Is There a Doctor in the House?

Netflix is a terrible thing. Why would this service want to ruin someone’s social life by allowing them to view entire seasons of a show at the click of a button? Because it’s an amazing idea, of course. It’s just impractical when I need to study for finals. It doesn’t help that I began watching one of the UK’s most popular shows Doctor Who. After a few seasons, I can totally see why this show is so well received. Allow me to elaborate.

                Doctor Who is a science fiction television show which follows the adventures of the doctor. I’m going to avoid the whole “who’s on second?” reference here and tell you that he’s just called the doctor. The doctor is a “timelord,” an alien species closely resembling a human, who has the ability to travel through time and space. He’s basically the protector of the Human population.

                So why is this show good? Well, originally, the show was created as an educational program. It would be able to teach history and science simultaneously. Historic aspects are bought about by being able to travel through time, and scientific aspects by, well, being able to travel through time. Although it still has a semblance of these themes, the show has taken a definitively fictitious turn at the corner of science. Its educational properties, however, are still present and are probably the only reason this show can be called good.

                I’m just kidding, I don’t base a shows worth on its educational value. (What does that say about society?) However, the fact that it incorporates slightly historic and scientific facets does give the show a mature and generally smart feel to it. These features make you think about the possibilities within the universe and truly allow your mind to wander. To help it wander, it creates completely fictional futuristic possibilities. This allows the incorporation of a common theme, which I believe really draws me into the show. The potential of humans.

The doctor’s constant acclimation of the human race further allows our minds to wander. If you look back on the world, we’ve come a long way since horse-drawn wagons. If you were to take a smart phone to the 1800’s, people would probably burn you at the stake for witchcraft. Applying this idea and thinking about all the possibilities available to us in the future, truly makes the human race seem astounding. With this general idea in mind, it shows all the future possibilities for humanity, deviating from frequent displays of dystopian or apocalyptic futures. Thus, the show is quite unique in its outlook on the human race.

It also incorporates amorously ambiguous love plots, where true feelings are only implied and never fully elaborated on, and exciting bouts against nefarious aliens. These allow for the inclusion of suspenseful endings – often harking on the destruction of humans if failure is met. They also allow for the possibility of sympathizing with the feelings of both the doctor and his companions.

In general, this show integrates many different aspects to make an amazing and unique plot line. It appeals to the masses and teaches lessons without coming of as pompously intelligent. Its most important feature, however, is its ability to make your mind wander.

Christmas Specials

It’s that time of year again. Whether or not you are of certain religion, in my opinion, is irrelevant at this point. You don’t need to be a Christian to enjoy the heartfelt transformation of the previously grouchy Grinch. Similarly, you don’t need to be Jewish to appreciate the adorable misunderstandings of the Rugrats in “A Rugrats Chanukah.”  Yet, I can’t help but feel there’s an abundance of specials revolving around a specific holiday during this time of year. Perhaps it’s just the channels I’m watching, but with specials such as ABC’s “The 25 Days of Christmas,” I can’t help but feel like Christmas has a superfluous amount of holiday specials.

Now, I don’t mean to attack Christmas here. Truthfully, I was born and raised a Catholic, so I grew up on these specials. However, I can’t help but ponder, “Why is Christmas so targeted for holiday specials? What makes this religious holiday so special for specials?” Let me try and break down why I believe it’s so well received on television.

The first thing you may notice after watching any Christmas show or movie is the childish nature present in most of them. A snowman magically coming to life and travelling to the North Pole with Santa doesn’t exactly seem plausible. This would be because the companies are, not so surprisingly, attempting to target children. Many children simply love the idea of Santa. Growing up, I can remember staying up as late as I could on Christmas Eve, just to get a glimpse of the myth. After falling asleep, I’d only to wake up to a tray of eaten cookies and mixed feelings about not seeing the man, but having a room full of presents.

It makes sense, too. Santa is a jolly old man who gives children free things. I honestly can’t think of an adult that a child would both idolize and fear more. With such a jolly and omnipresent mascot, Christmas is probably the best holiday to capitalize on. After all, regardless of its roots in religion, Christmas is celebrated in a very capitalistic way. So why let retail stores have all the fun?

If we take this fact alone into consideration, what better reason to have a bunch of Christmas specials? If children love this being, what better way to get them to watch a show than to include him in it? On top of that, if you give the specials a general family-like feel through lessons of love, friendship, and selflessness, you’re more likely to get entire families to watch. So by targeting the children, television stations have the possibility of including entire families in their viewer count.

I honestly can’t think of any other reason Christmas would be so well received on television. How many Christmas specials have you seen without Santa in them? Christmas specials that really dig into the religion behind it? Go ahead. Find a popular one. I’ll wait…

Couldn’t find one? Neither could I. On the other hand, Hanukkah has the special “A Rugrats Chanukah” to delve into the religious details of the holiday. It’s done in a tasteful, yet informative way which also appeals to children, being a popular kids show back in the day. So although Christmas is more televised, who’s the real winner here?

                Though Christmas specials may revolve around a specific religion, it doesn’t mean it’s doing a lot of good for that religion. In fact, if you think about the celebration of Christmas in today’s society, it’ extremely loosely based on religion. Giving presents was meant as a reminder that the three wise men bought the baby Jesus presents. Bringing Santa into the picture pretty much pushes out any religious underlying altogether, teaching children they get presents because they were good.

                Am I opposed to this? No. It universalizes the holiday. I think that by doing this it gives more people a reason to celebrate the holiday and bring families together. It’s a beautiful thing to me, really. For more religious fanatics though, it’s a bit of a downer.

                So if you happen to be one of those religious people who can’t stand Christmas specials because you’re not Christian, attempt to enjoy it for its lessons and familial undertones. Attempt to enjoy it because it’s fun to watch. And since you obviously care about your own religion a lot, attempt to enjoy it because it’s not deterring the attention from your holiday’s religious background.

A Good Ending

So “The Walking Dead” has recently aired its mid-season finale. I know I seem to post about “The Walking Dead” a lot, but I love the show. All I can say on the subject is, the mid-season finale was amazing. What makes it so amazing? I really don’t want to give away spoilers. However, I do want to discuss what makes a great ending in general! Which means that I will have to do so in a way that doesn’t give away spoilers, which means this post is going to be EXTREMELY vague...

Wish me luck!

There are so many different factors that can go into making an ending great. Not to mention the fact that an ending oftentimes is the "make or break" factor in a movie. From the characters that live or die, to the idea behind the ending, to the symbolism present, anything can make an ending great. Like a delicious pie however, it’s the perfect mixture of the right ingredients that can produce an amazing finale.

Of course, everyone’s opinion on the loose definition of "great" is different. However, there are plenty of endings that are iconic due to their widespread acceptance of greatness. After reviewing plenty of opinions on seemingly great endings, I believe I’ve come up with two key components that make an ending "great": its ability to make you think, and its capacity to make you feel.

This is pretty vague, but allow me to provide some examples of what I, and many others, think are great endings. This is a topic that can go across platforms of the media, so I’ll try to incorporate as much as possible. My favorite ending to a movie, and the number one movie on IMDB is known as “The Shawshank Redemption.” In other words, I’m not the only person with this opinion. However, “The Shawshank Redemption” is one of those movies that seems to handle both of these ideas into a beautiful ending.

The movie follows Andy, a person imprisoned under the pretense of murdering his wife. The ending of this movie is so great because of the emotions you feel throughout the movie constantly build and swell but never quite resolve. Just thinking about the myriad of emotions a person in confinement can go through can emotionally wreck a person. However, the movie builds upon each emotion, constantly keeping them in the back of your mind.

To side track for a little- this is why I believe this episode of “The Walking Dead” had a great ending. It builds up so many emotions throughout its previous episodes, leaving the emotion unsatisfied and unresolved. In the end, it allows all of these to simultaneously culminate and when they’re finally resolved to coalesce. It makes you hinder on these emotions because of that buildup.

Back to “The Shawshank Redemption.” This ending also has the ability to make you think. It makes you think back on the mundane things that have happened throughout the movie and realize that although they seemed insignificant at the time, they played the most important role in the ending. I like to call this the twist ending.

Although not all twist endings are good, and not all twist endings have been hinted at throughout the lifespan of the media outlet, I believe that the twist endings that can make you think back are some of the best. For something a little more modern, think of the ending to Harry Potter. Throughout the books, Harry exhibits a special connection with the powers that are known to belong to Voldemort. However, you may not truly realize why until the very end. On the other hand, Darth Vader’s revelation that he is Luke’s father was a twist ending that wasn't even really hinted at. (I feel like it’s okay that I spoil that one)

The point is that both of these endings make you think. “Harry Potter” and “The Shawshank Redemption” make you think back to the beginnings and see how the ending was set up, to make sense of it all. Darth Vader’s reveal makes you wonder, “How is that possible? Where can this possibly go as a result?”

All these endings make both the feelings and thoughts of the viewer converge simultaneously. I honestly believe this convergence, how that piece of media combines the thoughts and feelings of the viewer/reader, is what makes an ending special.

Relationships

                On the most recent episode of “How I Met Your Mother,” Barney and Robin run through their rehearsal dinner before getting married. Marriage is something that brings families and total strangers together to see the union of two people. Through television shows, we can see complete strangers converging on a subject they find simply beautiful. In fact, relationships in the media, in general, seem to bring about empathetic feelings across its spectrum of viewers.

                From the most underrepresented and realistic relationships to the most popularly debated relationships in the media, love plots seem to grab viewers. In fact, for some reason, it appears relationships in television and movies can sometimes involve viewers more than the two people in the relationships themselves.

                Let’s take one of the most heavily debated relationships for example. Some relationship that has plowed its way across media from movies to commercials on television. A relationship that nobody wants to talk about, but it seems like everyone has. A relationship in a movie that the actors themselves have stated hatred for. I’m talking about “Twilight.”

                I can’t believe I’m actually going to talk about "Twilight" on my blog…

                “Twilight” fans, or “twihards”, or “fanpires”, whatever you want to call them, have somehow forced their debate of whether the main character, Bella Swan, should choose a relationship between the roughneck werewolf, Jacob, or the iconic pretty-boy vampire, Edward, into the unwarranted ears of millions. The movie series mostly consists of the portrayal of Bella’s struggle to make this decision. Now, how can a relationship that even the actors themselves hate to portray become so famous?  I have absolutely no idea. Yet somehow, this social debate has been emphasized so much that the movie has become popular to all ages and genders. I mean ALL ages and genders, check out this Burger King commercial to see what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfGKgmDvcDg

                Elderly fan-girls. What could be better? The fact remains that this movie's relationship has somehow converged the hearts of millions on the simple topic of a relationship. Furthermore, this movie has ascended all forms of criticism because of its roots in relationship struggles, regardless of how bad anyone has thought the content of the movie is.

                Let’s move on to another iconic relationship, something a little more television related. Ross and Rachel on “Friends.” Honestly, “Friends” is one of my favorite sitcoms of all time. Yet, if you asked me to sum it up, I would tell you that it depicts the relationship between Ross and Rachel. This isn't’t, at all, what the show is about. It’s not even the only relationship present on the show. Yet this relationship takes the viewer through fields of emotions, some of these being happiness, regret, excitement, despair, and anger.

By definition, a sitcom is supposed to make the viewer laugh. However, relationships are one of the very few mechanisms writers use to deviate from the common jokes. When we look back on our lives, we’re likely to remember the things that stand out. Our first break up, our first love, the most fun times we've had with our friends, or the things that hurt us most. Anything that has made us feel a certain emotion very strongly probably sticks out to us the most.

If you think about it, these relationships present us with something that sticks out among the crowd. All the jokes conglomerate in our head so that all we truly remember is, “it was a funny show.” Meanwhile, these relationships have bought different emotions to us, and helped us to strongly feel them. The same goes for a platforms not based on comedy, like “Twilight.” The relationships make us mimic strong emotions, and thus we remember them well.

Can a Person Actually Change?

                In the recent episodes of “The Walking Dead,” the antagonist of season 3, the governor, has finally returned in season 4. We see him going through his journey after his safe-haven, Woodbury, had been overthrown and he had been exposed as a manipulative and cruel leader. The governor now goes through the sullied and lonely life he has brought upon himself.

                The governor seems to be broken shell of his former self. The ambitious and deceptive man has become an accepting and submissive person. He walks along the road until he finds a family which shows him love and aid. Almost any time this happens in a show, we can see a significant change in a person.

                The question then comes about; can someone’s nature actually change? Can the governor actually become a caring person, bent on helping? Is there actually such a thing as “a life changing event?”

                This is a topic that, in essence, is actually heavily debated in the field of psychology. The question is what makes a person who they are? Are someone’s actions and thoughts based on the compilation of the many events in life? Or is someone given a nature at birth? Does nature itself assign psyche or is it determined by how we grow and are nurtured. This is a debate popularly known as nature vs. nurture.

                There’s no true way to answer this question. The “nature” variable is too unpredictable and modern technology cannot determine if a baby is born with a certain nature. However, there is plenty of evidence to support that people are born with a specific nature.

On the other hand, there is also no true way to determine whether the events in a person’s life are the only thing to decide a person’s psyche. Therefore, it’s commonly accepted that both nature and nurture determine a person’s actions.

If the world’s best psychologists cannot determine this, I certainly don’t expect to attempt it. However, there’s something that I do know a little better than psychologists, and that’s how “The Walking Dead” writers have acted in the past. When a character has been portrayed as “evil” in previous episodes of this show, nothing seems to be able to change their disposition. Take Shane, for example. As soon as the character Shane wanted something, nothing could deter him from his motive. Thus, he died a “bad” person.

In general, I believe that characters on shows can change. Now the final question, do I believe that the governor has changed? I don’t think he has changed. I think he is still bent on taking down Rick and the main group. However, I think he has a different motive for what he wants, and will go about taking what he wants in a different way. Ultimately, my prediction for the show is that he will still be the antagonist. 

Comedy Throughout History - Part II

So there must have been a reason for me to present how history has changed throughout time? Well, you’re right! As I said in my last post social rifts are a bit of a touchy subject in today’s society. However, implementation in comedy has swayed from pointing out social differences in unlikely situations to putting characters in simply awkward, over-exaggerated, every-day situations. This change has probably occurred due to the sensitivity of such subjects. Of course, this sensitivity has come about due to a more coalesced society. Nobody wants to hurt any feelings, which is great! We’re all trying to get along! However, it seems that pointing out social insecurities has been extremely suppressed. This suppressed humor is finding a way out and it’s taking form in a previously unsought after form of comedy. It’s taking refuge in dark humor.

Well, that’s just my take on it, at least. You don’t see much dark humor in the past. Maybe it was all dark humor and we’re desensitized towards it. Either way, dark comedy, or black comedy, is a genre that hasn’t gained much televised popularity until recently. From a literary view, it’s an extremely heavy form of satire. Obviously, both satire and black humor have been around before. Perhaps one of the most well-known incarnations of black comedy in history can be found in Dr. Strangelove. Dr. Strangelove, however, doesn’t seem to hold a clichéd candle to the type of black comedy of today.

There are a couple of shows in particular which seems to point out exactly what I’m talking about. Family Guy, its spinoff, The Cleveland Show, and South Park are just a few. It’s as if the writers of these shows simply do not care who they offend and I believe by pushing social barriers, they create a well sought-after community.

“Family guy” follows the stories of the Griffin family. The family consists of the father Peter, his children, Meg, Stewie, and Chris, his wife Lois, and his talking dog Brian (or used to). It’s a pretty simple idea for a show. However, it gets into some pretty raunchy and touchy subjects. I just want to point out specific instances to explain the type of humor I’m talking about. Peter cracks his neck to kill himself after being asked to join a book-club. You don’t expect a round of laughter from that. Yet, that’s the exact reaction received. The family constantly degrades Meg, to the point where she’s treated as subhuman for no particular reason. Treating a child poorly is a taboo topic, and isn’t typically seen in comedy. Peter gets raped by a bull and his post-traumatic distress is used as a comedy outlet. That one speaks for itself.

Even though it’s hard to top rape, let’s get to possibly the most heavily debated social topic yet. The topic of racism. Family Guy’s spinoff show has a scene where a Spanish character is in a car accident, and is questioned by the police about where he is from. After telling the officers he is from Oakland, the officers respond with, “I heard Mexico,” and fling him away in their “deportation catapult.” This is supposed to be funny due to the satirical portrayal of ignorant officers who actually think like that. If any humor is to be found, please don’t start debating that a person would find it because he/she might think racism itself is funny. I don’t think that, I doubt anyone else thinks that. It’s supposed to be found in making fun of the ignorance.

Regardless, a couple of decades ago, most people couldn’t laugh at many of these topics, as they were labeled as insensitive.  These topics had been heavily guarded under strict social chains to the point where it was unacceptable to laugh at them, and barely acceptable to debate them. Yet in the past, differences between demographics have been pointed out time and time again (albeit, in a more tasteful sense) for the name of comedy. Dark humor has seemed to slip past these social chains and deliver the humor that was so heavily guarded in an even more insensitive way than ever conceived. Admittedly, the topics themselves aren’t funny. They’re extremely serious topics. The real satire is in what we view socially unacceptable to talk about. In all honesty, I feel that it brings differences together in a sense. The bond that laughter creates is unprecedented. When we can laugh at all of our problems together, we can move on as a community. Dark humor, in my opinion, has helped us in a time of need to the point where I can laugh at jokes about myself and others can do so about their selves. Boppity Boobidy, as Peter Griffin assumes the Italians would say.

So why did the Chicken cross the road? To get to the other side- that being the afterlife. It’s dark humorous take on an otherwise innocent joke.

References:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9camyVpG4Y

Comedy Throughout History - Part I

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Comedy is a very hard subject to touch on since humor has taken up many faces throughout history. It gains its laughter from the simplest fart jokes to complex and intrinsically woven stories with a surprise ending. Much like beauty, humor is in the eye of the beholder – or ear of the beholder, depending on the case. However, there are specific comedic values and routines that are followed by the masses, gaining the hearts and laughter of many. Lately, in many shows on television, there’s been a noticeable shift in the type of humor presented. At one point in time, social jokes and slapstick performances were the crutches comedy relied upon for its laughs. Although these still hold a role in today’s society, their implementation has significantly changed as they make room for new styles of comedy. Let’s take a look back at the comedy of media-past for examples of what I mean.

One of the earliest forms of comedy we can see in popular media can be found from silent films. The typical slap-stick silent comedy. Charlie Chaplin’s films were probably some of the more well known films from the era. In these films, Chaplin can be found doing insensible things such as eating his own shoe for a Thanksgiving meal. Hilarious, right? No? I didn’t think so either. To me, watching a man eat his own shoelace like spaghetti seems sad, really. Well, maybe that’s because it doesn’t make much sense to us now. In the 1920’s this would be relayed as a joke about how a lower class citizen could enjoy a meal in the same way an upper class person would. A simple idea, but its comedy is found in the fact that the need to literally eat one’s own shoe is not quite as exaggerated as it sounds. Furthermore, it pokes fun at the upper-class citizen’s way of life. The poor Chaplin eats a shoe like it deserves to be eaten in a sophisticated way. No food really deserves that honor, let alone a shoe. This type of comedy appeals to both upper class and lower class citizens - everyone at the time. The upper class citizens laugh at how the poor attempt to be like them while lower class citizens laugh at the truth and the ridicule of the upper class.

Further down the line of comedy, the sitcom, short for situation comedy, was produced. A classic sitcom portraying such a similar social rift would be the Beverly Hillbillies. This 1960’s sitcom follows the story of a southern family who struck oil and was able to move to the high society terrain of Beverly Hills. The first episode opens with the narrator saying, “How could a bunch of Hillbillies possibly buy a mansion like this?”  Rather than conforming to their new lifestyle, the ‘Hillbillies’ retain their southern ways. Thus, comedy is found in the high-society situations they innocently place their southern low-society background in.

Today, we might not find these specific pokes at social rifts particularly funny. It’s not targeted towards us and it would be hard for us to relate to, considering we are so detached from the lifestyle of the 1920’s and 1960’s. For a more relatable joke, the split between these social classes might be pointed out through the portrayal of races that are tried for a stereotyped attribute of poverty. However, such a stereotypical joke, in today’s society, would be rightfully frowned upon due to its lack of sensitivity. Put in the hands of the right comedian, however, and such jokes may be received extremely well. It really depends on the situation and how well its played. Hence, why I said humor is a hard subject to touch upon. Its changed so much throughout the decades as the target audience slowly expands in diversity.