Do You Consider Dallas To Be Art?

[Willie Oleson]

How does arthouse TV accomplish that without manipulating the emotions of the viewers?

I guess that's why they call it art.

To get an emotional reaction from the audience

I can be fascinated by something without knowing why. I didn't feel particularly emotional about Mad Men, but in its own strange way it was compelling and very addictive.

 

[Alexis]

I didn't say he was. I merely described him as the show depicted him.



The secure, well-adjusted man or woman does not "love to hate." Hatred brings him or her no happiness.



The mature man or woman attacks the argument - not the person making the argument.

The man or woman of self-esteem does not feel the need to take a friendly discussion and turn it into a personal attack on those who have the "the audacity" to not share his or her opinion on a fictional TV character.

It's ok I get it now. It doesn't really matter what I say. You clearly have a very set viewpoint. A sort of hero worship of JR and Dallas's universe as you saw it. Which happens to be a different universe to what the rest of the world was seeing. I'll leave you to it. Enjoy the view.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

If you had watched the show then you'd know that it's not always a matter of choice.

What happens to one of them of he decides not to join the mafia? Would it have been pretty much like Gary to wanting to work in the oil business? Could he have just left in search of a new life, and come back to visit once in a while?

But he was seeing a psychiatrist...

With what result?

That perfectly describes the men in the world of the Tony Sopranos.

I was describing the men in the oil industry. Do you see the men in the mafia as their equals?

I didn't say I did like the mafiosos more than the men and women risking their lives to keep those types in prison where they belong so they can't rob and extort honest, hard working citizens. I enjoyed all the characters.

What did you like about the murderers?

 

[James from London]

What did you like about the murderers?

Their complexity, their humour, their relationships to one another, their use of language, their etiquette, their unpredictability, their humanity, their hypocrisy... you know, the usual stuff. But I’d say that applied to all the characters in the series, not just the ones who killed people.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Did any of you Sopranos fans like the TV show "The Untouchables"?

I´d say that every TV show out there tries to manipulate us in one way or another

They have to, if they're going to be successful. After all, they're trying to make us care ( at the time we're watching the show) what happens to people who don't even exist!

 

[Willie Oleson]

What happens to one of them of he decides not to join the mafia?

Actually, he wanted a better life for his children.
Those who were already in, and wanted out...that's a different story.

With what result?

The scenes were more important than the result of those therapy sessions.

I was describing the men in the oil industry. Do you see the men in the mafia as their equals?

My point was that there's motives and pressure everywhere.

 

[James from London]

On the subject of viewer manipulation, a few key Sopranos scenes come to mind.

After Dr Melfi is raped, you’re willing her to tell Tony about it and for him to then mete out his own brand of justice on her attacker: it would provide a catharsis for both the viewer and the victim, and would be the ideal way for Melfi and Tony to finally become something more than doctor and patient. But she doesn’t.

Then when Christopher’s girlfriend Adrianna, whom all the characters love, is forced to become a snitch, you’re willing for her to somehow escape her grisly fate after her ‘betrayal’ is discovered. But she doesn’t.

Then there’s the final scene of the series which apparently annoyed a lot of people but I really loved.

In each case, you could argue that the programme makers are deliberately toying with audience expectations and then subverting them at the last minute, or you could argue that they are simply being true to those characters and how they would naturally behave in that world - as opposed to how they would behave in 90% of TV dramas. And I think both arguments would be valid.

It reminds me of the Undertones, who didn’t want to have an image like every other band so they went onstage in their everyday clothes. But then that ‘anti-image’ became their image by default.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

There needs to be at least some morality for me to enjoy it.

But does a character have to be moral in order to be likeable? And is morality the presiding reason for someone's likeability?

I can't like a thug who lives by using force to steal or extort the fruits of the labor of productive men.

That's not a person that I would gravitate towards in real life, and as one dimensional as you make them sound I doubt I'd enjoy watching them on television. But I would hope that such a flawed character as your "thug", if well-written and well-rounded, could be fascinating to watch.

I don't watch TV to see people who share my life philosophies and code of morals. I'm curious about the human condition and its flaws most of all.

Consider this quote from E.O. Wilson:

We are not afraid of predators, we're transfixed by them, prone to weave stories and fables and chatter endlessly about them, because fascination creates preparedness, and preparedness, survival. In a deeply tribal way, we love our monsters.

As children we see things in black and white. Good and evil. Cops and robbers. Heroes and villains. But if we hold on to that philosophy we're going to be disappointed by the people we revere and miss out on relationships with the people we fear or "other".

At the very least we could miss out on some great TV.

On the subject of viewer manipulation, a few key Sopranos scenes come to mind.

Fascinating. I've only seen the Pilot episode and this has piqued my curiosity.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

But does a character have to be moral in order to be likeable? And is morality the presiding reason for someone's likeability?

I like plenty of characters who aren't entirely moral, but there have to be a certain amount of redeeming qualities in a character to be likable.

That's not a person that I would gravitate towards in real life, and as one dimensional as you make them sound I doubt I'd enjoy watching them on television. But I would hope that such a flawed character as your "thug", if well-written and well-rounded, could be fascinating to watch.

Yes, as opposition for the lead character, he could be very interesting. How the protagonist overcomes him or his gang could be interesting to watch. Seeing the thug or his gang as the lead character or characters is something that doesn't interest me.

I don't watch TV to see people who share my life philosophies and code of morals. I'm curious about the human condition and its flaws most of all.

I learned long ago that there is real life and then there's TV. TV is show business. That's why I don't watch TV shows out of curiosity to find out about the human condition.

As children we see things in black and white. Good and evil. Cops and robbers. Heroes and villains. But if we hold on to that philosophy we're going to be disappointed by the people we revere and miss out on relationships with the people we fear or "other".

At the very least we could miss out on some great TV.

The ordinary is evident all throughout life. I don't consider it the purpose of art (movies or TV in this case) to show me the ordinary. I consider it the purpose of art to show me the extraordinary.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

there have to be a certain amount of redeeming qualities in a character to be likable.

I would hope that any character is capable of redemption. Therein lies the journey.

The ordinary is evident all throughout life. I don't consider it the purpose of art (movies or TV in this case) to show me the ordinary. I consider it the purpose of art to show me the extraordinary.

By the same token, life can be extraordinary. And when art captures the ordinary it can be a beautiful thing.

I learned long ago that there is real life and then there's TV.

As reflected in my comment just above, I'm not convinced the two have to be mutually exclusive.

That's why I don't watch TV shows out of curiosity to find out about the human condition.

Well, it wouldn't be a great thing as a sole source of information. But a good proportion of TV shows could be viewed as study of human behaviour on some level.

 

[James from London]

I don't watch TV to see people who share my life philosophies and code of morals. I'm curious about the human condition and its flaws most of all.

Consider this quote from E.O. Wilson:


As children we see things in black and white. Good and evil. Cops and robbers. Heroes and villains. But if we hold on to that philosophy we're going to be disappointed by the people we revere and miss out on relationships with the people we fear or "other".

That's got me thinking about OZ, HBO's first-ever drama series and one of my all-time favourite TV shows. It's set in a maximum-security prison full of white supremacists, child killers, drug addicts, etc. The staff are often even less sympathetic than the inmates. Even the liberal do-gooder who runs the wing where most of the series is set is driven as much by his own ego as his ideals. At one point, Rita Moreno's character, a nun called Sister Pete, is asked why she chooses to work there amongst the lowest of the low, the dregs of humanity. "Because that's where God is," she replies.

Fascinating. I've only seen the Pilot episode and this has piqued my curiosity.

I found/find it endlessly fascinating, and impossible to second guess. It's also hugely funny. You could watch the whole thing as a comedy of manners.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

That's got me thinking about OZ, HBO's first-ever drama series

Another one I haven't got round to watching even though I've heard a little about it. That scene you posted intrigued me enough to research the characters a little more. Fatal, of course. And there was a spoiler or two. But maybe it was worth it to convince me.

and one of my all-time favourite TV shows.

Well now I have to watch it before I die.



I suspect Six Feet Under will be my next HBO (whenever "next" is). I've heard too many good things about it.

 

[J. R.'s Piece]

But does a character have to be moral in order to be likeable? And is morality the presiding reason for someone's likeability?

Oh, several of the most popular lead characters past and present on Hollyoaks have killed people. Emmett Scanlan won a bunch of awards for his role as Brendan Brady. Brendan was really funny but also scary, delightfully weird, protective and an abusive multiple murderer battling his own demons. Multiple murderer thug/bad boy Warren Fox (currently on the run in Spain with his kidnapped twins) is one of the most popular characters on Hollyoaks and about to begin full-time stint number four, after a couple of guest appearances after his last stint. But Warren is written so you can understand his motives and he does have a emotionally vulnerable side and loyalties. Executive Producer Bryan Kirkwood said of Warren's latest permanent return to Hollyoaks (despite the mother of Warren's twins, the son of his that he tried to murder and the family of his most recent murder victim still being there), "Warren Fox is one of our greatest ever characters and our most dynamic, complex villain. Jamie Lomas is a leading man who we can't wait to have back."

 

[Willie Oleson]

I suspect Six Feet Under will be my next HBO (whenever "next" is).

Excellent choice, and I think that The Affair will also be very much your cup of tea.

SFU, Sopranos, The Wire, OZ, Nip/Tuck, True Detective, Carnivale - they're all must-see TV.
In Treatment is still in my to-watch list.

Of course it's not possible to like them all - Deadwood and The News Room were the biggest disappointments for me, eventhough The Guardian considers Deadwood THE best HBO series of all time.

 

[James from London]

I suspect Six Feet Under will be my next HBO (whenever "next" is). I've heard too many good things about it.

I really loved SIX FEET UNDER but strangely the ending was just such a definitive ENDING it's almost obliterated everything that came before it from my memory. I really must revisit the whole thing one day. FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS had a really big ENDING as well, which made me realise that I think I prefer series that have smaller endings or ones that don't end, that just stop, like PEYTON PLACE. Somehow they linger in the memory more.

I think that The Affair will also be very much your cup of tea.

What an absolute gem that series is.

SFU, Sopranos, The Wire, OZ, Nip/Tuck, True Detective, Carnivale - they're all must-see TV.

I didn't like NIP/TUCK anywhere near as much as the others.

In Treatment is still in my to-watch list.

Loved it, loved it, loved it, loved it. I've yet to find anyone else who's even seen it!

Of course it's not possible to like them all - Deadwood and The News Room were the biggest disappointments for me, eventhough The Guardian considers Deadwood THE best HBO series of all time.

I really enjoyed the first two seasons of DEADWOOD, but they're all I've seen and it's so long ago now I've forgotten everything that happened so I'll have to start again from scratch one day.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Nip/Tuck

NIP/TUCK

The only scene I've ever watched from Nip/Tuck had Ben Lucini flopping out his giant résumé at a dinner party, while Valene and Abby Ewing and Mandy Winger gasped with anticipatory delight.

I'd probably be up for giving it a go.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I didn't like NIP/TUCK anywhere near as much as the others.

It revels in its no holds barred nastiness. OZ was brutal, but Nip/Tuck was disturbing.

Warning for Mel: it might tarnish your fond memories of Christine Cagney

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I really loved SIX FEET UNDER but strangely the ending was just such a definitive ENDING it's almost obliterated everything that came before it from my memory. I really must revisit the whole thing one day. FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS had a really big ENDING as well, which made me realise that I think I prefer series that have smaller endings or ones that don't end, that just stop, like PEYTON PLACE. Somehow they linger in the memory more.

Out of interest, are there newer series that don't end? I know audiences expect a really satisfying (and yes, definitive) ending and I'd imagine it's increasingly difficult to deliver it in a lowercase ending kind of way.

Watching some older British sitcoms, most of them just have a regular episode at the end. It can seem a little underwhelming but I agree that they can resonate in a very special way. The ones I most want to revisit are the ones that don't have an ending. They just carry on.

It would probably take a brave writer to deliver a non-ending in any genre these days, but I'd love to know if there are recent examples.

 

[Willie Oleson]

FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS

Is it possible to enjoy this if you don't like watching sport?

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Warning for Mel: it might tarnish your fond memories of Christine Cagney