Do you ever take surveys with multiple choice answers, and feel like it's way too limiting? You want to explain, qualify, etc. Well, that is what I'm about to do regarding that undeniable television phenomenon, "jumping the shark".
For some shows, it's clear. There really is that one defining moment, where it's all downhill from there. Coach's move to Florida, for example. Ironically, the show that originated the phrase (Happy Days) really seems to have several jump the shark moments. Can a show repeatedly jump the shark? I think so. As Rachel might say, "there's rock bottom, fifty feet of crap, then me". A show can definitely go from good to bad, bad to worse, worse to even worse... but you may or may not be watching by then. On Family Matters, it was odd early on when characters just disappeared with no explanation, sure. But that's a jump that pales in comparison to the introduction of "Stephan Urquelle". Sometimes a minor jump precedes a major one; sometimes the show survives the most major one and lives to produce more minor ones.
One problem I have is that if you go on the "Jump the Shark" website, some of the moments people have pinpointed may make you say, "NO WAY! That was one of the BEST moments!" I mean, I can understand that some people may see a moment as a turning point and others might see the same series as having always remained good. But I am truly bewildered as to how certain moments can seem like the *best* moments to one person and really bad to another person. Madeleine Albright's appearance on the Gilmore Girls, for instance. Or Cameron & Chase doing it on House (or Chase's "I love you" every Tuesday - come on, that's soooo sweet!). We should have the "no way!" option on jumptheshark.com to vote down non-jump-the-shark suggested moments!
And isn't there a difference between a moment that's so stupid that it signals the beginning of the end (ie the actual jumping of the shark) and a moment that's terrific, but after that, they don't know where to go with the show? Dwayne busting up Whitley's wedding: fabulous. The new dorm, new cast, Freddie going clean cut lawyer and dating Ron... um, no. Not that Jada Pinkett-Smith didn't have some good moments.
I also think there ought to be a distinction between episodes or decisions that were not good calls, but that didn't fundamentally sink the show. Hair sunk Felicity, yes. But the bad hair and crazy 70's outfits on the Brady Bunch didn't (Oliver did!). Lowell leaving Wings was a detriment, but not a deal breaker. Alex Trebek is too smug, but you still occasionally watch Jeopardy, you just try to tune him out. Sure, it's not believable that everyone Jessica Fletcher knows gets suspected of murder, but you still love the show (until she leaves Cabot Cove).
It seems a little paradoxical that "gradual decline" is sometimes one of the options, doesn't it? Also, some shows don't even decline, but somehow they just get... boring after awhile, not because something changed, but maybe because it didn't... or maybe certain concepts just have a short shelf life. And that's an option! But decline or short-shelf-life are really not the same thing as jumping the shark. I had a temporary addiction to Mythbusters, which I still think is a good show, but I don't watch it as much as I used to.
Same character, different actor JTSes haven't been made distinct enough. There is a major difference between same character, different actor and same basic role slot, different actor. Pam Anderson left, Tim got a new tool girl - but nobody pretended she was the same person! Natalie is not supposed to be Sharona on Monk, and that's ok. That is not remotely on par with the Bewitched problem, or even Becky on Roseanne (which at least they sort of acknowledged and dealt with humorously). And when the character switch is minor and/or for the better (Carol on Friends), well, we're happy to pretend we didn't notice anything odd - especially in a case like Carol where the switch happened soooo early.
Then you have ER. I still watch it, and find it enjoyable, but you do have to block out of your mind the sheer volume of tragedies - not of the patients (it is an ER, after all, so that's not unbelievable), but of the main characters. Once you start to think about the number of addictions, diseases, stabbings, shootings, rapes, bereavements, accidents that happen to this group of people, you're done for. But if you suspend disbelief on that, you can keep enjoying the show. Is Desperate Housewives a case of this? My mind isn't totally made up on that one. It's unbelievable, but that is part of the fun of it. But is all the excitement starting to get boring? Or is it a problem that the characters are not retaining any consistency whatsoever, and certain things that you would think are important are being dropped and ignored. What happened to Carlos's return to Catholicism, for instance? It's one thing for something to change and be explained, it's another for it to simply be forgotten. There may or may not be identifiable jump the shark moments on shows like these (Mark Greene dying of brain cancer...), but that seems like less of an issue than the fact that any one event might be believable, but taken as a group, it's not remotely so.
The last episode as a jump the shark moment is a tricky concept, too. Sometimes (eg Seinfeld) the last episode seems fine as an episode but isn't quite satisfying enough as the last episode, but does that really qualify as jumping the shark? (I'm not even counting shows that get canceled without getting a chance to write a final episode, like original Star Trek, or shows that rush it because they find out about the cancellation very late, like Ed - what was with that circus wedding idea???). Some shows don't jump the shark because they get canceled despite being good. Original Trek, arguably, but certainly Freaks and Geeks, Sports Night, and My So Called Life. That's different than having a full run and never jumping the shark. We just can't know whether those shows would or would not have done that. Is it sometimes better, then, for a show to die young, so that we only have pleasant memories of it? What about shows that have a last episode, but then run another season (Charmed)? Or last episodes that don't necessarily jump the shark, but they make you feel like it completely ruins the memory of the show for you (Roseanne - Dan died awhile ago; Newhart - it was all just a dream)?
I'd also like to see the emergence of a reverse-jump-the-shark concept. For instance, the first season of Saved by the Bell is not that memorable. Zack was too much of a kid and not yet enough of a hunk, Hayley Mills was too real of an actress for the show, we didn't have Kelly or Jessie yet (who was that girl that was on there?). The addition of Kelly and Jessie, I would think, is a reverse JTS. 'Course, that doesn't change the fact that it later had multiple regular JTS issues (college, the new class). Speaking of SbtB - Tory was ok, but I missed Kelly and Jessie, and it was hard for her to kind of fill TWO great female lead slots - see, that's another example of something that's unfortunate but isn't really a JTS. Jessie's addiction-to-stimulants episode was also stupid, but it was a blip on the screen. I think Law and Order had somewhat of a reverse jump the shark when Chris Noth left. The Cosby Show had to create some awkward moments in order to reverse JTS, by changing the house and adding a fifth child (the oldest!). And the graceful exit of the "interview" segments on Sex and the City - definitely a reverse JTS.
The shows that run a long time and truly stay good are much fewer in number than the list on jumptheshark.com would suggest. FULL HOUSE is on that list! Are ya kiddin' me? This is the show that turned jumping the shark into an art form. If sharks died when they got jumped, this show alone would have made sharks extinct. But even here, there are important distinctions: Jesse's last name changing - mildly awkward; the moms being played by different actresses - mildly awkward; Jesse not mentioning "topless ballerinas" more than once - very good call for the target audience; DJ and Steve breaking up - that's when it really started to lose it. But there were countless more jump the shark moments after that in addition to a general gradual decline.
Last but not least...one show that I don't think ever jumped the shark: Quantum Leap. Now that's irony for you.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
My fellow Americans...
When I was a young girl, I thought America was great. We had those classic history books that make it sound that way, emphasizing our best ideals and values and glossing over as much as possible of our mistakes and weaknesses. As I grew older and learned of the ways we've fallen so short of those ideals, I became disenchanted and cynical. I still loved the ideals, but a false note had been sounded.
George W. Bush embodied the worst of that to me, even before the war. But as his attitudes and policies unfolded, my disbelief and sadness grew. On a practical level, I could not but feel that his actions undermined our interests. Trying to understand other points of view is far more likely to be helpful than bombing first and asking questions later. Giving credence to terrorist claims by providing them ample evidence that we were as they imagined us to be, and failing to recognize how his actions could be perceived if one was not starting with the assumption that "America = the good guys" has been immeasurably harmful.
But there were deeper objections as well. Preemptive strikes? Torture? Erosion of civil liberties? Security at all costs? By undermining the ideals America ought to stand for, Bush has been defeating America more than any terrorist could. He has made us no better than those who would destroy us from the outside. We should rather be killed by terrorists than know that our safety has been purchased at the price of America's soul.
I therefore cannot help but admire Barack's stated desire not just to end the war but to end the mindset that led to the war. To me, practical questions about what to do now that we are embroiled in Iraq are up for debate. But American ideals are not, and changing that mindset is, in the long run, the far more important task. Along with that task comes that of regaining the world's respect. With his multicultural background, Barack is perhaps ideally suited for the great work of communicating with other nations, understanding their values and goals, and thus better equipping us to promote peace, prosperity, and freedom throughout the world (while at the same time, I believe, maintaining a humble recognition that America is neither the world's police force nor its salvation).
His stance on foreign policy is only one example of how Barack represents what is best about this country, and how he presents as stark a contrast to our current President as one can imagine. Tax cuts - the environment - these are issues on which Bush has demonstrated incredible short-sightedness, selfishness, and lack of judgment. I have confidence that as President, Obama would remain faithful to his job of serving the public, and not only today's public, but the public of the future, who will be so tremendously affected by the environmental policies of today.
Furthermore, it is clear that the job of the President has become extremely difficult due to partisan conflict. I believe that Barack has the ability to perhaps overcome this and do some real good, though even at its best, the office cannot and should not fully dictate all the laws and policies of the nation, nor can it be the only means by which positive change happens. But I also feel that, should it be the case that the American political system is so mired in bureaucracy that great progress is an impossible task for any President, we must then ask ourselves, what's left? What can a President offer us?
The best kind of leadership motivates and inspires people to do their part and to be more than they thought they could be. That takes clarity of mind and eloquence; therein, perhaps, lies the greatest gift Obama can offer us. Who can doubt the powerful effect of Churchill's words to his countrymen during the Second World War? And who among us does not get chills when we listen to Dr. King tell us of his dream that his children "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," and calls us to "let freedom ring!" all across America? Who can fail to be moved by so many of Lincoln's words, or by the founding fathers' bold statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal..."? I cannot help but think that if America's ideals are to live on in the future, we must continue to have leaders who will give us powerful words to live by.
In one sense, as pundits have noted, Barack's campaign is about him, his character, and this great eloquence. This is fitting, as the President represents America, both at home and abroad; to a certain extent, we are what he or she is. Barack Obama does, I think, as much as anyone can, stand for and embody the best of America.
But in another sense, what he is telling us is that as President, he would not be "special". He wants us all to recapture those lost childhood ideals. He wants to encourage the cynical and pessimistic among us (including me) to believe that there may be hope after all - that we might not have to choose between our security and our ideals - that we might yet be able to change our country for the better - and that that hope lies in us, not just in our government. He is telling us that we, the people of the United States, do in fact have the power to establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Is that what is being called an empty hope by his opponents? If this is empty, what is left to us?
George W. Bush embodied the worst of that to me, even before the war. But as his attitudes and policies unfolded, my disbelief and sadness grew. On a practical level, I could not but feel that his actions undermined our interests. Trying to understand other points of view is far more likely to be helpful than bombing first and asking questions later. Giving credence to terrorist claims by providing them ample evidence that we were as they imagined us to be, and failing to recognize how his actions could be perceived if one was not starting with the assumption that "America = the good guys" has been immeasurably harmful.
But there were deeper objections as well. Preemptive strikes? Torture? Erosion of civil liberties? Security at all costs? By undermining the ideals America ought to stand for, Bush has been defeating America more than any terrorist could. He has made us no better than those who would destroy us from the outside. We should rather be killed by terrorists than know that our safety has been purchased at the price of America's soul.
I therefore cannot help but admire Barack's stated desire not just to end the war but to end the mindset that led to the war. To me, practical questions about what to do now that we are embroiled in Iraq are up for debate. But American ideals are not, and changing that mindset is, in the long run, the far more important task. Along with that task comes that of regaining the world's respect. With his multicultural background, Barack is perhaps ideally suited for the great work of communicating with other nations, understanding their values and goals, and thus better equipping us to promote peace, prosperity, and freedom throughout the world (while at the same time, I believe, maintaining a humble recognition that America is neither the world's police force nor its salvation).
His stance on foreign policy is only one example of how Barack represents what is best about this country, and how he presents as stark a contrast to our current President as one can imagine. Tax cuts - the environment - these are issues on which Bush has demonstrated incredible short-sightedness, selfishness, and lack of judgment. I have confidence that as President, Obama would remain faithful to his job of serving the public, and not only today's public, but the public of the future, who will be so tremendously affected by the environmental policies of today.
Furthermore, it is clear that the job of the President has become extremely difficult due to partisan conflict. I believe that Barack has the ability to perhaps overcome this and do some real good, though even at its best, the office cannot and should not fully dictate all the laws and policies of the nation, nor can it be the only means by which positive change happens. But I also feel that, should it be the case that the American political system is so mired in bureaucracy that great progress is an impossible task for any President, we must then ask ourselves, what's left? What can a President offer us?
The best kind of leadership motivates and inspires people to do their part and to be more than they thought they could be. That takes clarity of mind and eloquence; therein, perhaps, lies the greatest gift Obama can offer us. Who can doubt the powerful effect of Churchill's words to his countrymen during the Second World War? And who among us does not get chills when we listen to Dr. King tell us of his dream that his children "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," and calls us to "let freedom ring!" all across America? Who can fail to be moved by so many of Lincoln's words, or by the founding fathers' bold statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal..."? I cannot help but think that if America's ideals are to live on in the future, we must continue to have leaders who will give us powerful words to live by.
In one sense, as pundits have noted, Barack's campaign is about him, his character, and this great eloquence. This is fitting, as the President represents America, both at home and abroad; to a certain extent, we are what he or she is. Barack Obama does, I think, as much as anyone can, stand for and embody the best of America.
But in another sense, what he is telling us is that as President, he would not be "special". He wants us all to recapture those lost childhood ideals. He wants to encourage the cynical and pessimistic among us (including me) to believe that there may be hope after all - that we might not have to choose between our security and our ideals - that we might yet be able to change our country for the better - and that that hope lies in us, not just in our government. He is telling us that we, the people of the United States, do in fact have the power to establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Is that what is being called an empty hope by his opponents? If this is empty, what is left to us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)