| |
|
I think it's completely mad to think that The OC isn't about the fact that they're all rich - that's the whole basis of Ryan's initial outsider-dom, and we're always being reminded that neither did Sandy or Evil Mother of Marissa once upon a time, and now Jimmy's going to lose all his money too... How can you possibly argue that it's not a major concern when it's mentioned so explicitly all the time, you know, in the words the characters say when they're talking about the events that are taking place?
I never said it wasn't a major concern within the context of the show's mini-universe, and if you want to talk about them as if they're real people, then yeah, it's about money, privilege, etc. But they're not real people, and the show itself is patently not 'about' money or the lifestyle that comes along with it. You might as well say that Hamlet's 'about' a guy having trouble with his mum after his dad's death. On the one hand, within the context of the story, that's superficially the case. But Ryan's problems fitting in (because of his socially unacceptable past) could be for any reason apart from his poor background, and the show would still work. Look at Dylan in 90210 - his dad was richer than the Walshes by some considerable way, yet his character was almost identical to Ryan's in the OC. Dylan occupied a different place within the narrative, because the Walshes were usually the central characters (he was basically used as a catalyst for plot movement), but he was essentially the same character.
Ryan's position in the OC is more central, in terms of being our 'eyes' on the OC itself - but he isn't a commentator on this outrageous new lifestyle he's inherited, or the everyman/point of identification for the audience - he's a cuckoo, same as Dylan, there to provoke. The difference is that because he's the central point of the narrative, the provocation becomes central to the narrative - rather than being nuisance value ("if only Dylan would settle down, stop going off the rails, he and Brenda would be a great couple and her mom and dad would get on better with him"), it's actually the whole point of the concept (fish out of water, oh the agonies that ensue...).
But the thing that drive's the show isn't about their money - it makes the show flashier, but it's not an essential part of what makes it fun. As I said before, money may be an objective in The OC, but it's never the object - it's mentioned within the context, but it's not focal within the concept.
And we're back to "fun" v. "quality"... Gah. Who cares? Is it yet another manifestation of grim puritanism that makes people think "it's about pretty Californians... it can't actually be GOOD, even though I derive large quantities of pleasure and enjoyment from it, I cannot say it is QUALITAY..."?
No, mug. The OC is cheesy rubbish that is also great fun. But it is rubbish. The phrase 'uniformly average production values' refers to script (to the point where it's pointed out that Seth's best lines, which are always the best lines in the show, are in many cases not actually scripted), direction, editing, pacing/structure - it's average. No effort spared to make sure it's as homogenous as possible. It's mediocre, in terms of that quality index you can see shining in shows like The Sopranos, ER, Six Feet Under, etc. It's a primetime soap, whereas these others are dramas of varying descriptions. And yes, although it is fun, it is not quality. It's blindingly obvious, and it's not intended to be quality. Why does it have to be? It's just good harmless fun. Throwaway pop music in televisual form. Why insist that just because you enjoy it, it must be GOOD? I enjoy the OC, but I certainly wouldn't ever consider it jaw-dropping, fantastic TV like I do certain episodes of Buffy/Angel/ER/Twin Peaks/even fucking Due South... |
|
|
