As our 3rd Critic on the Spot, we welcome Matthew Gilbert, television critic for the Boston Globe. Among the shrines at which he has worshipped during his tenure: The Sopranos, Freaks and Geeks, Six Feet Under, Scrubs, Lost and The Office. He has written celebrity and author interviews for the Globe, served as literary and managing editor at Boston Review, clerked at a number of local bookstores, and gotten his MA in Literature. He has had other jobs and assignments, too, but he can no longer remember them because TV has destroyed his brain. Today: The first 2 of 5 questions from Andrew Altenburg.
Q:
It was disheartening to find out that Chris Carter never had any real back story to back up his elaborate mythology on the X FILES.. and quite frankly aside from the absurd gay subplot, this is what kept me from seeing the movie. If the creator of the series doesn't care about his own story, why should I? I bring this up because I wonder, as a TV critic, it's your job to keep track (to some degree anyway) of all the various storylines on various serialized shows.. which leads me to a few questions:
Q1:
Have there been series (sitcoms or dramas) that have kept a coherent narrative thread throughout an entire series? Can you name a success and a spectacular failure?
A:
I’m not sure a denouement is critical to the definition of a careful narrative. It doesn’t all have to go somewhere to be coherent, I think. Sometimes a show’s creator isn’t aiming for order and plot accountability; he or she is trying to evoke realism, with all its repetition and chaos and disorder. I’m a big fan of Anthony Trollope, who, unlike Dickens, often let his novels peter out in the name of realism. But along the way, those novels cohere beautifully.
I do think there are many coherent threads on TV, including most of the shows mentioned elsewhere in this questionnaire as well as slivers such as “The Comeback” and “Freaks and Geeks.” The episodes add up to something. I thought “Six Feet Under” was a successful piece of narrative, from start to finish. The themes were consistent, but evolving, and the finale was breathtakingly unifying. But then “Roseanne” was a disaster that fell apart and fell apart all over again as it got closer to its final season.
Q2:
Do you think a show like LOST has an actual back story or are they just making this up as they go along?
A:
Both, I think. The producers know where it will end up, but they are spinning the details along the way. Setting an end date was the best thing they ever did -- it has allowed them to keep the vamping at a minimum. One of TV’s best qualities is that it enables long-form storytelling; but when a show is popular, and kept alive solely for ratings, that ability to stretch on and on becomes a liability.
We may be disappointed in the “Lost” endgame; when they moved the island last season, I wanted to cry. To me, it indicated a hokey uber-plot. But I do think there is a whole vision being slowly unveiled across the seasons.
More questions from Andrew Altenburg to follow...
