![]() |
|
September 4, 2006
Picking Favorites: The Flow Television PollAs a periodic contributor to the online media studies webzine, Flow, I received an invitation this summer from Jason Mittell (who regularly posts comments here at this blog) to participate in a poll about the highlights of the past television season. Here's how he described our task: The goal is to solicit the opinions of Flow's esteemed group of writers & editors (past & present) in generating a poll of the best television of the last year, as somewhat arbitrarily defined as July 1 2005 - June 30 2006. ....A few clarifications - we're looking for "new" television only, so any program or series you vote for must have aired new episodes within the 05-06 season, but it does not need to be a new series. The bulk of Flow's contributors are located in the US, so we expect the majority of entries will be American television - however, if you wish to vote for a non-US title, you may (as long as it aired new episodes within the timeframe). If you are not located in the US, you can vote for any show that aired episodes new to your region within the timeframe, including older shows just coming to your locale.... Finally, you may vote for programs that did not air on traditional television (like an online series or unaired pilot), but please include a way for the curious to find it - we are looking for "television" defined somea broadly, so you can vote for things other than a conventional series, but be sure it fits into the television medium better than cinema or another medium. Some have speculated that there is a kind of academic canon of television -- certain shows that are watched by all academics but are not necessarily highly rated by the rest of the world (I sometimes wonder if everyone who watches Veronica Mars, for exmple, has a PhD or more improtantly, if ever PhD in the world watches the series). Or conversely, that there are programs that are highly rated across the general public but which no academic will be willing to publicly acknowledge. For the moment, I am talking about academics who are proud to say they like television. Don't get me started about the liars and hypocrites who claim not to even own a television set. So, as social experiments go, this looks to be a fascinating one. I know in my case, it has already forced me to think about whether my taste as a fan and as an academic are necessarily alligned: are there shows that interest me intellectually but not emotionally? Are there shows I love to watch but don't really admire on that level? Are there shows I should be watching (and don't) but might want to list anyway? Are there shows that don't deserve the top ten but might benefit from my listing them more than the predictible choices that I know every other academic is going to list? (It' s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Lost is going to be in the top few vote getters here). Do I want to fall in line or signal my idiosyncratic tastes and interests? How do we pick the best in a medium whose cultural standing is still under question or where there are not widely agreed upon standards of evaluation? Here are my choices (listed in alphabetical order). I have never been able to rank my favorites very well. You will also see that I am using some of the references here as placeholders for larger trends within the entertainment space. Colbert at the Washington Press Club Dinner (as Seen on You-Tube): For starters, this is intended to stand in for the entire genre of news comedy -- Daily Show, Bill Mahr, and Colbert Report. Each in its own way has broadened the conversation about news and current events in this country, educating a generation of young viewers to think critically about newsmakers and newscasters alike, sparking debates about contemporary issues which might have otherwise escaped their attention, and broadening the range of voices heard in these public debates. The list of guests on these shows is significantly more diverse ideologically than what is represented on Nightline, for example. For me, Colbert's appearance at the Washington Press Club Dinner was a highlight of the year within this genre. For one thing, it took an event which long has been associated with the too comfortable relationship between the national news media and the White House and turned it around. The contrast between the skit with Bush and the Bush impersonator (easy laughs) and Colbert's performance (uncomfortable responses) says it all. Whether he was funny or not is beside the point. Seeing him speak truth to power in this context was an astonishing act of courage: the guy's career could have burst into flames at that moment. And it fascinates me that a)the story got so little play on the mainstream news but hit cyberspace so hard; b)many people who never saw this event on CSpan saw it on You-Tube. I can think of no other event last year which more powerfully demonstrated the ability of grassroots media to route around the filters of broadcast media. This, we can hope, is a sign of things to come. Doctor Who: Within the rules of the contest, I get to play this two ways: the Christopher Eccleston version of the Doctor appeared this year for the first time in the United States (at least legally) on the Sci-Fi Channel and the David Tennant version appeared for the first time this year in England on the BBC. Both are truly spectacular contributions to science fiction television - some of the freshest and most intelligent writing for the genre in some time. As my son, who is the real Doctor Who fan in the family explains, the writers, producers, and cast seem to be starting each episode with the premise "Wouldn't it be fun if..." and then giving themselves the freedom to have fun with the material. This is a classic case of the fans taking over the franchise -- having kept it alive through some dark years -- and then getting to do with it what they want. This shift is generating excitement both in the UK and in the USA. A highlight of the series, of course, is the character of Rose Tyler -- and her chemistry with both of the new Doctors. She is one of the few companions who might have sustained a series of her own -- all the more so because she draws several fascinating secondary characters into her orbit. She embodies a working class girl's transition into adulthood, her growing sense of empowerment and mastery over the universe, her complex feelings of love and friendship for the Doctor, and her efforts to reconstruct a family which was shattered by tragedy. Most of my favorite moments in the series have to do with her character and what she brings to the franchise -- even though I also really liked both of the new doctors.
House: My love of House defies all of the rules that normally govern my television viewing. I have always enjoyed shows about cops and lawyers and never ever liked a television show about doctors. I skipped past St. Elsewhere and E.R. for example without the slightest regret. And then I got stuck watching an episode of House while staying at my brother's house and got hooked from the first scene forward. Yes, a lot of it has to do with Hugh Laurie -- though I have never been as infatuated with some his other performances as many people around me. He manages to make me laugh over and over agan and yet still care about what's going on inside his head. He is arguably the most intelligent character on American television (not that there's that much competition) and I tend to prefer to watch shows with intelligent characters. I could care less about the disease of the week plots. For me, it's all about the characters -- and this extends across the ensemble. I care about each of the supporting characters. Each has their own dynamic in relation to House. He is the catalyst who forces them to explore aspects of their personalities that interest me and they in turn touch on different facets of his tortured personality. Lost: I wrote about Lost here several weeks ago so I will be brief. I admire the complex intertwining of different storylines and elements: the puzzle or mystery elements, the backstory elements, and the story of how these guys form a community and help each other cope with life on the island. What other series on television takes such a global perspective -- taking viewers to stories set in Iraq, Australia, Korea, Ireland, and Africa (all told from a native rather than an outsider's perspective). What other series sustains so many different plotlines involving so many different characters and yet maintains emotional clarity and narrative coherence. I know we all wait breathlessly each week for the producers to screw up and for the series to jump the shark but frankly that's part of the fun. These guys are doing something that's never been done before and they are playing without a net. I frankly don't care if there's a mastery plan or a flair for improvisation driving this as long as it remains as engaging and challenging as it has been so far.
Veronica Mars: Okay, I agree with many of the critics who say this season was simply too convoluted and added too many subplots about too many secondary characters. But I wonder if we would feel the same way if we could watch the episodes in tighter sequence. It wasn't helped by being stretched so thin with so many pre-emptions and so many reruns sandwiched in the middle. This is a recurring tension right now between series with strong narrative drives which demand real attention and business as usual programming strategies that don't reflect how viewers want to consume the content. But, all these grumblings and excuses aside, I really enjoy this show. I like its sense of humor. I like the emotional dynamics. I like the intelligence of its protagonist. I enjoy the week-in and week-out cases as well as the overarching season long story arcs. It's a fun show to watch. The West Wing: West Wing is one of my all time favorite series. I am a political junkee and this feeds me precisely what I wanted -- behind the scenes stories (of the kind that I get from Bob Woodward's nonfiction books about the White House and other works in that genre), topical discussions of real world issues (putting this series in the same league with The Daily Show in terms of using entertainment for the purposes of civic education.) But a season or so back, it looked like The West Wing had totally lost steam. But this last season was in my opinion the best ever -- in part because of its willingness to totally reinvent itself. The focus shifts from the White House to the campaign trail. The series dares to imagine American presidential campaigns being run on a different basis -- with intelligent, thoughtful, principled characters in both parties, with a refusal to give over to crude partisanship and a willingness to put the country's needs over personal ambition and party gain. It is the story of what would happen if John McCain was running against Barrack Obama. And along the way, we see the collective damage of 8 years in power upon the personal lives and friendships of the core characters. We watch the forces that split them apart as they enter a period of transition -- as well as what draws holds them together even when they violate our core trust. My big regret is that The West Wing wasn't allowed to complete its transition into a new series. I almost didn't care which of the two candidates won the election. I wanted to see how their presidency differed from the Bartlett administration. Even though I swing Democratic most of the time, I would have been fascinated to see what a Republican West Wing was going to be like. In the end, a series which looked dead two seasons ago ended up dying too soon. My one consolation is that I have seen a sneak preview of the first episode of Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on Sunset Strip and it is really really really really good. Writing these entries, I discovered a few things about my viewing preferences -- the centrality of characters (especially witty and intelligent characters) whether we are judging drama, comedy, or reality television; the imaginative use of genre elements to explore aspects of the world around us; and the interest in serialization over self-contained episodes. I suspect that puts me squarely in the middle of academic taste culture -- even if my fan boy interests in science fiction and superheroes push me to the outer edge. I will be most curious to see how others came out on the poll. Regular blog reader Dereck Kompare shares his choices over at his own site, Media Musings. CommentsHenry Jenkins is the Provost's Professor of Communications, Journalism, and Cinematic Art at the University of Southern California. Until recently, he served as the co-founder of the Comparative Media Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. More about Henry Jenkins is available here. |