What Gives With NBC's New Show: The Philanthropist?

I haven't decided yet if I'm going to watch the new NBC show, The Philanthropist, that has its premiere Wednesday night, June 24. It's billed as the story of a wealthy playboy who suddenly develops a social conscience and decides to start giving his money away.  Even though it has yet to air, a lot already has been written on the blogs, in the press, and among Twitterers about whether this is a good show, a  dumb idea, or too soon to judge.  (Other than the reviewers and a handful of others who've screened the first episode in advance), it's really anybody's guess, and especially how people in philanthropy will react and respond to the tv portrayal about the trials and tribulations of giving away money.

Regardless of how it develops -- whether the show becomes a surprise hit, burns out after just a few showings, or simply helps fill a hole in NBC's summer schedule (in place of reruns) -- there is something worth noting about the fact that the people who decide what should be on television have suddenly determined that the subject of philanthropy (admittedly as seen through a Hollywood lens) is worth putting on during primetime.  Even discounting -- from what I've read anyway -- that little on the show reflects how real philanthropy is practiced, we still can't ignore the fact that popular culture is making a statement that philanthropy -- and its underlying values, as well as the motivation that drives people to give -- are worth spotlighting, even in a fictional way. 

At least that's how a reviewer for Slant magazine sees it:

NBC has found the diamond in the rough it's been searching for: a show with limitless potential, exploring all that humanity has to offer with a slight bent of thrill-seeking action and social responsibility. The Philanthropist proves compassionate and insightful, never didactic, and heartily entrenching. Clearly, this level of entertainment will stick out in a summer filled with schlock. Let's just hope it finds the enlightened, NPR-listening audience it needs to survive.

I have only one small issue with that comment. If the show is truly all that the reviewer claims, then I hope more than an "NPR-listening" audience will take note. Why not what constitutes a mass audience for tv these days?  And maybe then there will be an even bigger, more interested audience for the rest of the story about philanthropy.

--Bruce Trachtenberg

Comments

[Bud Meyer]

Interesting to read the reviews of this new series, too. New York Times advance review was almost fawning. Miami Herald's Glenn Garvin retched. Such disparity is rare. So the show is hitting a nerve. Can it transcend its razzle-dazzle entertainment value and actually tap into the social relevance underlying each episode?

[Bruce Trachtenberg]

Guess what? The Philanthropist aired last night and the sun rose again this morning.

[Phil Nash]

I haven't seen the show, but I thought the fussy warnings about it throws our entire field's delicate sensitivities into high relief. We can't figure out how to talk to the "general public" about philanthropy in a way that gets across, but we know for sure that a crassly commercial TV network will spoil the image of, well, whatever it is we're trying to project out there but still haven't. Most people can't name a single foundation. Maybe we should be glad the story line wasn't about a philanthropist whose ability to fund lavish cultural monuments came from pillaging and plundering the needy.

[Bruce Trachtenberg]

Phil,
Amen.