Oh Man, T.V.

First of all, I was wondering if South Koreans would recognize the overuse of the word “aesu” in their movie titles as easily as we would “sad.” Not that “aesu” translates to “sad” in every instance, but I feel that we might consider filmmakers lazy if there were a string of movies all containing the same word (like “sad”).
Secondly, if Lynne Joyrich is trying to say that “hypermasculinity” is a reaction to the femininity of the medium television, I think she is wrong. She cites one particularly peculiar episode of Miami Vice, but I think it’s just as likely that it’s following a formula similar to those of Hollywood cinema. Television, by its nature (…), is broken into hour and half-hour long segments, but Hollywood cinema is a proven language. When you try to speak Hollywood cinema through television, you get shows like Miami Vice. It’s also possible to show movies on television, which, what, nullifies its being television? (Miami Vice the movie, by the way, is terribly boring.)
As for excessive violence, I think that’s more a question of human interest. There are plenty of excessively violent movies, and movies are already a “masculine” form. Perhaps there should be a form of “hyperfemininity” appearing in film somewhere, if Lynne Joyrich is on to something. It could also be a result of the desire for variety on television. Completely separate from psychoanalysis, television producers want to appeal to all kinds of audiences; it seems reasonable that they would come up with really masculine plots and such, for the masculine demographic.