halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) (12/12/85)
Don't blame NBC. TZ is on CBS, the most notorious censors of all. Remember The Smothers Brothers?
tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) (12/14/85)
As a professional writer, I abhorcensorship. However, there is a great difference between
censorship and maintaining some level of good taste,
especially in a collaborative medium like television. True,
Harlan was the writer in question, but producer De Guere, actor
Asner, whoever they selected as director, and the programming
mavens at CBS all would have had to live with the fact that
the terrifying thought that Santa did not like black and
hispanic children would have been put in some children's minds.
Even if the resolution of the episode had proved otherwise, the
mere asking of the question may have been inappropriate to ask
in prime time.
Consider, for instance, an episode from actor/director/child star
Jackie Cooper's autobiography. A director wanting boy-actor
Jackie to cry his heart out on camera told Cooper that his pet
dog had just been killed. Cooper did indeed cry to the director's
satisfaction. Afterwards, the director revealed it had all been
a "harmless" joke and Jackie's dog was fine. The question: was
it (either Ellison's raising the question of whether St. Nick
likes visible minorities or the director's suggesting the dog was
dead) justifiable? Or are some ideas, especially those relating
to and (given TZ's timeslot) targetted at children, best left
unspoken?
Ellsion has walked off virtually every long-term commitment he
has ever had and bitched about virtually every short-term media
project that has ever come to fruition. It was predictable
that he would leave TZ in a huff. It was only a matter of time.
I, too, think he has a wonderful way with the English language,
but he is hardly irreplacable. C'est la vie.
RJS in Toronto
Posted c/o
--
Tom Nadas
UUCP: {decvax,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,allegra,utzoo}!utcsri!tom
CSNET: tom@torontoins_aset@jhunix.UUCP (Sue Trowbridge) (12/17/85)
> > Ellsion has walked off virtually every long-term commitment he > has ever had and bitched about virtually every short-term media > project that has ever come to fruition. It was predictable > that he would leave TZ in a huff. It was only a matter of time. > I, too, think he has a wonderful way with the English language, > but he is hardly irreplacable. C'est la vie. > > RJS in Toronto > Posted c/o I have been an Ellison fan for quite some time now and have read nearly every book he's published (short stories, essays, etc.) -- no mean feat. However, I have been disappointed by the new TZ series. (WARNING -- spoilers ahead) For one thing, it's not really true to the spirit of the old show. In Serling's zone, the good were always rewarded and the bad were always punished. This has hardly been the case on the new TZ -- i.e., the boy who was killed for being too intelligent, the harried housewife who stopped time with a nuclear bomb in the air, trapped forever or doomed. Granted, not every old TZ was a morality play -- perhaps the most famous episode of all, "Time Enough at Last," was a sad story where a kind old man's "best-laid plans" were ruined. But so many TZs featured baddies getting poetic justice. The new TZ seems to have forgotten this. Some of the new TZs have been so stupid and sentimental that it's a wonder that crusty old Harlan was involved, such as last Friday's about a woman brought back from the past to save a scientist's marriage. I really did expect more from Ellison. But the "Shatterday" episode proved that his works function much better as stories than as visuals. I think print is the best medium for him; besides, it's a solitary art rather than a coll- aborative one, and Ellison doesn't seem to be Mr. Congeniality. Hard to believe the man who wrote two books entitled _The_Glass_Teat_ could get a job in tv in the first place. Ellisonmaniacs, and anyone interested in a good argument, should check out his latest volume of essays, _An_ Edge_In_My_Voice_. Reading it was lots more fun than watching any episode of the TZ. -- *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Sue Trowbridge "Enquiring minds want to know!" allegra!umcp-cs!aplvax..... decvax!decuac!aplvax.....
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (12/19/85)
In article <1797@utcsri.UUCP> tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) writes: > >As a professional writer, I abhorcensorship. However, there is a great difference between >censorship and maintaining some level of good taste, >especially in a collaborative medium like television. True, >Harlan was the writer in question, but producer De Guere, actor >Asner, whoever they selected as director, and the programming >mavens at CBS all would have had to live with the fact that >the terrifying thought that Santa did not like black and >hispanic children would have been put in some children's minds. >Even if the resolution of the episode had proved otherwise, the >mere asking of the question may have been inappropriate to ask >in prime time. I don't buy this one bit. I'm sure Ellison's episode would have ended with a clear and emphatic point that Santa Claus comes to all children. I'm getting very tired of the idea that even the suggestion of a bigotted or predjudiced idea, no matter how quickly refuted, will damage children irrevocably. I believe I saw an episode or two dealing with injustice done to Jews (especially with Holocaust overtones) -- why were these allowed? From the summaries of the episode, it sounded extrememly interesting, and I suspect that it would have done much more against predjudice than for it. >Consider, for instance, an episode from actor/director/child star >Jackie Cooper's autobiography. A director wanting boy-actor >Jackie to cry his heart out on camera told Cooper that his pet >dog had just been killed. Cooper did indeed cry to the director's >satisfaction. Afterwards, the director revealed it had all been >a "harmless" joke and Jackie's dog was fine. The question: was >it (either Ellison's raising the question of whether St. Nick >likes visible minorities or the director's suggesting the dog was >dead) justifiable? Or are some ideas, especially those relating >to and (given TZ's timeslot) targetted at children, best left >unspoken? I don't think your example relates to the TZ episode at all. Ellison was writing a *STORY* which would show the stupidity and invalidity of racial predjudice -- but for even mentioning the subject, the thing gets canned. Cooper is recounting a story where he was (viciously, I think) tricked into beliving his dog was dead by someone he knew. Do you believe that kids believe every single thing that someone says on TV? I don't think so -- they watch the story, see what happens to (and with) the characters, and make judgements from there; the story usually directs them in their conclusions, and I'm sure Ellison would have utterly decimated the predjudice angle. Besides, I've seen many, many prime-time episodes that more-or-less reveal that Santa Claus is a mythical creation (OK, maybe this is open to debate :-) ). Should these also be eliminated from prime-time? Perhaps the question is whether TZ deserves a later time period; even though I don't agree on the fragility of kid's psyche, I think a later time would suit it well. >Ellsion has walked off virtually every long-term commitment he >has ever had and bitched about virtually every short-term media >project that has ever come to fruition. It was predictable >that he would leave TZ in a huff. It was only a matter of time. >I, too, think he has a wonderful way with the English language, >but he is hardly irreplacable. C'est la vie. No arguments that Ellison is a pain-in-the-ass, strident, and (in my mind) one of the worst critics ever put on this earth; I'd *like* to dislike him. But he writes so very well, and he attracts a lot of talent. I'll miss his stories and his touches very much on TZ, though I think more credit for the show's success should be directed at Phillip DeGuerre, a man who has consistently brought high quality to his productions. "Ah, you know the type. They like to blame it all on the Jews or the Blacks, 'cause if they couldn't, they'd have to wake up to the fact that life's one big, scary, glorious, complex and ultimately unfathomable crapshoot -- and the only reason THEY can't seem to keep up is they're a bunch of misfits and losers." Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
tom@utcsri.UUCP (Tom Nadas) (12/21/85)
How very thoughtful of Jeff Meyer to come so resoundingly to the
defence of Harlan Ellison. Evidently he has more information about
the approach Ellison was taking to the Santa Claus TZ story than
the rest of us, since he sees fit to tell us how it was going to
end. You would think he would have at least headed his rebutal
with a spoiler warning message, in that case.
I see no evidence of TV shying away from difficult issues. Therefore,
I must conclude that Ellison's treatment was yanked not because it
discussed prejudice (hardly a taboo topic on the tube), but rather
because iwasn't worth wading through his ugly scenario to get to
his rather feeble moral. Asking the question "Does Santa Claus
like blacks and hispanics?" just hso he can answer "Yes" hardly
makes Ellison the new champion of civil rights.
Jeff then goes on to suggest that there is no difference between
TV accurately and movingly portraying the persecution of Jews and
Ellison writing a fantasy about a mean-spirited Santa Claus. I
suppose Rod Serling would say that the only place where those
had anything in common was ...
... in the Twilight Zone.
:-)
RJS in Toronto
c/o
--
Tom Nadas
UUCP: {decvax,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,allegra,utzoo}!utcsri!tom
CSNET: tom@torontoallison@mitre.ARPA (12/27/85)
From: Burgess Allison <allison@mitre.ARPA>
>>... terrifying thought that Santa did not like black and hispanic
>>children would have been put in some children's minds. Even if the
>>resolution of the episode had proved otherwise, the mere asking of
>>the question may have been inappropriate to ask in prime time.
>
>I don't buy this one bit. I'm sure Ellison's episode would have
>ended with a clear and emphatic point that Santa Claus comes to all
>children.
That's the whole point! It doesn't matter how the episode ends. The problem
with the story line is that it suggests that Santa *might* be a racist. The
accusation alone is enough to do the damage. It's the same thing as if 60
Minutes does an hour-long special on whether you're an embezzler or not. Even
if they conclude that you're not, or announce that you've not been convicted,
let's see how long it is before you work on the payroll project again. If
you're put on trial for raping a woman in an elevator, and then found innocent,
let's see how many women start taking the stairs when you're around. Note that
we have to wait to the end of the show to find out whether Santa is or isn't
a piece of disgusting slime.
Let's assume (incorrectly) that the kids watch the entire show and see the
saving-grace ending. Are they convinced? I don't know whether they would be,
do you? Do you think they remember King Kong making lunch out of the city so
nice they named it twice, or that he got killed in the end? It's astounding
how many monsters from movies and TV -- who were killed at the end of their
respective shows -- are able somehow to come back to life and find their way
into children's closets (usually about bedtime).
>I'm getting very tired of the idea that even the suggestion of a bigotted
>or predjudiced idea, no matter how quickly refuted, will damage children
>irrevocably.
I agree with what you actually said here, but the problem with the story
line is *not* that the concept of prejudice is merely presented. (Indeed,
prejudice is a fact of life and something that we, as parents, need to deal
with in raising our children.) The problem is that it presents an entirely
new concept that Santa might hold to these racial biases.
One, this needlessly attacks a pleasant and entertaining character that's
an integral part of many children's Christmas. And two, for many of those
children who have bought into the Santa myth completely, this might actually
serve as a lesson that racism is OK! ("See Mom, Santa doesn't like those
people either" ... an unattractive scenario, made even more unattractive if
"Mom" knowingly chuckles, or openly agrees.)
>Do you believe that kids believe every single thing that someone says on TV?
>I don't think so ...
You're right, they don't. But ...
>... they watch the story, see what happens to (and with) the characters, and
>make judgements from there.
You obviously know nothing about the attention span of a four-year old.
>Perhaps the question is whether TZ deserves a later time period; ...
and another ARPAnetter writes:
>Since when has TZ been a kiddy show? If you are upset about kids
>viewing it, two solutions: move it later in the evening, present a
>notice about parental guidance is suggested.
Agreed. And as much as some parents might opt for the later time slot
(so as not to have to explain to the kid why they can't watch a certain show),
I'm a parent that would rather see the parental guidance warning. That way,
all the other TZ episodes are early enough for my children to watch, and I
can skip just this one. (BTW, not a kiddy show? I encourage my kids to
watch TZ & Amazing. I think they're much better than the usual TV palaver.
But this? This would have been in incredible bad taste. And rest assured
that *anything* about Santa at Christmastime is a kiddy show.)
>It's the same thing, in any media, if the viewers cannot discern between
>truth and fiction, should we ban that story? ... If you are afraid some
>viewers cannot understand the difference then stick a disclaimer in the
>front.
The disclaimer is *not* needed because fiction is being presented, or because
bad things are happening. It's needed because we as parents need some
indication when TV is about to do something that's both out of line and
out of character.
Dallas? The A-Team? All in the Family? Those are fine because we already
have a general idea of what's on the show. JR is a sleaze; Archie's a bigot;
the A-Team is into blowing up (notice that no-one ever dies, though).
If I don't want my kids to watch Jeeps being blown up, but then I let them
watch the A-Team, that's *my* mistake. But if I see Santa Claus come up,
then Santa starts in on an Archie Bunker imitation, whoa! That's TV's mistake.
>We don't need screeds like RJS's which assume guilt. RJS will have
>a wonderful time in Hollywood, I think they are looking for spineless
>irrationals.
Nah. Really they're looking for courageous rational people who close their
arguments by calling people names.
Yours in user-surliness,
Burgess Allison <allison@mitre.arpa>