Sunday, January 26, 2014

I Like Big Bang Theory

Every decade or so a major sit com (situation comedy) comes along that captures not only an audience but the imagination of the audience as well. Examples include shows like Odd Couple, Mash, Seinfeld, Friends and, now Big Bang Theory. To the comedy purists I should note that I am aware of the fact that Big Bang Theory uses a laugh track and has both a formula and an ensemble cast. I am also aware of the fact that these are considered ear marks of a cheesy TV sit com. In fact this formula was satirized by Ricky Gervais in Extras. I agree that formula TV sit coms are not generally the height of comedy. But, some times they are and here are some reasons why Big Bang Theory rises above the clutter.

First, the characters are archetypes. We have all known people like the characters in the show. But, these characters are both larger than life and self contradictory. Viewers can both relate, at some level, to each character but they can also relate to the others that the character irritates. If it were a standard ensemble viewers would side with a character while disliking others. But, due to the clever character construction there are things we like and dislike about each character.

Second, they are not only funny but they resonate with the audience. Following the archetypes theme in the previous paragraph, the characters resonate with the audience. We not only recognize people we have known, we recognize aspects of ourselves. And, in recognizing ourselves we can gain insight into our conflicts and sublimate our concerns.

Third, they allow the audience to laugh at themselves as much as they laugh at the characters. Some times all you do when faced with the complexity and unfairness of life is to laugh at the human condition. As we laugh at the characters in the cast we also laugh at ourselves.

Fourth, the comedy is both universal and unique to a moment in time. One of the strengths of the show is that it works at multiple levels. There are universal themes instantiated in the moment. The instantiation in the moment makes it relevant while the universality makes it more enduring.

Of course, the writing is excellent. This is not to say that the acting isn't good. It is. Making these larger than life archetypes is no small feat. But, without the excellent writing there would be nothing to reveal through the characters.

Sixth, the story has legs and the legs are used. Some people feel that serial TV shows should never run more than a few seasons as the story gets stale and forced. But, the secret is to have the characters evolve so they face new situations. This is tricky since we like the show because we know the characters. If they evolve into different characters we might not like them as much. So, the writers walk a fine line between having the characters grow and evolve without making them unrecognizable in the process. So, far they have managed to pull it off. There is a natural entropy in a series show and so far the writers have managed to stave it off.

Seventh, the cast has a natural chemisttry. Three of the cast worked together on the Rosanne Show and already had a working relationship. But there relationships are not the main story. So, you get the benefits of their experience without having it over shadow the new show. 

Finally, they fold in cameos from big name actors which provides a stamp of authenticity. It is an honor, for example, to have Bob Newhart on the show. But it is an honor for Bob Newhart as well. There has been a parade of cameos as big name characters honor the show and receive honor as well. This removes the isolation of sit com in a studio and integrates it into the reality of daily life. This in turn increases the resonance and excitement of the show.

Yes, they have done a wonderful job.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

I Like Downton Abbey... A Lot

Like tens or even hundreds of millions of other people across the globe I am a loyal fan of Downton Abbey. Some of the reasons for this are no different from the other fans. Other reasons might be less common.

Superficially, the visual experience is extraordinary. The costumes, main house, and grounds are breath taking. And the trips to the village just add to the authenticity. Who ever is responsible for period authenticity does an amazing job. One one hand it feels as educational as a documentary, yet, on the other hand, it never feels arcane or strange. You feel like your television is a time machine into days gone by where you are as comfortable and familiar as you are on the sofa where you are sitting to watch the show.

The actors are extraordinary as well. They bring these characters to life so well that you feel as though you know them, perhaps even as though you have always known them. But, for me, an important measure of good acting is that you think  the actors and actresses are really like this character in real life. Then you see one of them in an interview, where they are very different, and then realize what a truly amazing job they are doing with their character.

The writing deserves kudos as well. In fact, if it weren't for the excellent writing the other components would not come together. At bottom Downton Abbey is a soap opera. Its purpose is to emotionally engage the viewers into the lives and travails of the characters. But, what separates Downton Abbey from afternoon soap operas is that the afternoon poor cousins are usually heavy handed and formulaic brutally extracting unrefined pathos from an unwashed audience. But the emotional complications in Downton Abbey are subtle, sophisticated, and nearly always instances of larger issues. And, on that note of larger issues, I will turn to the of the deeper reasons why I like the show.

The characters of Downton Abbey, despite the grandeur, costumes and quaintness are people just like you and I. One of the greatest accomplishments of the actors and the writers is to make us feel like we know about these people and care about them. The problems they are facing are problems that we face today. They are coping with change. They are often pinched by social roles. They often pinch back. They have to adjust to new technologies. They have to cope with the ugliness of war.  They are people wresting with the eternal problems of the human condition and we can relate to their struggles. But, it isn't all big issues. There is unrequited love. There are serious and painful losses of a loved one. Society is unfair; yet it works better for some while not as well for others. And it isn't perfect for anyone. 

Maggie Smith won a well deserved award from the Screen Actor's Guild last night for her role as the Dowager Countess. She is, at once, the very symbol of the old order and its most cynical and insightful critic.In reacting to the other characters she provides equal amounts of stern rebuke and comforting solace. And, yet, despite the complexity and contradictory aspects of this character she pulls it off as though it is as natural as a walk on the beach. 

This is good stuff. Some day it will end and I will be very sad.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

What Do I LIke ?

If you have been reading this blog for a while and hearing me bitch about all manner of things, you might wonder if there is anything I do like. The truth is that there are a lot of things that I like and I thought that now might be a good time to point some of them out lest I be dismissed entirely as a cranky old curmudgeon. I am just going to provide a list of things I like here. But, in subsequent posts I will explain what I like about them. This second step is important because a lot of people think that liking something is good enough. According to them, you don't have to know why you like it, you just like it. But, that is not good enough for me. I have to know why I like something lest I find myself liking something that I don't really like. Yes, life gets complicated for me. And I recognize the fact that there are compelling arguments in favor of the unexamined life. But, before I digress on that, here are some things I like.

I like books. I like history. I like movies and TV. I like recorded books and lectures. I like  sushi. I like single malt scotch. I like good beer. I like teaching. I like people (Well, not very  many really. But the one's I like, I like a lot) I like World of Warcraft. I like waking, hiking and biking. I like the C&O Canal. I like cooking.I like kids. I like students. I like new ideas. I like learning new things. I like detecting new trends. I like finding patterns in things that don't seem to make sense. I like cats and dogs and reliable cars. I like Sudoku and jigsaw puzzles. I like figuring out how things got to be the way they are. I like the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian. I like people who are clever, creative or know what they are talking about. All three are rare and if they all occur in one person it is scarey.

Over the next few posts and more sporadically after that, I will explain why I like these things. After all, the unexamined like is not worth liking.

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons

I am not yet finished ragging on life in Academia. If you have been enjoying this rant, then please keep reading. If I have been irritating you, then you should probably stop until I move on to another topic.  Back in the late 1990's Kurt Vonnegut published a book entitled Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons. These terms, which were coined by Vonnegut in earlier works refer to foibles in our search for meaningful patterns in our daily lives. I thought I would take them a step further and show how they apply to academics who are world class masters of finding patterns in the otherwise meaningless.

A wampeter is a central theme of a group of people who are connected in a mystical way thought this theme. The wampeter provides meaning, connection and a sense of purpose to the group. An example of a wampter is the Holy Grail or the Maltese Falcon.  For academics the wampeter is academic recognition. This comes in the form of rankngs, publications, or citation indexes. Consider the following two options. In option one you are well regarded for your entire life only to have your life's work completely refuted shortly after your death. In option two, you are not recognized during your life time but shortly after your death you become accepted and widely recognized prescience. Which one would you choose. Most academics would choose option one as having it feel good while you are doing it is much better than really making a lasting contribution. And while there are glaring exceptions, most academics are shallow and short sighted. And the pursuit of wampeters such as rankings, and citation indexes is exactly what they need.

A foma is a harmless untruth meant to comfort simple souls. A real life example of a foma is the claim that if you keep your head down, work  hard and play by the rules, life will work out OK. In academia, foma are more common than hushed up affairs. Despite the common misconception that universities are centers of critical thinking, academics as a group are far more likely to believe nonsense than any other professional group. H. L. Mencken once said something to the effect that there is no idea so stupid that you cannot find a professor who believes it.  Yeah, I know, I could have looked it up and gotten it right. But, then, you can as well. Anyway, my favorite academic foma is that all research is valuable and contributes to our body of knowledge. Academics like to cite the example of imaginary numbers which were created for no obvious purpose but found use later when Marconi invented the radio. But, there are two flaws in this example. First, overwhelmingly most academics don't come up with stuff nearly as good as imaginary numbers or radio transmission. And, if this is so common in research why is it that the example of Marconi and Imaginary numbers are the only example that is every provided. The sad truth is that if 99.9% of all academic articles were destroyed today, not much would be lost. That is, of course, as long as the right 99.9% was destroyed.

A grandfaloon is a proud but meaningless association of people. I will not give any real life examples of this as I am trying not to offend any more than I have too. But, granfalloon, like foma, in academia are as common as fudged annual reports.  There are honor societies, tenured professors,  and fellows of professional societies. There are traditional professions such as psychologist or historian and more modern sounding categories such as innovation engineer or cognitive neuro something or other. There are alumni of important schools and faculty of equally august institutions. If you ask someone how being a member of a particular granfalloon makes them any different from people who are not members of that granfalloon your question will be greeted with a tolerant and slightly condescending smile. After all, how could you understand. You are not, after all, a member.