“Emily in Paris” and the Rise of Ambient TV
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Alternative take: Emily in Paris is a tv series where you shouldn't expect a lot of thinking, you'll find a new character introduced once in a while when you need new content, everything is obvious and striped to the core of the conveyed idea, and there are love stories and nice shots of France. That's it - you may enjoy it or not. If you get distracted with Instagram in the meantime, maybe you're just not that interested. The core is really not that different from Friends, for example. Or any of the 10+ season series. (I wouldn't go as far as the classic soaps - those had their own specific fake-dramatic style)
I get that the author may just not like the format. They'd be bored by Jiro, they'd sleep during Helvetica, and they'd probably die watching Herzog movies. But they should acknowledge their biases rather than pretend they stumbled upon some shift in tv.
(Ftr, I enjoyed Emily in Paris as silly entertainment, but I also find slow burn movies really fun. Jim Jarmusch makes me more engaged than most action movies)
Added: for the entertainment value, I'd pay to read their review of Twin Peaks...
I think you're trying a bit too hard to dunk on the author. A lot of your conjecture here is somewhat unknowable, but I would assume the author of a book on minimalism would find something worthwhile in a documentary focusing on a typeface so closely associated with minimalist design.
The pacing is a big part of why I love some current dramas like Better Call Saul and avoid a great deal of the rest of television programming.
And that being said, I DO also watch stupid TV. Recently, my wife and me have been watching Gilmore Girls, which is an objectively "bad" late 90's soap. I haven't watched Emily in Paris yet, but I might!
So I think there are people who require these shows as because they need background noise, however I also think that sometimes some shallow soap is exactly what you might want to watch.
In any case, kudos to op for implicating the author's dislike of Emily in Paris with the inability to enjoy Jim Jamush movies. A masterful troll move.
I don't believe I did. Only mentioned them as something I like and think of as prime example of "slow movies" where you could potentially switch off. The article goes well beyond the Emily in Paris itself.
This is a contrast to the whole super-serialized run of shows over the past 15 years or so, but I'm not convinced it's really that new, or unique to Netflix.
My parents used 60s->90s sitcoms and things like HGTV very similarly as background noise.
The episode about the guy in Lima was really moving.
Instead, this sounds more like what my girlfriend uses "The Office" as: TV that you're so comfortable with you like to have it on when you're doing other things and not actually watching TV.
Personally, I think it's some kind of avoidance behavior and not something that should be encouraged. I'll admit I haven't read the article though, because I am constitutionally opposed to learning about shows that show Americans going to Paris and wearing berets.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rDjPLvOShM
They also have a series of shorter progrogrammes following the creation of an object, again without narration, under the "Handmade" series.
All great ambient slow TV.
Friends is the same way. Much of the hubbub over its becoming big again when Netflix won the rights a few years ago was from young women discovering the show, but I suspect that just as many of the viewers were slightly older women who've seen every episode multiple times and put it on in the background while going about their day.
I've always viewed it as something as simple as background noise, but I know TONS of people who do this (myself included), so I imagine there's probably a much deeper phenomena at play
For example, my girlfriend experiences tinnitus, so having a completely silent house is annoying to her, since she just hears a high pitched noise instead of silence. But if you use ambient TV to avoid getting lost in your own thoughts because of fear of where they might take you, or if you use it as a stand-in to avoid feelings of loneliness for actual human company/conversation, then that is where I see it as unhealthy.
(I think the first one was sponsored by Pears? Anyway, there's a joke about someone introducing an American to the long-running British soap Coronation Street and them saying "no spoilers, I'd like to watch it from the beginning")
(Or more precisely, to keep it in a stack on the shelf for months, then throw away.)
Streaming services like Netflix have yet to really plunge into legit ambient tv which is still primarily living on YouTube. If you want to watch a person walk around Tokyo for 2 hours or watch the Olso to Bergen train ride the article mentions is still only something YouTube has available. I think COVID forcing so many people to stay at home has definitely popularized the genre.
We found it enjoyable in a way similar to that of Girls: the protaganist is loathsome due to their narcissistic portrayal, and incredibly naive. This makes it enjoyable as you find yourself rooting against them and laughing at their failures.
We also found it annoying in a way similar to the recent Oceans movie. Rather than the protaganist defeating the antagonist, the protagonist wins them over with their revealed inner and outer beauty, and all-tagonists become cute, unlikely friends.
This forced ideological hum really gets old fast. It is as if a six year old discovered a hammer and decided that everything in the world was a nail.
I guess the remaining medium which you can't just numb your body out to is the written word? Books (esp. classics) are still just as intriguing and engrossing as they were when they came out. You can't _really_ binge a book like a TV show. Books don't have live concerts where the point is entirely other than the enjoyment of the content. Books benefit from all the technological advancements of today (e-readers, e-ink, digital copies, etc) without having to become vapid background scenery as a result.
And of course, books make way way way less money than movies and music as a result. Not sure what I've proven here, but just the thoughts I had while reading this article.
What do you call reading a book cover to cover in one sitting? It can take as long as watching a whole season of a TV series.
> Books (esp. classics) are still just as intriguing and engrossing as they were when they came out.
What we're used to these days has definitely moved the goal posts, at least in the adventure themes. For example the classic Bram's Dracula is not really exciting these days. The described technology is not amazing either (oh, he played a wax cylinder record)
> Books don't have live concerts where the point is entirely other than the enjoyment of the content.
Have you ever been to an author meeting + book signing events? Relatively popular authors can fill whole theatres.
> Books benefit from all the technological advancements of today (...) without having to become vapid background scenery as a result.
Have you heard of background audiobooks?
Oh yes you can! The majority of articles, opinion pieces and books are a drawn out mess. Like that meme about recipes not just containing the recipe, but a whole story the reader usually doesn't care about, how the cook first tried out this dish on his first date with his ex wife, who is the one that got away. The same goes for many books: Simple thoughts are turned into pages, chapters, whole books. >90% padding you do not need to read to fully understand the book. But if you want to publish and sell a book, you can't publish an article. And if you want to publish an article, you can't publish a tweet.
Obviously not a direct analogy, but podcasts seem like a new-age version of audio books or novellas