The Procedural: The Arc of Television is Long, and It Bends Toward Sucking
On Tuesday (or whatever Tuesday is called in Canada) the National Post's Robert Fulford equated the life of a television show to that of an art movement, or the history of a civilization. All three of these, he said, feature periods primitive, classic, baroque, and decadent. You probably had to actually show up for more than 25% of your sophomore year art history gen ed req in order to be able to define those terms, but the argument is nevertheless sound. However, it's more of an argument for why procedural television is stupid.
Except for Happy Days, which is only thrown in to mention the origin of the term "jump the shark," Fulford cites as examples nothing but procedural television. (At least, I think. I have no idea what L.A. Law is, because I am not 75. [Editor's Note: It wasn't that great, but it was better in many ways than what we have now.]) His area of study: Without a Trace, House, Numbers, Flashpoint, and something Canadian called Da Vinci's Inquestmdash;those soothing shows where crimes/medical mysteries get solved, the outcome is rarely ever in doubt, and there is little to no character development.
These shows employ a lot of people, get strong ratings, and help pay for the critically acclaimed sophisticated stuff that bloggers love. (For example, Sumner Redstone & Co. ain't paying for Dexter without the money NCIS makes.) Procedurals are also terrible. The "ripped from the headlines" conceit that Law & Order has so famously shouted about for years could really be translated to "God, this job is so easy, thanks real-life murderers! Love, the Dick Wolf gravy train." The problem is that all the procedural shows do this, and they are interchangeable.
How terrible? Fulford cites an episode of Numbers in which: "When a pair of valuable sneakers is stolen from the vault of a foreign ambassador, the team delves into the world of sneaker collecting."
This happens all the time. I accidentally watched a Bones rerun yesterday wherein they delved into the controversial world of tween beauty pageants. The value judgments made by the protagonists, and by extension, the writers, were so predictably liberal that I didn't even have to wait around for the surprising moral ambiguity that would present and then resolve itself with around 11 minutes to go. I would tell you that Bones sucks and you shouldn't watch it, but that would sound like I was endorsing Law & Order, CSI, The Mentalist, Lie to Me, The Closer, NCIS, Numbers, Criminal Minds, Without a Trace, The Ghost Whisperer, Psych, Cold Case, Southland, and Castle.
So what if the Primitive to Decadent spectrum is applied to shows that aren't procedurals? Say, Lost or The Wire or The West Wing? Lost isn't done yet, so let's give it a pass until next year when everyone can bitch about the ending even though it will end up being more responsible than any other work for the mainstreaming of speculative fiction, and that is a great thing. The Wire is pretty much unimpeachable and even if you didn't like the fifth season I don't care because there has been more than enough written about it. But West Wing, which for four seasons was the greatest show on television (don't you agree, Chris Lehmann?), is a more interesting case in that its classic period was especially prolonged.
The West Wing's season finales were always organic, well-developed, and not sensationalistic, and therefore its classic period lasted until the beginning of the fifth season, when Aaron Sorkin stopped writing the show and they started to light it as if they were trying to summon the ghost of Aleister Crowley. (Seriously, the lighting thing was ridiculous. It looked like the White House forgot to pay the electric bill. It was very distracting.) While Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 all end with a character dying and/or being wounded, the events leading up to and surrounding these tragedies are so disparate and contain such great acting and writing that it is not repetitive.
At the end of Season 1, a gunman opens fire on the President. This had viewers (me) wary about where they would go with Season 2: what can top an assassination attempt without being totally ridiculous? Instead of trying to outdo itself in the manner of CSI, whose definition of drama seems to be "put one of the team in mortal peril and that's it," the entire story hinged on whether or not Jed Bartlet would run for re-election. You always knew he would, because otherwise there would not be a show, but the way that his decision was depicted—the will he or won't he question was really introduced halfway through the season, in "The War at Home," and then slowly and thoughtfully teased out into the peerlessly brilliant finale, "Two Cathedrals,"—was done in a manner that a procedural television show simply can't be capable of. The second season of The West Wing didn't even really end with a cliffhanger (again, you know he's running), but was far more complex, exciting, and OMG so good than the first. You felt rewarded for watching the whole season in a way that watching a new murder get solved every week cannot provide.
Again, without the art history knowledge to back me up, the classic phase of a show should be the best, most desirable, and most successful, right? Fulford knows that this isn't the case. He mentions a canceled Canadian show called Intelligence and says that, "while at times it seemed the most convincing drama ever produced in Canada, it died quickly when viewers realized they needed almost scholarly concentration to follow the plot." But, aside from a few extraordinary situations, this is always true.
Shows that enjoy a long classic phase do not get renewed, because they require too much commitment. Fulford theorizes that CBS canceled Without A Trace because it had shifted into the decadent phase. What this doesn't consider is that the successful shows are ALL either baroque and decadent. Of the four scripted dramas in the 10 top-rated shows this season? Three are procedurals. The other one is Desperate Housewives. Fuck.
Conor Griff used to work in the film industry until he stupidly quit his job at the onset of a recession and moved to New York. Now he just goes on interviews that lead nowhere. He suspects he is disappointing in person.
Previously: All the Dirt on Last Night's 'Gossip Girl'
I actually have long thought of Seinfeld in almost exactly this way. The first season is Primitive, almost unbearably so. The Classical phase goes until George starts to work at the Yankees. This begins the Baroque phase. But when he loses that job instead of going into Decadence it, in my opinion, boots the moon and goes Rococo on our asses. Perhaps the freedom of non-renewal. The Finale is arguably Decadent but I prefer to think of it as the explosive collapse of a Black Hole.
You talk shit about "House," I will make your face look like a Picasso
Conor: This is great! And as some one who dines weekly on the Dick Wolf gravy train, I think you're absolutely right. BUT let's talk about West Wing for a second because I have DONE NOTHING with my weeknights but watch hours and hours of this show. I'm just "discovering it."
It's addictive but also pretty trashy, no? it's SOOO self-congratulating and self-aggrandizing. Don't you think it butters itself a little too thickly with the whole WE ARE MEN OF ETHICS SINGLE gimmick? All the main characters are so fucking noble. Unlike 'The Wire' which was a more realistic display of real politics, power, and tragically flawed men? Like in the Greek Drama sense of the term? I mean, DON'T YOU AGREE??
More please.
First of all, I would take a seat on the Dick Wolf gravy train or any other show I called terrible up there and not even feel conflicted.
As far as West Wing, Chris Lehmann, in his article that I linked to, (and that he wrote in 2001 so I wonder if he has changed his mind after 8 years of Bush), agrees with you. I sort of do too, but I prefer to not look at TWW as comparable to the Wire or anything that purports itself to be a realistic depiction of anything. It's total fantasy, and it's the most exploitative appeal to pathos that I can think of.
But! If we're going to have escapist television, I WANT everyone to be that fucking noble! It's better researched than whatever faux-social commentary that fucking Horatio and not-Ainsley will provide, it's brilliantly acted (Richard Schiff, QED), the dialogue is hilarious, and watching it fills me with, I don't know, a kind of triumph, that you don't normally get from TV. So yes I agree but IT'S STILL THE BEST and it's sad that America doesn't care.
OOO that Atlantic piece was excellent.
Ok, ok I've been beating myself up all week for consuming soooo much West Wing but you're right, if it's going to be escapist then Rob Lowe should captain it. BTW, my favorite episode so far has been the one where Josh becomes a pariah and they kick him out of the war room. That's when that's when the noble veneer gives way to Leo's craggy cutthroat instincts. Cheers. And pour one out for John Spencer. Hottest hawk evar.
I don't really get how Fulford's (ha—he has a Muppet name) point about House supports his argument. Because isn't he saying that "baroque" is a phase a series goes through? But the Sherlock Holmes stuff has built into the show since the beginning.
And could this whole discussion just be boiled down to "It's really hard to keep a story interesting over time, and even harder when there's no overarching arc (or you're not Aaron Sorkin)"?
Oh, and I'm kind of fond of Castle.
Murder He Wrote
Kind of! Except I've never masturbated to Castle.
(or you're not Aaron Sorkin on coke)"?
Fixed!
Also, can we talk about SportsNight? I mean, not in connection with Conor's awesome post or anything. Just 'cause I really like SportsNight.
I didn't really care for SportsNight. I don't know why. I accept that it was a good show, much as I accept that Proust has literary merit—I would rather just cede the argument than spend time with the material.
Alright, then. Next topic of conversation:
Moff's crappy taste: What's up with that?
I DO HAVE SOME PRETTY QUESTIONABLE FRIENDS.
The system wonderfully explains the rise, dominance and eventual decay of the Scooby Doo franchise.
This seems like as good a place as any to admit that I've been obsessively watching "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" on hulu for weeks now.
I'm a total liberal sap sucker for Sorkin, yes I am.
Ah-yup. Studio 60 hooked me when Sorkin realized he couldn't write sketch comedy worth a lick and decided to bring in Mark McKinney from Kids in the Hall.
I have also adopted "the Macau deal" as a panacean euphemism.
Bravo awakens me at 8:00 each weekday morning to enjoy an episode of The West Wing in bed before the shower and the work.
Thanks again! TheG Awlker has been a dandy Cliffnotes on the last few decades' teevee. Which I will soon be forced to put to use … so soon … heavy sigh …
what about Frasier?! that show was AMAZING…and then they got Niles and Daphne together and it sucked from then on out. Early on it was a hilarious portrayal of 2 unapologetic snobs and then it just became watered down crap where the characters were shells of their former selves.
But also, the show was never primative bc the main character was already well established in cheers. They completely bypassed the primitive year(s).
Thats why Frasier is the greatest show in tv history. 7 solid classical seasons.
Little known fact: Conor Griff used to be Jack Ketch.
This was fantastic, Conor.
Conor, you really do need to check out Da Vinci's Inquest… and not just because it was filmed largely in my old 'hood (Vancouver's Downtown East Side – the poorest zip code in Canada), but it was actually good. The main character was based on our real-life former mayor Larry Campbell (who used to be a coroner and consulted on the show), and the series that followed, Da Vinci's City Hall, had the character winning the election and doing the same thing. Fascinating stuff for a civic politics nerd like yours truly. Sweet plotting, great long term character arcs (some built over the course of the two series) and some excellent gritty dialogue. Intelligence had the same writer and a lot of the same cast but had one of the lead cops from Da Vinci's playing a drug kingpin.
DVI is still very much beloved in these parts (the show, the cast and the character on which it was based), and the real-life mayor Larry Campbell is now a wildly popular senator (and I'm not just saying that because he gave me a ride home in his Porsche last summer.) All 3 shows are worth a look if you want an antidote to all things Dick Wolf and the CSI franchises. (Or if you're bored and want to see what Vancouver's cracktown looks like.)