Our viewings this week definitely supported the readings assigned, highlighting the fact that Channel 4’s programs thrive off of uncomfortable and innovative programming. All three shows successfully made me uneasy in some way, whether it be constant eye contact, sexist traditions, or, you know, having sex with a pig. All represented something I hadn’t been exposed to before and didn’t particularly enjoy, yet kept watching.
That point solidified Charlie Brooker’s commentary in Black Mirror. Audiences enjoy programs that push boundaries and incorporate things never seen before. Whether through documentary series exposing the intricacies of an emergency room or the marital traditions of a sub-culture, watching uncomfortable situations unfold can be addicting…just look at the obsessions in either the UK or US. The promise of “normal people” doing something “abnormal” automatically draws in curious viewers who want to watch everything unfold, the goal of Channel 4.
Black Mirror used Channel 4’s own identity against itself, pointing out the danger of fascination with watching the unscripted, “reality” unfolding. Most poignantly, at least in my mind, the most disturbing part of the episode was the montage of viewers, specifically the hospital group. Throughout the episode, the crowd in front of that TV increased: three friends who happened to pass it, a larger group, a mob, and a full lobby complete with chairs they had moved in…glued to the TV even after an hour of watching one man repeatedly hump a pig. They spent all day in front of the TV, waiting for the deed to be done. Again, these people work in a hospital and seemed to have no other reasonable activity to occupy their time.
Brooker wrote a screenplay commenting on this “glued to the screen” phenomenon, questioning the appropriateness of such viewership and the effect this addicted public has on such subjects, what is done and under what conditions. Channel 4 provides this programming, an interesting mix of controversial and thought provoking shows. Love it or hate it, you know if in front of you, it would be hard to look away. Though I like to think no one in our class would have watched the Prime Minister’s defining moment…
After this screening I couldn’t decide which was more disturbing: the content of the shows or the fact that I couldn’t stop watching. Although both gave me a churning feeling in my stomach, I had to know if the PM would actually go through with the demands or what truly outrageous outfit Josie would wear to her wedding. These were shows I wanted to cover my eyes for, but I found myself looking through my fingers anyways. Channel 4 truly hit the nail on the head with uncomfortable programming, but that strategy is obviously working. In class we were all, as you said, “glued to the screen” during these screenings, as I am sure many British people were when they originally aired as well. As much as we question why Channel 4 would put such insanely unnerving material on the air, I think these shows got us talking more than any other screening. This tactic draws in viewers and keeps them coming back for more. And that trend in society may be the most disturbing part of all.
A lot of the other blog posts this week were about Channel 4 basically abandoning its remit by putting out programming like “Big Fat Gypsy Weddings” and other reality programming, but I think all the things that you bring up about “Black Mirror” are exactly what complicate the idea that Channel 4 no longer seeks to be edgy, different or informative.
“Black Mirror” was one of the most thought-provoking pieces of television that I’ve ever seen for just the reasons you discuss. There were a lot of things to like about it, but I think the the idea within “Black Mirror” that it is even attacking Channel 4 and the way it handles content is what gives hope that Channel 4 hasn’t completely turned its back on its original stated goals. If the channel is still willing to put on something as thought-provoking as “Black Mirror,” particularly when it calls to attention the channel’s own practices quite explicitly, that seems to indicate that there is more going on behind the doors of Channel 4 than just the pure sensationalism and exploitations that “Gypsy Weddings” and other shows appear to be. You might even be able to argue that it is only because shows like “Gypsy Weddings” are successful that Channel 4 can continue to take risks with programming more along the lines of “Black Mirror.”
I agree with Maija on the point of “Gypsy Weddings” bringing in the viewers. Who would tune in to watch an hour long documentary on gypsy travelers? But once you exploit the same group a bit and use their ridiculous weddings for the sake of entertainment, you have the perfect recipe to bring in some viewers. Perhaps they assume that the more people that watch a show like “Gypsy Weddings” the more likely they will be to tune in for something like “Black Mirror?” It seems that since Channel 4 is funded by advertising dollars, they have to worry about viewers more than the BBC who gets the license fee. “Gypsy Weddings” seems more like show to bring in the advertisers rather than fuel a discussion on gypsy lifestyle or customs.
I definitely agree with you about these shows making the viewer uncomfortable throughout. That seems to be much more common in British shows, as we discussed after we watched Rev. Because of the short-run structure, the remit to challenge us, and the (formerly) separated advertising model, there’s no reason to put on solely feel-good fodder. I always compare the British and American versions of The Office. David Brent is hilarious, but I’m always sort of eager to get some respite from him. He has none of the Michael Scott charm, which, in some ways, seemed like a cop out to me for the U.S. version. But British TV, particularly on Channel 4, can and does pull out all the stops to make us squirm.
I think Professor Becker brings up another interesting point about Black Mirror other than just how we interact with TV. As television begins to converge with other elements of media it begins to blur the lines between what is entertainment and what isn’t. One of the most striking elements of the episode to me was that, without sites like Youtube and Twitter, this whole event wouldn’t have happened (since the news outlets were willing to respect the blackout). Even then, it took the tenacity of regular people to keep uploading the video to Youtube after it had been taken down for the story to really catch hold. So while yes, I agree it was in a sense using Channel 4’s image against itself, I believe that was only one part of what Brooker was trying to do with this episode.