Bigger than Life

Technologically speaking, we’ve come a long way since Joseph Henry and Michael Faraday started farting around with electromagnetism in 1831. The list of those who contributed, for better or worse, to the advent of television, is numerous. Those Generation Y sexters probably can’t fathom that Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, and Thomas Alva Edison, the inventor the electric light, collaborated in 1880 to explore the possibility of telephone devices capable of transmitting images as well as sound. From Paul Nipkow sending sixteen line resolution images over wires in 1884, to the 1900 World’s Fair in Paris where Constantin Perskyi first used the term “television,” men, sorry ladies, worked tirelessly to bring this new vehicle of entertainment to the general public.

Vladimir Zworkin patented a color television system in 1925 with the research backing of RCA and General Electric. In 1927, Philo (Philco) Farnsworth, much to the chagrin of those entities, filed for a patent for his “Image Dissector.” Personally, the word “television” had a lot more potential. 1936 brought us coaxial cable, and after an experimental testing between Philadelphia and New York; the first coaxial cables for everyday use were laid between Minneapolis and Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Wow, to think Stevens Point had more going for it than just Point Beer. RCA chairman David Sarnoff used the 1939 New York World’s Fair to showcase his “television” with a broadcast of a Presidential speech. However, if you wanted to hear it, tough shit. It wouldn’t be until the Dumont Company located in Dumont, New Jersey-I couldn’t resist- marries the two mediums of radio and sound, so you can hear and see (what a novel idea) what is being broadcast. Dumont, the company not the town, began mass production of the odd boxes.

Peter Goldmark invented 343 resolution color TV in 1940, but it would be a decade before the FCC approved it. And Howard Stern thinks he's had FCC troubles. I guess they didn’t want Peter sending color pictures of his peter over the airwaves from his lab. The UFO craze was starting about then. Maybe the FCC didn’t want the primitive tinting process that made everything and everyone green, alarming the public, giving the impression we were being invaded by Martians. What a gullible lot our parents and grandparents were. Christ, it’s embarrassing really. They bought into that duck and cover bullshit in the event of a nuclear attack. Yeah, good thinking.

In the case of the topic at hand; my grandfather swore he’d never buy a color TV until it was perfected. I sure glad he wasn’t hanging by his balls waiting. It’s not perfected yet, but not for lack of trying. Pop finally broke down and bought one in 1977 I think. He was eighty-two years old. I'm glad he didn't wait much longer, because he didn't have much longer.

If I wanted to watch programs on a color set, I had to go to my friend Tom Rowlands’ house. They had a color set when they moved into the neighborhood in 1965. Tom’s father working for RCA may have had something to do with it. I’d appear at their door early Saturday mornings, just after dawn if the truth be known, to watch cartoons in color. Had I been capable of an orgasm at eight years old, I’m sure this would have served as the impetus. Enough about that, I’m getting off the subject.

Over the years, television technology has leapt forward. Today, we have flat screen, stereo, surround sound, LCD, DLP, HD, plasma, climax inducing TVs. That last part I made up. However, when my wife and I got our first too large to do your eyes any good, flat screen Sony Bravia TV, we nearly did. And that was watching a commercial.

I remember growing up having seven channels to choose from. If it was an especially clear day, you could add four more Philadelphia stations. That was one of the advantages of living in the New York Metropolitan area. Hell, the Mets and the Yankees had stations that broadcast the majority of their games, WOR for the Mets, and WPIX for the Yankees. Now we have to buy a baseball “package” if we want to follow the teams we grew up with just because we’ve relocated. Our house had the antenna neatly, and securely located in the attic. The Rowlands’ had a motorized antenna for optimum reception for all their channels. They even got Hartford and Boston with just a touch of the dial. Now I’m starting to sound like my parents and grandparents.

It’s 2009, and you have either cable or satellite. After a decades long festering feud with cable, my wife and I opted for the unsightly dish on the roof. We now get over seven-hundred channels, not including music stations. We can’t watch any of them if a severe storm strikes.

Why is it that the same technology that can take a picture from outer space of me pissing in my backyard cannot provide a signal that can penetrate through cloud cover, and I get to pay handsomely for this distinction? I guess I’m supposed to feel privileged to be able to access all of the quality entertainment at our fingertips. However, this household does not take advantage of this endless, thought provoking, engaging, assault on the senses. The reason for this is because television programming in my opinion, for the most part, sucks. For the price that’s charged, every single one of the shows and sporting events should take place live in my living room. However, with HD television, at least it looks like they do. I’m still undecided if this is a good thing.

HD television is reported to make everything look more “real.” Isn’t “real” an oxymoron when it comes to TV? First, it’s said the camera adds fifteen pounds to a person. That’s unreal isn’t it? If that’s the case, then people have to be thinner than they want to just to keep their careers afloat, a sometimes “unreal” expectation (see John Goodman). This distortion does not count when it comes to sporting events and the various forms of “reality” television.

Second, with HDTV, more makeup is needed because of the clarity this technology achieves. Hence, a person on camera then looks more unreal, in some cases, surreal. Movie viewing has brought out the worst, best? in HD television. In each movie the features of each actor are clearer than I think I want. You see each and every zit, scar, pockmark, nose hair, facial and dental flaw or cosmetic reconstruction, no matter how much makeup is put on. You can even see exactly how much makeup is used, and what color, which often times is also unreal. Sometimes seeing these supposed visions of genetic perfection makes me feel good at the way I look. I see Art Pacino’s collection of bad hair pieces. I saw in Oceans Thirteen the awful condition of his fingernails. You see the bad dye jobs, the wrinkled, veiny hands. You see the five o’clock shadows. The crow’s feet are amplified, as are the chicken necks. In some instances, it’s so bad the last time I saw that much dangling, John Holmes was alive. We get to see stretch marks, cellulite, and age spots. J-Lo’s and Jennifer Love Hewitt’s more than ample asses take up as much of the screen as they are so entitled. All of this dispels the myth of starlet glamour, and brings a dose of realism to our living rooms. I’m reminded of the song “More human than Human” by White Zombie. I kinda like that aspect. What I don’t like is the price.

Sports and movies are my thing. DirecTV preys on people like me. If I want a particular movie channel, I don’t get the sports channels I want. I can only get those if I were to upgrade, which would include other movie channels that I don’t give a shit about. It is not cost effective to get just what you want. Therein lies the rub.

The word love does not accurately describe the affection I feel toward the Cincinnati Bengal football team. Since no one else outside of Cincinnati feels this way, their games are rarely shown on national television. That and they usually suck. In order to watch their games, I have to subscribe to NFL Ticket to the tune of $250 per season. This I have done for the past three years. To see these games broadcast in HD, I need to pony up another hun. I’m already paying ten extra dollars a month for an HD converter. I don’t understand if the games are being broadcast in HD on networks, and I have the converter box (original cost $100), why do I have to pay extra to have them broadcast in HD with NFL Ticket? Oh, DirecTV says you get all sorts of other wonderful features that also fall into my I don’t give a shit category. You can watch eight games at the same time! Is that really possible without missing something? Only a hard core gambler needs this feature. Besides, all the games at the same time means they’re all very small. What’s the point of having a big screen if they shrink the games? This is a bonus?
Viewing every other team in the league I treat with equal disregard. I don’t give a shit about them save the Giants. I have splurged on my beloved Bengals for three years, in HD. You do the math.

If I want to watch my New York Mets, no matter how pathetic they are, I would need to ante up another $350 for baseball season. The same goes for the NBA, NHL, and college football. I cannot select one team in a specific sport. I must get access to all, but what a bargain so says DirecTV. This year I told them that due to infrequency in paychecks, they would need to take a backseat in the bill pay line. They offered to take $50 off if I renewed. How magnanimous! All because of what a loyal customer I’ve been! For the amount I pay per month, and my little extravagance the past three falls, they should give me my own goddamn channel. I would settle for uninterrupted reception when it gets cloudy. That, they can’t help me with. Aside from that really fucking annoying periodic inconvenience, HDTV is spectacular. Ask my wife.

She is not a big sports fan, the main reason for the extra expense. However, the weekend the TV arrived three summers ago, coincided with the playing of golf’s last major of the year, The PGA Championship. We didn’t move from the couch, not even during the commercials due to our sensory heightened viewing experience, and boy are we glad we didn’t.

A commercial came on advertising the most advanced form of high definition television available, the Sharp Aquos system. A multi-colored bejeweled blond woman dressed in black, walking a multi-colored bejeweled white leopard, with a multi-colored bejeweled leash, graced the screen. My wife and I oooohed and ahhhhed. The colors jumped off the screen. I inquired why would I want to buy the TV they were advertising if the picture was this phenomenal on our set? The point taken, we couldn’t wait for the commercial to be shown again.

The vibrant colors no longer cause such unbridled awe. We’ve grown used to it. We’ve come to expect it for that matter. I guess HDTV is worth the money, the cost for getting over 700 channels of shit is not. I don’t know how they are going to make any real discernable improvements in picture quality and clarity in the near future. 1080p, or one-thousand and eighty megapixels of resolution per square inch is a far cry from eighteen lines for the entire screen. I better go cut my grandfather down.