I really enjoyed reading the two Slate articles. I'm not too familiar with Alan Sepinwall, however I do enjoy reading the reviews from the A.V. Club at the Onion. The two Slate articles really brought to my attention the changes that have occurred in television criticism. Like Levin says, "Television criticism used to be like restaurant criticism," but it has definitely developed to a more show-by-show breakdown structure. I personally agree with this change in direction. I like the symbolic breakdown, the fanboy commentary, and the insightful opinions of others. I like to talk about television and read articles from others who like to talk about television.
I also found it interesting that Sepinwall had a cameo on Community. In the second article Sepinwall tells Levin that he regrets doing the cameo due to "the blurring of the line it caused." Levin said that it seemed odd that a critic would cameo on a television show he critiqued and that it imposed an ordeal if the critic were to give unkindly criticism if the show were to drop below his/her typical standards. Sepinwall seems to see the same concerns.
For the two Hyperlinks I clicked on; one was: a fantastic A.V. Club dialogue about the state of TV criticism (hyperlink works if you're intrigued). I clicked on this link because it was written by Noel Murray and Scott Tobias from the A.V. Club. When I was redirected, I found it to be a more playful conversation between the two regarding their television watching habits and how the criticism executed couldn't be at near quality if either of them were to just drop into a serialized show (with emphasis on Murray doing such with Friday Night Lights). Murray disagreed with Tobias' idea that you had to see each episode in a serialized show in sequential order to be able to fully appreciate the later plots and events. He used the example of Jason's return to the game after his injury in the pilot. Tobias says that there wasn't anyway for Murray to appreciate the emphasis on that moment without having seen the intricate plot detail leading up to that moment, as with any other moments within the series. Murray thought that you could drop in at any episode and figure out who's who and what's what and still have a clear idea of the show.
The other hyperlink I clicked on was: an open letter to NBC executives. I clicked on this because I wanted to read Sepinwall's push to keep Chuck on the air. I've never taken the time to watch Chuck but seeing the passion Alan put into his pitch for its continuation, I may have to make the time. I agree fully with his ideas and reasonings behind keeping Chuck on air and I haven't even watched one episode! Product integration is real and it's heading fast. Sepinwall is right, DVRs are killing commercial advertisements, so why not make up the cash in ways that businesses are already chomping at the bit for? Consumers also want a show to escape to. I love mindless television, as long as it's done well and Sepinwall seems to think "Chuck" is there as refuge. I do enjoy "30 Rock" and "The Office" why kick a show off air if it's just as funny or as Sepinwall claims is better? I think it's wonderful that television critics like Sepinwall are on board for their favorite television shows. That kind of passion to keep a show running shows a passion for television. If Sepinwall likes the show enough to push for continuation, then his standards must be high enough to deliver tough criticism if the show were to drop below them.
As for where this conversation has gone, it seems to be in the hands of the average Joe's, the self-proclaimed internet opinionated. At first the article was responded to by top critics, mainly those mentioned, such as Sepinwall himself, Murray, and others among the A.V. Club and Slate. Sepinwall agreed with a lot of the points Levin made as mentioned before (Community Cameo). James Poniewozik also responded to Levin's claims suggesting that Levin was more for the critical observation of reviewers rather than a more recap-like review, which Levin says was the complete opposite of his intentions, however there is a strength in objectivity.
Now however, the comment section is full of interesting insights from the readers of these critics. Troy Patterson makes an interesting point asking in regards to Sepinwall, "He changed TV criticism. But can you be both a rabid fan and a thoughtful reviewer?" I think Levin asked the same question when speaking of Sepinwall's appearance on Community. But can a critic be a fan and thoughtful? Can you love a show and show it tough criticism? Are you more open to a shows flaws because you like it? Or should you review a show as a whole rather than weekly recaps? I believe that there is a more abstract answer to these questions. Judgement and opinions are delicate things. However, I feel that with precise reasoning and thoughtful insights any argument can be validated.
No comments:
Post a Comment