How Netflix is Changing Mass Culture

This week I found an interesting video called "Netflix's War on Mass Culture" and I immediately thought, "Oh no, they're not going to tell me that Netflix is bad! Are they?" The reality is both yes, and no. As I watched the video, despite its daunting title, I found that the narrative was somewhat open for interpretation and I will answer to that later on.

The video basically outlined how the normal practice of watching television had gone on in previous generations and how Netflix is different from that. At first the video accuses Netflix of trying to replace the foundations of television with a new system based on the current values of the internet generation and also of trying to change viewer behavior. Of course in my mind I say, "That's great that such things can evolve as we do!" However, this video takes the opposite approach and claims that Netflix has a hidden agenda.

Even the Netflix logos have a cool history! (source)

The origin story of Netflix is generally known by the average American; it was at first a DVD mail order service that after a while began to offer some of its most popular shows and films via online streaming. Its also infamously known as the company that eventually brought down Blockbuster Video, a VHS movie rental store that refused to "get with the times." Therefore proving that evolution of entertainment is imperative.

In the history of entertainment, many shows and events were broadcasted live, as reliable technology for recording video and audio didn't come until much later. Thus live entertainment was, for much of history, seen as commonplace. Even as pre-recorded shows began to air, live television did not disappear, as today we still have live news, sporting events, award shows, reality shows, etc. Though the focus now has shifted to pre-recorded shows being the majority and live television being the minority. Having our choice of scripted shows to watch echos the retail market, just like people could go to Blockbuster and pick out only what they wanted to watch rather than being subjected to "what's on." Also, unlike cable companies, Netflix pays attention to their viewers, what they watch and what they like, and uses algorithms based on the genre or starring actors to predict other shows you might be interested in.

Netflix knows what you like! "OITNB" was their top rated show last June. (image source)

The video states that mainstream entertainment is based on a large pillar of popular culture, flanked by smaller sub-cultures and that Netflix is attempting to change this architecture into a world of “fandom islands” where people rarely interact with others outside of their island. It gives people less exposure to things that they wouldn’t normally watch but I don’t see that the unity of people loving a show will cease because of this. It in fact adds a more profound sense of connection. For someone to find another person who likes the same obscure show that they do, instead of being crowded out by the overall tone of what the majority of people are watching, makes that show and that connection even more special. They argue that entertainment only based on fandom is non-traditional and un-American, but I have so far seen very little change in the unity and passion of people who have made the transition to online streaming.

In the past, network “event television” aimed to get a large group of people watching the same thing at the same time - but what is the harm in a large group of people watching the same thing, but at their own pace? Netflix is viewed by a large amount of people, but that doesn’t make it less valuable, in fact people are watching more hours of television than they did in the 1990s. This makes it even more important that we pay attention to what we are watching and make it more readily available, rather than restricting people to less choice because of tradition

Even cable networks have "On Demand." They have to admit it is part of our modern era of entertainment. (image source)

The anti-Netflix argument in the video uses the viewpoint of Vladimir Nabokov who believes that humanity’s “highest yearning” should be to leave behind all desire to be “current.” I however, argue that modern people have a very high regard for being up-to-date on all parts of culture, especially where they consider it to be a part of their identity. This does contrast to a time, even a hundred years back, when people were wary of new inventions such as television or even electricity - but today a vast number of people take great pride in wearing the latest trend, going to see the newest movies, and sharing the most popular memes. What’s wrong with that? I say nothing!

The Greatest Show on Earth No Longer

After reading in Time Magazine that the Ringling Brothers' Circus was to close down after 146 years I was somewhat saddened but not entirely surprised. I began to wonder why circus shows have lost favor in modern society. I figured it would make a good topic for this week's blog post after I found myself really trying to dissect what had happened and how I should feel about it.

The easy answer as to why circus shows have become less popular is obvious; tv shows, movies, video games, and the like have begun our new digital age of on-demand entertainment. Whereas at one time most people only had books and theatre to distract themselves from their everyday lives and struggles, we today can conjure an entirely different world to focus on in mere seconds. Yet, this is only one aspect.

Barnum & Bailey elephant show act circa 1900, Encyclopedia Britannica.(source)

One of the biggest reasons cited by the circus owners is that ticket sales drastically declined after the retirement of the elephant acts. After long battles with animal rights groups, after which their allegations of abuse have been proven false, the elephants were sent to a reserve in Florida where they could happily live out their days. However, even after the Ringling Bros gave in to those demands, attendance numbers sharply declined. This comes as an especially painful blow, as they had just announced their first female ringleader.

So, what do we have the circus to thank for? How should we remember it as an important feature of a bygone era? Well, originally the Ringling Bros competed with the Barnum and Bailey circus, PT Barnum's show centered around exotic animals and acts featuring stunts performed by animals and humans alike. The Ringling Bros began as jugglers and daredevils, but they didn't garner much attention until the purchase of their first elephant in 1888.

Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey postcard circa 1931. (source)

At one time the show, which lasted for 3 hours, featured high-flying trapeze acts, stilt walkers, human oddities, carefully choreographed animal exhibitions, dancers, and magicians. In 1890 the most popular act was simply a dark room where people would pay to see the newly invented electric light bulb! This hardly even mentions the culture of side-shows, which focused more on the aforementioned human oddities, and other wonders considered too macabre or strange for everyday entertainment. Even Winston Churchill himself begged his parents to take him to see Barretta the "Boneless Wonder," though they denied him. (Library Source)

I think one of my favorite memories of circus culture is the colorful posters that enticed the local population to come see the wondrous show. These posters used such beautifully selective imagery and illustrations of the acts and actors, portrayed in a cartoonish caricature style that is similar to modern comic books. Today some of the most famous circus performers are memorialized only by these caricatures, as photography wasn't used in mainstream society until the very late 1800's. I believe that the very attitude of their showing, and us getting to witness, such amazing feats and acts will live on in our hearts for at least another generation. The sparkle and dazzle of lighting and sequined costumes forever reflected in our minds.

Circus poster lithograph featuring portraits of 5 of the Ringling Bros at left. (source)