Date: Fri 20-Sep-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: SHANNO

Illustration: C

Location: A10

Quick Words:

Playing-TV-reruns-Hope-ER

Full Text:

(Now Playing takes a look at summer TV reruns, 9/20/96)

Now Playing-

Real Enjoyment, Or Just Habit?

By Trey Paul Alexander III

I don't know about you, but this week my attention couldn't help but be drawn

to the tube, as ABC, NBC, et al, began unveiling their new shows. Myriad

images of Bill Cosby, Michael J. Fox, Brooke Shields and Ted Danson have been

splashed across television screens and newspaper ads everywhere as if to

signal the return of estranged family members.

All the hoopla surrounding the many freshman programs for the fall season has

triggered a mad rush within me to catch up on past episodes of returning

series. You see, I'm one of those people with stacks of videocassettes piled

high near the television; cassettes chock full of programming, recorded with

the good intentions of watching them "one of these days." In trying to catch

up (rerun season during the summer helped), I unwittingly stumbled upon an

effective way to determine whether or not I was actually enjoying certain

shows, or just watching them out of habit.

One of the most obvious joys of videotaping various programs and catching them

later is the time factor. The ability to fast forward through commercials cuts

an hour drama down to 45 minutes and sitcoms are pared to a viewing time of

under 25. Not only do you get through the shows more quickly, but if your

schedule is jam-packed and priorities don't allow you to take in a series as

it is broadcast, you can tape it and save it for a later, less hectic moment.

Here, in these later, less hectic moments, is where you can begin to make some

surprising discoveries. Away from the networks' hyperbolic promotions and

co-workers' water cooler chit-chat, you'll begin to make your own assessments

of "Must-See TV" and all the rest, and you may find that many of these

programs come up sorely lacking.

When watched back to back (to back, to back...), certain shows emerge to the

front of the crowd. A good example would be NBC's "Frasier," which recently

won the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series. Kelsey Grammer and crew have so

fine-tuned the portrayals of their idiosyncratic personas that each episode

offers a harmonious balance between familiar characters and outrageous

predicaments.

However, other programs can be exposed for the shallow, melodramatic messes

they are. "Chicago Hope" comes quickly to mind. When it and "ER" premiered two

seasons ago, I felt "Chicago Hope" was the better of the two medical shows. It

didn't have the breakneck pacing of "ER," but the scripts were more eccentric

and it boasted the superior acting talents of Mandy Patinkin in a

show-stopping role as an arrogant heart surgeon. But last year the show's top

writer, David E. Kelley, left, and so did Patinkin, leaving the drama a mere

husk of itself. It became evident, particularly as episodes were seen close

together, that the series, which began to rely less on solid characterizations

and more on ridiculously overheated plot twists, no longer belongs in the

upper echelon of TV's quality drama series.

My experience of cramming, as it were, for the fall TV season has led me to

conclude the world doesn't end if these shows pass me by. This may not seem a

profound discovery, but to a former TV critic, one still prone to watch too

much TV, it was a splash of water in the face. This is not an indictment of

TV, but of our often undiscerning tastes. Whereas movies require us to make a

conscious decision to get up and go to them, television sets are in our homes,

with the remote control only a tantalizing distance from our ready fingers.

Tube watching becomes habitual and before you know it, you're watching

programs out of routine, not because they are worthwhile. It took a huge stack

of videocassettes to help me see this, and I hope I can say with conviction

I'll be a more discriminating viewer in the future.