Romantic Comedies (and my hungry plot expectations)

Six years ago, my wife and I were on our first date, and I distinctly remember our lively conversation on how Hollywood and our advertising-saturated culture play a likely role in what expectations we have for our own lives. If Happiness = Realization - Expectation, can certain media patterns elevate the Expectations side of the equation? Can increased expectations of plot resolution and "happy endings" decrease our Happiness?

Some evidence supports that point. Here is an excellent article that makes one consider the effects (for good or for ill) that the medium of movies (romantic comedies, in this case) can have on the way we view the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7784366.stm

If watching romantic comedies can heighten expectations of the ideal relationship playing out in our own lives, this begs larger questions: do pithy one-liners and laugh tracks from sitcoms create a lowest-common denominator sense of humor that never proceeds past sarcastic zingers and caustic come-backs? (Does everybody really love Raymond, or just the way he talks to his wife?) Further, since there are no "ahhs and umms" and non sequiturs in the tight, smart dialogue heard in TV and movies, are we less likely to be random and free in our own speech and more likely to be afraid of "random," unscripted, or candid thoughts? To get really philosophical, does having watched MacGyver as a child make one more likely to carry duct tape in the car? (I barely know how to open up the hood if I had to repair a hose in my car, but I have duct tape ready for that moment when I can fix or create the device that saves the day.)

This dynamic also plays itself out in how we get our news, which I believe is even more important than the content of the news. Does watching the captivating, entertaining, and flashy graphics and stories on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX make one more predisposed to adult ADD, an argumentative disposition, or an over-simplified worldview? Does the name calling and vitriol that the ratings demand trickle down into the way we talk to our own family and friends about the matters that matter? My anecdotal evidence is a resounding, yes.

I've noticed that people who watch the polarized "cockfighting" that cable news shows call "debate" are more likely to break down a complex issue into bite-sized, polarized “truths.” For example: does someone who is habituated to seeing the world in stark, simple contrasts of black/white, right/wrong, left/right, liberal/conservative, us/them develop an impaired understanding of the real dynamics of our political system? I laugh every time I hear people say things completely contrary to facts, like "the Republicans are committed to small government" or "the Democrats are anti-business." [laugh track] These two commonly held beliefs persist despite abundant evidence to the contrary from the last 16 years.

When you turn on the TV and view it from a sociological/anthropological perspective, it's no surprise why many talk in polarized absolutes. We may be adults, but we continue to mimic and ape the language of others who we consider to be authorities. For example, isn't it funny how so many in the last few months attribute our economic malaise to One Singular Cause? "No, it was the failed policies of the Bush administration." Or, "No, you're wrong; it's Carter and all those government programs to help poor people get credit." "No, it was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that happened under Clinton." "No, it is the unsustainable leverage ratios and a speculative asset bubble built on fallacy of ever-increasing home values." And on and on and on.

These “chronic simplifiers” are simply echoing the polarized views they hear in the dominant media. In reality, these squabbles amount to petty semantics when you consider that, for the past couple of decades, it's been the same forces - under sundry banners - that have been hollowing out the American middle class and spreading wealth up and out. Hidden safely behind the labels and over-simplified explanations is the scary truth that there are more people and concepts to blame than you have fingers to point with.

Going beyond content to explore format, the medium certainly defines (or confines) the message. How much substance can you really fit in before the next commercial break? How entertaining must the news story be to carry me unwitting into the arms of a commercial, to see what object will bring a wide smile to my face, bring me closer to my family, and make me dance on clouds? (You know what? Come to think of it, I will ask my doctor about Lunesta.) I’m not a technology-fearing Luddite, but I know that we need to realize that time spent in front of the TV is a complex, commercial relationship that may not have our interests or “the truth” in mind. Commercial interests frequently trump quality of content.

Where I'm overly cynical, others are hopelessly naive. A while back, I worked in crafting messages for pharmaceutical companies, for example, telling them which message works best to push the most pills, and which TV shows at a certain hour will deliver the most captive audience for that polled demographic. The people I worked with have this down to a cynical science that keeps people watching and keeps people buying. "Yes sir," I would say, "I think you should make this ad buy for [insert erectile dysfunction pill here] during the O'Reilly Factor because the target demographic of the 45 to 55 year old Angry White Male is more likely to watch this than other shows at the same hour." [seriously, I’m not making this stuff up!] Whether you're trying to appeal to "organically aware mothers aged 25 to 35" to buy a certain type of "green" soap, or convincing people that CO2 is not a threat because its "what trees need to breathe", it works all the same. It's worse for political ads, and frighteningly brilliant how we narrowed in on viewers' fears, prejudices, and - sadly - hopes. But, to see these chessmaster puppeteers for what they are is the first step to cut ones own marionette strings.

As we all know, nuance, logic, and evidence don't make for good ratings in the mainstream media. This is no surprise, as we all know which of these two scenarios would get better ratings: (1) seeing two blowhards duel it out like some sort of boxing match, or (2) having a 30 minute, balanced segment on how our legal system of campaign finance amounts to a form of institutionalized bribery that backs both parties at the cost of voters' interests. Scenario number two is either too troubling or too boring to pull in a high Nielson rating for the night, however accurate it may be. Now, if Obama makes good on his promise to take on these entrenched interests that have captured both parties in the past couple of decades, that will be some great made-for-TV action! If you think Ultimate Fighting is entertaining, tune in for a real fight….

Going beyond the info-tainment news, many plot constructs have become standard fare in our media diets: happy endings, deus ex machina, easily resolved conundrums in a 90 minute format, Mr. Perfect, Miss Perfect, The One for Me, The Quick Fix, The Last Man Standing, the Good Guys Always Win by Default, The Final Battle, etc. Returning to the original question, can the undiscerning viewer's perception of the greater world beyond the couch be influenced by these common plot constructs? Central to purpose of this blog, does seeing endless consumptive possibilities play out on TV and movies hide the ecological and emotional costs of our modern lifestyles?

In the last couple of months, I've thought about how my own hungry plot expectations relate to my perception of current events. Here's a drama for you: Obama is up against the inertia of 535 members of Congress who cling to their seats in a perpetual campaign that costs more every year. Obama is up against 40,000 or so lobbyists and their boatloads cash. And Obama is up against the complacency that many of us have that the system will reform itself just because we got the right guy into the office. I am excited about the possibilities Obama brings, but I also know that people vastly underestimate the bi-partisan forces that Obama faces.

So, does my excitement about Obama play into some construct I have, of the lone, messianic hero who rides to Washington on his modern day Bucephalus? Do I harbor the expectation of the philosopher-king, who upon arriving in Washington, will unsheathe his sword, and - with one decisive blow - cut the Gordian Knot that is the entrenched system of legalized "pay to play?" Do I have an almost Biblical hope that Obama will walk into the Temple of our Democracy, overturn the tables, crack the whip, and throw the influence-peddlers out?

I hope our expectations are fulfilled. But hope gets us what exactly, if it's not backed by sustained grassroots pressure? I'm optimistic enough to hope, but also realistic enough to know that "He" will not change everything by himself, and believe that the success "his" whole movement supports that point. In fact, it takes you and me, seeing where our representatives in Congress (both Democrat and Republican alike) get their money www.opensecrets.org .Yes, your vote does count; but, sadly, someone's money speaks louder. To "form a more perfect union" and continue to improve upon our grand experiment in democracy, we must continue to insist that money is not speech.

© Bjorn Beer, 2008