Quality TV: From The Sopranos to Louie
Showcase Post 2
Television’s Second Golden age began with the likes of Hill Street Blues (1981) and the cancellation of Twin Peaks in 1991. These shows were given the term ‘quality TV’ and were a rarity at the time. In the early 1990s cop shows such as NYPD Blue and ER reached Nielsen’s top 10, and suddenly the quality TV aesthetic was everywhere and spreading. Producers and network executives began a repacking strategy, turning ‘quality TV’ into a super-genre. By the turn of the century quality was bursting at the seams and it was hard to find a show on television that didn’t fall into the category (McCabe & Akass, 2007).
Undeniably the biggest breakthrough was HBO’s The Sopranos, a show so wild and daring it broke the mould in a way no other show had or could. Todd VanDerWerff explains:
“It [The Sopranos] indulged in wild story twists and strange dream sequences. It vacillated wildly between drama and comedy, often within the same scene. It was so obviously the vision of one man, creator David Chase, that he became synonymous with the show, and the term “showrunner” entered the popular lexicon. It doesn’t seem nearly as bold today as it was then, but in those years, there really wasn’t anything else like it.”
We now find ourselves at a point where the term ‘quality TV’ has become so overused and the market is so oversaturated that it’s almost not safe to trust it. Much of our TV seems to be thinly veiled under the armour of quality, when in actual fact it has all the trademarks of a soapie. Recently, Downton Abbey fan Michal Lemberger had to concede that their long-time love has reduced itself to merely another ridiculous soap. “It’s gotten so that Downton Abbey, which used the conventions of the soap opera to such great and subtle purpose before, seems to check off each outlandish mark as it goes.”
Was Downton Abbey always a ridiculous soap or has the potential always been there, simmering away, waiting for a ratings slump? Here, Jason Mittell has responded to a number of questions on the subject of soap operas and television seriality on Media Comms. Mittell puts forward his own hypothesis around the differences between primetime television and soap operas. I have selected, arranged and elaborated on a few of Mittell’s points, in an attempt to understand the difference between shows deemed as ‘quality TV’ and soaps:
- Soaps spend much more time talking about events that have happened rather than showing them, while primetime serials show events more frequently than talking about them. I think this is the major diving factor between the two. Events in soaps are dragged out and usually involve a car crash, shooting or love affair. The characters will then spend weeks dealing with and talking about said event. Primetime shows contain significant events every episode, a mechanism aimed at giving viewers content to dwell on for a week while ensuring they return.
- The amount of narrative change that happens over one week of a soap opera is less than one episode of a primetime serial. As soaps have the luxury of more time in a week they can afford to stay with story lines longer. There is little time between episodes for the viewer to forget or become bored with what’s happening.
- The amount of narrative change that happens over one year of a soap opera is less than a season of a primetime serial. Primetime shows tend to demand more growth of their characters and must fit this in with the other story arcs. A soap opera tends to stick with the same characters for longer periods and cannot risk ‘exhausting’ them.
- Soaps involve more interwoven characters than primetime, where separate storylines have less interactions. I’m not sure I fully agree with this point. Soaps seem to constantly revolve around the same group of people dealing with the same problems, but that’s not to say primetime don’t have their own interwoven characters.
- Individual episodes of primetime have much more defined boundaries and distinctive features than on daytime. I think primetime and soaps both have defined boundaries and distinctive features, separate to them. Soaps screen on an almost daily basis and require narrative suitable to fill this time, while primetime is shorter in length and subsequently must fit more ‘quality’ content in.
- Missing a week of a soap opera would cause less confusion than missing a week of a primetime serial (assuming the viewer does not watch the “previously on” recaps on primetime), because daytime incorporates far more recapping into the dialogue than on primetime. Because soaps linger and elaborate storylines they can become quite oversimplified, thus easy to follow and return to. They also like to show flashbacks, spend time explaining situations and relationships (see below). All these mechanisms make it easy for anyone to start watching mid-week.
- Soap dialogue includes the names and relationships of characters more frequently than on primetime. This technique is another way of dragging out stories, while reminding viewers of the relationships on the show. Primetime demands more faithful viewing and only rewards those who pay attention and commit.
It’s not certain how guilty Downton Abbey is of being a soapie, much of it could be credited to the fact that the show is about an aristocratic English family living in a country estate in the 1930s- things will seem a bit over the top and fanciful. Returning to The Sopranos what would be your reaction if I said The Sopranos was another show guilty of employing soap opera mechanics? Seeing as a soap opera can be broadly defined as a serial drama with multiply story lines and episode-ending cliff-hangers, we must face up to the fact that many of us ‘quality TV’ fans love soap operas as well.
In an article about men who love Downton Abbey one fan stated, “If you like The Sopranos, you like soap operas, too. You just like yours with guns and cursing.” This statement has got me thinking- how many of our favourite shows can be stripped back to reveal a ‘soapie’ framework underneath. Flavorwire’s Judy Berman put together a list that included Downton Abbey, Game of Thrones, Twin Peaks, Six Feet Under, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Lost and the ultimate; The Sopranos.
In each case, if we look beyond the grandness that the term ‘quality TV’ has granted these shows, we can see that they do have a resemblance to soap operas. There’s political and romantic intrigue, shocking deaths, surreal dreams, multiple storylines that are melodramatic and episode-ending cliffhangers. In other words, mechanisms that make for addictive and riveting television, regardless of the time and place they are set in.
The trick to making quality television is the ability to apply the devices above to new people in unusual circumstances. Whether that is lords and kings in the year 300, teenagers in the 90s or a family who own a funeral home, each is unique and offers new opportunities for originality and freshness. Surely it’s not a crime to write and produce stories that are full of intrigue and mystery, causing us to return each week. If I’m not mistaken Shakespeare did the same thing in his time.
If you’re sitting there thinking, “Well, what’s next?” Might I make a suggestion? If you’re looking for something that feels as fresh and innovative like The Sopranos or The Simpsons did, then look no further then Louie. This show has received praise from all corners and VanDerWerff writes, “There’s really been nothing else like it in the history of television, and it seems likely that as the decades roll on, more and more shows will be influenced by its blend of cynical comedy and genuine pathos, as well as its deeply personal worldview.”
As Louie breaks new ground in television he will influence the entertainment business around him (HBO’s Girls has already been quite successful). Louie is dark, unpredictable and funny, most importantly it feels real and human. While the show may not be clean sweeping the Emmys or rating through the roof, it’s incredibly popular with its audience.
Like The Sopranos led the way with hour-long drams, the Simpsons with animation and Seinfeld with sitcoms, Louie is leading the way in a playing field he invented. Louie C.K has taken a few ingredients from soap operas (shocking deaths and surreal dreams) and added his own spice to create something unique and wonderful. Like The Sopranos, Louie swings between drama and comedy and is clearly the vision of one man. If others take a page out of Louie C.K’s book we may have a new sub-genre of ‘quality TV’ on our hands. Yippee!
References
Berman, J 2012, Yes, ‘Downton Abbey’ Is a Soap Opera. So What?, Flavorwire, viewed 5 October 2012, <http://www.flavorwire.com/262446/yes-dowton-abbey-is-a-soap-opera-so-what>.
Berman, J 2012, Quality TV Shows That Are Basically Soap Operas, Flavorwire, viewed 5 October 2012, <http://www.flavorwire.com/297418/quality-tv-shows-that-are-basically-soap-operas?all=1>.
Eichel, M 2012, Men enjoy ‘Downtown Abbey’ too, but for different reasons, Philly.com, viewed 5 October, <http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-15/entertainment/31063605_1_downton-abbey-war-and-peace-show>.
Lemberger, M 2012, “Downton Abbey,” we’re breaking up, Salon, viewed 5 October 2012, <http://www.salon.com/2012/02/19/downton_abbey_were_breaking_up/>.
McCabe, J & Akass, K 2007, Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond, I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, London.
VanDerWerff, T 2012, Why Louie is the next stage in the evolution of the TV sitcom, The A.V Club, viewed 5 October 2010, <http://www.avclub.com/articles/why-louie-is-the-next-stage-in-the-evolution-of-th,85474/>.
Fantasy is so much more
Showcase Post 1
In my post titled, “Praise for Game of Thrones just a fantasy,” I discussed the genre of fantasy and its place in modern culture and society. I think many people are quick to dismiss the influence of fantasy, not realising how prevalent it really is in entertainment. It’s also possible that a lot of people don’t actually understand the definition the genre itself, and all it encompasses. I have heard many an argument where people say they lurrvee Harry Potter, but won’t give The Lord of the Rings a go, stating that they are completely different. In actual fact, they are very similar. Both consist of make-believe worlds where the ‘chosen one’ is tasked with removing the world of a great evil, supported by formidable fighters and lovable friends along the way.
In her piece “Fantasy: Why is the genre so popular?” (2010) Rowena Cory Daniells explains:
“From the earliest myths and legends, through different cultures fantasy has been with us. Think of the Arabian Nights stories, the Arthurian Romances, Spenser’s The Fairie Queen, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Lord Byron’s Manfred, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and the works of Edgar Allen Poe, Lovecraft, Lord Dunsany, and George MacDonald.
Whether these stories are set in our world or a secondary world where magical creatures and/or people exist, they all share a common theme: the exploration of the human condition. Even the much maligned medieval/quest fantasies offer their readers the chance to vicariously explore a wondrous world, battle evil and restore justice. Even a lowly Hobbit can change the course of the world by destroying the Ring.”
If we take a step back and remove any preconceived attitudes towards fantasy, we can see that it is more imbedded in fiction than we thought. I think this may be why Ginia Bellafante received so much backlash and indignation in response to her The New York Times piece. Bellafante failed to understand the purpose and appeal of fantasy, its audience and the genre as a whole. In her review of the Game of Thrones pilot she simply surmised that the show was an overly complicated “costume-drama sexual hopscotch,” reducing the show and genre to nothing but fluff for boys.
The fact that Bellafante believes Game of Thrones to be boy fiction with sex added to help it appeal to females is insulting. First of all, sex in Game of Thrones is not used to demonstrate love and desire, but power, greed and lust. It is used to tell stories by revealing the true nature of characters- the “ exploration of the human condition.” If Ginia had taken the time to read even the first book or research the genre at all, she may well have realised her mistake. For crying out loud- it’s only her job as an arts/entertainment writer. It’s perfectly fine to not be a fan of the fantasy genre or not know anyone who is, however, it is unreasonable to extend this to all females and dismiss the entire genre with a flick of your wrist.
One only need do a quick search on the Internet to learn that there are numerous subgenres of fantasy, and each fan will have their own preference. Game of Thrones would be an example of ‘High Fantasy,’ while The Lord of the Rings is classified as ‘Epic Fantasy’ and the ever-popular Harry Potter series falls under ‘Magic Realism.’ The ABC television show Once Upon a Time is ‘Modern Fantasy,’ tales of magic and wonder set in modern times. These are just a few examples of some of the more ‘mainstream’ or ‘popular’ fantasy productions in circulation. I could discuss in detail each subgenre and give more examples, but I think I’ve made my point- fantasy is diverse and should not be pigeonholed.
In a way I see how people fall prey to the misconception that fantasy is merely fodder for males. Game of Thrones author, George R.R. Martin, has addressed this issue on his blog, writing that hundreds of females turn up to his book signings and he loves them all. Martin understands his audience and appreciates them. It seems a select few are chosen to speak for a genre or type of music and become the stereotype pin-up forever. Maybe fantasy needs to ‘rebrand’ itself or hire a PR agency to change its image so us girls can read it in peace.
In my opinion genre and taste are completely unrelated to gender. The genre of a show defines the content and a person will choose according to his or her own tastes, the gender of said person hardly matters. Bellafante seems to be under the impression that the genre fantasy as a whole cannot be considered quality television, and has no place on HBO. She also expresses her amazement at David Benioff as executive producer, who has been involved in “quality productions” in that past, thus making him an unusual choice as a writer for a fantasy television series. As if it were beneath him or a waste of his talent.
While Bellafante differentiates between the likes of Game of Thrones and shows such as The Wire, Mad Men and Breaking Bad– others don’t. Douglas Smith (2012) explains that the world today is more serious and as a result we want entertainment that speaks to us on more than one level. We want multi-layered stories that contain characters we can empathise with; worlds where the challenges faced are similar to our own.
“We seem to have entered a second “Golden Age” for fantasy. Reading fantasy is what the cool kids do once again. We have the names of Martin, Abercrombie, Cook, Erikson, Lawrence, Brett et al to thank for that. They have created characters that we used to think of simply as brave knights, bad witches, good carpenters and evil wizards and turned each concept on its head, painting each one with an endless supply of the colour grey.
For me, these authors are keeping the fantasy genre fresh and exciting – they are touching on concepts that are important in a real-world way. Just like The Wire, Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire takes in the politics, inter-house (gang) relationships and shows them to us at a personal level.”
Now I know what you might be thinking- how can anyone relate to Game of Thrones? In answer, I ask you to look past the atheistic of castles and sieges to the emotional and moral struggles faced by characters. Characters that are complex, layered and witty; people we can become invested in. They may be good or evil, but most likely they are somewhere in between: a grey colour. In this way it’s easy for us to become invested in the setting and the story as a whole.
Another reason we can all love some version of fantasy is that it functions using an age-old theme: restoring equity in the world. Fantasy film, television and literature all work to offer the same restorative balm, usually in a gritty fashion. The theme of “the triumph of innocence” is a prominent theme in the history of written civilization. Such timeless prominence indicates how precious is the theme for all of us who must reconcile an often unpleasant reality with the yearning for the ideal to supplant it, if not in reality then at least in our filmic fantasies (Fischoff, Antonio & Lewis, 1998).
In fact it’s possible to argue most plots in fantasy novels are not so dissimilar if one looks beneath the surface. Jeremy Epstein (2005) proposes that many use the follow classic formula:
- Young boy (or girl, or creature… or hobbit) grows up in rural setting, living peaceful childhood, knowing nothing about magic, dark lords, wizards, etc.
- Hero is forced to leave beloved home (may or may not have found true love by now), because dark power is growing stronger, and hero must go on dangerous journey to escape.
- Hero soon realises that his parents/ancestors (whom he never met – up until now he thought those nice country bumpkins who raised him were his closest family) were powerful wizards, or kings/queens, or something else really famous.
- Hero discovers that he has amazing magical powers, and that he was born with a destiny to overthrow some terrifying evil power. He is taught how to use his cool abilities.
- Hero overcomes all odds, battles huge monsters, forges empires, unites many nations, fulfils several gazillion prophecies, defeats dark lord (who always has some weird, hard-to-pronounce name – not that that matters, because everyone is scared to pronounce it anyway), marries beautiful princess/sorceress love of his life (who is also really brave, fulfilled many prophecies, and helped him do battle), and everyone lives happily ever after.
After reading these five points ask yourself: how many beloved films and books can I apply this to? Obviously you can apply it to LOTR and Harry Potter, but what else? How many Disney films or Marvel Comics use elements of this formula to shape their characters and story lines? It might be high time you broadened your understanding of what exactly ‘fantasy’ is if you haven’t already, you may be delighted with what you discover.
I’m confident that I have established a solid argument in favour of fantasy and its use/s in modern entertainment, but what about its home on HBO? The network may have founded itself on original “real-world sociology” like The Wire and Sopranos, however, that doesn’t mean it can’t evolve and experiment with its content. It’s safe to say that the genre fantasy offers a rich tapestry of ‘original’ and ‘quality’ programming, peppered with the grittiness we all love.
To further drive my point home about the evolution of HBO, I will borrow an example from Smith: do we wish for the Batman of the 90s, with its cheesy glamour and camp characters? Or have we not all become deeply invested and involved in Nolan’s Gotham City. To say there is no desire or demand for gritty fantasy is crazy, because it’s been here all along and is only getting better.
References
Bellafante, G 2011, A Fantasy World of Strange Feuding Kingdoms, The New York Times, viewed 4 October 2012, <http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html?_r=0>.
Daniells, R 2010, Fantasy: Why us the genre so popular?, The Australian Literature Review, viewed 4 October 2012, <http://auslit.net/2010/06/17/fantasy-why-is-the-genre-so-popular-rowena-cory-daniells/>.
Epstein, J 2005, The Fantasy Genre: an attempt to explain its success, GreenAsh, viewed 4 October 2012, <http://greenash.net.au/thoughts/2005/02/the-fantasy-genre-an-attempt-to-explain-its-success/>.
Masterson, L 2003, Fantasy Sub-Genres, Fiction Factor, viewed 4 October 2012, <http://www.fictionfactor.com/articles/fsubgenre.html>.
Smith, D 2012, Painting With Grey: The Development and Popularity of “Gritty Fantasy,” Fantasy Faction, viewed 4 October 2012, <http://fantasy-faction.com/2012/painting-with-grey-the-development-and-popularity-of-gritty-fantasy>.
Reality Television is anyone’s game
Reality television. It seems to be the bane of my existence sometimes. What is it exactly, where did it come from and do we even care? I suppose we should, seeing as our televisions are flooded with reality programming nightly. Sigh.
“Reality TV altered the terrain of factual programming, drawing on and contributing to change in television working practices, importing a newly inflected televisual grammar, establishing new priorities for programme makers and different expectations in viewers. As a resoundingly popular form it has situated itself firmly within what John Corner (2002) has called ‘post-documentary’ culture. We take this to be a radically altered cultured and economic setting which includes an imperative for playfulness and diversion and the erosion of the distinctions between the public and the private sphere, between the private citizen and the celebrity and between the media and social space.” (Biressi & Nunn, 2005)
‘Reality TV’ has blurred the boundaries of television, taking elements from various practices to produce something that is ‘authentic’ and ‘entertaining.’ It uses the story arc of a soap opera, and the voyeurism enjoyed in documentaries, with the result being something that is real and unreal at the same time. To find a typical example of this, one only needs to tune into MTV, which, by the way, rarely plays music. Instead they have shows like 16 and Pregnant, Teen Mom and Jersey Shore. It’s safe to say that getting rid of my Foxtel a few years back was not a hard decision.
I think my first encounter with ‘reality TV’ was the MTV series Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County. At the time I was their target audience: young, female and very impressionable. Girls my age were already fans of The O.C and Laguna Beach was timed perfectly to suit this- the show began a year after The O.C began and finished a year before it did.
Now in my defense, Laguna Beach was good- it did what a reality show should do. It flipped the format of a regular soap in a way that was irresistible to teenagers like me. The A.V Club’s Meredith Blake explains, “One of the things I love best about this showis how is ambiguous it is, despite all the heavy-handed music cues and deceptive editing. For me, it conjures all the painful confusion and emotional inarticulacy of adolescence in a really vivid way.
I got hooked on Laguna Beach during one of those highly dangerous weekend marathons MTV is so fond of. I was in my mid-20s at the time, but even still, every time Kristin came on screen, she struck fear into my heart. L.C is pretty and all, but Ms. Cavallari has the kind of preternatural self-assurance that I only wish I had at her age.”
Now we have reached the crux of what reality television is: exploitation and manipulation. I know that may sound a bit extreme, but that’s what it is. They exploit the characters and manipulate the story to produce content that we can’t resist. Most importantly reality TV exploits us- our emotions and inner wants and desires.
Steven Reiss (2010) explains that the main reason many of us love reality TV is because we all want to be famous, to feel important and have attention paid to us. The desire for status is just means to get attention, more attention equates to a greater sense of important. In other words: we think we are important if others pay attention to us, no matter the circumstances, and feel unimportant if we are ignored.
“Reality TV allows Americans to fantasise about gaining status through automatic fame. Ordinary people can watch the shows, see people like themselves and imagine that they too could become celebrities by being on television. It does not matter as much that the contestants often are shown in an unfavorable light; the fact that millions of Americans are paying attention means that the contestants are important.”
We love shows about people who are rich and beautiful, because those are qualities many of us admire, but the fact that they are famous and on television is equally important to us. We are so easily blinded by the fame that we fail to notice how lackluster these shows really are. It’s very rare that anyone will do anything overly interesting or of worth, mostly they sit around talking about their relationships and how hard they work. Pfft.
What about shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo I here you ask telepathically? Does the popularity of that show mean we all secretly want to be overweight hicks eating cheese balls off the floor? Of course not, well maybe you do and that’s your prerogative! It’s the attention we crave, and Honey Boo Boo hardly lacks in that department.
TLC, the channel that features Honey Boo Boo, specialises in shows that make ‘ordinary people’ the stars. For the audience, the interaction and appeal of TLC’s programming is twofold: it centres on private events that are personal, but inscribes them so they fit into the public sphere (Holmes 2004). In this way we can recognize and publicly define the type of people featured in Honey Boo Boo, be fascinated with them and dismiss them at the same time.
References
Biressi, A & Nunn, H 2005, Reality TV: Realism and Revelation, Wallflower Press, Great Britain.
Homes, S 2004, Understanding Reality Television, Routledge, London.
Meredith Blake. 2012, A new form of reality TV emerges from the sands of Laguna Beach, A.V Club, viewed 2 October 2012, <http://www.avclub.com/articles/a-new-form-of-reality-tv-emerges-from-the-sands-of,83911/>.
Steven Reiss. 2010, Why American Loves Reality TV, Psychology Today, viewed 2 October 2012, <http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-america-loves-reality-tv>.
Mad Men- Season One Finale “The Wheel”
“Technology is a glittering lure,” Don Draper tells Kodak executives in the episode titled “The Wheel,” “but there is the rare occasion when the public can be engaged on a level beyond flash, if they have a sentimental bond with the product.”
I think it’s safe to say that many of us have a sentimental bond with the critically acclaimed drama Mad Men. It tops many “best of” lists concerning television and could set a record with a fifth-straight win at this year’s Emmy Awards. The series has a very classical storytelling style, opting for a leisurely pace that wouldn’t be out of place in a film from 1962- the era it’s set in. For me, season one is very much about Don, his wife Betty, and the development of Peggy.
In the season finale “The Wheel” the narrative takes an unexpected turn and ends on the theme of family. The wheel serves as a metaphor for change. Change that’s happening whether people like it or not, or want it to occur. Two scenes in this episode stood out for me: Don’s moving pitch to Kodak and Betty’s therapy session where she takes aim at Don. These events are catalysts for future changes, mostly happening inadvertently or against the will of each character.
Without doubt the most significant (and moving) scene from the season finale is the one where Don pitches his slide “carousel” idea to Kodak. Don sees this latest advancement as a “time-machine” connecting people to their warmest memories. “Round and round and back home again to a place where we know we are loved,” says Don as he looks at his own wedding picture. As each picture clicks by the emotional tension builds, most notably in Don.
“Nostalgia means ‘the pain from an old wound’. It’s a twinge in your heart far more powerful than memory alone.”
Don Draper, a man who seems to be unable to connect with his own family, his mistress or work colleagues, is able to describe the “ache” of nostalgia perfectly. I think it’s ironic that a man who fails to make meaningful connections to those around him can describe such feelings. Perhaps Don is reminded of his past life, the one he left behind and has tried to hide from. As the wheel clicks and displays the happy snaps of his current family life, he may not be thinking of his family, but the brother who killed himself after trying to reconnect with Don.
It is this moment that makes us feel for Don in a way we previously haven’t been able to. Previously, we only thought of him as person who cheats, lies and deceives. He is a brilliant and talented man, but not an honest or real one. This scene gives Don much needed heart in the eyes of the viewer as it becomes quite obvious that he is speaking to himself. Don is damaged goods, craving a life he’s never had, and the only way he can understand this is through an ad campaign.
“…it’s a time machine. It goes backwards. Forwards. It takes us to a place where we ache to go again.”
Don begins to realise he can build this dream for himself. He returns home clearly determined to change his ways, but not to his imagined happy family. Instead he finds the house empty and dark, he is alone on the eve of a holiday that encompasses family and togetherness- things Don is has come to realise he wants desperately.
In the meantime Betty has had some realizations of her own, she has discovered that Don is calling her shrink in secret. This gets the ball rolling on Betty’s story arc and we finally get to see a side of Betty besides the front she puts on for people like Francine. In her most honest moment Betty confides in a child and seemingly acts like a child herself: scared and seeking assurance. At the core of Betty’s problems is the fact that there doesn’t seem to be anybody around whom she can just be herself with.
In a rare moment of maturity Betty inadvertently tackles Don’s betrayal. At her next therapy session she deals with the situation by addressing a very frank topic that she knew her shrink would never broach with her husband. “He doesn’t have a family, he doesn’t know what family is,” she says. “I feel sorry for him but should be angry at myself for putting up with it.” We now start to see a new side of Betty, one where she ceases living in denial and starts to be more assertive.
“He’s kind inside, but outside it’s all there on face every day. The hotel rooms. Sometimes perfume. Or worse.”
This episode signals great changes for everyone. We have gained more insight into who Don is and what he desires most deeply in life. He has come to realise the importance of family and is willing to undergo change, but unfortunately it’s all too late. Meanwhile, Betty is ready to become more honest with herself and those around her, beginning with Don.
Narrative complexity over quantity?
Warning: this post contains Big Love spoilers!
In my previous post I discussed the idea of ‘quality’ television and mentioned briefly the idea that different types of narrative storytelling exist to achieve varying formats of television. In the lecture we looked at the HBO show Big Love (2006- 2011), which depicts a Mormon family practicing polygamy. The show begins by introducing us to Bill Paxton (Bill Henrickson) and his three wives, each living separately on the same block of land.
Polygamy Loves Company.
From the pilot it’s possible to recognise the complexity of the character’s lives and the characters themselves. Each is well developed and unique, like the circumstances of the show itself. Along the way we are provided with hints and titbits about other branches of Bill’s life, whether that be his business or past. Each episode moves along quite quickly, considering how intricate the plot is, while maintaining believability.
The concept of believability is a major factor in many shows on HBO. Each night they ask the viewer to suspend their beliefs and understanding about the world they live in. In doing so they are allowed into rich and exclusive worlds filled with vampires, polygamy, drugs, incest, violence and war. These voyeuristic shows give many of us a glimpse into the unknown, while soaps or sitcoms generally play on elements in our own lives.
Vampires? Werewolves?
Like last week I will refer to the opinion of Jason Mittell, here he has responded to a number of questions on the subject of soap operas and television seriality on Media Comms. Mittell puts forward his own hypothesis around the differences between primetime television and soap operas. I have selected, arranged and elaborated on a few of Mittell’s points, in an attempt to understand the difference between a show like Big Love and The Young and the Restless:
- Soaps spend much more time talking about events that have happened rather than showing them, while primetime serials show events more frequently than talking about them. I think this is the major diving factor between the two. Events in soaps are dragged out and usually involve a car crash, shooting or love affair. The characters will then spend weeks dealing with and talking about said event. Primetime shows contain significant events every episode, a mechanism aimed at giving viewers content to dwell on for a week while ensuring they return.
- The amount of narrative change that happens over one week of a soap opera is less than one episode of a primetime serial. As soaps have the luxury of more time in a week they can afford to stay with story lines longer. There is little time between episodes for the viewer to forget or become bored with what’s happening.
- The amount of narrative change that happens over one year of a soap opera is less than a season of a primetime serial. Primetime shows tend to demand more growth of their characters and must fit this in with the other story arcs. A soap opera tends to stick with the same characters for longer periods and cannot risk ‘exhausting’ them.
- Soaps involve more interwoven characters than primetime, where separate storylines have less interactions. I’m not sure I fully agree with this point. Soaps seem to constantly revolve around the same group of people dealing with the same problems, but that’s not to say primetime don’t have their own interwoven characters, Big Love is an example of this. Bill Paxton is central to the story and the show ends with his death.
- Individual episodes of primetime have much more defined boundaries and distinctive features than on daytime. I think primetime and soaps both have defined boundaries and distinctive features, separate to them. Soaps screen on an almost daily basis and require narrative suitable to fill this time, while primetime is shorter in length and subsequently must fit more ‘quality’ content in.
- Missing a week of a soap opera would cause less confusion than missing a week of a primetime serial (assuming the viewer does not watch the “previously on” recaps on primetime), because daytime incorporates far more recapping into the dialogue than on primetime. Because soaps linger and elaborate storylines they can become quite oversimplified, thus easy to follow and return to. They also like to show flashbacks, spend time explaining situations and relationships (see below). All these mechanisms make it easy for anyone to start watching mid-week.
- Soap dialogue includes the names and relationships of characters more frequently than on primetime. This technique is another way of dragging out stories, while reminding viewers of the relationships on the show. Primetime demands more faithful viewing and only rewards those who pay attention and commit.
HBO
In his article, Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television, Jason Mittell writes, “I believe that American television of the past twenty years will be remembered as an era of narrative experimentation and innovation, challenging the norms of what the medium can do.” What Mittell is referring to is the concept of narrative complexity in long-form television or ‘quality’ TV, seen frequently on HBO and AMC.
Mittell explains that the pleasures offered by complex television narratives are richer and more multifaceted than more conventional programming. In other words, shows with detailed storylines challenge the viewer and provide a bigger payoff to those who commit themselves. It’s not possible to sit down and watch a random episode of Mad Men and get the full experience like you can with a show like Big Bang Theory. Different narrative techniques are applied (successfully) in each case with the result being two different shows.
This isn’t to suggest that one is better than the other, many would claim the former is an example of ‘quality’ tv and deserves higher praise, yet Big Bang Theory’s ratings would suggest otherwise. While the genre of ‘quality’ tv may not be dominating the ratings, it still presents an interesting case around the rise in a new type of storytelling mode. Mittell’s goal isn’t to compare television now to that of the 1970s or examine ratings. The goal is to analyse the emergence of a particular type of narrative in television, and the unique pleasures and patterns of comprehension that occur as a result.
As discussed in Friday’s lecture, the notion of ‘quality’ television surfaced in the 1990s, spearheaded by HBO. In the 1980s HBO moved into original drama and by the 1990s they have achieved a solid revenue base from subscribers, allowing them to expand their long-form drama. HBO rebrands itself with the tagline ‘It’s Not TV, its HBO’ and launches its first example of ‘quality’ television- Oz (1997- 2003). With the birthing of quality long-form drama, networks began to target previously ignored demographics and the landscape of television began to evolve.
Mittell states that many of the creative television programmes of the last 20 years have come from people who launched their careers in film. Television has a reputation as a “producer’s medium”, where creators and screenwriters retain more control of their work. I tend to question this as Dan Harmon was recently sacked from his own show Community, leaving me to think that it’s still the big networks in charge.
While the structure of television draws in film talent, Mittell writes that he is “reluctant to map a model of storytelling tied to self-contained feature films onto the ongoing long-form narrative structure of series television…” He prefers to separate the in an attempt to produce a productive vocabulary for television narrative in relation to its own medium. Televisions offers writers and creators broader challenges than film, with a long-form series a writer can extend character depth, have ongoing plots and theme or vary each episode. Generally this is not possible within a two-hour film format.
As we can see there is a clear advantage for creators and writers making the move to television, but what’s in it for cable channels like HBO? After all, television is a profit-based business, and if you can’t attract those advertising dollars- you’re out. HBO’s success can be attributed to their strong subscriber base, so the question is how did they build one so solid?
I have identified three main points in Mittell’s article to explain how:
- They identified a niche market and a demand for a certain type of television.
- They recognised a profitable way to cater to this group and remained true to what they’ve built.
- They have continued to grow and adapt accordingly, allowing viewers to become active in their feedback, and piggybacking on fan culture and the online presence many of us now have.
Mittell questions whether these industrial, creative, technological, and participatory developments were the beginning of narrative complexity or if they merely set the stage for its expansion and growth in popularity. I think it was always only a matter of time before television became smarter and more efficient in its role- HBO happened to get in first. In a world where technology allows us to share the things we love, and similarly, destroy the things we don’t, it’s expected that television feel the affects of this scrutiny. It seems we live in a world where we can demand the ‘best’ and if we don’t feel we are getting this, we can turn our attention elsewhere.
Praise for Game of Thrones just a fantasy
I decided to watch Game of Thrones after hearing so much discussion about it on the internet. To be honest I didn’t know much about the story or characters, only that it was based on a successful series of fantasy novels, written by George R. R. Martin. I didn’t tune in because I believed it would be, as Ginia Bellafante put it in her The New York Times piece, a “costume-drama sexual hopscotch.”
Game of Thrones TV Series, HBO
The fact that Bellafante believes Game of Thrones to be boy fiction with sex added to help it appeal to females is insulting. First of all, sex in Game of Thrones is not used to demonstrate love and desire, but power, greed and lust. It is used to tell stories by revealing the true nature of characters. For example a sister sleeps with her brother because she desires power and a boy treats a whore cruelly because he is unfeeling and sadistic.
If Ginia Bellafante had taken the time to read even the first book she may well have realised her mistake. It seems to me she has watched one episode of a show and missed the point completely. All emphasis was placed on the genre and content of the show, which is a debate for another time. If you’re not a fan of the genre fantasy that’s perfectly fine, however, it is unreasonable to extend this to all females and suggest the show panders to us.
In my opinion genre and taste are completely unrelated to gender. The genre of a show defines the content and a person will choose according to his or her own tastes, the gender of said person hardly matters. Bellafante seems to be under the impression that the genre fantasy as a whole cannot be considered quality television, and has no place on HBO. She also expresses her amazement at David Benioff as executive producer, who has been involved in quality productions in that past, thus making him an unusual choice as a writer for a fantasy television series. As if it were beneath him or a waste of his talent.
HBO has always been at the forefront of original and quality programming and has proven this once again with Game of Thrones. One only has to look at the success of the Lord of the Rings franchise to realise that there is a demand for quality fantasy and science-fiction programming. HBO hasn’t given us anything new, they have just packaged stories familiar to fans into a form that is digestible for everyone- except Ginia Bellafante.
Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, New Line Cinema
To me that is the whole point of television- to tell a variety of stories in a way that respects the people and places they are based on, while making it enjoyable for as many people as possible. If the creation of television show makes me want to read the books they are based on and talk to others who like the show, then great! It annoys me that great content gets overlooked because it’s not “real-world sociology”, pfft whatever that is Ginia- it sounds boring.
The comparison shouldn’t be between the genre of each show, but the way in which different stories are told. Fantasy and science-fiction should be given the chance to hold their own against other genres, so praise can be given when it’s due. Let’s hope that come Emmy time next year shows like Game of Thrones can garner nominations in categories other then the technical.
Finding Mr. Darcy
I have a confession to make and it’s not something I admit to readily, especially in a public space or forum, but I am “team” Mr. Darcy- always have been. My parents emigrated here from Ireland in the 80s, bringing with them my older brother and a love for British television. Shows like The Bill, Midsummer Murders and Heartbeat always have a place in our lounge room, much to my embarrassment. I’ve tried to tell them about all the new great shows they could be watching instead, but it falls on deaf ears.
I know why they love these shows so much- they’re simple, easy to digest and quaint. They remind my parents of home, and not just the UK as it is today, but the way it was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Small country towns with one pub, where life is simple and everyone knows each other, and the occasional robbery or murder of course.
I see the appeal for my parents and I leave them be, however, there is one format of television that I will indulge in: British costume dramas. I developed a love for the British TV mini-series at a young age, encouraged by my mother who read the novels they are based on as a young girl. It all began with (in my opinion) one of the best mini-series ever; the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice (1995), starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth.
Pride and Prejudice, BBC
Not only did this viewing spark my interest in the Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy storyline, but the whole genre. Television shows from the United States seemed to be a variation of life here in Australia, but period television shows from the United Kingdom were something else. The class system, women’s rights, fashion, lifestyle, industry, transport, mannerisms, language, family, love, pastimes, music, and landscape- everything was fabulous and charming.
Many of these British ideals were put on show at the recent Olympics and I can’t help but feel proud of them myself. While our world has changed so much for the better (I don’t have to be concerned about a dowry or marrying for money) there is no denying the appeal of simplicity. Watching Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy share looks over the piano puts Edward and Bella’s Twilight performance to shame.
From there I went on to devour other television shows and films such as Sense and Sensibility, Jane Eyre and Persuasion. They gave so much insight into a time and place in British history and brought to life the characters and stories from the books that remain classics. The themes of love, friendship and family in Pride and Prejudice are still relevant to us, but the world they were set in no longer exists or is only available to the rich.
BBC’s Pride and Prejudice series was so popular its influence leaked out of the UK to the world. Some refer to themsleves as a “Janeite” and are members of the Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA). “Austen-mania” became a commercial outlet for the television and film industry- a form of soft cultural power, and it’s still occurring to this day with shows like Downton Abbey.
Downton Abbey, Carnival Films
I’m not sure exactly why I love English costume dramas so much, maybe it’s the simplicity of life back then or the way men ‘courted’ ladies. It could be the picturesque landscapes that held grandiose estates or the balls and dances, where woman wore gloves and headpieces. It’s also possible that I was charmed by Mr. Darcy after that first viewing and have been in by love ever since.
Digital Content or Promotional Material?
“We know shocking little about the digital short, a form of television which has played an instrumental role in television’s merger with digital media, and which looms large in the industry’s projections of its own future.”
I couldn’t agree with you more Max Dawson. What is this new fandazzle form of television that I’ve been missing out of? I say I love television, yet I’ve never watched a digital short (unless Lonely Island videos count?). I’ve seen previews for shows, snippets of what to expect in the next season, I’ve gone on Youtube and watched bloopers to get more of a show I enjoy- is this all in the same realm?
It seems digital shorts are another result of the “technological, institutional, and cultural forces” that have been brewing over the last 20 years. Small in statue, they easily fit into the category of quick and brief, alongside the “140-character Twitter tweet, the Flash microgame, and the viral video.”
The main issue surrounding digital shorts is defining their actual purpose- “the boundary separating digital content form television promotion.” Is an online video separate from the original television series, a promotion for it, or a combination of both? This contentious issue came to head with The Accountants, a short-form web serial spin-off of NBC’s sitcom The Office. The series was scripted by the primetime writing staff and appeared in conjunction with promotional material for The Office, however, was promoted as “original” and “exclusive”.
The Office Webisodes: The Accountants (NBC)
As an avid viewer of The Office for any years I thought it best to check out The Accountants for myself, especially as the writers won an Emmy for the series. What stood out most for me was the lack of central characters. There is no sign of the boisterous Michael Scott or looks to the camera from funnyman Jim. Instead the focus is on Angela, Kevin and Oscar, usually secondary characters. To be honest it took a minute for this to sink in.
The first episode begins by establishing the story arc of the missing money. Angela, Oscar and Kevin explain to Jan (a regular on the show) the problem and she gives them the authority to investigate. We now have a problem to be solved and a team to carry out the task- the accountants! It is clear that this story will be about them and not the regular Office stars.
The Accountants: Angela, Oscar and Kevin.
To fully appreciate The Accountants one must be aware of the original show. Angela is uptight, Oscar is judging and Kevin is dim-witted and lovable. Of course you can probably guess this yourself, but with each episode only two-minutes long you don’t really have that luxury. Many of the episodes centre on or make reference to other secondary characters, like Meredith who irresponsible or Kelly who loves to gossip about nonsense.
Each webisode begins with the sequence and jingle familiar from The Office, although shortened slightly. The structure of each episode is similar to a full-length Office episode. At the beginning of each episode the audience is reminded of the problem and the result of this plays out before us. We still get individual interviews, shots of the office and character’s faces as they react to a situation, but just in smaller doses.
While the story and dialogue is original and unique, the overall look and feel is very like The Office. It’s possible to understand NBC’s standpoint relating to digital content acting as promotional material, however, The Accountants has its own story involving characters that are usually not heard from very often. The format is catering more to the online environment and the opportunities it can offer, as opposed to being advertisement for The Office.
National Broadcasting- Obscuring the World
The Olympics is an international spectacular held every four years, uniting the world through the celebration of human ability and determination, right? Wrong! It’s about individual countries striving to outdo one another and prove they are the best. The opening ceremony provides a country with a worldwide stage to demonstrate the best they have to offer. The world may come together for a rare achievement, such as Usain Bolt in the 100m sprint, but ultimately it’s about your country’s ability, athletes and medal tally.
Medal Count, London Olympics (6/8/12)
An event like the Olympics brings out our national identity, allowing us to set aside our differences and focus on a united goal. Our national identity was created, shaped and reinforced in the home via radio and television, beginning early on with our national anthem. To relate to an international event such as the Olympics we first must be able to identify with our own country. This happens via “national broadcasting”, discussed in David Morley’s book Home Territories. National broadcasting can “create a sense of unity” by “linking the national public sphere into the private lives its citizens”.
Television provides the perfect outlet for bringing the nation into our homes, helping us to identify and emphasis with those we may never meet. Morley writes that even our weather is nationlised, with the names of our capital cities read like a “magic chant”, encircling the nation together. When we watch the weather segment on breakfast shows like Sunrise we are shown the weather around Australia. This daily reminder links us to states that we may otherwise pay no mind to, as well as allowing us to feel secure in our homes when natural disasters occur.
Weather updates around Australia make us feel safe and secure, while “warnings from a dangerous peripheral world of extremes and uncertainty are reassuring… our sense of comfort in being safe at home, is also a matter of national belonging in the profoundest sense”. When we step out of this environment onto the world stage, like at the Olympics, we are entering unsure territory. Bringing home gold will reinforce our belief in our great country, to do otherwise will rattle the foundations of our national identity.
Everyday we understand events and topics through a “national frame”, this we see most strongly in our evening news. Events are discussed in terms of their proximity and the affect they will have on Australians. The news is a constant stream of fear and violence, sprinkled with stories about “Aussie pride” and “mateship”. Every night we sit before the national news feeling safe and snug in our lounge rooms. When we start to feel a bit too uneasy with the way of our nation, a startling feat of heroisms will occur, to reinform how great our nation and the people it’s made up of are.
National broadcasting diminishes the space within Australia, making a small event seem like a national one. A Prime Minister doesn’t just visit a school in rural NSW, but the nation. When 500 jobs are cut in the car industry all Australians feel the loss. Likewise a natural disaster in Bali can see hundreds lose their lives, but the main concern seems to be Australian lives.
Nine News Australia
As much as national broadcasting -through morning breakfast shows and nightly news- can bring Australians together, it also separates them from the rest of the world. International events seem to have little to no affect on this nation, while a political blunder can be discussed for weeks. So obsessed with having the nation in our lounge rooms, we forget that the rest of the world exists; only to be painfully reminded when they defeat us in swimming.
tvculturesinthemorningyeah 