Soap Operas: The Black Sheep of TV

You hear it quite often: "I felt like I was watching a soap opera!"

Soap operas (or soaps, for short) have been one of the longest running, most enduring genres in television. Starting off as daily radio programs in the 1930s, soaps got their name because companies such as Procter & Gamble were their sponsors. In those early days, radio soaps would be scheduled during the day, at times when the average housewife was available to listen. Thus, the main target were women.

From the offset, radio soaps proved to be extremely popular. Shows such as MA PERKINS and THE GUIDING LIGHT ran on radio for decades, entertaining multiple generations and bringing in strong numbers. Some of the shows eventually made the jump to television, most notably THE GUIDING LIGHT, which had its television debut in 1952 and continued to produce episodes until 2009, for a total of a 70 year run. To this day, GUIDING LIGHT remains the longest running drama in television and radio (credited as such by the Guinness Book of World Records).

                                                               Guiding Light

Since then, soap operas have been a genre that has flourished all throughout the world. Originally seen just in the daytime via shows like GENERAL HOSPITAL, THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS and DAYS OF OUR LIVES, we eventually saw this particular dramatic form expand and move to primetime as well. Starting off with PEYTON PLACE in the 1960s, soaps then had their heyday with the uber-popular shows DALLAS, DYNASTY, KNOTS LANDING and FALCON CREST which dominated the ratings and popular appeal throughout the 1980s.

Since the success of the Big Four, primetime soap operas have been a permanent staple on TV. From MELROSE PLACE to DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, one realizes that a big portion of series out there have been soaps, or have heavily used the soap format, which is open-ended, serialized storytelling, which is expected to last a span of several episodes.

And, yet, it is very interesting to note that soap operas have a very negative connotation attached to them. According to museum.tv, "the term itself signals an aesthetic and cultural incongruity: the events of everyday life elevated to the subject matter of an operatic form. To call a film, novel, or play a 'soap opera' is to label it as culturally and aesthetically inconsequential and unworthy." Despite the fact that such shows comprise a large portion of programming and are watched by millions of people, they are still considered lower-level entertainment, full of over-the-top antics, melodrama and bad acting.

However, it is worth to take a look at just how ridiculous such a notion is. I am not one to claim that just because something is successful also means that it is good, but the long history that soaps have had cannot be ignored. The mere fact that some have survived more than four decades speaks volumes about the sustainability of the genre.

It also cannot be disputed that soaps have not only been popular, but they have been the most popular offerings at various times. DALLAS, for example, was America's number 1 show for five seasons. DYNASTY was an international phenomenon. GREY'S ANATOMY was a media obsession. In the United Kingdom, early evening soaps such as CORONATION STREET and EASTENDERS are the most-watched programs in the country, seen by more people than primetime shows. That is not to say anything about Latin American countries, whose telenovelas are not only extremely popular but also dominate the airwaves and are bought and distributed globally.

So, why is it that soaps are looked down up in such a way? Some say that it is because they are still conceived as a "'women's' genre, and, it has frequently been assumed (mainly by those who have never watched soap operas), of interest primarily or exclusively to uncultured working-class women with simple tastes and limited capabilities" (museum.tv). There also seems to be the expectation, as mentioned above, that a soap opera will be unrealistic, badly written and badly produced. This seems to come in sharp contrast with a lot of reviews, however. Reviews for shows such as REVENGE, whose high levels of production values, writing and acting cannot be disputed. Shows like ER, with its medical soap format, that was heavily praised and awarded for its excellence. Critics feel the need to mention how "soapy" a show is and reassure their readers that, despite that fact, they are still good.

Another reason why this cultural hatred towards soap operas doesn't make sense is the paradox that they are being made fun of, when their formats have been copied and their staples haven been borrowed by the same people who degrade them. Despite the negative attitude towards soaps, it is quite evident that they have had a very big effect on the TV landscape today. Most shows that are on right now have adopted a serialized format, including character arcs, long storylines, and cliffhanger endings, all characteristics created for and typically associated with soaps.

Of course, one cannot deny the excesses that soaps often find themselves drowning in. No one can claim that a family going through kidnappings, bomb attacks, murders, blackmail, rape, shootings and fires is an accurate representation of how life is. While some of the most outrageous plotlines have been known to happen in real life as well, soaps do operate in a much different reality than we do. However, I do not necessarily find them much less real than other so-called "realistic" shows such as CSI, or BONES. Just because the procedural details are paid attention to does not mean that a show is more real. It just means that it is believably done, that one can believe in the situations and circumstances than he or she sees.

The same can be said of a soap. I do not watch a series because I expect it to be realistic. In fact, US TV is known to be anything but realistic. But what matters is that the characters, the dynamics, the relationships are believable and that you can subscribe to them, despite those people apparently living in an alternate reality. And that's what the appeal of soap operas has been to millions of people, throughout many decades: The emotions, the pain, the happiness, if done well, can feel real, something you can relate to and totally understandable under the circumstances. There is a certain suspension of belief that has to be created when watching anything, even the most "realistic" of movies, and that can be achieved if the writing is in place.

Regardless of one's personal taste, the cultural bias that confronts soap operas is very interesting. I have always had a strong feeling that if it were considered a "male" genre, most of the negative connotation associated with them would not be so prevalent. Furthermore, various soaps have proven to be popular and critical darlings for years at a time, which only shows that it's more of a reputation issue than an actual grievance with quality. Plus, if they are so bad, why did everyone copy them? Isn't that supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery?  

A TV Viewer in America

TV viewing is a very vast landscape. With the myriad of options available to us, and the vastly different tastes exhibited by viewers, it's nearly impossible to pinpoint what it is that entertains the fans. Therefore, the next best thing would be to hear from a randomly selected avid TV viewer, and get an idea of what she thinks concerning various topics regarding TV:


Q: What are your favorite types of series? What genre do you enjoy the most?
A: My favorite series are ones that aren’t blatant love stories, or about teenagers. I love good sexual tension between characters, but if the whole point of the show is for the characters to find love, I’m not going to enjoy it. I also cannot enjoy shows that take place in High Schools. It’s because my school was nothing like the portrayal of high schools on TV. I cannot get into them because I cannot connect with it.
I feel like I enjoy Sci-fi the most. It is so creative. Every episode is another creature or another planet, or even another language, and it’s just so brilliant. So much work goes into one episode.

Q: In what way do you watch TV? How often do you watch live, or catch up on the computer/laptop? Is it more preferable to just watch on one’s personal computer?

A: I usually catch up on my shows via the computer. I usually miss my shows because someone is watching something else, I don’t get the channel it’s on or there is either a hockey or football game on that I want to watch. If the station re-airs that night I usually watch the show later. I call it West Coast watching. I prefer watching on my computer. I really don’t have the attention span to watch something on TV, and most commercials are annoying. I like watching on my computer because I can pause it, and go do something else, and I don’t have to worry about missing an important moment because someone talked, or I was reacting to something.

Q: Is TV more entertaining than movies to you or not? Why?

A: I find them both entertaining. However, I would rather watch a TV show than a movie. I like the slow building of a character, and the lengthy plots and the shorter subplots of a TV show.  I can get more attached to TV shows. I love how TV shows aren’t always confined to one genre. ‘Weeds’ started out as a comedy, as it’s progressed it has become more of a drama. It is still funny, but it has more dramatic moments than it did when it started. TV shows also have cliff-hangers. There is nothing better than a season ending and the only thought running through your head is “how am I going to wait for this to get resolved.’

Q: What is it about the narrative form of a series that appeals to you? Do you appreciate the developing of story and character throughout a span of years?

A: I love character development. I watched the first season of ‘Walking Dead’, and I was very tempted to not watch the second season because of the lack of character development. It really will make or break a series for me. I also enjoy it when there is a story arc that carries through a season, especially in shows that have a different story every episode. The plot will be unrelated to the story arc, but there will be that one moment in the episode that reveals a bit more about main story. I really like going back and re-watching shows after the end of the main plot to pick up on the subtle things that I missed the first time.

Q: There seems to be the impression that cable TV is the place to go to for quality programming. Do you feel that cable TV is better than network TV?

A: Not in all circumstances. I prefer network comedies to cable ones. The cable shows usually have mostly swearing and sex, and those things are funny; however, they are not that creative. I enjoy comedy where the writers have to be creative in order to get the point across, and still make the audience laugh. The only Cable comedy I watch is ‘It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’, and do not think it’s that funny, I just enjoy the situations they get into. Most of the network shows that I watch are comedies.  I do think, for the most part, dramas are better on cable. I feel that they are more able to encapsulate real drama, because they do not have to restriction that network TV has. To me, the restrictions cause the network drama’s interpersonal relationships to appear soap opera-esque. That’s great for a soap opera, but if I’m watching a cop show I don’t want the personal lives of the people to come off as if they are in a soap opera. House and Bones are both like this. They were great when the characters were sticking to the cases, and were dosed with awkward sexual tension. After the main characters got together, they became soaps with a touch of illness and death sprinkled in.  I believe that the Cable shows are freer to explore the interpersonal working of people, where as the network shows are not. This is why I prefer network comedies, and cable dramas.

Q: What types of characters do you find yourself associating the most with? Are you more drawn to hero-like personalities, or characters with more shades of gray and a certain level of villainy?

A: I love flawed protagonists, and villains. The only time I feel like I don’t like the villain is if the show is about a really flawed main character(s), because then the villain is the one on the moral high ground and I’m just not as able to associate with them. I rarely dislike a character. I can never associate with a solid hero character, or a non-flawed main character. I find the more flawed the character the more I like them. In True Blood, I am really not a fan of the main character, because I feel like the supporting characters have more gripping back stories. The only characters I always dislike are those that are whiny, poorly written, and teenagers. I always hate teenagers in a show, mostly because they are pushed into stereotypes.

Q: American TV is quite censored, especially when it comes to network channels. Do you agree/disagree with censorship and why?

A: For as much as I am against censorship of music and speech, I actually agree with it when it comes to television. I feel that without it, there would just be a gratuitous amount of sex and profanity on TV. I feel like the quality of TV is better with the censorship. I do watch shows on Showtime and HBO where they can swear and show the sex, and I enjoy it. However, they aren’t necessary elements for a successful show. In the books that ‘True Blood’ is based on, the main character doesn’t really swear, and she even tells people not to. In the TV show, she is swearing just like everyone else, and I feel like the profanities detract from the character. I’m all for sex scenes; however, I like that most channels cannot show too much. I really don’t want porn to break out in the middle of my programming. If I wanted to watch Porn, I’d go watch porn. So, I guess, I am thankful for the censors when it comes to TV.

                                                                Enough with the swearing, Sookie!

           

Q: Do you feel that there is too much violence in shows or too little? How about the depiction of sex?

A:  I think it depends on the show. There are some shows that have a plot overview that calls for the sex and the violence. However, there are times that those shows go too far. Similarly, there are shows that do not call for it, but when they imply things and don’t show them it does not feel right. I watch Sons of Anarchy. It’s a show about a Motorcycle gang that runs guns for the IRA and drugs for another motorcycle club. I feel like it would be missing something without the viewed violence and sex. However, the domestic violence scene in the most recent season was ridiculously graphic. I feel like it was too much violence. Reversely, Bones last season didn’t take it far enough. In the one episode she was crying on Booth, and in the next episode she was pregnant. They could have at least kissed. There was nothing to even imply that anything happened. The whole Network censor thing cannot even come into play because I’ve seen more on daytime television. I really do believe that every show has an expected amount of sex and violence. Some do show more or less, but that really depends on the nature of the show. My only problem is with ‘reality TV’, especially the ‘house shows’. I know they are supposed to capture human nature, and there is violence in that. However, I think it is a bit much when the staff just lets it happen, and participants end up bloodied and bruised.

Q: Reality TV is an often debated subject. What’s your view on it?

A: I really dislike about 90% of what is considered reality television. I do not like the ones where they put a group of people together in a house, an island, or any situation that they wouldn’t normally find themselves in. I, also, do not like the one where people are being exploited for some mistake or flaw, like Teen Mom. I don’t watch them, and I honestly do not understand how people do. I enjoy some of the competition-reality shows. I cannot watch the ones where the people audition, and the show the bad ones. They offend me on some level.  I enjoy the ones where camera crews follow people around while they are doing their jobs, like Pawn Stars. I feel like those are the only true reality TV, and that the situational ones should be given a different title, and genre.

Q: What would be the ideal TV landscape to you?

A: I really think Doctor Who is my Ideal TV landscape. It has a space and time traveling alien, random and not overpowering romance, and every season has a big story arc. He travels to different planets and different times in Earth’s history, and it really is just lovely.


Thank you very much to this avid TV viewer for the answers!

The Obsession

Some say that writing is a form of release; an expression of emotions and feelings; the physical representation of thoughts. To me, it's an obsession--a healthy, consuming, constant obsession.

I started writing my first story when I was five. Unfortunately, I don't remember what it was about, but I think it had to do with a rabbit (first stories always seem to). Blessed with parents who were always supportive and understanding, they encouraged my writing and enthusiastically read the poorly strung-together sentences I wrote.

I guess I was lucky because I was met with really positive response to my writing early on. Teachers would tell me how impressed they were at what I was able to do and would ask to keep personal copies of various essays I had written. Looking back, I cannot believe that anyone would like them. But it was exactly the type of encouragement a little boy with a lot of fantasy needed.

Writing has a lot to do with fantasy, technique, knowledge and experience but a certain kind of belief in one's own self is required before you can let go of the doubt and just create. It has nothing to do with being conceited, or thinking you are the best. It has everything to do with believing and trusting in yourself.

It was not long before I started writing my own book. A fantasy book, the untitled project was 282 pages long, a feat considering I was ten years old when I completed it. Again, it felt like a milestone. I wouldn't do anything with it now but, back then, it was the whole world to a young boy full of dreams.

When I was first introduced to the (sometimes not so) wonderful world of TV, it took my breath away! As silly as that sounds. I was not allowed to watch a lot of TV while growing up (certainly not during the weekdays) but, as soon as I was old enough to make the decision for myself, I went into it with a passion. It was a whole new side to writing that I had never considered while reading hundreds of books. Most people do not see writing when they watch TV, but to me it was my first point of reference. It was another world, certainly a different genre, a different type of writing.

I never looked back.

Fascinated by the intricacies of serial plotting, I created a number of original shows from scratch, wrote episodes for them, dialogue, everything. In the following years, I surpassed three thousand hours of television. I continue to write my own shows; one can never be enough. I have to write at least three at the same time (which might be suicidal). For me, it wasn't something extraordinary; it was my life. It was what I wanted to do.

You see, I mentioned at the beginning that writing is an obsession. It is. It is what you think about all day, every day. The character's stories, voices, dialogues are in your head constantly. You plot the next development while you're going grocery shopping, and you work on a specific exchange between two people while you're doing laundry. It's actually quite dangerous if you are prone to talking aloud while working on lines--people give you weird looks as if you are demented. And who has the time to explain about this character and that character and what has happened to them and what is happening and what will happen?

I will never understand so called writers who claim that they get into a "writing" mood every now and then, and expect to make a career out of it. How can you? If it's not your whole life, how can you create? While writing this, I was thinking about the book that I'm writing (this time, hopefully, for real. Cross your fingers). It  never stops. If it doesn't literally burn like a fire inside of you, what's the point?

Obsessions do. It's somewhat shocking to be typing about this. I'm still not sure I should. There is always the possibility that people will think I am completely demented.

But that's the nature of the beast. And on and on I'll write....

Is Evil Necessary on TV?

I came across a very interesting blog post recently while looking for information on reality TV.

In a blog called Reality Blurred, Andy Dehnart posted about a recent interview with Jeff Probst, the SURVIVOR host and executive producer, during which he claimed that only "evil" and "immoral" people are fun to watch on TV.

The post explained Mr. Probst's opinion that it is only the villainous characters that we like seeing on TV. While, in real life, we want to be friends with the good guys and have them around us, it is different when it comes to our entertainment. He brought up the example of shows like WEEDS, THE SHIELD and DEXTER  to support his argument.

The blogger then went on to explain how he could definitely see Mr. Probst's point of view, with which I agree. It is true that a very large part of our entertainment consists of villains and characters with a lot of grey shades and they have most definitely proven to be ratings-grabbers. In fact, if we take a look at some of the most popular shows of our time (and, in general) we see that characters you love-to-hate were extremely prominent in airtime and storylines, if not outright the stars.

In reality, we do want the nice people around us. The people who are kind, considerate, thoughtful. But that can equate to some very boring TV if that's all that there is offered. A "nice" character can be very appealing and interesting (if well-played and written) but there always needs to be an antagonist, who moves the plot along and creates the drama that we are expecting to see.

That's not to say that a show that consists of nice, everyday people cannot be appealing (which is also a point Dehnart makes). He brings up shows like MODERN FAMILY and THE COSBY SHOW as examples. There is a point to be made about TV that showcases situations and realities closer to what we experience, as long as the characters are rich enough to support that.

Still, there is no denying that a great villain can really be the centerpiece of a show. Characters like J.R. Ewing, Amanda Woodward and Jack Bauer proved how popular such characters can be and how they can really drive the story in ways that would be unimaginable if they did not exist. I think, in the end, that it is very important to just remember that both "nice" and "evil" characters can be of great service to shows and that you can achieve great entertainment with either side, but especially with both.

How To Get Through So Much TV

It's often said... so many options, not so much time.

In a vast television landscape, with so many options, it can become quite a challenge for the average TV-viewer to watch everything that has caught their fancy. And, while it is true that a lot of sub-par entertainment is offered, good TV is available everywhere; if one is willing to seek it out.

So how does one go about making the choice? Especially in the September and January months, which is typically when a myriad new shows debut, one can feel at a loss with all the new options. Scheduling conflicts between shows, busy social schedule, kids--a plethora of reasons can get in the way. So, there's a few easy suggestions that can help out:

1. Choose the two or three shows that interest you the most. 
The truth is, most of us do not have the time to watch as much as we may be interested to. So take a look at the options and select based on personal preference and availability. Also, look into various reviews in an attempt to get an idea of how the show is being received. Naturally, critics often have very different opinions than the general public, so it could be helpful to find a critic or two that you usually agree with. Also, good word of mouth may be a great help in deciding.

2. Take advantage of the free screenings online
Not everyone can afford a DVR or a TiVo so a good way to catch up and not have to worry about being in front of the TV at a certain time would be to go online and catch up like that. It's free, it takes less time (because of shorter commercial time) and is easy. It also helps with the show's ratings, which can definitely be a plus when one likes a show.

3. DVDs
A lot of people tend to not watch a show for the whole season but wait until the season is released on DVD. Once they have it, they devote 1-2 days in order to watch the whole thing at once, thus catching up and not having to worry for another year. While marathon viewing can be tiring (and, not to mention, time-consuming),   it is a viable solution to keep one up to date.

Reality Sham

It dropped like a bomb just a few days ago: Kim Kardashian is getting divorced from her husband Kris Humphries after only 72 days of marriage. It was surprising, though I'm not quite sure why. Celebrity weddings have never been the most solid unions, and there was absolutely no reason to believe that Kim and Kris's marriage would be any different.

The news that it was all a scam--a publicity ploy--was a bit more shocking. It was just too much to think that someone would go to such lengths to achieve attention and earn money. Granted, $17 million is not an amount to be scorned, but it is still reprehensible that this would happen.

It was very interesting to read Victor Solis' blog post about this topic, Kardashian Kover Up.... While I definitely didn't have any illusions that reality TV was a real and honest representation of life, it was quite different to read concrete examples of how things are faked by someone who worked in the business. It can be very eye-opening to move on from generalities to examples that clearly show what everyone has been talking about.

As is described in the blog post, Kardashian's camp would plant paid extras in order to make it look like she had hordes of fans, and Kardashian herself would make sure that her fans were aware of the locations she would go to, thus ensuring that she would get an audience wherever she went. While this is (almost) expected from reality shows, the lengths she went in regards to her marriage were definitely a step too far.

There has been a lot of talk in regards to the sanctity of marriage and how disrespectful it was of Kim Kardashian to marry someone for the sake of money and publicity. While I am not a fan of her brand to begin with, to read about this just infuriates me further. I don't count myself as a conservative person in any measure, but I do agree that this was taken too far and completely deplore her actions. The saddest thing is that this publicity stunt probably worked and will bring more attention to her, and her reality show, whose second season debuts in November. 

REVENGE Has Never Been Sweeter

It started off doubtfully. Before REVENGE premiered, there was a heavy promotional push behind the show. Billboards and magazine ads of the upcoming show could be found everywhere, and TV spots were repeated ad nauseum. It definitely got some buzz for the show. On top of all this, ABC and Amazon's Kindle offered the pilot script for free as well as gave Kindle users the chance to watch the first episode before it was shown on TV. 

When the show debuted on September 21, 2011, it was described as essentially unconvincing and also quite likable. However, it debuted to an audience of over 10 million people and some very positive reaction from the people who watched it.

REVENGE was quite the ride; Emily Van Camp transformed completely, playing against type, into a vengeful, hurt young woman out to avenge her father. Her main enemy, Victoria Grayson, the Queen Bee of the Hamptons socialite scene (portrayed brilliantly by Madeleine Stowe), was equally bitchy and scheming. The concept was intriguing, but also seemed limited; how much could be milked out of this?

Turns out, a lot. Despite some initial hesitation, critics started to slowly come around in regards to the show. The same could be said of the TV audience. After a few weeks of slowly declining ratings, the show managed to turn it around and starting posted bigger and bigger numbers. Indeed, the show found its footing pretty fast and, with solid and entertaining writing, started to win back its viewers and to actually grow, which is definitely  not a common occurrence in today's TV climate.

The final, victorious piece of news came when ABC renewed REVENGE for a full 22 episodes. It seems like Emily will keep on getting revenge after all.

How Gay Friendly Is TV?

In an ever-changing, ever-evolving society, we have started to see signs (and, in certain cases, more than signs) that the gay community is becoming more accepted. Art usually exhibits social change before it actually fully integrates itself in our everyday lives, so I thought it would be interesting to examine the representation of gay life on TV and how accurately (or not) it has evolved to include this newly accepted aspect of life.

One of the first gay characters on TV was Billy Crystal's Jodie Dallas, on ABC's popular sitcom, SOAP. An openly gay man on TV in the late 1970s was not an easily accepted thing and the show created a lot of controversy in regards to its portrayal of a homosexual man (amongst other things).

While it was certainly a refreshing thing to see someone like Jodie on TV as far back as the 1970s, the show did receive a lot of criticism for the handling of some aspects of the character, which verged on stereotyping. For example, Jodie had the desire to have a sex change operation, and had story which claimed he wanted to change his sexual orientation. However, as seen on the video above, the show did have a lot of fun with the society's attitude in regards to homosexuals and often satirized the ignorance abounding all around us.

When the 80s hit, primetime got another gay character, this time in the form of Steven Carrington (played by Al Corley and, later, Jack Coleman) on the extremely popular primetime soap DYNASTY. Originally, Steven was a tortured young man, whose dreams and desires clashed with the expectations laid upon him, especially from his homophobic father. A particularly painful moment between Steven and Blake had the billionaire oil tycoon call his son a "fagott."

It was hard to take, honest family drama, and the show was devoted in its first season to telling Steven's story with as much commitment as possible. Through the course of the season, we saw the return of Steven's lover, Ted, and their slow road to reunion. Granted, the times being what they were, Steven and Ted barely had any physical contact and a hug between them was enough to spark Blake's fury, leading to an argument which ended up costing Ted's life.

The 80s melodrama is quite foreign to the more realistic style of today, but it is still gripping stuff. In later seasons, due to immense pressure by the broadcasting channel, DYNASTY was forced to water down Steven, initially portraying him as a confused bisexual man, who marries a woman and fathers a child, and later (when replaced by Jack Coleman) as a full-out straight man. Blake's homophobia was completely pushed aside and homogenized, while Steven's homosexuality was later revisited but dealt with in the most abstract, stereotypical, sometimes even demented way.

The 90s saw a slight increase in popular gay characters, on shows like MELROSE PLACE (a large cult hit) and, of course, WILL & GRACE.

Matt Fielding went through the usual barrage of drama and was well featured on the show; however, while his sexual orientation was never changed or miraculously healed, there were also never any scenes where he kissed his partner and certainly no love-making scenes. Emotion and love was expressed through rather sexless hugs.

Naturally, the late 90s saw the debut of something that, even now, is considered quite the surprise: A sitcom about two roommates; one straight female and one gay male. WILL & GRACE. The show also featured a second gay man, Jack.

The series was a resounding success (lasting for 8 seasons) and it garnered at least one Emmy for each of its four leads. However, its success did not come without fair amount of criticism, especially in regards to the often stereotypical handling of homosexual men and women. These concerns were definitely solid; after all, there was rarely an episode were some kind of stereotypical joke wasn't made. On the other hand, the sitcom was fairly slapstick and did not have much concern for heterosexual relationships either.

The 00s were the era were we saw a marked rise in gay characters and a much more relaxed and truthful representation of those characters' lives.

The clip above is from the show BROTHERS & SISTERS and the difference between this and the previous decades is quite clear. While no-one can claim that homosexuality is treated as freely, openly and honestly as heterosexuality, there is a considerable difference. Shows like GLEE, DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES and FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS have exhibited gay couples and stories, slowly progressing towards a TV landscape with better representation.

American Horror Story: A Mystery to All

FX's newest TV series sure is a doozy. American Horror Story debuted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 to much anticipation and curiosity. Created and written by the creative forces behind FX's Nip/Tuck and FOX's Glee, the project was a mystery to many. Nip/Tuck and Glee are two very different shows from each other so that created the question: Where is this going to go?

As it seemed, it was going to go... differently:

However, it is safe to say that no-one quite expected the result that showed up on our screens.

In the pilot, we see the Harmons, an ailing family dealing with a cheating father, a mother who miscarried, and a depressed daughter, move to California looking for a fresh start. Naturally, they end up moving into a haunted house. Things just get better from there. Some of the plotlines include a demonic entity that resides in the basement (which used to host jars full of human parts); a dead maid who appears over seventy to everyone but the father, Ben, who sees her as a young, sexy woman; a demented neighbor (played campily by Jessica Lange); a mysterious man dressed in a gimp suit who may or may not have been Ben; as well as a man whose left half of the face has been burned off. Of course, the Harmons are not aware of most of these things.

The series' heroine, Vivien, is played excellently by the sublime Connie Britton of Friday Night Lights fame and serves to ground the perplexing show. Taking a very naturalistic, matter of fact attitude towards the whole thing, she is the center the audience needs. Everything relates back to her. Her issues with conceiving and dealing with her husband's infidelity give her a strong character arc, and you quickly sympathize with her plights.

On the other hand, Ben Harmon is portrayed by Dylan McDermott, who does not have the best reputation when it comes to acting. However, he seems to fit perfectly into the show as the hunky psychologist who can't help but screw up. The show plays up his physical attributes non-stop, featuring McDermott naked for what seems more than half the episode, and it is quite shameless about it.

As mentioned earlier, the show features an assortment of what you would call "cooky," "mysterious" and "scary" characters. Some of them are dead, others are demented and others... who the hell even knows? It's difficult to make up one's mind as to whether this show is really about anything. The script was disjointed and there was not a lot of connection between scenes and events. It almost felt like something you saw in your sleep; it had the ethereal feeling of a dream. Whether that was purposeful or not remains to be seen.

Regardless of this, however, the show remained entertaining throughout and kept one's attention. It was fast paced, well-shot and photographed, and kept moving relentlessly. There was not a moment when the action stopped. When it was all over, I was interested in watching again and finding out where this would go.

It was like a great bucket of popcorn; you enjoy it while it's there (ever so slightly guilty for eating all that) but you are left empty when it's over. And, yet, you never fail to go back again.

What was THAT?

WOAH.

                                Seriously?

                                                                                                                            
                                                                     What the hell was that?

Oh, it was horrifying alright.







Nobody knows exactly what happened.



Something about a dead maid...

                                                                 A morbid collection...

                                  Sex with a man in a gimp suit who may or may not be your husband

A spooky house

                                                                And lots of nude shots

                                                               It's difficult to decipher it

Shows like this don't come around often.                             You don't know what to make of it.

                                                         But you do want to keep watching.


                                                            

The Top 5 FRIENDS Moments

It's hard not to start singing along as soon as you hear those familiar words: "I'll be there for you!" As far as sitcoms go, the long-running NBC show FRIENDS is royalty. Running from 1994-2004, FRIENDS saw record numbers in viewership and made stars out of its six leading actors, as well as inspire the ever infamous "Rachel" haircut.

So, withiout any further ado, here are just five of the show's most hilarious, jaw-dropping moments from its 10-season, phenomenal run:

5. The Turkey
How do you end up with your head in a turkey? Who knows? Who cares? The site of Monica's Turkey head, complete with hat and huge sunglasses, dancing will remain immortal:

 4. Ross' Leather Pants
As a character, Ross always managed to get himself into the weirdest of situations and, usually, it was his fault. In an episode from Season 5, Ross decides to put on a pair of tight-fitting leather pants in order to torment his sarcastic friend, Chandler, who would have a very hard time keeping quiet about the unusual choice of apparel. When Ross goes on a date still wearing the pants, the siuation turns sticky very fast.

3. Rachel's Dessert
It seems one should not attempt to make dessert if they have never cooked before. And, if you absolutely have to, you have to make sure it's not British and that you don't combine two different recipes in one.

2. Ross and Rachel Get Married
It was a cliffhanger made of legend. After five turbulent years of back and forths, perennial will-they-or-won't-they? couple Ross and Rachel get drunk while on vacation in Las Vegas. It was completely unexpected and shocking when Chandler and Monica, on their way to the chapel to get married, witness Ross and Rachel drunkenly celebrating having just gotten married.

1. Rachel Drops A Bomb
It was classicaly sneaky: Phoebe and Rachel find a positive pregnancy test in Monica's bathroom right before she is to marry Chandler. The secret doesn't remain a secret for long and Chandler tells Monica he knows. Shockingly, Monica tells him she's not pregnant. Chandler wonders who is and the camera focuses on Rachel.

The 60s Are Back

It happened suddenly, and it seems like it's here to stay:

When MAD MEN debuted in July 2007, nobody could have predicted the impact that it was about to have on the TV landscape. It was an immediate success. Critics and audiences alike fell in love with not only the writing, directing and acting, but with the representation of a bygone era. AMC, the cable channel that broadcasts the show, managed to elevate its profile because of the show and, soon, the nation started getting swept away by 60s mania.

Five years later, the fascination hasn't died down. MAD MEN has received four consecutive Emmy Awards for Outstanding Drama Series (one for each of its four seasons), ensuring that the world portrayed in the show remains in the public eye. With the praise received for its strong visual style, and the attention lavished on it, it was only a matter of time until more shows set in the 60s started popping up. Actually, it was a surprise it took so long.

On Monday, September 19, NBC debuted its new drama THE PLAYBOY CLUB, set in 1963, while a week later, ABC debuted PAN AM, also set in the 1960s, in an obvious effort to capitalize on the trend.

THE PLAYBOY CLUB focuses on four Bunnies, Maureen, Alice, Brenda and Jane, who go through your everyday murder cover-ups, secret sexual orientations, secret husbands, and aspirations to become a Playboy magazine cover girl. It's not really a bad show, even though the subject matter seems to have put off many people from the get go. The show actually avoids the chiche of trying to make the Playboy Bunnies sexy and oh-so-scandalous, and instead depends on the actors to project that sexiness that is expected of them. Furthermore, it writes strongly for women, clearly showcasing them as strong, ambitious and determined to achieve their goals and dreams.

Similarly, PAN AM is wonderfully shot and acted, featuring four main actresses who, in this case, work as flight attendants. The show mixes airplane humor with an international espionage plot, and it generally impressed, or at least much more than THE PLAYBOY CLUB. It did extremely well in the ratings and will probably have a good run.

However, both series fail on a very basic level: They do not evoke their era in any real way whatsoever. One of the things that makes MAD MEN so brilliant is the fact that, not only does it pay incredible attention to the clothing and hair style, the props and the sets, but the actors also have adjusted their mannerisms, their behavior, their speech patterns and their delivery of the lines to the best approximation of the 1960s as possible. Watching THE PLAYBOY CLUB, one gets the feeling that they're witnessing a bunch of people play dress up. Everyone walks, talks and acts like they live in 2012. There are swooshy camera moves and montages in both shows that serve to further subdue the feeling of another era. They pretend it's the past, instead of actually re-creating it.

Are the shows and plots still good? Yes, to a certain extent. PAN AM, directed by experienced director Thomas Schlamme, had an interesting visual style, and a fun, light tone, complimented by great music. THE PLAYBOY CLUB seems invested in creating a long-running arc for its characters over the course of the season. But, one has to wonder: If it feels more like Halloween dress-up, than real people living in a different year, do these shows remain topical? Or does the removal of the gimmick also remove any initial interest in them?

One Man, Half a Man and A New Man

In a time when many claim the traditional, multi-camera, live audience sitcom is dying (and they may be right), one sitcom managed to not only get its biggest numbers during the premiere of its ninth season, but it also became an event: Appointment television whose success could not have been predicted even in the wildest of dreams.

Two and a Half Men, the CBS sitcom about two brothers living together and bringing up one of the siblings' child, returned yesterday, Monday the 19th, to resounding success: 27.7 million people watched the episode, a number that surpasses most episodes of American Idol, America's #1 show. Oh, it definitely wasn't a regular episode. Months prior, one of the show's stars, Charlie Sheen, was fired from the program a midst a blaze of controversy and scandal. The eighth season was cut short and rumors flared up as to who would replace Sheen's character and what would become of the show.

As TV's number one sitcom for the past 8 years, Two and a Half Men has never been out of the top 20 and has averaged up to 16 million viewers per episode. Therefore, it is sound to say that there was enough interest in the crude sitcom to begin with. If one factors the buzz around Sheen's life and the questions as to how the show would progress, a slight jump in ratings was expected. But a jump from 12 million viewers (last season's average) up to 27 million is, to say the least, shocking. Dozens of articles documenting the news surfaced, Twitter went ablaze and TV forums were alive with discussion of the show and its numbers. In other words, the show had a sort of water cooler moment.

As for the actual episode? It dealt with the death of Charlie Sheen's character and the arrival of a new roommate for his brother and nephew. The new roommate was none other than Ashton Kutcher, making his triumphant return to the world of sitcoms as Walden Schmidt, a broken-hearted billionaire with suicidal tendencies. Before long, Kutcher was naked and we were given every possible information we could have possibly needed to familiarize ourselves with this new character. Namely, his penis size and how much money he has. Surprisingly, Kutcher was a lot of fun and managed to capture the feeling of a rich, yet innocent, man whose life changed from one day to the next.

I've never been a huge fan of the show. Admittedly, it can be funny at times, but there is only so many times you can have random fart jokes before it becomes redundant and tiring. However, it was refreshing to see that the show did not delve into any sentimentality and remained, as always, inconsiderate, rude and over the top. All of Charlie's scorned women attended the funeral, during which they all proclaimed what a jerk he was and how they were not sad to see him go. When Charlie's widow, Rose, spoke, she admitted to pushing Charlie in front of an oncoming train, after which he "exploded like a bag of meat." It was morbidly funny and left you mesmerized at just how mean it all was. From there on, it was all downhill.

Jon Cryer, who portrays Alan and is often overlooked because of Charlie's shenanigans, was exquisite throughout, finding an amazing balance between mourning and assuming a new role in the house. Always a very funny, nuanced actor, Cryer managed to bring a  real sense of loss to his character as he spoke to Charlie's ashes. When confronted with Walden's wish to die, Alan has to become a mentor to this man who's half his age and, shockingly, far less experienced than Alan is. Now, Alan has to be Charlie to Walden's Alan--and if that is not a recipe for wonderful, comical disaster, I don't know what is. Poor little Jake, however, is reduced to farting and eating. Literally, that's all he does throughout the whole episode. Perhaps this will be dealt with in upcoming episodes, but there was almost no time given to his grief in regards to his uncle's death.

And, thus, Two and a Half Men became one of the most-discussed events in television currently. There's something very fascinating about observing a pop culture moment such as this one. One can safely assume that all these extra viewers tuned in based on a curiosity to see how the show would handle such a momentous change in its premise--after all, such changes are almost never made and, if they are, they usually lead to disaster. It's too early to tell if the show will survive under its current incarnation. After all, all we know is that Walden (or Kutcher) does not suck and that the show remained its usual brand of funny. Will it be able to sustain success and continue as is? Who knows. But I'm sure the farts will live on.    

 

Turning the TV On

Hey everyone!

My name is Athos and I'm plunging into the world of blogging for, basically, the first time. I chose this subject because TV is a medium in which I would really love to work in, contribute and excel. There is something utterly fascinating about the world of serial television; long months and years of a continuing narrative, of characters coming, going and changing; of twists, stories and surprises.

In a world where TV offerings are so broad and varied (or so it would seem), the prospect of taking a long, inquisitive look at what works and what doesn't, what attracts and what repels, is enough to at least keep someone perennially occupied.

This blog was created not only to offer reviews of this or that show, but to also experiment a bit--to look at genres that I do not usually watch, to try new things and maybe even re-evaluate other, long lasting, beliefs.

Despite its, by now unfair, low-brow reputation, TV has evolved to often include writing, production and acting on par, if not better, than many feature length films, while films continue to be thought of as higher quality entertainment than TV. Then again, maybe you cannot blame those who hold that belief, considering Bad Girls Club or Toddlers and Tiaras (that shows hurts; it physically hurts).

Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine the effect and influence that TV has in our everyday lives, our attitudes and our perceptions.

So, this is why I chose The Box That Speaks! To offer my (sometimes not so) humble opinion and to hopefully take whoever bothers to read this blog through a world of terror and confusion: TV!

Athos