Subject: Re: Twin Peaks vs. Northern Exposure
From: rjohnson@vela.acs.oakland.edu (R o d Johnson)
Date: 1991-06-09, 15:43
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks,rec.arts.tv

In article <1991Jun9.203806.24781@ccu.umanitoba.ca> platt@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dave Platt) writes:

> >Northern Exposure? A possible TP substitute? Dream on. Although they 
> >would never admit it, the producers of NE obviously intended to
> >emulate TP. 

"Obviously"?  I imagine NE was in the pipeline for quite a while
before TP came out.  In fact, I think many of the similarities people
note really aren't that compelling.  The most obvious one, the "wacky
small-town" setting, is, as you yourself see, handled quite differently.

> >What bothers me about shows like NE is that they borrow the superficial 
> >aspects of shows like TP and add little of their own. 

Horseshit.  If NE is indeed derivative (and I suppose it is, to some
extent), it's St. Elsewhere that it owes a lot of its style to, and
the other character-driven comedy-dramas of the 80s.  NE has
acknowledged TP, but that doesn't mean that they built their show
around the TP approach.

> >I haven't seen much of NE, 

"Obviously."

> >but it seems like the audience is asked 
> >to identify with an outsider character who is cynical towards Alaska (sort 
> >of an Albert figure) rather than someone who looks with awe, like
> >Cooper. 

So why the charge of similarity?  

At any rate, the idea that we're asked to "identify" with Joel (the
alleged Albert figure) is way off.  Joel is (most of the time) a
jerk--a whingeing, spoiled, self-impressed, parochial, obnoxious,
insulting snob--not a character that's exactly designed to get the
viewer's sympathy.  He is "basically good down deep" (this being
mainstream TV), but he's not easy to identify with.  In fact. .  .

> >I'd like to think that (Andy Brennan and Nadine notwithstanding) TP never 
> >tries (tried?) to made fun of the residents of the town. Even in the comic 
> >parts (with a few lapses, like the Pine-Weasel riot scene), the humour 
> >comes  out of a sense of the weirdness of it all, not a sense of 
> >malice. 

. . . I think the viewers (and the producers) usually identify with
the residents of the town, who have to suffer this clown's attitude,
and do it with patience, tolerance and good humor.  This is, at some
level, the point of the show: Joel is a jerk, but the townspeople
accept him anyway, because they're *better* people than he is, or
allows himself to be.  I don't find any particular malice in this
portrayal.  Even the most broadly drawn characters (Ed, Maurice) are
essentially sympathetic, and some (Marilyn, Chris) are depicted as
downright wise, much more so than Joel.  The ending scenes to two
recent episodes (the "marathon" and the scene where everyone,
including the gay couple, slow dances in the tavern) have shown a
close-knit, accepting, loving community.  In no way is Cicely depicted
as the town full of bumpkins and freaks that you seem to think it is.
TP is *much* more guilty of condescension to small-town people than NE
is.

NE isn't perfect by a long shot, but it's also not guilty of the sins
you accuse it of.

> >So count me out as one of the TP fans who will "jump ship" to NE.

I'm sure we'll survive.  Bye.

-- Rod Johnson * rjohnson@vela.acs.oakland.edu * (313) 650 2315 "All wax is wedding wax" --Gertrude Stein