Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Are you sure you know what this show’s about?

The story of a show that was very confusingly advertised.

There was an Australian show, airing on the commercial station Network Ten roughly around 2006-2009. I cannot recall its title, nor can I find it through internet searches, but that’s fine – you’re not gonna watch it and this story doesn’t require that. This show was very heavily advertised before its debut; at the time, Australian television was dominated largely by American productions, with much of our cultural questions being how to counteract that. This particular show advertised itself with the cast, out of character, explaining the premise of the show, interspersed with clips from it.

The show is built around its central character – let’s call him Callum, for simplicity’s sake – who is, according to the cast, a guy who wavers between free-spirited and selfish. The main plot point we’re given is that his girlfriend is angry at him for caring more about his car than anything else, and she’s driven to try and wreck it to get his attention in some way. So I was shocked when I watched the first episode and none of this accurately captured the show.

First of all – and I should have seen this coming – the show was very much an ensemble piece, with Callum not even really being the most important person in it. The actual plot of the first episode is that a friend of his is getting married. This leads into the major, extremely confusing problem: just going off the text, this isn’t the story of a slacker guy who needs to learn to grow the fuck up, this is the story of a guy with – and forgive me for this, but I’m accurately conveying the story they’re telling – a crazy girlfriend.

The story of the first episode is that Callum’s girlfriend is desperately needy; she nags at him constantly, and she hijacks the wedding to propose to Callum. Everyone around is visibly uncomfortable at this, and Callum looks extremely embarrassed as he tell her ‘no’, to which she responds by throwing a fit, going out to his car, and, if I recall correctly, trying to drive it into the ocean, claiming he loves it more than anything else, a claim fatally undermined by the fact that he let his friends borrow it for their honeymoon. 

At the time, I found this horribly sexist; now I’ll throw in some nuance that there are actually women like this, but I’m suspicious of people who want to tell a story that’s just about how awful a woman is with no sincere diving into it. But more importantly: how did they get the idea of the story they were telling so horribly wrong? The fascinating thing is how the only three choices Callum made in the story were a) date the wrong woman, b) lend his car, and c) turn down a public marriage proposal. 

I was thinking you wouldn’t have to do much to ‘fix’ the story, but actually you kind of have to take all the things he does and replace them with other things that actually convey the point you’re trying to make; you could keep the wedding, perhaps even keep Callum lending his car to his friends to convey that he’s not a total write-off, but he would have to actively undermine a reasonable request from his girlfriend. I dunno, picking up her parents from the airport? He misses that because he sees a chance to get a new part for his car? I’m spitballing here, but it doesn’t take much to actually tell the story of a selfish guy with a good heart. You’d definitely have to rewrite the girlfriend into someone sincerely responsible; probably taking care of everyone around her, running errands when she doesn’t really have to.

This kind of thinking is why I watch bad TV and bad movies and read bad books and bad comics and listen, sometimes, to bad music, by the way. Sometimes people question why I dedicate so much time and effort to looking at bad art; I’ve got an upcoming article on Atlas Shrugged that especially caused people to question my judgement when they heard I was reading it. It’s because I find the process of breaking down some bad art just as fulfilling as breaking down good art, and in some ways it’s better.

Great art always gives me great criticism, but it rarely directly gives me great art. Obviously, breaking down the masterworks like The Shield gives me an understanding of how to tell a good story, but now that I’ve got that basis, I’ve found it more productive to find bad art and ‘fix’ it through taking its good ideas and filtering them through better storytelling. I break down why it doesn’t work and I make it work, which is fun if nothing else.


Want to support more great writing like this? Get exclusive member benefits like access to our Discord, early access to Media Magpies content, and more by joining our Patreon!