TV Slut Report...

[shadowkat]

Still gloomy, although got a shot of sunshine through the clouds which cheered me. Such a sunshine whore.

Also apparently a Television Whore. Been reading a fascinating article in the Sept/Oct 2006 issue of Film Comment published by the Film Society of Lincoln Center. The article is written by Paul Schrader and is entitled Cannon Fodder: as the sun finally sets on the century of cinema, by what criteria do we determine its masterworks?. Schrader is a film critic, film producer, and screenwriter of such works as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, American Giglio, Bringing out the Dead and The Last Temptation of Christ. Anyhow he says a couple of interesting things in the preface, haven't read the whole thing yet, first is defining canon- "What is a canon? It is, by definition, based on criteria that transcend taste, personal and popular." To figure it out, he goes back to school and takes courses on the history of Aesthetics and the history of film Aesthetics - because to develop a canon, one must study the history of the thing. The reason he even considers trying it or the model that motivated him is Harold Bloom's 1994 bestseller The Western Canon of literature. And states how unlike the literary canon, film has another hurdle, "Film is not literature, of course, and the issues involved, though similar, are not the same. The greatest difference is there is still a debate about whether motion pictures are art at all."

Well, if people feel that way about film? All the more so about TV. You don't see anyone even contemplating a Television Canon of Great Works. Would seem silly. And people love nothing better than to pick at TV. Yet, I think as a method of personal expression, Television may be overtaking film and to an extent written words - partly due to the internet. The two appear to be almost married at the moment - TV shows popping up on the net, websodes possible to play on the TV screen, YouTube, people downloading screenshots from tv shows, fanfic based on tv shows and of course, itunes and ipod downloads. People can watch films on their tv sets. Order books via the internet and download text. And...here's the thing about TV that neither books nor movies provide - interaction. People can interact with the tv show right now via the internet, a cell-phone or a remote control. They can plan when to watch what they want, get rid of commericials, vote off characters, provide feedback to tv show-runners, chat with authors of the shows online, analyze/discuss each episode right after it airs, and create by-products such as "icons".

I state all this as more or less a prelude, not quite a defense of my own tv sluttage. That and I've been enjoying tv lately more than the movies and books I've been reading or watching. Makes entertaining background noise. Plus, stress gives me a short attention span, don't know why. (those last three words were rhetorical and sarcastic by the way, stress also apparently brings out the sarcasm in me, while depression brings out the poetry. Quite odd.).

So what the heck am I watching? Ah...


1. Sunday: usually watch Desperate Housewives and Brothers & Sisters, but this Sunday opted for Helen Mirren's last appearance as Jane Tennyson on Prime Suspect - entitled Prime Suspect:Final Curtain. Wasn't quite as good as her earlier ones, but did remain focused on the character. And it had the satisfying reappearance of Sgt. Bill Ottly, who had once been Jane's nemesis, and now had become a trusted friend. (I have an idea what was happening on DH, b/c flipped back and forth.)

2. Monday: How I Met Your Mother - I can't identify with any of the situations on this series so find it sort of alienating and annoying. Except for two characters: Robin and Barney. Ted is dull but occassionally has a decent line. Robin's shirt had me smiling and Barney's absurd gambling. But if Marshall and Lily fell overboard and drowned I would not mourn their demise. And considering I was watching it solely for Lily and Barney for a while, this is an interesting twist. I honestly think she's fine as long as she is NOT with Marshall. In fact both Marshall and Lily work better when they AREN'T together. Together they are more annoying than Rachel and Ross, and I didn't think that was possible. The Class on the other hand is starting to intrigue me. It's an innovative and unlike Mother, realistic and non-cliche ridden situation comedy about twenty -thirty-somethings. I've met people like this. And it had me smiling. Also it has a nice mix of female and male characters, who aren't "pretty" or with perfect jobs and apartments. I may start skipping Mother and just watch The Class.

Heroes - was better this week. It really is all about the writing sometimes. I think I've figured it out now, but am not positive. This is a weird show - it plays with my desire to speculate in the same way Buffy, Angel and Twin Peaks did. Which is dicey, when I like my speculation better than what actually happens on screen. So this is me resisting the urge to speculate and figure things out before they appear on screen. That said, Heroes has a few issues - it is set up like a serial (cough*soapopera*cough) - which means it has boring subplots that get in the way of action I'm interested in. Yes, I know all the subplots are connected, but some of the subplots are...well skippable. In fact I envy people with VCR's and DVR's who can fast-forward. Then again, multiple subplots is an old soap trick to attract huge audience, you figure people will find some storyline they are fascinated by. If you don't, for instance, like Hiro, you'll be into the cop and his wife, or maybe the cheerleader? I don't mind this in theory or practice really, just it can occassionally make me want to throw things in frustration at the tv or pick up a magazine to amuse myself.

Studio 60 - not as good as last week's. But still some excellent one-liners. And coming from the Midwest and having lived in small towns similar to Pahrump, not to mention dealing with cops and judges similar to one's portrayed, I got off on the mockery - I won't bore you with why. Also I adore Jordan McDeere - who appears to have my sense of humor and the same difficulties I have with it. My favorite characters hands down are McDeere and Jack Rudolph. I'm also enjoying Harriet, but that's largely due to Sarah Paulson's performance. Sorkin is still doing too many monologues and too many sappy speechs. Also I'm sick of TV shows pulling out the Iraqui/Afghanistan solider or 9/11 experience to explain a character's actions. It feels trite when they do it and unnecessary. It's fine if one does it. But I've seen it on five shows now. There other tid-bits that bugged as well, but won't bore with them. I have a love/hate relationship with 60. I adore the characters, like the snappy writing, and it does make me laugh at times - but ...well parts of it do grate. In short, I adore the smart-ass, but could use less of the condenscending moralizing.

Tonight - I'm considering trying Friday Night Light's again, even though it is incredibly soapy and somewhat cliche "my best friend is sleeping with my girl-friend while I'm a crippled ex-quarterback confined to a wheelchair" - gee that's a new idea. Sigh. On the fence about this baby, have seen this storyline one too many times - and know all the endings by heart. Also Veronica Mars - still watching over House, with the view that I can always catch up with House. I like the characters on VM so stick with it regardless of the sluggish stories. And Nip/Tuck - which is jumping ahead 20 years during the episode, so I'm sort of looking forward to this one - want to see how incredibly screwed up these kids turn out, not to mention their narcissitic parents.

Wed - with Lost's hiatius, there isn't much to watch. Spoilers on LOST....

Yes, I'm still watching Lost even though half my flist and a good portion of the Nielsen viewing audience abandoned it after Ecko's death. By the by- that wasn't entirely a storyline dictated decision, apparently the actor wanted out as early as last year and was only willing to sign on for a couple of episodes this year due to a death in the family (his parents died). So they agreed to write the character to fit his needs. There's other rumors circulating, but I'm going with the one that has been verified by facts not just innuendos. I wasn't as annoyed as everyone else by Ecko's death - mostly because I saw it coming a mile away. What you actually thought they'd kill Charlie, Jack, Lock, Sawyer, Sayhid, Kate, Sun or Jin? Are you nuts! I'm used to Abrahms killing off characters I like and keeping one's I'd like to off.

Will probably go to a concert with Wales instead. Then maybe try Medium again. I like the show runner who did Moonlighting and Remington Steele. Am on the fence regarding Bones, which I should like, but my attention wanders every time I watch.

Thurs - probably Ugly Betty and Grey's Anatomy, my comfort shows. I don't analyze, I just ride. Then promptly forget. No need to rewatch. Remember when they start up again. They make me happy and relaxed.

Friday - Doctor Who (yes, still trying to figure out the appeal. It may be a losing battle, but I'm trying, plus zip else on), and BattleStar Galatica - which has been interesting but incredibly grim this season. Am hoping for a spot of humor some day soon. Wonder if I'd be enjoying it more if I was more enamored of Helo and Sharon than I am? I don't dislike them. Just ambivalent. I'm like Whedon, happy TV relationships make boring TV. Can't wait for Sharon to find out about the baby and go postal. Also want more Lee and Kara - and more of the friendships. Less Baltar, who is beginning to bore me, which is odd since he was amongst my favorites in the beginning.

Comments

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Well I really love watching TV too...most of it is mildly interesting and I'll do stuff around here, including being online, painting, cooking & eating.... But there are a number of shows I really get a lot out of and I watch without distractions. When TV is good it is completely surprising and interesting in ways that most movies now days aren't (most movies are made by committee and you know at a glance what will happen next...when watching Lucas' last three Star Wars I could say what the next line would be with pin point accuracy, they were soooo boring because of it).
I do think that in another 50 years people will be taking some television seriously in terms of classic/quality artistic works.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree. I honestly think you can do a Television Canon - there are enough TV shows out there that it is possible to construct one. Also art - is the output of human creativity. High and low art is another matter, and I'm on the fence on whether an objective determination can be made regarding it.

Also, agree about Star Wars. Although would not go so far as to say "most" movies are made by committee. Star Wars wasn't by a committee but by Lucas, hence the problem - it might have been better if a committee were involved. TV shows actually are more likely to be created by committees than movies - since you usually have five to ten writers on any given show with network input, plus actor input, producer input, director input and advertiser/affiliate input.
Studio 60 is actually more realistic about the process in the US then people realize. Movies are controlled by whomever is directing them. Not the actors, not the writers, not the producers.
In film - the dictator is the director. That's why Whedon insists on directing movies he writes now. He knows a director can throw out his script. Altman is notorious for throwing out scripts.
Spielberg tends to follow them more closely as does Warren Beatty and Clint Eastwood. Film is a collaborative process but less of one than Television.

But in all the arts - there products that are mass-produced or made by committee. In publishing - the Da Vinci clones, novelizations of movies or tv shows such as the Buffy novels by Nancy Holder and Christopher Golden (where the story is approved by someone before the writer even begins and they basically fill in the blanks) are examples. In TV? Many sitcoms, reality shows, game shows, procedurals. In movies...And in music?
You have Milli Vannilli and The Spice Girls. Also the Monkeys. I call it paint-by-numbers - or copying the sure thing. You make a template of what appears to be working and create similar products with the view they will sell as well. They'll never sell as well as the original, but you never know.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Yes, 'Star Wars' was a poor example since it was the sole vision of Geo Lucas...
I was thinking of my going to 'American Dreamz' because Dennis Quaid had talked it up like it was some kind of political satire, but all the life had been sucked out of it (I know for sure they cut most of Adam Busch role) and made it a lame thin copy of American Idol without any satire going for it at all. There have been so many movies like that; don't you think 'The Devil Wears Prada' must have had a better script when Meryl Streep signed on? I guess most of TV is worse, but I don't tune in to most of it, and I'm getting to be much more wary of movies now days.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Again, not the script, but the director and often the audience. They will send the film to preview audiences who fill out a report and if something doesn't work for the "audience" will change it. I see tv often doing the same thing - catering to the audience's desires.
One of the things I admired most about Whedon, which pissed off everyone else, was his insistence on ignoring the audience's demands. I'll give them what they need not what they think they want. The dreaded "focus group".

Making a movie is a bit like magic. So much can go wrong along the way. And you never know what will or won't work. Which scene to keep, which to cut. You don't know for example how good or bad Adam Busch's scenes were. They could have been horrendous. Most films cut huge amounts. And a lot of TV and filmmaking is in the editing room. The number of takes they do for a scene, before they decide on the right one - and the one they decide on is up to whomever is in charge in the editing room - which for TV is usually the head-writer and for film, the director, but not always. Whedon controlled whatever ended up on screen. He sat in that editing room. An example - Beneath You - when he saw the scenes from the church, he hated it so much, that he rewrote and redirected and re-edited the entire sequence himself - drug the actors back in, etc. (Expensive thing to do, and RARELY done because of the expense. Grips, camera men, etc are union guys and you have to pay them time and a half for overtime. You do not refilm something unless you have to on TV. That's an executive decision. Whedon had creative control - so it was clearly his.) In movies - it is whomever is in charge, sometimes it's who holds the purse strings - which is the producer. Sometimes it is the director. Movies are a tough biz. Hard for a layman to wrap their mind around.

You have to take a step back and realize moviemaking is a business. Dennis Quaid did American Dreamz for the money. Martin Scorscese did The Departed for the money. It's not the same as you painting. They took it as a JOB. And it is part and parcel of their job to talk it up. Also, they don't always see the finished product nor will they see it the same way we do. It's, how to explain, like when you paint something. You do not, can't really, see your painting the same way as someone who has not painted it. I read an interview with Peter O'Toole recently who stated he does not recognize himself onscreen, he does not appear onscreen as he sees himself. Or a comment I read recently about how writers are NOT the best judges of their works. We can't be. We see what we intended. We see our effort. Our blood. Our sweat. Our tears. Our labor. The end product cannot in our minds be separated from that. But a movie goer or reader or person who looks at the painting? They don't see the blood, sweat and tears - all they see is the result.

We don't know what happened before the finished product. We don't know what was cut.
Or why? We don't know who audtioned for the roles. We don't know how many drafts were submitted. All we see is what appears on the screen and our judgement of that is far from objective, it is based on our mood, our expectations, our experience - which makes us anything but impartial. Thinking about all of that...is enough to make me very glad I'm not making movies for a living.;-)

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

The only reason I knew they cut anything of Adam Busch's in 'American Dreamz' is that they had had stuff at the website online, but then when the movie was released they took those aspects of the website down too (I felt like they were a store offering a 'loss leader', I was drawn into the theater on false pretences).
And I really agree with you:
"One of the things I admired most about Whedon, which pissed off everyone else, was his insistence on ignoring the audience's demands."
I went to one of the early advanced screenings of 'Serenity', and I sobbed aloud at Wash's death, but I was far more appalled to find the people online who were trying to force Universal & Joss to change the ending! Personally I would rather have Joss rip my guts out than let the fans dictate how he should tell his stories.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I was terribly cynical about Sharon and Helo in the first season but this last episode suddenly found an interest. Maybe it's the Joss conditioning but I think i'm beginning to smell tragedy on them. I have a feeling that Helo's action, done at least in part to save her pain, is going to come back to bite them, turn the fleet against her in the pinch or something.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree - but not quite in the way you've come up. That baby. Once Sharon finds out that Roslyn and Adama lied about the baby and the Cylons have it, expect a couple of things to change. So yeah, I think it will turn.

Also Moore and Whedon seem to be on the same page regarding romantic entanglements, which is happy romances makes boring tv. I agree. It does. You need conflict. On BSG you can sort of get away with it - by not focusing on it, ie. Callie and the Chief. But if you are focusing on the romance, you better believe it will fall apart - and now there's two possible things that come back and bite them.
Not one.