Question of the week #55

[treonb]

The Americans has received widespread critical acclaim, but has thus far failed to grow an audience equal to the size of a lot of other "prestige dramas." What do you think the reasons are for that?

You can expect spoilers for the entire first three seasons in the comments.

(There's no expiration date on these questions, so if you're reading this post months later and feel like jumping in, please do.)

Comments

[treonb]

First of all, it's a show which portrays things from the side of the Soviet enemy, which doesn't make it easy to become popular.

Second, the show is getting more and more depressing, and that turns off people too. For whatever reason, viewership numbers are going down.

But I'm also wondering whether there isn't also a lot of non-related factors involved: What other shows there are (altogether and on that time slot), how FX is viewed, even pure luck. "Breaking Bad", for example, only became majorly popular in its last season. If it had been on HBO instead of AMC, it might have gotten more traction from the start.

[sistermagpie]

You know, it's weird because I'm not sure. Are people turned off by the Soviet perspective? I don't know. I have one friend who wasn't interested because she felt like she knew how it turned out given history.

But I feel sometimes like it's something more...like there's something about the real meat of the show that people aren't excited by. I mean, it's not a power fantasy despite the two superhero leads.. It just seems like there's something about the whole premise that...leaves people cold. They're just not excited by the idea of undercover Russian spies as the heroes. They weren't interested in it in Allegiance either despite that show seeming from what I heard to be more OTT.

It's probably good remember that The Wire never did well either, and that was another show that I think critics always said was the best. I don't know if it'll ever get the kind of respect The Wire gets with people watching it on DVD. But I think the premise of that show had more attraction and people just stayed away because it was daunting. The Americans might have some of that too since it's so painful, but if people aren't watching it they don't know. I do have one friend who doesn't watch it because of the tension, but that's a general rule with her.

It just seems like people don't feel an automatic connection to or don't have an immediate idea about "Russian spies" or something. I am, of course, probably the worst person to ask why somebody WOULDN'T like this show.

[shapinglight]

I really can't account for it, unless it's down to American audiences being turned off by the central premise.

Personally, I'm just glad that the show has been given a fourth season and hope that the showrunners have planned for it to be the last as well as planning for it to continue.

[(Anonymous)]

A show like this on a cable channel needs to be promoted on the broadcast networks so that people know it's there.

Treon mentioned that is has become more depressing. I agree. Also, the show runners and lead actors have always talked about it being primarily a relationship drama, but season 3 had very little to do with the relationship between Phillip and Elizabeth. I think people want to see what's going on with them.

Also, let's get Nina back home. I really disliked the whole storyline of Nina in jail in Russia. Boring, depressing, no interaction with other main characters. Show writers...please fix that.

[theplatonicnonyeah]

Like the others have touched upon, there are probably many different things at play.

I think one of the main reasons people aren't watching may be that the show isn't so easily defined. Is it a drama series? Is it a political thriller? But there is also sex and romance (of sorts)...?

I would say it's more like regular life than most other shows and maybe that's why. It's very honest about relationships and why people do things to/for each other, but there are no real moral codes. The "bad" characters are not punished, there is no real lesson to be learned, sometimes a favourite character dies (Amador, Gregory).

On the one hand, I'm glad this show isn't massive, because it puts a lot of strain on everyone involved. (It's enough that the two main actors are dating. I don't think a show benefits from gossip and pap photos of the actors, so I'm glad those two are so relatively anonymous in the celebrity world.)

On the other hand, I'm also fiercely proud of the show and want more people to appreciate it - even if it doesn't win major awards.

[jae]

I actually don't believe it has anything to do with the show being depressing. That didn't stop "Breaking Bad." I mean, I think there are certainly people who don't want to watch the show because it's depressing, but the people (and there are plenty) who don't mind depressing dramas aren't watching it, either.

Instead I keep going back to the various times that critics Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan have talked about the show on their "Hollywood Prospectus" podcast. Greenwald loves the show--he's as big a fan as any of us. Ryan thinks it's okay but nothing special. And if you look at what Ryan says about it, you'd think he's talking about some completely different show. "Every episode is exactly the same," he said. "Nothing ever happens." This is a smart man--and a professional TV critic--and yet there's something about the show that he's just not "getting," not seeing when he watches it.

Anyway, I don't know what it is or why it is, but I really do think that for whatever reason, there's a large group of people out there that doesn't understand the show. Maybe they keep trying to watch it on the level of spy hijinks and find that it doesn't live up to their expectations (because this isn't really a show about spy hijinks).

-J

[treonb]

I don't watch a lot of TV, so my point of reference is skewed, but it is by far the most depressing show I watch. And for me, the intensity of it was also unexpected.

I think Ryan does have a point. Again, I don't have much reference, but the show does seem to develop the story very slowly. Most episodes, I felt were buildup for the next ones. In S3, they didn't even bother resolving most of the story-lines, so the buildup wasn't even realized yet (though I did prefer that over their S2 attempt to try and solve everything in ten minutes).

And while there is enough spy hijinks, there isn't much coming from the FBI/Stan's side. I realize the FBI can't get too close, but they're barely investigating. How does that compare to Breaking Bad? I suppose they had the same problem there (?)

[sistermagpie]

And while there is enough spy hijinks, there isn't much coming from the FBI/Stan's side. I realize the FBI can't get too close, but they're barely investigating. How does that compare to Breaking Bad? I suppose they had the same problem there (?)

Not a problem on BB. There was a lot of stuff on the DEA side all the time, and the Stan character was much more neck and neck with Walter a lot of the time. But it was also a very plot-driven show where things happened and people reacted to them and there was evidence to track etc. Most of the seasons of the show all took place within a year of show-time.

I don't actually think it was depressing, though. I think people found it exhilarating in ways they couldn't find this show. Walter was invigorated by his stressful life, plus he was already dying. So while the narrative was destructive, it was destructive in a way that I think appealed to power fantasy types. It was like the hero had a scorched earth policy. It didn't have the grinding hopelessness of this show at all.

[sistermagpie]

Yeah, the problem with the "it's depressing" idea is that it seems like there'd need to be something in the actual premise that signals "this is going to be depressing" and there just isn't. On paper it sounds like fun hijinx. It's not like The Wire where people got "depressing" from the subject matter.

When I've looked on the Facebook page people there often do also seem to be watching a different show, despite the fact that they're actually watching the show. They're still looking out for shocking twists and action movie type plot things.

[(Anonymous)]

I commiserate with the sense that many folks are not 'getting' something, and with the degree and locations of the show's intensity.

Nothing about the show's summary, which every article must shoehorn in there, lets people know that much of the drama focuses on family members who (start off) not knowing each other well, have absolutely no ability to communicate (or even get in touch with) what's going on inside them, and deal with incredible fear for their family's destruction almost entirely internally.

I forget who compared P&E's emotional image, and called Philip 'volcanic'.
I think that's exactly right.
I'm riveted by him (and Elizabeth) just looking out a window, and can only guess at the roiling emotions, iron discipline, stark knowledge of the consequences of one's actions, and cold evaluation of possible reactions to whatever they're thinking about.

Ryan is right that every episode is (partly) the same, and that (quite often) nothing happens, but those 'quiet' parts are the ones that resonate most with me. The hijinks can be exhilarating, but the dramatic tension is seismic.

Yet, I can totally see how someone who has different expectations or hopes for a spy show may be confused by lots of long stares and awkward attempts at communication.

[jae]

Such a smart comment! I'm sorry I haven't responded until now--it's been a busy time.

I think you're right that the emotional aspects are hard to convey in a summary, and yet more than anything those are the parts that make the show what it is. There's a new German show called "Deutschland 83" that has a very similar summary, but the shows couldn't end up being more different, as a result of the comparative absence of those emotional/interpersonal bits in "Deutschland 83."

-J

[treonb]

I found this article discussing ratings, and I think they're saying it can be an issue of the network airing the show

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2013/09/30/breaking-bad-finale-is-big-but-not-amcs-biggest/

Breaking Bad‘s reported numbers (Nielsen has yet to release official numbers) don’t match up to The Walking Dead‘s season finale in April. That episode drew 12.4 million viewers. And it wasn’t even show’s goodbye. Imagine how many people will tune in when Walking Dead finally goes of the air.

This kind of success isn’t easy. Cable networks like USA and FX try to compete but they can’t match the buzz and devotion AMCs shows inspire. Thanks to services like Netflix NFLX +0.28%, people binge on AMC shows just as passionately as they watch new episodes and the streaming success fueled the live success. Last night’s Breaking Bad was a hit on social networking as well as on TV. According to AMC, at its peak last night there were 23,599 tweets per minute about Breaking Bad. Those kinds of numbers helped AMC ask for roughly $250,000 per 30 second ad for the finale.

[jae]

Today I ran across this comment that I once made in a discussion in my own journal, and it struck me that it made for a better response to this question than the one I actually gave!

I've become convinced that The Americans doesn't tend to work for people who don't (for whatever reason) want to watch it with their brains fully engaged--it's a verrrrrrrry subtle show that relies on you not only remembering but fully comprehending the various layers of things that have happened in past episodes without shoving reminders in your face first. There are actually things in it--sometimes crucial things!--that are so subtle that I sometimes don't fully understand them until second viewing, and I already watch pretty attentively the first time around. That means that if you're not watching carefully, you only end up seeing the frame of an episode rather than the meat, and the frame is just so very much not the point of that show.

-J

[sistermagpie]

This reminds me of a comment I read once where the person said, "Every episode is the same. They're always have to plant some bug to listen to what somebody else is saying."

[jae]

I find that sort of comment so frustrating!

-J

[treonb]

Can you give an example?

[jae]

Of which part?

-J

[treonb]

Of crucial things that were portrayed subtly. Because I think I'm a shallow viewer and I generally enjoy the show.

[jae]

The only thing that leaps immediately to mind is the way that Elizabeth's recollections of her rape tend to be portrayed: both when she had to use it to try to seduce Brad, and during the "roleplay" scene. In neither case did the show hit us over the head with "remember, she was raped! remember! this is why this is affecting her the way it is! you have to remember!" There wasn't even a reference to it in the "previouslies" before the episode. And judging from Twitter, this meant that a lot of casual viewers didn't get the reference either time--possibly people who never saw the pilot, or who had forgotten about it because they were not hit over the head with it.

But there have been a lot of things beyond that too. It'll be easier to mention them as they occur throughout season four, I suspect; remind me in our discussions.

-J

[sistermagpie]

I'd also say that for some people it's "subtle" in that the important moments are happening in quiet scenes. So that's why people say things like "nothing happened" when what they mean is there was no big change of the status quo. So they register things like Elizabeth almost getting caught by the FBI but if she's talking to Paige and Paige refers to Gregory as a "drug dealer" in a way that's judgmental that doesn't register as important. It's just a filler scene that's marking time until a big blow up.

But really that's where most of the drama on the show takes place, in those little moments where people show their positions on things and the other person has to adjust to it or whatever.

It's related to things like the rape because just as you miss the significance if you forget that Elizabeth was raped and that's motivating her in a scene, in a scene like that you need to think about who Gregory was, what he was doing, what choices he made, how Elizabeth wants to present it, how it comes across to Paige, how Paige is presenting it, what that means for Paige's potential recruitment, what the indications are for Paige and Elizabeth coming to an understanding or not...

Elizabeth and Paige both get that in the scene fro their own perspectives. But it's very easy to just read the only important in the scene as being that Paige looked up Gregory's history and is telling Elizabeth about it.

[jae]

The Gregory one is an EXCELLENT example of exactly what I meant. The perception of the show depends on the audience remembering things and making connections between things, and if you miss those things altogether because you aren't paying close attention (or weren't paying close attention when the things that are being subtly referred to were first mentioned--or maybe didn't even see the original episode).

For what it's worth, though, I really don't think Treon counts as a shallow viewer of the sort I meant in my original comment. I mean, Treon, even if you are in fact the shallowest of shallow in your original viewing, anybody who then subsequently discusses each episode to death in this community is going to have a different view of the show than the sort of casual viewer who's maybe walking in and out of the room while the show airs.

-J

[treonb]

Well, yes, it is hard to miss things when it's all pointed out to you ;-) And I do get a better appreciation of the most subtle points thanks to this comm.

I think that I didn't understand you at first because those subtle points are more related to the drama of the show, not really to the 'spy story' aspects (which do appeal to me more). To take the 'bug' example above, that's what spying is all about.

[jae]

I guess I do think if you JUST try to watch the show as a spy story, though, it won't seem like enough. That's what I meant by "the frame" in my original comment--the spy story is the frame, and as spy stories go, it's less meaty than others, which could seem dissatisfying. But that's really because the meat is elsewhere.

-J

[treonb]

I definitely agree. So maybe their biggest problem is that the people who like the drama are turned off by the idea of spy show and don't even give it a chance, and the people who want a spy show don't see what they signed up for and feel cheated.

[jae]

Support for the latter half of that: the pilot got a HUGE audience, and the network bragged about that everywhere, but there was a STEEP dropoff in ratings in the second week, and they continued to drop for a while before eventually stabilizing at something much lower.

-J

[sistermagpie]

Yes, just recently I came across a comment I made where I'd been talking to somebody who didn't like Stan, and they were basically trying to argue that things like the poor writing (in their view) of Stan was what turned people off the show. I had said that people found the show boring and that's why they said they didn't watch it. They felt that when people said "It's boring" they meant the characters were boring. And that was just obviously not true at all, imo. It wasn't that people were following the character arcs close and thought the characters were boring, it was that they watched for twists in the spy plot. So unless a talking scene directly led to a big plot development it was a wash out because it didn't lead anywhere.

Where really all that stuff is the meat. I was thinking last night a lot about how I imagined, character-wise, how Philip and Elizabeth would react to Paige telling Pastor Tim and for me, at least, it felt like there were all these passing character moments that seemed like they could lay the groundwork for it. That's the sort of thing that usually matters.

It was also doubly interesting to think about because with Elizabeth you had a specific backstory to apply to the situation, while with Philip it was just patterns of behavior which made it even *more* subtle. Because you didn't even have flashbacks or past incidents that were discussed, it was just noticing what things he's reacted to in the past and how and what that might say about his character without having any explanation. Not to mention, too, that with characters like Elizabeth we're sometimes meant to understand more about her than she understands about herself. So again, you often have to look at things characters have done rather than even what they say, and what people say always takes precedence in the mind of the viewers. (Here too there's Jared claiming he killed his family out of loyalty for the cause, but that's totally not what happened.)