With quarantine leaving the world on lock down, millions of fans sit alone in their homes, mourning the loss of scheduled sporting events. For some, solutions have been found in sports channels airing reruns of games or even the occasional Downhill Marble Track Race (Exhilarating, the sport of the future!).
But for many, the need for competition is now coupled with the primary source of solace in these isolated times – streaming television. A few weeks back, sports and pop culture site The Ringer hosted a March Madness-style tournament with online voting to crown the “Best TV Character of the Century”. Needless to say in this day and age of arguing on the internet, things got very dramatic, very quickly.
You can see the full bracket and trace the saga of the tournament at the link above. There are, of course, some egregious snubs – The absence of Adrian Monk (Monk), Captain Raymond Holt (Brooklyn 99), Root (Person of Interest) and choosing Cersei Lannister over Jaime’s far more complex journey all stood out like sore [golden] thumbs. But that is neither here nor there.
The really interesting side to this 21st Century Battle Royale began from the minute the initial bracket was unveiled, as Twitter comment feeds around the world blew up with rampant debates that shined a light on how we as a digital society have come to view pop culture and the critical analysis of it.
Nowhere was this more evident than the Round One throwdown between Fleabag, the titular protagonist of Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s award-winning British tragicomedy in the #2 seed vs. Eric Cartman, the willfully unlikable icon of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s long-running “South Park”.
The devoted and very digitally active “South Park” fanbase took Cartman’s place as a #15 seed as a personal slight. Still riled up from a February feud with writer Dana Schwartz, the show’s fans made this match the most talked about of the first round and carried Cartman into the Sweet 16 via a series of upsets, only to ultimately lose out to Jesse Pinkman of “Breaking Bad” fame.
One of the primary arguments against that seeding was fairly simple: Cartman was instantly recognizable and from a show that has lasted over a decade. Fleabag, while critically acclaimed, remains far from iconic and has at present only seen two seasons. By that rationale, their placing was clearly flipped. But was that really the purpose of the poll?
The same logic was applied to the #1 seed in that same division – Villanelle, the deeply complex co-lead of “Killing Eve”. She lost in a second round match-up against Nathan Fielder’s prank-show persona.
So what was the poll meant to measure? The title claimed it sought to crown the “Best TV Character of The Century”. But in the end, it came down to a popularity contest. And that response was, judging by the commentary, pre-supposed. Quality of character here has been equated with popular recognition among the general audience of fans.
This is inevitable, I suppose, with a mass-media poll. In the endless sea of television programming we now float in, no one can watch everything. And so we vote for the characters we know best. But as the reactions to the bracket seedings made clear, this mindset wasn’t just being applied on an individual level, but an institutional one.
Does the internet really think that Dwight Schrute had a more interesting and memorable character journey than Tyrion Lannister? Or was he just more meme-able?
In the end, it was the memes that won. Michael Scott took home the trophy. And there is certainly an argument to be made that he deserved it. Is not the purpose of a character to stay with the viewer long after the show has ended? And does the “sameness” of a static character on a long-running, easily accessible show create an unbeatable leg up over more complicated stars of prestige series? After all, in this Golden Era of cinematic TV, "Friends" remains the most valuable IP around, sixteen years after it ended.
However you feel about these results, the questions raised posit a fascinating view of what becomes of our relationship with pop culture in a digital era where everyone is a critic. Are we losing our ability to critically judge art?
These are things to keep you awake at night as a pleasant channel change from fretting over COVID-19. I’ll be dwelling on them further here in the weeks to come. And while you’re at it, maybe check out some of these lesser-known stars to stave off the cabin fever. I promise you, there is more to the world of television than Michael Scott.
Comments