Classic TV is Dying Out. Can It Be Saved?

[Posted by Jeremy Grayson]

CBSPERRY_MASON

Pop quiz: When was the last time you watched an episode of I Love Lucy?

How about an episode of Perry Mason? Or Maude? Or Magnum, P.I.?

Most likely, it’s been a while. For some folks, it’s never. Which seems surprising, given that all the shows I just listed are among the most acclaimed and beloved of their respective eras. Yet many ardent TV fans – particularly younger ones – are largely unfamiliar with content produced in the first three or four decades of the medium. And the gap seems to be widening – even beloved ‘90s-era shows like Picket Fences and Northern Exposure are now falling by the wayside.

Film scholars remain widely familiar with the classics, with few unacquainted with Citizen Kane, Sunset Boulevard, and Lawrence of Arabia. But how many television experts are truly well-versed in The Fugitive or Have Gun – Will Travel? These shows broke remarkable ground once upon a time; these days, they’re essentially historical footnotes.

This wasn’t always the case – as recently as the turn of the century, TV shows of the 1950s and ‘60s factored heavily into discussion about great television. But nowadays, the oldest examples an average scholar will bring up when discussing great television tend to be Buffy and The Sopranos.

What, precisely, is happening to old TV? Is it permanently fading from the cultural consciousness? Moreover, is there something we can do to salvage it?

Part of the issue undoubtedly lies in the television’s inherent length. The standard film runs an average of two or three hours (at most), making them easy for primetime or theater-going events. Television is a vastly different beast – we live in an era where hundreds of shows are produced each year, across dozens and dozens of networks and streaming platforms. Most of these shows tend to air between 10 and 13 episodes each season, and network series can air 22 or more. As many of us who’ve tried to keep up with Peak TV can attest, it’s already difficult to keep up with all the currently-airing shows – who has time for blasts from the past? (This is especially an issue with long-running shows, a distinction of many great classics. Sure, something like The Honeymooners (39 episodes in total) could make an easy weeklong binge, but M*A*S*H, Happy Days, and Cheers have over 250 episodes each.)

There’s also the issue of availability. Plenty of great classic shows (St. Elsewhere, The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd) have barely seen any public releases since leaving the airwaves. DVD sets were once a fresh and exciting way to preserve golden oldies, but the market has suffered in recent years with the rise of online streaming. And while streaming sites are also a viable means of preserving old shows, they’ve turned out to be a mixed blessing, with powerhouse Netflix now more interested in producing its own original content, slowly trimming its “classic” library all the while. (Hulu still maintains an impressive backlog of old-age television, though some of its selections lack individual episodes and seasons.)

But the biggest obstacle that old television must overcome is the fact that… well, it’s old.

Let’s face it: TV has changed a lot over the last 70 years, and especially in the last couple of decades alone. While film has undergone shifts and changes in production and scope since the Birth of a Nation days, that medium’s key storytelling tenets remain fundamentally unchanged. Not so with television – modern shows have grown progressively more serialized, with more complicated long-term stories allowing for deeper character and themes. Audiences have been trained to watch shows more attentively, as shows like Arrested Development and Mad Men reward careful (and repeated) viewing. Television has also grown more experimental and esoteric, shattering conventions with series like Hannibal and Rectify (neither of which could have conceivably existed even a decade ago). The current standard for “conventionally” great drama (think The Americans or Halt and Catch Fire) has changed drastically in recent years.

And with each new leap forward in current TV, bygone television seems to take two steps back. After absorbing yourself in the global majesty of Game of Thrones, would you really care for the simple (and much lower-budget) sci-fi of the original Star Trek? Once you’ve seen the complex legal machinations of The Good Wife, are you all that interested in the standalone weekly travails of The Defenders? (No, not the upcoming Netflix version of The Defenders. I really hate that I now have to make this distinction.)

Peak TV won’t last forever, of course. But between the need to stay caught up on all our favorite current shows and the general sense of age that surrounds so many old programs, it seems unlikely that future generations will value the classics the way they should.

What, then, can be done? Are classic TV shows doomed to fall by the wayside, sometimes referenced but rarely watched?

Well… I can’t guarantee that every great show will be preserved in amber, but I do think there are ways to remember and appreciate many of them.

Let’s start with the most obvious means of survival: syndication. For decades, TV was designed with a standalone structure in mind, so that networks could package episodes and re-air them, for years and years, in any order. (Writers didn’t begin to flirt with serialization until the 1980s, and it wasn’t until the late ‘90s that long-term continuity became a staple of primetime drama.) Right now, there are still numerous cable channels devoted not to original programming, but to re-airing old episodes of Leave It to Beaver and Mister Ed. And the practice has even extended to other networks. Recently, Sundance Channel – the folks behind the aforementioned Rectify – has begun daytime broadcasts of Andy Griffith and Bob Newhart.

Completism is difficult when it comes to shows that aired so many episodes – but these shows were never designed for completism. The average viewer at the time rarely watched more than every third or fourth episode. And if they couldn’t do it then, why should we be expected to now? Sampling a random selection of Lucy episodes can be even more fun than locking yourself chronologically into every single episode. (Just make sure you don’t miss “Job Switching.”)

You’ll notice that many of the syndicated shows I’ve mentioned are sitcoms. Indeed, TV comedy has not changed quite as dramatically as… well, drama. Conventional sitcoms still feature only limited serialization, and viewers seek the same objective from them as always – to laugh. The line from The Jeffersons to The Carmichael Show, or from Barney Miller to Brooklyn Nine-Nine, is not especially long. But what about drama? Can you really make a case that watching the occasional Gunsmoke is as captivating an experience as binging a full season of Orange is the New Black?

Well, consider this: The year is 2050. You’re flipping through channels on your giant plasma-screen (or online streaming service, or VR helmet, or however people will watch television in the future) when you stumble across an episode of Breaking Bad. You’re instantly hit by a wave of nostalgia, but your son (or daughter, or robot, or space alien) is not impressed. Why? Because forty-year-old television looks cheap. It feels clunky. And the antihero cliches and “novel for television” format have been done to death already! 2050 TV has moved far beyond what early 21st-century folks can imagine. (No, really, I can’t imagine it. Curse my early 21st-century mindset.)

Laugh if you will, but think of all the times critics in the past have referred to a show as “the peak of TV drama.” Think about how Hill Street Blues and Homicide and NYPD Blue and The Shield were all, at some point in time, viewed as “the grittiest cop show ever.” The times have always been changing, and with progressiveness at the heart of Hollywood, there’s no indication that TV won’t continue to push new boundaries, expanding further outward and leaving older shows even farther behind.

Do you want to live in a world where your children have no interest in checking out such outdated and cliched shows as Buffy and Friday Night Lights? I know I don’t. But in order for the future to preserve the present, it’s important that the present learn to preserve the past.

The summer season has just begun. There are certainly some good current shows worth your time – I’m particularly looking forward to the new season of Bojack Horseman – but there are also plenty of classics worth checking out as well. It’s a relatively light season (recent summertime hits, including Mr. Robot, UnREAL, and Stranger Things, are all on extended hiatus), which means there’s extra time to dive into the past.

This summer, find a beloved old show – one that’s been off the air for at least twenty or thirty years – and give it a whirl. You don’t need to start from the beginning, or watch every episode – after, all, that’s not what the producers of the day intended. Just get lost for a few hours with Jim Rockford or Donna Stone. Take a moment to enjoy the past, rather than try to keep up with the heavy bustle of the present.

Television continues to strive forward, and its constant experiments are a very good thing. But it’s taken a long time to get where it is now, and every so often, we should pause, turn, and reflect on the journey.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Classic TV is Dying Out. Can It Be Saved?”

  1. Very well said. As a member of your clan, I find it increasingly trying as a 30-year-old to find people of my generation with whom I can discuss “Mary Tyler Moore”, “Soap” or “Magnum P.I.”, and even the high-rated classics like “Cheers” seem to be missing from many people’s cultural vocabulary. I think another responsible answer is to make sure that one’s children have this access. I grew up in a house with an eclectic library and CD collection, and the miscellany of cable, and that created a kind of pan-generational attitude in me, I think. But many of my comrades were growing up in an environment where a stark distinction was made between new and “dated”, and I really do think these attitudes are created during youth. And understanding of programs from even 30 years ago can be so easily hindered by a lack of understanding of how those eras used tropes, or what recognition those now-forgotten guest actors brought to the audience. (Not just the “special guest stars” but any of those jobbing actors who were known for their face, not their name.) I think the rapid movement of civil rights and slaying of cultural idols also plays a role. Although I believe we can enjoy works from the mainstream 1970s without subscribing to the values of their viewers, I appreciate that for many of my friends these shows can often be full of straight white men and, in so many ways, dismissive of the female, queer, trans, or racially diverse experiences beyond stereotype.
    But of course none of this explains why my friends find classic films delightful but classic television to be dull.
    Either way, I think it’s a crying shame that Netflix and its ilk so clearly prioritize post-1990 fare. As you say, the variety out there is endless – even for those of us who think we’ve seen it all!. Just today, I discovered three British sitcoms from the 1980s and 1990s I had never heard of (all starring Penelope Keith), all of which had great popularity at the time. I’m not sure if the quaintness of the ’80s single camera, theatre-inspired British sitcom is popular in America, but it’s another area I adore. Anyhow, before we know it, “The West Wing” will be included on that list of outdated dramas with too many episodes. Let’s hope we can save them.

    Like

    1. Great comment! And sorry for the late reply.

      I do think it’s important to get people accustomed to classic TV while they’re young, although it becomes more difficult as the bar for age keeps moving forward.

      I recently talked with a seven-year-old kid who has watched every episode of Animaniacs. That’s not a super-old show (mid-to-late ’90s), but most kids today won’t watch any TV pre-2010, so I’d call that a good start.

      Like

  2. This is a very good article and I think the problem with classic tv vs new tv and with finding new viewers is that its set up in a different way as you say. I think that people, due to modern tv, have become so used to bingeing shit that they don’t have any appreciation, or understanding, of the constructs of classic TV. I think what could save that is something I’ve seen on a few sites like jacksonupperco.com which have lists of the best episodes of shows of each season.

    I honestly hate bingeing shows, I think its a very lame experience that doesn’t allow you to really let the show sink in and think about it and is extremely boring. I like to watch one episode of a show a week, I don’t know, I’m very OCD (literally, diagnosed) so that might have something to do with it but I also think that watching shows like that immerses you into the world so much more than just bingeing the entire show in a week. I have a bunch of shows I watch at the same time and will watch an episode of say, Oz and then flip over to the Sopranos so not only am I getting time to breathe in between episodes but I’m also getting to watch a variety of different shows and that way I’m able to get them off my checklist while not just plowing through them. Mad Men is one of my favorite shows but I don’t think the experience would have been the same if I hadn’t taken like six months to get through the entire show and let the show wash over me and let it become part of my life for a period of time. If I had just binge watched it I wouldn’t have the same level of emotion toward the characters because you’re simply not with them as long. I don’t find binge watching particularly fun or rewarding.

    The thing is though you can’t really force people to watch tv differently and with the way that shows are being aired now, through Netflix, it seems that the future isn’t giving yourself a chance to breathe and let the characters and the show become part of your life or letting it run in a kind of real time and catching up with your favorite characters once a week, its instead this instant gratification, gimmie gimmie gimmie now now now shit, watch a whole season of a show in three days and not actually critically examine it or even particularly remember certain episodes or moments instead just remembering parts of the show that stick out to you in your mad craze to sit through an entire goddamn show. TV was NOT and really is still not meant to be watched like that but there’s a consumer demand for it so its going to keep on happening. I don’t really think there’s a lot you can do to get people interested in classic tv except to talk about it more, I realize that you’re defending classic tv in this post but it seems somewhat hypocritical coming from critically touched considering the oldest show you guys reviewed is like Twin Peaks or Buffy, 90s tv shows. If you want people to get interested in older tv shows you can’t just shake them and say GET INTO IT DAMMIT WHATS WRONG WITH YOU, you have to raise interest with columns, reviews and articles about WHY its important and the episodes that work and WHY they still resonate today.

    I’m in agreement with you and I like this article, I’m just saying you’re asking what can be done to raise interest in classic tv and that’s well, at least in the medium of reviewing, writing about them.

    Like

    1. I’m all for having an older show reviewed on CT. The problem – as I implied in the article – is that most older shows (pre-90s, and especially pre-80s) don’t really lend themselves well to episode-by-episode analysis, at least not for an entire series. Because most old shows tend to be formulaic and standalone, it’s not easy to scrutinize them so closely.

      Still, if someone had a convincing pitch for reviewing an old show (preferably something short, like East Side/West Side or Kolchak: The Night Stalker), I’d be open for it.

      Meantime, I’ll probably be writing more about old TV on the Blog, albeit with a tighter focus. Writing about great episodes (like Star Trek’s “City on the Edge of Forever” or MTM’s “Chuckles Bites the Dust”) lets a critic focus on individual quality without worrying about the series as a whole.

      At the end of the day, though, it’s up to the reader. It’s their choice whether they want to seek a certain show out – and it’s a choice that becomes tougher with each passing year.

      Like

  3. Really great article and most of the shows you mention, I´ ´ve heard of but not seen because it´´ ´s not available in my country but I found out Mary Tyler Moore on youtube and now, I wanna see all of it.

    Just a thought: a while back, I was watching one quiz show and the guy (early 20s) stated he loved movies and Tim Burton. Well, the question was “who directed Edward Scissorhands?”. He didn´´ ´t know and even said he didn ´t watch any movies below the year 2000. I was stunned.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s