Do You Consider Dallas To Be Art?

[Kenny Coyote]

I like that idea. But was Dallas the only one?

And is it possible to be art in the medium of other genres? Sci-fiction, western, reality TV?

Yes, except reality because there actually is no such thing as reality TV.. it's still scripted. The difference is that they cut costs by not having to pay professional actors. So it is a fraud - not what it claims to be.

TV shows like The Sopranos and Mad Men don't really guide the viewer from point A to B. The viewer doesn't watch it as being the "jury", moral conflicts are usually not presented in a good vs bad design - basically, the viewer is left to his own devices.
That also makes it rather difficult to discuss, I think.

Dallas isn't either. I can choose to take Bobby or Pam's side (during arguments), JR's side or Cliff's, Jock's or Miss Ellie's side (during one of their very few arguments. After all, how can it be anything different. How can they tell me not to like who I like or to like who I don't?

Also I don't always take the same person's side. When Jock and Miss Ellie occasionally argue, sometimes I see reason in Jock's take on the matter, and at other times, Miss Ellie's take.

Dallas dosn' tell us whose side to take.. Even if they did I'd be thinking "screw that", I'm an adult, I'll decide for myself. Your values (the producer's) aren't my values.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Dallas dosn' tell us whose side to take

But it still entices you to take side, regardless of the who or why.
The Sopranos and Mad Men didn't really do that, I think. It's a different kind of confrontation between the narrative and the viewer. And maybe that's also the reason why a show like The Sopranos could exist.
Dallas had "been told" many times before.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

But it still entices you to take side, regardless of the who or why.
The Sopranos and Mad Men didn't really do that, I think. It's a different kind of confrontation between the narrative and the viewer. And maybe that's also the reason why a show like The Sopranos could exist.
Dallas had "been told" many times before.

I don't remember it well, but in The Sopranos, they don't have to entice you to take a side. Naturally you will be on the side of The FBI because they're good men fighting crime and the mafia are scummy dirtbags. What "enticing would be necessary? Of course you want law and order to prevail over organized crime.

 

[James from London]

Of course you want law and order to prevail over organized crime.

I didn't feel that way.

DALLAS has big driving background music and emotive close-ups that clue you in on how significant something is, or how sad or ominous or whatever. One is constantly and obviously being manipulated; that's part of the enjoyment. THE SOPRANOS and MAD MEN adopt a more neutral stance.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I didn't feel that way.

DALLAS has big driving background music and emotive close-ups that clue you in on how significant something is, or how sad or ominous or whatever. One is constantly and obviously being manipulated; that's part of the enjoyment. THE SOPRANOS and MAD MEN adopt a more neutral stance.

Background music is a score. Any high budget drama should have it. All movies have them, don't they?

Manipulation of emotions is something all the great actors do, they're selling the emotion they feel through their facial expressions, their body language, etc.

Manipulation of emotions is something great directors like Hitchcock did. When a scary scene happened, there was scary music. It enhances the overall effect.

Dallas still let you decide whose side to take. Look at the vast difference in opinions in the threads about Bobby and Pam's breakup on season 6. Lots of people felt sympathetic to Bobby and lots felt sympathetic to Pam. Most of us probably felt some sympathy towards each but primarily sympathetic to one or the other.

In Jock vs Miss Ellie over him adding Ray to the trust fund without telling her, that led to a huge grudge on Miss Ellie's part. We were free to agree with her or with Jock. Personally I felt that he should have told her in advance. Jock made the first mistake, but her reaction was so far beyond what was reasonable that I eventually sympathized more with him. Then she came around to his way of thinking and ended up loving Ray as if he were her son, so the trust fund issue became a moot point.

When JR began cheating on Sue Ellen, there's no justification for cheating, ever, so of course I took Sue Ellen's side. Later they both cheated on each other and I thought they were equally at fault for not getting a divorce and making John Ross grow up in an environment where he would learn that apparently what he saw between his mom and dad, the intense bitterness, the lack of affection, was what love looked like and was how love should be. That was unconscionable, equally from JR and Sue Ellen, so I took John Ross' side.

I always used my own values in deciding how I felt. I never felt that I as being persuaded to take the side they wanted me to, anyway. If they had, I wouldn't have liked that. If there's one thing I hate in movies and tv shows, its the writers and directors trying to "teach us something." That's such arrogance. It's so sanctimonious. What makes them qualified to teach us anything? I go to a movie to be entertained, not to be indoctrinated into the director's system of ethics and morals. I think that, "movies trying to teach s something" was a thing in the 70s. I don't know if it's done much anymore. I sure hope not.

I didn't feel that way.

You mean you didn't hope that law and order would prevail and take down the Sopranos crime group?

May I ask what made you 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?

 

[James from London]

You mean you didn't hope that law and order would prevail and take down the Sopranos crime group?

No, I didn't.

May I ask what made you 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 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.

 

[Alexis]

Background music is a score. Any high budget drama should have it. All movies have them, don't they?

Manipulation of emotions is something all the great actors do, they're selling the emotion they feel through their facial expressions, their body language, etc.

Manipulation of emotions is something great directors like Hitchcock did. When a scary scene happened, there was scary music. It enhances the overall effect.

But in a way that's leading the viewer. It's informing them of how they should be feeling in any given situation. It's manipulation. Like a laugh track on a sitcom.

 

[Alexis]

I like that idea. But was Dallas the only one?

Certainly not. Though it's one of the more notable ones.

And is it possible to be art in the medium of other genres? Sci-fiction, western, reality TV?

Why not? I'm sure Keeping Up With Cardassians is art to some folk.

 

[Toni]

Background music is a score. Any high budget drama should have it. All movies have them, don't they?

Manipulation of emotions is something all the great actors do, they're selling the emotion they feel through their facial expressions, their body language, etc.

Manipulation of emotions is something great directors like Hitchcock did. When a scary scene happened, there was scary music. It enhances the overall effect.

Dallas still let you decide whose side to take. Look at the vast difference in opinions in the threads about Bobby and Pam's breakup on season 6. Lots of people felt sympathetic to Bobby and lots felt sympathetic to Pam. Most of us probably felt some sympathy towards each but primarily sympathetic to one or the other.

In Jock vs Miss Ellie over him adding Ray to the trust fund without telling her, that led to a huge grudge on Miss Ellie's part. We were free to agree with her or with Jock. Personally I felt that he should have told her in advance. Jock made the first mistake, but her reaction was so far beyond what was reasonable that I eventually sympathized more with him. Then she came around to his way of thinking and ended up loving Ray as if he were her son, so the trust fund issue became a moot point.

I'm with you about this plot (the Takapa story). Funny we don't discuss it too much around here because it's one of the most subtle, Knotsian (sub)plots the patriarchs ever had.

When JR began cheating on Sue Ellen, there's no justification for cheating, ever, so of course I took Sue Ellen's side. Later they both cheated on each other and I thought they were equally at fault for not getting a divorce and making John Ross grow up in an environment where he would learn that apparently what he saw between his mom and dad, the intense bitterness, the lack of affection, was what love looked like and was how love should be. That was unconscionable, equally from JR and Sue Ellen, so I took John Ross' side.

That´s why the John Ross character on TNT´s "Dallas" felt as the truest one in the sequel. Because we knew all about his backstory and what we saw (sort of) fit in the way John Ross acted. If he had behaved less as a teenager and more like a damaged adult...then maybe it wouldn't have been canceled.

About Sue Ellen not cheating J.R., I´ve never been 100% sure that Ray was her first lover, as we saw in "Black Market Baby". If she picked him up just like that, in the middle of the night, why couldn't she be a member of the "Laura Avery Sisterhood" and go "gallivanting" once in awhile in Austin, or Houston, or wherever she wanted to. Not that I think that would be the right thing, but that´s the magic of the original early "Dallas", that there might be a lot of things we still don't know about the characters after all these years, the way they were created and characterized.

I always used my own values in deciding how I felt. I never felt that I as being persuaded to take the side they wanted me to, anyway. If they had, I wouldn't have liked that. If there's one thing I hate in movies and tv shows, its the writers and directors trying to "teach us something." That's such arrogance. It's so sanctimonious. What makes them qualified to teach us anything? I go to a movie to be entertained, not to be indoctrinated into the director's system of ethics and morals. I think that, "movies trying to teach s something" was a thing in the 70s. I don't know if it's done much anymore. I sure hope not.

I´ve stopped watching American network series just for that reason. If there´s a flawed character who makes bad things, set the chronometer and see in how many episodes they will get their comeuppance and leave, or become another goody-goody, and another "conflicted" character will replace them. The "case of the week" shows have the perfect excuse to do that because they have a different guest cast every week, but the rest of shows seem to be written by arrogant and sanctimonious (to use your words, @Kenny Coyote) people who just apply the same old formula. No wonder why streaming services are offering the products with a higher quality level...

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Background music is a score. Any high budget drama should have it.

I'm not sure about the "should" dictate. Most British UK prime time soaps don't use synthetic scores and the result overall is more layered and naturalistic than what was seen in Dallas. I'm not necessarily saying that's better. There are some forms of visual entertainment to which the score adds and also many cases where a synthetic soundtrack would feel most incongruous. It's a creative choice that people needn't feel compelled to use.

Manipulation of emotions is something great directors like Hitchcock did. When a scary scene happened, there was scary music. It enhances the overall effect.

Hitch was notorious for manipulating emotions, yes. It's worth noting, however, that some of his most effective films - Rear Window; The Birds; Rope - didn't use "scary music" nor any kind of traditional synthetic score. Apart from opening or closing titles in a couple of cases, they were restricted to diegetic sounds.

Incidentally, Hitch wanted the shower scene in Psycho - and all the motel-based scenes in that film - to play out without a score. He wanted the challenge of manipulating the audience more subtly, without the safe Hollywood default of using music in order to do so. If Hitchcock's artistic vision had come to fruition it would have been a very different moment and a very different film. What we saw in the end was collaborative art.

there actually is no such thing as reality TV.. it's still scripted. The difference is that they cut costs by not having to pay professional actors. So it is a fraud - not what it claims to be.

The other evening I found myself watching an episode of Helicopter ER - a reality series - and found it compelling and at times uplifting for its depiction of humanity at the most challenging of times.

Is it a thing? Most certainly.

Is it art? Debatable (though I'm sure a case could be made given the awards the series has won).

Is it fraudulent? Absolutely not.

I think we need to separate the wheat from the chaff before dismissing an entire genre.

Naturally you will be on the side of The FBI because they're good men fighting crime and the mafia are scummy dirtbags.

Isn't it a good thing, though, if art challenges us to look at things in a different way? To view things in less simplistic or absolute terms?

Are the OLM good men? Harry McSween? Or the state senate before which JR appeared in Ewing-Gate? How about the Justice Department from Fall Of The House Of Ewing? Should we naturally be on their side based on their occupation?


And does art (or trash? Or television?) need to be moral in order to enjoy it?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I sometimes think the less-is-more approach is effective, and sometimes not, regarding musical score. The PSYCHO comparison of the shower scene with and without music is interesting, and I'm not sure which is more impactful or how. Without music, it's a bit creepier; with music, you're kind of at an emotional arm's length from the crime.

I recall when the DALLAS dvds came out and some scenes had their score removed, and while I didn't mostly like the change (because I had remembered the scores no longer there, and had liked them) the comparison was interesting... One was the scene in which Sue Ellen approaches the house of Holly Harwood to catch JR in bed with her...

The other was at the end of "The Search" when Ellie wakes up in her bed with Jock gone, wanders downstairs, sits at the dining table, and then has her final flashback of Jock ("I have the rest of my life to listen to you"), the boys arrive back at the house, Bobby sits down to tell his mother what happened in South America, and the music only resumes once JR wanders out back to look at his father's necklace and get his freeze frame... There were things I liked about the removal of some of the music, and things I didn't. For one thing, it was one of Bruce Broughton most memorable scores. But I actually found the silence of Ellie getting up out of her bed and wandering downstairs to be very effective, the aloneness of it -- but once she sits down at the dining table for her final flashback, I want the music to resume.

Anyway, yes music score is manipulation, but so is acting, direction, camerawork, editing, etc.

 

[James from London]

Yeah, it’s all manipulation but I guess my original point was that the manipulation is much more overt on DALLAS than on THE SOPRANOS - it’s clear where the show is leading you, what it wants you to feel : “this is a sad moment, this is an ominous one, etc”. Whether one actually feels that way is another story. The manipulation is far, far more ambiguous on THE SOPRANOS. There’s no scoring in it for instance, mostly just preexisting pop music, kind of like what Martin Scorsese did with MEAN STREETS. A scene rarely if ever ends on a close up reaction shot of a character the way DALLAS mostly does.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Anyway, yes music score is manipulation, but so is acting, direction, camerawork, editing, etc.

That's right. I'd go as far as to say if you're making a dramatic TV show or movie and you're not manipulating people's emotions, you're not doing your job.

And does art (or trash? Or television?) need to be moral in order to enjoy it?

It depends on the values of the person watching it. I wouldn't watch something I consider "trash." There needs to be at least some morality for me to enjoy it. If I don't find any of the characters in a story likable, then I don't care what happens in the story. I can't like a thug who lives by using force to steal or extort the fruits of the labor of productive men. That man is a parasite. I have no fondness for parasites.

 

[Alexis]

It depends on the values of the person watching it. I wouldn't watch something I consider "trash." There needs to be at least some morality for me to enjoy it. If I don't find any of the characters in a story likable, then I don't care what happens in the story. I can't like a thug who lives by using force to steal or extort the fruits of the labor of productive men. That man is a parasite. I have no fondness for parasites.

Ok but JR? Hardly moral. Or is his thuggery more palatable because he has goons to carry it out for him?

 

[Toni]

Actually I´d say that every TV show out there tries to manipulate us in one way or another. The best thing about "Dallas" even then, is that people KNEW they were being manipulated by the genre conventions, call it soap opera, melodrama or telenovela. It was famous around the world because despite all, there was an overall respect towards the viewer through great acting, attention to continuity, a sense of irony, and originality.

After a few years, those virtues were lost and, after the Donna Reed debacle and the Dream resolution, the show kept most of its audience (especially worldwide, since they - us, in my case - were several seasons behind, and well, yo can read "none of that happened" and then, later on, SEE how lame that decision really was...) out of loyalty. But familiarity with the cast was a bigger thing for the "Dallas" viewership, and we all know how many original cast members were left in the last season...

So in a certain way, and IMHO, manipulation was not the issue, but the fact that the people behind the show (producers and CBS) finally were seen as makers of a subproduct just for money, and at the end, only a few of us were there because, believe it or not, at late 80s and early 90s, the other, new TV shows were not that great and you know what the say: "Known Devil is better than Unknown Angel". Which of course led us to that awful "Conundrum"...

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Ok but JR? Hardly moral. Or is his thuggery more palatable because he has goons to carry it out for him?

I can see why you'd ask that, considering what I wrote earlier, but as I said " I can't like a thug who lives by using force to steal or extort the fruits of the labor of productive men." JR is a productive man who provides a product that makes our cars run and heats our home in the winter. He has a tremendous work ethic. He'd rather work than go on vacation. Yes, he plays hardball, but so does everyone else in his business, or they won't survive. Still, there are lines they will never cross.

The mafioso that I'm imagining is the type of man who produces nothing of value. He has no work ethic, which is exactly why he chose to join the mafia. He would vacation all of the time except that he has to spend some of his time stealing and extorting. He doesn't want to work for his money. He and his other mafiosos live by going to oil businesses, for example, and extorting them. "Pay us X amount of money per month or some of your oil wells are going to start catching on fire." Then they decide to raise their price. The oilman says he can't afford to pay them more. "That's too bad, the mafioso says, because I know how much you love your little boy." That's right. The mafioso is such an absolute chickens*t that he won't even go after you if he's angry at you; he will go after your children.

Now you understand there's a world of difference between JR and the type of man I'm describing.

 

[Willie Oleson]

So in a certain way, and IMHO, manipulation was not the issue, but the fact that the people behind the show (producers and CBS) finally were seen as makers of a subproduct just for money

But no-one says that the manipulation on Dallas was an issue. It's not about what made Dallas great and if/when/how it stopped being great.

It's just that it could be the difference between being arthouse TV or not.

The best thing about "Dallas" even then, is that people KNEW they were being manipulated by the genre conventions, call it soap opera, melodrama or telenovela.

Or is the "guilty pleasure" stigma based on the idea that viewers know and embrace the emotional manipulation?

 

[Alexis]

I can see why you'd ask that, considering what I wrote earlier, but as I said " I can't like a thug who lives by using force to steal or extort the fruits of the labor of productive men." JR is a productive man who provides a product that makes our cars run and heats our home in the winter. He has a tremendous work ethic. He'd rather work than go on vacation. Yes, he plays hardball, but so does everyone else in his business, or they won't survive. Still, there are lines they will never cross.

The mafioso that I'm imagining is the type of man who produces nothing of value. He has no work ethic, which is exactly why he chose to join the mafia. He would vacation all of the time except that he has to spend some of his time stealing and extorting. He doesn't want to work for his money. He and his other mafiosos live by going to oil businesses, for example, and extorting them. "Pay us X amount of money per month or some of your oil wells are going to start catching on fire." Then they decide to raise their price. The oilman says he can't afford to pay them more. "That's too bad, the mafioso says, because I know how much you love your little boy." That's right. The mafioso is such an absolute chickens*t that he won't even go after you if he's angry at you; he will go after your children.

Now you understand there's a world of difference between JR and the type of man I'm describing.

Yea... JR was a rapist, a blackmailer and a crook and all round scumbag. The fact that he went to work and "put petrol in our cars" doesn't negate that. You have a very skewed view of the world.

JR was not a good or moral man. He was the man you were supposed to love to hate. Not the man you were supposed to aspire to.

 

[Willie Oleson]

which is exactly why he chose to join the mafia

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

He would vacation all of the time except that he has to spend some of his time stealing and extorting

But he was seeing a psychiatrist...

Yes, he plays hardball, but so does everyone else in his business, or they won't survive

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

 

[Kenny Coyote]

JR was not a good or moral man.

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

He was the man you were supposed to love to hate.

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

You have a very skewed view of the world.

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.

But no-one says that the manipulation on Dallas was an issue. It's not about what made Dallas great and if/when/how it stopped being great.

It's just that it could be the difference between being arthouse TV or not.

I'm curious about this.

I had never come across the term "arthouse TV" until this discussion, but as far as I know, all TV dramas have this goal:: To get an emotional reaction from the audience. How does arthouse TV accomplish that without manipulating the emotions of the viewers?