Mike says Monk is fun blend of classic and new--it finds a way to pay homage to the mystery shows of the past, while providing a modern, interesting, and believable take on the detective and just WHY he's so good at what he does.
That Monk was always meant to a series of stand-alone mysteries is evident from the first moment of the pilot; we never see the old friend that called Monk, or hear the conversation that convinced him to venture out of his apartment. Instead, the show starts us right in the middle of the action, with nothing to do but watch to see what's going to happen.
This can be a very clever and effective way to start a story (Star Wars: A New Hope will always be the trend setter for this). Immediately the viewer is hooked and hungry for what's about to happen. The focus is on the story, the action, and regrettably, not the character--maybe the character's actions, but who he is and why isn't really important: it's more of a side note, a gimmick, something to help the story progress and stay fun.
Tony Shalhoub is great, perfect even, as Monk. He's sweet, he's funny, and a blast to watch. He brings real soul the character, and really makes the show work in many ways. The trouble though, is that as a character, Monk really isn't used; he's much more of a device: The crazy detective the progresses the story. Sure we can like him, and he does win our affections, but overall his needs are much less important than the needs of the story.
The action/mystery shows of the 70's and 80 had little resembling an ongoing story or continuity. Sure, certain established facts might stay true, but what happened in a previous episode hardly ever impacted the next. Injuries would be healed, buildings repaired, new friends forgotten. Monk definitely channels this era while still playing to the modern viewer; a hinted bigger mystery (that take EIGHT YEARS to solve) is offered to tie it all together.
I liked Monk a lot, and I've seen several episodes through the years and I have always been fond of the show. Enough so that when I watched the finale a year or so ago, I wasn't lost at all. I understood everything. The trouble was, I don't know if a finale of a show should be that way.
When I die, if a random stranger were to come to my funeral, I would hope he'd have no idea what anyone was talking about or referring to. I like to think that I, as a person, and my life, was complicated enough to require more than brief snippets to understand me.
A series, and its main characters, should be much the same way. Monk was on the air for EIGHT years... and how much did he change? Did the viewers go on an emotional journey? With Monk, I think it's more likely that those who spent that hour a week with him enjoyed that hour, but then moved on with their everyday lives. Should TV be light and free of emotional baggage? Or should it be an experience that you carry and ponder for a period of time?
In the end, it comes down to preference. If you want an hour's entertainment, Monk is it. It's funny, it's heartfelt, and amazingly well made. But, it doesn't really stick with me. Sure, I enjoyed it. But a Monk episode is crafted so well, that there's nothing left when the episode is over, no lose ends, no unresolved feelings or lessons, which leaves me thinking "So.... what am I watching next?"
Kate says I forgot what a great physical actor Tony Shalhoub is!
I haven't kept up with Monk (I watched through Season 4 or 5). Although I'm a big fan of tidy little mysteries, mystery shows that run out of mysteries pose something of a problem, especially when the fall-back position is the strangeness of the main character. So in eight years, this guy doesn't improve at all? Granted, people rarely change completely, but they will change somewhat!
Still, I think Monk deserves its success. The pilot is a good example of how well-designed the show is: mystery and plot development are seamlessly combined to produced a well-paid-off mystery that introduces us to a specific detective's character.
Monk is less acerbic than in later episodes. He is extremely fun to watch especially when he solves the mystery. Like David Suchet (Poirot), his bright brown eyes will actually twinkle (it isn't just a figure of speech!). You can see the pleasure that he takes in his ability to solve the problem.
I like acerbic Monk too: "I'm going to follow the money. Ooh, I always wanted to say that!"
Regarding his assistants, I like Traylor Howard (Natalie), but I do think Bitty Shram (Sharona) was the right assistant to start the show with. The early Monk episodes needed that tough, no-nonsense persona to voice what the audience is thinking. Once the audience starts to love Monk, that persona could be replaced by the more dead-pan Natalie.
Stanley Kamel as Dr. Kroger was inspired, and I still miss him. He was one of those bit parts that really made the show work. (Sadly, he left the show because he died. He was only 65. By the way, one of his brothers IS a doctor!) I want to add that I really admire actors like this--I admire how they "make it" in Hollywood, not by being big or flashy but by working hard and being competent. I feel the same way about DeForest Kelley and David McCallum. Both of these latter men did make it big, but they did it by working steadily and by accepting any job (within reason) that came along from bit parts to voices on animated shows. I really, really admire this.
Jason Gray-Stanford is very good (and in later seasons provides some truly hilarious comedy as the bumbling side-kick), and I happen to consider Ted Levine one of the sexiest men on the planet.
The relationship between Ted Levine's character, Stottlemeyer, and Monk is one of the few motifs that isn't carried over from the pilot. The relationship in the pilot is much more tense and much less friendly than it is portrayed later on. Stottlemeyer is used well, but the writers backed away from any really overt tension. On the one hand, I'm grateful: angry people doesn't sit well with me. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder where they intended to take it. (The issues are used later, just never to the extent implied in the pilot.)
Last of all, I must add that I like pilot Trudy way better than all the other Trudys used in the show. Pilot Trudy was exactly the way Monk describes her while all the other Trudys seem like Martha Stewart hostess types. Pilot Trudy, however, is a gamin: a gentle ethereal creature which is how she is supposed to be. Trudy is the dreamy romantic poet who saw Monk for exactly what he could be.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mike: I think you do a good job capturing the attraction of the character-driven versus plot-driven show.
I have a total yen for plot-driven shows. I like to relax when I watch television: here's a story, now it's done, isn't that nice. I become extremely annoyed if I think a show is trying to demand anything else from me.
On the other hand, I have found that a dearth of character development (or character development that doesn't work) starts to bore me (with the exception of Columbo: I can watch him in an infinite number of settings without expecting him to change).
I did get tired to Monk because it was the same old same old. And although I adore (and own) Lois & Clark, the show was hurt because the characters didn't develop as quickly as the plot. I like that the writers were willing to bring Lois & Clark together romantically: they just didn't know what to do with them when they did. The Buffy writers had the same problem with Buffy as an adult; they changed the setting; they didn't really get Buffy to grow up.
One of my favorite shows that does both plot and character development with an emphasis on plot is Numb3rs. The episodes are (mostly) individual mysteries, but the brothers change and progress, especially Don, throughout the seasons.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I despise mystery shows that run out of mysteries and start just making the characters do crazy things. But then, I think Mike would agree, that sort of thing isn't really character development; that's just lazy plotting.
Like many shows, Monk dipped about two thirds through it's run. In some ways it became a parody of itself. Psych did a similar thing, though not as bad. However, it did pick up at the end and had some really good shows at the end.
I didn't like the "Judy" episodes. I don't think there ever was much of a mystery there, just yet another conspiracy plot and I find those so tiresome.
Speaking of same old, same old, if you watch Bewitched or the old Perry Mason, there were times they didn't even bother trying to make an episode like an old one, they just reused the script!
Having characters change is a real challenge. It sounds so simple, but it can, and has, create a show nobody wants to watch. If Captain Kirk suddenly decided to be a family man and took a desk job at Starfleet Headquarters, that would make for a very boring show. On the other hand, Riker staying on the Enterprise became increasingly absurd.
Stargate SG-1 did this fairly well.
I completely agree about Stargate! In fact, I think Stargate's handling of Daniel is a perfect example of how to make character work for a plot-driven show. Like Monk, Daniel's motive at the beginning of the show is to save his wife, but at a remarkably early point in the series (Season 3), the writers decided that this motive was becoming increasingly negligible. So they just changed the premise and gave Daniel a new (plausible) motive. This motive changed in Season 4 (when the boy is found). By this point in the series, the viewer totally believes in Daniel's reasons for staying (as we never really did with Riker).
I think you suggested once, Joe, that Riker's continual presence on the Enterprise could easily be explained if the writers had put the horse before the cart and written the mutiny episode at the BEGINNING of the series, not at the end. It's almost as if they said, "Wow, maybe we need to create a past for this guy to explain his lack of promotion; yeah, yeah, let's do that . . . in Season 6." (This was only slightly less annoying than the Buffy writers trying to rewrite the Xander-Anya wedding episode to make it more plausible: writers cleaning up after themselves!)
The Stargate people are remarkable because they considered so many of the long-term problems beforehand.
I've come tor really enjoy British shows lately, and high budget cable shows. Because of the smaller episode order, the story can be better managed, more self contained, and better paced. As these season are often structured more like a mini series, the have everything filmed before they air it, and know exactly what the want to tell.
Standard American shows are much different, as the show is on the air as it's being made, and often the end of the season hasn't been written yet. While they may sometimes have an idea, the beginning and the end often don't match up (looking at you, Smallville).
and with the greater number of episodes, they try to appeal to both types of audience by have stand alone episodes and ongoing episodes. Buffy pulled this off well, but Smallville is so infuriating when they do it that I still haven't finished last season. Clark breathes in wish granting kryptonite, and Lois becomes his housewife? really? ugh.
There's not really a prime example of a show out there that has a flawless record when it comes to their continuity. Even Babylon 5, which was preplanned, wandered a little, and network intervention changed the eventual ending of the show.
The main problem, as I mentioned, is the length of the show- right now quantity really take precedence over quality- 22 episodes is too much to tell the story, so they have to fill in.
I think all shows should cut down, like the BBC, to allow for solid story telling and more manageable story arcs.
Post a Comment