I Make My Own Reality!

I don't usually find much of interest on CNN Entertainment's Marquee Blog, but this post on the lack of "real characters" on primetime TV caught my eye.

Now, poster Katie McLaughlin doesn't go out of her way to define what constitutes the "real[istic] characters" whose loss she's lamenting, but as far as I can tell "real" in this context means the one show she references as an example, that being the Connors on Roseanne. Since that's the only yardstick she offers as the basis of her post, the conclusion I've reached is that "real characters" are blue-collar, loudmouthed folks who still manage to maintain happy family bonds.

This poses two problems for me. The first is that, though TV has gone overboard in this direction as of late, unhappy families are no less realistic than the happy ones - in fact, I seem to remember hearing lots of whining (not from Ms. McLaughlin in particular) about the happy family sitcoms of yore as being unrealistic. And, as any poor schlub must grudgingly attest to, white-collar families are a fact of life too. Granted, they could be shown in primetime without going to 90210 or Gossip Girl extremes, but still.

Second, I've observed that recent shows with "real characters" have either taken lots of flack, or been cancelled altogether, like Journeyman, which had the most true marriage I can remember on the small screen. In the "lots of flack" category, let's take a look at two of the most widely reviled: Two and a Half Men and According to Jim. Men is a very adult show starring Charlie Sheen as a rich, narcissistic, hedonistic, sex fiend who's grudgingly taken in his brother and nephew after the former's messy divorce. The criticisms I've heard about this show are primarily directed at the Charlie character, and how he's too unpleasant. The thing is, there are lots of other past and present primetime stars like Charlie - the difference with Two and a Half Men is that it actually dares to show this spoiled, self-obsessed playboy as being a miserable and offensive person whose lifestyle is a farce, not a goal. And in that, Two and a Half Men has one of the most boldly realistic characters I've seen on TV, period. According to Jim gets most of its flack because it's "unrealistic" that someone who looks like Jim Belushi could win the love (and hand in marriage) of a gorgeous blonde like Courtney Thorne-Smith. This odd new sexism has been especially rampant since the promo posters for Knocked Up featured a headshot of Seth Rogen under the slogan, "Would you sleep with this guy?" - the joke, of course, being that Seth Rogen doesn't exactly fall under the common definiton of good looking, and that the girl who does sleep with him is, again, a gorgeous blonde. A couple of months ago, the Toronto Star ran a horrific full-page article whose thesis was that there must be something wrong with beautiful people (celebrities) who marry not-so-beautiful people. I kid you not. Just last week, in honour of Zack and Miri Make A Porno - Seth Rogen again! - , the Edmonton Journal did an article about how ridiculous and unrealistic movies are wherein the leading man isn't good-looking (according to them), but the leading lady is. My point is, if such mind-bogglingly infantile definitions of realism are publicly accepted, then it's no wonder the studios are just giving the people what most of them want.

At any rate, unless the conversation is limited solely to sitcoms, I don't think there's a terrible dearth of believable or realistic TV denizens at the moment. On Chuck alone, Chuck, Morgan, Sarah, Casey, Ellie, Lester, and even Captain Awesome are all people I've met at some point. Rodney McKay and Radek Zelenka from Stargate: Atlantis. Col. Tigh, Gaius Baltar, and Laura Roslin from Battlestar Galactica. Van Pelt and Rigsby from The Mentalist. Sam, Dean, and Bobby from Supernatural. The Epps family from Numb3rs. Heck, even Brent and Lacey from Corner Gas. A lack? I'd have to disagree.

I guess it all depends on what you watch and where you watch it. And what you think makes a character real.