Well-meaning people keep coming up with suggestions on how to improve the obviously deficient and problematic show biz scene, but many of their inputs can’t and don’t work, because they play the “blame game.” In other words, it’s always other people’s fault, never their own!
In truth, however, when it comes to TV film productions, addressing the specific problem or deficiency can’t be separated from the context of the entertainment situation. The problem may be fixed, but other considerations have to be faced up to and resolved before everything really improves.
To illustrate: When asked to come up with better and more responsible productions, some TV film people protest that they want to do so, but their hands are tied, because their bosses require them to produce hits that are appealing to the “least common denominator” of viewers.
To be able to achieve that profitable goal and the high ratings that come with it, they feel that they have to “water down” or even “dumb down” their story, presentation style and production values.
For instance, in TV drama series, the most “popular” choice of strong material is a mix of romance, melodrama and fantasy. That’s why you see shows that combine all three—with obviously messy results.
But producers pooh-pooh the problem, telling the “creatives” who work for them that good ratings and profits are more important than storytelling focus and integrity.
To solve this problem, either the producers are convinced to change their minds, or their staffers decline to work with them (fat chance).
In addition, viewers who prefer illogical and unfocused shows because they conveniently punch all of their buttons also have to realize that this preference on their part has to change.
If they keep demanding it, producers will have to “supply the demand,” so nothing can change. However, if viewers really want better shows on TV, they have to do their part to make the local viewing situation more open to change and improvement.
Otherwise, the blame game will continue to be played over and over again, with the people involved in and contributing to the problem just passing the buck to each other.
Is change possible? Can the different parties involved ever stop pointing fingers outwards and point one at themselves? That might sound extremely unlikely, but it’s happened.
For instance, in the ’80s, political satire on TV became popular, because all of the parties concerned—viewers, producers, creatives—pitched in and found it popular and profitable.
In the movies, “quality hit” examples like “Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang” and “Jose Rizal” similarly benefited from the cooperative and copacetic coordination of committed filmmakers, innovative distribution circuit and supportive viewers (teachers and students) to defy the usual defeatist “logic” and make those movies inspiring successes. It can be done—again!