Is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip an accurate portrayal of behind the scenes of a late night sketch comedy show/television network? I don't know because I have never been behind the scenes of one. What I do know though is that it at least places a critical eye on the going ons behind the scenes. Again, how much of that is based in truth, I am not sure nor does it really matter. As a person on the outside of that world it at least provides an interesting and layered peephole. Is it likely that Amanda Peet's character could likely have the position she does on the show in real life? There are young execs that pop up every once in a while so who knows. But what does matter is that the character works in the confines of the show. Again, if her character is in an unrealistic position of power what us laymens think of an honest behind the scenes look is in turn compromised. I guess what I am getting at is that despite the holes that may be present in the "realness" of the world that show presents as being akin to real going ons, they pay off in entertainment value: the end justifies the means.
Granted, in last night's episode the device of the reporter probing into the characters' lives came off as a contrived means of giving the viewers character background, the show gives off a naturalistic ease. Things happen at a leisurely pace despite the fast paced world in which the characters live. And to Matthew Perry's credit, it was not his inability to play it straight that made serious Chandler so bad on Friends, but rather that character's awkwardness at playing it straight. In Studio 60 he pulls off the nuances of his talented, witty, and neurotic (in a non-Chandler Bing way) character to a T.
Anyway, I like the show. From the first episode I was hooked. I turned on the TV because of the hype yet the show itself is what brings me back week after week. Each episode provides myself along with the other viewers moments that are happening. Moments and events that are not leading to anything (they are leading to the furthing of theplot but there is a sense that each action is significant in its own right), not simply building blocks to some pay off but rather right there in the middle of the action. This point is important because as much as I do enjoy Studio 60, it is not the show that I wanted to want to look forward to on Monday nights. That show was/is Heroes.
With Heroes, I tuned in at first because regardless of the hype it was receiving, it was a show that I was really excited about. I wanted to love this show. Unfortunately, Heroes, however, unlike Studio 60, is a show that in and of itself does not bring me back week after week. The initial excitement I had for this show has all but been boiled off and it is simply the hype and promise of the show that brings me back every Monday.
I think that problem that I am having with the show is that it is too much structured like a comic book. Now while this format makes sense considering the show's subject matter, I think that it is better fit to a medium that costs $2.99 and maybe 10min to read versus a medium that requires and hour commitment. When I say that it is structured like a comic book I mean that contrary to Studio 60, an episode of Heroes feels like simply the "resolution" of the previous episode's cliff hanger and the build up to the current one's. I guess this sounds like a standard television format, resolution of one problem and then the introduction of another, but with the amount of characters Heroes is dealing with it leaves an episode feeling short and uneventful (it also does not help that of everything that happened last night was shown in commercials so the only new piece of plot that we were given is that the hooker with split personalities (this is a "power" by the way? isn't it technically a mental illness?) hooked up with the politician). I get that the dramatic cliff hangers at the end of each ep will unfortunately become a trademark, but when an ep serves the purpose of the one big payoff every time, the end overshadows the means and what I want from a tv show is 43 min of payoff versus the 5min Heroes is currently providing.
What really needs to happen, and what I am waiting for before I make any final decisions regarding this show, is for the characters to eventually all come together. This should give the episodes a more cohesive feel versus giving each of the 8 storylines a fraction of airtime. Lost got it right when they threw all their characters together right from the get go and explored each individually in later episodes (speaking of Lost, I am enjoying the new season, but that is another post all together). A recent review in the New York Daily News lauds Heroes as continuing to get better even inspiring the critic to award the show half a star more than when he originally reviewed it, but I don't want a show that will be good in a month, that will reach its potential after the first 8 episodes, I want to be hooked. Criticize me for wanting instant gratification but the main reason I have been a loyal viewer of shows like Alias, The Sopranos, 24, Lost, and now potentially Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, is that from that first episode, maybe even the first two, I was invested. Invested in both the characters and plot. The only aspects of Heroes that I am finding myself invested to are the premise and potential and those are not things that can keep me coming back week after week for long.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
you bore me to no end
A show focusing on buildup to a cliffhanger that occurs at the end of each episode? Are you sure you're not talking about Lost?
While Lost does end many eps in cliffhangers, besides the finales, it is most usually one cliff hanger, not 8 like in Heroes. So while Heroes spends the last 20min establishing each cliff hanger for each charater, Lost uses that time fo the events of the actual episode, not setting up the next one.
How dare you call that woman a hooker, she's a performer for christ sake, let's give the woman a little respect.
Post a Comment