0 v ' Cover Story Continued from Page 11 The VCR undisputably stands out, though, as the most significant change to TV in the last decade. It has given us complete power over our sets, and lets us watch television we ordinarily might not be home to watch. The VCR has unchained us from the holy TV guide and given us the tree om to create our own sceo- ules, allowing us to watch anything we want, whenever we want. If it isn't on television, you can bet Blockbuster has it. With all these options, why would anyone ever leave their homes? Although the addition of the VCR to the teleworld of the 1980's has made this decade the "Golden Age of Video," it has strengthened the umbilical electrical cord to our souls. Now, as the sun sets on a teledecade, we are imprisioned more than ever to that box of psychobab- ble. A Couch Potato Gener- ation Discovers Remote Control Life I just finished a chem lab so tonight I'm gonna do some major power viewing. -A friend of mine, recently -w Professor Conrad Kottak teaches an anthropology course at the Uni- versity about television and its cul- tural effects. In his study of the topic, Prime Time Society, Profes- sor Kottak notes that many of his students have been "teleconditioned" by their ingrained viewing habits sustained through years of intense telewatching. "Considering how common di- vorce has become, the TV set even outlasts the father in many homes," Kottak said. With the newfound me- chanical member of the family, peo- ple, especially young people who watch the most television, become teleconditioned by constant viewing. - 1 / "Televiewing causes people to duplicate inappropriately, in other areas of their lives, behavior styles developed while watching televi- sion," he said. This kind of behav- ior can also lead to "tele-emulation," especially when we find parents naming their children Blake, Krystal, and Alexis. Studying, reading, and talking with the TV on is a natural part of our lives. When the need arises to do any of these activities and there is no TV around, we find substitutions for noise and distraction with a radio or loud environment, Kottak claims. He tells of once finding a woman in his class reading a paperback, who, when questioned, replied she wasn't in the class but needed someplace to read. The 1980's saw the birth of the now-coveted couch potato, profes- sional or semi-professional televi- sion addicts. Because of the boom of cable and VCR this decade, TV has become one of America's favorite leisure activities. According to a 1986 TV Guide study of which ac- tivities Americans get "a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction" from, watching TV finished first - ahead of sex, food, liquor, money or sports. In another TV Guide study, people were asked about their fa- vorite "relaxing" activities. Again, TV finished first in the hearts and minds of Americans. What does this all say about our society and culture? Music, reading, education, enjoy- ing the outdoors, having a conversa- tion with a friend, vacations, recre- ation - all of these activities have Innovative, not horrifying: Shocker faiL been replaced to a large extent by television in the 1980's. We are a people that feels more comfortable watching Judge Wapner than actually heading down to the courthouse to watch a trial our- selves. We watch and watch and watch as a way to subsidize all the inadequacies in our lives. TV fills a void and the more we watch it, the more complete we feel. We become better people for it. Because of cable and the VCR, we are more easily able to escape our insignificant existences and hurl our imaginations to the mercy of over- paid writers at the Fox network. Although the potential for televi- sion to be a worthwhile tool of communication is well known, it is seldom used for that purpose. In- stead, television spoonfeeds igno- rance pudding and selfless sundaes to us. Glossy commercials with thin and beautiful people reinforce in our minds how fat and unattractive we are, so we buy their gel or creme or pills to become more culturally at- tractive. 1 { These are not phenomena of the 1980's alone. But as television has become the single most important part of our lives, even more impor- tant than ourselves, we are a people in decline. David Letterman may be right. Television may bring down the cuftain on our society, but I'll still watch him anyway.. Right after Magnum P.!. reruns at midnight. UM News in The Daily 764-0552 By Brent Edwards In Wes Craven's Shocker, Ho- race Pinker is mad. Really mad. And with a name like that, I would be mad, too. He's so mad, he kills whole families, including the inves- tigating detective's. And just when you think he's as mad as he can be, Pinker is caught and sent to the elec- tric chair, which makes him even madder. Yes, horror films are out just in time for Halloween, and this one isn't even a sequel. Writer-director Craven (Nightmare On Elm Street, The Serpent and the Rainbow) in- troduces us to his latest creation, Horace Pinker. Horace not only has the ability to enter and possess bod- ies but also to give your TV a 3-D effect by jumping out of the screen and slashing your throat. These spe- cial talents put him beyond the level of the more mundane psycho-killers like Jason and Michael Myers and into the exotic and far more interest- ing realm of those like Freddie Krueger. Shocker's suspense and horror do not rest solely, as most slasher films do, on who will die next and by what grisly method. In fact, there are surprisingly few on-screen murders. Instead, the movie is a good versus evil struggle between the movie's hero, Jonathan, and Pinker. Jonathan c Mass-murderer Horace Pinker gets really mad when he's sentenced to death. armon's Worth Winning isn't even worth watching By Mark Binelli Remember that really bad Jack Nicholson movie from a few sum- mers back, where Nicholson played the devil and seduced Cher, Michelle Pfeiffer and Susan Sarandon, and then in the end the three of them get together and castrate him or some- thing? Well, just take Nicholson's char- acter and make him a TV weather- man. Then get three more gorgeous actresses for him to seduce, send them through the whole "woman scorned" thing and culminate it in another sadistic, audience-pleasing revenge and you've got Mark (The Sexiest Man Alive) Harmon's latest celebration of human stupid- ity,Worth Winning. The film is appropriately titled Worth Winning because it's about this wacky bet between Harmon's character, Taylor Worth, and his pal Ned, played by Mark Blum (The Presidio). You see, Ned is so silly that he doesn't believe Taylor (who, don't forget, is being played by The Sexiest Man Alive) can get engaged to three radically different women at the same time. What a sucker. After easily snaring a buxom blond, played by Swedish newcomer Maria Holvoe, and a sexually re- pressed housewife, played by Lesley Ann Warren (Victor/Victoria), Tay- lor must add to his collection the most difficult acquisition, one of those (gasp!) thinking types, a New Age concert pianist played by Madeleine Stowe (Stakeout). Of course, Stowe quickly drops any nasty feminist tendencies and melts in the arms of The Sexiest Man Alive. But the punchline is that Tay- lor winds up really falling in love with her, and now he's engaged to two other women as well! Oh no! What will happen next? Everybody knows what will hap- pen next (the revelation, the pun- ishment, the forgiveness, the hap- pily ever after), but nobody really cares.Worth Winning is an obnox- iously sexist farce, essentially im- plying that no woman can withstand the onslaught of the Stud-God Har- mon. It is in especially poor taste, because what Harmon does is down- played as this relatively harmless "boys will be boys" joke. Yeah, he didn't play nice with the girls, but they teach him a lesson at the end, don't they? The plot might have been pulled off if Harmon's already manipulating and unsympathetic character was made out to be a complete bastard (where's Danny DeVito when you need him?) instead of this lovable screw-up who we're supposed to eventually forgive. Much of the fault lies with the writers and with director Will Mackenzie, making his feature-film debut. Mackenzie's past work on "Moonlighting" is evident in Worth Winning: Harmon's character is al- ways looking into the camera to make charming little asides. But they don't work, largely because the lines just aren't funny, but also be- OUR tOUST tDvK 1NG RECON STuc- CRECORS C T0 or Nr~W tLQE$ LP Mark Harmon cause Harmon is an annoyingly plas- tic actor, a one-dimensional Ken Doll who turns off the audience in- stead of winning it over. The Sexiest Man Alive really seems more suited for the small screen, as in his portrayal of the re- cently-executed mass-murderer Ted Bundy in The Deliberate Stranger. But as far as films go, well, let's just say that when Summer School is the height of your career, you're in pretty bad shape. See Winning, Page 13 Page 12 Weekend/November 3,1989 Weekend/November 3,1989