Literary television
Jan. 24th, 2011 12:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficI finished watching the first season of Deadwood last week. On the last DVD, there's an interview with the show's creator, producer, and (almost) sole writer, David Milch. In it he talks about the role of language in defining order in a lawless society, the nature of language and profanity in the Old West, how the Hayes code led to the erroneous cliche of the laconic cowboy (if he's prohibited from cursing, well, best to have him not speak at all), the difficulty of integrating fictional and historical figures, etc. etc.
This interview gelled for me the problem that I have watching TV shows like Deadwood. On the one hand, I am in awe of the attention to detail and the amount of thought that went into the writing. Deadwood is filled with complicated, multi-layered, detailed, "rigorously specific" (as Milch said) characters. The women, in particular, are fantastically done, especially given that the show is set in a time and place where men outnumbered women twenty to one and 95% of women were prostitutes. It is worth it, to me, just to watch for the concious way he uses language--different characters speak differently, and that difference says everything about their social status and their background.
However. The show has no plot. Milch says he never plans things out in advance; he just lets the characters speak to him. Which is how I think he can portray such complexities. But there is no plot, no forward momentum at all. I've noticed this same malady in a number of other critically acclaimed shows recently, Mad Men in particular, but also to some extent Rome. And call me a stickler, but I like my well-drawn characters to exist within a plot.
In Deadwood, you have this tension between Swearengen, who is always trying to manipulate things to his advantage, and Bullock, who would rather not get involved but has this darn moral compass he can't shake. If the show had a plot, they would wrestle over some specific issue and tension would build until we saw which way it went. Given the opposition of these characters, it's almost amazing for there not to be a plot. But there isn't.
Another example from Deadwood--toward the end of the season, the minister dies of a brain tumor. This takes a number of episodes. But even though this is a story with an inevitable conclusion, it still isn't a plot. It's just something that happens.
The first season of Mad Men has an ongoing plot to some extent, in the mystery of who Don Draper is and the building tension over whether his secrets will be revealed. However, the bulk of the show is not concerned with this. Most scenes are things like Betty Draper feels malaise and drives her car into a ditch and her children laugh. NO PLOT.
Rome has a plot insofar as it follows historical events. The last few episodes are definitely plotted. But still, for the most part, it is just stuff happening.
Compare this to something like Back to the Future which manages to have vivid characters without a single extraneous scene. I rewatched it recently, and every single scene serves the plot, as well as the characters.
I guess my annoyance with this is two-fold. One, these shows are heaped with accolades, and I wish as much critical attention was spent on good plotting, because I think that's just as difficult to pull off. The second is that I really enjoy historically accurate television, so I want to like these shows. But not a one compels me to marathon a season the way I just did Fringe, because not a one has an inexorable mounting tension that I must see through.
The shows are essentially literary television, which, like literary novels, often let themselves off the hook for having a story that goes anywhere. But unlike literary novels that exist between two covers and have a beginning and an ending by virtue of the format, literary television just goes on and on until its canceled.
I will probably continue to check out these shows from time to time, but I doubt I'll become a fan of any of them.
This interview gelled for me the problem that I have watching TV shows like Deadwood. On the one hand, I am in awe of the attention to detail and the amount of thought that went into the writing. Deadwood is filled with complicated, multi-layered, detailed, "rigorously specific" (as Milch said) characters. The women, in particular, are fantastically done, especially given that the show is set in a time and place where men outnumbered women twenty to one and 95% of women were prostitutes. It is worth it, to me, just to watch for the concious way he uses language--different characters speak differently, and that difference says everything about their social status and their background.
However. The show has no plot. Milch says he never plans things out in advance; he just lets the characters speak to him. Which is how I think he can portray such complexities. But there is no plot, no forward momentum at all. I've noticed this same malady in a number of other critically acclaimed shows recently, Mad Men in particular, but also to some extent Rome. And call me a stickler, but I like my well-drawn characters to exist within a plot.
In Deadwood, you have this tension between Swearengen, who is always trying to manipulate things to his advantage, and Bullock, who would rather not get involved but has this darn moral compass he can't shake. If the show had a plot, they would wrestle over some specific issue and tension would build until we saw which way it went. Given the opposition of these characters, it's almost amazing for there not to be a plot. But there isn't.
Another example from Deadwood--toward the end of the season, the minister dies of a brain tumor. This takes a number of episodes. But even though this is a story with an inevitable conclusion, it still isn't a plot. It's just something that happens.
The first season of Mad Men has an ongoing plot to some extent, in the mystery of who Don Draper is and the building tension over whether his secrets will be revealed. However, the bulk of the show is not concerned with this. Most scenes are things like Betty Draper feels malaise and drives her car into a ditch and her children laugh. NO PLOT.
Rome has a plot insofar as it follows historical events. The last few episodes are definitely plotted. But still, for the most part, it is just stuff happening.
Compare this to something like Back to the Future which manages to have vivid characters without a single extraneous scene. I rewatched it recently, and every single scene serves the plot, as well as the characters.
I guess my annoyance with this is two-fold. One, these shows are heaped with accolades, and I wish as much critical attention was spent on good plotting, because I think that's just as difficult to pull off. The second is that I really enjoy historically accurate television, so I want to like these shows. But not a one compels me to marathon a season the way I just did Fringe, because not a one has an inexorable mounting tension that I must see through.
The shows are essentially literary television, which, like literary novels, often let themselves off the hook for having a story that goes anywhere. But unlike literary novels that exist between two covers and have a beginning and an ending by virtue of the format, literary television just goes on and on until its canceled.
I will probably continue to check out these shows from time to time, but I doubt I'll become a fan of any of them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 07:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 08:32 pm (UTC)I just object to a holding up of plotlessness as a virtue. Books that are all plot and no character are ridiculed (though often bestsellers; see Da Vinci Code). I think it's equally flawed to have all character and no plot. And sometimes I feel like, insofar as plot is a focus of genre, devalued fiction, sometimes no direction in the storytelling is regarded as proof of quality.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 08:41 pm (UTC)I think that television and movies are different than books, however. You can get away with things in one that you can't in the other. And in TV and film what you can get away with is fascinating visuals and vocals and dialogue and facial expressions and so many little things that really come to life and draw you in and distract you from other elements or the lack thereof. I don't think a book would work if it was all character and no plot, but it can work on screen if you have good actors and a good director to give it that necessary appeal.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 10:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 12:46 am (UTC)