Please don't misunderstand me: returning to the status quo is not always a bad decision. There are episodic shows that naturally return to the status quo; for example, Star Trek: TNG was an excellent show (probably made even more excellent in my memory since it was a family event while I was growing up) that always returned the status quo without becoming boring. Two factors helped it maintain this routine: first, an excuse. The Enterprise was a ship, constantly roving. The plot of each episode had to be resolved in a neat and tidy fashion, at least as far as the main characters were concerned, because next week those same main characters would be somewhere else. A good excuse like this spares the writers from any status quo-inducing measures that strain our suspension of disbelief. The traveling starship of Star Trek and Firefly isn't the only good excuse out there, either; several good speculative shows I can think of (Eureka, Warehouse 13, Moonlight, etc.) rely on the crime-show standby of "cases" to be solved. The second factor that helps a status quo show to remain dynamic is the proxy effect -- the fact that the show's guests, the inhabitants of this week's planet or the suspects in this week's case, do experience substantial, life-altering change. A war is averted, a culture is saved, a victim is protected or avenged; in other words, something BIG and emotional happens, even though the main characters go back to their lives unchanged. It's not my favorite plot structure, but there's no denying that it works.
On the other end of the spectrum, we've had a recent spate of shows that have no status quo. Syfy's Battlestar Galactica was all arc; the status of the fleet, and the situations of the individual characters, was constantly changing. Lost also had no resting place, although it used some awe-inspiring innovations to accomplish this. Whenever the characters experienced a lull on the island, the flash-backs provided a story of transformation to maintain a sense of forward motion. (Take, for example, last season's episode in which the characters made little progress on the island, but we witnessed Richard's life story). I happened to love this kind of show, perhaps because the structure more closely resembles that of a novel, or perhaps just because I glory in complications and am a sucker for romance (so, I like for people to actually get together). My all time favorite show, however, falls into the most common middle category.
Most shows lie in the challenging area between these two extremes. The writers want things to change, but not too fast, so they must delay, delay, delay. Joss Whedon set the standard for this type of writing with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show had episodic tendencies, but against the backdrop of monster-of-the-week plots, Whedon and his team wrote stories that involved real, lasting, character growth. Willow went from sweet to evil to grown-up; Spike earned a soul; Buffy went through more changes than I can list, longing for normalcy at first, finding reasons to live after being dead, and becoming more and more isolated in the final season. Relationships between the characters on the show began, developed, and ended (Xander and Anya). Whedon wasn't afraid to absent (Oz, Angel, etc.) or kill (Joyce, Tara) main characters, heightening the sense of danger. The key to Whedon's victory over the status quo was the way the characters were allowed to react to their wonderful and horrible adventures like actual people who are changed by their experiences. Add to that witty dialogue, a perfect blend of comedy, melodrama, and fantasy, and great acting, and you get my favorite show.
No comments:
Post a Comment