![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tzikehWell, I always thought so.
Snippet:
A television series to rival Shakespeare? Why not, asks Thornton McCamish, who believes programs at their best should be considered art.
by Thornton McCamish
The Age
Late one winter Tuesday night I was slumped in front of the tube with my baby son watching The West Wing. The president's grumpy speechwriter, Toby, was trying to draft the president's inauguration speech and it wasn't going well. Miserable, frustrated, he scrunches up another page of false starts and throws it away, missing the bin. He always misses the bin.
The scene is just a quiet aside in an otherwise busy storyline, but we were gripped. We care about Toby. We know about his gummed-up emotions; we've seen his cynicism and hopefulness trying to get the better of one another for a hundred episodes.
I was suddenly struck by what an extraordinary work of narrative art The West Wing is. All of the show's characters are this conflicted and interesting. The storylines are compelling; the dialogue is dense and sharp.
Inside the TV industry Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator-producer, is considered a genius. Why is it that for most of us outside it he is just some guy who writes TV?
Richard Schiff, the actor who plays Toby on The West Wing , once compared the meter and "music" of Sorkin's teleplays with Shakespeare, which might be pushing it a bit. But he is right about this: "The thing about West Wing is, it's incredibly sophisticated storytelling. A lot of times, Aaron doesn't even know how layered his material is, because when you point something out, he'll go, 'Oh wow, I didn't even think of that.' It's really amazing craftsmanship."
We are living in a golden age of storytelling and we don't realise it because most of the greatest stories are being told on television. The West Wing isn't the only show of this quality around. During the ad breaks we flicked over to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which, with The Sopranos , is probably the most celebrated TV series of the past decade.
My baby and I were just passing time between wrestles with the milk bottle, yet here were two brilliant shows playing in one cobwebby corner of the week's TV schedule. In terms of their ability to move and disturb us, to show us the tragi-comic business of living, these shows compare with our best novels, plays and films. And somehow we have not really noticed.
This is not a view you hear much. "Greatness is not a category that has traditionally been used in thinking about television programming," observes Alan McKee in his book, Australian Television: A Genealogy of Great Moments . "Other media (books, painting, even film) have established commonsensical procedures for deciding on the greatness of individual texts - the concepts of canon and of cultural heritage - but television has rarely been thought of in this way."
He's right. People pride themselves on being well-read, but not "well-watched". Film connoisseurs are cineastes. TV lovers are addicts.
Why won't we even debate TV series as art? Partly it's the company they keep. A lot of TV is very bad, as I was reminded when West Wing and Buffy went off air and I was left face to face with Temptation Island . I thought I was hallucinating. Being stuck in front of TV this bad can feel, as Clive James once put it, like "mental suicide".
But the main reason these shows don't qualify as enduring artworks is that TV doesn't fit our idea of how great art is made. It seems instinctively wrong that art could be produced in precise timeslots, crunched out at high speed, written by 10 different people and gussied up with effects and slick editing.
When we think of creative genius, we still tend to fall back on the Romantic image of the artist. Artists are supposed to be outsiders, a bit odd-ball, preferably poor, labouring in a leaky garret with only their demons for company.
TV is not like this. For a sense of just how unartistic TV production is, read Conversations with My Agent, Rob Long's hilarious account of his scriptwriting career in Los Angeles. When his co-writing gig on Cheers ends, Long finds himself in a world of long, bitter lunches, paranoia and toadying yes-men who are really saying no. "The dirty little secret of the entertainment industry," he writes, "is that everyone in it is a salesman."
TV is, after all, a business. Right now, at the start of the fall (autumn) season on US television, some 25 new dramas and sitcoms are trying to elbow into the evenings of America's lounge rooms. Many sound trite and overfamiliar; most are doomed to early cancellation. How can the ones that make it in such a crass business be anything but craven, knee-licking entertainment?
Well, partly because TV is a business and the cash flow pays for a lot of resources; like lots of well-paid writers. Forget about the lonely poet in her garret. Most TV series are produced by staffs of crack writers working closely together on stories and rewrites.
This is especially the case in sitcoms. Every week, the nine writers on Will & Grace break into two groups to nut out the two story threads that will be pleated together into one episode. On Roseanne , writer turnover was notorious. Hacks were discarded like the star's ciggie butts after only a few stressful weeks of work.
On drama series, too, scripts are submitted to intense workshopping. On Buffy, stories were worked out by the writing group, then one or two people wrote up a draft. But of that draft, says Marti Noxon, a supervising producer, "only about 70 per cent" remained after comic lines had been pitched in by the writing room and the whole thing had been scoured for flaws by Joss Whedon, Buffy's head honcho. Few novelists or playwrights would tolerate that kind of interference.
It may look more like a frenzied version of Santa's workshop than a noble garret, but it can really work. At a time when literary fiction is becoming increasingly obsessed with voice and style, some TV is pushing storytelling to a high art.
"The best writing, consistently, week to week, seems to be on television," says Rob Osborn, a writer on The West Wing. "You can isolate a half-a-dozen great shows where, on a weekly basis, they're turning out better dialogue and character arcs than (film) features that have been in development for two years."
Like, say, The Sopranos, which The New York Times described as "episode by episode as good or better than any Hollywood movie to be released in ages".
The essence of writing TV series, the authors of Successful Television Writing tell us, is understanding a central contradiction: "It has to be the same show each week and yet, at the same time, it has to be new, fresh and different."
The best TV takes this dictum as far as it can go, twisting the series formula into new idioms of storytelling, as in the Buffy episodes "Hush" and "Once More with Feeling". The first plays out mostly in silence after the characters' voices are stolen; the second, told entirely in song, is a kind of high-school Sondheim, with cheesy gags and arias sung - movingly - by arch demons.
Great TV shows are not cramped by their soapy, episodic form; they revel in it. For one thing, the industrial speed at which series are produced means they can reflect modern life back at us through a mirror of characters and situations we already know. The West Wing episode "Isaac and Ishmael", written in response to September 11, was aired just three weeks after the terrorist attacks.
More importantly, the ongoing nature of a TV series allows for slow-burning ideas and characters and themes to emerge over time. It takes time to build a milieu as richly complex as the "Buffyverse". But the results can be profound.
When Buffy is brought back to life by her posse of pals at the beginning of her last series, she is cold and remote. Not because she has recently been dead, but because she has glimpsed the afterlife and it looked good. Part of her hates her friends for bringing her back, back to them and their difficult world of evil and pyjama parties.
She can't tell them how she feels. But we know. Her unbearable sadness is deepened for us by the accumulated weight of the relationships that have evolved over a hundred episodes.
Does it matter anyway if TV fiction is ignored by history? For the people who really savour them, TV series are not about greatness. They're about comfort, habit, diversion. It's entertainment. Fans don't need to be told what is good, because they already know what they like.
It matters because our dismissive attitude to quality TV reflects a wider pessimism about our culture. TV is the dominant storytelling medium of our age. Ignoring its achievements means signing on to the widespread view that modern art - everything from literature to drama, visual art, architecture - is somehow in entropic decline, getting thinner, more tricky, more PR-driven.
The trouble with TV is that it brings together two things widely suspected of causing this decline: technology and mass audiences.
There is a weird prejudice about the impact of technology across all areas of creativity. Ten years ago I sat with my tutor in her small office listening to her sigh over a draft of my master's thesis. My problem, she said, was the same problem all students of my generation had: the computer. Word processors had ruined students' ability to think in straight, logical lines, she said. When you have only a typewriter and a bottle of white-out, you tend to think more carefully about the next sentence.
I remembered this during a visit to London later that year. Of all the marvels contained within the British Museum, the one that astonished me most was the original manuscript of Jane Eyre, a small notebook in a drop-lit glass case, opened at two pages of neat, sloping cursive. There were, I noted incredulously, just one or two crossings-out per page, like discreet burps.
Two things struck me. The first was the alarmingly wide gap in achievement separating my thesis and Jane Eyre .
The other was more heretical. Maybe Jane Eyre would have been even better if Charlotte Bronte hadn't been stuck with pen and ink. With a word processor she would have been able to explore possibilities, take risks and edit without endless rewrites. Surely it could only have been better?
We will never know. Maybe a 21st-century Bronte would have wasted weeks playing Freecell on her computer or obsessively reformatting her chapter headings. But maybe she would have tossed in the novels and written TV instead, unable, like many talented young writers, to resist a medium with such a vast reach.
Our real gripe with TV is that it is popular. Like Elizabethan theatre, or Dickens's serialised novels, TV shows live or die at the mercy of the punters. If the public doesn't like it, it goes. To accept that TV is where some of the best stories are being told is to accept that millions of square-eyed schmos in their reclining chairs know great art when they see it and choose to watch it.
In his essay What Is a Classic? novelist J. M. Coetzee invokes Polish poet Zbigniew Herbert's view that great artworks are those that survive an ongoing struggle against the forces of barbarism, against ignorance, amnesia and bad art. A classic is something that survives "because generations of people cannot afford to let go of it and therefore hold on to it at all costs".
It's too early to say whether West Wing, Grass Roots or South Park will endure in this way, though there are signs that a critical apparatus is creaking into gear. Buffy has already spawned at least a dozen book-length studies. Now that entire TV series are available on DVD, academics can settle into their squeaky chairs with the remote control and pass their verdicts for posterity.
For now, let's just give Buffy due credit. Late on Tuesday nights, Buffy fought the forces of barbarism. With a smart mouth and wooden stakes, she triumphed over the ghouls of cliche and defeatism. Usually just in time to go shopping.
Snippet:
People pride themselves on being well-read, but not "well-watched". Film connoisseurs are cineastes. TV lovers are addicts.
Why won't we even debate TV series as art? Partly it's the company they keep. A lot of TV is very bad, as I was reminded when West Wing and Buffy went off air and I was left face to face with Temptation Island . I thought I was hallucinating. Being stuck in front of TV this bad can feel, as Clive James once put it, like "mental suicide".
A television series to rival Shakespeare? Why not, asks Thornton McCamish, who believes programs at their best should be considered art.
by Thornton McCamish
The Age
Late one winter Tuesday night I was slumped in front of the tube with my baby son watching The West Wing. The president's grumpy speechwriter, Toby, was trying to draft the president's inauguration speech and it wasn't going well. Miserable, frustrated, he scrunches up another page of false starts and throws it away, missing the bin. He always misses the bin.
The scene is just a quiet aside in an otherwise busy storyline, but we were gripped. We care about Toby. We know about his gummed-up emotions; we've seen his cynicism and hopefulness trying to get the better of one another for a hundred episodes.
I was suddenly struck by what an extraordinary work of narrative art The West Wing is. All of the show's characters are this conflicted and interesting. The storylines are compelling; the dialogue is dense and sharp.
Inside the TV industry Aaron Sorkin, the show's creator-producer, is considered a genius. Why is it that for most of us outside it he is just some guy who writes TV?
Richard Schiff, the actor who plays Toby on The West Wing , once compared the meter and "music" of Sorkin's teleplays with Shakespeare, which might be pushing it a bit. But he is right about this: "The thing about West Wing is, it's incredibly sophisticated storytelling. A lot of times, Aaron doesn't even know how layered his material is, because when you point something out, he'll go, 'Oh wow, I didn't even think of that.' It's really amazing craftsmanship."
We are living in a golden age of storytelling and we don't realise it because most of the greatest stories are being told on television. The West Wing isn't the only show of this quality around. During the ad breaks we flicked over to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which, with The Sopranos , is probably the most celebrated TV series of the past decade.
My baby and I were just passing time between wrestles with the milk bottle, yet here were two brilliant shows playing in one cobwebby corner of the week's TV schedule. In terms of their ability to move and disturb us, to show us the tragi-comic business of living, these shows compare with our best novels, plays and films. And somehow we have not really noticed.
This is not a view you hear much. "Greatness is not a category that has traditionally been used in thinking about television programming," observes Alan McKee in his book, Australian Television: A Genealogy of Great Moments . "Other media (books, painting, even film) have established commonsensical procedures for deciding on the greatness of individual texts - the concepts of canon and of cultural heritage - but television has rarely been thought of in this way."
He's right. People pride themselves on being well-read, but not "well-watched". Film connoisseurs are cineastes. TV lovers are addicts.
Why won't we even debate TV series as art? Partly it's the company they keep. A lot of TV is very bad, as I was reminded when West Wing and Buffy went off air and I was left face to face with Temptation Island . I thought I was hallucinating. Being stuck in front of TV this bad can feel, as Clive James once put it, like "mental suicide".
But the main reason these shows don't qualify as enduring artworks is that TV doesn't fit our idea of how great art is made. It seems instinctively wrong that art could be produced in precise timeslots, crunched out at high speed, written by 10 different people and gussied up with effects and slick editing.
When we think of creative genius, we still tend to fall back on the Romantic image of the artist. Artists are supposed to be outsiders, a bit odd-ball, preferably poor, labouring in a leaky garret with only their demons for company.
TV is not like this. For a sense of just how unartistic TV production is, read Conversations with My Agent, Rob Long's hilarious account of his scriptwriting career in Los Angeles. When his co-writing gig on Cheers ends, Long finds himself in a world of long, bitter lunches, paranoia and toadying yes-men who are really saying no. "The dirty little secret of the entertainment industry," he writes, "is that everyone in it is a salesman."
TV is, after all, a business. Right now, at the start of the fall (autumn) season on US television, some 25 new dramas and sitcoms are trying to elbow into the evenings of America's lounge rooms. Many sound trite and overfamiliar; most are doomed to early cancellation. How can the ones that make it in such a crass business be anything but craven, knee-licking entertainment?
Well, partly because TV is a business and the cash flow pays for a lot of resources; like lots of well-paid writers. Forget about the lonely poet in her garret. Most TV series are produced by staffs of crack writers working closely together on stories and rewrites.
This is especially the case in sitcoms. Every week, the nine writers on Will & Grace break into two groups to nut out the two story threads that will be pleated together into one episode. On Roseanne , writer turnover was notorious. Hacks were discarded like the star's ciggie butts after only a few stressful weeks of work.
On drama series, too, scripts are submitted to intense workshopping. On Buffy, stories were worked out by the writing group, then one or two people wrote up a draft. But of that draft, says Marti Noxon, a supervising producer, "only about 70 per cent" remained after comic lines had been pitched in by the writing room and the whole thing had been scoured for flaws by Joss Whedon, Buffy's head honcho. Few novelists or playwrights would tolerate that kind of interference.
It may look more like a frenzied version of Santa's workshop than a noble garret, but it can really work. At a time when literary fiction is becoming increasingly obsessed with voice and style, some TV is pushing storytelling to a high art.
"The best writing, consistently, week to week, seems to be on television," says Rob Osborn, a writer on The West Wing. "You can isolate a half-a-dozen great shows where, on a weekly basis, they're turning out better dialogue and character arcs than (film) features that have been in development for two years."
Like, say, The Sopranos, which The New York Times described as "episode by episode as good or better than any Hollywood movie to be released in ages".
The essence of writing TV series, the authors of Successful Television Writing tell us, is understanding a central contradiction: "It has to be the same show each week and yet, at the same time, it has to be new, fresh and different."
The best TV takes this dictum as far as it can go, twisting the series formula into new idioms of storytelling, as in the Buffy episodes "Hush" and "Once More with Feeling". The first plays out mostly in silence after the characters' voices are stolen; the second, told entirely in song, is a kind of high-school Sondheim, with cheesy gags and arias sung - movingly - by arch demons.
Great TV shows are not cramped by their soapy, episodic form; they revel in it. For one thing, the industrial speed at which series are produced means they can reflect modern life back at us through a mirror of characters and situations we already know. The West Wing episode "Isaac and Ishmael", written in response to September 11, was aired just three weeks after the terrorist attacks.
More importantly, the ongoing nature of a TV series allows for slow-burning ideas and characters and themes to emerge over time. It takes time to build a milieu as richly complex as the "Buffyverse". But the results can be profound.
When Buffy is brought back to life by her posse of pals at the beginning of her last series, she is cold and remote. Not because she has recently been dead, but because she has glimpsed the afterlife and it looked good. Part of her hates her friends for bringing her back, back to them and their difficult world of evil and pyjama parties.
She can't tell them how she feels. But we know. Her unbearable sadness is deepened for us by the accumulated weight of the relationships that have evolved over a hundred episodes.
Does it matter anyway if TV fiction is ignored by history? For the people who really savour them, TV series are not about greatness. They're about comfort, habit, diversion. It's entertainment. Fans don't need to be told what is good, because they already know what they like.
It matters because our dismissive attitude to quality TV reflects a wider pessimism about our culture. TV is the dominant storytelling medium of our age. Ignoring its achievements means signing on to the widespread view that modern art - everything from literature to drama, visual art, architecture - is somehow in entropic decline, getting thinner, more tricky, more PR-driven.
The trouble with TV is that it brings together two things widely suspected of causing this decline: technology and mass audiences.
There is a weird prejudice about the impact of technology across all areas of creativity. Ten years ago I sat with my tutor in her small office listening to her sigh over a draft of my master's thesis. My problem, she said, was the same problem all students of my generation had: the computer. Word processors had ruined students' ability to think in straight, logical lines, she said. When you have only a typewriter and a bottle of white-out, you tend to think more carefully about the next sentence.
I remembered this during a visit to London later that year. Of all the marvels contained within the British Museum, the one that astonished me most was the original manuscript of Jane Eyre, a small notebook in a drop-lit glass case, opened at two pages of neat, sloping cursive. There were, I noted incredulously, just one or two crossings-out per page, like discreet burps.
Two things struck me. The first was the alarmingly wide gap in achievement separating my thesis and Jane Eyre .
The other was more heretical. Maybe Jane Eyre would have been even better if Charlotte Bronte hadn't been stuck with pen and ink. With a word processor she would have been able to explore possibilities, take risks and edit without endless rewrites. Surely it could only have been better?
We will never know. Maybe a 21st-century Bronte would have wasted weeks playing Freecell on her computer or obsessively reformatting her chapter headings. But maybe she would have tossed in the novels and written TV instead, unable, like many talented young writers, to resist a medium with such a vast reach.
Our real gripe with TV is that it is popular. Like Elizabethan theatre, or Dickens's serialised novels, TV shows live or die at the mercy of the punters. If the public doesn't like it, it goes. To accept that TV is where some of the best stories are being told is to accept that millions of square-eyed schmos in their reclining chairs know great art when they see it and choose to watch it.
In his essay What Is a Classic? novelist J. M. Coetzee invokes Polish poet Zbigniew Herbert's view that great artworks are those that survive an ongoing struggle against the forces of barbarism, against ignorance, amnesia and bad art. A classic is something that survives "because generations of people cannot afford to let go of it and therefore hold on to it at all costs".
It's too early to say whether West Wing, Grass Roots or South Park will endure in this way, though there are signs that a critical apparatus is creaking into gear. Buffy has already spawned at least a dozen book-length studies. Now that entire TV series are available on DVD, academics can settle into their squeaky chairs with the remote control and pass their verdicts for posterity.
For now, let's just give Buffy due credit. Late on Tuesday nights, Buffy fought the forces of barbarism. With a smart mouth and wooden stakes, she triumphed over the ghouls of cliche and defeatism. Usually just in time to go shopping.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 12:49 pm (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 01:04 pm (UTC)I doubt knowing the effect of his work would have improved it.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 01:52 pm (UTC)Thanks for posting it...
no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 03:21 pm (UTC)Why won't we even debate TV series as art? Partly it's the company they keep.
I don't think I'll ever understand this justification, though I see it a lot. A quick trip up and down the aisles of the library or bookstore will reveal shelves and shelves of formulaic mindless crap that rival the very worst television has to offer, sitting side by side with both entertaining and well written (but ultimately light) storytelling and works of great literature. I've never actually counted them up, but I'm willing to bet the ratio of crap to genius is about the same as television.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 03:36 pm (UTC)Why won't we even debate TV series as art? Partly it's the company they keep.
And your response to it that good tv shows don't keep any worse company than good books. But people know about the bad company tv shows keep because they're right there in their homes. Nobody thinks "most books are crap" because they're not having most books being read aloud in their living room all night every night during prime time.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-11 11:02 am (UTC)Er. Ok, I'm not explaining myself clearly. What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to tv, people see the crap. They've watched it. They know, first-hand, how bad it is. With books, they'd have to read a whole bunch of bad books. With movies, they'd have to *see* a whole bunch of bad movies, not just know that they exist. They'd have to have had the experience of it. Since we are so flooded by television, most of it bad, it is an inescapable conclusion. Books and movies are a more active choice - get out, buy, see. TV is free and in your home.
It's the same thing with what we're taught in school - we only know the great pieces, because the crap never makes it into the public eye. Imagine if growing up, your concept of "painting" was a glut of every fourth-rate sidewalk artist's work in front of your face for eight hours a day. Or your idea of "theater" was fifty shitty plays written by hacks. You only read the good ones. You only study the good ones. But on television, we see all of it, all the time.
I'm not arguing that this is the way it should be, I'm just pointing out *why* that opinion is so prevalent.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-11 05:44 pm (UTC)