LOL!!!!
SPONSORED BY:
- 1
- 2
Sex on TV: Was It Good for You?
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
SPONSORED BY
But the reason these shows are appealing isn't just because they are explicit. Explicit television and quality television have become conflated in the public consciousness, largely because of HBO's success. In its golden age, HBO continually pushed the boundaries. This is because pay-cable networks are beholden only to subscribers, not controversy-shy advertisers. The accolades followed, and with them came the illusion that the shows were good because they were more "authentic." In a "MADtv" spoof of "Sex and the City," the cast tweaked the network's famed tagline: "It's not TV, it's porn with Emmys." Graphic sex is not a necessity of good storytelling, but rather a job perk, not unlike, say, flextime or Free Massage Wednesdays. It's a carrot the cable networks use to attract creative talent, people who have visions and don't want them compromised. That is, until the lucrative syndication deal comes along.
As ever, though, a good story comes first. After all, if people want explicit sex without pesky dialogue and character development, isn't that what pornography is for? Not to mention the many shows—"The Office," "Lost" and "30 Rock," to name a few—that succeed creatively despite showing less skin than a Lands' End catalog. For Kelley and Poul, this means a trial by fire. There's a risk that "Swingtown" will find itself in an awkward middling place, too tame for some viewers, too suggestive for others. But the sex is just window dressing. If the story isn't up to snuff, regardless of the exotic couplings, triplings and quadruplings, the audience will know that even though they aren't seeing the nudity, the emperor has no clothes.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss