Thursday, April 23rd, 2009
Why all good TV Drama is the same (Part 3)
Day three. Hope this is interesting to you too. I will probably blog about something different over the weekend just as a little break. But in the meantime, I’m finding this quite useful in terms of constructing my own cast for a series idea I’m working on. Plus it’s always funs to think about good TV shows that I like and pretend it’s work 
STORY THREE - COMING OF AGE/MATURATION OF A SUB-CHARACTER
Arguably, most stories could be seen as ‘coming of age’ stories as all characters grow whilst overcoming one thing or another. In the same way that the love sub-plot shows a different side of the Protagonist by seeing their emotions, so to does the Maturation plot reveal the Protagonist as the Mentor character (even though they themselves may already have their own mentor).
My theory is that Willow Rosenberg is the actual secret of Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s success - especially in its early days. We’d seen characters like Buffy struggling with the responsibility of their powers (although Spiderman was never as funny) and we’d seen wise-acres like Xander many times (although they were usually really irritating - I’m looking at you ‘any character played by Chris Tucker’). But when it came to portraying the horror of High School, I think the mild, sweet and perpetually frightened-by-the-world Willow was where the audience found their way in.
By the end of the pilot, Buffy has become a superhero again. That never really changes in seven years. She just gets slightly whinier. Look at how Willow changes:
I think the series sees her become a far more complex character and this is due to the slow escalation of her life. I don’t think you can do that with a protagonist as they need to be so clearly established in the opening moments of a series. Writers can’t afford to let their protagonist get things wrong too often, whereas someone like Willow can learn the hard way how to get life wrong - even to the point that she becomes the villain in Season 6 - but then, by the time the show ends, she’s become something very different once again.
Hmmn, I’ve written about Willow a lot more than I had planned to (I just hope none of you stumble onto my secret blog which is updated several times a day with posts about nothing but Willow). But I am always trying to temper my more genre examples with something more realistic so will talk quickly again about ‘ER‘. In particular, John Carter.
‘ER’ is specifically an ensemble cast (which ultimately completely replaced itself as the show went on). But if you consider Carter’s journey in the series he’s actually in, his journey is far more subtle than Mark Green’s earnest struggle to do the right thing without enough resources or George Clooney’s struggle to do what’s right for the patients, no matter who he pissed off. And look at how Carter brought out the different/softer side of Dr Benton, turning him into an (albeit reluctant) mentor and what both learned from each other. Sickly really. But also, probably my favourite thing about the show.
* * * * *
Would the gradually evolving stories of Carter or Willow have been enough to sustain their own series? Probably not, certainly not as TV series anyway. We needed the Buffys and the George Clooneys to do the big splashy drama in the forefront and, perhaps, to satisfy the more casual viewer. But perhaps we kept watching because we enjoyed the slow-build of the characters in the background.
So I’m particularly interested what you have to say in today’s poll and please leave any examples or thoughts in the comments box. Do we look the characters behind our the show’s heroes simply because they don’t have to be the heroes all the time? Or if we prefer the supporting cast, is it just because of a poor protagonist to begin with?
Loading ...
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
john said:
Other good examples are D’Angelo in ‘The Wire’ and Zach in ‘Bones’ - but these are both more recent examples and I know that I would end up spoiling something for someone
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Fad23 said:
For me The Wire is all about Bubbles and Omar.
For me Buffy is all about Jonathan. He’s not even a Scooby gang member. No, really it’s about Willow, like you said, but Jonathan is a close second for me.
However, My So-Called Life is almost entirely about Angela and she is a main character that really is compelling. The supporting cast do grow, as she does, but without her we might not even pay attention.
Oh man, I don’t even know where to start on Freaks and Geeks. If you haven’t seen this show, you must!
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
john said:
Oh, I have - don’t you worry!
I know what you mean about Angela. It’s the same sort of thing with House in…oh I forget the name of the show
But you’re right about Bubbles and Omar. In all fairness most of the characters in The Wire could be attributed a lot of the things I’m going to say which is why the show is so huge and complex and compelling. But to that same extent it’s also why the show takes a little while to get going. (not that that’s a bad thing in my eyes - but certain networks do need big ratings now now now etc).
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Fad23 said:
I guess I bring up Freaks and Geeks mostly because it seems to be an ensemble show, though obviously Lindsey is the central focus. I formed an empathy for most of the characters at some level, including the teachers and parents. I couldn’t even begin to say who was the most important character on the show. It seems to me to be a truly ensemble effort. For your readers who haven’t viewed yet, I highly recommend it!
The Wire is like one of Shakespeare’s histories. (Off topic, I only wish that the Watchmen film were treated that way.) There’s even a season where McNulty almost never shows up. I still haven’t read those Wire scripts and the bible that showed up recently. At some point, I’m going to have to print them out!
May 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Greg said:
Hmm. I couldn’t vote. There are some shows I find the supporting cast more appealing, but then there’s series where the main character is my favorite. For ex: Angel. He was the top character for me to watch the show, but that didn’t mean I didn’t love the cast. I LOVED them. One of my favorites was Cordelia. I loved seeing her develop from the bitchy cheerleader who couldn’t do anything but be a bitch to the heart of the Angel series, actually fighting the good fight. Sure, some plots were pretty bad surrounding her, but man did she develop a lot. Another that comes to mind is Wesley. The way he developed from Buffy to Angel. WOW!
May 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
john said:
It’s always nice to come back to my ‘Willow love-in’ post
(I think that’s why I didn’t post for ages, nothing would top that one!)
Certainly there are both kinds of shows but I think certain series do just use their protagonists to prop up the show weekly stuff while far more interesting things are happening in the back ground. But I absolutely agree with all your examples. I think Angel is interesting point because he, of course, was a supporting character who the writers found more and more useful and interesting the more they wrote the show. That must be a good feeling!
May 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Greg said:
Heh, what’s funny is that although I dug the Buffy show, I couldn’t stand the character. That show I mostly watched for the stories and the supporting cast. Although I wasn’t a big fan of the cast besides a few like Willow, Anya, Spike, etc. I hated Angel when he was on Buffy until he became Angelus. Actually, not that I hated him, but I found him incredibly boring and I was disgusted of him being like… 500 years old making out with a 15/16 year old. When he got his own show (well, when I finally gave it a chance) I grew to LOVE the character.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Nigh Journal » Killing off Characters said:
[...] in April I wrote this post about how supporting characters creep up and become the principal draw to the show while the [...]