Intrinsic Appreciation

Peaky Blinders brings viewers into a world of violence, 1920s glamour, gangsters, and well-done storytelling. Most viewers who watch the show are drawn to the unpredictable plot of the criminal series during an era where freedom is depicted in fashionable night clubs. This kind of period brings on a fascination for most viewers. If it’s not the story or setting itself, it is the dramatic brawls and violent ends that keep people hooked.

Intrinsic Evaluation

Observing Peaky Blinders in isolation, viewers grasp how the mix of crime, characters, and drama fits into the crime-drama category. Like its predecessors before it, of The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and Sons of Anarchy set before it. The show intertwines the importance of family and money that seems to be the driving part for every gangster. The character depth and growth showed throughout the show differ from those similar. Unlike those infamous main characters, Tommy Shelby has his heights set higher and knows the only escape for him is death- which he longs.

Extrinsic Appreciation

The drama would not be able to be as compelling without its twist and turns. In the middle of season three, Grace, Tommy’s wife, and lead female co-star were murdered, and this led to an uproar by fans. Steven Knight, the show’s creator, stated that he felt this was essential for Tommy to begin down a darker path than expected. That still did not please fans. During the season’s summer break, Knight extended Peaky’s production delaying the show from its proper scheduling. Once again, attempting to reason with his fans explaining his decisions.

Extrinsic Evaluation

As cultivation theory depicts that viewers see the world similar to media, the more they consume it, this is no different from this period drama. Peaky emphasis the importance of family, especially how blood is thicker than money, which is something consumers can relate to and instill within themselves. Still, consumers view a show where you take what you want- no matter the cost. In this day of age, with strict laws, emplaced a criminal life is much different than the one depicted.

The world of organized crime depicts violence and ruthlessness. The show’s organic unity constructs series of manipulating family and professional relationships that propel the organization to preserve. These relationships are essential for the story to prevail, as they are often fighting the enemy even amongst themselves.

The theme of episode 3 of season 3 is hedonism and death. Tommy Shelby is trying to prove to his wife Grace that he is going legitimate and becoming something of himself. In attempting to break away from crime, he gets caught up with enemies forced upon him. Tommy and Grace create a foundation during their pursuit of a more extravagant life to give back. At the end of the episode, Grace is shot and killed.

The theme variation taps into a transportation element the series, and the episode itself beings with vibrant colors to express their new wealth by the end of the episode and series; the colors are dark.

The primary balance in this episode comes from the relationship between Tommy and Grace. Tommy is always looking ahead for more after coming from a criminal background, while Grace wants to live above that. They’re two opposites who find comfort and solace within one another. When Tommy beings to be his worst self, Grace brings him back as he is always trying to be better for her.

The evolution of Peaky Blinders has characters who are complicated and progressive. These individuals have a lot of emotional damage they deal with within each episode. Still, they are always attempting to pull themselves out of their misery and create a better life emotionally and financially. Tommy evolved from lying to Grace to protect her, to be honest by the end of the episode.

The hierarchy consists of a dark drama with high-intense build up. Tommy is left without any peace the whole episode trying to survive. In the end, he attempts to find comfort within Grace before she dies in his arms. The show is rarely happy. This episode proves that when Tommy’s most peaceful moment turns into ashes.

For this post, I choose a show that I think is executed exceptionally well from acting, cinematography, storytelling to plot. Yet, not many people seem to know about since it’s primarily an English show that has found a platform on Netflix USA. Peaky Blinders is a criminal gypsy gang in Birmingham during the early 20th century. The gang mainly consists of the Shelby family, with additional members to people who they view as family. The show begins in 1919 following the rise of the Shelby family, where Tommy Shelby, the leader, is finding new ways to move up in the world. I choose the pilot episode, season 1, episode 2, to dive into this show.

The most iconic signifier from the episode/show would be the tweeted newsboy caps that each male member wears. What makes this hat stand out from other newsboy caps is the blades located in the brim of that, this is how they got their name as the “peaky blinders,” they would remove the hats and use the razors to blind their opponents.

The signified for hat insinuated would be violence. Only the Peaky Blinders are wearing this hat, other characters in Birmingham can distinguish this gang from any other citizen and know not to mess with them. The metaphor for this hat would be violence-criminal organization anything that a gang usually stands for as this hat is their “mascot” in a sense. People see this hat and automatically associate the Peaky Blinders with it. The violence acted on in the first ten minutes of the episode against a rival gang.

The sign components form together for the show’s iconic and repetitive saying of “take his/their eyes,” this is said by multiple leading characters whenever they are at war with an enemy and throughout this episode. It’s to insulate they intend to blind them or scratch out their eyes entirely, which they do. The hat harness a violent meaning that they intend to wound seriously anyone who stands in their way. While not doing it with guns as they view this as more personal.

I’ve always heard how outrageously funny Schitt’s Creek is, so this assignment gave me the perfect excuse to begin the show I’ve been wondering about for years by starting with the first episode of the series, “Our Cup Runneth Over.” The series begins with the very wealthy Rose family evicted from their home after their business manager embezzled their money. John, the father, is seemingly the most level-headed out of his family. His wife, Moria, is the stereotypical, overly dramatic, helpless, privileged wealthy women. Their two adult children David and Alexis, act like any but adults. Their characters come across as very privileged and selfish. The whole episode, the two fought like they were 12-year-old children over everything, instead of acting their ages. The government allows the family to relocate to Schitt’s Creek after the father bought the town years prior as a joke to play on his son. 

The society in Schitt’s Creek emphasizes on both wealth and poverty. The townsfolk come across as rural, uneducated locals who lack self-awareness while, in comparison, the Rose family is very entitled and expects the finer things in life. This episode shows a stark contrast of the new society the Rose family is forced to adapt. The mayor, Roland, lacks social clues as he consistently attempts to hang out in the Rose family’s motel room. It wasn’t until John was forceful in kicking Roland out that he understood it was time to leave. In retaliation, he removed the doors from the hinges. The receptionist openly admitted to Moria about using crack and needing to pay her drug dealer. While the waitress tried to empathize with the Rose family by relating their situation to her cousin, that’s in prison. The society in Schitt’s Creek is a poor lower class community, now that the Rose family has abandoned the luxuries they were used to become now acquainted with a “normal” or “simpler” lifestyle.

It’s impossible to escape hearing about the COVID-19 pandemic if you tried. The virus has overtaken our airways and social media platforms to fill them with endless information, criticism, or memes. It’s the only thing most people can talk about these days- what’s going on with their community, how bored they are, how scared and nervous they are, the list is endless. For me, television and movies have always been an escape from life. I’ve always dived right into a show and focused my attention on that to forget whatever stress is occurring. The COVID-19 situation has been no different. Most of my days are spent watching endless television shows, trying to make myself feel better during such an uncertain time.

The pandemic has shattered each one of our versions of normalcy, which leads me to find anything I can to escape from the “new normal”. My prosumer media behavior has taken me down an escapism/nostalgic gratification route. I’ve been finding comfort during these difficult times in familiar, uplifting shows. Where you feel as if the characters are apart of you, and know that each one of these shows ends with a happy ending or positive outcomes. Nostalgic shows such as Friends, The Nanny, and Full House have been providing me the sense of safety I’ve been craving and an escape from every day worries. These shows also touch on the entertainment factor since they’re extremely captivating with their hilarious jokes and constant plot twists.

Since everyone is staying home, most people are spending their free time diving into one of our popular streaming platforms. I believe most people use TV for escape and entertainment. Disney + and Hulu provide shows/movies that remind us of better times. Those platforms should be advertised and taken advantage of right now. There should be promotions/sales for these streaming services to drive in more prospects as a mutual win for both the institutions and the consumer. There may never be a better time, if people aren’t watching tv on your streaming service while they are stuck inside for weeks, they never will.

After watching the clip from Sunset Strip, it was difficult for me to decide whether I would have let the clip rolling or cut it. While it’s a sticky situation that would result in the loss of multiple jobs (mine included), I would let the cameras roll. The producer’s interest in the foundation of his show is very apparent, and he begins his rant diving into the show itself, reflecting on the glory days of their political and social satire. Then he redirected his attention towards the network and how they refuse to challenge their audience, leading the show to be in its current state of mediocracy. The producer turned his back on the majority of the commandments of the Emmis Communication process, but the ones I felt he followed was that his passion for the show and how it runs. Also, choosing to no longer jeopardize his integrity by speaking out against the decline of his show.

Another thing Orlik emphasizes is “quality.” This repeated, mundane program was not benefitting society. If a show even has poor ratings but is quality, it can still thrive by appealing to upscale advertisers. A show that has lost its quality will inevitably lose its viewers. Quality is critical to keep viewers tuning in, advertisers investing and keeping your show on the air. The producer is over the same skit played out he missed when the show had more substance, if he feels this way, audience members will too. The quality of his show has gone down because his network is okay with producing average work. As Orlik mention’s the viewers, don’t care about the balance sheet as the network does. Instead, they care about having a good (quality) show to watch.

Also, a show filled with satire is challenging to maintain, as Orlik mentions making money for the share-holders puts a strain on developing their perfect audience. Cutting-edge material has been dulled down to be more acceptable by the networks. Money comes first then the integrity of the work in this field, the producer was over that and I don’t blame him.

The podcast I choose to listen to was Office Ladies. The Office co-stars Jenna Fischer and Angela Kingsley host this podcast, where they rewatch old episodes and give insider information on what happened behind the scenes. The podcast is popular among viewers currently ranking #18 on iTunes and falls under the comedy genre. There are 17 episodes made, and I watched their second episode centered around “Diversity Day.” This infamous episode dealt with stereotypes between sexes, religion, ethnicity, and race. The podcast intertwines ingredients from musical/sound, on-stage talent, and production to create an entertaining show.

The clarity for the specific episode was good. The sound from their mic was lower than the opening but still very clear for a listener to follow. The execution is excellent since both women are very familiar with the material they are talking about, and their backgrounds as actors are also helpful to make it enjoyable. At times the continuity was all over the place, the women often went off-topic, and the pace would also become very fast. The aptness is executed throughout the episode since they do dive behind the scenes by providing in-depth information that fulfilled what they intended to do. The on-stage talent consist of Jenna Fischer, who played the beloved character Pam Beesly and Angela Fisher, who played Martin. They are both experienced actors and stayed on throughout the shows’ entire 9 season duration.

Ingredients of production were very prevalent throughout the show. The opening of the podcast starts very fast-paced, where both co-stars go back and forth, talking about what the show is. The use of a short jingle instigates a transition for the opening and for their advertisements. This instigates a change is about to occur for the listeners. The jingly is louder than the sound of the hosts’ actual microphone. The thumbnail art is a mid-shot of both women with Office Ladies on the top with the same font as The Office. The combination of all ingredients made this episode fun to listen to and bring a new appreciation to one of my favorite sit-coms.

The 92nd Academy Award’s turned out not to be another boring award show as most people imagine now-of-days. Instead, was rather historic and progressive in certain areas of their awards. Ben Travers rips apart the Oscars complete lack of congestive flow yet, praising the progressive development and recognition of art in cinema again in “Oscars 2020 Review: ‘Parasite’ Won, and Nothing Else Matters”. The article begins with Travers disapproval of the show and what they must change in order to survive. First, there needs to be a host once again, then shorting the length, and creating a unifying theme. This year’s award show’s production was a mess, but it was the historic win of “Parasite” that gained a positive approval from the critic. The aesthetic or message of the article centered around how “Parasite’s” big win highlighted a more diverse film compared to its fellow nominees or past winners. This was the first foreign-language film to ever win best picture how this win, “represented everything the Oscars were otherwise lacking”(Traver 3). The critic points out how the surprise of the win and the barriers it broke down was monumental . A film that was up against some of Hollywood’s biggest blockbuster’s this year, Traver insinuates it was refreshing for a Korean film in this day of age to be recognized in such high regard.  In terms of medium, the critique did not offer any insight into the Oscars background, instead, he shifted the article to reflect the nominees. He was deeply disappointed in the entertainment of the show itself and found the other nominees to be lackluster. The critic is proud that certain tradition’s from the Oscars have been shattered by “Parasites” win, “the Oscars put their money where their mouth is, walking the walk instead of just talking the talk, and each time “Parasite” won, it was a sight to behold” (Traver 12). Traver believes that while the Oscar has room for improvement (diversity wise), the recognition of “Parasite” big win proved the Oscars are moving in a different direction. Specifically, where diversity and art are once again appreciated while restoring faith back into the show.

In the HighSnobreity article “Ranking Every Super Bowl Halftime Show Since 2000 from Worst to Best” the piece did just that, ranked every SuperBowl in the order they felt worthy. The article started off giving recognition to an artist who’s performance changed the game for halftime show’s and while also providing background history and the origin of what we know now as the powerhouse of a halftime show. Under each specific listing, the writer added a critique of his brutally honest opinion of each performance. Through sarcasm, jokes, or references to either the musicians’ life or pop culture, the writer attempted to draw on reliability with his consumer.

He provides content on how society felt at that time when the performer was announced which can be incredibly helpful for readers who may be too young to remember. After Bruno Mars 2014 performance I only ever remembered positive feedback from his set, it wasn’t until I read the article that I was force to recount how some people were disappointed when he was announced as the performer. Granted, this was the year that followed Beyonce, so unless it was Beyonce performing again I think everyone would have felt disappointed no matter who it was. 

When I first read the question I believed that all 6 programmatic qualities would be integrated throughout the article but as I’ve reread it closely I noticed that wasn’t the case. Instead, honesty, variety, and informality stand out the most to me for the format and content. The writer was brutally honest about his opinion throughout the entire article, as well as the honest opinion of society at that time. I also felt there was variety throughout how the article was formatted, how some performances had multiple links or various critiques for all of the performers. Informality was the major point that stood out. Especially how the writer addressed his content and viewers, it almost felt like he was trying to explain these performances to a friend. The article itself was set up very informal and not professional, it was a world away from a piece from Time Magazine.