Blogcritics: Comments on Arrested Development: why? why!?

Comment by Justin B

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:59:32 EDT

My cousin stayed over on Saturday night and I showed him the Pier Pressure episode from Season I. The Hot Cops and the story was funny as hell stand alone. Even without knowing the characters, the idea of a father teaching his son a lesson with a guy with only one arm and the entire episode were funny even without knowing what a goof GOB is, etc. He was hooked. He wanted a taste more. I showed him the Pilot, then the episode with Maebe, Steve Holt, and George Michael in the play before moving on to Steve Holt running against George Michael in Season II for Class President. I followed that up with the finale for Season II and the Cabin Show from Season III. Don't ask me why I focused all of my attention on showing my cousin the episodes that focused on the incest angle, but he is hooked. He stayed up until 3:00 AM and watched half of season one with me. I bought a second copy of season one because I had loaned my first to my brother in law, who is also hooked. I loaned my cousin season one and have all of seasons two and three tivo'd. First, the show requires you to pay attention. There is no laugh track to tell you when to laugh. Second, the humor is not broad based enough. You really have to get it and enjoy being challenged to find all of the humorous things about an episode. It is like a where is Waldo book. So many things require a rewind button to go back and notice something. Comparisons to other sitcoms are meaningless, since this show is so different from most everything else in the genre. I think the best comparison is to Wes Anderson films. My friends either love or hate Rushmore or the Life Aquatic, the Royal Tennenbaums, etc. I went back and watched Season I over again last week and it was even funnier to watch Maebe, Steve Holt, and GM all in a play kissing each other and Tobias thinking GM is gay and in love with Steve Holt with the new knowledge that they are also cousins. But it hit me how difficult it is to get caught up on the show when my cousin asked me "what is the deal with the stair car" because he had not seen it in all of the previous episodes. My suggestion for converting new viewers--show them the pilot. Start them at the beginning. That sets the stage and it really starts all of the subplots in motion. If they do not like the pilot, they will never get the series, and leave them behind in a world of Everybody Loves Raymond. But spread the word to those that do get edgy humor. If the show gets cancelled, some exec will surely say, "I've made a huge mistake". My favorite line... =)

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:34:30 EDT

I messed up that link. Just cut and past it. That is all.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:33:37 EDT

Here's Syracuse communications professor and media quote whore Robert Thompson's theory on why "AD" hasn't taken off with the viewers: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/28/entertainment/main669948.shtml "Shows like 'Arrested,' that tend to be the darlings of critics but never get great ratings, do something new, but they will never be monster hits because you have to sit down and really watch them," says Thompson. "The thing about a sitcom when it's done well, is that it can be enjoyed when you're half asleep, doing homework, making pot roast. They are not confusing or challenging," he adds, "They are completely user-friendly." That is all.

Comment by teletart

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:14:15 EDT

Baronius, hmmm... No, I gotta say that I don't think it works the other way round - my little 'it feels complicated, even though it actually isn't' theory doesn't apply in reverse. Which is to say that I don't believe people watch because they feel privileged to 'get' it. Personally I watch cos I find it hilarious. I like the absurd stories, I like the characters, I like the clever bits o' dialogue that sometimes go by so fast I almost miss them. In fact, I'd rather not feel part of the small club of AD fans. I guess if more people liked it, it'd kinda validate my own world view, ya know? Which is the reason most of us like to feel that we're not alone in things. What's frustrating is that AD isn't really a fancy schmancy, hard-to-understand, too-clever-for-me comedy. It's often bawdy, physical, and silly. What I'm trying to argue - perhaps unsuccessfully, and really just off the top of my head - is that the way the show is structured (references to earlier episodes, 'flashbacks', quick stories) scares off some viewers, who feel a bit lost in the format. If you could reach those people, a percentage of whom would probably enjoy the show, you'd be okay. Maybe it's just the newness of what AD is doing - and the fact that they're doing a lot of it all at once - that frightens away viewers. (Obviously others just don't find it funny - that's a taste thing.) Anyhoo, because this whole idea that the show requires lots of prior viewing is a misunderstanding, it wouldn't really work to suggest that this is the reason people DO like it. Jeez, who knew how time-consuming it could be to theorise about TV? Well, frantic network executives, I guess.

Comment by Baronius

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:24:06 EDT

"I don't think AD is all about inside jokes or references to previous episodes." True, Bob. They add new material every episode. But they also seem to cycle through every joke from prior episodes. It's like the Spanish Inquisition: our one joke is Michael and Gob; our two jokes are Michael and Gob and Lucille; among our jokes are... --- "This kind of implied exclusivity (multiple references which seem to point to earlier eps etc.) might be off-putting for the average viewer - no one likes to feel that they're not part of a club." Teletart, do you think that this could be part of the appeal of the show? Its inpenetrability makes the regular viewer part of the club? (I once went on a riff about how one shouldn't try to psychoanalyze the political opposition, and here I am trying to diagnose people's humor. Shame on me.)

Comment by DrPat

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:22:39 EDT

So I missed the AD marathons... maybe I was just waiting for the offer of money! I'll watch AD next week as the lead-in for KC, which I -do- find funny and involving. But I'm warning you all, if I don't laugh more than I did at the first episode (yep, I watched almost 20 minutes' worth), no fee will be sufficient to keep me watching. Well, no fee under 5 figures...

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:44:40 EDT

Darling, we never truly disagree :) I think you're right that TV provides a more ready vehicle and control to translate stand-up comedy into shows. And most great stand-ups like Chris Rock or even (with a couple of films as exceptions) the great Pryor weren't nearly as good in film. Eddie Murphy's the one biggest exception, but his career soured for almost the whole decade of the 1990s and he was always more a performer than as a stand-up, where I think he was vastly overrated if you ask me. But if stand-ups could get five-picture deals with major studios and creative control, I guarantee they'd be signing those contracts before they signed holding deals for pilots in an era where TV comedy is dead and dying. That is all.

Comment by teletart

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:10:38 EDT

Oh yeah - and there's money in television. While A-list film actors pull in big bucks, there aren't that many of them. For most actors, I'd think a regular TV gig is much more appealing in terms of hours and steady income. Of course, if you're De Niro... well, the films look a lot more lucrative.

Comment by teletart

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:07:25 EDT

Bob, I know you hate it when we disagree ;-) but I just had to address your assertion that most stand-ups "have to go into TV because they don't have leading-man looks and can't get film work". Barring those who are consciously aiming for cross-over careers, I don't think that most stand-ups are interested in careers as filmic actors. Comedy and acting are different beasts, and stand-up comedy is an art form unto itself. Stand-ups who went into television did so because they - or more likely, agents and network development people - saw an opportunity in television comedy as an extension of said comedian's act. Roseanne, Seinfeld, Garry Shandling, Brett Butler, Cosby... they all built shows around the essence of their stand-up personas. I don't believe they went into TV because they weren't pretty enough for film - they went into TV because it was the logical extension of their work in comedy. Comically yours, teletart

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:31:01 EDT

I don't think AD is all about inside jokes or references to previous episodes. They're there to reward the regular viewer, but the absurdity stands alone in each episode and the show does a bunch of internal recaps and at the top of the show as well. Berlin: Seinfeld and Romano weren't A-list when they started those shows. Most stand-ups HAVE to go into TV because they don't have leading-man looks and can't get film work. Most, like those two, get shows almost a full decade or more after they've made it in comedy. Sure, they made a TON of money in syndication, partly because they were also executive producers and creators of their shows. But the odds of getting a huge smash like "Seinfeld" or "Raymond" is like winning the lotto in TV based on the number of comedians who've signed holding deals and made pilots -- it's literally once a decade or half-decade or so that a show hits it huge and makes huge money in ratings and syndication. TV can pay off huge, but film is GUARANTEED money if you have a high quote and are an A-list actor -- there's low risk for the actor and they get points from the studio based on revenue, international gross and even video/DVD sales if they're big enough names. Plus, they get way more perks and are way more spoiled on film sets than by TV networks. Why was Heather Graham on "Scrubs" last year? Because her film career has slowed down. And even then it was only a guest appearance for 6 episodes. Charlize is doing AD because she's a fan and I doubt she'll be around for more than a couple of weeks. Lee's career wasn't dead by any means, but he was a character actor in Hollywood. Having a hit series will probably help him to get more buzz and get bigger parts for more money -- Zach Braff was probably able to make "Garden State" because of how much people respected his work on "Scrubs." That is all.

Comment by teletart

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:23:22 EDT

As for the movie star versus TV star debate, I don't buy the high art/low art division. Plenty of television shows are as cleverly written and well made as films these days. Sometimes more so. Stars who cross over to the right television shows can cash in on that. Kiefer Sutherland is a case in point. Given the choice of sitting through "Stealth" or "House", I know which one I'd consider the more rewarding experience. And so do plenty of celebrities looking to keep their careers alive.

Comment by Ryan

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:19:47 EDT

I suppose maybe Arrested Development doesn't have as broad an appeal as I thought. For Steve Burns to say that he has watched 4 episodes and not found a single thing to laugh at stuns me. I've never seen such a funny show in my entire life. I'm especially surprised because I also enjoy the shows that Steve says he does like. Granted, none of them compare to the humor in Arrested Development, but other funny shows have existed in the past. For me Arrested Development represents a huge leap in quality over any other comedy show I've ever watched.

Comment by teletart

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:18:05 EDT

Just to add something to this conversation about AD's comprehensibility - I think that the episodes DO stand alone, technically speaking. While there are plenty of references to previous episodes, the voiceover gives enough guidance that you can follow an ep as a one-off experience. So no, you DON'T need to know what happened in previous episodes to enjoy the humour - though whether the humour is your cup of tea is another question entirely. However, the way that AD is structured, especially with the sheer number of stories that weave their way through an episode, the new viewer could easily be left with the feeling that they've missed out on something significant. This kind of implied exclusivity (multiple references which seem to point to earlier eps etc.) might be off-putting for the average viewer - no one likes to feel that they're not part of a club. Of course, regular viewers know that Arrested Development frequently jumps through time, and cheats big portions of story. Sure, it's a richer experience when you've been following the show. But not all those 'references' to earlier episodes are what they seem. Plenty of the 'flashbacks' used aren't references to things we've seen before at all, but are, in fact, new material. This is the way the comedy is structured (as was pointed out elsewhere - punchline first, then flashback to the amusing lead-up). Not to mention the little tricks like the "next week on Arrested Development" tag, which is in fact not a preview, but a kind of coda to the episode. So this is why you need to watch for more than one episode - it's less about finding your way in the stories than it is about finding your way in the format. Once you see how it works, the stories don't seem so complicated. And you can relax into the comedy of it all. Or so it seems to me.

Comment by Jaime Weinman

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:12:38 EDT

The idea that "Seinfeld" was a bad show at the beginning is a mystery to me (it took a few episodes for the writers and actors to find their groove, but they pretty much found it by the 13th episode or so). But anyway, "Seinfeld" isn't a good point of comparison because it actually did get decent ratings in its first couple of seasons -- not great, mega-hit ratings, but acceptable. Nothing like "Arrested Development," whose ratings started low and have gotten worse. As for the stars thing, it's true that movie stars don't usually do TV shows unless their movie careers have stalled somewhat. Movies pay more and aren't as gruelling for an actor (doing a show every week is a lot of work), so obviously no one gives up being a movie superstar to be a TV star. Lucille Ball is an example of the type -- a fairly successful movie actress, but she never quite became a superstar, so she went into television and became a mega-star.

Comment by steve burns

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:44:43 EDT

Well said, Baronius. As I mentioned above, I watched 4 shows all the way thru and didn't laugh once. By the end of each show I was wondering how anybody could think this was funny; the attempts at humor just seemed so forced. And to say that you need to know what happened in previous episodes to find the show funny seems a cop-out. "Seinfeld" had many threads running thru episodes, and they brought an extra laugh if you knew the reference (Jerry's "I don't want to be a pirate", George's references to Susan's death, and many others). But "Seinfeld" was funny even if you had no idea these were references to past shows. To find not one thing funny in 4 AD shows seems to indicate there's a lot bigger problem than not knowing what happened 3 episodes ago. As Baronius said, it wasn't funny then and it isn't funny now.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:00:25 EDT

I just hope DVD sales are enough to keep Fox making it. And if not, then maybe FX. And if not, then somebody!

Comment by Rob

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:46:34 EDT

I love the show, even though I started watching it mid-season last year. It didn't take long to understand all of the different story lines going on. It's just a damn fine show.

Comment by Baronius

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:39:41 EDT

Oops. Sorry; off-topic.

Comment by Baronius

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:34:08 EDT

I'd bet there's an interesting study in this. Jennifer Garner, Jason Lee, James Caan, and Ray Romano are all TV/movie actors whose careers have nothing else in common. One of you smart bloggers should chart out when to make the movie, do a series, or "get back to my first love, the theatre".

Comment by Sterfish

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:35:44 EDT

I view TV somewhere in between you and Bob. I don't think that being on TV automatically means that your career in the tubes. Many of the known actors who do TV could probably live comfortable lives doing film but as you said, TV provides stability. At the same time, true big-time stars will never do more than a guest appearance on a show, a TV movie (probably for HBO), or possibly produce a show themselves. And while TV has gotten more respect over the years, it has not reached the level where an A-lister would not consider a TV series to be a downward move. Charlize Theron, who is guest starring on Arrested Development for a few episodes, would not become a regular at this point in her career. I think TV is still a medium that best benefits the new or the mid-level stars.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:48:33 EDT

The entertainment industry is "notoriously unstable" in total, my friend. On top actors and money: you think Jerry Seinfeld (and cast), Ray Romano, etc. etc. are hurting for cash?

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:17:37 EDT

Big time stars such as, Berlin? If Jason Lee had ever gotten that chance to star in that ill-fated Superman project and had it been a box office success with 2 sequels, he would not be on NBC right now. There's just no comparison in the kind of money that's available for top actors in film vs. TV. And Lee's a young guy, so I don't think family concerns are his reason for doing TV, which is notoriously unstable as well in terms of constant ratings pressure and how hard it is to make new series stick. That is all.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:40:24 EDT

That's not true anymore, Bob -- plenty of big time stars actually choose to do TV over film for a variety of reasons: money, stability, family, etc. Additionally, Lee has done a lot of great and noteworthy work outside of Silent Bob land.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:31:20 EDT

Because he's on TV, Berlin. It's just a fact that he hasn't been in a hit movie since his Kevin Smith days and that the money, prestige and exposure of going to TV is way lower than it is with film. If he were getting the primo roles he wanted at a high quote, he'd be doing feature films right now. That is all.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:09:49 EDT

Bob -- What evidence can you present that Jason Lee is on the "down side" of his career? The guy is fronting a buzz-drenched new sitcom.