40 Hours of Television

Sorry for the lack of posts

2006-05-02T20:24:00.000-07:00

Sorry gang, school has been keeping me busy and there hasn't been much time to keep up with two blogs. Posting here will probably be sporatic. For (hopefully) more up-to-date postings, you can visit my main site, What's In Scott's Head.

Thanks for stopping by!

Movie Review: Thank You for Smoking

2006-04-10T16:41:00.000-07:00

Thank You for Smoking is a surprisingly hilarous, biting satire of lobbying — in the form of Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), spokesman for the Academy of Tobacco Studies. Played with perfection by Eckhart, Naylor becomes a character we, the audience, want to see more of — he turns someone who should be unlikeable into a sympathetic character.

Our first introduction to Naylor is on a talk show about smoking and cancer. Naylor shares the stage with a 15-year-old boy who is dying from cancer (and had recently stopped smoking), and Naylor turns the audience's hostility towards him around by saying Big Tobacco wants the boy to live — so he can continue to be a smoker — and it's the anti-smoking bunch that wants him to die. It's a hilarious opening to a great film, directed with unexpected maturity by 29-year-old Jason Reitman (son of director Ivan Reitman). Reitman, who also wrote the screenplay (based on the book by Christopher Buckley), deftly conducts the actions on-screen, maintaining a certain tone and not veering the film off the path of satire.

Naylor meets frequently with his friends, fellow lobbyists, known as the "MOD" squad (Merchants of Death): alcohol lobbyist Polly Bailey (Maria Bello) and firearms lobbyist Bobby Jay Bliss (David Koechner). In their funny scenes, the trio argues over which of their products causes the most deaths.

After his talk show appearance, Naylor becomes something of a celebrity, and a Washington, D.C. journalist, Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes) wants an interview. Naylor not only grants the interview, but the two begin an affair, with Naylor, well, making a lot of what he thinks are off-the-record comments to Holloway. The comments not only turn out to be on-the-record, but they end up in the article Holloway writes about Naylor. Needless to say, his world is turned upside down.

With everything going on in his world, Nick Naylor is trying to be a good father to his son, Joey. There's a great scene when Nick comes to Joey's school for one of those "what do your parents do for a living" talks. "Please don't ruin my childhood," Joey pleads as his father talks to the kids, eventually cross-examining a little girl who says her mother said smoking is bad for you. "Oh, is your mother a doctor?" Naylor asks the bewildered little girl. "She's hardly a credible expert."

There is a sub-plot involving Naylor's firm trying to get smoking put back into the movies. Naylor meets with movie producer Jeff Megall and the two figure out how to get smoking back into movies: set the film in the future, after cigarettes have been declared safe.

Meanwhile, a powerful senator, Ortolan K. Finistirre (William H. Macy), is holding hearings on having a poison label placed on packs of cigarettes. The plot winds its way down to Naylor testifying before the Senator's committee, pointing out that Finistirre's home state, Vermont, produces cheese that clogs arteries...should cheese have warning labels, too? "The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!" Finistirre fumes.

There are many great moments in Thank You for Smoking, and the film as a whole is just teriffic. The satire is biting and skewers all targets equally. Jason Reitman will be a name to look for in the future. He has a great future ahead of him, if Thank You for Smoking is any indication. Highly recommended.

TV Review: Nanny 9/11(3-24-06)

2006-03-26T00:12:00.000-08:00

I've previously written about Nanny 9/11 in a general way, focusing on the series as a whole. Today I'm writing about a specific episode (aired on March 24, 2006), which was completely fascinating and a little different than other episodes in the series. This episode provides enough material to continually raise the question, "Why does this family want America to know how horrible the parents are?" Or, when you get right down to it, why would the parents want to know how horrible they are? Is a brief moment of fame worth the public humiliation? I don't understand it at all.

We meet the Longairc family: husband and step-father Adam; wife and mother Michelle; and her three children: son Sean, eight; five-year-old son Adam, a charming child who bites, screams, and likes to drop the F-bomb. It's so cute when children swear, isn't it? And six-year-old daughter Erica, the only child of the three we don't see acting like they had been raised in the wild by a pack of wolves.

Adam is in the unfortunate position of being a step-father. Now, before I get complaints that I'm calling step-parents "unfortunate," I'm only referring to this situation. I know there are plenty of families with step-parents that do not have the issues the Longairc family have, and are thriving. I can relate to Adam as I'm a step-parent. I came into my step-child's life when he was nine, and immediately wanted to jump in with my own style of discipline. Big mistake, since his mother had her own style, and our styles were not the same.

For several years it created strife until I finally decided that I would not continue in a disciplining role, but rather try to be a positive influence and a mentor. And things got better fast. I know, all experiences vary, but I know there are some of you out there who know what I'm talking about. But I digress.

Back to the Longairic family. We watch step-father Adam attempt (unsuccessfully) to bring so discipline into the family. The kids are defiant and mom Michelle is not what you'd call a disciplinarian. So Adam has his hands full as he fruitlessly attempts to bring some order out of chaos. Time to bring in Nanny Stella!

If you've never seen the show, the format is pretty simple. On the first day, the nanny will observe the family and take notes. At the end of the day, she'll discuss her observations with the parents. The next day, the nanny brings in a set of family rules, and the rest of the episode (normally) shows us how, by the end of the week, life is ice cream and puppies for the family as the children magically transform into little angels. Not this time! Nope. That's what made this particular episode so unusual.

Sure, Nanny Stella came up with family rules, but throughout the episode, mother Michelle refuses to follow the rules or enforce them. In fact, she even refuses to acknowledge that her children are...difficult, despite saying so at the beginning of the episode.

Poor Stella gives it her best shot, but nothing. Michelle basically wants Stella to leave due to the fact that Stella has questioned Michelle's parenting skills (or, in her case, lack of parenting skills).

And so it goes in this train wreck of an episode, culminating with five-year-old Adam punching, kicking and spitting in Stella's face, all while his mother sits back and enjoys the show. You know she wants the tyke to assault the woman who dared to question her skills as a mother. It's all very sad, really.

By the end of the week, Nanny Stella hasn't really accomplished anything, which is unusual for this show, and off she goes, with no emotional departure that is the norm of Nanny 9/11. We get a sort-of follow up to find out that step-father Adam is attempting to follow the rules set up by Nanny Stella, and even Michelle acknowledges she's going to try and follow them. Which seems unlikely. I wonder if we'll see this couple on Divorce Court?

All said, the Longairc family episode made for interesting television. Recommended.

Help Scott Get Something for Nothing

2006-03-19T22:15:00.000-08:00

I'm trying to get one of those free Xbox 360s. It's actually a legitimate offer. You may have heard about people getting free Ipods. Same company. Basically you sign up for one offer (like a trial subscription to Rhapsody) and get eight referrals, and you get a free Xbox 360. So, I'm asking you, dear reader, to help me in getting my own Xbox 360 (and you can get one, too). Just click this link to get started.

Note: it looks like the easiest offer to get the free Xbox 360 is the Real Arcade trial. It's a 30-day free membership. Sign up, and cancel before the 30 days are up. That's it. Once you've done that, you just need to get eight people to sign up and do the same. Pretty easy. Thanks bunches. Now, on to a television review.

The Sierra Club's documentary series, The Sierra Club Chronicles, continues with the third episode in the series, Dioxin, Duplicity and DuPont (airing March 23 on Link TV, channel 375 on DIRECTV, and channel 9410 on the Dish Network). Did the DuPont plant in DeLisle, Mississippi contribute to people working at and living near the plant developing diseases like cancer and kidney failure, and other illnesses?

Dioxin, Duplicity and DuPont alleges that the pollution emitted from DuPont did indeed contribute to those diseases. However, the show fails to provide any compelling evidence that DuPont was indeed responsible for those diseases. It's for that reason I cannot give Dioxin, Duplicity and DuPont a full recommendation. Without any strong evidence that DuPont's pollution contributed to those illnesses, we're left with anecdotal evidence. The main charge is that the dioxins emitted by the plant have caused the illnesses in the community, with more than 2,000 people filing lawsuits against DuPont for contracting various illnesses.

We meet Myra Marsh, a former DuPont worker, who developed a condition that weakened her legs to the point that she cannot walk; and Glen Strong, an oyster fisherman, who developed cancer in 1998, allegedly due to the pollution the DuPont plant fed into St. Louis Bay. Dr. Ed Clark, a marine biologist, claims DuPont released heavy metal containments and dioxins into St. Louis Bay. Again, we hit a wall in assigning blame to DuPont: no evidence.

Not that I'm condoning any environmental impact that may have been caused by DuPont, but the show failed to provide any evidence at all to support the claim that DuPont's pollution contributed to the various diseases contracted by workers at the plant and members of the community. Did the Sierra Club conduct its own independent research into how much pollution was being pumped into St. Louis Bay? We, the viewers, do not know.

Did the Sierra Club conduct research into the levels of air pollution? Again, we, the viewers, do not know, or at least are not told. As it turns out, the Sierra Club did, in fact, conduct research (from this item in the Mississippi Press). This data should have been included in this episode, but for reasons unknown, was not. The show jumps to Glen Strong in court, suing DuPont for the cancer he developed in 1998. The jury concluded that DuPont had polluted and caused Strong's cancer, awarding him $14 million dollars.

The Sierra Club Chronicles is produced in part by Brave New Films (Outfoxed; Uncovered: The War on Iraq), who usually do a good job in their documentaries, but at least in this one case, fail to provide any compelling evidence that DuPont was responsible for the illnesses contracted in DeLisle, Mississippi. Perhaps an hour-long format would have allowed for the introduction of evidence by the Sierra Club of the plant's pollution levels. With only a half-hour, there's a limited amount of information that can be presented.

Hooked on House

2006-03-13T11:17:00.000-08:00

My new favorite TV show is Fox's House. I'd been seeing commercials for it for weeks but had never watched an episode. I finally did, and must say I was impressed.

First, Hugh Laurie is great as Dr. Greg House, a doctor who is a great diagnostician but hates patients (he thinks they all lie). Each week he and his group of young doctors tackle a different medical mystery. The episodes follow a particular formula, which can seem repetitious at times, but then House will do something crazy in order to cure the disease/ailment/whatever the patient is suffering from.

Hugh Laurie is a British actor. If he looks a little familiar to you, well, if you're a fan of Rowan Atkinson's BBC series Blackadder, that's where you've seen Laurie before. Maybe this will jog your memory:

That's Laurie on the left.

I'm enjoying the season one episodes on DVD, courtesy of Netflix...what would I do without Netflix?

On the opposite end of good is the new film, The Hills Have Eyes. I endured it over the weekend, and here's the review:

At what point did all of the creative people in the world stop producing material? Did all of the screenwriters just run out of material? Who can explain Hollywood's obsession with pointlessly remaking old movies for a "new" generation?

Writer/Director Alexandre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes is a loose remake of Wes Craven's 1977 cult favorite of the same name. The plot is pretty simple and can be summed up thusly: crazed cannibal mutants terrorize the Brady family. Okay, it's not the Brady family, but do you remember the Grand Canyon episode of The Brady Bunch, in which they get trapped in a ghost town? The Hills Have Eyes has a similar setting, only instead of a crazed Jim Backus, you have assorted crazed mutant cannibals who are in the mood for some human flesh.

Why mutants? Well, it turns out that the mutants are kin to miners who wouldn't leave their New Mexico desert homes while nuclear testing was being conducted, and as a result you've got a bunch of blood-thirsty mutants just waiting to try out some human flesh tikka masala. (Mmmm...tikka masala....)

We open at a deserted gas station. It's one of those creepy gas stations in horror movies where no one seems to actually be there and you know that the proprietor will have a crazed look in his eyes but will seem nice and will give folks directions to their destination — or, rather, directions to a short-cut that will take folks to the blood-thirsty mutant cannibals. Why couldn't they call the movie that? Blood Thirsty Mutant Cannibals. I like it.

We meet the Carter family, making the trek across the New Mexico desert on their way to California. In need of gas and directions, the family stops at the aforementioned gas station. The crazy gas station owner fills up the family's SUV and tells them about a short-cut through the desert that will shave two hours off of their trip. Everyone thinks accepting directions for a crazy man is a good idea and they speed off.

Of course, it's a trap. A few of the crazed mutants lay out some spikes that blow up the tires of the SUV, causing it to crash into a huge boulder, where it is totaled. Patriarch Bob Carter (Ted Levine) decides to go get some help, enlisting the help of his son-in-law, Doug (Aaron Stanford). Just like Mike and Peter did in that episode of The Brady Bunch. Left behind is matriarch Ethel (Kathleen Quinlan) and daughters Lynne (Vinessa Shaw) and Brenda (Emilie de Ravin) and son Bobby (Dan Byrd).

What eventually follows is a lot of bloodshed, as the hungry mutants blow away various members of the Carter family. It's in these moments when you'll awaken from your stupor to enjoy a few seconds of gore. I'll admit, some of the gore effects are well done. There's a great shotgun blast to the head scene.

The film does have its gross-out moments. Gore hounds might be happy with the various shootings, bludgeonings, and, in one case, impalement by miniature U.S. flag. The Carter family is very patriotic, you see.

And so it goes, moments of complete boredom followed by a few seconds of bloodshed, and all the while you're cursing Wes Craven under your breath for actually taking part in this travesty (he's a producer), as you check the time every ten seconds to see if you're any closer to the film's end.

Come it does, and as I left the theater I realized I had lost 107 minutes of my life, and I was sad. Oh well, maybe that remake of The Omen will be good.

The verdict: zero stars.

We're Back!

2006-03-11T12:57:00.000-08:00

As I've been doing a lot of writing at Blogcritics, I thought the time was right to bring 40 Hours back to life. I'll be posting my movie/music/TV reviews here, as well as my thoughts of the media in general. To get us started, here's my latest review, for the Season One DVD set of the sitcom Grounded for Life. Enjoy!

From the production company that brought America The Cosby Show and Roseanne (Carsey-Werner productions), Grounded for Life debuted on the Fox network in 2001. Starring Donal Logue (Blade, The Tao of Steve) as Sean Finnerty and Megyn Price (Mystery, Alaska) as Claudia Finnerty, Grounded for Life was a very funny show with a unique sensibility. The Finnerty clan included daughter Lilly (Lynsey Bartilson), sons Jimmy (Griffin Frazen) and Henry (Jake Burbage), Sean's brother, Eddie (the hilarious Kevin Corrigan) and Sean's father, Walt (Richard Riehle).

Grounded for Life aired on Fox for two seasons before being cancelled. It was picked up by the WB where it aired for three more seasons.

If you've never seen the show, you're in for a treat. It's genuinely funny and each episode had a unique plot structure, mostly told in flashback form, usually with Sean and Eddie explaining some predicament they've gotten themselves into. The writing is sharp and the cast's timing is excellent.

Grounded for Life: Season One includes all 20 episodes from the show's first season, including the pilot, "Lilly B. Goode." It's a four-DVD set with some excellent extras, starting with the audio commentary from the cast and producers on ten episodes. Disc four contains the other extras, including interviews with cast members Donal Logue, Megyn Price, Lynsey Bartilson, and the show's creators, Mike Schiff and Bill Martin. There is also a blooper reel.

Grounded for Life was shot on film, and the DVD transfer looks pretty good. Like most sitcoms the show is presented in full frame. Colors are sharp, but the transfer suffers from some grain issues. Audio is in Dolby Digital 2.0 and sounds okay, basically what you'd hear coming out of your own home's stereo system.

Grounded for Life never found the audience it deserved. It's a funny family show with likeable characters, great writing, and a quirky sense of humor. It's certainly better than some of the current sitcoms airing on The WB (Twins, I'm looking at you), or other networks, for that matter. With the Season One DVD set, you'll have the chance to experience a great show, perhaps for the first time. Highly recommended. If you have cable, Grounded for Life is in syndication on the ABC Family Network. Check it out, you'll be glad you did, if you enjoy a light-hearted family comedy.

Thanks For Watching

2006-01-10T15:26:00.000-08:00

Dear reader,

I have decided to close down 40 Hours of Television. As you've noticed, I haven't been posting here much. Instead I'd like to direct you to Blogcritics, a great web magazine covering a broad range of topics. You can find my Blogcritics archive here. If you're a blogger, and want more exposure for your work, I'd encourage you to sign up at Blogcritics. The site gets anywhere between 25,000 and 50,000 visitors a day.

For those of you who have been checking in here regularly, thank you for your support. See you at Blogcritics, or my other web home, What's In Scott's Head.

Sorry For the Lack of Posts

2005-12-22T16:51:00.000-08:00

If you're still with me, thank you. Life's been kind of hectic and my attention has been focused elsewhere. I just finished fall term at school, and I am also spending a lot of time at Blogcritics, where I am the assistant editor of the politics section. Which doesn't leave a lot of time for writing, I'm afraid.

But I have some time now, and wanted to talk about this new game show on NBC called Deal, or No Deal. Wow. I think I'm hooked. It's a very simple concept. There are 26 cases. Inside each case is a dollar amount ranging from .01 to $1,000,000. No one knows what is in each case. The contestant picks a case at random, and begins the process of elimination to see what his case contains. During various stages of the game, the "banker" will make an offer to the player to buy back their case, based on the odds that the player's case contains the highest amount of money. The banker's offer gets higher as the game progresses. Eventually the player will either take the banker's offer or keep going to see what is in their case. It could be a million dollars. Or only five dollars.

It's been playing all week, it's probably on tonight. Watch and be mesmerized by Howie Mandel's bald head.

Review: "Million Dollar Baby"

2005-12-12T16:07:00.000-08:00

Clint Eastwood has proven himself not only as a great actor, but a great director, one of the best directors working today. Some may see the name Clint Eastwood and the image that might come to mind is Dirty Harry Callahan, but there's so much more to Eastwood, and in his films he has displayed an expertise in taking the elements of a familiar genre and turning that genre upside down, turning it into something different, as he did in his Oscar winning 1992 film Unforgiven.

Unforgiven had the elements of a traditional Western, but in Eastwood's hands it became something different than what you would see in a traditional gunslinger drama.

Million Dollar Baby is the story of Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood), an aging boxing trainer and manager who runs a small gym with his friend Eddie Dupris (Morgan Freeman, who also starred with Eastwood in Unforgiven), a former boxer with a blind eye due to a boxing injury. Dunn, as portrayed by Eastwood, is a man with a lot going on below the surface of his gruff exterior. We learn in the film that Dunn has been estranged from his daughter for many years. He writes her every week, but each letter is returned to sender, and Dunn keeps the rejected correspondence in a box. We also learn that Dunn goes to Mass every day, and has been doing so for 23 years. We do not ever learn what Dunn thinks he is atoning for, which adds to the complexity of the character.

Morgan Freeman narrates the story, telling us about the day when Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) arrived at Dunn's gym. She's a waitress from Missouri, and determined to have a better life for herself through boxing. She's inexperienced but determined, spending hours at the gym training by herself. Dupris is impressed by her will and determination. Maggie wants Dunn to train her; he refuses, saying he doesn't "train girls." Freeman gives a fine performance, as usual, and has great chemistry with both Eastwood and Swank (his great performance earned him an Oscar for best supporting actor).

This may sound like any other boxing movie you've seen, but it's not. This isn't a film about boxing, it's a film about a boxer. In the hands of a lesser director, and lesser actors, the story could have dived down into cliche territory, possibly changed to become a sort of female version of Rocky. It's to Eastwood's credit, and screenplay writer Paul Haggis (who based the screenplay on the book Rope Burns: Stories From the Corner by F.X. Toole), that the story stays on a very human level.

Eddie Dupris, who lives in a small room at the gym, knows that Maggie is a talented fighter in need of a good trainer, and tries to get Dunn to train her. He is determined not to get involved, but in the end reluctantly agrees to train her. She's a fast learner, and before long is knocking out opponents in the first round of a fight. The boxing scenes aren't your typical Hollywood boxing fare: the boxing is real, exhausting for the boxers, and injuries can come at any time.
Hilary Swank is simply amazing as Maggie, creating a character who, like Eastwood, has more going on below the surface than we first know. She's barely scraping by as a waitress, sometimes forced to take food from the restaurant that had been tossed into the trash.

Things change for Maggie as she starts winning fights, and after saving up enough of her earning, she buys a home for her family in Missouri. Maggie's mother, Earline (Margo Martindale), isn't very happy with the gift: she's more concerned that her welfare payments will be cut off, and she doesn't approve of her daughter's decision to become a boxer.

Maggie finally gets a shot at a title fight in Las Vegas, against a fighter named Billie "The Blue Bear" (Lucia Rijker, who also served as Swank's boxing trainer). Billie is a figher known to fight dirty, and does so in her bout against Maggie. When it looks like Maggie is going to win, Billie sucker-punches her and she falls, hitting her head against the stool Dunn had placed in her corner at the end of the round. The injury leaves her paralyzed from the neck down.

It's at ths point the story takes a major turn, and although the ending might already be known by now, I will not spoil it here. The aftermath of the accident is especially emotional for Frankie Dunn, who takes on the role as a surrogate father to Maggie, spending all of his free time with her in the hospital. Maggie's family comes in from Missouri (but not before they'd had the chance to play tourist) and they want to make sure Maggie's money goes to them should anything happen to her. Her family isn't particularly concerned over her injury, and Maggie furiously sends them out of the room.

Eastwood handles the film's emotional conclusion in a way that does not pull it down into a fake sentimentality, which again would have been the case with a lesser director. It's a powerfully emotional conclusion, and in Eastwood's hands, a genuinely emotionally conclusion.
Million Dollar Baby is certainly one of Eastwood's best films, up there with Unforgiven and the powerful Mystic River. He's a director and actor of great talent. Highly recommended.
**** out of ****

Review: "Dead Man"

2005-12-01T16:57:00.000-08:00

Jim Jarmusch, the director of the 1996 film Dead Man is an indie director who definitely marches to the beat of his own drummer, creating films that can be both entertaining and infuriatingly inaccessible, as well as outright dull and plodding. Dead Man falls into all of those categories.

Shot in striking black and white by Jarmusch's longtime cinematographer Robby Muller, Dead Man is a sort of neo-Western, set sometime in the late 19th century. Johnny Depp is William Blake (not that William Blake...or is he?), an accountant on a train ride to the town of Machine, where he has a job waiting for him at the Dickinson steel mill. And it's a long train ride. Really, really long. Jarmusch spends at least the first ten minutes of the film showing us Blake's long, long, journey to Machine.

I suppose it's meant to convey Blake's inner emotion, but in reality it just went on way too long. We get shots of the train speeding through different landscapes, starting with forests and ending in a bleak desert. We get shots of Blake in the train. Cut back to shot of train speeding to its destination. Back to Blake inside train. With different people in the car each time, getting progressively scruffier. And so on, until we finally reach the end of the line and the town of Machine. Before reaching the town, the train's fireman (Crispin Glover) warns Blake that Machine is actually Hell.

As Blake walks through the town on his way to Dickinson Metal Works, it does appear hellish, a bleak town with bleak residents and various bits of bones in piles.

Once at Dickinson Metal Works, Blake learns that his job has been filled by another man. Blake demands to see the owner, John Dickinson (Robert Mitchum). Blake is granted a meeting, which turns out to be brief with a raving Dickinson inexplicably demanding that Blake leave his office (at gunpoint). He does, and with his last few dollars (he had spent all of his savings to get to Machine) buys a bottle of booze at the town's saloon. While at the saloon a woman selling paper flowers (Mili Avital) is tossed out of the saloon into the muddy street. Blake helps her out of the mud and she asks him to walk her to her home. Blake ends up spending the night with her, but in the morning her fiance, Charles Ludlow Dickinson (Gabriel Byrne) discovers her in bed with Blake. He shoots her; Blake shoots Dickinson and kills him, while taking a shot himself. The fiance is John Dickinson's son. Blake escapes the room and steals a horse.

Wounded, he passes out, and when he awakens, he's been tended to by an Indian named Nobody (Gary Farmer) who is convinced that Blake is actually the spirit of the poet William Blake -- in other words, Blake has died. Nobody is determined to get Blake back to the spirit world where he belongs.

Neil Young provides the music for the film, and his guitar playing suits the mood of the film.

The rest of the film takes us on the long journey to Blake's ultimate destination. Jarmusch is a director not very concerned with pacing. It's all so dull, yet it's meant to be meaningful or somehow insightful, a metaphor for...whatever. What is it about indie filmmakers and how the boring, overlong moments in their films are supposed to actually be something more than what they are? When we watch a "mainstream" movie that plods along, we'd call it what it is: horribly boring. The fans of Jarmusch will possibly content that I do not "get" it, but I do. Blake is on a metaphysical journey. It's all meant to be taken as allegory. Sure. But it's still dull.

On his tail are a trio of bounty hunters, including one who talks way too much (Michael Wincott) and sleeps with a teddy bear (not yet invented in the time the film takes place, but hey, we'll let it slip, since this is an indie film) and one who doesn't speak much at all (Lance Henricksen) but turns out to be a cannibal. That's a nice indie film touch. There are other strange characters in the film, including Iggy Pop in drag as someone who can cook up a mean pan of beans.

Eventually Nobody and Blake reach the village of Mikah, and Nobody puts Blake in a canoe and sets him off on his journey to the spirit world.

Dead Man comes in at 121 minutes, which is at least 30 minutes too long. (I'd say 120 minutes too long, but that would be mean-spirited). Having seen other Jarmusch films, I knew what I was in for when I watched Dead Man. And like the other Jarmusch films I've seen, I really didn't like Dead Man. I just couldn't connect with any of the characters on screen. Johnny Depp gives a great performance as Blake, of course, and the supporting actors are also very good, especially Gary Farmer as Nobody. The film suffers from slow pacing and a boring story. If you're a Jarmusch fan, I'm sure you'll love Dead Man.
** out of ****

Review: "The Graduate"

2005-11-25T14:36:00.000-08:00

Recent college graduate Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) is home from school and unsure of his future. His parents want him to start his graduate studies; he wants to do nothing.

Mike Nichols' 1967 film The Graduate is a fine piece of filmmaking, with a smart script that seems to occupy a space slightly out of normal time. The war in Vietnam was raging, anti-war protesters were out in force, free love was being explored in San Francisco, and the civil rights movement was about to lose Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy to the bullets of assassins. In Benjamin Braddock's world, his only concern is getting quality time in his family's pool.

Ben's aimless idling is about to change: following a party at his parent's house, the wife of the business partner of Benjamin's dad, Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) asks Ben to drive her home. He's reluctant to, but finally agrees. When they pull up to the Robinson home, Mrs. Robinson asks Ben to come in with her, to keep her company until her husband (Murray Hamilton, who earlier offers Ben a great piece of advice: "Plastics!") gets home. Benjamin is all nervous tics and jitters around Mrs. Robinson. She offers him a drink, puts on some music, and opens up about her unhappy marriage. Benjamin wants to know if she's trying to seduce him. "Would you like me to seduce you?" Yes, he would, thank you, and the two begin an affair.

The screenplay, by Calder Willingham and Buck Henry, is peppered with witty dialog. It's actually a very funny film. The film has aged a bit, at least in concept, and the idea of a younger man having an affair with an older woman (although Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft were only six years apart in age) isn't as scandalous as it once was.

The film has some great music from Simon and Garfunkel, songs that haven't aged, and are just as good today as they were in 1967.

Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson end their affair, right about the time that the Robinson's daughter, Elaine Robinson (Katharine Ross), comes home to visit from college. Benjamin is asked by Mr. Robinson to take Elaine out. Mrs. Robinson is not very keen at the idea and warns Benjamin not to do it. Benjamin ignores her advice, and before long, he's in love (or so he thinks) with Elaine.

Elaine finds out about Benjamin's affair with her mother, and isn't very happy about it: her mother had told her Benjamin had raped her. Benjamin is determined to win her back. After some time he discovers Elaine is going to get married, and with that marriage ceremony, with have one of the most famous endings in the movies: Benjamin, at the church, pounding on a large glass wall, with Elaine abruptly running away from her groom to join Benjamin, as the two get away in a bus.

While The Graduate has dated a bit, it's still an entertaining film with a great cast, creative direction from Mike Nichols, and a great screenplay and soundtrack. Recommended.

They Really Love Me (again!)

2005-11-17T18:06:00.000-08:00

The fine folks at Blogcritics.org have picked my review of the ABC reality show Supernanny as an editor's choice pick of the week. You can read the review here, and if you do, let me know what you think.

Also, you can hear part two of my Podcast essay, "Reality Show Humiliation," just click here.

I Love to Watch: Reality Show Obsessions

2005-11-13T16:29:00.000-08:00

I'm kicking myself for missing the episode of Trading Spouses that featured the crazy lady. I saw the commercials and part of the first episode but missed the crazy parts in the second episode. I like crazy. It adds a certain...something to the whole reality show experience. People just going nuts in front of the camera. It should be a staple of all reality shows.

One show I'm starting to enjoy is ABC's Supernanny. It goes against the grain of what I normally enjoy as it lacks the elements of humiliation that I enjoy so much in other reality shows. But darn it all if I'm not enjoying it. "Supernanny" Jo Frost visits a family in need of some guidance on how to deal with their children, and Jo comes in and whips everyone into shape and before you know it, BAM! Every single problem is solved. Well, not every problem. But some of them. I suppose if I want humiliation I can tune in to Fox's Nanny 9/11. It's Fox, there has to be some humiliation involved.

Been keeping up with both versions of The Apprentice? It's been drowsy good fun, hasn't it? On Donald's show this week the teams had to come up with a display promoting Star Wars products, and on Martha's show the teams had to sell something on QVC. Haven't we been in this neighborhood before? How many weeks are left before it's all over? Not soon enough. And more bad news: the next series of The Apprentice is currently being filmed. Let's hope series 5 is more interesting than the current series has been.

Next week I'll try to force myself to watch reality shows on CBS. Ugh

The Great Movies: "Shane"

2005-11-02T23:45:00.000-08:00

The Western as metaphor has been a staple of American -- and, indeed, international -- filmmaking, from the very beginnings of the cinema to the great "spaghetti" westerns of Italian director Sergio Leone (and, recently, directors like Kevin Costner and the great Clint Eastwood). We know all of the staples, from the villain with the black hat and dual pistols to the heroic cowboy figure and the rugged families who tended the land.

In George Stevens' 1953 film Shane, the Western genre is used to introduce an almost Christ-like mythos in the title character. It's a captivating film that still holds emotional power more than fifty years after its release.

We meet Shane (Alan Ladd) in the opening titles: a lone figure on horseback, up on top of a hill, carefully making his way down into the valley. He is dressed in a simple buckskin outfit. Loyal Griggs' wonderful cinematography gives us a real feeling of time and place, an unspoiled wilderness of nature. Does Shane seem to have a bit of a glow about him, almost like a halo? I think he does.

Shane's journey through the valley brings him to a simple homesteading family, the Starretts: Joe Starrett (Van Helfin); his wife, Marian (Jean Arthur); and young son, Joey (Brandon De Wilde). At this point in the film we do not know anything about Shane; nor does the Starrett family. The family and Shane connect and Shane decides to stay and help Joe with tending to the land.

Young Joey is immediately fascinated by Shane, and as Shane's relationship with the family grows, we also realize that Shane and Marian are attracted to each other. Shane, the loner, does not act on his feelings, but it's obvious to Joe that his wife has her own fascination with the handsome stranger.

In town, a man named Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) is not so fond of the homesteaders, driving his cattle through their fences and gardens. There is a small, close group of families that Brutus bullies to get them to leave.

The good vs. evil scenario is beginning to take shape, as are the parallels to the Christ mythos. After deciding to stay with the Starrett family, Shane travels into town to purchase working clothing -- an act of humbling himself, as Christ would have in ministering to the poor. Shane has promised Joey that he'd pick him up a bottle of soda pop, which Shane has to order in the saloon. The local toughs hang out there, and one of them, Calloway (Ben Johnson), immediately challenges Shane; the toughs snicker when Shane orders the bottle of soda pop and Calloway wants Shane to have a real drink; Shane refuses, and Calloway tosses the drink on Shane's new shirt. Like Christ, Shane turns the other cheek (this time), takes the soda, and leaves.

We know that a confrontation is brewing, an inevitable show-down between the homesteaders and the toughs in town. Western justice is the rule of the day, since there is no law enforcement in the community.

Meanwhile, Ryker has brought in a hired gun, the mysterious Jack Wilson (Jack Palance), a Western villain with a black hat and few words. Shane seems to know who he is.

At the Starrett home, young Joey is wanting Shane to show him how to shoot a gun, which he does, to Marian's objection; she doesn't like guns. "A gun is a tool, Marian, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that," Shane tells her.

Shane is becomming a surrogate father figure to Joey, who follows Shane around like a puppy, and his hero worship is upped tremendously after watching Shane beat up the toughs at the local saloon (no turning the other cheek, this time).

As the film nears its inevitable climax, one of the homesteaders, Torrey (Elisha Cook, Jr.) has had enough of Ryker's bullying, and heads into town to confront Ryker. Torrey is viciously shot dead by Wilson, and Torrey's death is the catalyst for the other homesteading families to leave. Joe Starrett does not want to leave, and he too prepares himself for a confrontation in town. Shane stops him -- Shane knows his destiny and the battle is not Joe's to fight. Shane must battle evil, a destiny we know he cannot escape or shape. Shane may have pretended to be a normal man during his stay with the Starretts, but we know that he knows he cannot escape his destiny, and must fulfill it -- again, as Christ must fulfill his destiny. "There's no living with a killing. There's no going back from it. Right or wrong, it's a brand, a brand that sticks," Shane explains to Marian. Meaning, after dealing with the evil in town, he'll have to leave (if he's still alive); he cannot return to the simple family life of the Starretts, especially in the case of Marian.

There is a lot going on below the surface of Shane. It would be easy to dismiss it as a product of the 1950s, an "oat drama," but there's many layers to this film. Shane is an enigma from beginning to end, a man with a past we do not know, facing an unknown future. Even the cries of Joey, begging Shane to stay, cannot sway Shane from changing his mind (because he cannot), as Shane rides off into the distance.

Shane is a wonderful experience, thankfully preserved through the format of DVD. A must-have for any film collection.
**** out of ****

Catch my Podcast

2005-10-31T09:59:00.000-08:00

I've recorded a segment for Blogcritic's weekly Podcast, and it's available now for download. I read my essay, "Reality Show Humiliation." If you give it a listen, let me know what you think.

Blogcritics -- Podcast #4

Confessions Of a TV Junkie

2005-10-30T18:40:00.000-08:00

I was trying to come up with an idea of a new column to write for 40 Hours, and I was inspired by Larry King. He wrote a column for USA Today a few years back.

Now, I've never read any of Larry King's columns, I just know about them from when Saturday Night Live used to spoof them. I liked the idea of just rambling on from one thought to the next, sort of like James Joyce. Not that I'm saying I'm like James Joyce, or that I think I'm James Joyce. Well, maybe a little. A little bit. I'll try to avoid stream of consciousness rants, but I cannot guarantee that it will not happen. Just keeping you on your toes.

So, last year I decided it was time to go to college. Instead of college, I enlisted in the Navy after high school, and spent 1986-1992 as a military journalist. And as I discovered, getting a job in journalism was a little hard. I'm not going to drag this all out as I want to get to the funny, but fast-forward to 2004 and I'm enrolled in college. Which means having to trim the family budget, and of course the first thing to go is my favorite thing, cable television. Well, not entirely. We now have basic cable, which is essentially the local channels and, teasingly, a few of the standard cable stations, such as The Discovery Channel and E!

I have to say, I really miss Hannity and Colmes. I hated that show, sure, but it was great entertainment, and isn't television really about entertainment? Oh, we like to believe that it's educational, but come on, it's just entertainment. Reading books can be educational, but you don't hear people saying that reading will rot your brain, like television does. So let's be honest about the role of television in our lives: to numb us completely so that we can ignore the horrible world we live in. Add alcohol and you don't even need to leave your couch, or Prozac.

Now, I don't know if the winning Hannity and Colmes format has changed over the past year, but this is how I remember it:

Hannity: I'm Sean Hannity. Thanks for joining us. It's a packed show tonight. Do liberals really want to destroy America? Our panel is here to discuss what motivates liberals, and why they hate America so much. Joining me in the studio are Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, our good friend Ollie North, by telephone our good friend Rush Limbaugh, by satellite from Las Vegas Bill Bennet, and in a new feature, via e-mail, a bunch of posters from the Free Republic message board, and also joining us is Outmatched Generic Liberal. Thank you all.
(Confusion as everyone speaks over each other).

Hannity: Generic, let me ask you a question. In 1837, William Howard Taft said "George W. Bush is the greatest threat to the Republic in 200 years, even greater a threat than scurvy." Do you stand by that statement?

Generic: What? First of all, William Howard Taft...

Hannity: Just answer the question, Generic, it's pretty simple. Do you stand by Taft's statement?

Generic: If you'd let me finish, Taft died in 1930, how could he have made a statement about George W. Bush?

Hannity: Are you calling me a liar?

Generic: Well, obviously you made up that quote, and you didn't even get the years right that Taft was president...

Coulter: Sean, that's a typical liberal response: blame the conservative when they cannot win the debate.

Generic: What debate? Taft died in...

Hannity: You're right, Ann. It's a simple question, Generic, and since you refuse to answer it, we'll just assume you agree with it. So, you think George W. Bush is as great a threat to this country as scurvy?

Limbaugh: Sean, that's the problem with liberals today: they refuse to repudiate statements made by leaders of their party.

Generic: Taft was a Republican! What are you talking about?

Malkin: Sean, the liberal media has for far to long let statements like Taft's to be reported unchallenged.

Hannity: What do you think, Ollie?

North: Shameful. George W. Bush is a fine president, and to have your liberal guest suggest that Bush is causing scurvy in New Orleans is just another tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist, spouting anti-Bush hatred.

Generic: Wait a minute, I never said Bush caused scurvy....

Hannity: We have you on tape, Generic. I just got an e-mail from our friends at The Free Republic: "Sean, typical liberal debate tactic from a traitor, to say something and then deny they said it -- moments after saying it!"

Generic: But that's....

Colmes: Generic, Alan Colmes. Look, I know for a fact that scurvy is caused by a lack of Vitamin C, and I know FEMA was slow in responding to the disaster in New Orleans, but to say that President Bush caused scurvy makes our side look bad.

Generic: But I never said...

Colmes: We have to take a break. When we return, Geraldo Rivera will join us with a report on how New Orleans has become a breeding ground for scurvy.

Is it still like that? Cause I really miss it.

Speaking of scurvy, it looks like the ratings for Martha Stewart's version of The Apprentice are in the toilet, and The Donald is blaming her for his show's low ratings. Which is a little dishonest, because he's the executive producer on both shows. I don't even know how much creative control Martha has over her show. Maybe none. Let's be honest, both shows kind of suck, and I don't think it has anything to do with Martha Stewart. It's the annoying contestants, like Crazy Jim on Martha's show. Crazy Jim is just friggin' out of his mind. (In case you don't know Crazy Jim, here's his photo from the show). And I hate Crazy Jim. Hate, hate, hate, HATE him. When he's not mugging for the camera, he's uttering things like he'll drink the tears of the losing team because they'll be the nectar of the gods, or something. I've only seen a couple of The Donald's show this season, so I don't have anyone to hate, yet.

And finally, if you haven't already tuned in, make sure to check out UPN's Everybody Hates Chris. It's one of the best new shows of the season. Go! Watch it! Before it get cancelled. Because a good show like this can't last. But a show like Twins, on The WB, will probably last several seasons, and it's horrible, just horrible.

Next week: more random blatherings about television.

Review: "Good Night, and Good Luck"

2005-10-24T15:22:00.000-07:00

Throughout his broadcasting career, the legendary journalist and newsman Edward R. Murrow was was known for his integrity, courage and social responsibility. In his latest film, director George Clooney gives us a small slice of life at CBS news, circa 1954, as Murrow and the CBS news team prepared to take on Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Clooney's film isn't so much about the man (and we're not provided much in the way of autobiographical detail) but rather about the idea of responsibility and credibility, and how television has the power to not only entertain, but inform.

Good Night, and Good Luck is a labor of love from Clooney, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Grant Heslov. Clooney has made the wise choice of shooting in gorgeous black and white (and beautifully filmed by cinematographer Robert Elswit), which is fitting for the period the film takes place (most television programs were broadcast in black and white).

David Strathairn is Murrow, in a performance of quiet dignity and intelligence. The film opens with Murrow delivering a speech to a group of radio and television broadcasters, and the story is told in a flashback to 1954. Murrow, and his team at CBS News, have decided to run a controversial story, about how an Air Force officer was drummed out of the service due to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Senate hearings on communism. Murrow is outraged (although, as Strathairn portrays him, quietly outraged) that the Air Force officer, nor anyone else in his court martial, was allowed to see any evidence that would indicate a tie to communism. So, on his program See It Now, Murrow covers the story.

The CBS newsroom is the main point of action for the film, and it is a cramped, tight place with a lot of activity (and a lot of smoking). Murrow doesn't even have a proper set; he basically sits in a chair at a counter, with his producer, Fred Friendly (George Clooney), literally at his side, tapping him on the leg to let him know he's on the air.

Of course, taking on McCarthy is a bold move, and doing so can result in the loss of advertisers to Murrow's show. Murrow's objectivity is questioned, but Murrow insists that the presentation of facts has nothing to do with objectivity, and he's right.

Eventually, Murrow decides to take on McCarthy directly, offering a blistering 30-minute broadcast laying out McCarthy's bullying ways, using his own words. Clooney wisely uses actual footage of McCarthy, rather than have an actor portray him, and it works wonderfully, as we get a real sense of time and place.

There is an unnecessary sub-plot involving Murrow's colleagues, Joe Wershba (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Shirley Wershba (Patricia Clarkson), who are secretly married -- CBS news doesn't allow its employees to marry one another. Why Clooney included this subplot is a mystery.

Briding segments together are performances of a jazz singer (Dianne Reeves), as we watch her perform from one of the CBS studios. The songs don't really have anything to do with the action on-screen, but serve again to give us a feeling of time and place.

It's no secret that George Clooney is a liberal, and Good Night, and Good Luck is not a film that purports to be "fair and balanced." The film has a lot to say about 21st century politics and 21st century television -- how politics has become the politics of personal destruction, and how individuals use the airways (I'm sure Clooney had the right-wing pundits in mind in making this film) to attack anyone who disagrees with them. Clooney has had some well-publicized clashes with Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly, and it's hard to not see that part of Clooney's life reflected in what we see in the movie.

In the end, the film demands that news outlets, and politicians, take more responsibility for what they say and what they do, challenging notions that questioning a presidential administration is not treason, nor is it dissent. It's opinion, and people are allowed to have opinions without fear of retribution.

Review: "Sunset Boulevard"

2005-10-17T17:25:00.000-07:00

First off, it has to be said: the restoration of this film to DVD is nothing short of a miracle. It's a gorgeous transfer and looks like it was shot in present-day Hollywood. It's a black and white film, and on DVD the contrasts of black/white/grey are apparent and there is no bleeding. Simply astounding. If you care to see how the film looked before the transfer, fire up the DVD, go into special features, and view the theatrical trailer.

On to the movie (and spoilers).

Sunset Boulevard was released in 1950 and directed by the acclaimed director Billy Wilder (Double Indemnity, Sabrina, Some Like It Hot).

Sunset Boulevard is a classic film noir and a stinging indictment against Hollywood, and certainly a daring film for its time. The movie-making industry usually aren't fans of films that paint that industry in a negative light (and those films are few and far between, with the most recent example being Robert Altman's The Player).

The film opens to a scene of police cars, sirens wailing, heading to a Hollywood mansion. A corpse has been discovered in the pool. A narrator, in voice over, tells us we'll learn what really happened before the gossip columnists get a hold of the story.

The narrator is Joe Gillis (William Holden), a B-movie writer down on his luck, running out of money to pay for the rent of his apartment and the payments for his car. With repo men on his tail, Gillis pulls off into the driveway of what he thinks is an abandoned mansion. It certainly looks that way from the outside, with a mess of foliage and a deserted look. Gillis' car has blown a tire and he discovers a garage at the mansion to hide his car in.

As it turns out, the mansion isn't deserted. Gillis meets Max (Erich von Stroheim), who bids him to come inside the mansion to meet its occupant, who turns out to be the famed silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson, in an amazing performance). Gillis knows who she is: "You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big." Desmond delivers a classic retort: "I AM big. It's the PICTURES that got small."

Coincidentally, Desmond has been working on a screenplay that would, in her mind, get her back into movies and famous once again. Hesitantly (at first), Gillis agrees to help write the screenplay -- after all, he can't go back to his apartment and doesn't want the repo men to take his car.

It's from this initial meeting that the film takes off. Gillis, who only wanted to say a couple of weeks, is moved into the mansion where he becomes a permanent resident. He also becomes, the film hints at, Desmond's lover, even though (gasp!) she's twice his age. But she needs a handsome young man around to feel like the star she once was.

Gillis gradually warms to the idea of being a "kept man" and allow Desmond to buy him expensive suits and jewelry. As the film progresses, we learn, with Gillis, that something isn't right with Desmond. She's prone to suicidal fits and exaggerated mannerisms, and in one scene, calmly explains to Gillis that she has a gun (to use on herself...or Gillis?)

She throws a lavish New Years Eve party -- for just two guests, her and Gillis. She lives in a sort of dream world where she's the biggest movie star in the world.

A complication arises -- and isn't this true for a noir picture -- when Gillis meets a woman named Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson). The two had met previously at Paramount Pictures, when Gillis was pitching a script idea, only to have it shot down by Schaefer, who was a Paramount script reader. But now she has an idea of her own for a script and needs Gillis' help to complete it, so the two begin working on the script, at night, like lovers engaged in a secret tryst.

Meanwhile, Gillis has finished Desmond's script and had it delivered to famed director Cecil B. DeMille (playing himself), who isn't interested in doing the picture -- something only Gillis knows. After receiving phone calls from the movie studio (they actually only want to use Desmond's old car in a movie), Desmond decides it's time to pay a visit to DeMille, and she and Gillis head for the Paramount lot. DeMille grants the former movie queen an audience, and basically gives her the run-around on her script.

Eventually Desmond discovers that Gillis has been "cheating" on her with Schaefer, and a lover's spat follows, which ends deadly. In the end, a clearly deranged Desmond is being led off to jail for her crime, but believes she is actually on a movie set, and that the cameras filming her are real movie cameras, and not cameras for newsreels; Desmond thinks she's filming her Cecil B. DeMille picture, which brings us that famous line, "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my closeup."

Billy Wilder was a great craftsman of film, and his artistry is evident throughout Sunset Boulevard, from one great shot to another, whether it's the withered exterior of Desmond's mansion to the gothic interior, all done up on a stage set, with Wilder's camera work suggesting a huge sense of space and place inside that set. You'd never know it was a set.

As I've said, this is a daring movie, and Wilder takes some interesting chances. First of all, his use of real people and institutions within Hollywood, using the real names of people, so the lines between illusion and reality become blurred. It was a stroke of genius to get DeMille to play himself, and in one earlier scene, several greats from the silent era have paid Desmond a visit for a game of cards (Buster Keaton, Anna Q. Nilsson and H.B. Warner).

The casting is also spot-on: Gloria Swanson is perfect in the role of Norma Desmond. She might as well have been Desmond (aside from the craziness), as her own life mirrored her character's life (Swanson had been a big name in silent movies but hadn't kept her fame in the era of the talkie, and hadn't worked in many years before being cast as Desmond). Sure, her performance is exaggerated at times, but that's bound to be intentional: after all, she still envisions herself in silent films, and her physical movements would be the same sort of exaggerations needed to convey emotion in a silent film.

Erich von Stroheim, who plays Max, Desmond's butler, in reality was an acclaimed silent film director in the 1920s and 30s -- and had, in fact, directed Swanson in Queen Kelly in 1929 (that's the film Desmond screens for Gillis). And Swanson had also worked with Cecil B. DeMille in the past.

William Holden brings some complexity to the character of Gillis, and certainly plays him with some moral ambiguity, because we're not really sure if he actually loves Desmond or is just using her.

Nancy Olson is the one bright light in this story, although it would have been nice to see her role expanded a bit.

A great film from a great era of movie making. **** out of ****

Team Ryno Needs Your Help

2005-10-13T09:28:00.000-07:00

You may recall when I wrote about Jim and Tanya Ryno, the couple that are using the power of the Internet to get selected as contestants for Fear Factor. Well, they need your help in voting for them to appear on the show. More details at their blog. You can also vote here. Let's help get them on Fear Factor!

A Little Self Promotion and Martha/The Donald

2005-10-12T17:38:00.000-07:00

First up, a shameless plug for the other media site I write for, Blogcritics. A review I wrote for Depeche Mode's album Black Celebration is an editor's choice selection. Thank you, Matt Freelove. They even gave me this nifty award button thingy:

So, that's cool.

Have you been keeping up with The Apprentice: Martha Stewart and The Donald? Are you disappointed? I am. I think they're phoning it in. There's just something missing...could be it's too soon to judge. If you've been watching either show, what do you think?

Recap: "The Apprentice: Martha Stewart" week three

2005-10-10T10:53:00.000-07:00

When we last left off...

Team Matchstick, headed by PM Weepy Chuck, failed at the task of setting up a floral shop and selling lots of flowers. Tulips didn't sell as well as Team Primarius With Extra Added Celebrity Florist Bouquets. Another defeat for the "creative" types at Matchstick. Weepy Chuck brought Crazy Jim and Sensible Dawn to the boardroom...er...conference room where Chuck took responsibility for his team's failures while Crazy Jim made Crazy Faces. Martha sent Chuck packing. Who will be sent home tonight? Jim! I wish.

Tonight's episode...let them eat cake. Can the teams create and sell their own designed wedding cakes? Team Matchstick has two chefs...surely they'll win! For a change. Right?

We open with Crazy Jim on the phone with Mrs. Crazy Jim. She's about to give birth! Crazy Jim wants to be there, but it's too important to be a contestant on a reality show to witness the birth of his child. Crazy Jim, who is now Grinning Jim, explains that he and Mrs. Crazy Jim had decided Grinning Jim would remain on the show in order to make a better life for him and his family. Yeah, I'm sure the old advertising game just isn't paying the bills like a temporary position with Martha Stewart's company would. So, shut up, Crazy Jim. You're on the show for you. If you mugged for the camera any more often you'd be locked up in jail. Grinning Jim tells his wife good luck on her "task" which I presume is giving birth to his baby without him.

Phone call. It's Martha! She's calling from her stable with a horse. Daughter Alexis must not have been available. She wants everyone ready post-haste! Martha is informed most everyone is sawing logs. Martha says she's been up for hours. With the horse? We hear fake horse sounds. I think there's the growl of a mountain lion in there somewhere.

Let's take a moment for a new segment, "What I learned from Martha." This week, Martha tells us the secret to a successful business is to target a broad market. Brilliant! That means you get more people buying your stuff than if you had set your sights smaller. By the way, this can also be called "Foreshadowing with Martha." You'll see why later in this recap.

Team Primarius and Team Matchstick are assembled and told what the task for the week would be: to design and sell a wedding cake. We learn how the wedding business takes in something like $70 billion a year. The winning team would be the team that sold the most cake. Selling no cake would be bad, right, Matchstick?

Matchstick's PM is Young David, who has divided the teams into two groups: one would design the cake (that's where Matchstick's ace in the hole comes into play: two chefs!), the other to market and sell it. Dawn interviews that she's going to stay out of the spotlight on this one, and only speak when spoken to. I like Dawn. Which means she'll be let go soon.

Over at Primarius, the corporate types have picked Howie to be PM. Howie will soon by Angry Howie. As the team formulates their strategy, a decision is made to do some research at a NYC wedding center. That way they'll know what kind of cake is popular with brides. Problem is the wedding center specializes in Asian weddings, so it's no-go there. Angry Howie emerges after being blamed for sending researchers off to an Asian wedding center. Eventually it's all hugs and puppy dogs and the team gets to work on designing their cake, with a nice five-tier design.

Meanwhile, Matchstick has decided to phone wedding cake expert Sylvia Weinstock for some advice on what kind of cake to make. Pink! That's the ticket. And no small individual cup-cake cakes like the kids are doing. I don't get the kids anymore. Too old. Sigh. So, Matchstick designs a cake that looks like a large spice rack with concentric circle cakes. And puts lots of pink on it. It's Pink Cake! Yum.

Viceroy Charles checks in on Matchstick, where Big Mouth Shawn tells him that the team is going to win. Really! And if they lose, he can fire HER. Shut up, Shawn. Should I just end the recap now?

Over at Primarius, Martha Jr. arrives to see how things are going. Alexis demonstrates that, while women don't cry in business, they do show off lots of clevage when they can. Yikes.

Next day, the teams are hard at work selling their cakes. After a slow start Ryan sells a cake to a young couple who had met online. I wonder if they used Eharmony? I keep seeing commercials for them. You can go online and take a free personality test! Now that's a bargin, gang.

Team Matchstick isn't faring very well with its strange pink cake. Not well at all.

Back in the boardroom...er, conference room....and the winner is...Primarius! What a shocker. How'd Team Matchstick do? Didn't sell a single cake. Nada. Nothing. Whoops. See, they didn't follow Martha's advice on targeting a broad market. Instead, they designed a $10,000 cake that no one could afford to buy. Plus, it looked weird.

For their prize, Primarius has desert with The Donald and The Donald's model wife, Melania. It's Spot The Donald Guest Appearance! Kind of like when you'd see Alfred Hitchcock in one of his films.

PM No Sell Dave has decided to bring Dawn (?!) and Marcela into the boardroom...er, conference room with him. And what's on that conference room table? It looks like plants of moss or something.

Martha isn't buying Dave's choices for elimination, and calls back the rest of the Matchstick Losers into the boardroom...er, conference room. Gee, I wonder who's going to get the boot? We focus on Shawn, who stammers that in the TV biz you "fake it until you make it" which is why she told Charles he could fire her if the team lost. Martha is not happy, and Shawn is sent off to read the weather elsewhere.

Who'll get the big goodbye next week? Tune in next week!

I Heart Court Shows

2005-10-07T13:10:00.000-07:00

Some people are embarrassed to admit to watching lots of television. I'm not one of those people. I like television. And I watch it all the time. Enjoying the great outdoors? Not going to happen. Communing with nature? Only if nature is displayed on a large-screen plasma HDTV. Water sports? Nope. Replace my pasty complextion with the bronzing rays of the sun? Not going to happen.

Now, I'm a big fan of reality shows, and I've posted on that topic before. What I really love the most are the court shows. There are so many of them! Good grief, sometimes I wonder how I can muster the energy to leave my home in order to attend classes at college.

Back in the day you could turn on the TV at 7:00 a.m. and watch court shows until late in the afternoon. That's not the case so much anymore, and in reality I only watch one court show, Judge Judy, with any regularity. But I've seen a few minutes of some of the other shows out there, and I thought I'd share my observations with you, dear reader.

Judge Alex
Zzzz....huh? Whazzat? Oh, yeah, Judge Alex. New court show. BORING. Judge Alex Ferrer lacks in that most important of television traits, charisma. Presence. Maybe he'll get better with time. Probably not.

Eye for an Eye with Judge "Extreme" Akim
Hosted by OJ's former houseguest - Kato Kaelin, Eye for an Eye is a bizarre entry into the court TV genre. Judge Akim "Extreme" Anastopoulo wields the mighty baseball bat of justice as he tries cases to what appears to be Jerry Springer's studio audience. Litigants and defendants appear in...cages, and after hearing the case, Judge Extreme Akim yields judgments in an "eye for an eye" manner. What does that mean, exactly? Well, in the episode I saw today, some little people had a lawsuit related to dwarf tossing, so Judge Extreme Akim made the normal-sized litigants experience dwarf tossing first-hand by being, get this, tossed by really large people. I'm not sure what kind of lesson is being communicated. Also, the audience likes to chant "Extreme Akim" over and over and over. I already have a headache that I think will last all season for this show.

Judge Joe Brown
When did Judge Joe turn his program into a game show? His show's been on the air a long time, but now it's been jazzed up with...Joe's Jury. I guess with some cases (all cases?) Joe polls the courtroom audience to whether they think the plaintiff or defendant should win, and Judge Joe will go with his "jury" in awarding damages.

Texas Justice
This show has failed to catch my attention, despite years of attempting to enjoy it. I guess I don't understand Texas humor. Or Texas justice.

Judge Judy
Ten years on the air. Everyone knows I love Judge Judy. 'Nuff said.

Judge Mathis
Another show I've watched on and off for years that has failed to catch on with me.

Divorce Court
Yawn.

Judge Hatchett
I used to really like Judge Hatchett. She had a unique show and now it seems more like your basic court show, which is kind of boring.

The People's Court
I'm on the edge with this one. I kinda like Judge Marilyn Milian, but hate the format of the show, especially the post-verdict "interviews" with Curt Chaplin. I hate you, Curt. Oh, and the outdoor interviews with attorney Harvey Levin...more hate.

Stay tuned as I watch more television so you won't have to.

A Rant Against Bad TV

2005-10-03T11:41:00.000-07:00

I've been watching a few shows from the new fall TV season, and most of them are horrible. HORRIBLE. I know, some may wonder, why do you keep watching the shows? Well, dear reader, it's to provide you with an entertaining look into the world of pop culture and the media. Even if it does cost me my soul.

First up on my list of shows I hope to god will be cancelled is the WB's "sitcom" Twins. Three weeks in and the show still hasn't gone beyond the sort of humor that your average eight-year-old finds amusing. Two weeks worth of poop jokes, and in the most recent episode, we were treated to incest jokes. Oooh, daring! And stupid. I'm not going to get into the show's details here as I've already reviewed the show, but take my word for it, you're not missing out on anything if you don't tune in.

Second on the list is Fox's horribly unfunny The War At Home. It's bad. Really bad. Incredibly bad. Watching it, I could feel a small part of my soul die, that's how bad it is. I've also reviewed this show, so I'll skip out on the details as I'm too lazy to repeat them. I guess the show's creators were looking for a show to bring back memories of Married With Children and maybe All In The Family. Instead of funny, the show is just mean-spirited and, yes, racist. I guess "racist" means "edgy" today. I don't know. Avoid this show at all costs.

One good show is UPN's Everybody Hates Chris. Watch this show! It's one of the best sitcoms so far this season. It's actually funny, and doesn't even need a fake laugh track like The War At Home to make you laugh.

Stay tuned as I suffer through more horrible shows.

Review: "Dirty Jobs"

2005-09-26T20:26:00.000-07:00

The Discovery Channel has an excellent series of programs that can be enjoyed by the entire family, including the superb Myth Busters. A new program to the network is Dirty Jobs. A bit edgier than other Discovery Channel shows, but more so for the content. More on that in a bit.

Dirty Jobs is hosted by Mike Rowe, an engaging personality with a dry wit who sounds a bit like David Letterman. Rowe is a well-known Bay Area personality and a former staff writer for The Jamie Kennedy Experience.

Each week, Rowe tackles a different "dirty" job, such as road kill collector, sanitation worker, sewer inspector and so on. Some of the dirty jobs are indeed cringe-worthy (cleaning a basement flooded with raw sewage, assisting in the insemination of a horse) which puts the show to a TV-14 rating. It's fascinating stuff, since many of the jobs Rowe explores are the kinds of jobs that most people really don't know much about.

Rowe is a true sport who tries hard in each job, injecting a sense of humor to the oft-times disgusting tasks at hand. Not all "dirty jobs" are disgusting, but most of them are. If you have a strong stomach, Dirty Jobs is a great show. Just don't watch while eating dinner.

Review: "Criminal Minds" Series Premier

2005-09-23T11:14:00.000-07:00

This show was absolutely incredible. I am a huge fan of drama television and I haven’t watched a show that made my heart jump like this one in a long time. I came in with the impressions that this would be another CSI knock-off, but was pleasantly surprised by the fresh angle the writers took in developing the first episode.

The cast of the show is what really makes it happen for me. The mix and the interaction came across flawless. Mandy Patinkin plays the role of Gideon who is an old pro recovering from a bout of depression caused by a previous case. Matthew Gubler plays Dr. Spencer Reid who is a young genius who is full of random facts that come in quite hand when profiling criminals. Thomas Gibson, Shemar Moore, Lola Glaudini, and A.J. Cook round out the cast. The cast seems to have a natural interaction and it really works in the show.

Add in the fact that the plot of the show was absolutely intense, and you have yourself a real winner. Just when you thought it would go one way it went the other. The progression in the first episode was remarkable and the writers are to be commended for coming up with such a brilliant plot.

Criminal Minds is a must see. If you missed it this week, you should defiantly check it out next week. Let’s hope that they can keep it up and continue to bring fresh perspectives to criminal drama. It will air on Wednesdays at 9PM eastern.

"You Just Don't Fit In"

2005-09-21T22:26:00.000-07:00

Tonight marked the debut of The Apprentice: Martha Stewart. And, I must say, a lackluster start to the series. Perhaps its the approach the show takes to the same basic template used on Trump's show. Martha Stewart is all sunshine and puppies compared to The Donald. As the show opens, we learn how she created her empire and became a billionaire. And she wants you! To work for her company. And bake the perfect muffin. Or she'll kill you.

At her side are Martha Jr. (daughter Alexis in the Carolyn role) and Charles Koppelman, Chairman of the Board of Martha's company (in the George role, natch).

On board are your standard mix of 16 annoying contestants, apparently coming from the corporate world and the creative world. Lawyers, PR types, blah blah blah.

Right off the bat, annoying contestant #1, Jim, who is all type-A and babbling about how he doesn't take orders, he gives them (something to that effect) and I'm thinking, Jim, if you're hired, guess what? You'll be taking orders. Get over yourself.

Eventually we are introduced to everyone and they are told to break off into two groups. Naturally, the creative types form one group and the corporate types form another. And they choose two stupid team names, "Matchstick" and "Primarius" and I can't even tell you which name went with which group. I don't know which name is worse.

The challenge for the day: each team will take a classic fairy-tale and re-do it to appeal to modern children. Team Matchstick went with Hansel and Gretel while team Primarius went with Jack and the Beanstalk.

Matchstick's project manager, Jeff, was all bossy boss-man as he barked orders and proceeded to pen a horrible re-thinking of Hansel and Gretel, rhymed a la Dr. Seuss. The other team took Jack and The Beanstalk and sent it underwater.

Both teams read their stories to a group of ADHD-addled children and the winner was...Jack and The Beanstalk, from the corporate team.

Bossy Boss Man Jeff took the annoying Jim and the annoying Dawn to the "conference room" but Jeff got the boot. And the irony here is, Jeff has won awards for being a story-teller, so I'm not sure how he managed to screw this one up.

Now, get ready for Martha's catch-phrase when she lets someone go:

"You just don't fit in."

Zoinks! I don't think that one will be catching on with the kids. And, instead of just sending the losing contestant packing, Martha actually writes a letter. "Dear Jeff, sorry you were a jerk and no one on your team liked you, love, Martha." That's an approximation, I think the real letter was nicer (but signed "cordially" instead of "love").

Fifteen remain. Who will be the next to not fit in? Tune in next week.

The Death Of The Sitcom: WB's "Twins"

2005-09-19T15:01:00.000-07:00

Readers old enough to remember the late 1970s and early 1980s may recall that many a TV critic bemoaned the death of the situation comedy. Being a fan of Three's Company I disagree with that assessment, but still, critics wondered when sitcoms would "return." Critics got their wish with the debut of The Cosby Show in 1984.

Fast-forward 21 years and, with the current television season of new programming underway, and I will say it: the sitcom is dead. Exhibit A is The War At Home, which I reviewed here after its debut. Exhibit B is Twins, airing Friday nights on The WB.

The pilot episode introduced us to the "twins": Mitchee (Roseanne's Sara Gilbert) and Farrah (Passions Molly Stanton). The two are twins in the same way that Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzeneger were twins in the movie of the same name, meaning, it would have made more sense to just have the two are sisters, not twins. I'm just saying.

Writers Dana Klein and Kari Lizer must have dusted off The Complete Idiot's Guide to Situation Comedy Writing (I know, it's not a real book, but still...) and decided to make one twin super-smart (Mitchee) and the other, well, dumb as a box of rocks (Farrah). Just the recipe to get the laughs rolling! Of course, the smart twin is a brunette while the dumb twin is a blonde. Originality in a sitcom, finally!

The family is rounded out by a freakishly bloated Mark Linn-Baker (Perfect Strangers) as father Alan and a freakishly preserved Melanie Griffith as mother Lee, who apparently is, shall we say, developmentally disabled (the dumb blonde! Brilliant!) The family is in the lingerie business, and in the pilot, the "twins" are faced with the dillema of taking over the business.

Twins is brought to you by the same folks who created Will and Grace, but I think they forgot the whole comedy aspect of a situation comedy in creating Twins. What in the hell happened to wit? Wacky humor? A script that is funny? Here's an example of a joke from the show: Alan and Lee are at a fashion show to promote their latest line of lingerie, and after Alan talks about how his girls are going to take over the family business, Lee pipes up that giving birth to them was like "pooping out two watermelons," or something to that effect. Ha! Funny! Well, funny if you're an eight-year-old. A poop joke?

Anyway, bottom line is I hated just about everyone on the show, with the exception of Sara Gilbert. She was good on Roseanne as Darlene and she's good in Twins. The show isn't good for her, I think. As for everyone else, well, it was hard to get past the freakishly bloated Mark Linn-Baker, as he brought back bad memories of Perfect Strangers. Melanie Griffith played her role too well, but if we have a season's worth of dumb blonde jokes ahead of us, I need to find something better to do with my life, such as watching a freshly painted wall dry. Time for my sitcom prediction: this one will stay around for a while, unfortunately. Grade: C-

New Posts Coming Soon

2005-09-16T00:28:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the lack of recent updates, folks. I've had some health issues to deal with over the last few weeks. I was recently diagnosed with diabetes, so I've been spending time trying to come to terms with this disease and everything associated with it.

With that said, I'd like to start posting a series of movie reviews I've written. I'd say they're more analysis than review, so they will be in the form of an essay, rather than a standard movie review.

Next week should be fun with the start of the new fall TV season, so there will be plenty of new shows to write about.

I'll kick things off with my review of The Night of The Hunter, Charles Laughton's classic 1955 thriller starring Robert Mitchum. This one is definitely worth checking out. It was way ahead of its time in terms of narrative and a unique style of filmmaking.

The Night of The Hunter

Directed by Charles Laughton

Famed British actor Charles Laughton (Mutiny on The Bounty, The Hunchback of Notre Dame) made his directorial debut with 1955’s Night of the Hunter. Film audiences of 1955 undoubtedly found Laughton’s expressionist vision impossible to decipher, and the film was a commercial and critical failure. Laughton, according to the Internet Movie Data Base, was so distraught over the reaction to his film that he vowed never to direct again. Clearly, Night of the Hunter was ahead of its time, and it took a few decades before moviegoers could appreciate all that Laughton accomplished with his film.

The concept of expressionism has to do with taking reality and reshaping it into a vision that becomes something not quite natural. The world as we know it is represented, but the effect of expressionism has our perception of that world tweaked in subtle, and no so subtle, ways.

Laughton opens the film with a darkened sky filled with stars. Suddenly the frame is filled with a woman (actress Lillian Gish as Rachel Cooper) as she reads a bible story. Smiling children surrounds Rachel, as if they all were angels observing the world from above. And in the first few minutes of the film, we learn what expressionism is in that scene.

Another expressionist vision Laughton crafts introduces us to the character of Harry “Preacher” Powell (Robert Mitchum). Powell is driving, and the frame is filled of him and his vehicle (stolen) as he glances up to heaven and “prays” to his god, complaining about his mission in life, which is to kill wealthy widows and steal their money.

As Powell drives, Laughton shifts the point of view to the back seat of the car, so we are observing the back of Powell’s head; this terrific shot creates the feeling that we are driving in the car with Powell.

The effects of expressionism on the viewer are numerous. At times we feel like silent observers from above. In several scenes Laughton provides a god’s eye view of the world below, and in brilliant tracking shots, we soar through the air to the village below. Other times we seem to be looking through the eyes of young John Harper (Billy Chapin), a little boy with baby sister Pearl (Sally Jane Bruce) in tow. Powell will figure largely in their life soon, when he marries their widowed mother, Willa (Shelley Winters). Willa is a widow because her husband Ben had been convicted of killing two people in a bank robbery and sentenced to death – but before he goes to prison, Ben Harper (Peter Graves) instructs John to hide the money that had been stolen from the bank. When Harper and Powell end up cellmates at prison, Powell learns of the $10,000 Harper had stolen from the bank, which will provide Powell with another widow to kill.

Preacher and some of the other adult character are, at times, painted in broad strokes with particular personalities. Harry “Preacher” Powell is probably crazy and certainly sexually repressed. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, and sometimes a switchblade knife is not a switchblade knife. In one disturbing scene, Preacher is watching a burlesque show, silently seething at the “sin” on display; he has hidden his switchblade in his coat pocket and violently ejects the blade through the coat pocket, in a frankly explicit display of sexual repression. Preacher is, as they say, out to lunch.

Icey Spoon (Evelyn Varden) is one of the town’s gossips and Willa Harper’s employer, who tells Willa that a single mother cannot raise children on her own: “No woman is able to raise growing youngsters alone. The Lord meant that job for two.” The two being Willa and Preacher, an arrangement Icey immediately approves of.

Uncle Birdie (James Gleason) is an adult friend of John’s, his confidant. Birdie has great affection for the boy. Birdie also has a bit of a drinking problem. In the end he fails John and Pearl; the two are on the run from Preacher, and they head over to Uncle Birdie’s for help, but find the man dead drunk.

Willa Harper, mother to John and Pearl, seems to be in a sort of daze. The execution of her husband Ben did not appear to affect her at all. Like many others in town, Willa finds herself drawn inexplicably to Preacher, and the two marry. On their wedding night Willa approaches Preacher to consummate their marriage, only to be rebuked by Preacher, who probably would not have been up to the task, anyway. Preacher just wants Ben Harper’s money.

Rachel Cooper is the opposite of Preacher. While Preacher falsely claims to be a man of God, Rachel Cooper is a devoted, deeply religious woman who takes in orphans and, as we see in the end, is fiercely protective of her flock. When Preacher comes to Cooper’s home, looking for John and Pearl and lying about why he was looking for them, Rachel immediately sees Preacher for what he is and is ready to shoot him dead with her rifle should he try to do anything to her flock of children.

Night of the Hunter’s vision of childhood is rather bleak. There isn’t much happiness for John and Pearl in the film. Laughton illustrates this bleakness in a scene where John and Pearl are observing children in a playground as they sing a song to mock John and Pearl (“Hing, Hang, Hung, See What the Hangman Done”) and even draw a picture of Ben Harper in a hangman’s noose. Pearl, who is a little too young to understand what is happening, starts to sing the song. John, a little wise beyond his years, tells her to stop.

Night of the Hunter is an ambitious and original film. It’s a shame it wasn’t appreciated when it came out. Charles Laughton obviously had a unique imagination, and it would have been interesting to see what that vision would have brought to the world of cinema.

Let The New Season Begin

2005-09-12T17:30:00.000-07:00

Ah, September, the month when the world of television blossoms as the new season begin. Which shows will viewers be watching five years from now? I don't know, but I can make a prediction on a show that viewers will probably not be watching five weeks from now: Fox's horrible The War At Home.

It's sort of like Grounded for Life combined with Arrested Development AND Malcolm in The Middle. And I didn't laugh once. I don't think I even smiled. I'm smelling...flop! Worst of all (and careful viewers can correct me if I'm wrong) the show appears to be using a laugh track. Not "recorded in front of a studio audience" laugh track but the old-fashioned kind, canned laughter, the fake laughter you hear on The Flintstones or The Brady Bunch (and sounding like the same friggin' laugh tracks used by those two shows). I dunno, I might be wrong, but I can't imagine a real studio audience laughing so hard and so often at The War At Home, unless said audience was drugged/drunk/forced to laugh at gun point/fake.

Anyway, the show bored me to tears and I'm just too lazy to write anything in-depth about it, so I'll let the IMDB do my work for me.

At least next week we get The Apprentice and The Apprentice 2.0 with Martha Stewart.

Counselor, Where Art Thou?

2005-09-08T17:07:00.000-07:00

MSN has a photo gallery up of the contestants for season four of The Apprentice. And what's fascinating is that there are no lawyers this time around. Well, there's a recent law school grad, but no practicing attorneys.

In seasons past there has been at least one attorney, sometimes two or three. Perhaps the producers of The Apprentice realized that lawyers are not the most popular of people to put into a reality show -- as evidenced by the dismal failure of another NBC reality show, The Law Firm, which was cancelled after only two episodes.

If you happen to be a fan of the attorney reality show contestant, take comfort in knowing that The Apprentice: Martha Stewart has two attorneys as contestants, as well as a recent law school grad. Sparks will fly! Okay, maybe not.

So Long, Little Buddy

2005-09-06T16:41:00.000-07:00

Actor Bob Denver -- television's Gilligan from Gilligan's Island (not the horrible reality show) -- has died at the age of 70 of complications from cancer treatment he was receiving.

Gilligan's Island is one of those classic shows that I think everyone has seen at least once. Somewhere around the world someone is tuning in to an episode of creator Sherwood Schwartz's supposed "social" commentary/sitcom. I'm not sure what the social commentary was (something to do with coconut pies?) but perhaps the show was deeper than I'm giving it credit. I'm hoping my enlightened readers will let me know about the deeper social meaning of Gilligan's Island, because I'm not seeing it.

Brian Wilson Smiles in Portland

2005-09-03T13:07:00.000-07:00

I guess reviewers are supposed to be objective, so I should warn you right now that I'm not going to be objective. Instead, I'll take the awed concert-goer approach.

Brian Wilson's "Smile" tour came to Portland, OR on Aug. 31, playing at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall.

It was an amazing experience. Not only to actually see Brian Wilson perform, but to enjoy his terrific band. Along for the tour is a small string and horn section from Sweden.

In attendance at the show were a very diverse mixture of people, from aging baby boomers to teenagers and everyone else in between. And it was clear that everyone loved Brian. I think Brian's audiences are a bit protective of him, knowing how he's struggled with mental illness for so many years, and knowing how hard it can be for Brian to tour. So, the crowd embraced Brian (and his band) and roared its approval after every song.

The first part of the show was a trip down memory lane, as Brian and his band performed a string of Beach Boys hits, from early classics like "Surfin' USA" to the Pet Sounds era "Wouldn't It Be Nice."

Brian's voice isn't what it used to be, but he sounded fine, better than he did when the Smile tour began in 2004. Seated at a keyboard, Brian isn't very animated, but his band is, as they run around the stage, some going from station to station, playing different instruments at each.
A standout for me was "Sloop John B." Wow. Band and Brian were amazing.

After an intermission, the band returned to perform Smile, the "lost" recording from the late 1960s. Brian was unable to finish the record, and shelved the project. He was inspired to finish Smile in 2003, enlisting the help of his original Smile collaborator, Van Dyke Parks. Brian has called this album a "teenage symphony to God." From the opening vocal harmonies of "Our Song/Gee" to the famous end-piece, "Good Vibrations," it was a thrilling performance. I think it's probably a bit of a challenge to sit through if you've never heard Smile, because of how the album is arranged. The band played it through nearly without a pause, and the crowd was wanting to applaud every number.

Brian and his band returned for an encore, playing hits like "Barbara Ann" and even "Johnny B. Goode."

It was an exciting night, and thrilling -- and inspiring -- to see Brian perform. It was even more thrilling to see Brian animated, smiling, waving his arms around, and even talking to the crowd, something he didn't do in early performances in 2004. And while it wasn't a sell-out crowd, it was nearly a packed house, and when someone would shout out "We love you, Brian!" it was a sentiment shared by all.
edited: ME

Bad Reality Show Concepts

2005-09-01T14:28:00.000-07:00

Like it or not, reality shows are now a permanent part of television viewing. For every good show there is a horrible show. Actually, I think for every good show there are several horrible shows.

A new concept in reality programming debuted this summer: the "replace the dead rock star" concept. I'll admit to not having seen Rock Star: INXS or R U The Girl, so I don't know how good (or bad) the shows are, but it just seems wrong to replace a popular member of a band (INXS' Michael Hutchence, who died in 1997 and TLC's Lisa "Left Eye" Lopez, killed in a car crash in 2002) via reality show. I don't know what INXS was thinking when this concept was presented to them. "Michael's been dead for eight years, it's time to replace him with someone we'll pick from a reality show!" Oy. It just seems to be an insult to the memory of Hutchence and Lopez. Post if you have any thoughts on those shows -- maybe I'm way off in my analysis. So, go ahead and set me straight!

Tootin' My Own Horn

2005-08-29T14:47:00.000-07:00

The fine folks over at Blogcritics have picked my essay, "Reality Show Humiliation," as an editor's pick of the week! I blush in their general direction. Thanks! Give it a read and let me know what you think.

Bad Commercials

2005-08-27T13:44:00.000-07:00

A quick roundup of some of the bad commercials currently airing:

Lee Iacocca and Snoop Dogg

What do you get when you pair an 80-year-old white guy with a popular rap star? Pure magic! Okay, no, you don't.

Chrysler's former chairman Lee Iacocca is starring in a series of commercials. One features Jason Alexander, another has Iacocca having breakfast with his "granddaughter" and yet another pairs Iacocca with Snoop Dogg.

You know, I don't really get Snoop Dogg. I don't know, maybe I'm just not hip to what the kids are into these days. I'm trying to imagine what Snoop and Iacocca were thinking when they first met. Which would be, "Who the hell is that guy?"

In the commercial, the two are golfing, with Snoop babbling on in his, I don't know you'd call it, Snoop talk, of which I understood not a single word. Iacocca echoes my sentiments in not understanding a word being said by Snoop. At the end of the commercial, Snoop puts his spin on Iacocca's signature line, "If you can find a better car, buy it" with "If the ride is more fly, you must buy."

Grade: D

Capital One David Spade "No" Campaign

With each viewing of the David Spade campaign I feel myself inching ever so closer to death, which would be a welcome relief from his horrible, horrible, horrible commercials.

Grade: F----

Citibank Identity Theft Campaign

Just horrible. You get 30 seconds of a horrible, horrible voiceover of someone who represents the identity theft thief babbling on about the things they stole, coming out of the mouth of a person of the opposite sex (to represent the victim, naturally). I hate each and every one of these ads with a passion.

Grade: F

What are some other choices for bad commercials?

Clapton Scolds Bo-Bo Twins: Shut up and Sing, or whatever

2005-08-24T16:04:00.000-07:00

Walking dead legend Eric Clapton lashes out, in his mellow way, at mere-god, lesser talent Bono and try-and-spot-some-talent, Star Search washout Bob Geldof for being worse politicians than they are musicians.

Hear hear, Eric. I take back almost all of what I said about how snoozy your solo music has been the last couple decades. I draw the line, though, at giving up that song "Wonderful Tonight" as my own sure-fire insomnia cure. Zzzzz.

And the less said about the forgotten-before-it-ended, widely ignored, empty gesture Live 8 concert the better.

Sitcom Ageism?

2005-08-23T12:47:00.000-07:00

My family has a Saturday night ritual, where we tune in to Oregon Public Broadcasting to watch "Britcoms." The shows we watch are the wonderful As Time Goes By, starring Dame Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer as a middle-age couple who rediscover each other 40 years after a romance they had in the 1950s; My Hero, a silly show starring Ardal O'Hanlon as the dim-witted super-hero Thermo Man; Keeping Up Appearances, with Patricia Routledge as the high-society seeking Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced "bouquet") and her long-suffering husband Richard (Clive Swift); and finally, Last of The Summer Wine, about an aging group of friends and their misadventures (the show is the longest-running program on the BBC, debuting in 1973).

With the exception of My Hero, all of the shows feature casts of older actors, mainly in their 60s (and 70s on Last of The Summer Wine). These older characters are portrayed in a positive way, as real people and not the comic relief we see in American television. And it got me thinking, how many American sitcoms feature middle-aged actors? The Golden Girls comes to mind, but that's it. And I wonder, why is it that the BBC has no problems with using older actors, but American television shys away from it? Perhaps older characters aren't popular with American viewers, or at least with the target demographics.

Sure, some shows have older characters, but they are portrayed as either slightly crazy (Jerry Stiller on The King of Queens) or meddling (Doris Roberts and Peter Boyle of Everybody Loves Raymond)

It would certainly be a nice change if American sitcoms starred older actors and were portrayed as normal folks. Will that day ever come? Who knows. Until it does, I'll stick with my Saturday night Britcoms.

More on commercials...

2005-08-22T12:41:00.000-07:00

My vote for the worst commercial. First The Surreal Life and now this for MC Hammer. I think you can say that any commercial involving an old hip-hop star would make the short list.

Dan Tobin has a great post on ads that involve re-making old rap songs at Surgical Strikes.

Some News and Other Stuff

2005-08-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

I've signed on as a contributor to Blogcritics, a blog that covers just about every topic you can think of, from politics to the media and pop culture. I'll be writing about the media, mostly, but with a few political posts to liven things up. I'll still be writing for 40 Hours, and my other blog, so basically I'll have no free time for anything, including sleep.

In the world of advertising...has anyone seen the new ads for Quaker Oats? In them some children are dragging along in a wagon a plastic statue of the Quaker Oats guy, who looks suspiciously like another famous plastic pitch-man, the creepy Burger King. Apparently we have a new trend on our hands. God save us all.

Your First R-Rated Movie

2005-08-18T12:39:00.000-07:00

It's your 17th birthday, and you go out to celebrate by seeing your first (legal) R-rated film. So...which was it? For me, it was that Arnold Schwarzenegger classic, Commando, in 1985.

Tell us about what film you saw in the comments.

The Worst Commercials

2005-08-17T14:37:00.000-07:00

I'm stealing this from an article I read on MSN, so they get the credit, but my question is this: what is your vote for the worst television commercial? It can be a current campaign or an older one.

There's so many to choose from, but my vote is for the whole campaign featuring Lee Iacocca, the former chairman of Chrysler in the 1980s. There are a few in the series (Iacocca golfing with Snoop Dogg...yikes) but the most annoying one is where Iacocca is enjoying breakfast with a little girl (the ad claims it's Iacocca's granddaughter, but obviously an actress) while babbling on about Chrysler, and the little girl delivers the "if you can find a better car, buy it!" line in a really annoying voice that makes me want to throw my remote control at the television.

A runner-up is the whole stupid "No" campaign starring David Spade for Capital One credit cards.

What are your choices?

Big Brother 6: 9 Lives for James

2005-08-17T05:06:00.000-07:00

If you tuned into Tuesday nights episode of Big Brother 6 then you witnessed one of the biggest back-stabbings in the history of the show. It was enough to make a reality nut like me giddy. Everything you could ask for in a good drama was all wrapped up in one pretty little episode.

The many lies of Jenny confound the Sovereign Alliance as the sanctimonious Friendship Alliance show their true grit, deceiving, debasing and welching on their word to nominate James for eviction. Instead, they place Kaysar on the block after Rachel wins the Power of Veto in a coaster-toss competition and saves herself.

So Kaysar cuts a deal with Jennifer to put her in the HOH room, and she puts his tail up on the block. You could tell by watching that James knew for sure that he was going up. When Jennifer announced that she was nominating Kaysar instead, the look on James face was priceless. James has won the veto 3 or 4 times and now that he was all set up to be given the pass through the back door, he convinces everyone that Kaysar is more of a threat.
Do you think James will vote to evict Kasar or Janelle? Who goes? Who would you like to see win HOH for the next round?

I am pulling for James to win HOH. The squirming and positioning would be hilarious

Cross-posted on The Blogfather

Imitation: the Highest Form of Flattery?

2005-08-16T15:31:00.000-07:00

Oh, to answer Matt's question about cable vs. Satellite I'd say...I dunno, I can't afford either. I'd go with whatever gives you the best options about digital-quality programming, especially when it comes to HDTV if you're thinking in that direction.

Back to business. Remember when there were no reality shows on television? I know, it's hard to think of a time where there wasn't, but if you go back to the early 1990s, the only reality show was The Real World. The first series. Back then they didn't know what a reality show was, so the end result was something very interesting and watchable. Of course, reality television has "evolved" to where we are now, with your basic reality show template used for just about every reality show.

Since almost every conceivable occupation has been covered, the producers of reality shows are going to have to get really creative in coming up with the Next Big Thing.

NBC thought lawyers would make for a good reality show, which brought us The Law Firm, a show that lasted only two episodes before being slummed off to the Bravo network.

Something tells me we're not going to be seeing a lot of lawyer shows in the near future.

This fall we'll get two versions of The Apprentice, one starring Donald Trump, the other Martha Stewart. Other networks attempted The Apprentice format without success (The Benefactor, The Rebel Billionaire, and the hilarious My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss). We'll get one series on Wednesday and the other on Thursday. Is NBC overdoing it? Perhaps, considering how the ratings for the third installment of The Apprentice (school smarts vs. book smarts, which began just a couple of weeks after series two ended) were lower than in previous series.

Fox is messing around with it's American Idol format with a show about...dancing. Not only have I not watched it, but I'm even too lazy to look up its name for this posting.

In the 1970s, when Stephen King was writing under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, he wrote a story called The Running Man (which was made into an almost-good '80s flick starring Arnold Schwarzenegger). In Bachman's tale, reality game shows are all the rage, and the main character is participating in a show where he is on the run, followed by teams of bounty hunters out to kill him. Should he survive the 30 days on the run, he'll win a huge cash prize. And I wonder, is it realistic at all to think that in the coming decades, we'll have reality shows that actually feature the death of contestants? It may sound far-fetched...but who knows. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Your opinion: Cable or Satellite?

2005-08-16T07:57:00.000-07:00

My wife and I have decided that it is time to get cable. I have been pushing for this for a long time; however my better half has been reluctant. Due to the fact that the daily dose of Shrek, Shark Tales, The Wiggles, and Baby Einstein are getting very old. Compounded by the angst my wife has been experiencing over our lack of CourtTV, The Discovery Channel and TLC. I might finally win the debate.

I am currently in the process of comparing prices and services between Cox Cable and Dish Network Satellite. I would like to hear opinions on which would be better, and some advice on which channels I should make sure we get.

Thanks for the help!

I Need New Reality!

2005-08-14T19:39:00.000-07:00

As I've mentioned numerous times here, I've decided to pursue a degree in political science. At the age of 36 (a month away from 37...sigh) it's a bit of a challenge. I'm getting my freshman and sophomore requirements away at the local community college, and then will transfer to Portland State University sometime before the age of 40.

And while I intend on continuing discussions of the media from a critical viewing point of view, there is one thing I'm a sucker for: a good reality show. I've mainly gotten my fix from Fox. In fact, for the last, I don't know, maybe five years I haven't tuned in to ABC or CBS. I'll watch NBC for The Apprentice (and sometimes the horrible Joey) but that's about it.

I've also mentioned that I had to get rid of standard cable TV in order to trim down the monthly expenses of my family. So, I'm stuck with basic, basic cable (broadcast channels, E! and The Discovery Channel is all I get). Which brings me to my question: am I missing out on any good reality shows? I'd love some suggestions, so if you have any, leave them in the comments. Thanks!

The Blog Fear Factor

2005-08-14T13:01:00.000-07:00

Jim and Tanya Ryno are a married couple attempting to get selected as contestants for the show Fear Factor. They've created a blog to drive attention to their goal. I can't imagine actually wanting to be on the show, but Jim and Tanya are very determined. Check out their web site, Fear Factor's Million Dollar Couple, to learn more about them and perhaps send out an e-mail to Fear Factor to let the producers know you'd like to see the Rynos on Fear Factor. FYI, Tanya is a movie producer whose works include Coney Island Baby and is a producer of the incredibly funny Robert Smigel cartoons that appear on Saturday Night Live (including my favorite, The Amigiously Gay Duo).

Thanks for having me

2005-08-13T04:33:00.000-07:00

Greetings readers! Thanks, Scott. I have to admit I may not be able to compete with the likes of Scott and Billy when it comes to writing abilities. However, I am intrigued and challenged by the concept of this blog. The media has had a huge impact on me and the lives of those around me. Spanning from my two year old daughter and her fascination with Shrek, The Wiggles, and Barney to the current tidal wave of reality shows that have struck American television. The media is constantly affecting our lives like it or not. Some of my favorites you should look forward to hearing about are; Big Brother, Survivor, The OC, Hell’s Kitchen, and Everwood to name a few. I am looking forward to the discussions, and continued brain mushing.

Don't touch that dial…

Please Welcome Matt Wisner!

2005-08-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

Matt Wisner from The Blogfather has joined the happy family here at 40 Hours of TV. Stay tuned for Matt's first post.

My goal for ver 2.0 of this blog is to expand our coverage of the media, and with three different points of view, things should be interesting.

Drop me a line if you have any suggestions on topics you'd like to see covered here.

Dying to Play That New Game

2005-08-11T20:09:00.000-07:00

I don't know what it is about South Korean gamers, but for some reason they are really into their games...to the point of death. Literally, people have died after playing a video game for dozens of hours.

It's weird, because the deaths have occurred at Internet cafes, and you'd think management might get a little concerned that the same guy had been in the cafe for over two days (I take it the cafes are open 24/7) and only left his computer to use the bathroom and take quick naps (they allow gamers to sleep at the cafes?)

The latest death claimed the life of a 28-year-old gamer, playing in an Internet cafe in the city of Taegu.

An official of the Taegu police said the cause of death was probably heart failure stemming from exhaustion.

The man had quit his job to play computer games (including Starcraft, which is hugely popular in South Korea).

Actually, South Korea is a huge market for video games, with the online game Lineage having over four million subscribers in Asia alone.

But playing a game to the point that your heart gives out due to exhaustion? I don't think any game is that good. Well, maybe Everquest -- which I do NOT play any more due to its rather...addictive nature.

Are there any video games you'd play until you died?

Bow Down Before My Brilliance!

2005-08-11T16:58:00.000-07:00

Remember when I posted on July 29th the following about NBC's The Law Firm:

I'm predicting this show will be cancelled within the next four weeks.

And I was right! NBC has cancelled The Law Firm after airing only two episodes. The unaired episodes will be broadcast on the Bravo network.

It just goes to show that while a few lawyers on a reality show is (barely) acceptable, an entire show featuring lawyers is akin to torture.

The Term is Over

2005-08-09T22:54:00.000-07:00

Summer term is coming to an end, and Wednesday will be my final day of Philosophy 197, the class I've based this blog on. And while class may be over, we'll continue to discuss the media at 40 Hours of Television. And in case anyone is wondering, I came pretty close to getting in my 40 hours of television required for the class. It's harder than it sounds! But, I'm happy to report, my brain did not turn to mush, as I expected it to.

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far, and I hope folks will check back in and continue the conversations.

Classic Crock: Part II

2005-08-07T15:30:00.000-07:00

At the outset of the Shears relo-trek north, o those long months ago, we were mightily encouraged to chance upon, while dial-scanning in our Conestoga wagon, an FM station up here in Northeast PA (Here's a guide to the dialect.) broadcasting out of that media mecca, Pittston, PA. It sounded just what the rock doctor ordered for a sick-of-the-same-old-same-old fan. The Mountain 102 promised an open playlist format and crowed about their DJs as "musicologists", who'd add context to the music with details about the bands and rock history, etc.

Musicologist...that should have been a clue. For one man's mixologist is another's beer slinger, and one gal's hair dresser is another's cosmetologist.

By and large the DJs are tolerable, but for the one, the one who shall remain nameless, the one who always ALWAYS says at least one sentence too much. Usually this extra bit is what he considers the capper to his mini-lectures, but more often it adds just that extra layer of facile politics, cloying pedantry (as a my friend, the other Bill S, describes it) and/or empty-gesture anti-corporate rant. You know, somehow, that he knows that without corporations there'd be no radio, no cars or computers, no music business and no Johnnie Cougar Mellencamps; but somehow he forgot that we know he knew. That makes it worse.

Luckily he telegraphs these little unwanted lagniappes with a kind of whiney twist in his voice in the first few words of the sentence-too-much. If you're quick you can hit the Seek button before the actual -- usually wrong-headed -- opinionoid begins. For instance, while teasing a not-so-rarely played Jimi Hendrix cut, he took an offhand swipe at the music market in the sixties as it related to social change.

"Nnnnneeeyyyyyaaand don't think the reason Hendrix recorded this in England had nothing to do with civil rights."

Now first of all, this comment threw some light on the sham that is the station's open format. All the comments these DJs make are calculated, sure, but this one was obviously more-than-a-little measured. Because what he really wanted to say was "American racism" instead of civil rights. But someone who checks his copy, maybe even he himself, flagged it as too much of a hot-button word. It's one thing to pose as out-spoken, quite another to risk offending what few sponsors you have. So it would be "civil rights." Yes, Martin Luther King and Selma and Jim Hendrix not finding a US record company are all of a piece. Mm hm.

And Mr Musiclogist is conveniently not remembering back well enough. Hendrix was a questionable commercial commodity on many fronts. Race was a minor factor, if a factor at all. Did Motown Records record him? If not was that a civil rights issue?

But I digress.

Gradually, as with all things, the honeymoon with the station ended and I hardly listen anymore. Yes they go deeper into the albums and play some offbeat stuff, but all the patterns of commercial radio are there. They have their little features -- like the three-song block matching game worthy of pre-schoolers. And Saturday night has a show devoted to the patronizingly overindulged "blues" music. Come on. It DOES all sound the same, guys. And they'll sprinkle in songs by some local "homegrown" artists. Hey, dudes, the artists are local for a REE-zon. We definitely prefer Led Zeppelin's somewhat spicier "interpretations" of the blues, plus, they're decidedly world-class, i.e. not local.

Very occasionally I will check back in, especially when chased from other dial stops. The Mountain is now my fourth choice and I'm actively looking for something to knock it lower. Still get nervous when I do choose it. The risk of unnecessary Fleetwood Mac exposure is too great.

Then again, credit-where-due, on my most recent try the other morning, they played "Mandolin Wind" from Rod Stewart's Every Picture Tells a Story album. You never hear that anymore. And they have played the epic, near-literary, young-man-sets-out-into-the-world saga ("Down in Rome I wasn't gettin' me none...of the things that keep a young man alive.") title cut from that album, which also has the horrifically over-played "Maggie May." Then right after "Mandolin Wind" they played "Where to Now St Peter" from Tumbleweed Connection, song-for-song Elton John's best album, with Bernie Taupin at the height of his lyrical powers. That album gets, shamefully, nearly ZERO play on the more mainstream stations. Why?

But that dial-in I was as likely to hear Johnnie Cougar or Stevie Nicks. I would have immediately jumped, probably to Rock 107, the local "Home of Rock and Roll" standard Classic Crock format.

Or another possibility now is a jump to the local crooner station -- the existence of which indicates a profitable market niche of radio-listening pensioners here in coal country -- where Sinatra and Nat King Cole and the like hold forth. Yes, the former is overplayed and the latter under, but at least here you'll hear some actual musicianship in the big band swing that backs them all up.

Big band swing -- the heavy metal of its day -- will emerge in some future time, we predict, as the most enduring and the ethnically agnostic (and thus, unifying) of American art forms. It came back briefly a few years ago and will likely again. (Question: Are Gap commercials part of the culture, or merely reflective of it?) Also on WNAK, beaming to you from the media mecca of Nanticoke, PA, Saturday night is actually "JukeBox Saturday Night," a time- warp back to the '40s, when the media could really get behind a war against fascism.

But there is a downside to this too. Listening to this station there is the distinct hazard of hearing Barbra Streisand -- the most "overappreciated" talent of our time -- screech something at you. Or that skin cancer commercial they play is a sure dial-spinner. Streisand...skin cancer...two facets of the same cosmic phenomenon somehow.

Then again, though, stick with WNAK and you'll find it's the only station around where you'll hear Dinah Washington, a saintly and near forgotten talent who, if a comparison is possible at all, makes Streisand sound like a sick cat.

Every station has its traps. So just as the 40-50s classics stations fall into the Streisand trap, so too do the Classic Rock stations fall into the Mellencamp-Fleetwood Mac trap. This includes The Mountain. They may go deep into the albums, but they lose whatever credibility they may have built with us when they spray a Johnnie Cougar song.

It also may have to do with the loathsome and exploitive sex product commercials (including something that sounds like a paste, of which enough has already been said here.) I hit the buttons every time. I'm sure many others do too. But hey, they must be starved for sponsors.

Could be that but it's also as much that this station is as locked into the canned rebellion and social pretense, and -- subtler but no-less-annoying -- relentless self-promotion, as the more mainstream classic rock stations. Yet The Mountain acts otherwise.

What is the word that describes that, acting one way and being another? Deception? Give me skin cancer any day.

So you're tooling along in your Conestoga wagon and, bam, they play some trite and derivative Johnnie Cougar song. At times his theft goes down to the cadence level. Quick trivia: "I fight authority, authority always wins." and "I fought the law and the law won." Which came first?

Then we head over to WNAK, until, ooof, no not a Streisand strike this time, no. They play Rod Stewart rasping, actually rasping, "It Had to be You" from one of his recent, entirely unlistenable, albums of standards.

Rod "Shanghai Lil-never-used-the-pill" Stewart on the geezer crooner station. The circle is complete.

So over to 107 and then. boom, Eric Clapton's there, and he's singing "Cocaine." Zzzzzz. Could it be possible for someone to make a song about a powerful stimulant that was so BORING. Eric has managed it. But then, he's a legend. Living? Debatable, but a legend nonetheless.

And around and around we go.

So it's back to NAK for the swing, and the pure voices, and the musicians, and the artful arrangements and, like Night-Train Lane, back to pining for Dinah.

Salman Says

2005-08-07T09:08:00.000-07:00

The man with the fatwah, Salman Rushdie, on the London bombings. If anyone should be heard, it's the author Islam doesn't want you to hear...permanently. Kudos to the Post for not selecting away from such as he. But then, Salman Rushdie submits an article. How could you live it down if word got out that you rejected it? "Er, no thanks, Salman.We'll pass on that one."

What Is Real?

2005-08-05T19:44:00.000-07:00

When it comes to reality television, a question to ask is, "how real is it all?" Some would argue that there's nothing "real" about it at all, considering how shows have teams of story editors and producers who take the footage, craft a narrative, and even at times create the conflict between contestants.

The other point of view is that, even with the tricky editing and story editors, reality programs are as real as anything else in life, considering that real people are involved. After all, in life we "edit" ourselves by dressing or acting a certain way in public; most of us have a "public" face and a "private" face. Although at times I wish I had some story editors to make my life more compelling...

Slate's Dana Stevens watches...

2005-08-03T18:55:00.000-07:00

...Al Gore's latest venture, Current TV, so you don't have to.

I'd provide a link to the Current web site, but the page has been stuck at this point...

...and is still loading over my sprightly DSL line for the last ten minutes. I'm not making this up. Maybe you'll have better luck. (We'll refrain from comments about the internet's self-proclaimed inventor. Too easy.)

Seems like someone might have told the designers of this doomed-from-conception project that to emulate MTV was a non-starter, since MTV doesn't even emulate MTV anymore.

Air America Cares

2005-08-03T15:35:00.000-07:00

The radio scandal most of the press has managed to avert:

Nicely blogged by Brian Maloney...

And Michelle Malkin extrudes some interesting details regarding some well-known but oddly quiescent media hawgs.

Tip to Air America: Easiest way to avoid this kind of thing...get listeners.

Men Are Stupid

2005-08-02T22:45:00.000-07:00

If you believe television advertising, or even television programs, you'd come away with the idea that men are really, really stupid. The hamburger chain Carl's Jr. has an ad campaign featuring stupid men who are really stumped with the complexities of making breakfast. On television (especially sitcoms), men are immature boobs who can barely handle a family.

NBC is playing up the male stereotype with a new reality show called Meet Mister Mom, where dads are left with their families for a week while mom is whisked away on a cruise. And, of course, men are so stupid they'd never puzzle out how to load a dishwasher or change a diaper.

Sure, some men are incompetent idiots, but then again, so are some women. Stupid people are everywhere. You've seen them. You probably work with some.

Will we ever see on television a positive portrayal of a father? There may be a few on TV now, but those are the exceptions.

We'll see if the reality genre adopts the stupid husband/father bit with other shows featuring "Mister Mom."

Signing Your Life Away

2005-07-31T20:45:00.000-07:00

So, you want to be a reality show contestant? If you do, make sure you read through your contestant application. You'll find some important information there. Things you'd want to know before signing your name. Here's Fox's application for the next season of American Idol (you'll need to have Adobe's PDF reader installed to view the document).

I'll highlight a few points:

"I grant to Producers and its successors, licensees and assigns, the irrevocable right, but not the obligation, with or without my knowledge, to film, tape and/or photograph, record, exhibit, edit and otherwise use my appearance, name, likeness, voice, singing voice, conversation, sounds and biographical data on or in connection with the Program in any manner in Producer's sole election and discretion, which use shall not entitle me to receive to receive any compensation whatsoever."

In other words, if you're the worst singer in the world, you're giving American Idol the right to replay your humiliating audition over, and over, and over, and over, until the end of time. And if they put together one of those "worst of" DVDs, and replay your audition footage...no money for you!

Suppose you're a musician and you audition for American Idol...and you make it! You're on television! What's that? You want to perform an original number on the show? Sure, go for it! Just keep this in mind:

"In the event I perform original music on the Program written or controlled by me, I hearby grant to Producer, without charge, the rights necessary to perform such music on the Program and the rights required to exploit the Program and the ancillary rights therein, inclusive of the music, in any and all media now known or hereafter devised, or for any other purpose, throughout the universe in perpetuity."

In other words...American Idol can play your music forever without paying you royalties. Good deal, huh?

And this is a good one:

"I understand that I may reveal, and other parties may reveal, information about me that is of a personal, private, embarrassing or unfavorable nature, which information may be factual and/or fictional. I further understand that my appearance, depiction and/or portrayal in the Program may be disparaging, defamatory, embarrassing or of an otherwise unfavorable nature which may expose me to public ridicule, humiliation or condemnation. I acknowledge and agree that
Producer shall have the right to (a) include any or all such information and appearances, depictions or portrayals in the Program as edited by Producer in its sole discretion, and (b) to broadcast and otherwise exploit the Program containing any or all such information and appearances, depictions or portrayals in any manner whatsoever in any and all media now known or hereafter devised, or for any other purpose, throughout the universe in perpetuity."

Which means, if Simon says something mean and makes you cry, American Idol will be able to replay that moment over...and over...and over...and over...forever. Oh, and there's an embarrassing moment from your past that someone helpfully tells the producers? Get ready to have your dirty laundry aired to the world.

With all of that said...do you need to borrow a pen to sign your application?

The Reality of Lawyers

2005-07-29T20:43:00.000-07:00

I'm sure it's no secret that I'm a fan of reality shows. One of my favorites is The Apprentice. If you've seen The Apprentice, you'll recall that several candidates were lawyers. And the lawyers tended to have, let's say, friggin' annoying personalities. Type "A" overachievers full of themselves.

Suppose you're a famous television producer and you've been given the opportunity to create a reality show. What would you do? If you're Ally McBeal and Boston Legal creator David E. Kelley, the solution is simple: a reality show about lawyers.

Welcome to The Law Firm, the latest wrinkle in the reality genre. Think of it as a court show with lawyers. The prize? $250,000.

There are 12 contestants. I have to say that charisma is a bit of a problem with this bunch. And, as noted before, they are all lawyers with the usual reality show annoying character traits, like being obnoxious and self-centered.

The show stars a lawyer named Roy Black, someone I've never heard of but, as one of the nameless "associates" tell us, is a big name in lawyer circles. Gotcha.

On this show, the lawyers will try cases. And the two cases the show opens with are real nail-biters. First up is Danzig V. Leach. Candy Danzig is suing George Leach because her three-legged dog Dingo somehow got through Leach's fence and the dog was attacked by Leach's Mastiffs. I can hardly wait to see how this turns out.

The second case is Allen V. Ryan. Karen Allen is seeking damages because the defendant, Bill Ryan, pulled her over for speeding...but Ryan isn't a cop, he's a country coroner. With a car that has a siren and flashing police lights. And in an ironic twist, Ryan himself is breaking the law by speeding! Yikes.

So, the lawyers are divided up, blah blah blah, they prepare the cases, they try them, a team wins and another loses, and finally, at the end of the show, Roy Black makes a seeming random choice of whom to eliminate, and two of the annoying lawyers are let go.

I'm predicting this show will be cancelled within the next four weeks.

Next week: a dominatrix and a computer geek! It'll be an hour of intense legal action. Or boredom. Probably boredom.

Stupid GTA Lawsuits

2005-07-27T20:04:00.000-07:00

What a surprise, we have a lawsuit against Take Two Interactive for GTA: San Andreas, from a grandmother who -- get ready for it -- is suing because she bought the "M" rated game for her 14-YEAR-OLD grandson, not knowing it was "racy."

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=AP&Date=20050727&ID=4997141

Good grief, what was she expecting from a "M" rated title intended for 17-year-olds and above? Unicorns?

Hell's Kitchen and Societal Conventions

2005-07-26T17:14:00.000-07:00

First off, if you missed the most recent Hell's Kitchen, I'm going to include spoilers in this post, so if you don't know the outcome of the show broadcast on July 25, you might want to avert your eyes.

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know I really enjoy Fox's Hell's Kitchen. You can follow the link to Fox for more info about the show as I don't want to explain the concept in this post.

On Monday's show, the three remaining chefs had to come up with a dish each using either chicken, tuna, or beef. They then had to serve a full restaurant.

Unknown to the contestants, their families were dining, and they would be voting on which entree they enjoyed the most. The contestant with the least amount of votes would be eliminated from the show.

And, at the end, Michael, Ralph and Jessica were reunited with their families. We see Michael and his wife and in-laws, Ralph and his fiance and family members, and Jessica and her girlfriend and family (Jessica gets eliminated from the show and leaves with her family).

Now, I don't know if the show ever mentioned that Jessica was a lesbian (or bi-sexual), and I personally think it would have been very cool if the show did not bring up that fact. That way, you get to meet the contestants and not have in the back of your mind that one of them is gay.

Now, here's the thing I wanted to talk about. When Jessica is reunited with her girlfriend, they kiss. It's not very often that we see homosexual men or women with their loved ones on television, exchanging an affectionate kiss, as anyone else would.

If you're a viewer of the show and thought it went over the line with Jessica's kiss, I'd be curious to hear why. And I'd hope the conversation would not be reduced to gay-bashing, or bashing the opinions of folks commenting. I know this is a sensitive subject on both sides.

No Pay-o No J-Lo

2005-07-26T06:01:00.000-07:00

And we thought stations played it because it was good.

The new payola, at Sony Music.

The Ethics of Advertising

2005-07-25T15:37:00.000-07:00

Is it unethical for a company to target its advertising of a harmful, but legal, product to specific ethnic groups?

This is an issue the tobacco industry has grappled with, particularly with advertising campaigns aimed at African-American consumers.

So, what's the problem? Advertisers seek out many different demographics to target advertising at. One can argue the health risks of smoking, but since cigarettes are legal...how come a company couldn't market its problem with a particular demographic in mind? Any thoughts?

Classic Crock: Part 1

2005-07-24T18:11:00.000-07:00

We're lucky in that while moving the Shears organization base-of-operations north to the Wilkes Barre-Pittston-Scranton megalopolis, we get to drive through three radio markets -- Philadelphia, Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton and Northeast PA. That means that, with some dial spinning, we get to hear the Classic Rock format stations in all three. It doesn't matter the call-signs or frequencies. They're all pretty much the same, right? You know the one in your own market. Spin the FM dial right now and stop at the station playing "More than a Feeling". That's the one.

Yes. They all sound the same. We know that. We still listen. They've all distilled out the top 63 or 64 rock classic tracks and play them over and over, and then they play them some more. One or two top main tunes per artist, on average, and maybe 3-4 for your mega talents like Bowie or the Stones. We all know that and have accepted it.

They don't even go that deep into the greatest hits CDs we've all collected over the years. They've focus-grouped the exact number of songs from the fixed selection created between 1965 and 1976, the exact tunes that will maximize revenue for the mix of advertisers that have joined the format. The same songs, the same sponsors and the same endless, irritating, overheated self-promotion.

Oh they'll do the special countdowns and weekends, play rarer songs, and milk the promotion of them to the hilt, like the one right now that's doing a ridiculous "Raiders of the Lost Classics" weekend. Well hell if these songs are so great, warranting a whole weekend, why not play them the rest of the time? What it comes off as, to this listener anyway, is a weekend-long acknowledgement that they're holding out on us.

But it doesn't put us off. No. It's almost comforting that an entire generation can settle into such media complacency. Yes.

These frequency holders have discovered a way to squeeze value out of the airwaves and so they do. Get a radio station and start your own, you say? Many people think to. The ones that look into it will find that they'd sooner be able to gather the capital to build a suspension bridge. The government regulates these airwaves -- to prevent overlap and interference, they say -- and as with nearly everything a government regulates, a shortage was created. So the owners found themselves in possession of valuable assets. Valuable quite beyond the means of an individual or even a small company of individuals.

I have a love-hate relationship with these commercial engines. And make no mistake that's what they are, no matter how warm and fuzzy the DJ's schtick. The DJs need the gigs, man. Don't blame them. They're just driving the bus. They're the gilt wrapping on the packaged and test-marketed rebellion.

Though there are many of us out there who came of age in the era of so-called underground radio, I sense that this is one of those things that are remembered better than they really were. The frequency holders have tapped into that too. They may not care much about music, but they're not stupid.

Love-hate. To get my dose of the same ol' CCR or Yes or Stones, usually on long car drives, I have to subject myself to, for instance, the overplayed and completely uncool Johnnie Cougar Mellencamp. Listen music directors, you may be trapped in your classic rock playlist focus group bubble, but John Mellencamp is just not cool. Come on and listen, really listen, to the trite derivative lyrics and trite derivative rhythms some time. Can anyone who refers to his own rock classic alienation anthem as a "ditty" ever qualify as cool?

Yes, Eric Clapton is a legend. But have you not noticed that his solo work since Derek and the Dominoes is so incredible dreary and BORING? Has anybody? No. Maybe it's because you fall asleep three bars in.

And Fleetwood Mac? Don't get me started. This is the most relentlessly talent-free and unoriginal combo in pop music history. They qualify as classic rock.

Yet their entire worthless careers have produced good, one moment of mirth for all that schlock. Without them the movie School of Rock would have had to ridicule some other artist in that hilarious scene where Jack Black lures Joan Cusack into his plan by exploiting her weakness for alcohol-induced Stevie Nicks impersonations. Ha.

No if there was no Fleetwood Mac, the makers probably would have had to settle for some lesser cheesy talent, like maybe Johnnie Cougar Mellencamp, or whatever his name is this decade.

Love-Hate. But then it's always good to hear that Joe Walsh song. You know the one. it must be his only song. It's the only one they play. Nope. Sorry. They also play "Rocky Mountain Way". The one I'm thinking.... no wait, I'm not thinking of it, it's playing on the radio right now actually. It's an honest song about his hard life as a rock star, the one where he sings "I lost my license now I don't drive." and "I can't complain but sometimes I still do." Classic lines, really. You know the one. You've heard it a million times.

It's comforting. somehow.

Next: Commercial engines with Earth Shoes

The Economics of San Andreas

2005-07-24T00:15:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post, check out the Ebay auctions for GTA: San Andreas happening right now. Supply and demand in action. I wonder if I should put my copies up for sale? Hmm...

The GTA: San Andreas controversy, pt. II

2005-07-22T19:35:00.000-07:00

In an amazingly fast turn-around, the ESRB has re-rated Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to "Adults Only" from "Mature." The reason for the change was the discovery that a "mod" (in game-speak it's software that makes changes to a game) that unlocked a mini-game that showed polygon figures engaged in a sexual act. But you have to install the mod in order to see the computer sex. You wouldn't see it if you had just installed and played the game.

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. Why was GTA: San Andreas singled out? Rockstar Games, the developer, has a reputation for creating edgy (and controversial) video games meant for adults, not children.

There are several installments of the Grand Theft Auto series. With the release of GTA: III, players were able to take the role of a young street thug and guide him through various criminal acts. It was an open-ended game, meaning the player had the ability to do whatever they wanted in the game. You could be as violent as you wanted -- or not.

Now, in GTA:III, players can pick up a...well, whore, and, if low on health, a few seconds alone with the companion restores the player's health. You don't actually see what is going on, but if you're playing, you know. And when you're done, why, the game allows you to bash the whore's head in with a bat and take her money. You don't have to do that, obviously, but the game lets you. And it is rated "M", rightly so.

Now, to the devil's advocate position: GTA:III and GTA: Vice City featured white protagonists; GTA: San Andreas features black protagonists. Yet it was only GTA: San Andreas recalled and re-rated as "AO" (adults only). And an "AO" rating is the mark of death for a game developer. Most retail stores will not carry an "AO" rated title. It's like a movie getting an "X" rating.

So, the title featuring black characters doing basically the same things as the white characters in the previous installments of Grand Theft Auto is rated "AO" for something that wasn't even a part of the game without installing a patch.

Rockstar also developed a game called Manhunt. The premise: you play a killer sent on a mission to murder street scum and then film the extremely gruesome murders for a snuff movie. Did I mention the murders are graphic? That game received an "M" rating.

So...is the controversy surrounding GTA: San Andreas racially motivated? Any thoughts?

Glad to be here

2005-07-22T18:58:00.000-07:00

Thanks, Scott, for the kind welcome. Hello readers. As I mentioned to him in private I was attracted to Scott's blog because of the name, having taken up the study of media myself as an excuse to claim academic credit for watching TV. Though Scott says the 40 hours is not turning his mind to mush, that blue glow is certainly an interesting look for him.

Until later. Keep on watchin'.

Contributor Selected

2005-07-22T16:52:00.000-07:00

Give a welcome to Bill Shears from the blog Cinema Squeeze, who will be joining on here as a contributor. Billy has a unique (and funny) perspective on movies. Check out his site if you get the chance, and stay tuned to 40 Hours of TV for his first post.

Court Show Reality

2005-07-21T16:00:00.000-07:00

I mentioned earlier that I enjoyed watching Judge Judy every day. Yes, every day. I know what you must think of me, but hey, what can I say?

There was a time when I watched a lot of court shows. I can't remember all of their names (Judge Joe Brown and...er...the others) but I watched. Most were variants of the generic court show theme, although a few (Judge Hatchett! That's the other one!) tried to do more than just hear cases.

One show I didn't watch as often as the others was Judge Mathis. I'm not sure what it was about his format, but perhaps I was up to my ears in court shows at the time. I tuned in on occasion.

It turns out one of my Philosophy 197 classmates was a litigant on Judge Mathis! I was pretty excited to hear about this, because you don't often get the behind the scenes perspective of what happens on a court show (or other reality shows, for that matter).

The one thing I thought was really interesting was that the Judge Mathis show called my classmate, not the other way around, (and these shows always say "If you're in a legal dispute with your dog, call Judge Judy at 1-800-blah blah"). You'd think the shows would get enough callers with cases that the whole season could be covered.

Now, I don't know if what my classmate experienced is typical of appearing on a court show, so this instance may only apply to the Judge Mathis show.

My classmate reports being called by a producer of the show; apparently the producer had been looking through court cases and found something about my classmate's experience interesting.

Once the formalities are ironed out, and it's time to tape, the producers will fly you out to where the show is taped (don't know if it's first class or not...I'll try to find out) and put you up in a hotel (a nice hotel? I'll find out!).

The day of the taping, my classmate was interviewed by a producer in order to create a dramatic narrative. You might think what you see on a court show is the natural progression of the case, but apparently that's not so.

And how much does one get paid to be on a show like Judge Mathis? Ready?

$250.00

That's it! But if you're a defendant, the show actually pays for whatever judgment is handed down (if you watch the credits of any court show you'll see the disclaimer about how the litigants are paid from a fund). I think my classmate won. I'll get more details if I can. In the meantime, if you have been on television (such as a game-show contestant, reality-show contestant, court show, etc), leave remarks and share your experience. The commenting system allows for you to post anonymously, in the event you do not want to reveal your identity, but I'd be interested in hearing your perspective of the experience.

The Video Game Factor

2005-07-18T22:25:00.000-07:00

Video games have long been the targets of government legislators and special-interest groups. Whether it is Mortal Kombat or Grand Theft Auto III, games, much like music and movies, are singled out as some kind of destructive or negative influence on children. Frankly, I don't buy it.

Video games are rated based on their content by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The ratings are similar to motion picture ratings, ranging from "E" for everyone to AO, or Adults Only.

I'm a big fan of violent video games. There's just some sort of visceral pleasure in blasting someone with a shotgun in a video game. And these types of games are meant for adults, not children, so parents should be the ones monitoring the use of these games by their kids.

Senator Hillary Clinton (of all people) has decided to go after the game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. There is a patch for the PC version that unlocks some naked characters the player can, apparently, use in playing certain mini-games as part of the whole gameplaying experience.

From the AP Wire as reported in the San Jose Mercury News, July 18, 2005:

"There is no doubting the fact that the widespread availability of sexually explicit and graphically violent video games makes the challenge of parenting much harder," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who asked the Federal Trade Commission last week to investigate one of the most violent titles, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
In this 'M' rated game - last year's top-seller among console games - the main character seeks bloody vengeance on gang-filled streets, firing automatic weapons and picking up scantily clad women.

But what really riles family-oriented media watchdog groups are additional scenes in which nude 'girlfriends' join in explicit sex acts in the PC version. The scenes become 'playable' with the help of a freely available download created by a Dutch programmer."

Now, I've been playing GTA: San Andreas and I didn't even know about this patch until I read the AP wire story. But Clinton apparently feels that Rockstar games, the developer of the Grand Theft Auto series, should have gotten an AO rating for GTA: San Andreas, because of that bit of code unlocked by the mod to spring forth the nude women. I mean, come on, aren't there more pressing issues to address? Like, say, all the millions of Americans living in poverty? It an old song and dance. A video game will come out, people will think it will cause the youth of America to start blowing up each other, and then that never happens. And every now and then you get an anecdotal case about a particular video game that was popular with a school shooter.

So...do video games create a reality for a teenager that would cause that teen to kill someone or commit some other violent act?

40 Hours of TV message board

2005-07-18T20:31:00.000-07:00

I've just installed a message board for 40 Hours of TV, to discuss movies, television, and other forms of media and entertainment. If you have a chance, check it out and let's get the discussions going!

40 Hours of Television Message Board

Dramatic Effect

2005-07-17T17:49:00.000-07:00

Sound and editing are powerful tools in the hands of the right people, which can turn the most insignificant thing into a stop-everything moment. In Robert Greenwald's excellent documentary Outfoxed, we learn of the "Fox News Alert" and how it was designed (and intended) to introduce important "breaking news" to Fox viewers. Over time the alert evolved into something very different, where a news alert item might concern itself over the Ben Affleck/Jennifer Lopez "Bennifer" relationship.

As part of my Philosophy 197 assignment to watch 40 hours of television, I'm finding myself watching Judge Judy every night. I know, I know. But this is a show that critical viewing skills can be used. Watch the opening of the show and observe how the teaser for the show is put together. Quick edits, dramatic music, and dramatic voice-overs from the announcer ("A daughter, at odds with her mother, for watching the grandchildren while drunk!") with quick shots of Judge Judy responding to something (usually yelling at someone) with cuts back to the litigants and their responses/reactions. The show attempts to build up a lot of dramatic tension, but come on, it's a court show! But that's how the media works: get viewers by any means available. And, in my case, it's working.

Infotainment or Journalism?

2005-07-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

I don't know who coined the phrase "infotainment," but it's certainly an accurate description of the television news game, circa 2005. Of course, it's been with us a long time now, but the lines between entertainment and journalism are so blurred that it's hard to separate them.

Entertainment Tonight is a great example of infotainment, as are other shows the exclusively feature celebrities and the celebrity lifestyles. A celebrity getting married or having a baby is not news, but we treat it as such.

The cable news networks, such as MSNBC, Fox, and CNN all offer up programming that is infotainment, although in the case of the news networks, the entertainment aspect isn't as obvious. Hannity and Colmes, Hardball, and the recently cancelled Crossfire on CNN all follow the debate show format (not that any debate is happening, as The Daily Show's Jon Stewart correctly pointed out on his infamous Oct. 15, 2004 Crossfire appearance), where talking heads spend an hour basically yelling at each other. It's cheap drama to be sure, but people like to watch. Little information is passed on these shows, but if you're into the yelling format, you'll get lots of entertainment.

Local TV news also employs the infotainment model. Try watching commercials for a local station's 10:00 or 11:00 broadcasts and notice how the commercials are put together: the editing, the music, and how the big "news" items are played up. You'll hear a grim sounding announcer say, "Is the water you are drinking contaminated with feces that can kill you? Tune in to News 12 at 11:00 to find out."

You'll see this form of advertising in the 5:00 or 6:00 newscasts as well: "A News 12 investigation reveals that the water you drink may not be safe...tune in to News 12 at 11:00 to find out."

Another thing to watch out for in your local news is how newsworthy the information is. It can be hard to fill a half hour, or hour, with actual news, and we've been conditioned by the media to expect entertainment in everything we watch.

If you really want straight news without the infotainment...well, good luck in finding it. Actually, if you have cable, your best source for news is The Daily Show on Comedy Central. It's better than anything else on, anyway.

The Pseudo Reality of Reality TV

2005-07-11T23:15:00.000-07:00

In 1998 the film The Truman Show was released. Directed by Peter Weir and written by Andrew Niccol, the film starred Jim Carrey as Truman Burbank, a man whose life, unbeknownst to him, was actually a television show. Truman's world was actually a huge, elaborate set, and his friends and neighbors were actors.

We're expected to accept a reality that would allow a corporation to adopt a child, and then broadcast the life of that child 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The production costs alone would not sustain for 30 years, but never mind. Andrew Niccol seemed to have had access to a time machine where he could travel a few decades in the future to see what direction reality shows would take. Could reality programming evolve to the level of The Truman Show? Probably not, although the concept has been explored in programs like The Joe Schmo Show, which aired in 2003.

Of course, reality shows are anything but. While the shows may feature real people, producers are on hand to create a narrative out of the hours of video tape recorded. Situations can be created with the purpose of causing a reaction with the cast, and people are cast into certain personality roles.

Viewers paying attention to the first couple seasons of The Apprentice noticed something odd: when someone was fired by Trump, we'd see them climbing into a cab, which carried them away, presumably home (but in actuality to a nearby hotel); New York City cabs have a cab number on the door. So, we'd see someone like Omarosa climb into cab #384D, and in the next shot, the cab number would be #4924. On The Apprentice, each cast member recorded at the beginning of the show their farewell cab scene. And when the contestant was fired, we'd see them in a different cab. There was also the situation with Trump in the board room and his voice overs. Trump would be talking on camera, and the scene would cut to a reaction shot of one of the contestants, while Trump would speak off camera. But the audio of those off camera monologues by Trump sounded different, like they were recorded louder, or something. As it turned out, Trump was recording the voice over at a different time and place. These issues of continuity were corrected in the last season of The Apprentice.

So, even on a reality show, reality is what the producers and directors want it to be, and not what we actually see.

The Mean Chef vs. The Nice Chef

2005-07-09T14:55:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite new reality shows is Hell's Kitchen. It stars master chef Gordon Ramsay, and the prize for the winning contestant is their own restaurant. Ramsay is from England, where he is a huge celebrity and owner of several successful restaurants. Hell's Kitchen is the United States version of the BBC series that aired last year.

The show adheres to standard reality show format: a large group of contestants compete each week, and someone is voted off the show. The winner receives their own restaurant, in addition to attaining master chef status through Ramsay's "training."

The hook for this show is Ramsay, who berates, curses and abuses the contestants. Supposedly his methods will result in someone learning to be a master chef in a short period of time. The formula is a bit like military boot camp. In one episode, the contestants were awakened in the wee hours by Ramsay's sous chefs as they yelled and banged garbage can lids. And as the contestants compete in cooking tasks, Ramsay is there, yelling at them, cursing, and frequently taking the entree a contestant has prepared and dumping it on them. Ramsay seems crazy. On the show, the main competition usually involves opening the Hell's Kitchen restaurant to the public, where they wait...and wait...and wait for Ramsay to approve of each dish the contestants prepare. If he doesn't like it, he makes them start over from scratch, so the diners end up waiting two hours for their meals.

I like it.

Hell's Kitchen polar opposite is Cooking Under Fire on PBS. The premise is similar, with contestants competing in cooking challenges, and at the end of the show, voting someone off.

The show stars chefs Ming Tsai and Todd English. Joining them is author and chef Michael Ruhlman. The prize for the winning contestant isn't their own restaurant, but rather a job at one of Todd English's restaurants. So the stakes are a bit lower for the contestants.

What's missing from this show is conflict. Some might argue that's a good thing. But I enjoy conflict. Here, the contestants are given tasks with a reasonable time to complete them (unlike Hell's Kitchen, where Ramsay might announce a competition and give the contestants 10 minutes to complete the task, all the while yelling at them as they do so) and at the end, when the chefs judge the contestants on the meals they've prepared, they're actually nice. Nice! The losing contestant gets "86'd," which is a bit cheesy, and they are actually given a frying pan with "86'd" written on it. Okay.

I suppose PBS is aiming at a different audience than Fox, but I'm not sure that creating a kinder, gentler reality show is a winning formula. If you get a chance, check out both shows and see what you think. If you've seen the shows, I'd be interested in reading your comments about them.

Advertising and Entertainment

2005-07-08T15:33:00.000-07:00

Everything's a commercial these days, even when what you're watching isn't a commercial. But if you look for it, you'll find the commercials placed into movies, television shows, and even video games. I own an Xbox game that has within the game world soft drink machines that dispense real-world products.

Product placement is a huge part of the whole media experience, and commercials can be used to alter reality. Take baseball. You watch your favorite team playing, and along the walls you'll notice advertising. It's not actually there, it's added by a computer. Companies pay for that blank wall so they can advertise their product.

In football, some advertisers have their products listed on the football field itself, again done by computer.

Movies and television shows often feature product placement. Maybe a character in a movie drinks a particular brand of beverage, or a television sitcom will have its characters eating food from well-known fast-food chains.

Product placement isn't limited to television and movies. You might even see it in the evening news. How many times have you watched your local nightly news where they did a piece on some product and presented it as news?

The big thing with reality shows is that the network the show runs on will have as guests for the morning news programs the contestant voted off the show the night before.

And if you're in a target demographic, you can count on lots of advertising aimed at you. Now, dig out those wallets...

The Social Sitcom

2005-07-05T22:17:00.000-07:00

Situation comedies have been on television for a long time, and a lot has changed since the early days of Ricky and Lucy. In the late 1960s and through the 1970s, sitcoms started to become instruments of social commentary. Or, you could say, they started to reflect the reality that started with the civil rights movement and continued through to the conflict in Vietnam.

Norman Lear was the creator and producer of many ground-breaking shows of the 1970s. One of the most popular was All In The Family. It Starred Carrol O'Connor as the "lovable bigot" and blue-collar archetype (as well as stereotypical conservative) Archie Bunker; Jean Stapleton as his wife, Edith; Sally Struthers as daughter Gloria; and liberal son-in-law Mike "Meathead" Stivic, portrayed by Rob Reiner.

The show tackled social issues like race relations, bigotry, women's rights, and other hot-button issues, delivered as comedy. It's hard to imagine a show like All In The Family being produced today.

In addition to All In The Family, Lear produced The Jeffersons (a spin-off of All In The Family); Maude; Good Times; Sanford and Son; and One Day At A Time. Each dealt in their own way with social issues.

Not produced by Lear was MASH, a show with a laugh track that dealt with broad comedy and intense drama, sometimes in the same episode.

Towards the end of the 1970s, social commentary gave way to the broad slapstick of shows like Three's Company. In the mid-1980s, Bill Cosby re-invigorated the sitcom, which at the time was struggling, with The Cosby Show.

For the 21st century, sitcoms have changed a bit, and programs like Malcolm in the Middle and Arrested Development show that it's possible to have a quirky, funny show without a laugh track. And, of course, we have The Simpsons, not only one of the longest-running shows on television today, but the longest-running cartoon ever. All are on Fox, incidentally. Apparently, the big-three networks aren't capable of such acts of creativity -- at least, not right now.

Commenting fixed

2005-07-05T00:27:00.000-07:00

Turns out I didn't have commenting configured correctly via Blogger; it should work now for everyone. Sorry for that.

What Is Reality?

2005-07-04T14:21:00.000-07:00

"Reality," as a philosophical concept, is something that isn't easily defined. After all, reality is what we observe, and from that we apply our own life experiences and biases. Reality is subjective, different to each person experiencing it.

The Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is one of the best explanations of what "reality" is. This version is from the Buddhist canon.

A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, "Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?"

The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'
"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.

"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.
"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."

Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
Udana 68-69

When you watch television, or a movie, try to notice how "reality" is presented. What messages are being delivered through advertising? How are men and women portrayed? How accurate is that portrayal?

Some people think television is a mirror of society. Or is it the other way around? Is society shaped by what we see on television? It's a hard question to answer.

June 29, 2005, pt.3

2005-07-04T10:26:00.000-07:00

Show: Myth Busters
Time: 9:00 p.m.
Network: The Discovery Channel
Genre: Entertainment/educational

Science is fun! Myth Busters is about two special effects wizards, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, who set out to prove -- or disprove -- urban legends and myths, using science and creativity. If you jump up from a bed and your head hits a ceiling fan, will it decapitate you? Are perpetual energy machines possible? Did a Ming Dynasty "astronaut" blast into space? The Mythbusters work to get to the bottom of those myths, by attempting to recreate the conditions of the myth.

This is a fun show. The hosts and other cast members are engaging and they do make science cool, although a lot of what they do on the show would probably result in death if some kid tried to duplicate what they've seen on an episode of Myth Busters.

We've all heard urban legends, the "friend of a friend" story. And in the age of e-mail, millions of people see these urban legends, and because they sound plausible, believe them. The lie of the urban legend creates a version of reality -- people really believe that if they forward an e-mail sent by Bill Gates (or AOL, or Nike, or IBM -- the list is pretty long) they'll get money. Walt Disney is on ice -- his body was put into cryonic storage upon his death. People like to believe these things, and I suppose it may come as a disappointment for folks when they learn that virtually all myths or urban legends are simply not true. That's reality for you.

Grade: A, because they like to blow stuff up.

June 29th Continued

2005-07-03T12:54:00.000-07:00

Show: Cooking Under Fire
Time: 8:30 p.m.
Network: Oregon Public Broadcasting
Genre: Reality show

Cooking Under Fire is PBS' entry in the reality show sub-genre of cooking competitions. It's very different than, say, Hell's Kitchen, because of pacing and a lack of meanness. And I have to confess, but I like it when Chef Ramsay on Hell's Kitchen yells at someone, curses them, and then just shoves that bad dish of food right onto the contestant's apron, sending that person away to cry (probably).

When I discovered that PBS had its own cooking show, I wanted to see how PBS would handle things.

It's too friggin' nice.

There's no conflict at all. Everyone is friendly. The contestants are forgettable and there's no Ramsay character cursing at everyone. The pace is slow without all the editing techniques you see in most reality shows. Also, the contestants were not assigned into specific personality roles as is the norm in reality TV. They were just ordinary folks. And the prize: the opportunity to be hired as a chef at a restaurant. So I guess the people on the show aren't interested in fame and fortune. A quick search on Monster.com shows that, at least for the positions posted, a chef in New York makes an average of about $60,000 a year.

In the episode I saw, the contestants were required to come up with a three-course meal using a certain kind of fish. So each contestant had an hour (Chef Ramsay would have given them ten minutes, screaming obscenities at them all the while) and they presented their dishes to the panel of judges, where no screaming ensued. And when the judges decided who would be eliminated, they did so in a friendly manner (they call it being "86'd") and handing the eliminated contestant with a frying pan with "86'd" written on it.

As far as the portrayal of reality goes, it's common knowledge that most "reality" shows are in fact heavily edited, with the producers creating situations and dramatic tension. What emerges is almost like a fictional show. PBS opted for the opposite route, although it's possible that some creative editing was used. As far as Cooking Under Fire goes, it seems to be attempting to create a more "real" reality show.

Grade: C, mainly because I missed the cursing and lack of tension.

TV: June 29, 2005

2005-07-02T19:13:00.000-07:00

I start my journal with The King of Queens, the sitcom starring Kevin James and Leah Remini as Doug and Carrie Heffernan, an (almost) blue-collar couple; Doug is a delivery driver and Carrie is a secretary for a law firm. Living with the Heffernans in the basement is Carrie's father Arthur (Seinfeld's Jerry Stiller...'Serenity Now!'), who is odd in a nice, sitcom way.

I watched this episode on June 29, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. It aired on my local affiliate of the WB.

Doug and Carrie are your basic lovable mismatched sitcom couple. Doug is a stereotypical male, a goofball who can barely fend for himself. Doug likes the basic things in life: eating, television, hanging out with the guys, bowling, all that good guy stuff. Doug's wife Carrie likes to nag him endlessly and just doesn't understand her big goofball of a husband, but of course loves him, anyway.

A quick note: this is one of those sitcoms where the husband is quite overweight while having a drop-dead gorgeous wife. Apparently, large guys aren't supposed to have attractive wives.

The episode I watched was a continuation of a series with Doug (the delivery driver) being on strike. And since the men of the show are portrayed as lazy, incompetent boobs, we see that, for three weeks, Doug hasn't done anything constructive during the day, and in fact has been sleeping while his wife is working 12-hour days. And since Carrie is portrayed as being nagging and shrill, she's the boss of the relationship. You know, like most women are.

Grade: B, because the show is pretty funny, despite the use of stock characters (overweight, immature male with gorgeous, but nagging, wife).

40 Hours of Television

2005-07-02T19:04:00.000-07:00

Welcome to 40 Hours of Television, a personal diary of my television watching project for Portland Community College's Philosophy 197 class, Television and The Presentation of Reality. The class studies different forms of media and how "reality" is portrayed in television, movies, commercials and video games. A requirement for the class is to watch 40 hours of television and keep a journal. What better way to keep a journal than to let the whole world look at it?

Join me, as I turn my brain to mush in watching 40 hours of television. And maybe, just maybe, we'll learn something along the way.