Chris Higgins
Evidence: Shots of Kids Watching TV
by Chris Higgins - May 7, 2010 - 4:30 PM

Evidence is a short film by Godfrey Reggio, director of Koyaanisqatsi, showing kids watching TV, from the perspective of the TV. It’s mesmerizing and shocking — the looks on the kids’ faces are peaceful…but creepily vacant. Reggio’s website says:

Evidence looks into the eyes of children watching television – in this case Walt Disney’s “Dumbo”. Though engaged in a daily routine, they appear drugged, retarded, like the patients of a mental hospital. Evidence is about the behavior of children watching television – an activity whose physiological aspects have been overlooked in the current controversy surrounding television.

Check it out:

What did your face look like as you watched this?

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (30)

  1. As opposed to the way your face looks when you read a work of classic literature, which is… the same (except that instead of darting around, your eyes move in a particular direction: right, right, right, left and down, right, right, right, left and down, right, right, right, … Almost sounds sort of OCD, doesn’t it…)

    posted by Greg on 5-7-2010 at 5:37 pm

  2. my son is far from vacant when he watches anything on TV. He is always asking “whats that” and commenting on what the characters just did. Then again most studies are a child by child basis

    posted by Jeremiah on 5-7-2010 at 5:39 pm

  3. I can understand what they’re going for here, but I can attest to my just-over-2-year old daughter learning quite a bit of valuable information from watching TV.

    She can name just about every character on Sesame Street, she knows every member of the Yo Gabba Gabba! gang, can count to 10 without any help from us, knows about half her ABCs, has a good grasp on basic colors and shapes, and is putting together sentences pretty well. She also knows how to turn on, unlock, and navigate our iPhone and iPod Touch to play kids’ games like Tozzle, Preschool Monkey Lunchbox, Peekaboo Barn, and Peekaboo Safari (something I know plenty of adults can barely manage).

    She also loves flipping through books and magazines, pointing at doggies, kitties, trucks, airplanes, and trees.

    She does all of this with the same vacant face of concentration and focus in her big brown eyes. Maybe we just need to be more concerned with WHAT we’re showing our kids, instead of HOW.

    posted by SpaceMonkeyX on 5-7-2010 at 6:16 pm

  4. My roommate looks exactly like that when she’s intent on practicing her music for piano or percussion. Heck, I looked the same way when I was younger when I was in band and orchestra and trying to learn the music. My family has photos to prove it.

    I get what they were going for, but I don’t really think it worked.

    posted by Kat on 5-7-2010 at 6:53 pm

  5. Looks like kids in a classroom

    posted by jean on 5-7-2010 at 7:34 pm

  6. “…drugged, retarded, like the patients in a mental hospital.”

    I wonder how many complaints Reggio’s website has gotten for that statement. It’s kind of insensitive on so many levels.

    posted by Meg on 5-7-2010 at 7:35 pm

  7. Right, I was thinking that this is exactly what kids look like in a math class. We all look like that when we are taking in information. The brain is being used and the rest of the body doesn’t have to be used when we are learning information from teacher, a classroom film or television. So, “evidence” of what, that you can pair creepy music with kids and come up with a false conclusion?

    posted by Baklava on 5-7-2010 at 7:50 pm

  8. While it may look like a drugged stupor, it’s called ‘concentration’. I’ve seen the same look on fully-grown people when they are fixated on one specific item or task.

    The only problem is that the kids are concentrating on images that someone else (in this case, the movie maker) has *TOLD* them to concentrate on, instead of perhaps reading a story (or having it read to them) and letting their imagination create the pictures. But that means that the kids have to either be
    • more literate (or)
    • the parents need to take time to spend it with the kids
    …and while there are some exceptions, I don’t see either of these things happening anytime soon.
    -”BB”-

    posted by Bicycle Bill on 5-7-2010 at 7:53 pm

  9. I agree with Meg. They need to reword it better

    posted by GH on 5-7-2010 at 7:58 pm

  10. They would look the same if they were watching a play or an opera or if they were in school (well maybe they’d fall asleep in school).

    This is what people look like when they are fascinated or passively entertained by something. Adding spooky music and editing to it is just propaganda.

    posted by Steve on 5-7-2010 at 8:08 pm

  11. I completely agree with everyone who has said that this is a look of concentration or absorption…my husband *often* comments that I look exactly like this…when I am *reading*. And my children…the same! But, like spacemonkey x, when they do watch TV, my children are more likely to ask why something happened, what/who something/someone is or dancing and singing to the music. Damn “Clifford’s Puppy Days” and it’s catchy tune!

    posted by Sadie on 5-7-2010 at 9:40 pm

  12. I had a man-this-is-an-annoying-video face.

    posted by Ashley on 5-7-2010 at 10:15 pm

  13. I agree with most of the stuff posted on the comments. I have yet to see that many children in a group watching anything and not saying anything or interacting with each other over what they just saw.

    And if anyone can tell me how you get this many kids together and not get them to interact with each other or with whatever they are watching/paying attention to, please let me know. I’ll use it at my next story time!

    posted by Diane on 5-7-2010 at 10:29 pm

  14. I’m sure if Reggio were to film children reading a book from the book’s perspective, we would see the same kinds of faces.

    He needs to chill out; this isn’t Paranormal Activity or anything.

    posted by Jen on 5-8-2010 at 1:02 am

  15. I suppose what this is trying to talk about is the mindless, vacant act of ‘watching TV’.

    If my children aren’t actively watching a show, I turn the TV off.

    That said, the TV is hardly on in our house anyway.

    posted by bakedpotatoes on 5-8-2010 at 1:09 am

  16. I don’t know why people like to pick on television so much. A significant portion of my vocabulary and other assorted bits of knowledge floating around in my brain were picked up from TV. There’s nothing inherently wrong with watching TV (just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with reading, or playing on the swings, or chasing your brother around the backyard).
    It’s all about appropriateness – appropriate content and time. I have a sneaking suspicion so many people are out to get TV (and video games, comics, etc.) because they’re just looking to assign blame for BAD PARENTING.
    No one wants to own up to the fact that they can’t be bothered to figure out other activities for their kids, or to teach their kids to watch TV constructively. It’s so much easier to point to TV, or video games, or rap music or whatever.

    posted by Anna on 5-8-2010 at 5:19 am

  17. The description of this film is pretty overblown. Either its intentionally misleading or the filmmaker knows nothing about children. I don’t see kids who looked “drugged” or “retarded”, they looked transfixed, like they were concentrating. I found the images endearing, I could imagine the gears in thiwer little brains whirrling around. Maybe Reggio believes this reaction never existed before the introduction of the idiot box into children’s lives, but I think the children of our forebearers held the same expression when being told a story or a sermon. Even further back, the children of our ancestors were probably as transfixed by lightening, or by a fire. (Next time you go camping, take a look at your companions expression as you sit around the campfire, it gets the algorhythms going)
    By the way, the kids in this film are Italian and I assume they watch a lot less TV than our kids, so maybe that’s why they are so “hypnotized”

    posted by tony-k on 5-8-2010 at 3:35 pm

  18. I like that most of the children’s mouths were agape…Then I realized that’s what I look like when I am watching TV…

    posted by Addie on 5-8-2010 at 5:01 pm

  19. First off, a couple of the kids looked kind of confused. I have to wonder if they were watching the pink elephant part of the movie… :)
    Second, I don’t have this problem with my son… he is just like me in the fact that he would rather be doing something else while watching TV, IE playing with Star Wars action figures or playing on the web… I’d love to have him sit and do one thing at a time..

    posted by Laurel on 5-9-2010 at 9:36 am

  20. The only thing that makes this film creepy is the riduculous music.

    posted by Tammy on 5-9-2010 at 10:03 am

  21. they should film people watching foxnews…

    posted by Barrett on 5-9-2010 at 1:59 pm

  22. Watching Dumbo? From the looks on some of the kids faces, I’d say they’re watching the part where Dumbo is taken forcibly from his mother – hence the quiet, subdued concentration. The little blond girl at the end even has tears in her eyes. If you look, you’ll see more than one of the children watching with their head turned slightly away, as if they don’t want to see what’s on the screen.

    posted by Kelly on 5-9-2010 at 8:05 pm

  23. 1. It’s a bit of a stretch to say that these kids a concentrate ting. Kids that are concentrating would furrow his brow and be fidgeting a bit. The kids are definitely transfixed.

    1.5. My (American) sisters looked more bored and less transfixed when they watch television.

    2. The filmmaker’s point is not that TV is bad, but that it is completely absorbing. These kids are totally oblivious to anything other than the trickster in front of them.

    3. This is bad because the general quality of most TV programming is extremely poor and you can learn a lot more from a half hour with a book then with a half hour with a TV.

    4. In conclusion the transfixing, hypnotizing nature of TV is just another negative factor of among the many other reasons why you shouldn’t watch it. (There’s nothing good on it, it’s addicting, you have better things to be doing, ads just make you want to buy more stuff, etc. etc.)

    PS. How hard is it to turn off the TV, get off the couch and go to bed when you really should have gone to bed 20 minutes ago? That’s another example of the hypnotizing, addictive power of TV.

    posted by Alexander Kucy on 5-10-2010 at 3:36 am

  24. omg, i wanna watch dumbo now. these kids love it!

    posted by sheryl on 5-10-2010 at 6:02 am

  25. I wonder how they found kids watching tv so peacefully. Most of the kids I’ve interacted with don’t have the attention span to be that enthralled with television for more than a minute or two. They’re usually only half watching and half doing something else.

    I wonder if the kids in the video are typical American children that have television in their homes and are allowed to watch it regularly. I would expect that kind of fascination more from kids that don’t watch television regularly, like maybe foreign or Amish children who seldom or never watch tv at all and haven’t seen the movie before.

    posted by Melissa on 5-10-2010 at 12:54 pm

  26. This is probably that same guy that doesn’t own a TV

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/

    Retarded indeed.

    posted by Area Man on 5-10-2010 at 1:47 pm

  27. I’m trying to cut back on the number of times per day that I say I don’t own a TV. :-)

    But if someone asks “did you watch blah-blah-blah” then what else can I say?

    posted by Mark on 5-12-2010 at 10:45 am

  28. TV isn’t inherently bad for you; it depends on what you are watching on the tv. Granted, I am a geek who would rather watch Iron Chef or Modern Marvels rather than, say, Simpsons or Family Guy.

    posted by RoseyPosey on 5-14-2010 at 4:04 pm

  29. Interesting argument Alexander, but opinions aren’t facts. Since you stated those all mostly as facts though, I’ll take it as if you were personally talking to me, about me.

    1. I will admit that concentrating is probably a bad comparison.. the children are, indeed, transfixed.. but what does that have to do with the TV itself? Is it wrong because they find the entertainment source enjoyable and therefore don’t take their attention away from it? If they were this ‘transfixed’ by a play.. the radio.. a story being read.. someone painting… would it be getting such negative attention?

    2. People get completely lost in things they are enjoying. There have been times when I was reading and couldn’t have told you a thing that was going on around me. This also happens to me sometimes when I’m listening to music.. or drawing.. or writing.. (complete lack of furrowed brow and fidgeting too) don’t even get me started on daydreaming… am I just special that I get that lost in what I am doing? Maybe I should message the filmmaker and suggest he record children doing these activies.. set it to ‘creepy’ music and see what we get.

    3. Perhaps it is my personal opinion, but I don’t consider ‘Dumbo’ poor quality TV programming. I suppose some might though, and I’m not sure whose, if anyone’s, problem that is then. If they were this enthralled watching some ‘Reality TV’ game show then maybe there should be some concern. That would really boil back down to the parenting argument though, wouldn’t it. It’s not the TV’s fault as to what is on it after all. As for the ‘learn more from a book’.. I suppose that depends what you’re watching and what you’re reading.

    4. You’re right.. transfixing, hypnotizing things are bad, and I will stop doing anything that causes such symptoms in me. I will stop listening to music, stop drawing, and after this post I shall stop reading and writing, I’ll even see what I can do about day dreaming. (Apparently I don’t like Mythbusters, Forensic Files, Dirty Jobs, or anything like that since you say ‘nothing good’ is on it; I never knew that my few hours a month of TV watching was signs of additions.. thank you for warning me; I do have better things to do? Is there a chance I have already done those things?; I would like to think that I have a little more self control than to buy something just because it was advertised on the TV; etc. etc.)

    P.S. Usually it’s the educational programming that keeps me watching ‘one more show’ when I should have gone to bed.. if I’m watching TV at all.

    Though none of this really applies to me in the first place… I’m an internet junkie.

    posted by Tendency to Ramble on 5-14-2010 at 7:22 pm

  30. Tendency to ramble…no sh!t.

    posted by tony-k on 6-5-2010 at 4:44 pm

Comment

commenting policy