i don’t own a television.

when i was a kid i would watch a lot of tv. i remember a couple of summers in high school when i would just sit at home all day and watch home decorating shows on the learning channel, waiting for my parents to get home from work upon which we would watch even more tv. part of the philosophy of not owning a television (i’ve been told) is having a life with less distractions. i don’t really find that truthful as i am constantly distracted. it’s hard for me to even ride the subway and read without seeing someone or something that gets me thinking about someone else. there’s too much damn stimulus in this city. that’s beside the point. i guess the thing i like about not owning a tv is to not have forced encounters with commercials. and even that’s kind of bullshit because i work in times square, the ad capital of the world.

regardless.

there is something to be said for the emergence of art in new media at all times of technological development, and i’m happy to say that television has come a long way. (don’t worry internet, there’s still a lot of gaps for you to fill in).

the one tv show that i watch regularly (via itunes - not that b.s. ‘watch it on the internet with super low quality and commercials’ thingy) is ‘lost.’ in fact, i just finished watching the season four finale. like katie, i cried twice. and it made me think: there’s only one other tv show that i can remember watching that has made me cry - tons of movies, yes - but only one other tv show. no, not ‘my so called life,’ but ’six feet under.’ (i mashed up promo shots from each in today’s header image).

remember the series finale of that show? i was bawling. maybe it’s because it was revolutionary television in the sense that it took you on an intimate journey through some fucked up people’s lives (and even some gay ones!) and then showed you how they all die so you don’t get to live happily ever after imagining what adventures they might be having - like we all do with ‘friends.’ not.

i can’t help compare these two shows - ‘lost’ / ’six feet under’ - if not purely for the fact that they both get me. get me good. i was in tears when nate died, and i was in tears when desmond finally met penny again. but looking at both shows objectively, i can cite specific differences in quality. ’six feet under’ featured striking performances from a slew of brilliant actors and featured ground-breaking directorial work by a slew of brilliant directors. lost has a bunch of hot people that came out of the woodwork (and ‘party of five’) and landed the sweetest gig ever - hangin’ out in hawaii, getting dirty and acting. you can’t even compare the performance level of these two casts. or the writing. if ‘lost’ didn’t have a scrupulously crafted sound score, the meaningless plot-advancing dialogue would read like a choose your own adventure novel. but something troubles me. even though all signs point to ’six’ being the better show, i still find myself comparably moved by both. how can this be? what’s the point of studying acting, trying to get good, if it’ll all get tacked up to emotional mapping underscoring and camera filters?

i guess the point is there are many ways to move people. hey. even the same person. even me.

the subtlety of frances conroy’s performance or jin exploding on a boat. same.

but then i look back at the season finale of six feet under and i realize that that amazing last montage sequence when claire drives to new york and envisions how her family members die, is set to a sia song. yeah. sia. sia some-people-have-real-problems sia. sia sold-at-starbucks sia. i don’t know. what does all this mean?

are my emotions so easily misled? manipulated? and if i can crack just by a swell in the viola section then what about all the other millions of saps - much thinner-skinned than i - that watch this stuff all the time? does the advent of brilliant new content - true to life, beautifully realistic - result in perpetual emotional distraction? does it limit the tv addict from connecting to anything real?

if only aristotle knew that this is what drama would become. the goal to reduce as many people possible to puddles of mush without them knowing why.

what would brecht say?

would he be pissed off that the only coherent thought we have in our pixellated brains after we watch a gut-wrenching scene is ‘when’s the next episode on?’ versus, ‘how can we have a better government?’ or ‘what are the defining qualities of the human condition?’ not that we should judge all art by how much it educates, but should it be something we think about when we’re dealing with television - a media so much more massive than it ever was intended to be? the amount of social influence this medium has is mind-blowing. this is no poor little theatre.

regardless.

i’m not sure what the thesis of this is. but i do know that funneling all this information through the blogosphere does leave me hungry for one thing : more.

holy shit. i mean, we have to wait til january for new episodes of ‘lost.’ maybe i’ll use the time i’ve spent watching it weekly wisely. or maybe i’ll just catch up on my ‘ab-fab.’