Page - 124 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 04/02

Review: Watching TV Religiously | 123www.jrfm.eu 2018, 4/2, 121–125 may be, are no more important (and are arguably less so) than the coding, in- terpretations, and appropriations in which viewers actually engage. Another strength is the emphasis on aesthetics. Theological engagement with screen media has historically had a tendency to skip over formal analysis, proceeding directly to “literary” elements like plot, character, and theme.1 But what and how an artwork “means” is inextricably bound up with style. Chapter 2 seeks to equip readers with the ability to appreciate television at this stylistic level, discussing form in terms of structure, sights, and sounds. That the au- thors prioritise aesthetic engagement yields deep insights into meaning. For ex- ample, the examination of House of Cards (Beau Willimon, US 2013–), a series still in production, scrutinises the theme music for clues about where the show might be headed, its telos. Though the show’s protagonist, Frank Underwood, seemingly gets away with murder and indeed is even rewarded for his nefarious behaviour, the conflicting major and minor modes of the theme music suggest that his “ultimate fate has already been sealed … Frank’s demise will come, but when and how remain to be seen” (198). Actor Kevin Spacey’s dismissal from the show in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct (events that have only transpired since the book’s publication) has likely complicated the task of bringing the show to a conclusion, but, if anything, these sordid real-world rev- elations will probably only add weight to the downfall of which Callaway and Batali detect hints in the theme music. Of course, this meaning, derived as it is wholly from stylistic analysis, would elude commentators concerned only with discursive elements like plot and character. To my surprise, some of the most fruitful analyses were of sitcoms. Friends (David Crane and Marta Kauffman, US 1994–2004) and Parks & Recreation (Greg Daniels and Michael Schur, US 2009–2015) form the basis for a discussion of character growth and empathy. To preserve the comic potential inherent in recalcitrantly opposing personalities, the former show neither depicts nor en- courages substantial character development. The latter show, however, is that rare (unique?) breed of sitcom that finds humour in selfless friendships. Even the fairly vanilla The Big Bang Theory (Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, US 2007–) is similarly shown to represent a distinctive vision of human community in which long-suffering, self-sacrificial care for the other enables collective flourishing. Why did I find this profundity surprising? Because the genre, especially in its most conventional versions, is usually considered to be among the fluffiest of TV fare – right up there (almost) with soaps and reality TV. The genius lies in the attention paid not just to individual episodes but also to whole seasons and indeed entire series. This, I think, is a more realistic understanding of how audi- ences are actually shaped by the television medium. While the formative impact 1 Johnston 2007, 19–20.