Today we enter "Bob Goes Into Minutiae Land," a strange and unwieldy place, over something that I know is minor -- but as much as it's mostly something that only rubbed me badly personally, I think has at least a somewhat wider perspective. I watched Being the Riccardos last night, and largely enjoyed it. There were some things I thought were wonderful, and others not so much. I’ll leave the details at that, because the matter at hand was this one thing that bothered me as admittedly minor as it is. Though not as minor as it seems, which I’ll get to. The biggest head-scratcher about it, though, is that I found it totally unnecessary. For the life of me, I don’t know why in the world one of the first things Aaron Sorkin writes in the movie is to have a character say that I Love Lucy was watched by 60 million people every week, and then Sorkin even repeats that a few minutes later. And it’s not remotely close to true. Just to make sure, I looked up its audience. The most famous episode in the legendary series, where she has the baby, was one of the most-watched shows in the history of history, a phenomenon – and had 44 million viewers. Which was an amazing 75% of the potential viewing audience. For Which means for I Love Lucy to have had a weekly viewership of 60 million people, it would have had to have 100% of America watching every single week. Everyone in America with a TV watching, each week. And this isn’t hard to find out. Anyone can do it, easily. Just to a search for the words -- I Love Lucy baby episode audience million. This is what you’ll get. The very first thing at the top. In big, bold letters. You can't miss it -- And that’s for the most popular episode the show ever had. One of the most most-watched episodes of any TV show, ever, even up to today. One episode. In fact, the best I can find is that it maybe got about 30-35 million people each week – which is massive. (That said, an article here in Esquire says the series got 15 million viewers a week – which is still huge, considering that the U.S. population in 1953 when the episode aired was 158 million, less than half the population today…AND few households actually had television sets compared to today. How few? There were 17 million TVs in use in 1952...and 285 million today!!) So, why in the world would Aaron Sorkin almost double (or quadruple) its actual audience as almost the first thing to write and repeat it moments later – which is so easy to check – and risk your credibility right off the bat?? Yes, as I said, I know this fairly minor, but – again, because it was the first thing and they emphasize it so much and repeat it – it bugged me. For starters, because it’s so easy to check and so wrong, it’s risks at least some of the audience not believing anything you write after that. (I’m not saying that Mr. Sorkin got anything else wrong -- in fact, I suspect it's a richly-researched screenplay and that most of it is spot-on) -- just that it lets some of the audience consider that possibility, no matter how accurate it may otherwise be.) It also puts very wrong information out into the world and have it now be taken as fact. And that is the case of what’s happened – just do another search for “I Love Lucy” and “60 million” and see how many newspapers and publicans now refer to that as fact in their reviews of the movie. On a totally personal level, it took me out of the movie immediate and probably is part of the reason it took me almost an hour before I put it out of my head (as much as I could) and got more involved in the film. I did ultimately enjoy it, but that’s a long time to get there. And finally, it’s so unnecessary. If you say, as the movie does, that today a TV show that gets 15 million viewers is a top hit, and then say that I Love Lucy got an audience of (let’s say…) 35 million people in the U.S. --that would still leap out as a gigantic number. Even more so if you noted that in 1953 there were only half as many people in the country and only about 17 million TVs in use, compared to 285 million today. It’s a very well-done movie, not one I personally loved, but definitely enjoyed. And as a screenwriter I understand stretching reality to make a larger truthful point. (After all, as a starting point, probably all of the dialogue is made up, to make a larger truthful point.) But stretching reality, and getting a basic fact wrong, repeatedly and unnecessarily, are two very different things. And for all the films strengths and flaws, this is one blatantly inaccurate fact I don’t understand why he did it. Well, okay, I can probably understand. Aaron Sorkin probably wanted the number to be even larger than it was to give it an even more emotional, dramatic impact. But as I noted, the reality is filled with plenty of emotional, dramatic impact all on its own. Arguably even more if you give the facts in full perspective. Is it possible that Sorkin got the research wrong? Possible, yes, since most things are “possible.” But it’s not likely. He’s too great a writer with too good a team supporting him to have gotten something that basic and easy to know is wrong. I found that the number was very wrong in about eight seconds. Is it possible that he found one (or more) sources that incorrectly said the series got 60 million viewers each week and felt that gave him the creative license to use it? Yes, that’s possible – though if so, it would be deeply irresponsible given the full research he most-certainly did and would know the number was wildly wrong. (Again, it’s most-watched episode got 44 million viewers.) Is it possible that he mixed up “60 million viewers” with a “67 rating” (which is the percentage of people watching who have TVs)? No, Aaron Sorkin has created and run three TV series – he knows the difference between viewers and ratings. So, he most-likely did it intentionally to make a greater point that didn’t need to be made. It’s not the biggest problem in the world. But it knowingly put grossly exaggerated information out into the world on a large, national scale, and I’m past the point where, even on something small, I think that’s a good thing. But, yes, it’s a minor fact (just one that obviously bugs me…), and still a pretty enjoyable, well-made movie. Here’s the trailer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|