Radio on the TV
I was delighted to learn recently that my one of my favorite shows of all time (radio or otherwise), This American Life, is now also going to be on television. They've done a series for Showtime, which premiers on Thursday, March 22. Thought I'd give them a little free promotion, since I love them so much.
I've been listening to the show for years, and it has long been one of the most intelligent, thought-provoking, funny, quirky, unpredictable, and just plain entertaining programs I've ever had the pleasure to encounter. If you've not heard of it before, the combined promo taglines they're using on Showtime pretty much sums up what the show's about: "Unexpected stories--from real people--that happen to be true." Each week on their radio show, they take a theme, such as "Superpowers" or "Kid Logic" or "Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time" and bring you odd, unusual, real-life stories and interviews with Americans doing things related to that theme. Could be anyone from an artist to a soldier to a prison inmate to a six-year-old to David Sedaris. There is also the occasional piece of short fiction included. Each episode is a delight. If you haven't listened, check out their archives.
But how well does it translate to television? When I first heard a TV version was imminent, I had my doubts they could ever get the same feel through visual means. So much of the radio show relies on the leaps of imagination and emotional resonance that sound without image provokes.
Well, I'm happy to say they've worked a miracle. Even though the show isn't officially on the air until March 22, they've got the first episode up on OnDemand and I watched it last night. They've somehow managed to capture and maintain the feel of the radio program very well. Plus, it's simply visually stunning. Have a peek to see what I mean:
(You can also watch this and other trailers at the Showtime site here.)
The creative team working on it obviously took great pains to make sure nothing would be lost in the visual version of the show, and they've succeeded. I'm sure this is due in part to the fact that all the major players on the radio show were involved in the writing and production of the TV show. Clearly, they made sure no one messed with their baby. Good for them.
Plus, an added bonus is that Ira Glass, the long-time host of the radio show, is on camera narrating between stories. I'd never seen him before. Turns out he's just a hunka hunka burnin' alterna-geekboy-with-hipster-specs. Never thought I'd hear these two words emerge together from my lips, but, "Mmmmm....Ira." Gimme.
The only criticism I have of the TV edition of the show is that Showtime should have let them make it a full hour, just like the radio show is, rather than just a half hour. It was over too soon and I wanted more. Maybe next season they'll be able to expand. Till then, I expect to fully enjoy it. I highly recommend you do, too.
Damn Showtime for coming out with Weeds and now this. I really need to cut back on my cable bill, and this is going to make it impossible for me to get rid of Showtime now...
Comments (12)
That's *awesome*. The fact that something smart like This American Life has leapt from NPR to cable gives me hope. And makes me wish I could afford cable. But to be fair to pop culture, a lot of quality programming has come out of the cable channels.
1. Posted by Hiromi on March 11, 2007
I'm sure it'll come out on DVD after it's done. And then you'll have hours and hours of it to watch all at one time...no waiting. Even better than the real thing.
2. Posted by Miss Syl on March 12, 2007
Quite frankly, I was aghast when I heard that Ira had succumbed to the lure of the easy dollar. I remain so now, having watched the episode. There is no reason to be "fair" to pop culture- quoting Archibald MacLeish, television is a medium so called because it is neither rare nor well-done. The leap of TAL to television is yet another example of what pandering to the profit margin (and, therefore, almost always, the lowest-common-denominator) leads to... All in all, a very sad day.
3. Posted by Jeff Butler on March 12, 2007
Well, I'll have to follow that up with this, now I have something else to watch. I haven't heard the radio show before, but the show seems like something that I will enjoy. Thanks for pointing it out, I probably wouldn't have heard of it otherwise. :)
4. Posted by ArtfulDodger on March 12, 2007
I doubt Showtime pays them very much. That network is notoriously cheap.
5. Posted by Anonymous on March 12, 2007
mmm Ira indeed! I would just also like to point out that television isn't pure evil...let's not get carried away.
6. Posted by Sex Newbie on March 12, 2007
...quoting Archibald MacLeish, television is a medium so called because it is neither rare nor well-done
While that saying is clever in and of itself, I have to wonder how much criticism of TV is done simply as an end in itself. Even if TV were, at best, merely frivolous, what's wrong with frivolity?
7. Posted by Hiromi on March 12, 2007
Jeff Butler: Anonymous above already made my first point in that working with Showtime is hardly a profit-margin motvating move.
But as to my second point, clever as MacLeish's quote may be, it's inaccurate. Rarity certainly is not a guarantee of quality. And popularity/pop culture does not guarantee LACK of quality. Let us remember that things that are considered rarified cultural pursuits now, like Shakespearean theatre and opera, for instance, were, in their day, pop culture themselves--adored by the masses and elite alike.
Sure, some television is inane. But so is some literature, music, art, and yes, radio. And yet, some is not. It is no different for televison. Television as a medium is not useless, it's how the artist uses the medium that makes the difference.
Also, I find it interesting you're so set on lambasting television as an entirely empty medium (as well as the televised version of TAL by association), while you apparently approve of TAL as a radio program. Radio was developed as a medium in order to widely distribute news and entertainment, and to popularize culture (classical music shows for the masses). I honestly can't see how the development and intent of TV is any different except that it combines more than one sensory input. There is good and bad radio, and good and bad TV. If you get the *exact same show*, except one more sensory input is added to it, how does that make the show worse (unless the pictures were to entirely change the tenor of the program)? TAL was always an entertainment program. Smart entertainment, but entertainment nonetheless. It's no different now.
Now, if your argument is instead that TAL is on PUBLIC radio (nonprofit), and the show's move to TV consistutes a for-profit environment, hence they're "selling out," I'd ask you if you have any idea whether there was an attempt to GET the show on PBS. Perhaps PBS rejected it as too expensive to make. You really have no idea, nor do I.
Not to mention the fact that "selling out" doesn't occur because you happen to make money off of something. "Selling out" happens when you compromise your principles and quality IN ORDER TO make money. So far I see no evidence that this is the case with TAL's program.
8. Posted by Miss Syl on March 12, 2007
Art: Check out the radio archives I linked to. You can listen to the shows in streaming audio, or you can even download them for free as podcasts from iTunes.
Anonymous: Excellent point.
Sex Newbie: Aw, but what's a blog without someone getting carried away? ;-) I don't mind some strong opinions, even if I don't agree with them. Debate is food for the brain and soul, as long as it's respectful.
Hiromi: One thing I can't stand is when someone condemns something because it's de rigueur. I don't know if that's the case with Jeff above, but I often find people seem to think condemning television is a quick, easy way to set themselves up as part of some kind of intellectual elite. All I have to say to that is, show me the empirical evidence, and then we'll talk.
9. Posted by Miss Syl on March 12, 2007
Also, re the "anything for a buck" argument, it might be pointed out that TAL used a commercial-free channel. Showtime is funded entirely by people who WANT to watch that channel--subscribers. So the network and those who produce shows on it are in fact not scrabbling as much cash as they can make. They are scrabbling to provide to their paying customers the quality program they feel those customers would like to see, so that they can continue to exist as a network and provide programming to their audience. I would say that's a pretty fair exchange. If the consumers dont' like what they're watching, they stop paying, and Showtime and TAL disappear. They aren't force fed inanity that is funded by advertising bucks.
10. Posted by Miss Syl on March 12, 2007
Wow, I came back tonight when I had more time and I find that all my points have been made already. Nicely done Miss Syl! Good to see the tigress is back on the prowl. :)
Let me just add this, I am no fan of television in general. However, I will admit that during the last two decades the general quality of programming (minus the obvious reality/game/stuff) has improved greatly. I believe this is in large part due to the pressures television is now facing from premium channel programming (Sopranos et al), movies, DVD's, video games, the internet. Viewership is down slightly and programming must get better to draw more viewers in. Simple economics. The benefit for us is better shows. Not all, but more than ever before.
Remember also that network television is also funded by the same forces that fund premium channels, albiet in a different form. If viewership drops on a network show, advertisers pay less, the network makes less and the show disappears. Market forces, what a great idea. :)
11. Posted by ArtfulDodger on March 13, 2007
Here's an alternate point of view on the alleged dumbness of pop culture: this article from the NY Times about an author who writes on the possible mental benefits of high-end video games and subtle and complex TV shows.
12. Posted by Hiromi on March 13, 2007