House
House is one of those shows that doesn’t get discussed here as much as the “geekier” shows like Lost or Heroes. It’s odd since Bryan Singer, the show’s producer and occasional director is one of the uber-geeky directors up there with James Cameron, Peter Jackson, or Sam Raimi. I’d argue though that House is one of the best things he’s ever done. (Rumor is that some of House’s acerbic personality is based on Singer’s famous disposition) I have to admit that the number one thing I love about the show it’s its unabashed realism. Yeah there are lots of things about hospital life it gets wrong. (Such as House’s staff seeming to do every operation or lab test themselves) However it is completely based upon a rationalistic and scientific view of the world. When the supernatural comes in it is soon shown to be due to a misunderstanding on everyone’s part. Last night’s season finale was no different.
Yeah I’m a religious person, but I have to admit this is a real refreshing kind of show from Hollywood. Typically Hollywood does the anti-established religion thing but loves to throw in how special humans are over machines and nearly every show has some touchy-feely mystic element to it. House is the complete opposite with a strong rationalistic and scientific bent. What is surprising is just how rare this is in Hollywood shows.
Of course House is strongly based upon Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. House is a brilliant detective and rationalist with severe anti-social tendencies and a nasty drug habit. He even lives on 221B Baker street although his music fetish is guitar and jazz rather than violin and classical. House always seeks to understand and he conceives of pure science as unconcerned with care for the human element. His need to solve interesting puzzles consumes him. And it is that interesting aspect that is what drives him in his work.
Last night’s cliff hanger was quite interesting. Yes there were the Sherlock Holmes nods. But what was different with House over Holmes was House’s staff. (One could argue that House’s only real friend, an oncologist, plays his Watson and not the staff) House’s staff provides the primary foil for House to play off of. He needs them with each character portraying some stereotype of investigation he needs to overcome. However in the season finale all of his staff are either fired or quitting. The episode surprisingly ends with House discovering that he doesn’t really care.
So will we get a new staff next season (an interesting shake up that might help the show avoid staleness) or will they return?
Sorry Clark, but this show is on my list of bad tv that isn’t bad enough to be awesome. I’ve only watched a couple episodes but the whole “let’s keep trying random stuff until something works or the patient is dead” thing is annoying.
Comment by Susan M — May 30, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Gadzooks Susan! The whole point of the show is that they aren’t trying random stuff but stuff that makes sense rationally.
Comment by Clark — May 30, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
I was really hoping someone would be discussing this! I was blown away by the staff quitting. Personally, I’d have been happier with Chase leaving and the other 2 staying.
What will happen next year, three more assistants?
My wife’s prediction:
1 Asian male
1 Hispanic woman
1 indeterminate lesbian
Susan: you don’t end up watching the show for the medical drama - it might as well be science fiction - it’s just there to give the characters something to react to. The real reason to watch is the interaction between House and everybody else.
Comment by FHL — May 30, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
I watched the first season of House and really enjoyed it. But for some reason I cannot begin to explain, I have not watched it since. No clue why.
I will stand by the statement I made a year or so ago on this blog that the second to last episode of the season, the one that had House instructing a large group of medical students, was one of the best-written, best-directed pieces of drama ever.
Comment by Tim J — May 30, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Haha. The interaction between the characters is the other thing I find annoying.
One of the only episodes I’ve seen was the one where everyone thought House had cancer. So stupid.
I’ll be quiet now.
Comment by Susan M — May 30, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Side note: Watching it recently, I thought they could probably make a drinking game out of it.
Reasons to Drink:
Intubate!
Seizure
Inter-body cam
House makes a comment about Cuddy’s body
House makes a sarcastic comment (uh-oh)
Comment by FHL — May 30, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
When the supernatural comes in it is soon shown to be due to a misunderstanding on everyone’s part.
Isn’t that the plotline to every Scooby Doo episode?
Comment by Matt W. — May 30, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
I loved the episode where House was faking cancer to get a treatment that directly hit his pleasure center. It was one of my favorites of the season.
They had an interesting interview with two of the writers of House on Fresh Air last year. They said most of the medical mysteries were based on real cases. Although they acknowledged some of the “fakeness” about the staff doing everything.
Comment by Clark — May 30, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
I don’t watch House, but I can say that I’m diggin’ the chicks in the pic!
Comment by David J — May 30, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
We watch House fairly often and my wife has also commented on the unrealistic issue of the assistant docs doing all the tests, surgeries, house investigations, etc. themselves.
Still, we enjoy it.
There is only one moment that I hated in the House series. Hated. He calls up a young hooker who comes to his house. She starts to converse with him and he basically says “am I paying you to talk?” or something of that nature - the way he said that came across to me as inhuman or almost demonic. It was really a very ugly scene. It was also the close of the show, if I remember correctly - which left the viewer with a very yucky feeling.
Comment by danithew — May 30, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Hmm, I’ve always thought of the House character as more of a Philip Marlowe than a Sherlock Holmes, though this could speak to my relative ignorance of Doyle.
I like the show, but I can totally understand why others wouldn’t. I’m a big Hugh Laurie fan from way back and I pretty much just get a kick out of him being mean to people. As far the show is concerned, the plots, the medical stories, and the almost ridiculously cliched characters that make up his (former?) staff aren’t so important. I just enjoy watching Hugh Laurie be that character.
I agree, though, with the person who pointed out the second-to-last episode of season 1. That’s my favorite episode of the series, and I’d imagine a lot of people share that view.
Comment by Brian V — May 30, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
The oncologist is most definetely Watson (married and divorced several times just like Watson, among other things).
His staff is more akin to the Baker Street Irregulars.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — May 30, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Danithew, I agree, although I think the writers intended you to feel that way towards House. One thing that they haven’t done is romanticize him. Yeah he’s funny although often in a way you almost feel guilty for. But he’s also massively dysfunctional. The whole drug subplot, even though a lot of people disliked it, pointed that out. His whole de-tox was a scam and everything the Cop we were “supposed” to dislike said about him was true.
They have been developing the character but by and large he’s a tremendously flawed character.
Comment by clark — May 30, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Brian, I couldn’t believe it was Hugh Laurie. I’ve not watched a lot of his stuff but the difference between his work on Black Adder and here is tremendous. He does a lot of little things in his acting that are pretty impressive. Since a lot of what he is doing is “thinking” he has to communicate a lot non-verbally. It’s a surprisingly difficult role, moreso since he has to make a completely unlikeable character interesting and likeable.
Comment by clark — May 30, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
I always loved Hugh Laurie on Jeeves and Wooster, and so it really is great to see him being this nasty character with such a cool American accent! I really like House and his dialogue is great. My favorite line was from one episode where Cuddy said something about a bio-hazard in the hospital and House says, “ohh bio-hazard!? Should we call Jack Bauer?” Gotta love this guy.
Comment by meems — May 31, 2007 @ 2:11 am
We watch House religiously. For me, the reason the show works — I don’t usually like medical dramas — is the House character. He’s not exactly like people I’ve known in my actual career, but close enough. Everything else in the show is just decoration, ways to convince the advertisers to keep funding Laurie’s bravura performance. Which is fine with me: the decoration’s fun, and I love the fact that the doctors sometimes don’t save people’s lives. All brilliant.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — May 31, 2007 @ 6:41 am
BTW - if you like House as a riff on Sherlock Holmes you really should check out The Zero Effect with Bill Pullman and Ben Stiller. It’s relatively unknown which I honestly can’t fathom as it is a fantastic film that completely updates Sherlock Holmes even while deconstructing the myth.
Comment by Clark — May 31, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Watching Hugh Laurie be a mean genius is definitely the highlight of the show.
One thing - for a little while there was a story arc where his ex-wife was in the picture. I thought in some ways the overall show was better during that time period. Since that story arc ended (though there are other mini-arcs going on as well) I felt the show went through a slight dip in quality - though it is still very, very watchable. Hope that makes sense.
Learning more about the main character, what makes him tick, so to speak, is a major highlight. I keep asking myself how and why the character has arrived at the personality that he displays on the show.
Comment by danithew — May 31, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
They’ve come out and said he was fairly badly abused by his dad. Not sexually but physically.
Comment by Clark — May 31, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
#6: The TWoP recapper has a running joke that every time someone gets off an elevator should be part of a drinking game.
Comment by Heather P. — May 31, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
re: 18–I didn’t think she was an ex-wife. i thought Stacey (Stela Ward) was an ex-girlfriend/ex-fiancee.
Comment by kristine N — June 1, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
No she was an ex-wife. They got divorced after she ordered the procedure that left House with his leg condition but which probably saved his life. I ought check the wiki before spouting off “facts” but I seem to recall she left him for her current husband. House then tries to break it up because he’s still in love with her.
Comment by Clark — June 2, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
House (the character and show) is fascinating, to be sure. But the best riff on Sherlock Holmes that has yet been put on television, in my opinion, is Tony Shalhoub’s Adrian Monk.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — June 8, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Monk is less “obviously” a Sherlock Holmes riff though. He really doesn’t have much structural similarities. Although I do truly love Monk. I think it’s very original to have this mentally ill detective. The one knock against Monk is that the mysteries simply aren’t that well conceived typically. It’s “what’s Monk going to do” that is the focus. It’s also a tad too structured in that typical TV fashion. Much like what I think it is closest to: Columbo.
Comment by clark — June 8, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
I’ll grant that the mysteries which Monk solves are sometime pretty contrived–certainly in comparison to House. But then again, a lot of the original Sherlock Holmes mysteries were really contrived as well (remember the Red-Headed League?). House includes a lot of very conscious Holmes parallels–his name, his address, lots more–and it builds on the Holmesian myth of pure, ferocious, emotionless, uncaring rationality. But I think Monk is closer to the stories themselves, because in actuality I think that kind of scientific rationality wasn’t always present in the way Holmes acted–maybe Doyle claimed via Watson that’s how Holmes was acting, but it doesn’t come through. What really comes through, at least for me, is Holmes-as-mysterious-weird-know-it-all-mystery-solving-oddball. And that’s Monk!
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — June 8, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
I’ll admit that Holmes doesn’t always live up to his ideals in the stories. (He’s supposed to not theorize until he has all the facts - but clearly can’t always do this) But the other problem is that Doyle is hardly a logician. I mean he believed in fairies! So there’s always this interesting tension.
I don’t recall the Red Headed League being that contrived. I thought it kind of clever as I recall. (Maybe I’m just misrecalling)
Comment by clark — June 9, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Sorry for being so late to this discussion, but I finally watched the season finally off of my DVR last night. I didn’t want it spoiled.
A few comments: we started watching midway through the first season, and I think the earlier episodes were definitely better written. The show has a tendency to drop into a predictable formula when the writers aren’t trying hard enough, but it’s usually pretty good. I thought this season was subpar by its own standards (which explains why I only just got around to watching the final episode). The subplot with David Morse was just painful, and I hated the way it was wrapped up.
House works because Hugh Laurie is one of the best actors working in television and he’s entertaining even though (and often because) his character is so unlikeable. He also has perfect comic timing, which shouldn’t be underrated. I think it also serves the role well that Laurie is a multi-talented guy with an Eton/Cambridge education. It helps to believe that Dr. House is brilliant because Laurie himself is so bright. There are definitely moments where Laurie is able to gloss over weaknesses in the script through his fine acting.
I’m not sure what I thought of the ending. I really like the ensemble cast. My assumption is that they’ll start next season with House trying to hire a new staff. I don’t think this move can be judged at this point until we see what it produces. Even though I liked Foreman, Chase and Cameron, I think the show had gotten close to exhausting all of the character development it was going to get from those supporting character. Dr. Cameron’s character, in particular, didn’t really seem to be going anywhere.
I still like the show quite a bit, but it’s no longer one of my priority views, and it’s got some work to do to get back there.
Comment by BTD Greg — July 12, 2007 @ 9:53 am
BTD Greg, I think you might be right about them “exhausting all of the character development it was going to get from those supporting characters.”
Which makes me wonder about how the contracts with the actors might work - is the show able to get a new crew of supporting actors or do they have to muddle along?
I like the show to show formula where a new patient (or patients) shows up that has a unique problem. But there also needs to be those personal character stories/issues that go beyond those patient stories.
Regardless, it’s fun to watch Hugh Laurie do his thing.
Comment by danithew — July 12, 2007 @ 10:29 am
I don’t think they exhausted the character development myself. But I do agree that things were getting stale. I agree that the cop and drug addiction subplot got to be a bit much. There were elements that were good. (Both House and the Cop were very similar personalities) Although I did like that House faked his whole “treatment.” And of course the Cop knew this since this is hardly unheard of by junkies.
But there definitely was a phase where things were too predictable.
Having said that there were episodes I really, really liked, such as House faking his cancer for an interesting pain treatment (which he portrayed as wanting to get high but clearly was for his leg); the whole possible pandemic on the plane episode; and a few others.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 12, 2007 @ 10:46 am
I thought that the episode toward the end of the season with the depressed rape victim, and the episode with Dave Mathews as the musical savant were both really good. I also liked the episode where House treated the soldier.
Comment by BTD Greg — July 12, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Yeah, those were all very good. They’ve done more with House’s childhood abuse than they did the first two seasons. The question is whether we’ll see the transformation of House.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 12, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
The thing I didn’t like about the Tritter character is that it was essentially a rehash of the Vogler character from season one. Been there, done that.
The folks who mentioned his team reaching the end of its useful life are right, I think. Cameron in particular has been used up as a character since season one. I did like that they explored Wilson’s character a bit more.
The one relationship they’ve hinted at but haven’t explored is between House and Cutty. On the one hand, it’s inevitable that they’ll explore it, but on the other, I have the feeling it’ll go downhill quickly once they hook up ala Sam Malone/Diane Chambers or Bruce Willis/Cybill Shepard from Moonlighting (can’t remember the character names).
Comment by Brian V — July 12, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
I’ll predict the original team returns. House is so damaged goods that Cutty would be an idiot to date him. But they may hook up and then have catastrophic results. I don’t see the show hinging on sexual tension between Cutty and House. House and Cameron, maybe.
I could see House having a kid with Cutty, although she has only a year or two left of opportunity realistically. (Isn’t the character she playing in her mid-40’s?)
Comment by clark — July 12, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
I thought there was a suggestion that Cutty (Cuddy?) had slept with House at one point. Like, someone made a joke with her about it, and she didn’t deny it.
Maybe I’m mis-remembering it.
Comment by FHL — July 13, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
No, I remember quite a few statements that they’d dated for a while.
Comment by clark — July 13, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Over at TV Squad, they have information about how next season’s “House” will begin. WARNING: Spoilers, and not just for “House.” There are spoilers for a half dozen or so prime-time TV shows if you follow the link.
Comment by BTD Greg — July 25, 2007 @ 11:58 am