By Luis Fernando Fonseca
A couple of weeks, the Ecuadorian television was the subject of a wide spread in social networks and even invaded the public space, showing that audiovisual media has not lost force in the retinas of some viewers off new technologies.
The issues that put into question the reality of competition, or show- celebrity Ecuador has talent ranging from criticism of the sensationalism of its producers, through individual rights of its participants, to ethics and artistic quality of the judges, but the comments raised only generate discussion, a vital theme for the TV critic Omar Rincon, who reflects on what actually tells the Latin American small screen from a background that tends to remain in the dark or at least ignored by certain intellectual and moral elite.
Is scandal a must the reality component?
These programs take advantage of the need that has been sold in contemporary society to want to be someone, be someone today and is out on television screens and being in social networks. We all want to be celebrities in our lives, not just have 15 minutes of fame that Andy Warhol -of spoke. People nowadays are hungry for fame and screen, so we provide to such things. The realities are formats that are meant to generate simple entertainment, fast emotionality (sigh, tears, smile); to produce business is a very good industry because they are fairly inexpensive formats. Talent is free, who lend themselves to go and do it for free (the producers) have to pay actors; and must generate public scandal as part of the format, but is a terrible reality. There, everyone falls, because you have to be controversial. When all the media talk about it in social networks, which the filmmakers say is’ we succeeded, we succeeded. ” If nobody talks about it and ignores the reality fades into the background.
What moral and social burden has a question on religious belief to a participant, and then that although the judge if only in the discourse about it?
We must end moralism as a way of criticism. Moralism in the religious sense (“this program goes against the values of solidarity”), political (“this program is discriminating and wiping out the identity of the people”) and academic (“this is cultural garbage and must be removed”) because from these trials, which may be valid, not taking into account the many interpretations that come into play. If you ask me to answer, as TV critic, if the program is good, then, yes, it is great for TV. Generates entertainment, excitement, entertainment, public conversation, scandal, emotions (…) have a country speaking of that, what more quality television you want to do. As business is great. The popular side, the viewer feels funny to see this program, it is a proposal that makes you feel you know a lot, it becomes God and in trier of boys who are singing on the screen, the viewer passes well and can develop that sense that we all love: criticism, becomes potent, powerful because he knows when someone sings well or badly. The viewer feels he finally took it into account.
is a way of showing …
In this society, anonymity kill us, we are invisible to everyone and people go and lends itself to ridicule, or know you will do, provided participate and then tell your grandchildren that came once in Ecuador has talent. You will be happy for life because television is a grader egos. In a society where people have no chance to be visible, the reality fills a void. From the cultural point of view, is there a way to be expressed in Ecuador that can not be changed by decree criticism, curiosity, defamation, even. The Government may interest you wonder what kind of country we want to build and what they want to build businesses that make television, nothing more.
What about the citizens?
The question that I would do is: what makes a culture like Ecuador, which has sold as standard a new citizenship, intercultural have citizens who pay to participate in it and be happy doing
?
That’s the problem of not respecting the diversity of beliefs, is it a failure how we sold the idea of multiculturalism?.
We can raise reflection regarding this case and ask why what happens and take advantage of this situation to make full multiculturalism in public debate, rather than go against the program, with judges, we must say that ‘in Ecuador we have much to do, we have to respect others’. Not tolerate it because tolerance is a mess, you have to live with the other, mingle, get dirty with the other Catholic or atheist. Tolerance is a fool because you do not value implies. We seize the hook and put it reflective. Things are not control or prohibition but public conversation and this may be an opportunity to talk publicly
There is another case in particular with regard to the image. A photo exhibition was censored in Quito to show royal inscriptions of gender violence …
I am of the idea that everything should be permitted as an expression of a collective to make you think. Instead of seeing everything from the moral authority to criticize and say ‘that should not be done’, I wonder what our society says. In the particular case, it appears that for the correction of the contemporary world is believed that if we take the words away reality. That seems fatal. We believe in a morality of pure emotion, pure prose, which does not reach citizens directly participate. Write ‘the girls and’ does not make you aware of the genre, for example. And remove the word ‘bitch’ of a photograph either makes people stop saying it, while the giant put back reflection and think when you’re going to use that word. The civic culture is that, think about the behaviors we have.
What you have to avoid the cliches in the use of the image?
a battered woman is exposed, it does not produce anything. The photograph that is a complaint, yes, but change the language is more valid when we change the realities, behaviors. We return to tolerate everything but, deep down, we are still sexist, racist and classist. You have to put those things into evidence, and the more we make them public, there will be a lot more thought about that because if not continue hiding in words our behavior.
We must stop thinking about the ethical purity of language and concepts. There is a super simple communication rule: we have a narrative (storytelling) to provide an experience (storyliving). Normally we were telling nice stories but experience does not correspond with that. It is very difficult to transform a society point of language and speech only.
You have said that you can think of society through melodrama, soap operas …
The melodrama is at all levels but is believed to be nice only if it Hollywood or in a series of television gringa. ‘If it’s popular, it’s in bad taste’. Hamlet, of (William) Shakespeare, is melodrama to infinity but as theater of worship is now well seen even a melodramatic and tragic at the same time history, like Romeo and Juliet.
The melodrama is the narrative place, gender, from which the popular sectors are reported. It is the story of a popular society and should be taken seriously because there expresses a way of thinking about the world and we have to look at is what people say about us as a society.
The presidents of Latin America For example, govern as soap opera and melodrama: love the people, they get excited, they dance, are with him, love him and conquer. Music is also another place to think of society, the problem is to diversify the account of this and think from different places. Because “the people are wise to, educational policy … ‘, saying that living presidents but also said that the town is rough to watch TV and listen to popular music. Not so, the people know what is about music and TV because it is what most makes.
The paradox is that the people raise a maximum theoretical reference does not know and what we deny what you know. We are making mistakes and while we do not take seriously the people and popular in education, we will not make quality communication for the people, do television for the elites but not for people, for you to see who cults believe that by cults do not watch television. We must take seriously the people in their aesthetic, narrative and formats.
This prejudice often be more on the left than on the right?
they think alike, that the people are rough and you have to educate on television. That is a cognitive authoritarianism. They say the changes arise from people not known and must be taught. It’s radical, both trends.
Taking seriously the people is to accept its ambiguities because it is impure, dirty bastard. How popular is full of things you need to know how to read because we are all made of that.
What are local shows like The Walking Dead?
Is that going to another public. As for mom or ordinary people have soap operas and reality shows; cool for a small elite who know what the references are globalized, there is our own soap operas and series are also our pride is that I can not see my mom is the best taste. But basically all are telenovelescas and melodramatic stories and maybe (the series) are just a little more daring and have more cynicism in the story, are better made and the reference is to understand global culture … tiny elite of spectators create a global community.
I swear that in Ecuador there are over one hundred thousand people watching series, however we are saying as much. We are not the popular culture but of a globalized pop culture that end up being equal, an enjoyment.
What distinguishes the Colombian series?
The characters in the popular must believe in God, in love, believe that the poor are wise and goes ahead, in the unlikely happy ending. Even though the narcos are happy because during the life killed were successful. Instead, the series has a cynical view of the world, everything is a failure, a perversion … sex has no other meaning than a physical exercise have other values and functioning
. globalized film series have better language; ambiguous narrative, dark and morally dangerous characters, unnerve you and put you in doubt; They are always talking about a moral, cosmic conspiracy against humans in which we have nothing to do; They are ironic, cynical and feel very smart viewer; and hearings to decide what place they arrive themes, chosen from CSI or Orange Is the New Black because morally have different things that you put it to an end.
But if you put these globalized referents Breaking Bad, the world’s most successful series, for example, front Ecuador has a talent, the first does not get any points because its referent is located. Made a metastasis in the Colombian version of the series, did not see anyone while Escobar, the pattern of evil was massive worldwide in popular culture and Narcos that made the gringo way, is seen outside of Colombia because they appears showing the exotic Latin.
You mean Narcos is not seen in Colombia?
No. It is so shoddy that we laugh at her. We do not identify because it is made from the logic of gringo recognition: tells you they are the wise heroism is DEA (Administration for drug control, in Spanish) and (Paul) Escobar was a very silly villain that was left very easily intervene.
For us in Latin America, the DEA are bad. The narconovelas are wonderful and stuck here because they have our aesthetic appreciation. Gringo international series series pasted as Netflix, HBO or cable ghetto; and ours as open, massive popular television, with national benchmarks.
The writer Jorge Franco scissors- author of Rosario says he sees generations in Medellin narco repeat behaviors although not had to Pablo Escobar Gaviria on the news …
What happens is that the narco aesthetic is permanent in today’s society. I will say one thing loud: the narco aesthetic is the aesthetic of capitalism, market. In Colombia it called narco and the United States ‘new rich’. Money is expressed from the teats, silicone in surgery; clothing; technologies, cars; the architecture; the music … and it’s an aesthetic that have renounced modern enlightened culture.
In Guayaquil seen in Samborondón … is the same, the market society where what matters is success, ticket more than other things. (F)
No comments:
Post a Comment