America: Land of the Free… to Watch 13 Hours of Television in One Sitting While Drinking an Entire Case of Beer and Eating Three Big Macs

Just over a month ago Netflix released its new 13 episode series titled “House of Cards” – all at once.  Finally, Americans can watch shows in the same way they eat their food and drink their alcohol – in droves. 

Many are claiming that this groundbreaking new release method is an attempt to change the way we watch television shows, while Netflix claims it simply allows people to watch shows at their own pace.  Regardless, the perceived result of this release model is that most people are watching several episodes in one sitting, coining a new term called“binge-watching.  

In reality, Netflix is not causing this style of viewing, but just rather the first company to adapt to it, since this is how many people watch television shows already.  This release model is fueling the even more concerning problem of the mass consumption habits of Americans.

            College students are undoubtedly dead center on the target demographic for a show like “House of Cards.”  The show, however, is also aimed at a much wider audience as well. This audience is one that doesn’t have time to set aside every weeknight to watch their favorite television shows when they air for the first time.  David Fincher, the director of the first two episodes and also an execute producer for the series, says, “The world of 7:30 on Tuesday nights, that’s dead.  A stake has been driven through its heart, its head has been cut off, and its mouth stuffed with garlic.  The captive audience is gone.  If you give people this opportunity to mainline all in one day, there’s reason to believe that they will do it.”  While a stake might not have been driven through that release model’s heart, it is a quickly evaporating audience who still waits for the weekly airing of their favorite show.  When I talk to my peers in college about what they did over the weekend a common response will be something to the effect of “I took it easy and watched two seasons of ‘Breaking Bad,’” or “I watched an entire season of ‘The Wire.’”  I indulged in the binge-viewing craze myself last winter break when I had a cold and watched the whole first season of “Game of Thrones” in just two days.

            Since the world has been introduced to streaming content, fewer people watch television in the traditional sense.  The writer of “House of Cards,” Beau Willimon, states: “Streaming is the future.  TV will not be TV in five years from now… everyone will be streaming.”  This furthers the statement that Netflix is not creating the binge-watcher, but rather perpetuating it.  They are the first to release all episodes of a major television show at once, but by doing so they are just fueling an over-indulgent American mentality that already exists.

            Netflix release model for “House of Cards” is essentially capitalizing on the perceived over-indulgent, “super-size-me-mentality” of most Americans.  By releasing all episodes at once, and making nearly 13 hours of content available in an instant, Netflix is banking on American’s inability to delay gratification.  This is a highly bankable idea considering the way Americans consume food, the way they consume alcohol, and the way they have begun to consume their media.  Some is good, more is better.

            Everyone knows the consequences of over-eating are becoming obese.  Binge drinking leads to poor decision making in the short-term and long-term health problems.  But in this 21^st century, technology plagued time that we live now live in, what will be the effects of binge consuming media?  Netflix is not the first to put out potential commercial break advertisers by being subscription based like HBO or Showtime, they are certainly putting pressure on advertisers to become more creative in their attempts to reach consumers.  However, just because the streaming “House of Cards” is commercial free doesn’t mean it’s free of advertisements.  Apple, Blackberry, Sony, and Nike are just a few of the brands that I have noticed being deliberately placed in frame. 

            Apart from the advertising world, how will binge viewing affect the average Joe and Jane?  Of course excessive television can melt your brain, but what’s the worst that can come from occasionally zoning out for a few days to watch a TV series?  It seems many of the long and short term effects of binge-viewing have remained to be seen, but all I know is my roommate hasn’t come out of his room since last semester when he got a Netflix account… maybe it’s time to check on him.

Argue or contribute below – both are welcome.

Guys Have Nipples Too

            During a recent period of cogitation, I began to notice how flawed the rating system is in America.  Some movies are overly violent for a simple PG-13 rating, where as others are hardly as bad, yet they get slapped with R ratings or worse.  Thinking of what can and can’t be shown in a PG-13 movie, I began to wonder why breasts can’t be shown in a PG-13 film. 

            Before doing any research the only film I could think of that showed a woman’s breasts and had a PG-13 rating was Titanic.  After more extensive research, Titanic really is just one of few films that have gotten away with a PG-13 rating after showing breasts.  Why can men take their shirts off in a film but not a woman? After all, guys have nipples too, and some really fat guys have sagging sacks of fat on their chest just like women (unfortunately).  The root of the matter is that breasts are seen as sexual body parts, and men are attracted to them - but why?  What an odd, random part of a woman’s body to be attracted to – not elbows or knee caps (though I’m sure there are some freaks out there who can prove that statement wrong), but random sacks of fat on a woman’s chest.  I imagine a small part of the reason is cultural, but part of it must also be that back in the day, we saw hips and butt as a way to carry and deliver our child, and breasts as a way to feed them, causing a natural attraction to those specific features.  So what’s the big deal with showing them in films?

            In Europe boobs are a non-issue, as they should be.  They have nude beaches, topless poster boards in public areas, and are generally just much less prude as Americans are on the issue of nudity.  To be clear I’m talking about nudity, not sexuality, which in this context are vastly different things.  A scene in a movie showing a topless woman on a beach is nudity.  A scene showing a topless woman being fondled and having sex is the latter.

              It’s not that I want to see more boobs in movies, it’s actually something contrary: to me, showing a woman’s breast is far less of an adult matter than showing some of the violence and strong themes in some PG-13 films today.  While I don’t think movie violence directly correlates to causing real violence, as I’ve stated in an earlier blog post, I still believe the rating system as a whole needs a serious overhaul.  The first film that comes to mind is Taken.  The film is full of heavy violence as a pissed-off Liam Neeson gallivants through Europe brutally murdering people in a quest to save his daughter who was violently abducted by a human and drug trafficking cartel before being sold into sex-slavery.  After seeing that movie a few years back, I still don’t want my sister going to any foreign countries, and my own first thoughts about travelling abroad are to make sure I don’t wake up in a bathtub full of ice with no kidneys – because after seeing Taken, I totally believe that stuff happens.         

            Now, seeing some exciting movie violence is all fun and swell when you’re seeing an action movie, but drug trafficking and sex slavery are some of heavy topics to take up with your 13-year-old son on the drive home from the local theater.  If I’m that parent taking my 13-year-old son to a film, I would much rather him see a woman’s bare chest and have him be thinking about that on the ride home, rather than the real-life subject of selling women into brutal sex-slavery rings.  So while I personally don’t have a problem with the actual violence of Liam Neeson kicking some ass (honestly, who doesn’t enjoy that), I do have a problem with films that carry such intense themes.

            The flip side to the problem of underrating films is overrating them.  I recently saw Blue Valentine, a film that was initially given a rating of NC-17.  The rating is a death sentence for films because it doesn’t allow anyone under the age of 17 to see the film, even with an adult.  What’s worse though, is that it can’t even play in big theater chains and it isn’t allowed to show trailers on television or put ads in the paper.  This condemns the film to small art house theaters where the film will undoubtedly tank.  To be honest, I’m not a fan of the NC-17 rating at all.  If the film is over the top, just make it R, and if the movie is super intense, you’ll know well before you set foot in the theater or take your 16-year-old kid to see it.  When was the last time you saw a movie without reading a single review or having any prior notion of what it’s about? My guess is never, because nobody wants to fork over 13 bucks without knowing what they're getting themselves into.  If you think it will be too intense, don’t see it, and if it gets too intense while you’re in the theater already, walk out, get your money back, and go see Smurfs!  

              I digress… Blue Valentine was very emotionally taxing, but it was rated NC-17 for a single scene where a husband goes down on his wife – both of whom have most of their clothes on the entire time.  This pales in comparison to the absolutely BRUTAL rape scene in David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  Fincher is one of my top three favorite directors, but this scene is hard to watch.  Speaking of my younger sister, I saw this film with her when it came out and I wanted to cover her eyes – she’s 18 and can legally see whatever the hell she wants, but still.  This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of making Dragon Tattoo NC-17, but just that Blue Valentine definitely didn’t deserve to be in the first place.  Eventually the rating was overturned and Blue Valentine was made R.  Which brings me back to my point that showing breasts is far less offensive or mature as showing intense themes.

            To wrap this up, I would have to repeat the fact that America needs a new rating system – one that is fair and honest, and doesn’t kill the films that are deemed too edgy, but instead rates them on their themes and how they use violence, language and nudity, rather than blindly conforming to a checklist.  But until then I would guess we won’t be seeing many boobies on the big screen and I suppose we have America’s square, puritan, Pilgrim founders to blame. 

          Comment below – I’d love to hear what you think and I might even respond.