Happy Friday, and thanks for tuning in!
This week, a few friends and I were talking about the TV deaths that scarred us the most, and I noticed that a decent amount of my most emotional TV moments came during my teen years. That, in combination with a few-years-old piece I saw about which songs we cling to (more on this later), got me thinking about how impactful the TV we watch as teenagers can be, and over the past few days, I’ve been revisiting some old favorites. In today’s issue, I’m throwing things waaaay back, and also launching a new section, which I’d love to invite y’all to be part of (more on this later, too).
Also, the Golden Globes nominations came out this week, and they’re...weird. Some obvious masterpieces were snubbed, while widely panned efforts scooped up nominations left and right. In the second half of this week’s issue, I’ll be taking a closer look at what really makes something awards-worthy.
If you enjoy this newsletter, pass it on! If you hate this newsletter, send it to the person who made you most miserable at age 14! Either way, sharing is caring.
What were you watching at age 14?
Image credit: 20th Century Fox / The Walt Disney Company
There was an interesting piece in the New York Times Opinion section a few years back, where author and data scientist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz took a look at people’s music tastes, and specifically, the age where our music preferences really stick. What he found was that for men, songs hit peak influence at age 14 (so adult men are likely to still be listening to their middle-school faves decades later), and that for women, it’s around age 13. (Check out the full piece for some handy graphs and more in-depth explanations of the data.)
In light of my own recent TV backslides, AKA seeking comfort from old favorite TV shows during the emotional whirlwind this past year has been, I’ve been thinking about that preferences piece in terms of television viewing. So many of the people I know who are involved in online fandoms, whether through social media or fanfiction or forums or whatever else, are either still involved in or circle back to shows from when they were in their early-to-mid teen years, and it seems like this past year has brought that out even in friends who steer far away from online fandom.
For me, the past few months have seen revisits of Firefly, The OC, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Bones, Criminal Minds, Psych, Pushing Daisies, Merlin, Teen Wolf, Young Justice, and Heroes — even just watching certain scenes takes me right back to when I was in ninth grade, watching terrible pirated clips on YouTube of so many shows that, in a pre-streaming world, I had a hard time getting consistent access to. Today, pretty much all of these shows are available instantly through one of my seven (!!!) streaming subscriptions, so anytime I want to take a walk down memory lane, it’s just a few clicks away.
All this reminiscing has helped me take a harder look at the series that shaped me, as a TV critic and as a fan, and also has helped me realize that I’ve carried many of my viewing preferences into adulthood (for example, I still love TV with a supernatural twist, and I firmly believe character death scenes make or break a show). And it’s gotten me interested in how other people were shaped by their teen watching, too.
Which brings me to the point of all this. I’m launching a new section, which you’ll see pop up in future issues (still figuring out the cadence but at the moment I’m thinking bi-weekly), where I interview friends, fellow TV fans, and subscribers about how their teenage TV habits have shaped them. I’d love to feature some readers of this newsletter, since I figure if you’re here and reading this, you either know me personally and feel obligated to support me (thanks as always for tuning in, Mom), or you love TV too, and you probably have some great picks. Or at least, your 14-year-old self probably had better taste than me, which is totally something you can brag about here.
If you’d like to be featured in a future newsletter (which would involve a fun, casual interview, and however you want to be credited), just reply to this email, and I’ll reach out with next steps!
What makes something awards-worthy?
Image credit: Netflix
The Golden Globes nominations came out this week, and people are not happy. And by “people,” I mean me, as well as tons of TV fans, critics, and even industry professionals who find some of the nominations (and some of the snubs) absolutely baffling.
While some of the picks are expected and even appreciated (like the many Schitt’s Creek noms), others make no sense at all (the much-maligned Ratched made the list, as did famously so-bad-it’s-good Emily in Paris). And while some of the year’s best, most personal works didn’t gather as much as a single nomination (perhaps most notably I May Destroy You), some deeply problematic works picked up multiple nods (Music, which has been heavily criticized by the autism community, took two motion picture nominations).
The list confuses me. Some seriously solid works are stacked against some terrible ones, and sure, it was a rough year for new releases, but good things did come out that were glaringly left off the list!
In a conversation with some friends when the nominations dropped, controversial pick Emily in Paris came up as a show that was supremely watchable, and at times very fun, but also just kind of… bad? And it got me wondering: is being fun enough to be awards-worthy? And, on the flip side, if something is technically excellent but not fun to watch (my best personal example of this is The Crown, which I realize is gloriously elegant and serious but which I simply cannot ever finish, due to how boring it is), does that make it worthy of accolades?
Look, if we were handing out nominations based on pure fun, Eurovision would’ve picked up at least one nomination. I’m not the first to say that, and I’m sure I won’t be the last, but to me, a movie that was technically imperfect but was a blast to watch, tip to toe, absolutely deserves to be recognized for the joy it brought.
But then, does that mean I’m not allowed to criticize the inclusion of the Emily in Parises of the nominations list?
The much bigger issue, of course, is recognizing how deeply problematic elements of this list are. Why were masterpiece-level contributions by artists of color left off, while mediocre works by white creators picked up multiple nods? How did a movie that has been rightfully rejected as harmful by the community it was trying to represent slide in, while films with truly diverse voices were left unacknowledged?
And sure, it’s true that art means something different to all of us, and that what we’re all looking for in our TV and movies and general pop consumption is based on our own deeply personal preferences. But at the end of the day, don’t awards shows have some kind of a responsibility to try to truly find the best?
As with so many things, there are no good answers here, but maybe this year of awards shows at a distance can give us the mental distance to see that we really don’t need awards shows to tell us what’s good, after all.
Bonus Features
TV series face big complications when it comes to COVID-19, and beyond practical considerations, there are creative ones, too. How much masked-up content do viewers want to see? Is it fair to pretend like life is normal, at least on TV?
In spite of the pandemic, TV and film production spend in the UK didn’t take as much of a hit as some might have expected in 2020.
Sundance was different this year (for me personally, it was the first year I missed since probably high school), with most critics and film fans catching screenings from home. Here’s a recap of some of the festival’s buzz.
That’s all for this week! Thanks, as always, for tuning in.