I don't like it, I don't like it.
And I approached "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" with a fresh set of eyes and ears, trying to both respect the legend of this "groundbreaking" late-night soap-opera spoof and ignore the fact that it drew quite a cult following back in 1976.
Now, I'm wondering what sort of cult. Though this show came from the pen and brain of Norman Lear, it has nowhere near the clever writing, funny jokes, or perfect pacing of Lear's flagship sitcom, "All in the Family." Heck, it doesn't even come close to that show's last gasp, "Archie Bunker's Place." Watching "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" now, I can understand why the only thing I remembered about this show was the hype that surrounded it and star Louise Lasser's Swiss Miss braids and Good Ship Lollipop gingham jumper. It's really a forgettable show (except to all those cult followers, who will now, no doubt, start making a clay doll of me to poke with pins).
Lear abandons the laugh-track for this 30-minute sitcom, which may have been interesting years ago, but now the technique simply calls attention to how watching this show is like taking a stroll through a cemetery. It's dead. And what's surprising is that it isn't just a reflection of TV tastes from a generation that might have been amused by virtually anything. The same year that "MH, MH" caused a stir as a late-night alternative to talk shows, we were getting intelligent shows like "The Mary Tyler Moore Show, "The Bob Newhart Show," "The Odd Couple," "M*A*S*H," "Rhoda," "Maude," and "All in the Family." That's why I'm convinced that Lear's late-night soap opera lasted 325 episodes simply because it was something different. Remove uniqueness from the context, and it doesn't hold up. In fact, "Soap" fans will argue that this show, which debuted a year after "MH, MH," did a much better job of using soap opera conventions to skewer the genre.
What's crazy, is that this "parody" didn't strike me as outrageous or as funny as serious soap operas, some of which are so bad that they're unintentionally funny. When you think of soaps, you think of melodrama: plots that twist and turn so quickly that it makes the characters (and viewers) dizzy. That's not the case here. The plots aren't nearly as complex as the typical soaper, and the pacing is dreadfully slow. Soap opera plot conventions include bedhopping, evil twins, amnesia, incest, back-stabbing, auto accidents, romantic triangles, and you can picture what the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker trio might have done with a parody of the genre. What we get from Lear seems caught in a tonal limbo. You get some of those conventions, but not enough of them and they're too separated by lifeless dialog to add up to much. It's not outrageous enough to be true parody, and it's too tongue-in-cheek to be a straight soap opera.
Soaps are notorious for their overly dramatic and sentimental background music, but for whatever reason, Lear didn't use music except at the beginning/end credits--and even then, the music sounds more compatible with 1940s radio serials than 1970s soap operas.
And I approached "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" with a fresh set of eyes and ears, trying to both respect the legend of this "groundbreaking" late-night soap-opera spoof and ignore the fact that it drew quite a cult following back in 1976.
Now, I'm wondering what sort of cult. Though this show came from the pen and brain of Norman Lear, it has nowhere near the clever writing, funny jokes, or perfect pacing of Lear's flagship sitcom, "All in the Family." Heck, it doesn't even come close to that show's last gasp, "Archie Bunker's Place." Watching "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" now, I can understand why the only thing I remembered about this show was the hype that surrounded it and star Louise Lasser's Swiss Miss braids and Good Ship Lollipop gingham jumper. It's really a forgettable show (except to all those cult followers, who will now, no doubt, start making a clay doll of me to poke with pins).
Lear abandons the laugh-track for this 30-minute sitcom, which may have been interesting years ago, but now the technique simply calls attention to how watching this show is like taking a stroll through a cemetery. It's dead. And what's surprising is that it isn't just a reflection of TV tastes from a generation that might have been amused by virtually anything. The same year that "MH, MH" caused a stir as a late-night alternative to talk shows, we were getting intelligent shows like "The Mary Tyler Moore Show, "The Bob Newhart Show," "The Odd Couple," "M*A*S*H," "Rhoda," "Maude," and "All in the Family." That's why I'm convinced that Lear's late-night soap opera lasted 325 episodes simply because it was something different. Remove uniqueness from the context, and it doesn't hold up. In fact, "Soap" fans will argue that this show, which debuted a year after "MH, MH," did a much better job of using soap opera conventions to skewer the genre.
What's crazy, is that this "parody" didn't strike me as outrageous or as funny as serious soap operas, some of which are so bad that they're unintentionally funny. When you think of soaps, you think of melodrama: plots that twist and turn so quickly that it makes the characters (and viewers) dizzy. That's not the case here. The plots aren't nearly as complex as the typical soaper, and the pacing is dreadfully slow. Soap opera plot conventions include bedhopping, evil twins, amnesia, incest, back-stabbing, auto accidents, romantic triangles, and you can picture what the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker trio might have done with a parody of the genre. What we get from Lear seems caught in a tonal limbo. You get some of those conventions, but not enough of them and they're too separated by lifeless dialog to add up to much. It's not outrageous enough to be true parody, and it's too tongue-in-cheek to be a straight soap opera.
Soaps are notorious for their overly dramatic and sentimental background music, but for whatever reason, Lear didn't use music except at the beginning/end credits--and even then, the music sounds more compatible with 1940s radio serials than 1970s soap operas.
I don't like it, I don't like it.
And I approached "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" with a fresh set of eyes and ears, trying to both respect the legend of this "groundbreaking" late-night soap-opera spoof and ignore the fact that it drew quite a cult following back in 1976.
Now, I'm wondering what sort of cult. Though this show came from the pen and brain of Norman Lear, it has nowhere near the clever writing, funny jokes, or perfect pacing of Lear's flagship sitcom, "All in the Family." Heck, it doesn't even come close to that show's last gasp, "Archie Bunker's Place." Watching "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" now, I can understand why the only thing I remembered about this show was the hype that surrounded it and star Louise Lasser's Swiss Miss braids and Good Ship Lollipop gingham jumper. It's really a forgettable show (except to all those cult followers, who will now, no doubt, start making a clay doll of me to poke with pins).
Lear abandons the laugh-track for this 30-minute sitcom, which may have been interesting years ago, but now the technique simply calls attention to how watching this show is like taking a stroll through a cemetery. It's dead. And what's surprising is that it isn't just a reflection of TV tastes from a generation that might have been amused by virtually anything. The same year that "MH, MH" caused a stir as a late-night alternative to talk shows, we were getting intelligent shows like "The Mary Tyler Moore Show, "The Bob Newhart Show," "The Odd Couple," "M*A*S*H," "Rhoda," "Maude," and "All in the Family." That's why I'm convinced that Lear's late-night soap opera lasted 325 episodes simply because it was something different. Remove uniqueness from the context, and it doesn't hold up. In fact, "Soap" fans will argue that this show, which debuted a year after "MH, MH," did a much better job of using soap opera conventions to skewer the genre.
What's crazy, is that this "parody" didn't strike me as outrageous or as funny as serious soap operas, some of which are so bad that they're unintentionally funny. When you think of soaps, you think of melodrama: plots that twist and turn so quickly that it makes the characters (and viewers) dizzy. That's not the case here. The plots aren't nearly as complex as the typical soaper, and the pacing is dreadfully slow. Soap opera plot conventions include bedhopping, evil twins, amnesia, incest, back-stabbing, auto accidents, romantic triangles, and you can picture what the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker trio might have done with a parody of the genre. What we get from Lear seems caught in a tonal limbo. You get some of those conventions, but not enough of them and they're too separated by lifeless dialog to add up to much. It's not outrageous enough to be true parody, and it's too tongue-in-cheek to be a straight soap opera.
Soaps are notorious for their overly dramatic and sentimental background music, but for whatever reason, Lear didn't use music except at the beginning/end credits--and even then, the music sounds more compatible with 1940s radio serials than 1970s soap operas.
And I approached "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" with a fresh set of eyes and ears, trying to both respect the legend of this "groundbreaking" late-night soap-opera spoof and ignore the fact that it drew quite a cult following back in 1976.
Now, I'm wondering what sort of cult. Though this show came from the pen and brain of Norman Lear, it has nowhere near the clever writing, funny jokes, or perfect pacing of Lear's flagship sitcom, "All in the Family." Heck, it doesn't even come close to that show's last gasp, "Archie Bunker's Place." Watching "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" now, I can understand why the only thing I remembered about this show was the hype that surrounded it and star Louise Lasser's Swiss Miss braids and Good Ship Lollipop gingham jumper. It's really a forgettable show (except to all those cult followers, who will now, no doubt, start making a clay doll of me to poke with pins).
Lear abandons the laugh-track for this 30-minute sitcom, which may have been interesting years ago, but now the technique simply calls attention to how watching this show is like taking a stroll through a cemetery. It's dead. And what's surprising is that it isn't just a reflection of TV tastes from a generation that might have been amused by virtually anything. The same year that "MH, MH" caused a stir as a late-night alternative to talk shows, we were getting intelligent shows like "The Mary Tyler Moore Show, "The Bob Newhart Show," "The Odd Couple," "M*A*S*H," "Rhoda," "Maude," and "All in the Family." That's why I'm convinced that Lear's late-night soap opera lasted 325 episodes simply because it was something different. Remove uniqueness from the context, and it doesn't hold up. In fact, "Soap" fans will argue that this show, which debuted a year after "MH, MH," did a much better job of using soap opera conventions to skewer the genre.
What's crazy, is that this "parody" didn't strike me as outrageous or as funny as serious soap operas, some of which are so bad that they're unintentionally funny. When you think of soaps, you think of melodrama: plots that twist and turn so quickly that it makes the characters (and viewers) dizzy. That's not the case here. The plots aren't nearly as complex as the typical soaper, and the pacing is dreadfully slow. Soap opera plot conventions include bedhopping, evil twins, amnesia, incest, back-stabbing, auto accidents, romantic triangles, and you can picture what the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker trio might have done with a parody of the genre. What we get from Lear seems caught in a tonal limbo. You get some of those conventions, but not enough of them and they're too separated by lifeless dialog to add up to much. It's not outrageous enough to be true parody, and it's too tongue-in-cheek to be a straight soap opera.
Soaps are notorious for their overly dramatic and sentimental background music, but for whatever reason, Lear didn't use music except at the beginning/end credits--and even then, the music sounds more compatible with 1940s radio serials than 1970s soap operas.
No comments:
Post a Comment