Where To Watch
James Garner believed that there's a massive responsibility in television
The 'Maverick' star believed that television is one of the three most important inventions ever made.
Life, as we know it now, would be utterly different without past inventions. There would be no cars and planes for travel, no lightbulbs to see at night, or no telephones to communicate. These are all vital creations, and they all serve different purposes, but to James Garner, there was one invention that significantly helped shape lives every day.
During a 1999 interview with the Television Academy, Garner talked about Maverick, the popular show he starred in, and how television is one of that century's three most significant inventions.
At the 4:51 mark of the interview, Garner was asked, "Were you concerned at all that you'd be so identified with this role that everybody would only know you as 'Bret Maverick'?" He responded by saying that it was a concern because if you're well known for a significant role, it's hard for the following work to get recognition.
"That was a concern, yeah, because what do you do after Maverick?" he said. "If you're so well known in the one thing, when that runs its course, where are you after that? So, that bothered me."
Although the star left the show after three years, fans still identified him as Maverick and Rockford from The Rockford Files, another iconic show Garner starred in during the '70s.
The interviewer followed up with the phrase, "the power of television," which prompted the actor to reveal that he believes television is vital. "Television is one of the, probably, three most important things done in this century," he began. "See, television shapes people's lives every day, everywhere. What used to take us a month or two to find out, we know in ten seconds today because of television."
With new ways to learn and quicker entertainment, comes great responsibility for those who create the content. Garner was aware of that responsibility as an actor and shared his frustrations about people in motion pictures during that time.
"Sure it does; I feel a responsibility. That's what bothers me about people in motion pictures and television or whatever," he said, beginning to share his views on the landscape. "A lot of them have a lack of responsibility to the public. You don't do things that are a bad influence on the public... things that can influence people to rob or kill."
He then spoke about how he would see certain movies and disapprove of how they showcase things. "They have no redeeming qualities in any of their characters. It's alright to do some of that stuff when you have someone who points out 'this is wrong.'"
According to Garner, he had that issue with the movie Bonnie and Clyde. "I said this is a wonderful movie that's beautifully done, but I don't like the idea of making heroes out of murderers."
Many fans know James Garner as a man of his word who often shared his views on topics.
29 Comments
what would he do if he had to watch the masked singer or the Bachelorette or other visual feces ?
I think he would crawl back into his grave and give us a wave goodbye
True for such a GOOD looking man that he didn't do more film work. Now do you think that was a case of typecasting. Where Producers couldn't disassociate his potential from silly Jethro?
Absolutely true.
That was happening for actors who appeared in the original Star Trek (besides the Stars). Yet appearing in Twilight Zone (actually an anthology) but filled "odd" situations, was a badge of recognition.
Strange bias about "science fiction" back in the day. Before it was "mainstreamed."
there is NOT one character I can dis and the opening theme is so damm cool
Plus, Angel wasn't someone to EVER trust.
Exactly.
I don't know if I agree it's one of the 3 most important inventions. No doubt about it, we would be changed people without it. But I don't think we dreamed it would ever be so manipulative. Social Media is an extension of it, with an even less noble intention. But television is an excuse for commercialism. And the art of convincing people what they really need.
TV in the right context should be pure escapism.
Additionally, TV documentaries can be a great way to learn about human behavior, like the Nazis and our own dark history with power struggles and racism.
I also like absurdity, and enjoyed "Green Acres" in younger days.
"TV in the right context should be pure escapism."
Your quote:
"I like your middle paragraph, but can't go with your final thought. I am too fond off satire, lampooning the human condition, and keen observation of human behavior. Through the decades, some shows have hit that mark for me."
So we agree. Escapism IS comedic satire and Green Acres IS surrealism (or the absurd). And there is a whole range of entertainment (style) on television, and that's exactly what it should be about. The other good use ARE documentaries and elements of education and information, and on down the list it goes. Escapism is the idea that television is a creative and informative medium with various approaches.
What isn't appreciated is the advantage it takes with a viewer's attention through the use of distortion. Because it IS ...SUCH a powerful medium, it conveys or perhaps attempts to sway people's attention through images and opinions. When it doesn't do so honestly and with objectivity, that is an issue. Think of thousands of hours viewing television, and difference between useful information, and that which can be destructive.
Well, I sometimes like to mince words. I prefer television that is reflective, rather than escapist.
Note that in real life, I am a royal pain in the arse.
Over and out.
Does this mean you'll be bringing him back during "owl night hours" thank you please! 🦃
.jpg)
I wouldn't treat 𝙈𝙔characters like that, anyway.