This is the first half of the first season of Bonanza, one of my favorite early TV shows. I adored my Dad, and his favorite types of film and TV show were westerns, so of course they were mine also. We watched Black Saddle, Two Faces West, Cheyenne, Sugar Foot, The Rebel, Have Gun Will Travel, The Big Valley, Wanted Dead or Alive, Lawman, Rifleman, etc. Recognize some of those? If you're over 50, you probably do.

I have to admit though, that as a girl, not all westerns were quite a "good fit" for me. A fairly gritty series, like Gunsmoke for instance, tended not to hold my attention a great deal. The in-your-face realism was a little too intense for me, especially at twelve and up. Though I can remember many of the cast members very clearly and even remember most of the actor's names to look them up on Wikipedia, I couldn't recite even a single plot to you. I'd bet most of the guys could though. Gunsmoke is what I would now call a little "too testosterone overloaded." The ingredients in it appeal primarily to the male of our species; not because there is anything particularly sexual about it, but because it involves the challenge and rawness of actual western life--it's sort of camping out without even camping equipment, something most sensible women would never do!

Bonanza on the other hand, and though with a splendid balance, has a lot more estrogen on board. I doubt I recognized it at the time, but as an adult viewing the DVD it becomes ever so obvious. You start out with four very attractive male people--without social attachments--who live in a very comfortable ranch-style house, dress nicely, are usually clean and tidy except when the demands of their situation prevent it, have fine, even elegant, manners, maintain a physically active lifestyle, and have impeccable standards of behavior which they usually follow though not to the point where they are stuffy and boring--i. e. they can be naughty but only just (this is TV in the 1950's after all). Many of the plots and most of the scenes involve males being males the way women most like to see them. When in motion, they are vigorous, purposeful and decisive. When they are standing still, they assume characteristically "dominant male" poses. If you are a woman, you know exactly what I'm talking about; if you're male and don't, you'll just have to figure it out and try it. Some of the posterior views are to die for. Adam has a backside that is positively a work of art; it should be hung in the Louver, though whoever decided on the baggy blue jeans in later episodes should be tried for desecration; it's like putting a beard on the Mona Lisa or putting diapers on Michelangelo's David! Overall, though, I can't help but feel that somewhere there had to be a fairly influential woman involved in making this show, and that she had a pretty clear idea of what would appeal to the female part of the audience.

Not that the male members of it were forgotten, though. With an all male cast of eligible bachelors to identify with, the men in the audience are treated to an entire array of beautiful female guest stars chosen from some of the most famous beauties and some of the newly arising stars of stage and screen, most of them costumed with an eye to enhancing the female form. I would note here, too, that the 1950s enjoyed the skills of some of the most brilliant couturiers of the century, ones who devoted themselves to the artistic display of the female form, any female form. Women were not simply display racks for dresses designed as art forms themselves and the main focus of attention--not that men are particularly distracted by the modern behavior of couturiers. The attractions of a JLo or an Angelina have nothing to do with the dresses they are wearing. Here I would say that the costumer of Bonanza was actually pushing the envelope a bit for the 1950s, with its heavy censoring of "family TV" series, since not many "nice" women received male guests in their hotel rooms dressed in peignoirs! If a dramatic point of character was being made, it was perhaps a bit heavy handed for the time; you have to admire that daring. This was after all the McCarthy era, a very straight laced and politically tense period especially in media, though by 1959/60 its influence and power was being challenged and perhaps this infraction by the producers of Bonanza reveals this.

The outdoor scenery is quite breathtaking, but much of it seems "foggy," perhaps the effect of 50 years on the film. Most of the set filmography is quite vivid and high in quality (possibly due to remastering?) Some of both are reused extensively from one episode to the next, probably for reasons of budget. The introductory shot with the Indian and the Chinaman exchanging something on the main street of Virginia City (left lower corner of the screen) is much overused in this volume and the second, for instance. The sound stage sets leave me amazed at their versatility, some of them reappointed and used for different purposes. I enjoy live theater, and the sets of Bonanza are very well used and strongly evoke the ambiance of that venue. They invite the audience member to suspend disbelief and become part of the drama in doing so, in a way that modern realism in set design does not. With the former you become a part of things by actively using the "virtual reality" of your mind. With the latter you are a passive audience caught up in the illusion created in front of you.

While the first episode is almost laughable and would never have found a sponsor in today's very competitive market for series, it is endearing for a naiveté, so representative of the time in which it was produced. The words put into the mouths of the actors--"Fire and Brimstone!" says Ben on finding his eldest and youngest sons fighting in the living room like a couple of bear cubs during episode one--are so trite, you feel embarrassed for them. It really is quite painful in some scenes. Furthermore some of the deliveries leave you wondering if the casting office hadn't picked out actors whose styles shared much in common with that of Edwin Booth (November 13, 1833 - June 7, 1893), that is to say pre-audio equipment theatrical bombast. Believe it or not, the young Michael Landon (about 20 at the time) is the only one of them who manages to look like he's not just out of acting school and that despite what he's asked to say or do. Fortunately for the modern viewer, the dialogue and the acting (or probably the directing?) become infinitely better with each episode. I suspect this is partly a matter of the actors (or directors) becoming more comfortable with their characters. It may also be partly a matter of the maturation of the medium of TV. Theater and movies create characters presented with specific tasks in a specific time and place, and they present this to the audience once or several times. TV on the other hand creates characters who have on-going lives with episodes that continually try them as people and create a sense of development and growth. The concept was still something new in the 1950s, and given this the speed with which the series found its footing in season one is amazing and suggests the true caliber of the cast and the directors.

The overall plot line of Bonanza leaves one feeling a little lost as a modern audience member. I'm not sure that it didn't even at the time. I think Pernell Roberts, who played the eldest son Adam, was correct when he complained that his character never quite grew up and never married. Part of the real drama of human life is doing just that. It became quite a joke by the end of the series that being in love with a Cartwright male was positively lethal; almost no woman in love with any one of them ever lived beyond the episode. I agree with Roberts, this was a big mistake, since it sent Bonanza's plot line into a sort of repetitive "loop" that got a bit unimaginative in a way that just wouldn't have happened had the lives of the men actually progressed through normal trajectories. Add 4 women to any household of 4 men, and you're bound to find infinite interesting permutations: arguments, standoffs, risky behavior, warm family holidays, children, etc. From the point of view of the female audience, this was probably a mistake. I suspect it was one made with them in mind however; since they could fantasize themselves as The Woman in their chosen hero's life ad infinitum. This however mistakes the capacity of women to empathize and identify with a role model.

Probably one of the things I admire most about the series was its magnificent sense of comic relief; Shakespeare would have been so proud. From time to time an entire episode was produced that broke with the sense that life on the frontier was one long fight for survival, one long parable of right and wrong. Though not in the first season, one of my favorites of this type of Bonanza episode is that of Hoss as the Easter Bunny. I haven't seen it in 50 years, but I still remember it vividly. In this set, "The Saga of Annie O'Toole," which involves Adam in comic complications, and "El Toro Grande," which involves his two brothers Hoss and Little Joe in a series of comic situations, are two that are very enjoyable examples. Also akin to Shakespeare is the introduction of levity even in the midst of a serious episode, as for instance "Enter Mark Twain" and "The Magnificent Adah". Some of the scripts were designed by very skillful writers.

For rapid development, for understanding the female audience, for shear nostolgia, this is a tremendous set!

The case was damaged/crushed and lots of sharp plastic pieces inside. This damage was NOT do to shipping! (It was in an undamaged shipping box with other dvds from Amazon, not from seller) The dvd holders are solid plastic and protected the dvds from scratches. They played great with good color and sound.

Good if you like Bonanza. The show makes me feel like a kid again. Brings back old memories of a bygone era.

Purchased for a future gift to give next month. Sure receiptent will love it!

The video and Audio are very good. The packaging is well done. I would rate this 5 stars if it weren't for the fact these seasons are divided into Volume 1 & 2. This packaging concept only takes up more space on the shelf and increases the cost.