WaverBoy

In response to Paul Mavis's DVD review of Marcus Welby, M.D.: Season One at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=42064

Paul,

We get it. You're a conservative. Now that everyone's perfectly clear on that, perhaps you could stop cluttering up your otherwise excellent reviews with politics. Just a thought

Paul Mavis

Well, first, I truly am complimented that you think my reviews are "excellent." That sounds inclusive of most of what I write, and that's really flattering. So thank you.


But you think my "cluttering up" my reviews with "politics" isn't. Is it the politics themselves (what you call "conservative") or just the inclusion of any politics? Because I don't include overt political commentary in every review I write (or even covert, for that matter). And not every political thought I include in a review is "conservative," to be perfectly honest (there are a whole lot of political persuasions out there who don't like Obamacare -- not just "conservatives" -- a label I don't use for whatever may pass as my political thinking). Writing a review about a show like Marcus Welby, M.D. after this country just passed the single most sweeping bill concerning health care since Medicare, it would be pretty hard not to include some kind of contextual reference to what's going on...unless you wanted the kind of review you can get from fifty other sites, where I would say the show is really, really nice (so I could get more discs from the studio), or really, really bad, and all the people in it are funny or sad, and the stories really, really good, and the image looks sharp.

I don't write those kinds of reviews. I'd like to think some readers are interested in my reviews for a show like Marcus Welby, M.D., because I find meaning and value in them outside of just saying, "It's a good/bad show," in four paragraphs (and trust me -- there are a lot of readers who take exception with me for precisely that reason). I take these old TV shows seriously because they're historical documents as well as simply pieces of entertainment. And they have meaning to me outside of simply labeling them "good/bad," or in terms of merely telling you the discs played in my machine without trouble.

Have you ever written to Glenn Erickson, telling him to leave out political commentary in his reviews? Because he has plenty (I know, because I sure emailed him enough times about them). Or to any of the other reviewers here at DVDTalk? Because I see what you call "politics" in their reviews, too. Not to ever sound like some Commie pinko radical, but I would imagine a lot of what we think and feel about many subjects in our lives, is informed by politics, as well as other lines of thought (I feel dirty just writing that).

If what I wrote in Marcus Welby, M.D. was inartful or too overt or too crude, or even worse, not funny or meaningful, then for that, and only that, I'm truly sorry. I appreciate the heads-up, and I'll try harder next time.

And one last thing: I appreciate a response like yours a hellava lot more than most I get. At least it means someone's actually reading what I wrote, and responding to it on some level, even if it's negative. Thanks, and here's a smiley face , because I mean it.

Trevor

I always feel like I don't thank our reviewers enough, so here's another thanks to you and all the rest.

I would read all of the reviews if I had the time, and often read them even when I have no interest in that title.

But even though I probably agree with your politics, I did find the comments in this review to be a bit too much. They don't bother me and I'll keep reading all of your reviews, but I can easily see people thinking them out of place.

GaryO

Well, I appreciated the review. Regardless of one's personal political leanings, Paul made great points all the way around about the time period in which Marcus Welby was produced and how that played out onscreen. I also think it was spot on for him to comment on the fact that this series inverted the classic pairing of a "liberal" and a "conservative." That absolutely deserved to be fleshed out, and Paul did a great job of explaining why it was so astounding and interesting.

Don't change a thing, Paul. You're doing a great job and as far as I'm concerned you give the best reviews on the net - bar none!

Gary "take care" O.

Kurt D

Damn, Mavis! Even your replies make good reading. I was thinking of this exact thing while larding my latest review of Dora The Explorer with semi-political rants, especially since the things I commented on are current concerns. You're right, how can you not tie your reviews to current reality if you care to contextualize them.

I just get worried about timeliness in general. I mean, who will care about Obama when they're reading my review in 2099?

Trevor

^ Is it weird that the contextual ad over the word Obama there is for chatting with sexy singles?

Sex Fiend

I also (generally) enjoy your well-written and in-depth reviews, Paul. And I have an appreciation for the fact that you have a clear (and quite nostalgic) appreciation for the same era of TV shows and films as I do (as I'm guessing we're both children of the late 60's/early 70s).

That being said, I'm not sure that statements like "But of course, Marc's form of liberalism has almost nothing to do with today's brand of goof-ball lefty socialist gar-bagé" or "something you never see today in network TV programming that is deliberately fascist in its promotion of one political ideology: the Left" are either meaningful or incisive in the context of your review. Quite frankly, they smack of bloviated editorializing and don't even materially support the point you are trying to make (ie - that MWMD controverted the normal expectations of liberal/conservative stereotypes).

I'm not saying a political perspective cannot be usefully projected into a review, even on an editorial level (everyone is entitled to their opinion, even DVD reviewers. But do you have any specific examples of the current "fascist promotion of liberal ideologies" (as you put it) that would be relevant to an analysis of the socio-politics of a 40 year old medical drama? If so, then an well-stated opinion reflecting that could perhaps be elegantly incorporated into your thesis. But relying on right-wing talk radio cliches like "the liberal media" or epithets like "commie/pinko agenda" just serve to weaken what are the otherwise excellent reviews that you provide.

Paul Mavis

Here's the entire context of what you quoted:

"But of course, Marc's form of liberalism has almost nothing to do with today's brand of goof-ball lefty socialist gar-bagé (I would imagine most hard-core liberals today would be shocked at Marcus' beliefs, particularly about such issues as abortion, adoption and single mothers - as well as his (welcome) paternalistic attitude, which must send libbers today right round the bend). And truth be told, he's not that much of a rebel; he actually listens when his ideas and actions are challenged by Dr. Kiley. Unlike the flotsam that nobody watches on the network airwaves today, Marcus Welby, M.D. is quite fair and balanced (you decide) with its politics, showing the courage of its liberal convictions by making sure Marc's views are questioned, with no easy answers ultimately provided (something you never see today in network TV programming that is deliberately fascist in its promotion of one political ideology: the Left)."

Of course it's editorializing -- the whole review is. And I love to bloviate.
But I don't see how those quotes you picked don't support my overall comments about liberal politics then and now, as shown on network TV. Liberal politics and viewpoints aren't challenged on most network shows today (for instance, almost all of NBC's programming has elements that are aimed towards some form of propaganda in that area), and they were in Marcus. Marcus's attitudes are questioned. I don't see that that often in today's shows. And what's even more ironic is that Marcus' liberalism wouldn't pass muster with the most tolerant lefty liberal who toes today's current party line. That was all part of the argument, but if I didn't tie it altogether well enough....

Trevor

This is almost exactly what I would have written in my initial post in this thread if I had gone to college.

GaryO

Probably so since most colleges today are filled with liberal profs.

In all seriousness (although much truth is often spoken in jest) I think all the falderal about Paul's use of axiomatic phrases like "liberal media" is silly. He gave a review from his point of view - like every other reviewer on the face of the earth. And whether people here want to admit it or not, he did so logically and within a frame of reference that none can rightly deny.

Gary "can't believe all the fuss..." O.

Chas Speed

I've got to admit I don't like political opinions being shoved down my throat while reading reviews of classic TV shows and I could easily see how someone could review Marcus Welby without bringing up Obama. I still have to admit that I have never really noticed Paul Mavis being very political in his reviews.