Greetings,
We want to let you know that the new issue of Flow: A Critical Forum
on Television and Media Culture is available at http://flowtv.org.
This issue features columns from Yeidy Rivero, Trisha Dunleavy, Drew
Morton, Jane Feuer, and Peter Lehmen and Susan Hunt.
This issue's columns in brief:
"Carla?s, Callie?s, and the Suárez?s Long Lost Ancestors: ESAA-TV and
¿Qué pasa U.S.A.?" by Yeidy Rivero (http://flowtv.org/?p=3902):
An examination of the Emergency School Aid Act and one of its media
?children,? ¿Qué pasa U.S.A.?.
"Public Television in a Small Country: the New Zealand ?Experiment? 20
Years On" by Trisha Dunleavy (http://flowtv.org/?p=3889):
A reassessment of New Zealand?s public service television experiment
on the twentieth anniversary of its implementation.
"Observe and Report What?" by Peter Lehman and Susan Hunt
(http://flowtv.org/?p=3883):
A consideration of masculinity, perversity and the spectacle of the
penis in the new Jody Hill film Observe and Report.
"Interactivity and Awkward Comedy: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Live!" by Drew Morton (http://flowtv.org/?p=3900):
An examination of live television and the spectrum of audience interactivity.
"Being in treatment on TV" by Jane Feuer (http://flowtv.org/?p=3891):
An exploration of the psychotherapy sessions of HBO's In Treatment.
Interested in supporting Flow? Click HERE (http://flowtv.org/?page_id=2143).
FlowTV is now on Twitter! Follow Flow's Twitter page at:
http://twitter.com/flowtv.
Finally, we want to let you know about our new call for submissions.
You can read the CFP below or check it out online at
http://flowtv.org/?page_id=25.
We look forward to your visit and encourage your comments.
Best wishes,
Flow Editorial Staff
Current Call for Papers: U.S. Television Adaptations: Programming in a
Globalized Media Environment
In addition to well-established adaptations like The Office, Ugly
Betty, and American Idol, this season saw an influx of adapted
programming filling slots on network lineups: Kath and Kim, Life on
Mars, Worst Week, etc. While not a new phenomenon, this trend raises
important questions about the American television landscape, the shape
of the industry, and reception differences across programs. How do
differences in cultural and industrial standards lead to alterations
of style, content, and structure? Why are certain adaptations more
successful than others? Does genre play a role in success? What
industrial motivations lead networks to continue adapting shows
despite seeing many resulting flops? How does this fit in with
increasingly transnational production practices? With the advent of
new media, audiences for the first time have easy access to both the
original and adapted versions of a show; how does this impact
reception, marketing, and success? Are adaptations an example of
cross-pollination or do these practices merely contribute to U.S.
cultural imperialism?
Submissions might focus on particular shows or on issues significant
to the status or condition of contemporary adaptations (industrial
practices, reception, texts, and cultural effects and implications).
We also welcome historical studies of adaptations (e.g. All in the
Family, Three?s Company,) as well as discussion about upcoming imports
(e.g. Absolutely Fabulous, No Heroics).
Please send submissions of between 1000-1500 words to Special Features
Editor Alex Cho. Submissions should be in .doc format, with the title
and author?s name clearly indicated on the file. Flow has a
longstanding policy of encouraging non-jargony, highly readable pieces
and ample incorporation of images and video.
----
Learn to speak like a film/TV professor! Listen to the ScreenLex
podcast:
http://www.screenlex.org
|
