There is something defiantly fresh about the shows format. It features a large ensemble cast with multiple intertwining stories with no one series protagonist to tie all of the action together. More so, it is the prison itself, which fulfils this task, the prison, its location and relation to the characters that connects everyone in the show.
Each episode also features a guide to the story in the form of narration. This narration, or prologue connects the loosely intertwined stories and provides outside insight as food for thought to the audience. The narration itself is unlike any seen before on television. It informs in overview from an impartial perspective yet injects something of foresight into the latter stories developments. To some it could be described as a more modern take on the Roger Sterling narration provided in the Twilight Zone (1959 - 1964), however there does appear to be a definite influence which dates further, to the prologues of Shakespeare even. With the way in which the information is being laid out, standing out as a precursor to what will or may soon unfold.
In it’s presentation of character development the show really stood out for its time and in many ways continues to do so. Character development in the show itself is novelistic. Actions and stories are given an even amount of time to build in progression. This allows for a good burn of conflict and really helps when the end of a storyline finally receives its payoff. In this way the shows format could be related to that of a soap opera. This is by no means meant as a denunciation, but instead as a complement. In soap operas, stories and characters are set out in a way that we can read them as we choose. Where one viewer may see a bitter person, another may see sorrow. In a good story it is the audience who is allowed to deduct their own conclusion on a situation, which is something Oz allows its audience to do coherently on a regular basis.
Character developments throughout the series also stream in a natural form of progression. They change over time from being archetypes into fully developed, multi-layered characters. All of their issues and problems are revealed slowly as varying stories are presented to the audience. Relationships are explored as issues of family, friends, rivalry, racism, violence, rape, regret and redemption are all examined throughout the shows run. That’s not to say that these issues haven’t been explored before or since in other prison dramas, yet here in Oz the resulting fallout feels real. An undercurrent of realism pulsates throughout, which in itself is one of the defining aspects of the series.
The overall presentation of the show also feels very new and raw. There is a definite level of experimentation in the direction, cinematography and editing of Oz. It is something that is rare in American television and at times, it is reminiscent of student filmmaking. With that said, it does however continue to emphasise a professional tone and never veers into amateur territory in its experimentation: overall I’d say that this in the end adds to the shows arrangement and general feeling of unpredictability.
Although Oz never seemed to set out to change the advent of television, it certainly (at least vicariously) marked its influence on the televisual programming. Its influence can be felt in other HBO shows which followed such as The Sopranos (1999 – 2007) and The Wire (2002 – 2008), and current shows like Boardwalk Empire (2010 – present). What perpetrated through from Oz was its brand of novelistic television. The idea that through taking time you can develop richly detailed, multi layered characters. That by allowing a slow burn in their development, you can implement a natural progression into the story. This is not to say that Oz was the sole definer of this style though, as predecessors like St Elsewhere (1982 - 1988) and Hill Street Blues (1981 – 1987) also implemented a more in-depth style of development for multiple characters. But unlike the previous shows, Oz was the first to fully realise the potential of the medium and style in question.
It could be argued then that for a small prison drama, Oz certainly went over the odds in its achievements, and in a way this is true. But I think the lesson to be learned here doesn’t necessarily relate to the shows location. In fact the true lesson here is based more on context. The fact that the show is based in a prison has no bearing on how good or bad a show may be. Instead what made Oz the show it was, was the fact that above all else the writing was put first. Characters, scenarios and the developments they follow, were put far beyond what they had been in preceding TV shows. Situations and what was going on were given the utmost attention by the writers, directors and actors. Because the stories were so well written, so well directed and roles so accurately portrayed on screen, Oz got the audience interested. It got us watching, it got us invested in the actions and characters being presented before us. None of them were innocent, of course not, but through the writing of the show we were informed upon some small part of each of the characters personality which allowed you, at least to a small extent, to have sympathy for them.
The style of which I’ve spoken seems all too familiar now, with shows such as Game Of Thrones (2011 – present) and Boardwalk Empire spending millions of dollars per episode, it seems a long time ago since this style was first implemented on HBO television. And, although these shows deserve to be marked on their own merits, it is also important to remember the cornerstones that laid the way before them. And these shows too will eventually fade away, it is important (I believe) to remember what made them successful. So that in years to come we can take new steps and push even further the medium of television as a form of storytelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment