In earlier posts I defined the \u201cpremise\u201d as a proposition that must be proved or demonstrated; furthermore, such propositions are often of a profound nature with social significance (e.g. \u201cpoverty breeds crime\u201d).\u00a0 That is the way that the premise has been used in plays and films, although I pointed out that premises in those two mediums are somewhat rare today.\u00a0 However, in American television, not only is the premise not rare, the word has taken on an entirely different meaning.\u00a0 The meaning in this instance is almost synonymous with a \u201cgimmick\u201d: something that distinguishes one television show from another; and often such premises are quite outlandish.\u00a0 Thus we have had shows about genial genies, flying nuns, talking horses and favorite Martians.\u00a0 My personal all-time favorite for silliness is \u201cMy Mother the Car\u201d, in which a car is the reincarnation of the main character\u2019s deceased mother.\u00a0 As the premises of these shows cannot really be proved because they are fantasies, the audience must suspend disbelief in order to enjoy them.<\/p>\n
However, for \u201cserious\u201d series shown predominately on cable television, there are some more subtle\u2014and also insidious\u2014premises that viewers must also accept beforehand; and they fall into two broad categories.\u00a0 The first, for shows dealing primarily with criminals or persons engaging in criminal behavior, is that\u201d bad people can do bad things\u2014e.g. brutality and murder\u2014and be not so bad<\/em> people.\u201d\u00a0 The second is that \u201cgood people\u2014e.g. non-criminals\u2014can do bad things\u2014e.g. infidelity and substance abuse\u2014and still be good<\/em> people\u201d.\u00a0 Weighty premises such as these in plays and films we would expect to be conclusively proved or demonstrated by the end of the production.\u00a0 But because these series often go on for years, it is not reasonable to expect their viewers to wait that long to see if the premises of these shows prove to be true.\u00a0 Thus, the audience must \u201cbuy in\u201d to them from the beginning. \u00a0I must say that for the shows of the first type\u2014and I have seen many\u2014the criminals, despite their professed devotion to their families, appear to me to be little more than brutal thugs.\u00a0 And as for the second type, the ones dealing with so-called good people, in the end the main characters strike me as totally self-absorbed,\u00a0caring little about the people they hurt as the a result of \u00a0their selfish pursuits.\u00a0 So why do I watch such shows if I fail to \u201cbuy-in\u201d to their premises?\u00a0 That is a good question.<\/p>\n Well, for one thing, I like to keep up on what is going on in the arts and entertainment.\u00a0 And you have to admit that many of these shows are well produced with top-notch talent.\u00a0 Or perhaps I simply find them to be a guilty pleasure.\u00a0 Then again maybe the real reason I watch them is because they make me nostalgic for a simpler time, when cads were cads and criminals were criminals; and it was not politically incorrect not to like them<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In earlier posts I defined the \u201cpremise\u201d as a proposition that must be proved or demonstrated; furthermore, such propositions are often of a profound nature with social significance (e.g. \u201cpoverty breeds crime\u201d).\u00a0 That is the way that the premise has … Continue reading