Si 6.95,220p, poperback, ISBN 0-8156-0504-8 Hill Street...
1
Television's Second Golden Age: Front Hilt Street Blues to f 17 by Robert Thompson (Syracuse Univ. Press, 1997) Si 6.95,220p, poperback, ISBN 0-8156-0504-8 Gen X TV: The Brady Brumh fo Me/rose Plate by Rob Owen (Syracuse Univ. Press, 1997) S26.95,226p, clothbound, ISBN 0-8156-0443-2 reviewed by Cindy Rowse The idea of studying television ILS an art form is still rather humorous to some, but Robert J. Thompson's Television's Second Golden Age should help put those notions to rest. Incorporating sociolog)'with semiotics, Thompson's book is scholarly yet an interesting read. Television limits its focus to what he describes as "quality television" programs created aftci- 1980. To use such an obviously subjective term is risky at best (to be fair it is not a term coined by him), but Thompson does propose twelve "quality" targets a program must hit in order to be included. For example, programs that "take a traditional genre and transform it," are "literary and writer-based," and consist of subject matter that "tends toward the controversial" fit his definition. Thompson then closely examines those programs he believes to e.xemplif}' these qualities: Hill Street Bines, St. Elsewhere, Cagney & Lacey Moonlighting, LA. Law, thirtysome- thing, China Beach, Twin Peaks, Northern llxposure, and Picket Fences. Yet even with his self-described "liberal" perspective, Thompson acknowl- edges that grouping together television's haves and have-nots in terms of an esoteric standard of quality can seem rather elitist. He says, "the very subject matter of this book may seem to reflect a certain degree of snobbery on the part of its author. I'd like to dispel that right from the start." In fact, Thomp- son's argument is not that "the quality dramas of the '80s were inherently bet- ter than anything else that has been aired through the years... [it's just that] the shows were different." And he goes on lo prove his point. Television's first "golden age" is usually placed somewhere in the mid-'30s during the run of programs such 'M Playhouse 9, Studio One. mA Kraft Tele- vision Theater. But like early movies, television's first attempts at "quality" were mostly stage plays performed for a new medium. Some were original, some were adaptations, but part of the nostalgia for this "golden age" comes from the fact that these shows appealed to the intellectual, educated, elite. This is the same audience demographic of Thompson's so-called "quality televi- sion" shows. Yet, most programs created in the mid-'50s were like most pro- grams created today Forgettable. Thompson quotes media historian J. Fred MacDonald that, "for every memorable dramatic success, the medium offered hundreds—many hundreds—of shows that were average at best..." Perhaps there never was a "Golden Age," but Thompson believes television's early days were special because "many hold that bad Shakespeare on network prime-time television was better than no Shakespeare at all, and that 1951 's sixteen week- ly live anthologies of classic and original theater was better than 198rs thirty weekly sitcoms." Thompson then traces the lineage of quality television lo Grant Tinker and Mai'y lyier Moore's production company MTM, wiiich nurtured the likes of Stephen Bochco, David Milch, and James Brooks. "Without MTM Enterprises... there would likely have been no second Golden Age of television," he says. He also makes the point that the social and political climate of the '70s fostered experimentation and the willingness to explore controversial subjects. Abortion, rape, drugs, sexism, racism, etc. were now topics to be explored by MTM pro- grams as well sitcoms like Norman Lear's/!// in the Family. These early shows set the stage for the program Thompson feels started the "quality revolution:" Hill Street Blues. That, and he admits, the ominous approach of Cable 'lY The rest of the book documents the rise of "'IV as art," and deconstructs each of the above-mentioned shows with a generous amount of television his- tory and lore thrown in. While some may disagree with Thompson's exclusion of anything other than hour-long dramas, and inclusion of shows like Cagney & Lacey, he makes a strong case why the shows he hits picked are important both culturally and creatively In comparison, Rob Owen's Gen X TV: The Brady Bunch to Melrose Place has no such lofty ambitions. More like a fanzine than a scholarly work. Gen X TV focuses on the televi- sion programs the so-called "Generation Xers" grew up watching. According to Owen's definition, these people were born between 1965 and 1975 and were "the fii'St group for whom T\ served as a regtilarly scheduled baby-sitter." He believes "Gen Xers" are obsessed with television, and some of his leasons are two career families, televisions in the classroom, and computers that look sus- piciously like mini-T\'s. This leads to what seems to be his thesis; that televi- sion is more hip, flashy intertextual, and "better today than it ever was" because of this 'A'-sav-vy gang. If this is true, it is difficult to explain wiiy most people involved in creating today's television are of the "Baby Boom" not Gen X generation. His Gen Xers may believe they are a smarter and more discern- ing audience, but the entertainment they are consuming is created in the minds of people their parents age. Just because one "gets" the joke doesn't mean one can write it. Owen also discusses how advertisers gear commercials to the Gen Xer demographic (young, educated, urban), because they know where the audi- ence (i.e. money) is, even creating shows directly aimed at them such as Friends, Beverly Hills 90210, and Melrose Place. Howevei', niche marketing (especially to a socio-economic group with money to spend) is not new. Nei- ther is the effort by Hollywood to make television and films that cater to a nar- row audience. Part of the problem with this book is that Owen seems to lack perspective. Statements such as, "because Gen Xers were exposed to so much more than Boomers were (broken homes, sex, violence) and at earlier ages, they grew up much faster than their parents did," are somewhat naive. While Gen Xers had violence on T\', Boomers had violence in Korea and Vietnam. And while commenting on an article in The Washington Post criticizing a Gen X singer's incorrect use of the word "ironic," Owen says, "[the criticism]... is what most Xers have come to expect from the Boomer-controlled media estab- lishment." I sense a little hostility here. When looked at as a personal rant and not a serious piece of work. Gen X 'TV does offer some entertaining sections for T\ lovers. For the most closely examined programs, he has "Show Stats" which list cast members, the series' original premise, and creation date. There are also a lot of pho- tographs, analysis of popular episodes, inter- esting trivia, a section on the Internet, as well as interviews with writers, producers, and, of course. Gen Xers. For reference or history Television's Second Golden Age would be an invaluable resource, but for excerpts of the Melrose Place Drinking Game, go no further than Gen X 71'. CREATIVE SCREENWRITING 0 •mmm Brady Bunch-^^^t^^- Melrose Place ^T-Cp^^J!^ m..
Transcript of Si 6.95,220p, poperback, ISBN 0-8156-0504-8 Hill Street...
Television's Second Golden Age: Front Hilt Street Blues to f 17
by Robert Thompson (Syracuse Univ. Press, 1997) Si 6.95,220p, poperback, ISBN 0-8156-0504-8
Gen X TV: The Brady Brumh fo Me/rose Plate by Rob Owen (Syracuse Univ. Press, 1997)
S26.95,226p, clothbound, ISBN 0-8156-0443-2
reviewed by Cindy Rowse
The idea of studying television ILS an art form is still rather humorous to some, but Robert J. Thompson's Television's Second Golden Age should help put those notions to rest. Incorporating sociolog)'with semiotics, Thompson's book is scholarly yet an interesting read. Television limits its focus to what he describes as "quality television" programs created aftci- 1980. To use such an obviously subjective term is risky at best (to be fair it is not a term coined by him), but Thompson does propose twelve "quality" targets a program must hit in order to be included. For example, programs that "take a traditional genre and transform it," are "literary and writer-based," and consist of subject matter that "tends toward the controversial" fit his definition. Thompson then closely examines those programs he believes to e.xemplif}' these qualities: Hill Street Bines, St. Elsewhere, Cagney & Lacey Moonlighting, LA. Law, thirtysome-thing, China Beach, Twin Peaks, Northern llxposure, and Picket Fences.
Yet even with his self-described "liberal" perspective, Thompson acknowledges that grouping together television's haves and have-nots in terms of an esoteric standard of quality can seem rather elitist. He says, "the very subject matter of this book may seem to reflect a certain degree of snobbery on the part of its author. I'd like to dispel that right from the start." In fact, Thompson's argument is not that "the quality dramas of the '80s were inherently better than anything else that has been aired through the years... [it's just that] the shows were different." And he goes on lo prove his point.
Television's first "golden age" is usually placed somewhere in the mid-'30s during the run of programs such 'M Playhouse 9, Studio One. mA Kraft Television Theater. But like early movies, television's first attempts at "quality" were mostly stage plays performed for a new medium. Some were original, some were adaptations, but part of the nostalgia for this "golden age" comes from the fact that these shows appealed to the intellectual, educated, elite. This is the same audience demographic of Thompson's so-called "quality television" shows. Yet, most programs created in the mid-'50s were like most programs created today Forgettable. Thompson quotes media historian J. Fred MacDonald that, "for every memorable dramatic success, the medium offered hundreds—many hundreds—of shows that were average at best..." Perhaps there never was a "Golden Age," but Thompson believes television's early days were special because "many hold that bad Shakespeare on network prime-time television was better than no Shakespeare at all, and that 1951's sixteen weekly live anthologies of classic and original theater was better than 198rs thirty weekly sitcoms."
Thompson then traces the lineage of quality television lo Grant Tinker and Mai'y lyier Moore's production company MTM, wiiich nurtured the likes of Stephen Bochco, David Milch, and James Brooks. "Without MTM Enterprises... there would likely have been no second Golden Age of television," he says. He also makes the point that the social and political climate of the '70s fostered
experimentation and the willingness to explore controversial subjects. Abortion, rape, drugs, sexism, racism, etc. were now topics to be explored by MTM programs as well sitcoms like Norman Lear's/!// in the Family. These early shows set the stage for the program Thompson feels started the "quality revolution:" Hill Street Blues. That, and he admits, the ominous approach of Cable 'lY
The rest of the book documents the rise of "'IV as art," and deconstructs each of the above-mentioned shows with a generous amount of television history and lore thrown in. While some may disagree with Thompson's exclusion of anything other than hour-long dramas, and inclusion of shows like Cagney & Lacey, he makes a strong case why the shows he hits picked are important both culturally and creatively In comparison, Rob Owen's Gen X TV: The Brady Bunch to Melrose Place has no such lofty ambitions.
More like a fanzine than a scholarly work. Gen X TV focuses on the television programs the so-called "Generation Xers" grew up watching. According to Owen's definition, these people were born between 1965 and 1975 and were "the fii'St group for whom T\ served as a regtilarly scheduled baby-sitter." He believes "Gen Xers" are obsessed with television, and some of his leasons are two career families, televisions in the classroom, and computers that look suspiciously like mini-T\'s. This leads to what seems to be his thesis; that television is more hip, flashy intertextual, and "better today than it ever was" because of this 'A'-sav-vy gang. If this is true, it is difficult to explain wiiy most people involved in creating today's television are of the "Baby Boom" not Gen X generation. His Gen Xers may believe they are a smarter and more discerning audience, but the entertainment they are consuming is created in the minds of people their parents age. Just because one "gets" the joke doesn't mean one can write it.
Owen also discusses how advertisers gear commercials to the Gen Xer demographic (young, educated, urban), because they know where the audience (i.e. money) is, even creating shows directly aimed at them such as Friends, Beverly Hills 90210, and Melrose Place. Howevei', niche marketing (especially to a socio-economic group with money to spend) is not new. Neither is the effort by Hollywood to make television and films that cater to a narrow audience. Part of the problem with this book is that Owen seems to lack perspective. Statements such as, "because Gen Xers were exposed to so much more than Boomers were (broken homes, sex, violence) and at earlier ages, they grew up much faster than their parents did," are somewhat naive. While Gen Xers had violence on T\', Boomers had violence in Korea and Vietnam. And while commenting on an article in The Washington Post criticizing a Gen X singer's incorrect use of the word "ironic," Owen says, "[the criticism]... is what most Xers have come to expect from the Boomer-controlled media establishment." I sense a little hostility here.
When looked at as a personal rant and not a serious piece of work. Gen X 'TV does offer some entertaining sections for T\ lovers. For the most closely examined programs, he has "Show Stats" which list cast members, the series' original premise, and creation date. There are also a lot of photographs, analysis of popular episodes, interesting trivia, a section on the Internet, as well as interviews with writers, producers, and, of course. Gen Xers. For reference or history Television's Second Golden Age would be an invaluable resource, but for excerpts of the Melrose Place Drinking Game, go no further than Gen X 71'.
CREATIVE SCREENWRITING 0
•mmm Brady Bunch-^^^t^^-
Melrose Place ^T-Cp^^J!^
m..
