The Hulu Hula: Part Two

Nobody likes a critic who hates everything. And nobody trusts a critic who loves everything. But, for some reason, people enjoy my writing when I write about things I do not like. The proof is in the analytics. When I write glowing, positive reviews, they draw fewer people to the website and elicit fewer responses or comments from readers. Yet when I offer up a slamming condemnation, the numbers spike.

I find that statistical reality odd, since I perceive my chief negative attribute to be that I am too negative. I complain too much. I struggle to find the positive. But, at day’s end, people don’t care about what I like. They want me to slaughter something. Perhaps I can find a middle ground.

Last time, I wrote about some of the shows of yesteryear presently available on Hulu. Specifically, I wrote about shows to be avoided. This time around, I want to tell you about more shows of yesteryear presently available on Hulu. But these shows are to be watched at the earliest opportunity.

Babylon 5
The Dick Van Dyke Show
Hill Street Blues
I Spy
Lou Grant
Murder One
Peacemakers

The compromise? They weren’t nearly as good the first time around; at least, I didn’t think so. And, to appease those who like to hear me talk trash, I will tell you why. But recent viewings of these shows made me change my mind. Maybe, like me, you didn’t take to these programs when they originally aired. Consider this: As stubborn as I am and as negative as I can be, I was able to set all that aside and reconsider these shows… and I am a better person for it.

The pilot of “Babylon 5” was a two-hour movie called “The Gathering.” It was as boring as a TV show could get. It also tried to be four or five things at once, and, as a result, it did none of them well. The cast didn’t seem to know their respective characters, the sets looked incomplete, and the visual effects looked like the old Duck Dodgers cartoon featuring Daffy Duck. The thing about “Babylon 5” is this: It grows on you. It shows events of galactic importance writ small so as to be understood. But more than understanding, viewers feel for the characters in a way that should not be possible considering the heavy latex prosthetics encasing most of the actors. As proof, a few years ago, when Andreas Katsulas passed away, I actually mourned the passing of his B5 character G’Kar at least as much (maybe more) than the passing of the man himself. Watch “The Gathering” on Hulu (listed as episode 23 of season one) so you can get the backstory, then watch the first eight episodes of the series. If the show doesn’t grow on you by then, move on. But I’m guessing you’ll thank me.

I think my initial problem with “The Dick Van Dyke Show” was that I didn’t like the company it kept. By the time I got around to watching it, it was in syndication and usually coupled with other shows of that era. Shows like “I Love Lucy,” “The Munsters,” or “Mister Ed” were often paired with Mr. Van Dyke, and I never found those shows to be very funny (I know, we should all bow down and worship at the altar of Lucille Ball, but her show was a one-note joke that managed to be played the same way every episode… a few funny scenes, but once you’ve seen her shtick, you don’t really need to see it again). I can only guess that some lame programming director lumped them together because he or she (probably he, in those days) felt all black and white shows were more or less the same. They were not. A surprising amount of the comedy found on “The Dick Van Dyke Show” feels as modern and contemporary as any well-written sitcom of the present generation. There were even a few edgy moments that managed to get past the standards and practices people. Part family show, part workplace comedy, the show blended two genres in a way that hadn’t been done before (and, though it has been done since, more than a few shows “borrow” from Van Dyke). And, for the record, Mary Tyler Moore is cute as cute can be.

“Hill Street Blues” looked, sounded, and felt unlike any other cop show that came before it… which was, of course, the point. At the time, I couldn’t see what a visionary Stephen Bochco was. All I saw was a show filled with, frankly, ugly actors and actresses. They worked on a filthy set and said filthy words. They were as flawed as flawed could be. And I didn’t understand how refreshing, if not realistic, that was. I didn’t see the comedy, and the dramatic path of Bochco was so novel that I couldn’t follow it. I was used to cop shows pandering to me, offering up gratuitous action sequences, and giving me the satisfaction of seeing a bad guy in handcuffs at the end of every episode. The cops on the hill didn’t work that way, and as a child of the ‘80s, I failed to recognize what Bochco and the gang were trying to do. Hindsight serves this series well.

I was outright blind to the quality of “I Spy,” because, as previously stated, I was a child of the ‘80s. I knew Bill Cosby as a comedian with a hit family sitcom. I knew Robert Culp as the comic foil for William Katt on “The Greatest America Hero.” I was, therefore, hopelessly blind to what was one of the greatest on-screen chemistries between any acting duo in the history of the medium. I failed to see Robert Culp as an action hero, because action heroes don’t wear pastel sweaters and play tennis. I failed to comprehend how exotic the show was, filming on location all over the world. I saw it as a much slower paced “Mission: Impossible,” a show which inevitably led or followed “I Spy” in reruns. Though the series was by no means brilliant, it was groundbreaking in showing Culp and Cosby as equal partners at a very unequal period of our nation’s history. The banter between the two men is what makes the series a classic. Nearly all “buddy” movies and TV shows owe a debt of gratitude to this series for setting the standard.

“The Mary Tyler Moore” show was laugh-out-loud funny. “Lou Grant” was not, but, at the time, I really wanted it to be. This meant that, again, my prejudices ruined what should have been an enjoyable viewing experience for me. “Lou Grant” offered a behind-the-scenes look at the world of journalism. But it wasn’t funny. “Lou Grant” challenged the preconceptions of viewers and dared to make them think about how ethical actual newspaper writers and editors were. But it wasn’t funny. In case you missed it, in those days, I liked to laugh. And, though there were jokes to be found on “Lou Grant,” they didn’t hit you over the head the way they did on “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” so I simply disregarded the series and, in my blissful ignorance, missed out on a good show.

Including “Murder One” is a kind of a cheat, since I did enjoy the show when it first aired in the mid 1990s. The reason I mention it here is that I abandoned the series in the second season, after ABC forced Stephen Bochco to retool it. They dropped actor Daniel Benzali and brought in a younger lead. They changed the format to feature a series of several trials instead of the initial concept of following a single case for an entire season. But in my frustration over the changes made to a show I liked, I overlooked that the new incarnation of “Murder One,” though different, was still a decent show. I underestimated Bochco’s ability to adapt and, while still working within the confines, produce a quality program. But allow me to take the opportunity to state that if you have not seen the first season of the series, do not hesitate. One thing though: when you get to “Chapter 13,” Hulu did not include an episode of the first season that was produced but ABC ultimately did not air. When the show was televised on A&E a few years later, it included the other “Chapter 13” which contained a lot of backstory and exposition (ABC considered it a boring and unnecessary episode). Subsequent chapters (episodes) will refer to events from the missing chapter… roll with it.

“Peacemakers” was a short-lived USA series that I took for granted. I liked the pilot episode well enough, but I just assumed the show, a combination of a western and a procedural drama, would go on for years. I liked that someone finally took the western and bent it on its ear a bit (remember, this was years before “Deadwood”), but the character development felt slow to me. My grand plan, such as it was, was to wait until a few seasons into the show, then watch back-to-back episodes so it felt like the characters were progressing at a faster pace (it was a stupid plan, but then I’m a stupid person). The show was canceled without fanfare, and I was left with the sinking feeling in my gut that I was wrong in not watching it when I had the chance. Now that I have the chance, I know I was wrong. “Peacemakers” has the feeling of “House,” a procedural that goes out of its way to break the mold of procedurals. It experimented, and that was probably its downfall.

I see the majority of viewers today treating television the way I once treated it. Most people see TV as something to zone out to. They don’t want to get caught up in a convoluted plot or get consumed by powerful characters. They want to turn on and tune out. They want to escape for a while. And though I am critical of that form of passive viewership, I understand that it has its place. But that is no longer who I am. As a result, shows I rejected sight unseen actually turned out to be pretty good.

Maybe you used to enjoy the comfort of the “Law & Order” formula, but have recently grown tired of the repetitive nature of the series. Maybe reality TV once held a certain appeal to you, but you’ve become more frustrated by how unreal it is. If so, you might want to take another look at some older shows, even if they aren’t the ones I listed here. There is a world beyond the passive, and it can be an interesting world.

Next time: Shows on Hulu that are EXACTLY as good or as bad as I remembered them. When you think about it, it is actually a more difficult list to compile.