Category Archives: Entertainment

Charity Membership – A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

I admit that computerized algorithms and donor database programs have tremendously increased the efficiencies of charitable organizations, allowing them to reduce overhead costs and push more donated funds into actually helping the causes they were set up to support. However, mailing list and marketing programs still need human oversight in order to comprehend, catch, correct and atone for the robotic behavior of the programs and the data entry personnel interacting with those programs. When the human empathy is removed from the pitch and interaction with current and potential donors, it eventually disappears from the care and concern the organization has toward the very cause it is trying to solve and manage. I feel I am witnessing an example of this with one of the organizations I have been supporting, the American Film Institute.

I discovered the American Film Institute shortly after I came out to attend UCLA’s motion picture/television program in the mid-70’s. At the time, AFI was considered one of the top four film schools in the country with UCLA, USC and NYU. Of course, AFI’s school was specifically focused on the art of filmmaking and was not attached to any other school or university. Its other main focus was the promotion and preservation of the film and video arts throughout its history in America. I decided to sign up as a member and began receiving its monthly magazine. Since then, up to about a year ago, I set aside money in my budget to renew my membership every year in December, faithfully checking the box to waive all benefits so that my annual contribution would fully go to AFI’s mission. AFI would receive my check and send me a membership card with the following year’s December expiration date, making me a 30-plus year member.

Last year, I received an early generic renewal form, asking me to consider renewing early in order to help AFI reach a goal. I felt I could handle this, so I sent my check to AFI in October. Imagine my surprise when I received my annual membership card with an expiration date of October of this year. I was befuddled by this, but felt it wasn’t anything serious to make a fuss about. Then, in July, I received a generic form letting me know it was time for me to renew my membership for this year. Now, I was concerned. Was AFI trying to change the definition of annual as a period of 8 months? Was this cycle of early renewals just an underhanded method of trying to pull in more money from inattentive donors? I could not let this pass, so I wrote a letter to the membership department regarding my concerns, adding a scanned image of my membership cards for the past three years to demonstrate the shortened “annual membership” I had already received this year. A few days later, I received a message on my answering machine from a membership manager, giving me a simple apology. She stated that I was a longtime valued member and the early expiration date was obviously a human entry error. Then, in a very laissez-faire manner, she added she understood why I would decide not to renew and she would put a note in my file providing an explanation. If I had any questions, she provided a number I could call. Even though my letter was harsh, I could not understand why she had called if she was going to be accepting of the situation, instead of trying to demonstrate how the error would be corrected in order to convince me to stay with AFI.

A few weeks ago, I received a new standard renewal notice, which was more in line with the October expiration date. Since I had such a long relationship with AFI, I thought about not letting a minor error or the singular reaction from one staff member distract me from the primary reason I had been supporting AFI every year. I seriously considered sending my renewal check to AFI in October. Then, I received another renewal notice informing me that since I was such a loyal member and partner all these years, my membership expiration date was being extended to November. I shook my head in amazement. Was AFI so generously giving me back one of the two months that had been taken from me in error last year? Did not the message from that membership manager state that a notification about the error was being put into my account, so that the membership drive would not ironically boast to me about giving me back half what they had taken from me in my current annual membership? I realize that these notices were all computer-driven outreach programs, but considering the earlier personal message I had received and the resulting lack of follow-through, I saw an indication that AFI had lost the human empathic oversight to forward their mission to preserve American film history and help educate film storytellers into the future. It’s time for me to search elsewhere to further that cause.

The Novelization of Television

Posted on by

Last week, I found time to attend an Academy of Television Arts and Sciences event which had television critics Robert Bianco of USA Today, Tim Goodman of the Hollywood Reporter, Brian Lowry of Variety, Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times and Matt Roush of TV Guide on a panel moderated by Variety editor Cynthia Littleton, giving the audience a critic’s preview of the Fall TV Season. Even though the discussion did eventually get around to what new shows they liked, what new shows they felt would crash and burn and what new shows will become cult darlings, the initial question and somewhat underlying theme of the evening was about the changes within the business of television, which was changing the storytelling of television and its relationship with the audience. In essence, changing technology was providing the audience with the means to easily see what they wanted to watch when they wanted to watch, creating a desire to see complicated storytelling within a closed format leading to a resolution. I see this evolution as the novelization of television.

When television began broadcasting to the public, the public had to adjust their viewing time to the networks’ schedules. Viewers were enticed to return to watch new episodes as an endless series of short tales with favorite characters until the characters or stories became too familiar. Except in a few instances, the series would be cancelled without a final resolution or sendoff to the characters. It was the business of television. Ninety minute movies, stretched out to two hours by added commercial breaks, was the longest form of individual storytelling available within the broadcast schedule. Then, networks discovered that viewers were willing to see more complicated storytelling within a limited number of episodes over a shorter period of time. This was a golden age for miniseries, led by Roots and Rich Man, Poor Man. However, the economics of schedule television could not support an over-abundance of miniseries and the format faded. However, cable television, VHS tape recorders and the digital revolution of DVDs, DVRs and smartphones were all evolutionary steps that would move audiences away from scheduled television, which brings us to what Robert Bianco, Tim Goodman, Brian Lowry, Mary McNamara and Matt Roush were observing now.

Per the critics, the defining series for the current evolution of how today’s audiences consume television was Netflix’s House of Cards which released all 13 episodes to its subscribers at the same time. This allowed the Netflix audience to become like the reader who stays up all night to finish a good book. The audience was able to binge view the entire series and walk away satisfied at reaching the somewhat season-ending resolution. However, one of the critics related that he was hearing from friends who were DVR’ing full seasons of other current cable series, which have been running a single complex storyline within a shorter span of ten to twelve episodes, and then binge-viewing them in one day to get that same feeling of reading an exciting book in one sitting. For viewers of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones, each episode was like a chapter in the overall tale that needed to be viewed as a whole.

In addition, the critics noted that producers were gaining more control in creatively demanding a final season within a short span of years in order to give a complex premise a final satisfying resolution to loyal viewers. (Some credit was given to ABC’s Lost for this, although one critic claimed it was a desperation stand by the producers against the network for a series that had passed its prime.) Even for viewers willing to view the chapters weekly, the ability to follow a set of inter-connected characters through a period of conflict to its end and then move on to another satisfying story within a reasonable few months was much more preferable to being dragged along a nearly endless flow of cliff-hangers.

Finally, technology in the form of computer tablets and smartphones has freed the television viewer from the home. The audience can binge view the story while riding the bus, enjoying a coffee in the local café or getting that suntan at the beach, right next to the person reading an exciting novel. Soon, the viewer like the reader will have total control – when, where and how – over scheduling the enjoyment of a good complex story with fascinating characters. For now, the critics are trying to decide how to review shows going forth – one episode at a time or a full season in whole like a book. The evolution continues.

Primetime Emmy Nominations

Posted on by

It’s that time of year again. Time for me to consider what shows to mark on my Primetime Emmy nomination ballot. As a member of the Public Relations Peer Group within the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, I am not eligible to nominate for the individual Emmy categories, but I can nominate for the program and special class Emmy categories. Still, It is pretty neat to have a voice in determining the finalists for best drama or comedy television series of the season.

It is impossible for one person to view every minute of original programming throughout the year. It is just as impossible to view all the DVDs or online screenings that studios and production companies make available to Academy members in hope of being considered for a nomination ballot. As an Academy member, I have a deeper understanding of the process, skill, hard work and luck involved in getting a series, movie or special to air or distribution, which encourages me to view these creative works openly. However, I still must use my preferences, experiences and friend recommendations to choose what shows I want to view and enjoy, selecting my nominations from this group. There are plenty of Academy members with different preferences and experiences to give the full slate of works an honest viewing.

In the comedy category, the FX series, Louie, starring Louis C.K., has been touted in glowing terms in press and by some Facebook friends, so I will take time to view the DVD FX sent me. However, I am not a big fan of gritty or crude material just for the sake of being crude. Ultimately, the message or theme is the last word. Humor by its nature can be cruel. In fact, comedy has been defined as tragedy with a happy ending. For me, I prefer lighter fare where condescension tinged with ignorance is skewered and insecure characters actually find a road to redemption and community through their comic antics. Something like The Big Bang Theory. With its syndication over TBS and the local Fox affiliate over the past two years, I was able to binge view the previous seasons, turning it into a current favorite. In the past season, as the characters have grown, I did feel that a few episodes this season were more filler episodes to stretch out the life of the series, but there were good seminal moments. I find it interesting that perhaps the most insecure character is Penny, the beautiful girl among the geeks who is actually scared that she is not as smart as the friends she has around her. Another series I have come to enjoy is the skit-infused Portlandia on IFC. Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein take on many characters in vignettes that gently poke fun at the casual culture of Portland, Oregon. Deep thoughts in a shallow pool.

In the drama category, I am not a fan of non-redemptive, ultra-twisted series, based on foundations of sex and violence. These are valid themes to explore in the challenges of life, but for me, they are hard to take over the extended period of a series. This is why I have avoided fan-favorites like HBO’s Game of Thrones or AMC’s The Walking Dead. The key for me is the underlying sense of redemption that inspires growth in the main character, allowing me to empathize and root for this character. To me, an empathetic anti-hero is a character living a survivalist, immoral lifestyle that is unexpectedly thrust in a heroic position to lead against or uncover a greater conspiracy of evil, which requires the character to grow in a redemptive manner. BBC America’s Orphan Black, a series about a woman who discovers that she is a clone to the woman whose identity she took over, is a perfect example of this and definitely on my consideration list.

As for reality programming, this is divided into two categories – reality and reality competition. The standard reality category mostly contains docu-series like Real Housewives, Deadliest Catch and Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. I generally do not have any interest in this type of programming. A reality series that focuses on a person or a small group of people tends to be almost unrealistically larger than life in order to keep it from getting stale. However, I am more impressed with a reality series which educates while it entertains. A good example of this is Discovery’s Mythbusters. As for the reality competition category, there is one show that consistently expands our global perspective in the challenge, The Amazing Race. It is definitely one of my favorites.

I have a couple more weeks to consider my choices for my ballot before mailing it in, so I’ll check out a few more shows for consideration. Maybe I’ll have time to view the NetFlix series, House of Cards.