I was looking at my book collection and stumbled upon one entitled "Television's Second Golden Age: From Hill Street Blues to ER" by Robert J. Thompson from 1996. This is a book I had forgotten I owned and I wanted to write a bit about it. In future, I may get into more detail about it, but it got me to thinking about television past.
The book begins by defining quality television, but my favorite quote early on from page 35 is this "The quality dramas of the 1980s though were perhaps the greatest, beneficiaries of Dallas and its imitators. As the Golden Age of television was rooted in legitimate stage, quality dramas were rooted in the soap opera. Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, thirtysomething, and L.A. Law all employed continuing story lines, and, though, less like soap operas, Cagney & Lacey, Moonlighting and China Beach still built heavily on previous episodes." In future, I may write more about this book as it discusses where television may go in the years to come and in 14 years things have changed a lot.
These kinds of shows have a lot of elements that match that of the daytime soap opera. The main differences are quality television shows have prestige, are literary, they have an upscale demographics of viewers and a pedigree with producers, directors and writers. Also, they tend to be different (unlike other shows) and break rules, which causes them not to be successful in the ratings though tend to get awards. In the past, soaps broke rules, but now this is done a lot less often. Things that make them like soap operas are a large ensemble cast, the program remembers the past and builds on it (or we hope in daytime), and genres are mixed as one could see comedy and tragedy within one episode. At times, soaps are self-conscious with references to other genres, but again this isn't done so often. Most people don't watch soap operas for realism and that is a hallmark of "quality television" too. Of course, one could argue that some soaps of the past were realistic or had important issue storylines, and I’d have to agree. Obviously, I’m writing about the soaps of today when I make that qualification.
Today instead of these quality shows being on network television they seem to be on cable like AMC, HBO and Showtime as much of network television is filled with procedural dramas that have a beginning, middle and end. These shows may have strong acting and writing, and are good programs, but not “quality dramatic television”.
I believe in some ways, these shows influenced what we saw on daytime television. How could they not? A program with strong characterization, continuity, plots that are realistic and talented actors, isn’t that the good stuff? I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s what I want to see in daytime soap operas. The quality dramas took a lot of the best things in soaps and made them palatable to people who may never deign to watch daytime.
Quality television may have replaced our soaps to some viewers or caused them to never seek out daytime alternatives. It is a lot easier to watch a show once a week for a few months a year, than a soap opera on a daily basis. If the daytime shows were barely delivering the entertainment one craves, why would someone even watch it over a long period of time? Also if ones “home soap” otherwise known as the one they grew up with has ended or if they have become so disgruntled with their favorite, they may stop watching daytime. There has to be somewhere these viewers went and perhaps some of them found the quality shows to enjoy instead of soaps. Perhaps that migration started in the 80s and 90s and we are still seeing the effects today as in those households’ soap operas were not viewed. That’s a question though for the experts and one I’d love to see discussed by those in the television industry.
While I have loved many quality dramas over the years, and see how they are like soaps. They weren't a complete replacement for me. I feel these shows allow us another look into our life and times.
No comments:
Post a Comment