Confession (and confusion)
I feel guilty when I watch TV. I feel like I should be doing something better with my time. But I am a sucker for Heroes, Lost, and Studio 60 (and BoDog fighting, but that for another confession).
The story-telling and crafty writing of these few shows makes me wonder if some TV is more art then entertainment. What is the difference anyway? Is it necessary to draw a line between what is art but not entertainment and what is entertainment but not art? Whenever I confuse myself with deep questions I turn to Wikipedia.
The collaborative brain at Wikipedia says that art is that which is made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit. They say that entertainment, on the other hand, is an event, performance, or activity designed to give pleasure or relaxation to an audience.
It is interesting that these definitions hone in on the ‘intention’ or ‘design’ for which the subject is created, rather than on the subject’s use by an audience, its position in a culture, or whether it was actually successful at its intention or design. So if the Wiki-people are right then I need to ask NBC what it is that they ‘intend’ by airing Heroes. I don’t think they will return my phone call.
In the end, I know that some encounters with galleries, literature, film, or even a baseball game refresh my spirit long after I have left their presence. However, most TV shows that I watch do little for my spirit or brain or anything else; but they help me pass the time. I am still debating which category Lost and Heroes fall into…but if I am just passing time, I don’t mind doing it with Heroes.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
I’m just glad that Silar is finally dead.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Or is Sylar really dead? What was that trail of blood leading down to the sewers? (cue dramatic music)
Anyway, to happily take the bait and further add to the confusion here, I’d like to point out that art and entertainment are not mutually exclusive, especially as it pertains to work in popular media such as film, television or music. And also that calling something “a work of art” isn’t necessarily the value judgment we often assume it to be. There is a lot of bad art, a lot of lazy art, and a lot of inept art, much of which (if not more) is made with the highest of intentions.
Intention is necessary to art, but it is certainly not sufficient. While it was mentioned later in the Wikipedia article, but not here, I’ll note that there most people would agree that another key ingredient to art is that it involves the mastery (or at the very least the attempted mastery) of a difficult or resistant medium. I’d also add that good art (which is in rare supply) not only stimulates the senses, mind and spirit, it also challenges them in some way; it’s difficult to remain complacent in the face of great art. Of course, there will always be borderline cases to challenge all of these standard definitions, but for the most part, they hold.
Which brings us back to TV. NBC’s intention in financing and broadcasting ‘Heroes’ is to bring in advertising revenue for the company. If people don’t watch, advertisers pull out funding, NBC pulls show. So I feel pretty safe in saying that NBC could care less about a show’s aesthetics as long as a whole boatload of Nielsen households wanted to watch it all the time. The problem with this is that almost always, we as fallen humans really like our complacency, and so it becomes rare to see anything on television that is challenging, simply because you’re not going to sell cars, drugs and soap by challenging your viewer between commercials.
Tim Kring, who created ‘Heroes’ has a very different intention (I would assume). I don’t know that he’s out to challenge anyone (and if so, it would have to be done in a pretty subversive way so as not to alienate part of the audience), but at the very least, he’s interested in telling a story about different individuals, all with untapped talents and latent superpowers that begin to manifest themselves. And there is certainly some artistry in the show; the cinematography, sound and production design of the show are all pretty good. The acting ranges from one-note to excellent, but is certainly better than average. The plotting is pretty solid. The writing, however, is godawful. However, it’s not quite enough to sink the show, though it comes close at times. (I feel more or less the same about ‘Lost’ here, too, though the writing is slightly better than ‘Heroes’).
Does this make ‘Heroes’ art? I’d say it is, though it’s certainly not good art or challenging art (my apologies to Tim Kring; it’s a pretty solid series, I’ve seen it all and by and large enjoyed it). Which is not to say that people can’t get something valuable out of it, because people can get something out of pretty much anything (and quite frankly, in a culture like ours that’s largely averse to critical thinking, even the tiredest cliches can carry a message that is going to be startling to somebody out there - it’s not for nothing that the word amusement literally means ‘without thoughts’). Is ‘Heroes’ entertainment? Definitely, and it’s pretty good at that. (Also note here that often times great art makes for lousy entertainment, though again not always).
But, as a filmmaker and a long time student of cinema as an art form, I feel very comfortable in saying that there is very little on television that is even remotely artistically vital or aesthetically challenging. This is not necessarily so, nor do I think that television is necessarily a lesser medium than, say, cinema (the line is blurring, for better or worse, at a rapid rate anyway). Quite frankly, it’s frustrating to me that more people don’t use the television medium to its fullest. Two hours (for your average movie) is at best only suitable to telling a short story; very few movies are truly able to capture the scope and qualities of a novel (Edward Yang’s films ‘A Brighter Summer Day’ and ‘Yi Yi’ are examples of movies that do so brilliantly, as do Bela Tarr’s ‘Satantango’ and Coppola’s ‘Godfather I & II’). With the longer form of television, conveniently broken up into ‘chapters’ or episodes, it’s very possible to produce a work that is dense and rewarding, with deeply drawn and realized characters, and far more complex and challenging plot and narrative. But it’s difficult, certainly artistically as well as logistically - getting someone to finance something like that, and pull everything together for something that would probably not be particularly commercially viable.
But it can be done, and has been in at least one recent case. That case would be ‘The Wire’ on HBO, which is hands down the best episodic television show ever produced (I haven’t seen any rivals to date, but it’s possible there could be somewhere). For those of you who haven’t seen it (and can stomach the occasional violence and sex on HBO), it’s well worth checking out. Each season unfolds like a novel, or like one part of a larger novel, and each season deals primarily with one topic affecting the city of Baltimore, of which the show has become a portrait. Furthermore, the show has become better, richer and fuller each season, unlike almost every other show I’ve seen, which tend to lose steam after a season or two. Season Four of ‘The Wire,’ which takes a look at life in the inner city middle schools, is the most powerful thing I have ever seen produced for television. It’s grim stuff, to be sure, but it’s never hopeless, even if some of the characters feel that way. It’s challenging and complex, and is the sort of show (or at least has the sort of ambition) that I’d like to see more people making TV model themselves on. In short, it’s great art, and the pinnacle of the TV medium (though I think TV could do even better; there’s a huge amount of untapped potential there).
And lest it seem that all great TV art has to be serious, I’ll also point out that ‘Arrested Development’ was a very artistically ambitious comedy, one of the most consistently funny things I’ve seen on TV, with killer writing, and razor-sharp editing. ‘The Office’ as well (both the US and the UK versions) has some incredible moments, with some very subtle artistry (not to mention amazing acting) hidden in its faux-reality style.
Don’t know if this furthers the discussion (I hope so), or only adds to the confusion (I hope not).
Blessings,
Jason
May 25th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Jason, thanks for ‘taking the bait.’ There is so much to pull out of what you have written for further discussion.
Both Heroes and Lost refuse to come to any significant conclusion that forces a challenge upon our way of thinking. Part of the intrigue is that there is so much unrealized potential. I keep hoping against my knowledge that they will end the series–leaving us wanting more, but also leaving us with something substantial to think about. Instead, Lost just renewed its contract through 2010, and will continue to be a never-ending (at least entertaining) Lord of the Flies without any depth.
maybe more comments next week… I have to go.