Abstract
Just as there is an owner’s manual for operating one’s TV, Jason Mittell and Ethan Thompson believe, so should there be instructions for viewing its content. As professors both (faculty in communications and media studies at Middlebury and Texas A&M, respectively), Mittell and Thompson provide forty models of textual analysis, authored by highly qualified TV and media studies scholars. Avoiding the common TV studies protocol of focusing on genres or time periods, they chose to use individual programs to address broader industry and cultural issues. The essays stand fine alone, but reading many or all of them helps the book live up to its commanding title.
The collection takes into consideration a wide range of programming, from dramas and comedies, to news-adjacent (Fox & Friends, Entertainment Tonight), children’s shows (Phineas and Ferb), and reality shows (Jersey Shore, Amazing Race). Both the new and the old make a showing, providing a veritable cross section of TV, from soap opera storytelling (One Life to Live) to DIY viral remix (Autotune the News). Is there truly more to say about Star Trek, M*A*S*H, and The Twilight Zone? By including them in the retrospective, the editors indicate that there is, because classics are always drawing new audiences and critics, providing a source of fresh perspectives. Situating well-known shows within the context of overarching categories or themes also sheds new light. This book’s sections include: aesthetics and style; social identity and cultural politics; democracy, nation, and the public interest; industrial practices and structures; medium, technology, and everyday life.
Each essay selects a relatively narrow aspect of a program to problematize without forsaking commentary on the show’s message or the overall impact of the series. In some cases, a single episode is considered. Such is the case with M*A*S*H whose provocative faux-documentary style “Interview” episode was atypical in form but a dense and accurate illustration of the series’ sentiment and content. Overall, the authors pull out unexpected hooks from the texts at hand. I Love Lucy is analyzed here not for its aesthetic of cultural innovations but for pioneering labor and production practices, namely, the role of writer–producer in early television. “It’s Fun to Eat: Forgotten Television” stands out as the one essay that focuses on an obscure, ephemeral program (a cooking show hosted by a blind, Latina host) and raises issues about the TV historian’s challenges. The Dick Van Dyke Show essay analyzes an episode as a representation of how postwar sitcoms present queer memes, highlighting their importance to queer and TV history.
The editors sought and achieved scholarly yet accessible analyses (the reprinted M*A*S*H essay is unique in its journalistic style), and despite dozens of authors, there is a comfortable flow in tone. Different approaches to critiquing and writing—not always neutral—make for a dynamic reading experience. “The Cosby Show: Representing Race,” which addresses the now historical Reagan-era politics and culture, is a polemical first-person anecdote about how the show presented “the illusion of race” and a post-racial fantasy in stark contrast to concurrent real-life events of the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Each entry acknowledges the arc of television history and the field of television studies. “Star Trek: Serialized Ideology,” in fact, is specifically about the importance of context and examining a series as a whole as opposed to focusing on certain episodes to make a point, which is a common error, the author notes, in television studies. Although each essay is supplied with an abstract, they are less like journal articles and in total serve more like a useful survey of recurring themes and issues on the cultural impact of TV. Similar points are emphasized by different authors. Both the Star Trek and Parks and Recreation essays, for instance, speak to TV’s ability to present different points of view (unlike film) because of their characters’ need to exist via conflict.
“The Sopranos: Episodic Storytelling” explores whether or not the show progresses like a novel or a collection of stories (the author argues for the latter), how that makes viewers think about serial narrative, and how the show goes against the grain of TV convention. In “Mad Men: Visual Style,” the author discusses how the look of the show comments on the early 1960s’ power structure. The use of recurring sets—furniture and fixture composition and placement such as ceiling lights and liquor cabinets—critiques the era’s rigidity in homes and offices. The role of the television itself is notable as it takes viewers through storylines, including culturally punctuating news stories and the primacy of the soap opera.
“Parks and Recreation: The Cultural Forum” reflects on the ideal public sphere. The first quarter of the essay is devoted in general to how the formerly communal versus current atomized viewing behavior impacts society with regard to activism and confronting differing values. The author makes a case that the show, which deals with the benefits of engaging with local government but nevertheless acts as a response to right-wing anti-government sentiments, is anachronistic in its attempt to speak to a heterogeneous audience. While the Everyday Italian essay does not break new ground, it uses the show as an example of what is common to all commercial television: as consumers we can improve ourselves, and sex sells. Other topic examples include “Modern Family: Product Placement,” “Gossip Girl: Transmedia Technologies,” and “NYPD Blue: Content Regulation.”
With their urging in the introduction about how the essays serve as models for writing your own criticism, the editors seem to be addressing media studies students. But because of its well-commissioned and well-balanced tone and diversity/specificity of texts, it is just as instructive for a wide range of burgeoning or established TV scholars as well as inquisitive fans of the various programs. The collection manages to be potentially enjoyable and useful to scholars and TV fans alike.