Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, August 14, 1994 TAG: 9408130017
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAMES ENDRST THE HARTFORD COURANT
DATELINE: HOLLYWOOD LENGTH: Medium
And now I'm warning you.
The next time you turn on your television set expecting a prime-time series that challenges you, that makes you sit up and take notice - something with gumption - chances are you're going to be disappointed.
That's just the way the TV business works, Harbert told me just seconds after a news conference here the other day at ABC's leg of the 1994 Summer Press tour, where TV critics have been screening new pilots for the upcoming season and talking to TV stars, producers and executives such as Harbert.
Like a lot of critics, I've found myself underwhelmed by the majority of series headed for prime time on the Big Four this fall.
``Tepid'' is the word I used to describe them to Harbert.
I thought I was being kind. But Harbert, who is not one to lose his temper, was visibly disturbed by the characterization.
``I think it is blatantly unfair to the programs,'' he said. ``And I know all of us are put into the jobs of characterizations and generalities, but to sit there and watch a bunch of pilots and then declare them tepid is unfortunate.''
I agreed, silently, that it was unfortunate, but not in the way he meant it.
Still, I let him go on. Which he did with surprising fervor.
``Pilots, as you know, often are not the indicator of what the show's going to be,'' said Harbert. ``You gotta give a show three, five, seven weeks before you decide it's tepid, in my opinion. If I decided that the shows I put on were tepid, I'd shoot myself. I just can't do that. You also can't say, `OK, last season was not tepid because we had `NYPD Blue.' So where's that?' Well those are meant to only come around once in a decade. ... So it is an unfair assignment for you to say that the networks should come up with that breakthrough, groundbreaking show a couple of times every season. It just doesn't happen that way.''
I stood there, quietly, and thought about what Harbert was saying, realizing that, yes, of course, ``NYPD Blue,'' which went from good to brilliant over the course of one season - and in doing so racked up a record 26 Emmy nominations (the most ever for a series), is an exceptional program.
And I know from experience that, by nature, television is a copycat medium where one hit show inevitably gives birth to two or three knockoffs.
But I also know how I've felt as a viewer for so long what readers tell me constantly: that they want more, that they feel like television insults their intelligence. And, most of all, I'd been listening to my colleagues the past couple of weeks complaining that another ``safe season'' was on the way, all constructed with a numbingly, calculated sameness in which the bottom line - not the punch line - matters most. (You'll see what I mean in just a few weeks, when you suddenly wonder, just to cite two trends, whether TV sitcoms are being taken over by stand-up comics and whether every TV family has three kids.)
So I asked Harbert again, in a more direct fashion, to address what I thought was a legitimate concern.
``Where's the gumption?'' I asked, telling him I saw only one example of true programming grit among his new shows - ``My So-Called Life,'' a fabulous coming-of-age, warts-and-all drama from the Emmy-winning producers of ``thirtysomething,'' Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick. It's touching, complicated, painful and funny. Everything you could want in an hour show and more.
`` `My So-Called Life' is major gumption,'' said Harbert. But he admitted, as he has in the past, that the show is ``darn difficult to schedule'' - which is why it didn't show up this past May, as originally planned.
Right, I agreed. It's got guts. So why aren't there more? Where are all the others?
``Wait a minute!'' said Harbert, rearing back. ``I'm sorry. I object! What I'm trying to get you to believe and understand is that the creation of television isn't a natural process that allows for shows that you and I will give the gumption nod to. It just isn't really the way of the beast. When you come up with them, the job is to be proud of them, support them and get them on. They are the cream of the crop. There is only [so] much good art, good music, good books, good movies. There is only this much excellent television that deserves your gumption nod. So I find it is going to be a frustrating life for you if you continue to believe that television ought to have a much higher percentage of gumption-oriented television.''
I told him - laughing on the outside but crying a little on the inside - that I was very frustrated to hear that.
``Get over it,'' said one of the dozen or so reporters who had by now gathered around, moving the conversation along to other topics.
Walking away, I wondered whether Harbert was right, whether my standards, my TV expectations were too high, a bit unrealistic?
by CNB