For fans of innovative intelligent cable fare these are the good old days to quote singer Carly Simon. "" (9 p m.. FX) an ambitious legal drama that has its first-season finale Tuesday is just one of at least a dozen new or returning cable shows that made past the past few months of TV viewing a nearly non-stop pleasure.
“The Closer,” “Flight of the Conchords,” “Psych,” “Torchwood,” “Burn Notice,” “Mad Men,” “Weeds,” “Tell Me You Love Me,” “Saving Grace,” “Dexter” — all these shows like “Damages,” have brought something unique and compelling to the tube.
If “Damages” had only showcased impressive performances from Glenn Close as lawyer Patty Hewes and Ted Danson as shady business titan Arthur Frobisher that would have been enough. But “Damages” also is one of those rare TV dramas that doesn’t underestimate the intelligence of its audience. Like a densely layered suspense novel. “Damages” expects you to remember a lot of details about its characters and the show frequently switches between a present-day story line and the past.
It could get pretty confusing at times — one subplot involving a crucial witness named Gregory Malina (Peter Facinelli) didn’t make much sense to me until the tail end of the season. And there were many times I was glad for the pause button on my DVR because I needed to figure out where things stood in the plot and who knew what about whom.
Still. I’d rather a TV drama overestimate my mental abilities than treat me like a moron and “Damages” was one enjoyable ride. Close gave a typically galvanizing crafty performance — you never knew where Patty’s loyalties lay or how much she was manipulating those around her.
Danson was nothing short of a revelation as Frobisher. Everybody knows he’s one of the finest comic actors around but who knew he’d be so sensational in a dramatic series?
There was a terrific scene in one episode in which Frobisher berated the ghost writer of his autobiography. Despite his temper tantrum you got the sense that Frobisher had come to the man’s home looking for some kind of validation. Danson always gave Frobisher that edge of neediness and insecurity but as we saw throughout the season the billionaire was also capable of gross self-indulgence and thoughtless brutality. Still no matter what he did you couldn’t look away from him and that’s the definition of a great character.
Rose Byrne who played Patty’s legal protege Ellen Parsons had a much less flashy role to play and was something of a cipher for the first half of the season. But the transformation of Parsons from a naïve go-getter to a cynical manipulative survivor was quietly impressive. Parsons learned from her mentor the relentlessly pragmatic Hewes almost too well.
If “Damages” does return for another season. I’d love to see the characters get filled out more. At times the show got so wrapped up in unspooling its complicated plot that the more interesting nuances of these Manhattan power players got shoved into the corners (for example. I’d have loved to have seen more of Zeljko Ivanek’s sad-eyed lawyer character. Ray Fiske).
The creators of the show who participated in a conference call with the media a few days ago said they don’t plan to “lesson the complexity of the characters,” in the words of executive producer Todd A. Kessler. But the tentative plan is to focus on two cases not just one if the show gets another season.
The show’s creative team didn’t directly address the issue of whether flashbacks would be used in future but Kessler said to “the idea is to expect the unexpected. It’s not going to be like any other legal show [if] it comes back just like it was not like any other legal show in its first season.”
But the sad reality about “Damages” is that no matter how satisfying and smart it was no matter how beautifully it was shot and edited there’s a chance that the show may not come back. About 2.1 million people watched it live but once DVR playbacks and various repeat airings were factored in that figure reached 5.5 million according to the network. But those totals that may not be enough to ensure its survival.
John Landgraf president of FX said in the conference call that he’s “cautiously optimistic” about the chances for another season. But he said that the growing use of DVRs is actually making it harder for shows like “Damages” to make it.
“There are going to be dozens or hundreds of shows that are either not produced or cancelled because of the DVR,” Landgraf said. “That is a simple fact of life.”
The recording devices which are in about 20 percent of American homes are a boon for couch potatoes but a headache for TV networks. Advertisers don’t want to pay for non-live viewing because they figure DVR viewing involves a lot of ad-skipping. And if advertisers don’t want to pay for commercials networks cancel shows. (There's more on DVRs' impact on commercial viewing from a link I found via.)
“The DVR is putting enormous pressure on the business model that underwrites the production of all this high-quality programming,” Landgraf said. The device which has led to flat or diminished Nielsen ratings for most broadcast network shows this fall is “simply transforming the financial underpinnings of the ad-supported business as we know it.”
“So this kind of very textured very dense serialized show… I think in some ways it doesn’t suit the current competitive environment,” Landgraf said. “Yet it’s also what makes this. I think …one of the finest layered character dramas that’s being done today.”
The idea that increased DVR usage means promising shows won’t get made is a chilling one. My hope (and perhaps it’s a naïve one) is that along with DVD sales various new-media platforms will begin to supply entertainment companies with the kind of financial returns they’re looking for so that artistically challenging shows can survive. If the DVR breeds timidity – the kind of timidity that is very much in evidence in the broadcast networks’ new shows for fall – that would be a disaster for television.
“I think people want to feel connected. When you’re connected you have an experience whether it’s drama or comedy or even watching ‘Dancing with the Stars,’” said Close who was also on the call. “I think really good writing connects characters to the audience … As badly as we might behave at times they’re invested in the characters and what will happen to them. That’s what I think [the show] is doing right.”
But driven in part by panic over declining ratings for “live,” or non-DVR viewing the broadcast networks appear to be shying away from the kind of complicated character-driven serialized fare that allows viewers to form ongoing connections with intriguing people such as Hewes and Frobisher.
“I think what you’re seeing is this sort of natural pullback from the broadcast networks who were very aggressive in absorbing and imitating some of what FX and some of our other [cable] competitors were doing and then seeing that there are limits to that too,” Landgraf said. "I think there’s always a tendency … to pull back to safeness or even potentially mediocrity because let’s be honest there’s a really good chunk of the audience that wants things that are in bite sized easy-to-digest chunks."
But that pullback by the broadcast networks represents a creative opportunity for cable which has had no shortage of imaginative ideas in the last year. Let’s hope that the financial realities of the business — or a threatened strike by writers — don’t put a stop to the impressive roll that cable is on.
This is a great show. I read a couple reviews and saw some commercials and thought it looked kind of trite but the writing and acting is great. I got hooked during a marathon and have (heh) DVR'd every episode since. Speaking of subplots it was revealed last week that Crazy Stalker Chick was hired by Patty to break up Ellen and her fiancé. Why? Was this just a gratuitous McGuffin to increase the tension? or am I missing the subplot of that subplot?
I'm currently watching broadcast t v. though my housing development makes me buy it through the local cable company. Between mindless game shows and mindless reality shows there isn't much left.
My non-Tivo DVR is set for several shows during the week but I fast forward through some of the show as well as some of the commercials. In some cases. I stop to watch the commercials because they're more entertaining than the programming.
When advertising takes 15-20 minutes of an hour either the advertising had better be good or the programming should be good. The way it's going. I'm surprised that they don't air infomercials on prime time.
It also inherently makes shows more expensive as they go over seasons. Need an example? Look at Stargate SG-1. It got too expensive to make so they dumped it. Not because it wasn't any good anymore just cause it was expensive.
How many shows have you "invested" in and then it was canceled because of the night it was put on and what show it was up against? Should that be the barometer of its value?
I see advertising changing too.. I'd be willing to prognosticate and say that we will see a throwback to shows being sponsored lock stock and barrel like the old days.
Think of this. A creator/writer is allowed to create the vision of his product. He sets up his universe writes his story he knows how long of a story it will be unaffected by things primadonna actors wanting more money for a successful long running show execs who change and "don't like" a show thats been on (think Dead Like Me) or other whims.
Imagine that as an actor your sign up for the run of a show at a set price. The whole series doesn't have artificial "seasons" of fall and summer and spring and winter. You see one episode a week for how ever many episodes the creator envisions until it ends. If its really good then maybe you make a "sequel" the same way. You don't change writers you don't change actors you don't change the vision until it comes to any end.
The "sponsor" makes sure you know that it sponsored the program. You back successful "runs" and you get your name out there. You create good will and as customers we want to find out more about your product. Now here's were the other part of the equation comes in... you have tie ins to the show and extra "bonus" features that you get by "watching" the propaganda and perhaps even buying the product. Want a free jar of "Jericho" brand nuts? Come in and take a test drive in the brand new apocalypse Humvee. Want a set of "Dexter" Steak knives? Collect bottle tops/codes from your favorite (insert big soft drink company) and type them in at our co-branded web site
Its cheaper and more efficient to make a whole product. Ask Peter Jackson.. he saw the writing on the walls with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy lol... I probably shouldn't be giving this out for free but the day will come.. just not fast enough for me. I could probably be lured away from my current day job if any bright thinking trailblazers are out there. Imagine the possibilities!
As long as there is no personal info supplied without an owner's consent why should anyone object? If you are a TV lover then you should want the networks to know that you are watching their shows so that they get renewed.
Frankly there are too many good shows. If I didn't have my DVR it would be hard for me to keep up. DVR's are so much more convenient than VCR's for recording because I can jump right to the program I want without fast forwarding.
God. I'm sick and tired of listening to TV producers wail and moan about how technology is the reason why their precious unique snowflake of a show doesn't have an audience/didn't make it. If a show is good if it clicks with an audience people make time to sit down and watch it - practically 20 million people a week find the time to spend an hour watching Grey's Anatomy (and this season. God only knows why) so the argument that the DVR is going to ruin quality TV is demonstrably false. Even in the cable environment shows like the Sopranos still generated healthy "broadcast" viewership. The reason why "Damages" didn't generate a big audience in "real-time" is that the first episodes got lousy reviews - in the 5,700-channel universe if you don't come out of the box strong you're doomed. Particularly in a niche market like cable.
Landgraf should get down on his knees and say a hosannah for tech like DVR that allows viewers to take a second look at a program like "Damages" that they may have passed on the first time. It creates an opportunity if you can hook them on the second go round to build your audience. But if you want to put butts in seats you absolutely must be strong out of the gate and to do that you have make that first connection with the audience. "Damages" didn't do that - Landgraf shouldn't blame the machine for the man's failures.
I don't think the DVRs are going to be the death knell for quality shows. I think it will be the opposite. The better the show the more likely people are going to watch it in its first run aka "live," and not record it for later viewing. If they start churning out stupid and dumbed-down shows who's going to watch those shows let alone the commercials to support them? TV has to get better if they want people to watch the shows put on the air. Besides most people I know and maybe we're just behind the times only record shows if we have other plans. Most people won't record it just because they want to avoid the commercials. On a side note networks need to give their shows a chance to gain an audience. Giving a show the axe before its third episode doesn't give a show time to find its footing in a crowded market. Networks are searching for instant gratification more than ever now but if they just slow down and give a show a chance they might find they have another great long running series on their hands.
Landgraf doesn't seem to get it. Tivo is what makes shows like that possible. With old shows you couldn't do much in terms of continuing storylines because there was a good chance that the audience was going to miss an episode or two or at the very least watch them out of order on reruns now even if I have to work late. I can watch Lost on my Tivo when I get home. I don't lose interest by missing key plot developments. I like F/X but I a frankly surprised that Landgraf doesn't realize that its the business model that has to go not Tivo.
I wouldn't be able to watch any television programming if it wasn't for time-shifting. I only watch commercials during the Super Bowl otherwise I've been fast fowarding through ads since I owned my first VCR way back in 1979. And now many of my favorite programs are available on the web. So when I have an equipment malfunction. I can still see what I missed. It's worth it to me to pay a small fee to watch my favorite programs.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2007/10/the-gripping-my.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
