TV Satirizes TV, But Ignores Truth: A Look at MY ADVENTURES IN TELEVISION

[TMC]

https://jacksonupperco.com/2017/08/3...in-television/

Purported to be a satire of the industry, the show — while nevertheless visually brighter than Larry Sanders (this is a multi-cam mostly in front of a live audience, with some Sanders inspired walk-in-talks that likely were shot without one) — offers a much harsher take on its behind-the-scenes personalities. In this regard, it actually adheres to the sarcastic irreverence that many over-associate with Tolan’s prior TV-backstager. For instance, in addition to Shepherd’s character proudly proclaiming her tokenism, other stories in the show’s brief run include McCauley’s character feigning being gay in order to make industry connections, and McGraw’s character adopting a Chinese baby on a whim. (This latter episode, the fourth aired, “Chinese Baby,” caused a controversy for its perceived racial insensitivity. In fact, the series was pulled from the airwaves two weeks later before its last installment, “Diversity” — all about the network offending different minority groups — could be broadcast, cementing a cancellation that already seemed imminent.) Tolan’s heavily parodical aims make themselves more prominently felt with each installment, and while The Larry Sanders Show also contrasted the industry’s glamour with its off-screen absurdities for the sake of a premise-connected dramatic gravitas, such broad and comedically driven narrative goals are not found in that HBO series.

The success of My Adventures In Television‘s satire, specifically its laugh-getting success, can be debated. As always, low ratings were the cause of cancellation, and high quality writing (a subjective determination) would have been, as always, the best defense. Truthfully, no show should be counted upon to deliver excellence in such a short two-week (or five-week or six-week) period of time — the writers, the actors, and the audience all need to get to know the characters. But signs of future growth must be evident. For this series, I think both the setting and the comedic sensibilities of its creative team do indicate that the writing would have improved over time. Additionally, the cast is strong — John Cleese, though not terribly well-served yet, remains an asset of the tallest order, surrounded by amusing personalities like Shepherd, McCauley, and McGraw. And Sergei, though comparatively dull, is designed for a character-driven arc. None of that’s the problem. The problem, as I see it, is the inherent confusion in the premise’s intentions to take us “behind-the-scenes of network television,” a place these writers know well but we, the audience, know little. This concept implies, like The Larry Sanders Show, a certain commitment to reality — an aesthetic choice that stands in contrast to the heightened burlesque that comes packaged to these scripts’ satirical objectives.