What's the differential diagnosis for a TV show that ended its third season with spectacular ratings, having earned an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Drama as well as positive reviews from critics and fans?
Sounds healthy to me. Even Dr. Gregory House wouldn't try experimental treatment on a healthy patient, would he?
David Shore would. In the show's fourth season, the House creator and his writers took the ratings-blessed, award-winning show and gave it the equivalent of a bone marrow transplant.
Like his character's weekly antics, Shore's bold move has paid off. This season has started stronger in the Nielsen ratings than the last (and even stronger in Canada). Creatively, the exodus of Foreman, Cameron, and Chase and the inspired lunacy of House Survivor has reinvigorated a show I wouldn't have said was lacking vigor. However, after three seasons of the three fellows doubting everything their boss said, it was time for them to grow as doctors, and for the show to grow from its confined world.
Instead of hiring replacements for his team, House hired a roomful, creating a competitive game where the winners get their dream job. The first three episodes of the season have both introduced fresh blood and allowed us to see Dr. House through their eager eyes. He's exploring favourite philosophies of life and death, right and wrong, through patient stories with heightened emotional content. Occasionally the humour has felt flat to me (I didn't enjoy the guitar-napping as much as I thought I should, for example), but Hugh Laurie, Robert Sean Leonard, and Lisa Edelstein seem to be having a lot of fun with their new freedom.
Since the surprising season three finale, I was giddy at the prospect of having no idea what was in store for the fall, but felt some trepidation that, like plot arcs past, the show would quickly end up back where it started. Given recent news, I don't think that anymore.
While upending the familiar dynamic of the team, the early days of season four can also be seen as a justification for the formula to date. "Everybody lies" is by now a T-shirt-enshrined catch-phrase (literally), but Shore and Peter Blake found a way to build an episode around it in a uniquely poignant way that ended with a clear rationale for why Dr. House cannot work alone. Though he solved the case alone in the season premiere "Alone" -- and was right all along, just on the wrong patient -- the episode focused on his sounding-board method and exposed his need for others to inspire his brilliance and temper his weaknesses. Not that he'd admit to having any.
Article comments
1 - Judy
I have missed you this season. So glad you did this review. You are so good at your reviews and always point out things about the characters in the episode that I miss. Hope you'll stick around and keep reviewing for us. You are awesome!
2 - BoffleB.
Great insights, Diane, as always. Agree that Shore and co. were very right to mix things up at this stage of the game. I do so love the drama, Hugh Laurie, and House that I'm eager to see where they go next with this. Am enjoying the tone of extreme!House at the moment, but hope that some of the broader comic pieces (the guitar-napping, the Survivor tribal council) give way to more subtle efforts. Hope you continue to write about House. (Enjoyed your piece about honorary canuck House, eh!)
3 - EC
I enjoy your commentary, but I wholeheartedly disagree that the show has been invigorated. I think it's been dumbed down by playing up reality show nonsense. I think the introduction of new characters is a cheap gimmick to save the writers from actually having to explore and flesh out the characters we already care about. I find Chase just as interesting and compelling as House--only with room to change and grow. The only scenes from the last two episodes that even felt authentic were the scenes with House and Chase. The first episode was boring. The second episode was scattered and left me wondering what show I was watching. The third episode highlighted just how ridiculous and dangerous this "game" is (given the outcome). The show was working just fine the way it was and it's a disservice to the viewers who have put it where it is to sacrifice half the cast by reducing them to nothing more than bit parts. I am thoroughly disappointed with the turn House has taken and I hope they eradicate this mess by bringing back Chase, Cameron, and Foreman in full capacity.
4 - Diane Kristine
Thanks guys! I always planned to dip in and out so I'll be around, Judy.
EC, I couldn't disagree more, but your (obviously completely valid) opinion is exactly why I think the shakeup was so gutsy, and I'm so grateful for it. Of course there will be fans who don't want the show to change, and that can be a great excuse for writers or a network to let a show stagnate.
5 - EC
I believe that a show can go on for years with the same cast of characters without stagnating if the writing is excellent. Frasier comes to mind--excellent show popular with both fans and critics, no major changes to the core cast over the 11 year run. Better storytelling IMO would be to flesh out the characters that they already have an audience invested in instead of alienating part of the audience by failing to utilize the chemistry that has made the show the success it is.
6 - Diane Kristine
Oh, you didn't see the same show (or read the same reviews) I did if you think Frasier didn't stagnate. We're definitely on different sides of the fence. I could happily see the ducklings change frequently. It doesn't even make sense for fellows to have been there as long as they were - early in season one we found out they were part way through 2-year fellowships. I can suspend my disbelief with the best of them, but it only makes the characters look more and more like idiots if they are on indefinite fellowships, never growing professionally.
7 - sherlock21b
While I agree that the Survivor-style storyline has indeed resulted in some rather creative storytelling as a whole, I can't disagree with you more about the new blood. Except for the absolutely delightful Old Fraud, I keep wanting all the med-testants to get auf'ed(to use the expression of a different reality show). Not one of them is as interesting on their own as the original trinity of ducklings, who were the absolute perfect lens through which one could view and relate to House. Not only are the newbies not intriguing (amber is a two-dimensional version of House without any of his redeeming features), I fear they will get old fast, once the thrill of competition ends. Even Foreman at his worst or Cameron at her most self-righteous is better than what we've gotten so far. I shudder to think we'll get less of them to make room for second-rate characters.
What is worse, however, to my way of thinking, is the way in which they've dumbed down and sexed-up (what is with her clothing? no professional woman dresses that way) Cuddy. This is not the confident and professional administrator that we saw in Season 1 (to my mind, still the best season of the show). Kathleen York's competent administrator was actually all the more damning because she showed just how much Cuddy is willing to kowtow to her rogue and ignore his antics. Granted, that would make the show more problematic, but still.
Change does not always mean improvement, and following a successful formula does not always lead to stagnation. The key is in successfully integrating new features into the whole. I'm reserving judgment until I see how this experiment ends, but for now it's problematic for the producers that the most memorable scene of the season so far was Chase telling House where to stuff it.