Instant Download Netflix and the Re-invention of Television Mareike Jenner PDF All Chapters

Download the Full Version of textbook for Fast Typing at textbookfull.
com
Netflix and the Re-invention of Television Mareike

Jenner
https://textbookfull.com/product/netflix-and-the-re-
invention-of-television-mareike-jenner/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWNLOAD NOW
Download More textbook Instantly Today - Get Yours Now at textbookfull.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Netflix At The Nexus Content Practice And Production In

The Age Of Streaming Television Theo Plothe
https://textbookfull.com/product/netflix-at-the-nexus-content-
practice-and-production-in-the-age-of-streaming-television-theo-
plothe/
textboxfull.com
Re-Constructing the Man of Steel: Superman 1938–1941,

Jewish American History, and the Invention of the
Jewish–Comics Connection 1st Edition Martin Lund (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/re-constructing-the-man-of-steel-
superman-1938-1941-jewish-american-history-and-the-invention-of-the-
jewish-comics-connection-1st-edition-martin-lund-auth/
textboxfull.com
Chemical Warfare Toxicology Volume 2 Jenner
https://textbookfull.com/product/chemical-warfare-toxicology-
volume-2-jenner/
textboxfull.com
The Business of Television Ken Basin
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-business-of-television-ken-basin/
textboxfull.com
That will never work the birth of Netflix and the amazing
life of an idea First Edition Randolph
https://textbookfull.com/product/that-will-never-work-the-birth-of-
netflix-and-the-amazing-life-of-an-idea-first-edition-randolph/
textboxfull.com
International communities of invention and innovation

Tatnall
https://textbookfull.com/product/international-communities-of-
invention-and-innovation-tatnall/
textboxfull.com
1517 : Martin Luther and the invention of the reformation

Peter Marshall
https://textbookfull.com/product/1517-martin-luther-and-the-invention-
of-the-reformation-peter-marshall/
textboxfull.com
The Ethics of Invention Technology and the Human Future

Sheila Jasanoff
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-ethics-of-invention-technology-
and-the-human-future-sheila-jasanoff/
textboxfull.com
The Medieval Invention of Travel Shayne Aaron Legassie
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-medieval-invention-of-travel-
shayne-aaron-legassie/
textboxfull.com
Mareike Jenner
Netflix & the

Re-invention
of Television
Netflix and the Re-invention of Television
Mareike Jenner
Netflix and the

Re-invention of
Television
Mareike Jenner
Anglia Ruskin University
Cambridge, UK
ISBN 978-3-319-94315-2 ISBN 978-3-319-94316-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94316-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946158
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover image: Jane_Kelly/Getty Images

Cover design by Tom Howey
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer

International Publishing AG part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to thank Lina Aboujieb, the editor of this book
and her assistant Ellie Freedman, for their support throughout the
development of this book. I am also indebted to the peer reviewers for
their insightful comments to help develop this project.
This research would not have been possible without the consistent
support of friends and colleagues, such as Matt Hills, Tanya Horeck,
Glen Creeber, Stephanie Jones, Lisa Richards and others.
I would also like to thank my family for their ongoing support as well
as Sandra, Christina, Judith and Laura, without whom none of this is
possible.
v
Contents
1 Introduction: Netflix and the Re-invention of Television 1
Part I Controlling Television: TV’s Ancillary Technologies
2 Introduction: Control, Power, Television 35
3 Managing Choice, Negotiating Power: Remote Controls 47
4 New Regimes of Control: Television as Convergence

Medium 69
5 Digital Television and Control 89
Part II Binge-Watching and the Re-invention of Control
6 Introduction: Binge-Watching Netflix 109
7 Scheduling the Binge 119
8 ‘Quality’, ‘Popular’ and the Netflix Brand:

Negotiating Taste 139
vii
viii Contents
9 Netflix Marketing: The Binge and Diversity 161
Part III Netflix and the Re-invention of Transnational

Broadcasting
10 Introduction: Netflix as Transnational Broadcaster 185
11 The Transnational, the National and Television 199
12 The Transnational and Domestication: Netflix Texts 219
13 The Netflix Audience 241
Part IV Conclusion
14 Conclusion 263
Bibliography 271
Index 293
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: Netflix and the Re-invention

of Television
At the 2009 Emmy awards, host Neil Patrick Harris reprised his role as
Dr. Horrible from the three-part-musical Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along-Blog
(iTunes, 2008). This had been written and directed by Joss Whedon dur-
ing the 2007–2008 Hollywood writer’s strike and distributed via iTunes
as a webseries, bypassing traditional broadcasting systems. In the Emmy
sketch, Dr. Horrible threatens that online series will take over television,
effectively replacing the industry present at the event. Dr. Horrible’s
nemesis Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion), however, states: “Don’t
worry, America. I’ve mastered this internet and I’m here to tell you:
it’s nothing but a fad! TV is here to stay! […] People will always need
big, glossy, shiny, gloss-covered entertainment. And Hollywood will be
there to provide it. Like the Ottoman empire, the music industry and
Zima, we’re here to stay. Musical villains, piano-playing cats, they’re a
flash in the pan!”. Much like Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog itself can be
read as a deliberate protest against the television industry in times of bit-
ter conflict, the sketch points to the threats online video services pose to
traditional industry structures. Even though it pokes fun at online vid-
eo’s frequent need for buffering, Captain Hammer’s short-sighted view
of the internet is a jibe against the television industry’s unpreparedness
for the competition through online streaming services. Only four years
later, the Emmy awards included three nominations for House of Cards
(Netflix, 2013–) and one nomination for the Netflix-produced season 4
of Arrested Development (Fox, 2003–6; Netflix, 2013–).
© The Author(s) 2018 1

M. Jenner, Netflix and the Re-invention of Television,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94316-9_1
2 M. JENNER
2007, the year before Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog was released
on iTunes, was the year the BBC iPlayer was launched in the UK, a
major signal that television would soon move online. It is also the point
Michael Curtin pinpoints as a moment when some of the enormous
shifts that currently dominate television first occurred: In the United
States, Nielsen introduced ratings for advertisements in light of wide-
spread DVR use. There was also growing competition from the video
game industry, culminating in the 2007–2008 Hollywood writer’s strike,
which compromised US television schedules significantly:
Interestingly, intermedia rights were the key point of disagreement

between the networks and the writers during the strike, with the latter
arguing for a share in revenues earned via new delivery systems. (Curtin
2009, 10)
Though this kind of conflict is not unprecedented, it suggests how

important the different publication platforms and formats had already
become. These shifts signalled television’s move onto other screens,
publication models and industry structures. Discussing online-dis-
tributed television in the United States, Amanda Lotz pinpoints the
moment of change in 2010, arguing that “this year marks a significant
turning point because of developments that year that made internet
distribution technology more useable” (2017, location 302). The spe-
cific moment could also be located in late 2012, when Netflix started
to publish ‘Netflix Originals’, acquiring exclusive international licensing
rights to Lilyhammer (NRK, 2012–) which had previously only been
shown in Norway, and getting involved in the production as co-pro-
ducer of the series. The following year would see Netflix publish its first
in-house productions, House of Cards, Hemlock Grove (Netflix, 2013–
15), Orange is the New Black (Netflix, 2013–), and season 4 of Arrested
Development. This set the scene for what the industry calls OTT (Over
The Top) broadcasting. As with any era, it may be difficult—even impos-
sible—to locate an exact moment of change. Yet, we can notice that the
media industry, and what we define as television, has changed with the
increased possibilities of online streaming. It is also impossible to pin-
point a specific organisation that drove this change: YouTube, the BBC,
Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, as well as others, played a part, but none of them
is more ‘responsible’ for shifts in our understanding of television than
the others. Furthermore, these changes all take place at different paces
1 INTRODUCTION: NETFLIX AND THE RE-INVENTION OF TELEVISION 3
with different emphases in varying national media systems. The US tel-

evision industry was hardly as ill-prepared for the coming shifts as the
Dr. Horrible sketch at the Emmys suggests. At the time, it was work-
ing to implement some changes itself. Particularly the American Hulu,
a catch-up service which unites programmes from Fox, NBC and ABC
can be viewed as trying different changes together. It later also proved
well equipped to offer its own original content, from Farmed and
Dangerous (Hulu, 2013), its earliest production, to the critical and com-
mercial hit The Handmaid’s Tale (Hulu, 2017–). In the UK, the BBC
iPlayer offered viewers the option to self-schedule television online, the
position of the BBC as Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) allowing for
ad-free programming. The BBC certainly managed to set a standard for
other PSBs in Europe, which soon followed to build their own online
presences.
The competition ultimately posed by Netflix, once it started produc-
ing its own original programming, was difficult to foresee. This is not to
argue that the OTT broadcasting industry is the cause for all of televi-
sion’s troubles, as Lotz (2014) describes in some detail. But the advent
of Netflix and Amazon original programming certainly poses a chal-
lenge to existing media conglomerates that hoped to be able to dictate
changes. As it is, Netflix, previously an online DVD-rental service and
unconnected to the large media conglomerates that dominate media
worldwide, became a powerful player in the reorganisation of what tel-
evision is. Other companies quickly followed its example by providing
original ‘quality’ TV as well as licensed programming without ad breaks
in exchange for monthly or (in the case of Amazon) annual subscrip-
tions. Netflix also quickly expanded globally, to some extent challenging
the power of international conglomerates even more.
Netflix and the Re-invention of Television focusses on Netflix as a
dominant challenger to linear television, viewing practices, nationalised
media systems and established concepts of what television is. Many media
companies have met the challenges posed by Netflix and formulated
responses: They have produced revivals of ‘cult’ TV, such as new sea-
sons of The X-Files (Fox, 1993–2003, 2016–) or Twin Peaks: The Return
(Showtime, 2017–); they have built their own sophisticated streaming
systems; or they have adjusted licensing and publication models, so that
viewers outside of the United States can access new episodes quickly
after they have aired. Yet, Netflix has been at the forefront of all these
developments: It revived Arrested Development in 2013, it constructed
4 M. JENNER
a sophisticated algorithm to nudge viewers towards specific choices; and

it published content online on the same date in all countries where it
is available. It quickly recognised binge-watching as a way to promote
itself and its original content, it understood that television content is
no longer inherently tied to the television set and it established itself as
transnational broadcaster. Netflix is a driving force in changing how tel-
evision is organised and will be organised in the future. It has proven
truly remarkable in the way it has reorganised what television is and how
television viewing is structured. Still, it can be argued that many of these
developments are changes that television was undergoing anyway, as sig-
nalled by technological and industrial developments as well as changes
in viewer behaviour (see Lotz 2014). Yet, Netflix accelerated many
developments. It also managed to pose a challenge to established media
conglomerates while positioning streaming not as an alternative to tele-
vision, but as television. This is not to say that it overhauled how power
within this industry is organised, but that it managed to position itself
alongside other powerful players.
Netflix and the Re-invention of Television

Considering its mode of delivery via broadband internet and the fact
that Netflix is often received via laptops or other devices, it is worth
questioning whether Netflix can be considered television at all. Netflix
is clearly not broadcast television. The ‘liveness’ of television has often
been argued to be a central characteristic of the medium, particularly
in its early years. Network television in a post-network era has con-
tinuously emphasised its ‘liveness’, in recent years often with con-
test shows like America’s Got Talent (NBC, 2006–), Dancing with the
Stars (ABC, 2005–), America’s Next Topmodel (The CW, 2003–),
etc., all of which are formats popular across the world. Netflix can-
not deliver this, largely due to its reliance of autonomous scheduling
through viewers. Another distinction is that Netflix is not tied to exist-
ing channel brands of television, such as the BBC or HBO. Instead, it
has built its own brand. Not only is it not linked to television’s brand-
ing structures, but, at least so far, it is also not part of the large media
conglomerates, such as Viacom, Time Warner or NewsCorp, that
dominate international television industries. Crucially, Netflix has also
abandoned the idea of the linear television schedule: Netflix puts all epi-
sodes of one series online at once, resembling more models of book,
or, more accurately, DVD publishing (see Lotz 2014, 2017). DVD
box sets of TV series, after all, were a key technology to allow not just
time-shifting, but self-scheduling independent from television schedules.
These distinctions are more than just semantics, as broadcasting sug-
gests a linear, synchronised (and communal) experience, whereas with
publishing, commodities can be consumed as scheduled by users. Binge-
watching as viewing practice prefigures OTT, particularly with the ris-
ing popularity of DVD box sets in the early 2000s (Lotz 2014, location
1780). Nevertheless, Netflix’ active promotion of the term and its signif-
icance to Netflix suggests its centrality to the brand. Overturning these
significant, even central, aspects, might position Netflix as an alternative
to television (like DVDs), but not as the medium itself.
And yet, in popular and academic discourse, Netflix is often perceived
as television. First and foremost, this is linked to the way Netflix defines,
and consequently markets, itself: In a GQ profile of Netflix founder
and CEO Reed Hastings in January 2013, he states that the goal “is to
become HBO faster than HBO can become us” (Hass 2013). This needs
to be read as an explicit challenge to HBO, leader of the so-called ‘qual-
ity revolution’ of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Much like HBO, sev-
eral US cable channels (such as AMC, Showtime, FX) have built their
brand identity around high-quality original drama. HBO remains central
to contemporary ideas of ‘quality’ TV. Netflix’ House of Cards, with its
first episode directed by David Fincher, starring Academy Award winner
Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, an adaptation of the BBC series of the
same title, was a highly ambitious project that imitated HBO’s brand-
ing strategy (see Johnson 2012, 37–59). By positioning itself as compet-
itor to HBO, Netflix implicitly defined itself as television, rather than an
online broadcaster like YouTube. There lies some irony in the fact that
Netflix challenged HBO, a channel that marketed itself for years as being
‘not TV’. HBO is received via cable broadcasting systems and submits
to the ‘rules’ of the television schedule where one episode is aired every
week. Despite its marketing, which aimed to highlight the difference of
its output from other television content, HBO is TV. Second, Netflix
positioned itself as television through its productions: Its first ‘Netflix
Original’, Lilyhammer was first licensed and later co-produced with
Norwegian Public Service Broadcaster NRK.1 An early original series was
1 Most aspects of the production of Lilyhammer are Norwegian, including most of the
cast, only part of the financing comes from Netflix and the main character is played by
6 M. JENNER
Season 4 of Arrested Development, which had been shown on broadcast

television before it was cancelled in 2006. Netflix, thus, linked itself with
‘traditional’ television. Third, Sam Ward notes that:
In the run-up to its launch in Britain, Netflix joined major British broad-
casters Sky, the BBC, and Channel 4 at Los Angeles Screenings, where
deals for the international distribution of American content are negotiated.
(2016, 226)
Ward argues that, with this appearance, Netflix positioned itself as televi-
sion channel and exporter of American content to other territories, join-
ing other industry figures at important sales events. In his rather polemic
book Television is the New Television, journalist Michael Wolff argues:
It is not Netflix bringing digital to television, but, quite obviously, Netflix

bringing television programming and values and behaviour […] to hereto-
fore interactive and computing-related text. (2015, location 958)
Wolff’s argument is that digital media is adopting the business model

of television, particularly in relation to advertising. Furthermore, Ward
points to promotion materials used by Netflix to introduce itself to the
UK market, which explicitly feature people watching Netflix on a tele-
vision set. In fact, in the UK, Netflix became available as an app on TV
screens for Virgin Media subscribers in 2013 via DVR set-top boxes. As
a fifth point, it can be argued that television had recently undergone a
transformation that already allowed viewers to watch texts uninterrupted
by advertising at the pace they wanted. In its legal version, this was
linked to the rise of the DVD box set that allowed viewers to watch TV
series on laptops.2 As a DVD-rental company, Netflix was well aware of
the frequency with which US viewers rented discs and how long it took
to return them. Based on this, Netflix concluded that television content
and the television set are no longer understood to be inherently linked
American actor Steven Van Zandt, known from The Sopranos (HBO 1999–2007) (see
Mikos and Gamula 2014, 90–4).
2 In its illegal version, DVD box sets were frequently ripped and put online for the pur-
poses of illegal downloads. This also enabled binge-watching via PCs or laptops if viewers
did not wish to go through the extra effort (and expense) of burning DVDs.
and the concept of television is permeable. This leads back to the first
point on this list: By stating that Netflix is television, Netflix can become
television.
Television has never been a stable object easily defined, but discur-
sively constructed via social practices, spaces, content, industry, or tech-
nological discourses. Often, the shifts in how we understand or interact
with television feel less radical than they actually are, which is why a dis-
cursive construction of television can accommodate shifts in technology
and habits. As Lisa Gitelman explains:
The introduction of new media […] is never entirely revolutionary: new

media are less points of epistemic rupture than they are socially embedded
sites for the ongoing negotiation of meaning as such. Comparing and con-
trasting new media thus stand to offer a view of negotiability in itself— a
view, that is, of the contested relations of force that determine the path-
ways by which new media may eventually become old hat. (2006, 6)
Much of this can be explained via existing and changing media habits.
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun argues:
Habit frames change as persistence, as it habituates: it is a reaction to

change – to an outside sensation or action – that remains beyond that
change within the organism. (2016, location 336)
It may be a technology’s ability to connect directly to our existing media

habits that make these shifts unnoticeable. When they acquired VCRs,
some viewers may have already been used to channel-surfing on cable
TV, thus already being involved in a practice of modifying the schedule
based on their own desires and needs. DVDs build on the practices and
habits of the VCR, and Netflix’ use of binge-watching builds onto the
popularity of DVD box sets, as the company rhetoric never grows tired
of reminding us (see, for example, Jurgensen 2013). Television as dis-
course has proven remarkably flexible in accommodating technologies,
industrial changes, or changes in the social practices in the history of the
medium. In Video Revolutions, Michael Z. Newman forwards a cultural
view of video as a medium:
From this perspective, a medium is understood relationally, according to

how it is constituted through its complementarity or distinction to other
8 M. JENNER
media within a wider ecology of technologies, representations, and mean-

ings. A medium is, furthermore, understood in terms not only of its
materiality, affordances, and conventions of usage, but also of everyday,
commonsense ideas about its cultural status in a given context. (2014, 3)
Newman identifies shifts in the technologies and cultural uses of the

term video. Similarly, the term television has been used to describe dif-
ferent technologies, has been invested with varying degrees of cultural
significance and ‘value’, and, thus, has meant different things at different
times and in different social contexts.
Though this book maintains that Netflix’ role in shaping a contem-
porary global media landscape is central, it also insists that Netflix never
exists in a vacuum. Critics like Wheeler Winston Dixon (2013) suggest
that Netflix has the power to do away with physical forms like DVD
or even make parts of film history ‘disappear’, simply by not includ-
ing them in its library. After Netflix has expanded massively across the
world between 2014 and 2016, it can be observed that such an argu-
ment ignores that Netflix’ libraries look very different from country to
country. Furthermore—and this could also not have been predicted by
Dixon in 2013—Netflix has dropped large amounts of licensed content
over the course of 2016 in favour of its own in-house productions or
Netflix Originals, suggesting that it increasingly needs to be viewed as
one online channel among many, as also suggested by Derek Johnson
(2018). This book makes a distinction between Netflix in-house pro-
ductions and Netflix Originals—despite the fact that Netflix does not.
It distinguishes between programmes produced and broadcast by lin-
ear broadcasters and licensed by Netflix elsewhere and programmes
produced or commissioned by Netflix, which is the original broad-
caster worldwide (such as House of Cards, Orange is the New Black,
Club de Cuervos [Netflix, 2015–], Love [Netflix, 2016–], etc.). These
programmes are not literally produced in-house, but Netflix functions
as producer and original (and exclusive) broadcaster. As Netflix Chief
Content Officer Ted Sarandos explains in an interview with Neil Landau:
We use the word ‘original’ to indicate the territory, where it originates.

‘Netflix Originals’ is used in the US, because you can’t see them anywhere
else. For us, the word ‘exclusive’ doesn’t ring true to people. And ‘created
by’ doesn’t either. (Landau 2016, 12)
Not all content labelled Netflix Originals can be separated into a binary
of in-house production and Netflix Originals. Lilyhammer was produced
by Norwegian channel NRK first, but Netflix bought it after only its
pilot was produced and is sharing in its production costs. In its dealings
with Marvel Studios, both production companies are heavily invested.
Yet, it is considered important, here, to acknowledge that much of the
content branded ‘Netflix Original’ is only considered original due to the
companies’ rather liberal usage of the word. Looking at Netflix as global
company, it is only prudent to acknowledge that different content can be
featured under this term.
There are two main themes to this book: the first one is to consider
how Netflix changes ideas of what television is. The second theme that
runs through this book is a consideration of the nexus of concepts of
control and choice, and their relationship with power and subversion.
Netflix builds on the marketing language of previous ancillary technol-
ogy of television by emphasising that it offers both, more control and
more choice, to viewers. Yet, much as with previous technologies, as
outlined in Part I, this control does not translate to substantial shifts in
power. Though Netflix disrupts the way media systems are organised,
particularly in the United States, it hardly offers a subversion that leads
to sustainable changes to the organisation of power—at least not in the
relationship between audiences and industry. Yet, control can be exer-
cised by many actors and means something different in each context.
Different ancillary technologies allow for different kinds of control, but
national media systems in a globalised world, also offer different forms
of control to broadcasters. Overall, the central argument is that, even
though Netflix changes conceptions of television, it does not substan-
tially overturn relations of power between audience, industry and the
nation state within neoliberal capitalist systems. Nevertheless, it impacts
on these regimes of control and power by restructuring how they are
organised.
Netflix as TV IV
Derek Kompare notes in Rerun Nation (2005) that the different tech-
nological innovations to television need to be understood not merely
as technological innovation, but “reconceptions, profoundly altering
our relationship with dominant media institutions, and with media cul-
ture in general” (2005, 199, italics in the original). Each phase or stage
10 M. JENNER
of television is a reconception of the medium, a point in time when the

technologies that define what television is change radically, changing the
way viewers interact with the medium and the paradigms under which
content is produced, structured and presented. Yet, because reconcep-
tions do not occur suddenly, but are discursive shifts, they are always
already prefigured by previous stages. The technological shifts of the
1980s are all preceded by public debates and technological develop-
ments of previous versions of television. The shifts in ‘quality’ in the late
1990s and early 2000s are preceded by a range of ‘quality’ TV series
from M*A*S*H (CBS, 1972–83) to Hill Street Blues (NBC, 1981–7)
to Twin Peaks (ABC, 1990–1) to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (WB, 1997–
2001; UPN, 2001–3). The digital technologies of this period all tie in
with behaviours and habits familiar from previous eras and build on pub-
lication strategies and behaviours associated with these. The way media
change and turn into something else has been dealt with in different ways
and explored from different perspectives. Bolter and Grusin (1999) use
the concept of remediation, though their use of the term refers to the
way content moves from one medium to another. Thus, remediation
deals more with content rather than media technologies. A central con-
cept in this broad historical approach is the division of television history
into three different periods. Roberta Pearson summarises these as follows:
In the United States, TVI, dating from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s,
is the era of channel scarcity, the mass audience, and three-network hegem-
ony. TVII, dating from roughly the early 1980s to the late 1990s, is the
era of channel/network expansion, quality television, and network brand-
ing strategies. TVIII, dating from the late 1990s to the present, is the era
of proliferating digital distribution platforms, further audience fragmen-
tation, and, as Rogers, Epstein and Reeves [2002] suggest, a shift from
second-order to first-order commodity relations. (Pearson 2011, location
1262–6)
Pearson argues herself that these ‘periodisations’ simplify complex dis-

courses of television history. She also makes clear that this description is
specific to the United States. Though other western markets tend to be
a few years behind on most of these developments, they roughly match
the ‘periods’ of US television. While countries may regulate their mar-
kets differently, particularly in relation to PSB, a major factor in the
shifts from each period to the next is technology. The shifts from TV
I to TV II can be linked to the development of technologies like the

VCR, affordable remote controls, cable systems or satellite technology.
TV III is largely defined through a shift towards the digital. The availa-
bility of these technologies means that these major shifts happen around
the same time, though they may take different forms in terms of content
or industry. This history becomes messier when we look towards the for-
mer USSR, some Asian markets, such as China or North Korea, or some
African markets where the availability and history of mass communica-
tion technology is different from the United States or western Europe.
Nevertheless, periodisations, albeit simplifications, are a good way to
offer a broad idea of television history. At the very least, they highlight
that speaking of television at different times means speaking of different
kinds of television. These different eras or periods tie together a num-
ber of technological, sociocultural, industrial or aesthetic discourses. In
and of themselves, these discourses are complicated and complex and not
always as neatly aligned as might be suggested by this terminology.
John Ellis, discussing largely the British television industry, divides tel-
evision’s eras into an era of ‘scarcity’, an era of ‘availability’ and an era
of ‘plenty’. These terms relate to the number of channels and, linked to
that, the availability of an increasing amount of content:
The first era is characterized by a few channels broadcasting for part of the
day only. It was the era of scarcity, which lasted for most countries until
the late 1970s or early 1980s. As broadcasting developed, the era of scar-
city gradually gave way to an era of availability, where several channels
continuously jostled for attention, often with more competition from
cable and satellite services. The third era, the era of plenty, is confidently
predicted by the television industry itself. It is foreseen as an era in which
television programmes (or, as they will be known, ‘content’ or ‘product’)
will be accessible through a variety of technologies, the sum of which will
give consumers the new phenomenon of ‘television on demand’ as well as
‘interactive television’. The era of plenty is predicted even as most nations
and individuals are still coming to terms with the transition to the era of
availability. (2000, 39)
Ellis’ division into eras and the model of TV I, II, and III overlap in
many respects. But though these ‘periods’ of television work well as a
broad—if simplified—conceptualisation of television history, it is not
the only way to look at it. In Video Revolutions (2014), Newman maps
12 M. JENNER
different meanings of the term video. He divides the history of the term
into three different phases:
In the first phase, the era of broadcasting’s development and penetration

into the mass market, video was another word for television. The two were
not distinct from each other. In the second, TV was already established
as a dominant mass medium. Videotape and related new technologies and
practices marked video in distinction to television as an alternative and
solution to some of TV’s widely recognized problems. It was also distin-
guished from film as a lesser medium visually and experientially, though at
the same time it was positioned as a medium of privileged access to real-
ity. In the third phase, video as digital moving image media has grown to
encompass television and film to function as the medium of the moving
image. These phases are defined in terms of their dominant technologies
(transmission, analog recording and playback, digital recording and play-
back) but more importantly by ideas about these technologies and their
uses and users. (2014, 2)
The first phase covers television’s early years (at least in the United
States) and, thus, was often associated with television’s ‘liveness’. The
second phase covers the use of magnetic tape, which enabled American
broadcasters to account for the USA’s different time zones by time-de-
laying broadcasts recorded in New York for West Coast audiences. As
Newman points out, film and video were viewed as distinct media, with
video functioning more as an extension of live broadcasting. This prop-
erty also speaks to video’s later conceptualisation as time-shifting tech-
nology in the form of Betamax in the 1970s. Covering the term and
cultural use of video rather than focussing on Betamax or VCR technol-
ogies, Newman also points to video’s use in art, where video was used
to formulate ideas that run counter to mass communication’s ideolog-
ical outlook(s). The third era sees the meaning of the term widened to
essentially mean recorded moving images. These three phases can also
be viewed as phases that determine the technologies television is associ-
ated with. In the first stage, when video and television are virtually inter-
changeable, the medium is defined through ‘liveness’ and towards the
end of the phase, a degree of viewer independence is introduced through
the remote control. The second phase could be termed the age of the
VCR and cable, offering vast amounts of choice, the ability to time-
shift and autonomously schedule (predominantly films). The third stage
describes the shift towards the digital.
All these ‘phases’, ‘stages’ or eras seem to refer to the same phenom-
ena. Although all are simplifications of complex, nationally specific dis-
courses—always determined and necessitated by the approaches taken to
analyse them—what cannot be denied is that they are led by and linked
to technological shifts. TV I is marked by the (increasingly) affordable
television set itself, TV II by more affordable and accurate remote con-
trols, cable and satellite technology as well as the VCR, and TV III by
DVD and the DVR and digital broadcasting technologies. While each
period is marked by its own technological innovations, this is linked with
industrial shifts, changes in content (particularly aesthetics and narrative
forms), associated viewing habits and shifts in the social connotations of
television. However, these eras are not neatly contained phases or stages.
Key aspects may be the same (technology, industry, content), but his-
torical moments can never be directly pinpointed. Partly, this may be
an issue of perspective (national context, focus on specific aspects of a
discourse), but these developments are also relatively slow-moving. For
each successful technology, a range of other technologies fail. Some
industry practices may have been developed outside of the TV industry
or outside of the industrial structures of conglomeration. Thus, these
‘phases’ need to be viewed as rough conceptualisations with messy, often
blurry, outlines. Newman starts Video Revolutions by stating:
At different times video has been different things for different people,
and its history is more than just a progression of material formats: cam-
eras, transmitters and receivers, tapes and discs, decks that record and play
them, digital files, apps and interfaces. It is also a history of ideas about
technology and culture, and relations and distinctions among various types
of media and the and the social needs giving rise to their uses. (2014, 1)
This can easily be applied to other technologies, such as television,

as well. Thus, the title of this book, Netflix and the Re-invention of
Television, needs to be taken as something less radical than may be
expected. Netflix did not completely re-invent what television is, but it is
part of a reconception that was already prefigured by the habits linked to
DVDs or DVRs, objects that are made obsolete or in need of technolog-
ical adjustment.
Looking at these phases as technological shifts, changes to content
and marketing strategies that target increasingly smaller audience seg-
ments (from mass medium to niche medium) justify a categorisation of
14 M. JENNER
contemporary shifts as TV IV. The category of TV III, with an emphasis

on technological change (the digital) and content (‘quality’ TV) is inad-
equate to contain the significant changes streaming providers Netflix,
Amazon and Hulu make to television itself. Netflix is at the forefront of
these developments and not only challenges traditional systems of broad-
casting and scheduling. Having expanded massively over the last few
years, Netflix also shifts established models of release schedules, on the
one hand by making entire seasons of content available at once, and on
the other hand, maybe more importantly, also making original content
available on the same date internationally.
Confronted with a vast, almost unlimited, amount of national, social,
industrial and technological discourses, it seems tempting to view televi-
sion as a stable object in the physical manifestation of the television set.
Alternatively, it can be viewed as a medium delineated by specific forms
of programming (the serial form, a mode of address, ‘liveness’, game
show or news formats), or as a technology with a linear history. Yet, indi-
vidual periods of television are marked by lively debate of what television
is, what its cultural meanings and ideological dangers are, and what its
implications and potentials for the future are. Television studies analyses
from different eras are quite instructive in the way television has often
been perceived and conceptualised as complex and unstable medium.
For example, in Television. Technology and Cultural Form, originally pub-
lished in 1974, Raymond Williams tries to get to terms with the rela-
tionship between television and (presumably British, or at least western)
society. Williams argues that technological developments respond to the
‘needs’ of audiences. He argues that, despite its technological short-
comings (which, in the medium’s early stages, were vast), the medium
responds to a ‘need’ to combine existing media forms, such as radio,
newspaper, theatre and cinema, into one:
But it remains true that, after a great deal of intensive research and devel-
opment, the domestic television set is in a number of ways an inefficient
medium of visual broadcasting. Its visual inefficiency by comparison with
the cinema is especially striking, whereas in the case of radio there was by
the 1930s a highly efficient sound broadcasting receiver, without any real
competitors in its own line. Within the limits of the television home-set
emphasis it has so far not been possible to make more than minor qualita-
tive improvements. Higher-definition systems, and colour, have still only
brought the domestic television set, as a machine, to the standard of a very
inferior kind of cinema. Yet most people have adapted to this inferior visual
medium, in an unusual kind of preference for an inferior immediate tech-
nology, because of the social complex – and especially that of the privatised
home – within which broadcasting, as a system, is operative. (Williams
1974, 28)
Williams views television as a powerful ‘alternative’ to both, radio and

cinema, offering a broad palette of programming. There is, of course a
tension in his own argument, which positions television as both, vari-
ety medium and ‘inferior cinema’. Writing in 1974, this may seem as a
useful way to think of television, though it needs to be highlighted that
Williams discusses TV I.3 The conceptualisation of television as uniting a
variety of other media is something that still characterises the discourse
of television. It may be exactly this aspect that makes it so permeable to
developments that change its technologies, associated habits, or reach. In
1990, Charlotte Brunsdon argues that ‘good’ television (as opposed to
‘bad’, commercial television) is:
…constructed across a range of oppositions which condense colonial his-

tories, the organising and financing of broadcasting institutions, and the
relegitimation of already legitimate artistic practices. That is to say, the
dominant and conventional way of answering the question ‘What is good
television?’ is to slip television, unnoticeably, transparently, into already
existing aesthetic and social hierarchies. (1990, 60)
As Brunsdon goes on to argue, this kind of judgement leaves out the

majority of television content. The existing aesthetic and social hierar-
chies are usually established by other media, something that is par-
ticularly reflected in the use of the term ‘cinematic’ to describe ‘good’
television aesthetics. Applying aesthetic judgements from other media to
television ignores the standards and techniques the medium creates for
itself (Creeber 2013, 7). And, yet, it is difficult to avoid these compar-
isons to other media, even now, as the discursive construction of tele-
vision has grown to include ‘quality’ television drama, accomplished
aesthetics and many different kinds of screens. Much of this has to do
with industry discourses: actors, writers, directors or other creative talent
3 At the time of Williams’ writing, TV I was on the cusp of TV II, though many technol-
ogies were not yet affordable for a mass audience, yet.

16 M. JENNER
switch comfortably between media forms. Though the numbers of cin-

ema talent that have gravitated towards television may have increased
since the late 1990s, it is hardly a new phenomenon. Alfred Hitchcock
Presents… (CBS, 1955–60; NBC, 1960–62) is one of the most prom-
inent and earliest examples (on US TV), Columbo (NBC, 1971–2003)
featured stars like Peter Falk, Vera Miles or John Cassavetes and individ-
ual episodes were directed by Robert Butler, who would later establish
the visual style of Hill Street Blues, or Steven Spielberg.4 In the 1980s
and 1990s, US television attracted Michael Mann or David Lynch. In
India, Kaun Banega Crorepati? (KBC, 2000–12), the Indian version of
Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (ITV, 1998–2014), has been hosted by
some of the most acclaimed Bollywood stars. In most western countries,
particularly European countries with relatively small film and television
industries, actors routinely switch between theatre, television and film
with acting schools teaching the different acting styles associated with
each medium. As such, television has always been staffed by people who
easily transition between media. The conglomeration of the media indus-
tries in the 1990s also contributed to this kind of convergence of vari-
ous media. As Williams shows, this perception of television as not one
medium, but many, has accompanied constructions of television early on.
In more recent years, the term ‘convergence’ encapsulates the concept,
highlighting how different media forms are united online through a vari-
ety of texts and practices. Such a ‘meshing’ of media makes it impossible
to always judge television by its own standards. Thus, terms like ‘cine-
matic’, usually describing the aesthetic style of serialised ‘quality’ TV, do
imply a comparison with the medium of cinema and associated cultural
hierarchies, but this comparison is inherent in television’s role as conver-
gence medium. This does not mean that television is not a medium in its
own right but serves more as an example of the vast complexity of the
discursive, unstable construction of what television is now and has been
in its past. John Hartley argues that television:
…needs not to be seen in categorical terms as, for instance, an instrument

of capitalist exploitative expansionism, class struggle, gender suprema-
cism, colonial oppression, ideological hegemony, psycho-sexual repression,
nationalist power, cultural control, always doing something to someone,
4 Yet, Spielberg’s involvement with Columbo pre-dates his film debut Jaws (Spielberg
1975).
always negatively, and usually in a combination of two or more of the

above, but in historical and ‘evolutionary’ terms – how TV can be under-
stood as a product, a part and a promoter of historical changes of very
long duration in the previously strictly reserved areas of culture and poli-
tics. Meanwhile, the habits, changes and histories of analytical, theoretical
and critical discourses about television, media and culture need to be seen
increasingly as part of the historical milieu which needs explaining, rather
than as some safe haven of scientific truth for academics to use as that
mythical ‘effective standpoint from which to criticize society’. (Hartley
1999, 25; italics in the original)
Though Hartley particularly criticises ideological approaches to tele-

vision, his criticism also highlights the complexity of the medium itself
and the means to study it. Anna McCarthy describes a major cultural and
theoretical problem in grasping television when she points out that:
[Television] is both a thing and a conduit for electronic signals, both a fur-
niture in a room and a window to an imaged elsewhere, both a commodity
and a way of looking at commodities. (2001, 93)
Thus, the complexity of the medium means that no one approach can
grasp it and any attempts to define what television is in its entirety will
inevitably be limited. Thus, this book cannot hope to grasp the medium
in its full complexity. It highlights some important discourses that consti-
tute what television is and what it has been in the past. In this, it draws
attention to the discursive nature of the medium without claiming to be
able to do justice to the ‘whole’ of the medium. Because of this, it uses
Netflix as a spectre to theorise a range of shifts in the discursive construc-
tion of television.
This book thinks about Netflix as part of a reconception of television
that is still ongoing. This reconception is a process that unites a variety of
discourses, of which Netflix is only one. As Johnson outlines in the intro-
duction of his edited collection From Networks to Netflix:
It is thus worth considering the contemporary television industries as

a struggle between legacy channels adapting to new conditions, on the
one side, and the new portals that threaten to replace them, on the other.
(2018, 8)
18 M. JENNER
His industry studies perspective informs a very specific view of TV IV,

but pointing to the concept of a struggle between various forces is highly
significant in understanding the discursive construction of television.
These struggles are not limited to industry, but are also cultural, gen-
erational, technological, economic, and so on. They affect how content
is created and where, as well as what kind of content. They shape how
viewers understand themselves within media systems and how they put
different technologies to use. Additionally, as all discourses, the discourse
of television does not end. This poses a number of problems for research,
as, not only is the current reconception ongoing, but it is also contem-
porary. As already mentioned, though Netflix is currently not part of a
larger conglomerate, this does not mean that it may not become one.
Its presence in 190 countries is, at this point, largely theoretical as estab-
lished media systems, language barriers or availability of broadband con-
nections may prohibit large-scale adoption. The three main parts of this
book explore different aspects of this reconception from different per-
spectives: its positioning within existing media habits and technologies,
its use of binge-watching to structure and market itself and its transna-
tionalism and integration into existing national media systems. Sheila
Murphy notes in the introduction to her book on television as central to
new media developments:
The problem about studying the present— or even the recent past— is
that it is never over, and one is very much entangled and enmeshed within
the discourse of the day. Critical distance, that much-lauded academic
quality that allows one to understand the social, economic, historically
inflected context of a cultural production, is elusive when that medium and
its attendant technologies are right there in front of us, part of our regu-
larly self-scheduled programs and processes. (2011, 12)
While writing this book, Netflix has not only introduced a vast array
of new programmes and translation languages, it has also performed
updates to its interface, some to comply with regulations that are often
exclusive to the EU. Discourses about the ‘threat’ Netflix poses to
American or other national media systems have become less frenzied over
the past few years. Yet, the initial social discourses of cultural legitima-
tion via ‘quality’ TV, though still persistent, have also been countered
by moral outrage, even moral panic, over depictions of teen suicide in
13 Reasons Why (2017–) or representations of anorexia in To the Bone
(Noxon 2017) (see, e.g., Allem 2017; Proctor 2017). The pace with
which Netflix has managed to establish itself in the United States and
in transnational markets is remarkable, but the discourse surrounding it
tends to shift with it. New critical perspectives are also bound to emerge.
This book is written with these problems in mind and, partly because of
this, there is an effort to tie Netflix to television history throughout this
book. Grounding Netflix in the history of a medium makes it a less ‘slip-
pery’ object of analysis.
Gitelman (2006) warns of treating media as a singular entity with
agency, or, on the other side of the spectrum, valorising the individual
inventor. This book frequently uses phrases along the lines of ‘Netflix
does…’. Netflix is understood here as a company and its language and
marketing tie it to the medium (and industry) of television. Netflix as a
company consists of complex hierarchies and its achievements and fail-
ures are the result of complicated collective processes. Though CEO
Reed Hastings and Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos have emerged
as public faces and spokespersons for Netflix, their main function is to
explain and, ideally, sell Netflix to customers and investors. As such, they
develop narratives that suggest a consistency of processes within the
company and the discourse of television that rarely exists. Things become
even more complicated when discussing the medium of television itself.
The technology itself is about transmitting and receiving broadcasting
signals, while those who broadcast those signals (whether through tra-
ditional TV signals, cable, satellite, or Wi-Fi) abide a specific set of rules
and norms. Yet, these might differ significantly depending on the broad-
cast technology used: In the United States, regulation of cable television
is significantly different from regulations for free-to-air television (see,
e.g., Santo 2008). The EU laws governing streaming are different than
those regulating ‘traditional’ broadcasting. The technology of the tele-
vision set mediates some of these norms, but the narrative and aesthetic
norms of television also contain much of what television is. This book
tries to pin down some of the constantly shifting discourses regarding
television. In cases where the medium is invested with agency, this needs
to be understood as a complicated, constantly shifting, socially con-
structed network of meaning.
TV IV is understood here as a process. This process brings together
discourses of technology, audience behaviour, industry, policy, national
media systems, etc. Netflix is currently an important part of TV IV, but
it is hardly the only one. Nevertheless, Netflix’ usage of binge-watching
20 M. JENNER
and its specific location in discourses of transnational broadcasting are a

significant part of this process. Netflix and the Re-invention of Television
explores Netflix’ position in the process of TV IV.
The Structure of This Book

Netflix and the Re-invention of Television is divided into three distinct
main parts and a Conclusion (Part IV) that all consist of an introduction
chapter, followed by three chapters. Each part is guided by its own inter-
nal logic and is framed by different theories, which are set out in the intro-
duction chapters to each part (Chapters 2, 6 and 10). What unites these
three parts is the concept of control and its relationship with discursive
constructions of television. Part I deals with the way control is exercised
by the individual over television and the way the medium reconceptualises
in accordance with this kind of control. This is embedded in neoliberal
processes that place labour in the form of self-discipline onto the indi-
vidual. In other words, different technologies give viewers (supposedly)
increased ability to make choices as these choices are vastly extended. The
‘right’ choices can lead to a ‘better’ individual (see Salecl 2010). This his-
tory also influences the way Netflix employs concepts of control, as dis-
cussed in Part II. Meanwhile, Part III looks at the negotiation of power
and control between Netflix as transnational broadcaster and the way
national media systems have traditionally employed television. A number
of critics, such as Gilles Deleuze (1992) have analysed and outlined the
(bio-)politics of these ‘control societies’. Others have focussed on how
these processes structure societies in relation to contemporary digital tech-
nologies (Chun 2006; Franklin 2015). The focus here is to look at the
various forms of control that emerge in relation to television and how
these need to be placed in broader historical discourses. The emphasis is
less on how television controls the viewer through ideological messages or
technology (as often feared), but more on the way viewers exercise con-
trol over the medium. As outlined in Part I, this control is not to be mis-
taken for power, though it may be linked to negotiations of power. As Seb
Franklin outlines, control functions as a way labour is embedded into the
private sphere as part of neoliberal societies (2015, 3–39). Control works
in a specific way in relation to television and, more specifically, Netflix.
The promise of control over the schedule is embedded in Netflix’ struc-
ture, but this is framed here as part of a specific history of the negotiation
of power and control in relation to television.
Part I of Netflix and the Re-invention of Television positions Netflix

within a discourse of television’s ancillary technologies. As Bret Maxwell
Dawson (2008) argues, many of these ancillary technologies were intro-
duced as supposedly ‘repairing’ television’s flaws and weaknesses. This
theory gives some insights into why the term ‘television’ can be extended
so easily to include other technologies: They are used to ‘repair’ the
restrictions and limitations of the medium. Generally, this ‘repairing’
has been marketed and conceptualised as giving viewers more ‘control’
over the schedule. This highlights the function of this discourse within
a neoliberal discourse where control is synonymous with ‘self-improve-
ment’ and in which the individual is responsible for ‘repairing’ the
medium. Perhaps the ultimate technology of control is the remote con-
trol or RCD (Remote Control Device). First remote controls for tele-
vision became available as early as 1948 in the United States, but with
only few available channels and at a high cost, they remained relatively
marginal products. The early 1980s brought significant changes to tel-
evision as a medium and to uses of RCDs. On the one hand, new cable
systems extended the number of available channels. On the other hand,
infrared technology made the remote control more accurate and cheaper
to produce, leading manufacturers to include them with new television
sets or VCRs (see Benson-Allott 2015, 81). Remote controls are often
neglected in today’s discussions of the period, perhaps because they have
become so ingrained in our media habits it has become impossible to
imagine TV without them. Nevertheless, remote controls have become
central technologies to manage television as it grew to contain more
channels and new options of what viewers could do with their television
set, from watching VHS tapes to playing video games. Thus, Chapter
3 explores some of the discourses of control surrounding RCDs in the
1980s, how it was perceived in the US market and how television con-
tent changed in response. It also explores the social function of RCDs
in contradictory, broader cultural discourses as it became both, a sym-
bol of power and control, and subjugation. Considering its position as
‘invisible’ technology (see Bellamy and Walker 1996, 10), it is remark-
able how prominently it featured in gender discourses or as object to
encapsulate anxieties surrounding young people and the working class in
the 1980s and 1990s. Chapter 4 focusses on another ancillary technol-
ogy of the period, the VCR and possibilities for subversion of established
media practices. This chapter looks at the VCR as an ancillary technology
that has influenced how the television set has become something that
22 M. JENNER
viewers can essentially program themselves either by renting videotapes

or recording television content. The flexibility provided by the VCR
makes it clear how the television became a technology that could easily
be controlled by viewers. Yet, the VCR is also one of several technologies
of the era that transforms the television set into a ‘hub’ of media conver-
gence, a technology that serves to display media forms other than televi-
sion. The chapter, thus, emphasises links between the VCR, time-shifting
and media convergence by extending both, choice and control for audi-
ences. Chapter 5 conceptualises control in a TV III era where digital
technologies allow viewers to time-shift television via a number of dif-
ferent technologies. This is also a period where television increasingly
moves away from the television set and online via YouTube as well as
various online technologies. Though this period extends on possibilities
for viewers to control television, the various methods industry uses to
monitor and control viewer behaviour are also extended. DVD extended
the possibilities for viewing TV through DVD box sets, but ultimately
could be included in similar business models that sell-through VHS tapes
and the VHS rental business already provided. Meanwhile, the DVR
extended the possibilities for recording and time-shifting television flow
and could even ‘skip’ advertising. Yet, both technologies also offered
possibilities for industry to control and police the various uses of tele-
vision more closely. Meanwhile, YouTube develops as an alternative to
television viewing by extending viewer control as far as functioning as
producers of online videos. The TV industry’s responses in the form of
BBC iPlayer and Hulu contain television in the form of specific brand
infrastructures. Allowing viewers more freedom to schedule their own
viewing, while still contingent on the release structures of the television
schedules, also highlights how more control is given to viewers. As the
various discussions of control in Part I show, control does not extend
to power in these scenarios. In fact, industry power remains relatively
stable, despite increasing control given to viewers. This is even observa-
ble where, for example RCDs, are treated as symbols to discuss different
forms of power and control in other social discourses. Thus, discussions
of power and control in Part I serve to frame an understanding of televi-
sion’s cultural positioning, which is carried on into a TV IV era.
Part II explores the centrality of binge-watching to Netflix’ posi-
tioning within discourses of TV IV and control. Binge-watching, as a
viewing practice, reaches further back than Netflix. It became a particu-
larly common terminology in relation to DVD box sets. As Brunsdon
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
„So ein junger Leutnant hat sich zu bescheiden. Das habe ich
ihm geschrieben. Ein für alle Mal. Wir leben einfach. Ich könnte es
aus eigenem bestreiten, wenn nicht Fritz ... und die Wohnung ...“
Es würgte ihm am Halse und er fuhr hastig fort: „Die Wohnung
möchte ich behalten ... Ich habe jetzt eine Schauspielschule und
brauche Platz.“
Er dachte: „Und schließlich findest du heim ...“
Aber er sagte es nicht. Die Bewegung schnürte ihm den Hals
vollends zu. Sie aber starrte auf den Tisch herab und krampfte die
Hände ineinander.
Es waren Minuten, die sich zu Ewigkeiten dehnten.
„Selbstverständlich führe ich Buch über alles, was du schickst.
Was übrigbleibt am Ende des Monats, geht zum Teil an die
Sparkasse auf Isoldens Namen, zum Teil an eine Versicherung.
Wenn sie zwanzig Jahre alt ist, wird ihr eine nette Summe
ausgezahlt. Sie kann dann etwas anfangen oder heiraten ... kurz, sie
kann sich ihr Leben schaffen ...“
Karla sah ihn mit großen, feuchten Augen an.
„Das ist schön von dir, Ernst ...“
Er schüttelte den Kopf.
„Nein. Das ist selbstverständlich. Dazu sind die Eltern da ... Das
ist Notwehr gegen das Leben. Das lernt man an Beispielen.“
Sein Ton wurde wieder lehrhaft, ohne daß er es wollte. Und
dieser Ton gab sie der Wirklichkeit zurück.
„Nächsten Sommer singe ich in Bayreuth — weißt du das
schon?“
Sie sagte es sehr feierlich. Was gab es denn auch Größeres für
sie als ihr Kind, ihre Liebe und Bayreuth?!
Es waren die Gipfelpunkte ihres Lebens, um die all ihre
Sehnsucht, alle ihre Gedanken kreisten. Bayreuth — das hatte sie
noch erleben wollen — bevor sie dem Warten Erfüllung gab.
Bayreuth sollte ein Abschied und ein Wiedersehen sein — ein
glanzvolles Ende und ein seliges Beginnen!
Aber sie brachte nichts von alledem über ihre Lippen.
Er sah ihre Bewegung. Deutete er sie richtig oder falsch —? Er
ergriff ihre beiden Hände, drückte sie an die Lippen und ging.
Sie rührte sich nicht, lehnte totenbleich an der Wand. Hatte er
verstanden? Oder hatte er Hoffnung geschöpft — eine Hoffnung, die
sie nicht erfüllen konnte ...?
Die ganze folgende Nacht war er aufgeblieben. Hatte sich zu
Ronacher gesetzt und hatte den König-Schampus getrunken, war zu
den Schrammeln gefahren und dann von Café zu Café bis zum
frühen Morgen. Hatte sich in seinem Hotelzimmer aufs Bett
geworfen und war dann abends in die Oper gegangen ... ganz oben,
„aufs Paradies“ hinauf, wo die Enthusiasten sich
aneinanderdrängten.
Und die verwöhnte Wiener Jugend raste, wie einst die Kieler
Jugend, wie die Neger und die Brasilianer gerast hatten.
Aber damals war er es gewesen, der ihre Schritte leitete, sie
schützte; jetzt bedurfte sie seines Schutzes nicht mehr, war ihm
entwachsen, entflohen ...
Der Vorhang fiel ein zweites Mal herab. Brausende, tosende Rufe
erfüllten die heiße Luft.
Karla erschien wieder und immer wieder. Durch sein großes
Opernglas konnte er jeden Zug in ihrem Gesicht erkennen. Er sah
auch, wie sie plötzlich stutzte, wie durch die Schminke hindurch ein
heißes Rot ihr in die Schläfen stieg und ihre Augen sich starr auf
eine Loge richteten. Er beugte sich vor, hob sein Glas bis zur Höhe
des ersten Ranges. Da schoß auch ihm das Blut zu Kopf, und seine
geraden, dichten Brauen zogen sich heftig zusammen.
In einem nilgrünen, tief ausgeschnittenen Samtkleid, Brillanten
und Perlen um den blendend weißen, schlanken Hals, zwei
flimmernde Brillantsterne im tiefgewellten, leuchtend roten Haar saß
Mariette de Santos. Neben ihr John Russel, in Frack und weißer
Binde, den kühnen Abenteurerkopf vorgebeugt über die Brüstung,
die Hände mit den krallenartigen Nägeln zu lautem Klatschen
vorgestreckt. Hinter dem Stuhl seiner Frau stand Don Pedro de
Santos. Sein Bart lag jetzt lang und breit wie ein Fächer auf dem
bläulichweißen Frackhemd. Er stand da, regungslos, feierlich, wie es
seine Art war, mit dicken, müden Lidern und sattem Besitzerlächeln.
Elegant und temperamentvoll schlug Madame de Santos ihren
Spitzenfächer gegen den Rücken ihrer Hand, auf die Gefahr hin, ihn
zu zerbrechen, ergriff dann einen Teerosenstrauß, der vor ihr auf
dem roten Samt der Logenbrüstung lag, und warf ihn mit graziösem
Schwung auf die Bühne.
Er flog Karla zu Füßen. Sie bückte sich nicht nach ihm und
übersah es, daß ein Kollege ihr ihn reichte. Mit einer letzten
Verneigung ging sie ab und kam trotz allen Rufens und Tobens nicht
wieder.
Die Luft wurde Altmann eng und schwül. Er glaubte ersticken zu
müssen. Mit den Ellbogen bahnte er sich einen Weg aus dem
Menschenknäuel heraus und stürzte die endlosen steinernen
Treppen hinunter.
Auf der stillen, frostig kalten Ringstraße aber blieb er stehen und
schöpfte tief Atem.
Hatte er das nicht schon einmal empfunden? Hatte er das alles
nicht schon einmal erlebt ...? Wo nur? ... Wann? ...
Und plötzlich wußte er es.
An jenem Abend war es, da die Nordeni von ihrem Elternhause
sprach, von ihrem Vater, der gekommen war, sie zu hören, und dann
davongegangen war auf Nimmerwiederkehr ... an jenem Abend, da
auf einer mondbeglänzten Terrasse Brasiliens ein rotes Schöpfchen
vor ihm hergegaukelt war, ihn um all seine Besonnenheit gebracht
hatte ...
Kaum je war ihm der Abend noch eingefallen. Nie hatte er mehr
dieses kurzen Abenteuers gedacht, und nie anders, als mit
heimlichem Ärger über sich, mit kalter Verachtung gegen das kokette
Pariser Grisettchen.
Er hatte Karla albern und geschmacklos gescholten, als sie einst
darauf zurückgekommen war, hatte es nicht mal der Mühe wert
gefunden, sich ihre Verzeihung zu erbitten — und nun hatte er
gesehen, wie auch jetzt noch alles harte Abwehr in ihr war gegen die
Frau, um die er ihrer nur auf kurze Stunden vergessen? War er denn
selbst an allem schuld, an der Entfremdung, der Ferne zwischen
ihnen? ... Hatte diese Entfremdung nicht schon damals begonnen in
Brasilien, und hätte er den Weg noch finden können zu ihr, als sie
aus bangem Schauer heraus ihm an den Hals geflogen war am
Totenbett der Nordeni?
Altmanns Schritte hallten in den menschenleeren engen Gassen
der fremden Stadt, die ihn dünkte wie ein unentwirrbares Labyrinth.
Nun stand er zum fünften oder sechsten Male vor der Stefanskirche.
Aber er mochte nicht fragen, ließ sich die Richtung nicht gerne
weisen. Und so war er immer denselben Weg gegangen, und es war
immer der falsche gewesen!
In Wien! Im Leben! In seiner Ehe!
Hatte sich im Kreise herumgedreht und war zum
Ausgangspunkte zurückgekehrt — in der Sackgasse stecken
geblieben — bei „seinen Leuten“.
Da fiel ihm das Kind ein.
Und wie ein Sonnenstrahl durchbrach es das dunkle Gewölk um
ihn herum.
Mochte sein Leben verpfuscht, vernichtet sein — das Kind hielt
ihn aufrecht. Die Liebe seines Kindes sollte die Nacht erhellen, die
sich um ihn zusammenballte. — — —
Und jetzt, nach so langen Wochen, saß Schmerzchen auf seinen
Knien und fragte, wie Kinder fragen, die lächelnd auf Wunden treten:
„Warum fahren wir nicht nach Wien?“
„Du dummes, dummes Schmerzchen du ...“
So gab auch er ihr, aus verbissenem Weh heraus, den Namen,
den die Mutter ihr gegeben, aus schmerzerfüllter Seligkeit.
iese letzten Wiener Herbsttage — Karla vergaß sie nicht so
bald. Auch ihre Empfindungen nicht, an jenem Opernabend,
da sie Mariette de Santos in der Loge erblickt hatte.
Der Theaterdiener brachte ihr die Teerosen in ihre Garderobe, wo
bereits ein großer Korb mit Riesenorchideen von John Russel stand.
Sie warf die Rosen der Ankleidefrau zu.
Die zornige Erregung über die Dreistigkeit der in all ihrer
Millionenpracht immer noch grisettenhaften kleinen Pariserin
überwog fast die Freude über die Anwesenheit John Russels.
Doch er kam zu ihr am nächsten Tage. Halb Freund, halb
Geschäftsmann, in alter brutaler Offenheit.
„Well, Karla König ... ich hätte nicht geglaubt, daß Sie noch
immer in Gefühl machen, wie man in Berlin sagt. Ich habe die de
Santos’ in Paris getroffen, und wir sind zusammen hergereist. Von
Paris aus hatten wir telegraphisch die Loge bestellt. Dear me, die
kleine Frau hat vor Wut über Sie einen Weinkrampf bekommen im
Zwischenakt — sonst wäre ich schon gestern in Ihre Garderobe
gekommen. Ich wußte, daß Ihr ... daß Mister Altmann in Berlin
geblieben ist. So nahm ich an ... well, wir wollen nicht davon
sprechen. Man häutet sich alle sieben Jahre — schöne Frauen
sollen sich sogar öfter häuten.“
Karla lächelte und legte ihre Hand in seine Pranke.
„Sie haben es immer nur gut mit mir gemeint. ... Aber das muß
ich Ihnen sagen, mit dem Häuten ist es nichts bei mir.“
„Hat auch was Gutes, Karla König ... das macht dickfellig mit den
Jahren ... unverwundbar ... Und dann geht’s einem erst recht gut!“
Sie schüttelte leise den Kopf.
Aber John Russel war nicht gekommen, um zu philosophieren. Er
kam mit sehr bestimmten Vorschlägen. Wie lange lief der Vertrag mit
der Wiener Oper? Bis zum übernächsten Jahr vorläufig? Schön.
Dann sollte sie nicht verlängern, nicht anschließend jedenfalls. Ein
Jahr sollte sie sich frei halten für die Metropolitan in New York. Im
Juni acht Vorstellungen in London. Wenn sie vernünftig wäre, konnte
er für das darauffolgende Jahr mit St. Petersburg abschließen. Er
bot ihr ein Vermögen.
Aber sie schüttelte wieder den Kopf. Sie war nicht „vernünftig“ in
seinem Sinne.
Er lehnte sich zurück in den Sessel und legte die Beine
übereinander. Es schwante ihm — das gab eine lange Sitzung.
„Ich muß Ihnen was sagen, Karla König, es ist ja diesmal gut
ausgegangen — aber dem Kapelle hab’ ich eins ’reingewürgt. War ja
Unsinn mit Berlin. Berlin ist Ende, nicht Anfang. Das eine Mal hat
man Sie gehen lassen, ein zweites Mal nicht. Hofoper ist eine
Lebensversicherung! Der Tod für den Künstler. Dazu sind Sie zu
jung. Ein Name muß rollen. Rauf und runter. Muß Spektakel
machen, anwachsen, groß werden von allem, was er angesammelt
hat, was an ihm hängen geblieben ist! Sie sagen Bayreuth. Kapelle
besauft sich vor Entzücken. Aber ich sage: Bayreuth ist wie ein
Orden. Ich biete Ihnen mehr! Ich biete Ihnen Gold. Millionen.
Weltruf.“
Karla saß vor ihm in einem einfachen hellgrauen Kleid und hatte
die Hände über dem Knie verschlungen. Sie hielt ihre sprechenden
braunen Augen unter den kaum angedeuteten, hochgezogenen
Brauen beharrlich gesenkt. Nur ihre Wangen brannten und verrieten
ihre innere Bewegung.
Sie dachte an Schmerzchen. Dachte daran, daß es ihre Pflicht
war, für sie zu sorgen. „Ihr Kind soll das meine sein“, hatte Gaudlitz
gesagt .... Wenn aber Altmann die Sorge des fremden Mannes um
das Kind, das ja auch das seine war, zurückwies? Welchen Leiden
ging sie entgegen, wenn ihr Schmerzchen, ihr erstes, angebetetes
Kind, in kümmerlichen Verhältnissen groß wurde, während ihre
künftigen Kinder in Reichtum aufwuchsen, auf den Höhen des
Lebens wandelten ...?
John Russel kniff seine scharfblickenden Habichtaugen
zusammen. Holla ... war da wieder ein Mann im Spiel? Wieder einer,
den er mitzerren, durchfuttern mußte? Wieder ein Sekretär,
Begleiter, Geliebter oder künftiger Gatte?
„Well, Karla König, überlegen Sie nicht lange. Freie Reise für Sie
und Zofe und — für noch eine Person, wenn Sie wollen ...“
Da mußte sie lachen.
Und das Lachen gab ihr den Selbsterhaltungstrieb zurück, das
stärkste Gefühl für ihr ureigenstes Recht als Frau. Wie kleinmütig sie
nur gewesen war. Sie schlug die Hände zusammen und lachte
wieder, hell, froh und im tiefsten Innern beglückt über ihr befreiendes
Lachen.
„Also abgemacht?“ John Russel hielt ihr die Hand hin.
Sie aber sagte, noch immer vergeblich mit dem Lachen
kämpfend: „Abgemacht ist, daß Sie jetzt bei mir speisen werden.
Sonst nichts. Nicht New York, nicht St. Petersburg — nicht einmal
Wien. Ich verlängere den Vertrag nicht und schließe keinen
anderen.“
Sie legte ihren Arm in den des zum erstenmal vor Verblüffung
sprachlosen John Russel und zog ihn mit sich fort in das kleine
Eßzimmer.
An diesem Nachmittag aber schickte auch sie ihr erstes
Lebenszeichen an Gaudlitz:
„Warten bis nach Bayreuth.“ — — —
— — — Lang und still dehnten sich die Tage in Adelens neuer,
kleiner Wohnung. Wenn sie mit Hilfe der Bedienungsfrau ihre drei
Stuben instand gesetzt, ihren Marktbesuch erledigt und das
Mittagessen gekocht hatte, setzte sie sich auf den hohen Tritt vor
dem Fenster und spähte nach ihrem Manne aus. Eines Tages ließ
sie sich sogar den unter altem Gerümpel gefundenen „Spion“ am
Fenster anbringen. Der brachte ihr die größte Zerstreuung, indem er
ihr das Bild der Straße in ihre stille Stube warf. Und auch während
ihr Mann seinen Nachmittagsschlaf hielt oder seine Privatstunden
gab, saß sie vor dem stummen Berichterstatter des Straßentreibens
und flickte und stickte. Es war ihr kaum bewußt, daß sie dasselbe
tat, was ihr einst in jungen Mädchenjahren als der Gipfel des
Stumpfsinns an ihrer Mutter erschienen war.
Es waren seltene Festblicke, wenn Vickis „Nurse“ an ihrer Tür
läutete und den eigenwilligen, stets opponierenden Robbi
hereinzerrte. Robbis Gunst war nur von Gassenjungen zu erringen.
Großmamas Kuchen und Schokolade machten ihm nicht den
mindesten Eindruck. Von dem Zeug bekam er zu Hause so viel er
wollte. Er greinte und war so lange unausstehlich, bis er wieder
draußen war.
Der Enkel war ein Ruppsack, Vicki in ihrer Fahrigkeit kaum noch
für ein ernstes Gespräch zu brauchen. Sie hatte nie Zeit. Nicht in,
nicht außer dem Hause. Kein gemütliches Fleckchen gab es bei ihr,
wo sich Adele zum Geplauder hätte niederlassen wollen, und wenn
es klingelte, zuckte Vicki zusammen — ob es am Telephon oder an
der Wohnungstür war. Es gab immer Plötzlichkeiten: Besuche, die
kamen oder gemacht werden mußten, ein Auftrag ihres Bodo, der
keinen Aufschub erduldete, ein Brief, der jetzt in dieser Stunde
aufzugeben war. Vicki war immer auf dem Sprung, immer unruhig,
zerstreut, auf Meilen entfernt mit allen Gedanken ...
Und wenn gar der Schwiegersohn nach Hause kam: „... die
Mama ist da? ... So ... ja ... ’Tag, aber ... auf mich bitte zu verzichten
... ich hab’ zu arbeiten ... ich habe Geschäftsbesuch ... ich muß
verreisen ...“ Dann klappten Türen — zwei — drei, als wollte er sich
verstecken! Vicki lief wie ein Irrwisch umher, von ihm zu ihr — von
ihr zu ihm, rote Flecke auf den Wangen ....
Adele kannte diese heißen roten Flecken! Wußte, was an Hast
und Erregung hinter ihnen steckte ... Nein — Vickis Haus war nichts
für sie. Das war ähnlich, wie wenn man zwischen zwei elektrischen
Straßenbahnen und einem Automobil eingeklemmt war und nicht
’raus wußte! Diese Aufregung genoß sie zehn Mal am Tage an
anderen — wenn sie in ihren „Spion“ blickte ... Dafür dankte sie.
Blieb Fritz.
Adele’s Augen leuchteten und feuchteten sich zugleich, wenn sie
an ihn dachte.
Alle Frauen sahen sich nach ihm um auf der Straße, so ein
hübscher, flotter Leutnant war er. Flott ... ja ... zu sehr.
Unbekümmert, liebenswürdig dreist.
„Kram’ in deinem Strumpf, alte Dame ... da findest du noch ein
paar Goldfüchse, wie?“
„Heute nehme ich meine alte Dame mit ins Schauspielhaus ...
he? Kabale und Liebe! Was zum Weinen ... entzückend!“
Er brachte ihr ein Veilchensträußchen für einen Groschen, eine
Schachtel Pralinés für fünf Mark, bestand auf einem Wagen, dem er
die „Tour“ bei ihrem Einsteigen bezahlte, und holte sich am nächsten
Morgen „was aus ihrem Strumpf“.
Sie schüttelte den Kopf, sie weinte sogar. Er aber lachte.
Lachte sorglos beruhigend.
„Meine alte Dame“ — „Mein alter Herr“ — es klang feudal. Es
brachte einen Hauch von Vornehmheit in die bürgerliche
Dreizimmerwohnung. Adele bestand darauf, daß ihr Mann den
Zylinder aufsetzte, wenn er mit seinem Sohne ausging. Und sie sah,
wie auch seine Augen aufleuchteten, wenn er den frischen blonden
Jungen mit den strammen, schlanken Gliedern vor sich stehen sah.
Selbst Vicki fand Zeit, mit dem Bruder auszugehen, wenn er aus
Küstrin über Sonntag Berliner Luft schnappen kam. Völkels waren
überhaupt „patente Menschen“, erklärte Fritz zur großen Beruhigung
der Mutter, die sich über die neue geschwisterliche
Zusammengehörigkeit freute.
Manchmal frühstückte er mit dem Schwager, beim Austermeyer.
Es waren Bodo Völkels beste Stunden, und er war dann einem
kleinen Pump sehr zugänglich. Selbst einem Pump, der nie
zurückgezahlt wurde.
Schwieriger wurde Fritz sein Verhalten zu Altmann und Luise. Er
wußte mit diesen zwei starren, ernsten Menschen, deren Leben so
streng geregelt war, nichts anzufangen.
Wenn auch Luise ihm noch manchmal mit der hageren Hand
über das blonde gescheitelte Haar strich, Altmanns Hand legte sich
nur schwer auf seine Schulter, um der Frage Nachdruck zu geben:
„Keine Dummheiten gemacht, wie? Alles in Ordnung? Ich möcht’
es mir auch ausbitten!“
Das war kein Ton, der ihm eine Beichte erleichtert hätte.
Bei Tisch saß er strammer, als wenn er der Kommandeuse seine
Aufwartung machte.
Er wußte nicht, wohin mit seinen Beinen und seinen Worten —
so ernst blickten der Onkel, die Tante und selbst das kleine Bäschen
mit den braunen Zöpfen.
Selbst nach der „Tante Karla“ wagte er kaum zu fragen, seit die
Antworten so merkwürdig einsilbig gelautet hatten und Vicki ihm
unter dem Siegel des Vertrauens einmal zugeraunt hatte:
„Weißt du ... da ist was mulmig ... Daran würde ich in der
Landgrafenstraße lieber gar nicht tippen. Bodo sagt, sie wäre jetzt
eine ganz große Nummer in Wien — da kann man sich ja denken,
nicht wahr? Mir tut nur das Kind leid. Herrgott, hat sie sich mit ihrem
‚Schmerzchen‘ gehabt! Es war wirklich nicht mehr schön — na, und
was steckt hinter allen ihren Worten? ... Gar nichts. Das ist eben so
am Theater. Mama hat schon ganz recht, wenn sie sagt, daß Onkel
Ernst im kleinen Finger wertvoller ist als sie. Ja ... er hat eben der
Bühne entsagt und sich ganz der Erziehung seines Kindes
gewidmet. Das ist doch gewiß hochachtbar ... da bin ich ganz
Mamas Meinung.“
Einmal, zwischen zwei Zigaretten, im Zimmer des Vaters, brachte
Fritz das Gespräch auf Karla — schnodderig, ein bischen überlegen.
„Amüsiert sich wohl in Wien, die gute Tante, wie? ...“
Aber er brach ab, als er sah, wie der Vater erblaßte.
„Untersteh’ Dich nicht ... hörst Du ... untersteh’ Dich nicht, in
diesem Ton von ihr zu sprechen! Noch ein Mal — und Du kriegst es
mit mir zu tun!“
Das junge Blut huschte Fritz über die Stirn. Er stand auf, zupfte
an seinem Kragen.
„Bitte gehorsamst um Verzeihung ... es lag mir fern ... es lag mir
wirklich ganz fern.“
Innerlich dachte er: Sieh Einer meinen alten Herrn an! Hätt’ ich
ihm gar nicht zugetraut! ...
Es war anerkennend; aber ihm war nicht mehr ganz behaglich in
der einfachen Studierstube, mit dem alten bequemen Sessel, den
gestrichenen Bücherregalen und der großen Nietzschebüste auf
dem Sockel hinter dem Schreibtisch.
An den Weihnachtsabend erinnerte er sich genau, da der Vater
sie zum Geschenk erhalten, und erinnerte sich auch noch, wie die
Mutter mit spitzen Fingern die Bücher hochgehoben, die der Vater
geschenkt hatte.
Donnerwetter ja ... sein alter Herr mochte wohl was übrig haben
für die hübsche, lustige Schwägerin mit der schönen Stimme ... Er
selber war ja auch verknallt in sie gewesen. Eigentlich nett von
seinem alten Herrn ... Da fiel plötzlich all der dicke, klebrige
Schulstaub ab, und es kam der Mann zum Vorschein, der Kamerad,
der Geschlechtsgenosse zum mindesten, der sich ritterlich vor der
Frau aufpflanzte, der seine Verehrung galt ...
„Ehrenwort, Papa ... war ganz harmlos, die Frage ... ganz
harmlos ...“
Alwin Maurer löschte in der Erregung seine halbgerauchte
Zigarre.
„Na ja, mein Junge ... das will ich auch annehmen. Denn Du ...
gerade Du ...“
Er dachte an das Schweigen, zu dem er sich Altmann gegenüber
verpflichtet hatte, als er Karlas Hilfe angenommen hatte, und winkte
mit der Hand ab.
„Na ja ... also ... Kein Wort weiter.“
Fritz ruhte nicht eher, als bis der Vater mit ihm ausging,
Versöhnung feiern und ein Glas leeren auf das Wohl der Tante.
„Wir zwei allein, alter Herr ... in einem gemütlichen Eckchen — is’
recht?“
Dr. Maurer sah ihn an, und ein blasses Lächeln überflog sein
graues Gesicht. Was aus dem Rüpel doch geworden war! Aus dem
„verdammten Bengel“, den er bis zu seinem vierzehnten Jahr in der
Furcht des Stockes gehalten hatte. Bis zu dem Tage, da Karla
gekommen war und von dem Apothekerssohn erzählt hatte — mit
ihrer jungen, warmen Stimme.
Diese Stimme hatte ihm den Stock aus der Hand gewunden ...
hatte vielleicht in letzter Stunde den neuen Weg gezeigt, den er als
Vater zu gehen hatte. Hatte ihn Milde, Nachsicht, Verständnis
gelehrt, hatte ihm einen Kameraden geschenkt in seinem Sohn!
„Gehen wir, Junge.“
Und heimlich, auf Zehenspitzen, damit Adele sich nicht an sie
hinge mit Fragen und Einwänden, schlichen sie ins Vorzimmer,
holten ihre Mäntel vom Riegel und zogen die Tür leise hinter sich ins
Schloß.
Eine Stunde später ging eine Karte ab nach Wien, Kärntner
Straße: „Meine liebe Karla! Sitze hier mit meinem Jungen und trinke
mit ihm auf Dein Wohl, Deinen Erfolg und Dein Glück. Alwin.“ Und
darunter in eleganter, flüchtiger Schrift: „Handkuß von Deinem
gehorsamen Neffen und Bewunderer Fritz.“
Als sie heimkehrten, Fritz bereichert um einen blauen Lappen,
Dr. Maurer in gehobener Stimmung, sagte er:
„Wollen wir doch wiederholen, die kleine Kneiperei — was, mein
Junge?“
„Selbstredend, alter Herr! Wird mir ein Hochgenuß sein ...!“
Und er trug Grüße für Mama auf und verabschiedete sich mit
herzlichem Händedruck vor dem Haustor — weil er „nach Küstrin
zurückmußte“! ...
In Wirklichkeit hatte er eine Verabredung mit Kameraden bei
Hiller. — — —
— — Zum Frühjahr ließ Alwin Maurers Gesundheitszustand
wieder viel zu wünschen übrig. Es stellten sich ernstere
Beschwerden und schließlich Anfälle von Gallenkolik ein. Der Arzt
warnte vor Aufregungen und Überarbeitung.
Adele lief jetzt wieder alle Tage zu Luise, klagte ihr Leid.
Luise erbot sich, mit dem Bruder zu sprechen. Alwin mußte
diesmal nach Karlsbad — unweigerlich! Adele nickte und trocknete
die Augen.
Gewiß. Das Geld dafür war ja auch zusammen. Aber die Ferien
mußten abgewartet werden. Und bis dahin ...
Wieder fing sie an zu weinen.
Luise legte ihre hageren Arme um die vollen Schultern der
Schwester.
„Na, was ist denn noch?“
Adele wickelte ihr feuchtes Taschentuch um die Hand. Leicht
gesagt, keine Aufregungen! Fritz dachte nicht daran, sie ihnen zu
ersparen! Er „aaste“ mit dem Gelde! Alle paar Wochen kam er mit
einem Schuldenzettel an. Sie hatte zusammengerechnet:
sechshundert Mark waren in den letzten acht Wochen
zusammengekommen.
Luise schlug entsetzt die Hände zusammen:
„Was habt ihr denn gemacht?“
„Gezahlt natürlich. Erst hat Alwin gelacht. Ich sollte dem Jungen
sein bißchen Leben nicht vergällen mit meinen Predigten! Dann ging
er wieder mal ein Glas Wein trinken mit ihm, um ihm den Kopf
zurechtzusetzen — aber zum Schluß war er nur wieder einen
Hunderter los oder sechzig, siebzig Mark ... Und das reißt nicht ab ...
Wenn er sich anmeldet, dann schlägt mir immer das Herz bis hier
oben herauf ...“
Adele schluchzte auf, empfand plötzlich die Tragik ihres Lebens.
Alles war falsch gewesen. Alles, was sie je getan, geraten, gefordert,
erbettelt! Nun stand sie da, verängstigt von der Erfolglosigkeit ihres
Tuns, verprügelt vom Leben, wollte schützen, wollte retten. Konnte
nicht das eine — nicht das andere.
Blieb wieder nur der Bruder.
Doch er war härter geworden in diesen letzten Jahren,
verschlossener als früher.
Luise hatte einmal gesagt:
„Weißt du, Adele, manchmal kommt es mir vor, als gäbe er uns
schuld an Karlas unverantwortlichem Benehmen!“
Und Adele hatte verständnislos ihre Augen aufgerissen:
„Uns?! Ja ... was können denn wir dafür? Wir, die wir uns immer
nur für sie aufgeopfert haben?“
Mit Mühe hatte Luise sie davon abgehalten, eine
Auseinandersetzung zwischen dem Bruder und ihnen beiden
herbeizuführen.
„Tu das nicht ... glaube mir ... Er ist wie eine allzu straff
gespannte Saite. Empfindlich war er immer — jetzt aber verträgt er
kaum eine leise Berührung! Man muß ihn schonen.“
Und auch jetzt sagte Luise:
„Man muß ihn schonen. Wenn er erfährt, daß Fritz ...“
Sie hatte lauter gesprochen, als sie beabsichtigt, und sie beide
hatten es nicht gemerkt, daß er ins Eßzimmer gekommen war.
„Ist schon wieder was mit dem Jungen los?“
Die Schwestern schraken zusammen. Adele wollte alles
vertuschen, abstreiten. Altmann aber runzelte die Stirn.
„Ich verbitte mir die Geheimniskrämerei. Ich muß wissen. Wenn
wir nicht im Einverständnis handeln, dann ist alles zwecklos. Ihr habt
keine Ahnung, wie man mit solchem Burschen umgeht! Alwins Art ist
ein Verderb für den Jungen! Nicht einen Pfennig darf er über seinen
Zuschuß hinaus kriegen, nicht einen halben Pfennig! Er muß es
lernen, auszukommen, muß es lernen, sich etwas zu versagen!“
Er schlug gegen seine Gewohnheit heftig auf den Tisch.
Fühlte denn Adele nicht, daß es noch immer Karlas Geld war,
das der Junge bekam? Fühlte sie nicht, daß es vielleicht eine Zeit
geben würde, da er keinen Pfennig mehr von Karla würde
annehmen dürfen, für sich oder einen der Seinen —?
„Kann ich Isoldchen noch sehen?“, fragte Adele im Aufstehen.
Altmann machte die Korridortür auf. Er rief:
„Schmerzchen! ... Tante Adele ist da!“
Die Schwestern tauschten einen Blick. Luise nickte dabei: Ja ...
ja ... so nannte er das Kind jetzt oft ...
Adele seufzte auf.
Schmerzchen kam herein; nicht sehr eilig. Ein weißes
Schürzchen mit gestickter Krause deckte fast vollständig das
dunkelblaue, an den Ellbogen geflickte Kleidchen. Ihr Haar war in
zwei ordentliche Zöpfe geflochten, die eine schwarze Schleife
zusammenhielt. Ihr Gesichtchen war länglich und zart, die Brauen
gerade und dunkel. Kurze, dichte Wimpern umschatteten die großen
braunen Augen, die rund waren, wie die ihrer Mutter. Sie knixte,
sagte guten Abend. Ihr Lächeln hatte einen wehmütigen Zug. Ihre
Augen blickten meist vorbei an dem, der mit ihr sprach — blickten
geradeaus durchs Fenster oder zur Tür, als müßte in der Luft
draußen etwas Ersehntes vorüberschweben oder zur Tür irgendwas
Erwartetes eintreten.
Das war ihr nicht abzugewöhnen. Es lag darin eine große, fast
unheimliche Gleichgültigkeit für ihre Umgebung. Nur ihrem Papa und
Pauline, die sie ganz selten einmal besuchte oder zum Großpapa
abholte, sah sie lange und mit heiterer oder ernster Aufmerksamkeit
ins Gesicht. Und auf dem Grunde ihres Ernstes, ihrer Heiterkeit lag
es immer wie eine stumme Frage.
Denn die Erwachsenen hatten ihr verboten, zu fragen — so oft zu
fragen, wann die Mama käme. „Im Sommer“, sagte Papa
ausweichend.
Schmerzchen bekam wunderschöne Ansichtskarten von der
Mama, mit so vielen, vielen Küssen darauf, daß sie sie gar nicht
zählen konnte. Schmerzchen las Mamas Schrift wie Gedrucktes und
war sehr stolz darauf. Mama schrieb so zärtlich, hatte so viele, gute,
schöne Wörtchen für sie. Die Mamas der anderen Kinder hatte sie
nie so zärtliche Worte sagen hören!
Ja ... aber die anderen Mamas blieben bei ihren Kindern, gingen
nie fort von ihnen ... nie. Sie hatte es manchmal aufgeschnappt,
wenn Damen unter sich sprachen: „Ich könnte mich von meinem
Kinde nicht trennen —“, „Ohne mein Kind — nein, dazu habe ich es
viel zu lieb“. Das gab Schmerzchen jedesmal einen bösen, heftigen
Stich.
Seit nun aber der Papa gesagt hatte: „Im Sommer“, hatten
Schmerzchens Zukunftsvorstellungen einen gewissen Umriß
erhalten. Sie würde weiße Kleider tragen und mit Mama spazieren
gehen wie andere Kinder. Mama würde sie von der Schule abholen,
und sie würde sagen: „Ich habe keine Zeit, mich mit euch
herumzubalgen, meine Mama wartet unten.“ Ganz laut würde sie
sagen „meine Mama“, daß die ganze Klasse es hörte! Und auf der
Straße würde sie sich von ihrer Mama küssen lassen ... da konnten
die anderen sehen, wie die Mama sie lieb hatte.
Die Aprilsonne brannte bereits durch die Fensterscheiben. Aber
wen sie auch fragte — noch war es nicht Sommer. — — —
Das Fenster stand weit auf, und die warme Abendluft kroch über
die Weinranken und Geranientöpfe der kleinen Loggia in Adelens
Eß- und Wohnstube. Auf dem Tisch lag die Wäsche ihres Mannes.
Auf den Stuhllehnen hingen die Röcke, auf dem Boden standen
Stiefel, braune Schuhe, Pantoffeln. Adele zählte alles durch, trug es
auf zwei weiße Blätter ein, unter die Überschrift: „Verzeichnis“. Sie
holte noch eine Flasche Kölner Wasser, drei Seifenstücke und eine
Schachtel Zahnpulver aus dem Schlafzimmer. Dann stand sie noch
einmal auf und holte den Schwamm, den Waschhandschuh. Zu
dumm, wie ihr Gedächtnis nachgelassen hatte. Bald hatte sie dies,
bald das vergessen und jenes übersehen. Seit Wochen hatte sie
nichts getan, als geplättet, geflickt, geputzt, gekauft. Sie war wie
zerschlagen! Der Mann verreiste auf kaum einen Monat, und es
machte ihr fast ebensoviel zu schaffen, wie Vickis Hochzeit. Wie
hatten doch ihre Kräfte nachgelassen in den paar Jahren! Im Grunde
war sie es zufrieden, daß sie allein blieb. Ganz allein. Daß sie nur
sich selbst leben konnte, nicht kochen, nicht räumen brauchte.
Ausruhen durfte. Endlich mal ausruhen! Auch die Bedienungsfrau
durfte ihr nicht ins Haus.
Alwin Maurer kam herein, blinzelte mit den Augen im grellen
Weißlicht der Gaskrone. Er fuhr streichelnd mit der Hand über
Adelens Rücken.
„So viele Mühe machst du dir ...“
„Ach was ... komme du nur gesund zurück. Ja und dann bitte ich
dich Alwin ... gib Acht auf deine Sachen. Sieh mal her ...“
Dr. Maurer nickte zerstreut.
„Ja ... ja, gewiß ... danke schön .. Sag’ mal, hat Fritz nichts
geschrieben? Noch immer nicht?“
Sie neigte den Kopf tiefer, drückte das Kinn an die Brust. Daß ihr
Mann gerade jetzt ...
Alwin Maurer baute die Seifenstücke aufeinander. Tiefe Schatten
lagen um seine Augen. Die heftigen Schmerzen, die er in der letzten
Zeit ertragen mußte, hatten eine scharfe Leidenslinie um seinen
Mund eingegraben, die der kurze, rötliche, grauuntermischte Bart
kaum verdeckte.
„Der Junge gefällt mir nicht ... schon eine ganze Weile nicht. Paß
auf.“
„Ich soll aufpassen ... ich! Ich kann mich nicht zwischen ihn und
meinen Bruder stellen. Das weißt du. Du kennst Ernst genau so gut
wie ich. Früher war er anders, aber jetzt ... Er hat Worte, die wie
scharfe Messer sind. Wenn er so mit Fritz gesprochen hat ... Fritz ist
kein kleiner Junge mehr ... Fritz ist Offizier. Er selbst hat es ihn ja
werden lassen. Er konnte sich denken, daß ein Leutnant anders
auftreten muß als ein kleiner Schauspieler, ein Lehrer.“
Zum ersten Male in ihrem ganzen Leben gab Adele den
heißgeliebten Bruder der Kritik ihres Mannes preis. Zum ersten Male
klagte sie ihn an, verurteilte ihn.
Jetzt wußte sie erst, wie er war, wie er sein konnte. Jetzt
klammerte sie sich an ihren Mann, erwartete von ihm Trost,
Beruhigung, Abhilfe.
„Du mußt noch vor deiner Reise mit Ernst sprechen. Mußt ihm
sagen ...“
Aber Alwin Maurer schüttelte den Kopf, und sein Gesicht wurde
noch grauer.
„Wir haben freiwillig auf unser Elternrecht verzichtet, Adele, an
dem Tage, da wir das Anerbieten deines Bruders annahmen. Unsere
S o r g e um unsere Kinder gibt uns ein Recht auf sie — nicht der
Umstand, daß wir sie in die Welt gesetzt haben.“
Adele führte die grobe, dunkle Schürze an die Augen.
„Darum ist er aber doch immer unser Kind ...“
„Ja ... wie Vicki unser Kind ist, seitdem ihr Mann für sie sorgt.
Genau so. — Zum Packen ist auch noch morgen Zeit. Komm, Adele,
laß uns einen Abschiedsschoppen irgendwo trinken.“
„Ach ja, Alwin ... das wollen wir.“
Sie kleidete sich um, tupfte ein Stückchen Watte in Reismehl und
suchte so die Spuren ihrer Tränen und die heißen Flecken auf den
Wangen zu verwischen.
„So, Alwin ... nun wollen wir vergnügt sein.“
Denn es blieb ja doch das Beste in ihrer langen Ehe, diese
Ausgänge zu zweien, an Sommerabenden, wenn der Flieder blühte
oder die Linden ihren starken Duft ausströmten und sie in der
verschwiegenen Stille eines entlegenen Gartenlokals, beim
flackernden Schein einer einsamen Laterne einander zutranken, und
wenn sie sich zurückversetzte in jene längst vergangene Zeit, da
solche Abende, durchduftet von Sommer und Hoffen, zu den
schönsten Augenblicken ihrer einst so schwer erkämpften Brautzeit
gehörten. — — —
Die Familie brachte Alwin Maurer zur Bahn, wie einst Karla.
Sogar Vicki erschien mit einem Körbchen, das sie sich mit hastig
zusammengekaufter Backware hatte füllen lassen.
Schmerzchen blickte mit gespanntem Ausdruck auf Onkel Alwin.
„Fährst du nach Wien, Onkel?“ fragte sie.
Alwin Maurer beugte sich über ihr zartes, ernstes Gesicht. Er
wurde ganz rot dabei. „Vielleicht“, flüsterte er ihr ins Ohr. „Aber das
wissen nur du und ich!“
„Ja“, nickte Schmerzchen.
Und nun wurde auch sie rot. Denn es war ein wichtiges
Geheimnis, das der Onkel ihr anvertraut hatte, und ihr kleines Herz
schlug ganz schrecklich schnell vor Freude darüber.
Alwin Maurer drückte noch ein letztes Mal die ausgestreckten
Hände.
„Fritz ist richtig nicht gekommen!“ sagte er.
Altmann überhörte es. Alwin war unverzeihlich in seiner
Schwäche. Es war nur gut, daß er dem Jungen letzthin mal eine
ordentliche Standpauke über seinen „katastrophalen“ Leichtsinn
gehalten hatte. Wenn er noch ein einziges Mal Dummheiten machte,
dann würde die Zulage auf die Hälfte herabgesetzt! Dann sollte er
sehen, wie er fertig wurde. Natürlich — jetzt maulte er. Spielte den
Beleidigten!
„Mach’ dir keine Sorgen, Alwin ... denk’ an dich und nur an dich.
Hast dir’s verdient!“
Altmann schüttelte ihm kräftig die Hand. Ging noch eine Strecke
mit dem langsam abfahrenden Zuge.
„Du ... s i e wird wohl jetzt in Bayreuth sein ... Vielleicht ..“
Das „Vielleicht“ war das letzte, was Alwin Maurer noch hörte. Und
er sah die Frauen mit ihren wehenden Tüchern nicht mehr.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!
textbookfull.com

Instant Download Netflix and the Re-invention of Television Mareike Jenner PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download Netflix and the Re-invention of Television Mareike Jenner PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download Netflix and the Re-invention of Television Mareike Jenner PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the Full Version of textbook for Fast Typing at textbookfull.

Netflix and the Re-invention of Television Mareike

Download More textbook Instantly Today - Get Yours Now at textbookfull.com

Netflix At The Nexus Content Practice And Production In

Re-Constructing the Man of Steel: Superman 1938–1941,

Chemical Warfare Toxicology Volume 2 Jenner

The Business of Television Ken Basin

International communities of invention and innovation

1517 : Martin Luther and the invention of the reformation

The Ethics of Invention Technology and the Human Future

The Medieval Invention of Travel Shayne Aaron Legassie

Netflix & the

Netflix and the

ISBN 978-3-319-94315-2 ISBN 978-3-319-94316-9 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946158

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover image: Jane_Kelly/Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer

1 Introduction: Netflix and the Re-invention of Television 1

Part I Controlling Television: TV’s Ancillary Technologies

2 Introduction: Control, Power, Television 35

3 Managing Choice, Negotiating Power: Remote Controls 47

4 New Regimes of Control: Television as Convergence

5 Digital Television and Control 89

Part II Binge-Watching and the Re-invention of Control

6 Introduction: Binge-Watching Netflix 109

7 Scheduling the Binge 119

8 ‘Quality’, ‘Popular’ and the Netflix Brand:

9 Netflix Marketing: The Binge and Diversity 161

Part III Netflix and the Re-invention of Transnational

10 Introduction: Netflix as Transnational Broadcaster 185

11 The Transnational, the National and Television 199

12 The Transnational and Domestication: Netflix Texts 219

13 The Netflix Audience 241

Introduction: Netflix and the Re-invention

© The Author(s) 2018 1

Interestingly, intermedia rights were the key point of disagreement

Though this kind of conflict is not unprecedented, it suggests how

with different emphases in varying national media systems. The US tel-

a sophisticated algorithm to nudge viewers towards specific choices; and

Netflix and the Re-invention of Television

Season 4 of Arrested Development, which had been shown on broadcast

It is not Netflix bringing digital to television, but, quite obviously, Netflix

Wolff’s argument is that digital media is adopting the business model

The introduction of new media […] is never entirely revolutionary: new

Habit frames change as persistence, as it habituates: it is a reaction to

It may be a technology’s ability to connect directly to our existing media

From this perspective, a medium is understood relationally, according to

media within a wider ecology of technologies, representations, and mean-

Newman identifies shifts in the technologies and cultural uses of the

We use the word ‘original’ to indicate the territory, where it originates.

of television is a reconception of the medium, a point in time when the

Pearson argues herself that these ‘periodisations’ simplify complex dis-

I to TV II can be linked to the development of technologies like the

In the first phase, the era of broadcasting’s development and penetration

This can easily be applied to other technologies, such as television,

contemporary shifts as TV IV. The category of TV III, with an emphasis

Williams views television as a powerful ‘alternative’ to both, radio and

…constructed across a range of oppositions which condense colonial his-

Part III Netflix and the Re-invention of Transnational

Netflix and the Re-invention of Television

The Structure of This Book