Category Archives: TV Encounters

Recommended TV: Speechless on ABC

This post begins with a non sequitur. Instead of directly arguing for the merits of the show that I am trying to get you to watch, I am going to explain the obvious reasons why you should watch a good TV show besides it being a good TV show. It has been a while since I posted on this site, and strangely, it also coincided with the annual summer break on the TV schedule. [It is one of my pet peeves that the scheduled TV summer break is irrelevant in the world of digital streaming and OTT content, but I will leave that aside for now. Clearly I am going to use the break to explain away my own laziness!]

So there are at least a half a dozen shows that I am watching (or failing trying to) at this time. Besides the great shows recommended by friends, family and Netflix, I am obliged to keep up with the upcoming scheduled network programs as well. One of the strangest, and beautiful things about network programs is that the audience voice matters and does not matter in two extreme and oppositional ways. First, if a show is underwatched in the outmoded AC Nielsen measurement, it is condemned for the chopping block. However, once the numbers are in, the critical reception and fan cultures have little influence on the show’s continuation.

While a show like Breaking Bad with less than 2 million viewers per week in its initial season was renewed for bigger and badder things in the latter seasons (which also ended up pulling monster level 15 million ratings for the last few episodes), a show like Hannibal on NBC could not drag its internationally subsidized production budget into a fourth season due to poor ratings. Leaving aside the less obvious shows like The Grinder (Rob Lowe’s best comedic performance), even the more widely appreciated shows like Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Parks and Recreations, 30 Rock, Better off Ted all had to fend off the specter of cancellation throughout their run.

And that is why Speechless deserves your attention, because it fell from 7 million viewers to 4.5 over the course of the first season, and opened to a modest 5 million in the second season. Compared to ABC’s Modern Family (9 million viewers) and CBS’s The Big Bang Theory (up to a surprising 20 million viewers), Speechless’ position as ABC’s third best comedy might maybe good enough for a few more seasons, but not enough to be featured as a headliner as the show deserves to be treated. I guess that is rant over, so let us take a look at the show itself.

Formally, Speechless is far less daring as some of the modern sitcoms. The A and B plot lines are very clearly demarcated and the characters are, at times, typically indistinguishable from other dysfunctional TV families from Malcom in the Middle and The Goldbergs among others. However, the content of the show makes up for any timid imitative practices from other shows. In fact, the patient evaluation of simple situations may seem as obvious and tiresome to many. What kind of a ramp should a disabled child uses in a high school? Is a garbage disposal ramp an acceptable alternative to an adaptation or is it insulting to the user? How do disabled children fight? How do they express anger? Should adaptations help bridge access for them to do things that are perceived to be bad, just as much as they allow them to do things that are socially approved? The questions in Speechless move from the mundane and practical to serious grounds on social acceptance and good behavior.

In a different era, a show like this would have been deemed too depressing or heavy on reflections for a prime-time network TV comedy. And yet, along with shows like Black-ish and Fresh Off The Boat, ABC continues to present families of all shapes and colors, while maintaining an engaging and entertaining storyline. Speechless encourages people to laugh about these things, but not in a mean-spirited way. It normalizes the needs of disabled children without trivializing them, thus performing an important function of communication that goes beyond representation. And yet, these attempts of remaking similar narratives with the focus on access feels like an intentional ploy to produce a show that can produce popular images which help visualize, if not normalize the issues of adaptation.

Disabled characters do not have a lot of visibility on network TV, unless they are used as narrative props for a specific episode or in a quirky, upbeat role as a sidekick. ABC’s new comedy Speechless engages with questions of access and disability head on, presenting important questions without exceeding the typical conventions of the sitcom. This is a precious little show, which examines the questions of what kind and degree of adaptation is acceptable. The disability presented in this show is not a magical way in which life moves on without any difficulties. The show actually lingers on the struggles without making it about sympathy or overcoming the odds. It engages with the difficulties without judgement, and that makes Speechless rather unique.

The show examines JJ, the protagonist who communicates through a words written on a board, in the context of his family and friends. The representation of siblings and parents whose lives are linked to the disability of their family member is handled with an optimism that emphasizes the importance of awareness and practical knowledge rather than an old-world idea of stoic and unquestioning togetherness. There is a lot of heart and very funny one liners in this ABC sitcom, but most of all – it is a manifestation of the transformative power of TV.

Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

 

Borgen – Great TV

We live in a time of great political pessimism. Across party, state and regional lines, there is a growing anger with the quality of leadership and a skepticism about whether they have the best interests of the people in their hearts. Many TV shows have represented this anger in their dark portrayal of political figures ranging from the Machiavellian House of Cards or the pitch-black satire of Veep. Consistently, these shows echo or even preempt contemporary political fiascos, painfully emphasizing a bitter hopelessness for its audience. Contrarily, shows from an earlier era that presented an upbeat and idealistic view of politicians like The West Wing no longer resonate with the seemingly unresolvable entanglements we encounter today. Borgen, an episodic political thriller from Denmark treads a fine line between being its idealism and cynicism and delivers one of the finest TV dramas of this era.

With its riveting thirty episodes, Borgen has received near-universal acclaim since it hit the airwaves in 2010. Counted among the Scandinavian TV royalty that rose to global prominence in the late 2000s alongside Forbrydelsen (The Killing 2007-12) and Broen (The Bridge 2011-), Borgen follows the life and career of Denmark’s first female Prime Minister, Birgitte Nyborg. Borgen’s simple and clear narrative engages with different aspects of the political process as well as its media and public perception. While the intricate plot and the complex perspectives are compelling, it is clear that we watch the shows for its well-written characters. Chief among them is Moderate party-chief and statsminister, Birgitte Nyborg. Sidse Babett Knudsen delivers one of the best performances on TV as the dramatic protagonist who is tough, intelligent and moral. She is the epitome of a statesman, whose values-driven, progressive policies fly in the face of established conventions. And yet, not once do we mistake Prime Minister Nyborg for a naïve politician as she expertly maneuvers her way through a sea of political and personal treachery without compromising on her ideals. The narrative victories that she wins are not through shortcuts, and sometimes, they are not even victories. Nyborg endures unfazed through the circumstances, both as a witness and an ideal respondent in the face of adversity. Instead of presenting a simplistic heroic arc, Borgen offers something that we all long for; not just a protagonist we can root for, but an inspiring model for grace under fire.

In Borgen, Brigitte Nyborg and her staff negotiate for the survival of both their ideals and their government in the fragile balance of a multi-party system. The restrained tone and the deliberated style of writing works surprisingly well within the largely episodic format of the show. The show succeeds where some other shows fail because it refuses to offer unexpected twists or clever narrative-play at the cost of character and plot consistency.  It is not that characters do not change their minds or act erratically. However, any erratic behavior is a result that naturally grows out of their context and painful character introspection. The best moments of the show blend character-based drama that also exposes the political play and the machinations behind the institutional walls. However, it does not bask in the glow of mocking all notions of political integrity. When Kasper Juul (played by Pilou Asbaek), the charismatic spin doctor, orbits around the political drama with his brand of circumstantially convenient morality, Nyborg grounds the show in her principles stating that she wants to do politics in her own way. Her steadfast and upright approach recovers the idea of politics from the scheming and treacherous world we see in Game of Thrones in favor of administering the state and its people in the best possible way.

One of the fan-centric joys of watching a fairly niche program is to see actors from such programs achieve international mainstream acclaim. Birgitte Hjort Sorensen, Pilou Asbaek and Sidse Babet Knudsen have all found success in international film and TV (in Pitch Perfect 2, Game of Thrones and Westworld respectively). I am not implying that Hollywood is the yardstick of success that the actors should be measured against. Instead, I am very happy to see these actors in performances where I can follow them without subtitles. While on the subject of subtitles, Borgen was so compelling that I found out if there are ways of learning Danish enough to follow the show without subtitles. Unfortunately, the watching easily outpaced any efforts of learning a new language. And yet, like the equally brilliant Broen (Bridge), this show has framed the eponymous Borgen in particular (the Christiansborg Palace which houses the parliament and other government offices), and the city of Copenhagen in general with its iconic shots.

At the time of writing this, there is an American version of Borgen in the works. I have mixed feelings about this. On one side, the American show will certainly get greater global visibility. However, in the current political context, an American remake is dangerously susceptible to sliding into a cynical and negative approach. Alternatively, if there could be a fourth season of the show, that would be great.

Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

Two BBC Crime Dramas – Broadchurch and River

One of the pleasures of my research topic is that I get to watch Crime Dramas. A lot. While many of them can be quite predictable and poorly written, some shows have the capacity to stun you in their brilliance. Though I am a big fan, I would be the first to agree that even the best among American Crime dramas prioritize the crime factor more than the drama. Some of the more deliberate narratives like the first season of True Detective and the brilliant TV adaptation of Fargo (both are season-long anthologies), tend to linger on the characters rather than focus on the action. And yet, they too look at the stories for the length of the crime and the aftermath has little bearing on the viewers’ perception of the characters’ lives. It is as if the challenges faced by the characters simply cease to exist at the end of the season. This is one of the places where European shows fare better, with their intricate plotting never over-taking the depth of characterization. I would like to discuss this ability to build on past events and crimes in two recent shows from the UK, Broadchurch and River.

While I usually avoid spoilers, the following post may give away some broad strokes outline of the character arc – but you may read ahead without being robbed of the meaning and actions of the plot as I try to only reference to its method.

Broadchurch balances between the two genre modifiers of crime and drama the best among contemporary television shows. Set in a fictional coastal town in England, the first series features David Tennant and Olivia Coleman in leading roles as they try to solve the mysterious death of a ten-year old boy. This is the perfect setup for a whodunit with its finite set of characters each with their own dark secret that they want to hide. It is not to say that the show avoids that aspect, but it also transcends the simplicity of crime as a puzzle-solving that dominates many TV shows. Instead we are allowed to take a harrowing peek into the complex entanglements between the characters who are involved in the aftermath of the tragedy. It looks at the devastation of a single death and the implication of a killer to its ultimate conclusion. By resisting the tropes of inventive criminality and mind-numbingly escalating body-count other shows seem so easily susceptible to, Broadchurch seeks a crushing humanity as the basis of the viewers’ relationship with the characters. The solving of the crime is as devastating as the crime itself, as the consequences change the world of the characters permanently. In eight short episodes, Broadchurch showed how unique crime drama on TV could be.

And then the second series happened. It abandoned the format of the first series that most TV shows try and repeat. Instead, it examined a trial and its crucial elements by extending the case from the first series. This led to mixed results because the sense of closure provided in the first series seemed to be completely undone by the second. It felt like a cheap trick from a 90s Hollywood movie where an unplanned sequel forces the producers to remove the happy conclusion they had achieved. Although the second series was inarguably a natural extension of the first, it was undeniably inconsistent in quality. Like many other fans, I was not very impressed with the outcomes of the court proceedings. In my opinion, the near-perfect first series was ruined by an attempt to extend a show that should have been a limited series. Even at that stage, I would have been happy for the show to end on that note – with one remarkable series followed by a slightly underwhelming series, which was still better than many shows on air. And then the third series came, changing the way I think of a crime drama. I was never more delighted to be shown wrong when it rescued the flailing second series retroactively by presenting the greatest bit of character development between the second and third series. The characters who had suffered twice – first with the death of a child and second the failure of a justice-system – are used to make a more important point about trauma – recovery. Instead of using their tragedy as a plot point that leads them to irredeemable suffering, the show allows its characters to cope with the loss over time and return to their lives. Not only did Broadchurch provide one of the most satisfying conclusions in crime drama TV history, but it legitimized the need for the suffering inflicted by the second series. It explained why the events in the second series were important for the characters to explore their experiences.

Another show that blends a bleak aesthetic with a soul-searching character centrality is BBC’s 2015 crime drama River. Featuring Stellan Skarsgård and Nicola Walker, critics often acknowledge the faux-Scandinavian look and feel of the show with its grey London-scapes and lingering sense of narrative development. I believe that beyond the appearance, the show borrows something far deeper from its Scandinavian counterpart – it values the feelings and thoughts of its characters and reflects the significance on the plot.

River begins with almost an eye-rolling conceit typical of any of the leading crime-solvers on mainstream TV— a special ability that allows the protagonist to see the case in a way that others simply cannot. Skarsgård’s titular hero can literally see the ghosts of his cases, allowing him to externalize his thoughts and grasp at the heart of the case, eventually solving it. This feels giddily like an overused generic trope at the beginning of the show, but within the first episode it goes off on a course that is surprising and refreshing. The important distinction between this show and others like it is in its treatment of this special ability. The protagonist is slowly revealed to be less gifted, and more burdened with persistently painful and difficult life. While it has its episodic procedural moments (especially in the first three episodes), the overarching plot takes over in the latter part of the series as the inspector is trying to solve the mystery of his partner’s death – leading to a whirlwind finish where there are real emotional and personal stakes for the protagonist in solving the case.

Unlike other crime shows, River earns its twists painstakingly and makes the characters pay dearly for each truth they wrestle out of the narrative. The audience are compelled to weigh the importance of those twists – each one with its palpable and lasting consequence make us ache for the characters who live with the outcomes they choose. The show’s protagonist is deeply involved in the thick of the plot in the most organic way – as the characters’ entanglements are used to examine the dangerous profession that they are in. Usually crime shows offer a degree of invulnerability to their protagonists, especially if they are cops – some of the most famous cop-shows have insular protagonists who are never under mortal threat simply because they must exist and be in an active relationship with the plot. This is where River reaches for a level above its contemporaries. The six episodes are concluded with a finality that scoffs at the idea of returning for a second series that would cash in on a well-built world of characters and relationships. Although the production details are ominously left dangling for a possible return, actors Stellan Skarsgård considers the show “a one-off piece” and hopefully that resolve remains.

To conclude, I find this impulse that desires for River’s finality a bit conflicting, because a show like Broadchurch proves that a one-off concept could be masterfully extended and redeemed even if it is botched in the process. We may never know if a second series of a show could exceed expectations if it is never made. And yet, the fans of a show are pulled in two opposing directions, hoping for an untouched legacy and a perfect memory as well as a hope to return to characters we have become acquainted with and deeply care for. TV history is full of shows that got better in a returning season, and there are just as many examples of near-perfect mini-series events. These two traditions bear their own modes of reception in the way they prepare the audience and the buzz they generate about their content. Ultimately, long-term seriality remains one of the most intriguing points of engagements with TV shows. The tension between our desire for more episodes and the dread for them being bad is the site where TV shows- both great and terrible- are made, remembered and forgotten.

Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

Young Sheldon: The Big Bang Theory spin-off rant

This week CBS released trailers for it’s the upcoming slate of Fall shows (Read my side rant about the outdated Fall schedule here*), including Young Sheldon, a spin-off for one of the network’s biggest hits, The Big Bang Theory. The response to the five-minute preview seems to be generally positive, with most people being pleasantly surprised with the intimate portrayal of what promises to be a difficult childhood. I was very impressed with the promo too. However, I could not help but feel that the spin-off feels inconsistent within TBBT’s universe.

The biggest disconnect seems to be in the intimate portrayals of the characters and their relationships as opposed to the show that we are familiar with. The young Sheldon portrayed in the eponymous promo seems like a character primed to go through a learning curve and change to be a better adapted person. His relationship with his step-father and his sister are framed as very important to the titular character. However, these aspects are completely discordant with the stubborn and utterly selfish person we encounter as the adult Sheldon Cooper in TBBT. The adult Sheldon has not changed much over the nine years and is still as inconsiderate as he was at the beginning. The idea of a prequel spin-off becomes woefully frustrating when considering that either the character is going to evolve (and thus leading to a different point than the beginning of TBBT) or he is not going to evolve (rendering the whole project irrelevant). Let me be clear, I am not writing off a show even before its first full episode is out – I like the promo too. All I am saying is that this discrepancy is a direct result of networks trying to package a good idea (the relationships of a misadjusted boy) as a familiar idea (he is also Sheldon Cooper from TBBT), to keep things safe. It feels as if the new show was written as a spin-off only to cash in on TBBT’s popularity, rather than any organic need to extend it. Again, I am not against prequels – my favorite show on air currently is a prequel – Better Call Saul (and that show deserves an entire series of posts to talk about its conceptual brilliance). From Fraiser to Mork and Mindy, American TV is full of spin-offs, each of varying quality. The problem is not with the idea of a spin-off but with one that is clearly disjointed from its original premise.

I understand the intention of trying to update a series with a new aesthetic sensibility. Despite its success, TBBT’s critical reception has dwindled over the years, and especially amidst a growing number of TV comedies like Louie and Master of None that have challenged the limits of that term. Single-camera comedies like ABC’s Black-ish and Speechless continue to present socially-relevant comedy without the annoying laugter-track. Even more traditional sitcoms like Mom (from TBBT’s creator Chuck Lorre) have gone on to grapple important issues about sobriety and failure, whereas TBBT continues to harp on four mostly unlikeable men-children struggling in their fairly comfortable lives. In light of this, a Young Sheldon spin-off could go a long way in recuperating the image of the much-maligned show. But when a character as static and with a glacial development pace as Sheldon Cooper imprinted on the minds of the viewers, it is going to take a lot for the show to win over its audience.

* Now, my Fall Schedule Rant!

I am tired of the convention of shows taking a break over the summer and returning every fall. Cable shows have long since dispelled with the idea of a seasonal premiere, with shows taking as much time as they need to return with a compelling season. HBO’s ratings juggernaut Game of Thrones is ditching its usual March premiere in favor of July because they need more time to shoot. Shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The Walking Dead have all broken up seasons into two parts to write the shows to their satisfaction rather than being forced to deliver a poorly delivered season on-time. The change in these shows’ scheduling has not affected the fan-base. Online video streaming service Netflix has even taken an even more brazenly contrarian approach with many of its major shows (Orange is the New Black, Master of None, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, House of Cards and Narcos) returning this year over the summer. And the best thing about this scheduling is that it will not be the same next year. It does not have to be, because the quality of the programs control the audience and not some arbitrarily made up criteria of a TV season. A staggered year-long schedule where a show is on air only as long as it needs to before taking a break to prepare its next season would be better suited to attract today’s audiences.

The schedule also imposes a rigid and unnecessary imposition that a regular season should feature about 22-24 episodes. Cable and streaming shows demonstrate how the duration of the program’s availability is irrelevant when it comes to popularity and critical acclaim. The only important feature that remains common across all successful shows is that the shows tell a story that is sincere to its chosen mode. By forcing creators to stretch their material to a specific length, many shows have resulted in episodes of uneven quality (like the second and third seasons of Fresh Off the Boat) or in being prolonged for seemingly no reason (like the still delightful but meandering Modern Family). But networks don’t want to give up on a good thing – and a successful episode of a hit show will have the exact same ad spots to sell as a poorly reviewed one. As long as the network can lead its viewers with a show with promise of a better episode down the line, they can sell ad spots in bulk. Instead, would not multiple shows of differing lengths presented over a staggered schedule promote a more vibrant TV culture?

What are your thoughts on the Fall Schedule and TV Spin-Offs? Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

Upstart Crow – Literary Fan Dream TV

If you are a literature student who wonders if there are any TV programs about literary figures and history, then Upstart Crow is the answer to that question. Upstart Crow was created by Ben Elton as a part of the 400th anniversary Shakespeare celebrations, featuring David Mitchell as the titular upstart crow. It is perhaps the most inventive and irreverent approach to a historical figure whose daily circumstances are still largely undocumented and obscure, if not shrouded in mystery. By evoking comedic tropes that feature in Shakespeare’s own narratives and building real-life parallels that echo the future significance of his works, Upstart Crow brilliantly constructs a world that is as clever as it is funny.

The writing makes you tear up with pride, because it is just that good. Every line feels clever without being annoying or grating – unless it is on purpose. You get a range of characters and motivations, from the chaotic good to stoic and solid. Where the show shines is in its treatment of 16th century social issues with a tongue firmly in the cheek, and somehow making it relevant to our own time and concerns. With a compelling cast of characters whose concerns mirror our own contemporary lives, Upstart Crow pulls off a comedy about daily life featuring a playwright whose works have become iconic if not archetypal in our view.

While each actor is worthy of mention, Gemma Whelan (who plays Asha Greyjoy in Game of Thrones) plays a magnificent supporting role as Shakespeare’s landlord’s daughter Kate, who aspires to be an actress on the Elizabethan stage. Her is repeatedly thwarted by scoffing men who tell her that to be an actor, you need to be a boy, with coconuts. However, she responds to these rejections with a determined optimism, working on her next attempt at breaking the barriers. These figures may be imaginary, however they open the possibility of thinking about Shakespeare as an artist situated in the community and taking inspiration from his immediate circumstances.

Other characters like Christopher ‘Kit’ Marlowe, help highlight the problem of class that still persists in many performance arts circles. By playing up Shakespeare’s need to ingratiate himself to his vapid and popular friend Marlowe, the show takes shots at the clout some artists enjoy simply by association and legacy. Yet, Marlowe’s turn is is played without malice and Shakespeare’s attempts to impress him come across as endearing. Most importantly, this show reverses some of the popular authorship theories and presents Shakespeare as having authored Marlowe’s plays for him. Fighting back against persistent shadows of doubt from conspiracy theorists disguised as literary historians, this show openly laughs at the snobbishness that questions the ability of someone from the common class to have written such delightful works.

The title of the show is an allusion to the comment made by Shakespeare’s critic and his contemporary playwright, Robert Greene, who warned his fellow university wits about the upstart crow who “beautified with our feathers… supposes he he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you.” While using the quote for the title would have been funny enough, Robert Green (played by Mark Heap) is featured as a riotous foil to Shakespeare, who makes fantastic plans and announces them to the audience in hilarious soliloquys. Playing him out as a literal mustache twirling villain creates a wonderful dynamic that adds a Shakespearean depth to the lives of the other characters that simply carry on with their lives.

Now, the obvious comparison that this show evokes is to the now legendary Black Adder, which managed to present outstanding episodes in its historic run. Only time will tell if this Upstart Crow will ever reach the same acclaim as the that show, but it is definitely headed in the right direction. Among the many TV encounters that have been shared on this site, if there is one show that exemplifies the phrase ‘must see TV’, then it is this show. Smart writing, brilliant acting and a rich world to draw interesting elements from – this show has them all. BBC has produced some of the best comedies in English through the years, and this show is a fine addition to that list. If you have the slightest doubt about the show, watch this preview of the first episode. And Wankington!

Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

Grey Is The New White – The World Of OITNB

In an age of narrative complexity in television (Jason Mittell), audiences are no strangers to moral complexity as the two often go hand in hand.  We have become familiar with characters who go from ‘good’ to ‘bad’, ones that seem capable of being both ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and even those others who are inscrutably positioned between ‘good’ and ‘bad’. My need to use scare quotes here is just one indication that we are aware of how complicated a relationship with such characters can be. Yet we seek out these relationships nonetheless. Currently, I am engaged in just one such relationship with Orange is the New Black (OITNB).

Both as a fan and as an academic, one of the reasons I enjoy this series is its ability to skilfully span a great deal of time. Television’s temporality allows for a variety of potential narrative patterns to emerge; narratives that are not simply teleological, but those which move both forward and backward, and through cycles of repetition and revision. OITNB puts television’s “ebb and flow” (Amy Holdsworth 2011:3) to ideological use as its narrative cycles force questions about the morality of its characters, the prison system, and human nature in general. But instead of leading us toward one final answer, the series takes delight in forcing us to re-evaluate our conclusions. A good illustration of this is a comparison between the season three and four finales, in the analysis of which I am indebted to Seymour Chatman’s approach to character as a paradigm of traits, in his Story and Discourse (1978).

Breaking Bad-der

Season three ended with a telling (teasing?) reference. Piper Chapman, the closest thing that the show has to a traditional protagonist, brags to her brother about her growing illicit business and her white-ink prison tattoo which proclaims “Trust no bitch”. In response, her brother delivers these comical words of advice: “Okay Pipes, while I’m really proud of how evil prison has made you, I think you’re overestimating your villain index. You’re still transitioning. You’re not Walter White yet, you’re Walter White-ink.” The reference to Breaking Bad’s famous antihero immediately elicits the question – will Piper follow in his footsteps? The trajectory certainly seems to suggest so. The traits that defined Piper as a character slowly shift from season one to season three. Piper began her prison sentence scared, weak, innocent and polite. By the end of season three she has become more powerful, while also becoming more selfish, ruthless and arrogant. She still tries to be polite though, adding to humour to scenes in which Piper attempts to balance this trait with her newly acquired toughness. The transition to villain seems to be well on its way. But is it?

Piper Shows her tattoo to her brother

From the beginning, OITNB has been self-reflexive when it comes to the television medium, making a variety of references to other shows, and the way that it deals with Piper’s character arc further illustrates that the comparison with Breaking Bad should be taken with a knowing pinch of salt. Hardly five minutes into season four’s first episode and Piper’s dominance is comically undermined. “No one knows you’re gangsta with an ‘a’”, the typically silent prisoner Chang tells her. And sure enough, as the season progresses Piper’s newly acquired power gets stripped away from her as she becomes, once again, not the perpetrator but the victim of prison conspiracies. And as this happens, the ‘negative’ traits that define Piper’s personality begin to mellow out as well. Her selfish streak is softened as she begins to again display a concern for the fates of others. By the end of the season she and her on-again, off-again girlfriend Alex have decided to try live an “easy”, quiet life, staying away from the prison’s incendiary activities. Such a turn-around may be disappointing for those who hoped that Piper would become TV’s next super-villain, but OITNB seems to have more on its mind than such a metamorphosis.

Chang throwing shade

From the beginning, the series has been preoccupied with questions about how prison life affects the individual. Are these people who they are because they are in prison, or are they in prison because of who they are? One of the first pieces of advice that Piper receives is to think of her time in prison as a mandala made out of sand: something you work hard to make meaningful but, when it’s over, it gets wiped away. But by episode ten of the first season, Piper comes to a different conclusion: speaking to a teen from the Scared Straight programme, Piper tells her that the scariest part of prison is coming face to face with who you truly are. So is this time temporary, or is it a reflection of one’s true self?  The show’s flashback structure leads us further away from arriving at any definite conclusions. Some flashbacks show us characters committing crimes that seem to warrant their prison sentence, while others reveal aspects of their personality that remain deeply buried in their prison lives. But buried does not mean forgotten. This is why a character like Piper can go through cycles where some traits become dominant while others shift to the background.

The Prison Families

In OITNB individual characters come together to form a community that is unique to this particular show. These communities are defined not only by the characters that people them, but also by the spaces they occupy and the rules and ideals they share. And just as we try to make out the traits that define characters, the community is also defined by particular traits. When Piper first enters Lichfield prison in the pilot, we see its community from her eyes: it is terrifying, imposing and unpredictable. But if we turn our attention back to season three’s finale, we can see that yet another shift has occurred. Where Piper is at her most cruel, setting up her lover Stella as punishment for stealing her money, the prison community as a whole is at its most selfless. The season ends with several miraculous coincidences – the repair of the prison’s fence, the guards going on strike – which allow the prisoners to escape through a gap in the fence onto the shores of a lake.

Breaking Boundaries

What follows is an extended sequence of pure joy in which friendships are forged, romances begun, alliances mended. But just as Piper’s tyranny doesn’t last long, neither does this emotional oasis. As the community is redefined in season four by the influx of new prisoners, new guards and new rules, the narrative moves toward a very different climax. Season four’s finale also ends with the prison community banding together, but this time not in joy but in violence, as suppressed anger and grief erupt. In a reversal of season three’s finale, miracles in this episode happen not in the present within the confines of the prison, but in the past as we witness, through flashback, a magical night prisoner Poussey had in New York shortly before her arrest. In the flashback people again display their capacity for kindness and selflessness, and these scenes are made all the more poignant due to Poussey’s death as a result of police brutality in the previous episode. The flashback also contrasts with many others in the series which show the outside world as harsh and selfish, frequently, if only partially, the cause of characters’ transgressions.

A Magical Retrospective in New York

Orange is the New Black sets up many binaries including good versus bad, inside versus outside, and criminals versus law enforcers. But these binaries are constantly blurred. Some characters become better people in prison, others worse.  However, the change need not be permanent. While the prison is a ruthless place, sometimes the outside world is even more so; and sometimes miracles happen, both inside and out of prison. This continual movement between binary extremes uses the serial format to its advantage, setting up expectations in one episode that are subverted in another. But the past is never forgotten as character and community traits, buried in memory, are recalled by new plotlines, making definitive classifications and moral judgements difficult to make. These paradigms of traits are always shifting, and as they do, a wonderful rhythm is created – both narratological and ideological – and as it moves through time the familiar extremes of black and white are whirled into ever-changing shades of grey.

Share your views and comments with ScreenEthics.com on facebook or twitter.

The contributing writer KRISTINA GRAOUR is a third-year PhD student at the Centre for Film and Media Studies at the University of Cape Town, where she also runs a seminar on television narrative. Her research interests include narratives in a variety of media, and her current PhD work examines narrative development in long-running television series.

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt – An Outstanding Comedy

Since it is the holiday season, I would like to share with you my thoughts on the most hopeful TV comedy that I watched this year – Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (Tina Fey and Robert Carlock, 2015-). This is anything but a timely piece – the two seasons have been around for a while now. However, the magic of end-of-year pieces is that you can pretty much get away with writing about anything from the year. Considering how heavy the year has been generally, Kimmy Schmidt might be the perfect throwback to a wonderful world of joy.

Unbreakably funny!

The precious few episodes of the second season lit up the screen this year, as Kimmy continues to come to terms with her past as well as negotiate living in a big city. If that sounds like every American sitcom premise ever, then you are not very wrong. There are plenty of nods, tributes and deconstructions of existing TV tropes in this well-written comedy. And yet, where some of the other attempts at self-reflexivity in comedy become cerebral and/or pretentious, Kimmy Schmidt remains intelligent without being overbearing. One of the ways in which this show stands out is the inventive method at which the titular character arrives at the sitcom premise – as cleverly explained in the opening credits before the show (yet another tongue in cheek reference to a TV sitcom tradition from the 70s and the 80s).

And while a little dated, the “songify” parody of the Bed Intruder song is a way of acknowledging the presence of the sitcom on the internet streaming portal – Netflix. But the songs only get better from here. Every well thought-out line and hidden joke adds to the rewatchability of this show, where every scene has references and intertextual links that challenge the viewer to be and become intelligent to enjoy the show even more. The rise of ridesharing app Uber, the neuroses nurtured by city living, the problem of fame, and the struggles of immigration are just some of the contemporary issues that the show engages with on a regular basis. Here are some of the posters from season 2 which again played with the conventions that have become commonplace online.

A few of the funny posters

Created by Tina Fey, the show often tempers a cynical world with hope for optimism. It is like watching that moment in a movie where the perpetually grumpy old man gives in and says, “you are okay this time, kid!” You can’t help but believe in the magic of TV a little bit. After the razor sharp wit of the consistently underrated 30 Rock, I could not believe that she seemed to aimlessly appear in Saturday Night Live skits and make movies with Amy Poehler, which despite the involvement of two of the most brilliant comedians of our times, were poorly written and barely watchable. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is a refreshing follow-up to 30 Rock, which retains much of the self-reflexivity without being burdened with the pressure of playing characters which were versions of themselves (or other real people). Besides serving as a showrunner, Tina Fey has also appeared in brilliant cameos as two different characters in the two seasons, with each line funnier than the last. Talking about cameos, her long-time cameo-collaborator Jon Hamm does a fantastic turn as the despicable doomsday cult leader – he is funny and enraging at the same time.

Of course, Ellie Kemper’s ebullience plays a big part in shaping the naivety of the story-world; which she does an amazing job of – as she never allows her character to come across as stupid, regardless of how silly or simple she behaves. And that is the most telling point about Kimmy Schmidt, that this is not a comedy about a goofball who is out of place – it is literally the story of an innocent abroad. Snatched away from the world that she knows, the worst thing that could happen has already happened to her. When Kimmy willingly throws herself into a new city and a difficult learning experience, she is a conquering hero who nudges into possibility, things that have been cast beyond her reach. But she is not a self-obsessed ego-maniac. Unlike many other sitcom protagonists, whom we would not want to meet in our real lives, Kimmy is defined by her relationships with people that she cares for. She never looks at herself as a victim, as she exceeds her capacity to give. Balancing her enthusiasm is the hilarious Tituss Burgess as Titus Andromedon. His energy and comedic timing makes him the breakout star of this show. There is no end to his insanely funny lines – but here is a start.

It is not that the other characters and themes are not worth discussing here – but I would rather that you go watch an episode of the show instead.

A Strange Company

On a parting note, I would like to talk about a different movie that bears remarkable similarity with this fantastic show. Often, when two completely different programs/movies handle the exact same situation in completely different ways., it usually results in one of them succeeding, and the other vanishing without a trace. There are a few rare cases when both works are successful in their own right, and the similarities become less self-evident, as their originality trumps their genre markers. The same premise can be interpreted in two completely opposing ways, in completely different media, resulting in very impressive, but unrelated works. I enjoy viewing such works in view of the other, as it offers a richer enjoyment of the other. The uproariously funny and soulful comedy, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt finds such company in the moving and hauntingly optimistic Room (Lenny Abrahamson, 2015). Both works are about abducted women who were stowed away in a dungeon for an extended period of time, but they cannot be further apart from each other in their tone. While the drama achieved greater recognition for evoking some of the bigger questions about the psychological impact of cruelty and isolation, the comedy allows itself to go to certain places that the drama cannot. The humor is used to sharpen the significance of the suffering as much as it is used to blunt the pain. Despite their differences, they both present an indomitable spirit in their protagonists, as both of them are remarkably Unbreakable.

Room (2015)

Which was your favorite comedy of the year? Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

Distinguishing Escobar from Pablo on Narcos

Netflix’s Narcos has become a very popular show due to its ability to present a recent, but slightly obscure historical event in a gripping narrative, replete with compelling, albeit somewhat fictional, characters. The show has not won any major awards after an explosive first season and its fans are particularly incensed with Wagner Moura being overlooked for his riveting portrayal of Pablo Escobar. Despite being an actor who speaks very little Spanish, Moura lends a menacing gravitas to the role that makes him more interesting than the real Escobar at times. While that comment is a credit to his performance, it also brings us to one of the biggest problems of watching contemporary Television—how do we reconcile the charismatic protagonist with the historical truth of Escobar’s destructiveness?

134-narcos-poster

Fictionalized drama always presents the possibility of a romantic view of its protagonists. Narcos seems to preempt this problem of representation that it creates as a result of tampering with history when it gets too boring for a TV drama, and invokes the magical cloak magical realism to justify its liberties. This move has been quite divisive as it has been critiqued for its gross misunderstanding of what magical realism is, while others see no evidence of its use other than the claim made in the show (Sepinwall). Regardless of the opinion about the narrative strategy, the notion of mythologizing Escobar seems to create a dangerous condition of engaging with the recent past while ignoring its political and historical significance. Perhaps the producers felt the need to justify their adaptation process while being sensitive to the ethical questions of representation; even if it causes further confusion in the reception of the show.

In my opinion, they need not have tried to position themselves in this ill-fitting manner, because Narcos performs a different move that stirs its audience from the illusion—use of documentary footage. The documentary footage is used in Narcos to contrast the reality of the image with the distortion of the fiction. Instead of trying to justify its fictionalization, the show performs an incisive critical function when it challenges its own fiction. Every moment of the show offers a fantastic possibility of escape where we can romanticize Pablo Escobar into a dense and inexplicable demi-god. But those moments are cut against the horrifying visuals of truth where Escobar’s actions and consequences are presented in grainy news footage from its day.

Escobar: Fiction vs. History
Escobar: Fiction vs. History

[SPOILER] This self-reflexive contrast between fact and fiction is felt intensely in the moment when Pablo Escobar is finally shot dead by the police. When the once-powerful drug-lord is finally gunned down by the Search bloc, they take a photo documenting the moment for evidence. The actor Boyd Holbrook who portrays DEA agent Steve Murphy who was present at the scene, portrays the moment in a brooding fashion, evoking the image of a classic American hero. This hero does not take pleasure in murdering anyone, even if it were the drug kingpin that terrorized Columbia for nearly a decade. After the photo is taken, Murphy walks away with a look of relief but also mixed with the exhaustion of recognizing the profundity of the historical moment when they finally got Escobar—a moment that would change Columbian history. Interestingly, the scene cuts away to the actual image of Steve Murphy holding Pablo Escobar’s body, and that moment could not be further away from what was portrayed on the show. The real Murphy wears the same shirt as seen on TV, but he looks as if he were holding a prize-animal that he and his peers had successfully hunted. There is no shadow of silent contemplation as suggested by the narrative in the show. There is just a smiling face for the camera – as if Murphy is a tourist in the worst photo spot ever. No remorse, or hesitation but a sense of accomplishment for ending a terrible force that had affected the world for a long time; or simply, the image of a man who did his job and completed his mission [SPOILER].

The photos of the scene described above are not featured in the blog due to their graphic content. Those who want to see the images side-by-side can check them out in this feature at Daily Mail.

Now, this moment is preceded and immediately followed by actions and words that are contrary to the image of the ‘real’ world that we had a quick glimpse into. The narrative is able to evoke doubt and critical distance about historical events in its viewing audience despite telling a completely different story about the fictional characters. This separation of fictionality and historical document is an achievement in itself, as it allows the text to function as a critique of itself. This strategy is used so frequently in the show that the viewers do not need a complex cue to understand the distinction. Over the course of the episodes the difference is suggested very subtly through the change of the aspect ratio from 16:9 (Widescreen HD) for the fiction, and 4:3 (pre-widescreen TV ratio).

Moura's Pablo is more likable than the historical Escobar
Moura’s Pablo is more likable than the historical Escobar

It is not to say that documentary footage cannot be used to construct fiction or manipulate its audience. Since all images are mediated, they tell the story that they are positioned to tell. Even Narcos uses the authenticity of visuals as a way of telling a fabrication. Besides, there is an indisputable truth that Muora’s Pablo is infinitely more likable than the historical figure. There does not even seem to be an attempt at hiding this manipulation as we see the story being compressed from well over a decade to the narrative span of a couple of years. However, the argument here is that by drawing attention to the nature of the image used, the show evokes different modes of viewing in its audience. Of course, when the lines between documentary and fiction are blurred, the very blending prompts the audience to separate history as it happened and as the characters want it to be. This blending of footage is done only once in a significant way, after the audience have become familiar with the show’s practice of shifting the aspect ratio. The show played with the significance by presenting fictional elements as if they were documentary evidence in the episode “Al Fin Cayo!” (2.10). The episode opens with Escobar’s face featured in posters in a grainy 4:3 frame. The surreal moment announces that Escobar is president of Columbia, and he will be arriving at the presidential palace. The black panels on the sides of screen slowly widens, revealing this moment to be a dream. But it is a dream which was close to a kind of reality that Escobar had struggled to attain throughout his life. In that moment, the show reveals his desire for recognition and legitimacy in a way that other documentary moments do not communicate. Of course, this is a trick, a manipulation of the viewing experience. But its use and the subsequent revealing of the use makes the audience look at the moment differently and appreciate the world that Pablo Escobar wanted to belong to.

Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

Stranger Things: Optimism in Horror

Ever so often, there are discussions about the changing nature of television in the context of OTT (Over-The-Top) services such as internet streaming video and internet digital download/rental. And yet, shows like Stranger Things (Duffer Brothers, Netflix, 2016-) remind us how the TV experience still remains a largely collective one. While the manner of the collective viewing has shifted from simultaneous (scheduled programs at scheduled times) to viral (based on quick, social media recommendations) the impact of a specific TV program becoming part of the ‘water-cooler’ conversation remains unchanged. Shows like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones jumped from being niche/prestige programming to must-watch TV due to this viral mode of TV watching-awareness. This change has also allowed for a wider variety of TV programs to hit the screens, and is there a better example than Stranger Things to show just how broad and amazingly weird mainstream TV content has become. Who would have thought that a show set in the 80s about government conspiracies, inter-dimensional monsters, children with super-abilities would capture the imagination of so many people? Stranger Things has quickly become the kind of show that the audience did not even know they needed until they started watching it. What makes this show so special?

130-stranger-things-title

Optimism Against Cynicism

The most striking thing about Stranger Things is its unabashed optimism that is clearly infectious to the audience. By presenting five young children at the center of the murky events, the show brings a lightness that would be otherwise out of place in that dark and terrifying setting. While some prestige shows that evoke such horror preempt the audience and align our viewing towards a tragic and devastating conclusion, we cannot help but think to ourselves – that no matter how bad it gets, these kids would not fail. If you think about that sentiment a little longer, you realize that you are hoping that the kids would not fail, that they would not get caught, and they would somehow, improbable as it may, stick it to the Man. This viewing experience is completely devoid of cynicism as we root for the children unambiguously. We dread the danger that they are going to get into and our fear is fueled by how comically under-prepared they actually are to face the impending danger. Despite this, we do not want the kids to lose against machine – not just because they are children, but because they show heart, courage and unflinching loyalty in a way that only eleven year olds can show.

Millie Bobby Brown, Gaten Matarazzo and Finn Wolfhard
Millie Bobby Brown, Gaten Matarazzo and Finn Wolfhard

Nostalgia as Tribute

The Millenial audience that grew up during the 80s and the 90s would squeal with joy with the many nostalgia-inducing references, from the basic frame plot of E.T., to other children-led adventures like The Goonies and Stand By Me. The innocent hero of the 80s is a special trope which aims at the younger audience by presenting young heroes. The Spielberg nod is very reminiscent of the 2011 sci-fi adventure, Super 8. And Stranger Things‘ longer run time of eight episodes makes us feel that Super 8 was short-changed due its format as a movie. Of course it was enjoyable, but one can only wonder how much more developed the characters would have been if it had a broader canvas to play with. Every cleverly placed poster and every evocative frame pays homage to something that has come before it, and yet cleverly manipulates it to elicit a different kind of a reaction.

Christmas Lights.
Christmas Lights.

But the 80s aesthetic is augmented with some of the most chilling and mature uses of horror beats – things that you would not find in The Goonies or E.T. Again, emulating Super 8 before it, Stranger Things mixes harsh elements of government agencies and amoral villains with the nostalgia. In that sense, this show is not a simple throwback to the 80s, but a reimagination of 80s that is enjoyable to the 2010s audience. The gee-whiz attitude is transported with a little more self-awareness and inventiveness. We are surprised when the predictable teenagers (Nancy and Jonathan) decide to seek justice and try to solve problems rather than precipitate them. The government is portrayed as truly sinister, instead of just meddling and muddling. Yes, this is 80s throwback, but it is a lot more than that.

130-stranger-things-flicker

Lovable Underdogs

Perhaps the most accomplished aspect of Stranger Things is in its cast of protagonists, who have each shown strength in the face of adversity.  In the 2000s Hollywood abandoned the underdog in favor of the ‘Super’human and the expert (think Jason Bourne, Iron Man or Wonder Woman – human beings at the pinnacle of their abilities. One of the worst examples of this trend is the ultimate underdog, John McClane who was inexplicably recast as an expert in the last two movies). Even experts from the 90s were vulnerable due to the sheer scale of the event (Dr. Alan Grant in Jurassic Park), but the current crop of movies increasingly present non-experts acting and speaking like experts of situations that they have never been in before (Chris Pratt’s Owen Grady in Jurassic World). Stranger Things gets a perfect set of protagonists not by reducing their vulnerability to simply something that needs to be overcome in order to reach the price – but by integrating the vulnerability as a part of their decision-making process. The most striking, and unlikely example is the deconstructed ‘Macho’ hero, Steve Harrington – whose every action is intuitive, and yet he challenges his intuitive response to go back and do the ‘right thing’. Steve is a minor player in the show, and yet he is characterized with enough layers to eventually become interesting. More primary figures, like Joyce Byers (Winona Ryder’s brilliant, resilient neurotic) or the down on his luck Police Chief Hopper (David Harbour), lend dignity under the great duress. But of course, it is the children who shine spectacularly. Millie Bobby Brown’s Eleven is the right mix of childish innocence and jaded warrior. Despite being the character with the most ability in the show, she is framed with her vulnerability – in her language (re)acquisition, in her craving for processed food, and her complete loneliness. Eleven’s attempts at connecting with the world through her friends is the most endearing thing in the show.

When monsters come knocking - you smile and kick ass.
When monsters come knocking – you smile and kick ass.

Share your comments and views with ScreenEthics.com through facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.

Death Between Seasons: Predestination, Dignity and Fargo

The following post contains some SPOILERS for the FX series, Fargo seasons 1 and 2.

The second season of the critically acclaimed TV series Fargo goes back a couple of decades and focuses on the earlier life of state trooper Lou Solverson (now played by Patrick Wilson, replacing Keith Carradine) and his family. For those who have seen the first season, the introduction to his family is both a pleasant moment of familiarity as well as a dreadful moment of recognition – because while we are happy to see little Molly, who will become a great cop in her own right, we also know that his wife, Betsy Solverson (Cristin Milioti) will inevitably succumb to her cancer. We are introduced to her kindness, her charisma, and her toughness, all the while forced to reckon with the inevitable death that is coming for her. It is not just the sympathy that we have for the character in our present recognition of her suffering, but our guilt at the foreknowledge of her fate that she herself does not know of. And yet, seated in front of the TV, neither can we tell her about it, nor do we want her to find out that her struggles are going to be in vain.

Fargo (2014-), FX.
Fargo (2014-), FX.

The absolute knowledge of the character’s death is one of the most uncomfortable things to look forward to in a story. It could be a mythological or historical plot where the inevitable tragedy adds a layer of perspective and sympathy as we watch the futile confidence and mirth that the prime of that character’s life brings to them. One of the reasons behind our anxiety is the inversion of the truth – that while all people must die, all characters don’t have to. A character lives only until the moment we last see them in a story – at the verge of death, or at the peak of their lives, the moment the story ends, the characters are permanently fixed. But once the character’s death is written into the story world, it marks their exit as a permanent feature as well. Even within the magically infinite world of art, they are frozen and discarded for the necessity of the plot. We can continue caring for them, but only in a past tense, with a fixed knowledge of their death.

Betsy and Lou Solverson (Christina Miloti and Patrick Wilson).
Betsy and Lou Solverson (Christina Miloti and Patrick Wilson).

And that burden is compounded when a character marked by death is alive in a recollection of the past. Of course, the episodes of Fargo series 2 seem very aware of this foreknowledge. In this world Betsy is already suffering from cancer and she is getting progressively worse over the episodes. In one of the episodes she collapses in the kitchen and we brace ourselves for the worst. As we prepare to say goodbye to one of the most sympathetic characters in a largely corrupt world, the show displays restraint by not forcibly driving the plot to have her die. Fargo is not a series that has shied away from brutal violence and character deaths, as many of the primary characters are vulnerable throughout the series. However, Betsy’s presence runs almost independently of the “main plot” of murderous intrigue, and that makes her vulnerability far more sympathetic. The decision to let Betsy survive this tumultuous season acknowledges and respects her position. It is as if the narrative conveying to the viewer that, yes, she will die; but she does not have to die in this final moment of this season. Between now and the beginning of the next story-time, she will pass on, but it does not have to be that the event of her death has to happen within this time. There is a great level of humaneness in that decision that is surprisingly rare in TV worlds that rush to have a finality in their actions.

Down, but not out.
Down, but not out.

In this interval between the seasons, the narrative is left in a state of hope and promise. Yes, we – the audience – are aware of what is coming for her. But we are also left in a moment of surprise when the inevitable is averted by the narrative seriality. The series cloaks her death in an intimate privacy that is dignified and protected from the audience. Betsy is a fictional character, but in her conscious existence within the universe of the TV series is treated as something that deserves a humane and sensitive presentation. Rather than exploit her demise for a moment onscreen drama, she is preserved in life and vulnerability, in our memory. It is these subtle touches that make Fargo such a remarkable and mature series to me. Of course she is going to pass on, but just not yet.

What are the most remarkable off-screen character deaths that you remember? Share your thoughts and views about TV encounters with ScreenEthics.com on facebook or twitter.

SARAVANAN MANI is editor and contributing writer here at ScreenEthics.com. He is a graduate student at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pursuing a PhD in English focusing on American Crime Television.