Supernatural Should Be A Critical Darling But Academies Suck
The concept of an academy has a long history in Western Civilization, dating all the way back to Plato. You all know Plato, right? For those unfamiliar with the second most important Greek philosopher of all time (Aristotle being the first, naturally – that’s a pun, but ignore my geekiness), then a quick history lesson. Plato believed in these things called Forms, like ideal things, and he thought everything in the world was simply a pale imitation of its real form. That chair you’re sitting on? Yeah, there’s one out in the ether that is like the most perfect chair, like ever. Anyway, so not important for this discussion.
You all just need to know that Plato started an academy, which Aristotle attended, and thus the history of the academy began or at least what we know of it. Of course, through the couple of thousand years since Plato, the academy has evolved into universities and secondary schools, into craft houses and movie houses, but still those who inhabit their particular academies are like really arrogant versions of Plato who often think of themselves as the purveyors of a culture, the real readers of texts.
Of course, anyone who studies popular culture knows this is a bunch of hooey. I mean, Breaking Bad? I love Vince Gilligan like an ant loves its queen, but Breaking Bad is critically important, why? Same thing with Mad Men. Why? (I have a theory that all the boy shows get critical attention because critics can be misogynistic snobs, but that’s another article.) Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Dexter, True Blood, House, and other such shows get a lot of critical acclaim, and it kind of pisses me off that Supernatural ends up having to vie for a People’s Choice Award.
Nothing bad about PCA. I love the show, but let’s be honest, in the season of award shows, a PCA is kind of like getting the homecoming crown and the most valuable athlete award at the same time, but in a room full of geeks trying out their science projects. The geeks don’t like the jocks, man, especially the popular ones who get all the girls. However, it’s usually the geeks who build the academies. See the conundrum here? I say if Sam and Dean were dog ugly, they’d so get awards. But because they’re pretty, they just get the girls and the crown.
But let’s take the academies and their offshoot cousins, critics, at face value. Let’s say they really know what is “good†and what is “bad.†Now before anyone accuses me of knocking other shows, I will say that many critical darlings are favorites of mine. The Walking Dead? Oh, honey, if that show were heroin I’d have done a 1980s Nikki Sixx trick and od’d on it already. Dexter? Oh yes to that crazy mo-fo. There are some really good shows on television, and Supernatural happens to be one of them. And here is my argument as to why academies and their critics have either missed the boat or gleefully ignored it. (Yeah, so not on the Glee wagon, by the way.) So let’s look at the factors that make a “critical darling†and see how they might match up to Supernatural.
1. “Good†dramas are allegories.
Now if you look at Breaking Bad, Mad Men, True Blood, or even Dexter, most of the critical praise for these shows don’t focus on the actual storylines, but what the stories “represent.†Breaking Bad has its moral ambiguities. Mad Men has its feminist ideologies. True Blood has its political commentary. Hell, even Glee has its advocacy of gay rights. So in a way, critical praise requires another layer of storytelling. Huh, where does Supernatural fit into this? I mean a show about the apocalypse, two brothers, and the American highway system? Jeez, yeah no allegory here…just keep moving critics. Go watch your HBO.
2. Really “good†shows are produced mostly by cable, both basic and pay.
Oh yeah, now we do have the fading legacy of House (on Fox), the super freaky Marguiles love on The Good Wife (CBS), and the new favorite Once Upon a Time (on ABC). But most “good†shows, at least in the last decade or so, have emerged from cable. The Sopranos, Mad Men, True Blood, Nurse Jackie, Dexter, and I’m sure Homeland and Enlightened will be vying for best actress and best show awards this year as well. The academy is very predictable. They like the cable, I think, because they enjoy the near porn and swearing. It makes the story more “real,†you know. I do want to note that the Academy and most “critics†are part of the same system that enforces the Standards and Practices that make Dean Winchester say “frig†when he really wants to say “fuck,†but pointing out the hypocrisy of sanctioned cultural criticism is too much like shooting fish in a barrel.
Now the network thing is really where Supernatural falls down. Television critics and the academy stay away from The CW like it’s the bad uncle who bad touches them at Thanksgiving dinner. Why? Well how dare we even think that they might watch a show on a network that is designed for their teenage daughters? What do teenage daughters know? They just buy things. They buy pretty shiny things that don’t last. The logic is flawless, I tell ya.
3. Most “good†shows have outstanding actors who transcend their art.
So who wants to take bets on Claire Danes and Laura Dern fist-a-cuffing it for best actress next year? Now first of all, the Television Academy is a self-hating entity sometimes, especially when it comes to acting. It has a hard-on for movie actors. It’s almost sad like a wallflower waiting for her dream date to come and ask her to dance sad. Oooh, it’s Claire Danes as Temple Granden. Oooh, it’s the British Hugh Laurie as a hard ass doctor on oxycodone. Oooh, it’s the creepy little girl from that Keitel movie and she’s naked on my screen. Oooh, it’s a really famous movie actor playing a drugged out blah blah blah. How artistic. How daring. How utterly pretentious.
The “deans†of television criticism hate television actors unless they were once television actors who became film actors who then returned to television as their charitable act of bringing art to the small screen. Or if they were television actors who failed as film actors and now have returned as contrite prodigals.
Now, I love Claire Danes. I’m a My So-Called Life addict. I admit it, but I’d put her acting up against Jensen Ackles any day. I’d dare you to find any scene that she has done, both on film or television, that could counter some of Ackles’s most heart rending or even most comedic moments. And Padalecki, who has often been underestimated in his craft, has made Sam Winchester a more realistic addict than Laurie ever hoped for in Gregory House. What about Danes, Laurie, Cranston, or Gandolfini makes them better or more excellent at the craft? Nothing except the inbred prejudices of an institution that does not represent even a minority of opinions.
4. “Good†shows combine the art of film with sharp dialogue.
When you hear praise for television shows it usually breaks down into three categories: writing, acting, and form. For example, 24 was all the rage for its “genre breaking†approach. Yeah, remember 24? It was filmed in “real time.†Ooh, that’s cool. Imagine a show filmed as if only an hour has passed? (Another boy show – just saying.) Then there was the LOST love and its epic movie quality scenery. Plane crash? Big budget. And let us not forget The Sopranos for its gritty rendition of New Jersey (my Italian American soul just loves that stereotype) and Mad Men with its time appropriate costuming and throwback cinematography. By the way, I just listed the winners of the Best Drama Emmy since 2005, after The West Wing’s reign as top drama.
So how does Supernatural stack up? Granted, effects wise it has had its moments, but as far as genre bending, film quality, and direction this show has not only broke ground, it’s created new ground. Meta, anyone? And this is from someone who HATES Supernatural’s meta episodes. But even a hater can recognize artistic value when she sees it.
5. “Good†shows engage its audience in social, political, philosophical, and/or ethical dilemmas.
One of the things I love about television criticism and the awards that often come out of it is the argument that television can create conversations that film or other media don’t have the opportunity to do. I agree with this, but where True Blood may do its upmost to forward vampires as marginalized populations, Dexter may challenge the moral simulacra of a righteous serial killer, and Homeland may press upon our own prejudices and expectations about what it means to fight a war on terror, I find it hard to believe that critics have missed a show that has commented on terror for seven years. Even my limited critical capacity can argue that Supernatural has used demons, angels, and monsters to comment on every population of “others†that the American psyche has encountered. I mean, come on, Crowley is like the perfect representation of a neo-con that has been conceived of since the Ferengi on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. So the next time you sit down to read a critical review or peruse the lists of nominations for any “respectable†awards show, remember that most of these “choices†or these “good†shows are 90% taste, 10% peer pressure, and 100% not anything more important or relevant than what you choose to watch on any given day.
This is good new I am glad our are winning in so meaning areas our do a really good job with the show
Problem with Supernatural is the writing. Sorry, but often times, especially in the last couple of years, it’s been very pendatic and dull. As well as crap.
I love this! I like many of the critical darling shows, but I don’t like them more than Supernatural. Supernatural not only stacks up in the acting and cinematography, it is one of the most consistent character studies on television.
A show like House is well acted, but the character consistency went out the window in season four and plot consistency has always been a laugh. True Blood is great fun, but there’s no real attempt to engage in a socio-political discussion on “other.” And its story lines have become bloated.
Supernatural has had some issues over the years, but it is to me still the most consistently good show on the air.
I think it is sad Jensen Ackles has not been recognized for his excellent work (and Jared Padalecki is no slouch, either), but it is ridiculous Jim Beaver will not get nominated for “Death’s Door.”
Oh my gosh! This is wonderful! Thank you for this!
😀
“Television critics and the academy stay away from The CW like it’s the bad uncle who bad touches them at Thanksgiving dinner”
LOL!
I think it’s hard to get on the academy radar after you’ve been out for a few years. They keep awarding the same shows over and over, while neglecting shows that have been slowly gaining in quality like SPN. Plus sci-fi/fantasy shows never get the respect of pure dramas.
I would say in all honesty that maybe a few years ago I would have agreed that SPN should have been a critical darling, back when the writing was tight. But these past two and a half seasons have been anything but. There are flashes of brilliance but way too many inconsistencies to warrant the right kind of attention of any academies.
The acting on this show is always good. Jared for example grew from a kid with very little experience to one of the most versatile actors of today. There isnt anything the show can throw at him that he cant handle and knock out of the park.
While I have enjoyed the show over the years and at times have found it to be brilliant there are just too many shows out there right now that are better written and IMO better writing is more likely to get an actor noticed.
I might agree if not for some of the best actor/actress nominations. And while the writing has been hit and miss at times, there was a time when Supernatural hit all four cylinders and it was still not recognized. I think it’s a few issues. Genre bias, network bias, and to be honest, laziness on the part of the academy. It’s easier to agree with everyone else. And this is an article about all of Supernatural, not just this year.
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. I think the SPN writing has been and remains fantastic.
Also this article is about how SPN gets unfairly ignored for awards. The starting premis is that it is a great show, and the topic being discussed is ‘why, when SPN deserves awards, doesn’t it get them’. The topic is NOT ‘let’s all pile in and list reasons why SPN doesn’t deserves any recognition’, or ‘lets all talk about other shows that are better than SPN and deserve awards more’, or ‘let’s list – yet again – all your gripes about the show’. It isn’t an article about what people think about the last ep, or the arc or whatever. There are lots of those elsewhere on WfB.
But it seems there is nowhere for those who love the show to get away from the negativity. I am not trying to squash debate. But there are other threads for discussing your gripes. Was it too much to hope that this one would be for people who think the show deserves awards to talk about why it gets ignored?
IMO Supernatural is a great show and hopefully, it will be recognized as such this year! Yes, I’m being very optimistic about this….While I’m a fan of True Blood, it must be pointed out that their writing has been a hit or miss thing too. Not all shows are consisted with hitting things out of the park every week. Supernatural is the same. While the writing may leave us to some grounders, the majority of the hits have been excellent. It still deserves to be recognized and not punished. Critics, etc. need to realize that it’s not just 18 year olds that are watching the CW, but older viewers are there too. I think the new President of the CW realizes this and is trying to broaden the shows being offered. I understand that they may be trying some half-hour comedies in the fall. This would be an excellent step in that direction and show that the network is here to stay. Also, if Supernatural doesn’t earn an nomination of some sort (especially the acting) for “Death’s Door”, then the whole Emmy process is rigged and should be scraped. IMO
Unlike some, I think the writing last year and this year is still on par with previous seasons. The ambitious 22 hour film noir movie that was season six is JUST the type of thing that should have been a critical darling – but — for all the reasons you cite — wasn’t.
What? OK, OK, — let’s say 20 hours and pretend Mannequin III & All Dogs Go to Heaven didn’t happen. There’s one or two episodes EVERY year that I pretend didn’t happen, but even those episodes – I think are still better than almost everything else on TV. Its ridiculous that SPN hasn’t been nominated for its writing, acting, editing, cinematography, score — I can see the show not winning? But not being recognized at all just really pisses me off.
I got into a ‘discussion’ with a Fringe fan SPN vs Fringe and one of the Firnge Fan’s arguments was that Fringe had won ‘real’ awards – not just the People’s Choice. The fan was referring to the Saturn Awards – which I had to look up because they’re so [i]real[/i] I had never heard of them. For those of you as out of touch as I, they are SciFi genre awards – another academy.
Here’s something interesting — I went to the website and discovered that anyone in the US can join this academy and for $40 bucks can (I believe)nominate and (for sure)vote on the awards. And I thought to myself, self I thought, SPN fans love to vote on stuff. Hmmmm . . . . .whaddya think? Should we take over our very own academy? 😉
Does Supernatural get the recognition it deserves? Nope. Does it bother me? Nope, not even a little. Even if the show/actors had fifty Emmys, it wouldn’t sway my appreciation of the show one bit. There have been many excellent films, TV shows and actors etc that have not been given the recognition they deserve so the show, JP, JA et all are in good company.
I really don’t put much mass in awards as I feel that quite often they are more popularity contests or are awarded out of a sense of obligation rather than to who deserves it most. I mean, when Richard Harris was not acknowledged for The Field…. (Twenty years later and that still rankles.)
I’d rather the SPN actors tip away quietly and unobtrusively at mastering their craft which will enable them to thrive outside the show when (if, the show could outlast us all yet) it eventually does end. I always feel that there’s a danger of actors on critically acclaimed shows being pigeonholed into a certain ‘type’ of role and I’d hate for that to happen to the actors on SPN.
Besides, I like the whole idea that Supernatural is a hidden gem, untainted by the politics and egos that other shows have to deal with. Being a fan of this show is like being part of an exclusive club; we know the real story…. And those who choose not to acknowledge the awesomeness that is SPN? Well, more fool them.
That being said, it could also be a case as it was with Lord of the Rings. The greatness of that wasn’t truly acknowledged until the final film and then it cleaned up all around it in terms of awards. Perhaps the same might be true for SPN?
Thanks for this, Bookdal. Great read.
I so agree that awards do not signify quality, but sadly, they do signify industry recognition. Without that, the Supernatural actors are not building their career as much as logic would say they are. When Misha Collins started auditioning again this year, he was surprised he had to start pretty well at the same place he was before Supernatural in terms of recognition. When he said he’d been on Supernatural in a featured role for three years, the response from the people he was auditioning for was “What’s that?”
When Jim Beaver noticed Misha’s statement, he agreed and said he still gets jobs because he did Deadwood, but when he mentions 7 years of Supernatural, industry folks don’t know what it is.
So sadly, awards have their value in terms of career building. Supernatural has been an excellent show for seven seasons (and yes, there have been some ups and downs, but there have on every show out there, including the critical darlings. My opinion is that the extreme differences of opinion on what constitutes an up and what constitutes a down actually shows how strong the writing is. People have very strong views because the show speaks to them so strongly).
Love this Bookdal. So, so, so sadly true.
Supernatural has been slapped with the “genre” term, which is the kiss of death as far as awards go. But as my husband pointed out the other night “What does genre even mean? It’s just a catch-all phrase for anything that’s not a police procedural.” (I married a wise man!)
Genre can be sci-fi or fantasy or horror. But rarely a winner. It’s kind of like comedies and the Academy Awards. A comedy winning the Best Picture or Best Director Oscar is about as likely as… Supernatural winning an Emmy!
If a show like Supernatural was actually to be recognized with an Emmy than the academy would have to recognize that those storytelling forms are just as valid and effective as the standard cop/law/medical show. It would be like acknowledging that maybe Stephen King knows how to sling together a sentence or two. Say what you will, some of his writing (especially the short stories) is genius. Same with science fiction author Robert Sawyer. Read his stuff if you want to see a thoughtful, critical analysis of our modern world.
I’d like to see Supernatural recognized for its lighting, or cinematography or special effects on a budget. But, I think another strike against Supernatural is the fact its filmed in Canada. To recognize the quality of the program would be to recognize the quality of the crew and I think that would cause some serious ripples through the American TV production system. (No offense meant. It’s just a cross-border reality.)
I don’t think JA, JP or JB will ever be nominated for their work on Supernatural, which is really too bad. But my greater fear for JA & JP is that they’ll end up typecast. I worry that they same narrow-minded thinking that refuses to consider a show like Supernatural for critical acclaim will work the opposite way too. If you starred on a “genre” program than you’re not skilled enough for anything really important (read Oscar worthy.)
I just finished reading The Hunger Games Trilogy and when I met the character Finnick, I thought of Dean and Jensen Ackles. However, I’m sure that perfect pairing will never happen. But I hope both JA & JP get future projects where they really get to showcase their skills.
I think most awards are really popularity contests (there have been some great articles about the Golden Globes, in that context), so we really shouldn’t care who wins them. Except they seem to matter to the decision-makers, to those who hold the purse strings. And that’s the real tragedy.
This issue is near and dear to my heart (in the working world) so thanks for the chance to rant.
Pragmatic Dreamer 8)
YES to all you wrote. But the more I see to which shows the awards go, the more I suspect there is also another factor, that I recently was thinking about.
For what I see here in Italy, the most critically appraised tv shows (even when not awarded) are ALWAYS the ones where there are no heroes. More specifically, the ones where there are no people fighting to save or protect others, no people who devoted their life to this task. Even in a medical drama like “House”, the core of the story is not saving ill people, is solving the “illness mistery”, just like a procedural. House is an avatar of Sherlock Holmes (who happened being modeled on a real doctor) and he’s not interested in the patient at all. In fact, this is the main trait of the character, what gives that show its particular flavour and charm, even for me (at least before it became ANOTHER medical drama where characters’ sentimental life was more important than the medical cases).
Other shows critically acclaimed are, like you said, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Weeds, Sopranos, Lost, Nip&Tuc, Oz, and such, and their characters go from just “normally” egoistic and/or ambition-driven to openly criminal (but oh-so-sympathetic). Even in shows like “Rescue me” or “The Shield”, revolving around figures that should be community’s protectors (firefighters and policemen), the emphasis is put on their less-than-heroic private life, or their less-than-heroic behaviour, or their tendency to being corrupted or violent.
Even critically accalimed “genre” shows like “True Blood” and “Battlestar Galactica” revolve essentially around egoistical characters or ends or around social/political/militaristic issues.
They are “realistic”, critics say. They show the men and the world for what they are, they say. And for this, they deserve to be awarded.
So is not surprise if Supernatural, a show revolving around two people who fight without any reward or acknowledgment to save and protect innocent people from evil, with an uber-plot about saving the world from Apocalypse, where “there is a wrong and a right here, and you know it!” (cit.) is a bit “too much” for the “academies”: too much “heroic”, too much “for teenagers”, too much “fantasy” (like, Tolkien-type or Star Wars-type fantasy). Even if these “boys grown-up heroes” are not so “idealistic”, and their many flaws and imperfections are diffusely showed and analysed, and their psychologies are layered and complex like the ones of the more critically acclaimed shows.
And then there is what I call the “pretty factor”. Dean and Sam are just too handsome for their own (critically speaking) good. For the widely acknowledged truth that if you’re pretty, then you’re stupid, “Supernatural” CAN’T BE an intelligent and profound show… 😛
Aha! I think this is absolutely correct. Procedurals with their clearly defined heroes don’t get nominated much, no matter how popular, or maybe because they are popular? I mean, a show can’t be critically ‘good’ if everybody likes it, right? No place for the intellectual snobbery then.
Brynhild – I think you have hit the nail right on the head. Bravo!
Wonderful and so true post! 😉
Thanks for all the comments!
Tim-I agree with your comment about Supernatural being great for those of us “in the know.” There’s something special about this fandom in that we recognize the beauty of the story in a way that others, i.e. critics and academies, do not.
I think that’s why fandoms for genre shows, in particular, become so tight knit and also why they feel so comfortable with engaging in in-fighting. A community happens around shows like Supernatural that do not happen around other shows. It goes beyond simple viewership and to me that makes my critical spidey sense activate. It’s one of the reasons I started watching the show, to understand why so many loved it so intensely.
And there’s reason to love it. It has these universal themes that are implicit, that you have to dig at to find. That’s my problem with the refusal of critical authorities to give the show time because it really does demonstrate that so much of television criticism is elitist and clickish. It’s also one of the reason’s why I particularly admire someone like Mo Ryan, who is a critic but who has consistently supported Supernatural even now when she is not pleased with the storytelling. That’s why I made note earlier that my article is about Supernatural as a whole story, not just this year.
There are always reasons to negatively criticize a story. No story, even LOST at its peak, is perfect. However, as someone who watched Supernatural as a “whole” narrative from seasons 1-5, I would argue that the show possesses the features of a critical success in writing, directing, and most especially, acting.
For example, the slow moral decay of Sam Winchester in Season 4 does what House has made a trope and that is the unraveling of the “hero” figure. I agree with you, as well, Brynchild in that most critical successes resist the idea of the hero in favor of the flawed human. But what Supernatural does with both Sam and Dean is show how the human is heroic, but moreso how the human relationship is heroic. And perhaps that’s another thing that critics can’t quite understand or know how to approach. The real core of the story, even in its darkest days, highlights the family, here the brotherhood, as the heart of the show and by extension, the heart of the human experience. We often dismiss or even complain about the co-dependency of Sam/Dean, but underneath that relationship I think the show is making a pretty provocative argument, one that LOST made, and that is humanity’s dependence on connection to survive. This observation flies directly in the face of the Western ideals about individualism about the self, which is why someone like Dexter becomes such a polarizing character. He’s a perfect example of our (Western culture’s) need to confront humanity’s complicity in the death of others. I made the joke that the academy is self hating, but I think sometimes it and critics represent our own cultural self loathing. Sometimes we want to find faults in our selves and have those faults displayed for all to see – a self flagellation made public. In Supernatural, however, that shame is always shared by the brothers, which makes the community of the show front and center. It’s also one of the reasons I think the pathos is so strong around the show.
Viewers become part of that community in a way that other shows resist, shut down, and actually deride. Here I think of Lindeloff and Cuse, who basically dismissed viewer anger at LOST’s ending to say it was “their” story to tell. I was not angry at LOST’s ending because I watched it for their story (C/L), but to mock and dismiss viewer anger is a microcosmic example of that snobbery that you refer to Melanie. Critics tend to love writers who say “this is my story” and you can’t have it to the viewing public. It’s the height of intellectual snobbery and reinforces the western ideal of single authorship that Supernatural and many other genre shows fight against.
So after all that meandering I guess what I’m trying to say is that Supernatural is a story that invites its viewers into its screen in a move that predicts the future of television storytelling but that the critical apparatus is far, far behind on. But that is not surprising. Most institutions that proclaim themselves as the leaders of a culture often are behind the curve on innovation. They are not there to encourage innovation but to reinforce the status quo, to support those who are still in power.
Sorry for the digressions…..
I think you are bang on with this, Linda-Bookdal. Both in what the show is fundamentally about and also that Supernatural is ahead of the curve both in their themes and in the way they approach storytelling.
The way they welcome fan interest rather than deride it is going to be the way of the future, because the internet is fundamentally changing some aspects of communication. The old approach is instructive: You will sit quietly and I will deliver my communication to you. It’s one-way.
The internet is the cutting edge of another way: the constructive approach. I put something out there to talk about and then we talk about it together. It is more egalitarian; power is shared.
The Supernatural showrunners and actors seemed to instinctively get that allowing their audience to engage would strengthen the show and challenge them in good ways.
However, I guess I also have to say that acknowledging the fanbase can be a double edged sword. When people identify with a show so strongly, they begin to imagine how the show should go and sometimes that gets in the way of appreciating the way the show is actually going. I think Supernatural gets that kind of backlash as well, which is too bad. Because I think far more than the critical darling shows I watch, Supernatural keeps true to the exploration of the Winchester brothers and what keeps them going. Not every story is perfect, but the overall narrative is still wonderfully written and delivered.
I agree, Gerry, with your observation about how fandom can be invasive on storytelling and that is often the drawback to this type of open relationship. In the end, while fan reaction may influence storytelling, it should never direct it. That is what fanfiction is for, in my opinion.
I do want to make another observation that I just thought of as I was reading the comments. I think that like Brynchild mentions, critics tend to rally around more cynical narratives and I think Supernatural is very conservative, really. It upholds traditional family values to a degree. I’m not saying it’s politically conservative, on its surface. Castiel, Crowley, and Dick Roman are explicit commentary on contemporary politics. However, at the core of its story, Supernatural has a hope about humanity that most “good” shows do not (outside of LOST or perhaps Modern Family). If you look at Nurse Jackie, for example, the main character is incredibly jaded and that’s part of the arc. Breaking Bad does this as well. And I think there are places in the world for these types of stories, mind you. I’m not a fan of sentimentality or its corruptive twin, nostalgia. So I’m not advocating a wholesale schmoop fest.
However, I’m reminded of the reactions to Supernatural at Paley this year. I was reading Twitter and many critics were making mildly derogatory comments about the fan reactions. I remember one who said he was going deaf from the screams, and the tone of the tweet was derisive, not appreciative. The assumption is that a story that has so much effect must be entirely sentimental and not critical, but like I said in the article, SPN has broken down barriers with its meta episodes because they have become an ongoing way for the show to comment, appreciate, and yes, criticize itself, its viewers, and the overall experience of the show. I don’t like them, but if you look at it from a critical stand point, the show does something unique by integrating its own criticism as a storytelling device. And for that not to be rewarded, or at least acknowledged, demonstrates the willful denial of any show that steps outside the what has been forwarded as “good,” “groundbreaking,” and/or “critically relevant.”
I also think that many people may mistake SPN’s mythology and its reliance on Judeo-Christian motifs as conservative when in point of fact the motif is very self critical but without deriding the base beliefs. One can criticize religious icons and narratives without openly being hostile or derisive about those who are faithful to those beliefs.
Again, so digressing….Sorry for the meandering.
-Linda
[quote]However, I guess I also have to say that acknowledging the fanbase can be a double edged sword. When people identify with a show so strongly, they begin to imagine how the show should go and sometimes that gets in the way of appreciating the way the show is actually going. I think Supernatural gets that kind of backlash as well, which is too bad. [/quote]
I totally agree Gerry. One of my biggest frustrations with this fandom is the tendency of many to confuse ‘not how I wanted things to go’ with ‘poor quality’. I hated the decision to go with soulless Sam and the time jump in s6. But I don’t call that decision ‘bad writing’. It wasn’t. I wish with all my heart they hadnt done that, but I’m not a writer, and I certainly don’t know how to write a tv show, or keep it fresh after 6 years. SPN fans certainly help the show eg the tv guide cover win, but they also hinder it with the, at times, intense negativity. The writers must feel that they cannot win no matter what they do.
[quote]Because I think far more than the critical darling shows I watch, Supernatural keeps true to the exploration of the Winchester brothers and what keeps them going. Not every story is perfect, but the overall narrative is still wonderfully written and delivered.[/quote]
Again I totally agree. SPN is about heroes, family and the battle of good vs evil. Plus it is a genre show. All of that counts against it in the awards chase.
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting what was meant (and if so apologies) but I don’t think SPN fans are damaging the show and its chances of award success because of the way it’s being critiqued, especially on fansites. For those whose job it is to consider the show for nomination (‘Emmy’), to have their opinions swayed by negativity etc would mean they would have to go to various fan sites in order to read those comments, and if they are reading the comments which say that the writing and show is awful then they are also reading the comments that say the writing and show is amazing.
I’m open to correction here but I would have presumed that Emmy would actually have to be familiar with shows before they would be nominated therefore they would be watching and making up their own mind about it, not reading fansites to form an opinion.
Yes, the argument that the shows chances are being affected by what is perceived to be the negativity of the fans could be valid. However, that works both ways. Would it be more or less damaging to the show if everyone only posted comments like ‘OMG, dat wuz soooo brill etc’ and then reiterated this week after week? I find that would be more damaging because (a) it would read more as a case of the show just giving the people what they want rather than telling the story that needs to be told and (b) the show not being profound enough to inspire genuine debate. (Honestly, if I came onto a site where this was the sole extent of the comments then I’d think I had wandered into a Justin Bieber concert.)
The fact that SPN does draw viewers that can both ardently loathe and love aspects of the show and still keep watching indicates, to me, a high level of intelligent writing that incites and inspires viewers who see things in a different way to publically debate them. Universal popularity does not necessarily equate to it being good (Friends……) but I find an unwillingness to accept that criticism is there, and oft times warranted, to be quite blind. Any innocuous comment eg ‘Sam should cut his hair’ (and, realistically he probably should because it has to be dangerous for him to fight with it falling in his eyes the whole time etc) could be perceived as negative depending on the personal opinion of the reader.
And the ironic thing is, no matter how much viewers disagree with the writing, the acting or the show etc, there has to be something hugely compelling about it because even those who are ‘negative’ are still watching it, buying it, and discussing it. Viewers wouldn’t do that if they thought it was rubbish.
Every show has those who critique negatively, every single show. We are not living in a world where everyone has to think positively about the same thing. Even the Beatles had (a multitude of) critics. However, criticism, whether it be positive or negative is hugely subjective. We bring our own life experiences to what we see and we judge accordingly. In relation to only seeing negativity, well if you [i]want[/i] to see it, then you [i]will[/i] see it. SPN has been on the air for a long time. It has a passionate, articulate and intelligent fanbase and as a result of that it is difficult to be completely objective in our analysis of the show. I dare say Emmy would know this and interpret any comments (if they even read them) accordingly.
I personally believe that the more debate there is about a show, whether it be from rabid fangirls/boys, argumentative sceptics, or impartial viewers, the better it is all round, and if this show has made these viewers passionate enough to keep watching and talking seven years on, then that cannot be a bad thing.
Tim – I would not say that fans damage the show at all, as far as the critical world goes. I think there is an overall critical prejudice against genre shows and shows that are perceived as “popular.” That’s my read and I am more than willing to admit being wrong. I don’t think the character of fan reaction has anything to do with it, whether love or hate, I’m talking about the intensity of the devotion, which often gets misconstrued with high emotion and in the critical world I live in, the more pathos there is the more skepticism about the narrative. I don’t think that’s entirely fair, but it tends to be a hidden prejudice. And sometimes it’s warranted, such as in the case of Twilight, which is poorly written but is incredibly popular. (sorry to Twilight fans – I actually read all four books and liked them as stories but as pieces of writing I would say they are not especially artistic.)
And for me that’s the real pinch here. Awards and critics tend to present their awards and observations as critiques of art. And my argument is that SPN is artistically sophisticated even if it may bring in a large devoted audience.
Oh, I am in complete agreement with you about this. My (possible mis)interpretation of the ‘double-edged sword’ of fandom was that it would somehow hinder the selection of the show because fans might recommend ways of doing things ‘better’ or highlighting what they found wrong with the show, and this I do not agree with. I would have assumed (though I admit I know nothing about how these things are done) that those selecting shows would pick them solely on the merits of the 42 minutes of episode that were on screen and not the thousands of opinions that are devoted to those 42 minutes.
Yep, I agree. I think the point, and I could be misrepresenting Gerry here, is that the double edged sword happens if the fan opinion so infiltrates the story that it has undo influence on the show. I think SPN has negotiated this with its meta episodes, almost like a bargaining move – we know you’re out there and in this instance (meta episode) we are going to indulge you.
Now, again, this is my reading. And it’s the reason I cannot abide the meta episodes, from Season 5 onward. I think they’ve (writers) have become accustomed to this particular tool as a way to address the audience that reveals things about the relationship. It’s almost therapeutic, except that the fans don’t have the same sanctioned space from which to fire back. One may argue that the message boards and sites like this do allow that feedback loop, but my feeling has always been that fan spaces are always potentially anonymous because there is no apparent interaction between show and fan unless it happens by the show in its meta episodes. It’s an unfair advantage, to my mind. Here is where I will agree with Mo and Stacey Kade on the problems with “Season 7, Time for a Wedding,” which was especially nasty to fans, if read a certain way.
Now that’s my content criticism. As far as my form criticism, though, I think the meta episodes are brilliant. They break genre in a unique way that no other show has done and SPN has made it a consistent part of its storytelling. Critically, then, I think this is one instance of form bending. Also, SPN has for the last three seasons at least has incorporated other forms in its storytelling, like “Monster Movie,” “Changing Channels,” “Frontierland,” and the recent “Slash Fiction.”
Oh, I get what you (and Gerry) are saying now. I’d eaten too many skittles earlier, sorry. No, your POV makes perfect sense, and I do get where you are coming from.
Hi Tim, I thought I’d jump in, since I wrote the comment. It was actually written more as an aside to the discussion on the fan response to the show being a possible detriment to critics taking it seriously. Like Linda, I think the way Supernatural showrunners and actors acknowledge the fanbase should not be read as somehow not being “serious art.” I like the way the show acknowledges the fans.
I just also think that when they do so, there is the tendency for us to get even more invested in the show and to sometimes get very caught up in whatever pattern most resonates about our own lives when thinking about quality. I wouldn’t ever discourage critical thinking about the show, but I also think we have to think critically about ourselves, too and what may be driving our responses.
I think when we do that, we enrich the discussion even more. Having a strong negative emotion to the show isn’t always a mark of poor writing or characterization. For example, I’m interested in the range of reaction to Dean killing Amy. Especially some of the reactions that pinpointed anger at Dean being based on being a mother and being part of a gender divide.
I’m a mother and I had no problem with Dean’s (or Sam’s) decisions. I thought the dilemma was nicely delineated when Sam interrupted Amy’s stalking of a father with two young kids. Does her kid’s needs trump those kids’ needs? As a mother, will she really ever put her prey’s needs above her son’s, whatever she promises? To my view, Dean’s decision was very debateable, whatever side one finally came down on. I didn’t view the ambiguity of the decision as poor writing.
But that scene has driven a lot of the complaints about this season’s quality. I think what the viewer brings to the scene is really relevant and should be a part of the discussion.
However, in terms of critical recognition, this really only matters in terms of the recognized critical writers’ discussion surrounding the show, as you say, not the fan boards. And as a seventh season show, nothing will change its critical status now. It’s been categorized and filed away as far as the academies are concerned, I think.
Gerry, I’m on the same wavelength as you on every paragraph bar paragraph 4, where I’d need to substitute mother with aunt.
An unfavourable response to the show certainly does not indicate bad writing any more than it indicates a bad fan. There has been more words written about the Amy situation than most scenes in season 7 (bar the scene in the Mentalists and I don’t think that counts because most of those words came from me……)
I think the only thing that could signal a demise in the show’s writing would be viewer apathy because when the writers bring us to a place where we can no longer care about the characters then it’s all over, and to be honest, I don’t think this is (or will ever be) the situation with SPN and its writers.
And in relation to the show getting awards etc, looks like we’ll have to fall back on good old-fashioned blackmail and coercion. If only some of these Emmy nominee dudes were kids and had a parent teacher meeting coming up. There is no power on earth like the power of a teacher on PTM week. Hell, I could probably get SPN nominated for a Nobel prize if I put my mind to it…
Please don’t apologize! This is so interesting.
I agree that Supernatural has hope for humanity at its core, which is not the current mode. In many ways it reminds me of the Lord Of The Rings narrative, except (forgive me Tolkien) the characters are more layered. And the heart of the story is the exploration of family. There is room for all kinds of stories, cynical and hopeful, but I think it’s bizarre that a well told story with hope at its core but pain and loss as the price to be paid by the principal characters is so overlooked.
The reaction of critics to screams makes me laugh, because there is nothing unique to Supernatural on fans getting excited at events. The True Blood panel had plenty of screams. Imagine if Dickens had been judged on how popular his serialized magazine stories were. (-: I actually think Supernatural has a Dickensian flavour, so it doesn’t surprise me it combines hope, pain and excellent characters in a way people really respond to.
I love that you mentioned the meta eps, because I actually love them. I don’t think there has been another show so able to step to one side and talk about itself and its fans while still staying true to the story and characters. It takes meta to new level in a way I find really interesting.
Thanks for this Bookdal, that was interesting. While I agree with you and most posters about SPN deserving all sorts of accolades and awards, it will never change what I think about the show. I watch most awards shows, and to tell you the truth, half the time I’ve forgotten the next day who the big winners were! That could be old age creeping in…but I don’t think so.
SciFi/Fantasy barely makes a bleep on the critical radar. I think part of that is snobbery, and part of it is disinterest in the genre. Literature splits up the genres for it’s prizes, the Booker for “serious” literature, the Hugo for sciFi/Fantasy, the Edgar for thrillers, and so forth and so on. Maybe television should do the same. Have the regular Emmys and the sciFi/Fantasy Emmys. I would definitely watch the latter. And probably care more about it.
Anyway, plenty of good shows never made it to the so-called important awards, e.g. Buffy!!! Even The Wire never got it’s just reward (not fantasy I know, but man that was something to behold!). So, no matter what comes, I will continue holding my own awards show. And the winner will always be Supernatural for the seventh year running. That being said, come own academy snobs, Jim Beaver deserves a frigging (sensor approved) Emmy & Golden Globe for his performance in “Death’s Door”.
First things first…. I love the show. I think the acting is amazing, the stories are enthralling, the writing is good enough to get me thinking and from what (very) little I know about the technical side of it, it all seems A1. However, I don’t work for the Emmy committee (or whatever) so I have absolutely no idea as to what criteria must be fulfilled in order to have shows considered for nomination.
I showed the clown episode (name??) to some class-groups earlier this year (half day of the holidays, you can’t do nathin’ with ’em). Most of them really liked it but there were some who thought it was rubbish. It was a case of ‘Clowns, killer clowns. Jeez, how juvenile’. (Perhaps it will be these kids that grow up to be judges in years to come.)
I’m not naive enough to believe that everyone out there appreciates the same things that I do. Unfortunately, frequenting fan sites can create a false sense of security in relation to the shows widespread appeal because if we are fond enough of the show to put time and energy into commenting then it’s safe to assume we think it worthy of award. In the same way that if I were a Baywatch fan and went onto a Baywatch fansite and read all the positive comments in there I’d leave thinking that the acting was amazing and the storylines gripping etc. (I’m not comparing SPN to Baywatch. No way Jose. Well, apart from those two episodes where Sam and Dean pulled a Mitch Buchannen……) Emmy [i]could[/i] look at SPN and deem the acting to be over-the-top or not good enough or s/he could say that the storylines are contrived etc etc. It’s all subjective, folks. The show just might not tick whatever boxes it needs to have ticked in order for it to be considered worthy for nomination. This isn’t ‘collect ten crisp packets and get a nomination’ (unfortunately).
Fair enough, this show is not universally well known. It gets little in the way of recognition and advertising in main stream media. Perhaps the fact that it is not universally well known is an issue, but dems the breaks. It would be difficult to find a reason for that. Should we put it at the feet of the PR department for the CW for dereliction of duty, the Emmy committee for not opening its eyes, JA & JP for choosing to not live their lives in the public eye because, let’s face it, if they got married to Kim Kardashian and then got divorced after 42 days (um, I read the National Enquirer. It’s a guilty pleasure, okay….) [i]they’d[/i] get loads of publicity and consequently, their [i]show[/i] would get loads of publicity. The more publicity, the more people watch, the more people watch then perhaps the better a chance the show could have of getting awards! (Dear sweet Jesus, don’t anyone from the show get married to one of the Kardashians. Please!)
Perhaps the show isn’t as widely watched as we would like it to be because the simple, non-materialistic element of the show does not, at the moment, appeal to an audience that has had a ‘Gimme, gimme, gimme’ ethos forced down their throats from all sides for the past number of years. Jesus, over here unless you owned your own five bedroom house with a new car in the yard and a holiday home in Bulgaria then you were no-one. How can you sell a show based on family, and giving and helping others to those who wouldn’t even help their own kids with homework because they had to work late so Mammy and Daddy could go to New York for the weekend?
If you are of the ‘My Super Sweet Sixteenth’ way of thinking then I think you would have little interest in a show that does not focus on clothes, big cars, bling or fame. I dare say the show’s ethos of helping others because we can, sacrificing ourselves because it’s who we are and the unifying factor of family, (and all without reward) would unfortunately, be as alien to many of today’s viewers as a fish riding a bicycle.
When I showed that episode to the smallies in school, once they had it watched one kid asked ‘Miss, how much would they get paid to do that?’ Me: ‘Well they don’t actually get paid for it at all.’ Kid: ‘So why do they do it so?’ Me: ‘They do it because they want to help people.’ Kid: ‘God, they’re fair stupid.’ This kid (who was about 13) had difficulty grasping the concept of helping others for the sake of helping. When there wasn’t a monetary gain related to it, it lost credibility for him.
I find there really is a JFK ‘Ask not what your country can do for you….’ feel to the show. It’s portraying people who ask (and answer) what can they do for the betterment of others (quote possibly manipulated to suit my own purposes….) Sam and Dean could easily sit back and say ‘Well, I’m due a little me time’ but they don’t, they never have and probably never will. They’re asking what [i]else[/i] they can do to help others. ‘Oh man, these guys are running for Jesus, aren’t they….) This is a phenomenally noble way of looking at things but it is an alien way of thinking when a generation of materialism have us asking ‘Well, why [i]should[/i] I help others? What’s in it for me?’ (Did the show come twenty years too late, or too early, to be truly appreciated? Possibly)
SPN also has, to me, a bit of ‘Stand By Me’ or ‘Shawshank Redemption’ syndrome going on. ‘Stand By Me’ was a tiny film with a no-one cast that (I think) managed to knock ‘Top Gun’ off the top spot in the charts. The same thing has happened with SPN. It is creaming better known shows in DVD sales. I think ‘Shawshank’ was only in cinemas for a few weeks before it eventually caught fire in the video charts. Nowadays, TNT show that film once every two months and even with that, its popularity hasn’t waned. I feel the same applies to SPN. Its greatness, and appeal, is not truly recognised at this time but there is a constant, slow burning fire of appeal that just doesn’t die. (Over here, no one I know watches it. If SPN is on, it will be on a little watched station, at midnight, and they’re far from up to date with it. It is never, EVER advertised yet when I go to HMV or Virgin Megastore, every box set from season 1 to season 6 will be there for sale, and in large quantities and I know that when I go in after Christmas, there probably won’t be a single one left.)
I feel this slow, steady burn that SPN has will not go out because it’s selling the one thing that people always want, always need but are often too wary (or sceptical) to ask for, and that is hope. Pretty men and scary monsters aside, that, for me, is the main selling point of the show; the hope that things will turn out okay in the end if I work hard enough at it, the hope that my family will be happy and safe because I’ll do all I can to ensure it, the hope that if I keep on ploughing away, doing what I’m doing it will help someone, anyone.
These hopes are not fleeting or superficial (like reality TV, grrr); they are as deeply rooted as an oak tree, and as strong and long-lasting as one and it is this, I feel, that will ensure that the legacy of SPN will endure long after the show ends, regardless of awards.