Return of TV’s Most-Talked About, by Chris Derrick – Sympathy for the Devil #14 | @MDWorld
April 3, 2012 Chris Derrick 0 Comments
In the last 7 days, we’’ve seen the return of “Mad Men” (Season 5), “The Killing” (Season 2) and “Game of Thrones” (Season 2)… perhaps the most talked about TV shows in the last four or five years – and certainly over the last year.
“Mad Men” came back last Sunday after what? An 18-month hiatus, and the 2-hour season premiere dropped us right back into the groove oh so smoothly. Matt Weiner and Company continued with the rising angst of the men and women of Sterling Cooper Draper Price, while expertly laying the groundwork for what will be an complicated season that promises to explore the Civil Rights era from less pandering view that what we normally get (I could be dead wrong about this…
I refused to read any interviews or associated media up this penultimate season). Hulu and The Vulture have been running – best TV show brackets the last couple of weeks, and “Mad Men” has moved up through the rankings (I haven’t checked back in about ten days, so I don’t know the latest results), and expectedly so. AMC publicly battled with show creator Weiner (who was prepared to step away… if you believe his interviews), who has brought a new standard of storytelling, acting and production quality to a free cable show (although we all know cable ain’t free) that rivals anything on TV – broadcast and pay-cable. Can you even imagine what “Mad Men” would be if Weiner didn’t return?
I’m curious to revisit “The Killing”, even though I had some problems with the first season; and while the first season finale detonated a fusillade of scorn and vitriol among the tribe of fans that were avidly watching the layered show unravel – that so-called unsatisfying/”cheat” of an ending was the one thing that saved the series for me. I have a penchant for the large conspiracy thriller… and they can be done highly effectively and satisfactorily. Also, one had to know that the murder of Rosie Larson wasn’t really going to be solved in the first season IF the series is called “The Killing,” it was almost guaranteed to be a murder that was committed to prevent a larger crime from being exposed. And if murdering a teenage girl is OK for the conspirators, then who knows to what lengths “they” will go to keep their agenda hush-hush. Showrunner Veeda Sud has a lot to live up to (in fact, she probably has to win back some wavering fans, who might, just might give the first episode of the new season a chance).
“Game of Thrones” was nothing less than a protean masterpiece, so convincing and relentless in its storytelling I just had to read the first book (half way through the first season) and then promptly devoured the second book (A Clash of Kings) prior to the airing of the season premiere. George R.R. Martin’s densely textured world captures the greatest elements of the Western dramatic canon and expertly weaves them together into his self-styled fantasy world. David Benioff and Company have such a rich well to draw from, they’d be hard pressed to deliver an unremarkable episode, and that makes the viewing all the more pleasurable.
“Game of Thrones” stirred up some interesting controversy across the Internet, as it’s very polarizing with viewers – you love it, love it or hate it, hate it; an award-winning sci-fi author friend of mine watched the first episode and branded it (and therefore the whole series and books) trash; whereas others swear it’s the greatest thing since “The Wire.” I certainly cannot call it trash – it’s too textured and too nuanced and too evocative for that. It might be misogynistic (but in the “time” that it is echoing, women were treated like shit, so you can’t use that as rallying point and try to tear it down for that reason), as it does present women in a subservient role; yet, the women of note in the series do exercise their power and strength in ways that are only afford to a woman.
All three of these shows are highly serialized dramas that unfold at their own pace, and eschew the strict rules/conventions/norms of episodic storytelling and deliver consistently compelling entertainment for 44 minutes to an 58… if you relish grand storytelling, then you’ll without a doubt be hooked on to these shows… and if you’re not watching, there’s absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t give one, if not all three, a chance.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the FCC v. Fox Supreme Court Case that had the potential tear off the shackles that hold back a certain amount of content on broadcast TV, and as I said then, a favorable verdict on Fox’s behalf will not enable the four major broadcast networks to increase the quality (and anecdotally the ratings) of their prime-time series. The driving factor is advertising and ratings, and appealing to an audience that is ultimately less discriminating, because of the desire to reach a broader audience. No doubt HBO reaches a sizable number of households, but the accolades that it picks up come Emmy-time is the driving force behind the quality of their content.
The recently-cancelled “Luck” had subpar numbers (less than a million viewers per episode maybe 3 or 4 episodes in), yet HBO had already given the go-ahead on the second season (the series was cancelled due to a third race horse death during production, which is entirely intolerable).
Of all the series that AMC has put on the air (only five), the labyrinthine “Rubicon” is the only one that was cancelled after a single season… that extra-cerebral spy thriller was too complex for really gain a sold fan-base; I love puzzles and quirky mysteries, but that show was hard to decipher – yet, I loved watching it because of the double-blind narrative structure (by that I mean the character is just as blind as the audience to what’s really going on; perhaps that only works in novels… which the inner thoughts of a character can be used to rehash the puzzle pieces). Oddly, the ending of “Rubicon” was very much like the ending the “The Killing”, in that it asked more questions than it answered and refused to give us a hint at what the next season might be (which Showtime’s “Homeland” also did to a certain extent… to great effect). But “The Killing” was more cut & dry… an investigative police thriller, “Rubicon” was a puzzle inside of an enigma wrapped with an illusion.
“Games of Thrones”, “Mad Men” and “The Killing” succeed because they take risks (calculated risks, mind you) with their storytelling and characterizations, and these risks have explosive results – you might not like the results, but they have been most effective in drumming up vociferous audience response unlike the vast majority of TV. These shows initiate fans to become “hardcore fans”… actually fans is the wrong word, niche entertainment like these shows establishes tribes… diverse, disparate and discerning people who have forged over a common bond – of being emotionally captivated by the story being told at the campfire where the heroes and villains expertly echo our own inner selves and people that we know.
The TV Tribe that follows the saga of Winterfell, the Targaryans and the Lannisters is highly obsessed with the minute machinations of the unfolding story. The same is true for those cured in to Don Draper’s fabricated fragile world, and we’re only just venturing deeper into the layers of the Larson family and the Detective Linden (who herself is obsessed with the details of Rosie Larson’s murder, just like we are!).
Each series and its creative staff have establish high bars that they must now jump over. The joy will be in watching them try… and succeed (or fail).