TV

I was going to blog about this anyway, but now that the episode has been discussed on various web sites, I feel the need to offer some context and clarification.

It was the last panel of the last day -- Monday, 7/27. NBC had jammed its second day with panels, this last one being for a new show, Kings. I was tempted to skip it, but two items drew me in. One was that the show's executive producer was Michael Green, who had been a writer on Heroes (big fan), but the real draw was Ian McShane's presence on the panel. He was there to promote this new show and his role (as the King) on it, but as a ardent admirer of Deadwood, and in particular, the character of and his performance as Al Swearengen, I made sure to attend.

As was so often the case during this press tour, due to strike-complicated production delays, there were no episodes, not even a pilot of Kings for critics to screen prior to the panel. All we had to go on was a press package that included a brief synopsis and actor bios, and a montage of clips that the network played at the beginning of the panel, along with the pitch line "it's a contemporary retelling of the timeless tale of David and Goliath."

That montage was a confused mish-mash of unrelated scenes. There were battle scenes that looked as if they could have been from the Iraq War. There were scenes taken in what appeared to be some sort of modern-day royal court, and so on. Lots of obviously contemorary people speaking in varying degrees of alarm, conspiracy or romantic intridue. So the lights come up and there, sitting on stage, are Mr. McShane and his co-stars, and Mr. Green with his co-writers/producers. Let the questions begin.

These TCA panels are, mostly, held in the Beverly Hilton International Ballroom, a big amphitheater-shaped space, with the critics sitting in semi-circular sections and the network "talent" front and center. Network pages roam the room with microphones; critics raise their hands, get a microphone and talk over each other until all but one acquiesce and a question is asked. It's the entertainment-industry version of a White House press conference.

Several times, in several ways, people asked questions about what the essential premise of the show was -- all those who, how, what, where questions you wouldn't have to ask if you had seen the show. Again and again the producers answered with a maddening, non-specific caginess, in an obvious attempt to answer the question technically without revealing "too much" (which is to say, pretty much anything at all). Lots of fuzzy phrases, "an alternate world" here, "familiar world" there. Fine, whatever, who cares. Except that while (not) answering one of those questions, producer Francis Lawrence said "We've gotten sort of rid of almost all the signs of pop culture from the world."

Well, as the paper's longstanding pop culture critic (now more frequently billed as media critic), that piqued my curiosity. What did that mean. Were they literally going to present a world with no pop culture? They wouldn't be the first. There's no (or not much) pop culture in the Star Wars saga -- a holographic board game, a band playing in a bar, but there's never a TV playing in the background, no magazines on the coffee tables, no advertising (!?) But it's set in some far-far-away galaxy in the distant past/future, so George Lucas can get away with it.

But to create a contemporary world that is supposed to be, you know, pretty much like ours, verisimilitude dictates that there be pop culture. So if there's going to be "no pop culture" from this world, were the producers going to create an "alternate world's" worth of pop culture. That would be a daunting challenge to undertake. Or was it there intention to present a world like our world, but with no pop culture -- in other words, not like our world at all?

So I raised my hand, got a microphone and asked. You can read a transcipt of the exchange here, James Hibberd with the Hollywood Reporter blogged about the incident, which he described as "wonderfully contentious exchange," although that was after referring to me as "a hooplehead critic." I'm not sure what that is, but it doesn't sound good.

The quoted material he includes is from the "official" transcript that the TCA provides attendees for every panel, and while it's generally accurate, it's incomplete.

In response to my question, producer Erwin Stoff suggested that "a very sort of simple way to think of it is that the show takes place absolutely today in a country which you haven't heard of. And any of the things available to us are available in the world that the show takes place in."

Now in the moment I heard that, I thought 'Oh, I get it, it's like a country in northern Europe that we didn't know was there (like Svenborgia, the country for rich people Jack talked about in 30 Rock) or it's some island nation, but it's a part of our world and therefore shares in our global culture.' I asked this just to make sure I understood correctly "So it's this world, It's just not a country we know," which I believed was a restatement of what the guy had just said.

Then in came Michael Green as if offering a correction. "Not necessarily, no." What does that mean, it's not this world, but it could be this world. Some times it is, sometimes it isn't. You know, basically, wtf?

And then another producer, Francis Lawrence, offered the clarification, "It's a familiar world." That's when I got irritated. What I was thinking was 'Can't someone please offer a simple declarative sentence about what this show is and where it takes place?' But since I'd already followed up my question once and there seemed no hope of getting a simple straight answer to a simple straight question. I yielded the microphone, saying "Okay, now you're not making any sense at all."

Cue Mr. McShane. He leaned toward me (I was sitting maybe 75 feet away from him) and asked "Did you say you're not making any sense? Michael Green said "No, he's says we're not."

This set off Mr. McShane who, seemingly channeling his inner Swearengen, proceeded dress my down and lecture me on my ignorance and explain to me what the essence of drama is. All of which was very entertaining and I felt honored to have this great actor sputtering his rage (or at least, impatience at me), but the truth is he missed my point.

I've since read up on Kings and I think I get it. If one of the producers had just been willing to say "It's a parallel universe, it's this world existing on a different trajectory," I would have understood immediately. But for some reason they didn't want to explain it clearly. Were they afraid the show would be labelled "science fiction" and possibly discourage some potential viewers?

I don't know. But they should have known the question would come up and they should have been prepared to answer it in a way more meaningful than coy nonespeak.