I completely understand why many people hate television. Where movies are about telling a story that satisfies a person with a solid beginning, middle, and end, television shows have a strong beginning, intriguing complications, and... no real ending.
Traditionally, television is designed not to provide a satisfying conclusion, but rather to perpetuate watching. Each act break builds to generate interest to engage the viewer and then the viewer is presented with... a message from our sponsors.
The shows I gravitate towards are the ones that don't have commercial breaks, whether they be from other countries or on cable (the BBC version of 'The Office,' HBO offerings, etc.), or the ones that don't require sustained viewing (like 'The Twilight Zone' or 'The Carol Burnett Show'). The standard template for shows draws me out of them. (I think that was one of the big problems with 'Arrested Development.' As much as I loved watching the show on DVD, when I tried to watch it on television, the commercial breaks made it fall flat.)
Having said all that, my current favorite television show is a Canadian show called 'Slings & Arrows.' It has just the right mixture of artistic ambition, inspiration, and humor to have me completely enthralled. Plus it is Canadian, so you can make a drinking game out of how many times people apologize.
The show is about a fictional Shakespeare Festival, and the difficulties that occur when they try to produce plays (Season 1 is 'Hamlet'; Season 2 is 'MacBeth'; and Season 3 is 'King Lear'). The show is smart, witty, and thoroughly engaging. And it also does a great job of showing how great literature can enter and affect our lives.
Without getting too esoteric or metaphorical, I am am always amazed at this wondrous gift of received culture and history. There are so many good stories that have been passed down to us, how can do anything except revel in them and have some fun?
Showing posts with label thoughts on television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts on television. Show all posts
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Thoughts on Dollhouse
Here's a comic from HijiNKS Ensue about Dollhouse.
So I've watched the first three episodes of Dollhouse - the new Joss Whedon show that looks like an Alias rip-off. It is not a great show, and not even a good show. It is an ok show, which means if it is on, I probably wouldn't change the channel. However, I also wouldn't seek it out if it WAS on at the time.
Since I don't have a television, though, it doesn't matter. I usually give a show a couple of episodes before rendering judgment. Firefly didn't hook me until somewhere in the middle of Disc 2 of the DVD set. Buffy didn't get good for me until the back half of Season 2. I've only watched three and a half seasons of Angel and that hasn't hooked me yet. Very few shows, like Arrested Development, hook me from the get-go. Heck, Lost didn't even hook me until the first John Locke episode in Season 1 - what was that? About four or five shows in? The American version of The Office didn't get good until well into the second season.
What makes Whedon's work interesting is that he makes the subtext the text and flaunts genre conventions. This lulls the audience into a state of relaxation, after which the work suddenly adheres to genre conventions, which is both shocking and amusing.
For example, instead of making a subtle parallel between vampirism and alcoholism (i.e. the characters are addicted to something horrible and damaging to themselves and others), the parallel is explicit. The vampires meet in a twelve-step program, and say phrases like, "My name is Vladmir, and I am a bloodaholic." The subtext is the text, and everyone laughs because a vampire support group is funny and absurd. The audience is laughing and relaxes because this is a spoof of genre conventions. But then a vampire falls off the wagon and kills people - and doesn't kill a minor, faceless character, but instead kills a character that the audience has a significant emotional investment. Suddenly, by adhering to genre conventions, there is excitement and delight.
A great example of what makes Whedon's work so interesting is Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog which does this exact thing. It plays with genre conventions until the audience cares about the villain and hates the hero, then it suddenly adheres to genre conventions, reminding the audience that, hey, they've been rooting for the bad guy, and he's, like, a BAD GUY.
Dollhouse doesn't have that going for it right now, because it is hard to classify in terms of genre. We don't know if it is a sci-fi story or a spy story or something else entirely. There isn't a way for it to cozy up to us, and let us think we know what it is really about, only to have it kick the chair out from under us later.
Plus, there is the challenge of making a character interesting when the only distinguishing thing about the character is her utter and complete blankness.
The third episode in the series is the closest so far that the show has come to finding its voice - the Dollhouse characters are no different from the manufactured pop sensations that are forced down the throat of popular culture. The show is a metaphor for the entertainment industry as a whole, specifically focusing on how women are treated.
This is the closest the show has come to asking an interesting question. I am not sure the high-concept of the show is sustainable for many episodes and story ideas, though, unless something radically changes soon. Hopefully, something will.
Having said all that, I have watched the show enough to get a sense of the formula. Hence, I have two plot ideas for shows.
1) A Paris Hilton-type media figure wants to enter the Dollhouse because she thinks it will be the cool trendy thing to do.
2) An aging multi-millionaire approaches the Dollhouse and requests that one of the dolls bear him an heir.
If you are interested in watching the first three episodes, here they are:
Episode 1 (not very good)
Episode 2 (gets a little better)
Episode 3 (gets a little better than episode 2)
So I've watched the first three episodes of Dollhouse - the new Joss Whedon show that looks like an Alias rip-off. It is not a great show, and not even a good show. It is an ok show, which means if it is on, I probably wouldn't change the channel. However, I also wouldn't seek it out if it WAS on at the time.
Since I don't have a television, though, it doesn't matter. I usually give a show a couple of episodes before rendering judgment. Firefly didn't hook me until somewhere in the middle of Disc 2 of the DVD set. Buffy didn't get good for me until the back half of Season 2. I've only watched three and a half seasons of Angel and that hasn't hooked me yet. Very few shows, like Arrested Development, hook me from the get-go. Heck, Lost didn't even hook me until the first John Locke episode in Season 1 - what was that? About four or five shows in? The American version of The Office didn't get good until well into the second season.
What makes Whedon's work interesting is that he makes the subtext the text and flaunts genre conventions. This lulls the audience into a state of relaxation, after which the work suddenly adheres to genre conventions, which is both shocking and amusing.
For example, instead of making a subtle parallel between vampirism and alcoholism (i.e. the characters are addicted to something horrible and damaging to themselves and others), the parallel is explicit. The vampires meet in a twelve-step program, and say phrases like, "My name is Vladmir, and I am a bloodaholic." The subtext is the text, and everyone laughs because a vampire support group is funny and absurd. The audience is laughing and relaxes because this is a spoof of genre conventions. But then a vampire falls off the wagon and kills people - and doesn't kill a minor, faceless character, but instead kills a character that the audience has a significant emotional investment. Suddenly, by adhering to genre conventions, there is excitement and delight.
A great example of what makes Whedon's work so interesting is Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog which does this exact thing. It plays with genre conventions until the audience cares about the villain and hates the hero, then it suddenly adheres to genre conventions, reminding the audience that, hey, they've been rooting for the bad guy, and he's, like, a BAD GUY.
Dollhouse doesn't have that going for it right now, because it is hard to classify in terms of genre. We don't know if it is a sci-fi story or a spy story or something else entirely. There isn't a way for it to cozy up to us, and let us think we know what it is really about, only to have it kick the chair out from under us later.
Plus, there is the challenge of making a character interesting when the only distinguishing thing about the character is her utter and complete blankness.
The third episode in the series is the closest so far that the show has come to finding its voice - the Dollhouse characters are no different from the manufactured pop sensations that are forced down the throat of popular culture. The show is a metaphor for the entertainment industry as a whole, specifically focusing on how women are treated.
This is the closest the show has come to asking an interesting question. I am not sure the high-concept of the show is sustainable for many episodes and story ideas, though, unless something radically changes soon. Hopefully, something will.
Having said all that, I have watched the show enough to get a sense of the formula. Hence, I have two plot ideas for shows.
1) A Paris Hilton-type media figure wants to enter the Dollhouse because she thinks it will be the cool trendy thing to do.
2) An aging multi-millionaire approaches the Dollhouse and requests that one of the dolls bear him an heir.
If you are interested in watching the first three episodes, here they are:
Episode 1 (not very good)
Episode 2 (gets a little better)
Episode 3 (gets a little better than episode 2)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
