In Treatment Vs. Steven Johnson

Liz Holsinger

Boczkowski

Essay #2

English 110.1


Steven Johnson’s theories on entertainment are abundant. His theories which affect most people are the one’s on television and film. Johnson, an obvious couch-potato, has thought up many different ways to dissect today’s entertainment. He has paid close attention to the detailing of televison and film so to achieve a better understanding of what we are actually retaining from mindless entertainment. In his book Everything Bad Is Good For You, Johnson argues that today’s television shows are mentally stimulating and enhance the brain’s capabilities. My biggest question regarding Johnson’s break-down of sitcoms is, “Are they Consistent theories?” Does every scripted televison show abide by the rules he has created? The popular HBO series In Treatment begs to differ.

In Treatment is based around Dr. Weston (Paul), a psychiatrist Living and practicing in Brooklyn. There is little story that takes place outside of Dr. Weston’s office, except of course, when Dr. Weston visits his own psychiatrist, Gina. In Gina’s office the two of them come together to discuss Paul’s relationships with his patients and his life. The viewer is able to obtain a deep look into the minds of Paul’s many patients. Each episode is based around one character. The entire story is set on Dr. Weston listening to the patient as he or she discusses issues. It is a very simple show when compared to high intensity sitcoms with many characters. There is no humor, thrill, or suspense. There is only people dealing with themselves and their everyday lives that the viewer is unable to see.

In Treatment is set up in a very distinct manner. On Mondays, Paul meets with Mia, a woman who is involved in an affair with her married boss. On Tuesdays, Paul meets with April, an art student who is battling cancer. On Wednesdays, Paul meets with Oliver, a young boy whose parents are divorcing. On Thursdays, Paul meets with Walter, a control-freak who suffers from panic-attacks. Finally, on Fridays, Paul meets with Gina.

One point that Johnson tirelessly makes, is that television is actually making us smarter. Following a messy character plot or storyline keeps our brains stimulated the same way it would be as if we were working a puzzle. With this theory Johnson is incorporating television shows with neuroscience. The viewer may believe a complex television show like 24 is entertaining without realizing the good it’s doing for one’s brain. It’s that unnoticeable phenomenon known as the Sleeper Curve. These forms of media are filling our heads with knowledge just by experiencing them. According to Johnson no television show is actually mindless. Journalist, Walter Kirn wrote, “Johnson wants to convince us that pop-culture is not the intellectual tranquilizer that it sound-alike critics have made it out to be but a potent promoter of cerebral fitness.” In the article “Everything Bad Is Good For You”: The Couch Potatoes Guide To a Higher I.Q.

Whether we like it or not we are learning and acquiring information just by paying attention to complex television shows. I never believed that I learned anything from Beavis and Butthead, but looking back on it, Beavis’s incessant shaking and twitching may have been the reason why I stayed away from caffeine as a child. Even the most painfully-dumb shows have a message.

The idea of the Sleeper Curve holds true in the series In Treatment. The patients in this show are made to make you think because of the way they behave. If a patient seems very uneasy about being in therapy it can cause the viewer to question the possibility of that patient having control issues. Matthew Gilbert from The Boston Globe, recognized In Treatment’s Sleeper Curve with this comment. “The entertainment in “In Treatment” comes from watching these characters say the opposite of what they mean, or make off-handed comments loaded with significance. The intrigue of the show is watching for fleeting glimpses of the unconscious in sessions, appearing like fins through the surface.” Similar to a show like CSI, In Treatment provokes you to solve the problem with the patient before Paul even asks a question. Even this simple show becomes a puzzle for your brain to solve.

Most people generally won’t realize that their brain is firing off neurons as they watch television. I do however, believe that television viewers are somewhat aware of that fact that T.V. shows make them culturally more intelligent. In Treatment is a perfect example. By continuously watching this series one will gain a better understanding of Therapy as a medical practice. Someone who has never personally walked into a psychiatrist’s office and had a session is now able to have that experience. Watching this series familiarizes one with medical terms, psychiatric diagnosis, and the people in one’s life.

In Treatment also offers powerful human emotion and complex characters that a viewer may not have previously been familiar with. In Treatment introduces characters who represent everyday people who are constantly battling personal demons; much like everyone else. In Treatment is a compelling drama that gives the viewer a look beyond a person’s facade and into their personal life. The idea of being let into the personal places of another person’s soul keeps us as viewers wondering. It cautions us to take a better look and to feel empathy for our co-workers, family, friends, and the people we pass by everyday.

Johnson also talks about sitcoms always using Threading. In Treatment certainly doesn’t fit that mold. Johnson explains that today’s shows have many more characters and several smaller stories can be mashed together to make one episode. This idea is very true with most popular television shows. There’s usually at least four main characters and several secondary characters that aren’t seen as often. Each main character usually has something different going on in each episode that the viewer can observe. In Treatment, however, has two characters per episode and one story. The character’s being Dr. Weston, and whatever patient he’s with that episode. The only story is that of his patient. Paul’s patients often discuss their family and friends. Certain names come up regularly which in my opinion, constitutes as threading. If the viewer is able to know a great deal about a person, even if the person is not seen, this person still becomes a character. Although we never see the unseen character’s opinion or feelings they still have a voice that is communicated through the primary character (Paul’s patient).

There is little threading in the episodes. I have already stated that this series is extremely simple. Most television shows use threading to keep the viewer interested and hooked. Matthew Gilbert agreed that threading was unneeded in, In Treatment with this comment, “Because the show has little soundtrack music, unchanging scenery and only subtle camera play, the actors have the opportunity – and the obligation – to hold our attention.” Which was written in his television review for the Boston Globe In Treatment also holds attention by leaving each episode open. The problem with a patient is never solved after the first episode, much like therapy itself. Instead of being in a constant state of entertainment you, as the viewer are left wondering what the patient will say or do next. Strong acting and heart wrenching personal drama brought by one character is enticing enough to hold an audiences attention. Television shows tend to use multi-threading as means to distract the viewer from somewhat boring characters or next to ordinary acting. Therefore In Treatment as no need for multi-threading.

Social Networks are used by Johnson to break down the way we see television shows. Social Networking, according to Johnson, are groups or classes of people linked and intertwined by relationships but is easier to understand if it’s thought of a visual network. Walter Kirn, a writer for The New York Times suggested that Television, “engages viewers emotional intelligence by confronting them with a staged array of rapidly shifting social situations and densely interlocking human relationships.” This is what Johnson means by social networks.

Although In Treatment doesn’t carry a wide variety of characters who interact with each other it still holds social networking. In the case of Oliver, he occassionally receives treatment alone, but for the most part he sees Paul with his separated mother and father. In this way the viewer becomes intertwined with their relationship and by watching them interact with each other is able to understand the character. In Treatment is also a very emotionally stimulating show based purely on it’s content; due to this fact I believe it creates its own social network. One between the character, the viewer, and the people the viewer encounters everyday. For example, when I watch episodes with Mia, I feel for her. I understand her fear of being forty, unmarried, and without a child for the simple reason that I have had aunts, cousins, and co-workers feeling the same biological pressure. Most social networks allow you to understand a show better and it’s character’s dynamics. In Treatment helps you better understand the people around you. I feel sympathy for Mia because she reminds me of other women in my life.

Character Maps and Flashing arrows are not seen in, In Treatment if a character map was drawn for this show it would have Paul’s name at the top with a line from his name drawn to every character separately, aside of Oliver and his parents, with Gina off in a corner somewhere. This is mainly effected by low threading and a low social network. Flashing arrows also go unused for many reasons. This show was meant to reflect any true therapy session. There is little music, little change in scenery, and little action. The talking is the action. Mostly flashing arrows are used to insinuate that something unexpected is about to happen, much like foreshadowing, and because these instances don’t actually occur in real-life. There is no need for them in this show.

Johnson’s theories add up to make a lot of sense in regard to most television shows. Theories like the Sleeper Curve, threading, and social networks make up a small part of In Treatment, but because threading, social networks, character maps, and flashing arrows are used to little or not at all to make this show great; they go virtually unnoticed. The Sleeper Curve, however, still plays a key role in this televison show. Everything Bad Is Good For You may expose some very valid points, but Johnson’s views are very one-sided. He only theorizes on the basis of neuroscience and logic thus completely missing the fact that television enhances one’s intelligence culturally. When watching different shows the viewer is able to comprehend people, places, and scenarios that otherwise they would not come into contact with. When comedies make hilarious references to other pieces of American media that the viewer can understand it is easier for him or her to make other cultural connections. Johnson dug under the radar to prove that T.V. is mentally stimulating and completely missed the obvious. He missed the excuse that my generation has been using for years. When my mom tried to drag me off the couch I would reply with; “Mom it’s In Treatment! I’m learning how to diagnose you!”