(no subject)
A few days ago, I got up to discover in the post an article photocopied from Interzone, courtesy of coalescent.
Its premise is that fantasy elements are gradually making their way into mainstream (or at least non-'genre') US TV, citing shows such as The Sopranos and Ally McBeal, but mostly the article is about Six Feet Under.
In wonderfully Niall-like fashion, a few sections of the article are highlighted, such as the description of SFU as "the most intelligent and subversive fusion of the mundane and the fantastic on TV", and if you're the kind of person who cares what the most intelligent and subversive fusion of the mundane and the fantastic on TV is, then sure, why not? Can't think of any better examples.
The rest of the article is a commentary on the 3rd season, done in an incredibly hyperbolic and pretentious fashion. I mean, can someone tell me what the word 'diagetically' means? Can't find it in any dictionaries, and a Google search suggests the only place it's ever used is in pieces like this. Not that any of what the article has to say is obviously wrong, mind you. It occasionally suffers from reading more into the show than I think the writers ever intended, but then I've been involved in Buffy fandom for the last 5 years, so that's hardly new.
My own reasons for loving the show - and I still do despite having just finished watching a fairly patchy fourth season - are, I think, more straightforward. The characters and the ways in which they interact, the production values and assumptions of a reasonable level of audience intelligence which are the hallmark of all HBOs dramas. The cast in general and the lovely Lauren Ambrose in particular. The fantasy elements and dream sequences sometimes help to elevate it, occasionally they become tiresome. But everyone should at least watch the first season, because it's great.
Speaking of HBO dramas, watched the first episode of Deadwood last night. Has the potential to be very good I think.
Its premise is that fantasy elements are gradually making their way into mainstream (or at least non-'genre') US TV, citing shows such as The Sopranos and Ally McBeal, but mostly the article is about Six Feet Under.
In wonderfully Niall-like fashion, a few sections of the article are highlighted, such as the description of SFU as "the most intelligent and subversive fusion of the mundane and the fantastic on TV", and if you're the kind of person who cares what the most intelligent and subversive fusion of the mundane and the fantastic on TV is, then sure, why not? Can't think of any better examples.
The rest of the article is a commentary on the 3rd season, done in an incredibly hyperbolic and pretentious fashion. I mean, can someone tell me what the word 'diagetically' means? Can't find it in any dictionaries, and a Google search suggests the only place it's ever used is in pieces like this. Not that any of what the article has to say is obviously wrong, mind you. It occasionally suffers from reading more into the show than I think the writers ever intended, but then I've been involved in Buffy fandom for the last 5 years, so that's hardly new.
My own reasons for loving the show - and I still do despite having just finished watching a fairly patchy fourth season - are, I think, more straightforward. The characters and the ways in which they interact, the production values and assumptions of a reasonable level of audience intelligence which are the hallmark of all HBOs dramas. The cast in general and the lovely Lauren Ambrose in particular. The fantasy elements and dream sequences sometimes help to elevate it, occasionally they become tiresome. But everyone should at least watch the first season, because it's great.
Speaking of HBO dramas, watched the first episode of Deadwood last night. Has the potential to be very good I think.