While watching TV Thursday ...
Question: While watching TV Thursday night, I couldn't help but think about your
recent Dispatch regarding
30 Rock and
Eli Stone. You linked the two shows largely based on the fact that you felt they didn't receive the audience they deserved and, though I like both shows, I have to disagree with you. Both these shows have one fatal flaw: The creators can't seem to leave their politics out of things. In fact, they go out of their way to shoehorn political agendas in, even when they have nothing to do with the episode's plot. I suspect this trend is what drives people away from both shows. I don't go to shows like this to be preached to, and it bothers me even when I agree with what is being preached. It is unfortunate that the political realm has become something that makes people uncomfortable, but it has, and I don't want to even think about our nation's political divisions while trying to enjoy TV shows.
Eli Stone in particular has gone out of its way to shove politics into places where it simply need not be, a trend that has caused the show to suffer every time. The episode in which George Michael guest starred, the only episode I haven't enjoyed, was an embarrassment. They actually resorted to characters giving long political monologues on the witness stand,
and they pushed many of the show's main elements out to make room for those monologues. I don't want to see either of these shows end, but I think they've brought their ratings failures on themselves.
Answer: What you call political preachiness others might call topicality. And in the case of a satire like
30 Rock, playing the lead characters' politics off of each other is part of the comedy, and I can't imagine that is what's keeping the show from being embraced. With
30 Rock, I think it's probably more to do with the overall tone and sensibility of wry and wacky absurdism, which just isn't to everyone's taste. (I'll again use the
Arrested Development comparison here.) With
Eli Stone, it's undeniably trickier. The George Michael episode, dealing with sex education in schools, was pretty heavy-handed, I'll admit, but to ignore the show's heart because it often wears its heart on its sleeve strikes me as an awfully narrow attitude. (Not that I doubt it exists.) I hear this same get-off-the-soapbox argument when it comes to David E. Kelley courtroom shows. But in
Eli's case, we're dealing more often with cases that argue for the underdog against the conglomerates, and how is that not revelant in today's society and economy? (Sorry if that sounded like preaching.) Maybe it is a turnoff, but what really struck me in the final episodes of
Eli Stone was the show's inherent sweetness and how much the supporting characters had changed, mostly for good, by their exposure to Eli's quixotic crusades. When his boss Jordan spoke up to the firm's board in the penultimate episode about how "business without humanity, capitalism without mercy is tantamount to evil," I wanted to applaud. I'm just not cynical enough to think people tuned out of
Eli Stone for purely political reasons. I'm thinking it has more to do with the show's aggressive quirkiness, which some would call preciousness. Whatever the case, I'll miss it more than I would have expected.
