Tag Archives: Alfred Hitchcock

6-Episode Problem: In which I am forced to wish for longer TV seasons

I grew up in the 1960s and `1970s – ha! I bet you thought I was a youngster, huh? – and TV was a huge part of our lives. Obviously. This was during a period when weekly episodic TV series had long seasons of many episodes, certainly by today’s standards.

I mean, “Star Trek” had 79 episodes over only three seasons (and some of those episodes were outright losers that I’m sure somebody is nostalgic about now) and “Trek” looked like a piker compared to many TV series: “Gunsmoke,” which ran for 20 seasons, aired 39 episodes in each of its first few seasons, although those were admittedly half-hour episodes. Yesterday I noticed that “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” also had 39 episodes some seasons.

That reinforcing of the idea that vintage TV series aired a boatload of episodes back in the day compares and contrasts to today, when it’s a shock when any new series runs more than 10 or 12 episodes per season. The excellent “The Pitt” is the exception with 15 episodes per season. (“The Pitt” is also the exception compared to many current series in that the seasons air only a year or less apart.)

Enter “3 Body Problem,” the terrifically entertaining Netflix adaptation of the science fiction bestseller (and Chinese TV adaptation). Yesterday news broke that the second season of the series would consist of only six episodes compared to eight from the first season. Forbes wrote that the third season is supposed to be even shorter. This as people note that author Cixin Liu’s three novels get longer with each book.

Oh, and also, it’s been two years since the first season.

Add to that the apparent circumstance that there’s no telling when the second season of the great series “Pluribus” will be produced or seen.

I don’t necessarily want to return to the days of 39 or even 22 episodes, the latter still a common number among some network series.

But I wouldn’t mind if other series followed the schedule of “The Pitt” and gave us a few more episodes in a slightly more timely manner.

The greatest movies ever shown?

A couple of days ago, Sight and Sound, the prestigious magazine published by the British Film Institute, re-issued its list of the greatest movies of all time and made some headlines with a change at the top.

“Citizen Kane,” Orson Welles’ undeniably great 1941 story of a newspaper tycoon, has long set atop the list, which is made up through a poll of cinema experts. But the new list moved “Kane” down a notch in favor of “Vertigo,” Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 psychological thriller.

My tastes are more pedestrian than those BFI and Sight and Sound poll, obviously. Of the top 10, I’ve seen “Citizen Kane,” “Vertigo,” “2001” and “The Searchers” – my foreign film experience has been limited, frankly to Kurosawa classics and the more offbeat genre outings – and agree those all belong pretty near the top.

But “Vertigo” the greatest movie of all time?

There are different measures of great, obviously. But I think I’d include other Hitchcock films, notably “Strangers on a Train” or “Rear Window,” as avidly as I’d include “Vertigo.”

Anyway. People love lists and love to debate the greatest movies, music, books and other works of art.

Ultimately, it’s all personal. I’m not going to complain one bit if you want to include “The Empire Strikes Back” at the top of your personal list. It would be pretty high on mine too.

The new top 10, according to Sight and Sound:

1. “Vertigo”
2. “Citizen Kane”
3. “Tokyo Story”
4. “La Regle du jeu” (“The Rules of the Game”)
5. “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans”
6. “2001: A Space Odyssey”
7. “The Searchers”
8. “Man with a Movie Camera”
9. “The Passion of Joan of Arc”
10. “8 1/2″