Using this advertisement or the screening from class as an example, discuss how Ernie Kovacs’ artistic experiments with television sound (or silence), aesthetics, and timing dialogue with growing concerns about television’s noisiness and commercialism?
As discussed in Spigel’s “Silent TV” article, Kovacs’ decision to produce silent ads that experimented with sound, aesthetics, and timing stemmed from the realization that “viewers appreciate a few moments of silence during commercials.” According to Kovacs’ logic, it was vital to treat television advertising as an art rather than purely business, and in doing so, the companies would better reach audiences. I agree with the mindset of Kovacs, because during the 1950s the networks were highly commercialized and dependent on the money of sponsors; it was a safe option, financially, to use standardized aesthetics and noise techniques in commercials. However, in order to sell anything it is important to differentiate your product from others and more importantly, to answer to your audiences’ desires—all of which was achieved through silent commercials.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the Ernie Kovacs commercial posted above is the epitome of how silent commercials were just as effective—if not more effective—in selling products to viewers. First, Kovacs presents shocking aesthetics in the commercial, as the audience doesn’t realize he is standing in a pool of water until he comically drops the cigars. Additionally, Kovacs simply uses movements and facial expressions to sell the Dutch Masters Cigars, and doesn’t ever speak. These unique characteristics of the commercial invoke a reaction out of the audience because it is simple enough and not overwhelming—but still informative and entertaining.
I think the fact that Kovacs is standing in water is especially interesting. The gag comes from the audience's assumption that a man dressed in a suit and tie couldn't be subjecting himself to the ridiculousness of getting his shoes and the bottoms of his pants soaked. The added bonus is the cigars, when Kovacs drops the box, fall into the water, effectively ruining them. This reminds me actually of something that continues to apply to news media, and the like. When viewers see a newscaster or spokesperson on screen in a studio wearing a suit jacket, but only framed from the waist up, we assume that they are wearing a complete suit outfit, though for all we know from what we literally see, the person could be wearing jeans under the table - we don't literally see it. It may be so or not so.
DeleteIn contrast to the majority of commercial television, Kovacs was much more direct and let the TV viewer see the constructed natures of the world on screen. As Spigel noted, contemporary critiques of TV's commercialism were heavily weighted in sounds and noise, one calling advertisers "noisemakers" (pg 187). In this advertisement for Dutch Masters cigars, Kovacs' silence and non-responsiveness to the cues given to him to sell the product product, particularly in terms of auditory ones. Kovacs begins rather unaware of the soothing, partonizing voice over that are trying to sooth the viewers into relaxation and reception to the advertisement. Partway through the add, Kovacs seems to wake from his tired stupor, and remember that he's supposed to be responding to the voice-over narration in showing off the product. This codes it as an orchestrated action that he's been scripted to preform at a certain time. His actions, including a look off screen as if to get help to know what to do, are all done silently. There is no splash when the box he is holding falls into the water. This lack of sound suggests the idea of a silenced disorder and difficulty with the product, covered up by a soothing narrative by the advertiser.
ReplyDeleteTelevision was once and arguably still is a very intrusive medium. Most television shows are very concerned with the relationship between the characters on the show and the viewer. Spigel talks about how viewers became very aware of this early on and were off put by the commercialism of television. This is what led to television shows confronting the corporate structure of television. Some did so by directly addressing the audience, but Kovacs does it in a different way. We are used to seeing the spokesperson for an advertisement look very professional and almost fake in the way they promote their product, but Kovacs goes for the opposite. At a first glance he looks professional and if one were to look solely at a still image of the beginning of the commercial, they could easily assume it to be a ordinary advertisement, but they would be wrong. Kovacs mocks the average commercial from the very start through the voiceover. The announcer is obviously using big words in order to not only seem more knowledgeable, but insult the viewer at the same time. Most commercials would use large words that people don't understand to sound more authoritative, this is exactly what Kovacs was mocking. Following this, he yet again smashes the viewer's idea of a normal commercial by bringing the professional spokesperson down a few pegs by showing them as a clumsy drunk who is standing in a pool of water for no reason. He brings down their authority instantly. Kovacs managed to successfully advertise for a company by mocking the system in an artistic way.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 1950s, a natural backlash emerged towards the incredibly rampant promotional nature of television. Spiegel’s “Silent TV’ phrases it as “[a] displeasure for the high-pitched sales pitches of overzealous admen.” Kovacs married a blend of silence and shock value to reiterate upon one another for a great effect. This is because of his ability to avert tropes and because of the differentiation of his ads. Spigel proves this importance when said that “innovation was critical to television’s commercial logic.” Kovacs was able to sell commercialism when he made it a show in itself. This mirrors the Super Bowl commercials, where they are (or expected to be) of such high quality that they become an attraction in their own right.
ReplyDeleteThe commercial, while avoiding the tropes associated with noise, also avoided the tropes associated with consumerism. Ernie Kovac’s bit with the cigars is not inherently consumerist – it could even be seen as the opposite. The cigars fell into the water and become completely damaged and unusable. This is hardly an idea that any company would want to instill through their campaign.
These noiseless ideas greatly became associated with the “anti-TV TV watchers,” which is why the “creative shops” (as pointed out by Spiegel) used them as opposed to the mainstream shops at first.
Kovacs, as noted by Spiegel, deliberately created a contrast to the "noisy" commercialism that many feared would dominate television. There were worries that such noise hindered Television as a medium, and that it was proof "that the medium could never become art." (Spiegel, 180) Instead, Kovacs hearkened back to the days of silent cinema and slapstick comedy, producing a television experience that was like no other.
ReplyDeleteThe ad above sums Kovacs' philosophy into a neat one minute package. Other ads of the period were long, poorly integrated messages from sponsors or advertisers, and often terribly wordy. Kovacs, however, never says a word during his advertisement. Yes, there is a voiceover, but most of the voiceover lends itself to promoting Kovacs as the advertiser, promising the viewer that Kovacs will deliver the endorsement for the cigars. But what is Kovacs' endorsement? To drop them, in an even more absurdist manner when the viewer sees that he is in water, effectively ruining the whole box. Kovacs knew there was no reason to "clutter" the program with such noise. The viewers already knew they were cigars, they knew what cigars did, and Kovacs, by "wordlessly" advertising, was beginning to show that TV need not have its legitimacy questioned simply because it was more of a commercial media than film. (Spiegel, 183)
Ernie Kovacs seemed to have the mentality that style is greater than substance, which was pretty indicative of television programming at the time, and has continually reaffirmed that mindset over the years. This is an industry that is constantly changing and trying to grab your attention and hold it for longer than the other programs, and Ernie Kovacs achieved this-at least for a brief time-by the use of spectacle. In screening last week, I was even impressed by some of the tactics he used, including the live animation credits, the use of sound effects and changes to the scenery to engage the viewer and evoke unusual situations.
ReplyDeleteThe episode we viewed in class juxtaposed the silence of a library full of gentlemen with the loud, obnoxious sound effects. The show sets the audience up for a joke with Ernie mugging for the camera, and context clues (for example the title of the books allowed the viewer to predict the comical situation that will ensue). By continually playing with the aesthetics and trying to present skits and products in ways that other programs weren’t, he was keeping the audience on their toes and therefore intrigued them to find out what odd idea he may try next. Compared to programs that were more scripted and predictable from week to week, his less conventional approach is what made the show a success during the Golden Age of television.
As television audiences in the 50's grew increasingly concerned about the pervasive commercialism in television broadcasts, Ernie Kovacs experimented with sound (or the lack of) in his television appearances. According to Spigel, television was initially appreciated for its fidelity and accuracy, events such as the quiz show scandals of the 1950's and the 1956 FCC sound level investigations of infomercials caused American viewers to distrust television and its noisiness. These circumstances let Ernie Kovacs' experimental comedy thrive, as he used sound and silence in a way that did not try to pander and distract the viewers of his show. His style of comedy extended to, ironically, adverts. In this advertisement for Dutch Masters cigars, the announcer soothingly drones on about how people get drunk over the holidays, but not the hard workers in the TV industry. During this monologue, Kovacs stands perfectly still in a stupor, displaying a case of cigars. After the announcer lets Kovacs “take it away” with his commercial, he extends his dopey gaze and fumbles around with the cigars, dropping them. The audience begins to suspect that he is inebriated. After Kovacs drops the entire case, the camera pans down to reveal that he is standing in a pool, further driving the point that Kovacs is, in fact, drunk during a commercial. The precise comic timing of the pool reveal coupled with his silent, dumb demeanor throughout the commercial subverts the idea of of typical commercial advertising of the time by making it seem honest and open, as commercials at the time would try to divert viewers with flashy noises and pitches full of convoluted language.
ReplyDeleteJust yesterday, my housemates were complaining about how loud and obnoxious television commercials were in between one of their programs. Little did they know that noise levels of commercials and overall over-exaggeration with regard to commercialism has been a concern since the introduction of television into the homes. Unlike today, where everyone seems to have conformed to the obnoxious standard, people in the 1950s and early 1960s got to experience a breakthrough in TV's noisiness and commercialism thanks to the work of Ernie Kovacs. Even in such a short time of 58 seconds for a commercial, Kovacs managed to draw in his audience due to their intrigue about his artistic style and the product, probably in that exact order--something that is rarely seen on television today. Instead of having sponsors throw products in your face and yell about them for 1-2 minutes, Kovacs managed to make something so simple resonate with his audience. As Spigel stated, Kovacs was so successful because he made sponsors realize that "it might be better to target a 'class' audience by supporting innovative programs than to support programs in 'common denominator' molds". His commercial for cigars presented the product in a light-hearted manner--nothing too overpowering--which is much more likely to drive someone to purchase the product. Personally, I feel that over-eggeration is threatening towards the consumer and may lead them to feel self-conscious about buying a product that everyone finds so annoying on television. Kovacs grasped the concept of subtlety in the flashy world of commercialism, which lead to rewarding results for himself and his sponsors.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the Ernie Kovacs screening in class on Thursday, it reminded me of one of my favorite television shows growing up, Mr. Bean.. Both exhibited simple, slapstick comedy that relied more on timing and physical comedy than verbal dialogue or noise. Ads like the one posted above are simple and seemingly make a farce of the product, but I think they could be effective in today’s advertising climate. In an era where DVR is king and many people are so busy that they almost never watch live television, ads are looking for a way to still hit home with a customer base. Product placement has now become dominant in a lot of television, since people will not watch commercials, cars, computers, and other products are forcibly placed into shows, in effect, making the actors de facto spokespeople for products. I think a return to ads that are not sophisticated or noisy that rely on simple comedy could reenergize the advertising agency. Even when the Ernie Kovacs show aired, people complained about how loud ads were (Orson Welles made reference to this in citizen Kane when he used a screeching bird to make sure movie goers were awake). I think a return to this simple style of advertisement would counter the growing concerns about advertising, cut down on the onslaught of product placement we see, and actually allow people to enjoy commercials instead of fast forward through them.
ReplyDeleteIn this piece, Kovac's performance recognizes both the human ear's distaste for silence and distrust of excessive noise. As Spigel points out in 'Silent TV,' "silence is associated in western culture with death - the end of time....that is why a breakdown in TV sound...has an unnerving quality." Here, Spigel recognizes that a human discomfort with silence, particularly when married with moving visuals, is extremely dissonant for the viewer, like striking two chromatic notes. These feelings lead television (and early silent films) to use music, laugh tracks, and additional sound effects to round out the experience for the viewer. This is why Kovac is sure to use narration and a laugh track during the above clip. He knows that if the clip were entirely silent, it would be extremely uncomfortable for viewers, but when he juxtaposes traditional advertising narration and comedic sound effects, he is able to make a pleasant ploy on the current state of commercialism in TV broadcasting.
ReplyDeleteHowever, his choice to include these audio elements also hints at a criticism towards television programming at the time. Protests about TV fraud often commented on canned laughter, saying that "tricked audiences into believing that something was funny when it was not." Additionally, the slow music and calm narration go against traditional advertising techniques of the time, which attempted to speak loudly and quickly to consumers in an attempt to force the information down their throats. Since this type of advertising was often seen as "obnoxious," "tricky," and "flashy," the commercial's glacial pace and Kovac's many 'errors' poke fun at the ridiculous nature of television advertising in the 40s and 50s. Ironically, this setup is very similar to the premise of the I Love Lucy episode that we watched where she inadvertently gets drunk and ruins the fast-talking, peppy, shiny commercial for Mitaveatavegimite.
Kovacs use of commercialism to sell products as seen in this commercial is written by Spiegel to be a “counter distinction via home décor.” This is done through the portrayal of Kovacs presenting a carton of cigars, not through the voice of himself, but through the voice of an announcer. It creates an entirely different take on the presentation of a commercial. The commercials silence is unique at this time in that it did not share the same tactics as used by CBS, which implied the Automatic Gain Control Amplifier. A device which was used to change the levels of sound from program to commercial without requiring the use of human interaction.
ReplyDeleteThis method was not accepted lightly because it was compared to methods of broadcasting as used by the military to influence listeners. The broadcasters of large media corporations like CBS knew about these media methods and implemented them. However, CBS differentiated itself from the military in that it’s method of sound implementation was done so with the intent of pleasing the audience, while at the same time providing quality advertising allotment to the sponsors of the programs. On the other hand, the military’s intentions and studies of sound and influence were aimed more in the direction of intentional control, rather than in such a fashion of intentional pleasure.
Ernie Kovac’s “silent” t.v. show mirrored the common perception at the time of television’s role as an honest, family medium. His show was appreciated because of its homeliness, in the way it fit the role of television as a main focus of the household setup. With the growing issue of television “noise,” it did a great job of minimizing the obnoxious sounds of advertising that woman were forced to listen to throughout the day.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way that live television was viewed as more authentic than filmed shows, Kovac’s silent techniques were seen as more artistic and true to the medium of television in the way they mixed audio and visuals in association with real time. As Spiegel says, “’The noise problem’ was rooted in a larger concern about TV fraud.” Consumers were annoyed at the way advertisers and TV shows would throw products at them through the television, in loud and obnoxious high-pitched voices. As all the studies continued about ways to “lower” TV noise, Ernie Kovacs successfully avoided the issue and gave the audience and pleasant, noiseless medium to enjoy. He even played off of other "noisy" TV shows through commentary about the relationships between sound and visuals, as seen through his many off-sync skits.
It is almost surprising that Ernie Kovacs was able to achieve the commercial and creative success that he did in the 1950’s due to the stylistic and thematic elements of his show. In the article Silent TV, Spiegel states that television strived for a maximum “impression of reality” and that audiences appreciated and regarded such shows as “authentic.” (Pg. 180) In his artistic show he was certainly not concerned with depicting realism. Ernie Kovacs created much humor from the audience’s perception of the TV reality as we have seen in class when he orientated his camera in a way to pour milk in an illogical manner. Kovacs further bucked this trend of realism with his use of sound, or lack of it. At many times in his show the sounds are out of sync or do not match the action.
ReplyDeleteAs Spiegel states, Kovacs’ minimal dialogue and sound effects provided an oasis of relative silence amongst yelling hucksters on commercials. Not only did Kovacs’ reject this commercial practice but his advertisements (as seen above) do not make a great effort to sell or promote the products. The cigars in the clip serve almost as prop for another skit in the show. At first glance I would have suspected that such a show would have had difficulty attracting sponsors yet Spiegel illuminates a desire amongst audiences for a quieter television in which the commercialism was toned down. Once Spiegel established the context of the noisy 1950’ s commercial television, it is apparent how Kovacs show was uniquely artistic and commercially successful by fulfilling a niche market.