Every so often I like to
take a step back from blogs about specific shows or actors, and look at the
bigger classic TV picture.
Lately I’ve been thinking
about people who prefer watching older shows to current television. Why are we
like that? The title of this piece was my first theory –some prefer looking
back to looking forward. But is it really that simple?
I know I don’t look at
everything this way. It’s nice that light bulbs last longer now, and I’m glad
that research that once required driving to the library can now be conducted at
a computer in my jammies.
However, while many aspects
of our lives have improved with the passage of time, I think just as many have
regressed. And that’s where “things were better in my day” thinking starts, and
why it can be comforting to look back at those times. The television shows of
an earlier era provide a window into that bygone world – one that reinforces
our certainty that those were the days.
For instance, if you think
schools were better run and taught a more appropriate curriculum when Beaver
Cleaver or Opie Taylor or Peter Brady were going to class, that belief will be
reinforced by the classroom scenes from their respective shows. Familiar
subjects are taught, history lessons will not assume that everything that
happened in America since Jamestown was wrong, and teaching will be portrayed
as a noble profession.
If you are sure that people
were more civil to each other back when you were a kid, you’ll find that
reflected in how characters behave in classic television. If you have fond
memories of a time when there was nothing controversial about public restrooms
or police officers or “Merry Christmas,” you are almost certainly someone that
feels more at home in the shows of the past.
Part of this appeal comes
from the fact that we lived through these eras ourselves, and they didn’t seem
so bad to us, then or now. Of course, not everyone feels this way. There are
many who lived through those times less happily than I did. There are those of
later generations who believe the shows of this time portray an era that was
less sophisticated, less enlightened, and less inclusive.
Does that mean those of us
who prefer Nanny and the Professor to
Masters of Sex are less
sophisticated? I don’t think so. But it might mean that we define
sophistication differently.
Does it mean we don’t care
about inclusion? It actually might, to be honest. It’s not that we’re against
it – we just don’t always view entertainment through that prism. I’ll watch a
dozen straight episodes of a 1950s sitcom and not even be aware that I’ve never
seen a person of color. But I’ll also watch Room
222 with its racially diverse cast, and be just as captivated – not because
of the diversity, but because it’s an intelligent and wonderful show.
I’ve yet to meet a classic
TV fan in favor of discrimination or anyone being mistreated. But we also see
through the artificiality of forced diversity – in classic TV terms, that means
how, beginning around the late 1970s, every Saturday morning commercial would have three
white kids and one black kid. Even as children it was hard not to pick up on
the pattern, and to think it was rather silly.
Now, maybe there were
African-American kids watching at the time who needed to see that, and who am I
to tell them they are wrong? But I wonder if the same objective could have been
achieved in a less flagrant way.
The forward-looking TV fan
is content with the agendas that dictate how television shows are now put
together. They’re pleased when CBS is chastised for scheduling too many shows
about white men on this fall’s roster – and even happier when the network
quickly goes into self-flagellation mode, desperately apologizing and vowing to
do better.
Are the shows good or not?
No mention of that.
The forward-looking viewer
is happy that today’s shows are engineered not to offend anyone (with the
exception of a few acceptable targets). Ironically, the shows of the past shared
that goal. But they managed to get there without focus groups and sensitivity
training.
Have I answered the
question? I don’t know. I’m dancing around the obvious conclusion that classic
TV devotees are also fonder of the times in which they were made. And those who
find old shows to be dated and trite also believe just about everything is
better today than it used to be.
That’s probably still too
simple. I’m sure there are thousands of people with a more progressive outlook
who can laugh at I Love Lucy or
appreciate the simpler charms of Bewitched.
The difference is that they see them as nice places to visit, while classic TV
fans like me take a look at where the culture is headed, and wish we could go
back and live in their bygone worlds. Even with a nosy neighbor like Mrs.
Kravitz.
Mr. Hofstede, when it comes to judging the quality of DVD sets for TV series, do you still put more weight on the completeness of episodes than on overall picture and sound quality? Film and TV historian Stuart Galbraith IV has panned VEI's DVD releases for "Cannon" and especially "Barnaby Jones." He has complained that both sets have episodes with subpar picture quality, but he has admitted that all the installments for "Cannon: The Complete Collection" appear to be complete despite the presence of judder (unnatural jerkiness when there is motion). On the other hand, Mr. Galbraith has reported that "Barnaby Jones: The Complete Collection" utilizes a LOT of syndicated-episode cuts.
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world you get both. But I'm delighted to have two seasons of Room 222 on DVD, and the picture quality is pretty awful. I can live with it.
DeleteA thoughtful post. There are a few "moderns" I like. But, I’m a huge fan of classic tv. And the positive values it espoused – like being kind to each other, and respecting parents and teachers - are one of the big reasons why. And I don’t think every classic show was strictly conformist, either. I’ve seen shows where children (respectfully) argued with parents, even shows where parents turned out to be wrong about something – while not be made out to look like the buffoon, either. I think I can even remember a Little House about a cruel and abusive teacher – so authority figures were not always made out to be perfect.
ReplyDeleteYes, diversity was often missing – though later-age “classic” shows – like Diff’rent Strokes and Welcome Back Kotter started to rectify some of this. But those shows also kept the important qualities of older classics – engaging stories, and characters you came to really care about.
That’s the other big reason I’m a fan of the classics - is a question of quality. Simply put, the majority of older tv shows and tv characters were better written, in my opinion. I believe that a great story and great characters are something that can be applied to anyone. Classic conflicts, archetypes and characters drawn from them do not belong to any gender, race, religion, etc. - anyone can be those characters.
But now – it seems like there’s a checklist of marks to hit. And if they get around to it, they can think about story and character. And controversy has largely taken the place that was reserved for quality. “If we shock ‘em, they’ll tune in next week!” Kinda sad. And it makes me want to stick to the classics.
You and me both. I appreciate the positive feedback - especially on a post that some might find controversial.
DeleteGreat post David. I have long felt like a stranger in a crowd when it comes to my love of classic television versus modern day TV. A huge part of that is for the sentimentality it brings; it takes me to a simpler time in my life, and in the world. Mostly, it takes me back to my grandmother's house, where the very happiest moments of my childhood were lived. That being said, I am very much on the conservative side when it comes to television programs in general, and classic TV was, for the most part, just cleaner TV. Even the things that were considered risqué back then are mild by today's standards. That, and I've always held to the belief that the acting in general was better, the scripts were often better, because they didn't have the technology and engineering that we have today to overshawdow and compensate for pitiful acting. Back then you either could act or you couldn't. I saw an episode of Andy Griffith the other day where Barney and Andy were watching Mrs.Ambrose's baby at the jail while she went shopping. It was obvious that they were holding a baby doll, and not a live infant, but I thought the acting was superb, and even commented on it to my company, because the acting never faltered, in spite of cooing to a plastic baby doll. (Of course we are talking about Don Knotts and Andy Griffith here - could we expect any less?) In my opinion, Hollywood today can never replace classic TV.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion 100%. Glad you found the blog! We're going to get along just fine.
DeleteGreat post David. I have long felt like a stranger in a crowd when it comes to my love of classic television versus modern day TV. A huge part of that is for the sentimentality it brings; it takes me to a simpler time in my life, and in the world. Mostly, it takes me back to my grandmother's house, where the very happiest moments of my childhood were lived. That being said, I am very much on the conservative side when it comes to television programs in general, and classic TV was, for the most part, just cleaner TV. Even the things that were considered risqué back then are mild by today's standards. That, and I've always held to the belief that the acting in general was better, the scripts were often better, because they didn't have the technology and engineering that we have today to overshawdow and compensate for pitiful acting. Back then you either could act or you couldn't. I saw an episode of Andy Griffith the other day where Barney and Andy were watching Mrs.Ambrose's baby at the jail while she went shopping. It was obvious that they were holding a baby doll, and not a live infant, but I thought the acting was superb, and even commented on it to my company, because the acting never faltered, in spite of cooing to a plastic baby doll. (Of course we are talking about Don Knotts and Andy Griffith here - could we expect any less?) In my opinion, Hollywood today can never replace classic TV.
ReplyDelete