36 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/21/11 1:42am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last Sunday night, HBO premiered its hotly anticipated quasi-medieval fantasy series “Game of Thrones.” Television’s critical community is already up in arms, but not about the way the series is paced, shot or acted. Rather, a review of the show by the New York Times’ Ginia Bellafante has set off an uproar concerning the issues of gender associated with the genre. To recap quickly: Bellafante’s review essentially blasts the series for rampant and consequence-free depictions of sex and violence. It then goes on to insinuate that the series includes such sex scenes only as a blatant attempt to win over female viewers, whom Bellafante can’t imagine would want to watch the series for any other reason. Bellafante’s review, which fails to address even a single shot of the actual show, in fact seems to be a blanket response to television shows from the fantasy genre. It posits the entire genre as a patriarchal utopia. But if Bellafante is attempting to make a feminist critique of the fantasy genre, let alone “Game of Thrones,” she’s picked the wrong show to target. If she had actually watched the episode — and I’m not convinced she did — she might have realized that there isn’t that much about “Game of Thrones” that inherently appeals to men. Regardless of its fantasy trappings, the show is at its core a family melodrama, a genre traditionally targeted at women. Relationships between characters and families are positioned as the driving narrative force of the show. Most prominent within the premiere episode are the relationships within the Stark family. The marriage between Eddard Stark and his wife, Catelyn, is immediately tested by their impending physical separation as Eddard is called to serve the king in the capital, hundreds of miles south of his home. Meanwhile, tension exists between Catelyn, who clearly loves her five legitimate children, and Jon Snow, the bastard son her husband brought home from war 15 years earlier. The sex scenes Bellafante takes issue with are indeed graphic — and, in the premiere episode, numerous — but always serve a purpose for the story. In particular, the rampant sex shown as part of the wedding ceremony between Daenerys and Khal Drogo, the barbarian horse lord, subverts fetishization by the camera. Swiftly intercut with shots of Daenerys, stoic as she takes the ceremony, these sex scenes are coded through her feminine gaze, witnessed with overwhelming terror at Daenerys’ thoughts of her impending night with her new husband. Bellafante also ignored a scene in which three young male characters appear shirtless and incredibly buff, which only barely manages to serve a narrative purpose. If anything, it appears the creators of the show have to work harder to create situations of violence in order to appeal to men. That above all says something about the way “Game of Thrones” subverts the perception of fantasy as a masculine genre.
(03/23/11 9:17pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>He likely never saw it coming. When Simon Cowell left “American Idol” at the end of last season to launch his hit British series, “The X Factor,” here in the States, few questioned that it was a shrewd move for the superproducer to make. “Idol” had lost much of its buzzy luster after lovable lunatic Paula Abdul departed, and her replacement, Ellen DeGeneres, failed to make an impression with the public. The marketplace seemed primed for a new kind of reality talent competition, one that would shake up the formula and maybe take the place of “Idol” the way “X Factor” took the place of “Popstars” in the United Kingdom. Throw in an insane-sounding prize package, including a $5 million recording contract with Sony Music Entertainment and the proven experience and magnetic television presence of Cowell, and it seemed as though “X Factor” was poised to take over. But a funny thing happened while “The X Factor” was in development: The landscape became unexpectedly hostile. Enter the new challengers to Simon Cowell’s nascent project: NBC’s buzzy upstart, “The Voice,” and an unexpectedly resurgent “Idol.” NBC was no doubt hoping Mark Burnett-produced “The Voice” would capitalize on a potentially wounded “Idol.” Based on a format from the Netherlands, “The Voice” actually has its judges/mentors (called “vocal coaches”) face away from auditioners as they start to sing, and their chairs only turn to face the singer if the coaches want to move the auditioner through. It’s a strong concept — and in line with the vocals-first mantra of NBC’s surprise summer hit “The Sing-Off” — but it could have been easily ignored by the public. Producers made sure that didn’t happen by signing four extremely recognizable names for the panel of coaches: Maroon 5’s Adam Levine, Cee-Lo Green, Blake Shelton and Christina Aguilera. News of the signings made a big splash online, and while that may not necessarily translate into viewership, it took attention away from fervid speculation about the casting of “X Factor” mentors. It also removed a number of potential mentors from the equation. On the home front, the changes “Idol” made in the off-season — booting Kara DioGuardi, hiring Steven Tyler, Jennifer Lopez and part-time mentor Jimmy Iovine — were unexpectedly well-received by the public and the press. Against all odds, the chemistry of the panel really, really works. J. Lo especially is a revelation; sympathetic and critical in perfect measure, this is easily her best career move in a decade. Sure, the talent is not markedly better than other recent seasons, but ratings have shored up, and it still wipes the floor with the competition Wednesday and Thursday nights. Suddenly it looks less like “X Factor” can be a replacement for “Idol” and more like the newcomer will be a diversion for fans of the veteran program. Simon just announced Def Jam executive L.A. Reid as one of the “X Factor” mentors, which is a good start. But to compete with the shiny newness of “The Voice” and the fresh vigor of “Idol”’s current season, he’ll need two more shrewd picks (Nicki Minaj is rumored to be in talks for a slot), a hell of a marketing push this summer and, you know, some talented contestants. If he can do that, he may just have the nation talking about his show yet again.
(03/03/11 12:39am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Anyone who is friends with me on Facebook or follows me on Twitter (@amorris7012) knows that I am likely watching Food Network at any given point in the day. It’s like a black hole that sucks away all my motivation to do anything except eat, and on my more ambitious and productive days, cook something delicious for dinner. Food Network has created a niche in the last few years of quality reality competition television shows with the chefs they’ve turned into household names or those who are already public figures. The Food Network nighttime lineup features such names as Ted Allen (formerly of “Queer Eye” fame, now hosting “Chopped”), Cat Cora (“Iron Chef America”), Giada de Laurentiis (“The Next Food Network Star”) and perhaps the most recognizable chef in America, Bobby Flay. Flay, probably one of the most famous New York chefs and restaurateurs, actually figures into many Food Network shows at one time or another — whether on his own show, “Throwdown with Bobby Flay,” or via challenges on “Iron Chef America” and the upcoming special series, “Chopped All-Stars.” So perhaps it’s unsurprising that when NBC started developing its new food-related reality series for a summer run, they looked for Bobby Flay to anchor the judging lineup.“America’s Next Great Restaurant,” premiering at 8 p.m. Sunday, actually features a panel of chefs and restaurateurs that’s pretty starry — including Flay, chef Curtis Stone, executive chef Lorena Garcia and Chipotle founder Steve Ells — who will search for the contestant with the best restaurant concept. These judges are not fooling around; press materials tout the fact that all of the judges are also investors in the winner’s prize, which is the start of a three-restaurant national chain.It comes as no surprise that this concept is produced by Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz, who developed “Project Runway” and other quality Bravo reality shows with studio Magical Elves, which is also involved in this project. It smacks of their skillful hand for producing dramatic stakes in a reality show concept. This one is part “Shark Tank,” ABC’s shockingly well-rated show about millionaire investors and the home inventors who pitch their products to them for financial assistance, and part “Top Chef,” the other hit Bravo series the producers helped develop. The show is being rather brilliantly marketed. A Facebook promotion for the show required fans to watch a 90-second commercial in order to unlock a buy one, get one free coupon for Chipotle, and the ad went viral last week. And teasers appropriately highlight both the credentials of the judging panel (Ells in particular seems to be a compelling figure) and the show’s similarities to proven cable hit “Top Chef.” Obviously, nothing would please this columnist more than a food television invasion of primetime TV. There’s something inherently stressful about the kitchen for most people, I think, even (or especially) for experienced cooks, and that translates very, very well to television. There’s a reason “Top Chef” won that Outstanding Reality Competition Series Emmy after all, and it’s not just the gorgeous visage of host Padma Lakshmi. NBC is making all the right moves thus far with “America’s Next Great Restaurant” — scheduling a laid-back spring premiere, hiring stellar producers and casting Bobby Flay — but it remains to be seen if American network TV viewers will embrace food television as well as cable viewers have.
(02/17/11 2:27am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s time for networks to reshuffle their decks, deal themselves a new hand, and make a strong play for viewers: pilot season. It’s fairly early in the process, as only two networks have announced lists of pickups, and all pickups are only for pilots or, in some cases, extra scripts. But as those two networks are NBC and ABC — perhaps the two networks with the most to gain from a good pilot season and the most to lose from a bad one — there’s no time like the present to handicap their chances and give an early diagnosis of potential problems. NBC has a host of issues to fix, including fatiguing scheduling of their reality shows, like “The Biggest Loser,” and avoiding the kind of big-budget flop that they ended up with in “The Event.” And while NBC has built a strong comedy block Thursdays, weak links “Perfect Couples” and “Outsourced” may need to be replaced once summer hits. From the looks of its pilot orders, NBC’s strategy is to go big or go home. Drama pilot orders range from buzzy reboots (David E. Kelley’s “Wonder Woman” and a redo of UK miniseries “Prime Suspect”), to intriguing sci-fi/fantasy worlds (“Battlestar Galactica” creator Ron Moore’s “17th Precinct” and the gritty fairy tales-come-alive cop drama “Grimm”), to shows that sound suspiciously like “Glee” (“Smash,” about the makings of a Broadway musical, starring Debra Messing). Clearly, NBC is not going to shy away from high-concept dramas. Hell, they picked up a new show from “Lone Star” creator Kyle Killen (“REM”) that practically references “Inception” in the logline. These are all exciting, but without a high level of execution, they could all fizzle quickly. On the comedy side of things, there are some seemingly fresh takes on the genre, like “Brave New World,” which deals with a group of coworkers at a Pilgrim-themed amusement park. As with most years in comedy, it’s difficult to get too excited without casting news to go along with it. But some premises do show potential, and I think we can all hope for a consistently solid Thursday comedy block from NBC. ABC, meanwhile, has actually fallen behind NBC in terms of overall viewership on the aging shoulders of its mid-aughts giants. “Desperate Housewives,” “Brothers and Sisters” and “Grey’s Anatomy” are all moderately successful, but they’re aging and expensive, and ABC hasn’t been able to cultivate a hit drama at all in recent years. Their latest hit has been “Modern Family” on the comedy side. Unsurprisingly then, their comedy roster is heavy on shows that deal with new takes on the nuclear family, but most fail to stand out. The exception could be “Suburgatory,” described as a satirical look at the suburbs which uses cinematic cues from horror films to underscore its themes. Naturally, this could be awful in execution, but if it makes it to series, I could be intrigued. In drama land, the network clearly wants to find a soapy new drama to take the place of its aging hits. Soaps about the lives of pilots and stewardesses (“Pan Am”), Washington interns (“Georgetown,” from the producers of “Gossip Girl”) and a Darren Star-written soap called “Good Christian Bitches” about a high school mean girl who returns to Dallas after her divorce, could all fit into a Sunday slot behind “Desperate Housewives.” Elsewhere, things are all over the map. A “Charlie’s Angels” reboot seems likely, while period murder mystery series “Poe” and found-footage style thriller “The River” (from producers of the “Paranormal Activity” films) seem so preposterous for network TV that I can’t help but want to see them. As we move into summer and inexorably toward a new fall slate of programming, we will hopefully hear more about these shows and see if NBC and ABC can turn their fortunes around.
(02/02/11 11:02pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ll be honest — I don’t know a lot about pawn shops. I’ve never been in one, mostly because they never seem to be in the best parts of town, and their windows often have too many bars on them to actually see inside as I pass by on the road. OK, I might be a wuss, but those are my reasons. However, I would totally walk into Gold & Silver Pawnshop, a pawn shop only minutes away from the Las Vegas strip and the subject of the breakout History Channel show “Pawn Stars.” Yeah, I know — the History Channel. I think its success as a cult phenomenon is because the executive producers found a gold mine of personality in the three generations of the Harrison family who primarily own and operate Gold & Silver Pawnshop — Richard, the “Old Man”; Rick, Richard’s son; and Corey, Rick’s son, also known as “Big Hoss.” Not personality in the sense of the bickering Kardashian siblings, but in the sense of friendly, occasionally hysterical banter between the Harrison men, especially as the Old Man tries to teach Big Hoss a lesson or three.But the real drama often centers around the items customers attempt to pawn and the tension between what their item is worth and what Gold & Silver Pawnshop will pay them for it so the shop can return a profit. Without fail, the customer wants an absurd price for it, and is shocked — shocked! — when Rick or Big Hoss counterswith a realistic figure. It’s a little like “Antiques Roadshow” with fewer history lessons and infinitely more back talk. Oh, and a 100 percent higher chance of someone attempting to get an authentic Native American deer-head totem appraised. And that’s not even the weirdest thing I’ve seen someone try to pawn. But perhaps even more interesting than the success of “Pawn Stars” alone is the phenomenon of programming it has helped to create. Spinoff “American Restoration” (also on the History Channel) deals with the process of restoring pawned and appraised items to their original condition. Other channels have attempted to find their own success with a similar formula. Discovery Channel bows with “Auction Kings,” which is about a group of people who scour auctions for hidden treasures and “oddities” for a Manhattan antiquities dealership. On the other hand, venerable home living powerhouse network HGTV has recently debuted “Cash & Cari.” Despite its punny and frankly awful title (Cari is pronounced cahr-ee), it manages to be an intermittently compelling series about Cari Cucksey, who runs a high-end consignment boutique and runs estate sales for clients. HGTV took notice of the “Pawn Stars” phenomenon and fielded their own version, which is telling — the network has recognized that a surprisingly large audience watches shows about discovering what one person’s junk is actually worth. Post-recession, it’s clear that people are looking for new ways to make money, and estate and pawn sales are an exciting new venue for these moneymaking opportunities in real life and on television.
(01/20/11 3:21am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Yes, folks, it’s that time of year again. For weeks now, smaller award shows have been doling out prizes to the best films and performances of the year, all in hopes of building buzz to the Academy Awards, the pinnacle of Hollywood glitz, glamour and recognition. The Golden Globes, given out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) — a group of voters notorious for their ability to be persuaded by a well-coordinated PR assault — are the uber-glitzy stepping stone to Oscar glory for many films. But despite what the HFPA thinks of itself, the Globes are like the attractive girl at the party clearly trying way too hard to be edgy, beautiful and more important than she really is. Her efforts only more clearly show the areas in which she fails to be what she aspires to. The Globes, put in a language we all can understand, are the non-Regina George members of the Plastics from “Mean Girls.”The Emmys — the main kudofest for television shows — came and went in August this past year, honoring many television Globe nominees and winners. Trouble is, the Emmys won’t announce 2011 nominations until summer. No buzz coming out of the Globes, no matter how seemingly great, is guaranteed to carry a show to an Emmy nomination in the same way that Globe wins for “The Social Network” probably forecast wins for the film in equivalent Oscar categories. The television awards at the Globes are misfits, and the producers of the telecast treated them as such. An alarming number of major TV awards were breezed through in the first hour of the show, leaving even minor film categories for more important time slots deeper into the show when the attendees, and possibly audiences, are boozier. Why a pointless award like Best Original Song — which was never, ever going to anyone but Cher and Diane Warren for “You Haven’t Seen the Last of Me”, even before “Burlesque” distributor Screen Gems invited the HFPA out to Vegas to see Cher’s live show on their dime — came long after the Supporting Acting categories for TV is baffling. Almost as baffling as the HFPA’s decision to nominate Piper Perabo, who is easily the worst part of USA Network’s “Covert Affairs,” for her work in that series. I’m left wondering why, as an amateur television critic, I should care about the Golden Globes. Yes, it was telling (though not unexpected) that “Glee” found a lot of support with voters. Yes, it was frustrating that, once again, the winners seemed to be disproportionately film actors who came to TV rather than actors whose main medium is television. But despite some welcome surprises — including a well-deserved Actress win for “Sons of Anarchy”’s Katey Sagal — the HFPA depressingly held true to its usual inclinations: Reward shiny new shows for being shiny and new. Hence the wins for Steve Buscemi and his absurdly lavish new HBO series, “Boardwalk Empire” (the most expensive series on the block), as well as “Glee”’s win for Best TV Musical/Comedy Series (for better or worse, the buzziest TV series out there). For the HFPA, all that glitters should be rewarded with a gold statuette. Unfortunately, all that glitters isn’t solid gold in terms of relevance. (Yup, still talking about you, Piper Perabo.) If the Globes want to be an interesting cog in the PR wheel of TV kudofests, then they’ll have to be more discerning with their nominations, as well as treat television actors the same as film actors.One thing that should never change, though, is the Globes-as-boozy-dinner-party vibe. Loose-lipped celebrities making loopy acceptance speeches comprise at least 80 percent of the value of watching the Globes, and when the TV awards are as lazy as these, that percentage climbs even higher.
(12/09/10 1:04am)
Our editors' and writers' picks
(12/02/10 1:31am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I hate writing columns such as this because it means a show I adore is possibly in danger of cancellation. In this case, it’s “Fringe,” which FOX recently announced is moving to Friday in the wake of a Wednesday-Thursday shift for the annual ratings juggernaut “American Idol” this January. FOX is intending to crush every other competing network with this move (including NBC’s impressive and expansive comedy lineup), but the network may end up crushing forever one of the most complex and interesting shows on network television. If you tuned in for “Fringe” at the start of its run nearly three years ago, I’ll forgive you for giving up on it. In its first season, the show barely knew what to do with itself and did a poor job of establishing its characters in favor of an episodic monster-of-the-week procedural structure that did the show no favors. Sure, we met the members of Fringe Division, a special unit of the FBI investigating crimes of weird science and other paranormal oddities — Olivia Dunham, stoic lead investigator; Walter Bishop, possibly crazy but a genius scientist; Peter Bishop, Walter’s jack-of-all-trades rebellious son — but we didn’t really get to know them. But in the wake of a jaw-dropping twist in the final episode of that first season, the revelation that there is an alternate universe in which, for example, 9/11 never happened, the show found its footing. While the opening episodes of season two were a little ungainly, the producers discovered that the core relationships between Olivia and Peter and between Peter and Walter were the most compelling storylines, and soon, the weird science cases intersected with these relationships in startling ways until the truth came out. Now we know that Peter in our universe is dead, that Walter went to the alternate universe to kidnap and raise the son of alternate-universe Walter (known as Walternate) as his own and that this act is, in part, responsible for a war between the universes. If that all sounds rather high-concept and ridiculous — well, it is. But the nuanced performances of the actors ground the series in ways that no critic could have guessed from the opening episodes. It’s not just the actors who are carrying the show; creatively, the producers are firing on all cylinders. The decision to split the storytelling between our universe and the alternate universe has been a great move for the show, amplifying dramatic tension at an almost constant pace while allowing the actors a chance to show multiple sides of their characters and giving the entire show a certain emotional darkness that it was lacking previously. In season three, the war isn’t abstracted — more than it has ever been, it’s personal. And now FOX seems to be sending the show to its death in the ratings wasteland of Friday nights. To be fair, “Fringe” has never been a blockbuster ratings performer, but in a competitive Thursday time slot, it does hold its own. Execs claim that the show does mammoth DVR ratings, which they think will help staunch the inevitable wound the ratings will take. I sincerely hope viewers prove to FOX execs that they’ll follow “Fringe” wherever it goes because it is truly one of the most exciting shows currently airing on network television. If you haven’t already, give “Fringe” a shot.
(11/11/10 1:22am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When Justin Timberlake brought sexy back, the collective cultural response was something similar to “Did it ever leave in the first place?” It strikes me as odd, then, that when Jon Stewart declared recently that it was time to restore sanity to the TV news landscape, few people chimed in to ask him whether a sane TV newscast had ever existed. Let’s just say I have my doubts. There are two components of the rallying cry “Restore sanity!” that I take issue with. First, the aforementioned assertion that sanity has been lost and can — must! — be somehow regained. Second is the implication that a “sane” newscast is one which inexplicably knows and is capable of delineating a “correct” view of events. We have a storied history in this country of praising journalists, especially television journalists, for their impartiality and commitment to getting the story right. Their names still echo in the studios of the major networks: Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow and Peter Jennings, to name a few. Let me be clear: I think the names I mentioned above are worthy of the recognition and praise for being great television journalists. They did their jobs admirably and were often calming, thoughtful, stoic presences on television during times of crisis. What I take issue with is our idolization of them, as though they were some sort of Atlas holding up the world exactly the right way so all their viewers could see exactly what the problem was. But what qualifies as news has changed drastically over time. In fact, since television saturated American homes in the 1950s, news has shifted from a radio report of local events that directly impacted area listeners to a list of events from around the world — with accompanying images and video — that have no direct impact on the viewer. This shift from what media scholars call contextual to contextless information was one of the factors which lead to the integration of sports and entertainment news with the local, national, weather and world events portions of newscasts, a shift that has typically been scapegoated as the end of quality television news. The point is that television news is constantly evolving as the definition of newsworthiness continues to be culturally constructed. Jon Stewart is asking for a redefinition of newsworthiness. He believes that the current definition, which holds the opinionated hosts and programs of FOX News and MSNBC equal with milquetoast CNN and the floundering network newscasts, is the opposite of sanity. I think he’s living in a bit of a fantasy world. News is not merely facts laid out for viewers to absorb, and viewers will not absorb these facts in the same way; news is a narrative, a cause-and-effect linkage of events that privileges certain details over others. All narratives by definition have viewpoints — and therefore a bias — based on which details are included and which are excluded. A bias is not a lie, nor is it misinformation. It’s just a bias, and every person and the news organization they happen to work for has one. Insanity isn’t the presence of multiple biases — it’s the idea that an unbiased viewpoint even exists. In fact, I don’t know what’s more sane than the presence of multiple biases. The real trouble is that too many people only consume one narrative. What Jon Stewart usually does — and is far more successful at doing — is educating viewers on how to interpret multiple narratives to form a more complete picture of events. Educating viewers — that’s a movement I can get behind.
(10/28/10 12:05am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The British TV series “Skins,” a scripted comedic drama about the unruliest of unruly teenagers from across the pond, garnered such indie cred here in the U.S. that MTV immediately ordered their own version. Well, the trailer for MTV’s Americanized “Skins,” an attempt to move from reality shows to original — well, in this case “original” — scripted content, hit the Internet this week. It looks similar to a shot-for-shot remake of the original British pilot with the same name but this time set in New York and without a trace of a British accent.Nevermind that MTV and show insiders have publicly insisted that after the pilot the show will veer from its source material and tell truly original stories — the damage has already been done. The Internet is decrying the trailer as evidence that MTV can’t be trusted to develop quality scripted television and that British television in general is of a higher quality than American TV. The fetishization of all things British here in America is by no means a new phenomenon. Our twisty historical and political relationship with Britain has resulted in a bizarre love affair with pop culture from the other side of the Atlantic. Any kind of British accent — including, hilariously, the kind of Cockney accent that the British themselves look down upon — connotes in America a sense that the product is upmarket fare, highbrow, dry and sharp as a tack. That connotation is something American networks are positively gaga for at the moment. Simon Cowell’s buzzy “American Idol” successor, an American adaptation of his massive British hit “The X Factor,” is scheduled to hit FOX in September. And an alleged remake of “Prime Suspect,” which starred everyone’s favorite mature actress, Helen Mirren, in the UK, is in development for NBC.Perhaps the most famous American remake of a British series is “The Office.” Rather infamously, the show got off to an awkward, clunky start in its short first season. The first few episodes were near direct transpositions of the British series’ first episodes, and they were unlike anything most American viewers were used to. It was only later when the show developed original stories and softened some of its harder visual edges that it took off and became a cornerstone for NBC’s programming. I think there’s a reason that American adaptations need to quickly shed some of their British-ness in order to find success and establish themselves on their own merits. In terms of aesthetics, British television looks quite unlike American television; it favors a sort of verite-flavored photography and frequently attempts to make lighting look ambient or naturalistic. These stylistic cues indicate quality above all else, and in combination with a British accent, they are formidable codes for American viewers. This, I think, is why the Internet is having such an intensely negative reaction to MTV’s “Skins” pilot. Regardless of the actual quality of the show (because, to be fair, no one has actually seen the full pilot), it’s seen as inferior because it mixes up codes of British and American television — it’s a shot-for-shot remake of the original. But the lack of British accents makes it seem inauthentic at best and pandering at worst.And since the original “Skins” was lauded for its “authenticity,” this is the worst sin the show could have possibly committed. MTV will still run it regardless and may even give it a second season.I mean, they gave one to the truly awful “The Hard Times of RJ Berger,” so it’s not as if the network has high standards. But the network and executive producers of the show need to work fast to differentiate it from the original text and make it stand on its own merits.
(10/13/10 10:40pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In the wake of a string of teen suicides across the country due to homophobic bullying, it seems our culture might have finally had a wake-up call. I certainly hope so. Speaking on “Larry King Live” in a special which responded to these suicides, comedian Kathy Griffin repeatedly said “there is blood on the hands” of not only the bullies who were directly responsible, but also of those who make policy and public opinion in this country. She was referring to the fact that there’s nothing inherently negative about homosexuality — it’s a perception that has been created by a variety of sources through language, images and time. However, I would add a few more groups to whom Kathy Griffin says are responsible: the TV networks. Cultural critics have long pointed out that television has a problem with representing minorities — they often don’t represent minorities at all. In recent years, this has been alleviated slightly. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has for three years published a report which quantifies the amount of positive representation LGBTQ characters and issues receive on the ten networks which receive the most viewers annually. Overall, the number of representations continues to slowly rise, but they still constitute a meager percentage of overall television characters and plotlines. The problem with GLAAD’s report is that it is wholly quantitative; it defines what constitutes a positive representation and then counts it, without considering its context. Other studies which jump off from GLAAD’s report for a qualitative analysis, examining how prevalent these representations are within episodes, or across an entire season of a show, find that even networks that GLAAD rates well, such as the CW, tend to marginalize LGBTQ characters (as anyone who’s watched “Gossip Girl” can attest).In addition, many of the representations counted in GLAAD’s study, especially on networks that poorly represented LGBTQ characters (such as CBS) came from reality competition shows. This is not necessarily a problem, but it does indicate that the networks really do have a long way to go in representing LGBTQ characters in scripted programming. I think it’s useful to consider a short case study of LGBTQ representation on TV in this current season and then ask what they mean for representation on a larger scale. On this season on “90210,” a show I absolutely do not blame you for not watching, Teddy Montgomery (Trevor Donovan) will be coming out of the closet. After a wine-fueled night he doesn’t remember, Teddy realizes he might have hooked up with Ian, an openly gay student at West Beverly High School and becomes paranoid that everyone at his high school will find out. He confronts Ian and vaguely threatens him not to tell anyone. At a rehearsal for a charity “bachelor auction” opening dance number, Teddy calls Ian an extremely derogatory name. Thus far, the story seems to be tracking the trials normal kid Teddy faces as he owns his homosexuality and decides to come out. The problem with this story is that Teddy isn’t exactly normal — he’s rich, athletic, handsome and white. He’s the ideal normal. And while the show does an adequate job of portraying West Beverly High School as an environment far more liberal and accepting than Teddy is willing to believe, it doesn’t do the best job of highlighting the differences between reality and Teddy’s perception of it. Networks should consider the fact that they have the power to influence culture to be less homophobic but only if they truly work to integrate LGBTQ and other minority characters into meaningful storylines. Only then will they truly make an impact.
(10/06/10 9:22pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you wanted to pair a writer with a musician to create an album, there isn’t a pair who would seem more naturally suited to each other’s style than immensely talented musician Ben Folds and British writer Nick Hornby (“About a Boy,” “High Fidelity”). For this project, titled “Lonely Avenue,” Hornby sent lyrics to Folds, and Folds set them to music. Well, the result sounds like a series of ultra-short Nicky Hornby stories set to a variety of tunes. Songs like “From Above” and “Picture Window” seem like perfect marriages of Hornby’s wit and Folds’ ironic leanings, but too many other songs seem wordy and awkward. Fortunately, the music is varied enough to sustain interest. This is not a catchy record, but it is an engagingly listenable one.
(09/29/10 11:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A favorite saying of my father’s is, “They just don’t make ‘em like they used to.” In the case of TV shows, I suppose that’s true on multiple levels. Clearly the television landscape has changed dramatically in the aughts. The era of reality TV ushered in a new world order for program development. The ubiquity of cable and satellite scattered audiences across hundreds of channels — the Golden Age of Television was proclaimed. I’m not saying these developments are negative, nor am I declaring them positive. This is no time for value judgments. But they have fundamentally altered television to a point that would be unrecognizable to someone who hopped in a time capsule in 1999. One program format that fell by the wayside in the midst of all these tectonic shifts in the TV landscape is the miniseries. There’s no shortage of reasons why networks no longer develop them — they’re expensive, they tend to get poor ratings, and there’s no room for them in a hectic, overcrowded, hyper-competitive weekday race for ratings and buzz.All of those reasons are valid, but I suppose I’m less interested in economic deterrents to developing miniseries and more interested in the creative possibilities of the form. Miniseries are far more common in the U.K. than they are here, and recently they’ve seen a creative resurgence. “Torchwood: Children of Earth”is a five-part miniseries that functioned as a pseudo-third season of the “Torchwood” program, which is about a government agency responsible for investigating otherworldly matters. The series was a creative resurgence for the series and a ratings success in the U.K. and here in America.Obviously one success does not (necessarily) make another, but since critics and audiences alike frequently throw out complaints against TV shows for flabby storytelling and shoddy pacing, it makes sense to revisit the form as a possible cure for these ailments. Giving series an expiration date is common in every part of the world except for America, where the goal for every show is to be “The Show That Never Ends.” But what the networks apparently fail to realize is that viewers aren’t going to bite on every new and exciting concept that comes along, especially shows with complicated premise pilots. The horrific ratings for FOX’s new “Lone Star,” which has a well-crafted and well-executed pilot, are a prime (and disappointing) example. Though the pilot was almost universally praised by critics across the country, nearly every critic worried about how the show would carry its story out through 13 episodes, or through 22. Or over two seasons. Or five. Not to be prescriptive, but I have a suspicion that the miniseries format could help shows such as “Lone Star” find an audience. It might prove to viewers that there’s a plan for a satisfying conclusion and promise that taut storytelling and compelling performances will bring them to it, and I think ratings will prove the probable expense worthwhile. All I want the networks to do is try to be a little more adventurous and creative in their efforts. After all, the ratings can’t get much worse than they’ve been thus far this season.
(09/15/10 11:36pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When I was searching for a topic for this column, friend and former WEEKEND editor Cory Barker suggested I write a preview of all the new shows premiering this September. It was a solid suggestion. But when I sat down to write this, I realized how terribly ambivalent I’m feeling about this upcoming fall season. It’s not as though there aren’t things to be excited about. By all accounts, HBO’s lavish new Prohibition-era drama “Boardwalk Empire” is going to be an epic tour-de-force for the network and for star Steve Buscemi, and AMC’s “The Walking Dead”appears to be one of the most stunningly directed and filmed TV series currently on the air, if its trailer is any indication. Another show I’m dying to watch is FOX’s “Lone Star,” about a Texas con man leading a double life, only to decide he doesn’t want to be a con man any longer. Critics are high on the pilot, shot by Marc Webb, who directed “(500) Days of Summer.” The trailer seems epic and sexy, and newcomer Josh Wolk inhabits the con man protagonist with such effortless charm and charisma that I defy you not to be beguiled into watching the show based on the three-minute trailer alone. Unfortunately, I haven’t been all that moved by anything else on the docket. CBS’ “Hawaii Five-0” looks as though it could be “NCIS: Hawaii,” which is probably a great thing for the network, but is far less interesting to viewers looking for something original. NBC is trying, bless them, with twisty-seeming “The Event,” which appears to have learned nothing from the post-“Lost” backlash against twisty-seeming shows such as “FlashForward,” “The Nine,” et al. “Undercovers,” from super-producer J.J. Abrams, is the other bright hope of NBC this fall, as a comedic drama about married spies who get back into the game after a long absence. As a huge fan of Abrams’ other work, especially his previous spy drama “Alias,” I had high hopes for this one. Those hopes were quickly dashed when I learned that this series plans to eschew an over-arching mythology almost entirely in favor of episodes which introduce a new mission each week. Which, fine, but also: yawn. ABC seems to be taking the same tack with “No Ordinary Family,” which didn’t need Michael Chiklis to draw comparisons to the “Fantastic Four.” It’s intended for family viewing, which is admirable, but when one critic claims it has less edge than Disney/Pixar’s “The Incredibles,” you’ve got a problem.FOX has a slate of comedies I wish were as entertaining as they should be. “Raising Hope” features the excellent Martha Plimpton and always amusing Cloris Leachman, but seems to fall flat on its face. “Running Wilde,” from the creators of “Arrested Development,” should be so much better than early reviews and an awkward trailer suggest it is. The less said about CBS’ dead-in-the-water “$h*! My Dad Says,” the better. All this is not to say that there’s nothing good on TV this fall — it’s just that the good stuff is mostly coming to us from returning shows. Last year seemed a bit more original than other recent years (or maybe the meteoric rise of “Glee” has obliterated other stories from my memory), but this year seems to be a more conservative play from the networks. Unfortunately for them, I doubt it will result in high ratings. Unfortunately for us, it means we have to hope the inevitable mid-season replacement series are better than this lot.
(09/15/10 11:20pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After four albums and a move to major label Universal, Anberlin seems poised to hit the big time with their latest release, “Dark is the Way, Light is a Place.”That’s because “Dark” is simultaneously their poppiest and darkest record yet. Lead single “Impossible” showcases Stephen Christian’s smooth, assured vocals and certainly has Top-40 potential, while should-be follow-up single “Closer” has a deviously simple, bombastic chorus. There are a few experimental touches here too, including an African-inspired drum beat in “Pray Tell” and some understated electro pops in “Art of War.” Midtempo songs are the order of the day, which makes this an album that doesn’t immediately grab you, but certainly rewards repeated listens. There isn’t a truly bad song here. I fervently hope this album brings Anberlin the recognition it has long deserved.
(09/01/10 10:50pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Midway through the Emmy telecast I began to wonder, after it was suggested by several other TV critics and commentators, if these awards were being presented in a bizarro world that was not our own. I’m not sure whether we were stuck in the “sideways” world from “Lost” or the parallel universe from “Fringe,” but the first hour of the Emmy telecast seemed so unpredictable that it couldn’t possibly be happening in our universe — one in which the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences voters generally seem not to actually watch television. So imagine my delighted surprise when “Top Chef” broke “The Amazing Race’s” chokehold on the reality show category. Imagine my uncontrollable glee when Jon Cryer lost Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy to Eric Stonestreet. Imagine my joyful tears as I watched Jack Bender accept the award for Drama Direction for his stunning, evocative work in the “Lost” finale. Oh, wait. That last one didn’t really happen. Maybe this is our universe, after all. I will never understand the love for Kyra Sedgwick, who won Outstanding Actress in a Drama for her headlining turn in “The Closer.” Nor will I understand how “Mad Men” won Best Drama and the writing award for Drama, despite its cast members being winless for their individual performances. Oh, and Archie Panjabi won Supporting Actress in a Drama. I like Kalinda in “The Good Wife”, but — huh? However, the telecast’s flabby and glacially-paced interlude of Miniseries or movie categories was far more odd than any individual victory or defeat. Packing the opening with excitement and a few big categories before moving on to the less well-known — and, for casual viewers, the most boring — categories is not a new strategy; most awards shows employ it. But either the producers of the Emmys misjudged how much time they could allot to these categories or they got cocky after the first half went off without a hitch, because they barely left any time for the winners of the Best Drama Series and Best Comedy Series awards to give their speeches. Perhaps they aren’t fans of Matthew Weiner’s particular brand of prickly narcissism (they cut his first acceptance speech off earlier in the telecast), but I hardly think that’s their excuse. No, the real reason for this gaffe was the producers’ deference to Al Pacino, who was allowed to ramble for what seemed like an hour in his acceptance speech for Outstanding Actor in a Miniseries or Made for TV Movie without once being threatened with a low warning note of music, as some other winners had been. It seems that movie star power was once again proven to be greater in the eyes of Hollywood executives than television star power. It’s a vicious, ironic statement to be made in the midst of a kudofest for the brightest stars of television, and I’m sure it wasn’t lost on Matthew Weiner. I may not like him, but I do respect his talent, and the fact that he was awkwardly and obviously cut off with a swell of music — while Al Pacino prattled on — stings. Just because he’s a star doesn’t mean the Emmys were his night to shine. That honor should go to the people who devote their lives and careers to a medium that doesn’t get enough respect for the challenges its writers, actors, producers and crew members face to create a successful, long-running and hopefully award-winning TV series. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen at the Emmys this year — at least, not in our reality. Over there, though, one never knows.
(09/01/10 10:16pm)
Wednesday night is the one night in the week with two must watch shows: "Friday Night Lights" and "Modern Family."
(08/26/10 12:09am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you talked to anyone who watched the fourth season of “Dexter” while it was on the air, you probably heard him or her raving about two things: John Lithgow’s utterly chilling performance as the Trinity Killer and the sucker punch in the closing minutes of the season finale.On DVD, John Lithgow’s performance is as excellent (and as Emmy-baiting) as I remembered. And the final minutes are still brutal. Both of these elements are the triumph of this season. It’s too bad other plotlines don’t pull their weight; a relationship between Laguerta and Batista is poorly conceived and executed with the grace of an anvil, and the less said about Quinn and that crime reporter’s “romance,” the better. Truly baffling, though, are the insipid special features, including hyperbolic text-only cast bios and the entire “Dexter” Comic-Con panel from 2009. Why not the 2010 panel looking ahead to season five? Or an audio commentary? For shame, Showtime.
(07/07/10 11:10pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>At this point, I doubt anything I say will change your mind. Like Team Edward and Team Jacob, it seems there are two types of moviegoers: those who, like, totally love the “Twilight” films, and those who think they’re a waste of time.Could “Eclipse” somehow appease both groups? After seeing it, I can say it just might. “Eclipse” is far and away the best film of the series. In fact, it’s actually a good film, no caveat or qualifier necessary.That might be a hard pill to swallow, especially after viewing the glacially paced emo drudge that was “New Moon.” But director David Slade keeps this film moving much faster, and it seems more effortlessly shot than either of the previous two efforts in the series. Writer Melissa Rosenberg, who will write all five films in the “Twilight” saga, finally seems to have a handle on turning Stephenie Meyer’s novels into a coherent and — dare I say it? — witty screenplay, while Slade coaxes the most mature and assured performances yet from Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner.Whereas the previous two films seemed content to the let the viewer fill informational gaps with details gleaned from reading the novels, “Eclipse” shows its work as it builds tension and hits its emotional beats, making it a much more satisfying viewing experience. It helps that the story facilitates a lot of close-quarters confrontations that give the actors a chance to show off their facial work.That’s not to say the work is always subtle, but it’s certainly true to the characters and to the spirit of the books and films.Don’t worry, haters — there are still a list of faults to pounce on. Bryce Dallas Howard (replacing Rachelle Lefevre as Victoria) isn’t miscast, just drastically underplays her role, and the makeup and special effects again seem to wordlessly announce the film’s budget. Meanwhile, the overbearing soundtrack gets in the way of a sweeping Howard Shore score, and the less said about the suddenly and bizarrely accented speech of Jackson Rathbone and Peter Facinelli, the better. Despite those minor flaws, this is definitely a prime example of how to do a book-to-movie adaptation right — by making it a good film, not merely fan service.
(06/23/10 7:18pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In an era of hit songs by talentless pop tarts like Ke$ha, it baffles me when far more talented artists continue to languish in relative obscurity. Robyn is one of those artists. A star in her home country of Sweden since she was 16, she has an inexplicable lack of presence on the U.S. charts. I can only hope that changes with “Body Talk Pt. 1,” an 8-song mini-album (the first of three that Robyn will release this year) that showcases her vocal range, impeccable craft, and ability to compel the listener to dance. First single “Dancing on My Own” is a lament about losing a guy in a club, and it works largely because of the pain in Robyn’s voice. “Dancehall Queen,” with its languid electro-Caribbean fusion beat, shouldn’t work, but its vaguely sinister hooks sink in nevertheless. The final two songs on the CD bring the whole album together. “Hang with Me,” an aching acoustic ballad, is fantastically written and sung, and the final track, a traditional Scandinavian ballad featuring a music box-esque accompaniment, is haunting. “Body Talk Pt. 1” is an unabashed dance record, but Robyn’s talent and personality make it one of the best dance-pop records of the year.