Mannix is Coming! (All things Mannix w/spoilers) (3 Viewers)

[Harry-N]

Interesting picture.

Another one currently on eBay was perhaps a pitch by Mike Connors to be considered for "Best Supporting Actor"

Harry

 

[benbess]

I have a question that I bet is answered in JP's book, but I'm forgetting right now. That huge outdoor set, where Mannix has his office, looks familiar to me. Weren't some big Hollywood movies of that time filmed there as well? I'm wondering, for instance, if parts of An American in Paris, or some other Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire movie was filmed there. What studio owned that huge set? I assume it was demolished at some point in the 1970s?

 

[phenri]

Phenri,

No question -- Mannix did a few highly novel episode types -- I don't know of them ever being done in other series. "End Game" is one of them. And it is a great episode.

I don't know how far you've gotten in the series, but lots of "A" category episodes occur in seasons 3 and beyond...

When I think of the different episode types done in Mannix, by one lead actor playing one role, I still find it incredible.

JoAnn,

Mannix is my favorite show and I have purchased all of the seasons on the night of release. I have just finished season 4, so I have a lot more episodes to watch.

There is no show that I enjoy more and I like reading your insights regarding Mannix.

 

[jompaul17]

All Around the Money Tree
I enjoyed this light weight caper episode, which was about as different in tone from End Game as you could imagine. It was silly, but I enjoyed the little humor of Mannix telling Peggy he wasn't there and not to be disturbed, and then, when she made an exception for the beautiful British gal, complimenting her on her mastery of the job. My teen son actually watched it with me. I liked it better than he did, but he was ok with it.

With that strong recommendation for the third season, perhaps I'll just look for one of those at a reasonable price, rather than trying to get the whole show all at once. I wouldn't be signing off of the thread, but maybe just moving on to other shows for a while. But I still have five more episodes of the second season to watch first, and am likely to give mini reviews of those as I go.



PS I forgot to mention for Girl Who Came in with the Tide that I saw my first example of the stunt double for Mike Connors. I bet you fans of the show know the scene. It's where Mannix jumps off of the yacht to get to the bad guy, and then gets into a brawling fight. The director and cinematographer filmed it from enough of a distance that it does almost look like MC. And when watched on the lower rez TVs of 1969 I bet it was impossible to really tell. That's a difference with Star Trek, where sometimes they made the mistake of filming it close enough that you can tell quite clearly that it isn't really Capt. Kirk who is in the big fight, even on the old TVs of the 60s and 70s. I think actually the problem in Star Trek was that they couldn't film at enough of a distance, because the set of the Enterprise just wasn't big enough to make that practical. Anyway, in terms of stunt work in general I'm impressed at how often it's Mike Connors himself doing his own stunts, from falls to fights.

Ben,

Yes, that is something else that I think is unique about Mannix. For a show all about one character, you never knew what to expect from one week to the next. Somewhere out there, listed in a previous post, is a link to an article written by Mike Connors, circa 1969, about how the show is designed to keep the viewer "off balance" -- never knowing what to expect.

Ensemble shows or anthologies can easily have episode types that are vastly different in tone from one week to the next simply by focusing on a different character or guest star. But, in Mannix, a series all about this one guy, you wind up with "Death in a Minor Key" followed by "End Game" followed by "All Around the Money Tree" in three successive weeks -- and they are all about Joe Mannix. The viewer moves from one episode masterfully dealing with racism in a small town in the South to a highly unique episode dark in tone and virtually all filmed inside of an abandoned building to a semi-comedic episode that is practically a take-off on It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

As we've noticed here, not even all viewers might like all of those episodes, they are all so different from each other. But, if the viewer does not like any of them, then it will not be because those episodes are not superbly done. The viewer might not like a particular episode only because the range of the series is so great -- and it's all still about this one guy.

The stunt double for MC, for seasons 2-8, was Dick Ziker. I have to think about this some, but it strikes me that the vast majority of scenes that used a stunt double were filmed outside. A few times Joe would leap from one floor to the next, such as in the warehouse that was used in the opening of season 5 -- those leaps always required a double. But, when they were outside not only could they place the camera farther away, they might actually want to some of the time, partly to get in more of the setting.

Even back when the series first ran, MC was known for his athletic stunts -- he did way more back then than other actors who were physically fit, but not nearly as athletic -- and graceful of movement. Not only were other series sloppy about using stunt doubles, as if they didn't care if viewers noticed or not, Mannix seemed to go overboard using MC in scenes where it had to be difficult to notice on TV sets back then. For example, if you get to the first part of season 3, notice the fight scene in "A Sleep in the Deep" -- where Peggy witnesses her boss take on a bigger guy. I was amazed to discover MC doing that whole scene, rollover included.. And, while that might seem like a small thing, it really isn't. Because that sets up Peggy witnessing her boss in action, Joe being Joe, which in turn sets up, "The Sound of Darkness."

The stunts done by MC were definitely at their peak in season 1 - that makes it worth getting season 1, alone. But, perhaps because he was known for doing so many of them, they were also careful to not show his face when the stunt was too big to risk its star -- well, as you said, on the TVs of the day. It's pretty easy to tell now on those high quality DVDs!

Then again, the DVDs also make it possible to slow down certain scenes and appreciate the stunt work MC continues to do, virtually throughout the series.

You are watching the series so fast, it's hard to keep up!

There are no guarantees, but the odds seem pretty high you are going to like the first part of season 3 -- so I do hope you find a good deal.

 

[jompaul17]

Interesting picture.

Another one currently on eBay was perhaps a pitch by Mike Connors to be considered for "Best Supporting Actor"

SupportingActor.JPG

Harry

Harry,

I actually included that photo in my book! My strong suspicion is that it was intended to promote Mannix "moving" its time slot by an hour (while still staying on Sunday nights) in January 1973. Based upon the clothing it was taken during the filming of "To Quote a Dead Man" which was likely filmed in December, 1972 -- the episode even includes some garland in the Hollywood-Burbank airport.

It's a pretty great photo!

 

[jompaul17]

I have a question that I bet is answered in JP's book, but I'm forgetting right now. That huge outdoor set, where Mannix has his office, looks familiar to me. Weren't some big Hollywood movies of that time filmed there as well? I'm wondering, for instance, if parts of An American in Paris, or some other Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire movie was filmed there. What studio owned that huge set? I assume it was demolished at some point in the 1970s?

Ben,

Well, "The Paseo" is actually an odd collection of facades that were on the Paramount lot. Sadly, they were torn down sometime in the 1980s. Once you watch the episodes enough, you notice how some of them seem intended to portray European buildings from France, Germany or Holland (the ones towards the car port) while others that comprise closed in area seem more inspired by the southwest, even Mexico. Then, to the right of the carport (when you are looking at the cars from the back) are some Tudor-style buildings!

Actually, the buildings that are just beyond the Paseo, the ones you see when Joe pulls his car around the bend, change over the course of the series. Some that were there at the beginning were removed. And, that greenish-metallic kind of structure with the odd-looking storefronts is actually a giant wall used to hide the Western Streets, used in numerous episodes of Mannix and also Bonanza.

I found a wonderful aerial view of Paramount, circa the 1970s, awhile back -- and posted it here before. But, it is worth re-posting. Notice The Paseo on the right hand side of the picture, in the middle (from top to bottom).

I've also posted before how other series used "The Paseo" (without that sign), especially Mission: Impossible and The Mod Squad. The former was a Desilu-Paramount production and the latter rented Paramount space for its first few seasons.

But another photo on this thread shows that during the 1967-68 season (before Joe moved to The Paseo) those inner buildings were actually quite a different color (it was sort of gold -- not off-white) and without the terra cotta trim, fountain, and vines. One of the opening scenes of Mission: Impossible during its second season reveals this. They seemed to re-paint some of the facades, add the fountain, tile, vines and sign just to make a new home for Joe. Actually, I once read that The Paseo was inspired by an upscale shopping-business complex in Santa Barbara (which is, of course, where Bruce Geller died because he was, I believe, flying back to where he lived some of the time -- I think Ivan Goff and/or Ben Roberts lived there some of the time as well).

Given all of this, my strong suspicion is that numerous movies used specific pieces of the those facades, but never the whole thing in quite the way Mannix did. And the reason is because you can see what a hodgepodge it really is!

But man, I was absolutely convinced that was a real place.

As of three years ago, the Paramount lot looks very different. There seems to be less of a need to film outdoor scenes, in settings like that. It's mostly office buildings now. Too bad.

Also, that large blue screen in the upper part of that photo -- that screen sits in front of what is really a giant pool that can be flooded, but is normally used as a parking lot. It was used to film the parting of the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments.

And, life coming full circle -- Mike Connors (then known as Touch Connors) played a sheep herder in a brief scene in The Ten Commandments!

 

[jompaul17]

JoAnn,

Mannix is my favorite show and I have purchased all of the seasons on the night of release. I have just finished season 4, so I have a lot more episodes to watch.

There is no show that I enjoy more and I like reading your insights regarding Mannix.

Phenri,

Oh, this is such a sweet post!

Please do keep posting -- I always do my best to add whatever insight I can.

 

[Guy Foulard]

Nice piece on Mannix in the Onion AV Club today:

http://www.avclub.com/article/long-running-private-eye-series-mannix-was-brutal--204978

 

[benbess]

Nice write up!

Since that piece used clips from the show in its review of Mannix, it seems to me that resident expert and author JP could do that too if she wanted to. It seems like fair use to me, as well as positive promotion for the show....

 

[jompaul17]

Nice piece on Mannix in the Onion AV Club today:

http://www.avclub.com/article/long-running-private-eye-series-mannix-was-brutal--204978

Guy,

Thanks for posting this!

As usual, the guy got quite a few things wrong:

[*]Joe Mannix was never a cop -- that's actually important to his character. He was too individualistic to be a cop.
[*]There is no evidence Joe ever knew Peggy's husband. And so this guy takes that one step further and assumes that is the reason Joe never makes a pass at Peggy! That's absurd.
[*]CBS and Bruce Geller didn't decide to revamp the series for season 2 -- Lucille Ball demanded the series be saved, using her clout with CBS. She didn't like the computers. How could this guy mess that up?
[/list]
He is also over-blowing the violence angle.

As usual, he uses a flair for writing combined with conventional knowledge of film noir and cinematography to substitute for really thinking about why such a series ran for 100 -- and nearly 200 episodes. Heck, he never bothers to mention that this series nearly reached the 200 mark.

 

[jompaul17]

Nice write up!

Since that piece used clips from the show in its review of Mannix, it seems to me that resident expert and author JP could do that too if she wanted to. It seems like fair use to me, as well as positive promotion for the show....

Ben,

Well, that is tempting -- and flattering -- but I still wonder who might watch them!

 

[benbess]

Ben,

Well, that is tempting -- and flattering -- but I still wonder who might watch them!

Didn't you wonder the same thing when you wrote your book? I think if the review is entertaining, perceptive, and well done, it might find a small audience. Have you seen any of the video reviews of old movies that the NY Times has done once in a while? I realize that's an impossibly high standard to set, but I was thinking of something kind of like that....But I'm not trying to make work for you if you're not drawn to it. It was just a whimsical notion that may be impossible, or more likely just not "worth" it. But, since I'm an art historian, we sometimes do feel that a picture is worth a thousand words. And that words and pictures combined can sometimes be worth even more.

 

[jompaul17]

Didn't you wonder the same thing when you wrote your book? I think if the review is entertaining, perceptive, and well done, it might find a small audience. Have you seen any of the video reviews of old movies that the NY Times has done once in a while? I realize that's an impossibly high standard to set, but I was thinking of something kind of like that....But I'm not trying to make work for you if you're not drawn to it. It was just a whimsical notion that may be impossible, or more likely just not "worth" it. But, since I'm an art historian, we sometimes do feel that a picture is worth a thousand words. And that words and pictures combined can sometimes be worth even more.

Ben,

That's a curious question!

Actually, I wrote the book as a labor of love, in no small part because I figured Mike Connors wasn't seeing the online writing. I came to really value that series -- much in the same way someone comes to value book that they, all of a sudden, realize holds more value than they ever thought. When they also realize the book has been overlooked, they, perhaps, want to let the author know that at least they can see what was really in there all along. I'm sure that an art historian would understand how art can be overlooked -- even though a lot of people do not understand that. We so often value what others think we should, instead of what we actually think is good and valuable for us.

So, two things came together after I sent the intro to Mike Connors. The first is that, in our initial conversation, he confirmed what I was beginning to discover -- that so many of the specific qualities of that character were done on purpose. The second is that, after I offered, MC liked the idea of my sending him the chapters.

With that, I was off and running on a labor of love that I doubted might ever get published. But, as I told MC at the time, I learned so much by writing it -- just the writing of it was of immense value to me.

So, now that it is published I admit I'd love to do more. But, I have no real plan for that, right now. I miss intense thinking about the series, the nature of heroic character, and putting the arguments together for why they are so important. That is one reason I still enjoy writing here so much -- it is an excuse to do that!

But, so far as people finding this book -- that is problematic. No matter what though, I will always have the pleasure of having sent those chapters and the completed, published book to Mike Connors. That is immensely satisfying to me.

His excellent series is extremely under-valued and mis-labeled. It helped me. He deserves a good book. I only hope I wrote a good one -- and that people do find it and enjoy it.

Still, a lot of my thinking right now is still a work in progress -- so I appreciate your suggestion(s) more than you know.

 

[Mark Collins]

JoAnn, I really enjoyed your radio interview with Ed!! I would tell all fans of this thread to please listen to it. You hear a great deal of MC's early movie days from him and I would like to have heard more about Mannix. He also never once brought up Gail Fisher which I so wanted to hear. I understand it is up to the interviewer to ask the right questions. Perhaps that was the problem.

I just wanted to give you JoAnn credit for a job well done! Thanks for bringing this thread to life again and getting Mannix on to DVD. Once again job well done on all fronts my friend.

 

[Mark Collins]

Oh I nearly forgot to speak about the review of Mannix. I always hate when the people writing these things get their facts wrong. I am sorry to say that this person did in many ways. What I do not like it changes the perspective of a person who may be new to the show. I also did not like the way he spoke about the relationship between Joe and Peggy. The person who wrote this cannot be a fan of this show and state what he did. Not all bad what he said I understand that. I just feel a great deal of it turned me off to the rest of what he wrote.

Hey I am very glad it was posted here. I thank our fellow HTF member who is fan of Mannix for posting this.

I think the writer of the review wanted to honor the show but it came off in a different way to a huge fan of the series which of course I am.

JoAnn I also like what you said here about Mannix being a collection of scenes and not a particular show. Yet as you have said some shows have all those scenes and stand out. Yet other shows evolve from scenes from which I look forward to in each episode.

I hope I am stating this right. I sort of feel like I am not being clear. I hope fans and new fans of the show will know what I mean.

 

[Mark Collins]

I have one more thought which has been on my mind. I know many good people here at HTF who in the early days when JoAnn became a part of this thread really became upset with her comments. I wish those members would return to the thread and exchange ideas with her in a positive manner. I know they may not be huge fans of the show but they are very eloquent members. I would love to read the exchange of ideas between them and JoAnn on different elements of Mannix.

I believe put the past behind you. HTF members give the very best of yourself to a very positive thread. Please friends think about it and join all these wonderful new members who are posting here. I love reading your ideas on other threads and so wish I could read them here.

I am sure JoAnn and members of this thread would welcome you back so long as the comments did not turn into what we read in a recent nameless thread.

I also wanted to add how great it was for JoAnn during the radio interview to give a nod to HTF which was something she did not have to do. What a kind and very thoughtful thing to do JoAnn.

Mark Collins

 

[Stephen Bowie]

Guy,

Thanks for posting this!

As usual, the guy got quite a few things wrong:

[*]Joe Mannix was never a cop -- that's actually important to his character. He was too individualistic to be a cop.
[*]There is no evidence Joe ever knew Peggy's husband. And so this guy takes that one step further and assumes that is the reason Joe never makes a pass at Peggy! That's absurd.
[*]CBS and Bruce Geller didn't decide to revamp the series for season 2 -- Lucille Ball demanded the series be saved, using her clout with CBS. She didn't like the computers. How could this guy mess that up?
[/list]
He is also over-blowing the violence angle.

As usual, he uses a flair for writing combined with conventional knowledge of film noir and cinematography to substitute for really thinking about why such a series ran for 100 -- and nearly 200 episodes. Heck, he never bothers to mention that this series nearly reached the 200 mark.

The error about Peggy’s backstory is embarrassing; something I dimly remembered and failed to fact-check. That and one other mistake (Paul Krasny directed Mission first, not Mannix) were corrected in the A.V. Club article today.

However, is there actual evidence that Lucille Ball “saved” Mannix? Mike Connors has speculated to that effect in interviews, but I’m skeptical, since the Mannix renewal took place a year after the sale of Desilu to Paramount. Ball likely had the clout to make it a condition of her new contract with CBS in February 1968 (even though she was basically shut out by Paramount at that point), but what would her motive have been at that point? In any case, it’s absurd to think that Ball had more creative input into Mannix than Bruce Geller, especially after the dissolution of Desilu. Connors attributed the format change to “the co-producers” in a 1972 interview.

As for “overblowing the violence,” the page for JoAnn book on Bear Manor’s site describes Mannix as being “shot, drugged, poisoned, beaten, tortured, and dumped down hillsides to be left for dead.”

The “100 episodes” benchmark is just an arbitrary thing The A.V. Club uses to group long-running shows under the same umbrella. Apart from the fact that Mannix was unusually consistent in its approach and quality for most of its run, the episode count doesn’t strike me as significant. Bonanza ran for over 400, and it’s godawful.

I never used the terms “cinematography” or “film noir” in the article, so I’m not sure where that complaint is coming from. In fact, I rejected the idea of classifying Mannix as “neo-noir,” even though the show often flirts with a fatalistic tone and some of the best episodes deliberately evoke noir tropes (e.g., the femme fatale and the schlub obsessed with her in “Comes Up Rose”). I just think it’s kind of an obvious comparison to make, and ultimately secondary to the the jazzy, poppy tone set by the wonderful imagery and the music.

“Really thinking” about why Mannix lasted so long? I basically argued this in the article, but here’s the short version: It had a familiar format that was comforting to viewers, and was produced with enough competence and care that it didn’t insult the smart people in the audience or incur the wrath of critics. The worst trap with first-rate escapism like Mannix, I think, is to search for thematic depth that isn’t there, and then to create it out of whole cloth, which is the blind alley that I think some (certainly not all) of JoAnn’s posts go down. To do that is to risk obscuring the more superficial things that Mannix excelled at: taut plotting, first-rate performances, and especially visual style. Mannix is one of the few series from that era in which form is more advanced than content (apart from Mission: Impossible, Combat is the only one that comes to mind), and I really think that is its (and Geller’s) legacy - in terms of both influence and why it’s so much more watchable today than, say, Cannon or Ironside, similar shows that settled for basically a point-and-shoot aesthetic.

 

[jompaul17]

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;]The error about Peggy’s backstory is embarrassing; something I dimly remembered and failed to fact-check. That and one other mistake (Paul Krasny directed Mission first, not Mannix) were corrected in the A.V. Club article today.[/color]

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;]However, is there actual evidence that Lucille Ball “saved” Mannix? Mike Connors has speculated to that effect in interviews, but I’m skeptical, since the Mannix renewal took place a year after the sale of Desilu to Paramount. Ball likely had the clout to make it a condition of her new contract with CBS in February 1968 (even though she was basically shut out by Paramount at that point), but what would her motive have been at that point? In any case, it’s absurd to think that Ball had more creative input into Mannix than Bruce Geller, especially after the dissolution of Desilu. Connors attributed the format change to “the co-producers” in a 1972 interview.[/color]

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;]As for “overblowing the violence,” the page for JoAnn book on Bear Manor’s site describes Mannix as being “shot, drugged, poisoned, beaten, tortured, and dumped down hillsides to be left for dead.”[/color]

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;]The “100 episodes” benchmark is just an arbitrary thing The A.V. Club uses to group long-running shows under the same umbrella. Apart from the fact that Mannix was unusually consistent in its approach and quality for most of its run, the episode count doesn’t strike me as significant. Bonanza ran for over 400, and it’s godawful.[/color]

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;]I never used the terms “cinematography” or “film noir” in the article, so I’m not sure where that complaint is coming from. In fact, I rejected the idea of classifying Mannix as “neo-noir,” even though the show often flirts with a fatalistic tone and some of the best episodes deliberately evoke noir tropes (e.g., the femme fatale and the schlub obsessed with her in “Comes Up Rose”). I just think it’s kind of an obvious comparison to make, and ultimately secondary to the the jazzy, poppy tone set by the wonderful imagery and the music.[/color]

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;]“Really thinking” about why Mannix lasted so long? I basically argued this in the article, but here’s the short version: It had a familiar format that was comforting to viewers, and was produced with enough competence and care that it didn’t insult the smart people in the audience or incur the wrath of critics. The worst trap with first-rate escapism like Mannix, I think, is to search for thematic depth that isn’t there, and then to create it out of whole cloth, which is the blind alley that I think some (certainly not all) of JoAnn’s posts go down. To do that is to risk obscuring the more superficial things that Mannix excelled at: taut plotting, first-rate performances, and especially visual style. Mannix is one of the few series from that era in which form is more advanced than content (apart from Mission: Impossible, Combat is the only one that comes to mind), and I really think that is its (and Geller’s) legacy - in terms of both influence and why it’s so much more watchable today than, say, Cannon or Ironside, similar shows that settled for basically a point-and-shoot aesthetic.[/color]

Stephen,

I should have known you were a member of the HTF!

Thanks for correcting that error about both Joe and Peggy's backstory -- in fact, Joe was never a cop either.

As for the attribute for Lucille Ball saving the series, the closest book reference I could find was the Desilu: The Story of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, where it discusses how Lucille Ball had to screw up the courage to phone CBS on behalf of Mannix. It also discussed that what she specifically liked about the series was that Joe Mannix was a hard-hitting, handsome PI.

Mike Connors did more than just "speculate" about Lucille Ball saving the series and her not liking the computer angle. He is certainly a first-source of the history of the series. Even if you still think he is merely speculating, the re-tooling of Mannix was extreme. It makes perfect sense that there was major support out there for Mike Connors playing Joe Mannix only as a hard-hitting PI without the computers, because that is exactly the way the series came back.

On the other hand, crediting Bruce Geller and CBS with deciding to save the series by removing the computer angle is mere speculation that not only runs counter to MC's view, it places Geller in a position to decide the fate of the series! That hardly seems plausible! If you still don't believe MC, the best you can say is that you are speculating about the reason the series was saved and dramatically re-tooled.

By the "co-producers," MC would have been referring to Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts -- who had a lot to do with character development after the decision was made to retool the series and they had what amounted to a blank slate.

Now, the reason the series is ultimately canceled despite being in the Top 20 is only speculated by Mike Connors, and yet you stated that as fact. Good sources for that are harder to find -- an argument must be made there to infer why.

The objection to violence in television did not have to do with consequences to the central heroic figures in story -- after all, they always recovered. It had to do with the dead body count. The objection had to do with who the hero shot, not what happened to him. Numerous references exist to support that. Your statement,

"Mannix was a fabulously violent program"

distorts the series in today's context of violence. Breaking Bad is phenomenally more violent than Mannix ever was. It's an old label, not a fresh view.

I realize the 100 episode label is an arbitrary mark However, I think series that reach whole integer multipliers of that mark deserve some special consideration, even if you do not like them for some reason. This was practically a one-man show with all sorts of action and emotional response. The fact that it made it to nearly 200 episodes is amazing. I simply thought it was worth mentioning.

The statements, each of which open paragraphs,

"More creatively satisfying than the stunt episodes, though, were the fatalistic, character-driven mysteries that were the show’s regular fare."

and

"But the most exciting element of Mannix is its imagery, which was flamboyant in the tamer episodes and unhinged in the rest. Take zooms, rack focuses, lens flares, extreme wide and long lenses, extreme low, overhead, and Dutch angles, handheld and gyroscope-mounted cameras, and deep multiplanar compositions, then add a lysergic dose of pop-art production design and 52-card pick-up editing, and you have the house style of Mannix."

sound like discussion of film noir and cinematography to me. The latter paragraph, in particular, goes on to discuss the framing of scenes in great detail. Forgive me if I am misguided in the strict definition of those terms.

With respect to this:

The worst trap with first-rate escapism like Mannix, I think, is to search for thematic depth that isn’t there, and then to create it out of whole cloth, which is the blind alley that I think some (certainly not all) of JoAnn’s posts go down. To do that is to risk obscuring the more superficial things that Mannix excelled at: taut plotting, first-rate performances, and especially visual style

I would re-phrase this. The worst trap with what most consider first-rate escapism is to fail to consider the deeper kinds of influence story has on us in a modern world where we receive most of our story through visual media.

When we do that, we wound up failing to consider why series like Breaking Bad or The Sopranos speak to us at all, let alone captivate us and consume quite a few of our resources. When we do that, we might also fail to consider how we could well be losing the foundational stories of heroism upon which Western Civilization has relied for centuries.

I'd rather deeply consider the themes in The Looney Tunes and why they speak to us than err on the side of selling the influence story has on us short.

Put another way, if you consider Mannix's primary attribute was that it was "comforting," especially considering it was "fabulously violent," then did you consider why it was comforting? The "nice uncle" argument seems like it would get quite boring, never lasting 100 episodes, let alone nearly 200.

But, I fully realize your point of view fits the prevailing wisdom of the times. Most folks would not have much of an argument with your article. That is the way most folks view TV -- as something to be passively taken in.

In full realization of that, I'm here anyway -- happy to explore the value of heroic motifs to what many would consider an absurd degree.

But, perhaps I could be forgiven for not fitting the prevailing wisdom because I came to realize just how much that heroic motif helped me through some very tough stuff. I wish more people of his ilk were around. I believe there used to be. Story influences that.

I still have yet to see a better heroic motif done in visual form than Mannix.

So, I'm content to experience the "worst trap" of "searching for depth that isn't there" in order to "create things out of whole cloth."

I'll meet you in the next "blind alley." It just isn't entirely clear whose blind alley it will be.

 

[jompaul17]

Mark,

Thanks very much for your posts -- I really appreciate them. I meant to answer them yesterday, but had to use the time I had to deal with other things.

I'm glad the TV Confidential interview went better than I thought -- feared? I really need to listen to it someday, but haven't done so yet. I did hear at one version of MC's part -- and he sounded great. I love Ben's take on how he came across as well -- as being a fun, intelligent man.

Regarding the "review" you mention -- yes, it also completely failed to acknowledge Mannix's contribution with respect to diversity. Gail Fisher was the first African-American woman to receive an Emmy. The relationship she had with her while male boss was unique and bold for the times, to say the least -- there's really been nothing quite like it since. Was the extensive discussion of the "superficial" aspects like cinematography really more significant than that?

I think that might summarize the whole mindset of the review, right there.

I really believe the substance of story is an important topic -- maybe the most important topic we can think about since story is fundamental to projecting our humanity into our own lives as well as the lives of others -- and we are getting hurt by it these days. Sometimes people in pain have no place to go but heroes in story -- it really is that simple! What happens when they aren't there -- do people become more mean-spirited and violent, for example -- just find it easy and acceptable to hurt other people instead of dealing with their pain, heroically? But that seems to be what is happening, pretty much all across the board.

 

[Stephen Bowie]

JoAnn, I suspect your true complaint is that my Mannix is not your Mannix (which also, alas for the rest of us, seems to be the One True Mannix). But the terminology you are using here and in the A.V. Club comments section -- "misleading," "overlooked," "corrects," "got quite a few things wrong" -- implies that you have found substantial factual errors in what I wrote, when that is not the case. Obviously that's a galling situation for a journalist to be in, which is why I'm taking perhaps more time than I should to respond.

Connors's uncertainty about Ball's alleged "rescue" of the show in 1968 is his, not mine. Connors was careful to qualify it as speculative: "I've heard that Lucy (Ball) threatened to take her own show off the network if CBS cancelled 'Mannix.' I can't believe it's true, but but Lucy did have the hottest series on CBS. And she did have great faith in 'Mannix,' so it's possible she did influence CBS in keeping the program on." (Bob Lardine, "Mike Connors: He puts the 'man' in 'Mannix,' New York Sunday News, 4/23/72).

The anecdote in Coyne Steven Sanders's Desilu book, about Ball calling CBS and putting her weight behind Mannix, clearly refers to the initial pickup of the series in 1967, not the renewal a year later.

As a heavyweight creative responsible for one of the hottest shows around at the time (Mission: Impossible), and the credited EP on Mannix, Bruce Geller is the only logical person to credit with the Mannix revamp. Of course it was CBS's decision to renew or not, but the pickup was contingent on faith in Geller's strategy for fixing the show. Moreover, that's confirmed by contemporary press accounts: "With CBS' blessing, executive producer Bruce Geller decided to ditch the computer gimmick and 'put some flesh on the characters.' To this end, Geller brought in the producer-writing team of Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts, who one time worked for him at Four Star." (Paul Henninger, "Mannix Plan Proves Man Can Defeat the Computer," Los Angeles Times, 7/15/68; emphasis added). I don't understand the counterfactual insistence on minimizing Geller's role and creating one for Ball, but hopefully that puts it to rest.

Paramount's eagerness to syndicate Mannix was widely cited in the press as a stumbling block for renewal for a ninth season (see, for instance, "Par Says 'Mannix' Is Up For Grabs," Variety, 4/9/75; and especially "How to make money with TV series: Go into syndication," Baltimore Sun, 7/27/75). Obviously there were other underlying factors as well -- the glut of crime shows and anti-violence crusading were discussed as reasons for a shift toward other genres in the 1975-76 season, and Connors's salary had ballooned to $600K per year. But CBS's unusual step of asking for an extension on its decision after unexpectedly high 1975 ratings ("'Mannix' Rethink," Variety, 4/23/75) does suggest that they were interested in renewal but couldn't come to terms with the studio. As you note, though, that amounts to an educated guess, which is why I was careful to qualify it with an "apparently" in my article.

If you look at any public or industry discussion of the show during the time it was on the air, Mannix and violence are practically synonymous. Was that a particularly fair or enlightening way to pigeonhole the show? No -- the smooth, self-effacing tone of the show usually kept the violence from seeming sadistic or unpleasant -- but whether by today's standards or 1967's, there is a high volume of punching and shooting on the screen. Any claim to the contrary is ahistorical. In any case, my description of the violence in Mannix was not intended as a criticism -- "fabulously" carries a positive connotation, and I chose it deliberately -- so maybe that will make it go down easier.

Gail Fisher was an appealing and progressive presence in Mannix, but her status as the first African American woman to win an Emmy is noted in dozens of reference books and websites -- so, yes, I did think it was more useful to spend the allotted space discussing less remarked-upon aspects of the show (and some of the directors who haven't gotten enough credit for its excellence), rather than repeating familiar trivia. Similarly, "heroism" as a theme is certainly present in Mannix. But then it's equally present in every other traditional action-adventure series made before the eighties, so it doesn't interest me a whole lot -- especially if it's being deployed as a covert attack on something as innovative as The Sopranos.

Interpretation is subjective, of course, and I don't mean to criticize your own interest in that particular theme. I do find it discouraging that someone invested enough to write a book about Mannix can be so dismissive of its form. But then, that, too, fits the "prevailing wisdom of the times," as one of my favorite TV critics, Matt Zoller Seitz, pointed out recently.