Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you think “The Sopranos” was ahead of its time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
It made gangsters human, and showed their family issues, and other parts of their lives.
Exactly. It was a deconstruction of the organized crime myth.
It was also an early example of a protagonist who was a very bad, morally reprehensible person. Such a thing was previously impossible, as the networks would not allow it. Protagonists could be flawed but they have to be redeemable, decent, good and heart. The morality police would not allow otherwise. Tony had some good qualities but was an abusive murderer who harmed and killed people for his own gain.
Dexter and Breaking Bad did this as well, though to lesser degrees, I think. Of course, they came after The Sopranos.
The Honeymooners, one of the first "serial" sitcoms produced for TV in the early '50s. I preferred it to I love Lucey and the Ozzie and Harriet Show because it was about working class people (the first of its kind) and because the cast included better actors.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 23 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,523 posts, read 44,204,364 times
Reputation: 16926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion
Since Frank's Place came on in 1987 maybe the idea of a dramedie was too different for people at that time? Then things changed in the 90's.
I think you're right. Audiences weren't sure what they were sitting down to, and they were used to being spoonfed their media. Plus the idea of an ensemble cast that was (1) black, and (2) not playing up to stereotype or for comic relief was a pretty foreign one to audiences at the time.
At any rate, I'll give Tim Reid due credit for what was a sweet and heartfelt love letter to the city of New Orleans.
Exactly. It was a deconstruction of the organized crime myth.
It was also an early example of a protagonist who was a very bad, morally reprehensible person. Such a thing was previously impossible, as the networks would not allow it. Protagonists could be flawed but they have to be redeemable, decent, good and heart. The morality police would not allow otherwise. Tony had some good qualities but was an abusive murderer who harmed and killed people for his own gain.
Dexter and Breaking Bad did this as well, though to lesser degrees, I think. Of course, they came after The Sopranos.
The shows that you mention ("Dexter" and "Breaking Bad") along with "The Sopranos" I think were absolute excellence in terms of seeing the complexity of the human spirit. These shows 'humanize' people who live with deep, dark secrets, but balance it without glorifying the evil aspects...at least from my perspective. [Unfortunately there have been members of the viewing audiences who did see these characters as glorified heroes, which was (imo) not the point of the shows' themes.]
I remember watching Dexter (back when the seasons were still well-written) and seeing him as someone who came across as gentle, caring, a family man...even though those traits were a self-proclaimed facade, later proven to be not so much a facade, once Dexter admitted that he did have emotions. However, in the scenes where Dexter was eliminating the bad guy, you got to see the true monster inside. This show especially was an excellent portrayal of a person who, in his inner depths, is deeply disturbed, capable of the most heinous of acts, yet appears to those around him to be a gentle, even meek, loving spirit. I also love that in one episode, they reveal that Dexter inadvertently killed an innocent man...I think this was vital to show, revealing that Dexter was not the true hero that he thought he was.
Human nature is often extremely intricate, and I think that all three of these shows managed to capture the essence of good and evil that can be hidden in all of us. They give an excellent representation of evil incarnate, but at the same time, explore the true human aspect in these individuals.
Exactly. It was a deconstruction of the organized crime myth.
It was also an early example of a protagonist who was a very bad, morally reprehensible person. Such a thing was previously impossible, as the networks would not allow it. Protagonists could be flawed but they have to be redeemable, decent, good and heart. The morality police would not allow otherwise. Tony had some good qualities but was an abusive murderer who harmed and killed people for his own gain.
Dexter and Breaking Bad did this as well, though to lesser degrees, I think. Of course, they came after The Sopranos.
There's any number of shows since, especially drama, but also some comedy, which would not exist if this barrier hadn't been broken, certainly most of cable/streaming. In a way its a sign of maturity in television, since that dilemi a has been a cornerstone of drama for a long time. Flawed heros, perhaps acting by rules of their own world, not yours, are a way to explore basic humanity as well.
That cable/online/streaming productions have widened the old acceptable by telling stories that often do not feature leads we'd call heroes, but in their own world, they were living as one lived, and without a moral lecture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
