Movies suck: the virtue of the Series

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I realized this just the other day, actually. Movies are so bad. Sometimes, for instance, I enjoy watching one, and then afterwards I just think how much it isn't great. I do not want to watch it again.

Movies are bad. And we as a society need to become aware of this.

I have also been reflecting on the fact that sometimes TV is quite great, though it is so widely stigmatized. Even in the quaint realm of comedy: one single episode of Simpsons or Third Rock will make me laugh more times than any entire movie ever has. And actually just comedy. Funny TV shows are the only good reason to construe looking into an activity.

Honestly though, and this will ruin my currently non-existent credibilty, I enjoy the two geniunly charming series, Northern Exposure and Digimon season Two. Oh and Cowboy Bebop: it is great.

So, the occasional greatness of TV is something else society needs to awaken itself to.

The issue may, I venture, have to do with the organism that is the series: there is some value to this form that has yet to be recognised. The way it takes a formula -- a certain relation, and tension, of characters -- and repeats it endlessly, seems to be the only thing that makes for fiction that I like. Has anyone read the Aubry/Marturin series, by Mr. O'Brien? It's the shit, no doubt. The only thing I've ever enjoyed reading.

The primary virtue of the A/M series is the goodness of the two characters: not really the point right now. What is interesting, are the contradictions of the series genre: take Marturin's relationship with Diana. It is necessary for there to be tension, and therefore Diana is always running away from Marturin, which is why he's such a mad crazy opium eater. But the fact that their straigtening it out is an unacceptable and so unstable state -- for then there is no tension -- essentially makes their being apart pointless, because it is all for no end: no tension then either. It is a fence that can only be straddled for so long: after their marriage, really, the Marturin/Diana relationship did nothing for the series, though it was just as chaotic. And it is true of all the other tensions in the series, like Aubry's bad luck with money and promotion: after the tenth book it is all contrived.

The solution is to kill the girl, or the boy, whoever is the supporting role, off. But what we often find is that the author has only allowed one specific type of character that fits with the other character in a valid way to create good tension. So every series would seem to have its finite limit, and must constantly worsen as it appraches this limit: and to be sure we find this is true. It was so stupid when Flieshman and I-can't-remember-her-name got it together. Yet a series is always so much more engaging than an isolated fiction, though it be even more flawed.

In conclusion, the episodic series is a very undervalued entity, and a damn interesting one too. And things that aren't the series are almost never great.

Brian Mowrey (Brian Mowrey), Thursday, 12 September 2002 03:47 (twenty-three years ago)

"The only thing I've ever enjoyed reading." - yikes.

One advantage tv shows have, and one I wish more would take advantage of, is the opportunity to really build and develop a character. My favorite tv dramas (Homicide, Hill St. Blues, the Sopranos, Oz) have done this.

James Blount, Thursday, 12 September 2002 03:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Two things series suffer with though is over-application of formula and the promise/threat of syndication. After all big bucks in a TV show can roll in if you hit the ninety or so episodes required for syndication into perpetuity. However to get to that point you will have stretched your original premise to breaking point. At the same time you want your show to benefit regular viewers without alienating occasional viewers - therefore the characters cannot develop too much. (Also in syndication it is quite possible shows will be shown out of order).

The latter is something which is being challenged by shows like 24 (definately) - where the whole thing is just one story. Laterly with shows like Dawsons Creek and Buffy where larger overarcing plots are the norm outside the monster/personal dilema of the week formula. These are shows which ought to have a planned end point. TV is often so much better than films but is much more constrained by the rigidity of programming and formula.

Pete (Pete), Thursday, 12 September 2002 08:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Series = alternate lives for people who have none, somewhat like those endless fantasy trilogies that never end ever

dave q, Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Dave has a point; I think this is why such a big deal is made when long-running character-based shows come to an end (Mary Tyler Moore, MASH, Cheers, Seinfeld). Think how many people are going to be losing their friends when Friends goes off next spring.

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 12 September 2002 11:31 (twenty-three years ago)

And yeah, the reason most shows don't do any serious character development is that it tends to kill ratings (of the shows I mentioned above only Hill St. Blues was a network hit, it's a miracle Homicide was on as long as it was).

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 12 September 2002 11:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't think "losing a friend", buy a DVD player , and think "They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old; age shall not
wither them, nor the years condemn"

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 12 September 2002 11:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Of soap operas never end and do serious character development (or not much sense character development the turnover we are getting on Eastenders at the moment say with Janine).

Pete (Pete), Thursday, 12 September 2002 11:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark: I'm going to quote that when Friends goes off and my corporeal friends (ie. not Paulie Walnuts) will think I'm hilarious.

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 12 September 2002 12:39 (twenty-three years ago)

The real advantage of a long-running series is not simply developing a character (I'd say after establishing a character, most series just go on autopilot anyway) - it's the impact of a relevation in personality or behavior that is revealed (which still must be consistent enough with the character to be believable).

Okay, take for instance All in the Family. As you know, for years and years, Archie and Mike (Meathead) constantly argued. Then toward the end of the series, Mike and Gloria move away. Mike is teary as he's saying goodbye to Archie, and Archie is in disbelief, wondering why Mike isn't happy to be getting away from him. Then Mike says that he's always loved him, despite their conflicts. Mike leaves, and Archie is sitting alone. Then Archie thinks about it, and he becomes teary-eyed. Edith enters the room, notices Archie crying, and then slips back into the kitchen without Archie knowing that she saw him. She announces something like "I've got your lemonade" from the kitchen, Archie quickly dries his eyes, and Edith enters. Utterly devastating. And it wouldn't have been so effective if there hadn't been scores and scores of episodes where Archie and Mike traded verbal abuse.

Another example, Kimagure Orange Road (an anime series). *SPOILERS AHEAD* Kyosuke (teen guy), Madoka (teen gal), and Hikaru (teen gal) are all friends. Hikaru is kind of an annoying, somewhat dim girl and has latched herself onto Kyosuke and considers him her boyfriend; Kyosuke doesn't agree, but keeps this to himself to not hurt her feelings. Kyosuke and Madoka are attracted to each other, but Kyosuke doesn't take action. This is pretty much the theme for the whole series (oh yeah, Kyosuke has wacky supernatural powers, but never mind that). Then, the series ends with a mini-movie, where Kyosuke finally picks Madoka. Hikaru reveals to Kyosuke that she knew all along that he didn't particularly like her and that he liked Madoka instead, but she did what she did because maybe one day he would like her. So Hikaru sits down on the sidewalk, crying, in the rain. Kyosuke leaves her there, sees an umbrella in a storefront, thinks for a minute, then continues to walk away. Madoka then is revealed to be somewhat unregretful of losing Hikaru as a friend. So, for the entire series, part of the humor was in this dumb annoying girl, Hikaru, and then it turns out that she wasn't so dumb after all. I am not doing this series justice by distilling it down, but after you see its 40 or so episodes and then the final movie, it gives you an incredibly intense, lingering feeling.

I don't share the opinion that "movies suck," but certainly, a series that is carefully constructed (and there are very few of these) can have a tremendous effect that a film may not have.

Ernest P., Thursday, 12 September 2002 14:30 (twenty-three years ago)

How come you Americans can see all this anime?? I can't!! CHIZ!!! Well I mean I could spend billions of UKP on videos from humvee but sadly those billions are not available to me er EVER... not fair!

Sarah (starry), Thursday, 12 September 2002 14:33 (twenty-three years ago)

But you can get these revelations in movies as well as TV, and they're usually better in movies. On TV even the best of these are necessarily straightforward and thus emotionally manipulative (oh, they're going away, how sad); on film you can add complex resonances to the moment (Mulholland Drive! Mulholland Drive!) Of course there's no reason why you couldn't do this on TV, but it doesn't happen.

B:Rad (Brad), Friday, 13 September 2002 01:11 (twenty-three years ago)

But you can get these revelations in movies as well as TV, and they're usually better in movies.

I agree with both statements. But, TV can use time to its advantage to make a deeper impact (but this applies to a *very* small number of shows). Say a friend of yours, who you've known for years, imparts some kind of startling admission to you. Then, say you've met someone at a bar, chatted with them for an hour or two, and then he makes the same admission. Certainly there's a different feeling in each case, due to the familiarity you have with the person. (I know, a real life person isn't like a TV/film character, and we relate to them differently, but still.) That said, I'd rather watch films than TV any day.

Ernest P., Friday, 13 September 2002 12:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Ditto - it's very very rarely taken advantage of, but with television you get dozens of hours to explore a character, with film you get two maybe three; televison can be subtler - it rarely is, but that's more due to limitations of the market rather than the medium itself. 24 hour movies are a rare thing (and the one's that do exist tend to not be narrrative driven), but a show like 24 can devote 24 hours (roughly, allowing for commercials more like 21) to a single storyline (although even here there were subplots and story threads that only consumed a few episodes), of course most shows that devote themselves to just one storyline per season tend to be shortlived, but this is due to ratings not the quality of the work necessarily.

James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 13 September 2002 12:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Another advantage television has over movies is that it's a medium where writers have the power - writers (David Chase, Aaron Sorkin, Dick Wolf, Steven Bochco, Alan Ball) get tv shows made; stars, producers, and directors get movies made.

James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 13 September 2002 12:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh yeah...I saw probably 90% of all the anime I've ever seen during college; there was an anime club that would show stuff every week, and you could see it all for $5/year. Maybe there's a similar club at a local college, Sarah. Indeed, actually buying the stuff is crazy expensive (the Kimagure Orange Road boxed set is $240!). To be honest, a lot of the anime I saw was boring/awful, some was slightly amusing, and only a little of it was truly worthy of merit. One can only take so much of the giant robots with arms-as-missiles, flying nymphettes with cantaloupe-sized eyes, and Freudian tentacles probing in an inappropriate manner. As for anime, apart from Miyazaki, Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies, Only Yesterday), and Kimagure Orange Road, I could probably do without the rest.

Ernest P., Friday, 13 September 2002 12:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Anime and TV share two qualities that are in part due to the writers having a great amount of control: the rare cases of brilliantly well-defined and subtle characters, and the overwhelming quantity of bad material that gives either entire genre a bad name. A lot of bad TV shows are due to executive retooling: but in the end the writer will determine if it is good or bad.

Movies on the other hand tend to benefit a lot of the time from all the extra medling. Honestly, regular movies are better than indie movies, most of the time. It is the same thing really. It is not really my theory, though, that the meddling is what makes movies not great: I still atribute it to something about the shortness.

I too would rather watch a movie than a TV show: if it is a movie I have seen before. A series has more replay value for me. I admit some of the appeal is the vicarious aspect: but what a cool aspect it is.

Brian Mowrey (Brian Mowrey), Friday, 13 September 2002 16:02 (twenty-three years ago)

I meant 'have not seen', and I think that makes more sense

Brian Mowrey (Brian Mowrey), Friday, 13 September 2002 16:03 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.