More and more frequently, books are coming with guides for reading groups included as an appendix. Could the same be done with television programs?
As we've seen in the first two parts of this series, television has the ability to offer stories that contain stimulating, provocative questions, either within the storyline itself or as a subtext to the program. Even a sitcom like Hogan's Heroes generates questions about the nature of undercover and sabotage actions in relation to the concept of just war. The question is this: are viewers being encouraged to look for these discussion points when they watch television.
Some series, such as The Defenders, thrived on the provocative. A first-season episode, "The Benefactor," addressed the issue of abortion, and was controversial enough that all three sponsors cancelled their participation in the episode, and several network affiliates refused to air it. A similar controversy would arise a decade later in the sitcom Maude, when the title character chose to have an abortion. Now, abortion is one of those issues that's going to create a firestorm no matter which side the show takes, and if it tries to remain neutral it's likely to be pillored by both sides. If you're a viewer looking for a little relaxation, perhaps a few laughs, this is probably something you'd just as soon not deal with.
But what about issues that are less electrifying? The average episode of a war drama like Combat! can cause one to ponder the significance of war without doing anything more than showing combat footage. Police dramas (think Adam-12 as opposed to, say, Law & Order) often put their heroes in uncomfortable situations. And when our protagonists, in the heat of combat, are confronted with difficult decisions from among a host of unappealing alternatives, don't you find yourself wondering what you'd do in the same situation? Perhaps, in fact, you have faced this kind of choice in real life, and you find yourself contrasting your own actions with those in the show.
Part of this—asking the viewer to share the risks, as it were, of the characters they're watching—is, of course, is in the very nature of creating drama. I've often complained about shows that put their main characters in a "false jeopardy" from which you know they'll emerge. But if there is any justification in creating such a situation, it's that it challenges you to put yourself in that character's shoes. What would you do?
See, I think this kind of television is tremendously stimulating, as well as being productive. It can help offset the many tropes about TV as a time-waster and provider of mindless entertainment. I'm not suggesting that all shows should be this way all the time, nor do I think this would offset the many real faults that television has had from the very beginning. But if there's a way that the experience of watching television can be improved, I think it's worth looking at. Perhaps it could even create a demand for more thoughtful television.
Many of you have probably taken part in online "watch parties," where everyone watches the same episode of a program at the same time and offers live commentary as the show progresses. Those can be great fun, and they're one way that TV can still help build community. This isn't exactly what I'm talking about, but it does contain some of the elements necessary to make it happen.
So what would a television discussion group look like? How would it work?
I think the best model to follow is that of the typical book club. Rather than asking participants to binge an entire series or a number of episodes, choose one or two episodes a month—from the same series or two different ones, from complimentary or contrasting genres; it doesn't matter—and give people an entire month to view them, whenever it's convenient for them to do so.
Then, at the same time and day of the week each month, the group gets together. It can be an online chat, or it can utilize something like Skype, Zoom, Teams, FaceTime—anything like that. In fact, I'd encourage the use of something that allows members to interact face-to-face; it makes the discussion more real.
This isn't going to be a free-for-all, though; it has to be a structured discussion to make the idea work. That's why book clubs have discussion guides, and that's why a television discussion group would have to have the same. The moderator in charge of choosing the month's viewing, whether that always the same person or it rotates among the group members each month, compiles a list of topics for discussion, and provides the other members with the list prior to their viewing the episode. Then, when the group gets together, the moderator uses those questions as a guide to leading the discussion. From there, it's up to everyone to make the discussion work.
What kind of shows would make up an average season for the discussion group? Well, I'm obviously partial to classic television, programs that are available either through free streaming services, DVDs, or from sites like YouTube. If you want to use the gray market as your source, that's up to you. If it's feasible, some members might be able to share discs. No matter what, though, these shows have to be accessible to all members of the group. I'd think that anyone joining a classic television group, for instance, would already be interested enough that they'd have many of the shows, and they'd probably enjoy being introduced to the ones they didn't have.
I could list a number of series that I can think of, those that have a proclivity for provocative questions, but often it's going to be one or two episodes of a particular series, rather than every single episode, that spark particular questions worthy of discussion. A question of medical ethics could come from Marcus Welby, or Medical Center, or The Eleventh Hour. Combat! often provides situational fodder, but so does M*A*S*H, and Hogan's Heroes gives you questions about lying and political assassination. The detectives in Naked City often voice their own concerns about ethics and investigations, and legal dramas like The Defenders and Judd for the Defense raise important questions in almost every episode. Mission: Impossible puts the ethical questions on an international stage, and The Bold Ones, between its legal, medical, and political wheels, frequently makes for interesting discussion. Route 66 can take an almost Rousseauian approach to questions about how much someone should become involved in the affairs of others. The Twilight Zone and Star Trek often contained interesting and or provocative storylines. The Law & Order franchise, which I don't like, nonetheless poses ethical issues about both the police and the DA's office, questions they might not have intended for people to discuss. And then there are the made-for-TV movies, especially ABC's Movie of the Week, that are always dealing with one issue or another. Any of the episodes or movies in my "Descent into Hell" series would qualify as well. What I'm saying is that there is no shortage of programs out there—in fact, you've probably already seen many episodes that set you to thinking about it, and talking about it afterward.
What kind of topics is the group discussing?
I think most thoughtful programs will suggest their own topics: legal dramas involve questions of ethics regarding tactics used by police and attorneys, the rights of the individual vs. the interests of society, the very concept of presumed innocence, and whether or not a court martial is more or less just than a civilian trial. War dramas raise issues related to political assassination, the role of civilians during warfare, and the morality of deception and outright lying. A series such as Mission: Impossible invites questions about the right of the United States to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countrys in orderto further American interests. Police dramas deal not only with the actions of police officers, but their rights as well: should a police officer be required to forfeit certain constitutional rights that are guaranteed to the average citizen? Were the people who helped Richard Kimble escape on The Fugitive justified in doing so, given that he had been legally convicted and that helping Kimble technically means obstructing justice? Medical programs often present uncomfortable choices for both doctors and patients, from whether or not there is a "right to die" to issues regarding minors, organ transplant, and the like. Shows of varied genres will often bring up confidentiality rights between doctor and patient, attorney and client, minister and penitent, with conflicting interests. None of these issues need involve divisive political discussions, but all of them require participants to put themselves in positions where they often have to make difficult choices between various interests, or question the ideals vs. the reality of the society in which we live.
One of the reasons I wrote about Ethics in America last week is that it gives us a demonstration of the directions in which such a discussion can go, which are often completely unexpected given the starting point. And I think something like that is thrilling, not only to watch but to participate in. One of the things I particularly like about Ethics in America and the other Fred Friendly seminars is the high level of respect that participants have for each other, as well as for the premise of the program itself. They take these scenarios seriously, as well as their obligations to share their candid, thoughtful opinions on the questions before them.
Here is a link to a movie watchers' discussion group that functions more or less like what I'm proposing for television. Speaking of which, here's a link to a television viewing discussion group that meets in person! I think these provide models for anyone who wants to start a similiar group for television.
Now, for all I know, there may be dozens of groups like this all over the place, and I just lead such a sheltered life that I'm not aware of any of them. (Don't blame me in that case; I was probably too busy watching television to notice.) But I think we owe it to ourselves to at least consider challenging ourselves in the way in which we watch television, and how we think about it afterward. And we owe it to ourselves to challenge programmers to provide us with this kind of programming as well. So what do you all think? TV
Good idea.
ReplyDeleteI, like you, would probably be more interested in discussing classic TV and movies. I'd like to see one for classic British TV and movies as well. Things like reviewing particular episodes.
Sign me up.