Something is always the matter with TV

I think one of the reasons I like TV so much is because I love the underdog. Not in terms of cultural presence, but in the way we talk about it. The problem with TV is that there's too much of it. The problem is that seasons aren't long enough. The problem is that it's too soapy. The problem is that it's too episodic. The actors aren't movie stars, all the actors are leaving to be movie stars. It's too live, it's too pre-recorded. When it's good it's cinematic or as narratively complex as a novel. When it's bad it's "just TV." (This is all covered in Legitimating Television.)

I fall into this trap, too. I prefer older shows because I feel they provide a warmth and intimacy that I don't get from modern TV. (Is it the 6:9 aspect ratio? Maybe.) I'd be upset if those shows had less than 22-24 (I can sometimes skip the ones that are 30+) but that's because I like spending time with the characters and the premise can take the weight. Shorter seasons means less time with the characters, which means the narrative has to be that much stronger. Who doesn't love deep diving into a specific vibe or story or, honestly, just something that's simple and easy to spend time with. We keep ping-ponging back and forth between what makes for best TV, but what if it's capable of everything?

It's worth considering sometimes that there may be nothing wrong with TV at all. It is the way it is. And we can debate commercialism and industrial contexts and formats all we want, and I certainly have strong opinions there, but maybe instead of constantly looking somewhere else, we can engage with what we have.

The Fanthropologist is a free weekly newsletter by Lena Barkin. Paid subscribers get access to commenting and weekly discussion posts. If you'd like to support the newsletter, tell your friends, consider leaving a tip, or sign up for a free or paid subscription.