Girls: Branding, genre and the idea of ‘quality TV’

“It’s not TV, it’s HBO”: Branding, genre and the idea of ‘quality TV’

I thoroughly enjoyed this week’s lecture. I find the concept of ‘quality television’ to be an incredibly interesting one, given that over the last decade, a veritable onslaught of critically acclaimed television has been created for consumers to enjoy. No doubt spurred on by the success of HBO’s original programming, other cable networks have joined the fray (AMC, with Mad Men and Breaking Bad, Showtime with Dexter), while network television is now producing boundary-pushing TV (Hannibal, for instance) and online services get in on the act (Netflix, with House of Cards).

Brian’s point regarding ‘quality’ as a brand differentiation strategy struck me, particularly the shift from regarding audiences as a mass giving way to thinking of them as specific demographics. As new networks sprung up, targeting specific niche audiences (the teen market, the urban middle-class), new programs began to cater to the individual, rather than to the masses, resulting in ‘quality’ cult TV, like ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. As Brian noted, since the advent of target audience/quality television, genres aren’t ‘pure’ anymore. Buffy is a strong example of this, being a mismatch of teen drama, action, horror and comedy, while finding time to play with other genres too (Once More with Feeling…).

HBO was a huge proponent of quality TV, its long-form dramas setting the way for pretty much every other network to imitate. While ‘Oz’ was the first example of this, ‘The Wire’ was the first example of quality television that I personally ever watched. While it still possesses many of the tropes of a police procedural, unlike Law & Order or NYPD Blue, The Wire spent each season of the series revolved around a separate case – it spends 12 hours dealing with the complexities and nuances of the crime and its characters, which was so different and engrossing for me, as a viewer.

Onto the screening! ‘Girls’ is one of those shows that I’ve heard a lot about, but never gotten around to seeing, so it was great to be able to watch a couple of episodes, even better to find out I really liked it. However, I can’t figure out if it fits into the category of ‘quality TV’. It’s an HBO creation, so it has that going for it. In terms of its performances and writing, it’s top notch. It shares those same blurred generic lines that its quality peers do – it’s difficult to define as either comedy or drama, drifting in and out of both spheres to create uncomfortable, compelling TV – Hannah’s raw, dysfunctional relationship with Adam emblematic of this sometimes cringe-inducing dynamic.

At first glance, it isn’t as dark and gritty as ‘The Wire’ or ‘True Detective’, but ‘Girls’ has its own indie aesthetic. While it may not compare to Baltimore’s drug trade or murder in the Deep South, compared to similar network shows, or even fellow HBO alumni, ‘Sex and the City’, ‘Girls’ is gritty – it’s real, relatable. It represents aspects of New York City, gender and youth that are far more honest than most other youth-targeting programs on TV.

I think that the definition of ‘quality’ TV is always changing, and ‘Girls’ is a reflection of this. While its themes and aesthetic may not seem as striking and artistic as a ‘Boardwalk Empire’ or ‘Mad Men’, the show’s quality is instead reflected in its content – its raw, unflinching reflection of the lives of the young and entitled. Whether it’s quality television or not is irrelevant really, it’s noticeably good television, and when we currently have scores of series clamoring for notice and acclaim, that’s a pretty good result.