An analysis of Soap

I watch this US television show called Homeland. It is one of the most popular, critically acclaimed and decorated shows on TV currently. Dealing at once with the different concepts of geo-politics, espionage, terrorism (both home-grown and foreign) and crime, it has a gripping narrative. President Obama called it his favourite TV show of the year (last year). Without giving out too much, I'll briefly explain the plot.

The show is actually an American version of a popular Israeli show- Hatufim.  A US prisoner of war (Sgt.Brody) , declared MIA for more than eight years , is found at Iraq. At the same time a CIA agent (Carrie Matheson) gets secret information that a US POW has been turned into a double agent by Al Qaeda and is being unleashed. Brody comes back to a hero's welcome at home. Carrie's seniors don't take her warnings seriously. Things get further complicated when Brody is offered a chance to be a Congressman. 

The script is well-researched and executed. It packs the intensity of a movie in terms of screenplay, yet keeps you hooked week after week. Now , my object in this post was not to attempt a review of this TV show. I'd like to digress and discuss my views on why certain TV shows work while others don't.

If you took Homeland, apart from all the gripping action that comes naturally with terrorism based thrillers, it has in its core a story, a simple yet powerful story. That, of a man who struggles to adjust to a society after years of isolation and torture; a soldier whose patriotism is tested in the face of physical and mental abuse.  I think, more than anything, it is this core story in a TV show that determines its success. How much the viewer relates to it, to what degree s/he is able to emotionally invest with the narrative. This tug at human emotions is vital for a soap. Homeland's success lies there. Post 9/11, the threat of terrorism is everywhere. Everyman is forced to question his loyalty, whether his primary allegiance is to his Faith or to the Nation. This is brought out in     Sgt. Brody's character. Another classic example in support of my line of reasoning will be "The Simpsons". All of us have heard of Bart, Homer, Marge and Lisa. It is America's longest running sitcom. And it is the ability to connect emotionally with the audience that has led to its run. Come to think of it, Simpsons typify any normal American family with all their idiosyncrasies.

Looking at our own backyard, Chitthi-the uber-popular Tamil soap. No emotional stone was left unturned- may it be appa sentiment, amma sentiment, thangachi sentiment, thatha sentiment etc. etc. Many call it boring and uninspiring, but I strongly disagree. The majority of people across the state loved it. It was a trendsetter in many ways giving much fillip to women empowerment by portraying a strong lady character who faces her life with strength. It was a stark departure from earlier soaps that hardly had strong women-characters.  Audiences loved this novelty.

When any show lacks this emotional content, it fails. Sometimes a successful show in one country may be remade elsewhere. It is important that the story is suitably altered with the new audience in mind. Else, it'll bomb. Best example is the successful British show The IT Crowd. It bombed in the USA because the viewers found it artificial and couldn't connect emotionally. On a more general note, the TV shows are a reflection of the zeitgeist of the times. A show that failed at a particular time might in fact garner a slow, yet steadily rising fan base over a few years as public discourse evolves. Such shows may have been "ahead of their times" so far as making an emotional connect. Firefly is one such show. It traversed genres of space travel mixed with the American West. It was cancelled before it was fully aired, yet today it has a phenomenal fan base.

So such are TV shows and their complex relationship with audiences.

So, whats my rating on TV shows and viewers' relation ? Well, Its complicated.