Big Love season finale; or, why narrative complexity does not always equal quality
The season finale of this brief, nine-episode season of Big Love was last night, and I cannot remember the last time I’ve seen a bigger disaster lurch its way toward Bethlehem to be born. Let me just try to recap what happens in the last episode, although I know it’s a failed enterprise. Barb tries to sabotage Bill’s campaign by leaking the paternity test of Ana’s baby to the press. Margene confesses to Ana that she wants to get a divorce from Ana’s fiancé Goran, and Ana insists they all stay together. Albie goes mad(der than he already was). Bill fires the two guys who were running the casino, which infuriates Barb, who’s been actually doing the major work there. We discover that JJ, Nikki’s ex-husband and her mother’s new husband, has been carrying out an elaborate incestuous eugenics scheme at his compound in Kansas. JJ has implanted Adaleen, Nikki’s mother, with an embryo that is not hers and tries to implant Nikki with an embryo made from JJ’s sperm and Nikki’s daughter’s egg, but Bill charges in and interrupts everything. Adaleen ties up JJ and his other wife whose name I’ve never caught and burns them alive inside the clinic. At the end, Bill Hendrickson wins a Utah State Senate seat and then uses his victory speech to announce that he is a polygamist.

I think that’s most of it, plus there’s a whole Sissy Spacek plotline that I never did quite understand. Oh, also, Don’s son throws a brick through the Hendricksons’s window? And Nikki doesn’t want to share Bill anymore? And who even knows what happened to that whole bird smuggling business!
A few days ago, FlowTV reprinted some of its most popular or thought-provoking works from the past several years, and included Michael Kackman’s piece about television criticism’s perpetual confusion of “narrative complexity” for “quality.” He points to the academic love affair with The Wire, the weekly Lost hand-wringing, and HBO’s entire brand as a form of elitist aesthetics that ignore “good” television’s underlying roots in melodrama. Kackman pushes the concept of melodrama (historically a female aesthetic) as a crucial player in the development of television shows now considered “good,” and asks critics to remember the gender politics that create the foundation of our aesthetic appreciation for complex narrative. I mention this all because Big Love falls in an interesting place in Kackman’s divide. It is narratively complex, and it proudly owns its relationship with melodrama, so much so that it frequently and cheerfully steps over the line of plausibility. It could be an excellent, daring, experimental leap into a gold mine of televised genius, combining all the complicated fascination of a multi-plot structure with the crazy unreality of a melodramatic romance. On screen, Big Love is a mess. Its characters get buried in the onslaught of plotlines and its themes are muddled inside screaming emotional outbursts and near-weekly murderous rages. Bill Hendrickson is a dolt.
While I will cop to a critical bias toward narrative complexity and should try to recognize the importance of understanding the role of melodrama in our (probably gendered) operational aesthetics, quality can exist independent of those considerations. Good TV can be made using the techniques of what used to be “bad” TV – see Mad Men, which is essentially a soap opera with better production values, and we should make an effort to re-evaluate those (cough cough) low-culture forms that have developed into what now makes up (cough) high-culture television. But I have to thank Big Love for proving so clearly that a narratively complex show can also still be messy, incoherent (bad!) TV.






