Musing on Character

[shipperx]

Plot driven, not character driven.  That's a common complaint about fanfiction, movies, soaps, and other tv shows.  Now, the truth is, to hold my interest I need both.  I like plots, but plots without compelling characters carry no weight.  On the other hand, I become bored and frustrated with endless belly-button gazing.  Plot is the bread, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomatoes, and cheese of a story ... and characters are the meat.  They're the substance.

Wandering TWOP and TVGuide, there seems to be some dismay by some Studio 60 fans that S60 is hemorraging audience and Heroes is holding up relatively well.  Let's be honest, this isn't because Heroes is a brilliantly written, tightly plotted, or wonderfully produced show.  There are many flaws in Heroes. That said, I think that one thing that Heroes has going for it that S60 doesn't is... Hiro (and Claire, and others). Heroes presented us with a character that we instinctively like.  He's joyous, funny, and compassionate. We empathize with his excitement over discovering a superpower and we sympathize with his desire to 'do the right thing.'  This isn't complex. It's not particularly layered or deep.  But what Heroes got right was creating a character that we enjoy inviting into our living rooms. And, after several episode viewings, I think one thing that has short-circuited Studio 60 are the characters (or rather the characters in conjunction with this particular premise).

What started my thinking about this was reading  stoney321's  and herself_nyc's  glowing comments about Friday Night Lights  (a new show that I have also greatly enjoyed.  The armchair critic in me wants to declare it to be the best new show of the season.  However, its ratings are so appalling that I have virtually no hope of it surviving beyond a few more eps).   Anyway, while reading Stoney's and Herself's comments, it struck me that  FNL and S60 share a similarity in premise.  Both shows are about characters who are involved with an essentially frivolous activity and who take this endeavor very, very seriously.   However, where I find one show to be moving, lovely, and in some respects profound,  I find the other show to be cold, tedious,  and pretentious. Part of the difference, I think, is that Sorkin's script is so full of himself  that it's obvious that he's taking himself  way too seriously.  On the other hand, FNL isn't about the writer and has no readily apparent soapbox that the writer wishes to stand upon (though I noticed that this week's FNL ep was written by Jason Katims, who used to write Roswell, back when Roswell was intriguing...which was before BSG's Ron Moore was brought on and derailed the series.)  I digress.  The point I was trying to make is that FNL doesn't appear to be about the writer.  It's about the characters.    Both S60 and FNL may have characters focused on a frivolous activity, but where FNL gets it right and S60 misses the mark (in my opinion) is that FNL, by developing and focusing on the characters, makes the viewer understand why these characters take it all so seriously. 

 

We understand the pressure the coach (who, BTW is perfectly cast) is under.  There are a lot of expectations placed on him.  He has to win to keep his job, which we're shown effects his life in a myriad of ways.  The precariousness of his job  means that his wife has problems taking a job (and she wants one) because they can't be sure if they will remain in town.  Because of the precariousness of his job, they can't buy the house they want.  They wonder whether its better to continue leasing the smaller house, etc.  These are real, comprehensible problems with which the viewer can empathize.  These issues aren't frivolous.  They matter to him, his family, and his life... and it's hinged on the game.   

The same sort of believable issues are presented with  the poor quarterback.  How can your heart not break for that kid, laying in a hospital bed trying to be brave and actually focusing on someone other than himself?  He's seventeen years old and has just been paralyzed.  That's serious.  That's tragic.  That matters in a way that a rating demographic, focus group, or a story in Vanity Fair never can.  On FNL , the viewers  understand why other characters take Street's injury so seriously.  We understand why they ache.  We feel pain in the scene where the coach stands by the student's bed, where the student tries to be brave beyond his years and the coach can only find himself saying over and over again, "You're a good man.  You're a good man" and why the coach is near tears when he insists "You didn't let me down."  These character's problems carry emotional weight.  (It's the only show this fall that has caused me to choke-up with emotion.)    The audience doesn't need a mouthpiece character to give a speech to explain why these things matter.  We get it.    Every compassionate human being understands why this matters.   

It was also moving when the quarterback's best friend kept watching and rewatching the play  tape of the tackle that caused the spinal injury.  No speeches were necessary.  No words were necessary.  The scene is silent and yet the audience 'gets it.'   That kid clearly had problems to begin with (what with his clearly being an alcoholic) and now he sees his best friend terribly injured.  What's worse, as he reviewed the tape and began to cry , I began to wonder... the kid seems to be an offensive lineman.  Was he was blaming himself for a missing tackle?  Does he think he let his friend down, that he didn't protect him?  Does he feel indirectly responsible for the injury?  Is this going to cause him to disintegrate yet more?  And, again, no characters giving speeches.  Just the scene of a broken-hearted kid watching a video and breaking into tears.  Real emotion and drama doesn't require a walk-and-talk explanation.  And it doesn't feel like inappropriate seriousness given to a frivolous thing.    Then there's Smash who wants to parlay football into an athletic scholarship so that he can go to college.  Time and again we're given real, character-driven reasons why these characters care about the game, what all this means to them and, more importantly, what it means to their lives.  By contrast, when a character's focus on the game is frivolous, such as the mayor or the women in the book club, it's treated as humorous and mockable.  (The expression on the coach's wife's face was priceless when she discovered that the book club was all about gossip and that they wanted news about the coach and team.  And I laugh when the poor coach is cornered by some overzealous fan doing a hell of a lot of armchair coaching.) 

Basically, FNL seems to have a far more comprehensible set of priorities.   I'm still trying to understand what's at stake with S60.  Matt and Danny didn't even want that job.  If the show was canceled, so what?  They wait until they can produce their next movie.  Big deal.  Would it make any substantial difference to these characters lives?  Well, we aren't given much access to most of these character's 'lives' and it pointed out that they all are paid more in one week than most real people make in a year.  All in all, there has been precious little in S60 that shows (as opposed to telling us... repeatedly) why any of this should matter...to the characters or to the audience. Because of this, we're more or less left wondering whether the battles the characters are caught in are pointless, silly, or even somewhat contrived.  And the characters are constantly walking and talking trying to explain why whatever point is going on should matter.  It's the old 'show don't tell' thing.  Give us a reason why it matters, don't tell simply tell us that it matters or that it should matter and if we, the audience, was smarter we'd understand why it mattered.  All this does is inspire a viewer to think that these characters are probably taking themselves way too seriously.  I mean, what relatable emotional stakes have been set-up in any of this?   We're given character issues -- Matt has a grudge about having been fired ages ago (when he then went out and got rich and famous anyway ),  because of a cocaine problem, Danny is forced to wait a year before he can produce the movie he wants to produce so he'll kill a year or two at S60 until he and Matt can do that.  These characters have nothing invested in the long term survival of S60.  It wouldn't substantially effect either of them if it were canceled tomorrow.   Jordan is a freaking head of a network.  It's her JOB to cancel TV shows. If S60 were canceled... well, it shouldn't matter any more to her than it would matter to the actual head of NBC that Studio 60 was canceled.  What's lost or gained in this?  Does any of it matter?  These characters would all lose very, very little if the show was axed.  They're going through the motions... which is why they're coming off as characters, not people.  On FNL,  familiar cliches aside, I believe those characters. I believe -- know -- that people like that exist.  I understand why these things matter to these characters.  And I understand that the game isn't what is really at stake for them.  It's their lives, and we're given enough glimpses of their private lives that we believe they truly have them.  They could easily exist outside the frame of the tv screen.  They are characters first and that drives the drama even if football drives the action.  

Add in the the Matt/Harriet ship over on S60 versus the relationship of the coach and his wife, and you have another (related) set  of issues.  Apart from the fact that Matt/Harriet have no romantic or sexual chemistry, I find it damn near impossible to believe these two people could possibly fall for one another or -- in lieu of that -- that these two characters would rip the clothes off and have great sex.  What's the attraction supposed to be here?   I don't get it.   Whereas on FNL I was struck by the chemistry in the kiss between the coach and his wife.  I totally buy that these two characters could and would fall for one another, and I have no problem thinking they'd take each others clothes off and have good sex.  That's the difference between creating a believable relationship and not. 

In the end, I've concluded that, though both series are ratings challenged, FNL  is (in my opinion) the vastly superior show.  One drama developed characters and the other uses characters as mouthpieces.  

And I'll be surprised if either series makes it to 2008.