Some scenes from my favorite TV shows (clockwise from upper left): "Call the Midwife," "Orphan Black," and "The Newsroom."
Speaking of television . . .
Yes, as my last post indicated, I do have a little TV habit. I average about two hours of boob-tube watching per night. But let it be said: Many of today’s choices for TV viewing require more than the basic “boob” mentality of yesteryear.
While there still are plenty of programs aimed at the medium’s traditional “lowest common denominator” audience — the people who just want to chill out in front of the screen for a few hours, mentally unchallenged — there are shows (“Mad Men,” “The Wire,” “Breaking Bad,” “Homeland,” “Parenthood,” “Call the Midwife,” “Orphan Black,” “The Hour,” “The Good Wife,” “Masters of Sex,” “Broadchurch, “Last Tango in Halifax,” “House of Cards,” “Orange is the New Black”) that are as well made and as stimulating as any award-worthy motion picture.
In fact, there are so many offerings out there now that life without TV’s digital recording capability (DVR), storage discs (DVDs) or internet connections (Netflix, Hulu, HBO-Go, Showtime Anywhere, Dish Anywhere) would make watching them — even the few that we make time for — impossible.
And sorting out which few may be must-watch fare (as far as any entertainment offering really can qualify as something we “must” see) can be daunting.
First of all, of course, there is a whole lot of life outside of TV: Work, family, recreation, social events, sporting events, writing (for some), books, magazines, NPR shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, computer/smartphone browsing, movies, stage shows, house work, yard work, music . . .
Second of all, on any given night, there now are a number of televised sporting contests featuring teams that people follow.
So, we have to be very selective in filling our TV time, at least if one wants to stay healthy, well-rounded and alert (by limiting TV watching).
For me, that means quick elimination of genres or offerings I’m fairly certain I won’t like. That has meant completely skipping “Downton Abbey,” “CSI (anywhere),” “NCIS (any),” reality TV, dancing shows, singing contests, “Game of Thrones,” soap operas, horror shows, country music shows, regular CBS/NBC/ABC sitcoms or dramas, “True Detective,” “Boardwalk Empire” and Lifetime channel movies, to name a few.
Many of the above are very popular and I may even find some enjoyable, if I gave them a chance, but in the world described in paragraph six above, choices have to be made. That means potentially good stuff may be missed.
And even with all my instant eliminations, I am left with dozens and dozens of shows to look over. How to choose?
First, I go for the types of shows I do like and that my wife (aka viewing partner) is likely to join me in watching. These include mysteries and well-done personal dramas (like “Last Tango in Halifax,” “Call the Midwife,” “The Good Wife” “Parenthood”).
Then, I pay attention to media sources, principally The New York Times, the New Yorker or the LA Times, for direction on what’s coming up.
In particular, I follow on Twitter the TV writers for the New Yorker (Emily Nussbaum) and LA Times (Mary McNamara). Both seemed to have TV tastes similar to mine, judging from their articles years ago.
I scan reviews and capsule descriptions to get the gist of what a program entails and how it’s being received. Later, if I do in fact sample a show, I may go back and read the full review.
In that way, Nussbaum got me interested in “Parenthood” with her New Yorker piece, and for that I will be eternally grateful. Great show. I have paid attention to her opinions since.
McNamara drew my interest with a strong call for renewal of another personal favorite, the thriller “Damages,” despite its borderline ratings.
Through Twitter, I have watched Nussbaum quickly and steadily grow in popularity, from a few thousand followers to her current total of 59,000. As you may surmise from that, she is one amazing person. Awards for her columns are sure to mount in coming years as her excellence is widely recognized.
However, Nussbaum appears to live in a world of 48-hour days, watching an incredible number of TV shows while also reading their source material, at least for the ones she reviews in print.
Her articles clearly show she has not only watched the shows at hand but paid close attention and thought deeply about them. Her writing is incisive and enjoyable, even when it concerns shows in which I have no interest (such as CSI).
But, after my initial bonding with her over “Parenthood,” I have had only limited success following her recommendations for TV watching. Primarily, we share a love of “The Good Wife,” “Mad Men,” “Breaking Bad” and “The Wire.”
Among the bigger misses have been “Girls” (although, as noted in my previous blog post, I’ve come around in season three) and “Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” which she loves but I find tiresome, with its constant bickering among the lead characters.
Meanwhile, she is a major booster of shows I would never watch, for reasons stated above, like “CSI,” “Nashville,” “American Horror Story,” “Sex and the City,” “The Americans,” “”Game of Thrones” and “Glee” (I squirmed through it for a few seasons, to support the innovative genre, but took advantage of the lead characters’ high school graduation to say good-bye and end the pain).
If it was just for Nussbaum’s TV recommendations alone, I would probably tune her out. But her good humor and TV insights keep me interested (plus she’s personally responded to my tweets and emails over the years, so there’s that.) As I noted, this is an entertainment glutton, someone who’s continued to find joy in watching TV despite spending just about every waking hour (she is a young mother, too, after all) in front of the screen. The opinions of someone like that matter. She truly deserves the title of expert in her field.
But back to my main theme: How we fit in the plethora of quality TV shows amidst the plethora of other things very worthy of taking up our time.
Actually, the real question is why — why even take a few hours off each day to watch programs on television? They’re really just interchangeable dramas, glorified time-wasters.
Well, we all can use a few time-wasters in our lives. Nothing wrong with that. And if they also happen to impart an occasional nugget of wisdom or touch us at some level (I’ve choked up at several early episodes of “Parenthood” and “Call the Midwife,” for example), all the better.
There are limits, however.
I fully explored aspects of this in two prior Geezer Alert posts, “Accounting for Taste,” parts 1 and 2, on Jan. 24 and Feb. 8, 2013. The main theme of those pieces was the total subjectivity of entertainment choices and the gall involved with someone suggesting his or her personal selections deserve greater attention than someone else’s.
Now, taking it a bit further:
TV watching is a habit, of course. And it’s a media-driven habit — readers or viewers of news products cannot avoid the hype. We are made to feel like we are missing something vital, something life-changing, if we ignore latest and greatest TV has to offer.
It may be a chicken-or-egg situation: What came first, our interest in TV or the media’s coverage of it? There’s no way to really know. The media can say they are simply responding to our chosen lifestyles, giving us the information we want and need in order to best enjoy the medium that entertains us.
At the same time, though, the attention being paid by entertainment media to TV fare, in this day and age, is over the top. Sorry Emily and Mary. It’s understandable, perhaps, for those two women or other reviewers, given this is their full-time job and they’re trying their best to own their beats. But the result is a hopped-up atmosphere, raising TV watching to an unwarranted, life-necessity status.
When I foolishly offered such opinions in comment sections a few years ago, I was taken to task by several persons as an entertainment snob. Evidently there are many people who really, really love their TV shows and feel they are top-quality offerings, worth many hours of their time. They get very defensive.
But my point is that TV may offer terrific entertainment but its offerings, as a whole, should not to be taken too seriously. Yes, it may sound snobbish to say TV is not on the level of classic literature, like Shakespeare’s plays, and thus not worthy of serious attention, but that’s the plain truth. The detail-by-detail parsing of TV fare, with dedicated followers hanging on their every word, is not healthy.
So, we come to one of my favorite life sayings (discussed in my Nov. 20, 2013 post “All Good Things, In Moderation”): Everything in moderation. Thus, I can enjoy five or six TV shows, analyze their merits, and then leave them behind, like yesterday’s news. It’s a diversion, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, as my last post indicated, I do have a little TV habit. I average about two hours of boob-tube watching per night. But let it be said: Many of today’s choices for TV viewing require more than the basic “boob” mentality of yesteryear.
While there still are plenty of programs aimed at the medium’s traditional “lowest common denominator” audience — the people who just want to chill out in front of the screen for a few hours, mentally unchallenged — there are shows (“Mad Men,” “The Wire,” “Breaking Bad,” “Homeland,” “Parenthood,” “Call the Midwife,” “Orphan Black,” “The Hour,” “The Good Wife,” “Masters of Sex,” “Broadchurch, “Last Tango in Halifax,” “House of Cards,” “Orange is the New Black”) that are as well made and as stimulating as any award-worthy motion picture.
In fact, there are so many offerings out there now that life without TV’s digital recording capability (DVR), storage discs (DVDs) or internet connections (Netflix, Hulu, HBO-Go, Showtime Anywhere, Dish Anywhere) would make watching them — even the few that we make time for — impossible.
And sorting out which few may be must-watch fare (as far as any entertainment offering really can qualify as something we “must” see) can be daunting.
First of all, of course, there is a whole lot of life outside of TV: Work, family, recreation, social events, sporting events, writing (for some), books, magazines, NPR shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, computer/smartphone browsing, movies, stage shows, house work, yard work, music . . .
Second of all, on any given night, there now are a number of televised sporting contests featuring teams that people follow.
So, we have to be very selective in filling our TV time, at least if one wants to stay healthy, well-rounded and alert (by limiting TV watching).
For me, that means quick elimination of genres or offerings I’m fairly certain I won’t like. That has meant completely skipping “Downton Abbey,” “CSI (anywhere),” “NCIS (any),” reality TV, dancing shows, singing contests, “Game of Thrones,” soap operas, horror shows, country music shows, regular CBS/NBC/ABC sitcoms or dramas, “True Detective,” “Boardwalk Empire” and Lifetime channel movies, to name a few.
Many of the above are very popular and I may even find some enjoyable, if I gave them a chance, but in the world described in paragraph six above, choices have to be made. That means potentially good stuff may be missed.
And even with all my instant eliminations, I am left with dozens and dozens of shows to look over. How to choose?
First, I go for the types of shows I do like and that my wife (aka viewing partner) is likely to join me in watching. These include mysteries and well-done personal dramas (like “Last Tango in Halifax,” “Call the Midwife,” “The Good Wife” “Parenthood”).
Then, I pay attention to media sources, principally The New York Times, the New Yorker or the LA Times, for direction on what’s coming up.
In particular, I follow on Twitter the TV writers for the New Yorker (Emily Nussbaum) and LA Times (Mary McNamara). Both seemed to have TV tastes similar to mine, judging from their articles years ago.
I scan reviews and capsule descriptions to get the gist of what a program entails and how it’s being received. Later, if I do in fact sample a show, I may go back and read the full review.
In that way, Nussbaum got me interested in “Parenthood” with her New Yorker piece, and for that I will be eternally grateful. Great show. I have paid attention to her opinions since.
McNamara drew my interest with a strong call for renewal of another personal favorite, the thriller “Damages,” despite its borderline ratings.
Through Twitter, I have watched Nussbaum quickly and steadily grow in popularity, from a few thousand followers to her current total of 59,000. As you may surmise from that, she is one amazing person. Awards for her columns are sure to mount in coming years as her excellence is widely recognized.
However, Nussbaum appears to live in a world of 48-hour days, watching an incredible number of TV shows while also reading their source material, at least for the ones she reviews in print.
Her articles clearly show she has not only watched the shows at hand but paid close attention and thought deeply about them. Her writing is incisive and enjoyable, even when it concerns shows in which I have no interest (such as CSI).
But, after my initial bonding with her over “Parenthood,” I have had only limited success following her recommendations for TV watching. Primarily, we share a love of “The Good Wife,” “Mad Men,” “Breaking Bad” and “The Wire.”
Among the bigger misses have been “Girls” (although, as noted in my previous blog post, I’ve come around in season three) and “Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” which she loves but I find tiresome, with its constant bickering among the lead characters.
Meanwhile, she is a major booster of shows I would never watch, for reasons stated above, like “CSI,” “Nashville,” “American Horror Story,” “Sex and the City,” “The Americans,” “”Game of Thrones” and “Glee” (I squirmed through it for a few seasons, to support the innovative genre, but took advantage of the lead characters’ high school graduation to say good-bye and end the pain).
If it was just for Nussbaum’s TV recommendations alone, I would probably tune her out. But her good humor and TV insights keep me interested (plus she’s personally responded to my tweets and emails over the years, so there’s that.) As I noted, this is an entertainment glutton, someone who’s continued to find joy in watching TV despite spending just about every waking hour (she is a young mother, too, after all) in front of the screen. The opinions of someone like that matter. She truly deserves the title of expert in her field.
But back to my main theme: How we fit in the plethora of quality TV shows amidst the plethora of other things very worthy of taking up our time.
Actually, the real question is why — why even take a few hours off each day to watch programs on television? They’re really just interchangeable dramas, glorified time-wasters.
Well, we all can use a few time-wasters in our lives. Nothing wrong with that. And if they also happen to impart an occasional nugget of wisdom or touch us at some level (I’ve choked up at several early episodes of “Parenthood” and “Call the Midwife,” for example), all the better.
There are limits, however.
I fully explored aspects of this in two prior Geezer Alert posts, “Accounting for Taste,” parts 1 and 2, on Jan. 24 and Feb. 8, 2013. The main theme of those pieces was the total subjectivity of entertainment choices and the gall involved with someone suggesting his or her personal selections deserve greater attention than someone else’s.
Now, taking it a bit further:
TV watching is a habit, of course. And it’s a media-driven habit — readers or viewers of news products cannot avoid the hype. We are made to feel like we are missing something vital, something life-changing, if we ignore latest and greatest TV has to offer.
It may be a chicken-or-egg situation: What came first, our interest in TV or the media’s coverage of it? There’s no way to really know. The media can say they are simply responding to our chosen lifestyles, giving us the information we want and need in order to best enjoy the medium that entertains us.
At the same time, though, the attention being paid by entertainment media to TV fare, in this day and age, is over the top. Sorry Emily and Mary. It’s understandable, perhaps, for those two women or other reviewers, given this is their full-time job and they’re trying their best to own their beats. But the result is a hopped-up atmosphere, raising TV watching to an unwarranted, life-necessity status.
When I foolishly offered such opinions in comment sections a few years ago, I was taken to task by several persons as an entertainment snob. Evidently there are many people who really, really love their TV shows and feel they are top-quality offerings, worth many hours of their time. They get very defensive.
But my point is that TV may offer terrific entertainment but its offerings, as a whole, should not to be taken too seriously. Yes, it may sound snobbish to say TV is not on the level of classic literature, like Shakespeare’s plays, and thus not worthy of serious attention, but that’s the plain truth. The detail-by-detail parsing of TV fare, with dedicated followers hanging on their every word, is not healthy.
So, we come to one of my favorite life sayings (discussed in my Nov. 20, 2013 post “All Good Things, In Moderation”): Everything in moderation. Thus, I can enjoy five or six TV shows, analyze their merits, and then leave them behind, like yesterday’s news. It’s a diversion, nothing more, nothing less.