The Drug of Our Nation

By Mark Grueter

---------------------------------------

It has come to be considered a sign of intellect to avoid television (or the "boob tube" or "idiot box," if you prefer).

We’ve all heard the talking points, most of which are not without merit; TV is garbage, everything is dumbed-down, news coverage is sensational and superficial, networks are owned by corporations with ulterior motives, creative and challenging programs are ditched for more mainstream shows, it exploits sex and glorifies violence, it makes us passive and sedentary, it discourages and suppresses real art, and so on and so forth. But perhaps the most compelling critique of television is simply that Americans watch way too much of it, socializing less and reading less. Combine television viewing with countless hours logged onto the Internet, and one could argue that Americans have degenerated into a society of semi-literate loners.

This is a tired point and plenty of ink has already been spilled on the topic, so I won’t dwell on it. However, I will say that as a result of this vogue way of thinking, there are people who will go out of their way to completely shun television - they’ve convinced themselves that it’s a fundamentally vulgar pastime, a tradition reserved for practice by the unrefined masses.

Many will take it a step further, ridiculing anyone who watches any TV at all. Some political activists even believe that television is somehow destroying society: "Kill your television!" is a slogan commonly invoked by the high-minded.

Most of us, though, struggle to find a balance. And a new guilt complex has penetrated many of our psyches. We punish ourselves for watching television: "I can’t believe I just spent an hour and a half watching ‘The Bachelorette,’" I caught myself muttering a couple weeks back, as it occurred to me that I should have been studying for the grad school courses I’m “wasting” thousands of dollars on instead.

However, after watching virtually no TV for two years while living in Russia, I’ve since been absorbed by it. I still like to read and communicate directly with other mammals, but the pretentious and austere calls to deride television and pop culture in the name of sophistication strike me as entirely affected. To me, people who assume this pose simultaneously reveal an underlying insecurity - perhaps resulting from not having been able to fit-in during high school.

Either way, there still exist some exceptionally creative, smart and informative venues on the boob tube. Two recent, shining examples:

1) HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm, three seasons in, has developed into what is perhaps the greatest show in television history. Among other things, this show examines how people act when they think nobody is watching. And in this sense, it is more "real" than any of the reality-based shows, where cameras are everywhere and the characters are on guard. For instance, last week on The Bachelorette, Trista (the bachelorette) was accused of being "shallow" by one of the rejected pursuers - his name was Brook. Brook was correct on this, but not for the reasons he imagined. He was all pissed off because he believed Trista cut him after learning he owned horses. One must read between the lines though. Oblivious as he was, Brook didn’t realize that the real reason why Trista didn’t go for him was because she wasn’t sexually attracted to him. It seems she used the horse line as an excuse to let the poor guy down easier than it might have been. In any case, the viewer was not exposed to Trista’s true thoughts and feelings.

So in this sense, The Bachelorette is not very real at all. In Curb Your Enthusiasm, we get a much closer look at the peculiar, disturbing, twisted and sometimes sick aspects of the way human beings function.

Some characters on Curb Your Enthusiasm play versions of their real-life selves - i.e. the star of the show, Larry David (co-creator of Seinfeld), comedian Richard Lewis and actress Mary Steenburgen. Many of the outrageous scenes, just as on Seinfeld, stem from events that actually happened in Larry David’s life. And the actors are not given any lines - they’re required to improvise throughout.

Each episode deals with the truly absurd ways in which seemingly normal people interact with one another. Miscommunication, contrasting values and different understandings of etiquette inevitably lead Larry into trouble with other characters.

In one episode, after being sworn to secrecy, Larry and his wife Cheryl receive an inside tip ("from the highest possible source") that there’ll be a terrorist attack on LA (where they live) the upcoming weekend. Larry wants to get the hell out of there, but Cheryl doesn’t want to leave because the couple is scheduled to attend an important charity event. In one of the rare quasi-serious and perhaps the only ever dramatic scene on the show, the following conversation occurs between the two:

Cheryl: I know I just can’t leave tomorrow.

Larry: Well, maybe, uh, you know, uh maybe I can go.

C: And, and where are you gonna go?

L: Could go, golfing at Pebble Beach, maybe I...(shakes his head)

C: mm hmm...do you think that’s a good idea...for us to be apart if something did happen?

L: Then at least, you know, one of us would........survive.

C: It just seems like if we’re gonna go, we should go together.

L: Well, not necessarily. Almost seems a little...........selfish...that you would want both of us to............perish.

C: So, you’d be fine going on without me?

L: Well, it would be very difficult at first I’m sure, but, at some point hopefully I could.....get back some semblance of a life.

C: Okay. If you feel good about one of us dying and the other one surviving, and you can live with that for the rest of your life, then you should go golf this weekend.

L: I’ll think about.

C: Think about it.

In a different episode, Larry and Cheryl are invited to play poker with three other couples (at Julia Louis-Dreyfuss’ house). The pot grows to $800 and everyone has folded except Julia - so she takes the pot with what she reveals is a lousy hand. Larry can’t believe it, so he insists that everybody show their hand. It turns out that even if everyone had played and even with her shitty hand, Julia has beaten them all except a sexually ambiguous married man who folded with an ace high. There’s an uproar of noises and laughter until Larry jokingly yells to the guy, "You cunt! Why didn’t you stay in? Oh, you cunt!" Larry doesn’t realize he has crossed a line. A sudden silence falls over the table before one of the other men tells Larry that his remarks were "misogynistic" and "unacceptable." Larry argues that because it was a poker game he could use that type of language. The women are offended, the effeminate guy (who we later learn is gay) is on the verge of tears, the game breaks up and the guests go home. Larry claims that the word “cunt” is no worse than the word “prick” but acknowledges to his wife that, in hindsight, he should have "perhaps called the guy a pussy instead."

Of course, the only way to fully appreciate the essence of Curb Your Enthusiasm is to watch it. Larry isn’t always just an asshole. His behavior and the arguments he employs to defend himself seem really fucked-up at times, but in a strange way I feel like he’s almost always right. Like the time he goes to see his doctor. He has an 11 o’clock appointment and shows up a couple minutes before the hour. A female patient arrives at the same time, but she "signs in" before Larry. So the nurse comes out a few minutes later and calls out that woman’s name to come in. It’s now 11:30, Larry’s angry and suspicious, so he asks the receptionist what time the woman’s appointment was that went in before him. "11:15," the receptionist replies. "What?!" Larry is stupefied. He is then informed of the office’s policy - the sign-in sheet is the key. Whoever signs up first, goes in first. Larry proceeds to cause a big scene. "Did you hear that?" he shouts to the other people waiting. "Unbelievable. Can you believe this? What’s the point of scheduling appointments then, huh?" And he then goes on to make an abrasive remark about how it’s the same procedure that a supermarket deli uses. Everyone ignores him, and if you weren’t paying attention to the details, you’d think he was an absolute lunatic.

I haven’t even covered the best part of the show - those priceless moments when Larry gets inexplicably goofy (for fellow enthusiasts the “zhi-ya zhi-ya zhi-ya” meditation scene comes to mind). It is the one show on TV everyone should see - a thirty minute lesson on life, human beings and comedy. I have met a certain misguided few that don*t particularly like the show, like my parents. And I tend to think that there is something fundamentally wrong these people - they (and not television) should be avoided, if not put away in an institution. Seriously.

 

2) Find me an artist who will deny the value of ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live. On air for about three weeks now, the anti-late show is not expected to be on much longer. Unlike competitors Leno, Letterman, Conan and Kilborn, Live bucks all talk-show convention. The show has no monologue, very few written jokes and no big-name celebrity guests. It might be the most makeshift operation ever to appear on network television; it’s on the verge of breaking down and completely falling apart at any given moment. Think Community Access. For example, Kimmel and co. attempted to bring back to the limelight that relic, Super Dave Osbourne, to perform the announcements on a regular basis. But he only lasted one show and then, in a hilarious send-up two nights later, reappeared, pretending to be arrested by the cops after a high-speed chase on an LA freeway (O.J.-style). He hasn’t been heard from since. This constant element of unpredictability keeps the show fresh.

What makes Kimmel appealing, in part, is his lack of polish. He’s not especially talented, like a Conan O’Brien, but he is much easier to relate to. Viewers might end up opting for Kimmel because there’s something more authentic about him. When things go awry on the show, Kimmel wastes no time attempting to control the damage. Immediately after a piss-poor interview with actor Jamie Kennedy, Kimmel had only this to say: "Okay, that was probably the worst television segment ever." They cut to Kennedy and he appeared to be hurt by the comment, as might be expected after an insult as such.

ABC built an elaborate bar specifically for the show, and its audience members. Kimmel pleaded with the network to get this done. But after the first show on Superbowl Sunday, ABC pulled the liquor license after somebody vomited all over the studio during the live hour. For the next two nights, Kimmel was visibly shaken and uncomfortable. With little material at hand, he didn’t seem like he knew what to do or say, now that the bar - his pride and joy - was gone. So he dealt with this bleak view the only way he knew how, by trading shots of vodka from his desk with temporary guest host Snoop Dogg. You simply don’t see this sort of thing on any other show; college kids will eat it up.

The other novel idea for the show was to have a new guest host every week. Snoop played the role week one, contributing the senselessly funny line "blizzle dizzle" to describe an on stage snowstorm, before passing the torch to celebrity mole Kathy Griffin for week two. During the first week, Kimmel was so hard-up for recognizable guests (Tammy Faye was the best they had done the night before) that Jimmy’s good friend Adam Carolla was summoned to play the role of "guest." Carolla co-hosted The Man Show on Comedy Central with Kimmel and is currently a writer on Live. He had nothing to promote of course, so instead the three just got drunk and joked around, as if no viewing audience were present. It was brilliant. It was reality. Carolla then became the guest host for week three - nobody else would agree to do it.

The situation is ostensibly grim on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Carolla never fails to needle Kimmel about the fact that the plug will soon be pulled. Regardless of the show's ultimate fate, this botched masterpiece is giving us an fascinating glimpse at what television talk shows could, and in fact should, be like.

* * *

I’ve found that there are good narcotics, like vodka and tonics, blow, mushrooms, books, etc., that can enlighten us and improve our lives. And there are destructive, evil narcotics that can bring us to ruin - like car bombs, crack, heroin, fundamentalism, etc. And then there are others that are hard to classify. An addiction of some kind in this world is almost unavoidable. The key is to find those addictions that won’t kill us, that won’t make us completely stupid and antisocial and that can be handled in moderation.

Television, I contend, is a good drug; it’s educational, social if we watch and discuss with others, sometimes interactive, relatively non-addictive, and it can be enjoyed in small doses. And I know I sound like a half-crazed, television junkie in writing this.

My TV weaknesses furthermore include a Seinfeld fix, the History Channel, and political talk shows like Hardball with adirol-abuser Chris Matthews. Novelist Gore Vidal was on last week, claiming that all this talk about WMDs and inspections in Iraq is just "theater" because it’s really all about oil and securing the "Bush-Cheney junta"; former NY congresswoman Susan Molinari (also on the show) then began to hysterically denounce Vidal with a litany of stale patriotic appeals. After she was through, Vidal replied simply and tersely, "Are you running for office, madam?"  What’s for an intellectual not to like?

MTV’s gossipy and rancorous The Real World (still the best reality show) fits into my rotation. And I still have fond memories of now canceled classics like The Tom Green Show (recall "Undercutters Pizza"), The Dana Carvey Show (six episodes of which I now have on tape) as well as Dennis Miller Live with scotch-sodden cameos by Christopher Hitchens - on Clinton: "a cheap crook, a fucking rapist and a psycho" and on Mother Theresa: "a shriveled hell bat...the ghoul of Calcutta...a dangerous, sinister woman."

Almost all of my favorite programs are comedies. Even when I’m learning about something serious, I need to be entertained or provoked. And TV seems to excel at irreverent satire. But I’m assured that there are plenty of high-quality, unfunny shows as well, like The Sopranos and The West Wing, for those with more serious inclinations.

But again, we are instructed that TV is for the less erudite and the unambitious. Regular appearances on a slew of cable talk shows do not prevent Hitchens himself from declaring that he "never" watches TV. He thinks it a waste of time, at best. What such lofty abstainers don’t know or won’t admit is that, with 200 some-odd channels, there’s something important on TV for everybody to learn about. Being in grad school makes me realize how out of touch many "intellectuals" are with reality, or with anyone living outside New York City - a city where it's demonstrably easier to live a sheltered life than one would imagine.

There’s nothing open-minded about dismissing popular culture for such reasons. Every liberal education should stress diversity of thought and a general well-roundedness, not condescension and dogma. It's fine by me if a self-nominated elite choose to stay away from TV, but when they begin to lecture the rest of us about how we're morons for not doing the same, it's time to take up the defense. And in holding the position (overtly or silently) that your own tastes are more refined than others, you simultaneously proclaim superiority over those same people.

I had thought that Warhol had effectively subverted our belief that a Campbell’s soup label cannot be made into art, while seriously undermining the distinctions we make between a high culture and a popular culture. There very well may be some works of art that are “better” than others, and we all prefer to think that whatever we like constitutes that. But this notion is becoming less and less viable as we become more democratic and egalitarian. The “TV is for fools” line may be the rant of the quintessential pseudo-outcast - the individual who prefers to smugly assume his positions, instead of arguing for them.

You’ll notice an axis between the would-be television killers and many other liberal pretensions about society like the “eating meat is immoral” and “cigarettes should be banned” crowds. It all harkens back to the grotesque days of Prohibition. It’s the same sort of thinking. The ultimate goal or consequence of this mentality is to control the way people behave, to tell them what and how to think, to set up a hierarchical structure of evaluating what is legitimate and appropriate and what is not. It’s difficult to imagine anything more horrible than this and, in fact, there is nothing intelligent or liberal about it.

---------------------------------------

Mark Grueter lives in New York City, where he is pursuing his Masters in Liberal Studies at the New School University's Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science.  He can be contacted at [email protected].

 

© 2003 Me Three