He paces hospital corridors, juggles office implements, twirls his cane, fidgets with elastic bands, plays with that oversized ball, pops another Vicodin, interrogates his team, writes on his white board, sometimes even visits a patient. Dr. Gregory House brings the act of thinking to kinetic life each week, a remarkable achievement for a visual medium like television.
"I was very impressed with House from the beginning for what they were trying to do," said Dr. Lisa Sanders, a faculty member of the Yale School of Medicine and technical advisor for the series. "What they're really looking at is how doctors think, and it's not really a television-friendly topic."
Sanders, an Emmy-winning broadcast journalist before turning to medicine, has been part of the show since before it was a show. Her Diagnosis column in the New York Times inspired executive producer Paul Attanasio, who sold the show to Fox as a medical procedural before creator David Shore would turn it into equal parts character study.
When Attanasio told Sanders the show depended on this rude and obnoxious man people seemed to love, her first thought was "Good Lord, I'm not going to be employed for long."
"It would be a different show if Hugh [Laurie] were a different actor," she said. "I think he's really an incredible talent and it's because of him and because the writing is extraordinary that I was wrong."
Even a scientist isn't immune to the irrational charms of the show's leading man. "House is such a damaged character. He's such an unreliable narrator that his personal affectation of being a total schmuck is belied by the warmth and generosity in his face," she explained.
"You look at his face and he might be saying the meanest thing ever, and you know that inside there is a deeply caring person. Even if he's not caring about you as an individual, he cares about an idea that happens to be important to you too, which is figuring out what's going on. I think the genius of Hugh Laurie is that he's able to get that duality across."
Sanders, who provides the writers with the fact-based story ideas they crave and gives her expert opinion on the medicine in scripts, is pragmatic about her role with the show. "Sometimes if it's a choice between drama or comedy and complete accuracy, accuracy loses. I understand that. But I'm there to be the voice promoting accuracy, so I point it out and they either take it or not," she seemed to shrug. "It's hard to criticize their sense of drama and character."
Article comments
1 - Namaste
Thanks for the interviews, DK. It's good to get the point of view of the people who are medical professionals out there -- and who have nitpicked with the best -- and to know that they appreciate the difference between reality and entertainment as well. I do agree that it's sometimes a wide gulf, but I always say that if I want reality, I'll watch Discovery Health (and even reality is heavily edited).
2 - Diane Kristine
Hi Namaste, good to "see" you. I agree, and it's funny that we seem to expect more from a medical drama than a cop show or show set in an office, for example. There's not a lot of accuracy about any workplace you see on TV.
3 - Mary K. Williams
This was very, very good Diana. Glad you're keeping track of the good Dr. still.
4 - Phillip Winn
If work environments were realistically portrayed on television, what would be the point of watching? We could just go to work!
Real-life hospitals are fascinating at first, then dreadfully boring most of the time. A TV show has to remain interesting 17 hours a year for as many years as it can. I've watched 79 episodes of House and I'm still interested. I can't imagine still being fascinated after 55 hours of observing a real hospital.
5 - Karen Smith
Thank you Diane for a well written, very insightful look at the BEST show on television. Great job!