But the problem with THE SOPRANOS is that the story was not told often enough through visual means. A viewer found out "what happened" by following plot rather than by looking at images.
> You reduce the story making aspects of a narrative art
to the "plastic elements" of the medium of television.
But if you choose to tell a story through a visual medium, why ignore the tools you yourself have selected? When I experience Don Carlo I listen to the music since Verdi is telling his story through the music. I think it would be odd to hear that a peson goes to the opera for the story and not the music. Why watch movies/television if not for the possibility of visual pleasure?
> you further reduce the "plastic elements" to your own
particular visual aesthetics
If you are referring to my demand for visual competence, then yes. HUSTLE by Robert Aldrich is all fragmented images, decentered bodies, fractured narrative -- not at all the nice, neat exploration of space you find in Classical Hollywood. But Aldrich's visuals are not incompetent the way Chase's visuals are. Aldrich's images are designed in a way Chase's mostly aren't.
> and then (I think) reduce that to what is in control of "the
director."
I prefer auteur since sometimes the auteur is not the director. Take for example Carl Reiner with The Dick Van Dyke Show, Fred Astaire, W.C. Fields, Stan Laurel, Mae West (it is amazing how many non-director comedians were auteurs).
> Television is a writers and show-runners medium and vision
and sound count, but they don't count in the way that you seem
to want them to count.
See my previously posted list of examples where sound and visuals do count. The fact that some people would dismiss the potential of television does not mean that it does not exist. It seems you are doing the reductionism here by declaring that television is a visual medium where the visuals do not count for much.
> Chase is simply not good (in fact he is lousy) at the
kind of visual aesthetics that you prefer.
You make it seem like expecting competence is an act of insanity.
> Dreiser was a lousy "writer", one of the worse prose stylists
who ever wrote a novel.
I disagree. I think he was one of the greatest writers America ever produced.
> Chase was a lousy visual stylist. But who cares?
I do.
> He made his stories to poke you in the eye with grotesque jokes
But I do not find visual incompetence to be funny. In fact, visual incompetence interferes with the humor.
> . . . alienation effects that had strong impact.
But the alienation effects were chance aesthetic occurences. Chase was not like Dreiser who purposefully challenged prevailing notions of "good writing" with his work. Chase is not purposefully challenging accepted notions of visual style to achieve alienation effects. He is just muddling along as best he can.
> I was fascinated with the show because I thought Chase was actually
_writing_ against the grain
But how can one distinguish with certainty (any degree - from mild to dead on) between the artist who is incompetent from the artist who is writing/filming/painting/composing_against_the_grain? The "anti-style" aesthetic argument is the toughest one to make. Is William Hung actually the world's greatest singer?
> From the beginning I hated the show in a way that made me realize that
it was a great television drama.
My initial hatred made me realize Chase had no visual talent.
> Oh, gods! I guess my shock of recognition is more self-hatred for "my
people" than anything else. But again, think that it gave me insight
into what the show was doing, and how the story was meant to impact us.
But for me the question is: if a viewer is not vulnerable to this shock of recognition, does that mean that the story will impact her differently?
> But I do think that it is an accurate reflection of a certain kind of
American culture.
But does whether or not this statement is true have any bearing on the aesthetic value of the show?
> The real impact of the show for me was in how alienating and sickening it
was supposed to be.
But I never felt alienated or sickened (or at least not in the way I think you were).
> If you don't go away from this show repelled and sickened, then you are
the kind of person that Chase so obviously despises.
Does being sickened by visual incompetency count?
> I insist upon the "narrative's" hatred of its audience, because I think
that is one of the most fascinating and great aspects of the show.
But if Chase is expressing his hatred of his audience, why did he do it solely through his imagery? Shouldn't that hatred have extended to the writing/performances as well? Additionally, if most of his viewers never experienced the show as visually incompetent, what was his purpose in fucking with the visuals?
> Reducing the narrative art of the stage (the making of stories in drama)
to blank verse is equivalent to reducing the narrative art of moving visual
pictures, to your sense of space and time.
But you do not need narrative to have a stagework or a movie. What about Richard Foreman? Ernie Gehr? Stan Brakhage? Stagework and film can be narrative, but that is a matter of choice on the part of the artist. Narrative is just another formal element that an artist can either employ or discard.
> There are hundreds of ways of making good and strong stories for the stage,
and not all of them are Shakespeare's way or Sophocles's way or Brecht's way.
Agreed, but the method chosen should be executed with competence shouldn't it? And there is also the yet-to-be-tackled question of what defines a "good and strong" story?
> It should be clear that I don't think that "identifying" with Tony Soprano,
or the story told by the show, is the best way to watch the Sopranos.
Agreement at last.
> If you can be patient for 20 years then you should watch all 6 seasons again
and see if I am right about how much the show despised its audience for loving
Tony Soprano.
I should rather go to hell in a paper dress.
Brian