowd, but people from Africa and other countries have come to congratulate us as free citizens. This heart-warming occasion is not only a symbol of family, but also of the fact that as Americans we can move forward.

Overall, a feeling of security and a feeling of renewal came from President Obama’s speech. His love of our nation is strong and his face is refreshing. A man of different color, heart, and disposition has long since been overdue for the White House.

While the camera continued to pan across the crowd, one color seemed to vibrate throughout: red. Hats, scarves, and jackets on many people were all the same red that seemed to meld together as one. This unity in dress also merged into the brilliant other colors that the other countries had brought with them. I feel the cameraman’s authority began to show through when focusing on individuals in the crowd. John Berger, the author of the article “Ways of Seeing,” states that in “…film the way one image follows another, their succession, constructs an argument which becomes irreversible.” CNN’s goal is to state the fact that all individuals are welcome now that Obama has become our President. Our vision is seduced by this sensation of unity is coming and that the struggle for change has finally arrived.

One of the other visually intriguing moments was the spotlight on the Obama pins that were worn throughout the crowd. These pins are not simply colored in black and white, but in red, white and blue. This patriotism is a new marker because it not a white man that is wearing these colors, but a man of color himself. These simple pins capture the acceptance of our new President’s individuality and how he stands out from any previous President.

Finally, the one aspect that the cameraman continuously brings to our attention is the vastness of people from not only Washington, DC, but from all over the United States. As the scene is cut from Washington, DC to New York, you see the streets filled with joyous people gathering to see Obama. The camera also cut to people sitting closely together in a room in Pennsylvania. The shot of this room does not end until a black woman sitting in the center of the camera’s view gives a grateful smile and wave. The end shot after all of these snippets is always a grand sweep up the nation’s capitol, through the crowds, and back to President Obama. You cannot have any more a sense of grandness other than to be this man’s daughter, in the front row, videotaping her father.