Whoa...wait...he produced that show too?!? I should have known that!

As I sit and watch reruns of my favorite “Friends” episodes, I started to wonder who the masterminds behind the show were. I realized I loved the humor, drama, and specifically the characters portrayed in this show. As I researched the show more I realized that I was attracted to the co-producer, Kevin Bright’s work. While researching I discovered that I was a fan of some of his other work without even realizing it, like “Veronica’s Closet,” “Joey,” and “Dream On.” In this blog I hope to share with you my research on Bright that includes a quick biography of his work and at least three different elements or characteristic that helps make his body of work unique to Bright as a producer.

According to TV.com , Kevin Bright was born in 1954 in New York City. He started his career there with the Joseph Ctes Company and helped produce specials for stars like David Copperfield and Johnny Cash. In 1982 he moved to Los Angeles to help produce specials for HBO. In 1992 he won his second Cable Ace Award for his HBO sitcom “Dream On.” In 1993 he met David Crane and Marta Kauffman and the three of them began the Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions, and the rest is history! Well…kind of…together the three of them produced the hit TV series “Friends,” “Veronica’s Closet,” and “Jesse.” After ten successful seasons of “Friends” the series came to an end and Bright then became involved with producing the “Friends” spin-off “Joey” starring Matt LeBlanc as Joey. After “Joey” was cancelled, Bright went back to Boston and worked and taught at Emerson College, where he graduated from many years before. The last TV work Bright has done was in 2007 when he produced and directed a short documentary about his father, Jackie Bright, called “Who Ordered Tax.”
Every writer, director, producer, etc. has a unique way of presenting their work specific to him or her. These are known as thematic motifs or textual elements. Types of textual elements are something called mise en scene, or “all of the objects in front of the camera and their arrangements like setting, costumes, lighting, and actor movement” (Gordon).

Bright uses the textual element of sound effects of laughter to hint to the audience that something funny about to happen. For example, in Season two, episode fifteen of “Veronica’s Closet,” Perry introduces an attractive new photographer to Veronica, Olive, and Josh. When Veronica and Olive are introduced the photographer he kisses them on the hand greets them in French and the audience snickers quietly (helping to hint that something really funny is about to happen), then when Josh expects the same kind of treatment the audience erupts with laughter. Likewise in Season two of “Joey” Michael goes to get a water container to replace the empty one on the Culligan water cooler, and Joey calls Alex to come over, the audience slightly chuckles though we have no idea what’s going on. Then after Michael humorously struggles to get the water container on, the audience laughs the whole time as we watch him fail.

Another element that is commonly found in Bright’s work would be his use of editing called temporal continuity or editing that helps orient the viewer in time (Gordon). Bright likes to use clips from other films during his sitcoms to help the audience remember a scene and quickly catch onto something. For example, in his sitcom “Dream On, “ season three, episode 10, Bright uses black and white film clips to help the viewers understand what the character Martin Tupper is thinking. Courtney Cox guest stars and asks Tupper what time it is and when he turns to tell her he sees how good looking she is and the screen cuts to a black and white film clip of a man yelling, “Boy is she pretty.” Bright also uses a flashbacks during the episodes of “Friends: The One with the Prom Tape” to help the audience realize just how long and how much Ross is in love with Rachel when Ross suffer embarrassment trying to save Rachel from not having a date to the prom, just to find out Rachel’s date showed up at the last minute, leaving Ross in the dust.
Bright also has his signature characters. In almost all of Bright’s sitcoms that I studied I found one “nerdy” character that makes viewers do nothing but laugh. For example, in the episode of “Friends: The One with the Rumor” we find out from an old high school friend of Ross’s that he was not the most popular kid in school and needed to start rumors to get at the popular kids like Rachel. One could also just watch any episode of Ross and see how he’s a typical Dino loving nerd!! Also, in the first season of “Joey” we are introduced to his nephew Michael who is nothing like his uncle Joey that we know and love. In the first several episodes of the season we find out Michael is a mamma’s boy who studies a lot and need help “with the ladies.” Which Joey attempts to give him tips, but Michael soon realizes he just needed to have confidence to do his own thing.
So hopefully after reading this blog you too have quickly picked up on things specific to Bright, like his hinting studio audience giggles, his flashbacks and clips, and his use of hilariously nerdy characters. Though there are so many more characteristics specific for Bright, I felt these three are the ones that helped me, and many other viewers, connect and enjoy Bright’s work so much. So hopefully now you will become a more observant participant of your favorite director or producer and start studying his or her work to learn exactly why you like it so much!

References

“Kevin S. Bright: Summary.”Oct. 5, 2009. http://www.tv.com/kevin-s.-bright/person/1901/summary.html

Gordon, Kristina. “Doing Auteur-Centered Criticism.” English-Philosophy Building, Iowa City, Iowa. 6 Oct. 2009.

Gordon, Kristina. “Dong Auteur-Centered Criticism. Part 2.” English-Philosophy Building, Iowa City, Iowa. 8 Oct. 2009.

Why Listen to the Newbie?!

Here’s the deal, we all watch TV and regardless if we think so or not we are constantly criticizing the programs we watch. Even those of you who sit and watch like zombies retain some sort of critique by enjoying the program or not. I’m not saying every time I sit down to watch TV I have my critical hat on, but after starting my TV Criticism class this semester, I’ve already picked up on how dense this subject, and watching TV, can be. Though I am new at this (blogging and being a TV critic) I hope to engage, entertain, and offer worthy insights on the appreciation of TV and what it takes to be a useful critic. In this first blog I hope to articulate my goals for participating in TV criticism, what my views and relationships to TV is as an object of study, and how I am going to convey this information to you as my readers.

My goals as a critic are simple, to learn right alongside everyone else. I’ve recently realized that being a TV critic does not mean having to state just how bad or good a TV program is, but to fully analyze every detail. From the lighting to the casting, everything needs to be considered. Because I am so new at this I do not expect to have the brightest and best arguments, but to be able to improve as the semester moves forward on being a productive TV critic is obviously a main goal. Just like O’Donnell (2007) states, “Criticism is the practice of informed judgment through which a person understands, evaluates, and communicates to others the what, how, and why something is considered to be of quality (18). Likewise, Sillars and Gronbeck (2001) define communication criticism as, “A critic [that] makes an argument that describes, interprets, or evaluates the messages to which people are exposed in public or collective ways” (5). I’m not here to tell everyone who is right and who is wrong, but to grasp the concepts of the goal of criticism that O’Donnell, Sillars and Gronbeck laid out for their readers.

At this point, my view and relationship to television as an object of study is concerned with Corner (1999), and exactly why television is worthy of being studied. Corner states, “[TV] has completely changed the nature of the modern entertainment industry,” and I am interested in finding out why. Also, a relationship I intend to study is the effects of television on our society and why Butler (2002) believes TV has contributed to a decline of values in our country (7). For example, one of my favorite TV shows is Sex and the City. Though I did not start watching the show until after the series ended, I quickly learned what all the hype was about when the show was newly airing. When it first came to TV I did not understand why it was so special and why all single women needed to start drinking cosmopolitans and disregard any ‘old school’ female role. I thought it was ridiculous how anyone could be so influenced by a fictional TV show. Then many years later I started watching the reruns of the show and soon found myself being a cosmopolitan drinking, Mr. Big hating woman that was driven to be anything but a house wife to be. I could not believe how influenced I quickly became with this show and have been driven ever since to examine our society and how TV is ever so prevalent in our lives as influences.

Though I laugh and judge myself and others for letting TV affect what we want out of life and our goals, it is a huge part of our culture. Whether I like it or not I WILL be influenced by The Office, Law and Order, and The Soup, it is just up to us as critical viewers to decide how we want to interpret the information retained. Brundson (1993) brings up three categories of relationship between the critic and viewer that I find to be very important to understand now that I am (and hopefully now you) are a conscious TV critic. I also intend to relate information to you as readers through the understanding of these three relationships. Brundson defines the first relationship, transparent, as, “Characteristic of the utopian,” or that the critic and viewer are on the same side against the other (312). Next, hegemonic, “involves differentiation”, or the critics and viewers are on separate sides and have different views (313). Lastly there is fragmented which is,” the possibility that there is no necessary relationship between the two categories” (314). All interpretations fit into one of these relationships so I believe it is important to understand each and be conscious of them as we watch a program!

I hope that this has given all of you some insight to who I am as a TV critic and viewer. It is important to me that we learn as we go, and work together to understand one another’s views on the best and worst of shows. I promise to expand my viewing from shows like Friends, Gossip Girl, and Paris Hilton’s My New BFF to things like Whale Wars and programs on the History Channel in hopes to engage all sorts of TV views. I also strive to find out what you think about my thoughts and vice versa so that we can expand each other’s views and opinions without taking our own interpretation or others for granted!

References

Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.

Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2^nd ed).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.

Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.