Well, this is the first person I've seen who didn't like "Six Feet Under". Found this article online. I don't care if she or anyone doesn't like the show, but comparing it to "Ally McBeal"!?? Personally, I think this is just another disgruntled "Buffy" fan. What do you think?


Dropping the Ball
The overrating of Six Feet Under.
By Emily Nussbaum
Posted Thursday, July 25, 2002, at 12:43 PM PT


Damn you, Alan Ball! Damn your faux-dark (secretly beige), faux-shocking (actually soapy), faux-fearless (and yet self-congratulatory) tragicomic soul. Damn your Emmy-Award-dominating, sex-solves-everything, madness-is-sanity, worst-of-J.D.-Salinger philosophies. And damn you, most of all, for ruining cocktail conversation. For if I had a penny for every time someone used your show as shorthand for quality television, I'd have a bunch of really annoying change.


Now, to be clear, I love HBO, in all its taboo-busting bluster. And I admit a few things are perfectly fine about Six Feet Under: mainly David, the closety brother, played brilliantly by Michael C. Hall as an uptight sentimentalist with a sneaky streak of schmuck. Give him an Emmy, fine.

The subject matter is riveting, too, since death is a genuinely unexplored topic on television—but then, that's also true of the themes explored on The Mind of the Married Man, an awful show that I'd argue may actually be better than Six Feet Under, if only because it is at least genuinely creepy and sad. It's hard to grieve for corpses as cartoonish as Six Feet Under's "deaths of the week": bimbos, abusive cretins, poetic victims. And after two seasons, the ghostly Fisher father remains a notably unconvincing plot device of a character, complete with an array of conveniently dramatic "secrets."

Despite its walking dream-corpses, Six Feet Under is not only not creepy—it's not even mildly challenging. Part of this is because week by week, the writers inevitably make hyperbolic choices: The teen daughter, for instance, doesn't merely have a prickish boyfriend; he's a prickish, thuggish, druggie, brother-bereaved, suicidal, no no that's not enough, how about Tarantino-esque bank-robbing boyfriend. In this season's 13 episodes, the characters have been treated to violent mental illness, encounters with the Russian mafia, an errant shotgun, sex addiction, a brain tumor, a daughter Nate never knew existed, and a hit-and-run accident—a series of events so melodramatic they cease to be affecting.

Then there's the saccharine drip of Californian psychobabble. Ball may satirize leftover hippies and encounter groups, but he regularly beats precisely the same thematic drums, making points as tired as any Tony Robbins seminar: Only with truth comes intimacy! There's a difference between real love and mere co-dependence! Creativity and sexuality keep the child inside of us alive! Life is change!

But my biggest gripe is the wise-child thing. Ball's obsessed with them. (See American Beauty.) There's Clare, the tough-but-tender teen wise child; Nate, prodigal wise-child hunk; cop Keith's niece, an actual child who is grumpy yet wise—innocents all, with special gifts and special pain. But the poster child for wisdom is of course Brenda, a nightmare cross between Salinger's Franny Glass and a discarded chapter from V.C. Andrews, complete with hot rapistlike brother. She's everyone's adolescent fantasy: the most special, most messed up, most talented, most doomed creature on earth. The fact that she's played by the wonderfully charismatic Rachel Griffiths only adds to the annoyance. In fact, the only reason this season was at all bearable was that the show stopped treating Brenda as a voice of foul-mouthed Buddha wisdom—the tendency all last season—and sent her on a torrid spin into sex addiction. This added to the melodramatic plot lines but at least knocked her momentarily off her soapbox.

Let's not even get going on the mom, who despite hand-waves of sympathy is—like her younger counterpart in American Beauty—the worst type of misogynist stereotype: an uptight, hysterical nag who needs to get laid.

Six Feet Under may have won an outrageous 23 Emmy nominations, but it's really just Ally McBeal in mortality drag: dream sequences, romanticized narcissism, fake-o self-conscious dialogue, meaning-of-life montages and all. The characters may be grown-ups, but the show isn't about death and mortality at all; it's about adolescence—and not real, morally complex adolescence (the rich subject of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, perpetually snubbed at the Emmys) but creative adolescence, art that only pretends to take risks. Six Feet Under doesn't wrestle with the moral issues it purports to raise; it just gropes them for a thrill.

So they don't like the show, the Ally metaphor doesn't seem that far fetched.

WHy does it have to be a disgruntled Buffy fan.

Re-read the last paragraph.

I'm taking that article with a grain of salt.

SFU is one of the best, if not the best drama, on television right now.

It sounds like the author watched the show, which is more than I can say for many reviewers out there, but I'm amazed she sees it the way she does. Oh well. The Mind of the Married Man is a very subtle and insightful show that gets crapped on all the time because people want it to be something it's not, but I don't see how there's any comparison. Nor do I understand in any capacity how it relates to Ally McBeal. The only similarity I see is that both shows are prone to unique styles of story-telling, hardly something isolated to either show. Her loss. In her rage to want to hate it, she's missing a great show.

das

das, have you seen bad or weak reviews for this show? That's the reason why I posted the article. I've only seen glowing one's. Everyone seems to love it. Critics, friends, co-workers and people in this newsgroup.

I have not. Unfortunately, it's one of those shows that's become cool to rave about, so I take many of the positive comments with the grain of salt too. It reminds me a bit of when The Sopranos and Sex and the City experienced insane popularity for a bit. People who never really watched the show would tune in, see Italians swearing and whacking people or chicks making funny sexual comments, and then they'd rave about it too. After tiring of the novelty of the fad, these same people then start claiming The Sopranos and Sex and the City aren't as good anymore. No, they're just as good. They're just much deeper than the superficial attributes that first attracted you to them.

I expect Six Feet Under to go the same way. It's hugely popular, and everyone is talking about it (especially people who don't watch a show until Katie Couric and Matt Lauer start talking about it). Before too long, I expect to see a wave of negative reviews for the show as those same viewers move on to some other fad. However, the article you posted is really the first negative review I've seen (other than Red Dog -- an otherwise sensible poster -- who seems to dislike the show as well).

I'm glad everyone seems to love the show, because it really deserves it. Unfortunately, the cynic in me has too often seen the backlash popular programs can receive.

Frankly I'm amazed anyone could not like Nathaniel Fisher as a plot device. For my money, the way they have handled his character since the first episode has been absolutely wonderful. I guess some people just aren't going to like some shows. However, I'd submit that the show just isn't her type of show, not the dreadful failure she claims it to be.

das

I thought season one was simply outstanding. I guess it is hard to duplicate the originality and unique storytelling style, because season 2 was a disappointment to say the least. Season 2 showed some character growth from David but it really seemed liked the writers from Dynasty took over and installed far fetched plots.
I believe Alan Ball wrote one episode this year and it showed.

"Dynasty" !?? Sorry, I disagree. I think this show (which includes the writing, directing, characters and actors) gets better with each episode.

I agree with rskinfn except the Alan Ball comment. IMO Alan Ball wrote the worst episodes of season 1. The only episode of season 2 that I really like was the finale and Ball actually directed that, maybe he should stick to directing.

Absolutely . I was half expecting Sammy Jo ( heather locklear)to show up. I got Grant Show - Melrose Place so I guess I shouldn't complain.

The bizarre and unresolved plot twists have been mentioned before. Brenda? uh? Sex addict , who hangs with a hooker and jerks off her clients. Where did this come from and what was the payoff to this story arc. Here is a great character and the writers chose to throw sensational storylines with little character development. Last season the writers focused more on her family and Billy and we got a glimpse into their deeply twisted lifes. The severe lack of Billy ( 2 eps ? this season) really hurt this show. He is by far the best actor on this series. His depth and range are outstanding. We get Claire taking nude photos of him.
And how exactly did Claire develop as a character? The reviewer hit it on the mark. Lets throw the ultimate troublesome boyfriend her way. The first season established a unique subtlety to its weirdness. The second season was right of Dynasty or Jerry Springer ( crazy boyfriend or freaky sex acts)

To me it is like Alan Ball got this great look into a modern American family ( America Beauty) and had more ideas on this topic, added a funeral business and bang sold it to HBO. First season was great and now a dissapointing 2nd season. I will watch , but don't really care as the characters slowly develop in to retreads out of Melrose Place. (Gay abusive boyfriends-- sound familar?)

I do hope it turns it around , even if it doesn't it should be on the air for many years. HBO doesnt cancel dramas or situation comedys quickly . ( See First and Ten and Arliss)

I don't care for it, but maybe because I'm tired of "taboo-busting bluster"

I also fail to see any redeeming value in Buffy.

Even South Park sucks anymore. I guess I'm just bored with television.

Well written, but I don't agree with her.

To me it sounds like one of those writing class assignments where you have to take something you like, and then take the opposite stance in your writing. If you read between her words, you can feel her true love for "6 Feet".

Closet fan.

-k
###

Great interpretation... it's kept feeling like she was looking at everything great about the show, and then twisting it around to somehow make it negative.

Nonetheless, it is very well written - I give her credit there. Although I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could prefer Buffy over 6FU (or hell, anything on TV over 6FU for that matter ).

I though the first season was excellent; but the writing definately went downhill during the second. I'm still going to watch the next one, though. Most shows go through cycles; and even the second season was better than most anything else on TV last year. Hopefully they'll get back on track this time.

Sounded like a typical "Buffy" thread contributer to me.

All that review needed was an off-hand comment about how last season of "Angel" blew away last season of "Buffy" and it would've been complete.

And oh - how wrong they'd be.

Actually, when Six Feet Under first came out it got a pretty mixed reaction before it grew on critics. There are still quite a few who dont think its an “A” quality show. I recall the USA Today TV critic still doesn’t think its all that great and was moaning over its recent award nominations (and he's a huge Buffy supporter by the way).