MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Lauren Zalaznick 談電視的意識

Lauren Zalaznick: The conscience of television

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Lauren Zalaznick

2010年12月演講,2011年9月在TEDWomen上線

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恆

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後製:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

電視台主管Lauren Zalaznick深刻思考關於流行電視節目的議題。她追蹤過去五十年間觀眾心態與電視節目收視率之間的關係,分享了這個大膽研究的結果,並提出一個想法:電視或許以我們意想不到的方式,反映了我們的真實面貌。

 

關於Lauren Zalaznick

在全面改革Bravo電視網後,媒體潮流引領者Lauren Zalaznick為NBC環球公司開創了一條嶄新的道路,將事業觸手伸展到多媒體領域,以觸及更多的新觀眾。

 

為什麼要聽她演講

Lauren Zalaznick在進行業界知名的Bravo電視網全面改革行動後,接手一個以非主流藝術為中心的電視網,並將其打造成流行實境電視的領導標的。這位時尚潮流創造者為觀眾帶來了《決戰時裝伸展台》、《頂尖主廚大對決》、《the Real Housewives》系列節目,將她的精明應用在創造真正多媒體網路這個挑戰上。身為NBC環球娛樂與數位網路及媒體整合主管,Zalaznick將數位媒體做為使傳統媒體普及的驅動力。

 

在進入電視領域之前,Zalaznick製作過幾個獲獎的獨立電影,包括《Larry Clark’s iconic Kids》及《Jim McKay’s Girls Town》。她進入電視領域後,擔任音樂頻道VH1的資深主管,開創了低成本、簡單且巧妙的Pop-Up Video(在播出音樂影片的同時,不停穿插各種有趣的小道消息或獨特、詼諧的評論)。她對流行文化的敏銳感受力為她贏得《時代雜誌》、《浮華世界》最有影響力百大人物及《財星雜誌》全球50大女強人等頭銜。

 

「Lauren Zalaznick是一個能將資訊置入任何人們可獲得之處的典範,無論是在文學、新聞或廣告中。她的天賦是善用這些素材,成為時尚達人及潮流引領者。」

-Garland Waller,波士頓大學

 

Lauren Zalaznick的英語網上資料

Bio: Lauren Zalaznick at NBCUniversal

Q&A: "TV's Most Powerful Woman?"

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Lauren Zalaznick 談電視的意識

這是我的肺腑之言。在聽過之前這些精彩的演講和想法後,我今天很尷尬地在這裡跟你們談論關於電視的話題。大多數人都會看電視,我們喜歡電視,我們喜歡它的某些部份。美國人確實相當喜愛電視,美國人幾乎平均每天看電視五小時,對嗎?目前我碰巧從事與電視相關的工作,因此對我來說,這是一件好事。但許多人並非那麼喜愛電視,事實上他們對它諸多譴責。他們說電視很蠢,還有更糟的,相信我。在我成長過程中,我母親一向稱電視為「蠢蛋盒」。

 

但我今天要分享的想法,並不在於辯論電視是好是壞。我今天想告訴大家的想法是,我相信電視是有意識的。因此,我認為電視有意識的原因是,我確實相信電視直接反映了我們國家的道德、政治、社會和情感需求狀態,電視正是傳播我們整個價值體系的方式。這一切都是人類獨有的事物,集結而成為我們意識的想法。

 

今天,我們談論的不是關於好或壞的電視節目,我們談論的是受歡迎的電視節目,我們談論的是過去五十年間尼爾森收視率調查前十名的節目。為何尼爾森收視率反映的不只是你們聽說過的、關於我們社會觀點與集體無意識的想法,以及過去五十年尼爾森收視率調查前十名的節目,如何反映我們的社會意識?電視節目如何隨著時間演變?這對我們的社會來說意味著什麼?

 

現在說到演化,從基本的生物學談起。你們或許還記得,包括人類在內的動物王國,有四項基本的原始本能,包括飢渴、性、權力及佔有的慾望。身為人類的我們,得記住很重要的一點是,我們的心智已開發,隨著時間演化,調和或馴服了這些基本的動物本能。我們有笑與哭的能力,我們能產生敬畏或憐憫的感覺,這就是我們與動物王國不同之處。另一件跟人類有關的是,我們喜歡娛樂,我們喜歡看電視,這正是我們與動物王國之間明顯的區別。動物或許喜歡玩樂,但牠們不喜歡觀看。

 

所以我有個野心,就是從電視節目和人類意識間這個人類獨有的關係中,發現我們能瞭解什麼。為什麼電視節目會發生這樣的演變?我把它想像成坐在我們肩膀上的卡通魔鬼或天使。電視節目的功能是否正如我們的意識一樣,同時誘導我們,並讓我們有所收穫?

 

因此,為了回答這些問題,我們做了一項研究。我們回顧50年前,即1959/1960年的電視季,我們調查這五十年當中,每年尼爾森收視率前二十名一千個電視節目。我們訪問了三千多人,大約3600位年齡介於18至70歲的觀眾,詢問他們觀看電視節目時所產生的感覺。當你觀賞其中每一個節目時有何感覺?你有道德上的不確定感嗎?你覺得憤怒嗎?你覺得好笑嗎?這對你來說有什麼意義?因此,我想對全球TED觀眾說的是,這個調查是以美國為樣本,但正如你們所見,這些情緒需求狀態確實具有普遍性。以事實基礎來說,超過80%美國最受歡迎的節目在全球各地播放,因此我確實希望這個研究與全球觀眾都能產生共鳴。

 

在觀賞第一張幻燈片之前,我想先向兩位人士致謝。對於啟發我思考關於意識,及意識在日常生活中對我們所造成影響這個想法,我想感謝傳奇拉比Jack Stern。感謝指導我如何呈現這個數據的TED社群巨星Hans Rosling,或許你們才剛聽過他的演講。

 

好,現在來看幻燈片。你們在圖上可以看到,從1960年到2010年,這是我們研究的50年期間,我們從兩種類型開始-激勵型及道德不確定型。因此,我們將激勵型定義為振奮人心的電視節目,能讓我們對世界抱著更正面的想法。道德不確定型是指讓我們無法分辨對錯的電視節目。一開始,你們可以看到,在1960年,激勵型保持平穩,這就是我們所看的電視節目類型。道德不確定型開始爬升。就在60年代末,道德不確定型持續上升,激勵型則稍微下降。為什麼?古巴導彈危機、約翰甘迺迪被槍殺、民權運動、種族暴亂、越戰、馬丁路德.金被槍殺、羅伯甘迺迪被槍殺、水門事件。看看接下來發生了什麼事。1970年,激勵型急速下降,道德不確定型開始爬升,然後兩者交錯。但隆納.雷根-一位適合上電視的總統開始執政,激勵型試圖重振,但大家看,它辦不到。愛滋病、伊朗軍售事件、挑戰者號太空梭災難、車諾比核災,道德不確定型成為1990年起往後二十年的電視節目主導型態。

 

看看這個,這張圖表描繪出一種非常類似的趨勢。但在這裡,節目分為:撫慰型-以紅色圈圈表示,社會評論型及反諷型則以藍色及綠色表示。此時的電視節目有《牧野風雲》,別忘了,還有《荒野大鏢客、《安迪格里菲斯秀》,及其他撫慰人心的本國節目,它呈現上升趨勢。撫慰型變化不多,反諷型開始上升,社會評論型突然開始衝高。前進到1969年,看看發生了什麼情形。撫慰型、反諷型及社會評論型節目不僅在我們社會中各別苗頭,事實上,你可以看到兩個屹立不搖的節目,《荒野大鏢客》和喜劇《Gomer Pyle》,1969年排名第二及第三最受歡迎的電視節目。排名第一的是什麼?社會反諷嬉皮節目《Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In》,全都鼎足而立,對嗎?觀眾的反應相當戲劇化。

 

看看螢幕上1966年的高峰,代表領導趨勢的節目。當你們聽到這個行業的術語,「突破性節目」,這意味著什麼?這意味著在1969年的電視季,《Smothers兄弟》突然大放異彩,這是第一個可以讓觀眾這麼說的節目:「天哪,我竟可以透過電視,評論我對越戰及總統的看法?」這就是突破性電視節目的意義。

 

再來,就像最後一張圖表,看看發生了什麼。1970年,趨勢翻盤,趨勢翻盤。我們不再觀賞撫慰型節目,在整個70年代,社會評論型和反諷型節目逐漸興起。現在看看這個年代的領導人物是誰?製作人Norman Lear。我們有《全家福》、《桑福德和兒子》及佔主導地位的節目,整個70年代均排名前10名的《風流軍醫俏護士》。在我們研究電視這整整50年中,在越戰期間,收視前十名的節目中有七個是反諷型的;尼克森執政期間,前十名中則有五個屬於反諷型。只有在這一代,這20年期間,我們發現,哇!電視竟可以做到這一點?它竟可以使我有這種感覺?它竟可以改變我們?因此,我想對非常聰明的群眾說,也想提醒數位使用者,不要發明破壞性產物。40年前,Archie Bunker(喜劇影集主角)陪伴我們一起度過陷在安樂椅中的悠閒時光。

 

這是一個簡單的圖表,代表另一種屬性:奇幻型和想像型。它定義的節目為「帶領我跳脫日常生活領域」及「讓我感覺更美好」。它對映著那個紅點代表失業率,這是一個簡單的勞工部統計局數據,你可以看到,每當奇幻型和想像型節目上升時,就對映到一個失業率高峰。我們希望看到關於人們省吃儉用及失業的節目嗎?不,在70年代,領導潮流的節目是《無敵女金剛》,1973年收視飆升至前10名。接著是《無敵金剛》和《霹靂嬌娃》,另一個1980年代的高峰,另一個與控制及力量有關的節目高峰。這是些什麼類型的節目?迷人和富有。《朱門恩怨》、《夢幻成真》,難以置信地反映了我們國民的心理狀態,呈現一些不可否認的事實:失業。

 

看這張我最喜歡的圖表,因為這代表過去20年的情形。無論你是否跟我同行,你一定聽過或讀過,所謂三機作業攝影情境喜劇的衰退和實境節目的崛起。好,以我們行業的說法,交叉處標記了關鍵點。90年代-大圈圈代表幽默型節目,我們看的是《六人行》、《歡樂一家親》、《Cheers》和《歡樂單身派對》。一切都很好,低失業率。但看看這個:交叉處標記了關鍵點。在2001年,2001年9月的電視季,評判型節目從此勝過幽默型節目。為什麼不呢?我們有2000年由最高法院決定的總統選舉,我們有科技泡沫的破滅,我們有9/11事件,炭疽菌成了社會詞彙的一部分,看看接下來發生了什麼。在世紀之交,網際網路起飛,實境節目已站穩腳步。那麼,人們想在電視上看到什麼?我原本認為是報復型或懷舊型節目;給我一些撫慰,我的世界正分崩離析。不,人們想看的是評判型節目。我可以投票把你逐出島外;我可以讓Sarah Palin的女兒繼續參加舞蹈比賽;我可以選擇下一個美國偶像,你出局了。這全都很棒,對嗎?

 

由於過去50年間這些純粹娛樂的電視節目之間顯著的不同,我從何處開始著手?一個基本的本能依然存在。我們是動物,我們需要母親。每十年就會出現一個具代表性、主要的電視母親形象。1950年代撫慰型節目始祖《天才小麻煩》中的June Cleever;Lucille Ball在60年代社會意識興起期間讓我們開懷大笑;Maude Findlay,1970年代反諷代表人物,在電視上解決墮胎、離婚、甚至更年期問題。1980年代,《豪門恩怨》中的Alexis Carrington給了我們第一個熟女形象;Murphy Brown飾演副總裁,同時呈現單親家庭的概念。這個時代的母親形象,Bree Van de Kamp。我不知道這是坐在我們意識上、坐在電視肩膀上的魔鬼或天使,但我確信不疑的是,我相當喜愛這些形象。

 

所以我想對大家說,觀賞TEDWomen的女性、男性及全球觀眾,感謝你們讓我分享關於電視意識的想法,但也讓我感謝這些傑出的創作者,在整個電視史中,持續不斷地將自己的想法呈現在電視螢幕上。他們讓電視呈現生命力,這是肯定的;但身為觀眾的你們,藉由集體的社會意識給予電視節目生命,決定它是否能長存或擁有力量。

 

非常感謝。

 

(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this Talk

TV executive Lauren Zalaznick thinks deeply about pop television. Sharing results of a bold study that tracks attitudes against TV ratings over five decades, she makes a case that television reflects who we truly are -- in ways we might not have expected.

About the Speaker

After wholly revamping the Bravo Network, media trendsetter Lauren Zalaznick is inventing fresh ways for NBC Universal to reach coveted new audiences across multiple media. Full bio and more links

Transcript

I want to say that really and truly, after these incredible speeches and ideas that are being spread, I am in the awkward position of being here to talk to you today about television. So most everyone watches TV. We like it. We like some parts of it. Here in America, people actually love TV. The average American watches TV for almost 5 hours a day. Okay? Now I happen to make my living these days in television, so for me, that's a good thing. But a lot of people don't love it so much. They, in fact, berate it. They call it stupid, and worse, believe me. My mother, growing up, she called it the "idiot box."

But my idea today is not to debate whether there's such a thing as good TV or bad TV; my idea today is to tell you that I believe television has a conscience. So why I believe that television has a conscience is that I actually believe that television directly reflects the moral, political, social and emotional need states of our nation -- that television is how we actually disseminate our entire value system. So all these things are uniquely human, and they all add up to our idea of conscience.

Now today, we're not talking about good and bad TV. We're talking about popular TV. We're talking about top-10 Nielsen-rated shows over the course of 50 years. How do these Nielsen ratings reflect not just what you've heard about, which is the idea of our social, collective unconscious, but how do these top-10 Nielsen-rated shows over 50 years reflect the idea of our social conscience? How does television evolve over time, and what does this say about our society?

Now speaking of evolution, from basic biology, you probably remember that the animal kingdom, including humans, have four basic primal instincts. You have hunger; you have sex; you have power; and you have the urge for acquisitiveness. As humans, what's important to remember is that we've developed, we've evolved over time to temper, or tame, these basic animal instincts. We have the capacity to laugh and cry. We feel awe, we feel pity. That is separate and apart from the animal kingdom. The other thing about human beings is that we love to be entertained. We love to watch TV. This is something that clearly separates us from the animal kingdom. Animals might love to play, but they don't love to watch.

So I had an ambition to discover what could be understood from this uniquely human relationship between television programs and the human conscious. Why has television entertainment evolved the way it has? I kind of think of it as this cartoon devil or angel sitting on our shoulders. Is television literally functioning as our conscience, tempting us and rewarding us at the same time?

So to begin to answer these questions, we did a research study. We went back 50 years to the 1959/1960 television season. We surveyed the top-20 Nielsen shows every year for 50 years -- a thousand shows. We talked to over 3,000 individuals -- almost 3,600 -- aged 18 to 70, and we asked them how they felt emotionally. How did you feel watching every single one of these shows? Did you feel a sense of moral ambiguity? Did you feel outrage? Did you laugh? What did this mean for you? So to our global TED audiences, I want to say that this was a U.S. sample. But as you can see, these emotional need states are truly universal. And on a factual basis, over 80 percent of the U.S.'s most popular shows are exported around the world. So I really hope our global audiences can relate.

Two acknowledgments before our first data slide: For inspiring me to even think about the idea of conscience and the tricks that conscience can play on us on a daily basis, I thank legendary rabbi, Jack Stern. And for the way in which I'm going to present the data, I want to thank TED community superstar Hans Rosling, who you may have just seen.

Okay, here we go. So here you see, from 1960 to 2010, the 50 years of our study. Two things we're going to start with -- the inspiration state and the moral ambiguity state, which, for this purpose, we defined inspiration as television shows that uplift me, that make me feel much more positive about the world. Moral ambiguity are televisions shows in which I don't understand the difference between right and wrong. As we start, you see in 1960 inspiration is holding steady. That's what we're watching TV for. Moral ambiguity starts to climb. Right at the end of the 60s, moral ambiguity is going up, inspiration is kind of on the wane. Why? The Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK is shot, the Civil Rights movement, race riots, the Vietnam War, MLK is shot, Bobby Kennedy is shot, Watergate. Look what happens. In 1970, inspiration plummets. Moral ambiguity takes off. They cross, but Ronald Reagan, a telegenic president, is in office. It's trying to recover. But look, it can't: AIDS, Iran-Contra, the Challenger disaster, Chernobyl. Moral ambiguity becomes the dominant meme in television from 1990 for the next 20 years.

Take a look at this. This chart is going to document a very similar trend. But in this case, we have comfort -- the bubble in red -- social commentary and irreverence in blue and green. Now this time on TV you have "Bonanza," don't forget, you have "Gunsmoke," you have "Andy Griffith," you have domestic shows all about comfort. This is rising. Comfort stays whole. Irreverence starts to rise. Social commentary is all of a sudden spiking up. You get to 1969, and look what happens. You have comfort, irreverence, and social commentary, not only battling it out in our society, but you literally have two establishment shows -- "Gunsmoke" and "Gomer Pyle" -- in 1969 are the number-two- and number-three-rated television shows. What's number one? The socially irreverent hippie show, "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In." They're all living together, right. Viewers had responded dramatically.

Look at this screen spike in 1966 to a bellwether show. When you guys hear this industry term, a breakout hit, what does that mean? It means in the 1966 television season, The "Smothers Brothers" came out of nowhere. This was the first show that allowed viewers to say, "My God, I can comment on how I feel about the Vietnam War, about the presidency, through television?" That's what we mean by a breakout show.

So then, just like the last chart, look what happens. In 1970, the dam bursts. The dam bursts. Comfort is no longer why we watch television. Social commentary and irreverence rise throughout the 70s. Now look at this. The 70s means who? Norman Lear. You have "All in the Family," "Sanford and Son," and the dominant show -- in the top-10 for the entire 70s -- "M*A*S*H." In the entire 50 years of television that we studied, seven of 10 shows ranked most highly for irreverence appeared on air during the Vietnam War, five of the top-10 during the Nixon administration. Only one generation, 20 years in, and we discovered, Wow! TV can do that? It can make me feel this? It can change us? So to this very, very savvy crowd, I also want to note the digital folks did not invent disruptive. Archie Bunker was shoved out of his easy chair along with the rest of us 40 years ago.

This is a quick chart. Here's another attribute: fantasy and imagination, which are shows defined as, "takes me out of my everyday realm" and "makes me feel better." That's mapped against the red dot, unemployment, which is a simple Bureau of Labor Department statistic. You'll see that every time fantasy and imagination shows rise, it maps to a spike in unemployment. Do we want to see shows about people saving money and being unemployed? No. In the 70s you have the bellwether show "The Bionic Woman" that rocketed into the top-10 in 1973, followed by the "Six Million-Dollar Man" and "Charlie's Angels." Another spike in the 1980s -- another spike in shows about control and power. What were those shows? Glamorous and rich. "Dallas," "Fantasy Island." Incredible mapping of our national psyche with some hard and fast facts: unemployment.

So here you are, in my favorite chart, because this is our last 20 years. Whether or not you're in my business, you have surely heard or read of the decline of the thing called the three-camera sitcom and the rise of reality TV. Well, as we say in the business, X marks the spot. The 90s -- the big bubbles of humor -- we're watching "Friends," "Frasier," "Cheers" and "Seinfeld." Everything's good, low unemployment. But look: X marks the spot. In 2001, the September 2001 television season, humor succumbs to judgment once and for all. Why not? We had a 2000 presidential election decided by the Supreme Court. We had the bursting of the tech bubble. We had 9/11. Anthrax becomes part of the social lexicon. Look what happens when we keep going. At the turn of the century, the Internet takes off, reality television has taken hold. What do people want in their TV then? I would have thought revenge or nostalgia. Give me some comfort; my world is falling apart. No, they want judgment. I can vote you off the island. I can keep Sarah Palin's daughter dancing. I can choose the next American Idol. You're fired. That's all great, right?

So as dramatically different as these television shows, pure entertainment, have been over the last 50 years -- what did I start with? -- one basic instinct remains. We're animals, we need our moms. There has not been a decade of television without a definitive, dominant TV mom. The 1950s: June Cleever in the original comfort show, "Leave it to Beaver." Lucille Ball kept us laughing through the rise of social consciousness in the 60s. Maude Findlay, the epitome of the irreverent 1970s, who tackled abortion, divorce, even menopause on TV. The 1980s, our first cougar was given to us in the form of Alexis Carrington. Murphy Brown took on a vice president when she took on the idea of single parenthood. This era's mom, Bree Van de Kamp. Now I don't know if this is the devil or the angel sitting on our conscience, sitting on television's shoulders, but I do know that I absolutely love this image.

So to you all, the women of TEDWomen, the men of TEDWomen, the global audiences of TEDWomen, thank you for letting me present my idea about the conscience of television. But let me also thank the incredible creators who get up everyday to put their ideas on our television screens throughout all these ages of television. They give it life on television, for sure, but it's you as viewers, through your collective social consciences, that give it life, longevity, power or not.

So thanks very much.

(Applause)
 


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入1 + 5 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

課程討論
1

Anonymous, 2014-02-26 23:21:11
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2014-02-26 23:21:06
-1'
1
Anonymous, 2014-02-26 23:20:52
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2014-02-26 23:20:46
課程討論
-1'
Anonymous, 2014-02-26 23:20:37

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: