Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The case for television dramas as the medium's high art form, 26 Jun 2003
The title of this book is provocative but something of a serious misnomer. Robert J. Thompson points out early on that the original "Golden Age of Television" took place in the Fifties and was built on the variety shows like "Texaco Star Theater" and "Your Show of Shows," the anthology dramas like "Playhouse 90" and "Studio One," and, of course, "I Love Lucy." Thompson also acknowledges that in the Seventies the situation comedy reached its "literate peak" with "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "All in the Family," and "M*A*S*H." However, the argument for "Television's Second Golden Age: From 'Hill Street Blues' to 'ER'" covers a period from HSB's debute in 1981 to the present, where "ER" continues to be one of the top dramas on television. That is a period of more than two decades and while Thompson devotes a chapter to "The Second Golden Age of Television: "Cagney & Lacy," "Moonlighting," "L.A. Law," "thirtysomething," and "China Beach," essentially focusing on the Eighties, it is hard to say that the following decade, with "Twin Peaks," "Northern Exposure," "Picket Fences," "NYPD Blue," "Law & Order," "Homicide," "The X-Files," "Chicago Hope," and "ER" was not at least as strong (feel free to add to the list). Even if we are talking about the first decade of the 21st century we have "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "24," "The Practice," "Ally McBeal" and short-lived series like "My So Called Life" and "Once and Again" (and that is without dipping over to HBO and talking about "The Sopranos," "Six Feet Under," and the rest of their kind), all of which speak to quality dramatic programming.That is why in the final analysis I see Thompson's argument as being not so much for a specific time period of great television, but rather advancing the proposition that the hour-long dramatic television series is the chief art form of the medium (yes, even more so than the situation comedy). I would even extend this argument to the mini-series, from "Roots" and "Shogun" to "War and Remembrance" and "Lonesome Dove," because the guiding principle of the extended narrative form remains the common denominator. "24" takes the idea of season-long story arc a unique extreme, but "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" did all of its complete seasons have a first-half story arc (e.g., Spike & Dru in Season 2) that then merged with a second-half story arc (e.g., the return of Angelus) that provided a framework for all of the individual episodes. Then there was "Murder One," which rather successfully devoted an entire season to one sensational murder trial. When a series loses its driving story arc, as when Dave and Maddie consummated their love on "Moonlighting," or when what was supposed to be the hook becomes the line and sinker as well, as when the question of who killed Laura Palmer ultimately derailed "Twin Peaks," the demise of the show simply affirms the principle in the negative. Thompson's starting point is January 1981 when prime-time television was about to make a sudden and dramatic turn towards quality because of "Hill Street Blues," the show that Steven Bocho did not want to make and that nobody wanted to watch, but which became "television's first true masterpiece." However, Thompson argues that it was "St. Elsewhere" that was "TV's greatest show, ever" (having to do with key notions of "intertextuality" and "self-reflexivity"). Ultimately he is not defining a particular time period (especially since the "golden age" in question is clearly not over), but explaining why in the "vast wasteland" that Newton Minnow bemoaned so many years ago "quality" television is flourishing in terms of hour-long dramatic programming. Within that context Thompson clearly makes his case for much of the best television ever made having appeared on the networks since 1980. The book is half critical evaluation of these programs and half insider's tour looking at the decision-making process as well as the social, economic, and artistic forces that ended up revolutionizing the medium. Thompson also more than adequately proves he knows his television history, which is necessary to help convince those of us who are true students of the medium. Consequently, the fact that the title of this book is not a fair representation of its most significant claim, is not to be held against the author, because he has made in public an argument I have been making in private (okay, in class as well), for several years.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
The case for television dramas as the medium's high art form, 26 Jun 2003
The title of this book is provocative but something of a serious misnomer. Robert J. Thompson points out early on that the original "Golden Age of Television" took place in the Fifties and was built on the variety shows like "Texaco Star Theater" and "Your Show of Shows," the anthology dramas like "Playhouse 90" and "Studio One," and, of course, "I Love Lucy." Thompson also acknowledges that in the Seventies the situation comedy reached its "literate peak" with "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "All in the Family," and "M*A*S*H." However, the argument for "Television's Second Golden Age: From 'Hill Street Blues' to 'ER'" covers a period from HSB's debute in 1981 to the present, where "ER" continues to be one of the top dramas on television. That is a period of more than two decades and while Thompson devotes a chapter to "The Second Golden Age of Television: "Cagney & Lacy," "Moonlighting," "L.A. Law," "thirtysomething," and "China Beach," essentially focusing on the Eighties, it is hard to say that the following decade, with "Twin Peaks," "Northern Exposure," "Picket Fences," "NYPD Blue," "Law & Order," "Homicide," "The X-Files," "Chicago Hope," and "ER" was not at least as strong (feel free to add to the list). Even if we are talking about the first decade of the 21st century we have "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "24," "The Practice," "Ally McBeal" and short-lived series like "My So Called Life" and "Once and Again" (and that is without dipping over to HBO and talking about "The Sopranos," "Six Feet Under," and the rest of their kind), all of which speak to quality dramatic programming.That is why in the final analysis I see Thompson's argument as being not so much for a specific time period of great television, but rather advancing the proposition that the hour-long dramatic television series is the chief art form of the medium (yes, even more so than the situation comedy). I would even extend this argument to the mini-series, from "Roots" and "Shogun" to "War and Remembrance" and "Lonesome Dove," because the guiding principle of the extended narrative form remains the common denominator. "24" takes the idea of season-long story arc a unique extreme, but "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" did all of its complete seasons have a first-half story arc (e.g., Spike & Dru in Season 2) that then merged with a second-half story arc (e.g., the return of Angelus) that provided a framework for all of the individual episodes. Then there was "Murder One," which rather successfully devoted an entire season to one sensational murder trial. When a series loses its driving story arc, as when Dave and Maddie consummated their love on "Moonlighting," or when what was supposed to be the hook becomes the line and sinker as well, as when the question of who killed Laura Palmer ultimately derailed "Twin Peaks," the demise of the show simply affirms the principle in the negative. Thompson's starting point is January 1981 when prime-time television was about to make a sudden and dramatic turn towards quality because of "Hill Street Blues," the show that Steven Bocho did not want to make and that nobody wanted to watch, but which became "television's first true masterpiece." However, Thompson argues that it was "St. Elsewhere" that was "TV's greatest show, ever" (having to do with key notions of "intertextuality" and "self-reflexivity"). Ultimately he is not defining a particular time period (especially since the "golden age" in question is clearly not over), but explaining why in the "vast wasteland" that Newton Minnow bemoaned so many years ago "quality" television is flourishing in terms of hour-long dramatic programming. Within that context Thompson clearly makes his case for much of the best television ever made having appeared on the networks since 1980. The book is half critical evaluation of these programs and half insider's tour looking at the decision-making process as well as the social, economic, and artistic forces that ended up revolutionizing the medium. Thompson also more than adequately proves he knows his television history, which is necessary to help convince those of us who are true students of the medium. Consequently, the fact that the title of this book is not a fair representation of its most significant claim, is not to be held against the author, because he has made in public an argument I have been making in private (okay, in class as well), for several years.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Leverette
![Hill Street Blues - Series 1 [DVD] [1981]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HA7YPZPHL._SL500_SS90_.jpg)
DVD ~ Daniel J. Travanti
by Rafael Alvarez
by Sue Thornham
