Do you agree with Alan Ball's belief on TV relationships?

[stj]

The pro-Ball people seem to be moving the goal posts. Bolding added to remind people what we're really talking about.

As he mentioned more than once, happy, functional relationships are boring on TV. The best relationships on TV shows are the ones filled with drama, difficulty, and conflict with temporary moments of happiness and that the only time everyone should get happy is the end of the series.

It's almost certain that "drama" means big emo, acting out scenes. Histrionics are not drama. The constant reduction of so-called drama to the question of which one wins forgets that nobody wins the game of life. And the notion of winning the game of love is kind of cracked too. Most of all, the notion that functinal relationships don't have conflicts is nuts. As far as this discussion is concerned, we have people ignoring the original post to put up a straw man of totally harmonious relationships. When the straw man falls, they presume the default, which is that all interesting relationships are dysfunctional.

This is absurd. When people persist in saying something ridiculous, I can only think they mean something else. In this case (which is the prevailing standard, especially amongst the hacks!) the pettiness and arbitrariness of the supposedly dramatic conflicts are boring, because they are so petty and arbitrary. The only way to accept them is if you are convinced that all relationships are dysfunctional, there is no such thing as happiness, that miserable narcissism is the human condition. Or if you vicariously enjoy the winners in these trivial contests.

If Ball actually said something more sensible, no one has bothered to clarify.

As to the meaning of "coming out of the closet," Chris Cooper admits his character's love for Kevin Spacey's character, and this inevitably leads to murder. This is hysteria, not drama. I suppose some of the people who thought American Beauty was a great work of art thought this was a natural progression. To my eye, it's a fine example of the stupidity of the attitude expressed in the original post!

 

[Australis]

And the OP hasn't returned. This is getting to be a habit.

 

[bigdaddy]

No, love triangles are not the norm.

Really? You aren't living enough and have never taken a science class.

As to the meaning of "coming out of the closet," Chris Cooper admits his character's love for Kevin Spacey's character, and this inevitably leads to murder. This is hysteria, not drama. I suppose some of the people who thought American Beauty was a great work of art thought this was a natural progression. To my eye, it's a fine example of the stupidity of the attitude expressed in the original post!

Wow... Just seeing what you like to aren't you?

His character was always gay and just hid it, it's why he was such a homophobe because he was afraid people would find out he likes cock. It was built in his anger, his abuse and his lie went on for so long that once he found a guy who he thought was just like him (Closet gay, is only married for looks) who was happy he expressed himself to him. It turns out he was wrong so he went to the place he normally does to hide his gayness and that was violence and in this case murder.

Fits the story perfectly to me.

 

[darthraidr]

Tonight's episode of Friday Night Lights (The Lights of Carroll Park) once again shows what an amazing relationship the Taylors have.

If you haven't watched the show, do yourself a favor and watch it (it's streaming on Netflix, and the last 5 episodes are on Hulu). Don't let a fear of football turn you away from an amazing show.

 

[Kegg]

The pro-Ball people seem to be moving the goal posts. Bolding added to remind people what we're really talking about.

As he mentioned more than once, happy, functional relationships are boring on TV. The best relationships on TV shows are the ones filled with drama, difficulty, and conflict with temporary moments of happiness and that the only time everyone should get happy is the end of the series.

What we really need is a verbatim quote from Ball himself. Does he think that happy functional relationships are inherently boring or are acceptable when they're not whatever is driving the plot?

That said, uh, I saw the first season of Six Feet Under years ago. Enjoyed it immensely; and I thought the conflict driven relationship with Michael C. Hall's character and that cop was pretty interesting (though tertiary to the relationship between some unshaven Hollywood lead and some woman he met which I've entirely forgotten).

And I'd be hard pressed to name a favourite TV relationship that isn't very conflict driven. Sam Malone and Diane Chambers, for example; probably my favourite comedy romance and it's explosive to degrees so ridiculous it almost seemed to be self-parodying its own destructiveness at times.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And I'd be hard pressed to name a favourite TV relationship that isn't very conflict driven.

That's because relationships get screen time to the degree they are conflict driven. If they are mostly conflict, there's the potential for a lot of screen time. If they are mostly serene, the potential for screen time is only in the small moments of conflict.

For example: Awesome and Ellie on Chuck. Their relationship seems mostly good, but we don't see the good because there's nothing to show there. We know about the good, but the story doesn't bother with that part - the good is just backstory. We see the parts when there's some drama - a misunderstanding, a difference of viewpoint about what they should do, Awesome knows about Chuck and Ellie doesn't, etc.

It's not just relationships, it's every element of a story. Drama = conflict. You don't see the car when it's in the garage. You see it when it's involved in a car chase or flying off a cliff. Does anyone really want to look at a car sitting in a garage? I'd change the channel and so would you.

 

[stj]

The position attributed to Ball in the original post, when couched in the car metaphor, is not don't bore us by showing us the car in the garage. Ball's purported position is, don't ever show the car just driving along, just show it in a car chase or flying off a cliff.

 

[RJDiogenes]

That's a faulty metaphor. It would be more like, never show the car shiny and clean and in good running condition; but rather always show it in the garage, broken down with the windows smashed.

 

[Anwar]

Exactly, I mean what's the point if the relationship is ALWAYS going to be a conflicted one and we NEVER see any real good in it? Then the only point is to keep coming back for the hope that maybe it will have some good to it, meaningless when Ball's point is that we should never ever see it when it's even remotely in the good. May as well not watch it at all.

 

[DevilEyes]

This discussion is just dancing around the issue of what is the story about? It's about the conflict. It's always about the conflict.

Again, nonsense. A story can focus on the relationship between two friends when one is dying of cancer, or the relationship between a father and daughter after the mother dies, or the bonding between an old hobo and a young runaway, or a henpecked husband and his regular prostitute-- or any of the near-infinite number of other relationships that Human Beings can find themselves in. I have no idea who Alan Ball is, but he must be just the typical lazy TV writer to voice an opinion like this. That type of forced, artificial conflict is what makes so much contemporary entertainment so boring.

Yes, it's pretty obvious you have no idea who he is, since he's very far from being a "typical lazy TV writer". Well you're on Internet, so it's pretty easy to find out. There's Google, there's IMDB...

If you still won't bother visiting those websites, Alan Ball won an Oscar for his screenplay for American Beauty (IMO one of the few Best Picture Oscar winners of the last 2 decades that actually deserved it) and created Six Feet Under and True Blood. Six Feet Under was about family and relationships, and it didn't feel forced or artificial, and is IMO one of all-time best TV dramas.

That said, uh, I saw the first season of Six Feet Under years ago. Enjoyed it immensely; and I thought the conflict driven relationship with Michael C. Hall's character and that cop was pretty interesting (though tertiary to the relationship between some unshaven Hollywood lead and some woman he met which I've entirely forgotten).

Well, I happen to think that the 'unshaven Hollywood lead' and 'some woman he met' were incredibly compelling characters, especially 'the woman he met' (i.e. Rachel Griffiths), who might have been the most interesting character on the show... except maybe for her 'crazy brother'. But then I also really loved the 'redhead teenage sister' and her relationships with screwed-up guys like the 'no-good boyfriend' and the 'sexually ambiguous boyfriend', as well as 'Michael C. Hall' and 'the cop', 'the mother', her friendship with 'Kathy Bates' and her relationship with her 'artist sister', and last but not least, the 'dead dad'.

(Of course, since SFU is one of my all-time favorites, I know all the characters's names, but it's more fun trying to fit into this way of talking...)

But a huge part of the show were of course the fantasy scenes, the deaths of the week and the guest stars mourning their dead and the way those deaths were interwoven with the rest of the things going on in the episode.

 

[Kegg]

If you still won't bother visiting those websites, Alan Ball won an Oscar for his screenplay for American Beauty (IMO one of the few Best Picture Oscar winners of the last 2 decades that actually deserved it)

Them's fighting words considering the Coen Brothers won one of those awards (more then one if we're counting screenplays.)

(Of course, since SFU is one of my all-time favorites, I know all the characters's names, but it's more fun trying to fit into this way of talking...)

Naturally. Heck I remembered the names when I was actually watching the show, but that was a long time ago. The unshaven lead honestly just struck me as your usual feckless handsome playboy type character only now he's got to be saddled with the family business. He strikes of casual relationship with woman which becomes serious for reasons I forget. Michael C. Hall's diligent and repressed gay character I just found a lot more interesting (full disclosure: Something of a Michael C. Hall fanboy? Yes I am); and as such his relationship with the cop is the only one I remember that well... but hell, to give Ball credit where it's due, it was a pretty interesting relationship, though most of the conflict came from Hall's characters wrestling with his own demons. He wants to be the good observant boy, closeting up his rather inconvenient emotions, screwing up his life by holding himself to standards that not even his father's ghost was really watching around for.

Generally, though, it was a pretty excellent season of TV. I didn't watch the other seasons simply on laziness on my part (I was gifted the first season boxset and couldn't be bothered to shell cash for the subsequent years, I planned to get around to it, eventually... point of fact, I finally did so last week. I need more Michael C. Hall.)

 

[darthraidr]

SFU was okay... i havent seen the last two seasons, but the seasons i did see were okay. good, but not great. each season had a strength, and a weakness. the season that followed didnt play up the past strengths, created some new ones, and managed to introduce new weaknesses. but that is all my opinion.

the best relationships in that show were the family bonds. the extended families all fell into the "only conflict will make it interesting." and imho, they werent interesting.

i have no doubt it is hard to write a happy and interesting couple. if it were easy, you'd see more happy interesting couples on tv.

FNL takes the hard path and if pays off. i'd like to hear from people that have seen FNL and still feel that "happy, functional relationships are boring on TV. The best relationships on TV shows are the ones filled with drama, difficulty, and conflict with temporary moments of happiness and that the only time everyone should get happy is the end of the series."

because really, after watching FNL, it's easy to call BS on that statement.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Some people are married to their TVs... Oh wait, that's not what you meant is it?

This song was seen in Buffy, I think, but it was originally written about the singer's TV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePiKPfHoweM

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The position attributed to Ball in the original post, when couched in the car metaphor, is not don't bore us by showing us the car in the garage. Ball's purported position is, don't ever show the car just driving along, just show it in a car chase or flying off a cliff.

A car driving placidly along the road is no more interesting than one sitting in a garage.

Here's an experiment: Describe a scene of a car driving along the road, that anyone would want to see in a movie.

It would be more like, never show the car shiny and clean and in good running condition; but rather always show it in the garage, broken down with the windows smashed.

Either type of car could be an interesting start for a story. The shiny, clean one got there because some guy spent the rent money on it and the family is about to be evicted. The smashed one was destroyed by the teenage kid, who is now in trouble. But both of those are just beginnings; you can't just film the damn car sitting there for two hours. You show it for 30 seconds and them move on to the actual story.

A story can focus on the relationship between two friends when one is dying of cancer, or the relationship between a father and daughter after the mother dies, or the bonding between an old hobo and a young runaway, or a henpecked husband and his regular prostitute-- or any of the near-infinite number of other relationships that Human Beings can find themselves in.

Every single one of those examples has inherent conflict, so you're just proving my point.

FNL takes the hard path and if pays off. i'd like to hear from people that have seen FNL and still feel that "happy, functional relationships are boring on TV. The best relationships on TV shows are the ones filled with drama, difficulty, and conflict with temporary moments of happiness and that the only time everyone should get happy is the end of the series."

I've never seen that particular series, but I'd be astonished if it somehow operated under radically different rules than the ones I do watch, all of which derive their drama from conflict, familial or otherwise. They include: Dexter, Futurama, Big Love, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Caprica, V, Chuck and the late lamented Lost.

 

[stj]

A car driving placidly along the road is no more interesting than one sitting in a garage.

Here's an experiment: Describe a scene of a car driving along the road, that anyone would want to see in a movie.

A car is driving along a road. It comes to an intersection. Which way does it turn?

A car chase is not especially interesting after you've seen them in a lot of movies and tv shows. In fact, their boringness for me is one reason I usually prefer scifi. Cars falling off cliffs are even downright irritating because they almost invariably explode like a tactical nuke, which is just stupid. Stepping back from the metaphor a moment, lots of dysfunctional relationships and conflicts in the Ball mode (including in Six Feet Under,) are dull because they are petty or arbitrary or both.

Part of the problem is that nonsense about conflict being drama. It's not, otherwise every boxing match or horse race would be a drama. Comedy is about conflict, from the conflict between meanings in the lowly pun, all the way up to more elevated forms.

Drama is about choice. If the characters are trapped without choices due to the flaws in their nature, it's classical tragedy. If they're trapped without choices by their society, it's modern drama. If the choices are trivial, it's melodrama.

What Ball was supposed to have said reminds me very much of a remark from Jack Williamson, a great pulp SF writer. He said his stories were very simple: He chased his hero up a tree, then threw rocks at him. Poor old Jack lived when such pulpiness was regarded as an inferior form of writing, while Ball is fortunate enough to live when it is regarded as character driven.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

A car is driving along a road. It comes to an intersection. Which way does it turn?

That's conflict!

Part of the problem is that nonsense about conflict being drama. It's not, otherwise every boxing match or horse race would be a drama.

Simple: all drama is conflict. Not all conflict is drama, particularly not the conflict that happens in real life. Do I have to explain now that drama means fiction and not real life?

Drama is about choice.

Drama is about choice which is not obvious or easy, in other words, conflict. If the choice is easy, the audience is bored. If the choice is difficult and conflict-generating, you can create drama from that.

 

[stj]

Conflict is not a synonym for choice. Conflicts either have a winner and a loser, or a truce. Choices do not have to have a winner or a loser, or end in a truce.

A functional relationship can meet a challenge, finances when a child is sick, perhaps. The partners can work together to make the choices to deal with the situtation. The interesting thing is what each wants and thinks and how they work together. Calling this a "conflict" implies the interest is in whether they win. This is a very narrow view.

Also, unless you are determined to insist there is no difference between comedy and drama, you really must reserve conflict as the essence of comedy, not drama. The escape of conflict, then its happy resolution is what happens in comedy. They say humor is aggression. That's conflict.

 

[Sci]

Conflict is not a synonym for choice. Conflicts either have a winner and a loser, or a truce. Choices do not have to have a winner or a loser, or end in a truce.

But all choices have costs that have to be weighed against their benefits -- there's conflict right there. Does the opportunity cost or the option win the fight over which is chosen?

 

[DarthPipes]

The position attributed to Ball in the original post, when couched in the car metaphor, is not don't bore us by showing us the car in the garage. Ball's purported position is, don't ever show the car just driving along, just show it in a car chase or flying off a cliff.

A car driving placidly along the road is no more interesting than one sitting in a garage.

Here's an experiment: Describe a scene of a car driving along the road, that anyone would want to see in a movie.

It would be more like, never show the car shiny and clean and in good running condition; but rather always show it in the garage, broken down with the windows smashed.

Either type of car could be an interesting start for a story. The shiny, clean one got there because some guy spent the rent money on it and the family is about to be evicted. The smashed one was destroyed by the teenage kid, who is now in trouble. But both of those are just beginnings; you can't just film the damn car sitting there for two hours. You show it for 30 seconds and them move on to the actual story.

A story can focus on the relationship between two friends when one is dying of cancer, or the relationship between a father and daughter after the mother dies, or the bonding between an old hobo and a young runaway, or a henpecked husband and his regular prostitute-- or any of the near-infinite number of other relationships that Human Beings can find themselves in.

Every single one of those examples has inherent conflict, so you're just proving my point.

FNL takes the hard path and if pays off. i'd like to hear from people that have seen FNL and still feel that "happy, functional relationships are boring on TV. The best relationships on TV shows are the ones filled with drama, difficulty, and conflict with temporary moments of happiness and that the only time everyone should get happy is the end of the series."

I've never seen that particular series, but I'd be astonished if it somehow operated under radically different rules than the ones I do watch, all of which derive their drama from conflict, familial or otherwise. They include: Dexter, Futurama, Big Love, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Caprica, V, Chuck and the late lamented Lost.

Eric and Tami Taylor on Friday Night Lights have the best chemistry of any "married" couple on televsion. They are proof that you don't need to fight every episode or have to focus on saving your marriage to be interesting. They face challenges like any other couple but they don't spend entire seasons miserable and unhappy. Add to that that both Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton are great actors.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It would be more like, never show the car shiny and clean and in good running condition; but rather always show it in the garage, broken down with the windows smashed.

Either type of car could be an interesting start for a story. The shiny, clean one got there because some guy spent the rent money on it and the family is about to be evicted. The smashed one was destroyed by the teenage kid, who is now in trouble. But both of those are just beginnings; you can't just film the damn car sitting there for two hours. You show it for 30 seconds and them move on to the actual story.

What you're saying is correct, but it doesn't map to what this writer is saying. He's saying that the car must start out all smashed up and be all smashed up when the story ends-- except maybe get fixed for a while in the middle to give false hope and make the ending more depressing.

A story can focus on the relationship between two friends when one is dying of cancer, or the relationship between a father and daughter after the mother dies, or the bonding between an old hobo and a young runaway, or a henpecked husband and his regular prostitute-- or any of the near-infinite number of other relationships that Human Beings can find themselves in.

Every single one of those examples has inherent conflict, so you're just proving my point.

There may be conflict in the strict storytelling sense, but not in the simplistic sense that this writer is describing. In all my examples, the interest and pleasure would be in watching the relationships unfold and develop-- and none of them need to be dysfunctional to be interesting or pleasurable. The point here is that, based on the original quote at least, this guy has a very narrow, adolescent view of characterization and storytelling (which is, unfortunately, typical of the type of storytelling we see in the media nowadays).