Fresh on my mind is the brilliant series Breaking Bad. The premise of the show has all the makings of a gimmick: a straitlaced chemistry teacher gets cancer and decides to sell meth to set up his family financially after he's gone. Up until the 90s, that concept could have easily been packaged as a sitcom (cue the laugh track when Walter White's bumbling DEA agent brother-in-law nearly catches him cooking meth in his RV lab). It could have also gone the route of the cloying, dripping, overly sentimental TNT drama (cue the group hugs and affirmations of life-lived-to-the-fullest after Walt gets his cancer diagnosis). Instead AMC has given us a show that doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence. Even the flattest character on the show, Saul Goodman, is a fully fleshed-out human being, albeit one with no conscience. Character development drives the plot. The most implausible scenes in the series (more recently, Gus's poisoning of the rival cartel and narrow escape from Mexico) had to happen and were appropriate to each character's story arc.
Walter White has the makings of an Aristotelian tragic hero. Here is a well-intentioned man with a tragic flaw who, as the creator has suggested, will ultimately fall. He may attain redemption during the final season, but his choices throughout the 5-season story arc will catch up to him, as they did to anti-hero Vic Mackey in another brilliant show, The Shield. And if it delivers, as I hope it will, on its tragic hero's development, the audience will be moved to fear and pity, because no matter how low Walter White sinks, we still identify with him and do not want to see him fail. The question is, will Walt face his inevitable downfall with dignity as did Hamlet, John Proctor, or Walter Lee Younger? The best thing about this show is that we have no idea, and our inability to predict the outcome is not based on contrived plot scenarios, the possibility of a deus ex machina, or a red herring. Our uncertainty stems from the show being led by a highly volatile, unpredictable character who, like us, has no idea where his journey will end.
Can television, that brain-rotting device our parents told us not to sit too close to, be art? I believe good art is provocative, challenges its audience, and forces us to examine our own values. At least, that's what I look for in books, great films, and, yes, TV. Thankfully, with the rise of great TV shows has come a technological revolution that allows me to sort through the rot to find something that actually stimulates the brain.
I like B. A. Baracus and Kirk Cameron. However, I get what you’re saying. I think the small screen made a big turnaround with original programming due to cable networks, specifically, the Sopranos emerging on HBO. I can’t think of drama before that with true realism, dynamic characters and advanced plots. You could argue Twin Peaks but who knows what was happening in that show? After The Sopranos came Nip Tuck, The Shield, House and 24 that I watched. I’m sure there were others. Each one of those shows was different but each one was intent on focusing on character development. The main characters in those shows had strengths, flaws and their own moral compass. I was endeared to all of them and supported them until the ends of each of those shows.
ReplyDeleteSo I agree with your point that in certain instances TV has become the greater artistic medium. On the other hand, what does this mean for society? I’ve often lamented the loss of having something to aspire to on TV. Yes, we’ve always had comedies and dramas but at one time we had wholesome family fun. The group hugs and affirmations you speak of gave us hope. The mentally challenged dads that make us laugh today (Everybody Loves Raymond) were preceded by morally stringent dads (The Cosby Show) that still made us laugh. That is a quick generalization. But I ask; does the moral relativity of today’s TV bode well for society? Is TV influencing us or are we influencing it? This will not be solved today. Thanks for the great post.