Tuesday, April 13, 2010

USA Network's superior crime shows really do live by that slogan "Characters Welcome"

>


"When Mary Met Marshall": In last week's episode of USA Network's In Plain Sight, we witnessed the less-than-magical first meeting in 2003 of present-day WITSEC colleagues Marshall Mann (Frederick Weller) and sarcastic, generally misanthropic Mary Shannon (Mary McCormack).

"This week sees the season premieres of USA's Law & Order: Criminal Intent (yesterday's debut, introducing a new detective played by Saffron Burrows, marked the beginning of season 9) and In Plain Sight (starting its third season today). Both series feature USA doing what it does best: offering quirky crimefighters who nail bad guys even as their own lives are falling apart."
-- Gary Susman, in a March 31 AOL "Inside TV" post,

by Ken

Meanwhile, tonight Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio joins the cast of Law & Order: Criminal Intent as the Major Case Squad's new captain, as the show moves toward completion of a near-total cast turnover since the show migrated from NBC to USA Network last season. One of the perceptive points Gary Susman makes in the above-referenced post, written for the season premieres of L&O: CI (now Tuesday nights at 10pm ET) and In Plain Sight (now Wednesday nights at 10pm) is that even this fugitive from Dick Wolf's Law & Order plant, which seems not to fit the mold of the USA-created shows he's writing about, was nudged closer with the introduction of the quirky Jeff Goldblum as one of the male detectives -- not surprisingly, a quirky detective.

We're two episodes into those new seasons of Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Tuesdays at 10pm ET/PT) and In Plain Sight (Wednesdays at 10pm ET/PT) on USA Network, and they're both going swimmingly. In Plain Sight, created by David Maples, is coming off perhaps its most memorable episode, telling in parallel a troubled couple's 2003 entry into the witness-protection program and its present-day crisis, the point of fascination being that the first encounter between Mary and Marshall and their extremely uneasy first collaboration. It was, I think, everything we fans of these outstanding characters might have hoped for.

I've been wanting to write about the USA series, which now include Psych, Burn Notice, Royal Pains, and White Collar as well, but it's not easy to describe what's so good about them except that they're built around really memorable and audience-involving characters and that they're really well written and acted. And that seems so obvious as to be hardly worth saying.

Which may be why I have trouble letting go of Gary Susman's piece. He seems to think it's easy to explain the USA series. The network, he says, has a formula
The network's quirky crimefighter formula goes back to Monk, which debuted in 2002. (Actually, it goes back even further, to NBC's Columbo, in which Peter Falk's rumpled gumshoe could barely keep his trenchcoat clean or his jalopy running but managed nonetheless to trip up murderers with his disarming manner and his annoying attention to detail.) With Adrian Monk, played to Emmy-winning perfection by Tony Shalhoub, USA had a sleuth whose obsessive-compulsive disorder made him nearly impossible to get along with but also made him a brilliantly deductive detective. It also made him very funny. The juxtaposition of Monk's meticulous pursuit of criminals with his shambles of a private life made the show a pioneering comedy, one that satisfied mystery lovers while reassuring viewers that each week's menace was low-stakes enough that they didn't have to worry too much about the characters' fates. It was crime-caper comfort food, and it provided USA with a hit that gave the long-faceless network an identifiable brand. The series finale, in December 2009, drew 9.4 million viewers, setting a record as the most-watched episode of a scripted cable series.

The basic description of Monk, created by Andy Breckman, is terrific, including the hark-back to Peter Falk's justly celebrated Columbo. What's objectionable to the point of being nonsensical is the notion that there is any kind of "formula" at work here. You would think that an observer as canny as Susman shows himself would hear the alarm bells going off with the Columbo reference. If there were indeed a formula at work here, you would expect to have found Columbo not only widely but successfully imitated.

In fact, about the only instance that pops to mind is Murder, She Wrote and Angela Lansbury's Jessica Fletcher. By astonishing coincidence, Murder, She Wrote was created by Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link in collaboration with Peter S. Fischer, and the "formula" consisted of a memorable central character and audience-involving supporting ones, with many, many seasons' worth of solid casting and writing. (For extra credit, list the shows that have successfully copied the Murder, She Wrote "formula.")

The fact is that much of what Susman claims is part and parcel of the Monk "formula" isn't true of some or all of the other USA shows. I can see, for example, how Monk could be considered "crime-caper comfort food," which "satisfied mystery lovers while reassuring viewers that each week's menace was low-stakes enough that they didn't have to worry too much about the characters' fates." But first off, of what TV crime series is this not true? It's one of those facts of life of series TV. The regular cast members are safe unless one is being written out of the show, in which case there's apt to have been so much advance publicity that it still comes as not much of a surprise. And this is as true of, say, the dreadful CSI shows as of anything on USA.

(So why are so many people watching the CSI crapfests? Perhaps CBS has a vast network of field operatives paying people to watch, or at least claim to watch, them? Or perhaps, with those tiresome plots cloaked in all that technical mumbo-jumbo, they've found a hitherto untapped audience of folks whose only available entertainment alternative is staring at a blank wall?)

Surprisingly, although Susman takes ample note of the fact that Monk was a comedy, and a very funny one, it doesn't seem to occur to him to stress this as USA's "formula." The network has chosen to make its crime-caper series funny. It was one of the things that popped out of the pilot of Burn Notice, created by Matt Nix and starring Jeffrey Donovan as Michael Westen, a CIA agent who has inexplicably been "burned" -- dismissed and abandoned in Miami. The show is hilarious, not least for Michael's brilliantly ingenious narration, and also for the remarkable supporting cast -- we'll talk more about this before the new season begins, in June.

The notion of "formula" says that these shows are something anyone could do, by simply popping interchangeable elements into the formulaic pattern. To me, this triumphantly misses the entire point of what the USA shows have done, which is to create memorable characters, which obviously means hiring really good actors, and writing well for them.

"USA's slogan was 'Characters Welcome,'" Susman writes, "but it soon became clear that all the new lead characters were going to be variations on Adrian Monk." I'm thinking that in his determination to "gotcha" USA, to ferret out hidden truths, he's overlooked the obvious. What USA does so well is to live by that slogan: "Characters Welcome." TV, after all, is basically a character-driven medium. The "Characters Welcome" thing is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do well, and a quite extraordinary thing when it's done well.
#

Labels: , ,

6 Comments:

At 6:34 PM, Blogger Ray Radlein said...

I disagree with you about one and a half of the CSIs (although, if you were to multiply awfulness by popularity, CSI: Miami may, indeed, be the worst hour long drama in the entire history of history), but you're pretty much dead on about USA Network.

Their "formula," such as it is, can be boiled down to: memorable characters, excellent acting, and top-notch writing. See? It's so simple! Just do everything important right, and you'll wind up with good shows!

 
At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Jolly Roger said...

It's refreshing to see someone not relying on the maddeningly annoying "reality" format. Watching grass grow is more interesting (and less brain damaging) than most "reality" TV.

 
At 7:55 PM, Blogger KenInNY said...

Thanks, Ray, it appears that the limited number of CSI episodes I've seen are unrepresentative, because I've never noticed any actual writing to speak of -- just lickety-split mumbo-jumbo apparently designed to pass quickly enough that a certain number of viewers will be fooled into not noticing it's all pointless, idiotic bullshit; and certainly no acting. True, some decent actors are hidden in the mix, but I've never seen them do anything but zombie-walk, or rather zombie-run, through the empty wasteland.

Ken

 
At 7:11 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Monk was a formula show. Every character was lifted from one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters, even Monk's/Holmes' brother.

Other than that I agree with Ray on the formula they've been using.

 
At 9:55 AM, Blogger KenInNY said...

Mike, that's not what a "formula" is -- not even close. On the simplest level what you're saying is nonsense. There isn't a chance in hell that you, or probably anyone else but Monk's creators, could have gotten Monk out of Sherlock Holmes, or Monk's brother out of Mycroft Holmes.

HE HAS A BROTHER --that's a formula? Come on, use your head. But of course you don't have to for the CSI jerkathons. You could stitch together scenes from any combination of episodes of any CSI shows, and nobody would know the difference, or care. Now THAT'S formula!

Ken

 
At 2:47 AM, Anonymous Xeranar said...

I find the CSIs pleasing to watch, I am sure we disagree but to declare them poorly acted is a bit much. The original Las Vegas series was decent through most of the original casts run. The newer ones are much more over the top but in an attempt to grab at realism they failed. I can admit that.

The USA shows specifically avoid realism. They're filmed like dramas but run more like multi-camera comedies. Each show is roughly 1/3 mystery, 1/3 character development, and 1/3 humor. Probably a more apt metaphor would be a stage play done at dinner theater but with real character development because of the continued existence of characters.

The L&O brand functions still basically the same way and stays away from the humor instead option for 1/2 mystery and 1/2 character development.

So if you want to debate a "formula" it is to find a stereotype, make them likable by turning back their stereotypical dial, hire a good character actor, and write semi-silly crimes to solve.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home