|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:58:37 GMT -8
Zarnium:
Freudian Vampire wrote: So I would tell somebody who thinks Harry Potter that I think they're objectively wrong, but they can't be objectively wrong, because nothing can be objectively anything. 'Objective', as I use it, and as I explained it in my previous post, is basically the divide between what you consider 'best' and what you consider 'favourite'. Clearly, you, and many other people on this forum, use those words far more interchangeably than I do.
To be honest, I find the idea of "best TV show ever" to be a rather meaningless concept. It's like saying there's a "best food" or "best color." It's an inherently subjective thing, and for this reason I generally like to talk about what my favorite shows are, and forego altogether any detailed discussion on what is the best, by your definition. (So, perhaps I shouldn't be in this discussion at all, come to think of it : p.) If you want to argue that The Wire or The Sopranos is "the best," be my guest. That discussion is just not something I really understand or care about.
As for which shows count as my favorites, I like and dislike shows for very personal reasons. I try to explore and put into words why I like a show after I've watched it, but I don't come up with reasoned arguments for why I like a show while I'm watching it. I either like it or I don't, and I ponder why this is at a later time. As such, I rarely watch something and then later form an opinion that goes against my first raw, emotional impression. I never reason myself into having a different opinion, and I rarely let someone else talk me into having a drastically different opinion unless it makes sense to me on a gut-feeling level.
That's not to say my opinions never change, just that when my opinions do change, it's because my "raw impression" has changed and not because I've decided that my liking of a character or plot or whatever is illogical, or that a different show did the same thing "objectively" better.
Hopefully that makes sense, because it's such an esoteric concept that I have trouble putting it into words :?.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:58:47 GMT -8
MikeJer:
To FV:
Quote: I'm open to hearing an argument, but I'm confident I would never agree with it. Listening to them would be motivated by intellectual curiosity rather than by a genuine belief that they might manage to sway my opinion.
This comment kind of saddens me, to be honest. I suppose I feel that it's beneficial to not only keep an open mind, but also an open heart about these things. I've had my opinion changed over the years because I kept an open mind and heart to things I had previously thought were ridiculous. And I can definitely find myself moved by someone else's response to something that I didn't find as powerful. I genuinely enjoy learning from other peoples' (well articulated) experiences with media. Maybe that's just me though.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:59:00 GMT -8
Freudian:
Harry Potter just isn't something that could ever be a candidate for the best book ever, in my mind. It's like saying that the Harry Potter films are in contention for best movie ever. The whole notion is risible. They're good, but the idea they could depose the likes of Tolstoy or Coppola is ludicrous. Someone might manage to make me like them better, even a lot better, but there's too big of a divide there. A well reasoned argument theoretically could persuade me that The Shield is better than The Sopranos, but I don't think anything would ever convince me Buffy is. You've already got a fantastically compelling case right here on this site, and that didn't manage it.
Here's an example for what I mean when I talk about opinions versus actual valid criticisms. One person could say that they don't like the later seasons of Battlestar Galactica because they became more fantastical and less realistic and they disliked this change. That's totally valid, but kind of meaningless to anyone who disagrees. Another person might argue that the veer into the fantastical was mishandled and too abrupt, that it negatively affected the main themes of the show and that it creates internal incoherency within the show's mythos and narrative. That's a far more interesting complaint, at least to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:59:16 GMT -8
Mike:
Quote: Harry Potter just isn't something that could ever be a candidate for the best book ever, in my mind. It's like saying that the Harry Potter films are in contention for best movie ever. The whole notion is risible.
Do I think I'll ever see an argument that convincingly makes that case? No. But that doesn't mean I'm shut down to the idea of it. I may feel it's unlikely, but certainly not impossible. It's about being open-minded and open-hearted. You'd be pleasantly surprised where that can lead you.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:59:40 GMT -8
Jay:
I think I'll throw three cents in even though I've only actually seen Buffy once. Three cents is probably all my opinion is worth here anyway and I'm generally more interested in hearing what other people have to say.
Boscalyn wrote: 1. The world of Buffy is explicitly fantastic.
I don't know that this is necessarily at issue. While we can all think of a few series that were fantastical and quirky and abandoned by networks immediately (Mikejer was at one point encouraging me to watch a bunch of them, Wonderfalls, Joan of Arcadia, The Lost Room), there are a lot of shows with fantasy elements that are fairly ingrained in the American consciousness. The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, The X-Files... all doing different things with different ambitions, admittedly, but fantastical. Or there's also more benign and banal mainstream fare like... cringe... Touched by an Angel? Star Trek and its various iterations are in the conversation often enough. The original Star Wars trilogy gets its attention on the movie side. Battlestar Gallactica had seemingly most of the people in the country geeking out about it and American Horror Story seems to get a lot of buzz. Everyone I know at least talks about Game of Thrones. I don't approach agreement with those stances, but the people who support it are visible and often vociferous.
Fantasy may be a factor, both in critical opinion getting formulated and network support, not totally convinced that it is THE factor. I have a pretty sizable anti-fantasy bias myself, I can't so much as read most of the stuff without it feeling like a slog, but I never had that giving me trouble as I watched Buffy or Angel.
Boscalyn wrote: 2. Buffy is a comedy.
Ehhh. I think it's hair-splitting here. Buffy as a whole is one of the better series at melding comedy and drama/tragedy and few approach its status there. But Seinfeld is a show of near universal critical acclaim despite the fact that the characters were generally awful people and one of the behind the scenes scripting rules, as I remember it, was no hugging and no one learns anything. Chappelle's Show was more of a skit format, but it also had universal acclaim even as it was tackling some rather ugly issues of racism and the like. There aren't many comedies that capture the critical consciousness, but they're out there. Besides, I don't think many people slot in Buffy as a comedy if they're trying to pigeonhole it (and why bother?). I think you're moving the target here.
Now, if your argument were instead that Buffy gets the short-shrift because it occupies a space that is both comedy and drama, yes, absolutely. Things that tend to straddle or warp genre conceits are often pushed aside because critics can't figure out what to do with them.
Boscalyn wrote: 3. Buffy is about women.
This is probably entirely accurate! I know how marginalized both women artists and art about women (that isn't objectifying the body) often are. But, as others have pointed out, Orange is the New Black is really gaining ground in this moment, so this may also be something that's trickier to talk about later. There are a lot of shows out there right now that are penned by women and at least somewhat geared towards that audience whereas in the past we had, I don't know, Gilmore Girls? Which itself garnered a fair amount of acclaim though not a great deal of viewers.
Any major critical reckoning would have to account for how much Buffy brought those character interactions to the fore (Bechdel test, etc) and respect what it brought to the table. But if it is an anti-woman bias at play here, then I think the cultural conversation is at least trending in a positive direction now and who knows, we may see further reevaluations of the series in that light.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:59:51 GMT -8
Mike:
Quick note, Jay: I think Boscalyn was focused on shows in the 'Best TV Show Ever' discussion, not just shows that have popularity of general critical appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:00:04 GMT -8
Jay:
I understand that, but if the bias were really strong enough to fend off discussion as best ever, they perhaps would not get that general critical appeal in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:00:17 GMT -8
Freudian:
I think this might be the most registered users I've ever seen online.
Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones and The X-Files are all widely loved, but none of them have ever been seen as serious candidates for the title of best show ever by the academic community.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:00:47 GMT -8
Scott:
[MikeJer wrote: To FV:
Quote: I'm open to hearing an argument, but I'm confident I would never agree with it. Listening to them would be motivated by intellectual curiosity rather than by a genuine belief that they might manage to sway my opinion.
This comment kind of saddens me, to be honest. I suppose I feel that it's beneficial to not only keep an open mind, but also an open heart about these things. I've had my opinion changed over the years because I kept an open mind and heart to things I had previously thought were ridiculous. And I can definitely find myself moved by someone else's response to something that I didn't find as powerful. I genuinely enjoy learning from other peoples' (well articulated) experiences with media. Maybe that's just me though.]
It's one thing to say "I enjoy learning from other peoples experiences with media" compared to "there is an argument out there that will make me suddenly like something I don't like." If someone completely disregarded their emotions when consuming media/literature/etc., and completely focussed on the craft of what was being created, perhaps a well reasoned argument about absolutely anything could change what they believed. I don't think people operate in that vacuum though, and the emotions that stick with them while they're watching will be the overarching determinant of quality in their mind.
Let's say, for example, that I was able to put forward a perfectly reasoned argument about how much Mad Men and its characters resonated with me, and how much that show spoke to me on both an emotional and intellectual level. Is that argument going to convince Mike of anything? No, because my connection will not suddenly override his lack of connection. These things operate on an emotional level, and it's tough to change emotions by making a logical argument.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:01:00 GMT -8
Jay:
Freudian Vampire wrote: Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones and The X-Files are all widely loved, but none of them have ever been seen as serious candidates for the title of best show ever by the academic community.
If we're talking ACADEMIC community, that's a whole different kettle of fish. From my own vantage, I spent two years recently doing a master's in English and there were multiple people on the PhD side who were both obsessed with Buffy and using it as the focal point of their own critical studies. Some of those same people were also trying to push BSG as an academic heavyweight. But that's my own particular niche, I have no notion as to whether or not it's representative of what happens at other institutions.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:01:11 GMT -8
Mike:
Maybe not, Scott, but I wouldn't call it an impossibility. Simply unlikely. As I've been saying: I'm not closed off to having my opinions and feelings swayed. Additionally, your argument could still lead me to appreciate the show more (maybe not enough to like it, but still). If you gave an impassioned and articulate account of how and why the show is special to you, I could at minimum come to respect and appreciate your position without necessarily feeling the same way myself. That's valuable too.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:01:25 GMT -8
Iguana:
Lots of interesting points, people. But I'm kinda curious now what Boscalyn thinks.
Anyway, I'm somewhere in the vicinity of FV's side if we're discussing "greatest show ever" labels. "Buffy" just ain't it.
Of course, a lot of this argument is happening because we all seem to mean different things when we say "greatest". Some people only need one quality of a show to be transcendent, others require a show to be on or near the top on a multitude of levels.
One thing I haven't seen discussed is the impact of individual episodes. In general, I don't think the quality of "Buffy" is -that- high. Quite a few other shows I've seen are more consistently good. But then there are the stand-out episodes. When "Buffy" is at its best, I do think it's truly great. Episodes like "the Gift" or "Fool for Love" or "Hush" are orders of magnitude better than the average monster-of-the-week show.
Of the shows FV favours, I've only seen the first season of "Breaking Bad" and the first 3.6 of the "Shield." (And I still mean to watch "The Wire" and "the Sopranos." Won't watch the rest of "Breaking Bad" because I loathe everybody on it.) And whilst I'd agree that, qualitatively speaking, these shows were on a higher level than "Buffy," I can't recall any stand-out episode on the level of the "Buffy" ones I've mentioned.
Part of that's perhaps because they're more serialised. Still, when it comes to personal impact, to me it's harder to take in something as long as a season of television all at once. Shorter things typically impact me more. A film like "Shawshank" still blows everything up there out of the water, including those "Buffy" episodes. So on that level, I might say that whilst I don't think "Buffy" is the best show ever, it does include some of the best episodes ever.
Side note: the argument that "Art" describes only pcitures such as Picasso's and van Gogh's is very, very weird to non-English speakers like me, since in Dutch you can't use the art-equivalent word to just describe paintings. Do you at least count sculpture too, FV?
Mike: I doubt anyone could convince me Harry Potter is the greatest book either. Not because I'm close-minded, but because I've read the books and can name hundreds of titles I think vastly superior. I would still listen to any argument offered to the contrary, but no single argument stands in a vacuum. Such a person would have to argue against such a weight of opposing evidence that I'm pretty confident in saying they're not going to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:01:39 GMT -8
Scott:
Iguana-on-a-stick wrote:
Of the shows FV favours, I've only seen the first season of "Breaking Bad" and the first 3.6 of the "Shield." (And I still mean to watch "The Wire" and "the Sopranos." Won't watch the rest of "Breaking Bad" because I loathe everybody on it.) And whilst I'd agree that, qualitatively speaking, these shows were on a higher level than "Buffy," I can't recall any stand-out episode on the level of the "Buffy" ones I've mentioned.
Does it help if I say that all the secondary characters on Breaking Bad improve massively after the first season?
Quote: Side note: the argument that "Art" describes only pcitures such as Picasso's and van Gogh's is very, very weird to non-English speakers like me, since in Dutch you can't use the art-equivalent word to just describe paintings. Do you at least count sculpture too, FV?
It's a little bit of a weird thing to say in English too. Art is almost universally regarded to have a very broad definition.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:01:55 GMT -8
Mike:
Iguana: I don't disagree with your comments on Harry Potter. My point is simply that I'm not closed off to the possibility of encountering an argument which would change my perception and make me reconsider its placement in such things, no matter how unlikely that is to happen. Others in this thread appear to be shut down to even the possibility.
***
When I do the exercise of looking at every major critical marker, no show would excel at all of them for me. Every show's lacking something (usually several things) for me to think of it as at or near perfect. I think Breaking Bad is a bit overrated and actually has several notable flaws, for example. (Still a great show though!)
The areas Buffy happens to excel at are the very things that I value the most in television, and I feel that the psychological intimacy of its inherently likable characters is unparalleled by anything else, hence why (among other reasons) it's my vote for best show (of those I've seen). For me, at this point in time, Buffy is it.
I'm not looking for others to validate or agree with this position at all, but I would at least hope for it to be respected more than what I'm sensing in this thread. People are far too casually throwing it out of the discussion entirely -- heck, the notion is "laughable" to FV -- acting as if this conclusion is "objective" and obvious, thus creating an implied slight on those who see it differently. Quite disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 14:02:12 GMT -8
Noah:
There are three things that I want to say. They are all responses to what has been said.
Quote: I dislike the word 'art'. I think it's been applied to so many things that it's lost all meaning. A painting is art, but so is music, and so is literature, and some argue that it can also be used to define video games. I find this absurd. To me, art is an image or a picture, the works of Picasso or Van Gogh but nothing more.
Okay, that is your definition of art. That's good. Now we know what we're talking about. It is a definition of art that many people have. It may be the most common one. I think it is utterly wrong. I think it mistakes the medium for the substance. An image is an artistic medium, but not the art itself.
In order to get at this substantively, I want to use one of the examples that you gave: van Gogh.
During his life time, van Gogh sold one painting. He was told that his work was crap. People said that it was objectively worse than other than the work of several other painters of the period. And yet, van Gogh is today considered a great artist? Why?
In part because he was an innovative craftsman. He made paintings in a way that was dissonant with the prevailing style. People hadn't caught up to his aesthetic. But that explanation is missing something. I don't see "innovative style" when I look at van Gogh's paintings, I see beauty, beauty that affects me deeply. Some of the effect is emotional. His paintings, for whatever reason, stir something in me. But there is another part to it. Sometimes when I look at a van Gogh painting of say, a field, I feel like it is more real than if I were to go outside and look at a field, even the one that he painted. This "more real than real" is getting at what I want to say.
It has to do with the Why? of art. Why did van Gogh paint? Because he liked to do it? He probably did. But if you study him with any seriousness, you can see that he not only liked to paint, he needed to paint. That's an odd thing. Why would somebody need to do that? In order to answer that, we have to look at who van Gogh was.
van Gogh was was weird. He was a freak. He was mentally ill. He suffered tremendous pain, both physical and mental, but it was the mental that struck him to the core and and nearly destroyed him. Anyone who hasn't ever suffered any kind of mental illness, be it depression etc., can't really understand the pain that comes with it. In van Gogh's case, it caused him to become dormant for long periods, incoherent. On top of it all, he was poor and a social outcast. People looked down on him because of his eccentricity. So here you have a sensitive individual who is suffering so deeply that it renders him nearly nothing. How do you survive that?
Most of the time, you don't. Suicide is much more common than people think. And often, instead of turning inward, that pain will be turned outward and become violence. van Gogh ultimately succumbed to mental illness. It was too much for him. But he survived it for many years, and he did it through his art. His art was the process of transformation, of transforming pain into beauty. The deeper the pain, the greater the beauty when it is transformed, but also the greater the difficulty in overcoming it.
This is not unique to van Gogh. Most major artists experienced tremendous suffering. The art that they created is the transformation of thhat suffering. As Nietzsche, who was a great artist, tells it in The Birth of Tragedy, this is how art has always been. Ancient Greek tragedies are cathartic, or healing, because they cause us to identify with the suffering of the hero (who is representative of the artist). The hero was masked in antiquity. What the beholder beheld was the meaning of the image created by the acting of the hero. To mistake this for the literal image is to mistake the entire enterprise, and it is part of what you are doing, in my opinion.
Quote: When I spoke of 'objectivity' on the "Chosen" comments, I was referring to a weighing of the elements; character, plot, acting, continuity, writing, tone, structure, consistency of quality, coherency, theme, relevance to the viewer, cinematography, music, graphical design and all the other buzzwords that television critics like to throw around.
You haven't convinced me on this front. Acting? What is good acting? Can you say definitively? People have been fighting about this forever. Some people think Sarah Michelle Gellar is a mediocre actress, that she's "theatrical", as in too affected, not "real(istic)" enough. There's something to be said for method acting. But if Gellar had acted Buffy "realistically" or through method, she a) might have gone insane, and b) would have missed the point of the character entirely. Gellar plays Buffy like the god in the Greek tragedies. She is a symbol, though we can see her face, of Buffy, who is the Buffy archetype, the meaning of the character. In this way, she is not "realistic", but "more real than real", as my professor friend says.
Which brings us to: Quote: Here is where we most strongly disagree. I do not think that, simply because Harry Potter changed somebody's life, that makes it a great book. It would make it one they would treasure and cherish, one that had an enormous effect on them, one that they would love and consider of their favourite. But I do not think that such a personal response has any bearing on the book's actual quality whatsoever.
This is where we most strongly disagree. I think part of the disagreement stems from the distinction between what I call "craftsmanship" and "art". What you call art, I call craftsmanship. Breaking Bad is clearly well crafted. It may not be "objective", but it's clear to me. I haven't seen enough to know if it's great art.
It seems like you are saying that great themes are part of what make Breaking Bad great. But I put to you, what makes a theme a) a theme and b) great? Themes are tricky things. You can say, "good and evil" is a theme. So be it. But that's a theme of everything ever written. Why is Breaking Bad's take on it great. you might say because it is more nuanced. But nuance does not equal merit. I can give you a nuanced argument for the sun revolving around the earth; Ptolemy does. But that doesn't mean the merits of the argument are sound. In a similar way, nuance doesn't mean that the themes of something are great. So what is it? I would say that it is how and why those themes are used, and above all, the effect they have on the people who encounter them.
One more important caveat first: There are many depths to Harry Potter, more than I have time to go into. What I will say about it, though, is that it "sparking and interest" in reading or some such thing, does not make it transformative nor art. When I say "changed my life" or call it transformative, I'm talking about something else.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not about vampires, or realism, or authority or anything like that. The show is only even marginally about growing up. Growing up is the impetus for the real essence of the show. It is about pain, but not even that, suffering is the only word to describe it. Buffy suffers as deeply as the artist she is a representative of. Whedon got the idea for "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" from a drawing he once did as an adolescent. He felt so isolated, alone, unseen, that the experience to him was of literally (by which I mean actually-figuratively) being invisible. Can you imagine the pain? He was clearly very deeply, deeply hurt by his adolescence. He didn't let that pain destroy him. Instead, he turned it into beauty through Buffy. It's just like what van Gogh said about his work:
"What am I in the eyes of most people--a nonentity, an eccentric, or an unpleasant person--somebody who has no position in society and will never have; in short, the lowest of the low. All right, then--even if that were absolutely true, then I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart."
But Buffy and van Gogh connect to something deeper. Nietzsche calls it the primal pain of the world. It is something that is transpersonal, and it is existential. The artist feels this pain of existence. And Buffy is an artist. Look at season five. By the end of the season, everything in her life has been stripped away. Her family, her great love, her connection to her friends, and even her ability to love. In a world where bad things happen for no reason, where life is a constant struggle, where all that exists in the mind of this suffering, tormented girl is the prospect of isolation and hardness, what is the point of living without love? Who wouldn't want to die? And on top of this is what Glory describes in The Weight of the World: "Funny, 'cause I look around at this world you're so eager to be a part of, and all I see's six billion lunatics looking for the fastest ride out. Who's not crazy? Look around - everyone's drinkin', smokin', shootin' up, shootin' each other or just plain screwing their brains out because they don't want 'em anymore. I'm crazy? Honey, I'm the original one-eyed chicklet in the kingdom of the blind 'cause at least I admit the world makes me nuts." Buffy bears all of this, all of this painful world on her shoulders, alone.
And yet she sacrifices herself for the world that tortures her, out of love for it. When I experience this moment, I am not being "moved" or getting teary because she is doing something noble and it's sad and I really like her. I am identifying with her sacrifice, which means I am experiencing pure love and sacrifice, just as Buffy is. The hardest thing in this world is to live in it, and I have received Buffy's gift that allows me to transcend that hardness and pain, and make it into beauty through my own art. The healing bestowed on the people who experience the show in this way is a gift that cannot be measured against craftsmanship. It is infinite. Do you understand?
So this is why Buffy is a great work of art, and one that is not "of lesser overall quality". The way it handled characters, the way it was sometimes sloppy with plot etc., that doesn't matter one iota, because it was used to create these moments of pure beauty that radiate into the world and change the people in it, and galvanize them to be better and make it better and heal others. The only question I can ask you with respect to quality and comparing greatness is, does The Sopranos do that? If not, it may be great, but it is not on the level of Buffy as a work of art, and as a thing of goodness in this world. If so, great!
This is the difference I'm talking about. My last point is with respect to your point that my transformation conception of art says nothing about the work of art itself. I say that the work of art itself is the transformation, the healing, whatever we may call it in a specific context.
Leonard Bernstein says what I'm saying succinctly. With respect to this quote, Buffy is as noble and as great a work of art as we are wont to find.
"The point is, art never stopped a war and never got anybody a job. That was never its function. Art cannot change events. But it can change people. It can affect people so that they are changed...because people are changed by art - enriched, ennobled, encouraged - they then act in a way that may affect the course of events...by the way they vote, they behave, the way they think." -LB
|
|