Play All is James' reflection on binge-watching box sets (yes, he says 'box sets'. Perhaps he eats 'fry rice' while watching). He differentiates between a television drama in the "old sense" of a network weekly serial which just happens to have been boxed-up (box up?) such as The Good Wife, and a box set drama in the "new sense", such as Game of Thrones. He adores both and watches 3, 4, 5 episodes of either in one sitting with his daughter. He sees "the main advantage that a long-form tv show has over a movie" as affording "room to search souls", and explains the addiction : -"very soon the show works the magic trick of any successful myth, and convinces you that the phantasmagoria you see in front of you is real and inevitable, and that the major characters are aspects of your own complex personality". As he says so very rightly, proper grown-up adults are no longer interested in going to the cinema because "most of the new movies are blockbusters scaled-up from Marvel comics or video games".
Is "binge-watching" a thing? you may ask. James puts the term and its critiques into context : "We have merely labelled part of an evolutionary process with an ad hoc descriptive term, an only slightly less than usually misleading specimen of the academic nomenclature that divides up the history of anything into manageable chunks". "There is a bad tendency among instant commentators on the media to suppose that all qualities began with the new wrinkle: but most of those qualities wouldn't have gone there without being inherited from the old wrinkle" In that vein, James puts the 'new sense' box-set drama into its place in the evolutionary grind from movies through made-for-tv-series to wherever this whole streaming thing is going. And here's one of his arbitrary and personal theories - he quite seriously asserts that the ultimate tv genetic ancestors of these box sets with their long narrative arcs and linear themes are - wait for it - you won't believe it - The Rockford Files and Shogun. By the time we get to "NYPD Blue you can watch the single-episode procedural story morphing into the over-arching serial story of the complete season, and the seasons themselves becoming chapters in the total narrative arc."
Like Giles De'Ath in Love and Death on Long Island, James' open-mouthed adoration of certain actors seems to have arisen from not having really understood the idea of acting until quite recently.
De'Ath - "For is it not the case that when we are in the habit of viewing a film...more than once, assisted by that technological aide-memoire the video player, then a remarkable phenomenon presents itself. We see...that what, at first, appeared to be merely accidental or unrehearsed...becomes on subsequent viewings an indelible part of the film's texture. A distant landscape,
a blurred face in the crowd, even a banal message on a T-shirt. So, the largely unrecognized art of film acting...depends entirely
on the ability of the actor--or, indeed, actress--to make everything about himself--, or herself--seem equally permanent. When, thus, an actor is called upon to smile, he must try to select a smile from a collection--a repertoire--a whole file of smiles, as it were. Naïve, rueful, sly, sarcastic...and so on."
James (on Peter Dinklage in Game of Thrones) - "he suddenly made all the other male actors in the world look too tall...his face is a remarkable instrument of expression over which he has complete professional control, and his voice is a thing of rare beauty, as rich as Chaliapin singing Boris Godunov...Tyrion is the embodiment, in a small body, of the show's prepolitical psychological range." James admires them all - Gandolfini, Michael Imperioli, Martin Sheen, Kevin Spacey and Dennis Franz (NYPD Blue). Just think if Giles could see Charles Dance in Game of Thrones through James' eyes: "you get enough of him and it still isn't enough...There never was a more profoundly thoughtful transmitter of bitterly cured wisdom". Or James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano. His "face is creased with effort on its various levels and terraces. He is wondering where the ducks have gone. Is he reflecting that they must have left for the winter, or has it occurred to him that he too, might be subject to divine will?...It helps that the face belongs to James Gandolfini. It is massive."
That's the male players. Some of the female ones are really excellent, James says, even though they are not attractive to him, and so there is no real reason for them to be there - Nancy Marchand, Allison Janney and Robin Wright - are honoured. It has to be dealt with, so I shall do it now. James waxes lyrical and ridiculous about women whom he sees as sexy. He has no reason to watch a show if there is no-one in it for him to drool and swoon over. His language is typically excessive. Here are just a few of his paens -
The young Lorraine Bracco in Someone to Watch Over Me, "played a cop's wife so attractive that not even Mimi Rogers in distress could tempt him away for long"
Olivia Munn has the face of a "wicked angel...her bewitching eyes and her figure fit for the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated".
Milla Jovovich has "the most beautiful face in creation", although the "equally striking" Julianna Margulies is "built to walk on clouds."
Kari Mathett is "pitilessly arousing."
Sofia Helin is "very comely."
Nathalie Baye is "divine.'' "(be still, my beating heart)."
Keri Russell is "impossible not to adore."
Ammet Mahendru is "insanely lovely."
Claire Danes is "beautiful "and in Romeo and Juliet "was a lyric poem all by herself."
Kate Mara is "alluring."
Carole Rousseau is "cool and graceful" and apparently, if it weren't for her we might not watch whatever it is that she hosts, just as apparently, we might not watch The Good Wife if it were not for the striking Julianna Marguiles strolling about on water vapour.
Natasha Henstridge in a teddy is the only reason to watch John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars (and the only reason to mention it at all, apparently).
Alexandra Daddario is "extravagantly gorgeous". Not only is it a "relief" when she takes her shirt off, it has "startling visual impact."
Archie Panjabi from The Good Wife "keeps us, and half the characters whether male or female, erotically fascinated throughout the show: a vamp for all seasons, and it isn't even her fault. Her eyes were made for us to drown in, and for her to watch us struggle."
This drivel from just a few pages, made this reader feel queasy, inadequate, bored and annoyed. James invokes his daughters to show us that he knows what woman like; he praises women's increasing importance in production; he calls out the inequities in nude presentation still invoked by the Hollywood rules, and he even occasionally refers to a man as 'handsome'. But it's hard to see why, in James' world, any human who is not simply an adolescent (heterosexual) boy would want to watch anything at all. The one and only reason he had for watching Breaking Bad (more of this later) was Jane Margolis as played by Krysten Rittter. He pretends to address the "vexed question of eye candy" but his heart isn't in it. It's just possible that Lena Dunham may not be as flushed with joy as she should be to read that James describes her as adventurous and brave for daring to go on the telly despite being "not especially amazing to look at".
James' prose is overwrought, easy to read and fast. He is funny - "Very few of [Frank] O'Hara's poems get far beyond the condition of not being prose". Steve Buscemi's teeth are "so clearly designed for biting the head off a live chicken". The Coen brothers "can make you wonder if even George Clooney is quite all there." Kevin Spacey's features "just happened, like a Rorschach blot". Despite her beauty, Claire Danes as Carrie in Homeland attempts "to be unobtrusive by looking around like a Tourette's victim and shaking her head like a dervish". Having praised The Wire for (what he considers to be) a rare attempt to explain technical matters, James says of Enigma, "Nobody cracks the actual enigma code except by looking tense. They might as well be sucking pencils."
James is particularly scathing and funny about Scandanavian programmes, which he says are basically clean. "Basically but not reassuringly. Far from it: under the cleanliness there is a current of angst, like someone weird softly reading aloud from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling". He says, "I blame Wallander, who has been boring the world for so long now that three different actors have played him if you count Kenneth Branagh. Of the two Swedish Wallanders, Rolf Lassgard tries to make the character interesting by looking around a lot often approaching the looking-around record that Ben Kingsley established in Species..."
Frighteningly, but not surprisingly, given the place in history which he assigns to The Rockford Files, James adores (and I mean adores) those mediocre 'old form' programs, NYPD Blue, The Good Wife and The West Wing and their players. Did I say overwrought? James considers Martin Sheen as The West Wing's President Bartlet to be "an exemplary use of the charismatic central hero...an intellectual president ...bringing articulacy to his tightly argued humanist speeches". "All these real-life presidents [Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon and Obama] were smart, but even with their reputations rolled together they don't add up to Jed Bartlet, who in any number of illustrative scenes, gives us an account of exactly why developments in the cultivation of wheat present a decisive objection to Malthusian theories about imminent world starvation". "The only comparable presidential figure in American history is Lincoln, whose brilliance was confined to the English language". Sorry Abe, you suffered the disadvantage of being real. Barlet can orate in Latin, is "omniscient, energetic, an ethical giant, a poet king." Forget elections, political science and gravity - "The West Wing has taken the supremacy; it is our first frame of reference for thinking about the presidency". "Martin Sheen is terrifically good at being classy; he can't make himself tall, but he knows just how to make himself look as if he has a connoisseur's respect..." Sheen's Barlet is "so intensely human", "he pays for his superior gifts with high anxiety...he has an aching sense of responsibility". "He knows he is the best man for his job because he is the best qualified for analysis and decision; but...he knows history too well". At least, unlike Giles D'Ath, James is aware that there is a writer or writing team behind all this searing wonderfulness. The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin is his favourite, being "inspiringly good at making a questioning, troubled intellect....with its probing dialectical treatment of every liberal issue..."
When it comes to the 'new sense' of long-form content, James adores (yes, I use the word judiciously) The Sopranos, Band of Brothers, Mad Men and other series which are not widely known in Australia. He holds out on the big one - "Like anybody both adult and sane, I had no intention of watching Game of Thrones..." When describing the worlds of Game of Thrones he says, "There is icy cold instead of sandy heat, but still the level of tediums is very high.." I understand this, having a violent aversion to any film with a lot of sand in it (a permanent effect from having watched "The English Patient" and "Lawrence of Arabia" in the same century). Nor is James a fan of George R R Martin: "I picked up one of his books and fell down shortly afterward, and I wasn't even ill that day." But of course he succumbs and watches an episode or two. Horrifyingly, he sees "a not especially stunning princess" with a "not especially maddening form". What's she doing here? Why go on? "I'm still looking for all the reasons why it would have been right not to watch", but it's alright because he does persevere and is rewarded with a reason to do so - "As for the top woman of the realm, she is a beautiful expression of arbitrary terror, which is probably the first way to think about female beauty, if not the best. In a cast list where almost everyone stands out, the evil queen Cersei Lannister stands out most among the women, for she combines shapely grace with limitless evil in just the right mixture to scare a man to death while rendering him helpless with desire." Oh, hang on, perhaps James hasn't made himself clear. Being "superbly equipped by the cold edges of her classically sculpted looks to incarnate the concept of a femme fatale, Lena Headey beams Cersei's radiant malevolence at such a depth into the viewer's mind that she reawakens a formative disturbance." But wait. It's really really ok because when it comes to sex in Game of Thrones, "some of the female participants looked too gorgeous to be probable, but the same improbability occurs in everyday life, where chance dictates that you will sometimes see Venus Anadyomene at the supermarket checkout counter." Oh for God's sake, Clive.
James doesn't like Breaking Bad. Here are his ostensible reasons - he finds Walt dull and hard to sympathise with; doesn't like to see Walt walking about in his underpants with his mouth open (I feel that way about women, strangely enough Clive); Jesse is an unbearable punk with too oft-bared and unnaturally perfect teeth. He also says it is 'underpopulated' and neither light nor quick, unlike - and here he gives himself away - the "witty beauty" Jane Margolis, played by Krysten Ritter, upon whose death James says, "I could just about put up with the loss of cheesecake". He complains too that it turned into a "bad action movie" at the end. To the real reason for James' derision - the lack of female nudes - we can add James' overwhelming preference for bad-guy heroes of the Don Draper sort, "tall, handsome, enigmatic and effortlessly dominant", or Stringer Bell (Idris Elba) in The Wire, not Walter White. Remember what James said earlier about wanting more technical exposition? He says that Nucky's organisation in Boardwalk Empire "burgeons to little purpose and with not much in the way of planning. We need to see the criminal mastermind's superiority as a strategist...For dramatic purposes, it has to sound intricate even if it isn't". There's plenty of technical show-and-tell in Breaking Bad and a long, subtle strategy unfolds, wrinkle by wrinkle, in Walter White's brain; but it's just not worth sitting-through if it is presented by Walt and not Jane, or even Idris Elba, if we must. Similarly, James dismisses the British House of Cards because Ian Richardson's female victims are (in James' mind) insufficiently alluring to attract his fatal intentions". There's no Beatrice, in other words, to Clive's Dante.
Yes, it is all a matter of personal preference, but any real critic should be able to pick the fault in James' high opinion of Underbelly and Rake, two Australian series. He says, "the reason is simple: they're gripping, and that always has to be the first consideration. Without that, complication and sophistication count for nothing, or else you'd actually be enjoying the later novels of Henry James." Clearly this is objectively and patently wrong. Anyone with a scintilla of sensibility would indeed rather eat the later novels of Henry James or indeed Henry James himself, than watch such turgid, clichéd trash.
James makes some perceptive points about 'box-set' shows. The advertising executives in Mad Men don't question their methods and ethics, although James points out that those would have been active issues at the time depicted. His explanation for this has the tang of reality - "we revel in the opportunity to look back and patronise the clever for not being quite clever enough to be living now." "Mad Men is a marketing campaign and it sells a sense of superiority." And he has cleverly picked up that "the daughter is often the moral pivot in a box set drama, and all too often she is the irritating daughter." He develops these into the "category of Irritating Daughter and the category of Possibly Kidnapped Daughter."
James says that this form of show will be popular around the world because of its "globally recognisable frame of reference". Ironically he says that exotic geography isn't necessary if the story is strong enough (but says nothing about female nudity not mattering).
Finally he has something to say about the geo-political situation today. James opines that the "popularity of the gangster show in the Western countries might have something to do with a growing fear that in a battle against absolute evil a leader without an evil streak might get us killed."
[Peter adds: I love Clive's TV reviews of the 1970s and early 1980s. Alas, I fear that Clive has degenerated into a horny boy again, whose TV is a joy forever. He has always had an unerring and hilarious sense of cant, but a fatal weakness for a pretty girl (much like Otis Elwell in Sweet Smell of Success). Lesley tells it like I fear it is, but we both hope he gets better soon.]
Other Sellers on Amazon
$11.94
& FREE Shipping
& FREE Shipping
Sold by:
SBL BOOK STORE
Sold by:
SBL BOOK STORE
(43 ratings)
93% positive over last 12 months
93% positive over last 12 months
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Shipping rates
and
Return policy
$13.68
& FREE Shipping
& FREE Shipping
Sold by:
Orion LLC
Sold by:
Orion LLC
(62324 ratings)
92% positive over last 12 months
92% positive over last 12 months
Only 2 left in stock - order soon.
Shipping rates
and
Return policy
Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club?
Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Flip to back
Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Play All: A Bingewatcher’s Notebook Hardcover – August 30, 2016
by
Clive James
(Adapter)
|
Clive James
(Adapter)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
|
Price
|
New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$0.00
|
Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$19.46 | $9.90 |
Enhance your purchase
-
Print length216 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
PublisherYale University Press
-
Publication dateAugust 30, 2016
-
Dimensions5 x 0.75 x 7.75 inches
-
ISBN-109780300218091
-
ISBN-13978-0300218091
New releases
Explore popular titles in every genre and find something you love. See more
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Cultural Cohesion: The Essential EssaysPaperback$14.79$14.79FREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Monday, Sep 20Only 10 left in stock (more on the way).
Editorial Reviews
Review
"James loves television, he loves the winding stories it tells and that we share them together. Play All is a late love letter to the medium of our lives."—AA Gill, Sunday Times
"His style, smart as paint and full of esoteric references, but entranced by the stupid and the stupidly enjoyable, has been widely copied but never surpassed. . . . He shares with these serial dramas a fiercely intelligent populism, a willingness to play to the crowd while trusting they will be able to keep up without too much plot-summary or handholding."—Joe Moran, The Guardian
"A loving and breezy set of essays about the shows [James] admires and the flowering of TV more generally. . . . James is an incisive and hilarious critic with a relaxed, learned voice. . . . Play All is full of riotous turns of phrase, keen observations, and sick burns."—Willa Paskin, Slate
"James brings a fundamentally serious eye to his chosen medium, littering the prose with grand literary references, eager to engage with television as a worthy, even important, part of culture. . . . He does so with wit and knowing levity, conscious that television is neither fiction nor film, and that it carries its own evaluative criteria."—Andrew Irwin, Times Literary Supplement
"Play All is a small book but by no means a slight one. Large-brained and largehearted, and written with astonishing energy, it carries its study of the box-set dramas . . . into revelatory depths while reserving the right to be, wherever possible, superficial, waggish, ludicrous, Clive James-ian. It is also quite obviously and plangently full of love: love of life, love of story, love of art, love of daughters. Against a darkening background the TV screen flickers brighter, and James’s mind casts its illuminations with still greater vividness."—James Parker, New York Times Book Review
“If the [Nobel Prize in Literature] were ever to go to a critic, I’d give it to Clive James. He has so much erudition and high-stepping passion. He writes excellent poems and even better memoirs. He has delivered very good books of translation. He is a polymath. He is also very funny.”—Dwight Garner, New York Times
"James brings his sharp critical eye to TV’s current golden age, providing witty and insightful musing on popular and critically acclaimed series of the past two decades."—Publishers Weekly
"Eminent literary and cultural critic James comes back to an old beat: reviewing the offerings on the small screen. . . . [James] writes with unfailing insight. . . . The only flaw . . . is that it’s too short, leaving readers wanting more."—Kirkus Reviews
"James [is] as canny a critic as one could desire, and as elegantly smooth a writer."—William Deresiewicz, Harper's
"Play All is brilliant, comic nourishment. James has never written better or with so much mischief and elan. His observations—withering and celebratory—are bracingly intelligent and written in so accessible and winning a voice."—David Thomson
"His style, smart as paint and full of esoteric references, but entranced by the stupid and the stupidly enjoyable, has been widely copied but never surpassed. . . . He shares with these serial dramas a fiercely intelligent populism, a willingness to play to the crowd while trusting they will be able to keep up without too much plot-summary or handholding."—Joe Moran, The Guardian
"A loving and breezy set of essays about the shows [James] admires and the flowering of TV more generally. . . . James is an incisive and hilarious critic with a relaxed, learned voice. . . . Play All is full of riotous turns of phrase, keen observations, and sick burns."—Willa Paskin, Slate
"James brings a fundamentally serious eye to his chosen medium, littering the prose with grand literary references, eager to engage with television as a worthy, even important, part of culture. . . . He does so with wit and knowing levity, conscious that television is neither fiction nor film, and that it carries its own evaluative criteria."—Andrew Irwin, Times Literary Supplement
"Play All is a small book but by no means a slight one. Large-brained and largehearted, and written with astonishing energy, it carries its study of the box-set dramas . . . into revelatory depths while reserving the right to be, wherever possible, superficial, waggish, ludicrous, Clive James-ian. It is also quite obviously and plangently full of love: love of life, love of story, love of art, love of daughters. Against a darkening background the TV screen flickers brighter, and James’s mind casts its illuminations with still greater vividness."—James Parker, New York Times Book Review
“If the [Nobel Prize in Literature] were ever to go to a critic, I’d give it to Clive James. He has so much erudition and high-stepping passion. He writes excellent poems and even better memoirs. He has delivered very good books of translation. He is a polymath. He is also very funny.”—Dwight Garner, New York Times
"James brings his sharp critical eye to TV’s current golden age, providing witty and insightful musing on popular and critically acclaimed series of the past two decades."—Publishers Weekly
"Eminent literary and cultural critic James comes back to an old beat: reviewing the offerings on the small screen. . . . [James] writes with unfailing insight. . . . The only flaw . . . is that it’s too short, leaving readers wanting more."—Kirkus Reviews
"James [is] as canny a critic as one could desire, and as elegantly smooth a writer."—William Deresiewicz, Harper's
"Play All is brilliant, comic nourishment. James has never written better or with so much mischief and elan. His observations—withering and celebratory—are bracingly intelligent and written in so accessible and winning a voice."—David Thomson
About the Author
Clive James is an Australian memoirist, poet, translator, critic, and broadcaster who has written more than thirty books of fiction, nonfiction, and poetry. He lives in Cambridge, UK.
Start reading Play All: A Bingewatcher's Notebook on your Kindle in under a minute.
Don't have a Kindle? Compra tu Kindle aquí, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Don't have a Kindle? Compra tu Kindle aquí, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- ASIN : 0300218095
- Publisher : Yale University Press (August 30, 2016)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 216 pages
- ISBN-10 : 9780300218091
- ISBN-13 : 978-0300218091
- Item Weight : 13.2 ounces
- Dimensions : 5 x 0.75 x 7.75 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#2,164,518 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,843 in TV History & Criticism
- #4,000 in Television Performer Biographies
- #6,649 in Movie History & Criticism
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
4.3 out of 5 stars
4.3 out of 5
75 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on March 28, 2017
Verified Purchase
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on January 8, 2021
Verified Purchase
While this is slightly dated at binging DVDs (and he did acknowledge they might be obsolete soon) streaming continues the trend. And he is so worth reading any time. I love his writing and his insights into movies I also loved. He persuaded me to watch a few additional programmes. His enthusiasm is contagious.
Reviewed in the United States on October 22, 2016
Verified Purchase
Being a bingewatcher myself, although less concerned with deeper threads and issues of cultural context, I found CJ often on target and even where I think he misses the point worth making, readable and articulate.
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on November 1, 2016
Verified Purchase
Great book. Item was as described, well packaged and delivered promptly. Thanks to Clive for his continuing love of TV and his brilliant writing on the subject.
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on November 12, 2016
Verified Purchase
thanks for item as promised
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on October 2, 2016
Verified Purchase
James was the Observer TV critic in the 80s and looks at television as a real art, not something to distract. He brings his wit and cool eye to today's box sets. Great writing makes for great reading of good viewing.
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on August 2, 2016
One of this book's core theses is one i've harbored for a while, that long-form TV (which is to say, multi-season series that build from episode to episode rather than having each stand alone) fills a role in society now that was once filled by Great Novels. They provide a common experience that can be discussed at the water cooler (do companies even have water coolers anymore?), the gym, the dinner table. The provide a view of life that may or may not be accurate, that may or may not match the viewer's real-life circumstances, but provide a comparison and starting point for discussion regardless. Where once the literati sat in salons discussing the works of Shelley or Tolstoy or Shakespeare, now the viewerati (apologies) dissect every aspect of Walking Dead or The Sopranos on internet fora.
I have to admit, i watched TV much for years and hasn't binge-watched anything since Stargate: Universe went off the air. Huge swathes of this book are foreign to me. I've never seen a single episode of the Sopranos, or Band of Brothers. I have, however, watched a great deal of other shows mentioned or focused on, like West Wing and Battlestar Galactica.
This left me in an interesting place. For example, when the author discusses the relationship between Dr. Melfi and Tony after Melfi's assault, he suggests Melfi feels 'attraction' to Tony due to his alpha male status. Since i know only what the author tells me about the relationship between these two, i'm left in yet a third space: not the character, not the viewer, but the observer of the viewer. The author is, it seems based on his name, male. As a not-male person, i find myself dissecting the author's dissection of this dynamic. Is Melfi genuinely sexually attracted to Tony because she, his social inferior, feels that he, the alpha male, can protect her? Or is she simply aware that, as his social inferior, he, as the alpha, can protect her? Does the gender really matter? Is it Tony sexualizing Melfi, or is it the book's author doing so? Or do they all have it right and i'm simply criticizing the critic?
My point being, even if you haven't seen all of the shows this book discusses, the discussions are detailed and fascinating. And not detailed in the sense of 'what exactly did it mean when Bartlett gave Josh that look in season x episode y', but detailed in the sense of 'what does this show say about us, flattering or otherwise'.
'Us' is intrinsically an extension of the author, who wrote this book in part because he's slowly dying of an unpredictable cancer. He sees everything through the lens of his uncertain future. Not all of his experiences or generalizations will apply outside the Older Male English Cancer Patient demographic (see my gendered issue above).
Though the shows discussed are necessarily more dramatic than comedic, the author brings in a light and dismissive brand of British humor throughout. His take-down of reality TV, though only two sentences long, is thorough and delightful. It lifts this above being a dying man's reflection on the meaning of life vis a vis Mad Men into something far more universal.
I have to admit, i watched TV much for years and hasn't binge-watched anything since Stargate: Universe went off the air. Huge swathes of this book are foreign to me. I've never seen a single episode of the Sopranos, or Band of Brothers. I have, however, watched a great deal of other shows mentioned or focused on, like West Wing and Battlestar Galactica.
This left me in an interesting place. For example, when the author discusses the relationship between Dr. Melfi and Tony after Melfi's assault, he suggests Melfi feels 'attraction' to Tony due to his alpha male status. Since i know only what the author tells me about the relationship between these two, i'm left in yet a third space: not the character, not the viewer, but the observer of the viewer. The author is, it seems based on his name, male. As a not-male person, i find myself dissecting the author's dissection of this dynamic. Is Melfi genuinely sexually attracted to Tony because she, his social inferior, feels that he, the alpha male, can protect her? Or is she simply aware that, as his social inferior, he, as the alpha, can protect her? Does the gender really matter? Is it Tony sexualizing Melfi, or is it the book's author doing so? Or do they all have it right and i'm simply criticizing the critic?
My point being, even if you haven't seen all of the shows this book discusses, the discussions are detailed and fascinating. And not detailed in the sense of 'what exactly did it mean when Bartlett gave Josh that look in season x episode y', but detailed in the sense of 'what does this show say about us, flattering or otherwise'.
'Us' is intrinsically an extension of the author, who wrote this book in part because he's slowly dying of an unpredictable cancer. He sees everything through the lens of his uncertain future. Not all of his experiences or generalizations will apply outside the Older Male English Cancer Patient demographic (see my gendered issue above).
Though the shows discussed are necessarily more dramatic than comedic, the author brings in a light and dismissive brand of British humor throughout. His take-down of reality TV, though only two sentences long, is thorough and delightful. It lifts this above being a dying man's reflection on the meaning of life vis a vis Mad Men into something far more universal.
8 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Top reviews from other countries
Charles Brewer
5.0 out of 5 stars
Average for Clive James
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 12, 2016Verified Purchase
Another excellent outing from Mr James. Like many others, I'm hoping for lots more, since it requires that he continues to survive. I am beginning to wonder if his supposed mortal condition isn't just another Neighbours-like series-end cliff hanger while he renegotiates terms with the producer - agree to the right terms and you survive the hotel fire / plane crash / killer bee attack.
What is so enjoyable about this book is that the subjects he covers are a unique synthesis of the long form novel and the short form TV show, which deftly avoid the now unsatisfying 120-180 minute cinema format which is neither long enough to give a well-rounded exploration, nor short enough to allow development of individual characters and different stories. Clive James (unsurprisingly) appears to have been the critic who has identified this new and very 21st century format, which does not require either the dedication of a whole evening (cinema, theatre, opera), or the allocation of certain times of week (traditional television) to have a visual version of what previously only a wholly non-visual novel could offer.
In his analysis, James does not simply give an outline of plots, or say why character X comes out on top (or crashes into ruin), and is even content to describe when the logical culmination of a story puts into into banal territory (House of Cards - US), and I feel in only one case, his description of The Wire (which he clearly regards as an outstanding piece of work), has he held back on what he really wished to do, which was to run a parallel exposition of The Wire and Dante, since he clearly is of the view that even the First Circle inhabitant that is Stringer Bell (the correlate of Socrates or Saladin or Cicero) has no real chance of escape and that the rest of the environment is simply a reworking of various forms of Hell.
He is also happy to point out where these modern stories depart from plausibility too much to retain interest - Breaking Bad - and where the most awful and unwatchable plot components (dragons, zombies, weird religion and magic) fail to derail stories which contain the essence of human existence: unreasoning chance (the Norns gone mad), untrammelled exercise of power or the impact of underestimation of others.
This was a splendid binge read. I hope for more and expect this will be read as a snapshot when many other interpretations of the genre are remaindered.
What is so enjoyable about this book is that the subjects he covers are a unique synthesis of the long form novel and the short form TV show, which deftly avoid the now unsatisfying 120-180 minute cinema format which is neither long enough to give a well-rounded exploration, nor short enough to allow development of individual characters and different stories. Clive James (unsurprisingly) appears to have been the critic who has identified this new and very 21st century format, which does not require either the dedication of a whole evening (cinema, theatre, opera), or the allocation of certain times of week (traditional television) to have a visual version of what previously only a wholly non-visual novel could offer.
In his analysis, James does not simply give an outline of plots, or say why character X comes out on top (or crashes into ruin), and is even content to describe when the logical culmination of a story puts into into banal territory (House of Cards - US), and I feel in only one case, his description of The Wire (which he clearly regards as an outstanding piece of work), has he held back on what he really wished to do, which was to run a parallel exposition of The Wire and Dante, since he clearly is of the view that even the First Circle inhabitant that is Stringer Bell (the correlate of Socrates or Saladin or Cicero) has no real chance of escape and that the rest of the environment is simply a reworking of various forms of Hell.
He is also happy to point out where these modern stories depart from plausibility too much to retain interest - Breaking Bad - and where the most awful and unwatchable plot components (dragons, zombies, weird religion and magic) fail to derail stories which contain the essence of human existence: unreasoning chance (the Norns gone mad), untrammelled exercise of power or the impact of underestimation of others.
This was a splendid binge read. I hope for more and expect this will be read as a snapshot when many other interpretations of the genre are remaindered.
15 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Jeremy Walton
5.0 out of 5 stars
Still hooked
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 30, 2018Verified Purchase
To the joy of his admirers, Clive James is continuing to live on borrowed time in the respite from his illness ("I'm not off the hook, but the hook is holding me upright; and it doesn't even hurt, which makes me a lot luckier than some of the people I see at the hospital" [p4]) and has produced this little book as a companion to his
Latest Readings
, sharing how he's supplanted his reading with viewing. This reminds us of how he first came to the wider public eye as a TV critic (his
collected columns from the Observer
are still essential reading), but he's looking at something newer here: the box set which contains entire seasons of a drama serial. As usual, he writes intelligently and memorably about what he sees, and what he thinks of it. The fact that I've never seen any of the shows he discusses (apart from a few clips of Game Of Thrones on youtube) never spoilt my enjoyment of the book.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars
Clive James's guide to the TV boxed set revolution is a delight
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 8, 2018Verified Purchase
Clive James's newspaper TV reviews always used to inform, entertain and inspire me, and in this book it is great to see that, despite his recent ill health, his acerbic wit and perceptive observational powers are undiminished. This series of essays brilliantly assesses the great 'boxed set' television collections that have revolutionised our viewing habits. All the favourites are covered, from Breaking Bad and the Sopranos to The West Wing and Game of Thrones. He doesn't pull punches, but there is a warmth to his writing too, which always reminds you that as well as being a peerless critic he is, fundamentally, a fan like the rest of us. First rate.
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Little Davy B
5.0 out of 5 stars
A great book that you can scoot right through in one ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 9, 2017Verified Purchase
The Jedi maester of insightful review does it again! In spades, clubs, hearts, diamonds and pearls, with quintuple Nectar points on the side. A great book that you can scoot right through in one sitting - even if you’ve never seen the stuff! Marvellous!!
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
Ann Burley
5.0 out of 5 stars
An excellent choice
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on December 20, 2016Verified Purchase
An excellent read, witty, informative and thoughtful. It covered all the major TV offerings of recent years and gave a deeper understanding of their origins. Thank you Mr James and Bon Courage.
One person found this helpful
Report abuse
Pages with related products.
See and discover other items: history of video games, film studio history, bad movies, video games history, game of throne series, New Game of Thrones Books

