|
"Ninety-nine percent of what passes for rock now...SILENCE is more compelling."
"They don't even know what it is to be a fan...to love some silly little piece of music...or some band so much that it hurts."
These quotes are from Cameron Crowe's film Almost Famous and are about rock and roll, but they may as well be discussing
the current state of American television and the disenfranchisement of fans dedicated to intelligent, meaningful shows. The
market is flooded-to-bursting with the crappiest schlock ever to grace our screens (and after the 1980's, that's saying a
lot). Dozens of cheap, insipid reality programs are greenlit what seems like weekly to fill the spaces where actual programming
once belonged. Instead of a variety of shows appealing to a number of demographics, everything has sunk to the lowest common
denominator. For now, it's making the networks a ton of money and allowing them to compete with pay cable channels like HBO
that don't have to rely on ever-decreasing advertising cash to pay for their shows. Because of this, HBO can actually serve
their viewers and offer them programming not conceptualized by primates.
And so the big question is, how do we get our quality TV back? Some might suggest (snidely) that the concept alone is a great
white whale; however, certain programs (in ever-decreasing numbers) not only appeal to an intelligent and thoughtful audience,
but also can sometimes be more compelling than the best films. This is because of the potential for long story and character
arcs and the power of writers (versus directors) in television. Writers produce many shows (or producers write them). But
to get back to my question, I'm not sure that we can. Or at least it still remains to be seen. However, the fans of one
quality show, Joss Whedon's Angel on the WB, are trying their best to save their program, and their efforts raise some
interesting questions about grassroots campaigns' abilities to overthrow the paranoid decisions of network brass.
Because TV decisions are made out of fear, and that's all. How much do we spend? How much can we save by going a different
way? and questions like these. Decisions made out of fear are never completely logical. There may be logic in them, yes,
but they always have holes because they are made on the run, back turned from the situation. So the only way to get them
to change their minds is to make them fear the loss of even more viewers in the long run.
Most of all, campaigns like the one at Save Angel.org show the suits that fan loyalty does indeed matter. It shows them that a niche show with a moderate following can have more
impact than one that airs for a few weeks (usually multiple days a week) and features drooling morons getting drunk and laid.
The ratings may not be as good, but repeat viewers are nothing to scoff at. If they're tuned in every week, it's likely
that they'll catch another show on the same network. If they only watch for a few weeks and then tune in elsewhere, there's
no network loyalty. The suits know that they need network loyalty to keep advertisers interested.
But even more important than all the crunching of numbers is the quality of the shows people get to watch. The sad truth
is, most Americans will tune in for whatever pops up on their TVs. This benefits idiotic reality shows, because they're painfully
easy to follow and are extremely formulaic. However, it's like eating McDonald's ever day: eventually one could get very,
very sick. The writing on Angel is top notch, and there are ideas involved. Its viewership is extremely intelligent
(just look at the campaign they're running to save the show -- it includes some very creative maneuvers). Perhaps there is
not currently a lot of money in smart TV, but a balance is sorely needed at this point, because the viewers so eagerly craved
by failing nets like The WB will be no good when they're drooling vegetables. There has to be some sort of standard that
allows good, thoughtful programs to balance out the junk. Entertainment in this country is homogenous enough as it is. With
the FCC getting all McCarthy on show business, and the president attempting to constitutionally strip people of their civil
rights, it's imperative that viewers have the option to choose programming that speaks to their concerns.
Ultimately, I wonder whether time is better spent by these fantastic Angel organizers to begin a grassroots political
movement, which is sorely needed right now. But then I think again and realize that what they are doing is attempting to
save art in a world where art is not as valued as money. Is it too much to call a TV show art? Of course it's not. And
a show like Angel, which has not only fans involved in the campaign to salvage it, but critics like TV Guide's
Matt Roush and E! Online's Kristin, clearly has a broader appeal than The WB gives it credit for. Moreover, it's unlikely
that Charmed, a show that The WB decided not to cancel, would garner the kind of attention that Angel has were
it to have been axed (as it should have been - years ago). The netlet is thinking about how broad the appeal of a show is
and whether it can gain new viewers (highly unlikely for a show as unimaginative and aged as Charmed), not about the
extremely dedicated viewers they already have. It's dangerous for them to think that the fans of Angel who accidentally
tune in to Smallville (which airs just before Angel, and is, incidentally, slipping in the ratings as Angel
rises) will continue to do so when their show is gone. It's also dangerous of them to think that these same fans will bother
to come back next year for their new vampire series, an update of the cult classic Dark Shadows. It seems silly to
alienate the same niche fans that they will need in the future.
But all that is circumstantial, and a bit besides the point. The point is, I think, that if the fans of Angel are
ultimately successful in saving their show from cancellation (as the fans of Star Trek and Roswell [oops!] have
been before them), all the networks will be reminded of the real people they are serving. A "fan" is not a value that can
be given a dollar amount. It needs to be, in certain circumstances, at least of equal importance that TV makes people think
and respond, that people identify with what they see on the screen, that they evaluate it, write about it, think a little,
as it is that it makes money. Obviously, it's idealistic and stupid to think that creative merit, not cash, could ever run
the networks. In the end, that's a good thing, because for every great show like Angel, there's a tasteless wafer
like, I don't know, Becker. Money helps mediate taste, because taste is, of course, subjective. But The WB knows
that they have a great show as well as great fans, and Angel performs fairly well for them in the ratings. The only
reason to cancel it, then, is fear. Angel fans are proving, I hope, that viewers are more than just numbers, they're people
with remote controls.
|
