New Yorker critic discusses evolution of successful TV

Series finales are by far the most fascinating problems of television, a TV critic from The New Yorker said Nov. 6 at the Jepson Leadership Forum.

"I could not have more sympathy for television creators," critic Emily Nussbaum said to an audience of several hundred as she described her frustration at the endings of shows. "I think people must just sweat thinking how to end a show."

Nussbaum's presentation, "From 'I Love Lucy' to 'Breaking Bad': How Ambitious Modern Television Rebelled Against Formula by Exploding It," was part of the Jepson Leadership School's Culture Shock Series.

Nussbaum's presentation focused on the changing genres of television over time and how this evolution of television has shaped some of the most popular and critically successful shows of all time.

Watching television in the past was like smoking, Nussbaum said. "It was regarded as a shameful habit and something you did alone," she said. Much of the lack of enthusiasm for television criticism was due to the lack of technology that was missing in earlier television, she said.

In 1947, television shows had their first golden age. Television was considered an elite, expensive niche and an experimental art form.

"There were all sorts of weird things on television," she said. "It was an early adopter kind of toy for people."

By the 50s and 60s, television became a mass form, Nussbaum said.

"Advertisers realized how incredibly valuable television was," she said. Writers started to build genres that were native to television's current form.

Television was a compromise and not an individual art form. The idea of the character arc was not yet created and characters did not change over time, she said. Soap operas fueled the change in style. Soaps were considered the "junk genre," which was aimed at housewives, Nussbaum said. Soap operas, which were deemed moralistic, told stories serially with cliffhangers and changing characters.

"Hill Street Blues" was a groundbreaking television program, Nussbaum said. "It combined stories--it trusted the audience enough to wind narratives and carry them over."

By 1999, the critical conversations about television began to explode. "'Sopranos' started to get covered by The New York Times as if it was a news story," she said. As the years went, the technology with television did as well. "Television became a text you could analyze," she said.

Nussbaum specifically discussed the success of the shows "The Sopranos," "The Wire," "Deadwood," "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad." Nussbaum credited these shows with making successful use of the antihero. These shows are about men with double lives, which often is quite graphic in subject matter, she said.

Not only were these violent and malicious men considered antiheroes, but Carrie Bradshaw from "Sex and the City," was considered one as well, Nussbaum said. "Carrie too was designed to identify with and then feel uncomfortable with," she said. "She was there to make people nervous."

One member of the audience, freshman Alex Long, had this to say about Nussbaum: "Her examples were not super high brow. She highlighted things that I didn't think someone from The New Yorker would critique or rave about, which made it a very successful speech. She didn't try to put herself above anyone. She is a TV-watcher just like all of us."

Another freshman, Liz Nigro, said, "I have been to two other Culture Shock speakers, and she was by far the most engaging. In her talk she also employed colloquial and, at times, colorful language that kept the audience entertained and interested."

Being a television critic is a dream job, Nussbaum said. Although, "it really makes people mad when you criticize shows people love."

The program was co-sponsored by the Jepson Leadership School and the journalism department.

Contact staff writer Lindsay Schneider at lindsay.schneider@richmond.edu