(I published a more detailed version of this on my One Life to Live Examiner page.)
Here are my thoughts on the so-called impending end of daytime dramas/soap operas:
First of all, we're not too stupid to know that soap operas aren't limited to daytime programming. If you look up the definition of soap opera, it is "a television or radio drama series dealing typically with daily events in the lives of the same group of characters." They were named soap operas in the beginning because soap manufacturers sponsored them, or were their first advertisers.
Well, what do you know? Many of the hit shows during evening programming and on cable channels are soap operas, too, by definition. The only difference I, as a common viewer, note between these evening and cable shows and the daytime dramas on major networks is that not only do the daytime shows seem to have a lower production value, but they also tend to still be just slightly unbelievable.
Why the audience can believe that a drug-addicted doctor has one special patient a week that he manages to save the life of while battling his own demons, or that an antique dealer helps families by talking to ghosts, or that a writer can stumble into any murder scene and help solve it, or that a sociopathic serial killer helps save the world one murder at a time while working for the police and raising a baby … but can't believe the ludicrous things that happen on daytime soap operas … I don't know.
Maybe it is because soap operas have too many characters or jump from place to place too much? I am told that during the "glory days" of soap operas, the shows tended to focus on a few families at a time and the transitions from scene to scene were smooth, connected, and made sense. I almost find it hard to believe the fantastic idea that all the characters on these idealistic soap operas were somehow tied together in one common story as each individual character dealt with their own issues and opinions concerning that main story.
Or maybe it is because, since more people are working these days, there are less daytime viewers, so there are fewer sponsors and therefore less advertising money, and therefore less financial backing from the network and as a result a lower quality style of creating a show?
(For anyone who says it is because soaps don't tell original stories, it has been said that there is nothing original. It is all in how you tell the story.)
It is funny though, because ever since I started watching soaps and listening to what soap opera fans had to say, they have been screaming, pleading and begging for soaps to showcase less characters and stick to those few families that the show is based on -- like in the "glory days."
And since I have been watching soaps and listening to what their fans have to say, I have heard it explained numerous times from people "in the biz" that the most sought-after demographic are females age 18-49, which is also odd because … most of the soap fans I know are that age. Granted, I know of many die-hard soap viewers who have been watching since the 70s that are in their 50s and 60s, and many started watching with their grandmothers who are now in their 70s and 80s.
There is a really odd phenomenon happening here, and I have witnessed it first-hand from this side of the television screen. Soaps are going crazy to attract young females and add them to their viewership, but aren't able to keep them watching.
Here's why -- they attract them with story lines involving teenagers or with actors hired as publicity stunts. Young people tune in to see the soap opera version of a young girl not getting along with her father, a girl finding out that her parents are actually her grandparents, or to see their favorite reality TV star or pop singer step in for a couple of days. In the long run, they are confused by the way the show jumps from character to character and they realize that the person they were tuning in to see isn't even on every day -- no, not only are they not on every day, they don't even seem to matter to the show at all on the days when they aren't on! They aren't mentioned, and if their family is on without them, then that family doesn't seem to be concerned about the missing character. If, in the meantime, they become invested in a different character, the same thing happens!
This is very baffling to the 18-49 year old who may be used to watching primetime dramas with fewer characters to keep up with where families and friends matter to one another and there is a central storyline. So, they fulfill their need for drama with a cable show about a pregnant teenager or a lawyer who fights injustice in the ghetto, or if they're so inclined, a reality show where it is acceptable to act as trashy as you want because you aren't on network television in the middle of the day.
Here's the thing. The more you treat people like idiots, the more idiotic they're going to be. The less they have to think for themselves or form their own opinions about the events unfolding in front of them, the dumber and trashier our society is going to be.
States are already cutting so much funding to schools that the Arts are disappearing from education, and the federal government right now is trying to eliminate funding for free public television (also known as PBS) where you can tune in for educational programming, geographic shows, historic documentaries, cooking shows, concerts, travel shows … you name it … without having to pay for that cable channel or watch advertisements.
Every great leader - political, religious or business-oriented - throughout history has known this simple fact -- the stupider the general population is, the easier it will be to get them to buy into whatever you tell them or want them to believe. Societies have fallen because of it; genocide has occurred because of it; people have willingly committed suicide because of it. There are many great tragedies throughout the history of humanity in which people blindly accepted the influence of their leaders.
Now, networks want to replace daytime soap operas with talk shows, game shows, and reality shows. To them, it is just good business. Those shows are cheaper to produce on so many levels, so they are much more profitable. They can take that money that they would have given to an entire cast and crew of people or spent on props, paint, costumes and on-location shoots, and instead just pay a guy with a microphone and his crew and use the exact same set every day. I'm no television expert but I can easily understand how that works.
So, you see, this isn't just about daytime television. That's just the front line right now. Eventually this problem of having nothing to watch but reality shows and human competitions will be everywhere. You can already see it happening now.
Yes, it is hilarious when some idiot jumps off of a two story ledge and bounces off of a giant rubber ball and lands in a 5 foot deep mud puddle only to get up and repeat the process because he thinks he can improve his technique! Yes, watching celebrities discuss why they won't eat at a certain restaurant or deliberate over whether they should buy that $1,000 dinner china or try to rescue their cat from some predicament that the cat obviously prefers to be in … is riveting. But after the show is over, what do we have to show for it?
While soaps have been adapting and adapting again in order to ensure their survival, I am afraid they have been doing the opposite.
We, the television audience, would like the networks to recognize that we are not a stupid people. We value the Arts and we have pride in our country and the products that are produced here -- whether that be the items that are advertised by the sponsors, or the shows themselves. Like fans of a sports team, like members of a church, like unionized workers -- there is a reason we identify with and align ourselves with certain shows, characters and actors, and proudly proclaim our loyalty.
So while, yes, we may stop channel surfing to see what the topic of the day is on a talk show or to find out if the schmuck will risk $10,000 on something completely up to chance, we actually desire to have a connection to something that makes us think and feel deeply and want to be committed to.
Soap operas are an American legacy - like baseball or TV itself. The tradition of soap operas is actually older than television, and these shows have retained fans for years upon years while other shows and other genres fell by the way. The really special ones have even managed to meet the financial demands of the networks and survive recessions while repeatedly adapting to ensure their survival.
Not only that, but they have retained the loyalty of their best actors. Many of the actors on daytime dramas are multiple award-winning actors -- and we're not just talking about daytime Emmys. Many people in these casts also appear on and off Broadway, in independent and big-budget films, and on other network shows.
Will these extremely talented actors be able to survive in their careers without soaps? Of course they will! They stay in the genre because it offers something unique to them, and they consider themselves honored and lucky to be a part of it.
Will America be able to survive without soaps? Of course it will -- but it won't be the same. The end of soaps is synonymous with ending Arts education in our schools. It is a matter of the level of intelligence in our society and what we have to be proud of as a people.
When a family member visits your hometown or city, which product of society do you show them? You could take them to the pool at the nifty new motel in town, or you could take them to historical landmarks with significant meaning, something beautiful in your geography, or something truly incredible and aesthetically pleasing that man has managed to introduce to the landscape. In our country, do we want to be proud of the products on our television screens or just be happy that we have something on them that can make us smile for a half-hour?
That isn't just a question for the daytime viewers. We already know their answer. That's a question for our leaders, the networks, the people who influence how things are done, and everyone else we know.
No comments:
Post a Comment