TV-film producers have to work much harder these days to come up with entertainment products that stand out from the teeming, screaming throng. There simply are too many viewing options out there, so uniqueness and even freakiness is the order of the day, and “shock value” is resorted to almost as a knee-jerk reflex.
However, some goony and even grotesquely ghastly gambits have come off as too extreme ploys for viewers’ attention, and thus have ended up as deal-breakers as far as some people are concerned.
On the local TV scene, a steadily increasing number of concerned viewers are vociferously calling for an immediate stop to the current industry fetish for violence on the tube. This dismal and downbeat trend, which has bothered parents and educators alike, is seen all over the video landscape—from some supposedly “funny” cartoons in which characters are routinely beaten up and pulverized, to graphic coverage of crime and war stories.
Even street brawls and gang encounters are played up for all of the real-life “action” they’re worth, even if TV people know darn well that vulnerable and shockable children are watching.
To be sure, some coverages hedge their bets by resorting to fuzzed-up images that decorously “hide” or mask the full impact of the carnage they’re showing. But, the violent context of the coverage remains potent, chilling young viewers on a more psychological and thus deeper level.
The recent conflict in Zamboanga City made the controversial issue more acutely relevant, with some field reporters behaving like frisky boys excitedly playing at war. Their gung-ho reports were sometimes criticized for inadvertently betraying government troops’ positions, and some speculative or excessively “colored” accounts made it difficult for viewers to sufficiently get a grip on the “war’s” tumultuous events, for them to arrive at a more helpfully contextualized picture.
We also wonder why some channels sent field reporters who are not famous for their objectivity and temperate judgment. It’s no surprise, therefore, that their field reports turned out to be even more distractingly hectic and subjective than usual, prompting some viewers to switch channels in frustration and desperation.
Bad example
Other deal-breakers on TV that make viewers quickly switch to other channels include young actors who can’t do justice to major roles in teleseryes that have been injudiciously entrusted to them. A glaringly bad example is a drama series in which shallow tyros are getting major, sustained exposure that they are unable to galvanize with sufficiently deep emotions.
The young female lead turns in an earnest but sluggish portrayal, even if all sorts of emotional crises and ordeals are hurled her way. Her leading man does even more poorly, because he’s so self-conscious about “looking good” all the time, and keeps distracting and turning off viewers by resorting to a lot of “mouth” and “lip” acting. —Oh, please…
Why have these clearly raw talents been given lead roles to essay? Because they’re contract stars? Because their handlers are well-connected? The bottom line is that they aren’t up to the thespic task at hand, so the entire drama series is brought down by the TH leads’ insufficiency and—ineptness.