Two humans in a discussion in a room in a building.
Nicola: What makes you think I care what you think?
Olivia: That does.
Nicola: What?
Olivia: You. Asking the question. That very question makes me think you care what I think. Otherwise why would you ask it?
Nicola: No. No, no, no. I didn't ask what you were thinking though, did I? Just what makes you think it.
Olivia: Oh. I see.
Nicola: I don't care what you're thinking. I don't have the slightest interest in what you're thinking. I just want to know why you're thinking it.
Olivia: Oh.
A waiter brings over steak knives, and takes away the empty bread basket. The building seems to be a restaurant.
Nicola: Well?
Olivia: Err...
Nicola: What makes you think I care what you think?
Olivia: Ummmmmm... neurons?
Nicola: *smiles, nods* Yes. That's probably it.
Waiter: Parmesan?
Nicola: For steak?
Waiter: Oh, I'm terribly sorry. This is my first day.
***
Wasn't that fun?
I'm going to expand that scene into a slightly longer scene where one of the characters goes off to the toilet for a few minutes.
Until then: here is some writing on a topic.
I've been watching some television series that everyone else has already seen. I didn't want to be missing out on any global phenomena, so I bought the first seasons of Mad Men and Game of Thrones on Blu-ray.
I always seem to buy new TV shows in twos. I did the same thing with Girls and Enlightened. Though I like being able to alternate, it means that I end up comparing two programmes that don't really have any relation to each other. Beyond arriving in the same
With both pairs, I've liked one and not-particularly-liked the other.
I like Mad Men and Enlightened.
I don't particularly like Girls or Game of Thrones.
I think this would happen with any two purchases. The strengths of one cast the weakness of the other in sharper relief.
The things that I like most about Mad Men are the things I find lacking in Game of Thrones. Interesting characters, for example. Or typewriters.
I won't talk too much about Enlightened and Girls. The former is moving, beautiful and complicated. The latter didn't make me laugh much, or like the characters, and I didn't find any of the stories very interesting.
Having said that, I don't think Girls is a bad show. It's clearly a work of individual vision, and has its own tone and point of view. If you're going to make good, unique television (as a lot of these HBO, and HBO-like, shows are), you're not going to appeal to everyone. Appealing to everyone is what network shows are like. Or what I imagine they're like. I don't watch them, because I don't like to associate myself with everyone. Or anyone.
The conditions that created Girls are the same as the conditions that created Enlightened. This fertile soil has nourished the modern golden age of... flowers... television... sunflowers... golden... I've lost control of another metaphor.
What I'm trying to say is: if you want the beauty of Enlightened, you have to put up with shit like Girls. Just like if you want free speech, you have to put up with Jeremy Clarkson.
Which brings us onto Mad Men and Game of Thrones.
Game of Thrones is not shit. I can see why people would like it. It looks great. It has a nice, rich fictional world to get lost in. It has lots of topless women. There are swords and stuff. People like swords. It's an impressive piece of craft. The show, not the swords. Though they are too.
But it seems to me to be one of those shows that's basically just a load of stuff happening.
The main appeal of GoT (that abbreviation will save me time) is that events will occur. And you watch to see what will happen. There isn't much time for ideas.
It's a big soap opera with wolves. And again, I can totally see why people would like it. It's fun to see exciting stuff happen. You get to know characters, and you want to know what happens to them. It's like your university friends - they mean nothing to you, but you still read their Facebook status messages.
But that's not enough for me. It might be because I didn't find any of the characters that interesting (with the obvious exception of Tyrion Lannister). They all fit into predictable roles. There are the noble ones, dealing with harsh realities. There are the villainous ones. There are the ones that are like sissy Klingons.
Maybe it's a strength of economical writing, but you know how each character is going to react to a situation. It's a bit boring, really.
The performances are fine. The dialogue is fine. It's not a bad show. It's certainly not like some other hugely popular television events (*cough*Lost*cough), that are actively terrible.
But I don't really fancy watching any more.
At the end of the season, I realised that I could well have just read the episode synopses on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't really have missed anything. With no characters to root for, there isn't much point in watching a programme that's all about events.
One other drawback to the programme is a bit similar to one in The Walking Dead (which, by the way, is much worse and more boring than GoT). In a world that's all harsh justice, torture, beheadings, despots, barbarians, war and suffering, there isn't much jeopardy. If every day is a struggle to survive, when a character dies, it just seems like a commonplace thing.
After a zombie apocalypse, the gap between death and survival is pretty small and covered in maggots. In the world of GoT, there's not going to be a super happy ending where things turn out OK. People are going to continue to suffer atrocities. And constant atrocities are pretty vanilla.
I'm not surprised that Game of Thrones is popular. But I don't have the emotional investment to keep watching a show with no depth.
Which brings us to Mad Men.
In contrast to the weak and watery gruel of Game of Thrones (presented though it is in a beautifully-carved earthenware bowl), Mad Men is a really meaty stew.
There's a lot going on there. Beyond the performances and the dialogue, which are both great, there's a lot of stuff under the surface.
It seems like a weird thing to appreciate. Nobody likes their favourite shows because of themes or subtext. But you notice when it's not there.
The characters in Mad Men are strange and unpredictable. They have intricate inner lives. They generally don't correspond to archetypes. You're not sure if they'll make the right choices. They're motivated by things that characters on television aren't usually motivated by.
Throughout the first season (and that's as far as I've got, so it might become Suddenly Susan after that for all I know), there are lots of juicy undercurrents. It's the kind of show where you sit silently through the credits, trying to digest what everything means.
It's a period drama where the period isn't the driving force. You forget when it is set after a few episodes. It just becomes a story about interesting, recognisable, yet totally unique, people.
If you just sat down and read the Wikipedia synopses of Mad Men episodes, they'd hardly tell you anything.
Game of Thrones is about, like, thrones and that.
Mad Men isn't about advertising. It's about... well... what's life about? It's about that.
I've probably been to harsh in my GoT criticisms, and too lavish with my MM (why didn't I think of this abbrev. before?!?) praise.
That's why you shouldn't buy two television series at the same time. In fact, you should have your mind wiped after consuming any piece of art. You need your palate cleansed. Find some brain sorbet, or your objectivity is compromised.
There. I've been wanting to write about that for ages. Now I have to go back and italicise all of the programme titles. I bet I'll miss some.
I can't wait until my next
Bloody comparable, I'd imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment