The "Moonlighting" Curse Doesn't Have To Be One.

In my writing life, I'm constantly analyzing what I read and watch for technique, style, production, storytelling, and quality. I view all of it with a critiquing eye. I want the story to compel me. I want to love the characters and relate to them (whether or not they are villains or heroes). I want the work to please me like a succulent meal pleases me. And that has gotten me to wondering.

I'm thinking about adventure tv shows and specifically the Moonlighting curse (where once the two leads get together romantically, the show starts tanking). Moonlighting famously careened downhill once Maddie and David got together. The stories suffered. The audience seemed to lose interest, and the show didn't last much past Mark Harmon and the entire Baby Hayes storyline. However, I wonder if that was more indicative of this show than it is a global issue with writing, television, and movies.

IMO, there's a ton of fun stuff to mine when the two leads finally kiss and eventually become a couple. The trials and tribulations of relationships can be interesting and exciting to explore. And any show that thinks that's not interesting to people is only skewing towards that younger demographic (that 18-35 or even the 18-24 group) where the first blush of love and infatuation is more stressed than the work and growth that go into making a long-term relationship work. 

It is possible that the reason younger audiences enjoy those first blush moments in their entertainment is because younger audiences haven't had time to develop those long term relationships. I wonder if they relate to those sorts of stories more because they themselves might still be more interested in the heat that comes with the anticipation of hooking up. I wonder if older audiences are more able to enjoy how the characters balance an ongoing relationship with the rest of their work, creative, and family lives.

As an example, I believe a number of tv writers have panned Castle this year. The criticism comes in part because not only have they hooked up, but the two leads are married (and others started panning it once they finally engaged in a romantic relationship at all). I don't think the show has suffered due to this development. In fact, how much Castle and Beckett love each other only makes the show more fun to watch. Plus, now the actors, neither of whom are slouches when it comes to talent, get to portray their love, their worry, and the lengths to which they will go to protect and care for their partners.

This all gets me to wondering if the reason the Moonlighting curse was a curse was not so much that David Addison and Maddie Hayes got together as it was that the writing suffered and that Cybil Shepherd and Bruce Willis apparently despised working together. On some level, you can't hide that animosity no matter how talented you an actor you are. 

Personally, I'd like to see more stories that tackle what happens once the leads hook up. Don't get me wrong. I like that "will they/won't they" paradigm. It's fun and generally, I keep enjoying it until the leads do start seeing each other/admit their feelings. To take it further, I'd like to see shows tackle those developments in a substantive way. I'd like to see how the characters learn and grow and relate to one another while they also solve crimes or run super fast or shoot arrows at bad guys.

It makes for fun viewing and it gives me something to sink my teeth into that satisfies me on a more meaningful level. I hope more shows will adopt this paradigm. 

White Collar, you and me, we're done.

Despite the fun stories, (former) great chemistry among the actors, and the beauty of Matt Bomer and Tim DeKay, I'm breaking up with White Collar.

First and foremost, what the heck has happened with the cast's chemistry? Perhaps they took too much time off from filming but I'm used to rapid fire dialog that is delivered flawlessly and with certainty. The dialog between Tim DeKay and Marsha Thomason (and even between Bomer and Garson but to a lesser extent) in the first episode back was stilted, rough, and tenuous. It was like watching students in their first acting class. I was disappointed. I'm used to commitment and flow from these various USA Network shows. Suits, White Collar, Burn Notice - each of them maintains a fast pace with smooth and seamless interactions. They have to be rapid-fire since they have such  far-fetched plots and we if look too closely, we'll giggle at all the improbabilities. Instead of maintaining that sense of flow, White Collar has become awkward and tedious.

I think perhaps they needed some more rehearsal or a retreat or something before they came back together to shoot.

But, that isn't the big reason I'm breaking up with this show. The main reason? I'm tired of the hypocrisy the show exhibits every time Neal is asked to compromise himself by people who purport themselves as upstanding, stalwart, true, and acting in his best interests. He is asked to go out and be a criminal while all the while he is berated for being one either implicitly or explicitly.

Case in point: At the beginning of this batch of episodes, Peter was in prison for the alleged murder of a Senator.

Elizabeth (Peter's wife) talked to Neal and told him to do "whatever you have to do" to get Peter released. She asked him to save her husband and told him to do whatever it took. Are we naive enough to believe that she was asking him to do so while walking the straight and narrow? Doubtful.

So, Neal does what a really good friend or brother would do and uses his abilities to secure Peter's release. In doing so, he commits a crime. So, he did the wrong thing for the right reasons. Peter is released and everyone is happy. Blah Blah Blah.

Later in the episode, we see that Peter is concerned that Neal's tracking anklet hasn't moved so he suspects that Neal might have figured out a way to disable it (actually it was Mozzie who did that but that is not the point) and so decides to bring him a newer, more secure, anklet. Before he does so, he and his wife discuss Peter's worries that Neal just can't help himself and might be doing something illegal. Peter sits tall on his high horse about Neal's possible activities, while Elizabeth admonishes him to stop getting so personally involved. If I could have reached through the television and smacked the character (or perhaps the writers) upside the head, I would have. Didn't she just tell Neal to do whatever it took? Didn't she just encourage Neal to do the very things Peter is now thinking he might be doing? I get that she doesn't really care about Neal and cares much more about whether or not her husband is in jail, but the sheer hypocrisy of the character's stance angered me.

The show's reluctance to allow the Neal character to grow frustrates me. And actually, it's not the show's reluctance. It's the other characters' reluctance that bothers me. The writers are simultaneously allowing Neal to grow while they keep all the other characters denigrating him as nothing more than a criminal. Peter even reiterates that to him when they speak. "You are a criminal," as he brings out the new tracking anklet. Psychologically, I'm certain that sort of reinforcement must be damaging to someone who is trying to do the right thing. It must bring on some sort of "I can't win no matter what I do" realization. And if Neal feels that later in the season and becomes more of a bad-ass, that would be excellent. If he just allows himself to keep getting verbally beat up after how much he has done for the FBI and for Peter and Elizabeth in particular, well that's just writing that has become stagnant.

That leads me to believe that the characters are more than happy to use Neal when they need him, but they ultimately don't have any loyalty to him. He has turned into someone who will protect those he loves even while doing something illegal (or something they won't respect) while all the while the other characters don't actually care about him and encourage each other not to care about him.

Maybe the writers are setting up some sort of Come to Jesus moment between Neal and Peter but it's no longer worth it for me to watch because that kind of "I'll use you to get what I want but then I'll sell you out" attitude of the characters on the side of "right" sets my teeth on edge. The only likable characters are Neal and Mozzie and sadly even they are hard to respect if they keep allowing themselves to be used.