Well all this post reveals to me is that I watch way too much television. But the interesting thing I have discovered in watching most of the first four seasons of Aaron Sorkin's "The West Wing" and Amy Sherman Palladino's "Gilmore Girls" is that while these shows may have different themes among them, their are many commonalities when it comes to the pace of these shows. For one both of these producers have a focus on the fast walking and talking while at the same time. Furthermore, the main protagonists in the show always seem to be in a rush or having a deadline to get something done, be it packing for Yale, passing a Bill, or getting the funds to a major brand name school.
But even with these similarities both of these shows have very different themes. For instance with "West Wing" it is a democrats fantasy and escapism from reality since the show started in 2000 and ended in 2006 and about this time George Bush junior had been elected as President. Even though I would cut it off at 2003 because Soorkin stopped producing for the television show from season 5 to 7.
The show "The West Wing" became to represent for some democrats their version of White House life that was ran by liberal democrats who just wanted to help people, and not try to sacrifice their moral integrity in the process. This perspective can be further shown when one of the main character Sam comments that in terms of education that "The schools should be palaces and that teachers should be treated like kings". This even more element in military skirmishes that take place in the situation room because our fictional President Bartlett played by the charismatic Martin Sheen does not want to get involved in wars with his fellow countries and at the very least wants to try to be diplomatic and peaceful before the United States is reduced to having to fight against another country. These would be seen as tenets of a president with seemingly liberal democratic leanings that Soorkin is notorious for portraying in all of his television shows. This show takes a political commentary hope for viewers while giving hope to fifty percent of population for a democratic president in the future at the time.
But with this "Gilmore Girls" their are hints of political commentary, but it seems to be more of a social/cultural commentary in my opinion. I have seen all the episodes of this show two to three times over and I would exclude season seven since Palladino had no hand in producing it. This can be seen in the episode "Application Anxiety" in season three where Rory gets her Harvard application and she and her mom are watching a Brady Brunch singing and dance special when that morning Rory has been reading Gogol's "Dead Souls". There is a strong contrast between the high and low culture in this show, but the great thing about these figures is that they are smart and can adapt to both of these seemingly different worlds. This can further seen by the contrast between Rory/her mom when compared to the grandparents.
This becomes evident in season one episode six called "Rory's Birthday parties". We see this contrast when Lorelai's parents throw Rory a high class catered party for their friends and her classmates, and the next night she has this casual affair with her stars hallow family and friends. But even with the differences between high and low culture through out the show I think that they can be related to one another, the best example of this I can give is through fashion when the couture designs on the runway trickle down to the budget wears that one will find at the mall, Target and Ross.
Now even though these shows are different in terms of themes, and similar in their approach, this has me wondering if Palladino and Sorkin have ever met. I say this because I have seen Palladino's show "Gilmore Girls" many times over and the first season of her new show "Bunheads", and I have watched Sorkin's "Sports Night", "The West Wing", "Studio 60 on the sunset strip", and some of "The Newsroom", and they seem so similar to one another.
Also I am wondering if these two should collaborate to make a show that is so good, that any major or cable network would have no reason to reject such a proposal. But before this occurs I would like to know if anyone can find out if they know whether Sorkin and Palladino have met in the past, I have done my research online and have not found anything. So if anyone has any information about this be it an article or expose please, can you please post it as a comment for this blog. So readers I have to ask do you think Soorkin and Palladino should collaborate and make a kick ass show? Why or Why not?
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Saturday, June 1, 2013
A comparison of "Murder She Wrote" and "Castle"
Well, I have been watching "Murder She Wrote" off and on for the past couple months, and have become obsessed with the fictional character JB Fletcher. She is charismatic, gets along with everybody, and always seems to know how to handle situations in a fair and delicate matter. I think her show from the 1980's to 1990's might have been the beginning of mystery writers being the detectives in a television and to my knowledge I had not seen this before in any prior detective shows. Also she has a Sherlock approach through using her powers of deduction to solve her crimes. Murder she wrote's first episode is even called The Murder of Sherlock Holmes.
The issue with her show is that there are very few pursued romances throughout the show. (spoiler) We learn from the first episode that she has lost her husband Frank, who is referenced to throughout the seasons. She is pursued many times through visitors in other cities, and it seems to be hinted at the Dr. Hazelick seems to be into her. But I think this is the point I think she is trying to show that an older woman can be independent and not needing to lean on a man, unless she wants to or he adds on to her own experiences. This can even be shown through some of the women who seem to be having a hard time of things and tend get blamed for murders they did not commit over the seasons, while being tortured and ridiculed by some of the older men . But with Castle they go where the evidence leads, and while they tend to jump the gun about who the killer is also, not a majority of the people falsely accused for murder are female.
Another difference, is that in "Castle", it's all its about is the sexual tension, and the romance, and castle through his own networking with the mayor. This show chronicles their annoyance, friendship, and then love for one another. But, with Castle he tends to act like a child in an adult mans body, and has very little understanding of women as shown through the many conversations with his daughter and mother. Also he like JB Fletcher but maybe for different reasons is too afraid to ever delve into a serious romantic relationship. Actually, that might be Castle's issue he likes falling in love, and has a harder time actually maintaining the relationship. But , this show seems to focus more on romantic relationships when compared to murder she wrote.
But its not like this show does not care about the fictional murders that occur has shown between the team work between Esposito, Ryan, Laney, Beckett, and Castle to get the truth of the matter in a case. Castle is able to provide a different, albeit sometimes crazy, and conspiracy theory based approach to solving some murders. However, this always fun and keeps the viewers on their toes, because they never know what to expect from Castle.
But with both of these shows their may not be much difference in victims in both shows though, as they both show how much gender, race, and class will effect who be murdered and what their motive will be. The weird thing is that for some of these murders they were over things that could not be controlled, or because the murder is question made assumptions that were not really true. (spoiler) I can refer to season 1 episode 3 of Castle where a model gets killed by her husband because he thinks she is cheating on him with a photographer.
These two shows, reveal how the mystery detective is viewed from an older wise women to a ruggedly handsome Rick Castle, seems to be a forward transition, but as viewers what would we rather focus on the murders or the relationships, or both. Or I should be asking do we need both, or would one suffice?
The issue with her show is that there are very few pursued romances throughout the show. (spoiler) We learn from the first episode that she has lost her husband Frank, who is referenced to throughout the seasons. She is pursued many times through visitors in other cities, and it seems to be hinted at the Dr. Hazelick seems to be into her. But I think this is the point I think she is trying to show that an older woman can be independent and not needing to lean on a man, unless she wants to or he adds on to her own experiences. This can even be shown through some of the women who seem to be having a hard time of things and tend get blamed for murders they did not commit over the seasons, while being tortured and ridiculed by some of the older men . But with Castle they go where the evidence leads, and while they tend to jump the gun about who the killer is also, not a majority of the people falsely accused for murder are female.
Another difference, is that in "Castle", it's all its about is the sexual tension, and the romance, and castle through his own networking with the mayor. This show chronicles their annoyance, friendship, and then love for one another. But, with Castle he tends to act like a child in an adult mans body, and has very little understanding of women as shown through the many conversations with his daughter and mother. Also he like JB Fletcher but maybe for different reasons is too afraid to ever delve into a serious romantic relationship. Actually, that might be Castle's issue he likes falling in love, and has a harder time actually maintaining the relationship. But , this show seems to focus more on romantic relationships when compared to murder she wrote.
But its not like this show does not care about the fictional murders that occur has shown between the team work between Esposito, Ryan, Laney, Beckett, and Castle to get the truth of the matter in a case. Castle is able to provide a different, albeit sometimes crazy, and conspiracy theory based approach to solving some murders. However, this always fun and keeps the viewers on their toes, because they never know what to expect from Castle.
But with both of these shows their may not be much difference in victims in both shows though, as they both show how much gender, race, and class will effect who be murdered and what their motive will be. The weird thing is that for some of these murders they were over things that could not be controlled, or because the murder is question made assumptions that were not really true. (spoiler) I can refer to season 1 episode 3 of Castle where a model gets killed by her husband because he thinks she is cheating on him with a photographer.
These two shows, reveal how the mystery detective is viewed from an older wise women to a ruggedly handsome Rick Castle, seems to be a forward transition, but as viewers what would we rather focus on the murders or the relationships, or both. Or I should be asking do we need both, or would one suffice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)