Sunday, November 3, 2013
MTM vs. Lear?
From your viewings of All in the Family, Good Times, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show and your reading of Kirsten Lentz’s essay, how do you think Norman Lear’s shows differed from MTM’s? Why do you think the term “quality” was often used to refer to MTM’s shows and “relevance” to label Lear’s programs? How does Lentz see these productions as differing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Norman Leer’s shows often seem to have a racial niche whereas Mary Tyler Moore’s shows seem to tackle more topical issues. Good Times was an incredibly racially charged show. Not only is it about a black family, but the writers packed in an incredible amount of false racial stereotypes. Unlike Julia, where the character was portrayed as “too white” (a common complaint by African American viewers), Good Times portrayed its family as a poor family in the projects with an older son obsessed with stealing and a hustling father. By today’s standards, this would be highly offensive. All in the Family took different false racial stereotypes and applied them to its characters.
ReplyDeleteMTM’s shows seemed less racially charged. In particular, The MTM Show was very gender focused with a working single woman navigating the big city.
This led to racially charged shows being deemed “relevant” because racial barriers had not yet broken down in America. Integration was still a relatively new phenomenon with its protestors. Since suffrage had occurred several decades ago, gender barriers were much softer at the time of MTM. This led to the show’s less pertinent questions being deemed more about “quality’. Lentz saw this similarly, as he noted Leer’s racially charged shows.
I think the difference between Mary Tyler Moores programs compared to Lear’s was the Lear was more realistic in his depictions of equality and social relevancy in television as with MTM’s show (the MTMS for example) the feminist qualities presented were “dream” worthy, but not fully out of sight. Lentz’s stated that “quality” for MTM was due to her shows critique of televisions bad humor, writing, etc and that it would allow her show to be seen as quality television for making fun of the “masculine” norm that were her peers. “Relevance” was used for Lear’s show because, it dealt with the relevancy of “Race and Racial relations” between blacks and white during the 1970’s. All in the Family, Good Times…were all very blunt in how they dealt with what people were feeling during this time and it kept the show relevant throughout their runs, yet I was I very happy with Lear’s use of black and white relations in Maude. In comparison to MTM, Lear placed Florida on the same platform as the rest of the cast in Maude, because she wasn’t meant to be ignored. She had camera time and an opinion although she was a maid cleaning after them. For MTM I believe it would have taken more of a Julia approach, which I don’t believe to be a bad thing, but for its time unrealistic. I would say Lentz see’s each production as being different in the way they chose to present relevant social topics of the day and each production companies attachment to either feminism or race to build an audience and push for not just better television but better lives for people by changing the way they think/behave.
ReplyDeleteNorman Lear's programming set the standard for relevant programming meanwhile Mary Tyler Moore signified quality television. The key differences between the two were representations of race versus representations of empowered women. These were both very topical subjects in the time of change that was the 1970’s. The term “quality” was used for Mary Tyler Moore because of its self-referential style of humor, parodying not only the television newsroom, but also many other aspects of television production including writing, production and other facets. This self-reflexivity allowed for “quality” programming to emerge because the show tackled workplace issues with the premise of an empowered woman as the protagonist. On the other hand, Lear’s programming was relevant because many episodes of All In The Family handled racial tensions and issues through the lens of the working class bigot Archie Bunker. As the episode in screening showed, Archie was trapped in an elevator with a Puerto Rican couple and a wealthy black man. Archie has trouble understanding that the Puerto Ricans are citizens and the black man is of considerable wealth (and probably richer than Archie is). Lentz discusses how the writing of Mary Tyler Moore was fairly “raceless” and that was in stark contrast to a program like All In The Family, which focused on race much of the time. The “relevance” label defined the show, as programming that was relevant to the time, as many issues in the show were happening in the outside world at the exact same time. Between All In The Family, Maude, and Good Times, relevance was a hallmark of all Lear programs. Both shows provided great exposure for empowered women and racial issues but their differences were arguably what made Lear programs better, in that sometimes the empowered female portrayals on MTM were negative portrayals, like that of Rhoda, and Betty White's character. Similarly, Good Times also had its own questionable portrayals such as JJ, who was an outlandish black character. However, as is the case with other shows we have discussed like Amos N' Andy, exposure is better than no exposure.
ReplyDeleteAs Lentz discusses in her article “Quality versus Relevance: Feminism, Race, and the Politics of the Sign in 1970s Television”, quality television such as the Mary Tyler Moore Show aim to “improve the television text aesthetically” (Lentz 46) with higher visual quality but not as much social commentary or content. Relevant TV, on the other hand, aims to make television exactly that—socially relevant. Relevant shows such as Norman Lear’s shows almost seem to be embedded in discussions about race, gender, sex, and other topics that might be avoided in other shows. For example, the episodes of Maude that we watched were centered around abortion—something that is still a hotly debated issue in society today. The show became directly involved in the issue of abortion in the 1970s, something a "quality" show would not have done. Rather, it would have been left in the background, if the subject of abortion were addressed at all.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Maude was more up front about its female lead being a feminist. While Mary in The Mary Tyler Moore Show is in a powerful position as associate producer rather than in a gendered position such as a secretary, her apparent defiance of traditional gender roles is not commented on. It’s not a major plot point, and as such the show does not make any effort to start a dialogue on gender. Lentz describes Mary’s feminism as “genteel, quiet feminism” (Lentz 71) that stays in the background of the show. Maude, on the other hand, purposefully makes mentions of Maude’s position of power in her household, and she is incredibly vocal about feminism, her political views, etc. This is all very characteristic of relevant TV.
The Mary Tyler Moore Show was thought of as quality because it didn't cover subjects such as feminism, race, and class as explicitly as in Good Times. Quality shows were also labeled so because they were technically and aesthetically superior to relevant tv. In the Mary Tyler Moore Show screened in class, Mary is not the subject of the episode. No big deal was made of her being a beautiful single woman living in a big city alone, not to mention working a professional job that was typically dominated by men. Mary Tyler Moore foes nothing extraordinary or shocking promoting feminism besides doing her job and going about a normal life (which to some viewers at the time might have been shocking).
ReplyDeleteCompared to Lear's Good Times though, the Mary Tyler Moore Show is quite tame in examining social issues. All in the Family was considered a relevant show because it dealt with different aspects of an African American family. The episode we screened in class portrayed how the Evan's family coped with the threat of eviction. The mother Florida tries to get well-fare money, the children practice a con to guilt people into giving them money, and the father goes out to hustle pool in order to make money. The episode was chock-full issues thought to be relevant to the African American community.
The “quality” and “relevant” television shows of the 70’s both posses insights into social issues at the time, yet there method of technical production and thematic style differentiate them. Lentz distinguishes the Mary Tyler Moore show as “quality” partly due to the more polished image and mise-en-scene. More importantly, this type of show did not overtly address social issues in the manner that the socially “relevant” shows, such as All In The Family did.
ReplyDeleteThe Mary Tyler Moore show features Mary as a strong and independent woman. It is not the show ignores this socially “relevant” issue, but it poses it as being part of normative culture. Conversely, All in the Family utilizes highly contrived scenes to develop its social statements. For instance, when Archie gets trapped in an elevator with the Puerto Rican couple and black male, he is forced to confront the racial stereotypes he possesses as the characters challenge him. This is most notable in the verbal sparring between the wealthy, educated black man and Archie.
The image of the Mary Tyler Moore Show may not have been to distinguished from the “relevant” shows we watched in regards to graininess, color, etc. Yet, the show did seem to utilize a much more expansive studio space. The show moved from different spaces in the studio setting, the funeral home, and Mary’s home, creating a much more cinematic sense of space. Good Times took place largely in the sparsely appointed apartment of the Evans family. This too contributes to the impression of quality, or lack of, in the designations of the shows.
As stated in Lentz's essay "Quality vs. Relevance", the Mary Tyler Moore (MTM) Productions dealt more with gender politics whereas Tandem/TAT shows, lead my Normal Lear, represented racial politics. Both shows were similar in their success of changing the situation comedy to something more complex in nature.
ReplyDeleteOn the Mary Tyler Moore Show, the titular character is an independent woman who lives on her own and has a steady job, a stark contrast to some of the goings-on in the 1960s and 1970s. This show, along with the rest of the MTM productions, were thought of as "quality" shows on television in their effort to portray issues related to the feminist movement to the public. According to Lentz, "quality" television shows were thought of as "more 'literate', more stylistically complex, and as offering more character development" (48) as well as showing greater gender representation. This idea of "quality" in MTM productions served as an argument against the typical masculine-focused shows during that time by including feminist aspects that improved television as a whole.
Normal Lear productions, such as Good Times and All in the Family, took a different approach than MTM shows. Lear productions were perceived as "relevant" in that it was "more responsive to the social and political milieu of the 1970s" (47), specifically in the consistent representation of race. All in the Family tended to cover topics more related with the bigotry of Archie Bunker and the ensuing racist comments he would sometimes make, while Good Times portrayed a lower class African American family and their struggle to maintain a steady lifestyle during racist times, at the opposite end of the spectrum. Lear productions received much praise for the authenticity of his shows since the concerns on the show coincided with the news stories of the 60s and 70s.
Overall, the two shows differed greatly in what they offered to the development of television. MTM productions focused more on maintaing an essence of "quality" in their presentation of a woman in line with feminist characteristics, whereas Normal Lear products took the route of portraying authentic and "relevant" characters and narratives in the form of representations and issues related to race.
As mentioned above numerous times, Mary Tyler Moore Productions were grounded in "quality", while Lear's productions' storylines surrounded "relevance." The MTM Show very rarely addressed issues of race, class, or gender, while Lear's productions often hit on all of those topics in one episode of All in the Family or Good Times.
ReplyDeleteThe MTM show often had more scenes / sets / locations, more aesthetically pleasing shots, and more characters, yet Lear's productions may not have looked as nice but had richer stories. Lear gained recognition for addressing the issues that were on people's minds then. For example in Good Times, it was the first portrayal of the realities of African American life at the time, and it still portrayed Florida as a strong and respectable woman. I think it is interesting that no one has mentioned yet how many of Lear's productions, while based in "relevance" of the time, did still embody stereotypes. For example, the tall son of Florida's is portrayed as not very smart, or in the All in the Family elevator scene, (for humor purposes I'm sure), the Mexican couple is portrayed stereotypically as well. The MTM Show, on the other hand, while it did not address issues of race, gender, and class so directly, it also did not include many stereotypes in the episodes. Mary's best friend Rhoda is Jewish, and her faith is only really brought up once in another episode. Viewers would have no clue that Rhoda is Jewish because MTM didn't use any stereotypes to build her character.
While it is true the MTM productions were more focused on quality and aesthetic characteristics and Lear's on relevant social issues, I think it is important to keep in mind the limitations that both of these approaches had for creating progressive television in the 1970s.
The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Norman Lear’s shows seem to differ from each other for a number of reasons. One reason is because the MTM is mostly about a strong and in dependent woman where All in the Family and Good Times are more family-oriented television shows. The focus on MTM is how Mary Tyler Moore is working on a news broadcast and making an independent living while the Lear shows are more about problems that can affect the whole family, from both race perspectives of Caucasian and African American. Another difference in the show is that there are no race problems in the Mary Tyler Moore Show like how there were in Norman Lear’s shows.
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about the race difference, Lentz stated in her article that “quality” was not meant to shock an audience where as “relevance” was mean to be more realistic. MTM often was associated with the term “quality” because it was a pleasant show that was very much catered to an audience. There were no unpleasant or too realistic problems that occurred in the show. In Lear’s shows, they were grouped with “relevance” because his shows had more real-life situations, such as being evicted from lack of rent, and other problems like that. His sitcom shows were less of a television fantasy world and more realistic and like the real world.
Kirsten Lentz’s essay, “Quality versus Relevence: Feminism, Race, and the Politics of the Sign in 1970s Television” differentiates between television shows of “quality” and “relevance” and how those terms relate to Mary Tyler Moore's (MTM) shows and Norman Lear's. MTM shows (specifically The Mary Tyler Moore Show) were shows of “quality” because of its self-reflexive critiques of television and television broadcasting. The principal characters, who were employees of a local television station, would criticize their co-workers when they were broadcasting live, looking through a set of their own. This, coupled with the show's strong, empowered female protagonist, created a “quality” show that used self-reflexivity and feminism to stand above the rest.
ReplyDeleteNorman Lear's shows were considered shows of “relevance” because his shows dealt with the issue of race, which was a hot topic issue during the times those shows (especially All in the Family and Good Times). Specifically, Lear was noted for accurately portraying bigots (Archie from All in the Family) and minority families (the Evans family from Good Times). The plots of Lear's shows also frequently mirrored real-life situations and problems (as opposed to MTM's, whose shows' plots seemed to be more stylized).
Lentz describes the difference between Norman Lear’s shows and MTM shows as relevance vs. quality. This is partly obvious upon viewings of their respective shows, in terms of visual quality, crudeness, and relevant news topics. However there is more to the distinction than simply being more current or looking better on one’s television screen. The difference between relevance and quality in these instances has to do with the way these two companies dealt with controversial issues in society. Both Lear and MTM were notorious for dealing with topics that had never been addressed previously on television or the public. Lentz points out specifically that MTM focused on feminism and Lear more on racism and minority issues. Yet it wasn’t so much which topic they addressed as much as how they tackled the issues that distinguished each company.
ReplyDeleteMTM is classified as “quality” because it discussed feminism in a discreet and proper way. The issue of sexism is not directly mentioned as it is in the Lear shows, but rather assumed to be part of the existing culture within the TV show. In The Mary Tyler Moore Show, the female protagonist is simply an existing independent, working woman whose status as a woman doesn’t need to be acknowledged. On the other end, the Norman Lear shows are classified as “relevance” because the tackled issues heads on that were current in society and on the nose. If abortion suddenly became a controversy in American society, Maude would release an episode dealing directly with this specific issue. In this way Lear’s shows remained relevant and on topic, but sacrificed the subtlety of MTM’s productions.