Ranking the shows, check out the intro page here for what qualifies for the list – 27, 26, and 25 follow.
27. Sons of Anarchy
I had never watched this show at all until I powered through it in the spring of 2012, getting really into it through season three, and then beginning to already tire of it in season four, when Clay’s position in the show became too outlandish even by the show’s own standards. After finally making it through all four seasons, even though I enjoyed the overall experience and am glad I watched it all, I found myself hardly excited when the fifth season began. I ended up storing episodes on my DV-R and not catching up until a couple weeks after the entire season had finished. But, catch up eventually I did, and though I think I’m glad I watched it, my interest levels were a lot lower than when I was marathonning it. The disappointing, and moreover, materially different fourth season, had caused me to check out a little bit from the show. It’s still worth watching in its slightly lesser form, but I don’t think I’ll ever care as much as I did during a two week period where I was watching an episode or two a night. At its best, it’s still a joy to watch, and the characters are generally fairly well drawn, particularly main character Jax. Sons of Anarchy aspires to be a big show like The Sopranos and it doesn’t quite reach those heights for many reasons, but often you can see around the edges where they’re trying. I’m not sure if this makes me admire the show more for trying or frustrated more because it’s not getting there, but I imagine I’ll keep watching future seasons like I watched this one.
26. Revenge
I frequently vouched for Revenge during its first season, and I wasn’t the only one; within the bounds of a twisted primetime soap – conspiracy drama, it handled itself just about as well as it could be done. The main character was likeable and the show had just the right amount of intrigue and trashiness which left the viewer waiting to see the next episode. Unfortunately, Revenge is suffering from a classic second season (and sometimes later) problem with televisions shows that have an explicit or implicit goal bound up in their premise – where do you go from here? Emily ne Amanda managed to solve her primary initial question of getting to the bottom of what happened to her dad in the first season, and more or less had her finger on the button to deal with the people responsible. Kudos to the creators for pacing the show in a way that meaningful events actually happened in the first season, but as a reward for their smart pacing, they get to deal with the problem of why and how to keep the show going. Revenge’s solution was a classic – increase the scope of the show, and in particular, to level up; the people she thought was behind the act were mere pawns working at the hands of a more powerful force which she can currently barely comprehend. Unfortunately, in Revenge’s case, that takes the show from a fairly tight conspiracy organized around a number of rich socialites, and the drama that involves, to dealing with giant and complex para-governmental organizations with names like “the initiative” which seem to belong in Alias and feel completely out of place in Revenge. It must make show creators jealous of the Mad Mens and Six Feet Unders and Parenthoods of the world, where writers can pretty much set up their seasons however they want without a big final mystery to solve or put off. It’s possible Revenge will get back on it’s game, but I think it’s less likely than not.
25. Girls
The most controversial show of 2012 worms its way into the rankings at 25. What this should tell you is that I stand squarely in between the two major Girls camps. I find the show watchable and enjoy it, but don’t think of it as some amazing breakthrough television program that portrays life in a much realer way than most TV. I think, and this is important to note, the show got significantly stronger as it went on, and the later episodes seemed to be sharper and tighter. I don’t really understand the hype over the “realness” of the show; at least in a superficial way, I think the characters are fairly ridiculous, with maybe the exception being Alison Williams’ Marnie, and though I can probably understand the argument a little more as it pertains to some of the subject matter beyond the superficial level, I still don’t think that’s the main selling point of Girls. I understand the argument against the show that the characters are unlikable, but many a great show has been built on the back of unlikable characters; it’s hard to find a character to unambiguously root for in prior HBO giants The Sopranos or Six Feet Under. That said, I can enjoy, with the protagonist bias, removing ourselves one step (ie we root for Tony Soprano, because he’s the protagonist, even though in many ways he’s a terrible person), everyone except for Jemima Kirke’s Jessa, who I absolutely can’t stand. I’m not sure why so many people make a big deal about having to relate to characters to enjoy a show; while it’s certainly a plus, I think there are significantly more shows I watch where I can’t relate to anyone. Anyway, I pretty much enjoy watching it without thinking it’s the best thing under the sun. More than anything, I don’t think it’s nearly worthy of the press it receives one way or the other. We’ll see if Season 2 changes my opinion up or down.
Television, the Drug of the Nation 
Leave a Reply