The critics have reached a consensus. 2000 was a bad year for Hollywood, and so far 2001 isn't much better. With movie audiences becoming increasingly desperate for decent entertainment, where can they turn?
Allow me to make the case for television. Now, television does pretty well for itself, so why does it need me to defend it?
A demonstration: someone proudly proclaims, "I don't watch television." Naturally, you assume that he is a well-informed fellow with better things to occupy his time. Someone else declares, "I don't watch movies." Naturally, you assume that he is a simpleton, or perhaps he is Amish.
It's difficult to trace the roots of TV's bad rap as a cultural trend, but if you ask Well-Informed Fellow why he stays away, he'll probably cite poor quality.
And I'll readily admit that in some cases, that's justified. But you've already conceded that movies are bad, too! Admit it. When I said 2000 was a bad year for Hollywood, you instantly agreed as visions of "What Women Want" danced in your head. So TV and movies are both awful, right? Tie game.
And as you backtrack and stammer that at least there were SOME good movies in the past year, we'll also confront the harsh reality of TV's vast wasteland -- it's not all bad.
In 2000, TV's hour-long dramas were as good as the movie studios' finest product. "ER" and "Law & Order" are still excellent, but my favorites are "The Practice," "The West Wing" and "Boston Public."
The first two are veterans that continue to innovate and surprise viewers. "The Practice" wandered a bit at the beginning of 2000, but the fall season has brought long-term story arcs so compelling that I wince when the end credits begin to scroll.
"The West Wing" is a markedly different show -- where "The Practice" is shadowy, "The West Wing" is bright and optimistic. And each episode of "The West Wing" is relatively self-contained, giving the sense that you're watching a little movie (albeit a good one) every week.
"Boston Public" was a surprise too, primarily in its ability to apply "The Practice's" dark aesthetics (both shows are written and produced by David E. Kelley) to the environs of a public high school. In its first half-dozen episodes, "Boston Public" brazenly confronted important issues without coming off as heavy-handed.
TV can be funny, too, but it has a lousy reputation. This is because usually, when TV tries to make you laugh, it does so with sitcoms. And usually, when TV makes sitcoms, it does so poorly.
See how many hands you need to count the items on this list -- "The Simpsons," "Malcolm in the Middle," "That '70s Show," "Friends," and "Everybody Loves Raymond" are the only current sitcoms that have proven consistently funny. With dozens of sitcoms on the air, that's a bad success rate.
Not to worry, because TV does know how to crack a joke without the safety net of a laugh track. Comedy Central's "TV Funhouse" is my favorite new entry, created by comedy writer Robert Smigel. Smigel hates bad TV as much as you do, so he uses a television show to viciously satirize every convention of the medium.
There are plenty of shows on Comedy Central designed for people who claim to hate TV. "TV Funhouse" takes aim at children's shows. "South Park" trashes sitcoms, just as "Win Ben Stein's Money" does for game shows.
Also, I've said it before, but late-night network TV is seriously underrated. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" -- also on Comedy Central -- makes a good warm-up for Letterman and "Daily Show" alum Craig Kilborn.
But, you maintain, going to the movies is a more enjoyable experience. For example, there are no ads. Except for one or two at the beginning, followed by 10 minutes or more of previews. After that, no ads. Except for product placement.
I've found that bad projection is increasingly frequent, too. I can't remember the last time I didn't get up during a movie to tell the manager that the picture was out of focus or misaligned. Nor can I remember the last time they bothered to fix it.
At the most basic level, arguing the merits of one medium over another is a purely subjective and futile exercise. We judge media more practically by the way they're used, and this is where television supposedly gets its bad reputation. Yet while my argument admittedly oversimplifies matters, it's clear that our film industry isn't using its medium much more convincingly than the TV folks.
So maybe the knee-jerk response to condemn television is nothing more than an outmoded modernist belief that the less accessible something is, the more artistically valid it becomes. Again, I'm not saying film lovers -- I count myself among this group -- are snobs, but there are certain philosophical pitfalls we need to avoid.
Keep going to the movies. And on those occasions when you come home depressed by a "Finding Forrester" or a "Double Take," don't be afraid to grab that remote control. With an open mind, it could brighten your spirits.
