Just to stay in the cinema and understand how wide the scissors are for a garbage show, just remember that most of Totò’s films were considered B movies, when he was alive. When he died there was the rediscovery not so much of masterpieces but of one of the greatest world comedians of all time.
In Italy the so-called garbage TV makes its entry in the mid-80’s with the program "A bocca aperta", by Gianfranco Funari, first on telemontecarlo then on Rai Due. Good public success and bad criticism from those who could not stand the popularization of politics in the mouth of the “ggente”, as if it were a crime of treason. But the program was only the beginning of what will be the triumphant path of one of the most influential television tribunes, capable of moving hundreds of millions of advertising revenue.
Everything that does not please the palates for the purposes of television criticism is decried as trash often dealing with television, which is a very complex thing both in making it and in understanding it, as if it were cinema that specifically has a completely different complexity, starting with the use of the public.
For the learned teachers of communication, who have never shot a meter of film in their life, trash TV is a product of low quality and grotesque due to the mediocrity of the practitioner. Nothing could be more wrong.
Let’s take two examples easily recognizable for everyone: "Ciao Darwin", by Paolo Bonolis and "Pomeriggio cinque", by Barbara D'Urso. The program of Bonolis, a very educated person, dedicated to reading engaged and able to translate Latin and Greek, is the genre of entertainment and as such of high cost; In addition, it is a program where complex things happen that enhance the show and that requires a direction up to the situation. For the common sense of modesty there can be vulgarities, sometimes even grotesque fun, certainly not mediocrity or low quality. Remember: costs and revenues, penetration into the territory.
Visualizza questo post su Instagram
Barbara D'Urso aligns herself with most of today’s television offering: the Talk show; inexpensive and high-revenue product when awarded by the home audience. In general it is a television offer mediocre, since it is a television sitting, spoken, sometimes shouted, where nothing happens bustling. If then, as in the case of D'Urso, the program tends to infotainment that is a mixture of journalism and entertainment, then you need a team of authors capable of inventing intimate issues and knowing how to dose them either to ridicule them or to enhance the pain, to move the audience at home. Then the social media will take care of it. In practice it uses the advertising strategy of the commodification of feelings. You can criticize the journalistic offer certainly not the amount of work that is upstream, everything but sloppy.
Visualizza questo post su Instagram
From D'Urso to "Big Brother" is a moment, since the program is daily cannibalized by the presenter in her afternoon program. Today it is considered, by the purist professors of television, as the trash program par excellence but here too we must make a distinction.
Visualizza questo post su Instagram
The Dutch format is inspired by the plot of "Big Brother", by George Orwell and the first Italian edition, 2000, is presented as a great anthropological and sociological experiment. This cultural dignity is given by the management of one of the favourites of the Italian "rive gauche", Daria Bignardi, assisted externally by a young and brilliant Marco Liorni. The first edition serves the Team of authors to observe and study the real dynamics of the ten "home" boys.
From the second edition onwards all the dynamics will be studied at the stage in advance, starting with the choice of the cast useful to interpret an already written part.
The learned professors of television, who would not know how to place a lamp for the backlight, do not like that in the garbage TV dominates the bad taste made of screaming, Obscenity, verbal violence, and maybe some misconduct, and the whole thing creates a spiral that hypnotizes millions of viewers. Well these celestial minds still have not understood, in so many years, that it is all pure fiction comparable to the Horror at the cinema, where dead slain by zombies, screams, violence and so on are the lifeblood that keeps the viewers nailed to the seats in the room.
Why don’t these professors be indignant at information that is only expressed in almost always self-referential opinions and where the facts remain completely marginal?
Because they are not indignant on the commercials of so many fake non-profit organizations that commodify pain and disease asking money to the public or, again, about scams and vulgarity, Why do not they arise when they are brought back to the media spotlight two delinquents already convicted as Wanna Marchi and daughter, whose name fortunately escapes us?
Ah to know!
Visualizza questo post su Instagram
In conclusion: for television professionals can not exist the concept "I like, I do not like", they must respond to the diktat "It works or does not work", or the only rule that can guarantee advertising revenue.
For the public at home, instead: "Every shine has its taste", as it is said in the evolution of food flavors since childhood. Because in the end this is what it is: a simple matter of taste, completely subjective; but until the numbers will reward this or that program, who turns up his nose pointing his finger will always be wrong.
Like it or not!
.jpg)