Goodbye Grissom

One of my favourite TV characters is going away.

On Thursday night (which is tonight as I start to write this , but may very well be last night by the time I actually finish it) Gil Grissom will walk out of the Las Vegas Crime Scene Investigations lab for the last time and will probably go in the way he once told Warwick brown that he'd leave – no party with cake, he'd just be gone. William Petersen, who created the role of the smart controlled Grissom, has decided that – as Grissom said a couple of episodes ago – it's time to raise the ante.

For better or for worse, Gil Grissom is going to be one of the iconic TV characters of the first decade of the century, right up there with President Jed Bartlett and Jack Bauer. What is interesting is that when CSI began as a series few gave it much chance of succeeding. Though I can't find my TV Guide Fall Preview edition (about the only thing I miss about the death of the Canadian edition of TV Guide) from the year that the show debuted, I seem to recall that they thought that the show was "too smart" for the audience and too science oriented. They thought that the big hit for CBS that year would be the remake of The Fugitive which preceded CSI on Friday nights (before Friday night unaccountably became the "death slot" for most networks).

While the series began with an ensemble cast, something that has largely been retained, there was a clear leader of the group in the form of William Petersen as Gil Grissom. Petersen, who was probably best known at the time for his work in movies including Manhunter in which he played a forensic scientist, had a "pay or play" contract with CBS but wasn't able to find a project that he wanted to do. He feared being locked into a role that he would find boring. When the role of Grissom was offered to him he found what he wanted, a character where he – as an actor – would learn a lot and wouldn't get bored. It seems to have worked; in an industry where shows rarely go beyond seven seasons because actors become bored with the roles and drive costs up with salary demands, CSI has endured for nine seasons with Petersen being at least present in all but five episodes. Of those five episodes, one was built around the character of Jim Brass with only three other characters from the show appearing (Warwick, Nick, and Doc Robbins), one when Petersen had to deal with a death in his family and was unavailable, and three when he was appearing in the play Dublin Carole.

Over the years the character of Grissom has developed and changed. This tends to happen with many characters on TV shows of course but in the case of Grissom, and most of the characters in the original CSI for that matter, the development and changes have seemed organic and a logical outgrowth of previous events. In the first season Grissom seems far more outgoing, to the point of occasionally flirting with female characters, but as time went by he has become increasingly reserved; close to his friends and colleagues (who generally seem to be one and the same) but less open to outsiders. This change seems to coincide with the onset of his hearing loss; although he recovered his hearing he seemed to become more reserved. His relationship with Sara went unrevealed, if palpable, until it was finally revealed, first to viewers and only later to the characters on the show.

Grissom has a reputation as a polymath, someone with knowledge on a lot of subjects or perhaps more accurately an curiosity in learning about a lot of subjects. This has shown up in a number of episodes of the show. One of my favourites is when he has to deal with a murder at a convention of "little people;" we learn that he subscribes to the organization's newsletter. His understanding of deaf culture is more profound – his mother is deaf and he learned to sign at an early age. When he was younger he attended boxing matches to learn about bruise patterns and blood spatter, and became something of an expert on the science of boxing. Other interests are more personal. He loves roller coasters, to the point of setting up trips to work related conventions to be able to ride. He used to play poker and played well, to the point where he was able to earn enough money to finance his first body farm with his winnings, but in time lost interest in the game or maybe just in dealing with people. This is mentioned in the third season episode "Revenge Is Best Served Cold" and seems to have been forgotten only to be mentioned in the episode "Young Man With A Horn" earlier this season.

Grissom served as a significant influence to the younger investigators under his leadership. His relationship with Warwick Brown was at time adversarial, but still extremely closes. After his death Grissom and Catherine discover a DVD in which Warwick describes Grissom as being close to a father figure for him. Warwick was always worried about disappointing Grissom even in those situations where they disagreed. His relationship with Nick Stokes has similar qualities, although Nick's father is still alive. This relationship reveals itself in the episode "Grave Danger" (directed by Quentin Tarantino) where Grissom takes on the paternal role, referring to Nick by his childhood nickname of Pancho. More than that though, with the exception of Greg, Nick is the youngest of the CSIs and the one who has been taught the most by Grissom if only because he didn't have the same extensive science background that Grissom had. As far as Greg goes, Grissom is at once a mentor and a model. After all both have widely divergent interests, and both were scientists first before becoming field investigators. Grissom's has close friendships with both Doctor Robbins and Captain Jim Brass, although it's unclear how close either of these relationships is. Brass considers Grissom a close enough friend to give power of attorney to, and yet Grissom doesn't even know whether or not Brass owns a boat and they've never seemed to get together socially outside of work. His relationship with Robbins also seems to be primarily work related insofar as Robbins is always revealing new facts about himself to Grissom.

It is his relationships with women that are the most interesting. We don't know much about how he is dealing with the newest CSI of the bunch Ronnie Lake, but his relationship with Sophia Curtiss, who was briefly a CSI before transferring to the regular police department was quite cordial. His two big relationships though are with Sara Sidle, who was initially his protégé but in time became his lover. Petersen has stated that Sara "completes" Grissom. For Grissom the intimacy that they hove goes back much further than when they began their physical relationship. It is perhaps one of the reasons why he specifically chose her to come to Las Vegas after Holly Gribbs was killed in the pilot episode of the series. The hints about the relationship run through many episodes of the series, going back to the third or fourth season, and when the fact that they were together as a couple was revealed to viewers it didn't come as a surprise, simply as a confirmation of what we all knew for a long time (not that this made it any more palatable for some fans). The revelation moreover was done in such a way that it seemed natural. They didn't suddenly come together but rather it was as though we as viewers were being admitted into this aspect of Grissom's life.

I have to say right here that I am one of those people who doesn't totally like the Grissom-Sara relationship. In my case this has a lot to do with my preference for a Grissom-Catherine relationship. They seem to fit together much more readily. In fact there is a point where Grissom refers to Catherine as being like a wife. While the producers of the show prefer to describe the Grissom-Catherine relationship as being like brother and sister, I think there is more than a bit of truth in Grissom's description of it. I prefer to think of it as an almost platonic marriage, in which they share just about everything except sex. They complement each other; he's more driven by the data than she is while she's more willing to go with instinct, her real world experience has been more worldly than his while his academic knowledge is greater both in terms of degrees and variety of interests. Certainly he seems to have a deeper friendship with Catherine than any of his male colleagues – he's had her over to his apartment for dinner at least once that we know of – and the depth of their relationship has been explored a lot recently. She knows that she can talk to him about just about anything, apparently including her frustrations with her sex life, and she is perceptive enough to pick up on the messages he's sending even when he doesn't know he's sending them. She says that she knew that he was leaving, probably before he knew it himself. That remark in itself is telling, not unlike a woman who realizes that her long marriage is coming to an end, not because of the fault of either party but simply because the time for it to end has arrived. There are no recriminations or anger, simply a wistful sense of sadness and loss. I think that it is this aspect of the show that is most likely to be lost when Grissom leaves.

I have no doubt that CSI will be able to survive the departure of William Petersen from the show. The show has a strong ensemble cast and the addition of Laurence Fishburne as a permanent fixture on the series is a definite plus, while Marge Helgenberger, and her character of Catherine Willows, are both strong enough to become primary characters. What I do fear is that the departure of Petersen will significantly alter the personal dynamics of the characters in the series. The crimes will still be as intriguing – the writers will see to that – but the focal point of the relationships for nine years is being removed and it won't be possible to realign those relationships right away. In an odd way, that might be an advantage for the series if the writers are willing to spend the time showing those relationships changing. It may set the show apart from a series like Law & Order where characters are removed and replaced like cogs in a machine with only slight disruption in the day to day operation. I'm looking forward to seeing how the writers handle Grissom's departure and how long it take to deal with its repercussions.

On The Sixth Day Of Christmas

On the sixth day of Christmas my true love (Television) gave to me – six male characters I enjoy.

I did this last year and it seemed to work out pretty well. In fact I think it worked out better than I expected it would considering that it was a last minute addition to the list. What I'm talking about is characters rather than actors. True, there are cases where it is the actor who really makes the character, where no one could ever imagine someone other than who was chosen playing the role. Then there are characters who may not be "actor-proof" but into whom an actor grows. After a while you may come to think that no one else could do the role but that's because you identify the character with the actor and vice-versa. Think of this sort of role as being an off the rack suit rather than one that is made to measure. And so with that as a preface here's my list:

• Charlie Crews (Life): One of the holdovers from last year and for good reason – I want people to watch this show! The reason I want people to watch this show is the performance of the two leads, Damien Lewis and Sarah Shahi, who is going to be on the list of female characters in a couple of days. Crews is a perfect example of an "off the rack" role. While I won't say that any actor could play the part, it's also not a part that could only be filled by Damien Lewis. In fact because Lewis is British, it's probably a role that he is less suited for than many actors. And yet Damien Lewis has made Crews his own. While Charlie's quirks and what might be called "personality tics" are largely the product of the writers, it is Lewis who takes those qualities and with his mode of speaking and his body language turns them into a believable character.
  
• Jack Donaghy (30 Rock): I can't remember the last time I actually watched an episode of 30 Rock (the first time I saw it I was very turned off by the character of Tracy Morgan) but I know and appreciate just how good this show is. A large part of it is due to the ensemble cast but the standouts are Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin. I don't know that Donaghy is the role that Baldwin was born to play but I do think that there is no one else who could play Donaghy.
  
• Patrick Jane (The Mentalist): I've recently been somewhat dismissive of The Mentalist because the series seems to be a "safe" approach for CBS. Still Simon Baker invests Patrick Jane with a number of qualities that make him stand out. I recently read an interview in which Baker stated that in his interpretation Jane is "full of self-loathing and incredibly self-deprecating." In his view, the death of Jane's wife and daughter shaped the character by taking away just about everything in his life. It's shown in his clothes which are worn and his shoes which are worn out. It indicates that since the death of his wife and daughter, "he gave up on his physical appearance." As Baker puts it, "Jane really has nothing left to live for, except for a form of revenge and justice, and his own take on what justice is." While The Mentalist may be a safe show for CBS, following a format that is episodic and therefore eminently repeatable, the way that his personality is presented makes Patrick Jane one of the more complicated characters around.
  
• Walter Bishop (Fringe): Walter Bishop stands out in a different way from Patrick Jane. While the fact that Jane has largely given up on living except for his determination to avenge his family, Walter Bishop is a mass to personality quirks that are blatantly obvious to the viewer. It's largely due to his insanity of course; Walter is quite literally a mad scientist. Although the role of Walter Bishop is one that abounds with opportunities to chew the scenery, John Noble invests him with a considerable amount of humanity. In a very real way Walter is almost a child, alternately naive and knowing, callous and caring. A very enjoyable portrayal.
  
• Dave Williams (Desperate Housewives): Villains are often the juiciest roles for an actor and in Dave Williams, Neal McDonough has found good one. On the surface Dave seems like a personable fellow out to make friends and help people. It's all part of a massive plot of course. While retaining his "nice guy" exterior, Dave has run Mrs. McCluskey out of her home, killed his former psychiatrist, started a fire in a night club to cover the murder that killed six or seven people, and framed Porter Scavo for the murder. The reasons for his actions have slowly been revealed. Initially it came out that he was seeking revenge against one of the husbands of Wisteria Lane. Narrowing it down slightly it was mentioned that the person he was after had killed someone in prison. Most recently it was revealed that – like Patrick Jane – Dave is seeking to avenge the death of his wife and daughter. In this case the vengeance will not simply be the death of the person (and I'm not going to mention who if only to avoid the wrath of the spoiler haters) he holds responsible for the death of his family but rather to inflict suffering on this man of the likes that he himself suffered.
  
• Gil Grissom (CSI): I've always liked William Petersen's performance as Grissom but with the announcement that Petersen would be leaving the series in the middle of this season, the producers seem to have made a very deliberate effort to focus storylines on Grissom. He's been made to appear increasingly melancholy and the producers have delved into his relationships with both the people he works with and people outside of his life who are important to him like Sara and Lady Heather. There's a telling moment at the beginning of the season when Grissom asks the psychologist played by Alex Kingston whether dogs can adopt the emotions of their owners that really lets us know that for whatever reason – most likely that Sara has left – Grissom is increasingly dissatisfied by where he is. It is perhaps fitting that it is his closest confidant, Catherine Willows, with whom he first confides his intention to leave. It is also fitting that she knows him so well that she can say that she knew he was going even before he did. In spite of the fact that they have never been physically intimate their connection is on a very intimate level. The past half season or so of the series has provided viewers with some of the most revealing glimpses of Grissom ever in the show.
  

On The Fourth Day Of Christmas

On the fourth day of Christmas my true love – Television – gave to me... four shows from last season that I wish were still on this season.

Okay, first of all this isn't the "fourth day of Christmas" post that I had originally planned. What I did have planned was a series of gripes about Canadian TV and the difficulties that being a Canadian imposed on people who love TV – like the fact that the best premium cable, and some basic cable, shows don't show up on basic cable here for months or years after they air in the United States. I could have reviewed Deadwood and Rome, but what would be the point; they had already been cancelled. And please don't ask me to subscribe to the premium channels to see these shows unless you are willing to provide me with a guaranteed $28 each and every month to pay for them. And don't even get me started on people who embed HULU clips on their websites that I can't see because I'm not an American. At least HULU tells me up front. Some other sources make me watch a commercial first and then tell me.

I know, this all sounds a bit self-centered. More to the point writing it was increasingly difficult for me, so I dropped it, but what to replace it with. I very nearly wrote "On the fourth day of Christmas my true love – Television – gave to me... nothing at all." I think I could have spun that into a piece about the industry but it kind of loses the numerical flavour. But then I thought of a great old standby, the "wrongly" cancelled show. Networks have all kinds of reasons for cancelling shows of course but in the light of what we got from them instead, maybe they shouldn't have been so hasty with what they did dump.

Moonlight – CBS: CBS cancelled a show that usually finished first in its timeslot and replaced it with The Ex-List. More to the point they cancelled a show about a vampire in love with a human (and vice versa) six months before ($150 million gross in four weeks), and less than four months before HBO put True Blood on the air. Yeah I know there were fan protests, and I know that after what happened with Jericho (which the network totally mishandled, but that's beside the point) CBS might be just a little wary of on a show that might be described as a "cult favourite," but come on, can anyone really say that the show wouldn't have performed better than The Ex-List? No, I didn't think so.

Women's Murder Club – ABC: This was the show that was usually on opposite Moonlight an alternated winning the time slot with it. The show, about four women involved in the criminal justice system – a cop, a coroner, an assistant district attorney, and a reporter – did reasonably well in the ratings and was one of the few new ABC shows to come back after the Writers Strike, and did so with little apparent erosion in the ratings. The show was not the unanimous critical success that Pushing Daisies or to a lesser extent Dirty Sexy Money and Eli Stone were, but in terms of audience numbers it was close to the latter two series. The time slot might have hurt it; Grey's Anatomy on Thursday night might have been a better fit for the show than 20/20 or the weak and often moved Men In Trees. Certainly Women's Murder Club would have done better coming out of Grey's Anatomy than Big Shots did last season or Life On Mars did this season.

Las Vegas – NBC: Yeah, I know it was expensive, and yeah I know that it was coming to the end of its string but it was one of the great "guilty pleasures" and it deserved to be treated better than NBC treated it in what turned out to be the final not quite a season. Particularly when you remember that this season NBC had Crusoe, My Own Worst Enemy and Knight Rider, none of which can be classified as "great guilty pleasures."

1 vs. 100 – NBC: This one was really hard to decide on. There are a lot of people who would have said Journeyman but it wasn't a show that I saw much of, and I could make arguments for FOX's New Amsterdam (because I liked the concept; it reminded me a bit of Highlander) or Shark (because it's fun to watch James Woods chew scenery), the CW's Aliens In America (which I never saw, but had good ratings – well good by CW standards – until it came back from the strike and let's face it the CW needs all the help they can get). In theory at least I could even make a case for the CW's Life Is Wild on the grounds that it was closer to family fare than most of what is on any network and even at its worst in terms of ratings it did way better than all of the MRC shows that the CW put on combined. But no, I went with a game show, 1 vs. 100 and I did it because as game shows go it was more knowledge based than something like Deal Or No Deal and despite all of the tinkering that NBC did with the scoring system (instead of money levels for each question where you got that amount for each mob member eliminated they changed it to ten levels were you had to eliminate ten mob members to collect that amount of money) and the composition of "the Mob" (putting permanent mob members in, some of whom wouldn't have survived the old system – I'm looking at you Dahm Triplets and you Oscar the Grouch) it was always an enjoyable show to watch.

Reflections On The Midseason - CBS

With all five of the American broadcast networks having announced their midseason schedules I thought it was a pretty good opportunity to look at the shows that are been replaced and the shows that replacing them and at the general successes and failures of the networks. And I decided that I might as well start with CBS.

Cancelled: The Ex-List

Episodes Ordered: Eleventh Hour (18 episodes), The Mentalist, Gary Unmarried, Worst Week (16 episodes)

New Shows: Flashpoint (Friday, second hour), Harper's Island (Thursday, third hour once the run of Eleventh Hour concludes), Game Show In My Head (Saturday first hour).

Flashpoint isn't really a new show. This is the second season of the Canadian made police series that debuted this past summer, and did very well in the ratings. The show stars Enrico Colantoni, Hugh Dillon, Amy Jo Johnson, David Paetkau and deals with the situations faced by the "Strategic Response Unit" of a major – if unnamed – Canadian city, presumed to be Toronto. Returns January 9, 2009 (replacing The Ex-List).

Game Show In My Head is a hidden camera game show from Ashton Kutcher, hosted by Joe Rogan. Contestants perform five stunts for the public for $5,000 each, before a bonus round in which they can double their money up to $50,000. Based on the Saturday time slot and the decision to show episodes back to back, it's likely that this show is being burned off. Starts January 3, 2009.

Harper's Island is described as a 13 episode "mystery event" (the sort of thing that back in the day we used to call a mini-series) dealing with a series of murders of people attending a "destination wedding" on an isolated island off the coast of Seattle. The show is described as "Scream meets 10 Little Indians" and stars Harry Hamlin, Adam Campbell, Elaine Cassidy, Katie Cassidy, Richard Burgi and Jim Beaver (who is well known to those of us who hung out at the rec.movies.past-films newsgroup). Debuts April 9, 2009.

Commentary: If I were CBS President Les Moonves I'd have a huge grin plastered on my face and only part of it would be because I'd be sleeping with Connie Chung Julie Chen. Of course I'm not Les Moonves (and not sleeping with Connie Chung Julie Chen dammit), but I think you get my point. While CBS's line-up is hardly flashy or innovative, the facts speak for themselves. Of five new series that debuted in September for CBS only one has been cancelled is The Ex-List which lost between 30% and 40% of Ghost Whisperer. Even at that it finished second in its time slot in its third and final outing, and would probably have won the time slot had it stayed there. And yet what happened on Friday nights once The Ex-List was removed from the line-up is illustrative of the strength of the CBS line-up. The final episode of The Ex-List had an audience of 5.33 million viewers and a rating in the 18-49 demographic of 1.5/5. In the weeks that followed CBS aired two repeats of NCIS (11.21 million, 2.3/8 in the demographic in the first week; 11.26 million, 2.4/7 in the second week), a Price Is Right: Salute To The Troops special (7.31 million, 1.7/5), a repeat of The Mentalist (11.62 million, 2.4/7), a second – repeat – episode of Ghost Whisperer (5.97 million, 1.5/4), and a repeat of Numb3rs (8.45 million 1.9/6). What this seems to illustrate is that CBS has a line-up of dramas that can readily be repeated and can draw an audience when they're being repeated. I think it can be argued that having a show on in the same place every week, regardless of whether the episodes are new or repeats, is a way to build win fan loyalty. If nothing else, in this rocky economy it is one way of keeping costs at an acceptable level. Instead of creating new shows (that almost inevitably fail) to fill hiatuses in the long dark periods between sweeps periods, it has to be cheaper to run repeats, and if those episodes come from a previous year or two and thus aren't fresh in people's memory, well so much the better.

Moonves isn't doing badly in the comedy business either. Of the four half hour comedies on Monday night, about the only weak spot – and in this case weak is relative – is Worst Week. Worst Week manages to pull 10.6 million viewers (first place) and a rating of 3.5/8 in the 18-49 demographic this past Monday against the first half of the Boston Legal finale, Heroes (which barely won the demographic), Privileged and Prison Break. In just about every other time slot and by any other network that would be regarded as a strong performance, but Worst Week follows Two And A Half Men (15.65 million viewers, 5.2/13 in the demographic) meaning that Worst Week is losing about a third of the earlier show's audience. But while most networks seem to have trouble carving out one night with comedies – or even one successful comedy – CBS has made a bridgehead on a second night with the Wednesday night combo of the veteran New Adventures Of Old Christine and rookie Gary Unmarried. They aren't winning the night but they are pulling solid second place ratings against the time slot winner, FOX's Bones (and this is in spite of me panning Gary Unmarried – so much for the "power" of internet critics!). Net result is the cancellation of ABC's Pushing Daisies and a cut in the order for Knight Rider from twenty-two to seventeen episodes.

And as far as Reality shows go, sure they've had more than their share of summer misfires over the past few seasons, but they've still got Survivor and The Amazing Race performing well, an d in the case of the latter likely to perform better once NBC's Sunday Night Football is out of the way.

Of course Moonves has worries – probably. There has to be some concern about how the audience will react to William Petersen's imminent departure from CSI and there has to be some concern over audience erosion from established shows. Indeed there has to be some concern over what will replace some of the established shows. CSI is in its ninth season, Without A Trace is in its seventh season, as is CSI: Miami. NCIS and Cold Case have both been on for six seasons. Relatively speaking Criminal Minds is something of a "baby" on CBS, having only been on for four seasons. Inevitably, and more likely sooner rather than later for some of these shows, an end will come – not necessarily because of bad ratings but because the "important" people on the show decide it is time to move on, or because someone at the network decides that it isn't cost effective for them to keep the show on the air even though it's not only holding its own in the ratings but may even be winning its time slot. The question of whether or not to be innovative, or indeed whether or not the network can afford to take the risk of being innovative. Or whether, as Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune said on Aaron Barnhart's TV Barn podcast, "In response to all the crisises that we were just talking about... [indistinct] they're just going to batten down the hatch and make nine different Mentalists." Does CBS replace a CSI (for example) with an innovative show that pushes the envelope a bit or does the network stick with what has made them a success. Of course that's for the future. For right now of all the networks, CBS is sitting prettiest.

The Doctor And His Companion

No, not that one, but as you'll see the comparison is probably more than a little apt.

I've been meaning to review Eleventh Hour practically since it began, but there have been problems. For reasons not related to the show – at least I don't think they were related to the show – I had a tendency to fall asleep during the episodes. Fairly quickly during the episodes as a matter of fact. This obviously constitutes a violation of my first rule of reviewing: "don't review a show that you haven't seen in its entirety". The repeated nature of it bothered me too; it made me wonder if I should add a fourth rule of reviewing (the other two being "don't review a show when you have a raging headache," and "don't give a good review to any show that gives you a raging headache"). The new rule would be something like "don't give a good review to a show that consistently puts you to sleep – it's obviously boring... or on too late for most folks." Fortunately, of late, I've managed to stay awake for the whole show, and while I can't say that it's the best thing out there I have to say that I'm really coming to like it a lot. It's not without its faults but there's something about it that grows on me.

Dr. Jacob Hood (Rufus Sewell) is the special scientific advisor to the FBI, a biophysicist with what is obviously an intense interest in scientific ethics. Because his work has made him some dangerous connections FBI Special Agent Rachel Young (Marley Shelton) of the Bureau's executive protection detail has been assigned to both protect him and smooth his path with local law enforcement agencies. Hood is sent out to deal with science based mysteries.

TV critics – both professional and amateur – have a tendency to try to find something to compare shows too. When Bones first appeared with its non-scientist FBI agent and his science expert partner, the immediate comparison was made to The X-Files. Actually a lot of shows get compared to The X-Files. In fact Fringe was compared to The X-Files without anyone actually seeing the series. In that case at least the comparison was at least slightly valid; the scientific mysteries that Fringe deals with are the sort of things that Fox Mulder would believe in and would be perfect grist for the X-Files writers. However, the fact that the characters and the circumstances in which they come together and operate in are entirely different from The X-Files, is what makes Fringe totally different from The X-Files. Agent Dunham is not an unbeliever, and her group are not outsiders. Yes there is a conspiracy – actually it seems like more than one (and after the most recent episode I'm not sure if what seems to be the main conspiracy are good guys, bad guys, or – and I think this is both the most intriguing element and the most likely case – bad guys who are less bad than the other bad guys) – but the nature of the conspiracy(ies) has been clear from the beginning even if the aims are not, for now, completely obvious. And of course The X-Files never had a character quite like Walter Bishop.

I bring this up because Eleventh Hour gets compared to another show too. That show is Fringe, which I find rather bizarre for a number of reasons. For one thing Eleventh Hour is based on a British series that predates Fringe. The characters of the principal protagonists – Hood and Young vs. Walter Bishop and Dunham – are light years apart. The big difference though is that while both shows deal with "scientific mysteries" the cases that appear on Fringe are science fiction, pushing well beyond the realms of possibility now and in any foreseeable future. The mysteries in Eleventh Hour are eminently believable, with science that is either current or being talked about with more than a little real scientific validity. In fact the Biotechnology Industry Organization has started a blog called Eleventh Hour Facts
to discuss issues related to each episode of the show. It is perhaps that aspect – the idea that the cases that Jacob Hood investigates could be taking place right now – that makes Eleventh Hour both fascinating and maybe a bit frightening.

I the episode on Thursday night (which I'm just getting around to reviewing now thanks to painting a bedroom) a young woman dies of the bends... aboard an airplane at 30,000 feet! What's more, she's not the first person from her college to die of the same problem. And though the bends are inevitably associated with scuba divers, not only have the students who developed the bends not been scuba diving, the go to college in Tulsa! Hood and Rachel go to Tulsa to find out what's going on and quickly determine that it is physical exertion that triggered the bends. The girl on the plane had just finished joining the "Mile High Club" with her boyfriend before she died, while the other student who died from the bends just finished moving to a new apartment. Hood initially thinks that the deaths are being caused by a new designer drug that the couple on the plane had taken, which supposedly led to "great sex." The drug turned out to be a sugar pill. Something else is the cause of the situation.

What that something else is appears to become clear when a third person suffers the bends. He's a young engineering student who is out running with his older brother, the school's top football star who is leading the team to the Cotton Bowl for the first time ever. When Jacob and Rachel get the report of the new case of the bends they are able to order a decompression chamber from the nearest Coast Guard station. The problem is that although the chamber temporarily stops the production of nitrogen bubbles within the blood stream, unlike normal cases of the bends they can't gradually reduce the pressure. In fact after a time at a specific "depth" the production of nitric oxide recommences and he has to be taken deeper to stop it again. Unfortunately there is a limit to the amount of pressure the human body can withstand.

Once the "great sex" pill has been eliminated from consideration as a cause for the bends, Hood turns to other possible situations that all three patients have been exposed to. The one thing they had in common was that all three had flu shots recently and they start to think about possibly tainted flu shots. And yet none of the vaccine samples they are able to test is abnormal and no other students are suffering the bends. This leads Hood to look at the specific qualities of the gas bubbles in the blood stream. It turns out that the bubbles aren't the normal nitrogen as is normally found in cases of the bends but rather nitric oxide (NO) a compound which is used in the body as a "signalling molecule." In this case molecule serves as a vasodilator which leads to increased blood flow (it's part of what Viagra does, specifically focused on the penis). This discovery, along with the flu shot and an examination of the blood of the girl in the plane leads Hood and the college's leading geneticist to discover that the three people who suffered from the bends have a virus which is carrying a gene that leads to extreme production of nitric oxide. However the gene is poorly designed and once started (by production of lactic acid due to physical exertion) doesn't have an "off switch." And it turns out that all three of the people who have the bends are the siblings of top athletes at the school – the sister of the girl on the plane was an Olympic calibre diver until she was caught in a doping scandal. Two other students, one of whom worked as a volunteer during the flu vaccinations and another who works as a trainer for the athletic department, are responsible for creating the gene and testing it on the siblings of the leading athletes on campus. When the diver, filled with remorse over the death of her sister, threatens to reveal all of the details she is threatened by them. She then composes an email to someone (I didn't catch the name on the "To" line but I think it was the campus newspaper) but it is intercepted and deleted by the more dominant of the two students behind the plot. The diver commits suicide by doing a high dive into an empty pool. While Hood works with the school's geneticist to come up with a solution to the genetic problem – they eventually design their own gene which will counteract the effects of the original genetic modification – Rachel and college's head of security (a former FBI agent with whom Rachel shares a definite attraction) manage to track down first the guy who gave the flu shots to the siblings and then the one who was with the athletic department. Rachel finds out that he had injected the football player before they found out about the problems with the gene. Hood and Rachel manage to get to him just before the start of a football game and stop him from playing. Eventually they manage to cure both the football player and his engineering student brother, to the point where the football player will probably be able to compete again.

Key to this series is the relationship between Jacob Hood and Rachel Young. It has to be since they are the only two characters who are constants in the series. When I titled this post The Doctor And His Companion and then added "No, not that one..." the reference was quite deliberately to Doctor Who. One of my brother's girlfriends – it may even have been my ex-sister-in-law – once asked me what the purpose of the Doctor's companions was. My response was that their purpose was to be threatened by the menace of the serial, and to allow the Doctor to explain things to someone which brings the audience up to speed on the situation. Like Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories, the Doctor's companions are a surrogate for the audience. In some cases Doctor Who companions also had a third role. Sometimes a companion would do physical things. That was particularly true during William Hartnell's period in the role and to a lesser extent in Patrick Troughton's. Hartnell was playing a version of the Doctor who was elderly (and his own health wasn't particularly robust), so the physical action was usually taken on by a younger male companion (Ian, Steven, Ben). I bring this up because Rachel's relationship with Hood fulfills two of these three "purposes;" she is our surrogate, the individual of essentially average knowledge that Hood has to explain the science to in a manner that we can understand, and she is the one who does things that her "Doctor" can't do – everything from chasing down a suspect to getting subpoenas, to invoking the Patriot Act to get information. (And yes, in one episode involving a possible Smallpox release, Rachel was under threat from the episode's "menace." It turned out that what she had been infected with was Chicken Pox.)

Inevitably there are potential questions of sexual tension in show like this. The writers and producers seem ambivalent about this potential. Initially (like in the first episode aired) the relationship between Hood and Rachel seemed to border on the adversarial – she ordered him to keep his panic button with him at all times, leading to a funny scene when it went off while she was in her underwear and she raced to him in a terry cloth robe – it turns out he sat on the panic button when he went to the bar for a drink. Subsequent episodes have made the relationship increasingly more playful. At one point when he liberates some macadamia nuts to illustrate something he discovered she says "minibar – expensive!" In the most recent episode she was with Hood at his nephew's birthday party and was so integrated and comfortable in this situation that she bought the boy a present (a football). Hood's sister even suggests that maybe her brother, who lost his wife to cancer several years ago, might consider a relationship with Rachel. Hood, it seems, has never considered the possibility. We're less sure about Rachel though. She seems rather protective when other women seem to be making approaches to him, giving "the look" when someone suggests possibly hooking up with him. At the same time any true sexual tension seems to be buried. Certainly Rachel seems extremely interested getting together with the former FBI agent who is now the college head of security in the most recent episode, and only the urgency of the case and the need to stick with Hood keeps her from doing something about it. To be sure the sexual tension between Hood and Rachel is far more hidden than the tension between Patrick Jane and Teresa Lisbon on The Mentalist.

Looking at this series with a fairly critical eye, I have to say that it must be described as a typical CBS series. It's very workmanlike and like shows such as Numb3rs and The Mentalist it has at its heart a criminal investigator who comes from a field that you would normally not think of. The shows themselves are very self-contained and like most of the CBS series Eleventh Hour is eminently repeatable. No one is breaking any new ground with this show, and this is doubly true since this show was based on a British series. Rufus Sewell as Hood is quite watchable and does well as the brilliant and just slightly arrogant scientist. Still it isn't a role that particularly stretches his acting muscles (beyond trying to suppress his normal British accent of course). Marley Shelton is probably more interesting for me, but maybe that's because she's a very attractive woman whose character tries desperately to maintain a business like air. Most of the time when we see her she's wearing her hair up in some way. The character is all business when she's working and we only rarely see her in a relaxed situation, when she literally lets her hair down.

I wanted to spend a little time dealing with the writing for the series. As I say it is not something that attempts to break new ground. At the same time the notion of dealing with scientific mysteries – not really crimes in most cases although deaths do often result – is an interesting one. These aren't the conventional subject for a television mystery, which inevitably deal with a deliberate murder and solving that sort of crime. Eleventh Hour has deaths but in most cases they are the result of a cavalier disregard for ethical treatment of scientific discovery. In the most recent episode (the one with the "gene doping") the "villains" don't set out to kill anyone but deaths result because they feel it is perfectly acceptable to test their "discovery" on people. You see the same thing in other episodes, where scientists or companies use science in a cavalier manner and take the attitude that the ends justify the means. The issue, that science is usually neither good nor bad but is used by people for good or bad ends, is a frequent theme in the series. More than in just about any of the CBS crime dramas questions of responsibility and ethics are an underlying but ever-present aspect of this series.

Eleventh Hour is a series that I find to be increasingly interesting as the show has developed, and it's not really because of the mysteries or the evolution of the characters. I suppose this might be something of an "old guy" thing on my part but I'm finding this series to be easy to watch because it isn't pushing the envelope. And in a way I find that vaguely disturbing. Pushing the envelope is how you get the innovative shows that in eight years are going to be what everybody is doing today. It's hard to remember after all that there was a time that CSI pushed the envelope; people, we were assured by TV Guide (at least in Canada), might be leery about watching scientists solving crimes. It was too smart. And yet the fact is that the innovative shows over the past few years that have been pushing the envelope haven't been pulling an audience – at least not the size or sort of audience that the corporate masters of the TV networks (and the companies that buy advertising from them) want them to produce. And when we come down to that, maybe there's something to be said for playing it safe and producing shows that aren't innovative that draw audiences. Whatever the reason, I find that Eleventh Hour keeps pulling me back in spite of its limitations.

Bob The Survivor

I have decided that Bob is my favourite cast member on the current season of Survivor. He's always been on the list because he's low key yet industrious, but what he did over the past couple of episodes has cemented my opinion of him as the smartest player to probably not win this game since Yau Man didn't win.

Some of you may be wondering how he accomplished this. Well, the sequence goes something like this.

1. Bob goes to Exile Island for the first time. Unlike Dan – the first player sent to Exile – but like Sugar, he finds the first clue to the hidden immunity idol and follows them through to the end. At the end of the trail he finds nothing. And so he spends his time in a little art project, making a fake Immunity Idol (and by far the most convincing of the fakes yet perpetrated). He then returns to the Nobag camp with his fake. Charlie is voted out.
   
2. Bob shows his fake immunity idol to Sugar. She immediately sees the potential of the fake Idol in getting rid of Randy. Bob resolves to give the fake idol to Randy if Randy asks for the Immunity Idol.
   
3. Bob is sent to Exile a second time, this time by Kenny. After finding that the clue is exactly the same one that led him to the dead end in his previous time at Exile, he goes on a bit of a personal safari.
   
4. Which of course Randy does, because Randy has been acting like an even bigger horse's ass than usual – something that is hard to believe since he was already a Clydesdale sized horse's ass – with the expectation that Bob has the Idol.
   
5. Randy stays obnoxious at Tribal Council to the point where Crystal makes her goodbye statement loudly enough so everyone can hear her.
   
6. In the vote Corinne and Randy vote for Susie. So does Bob.
   
7. Randy plays the fake Idol. Jeff reveals that Idol that Randy played was fake. Bye-bye self-declared "King of Gabon," don't let the palm leaves hit you on the ass on the way out – or better yet do.
   

Now there are a couple of things here that I don't think some people get. First of all there's this from Wikipedia: "Not knowing that Sugar had the Hidden Immunity Idol, Bob told her that he did not have the Hidden Immunity Idol and showed her the fake idol that he made." While I mostly agree that Bob doesn't know for sure that Sugar has the Idol, he has to be pretty sure that it's not there and since Sugar is the only person left in the game who has been to Exile – Dan having been eliminated – it follows that Sugar has the Idol, since in the past they've returned it to Exile with a new set of clues if the owner either plays it or is eliminated, and Bob has followed clues that have led him to a spike in a tree in the jungle; the perfect place for an Immunity Idol to hang. And as we'll see in the next paragraph letting Sugar know helps him to sell his plan.

Next, why does Bob vote for Susie? He has to know that she's not going home right? Of course he does, and it doesn't matter. In fact it is a brilliant strategic move because it tells Randy, Corrine, the jury members and anyone that Sugar hasn't told about having the Immunity Idol that he believed he had the real thing. Sugar's barely controlled glee at seeing Randy play the fake sells the idea that she knows it's a fake. It not only reveals that Sugar has the real Idol to anyone who doesn't already know – how else would she know that what Randy played was a fake practically before he played it – but it makes it obvious that it was Sugar, and not Bob who made the fake Idol. After all, why would Bob give what he knew to be a fake Idol to his ally Randy? Bob has to have believed that it was the real deal and he wouldn't if he made it himself.

For the life of me though, what I don't get is why Corinne and Randy – but particularly Corinne – believed it was impossible for Sugar to have the real Immunity Idol while they were absolutely certain that Bob found it. I mean anyone who looked at the situation with even a modicum – a bare scintilla – of logic would come to the conclusion that the odds of someone who had been sent to Exile Island five times in a row were at least twice as good as the odds of someone who had been there twice. In the end I suppose that it comes down pure hubris on the part of Randy and even more so Corinne. For reasons which surpass any understanding, they believe that Sugar is simply too stupid to have found the Immunity Idol despite five consecutive trips there. Corinne has even come out and called Sugar stupid because she can't see that Corinne hates her. Presumably they believe that without a brain (Ace) to guide her, Sugar would be useless in the game, too stupid to "outwit, outplay, or outlast" the supposedly smart people. And what is their basis for believing this? Because she looks the way she looks and talks the way she talks and claims to be a pin-up model so how smart can she be? In fact she's an actress whose IMDB credits include appearances in Gilmore Girls (she played Jess's girlfriend Shane if that means anything to you) and For Your Love. She was also vocalist in a band called "Sugar Spit." Not a "rocket scientist" to be sure but hardly too stupid to survive.

I don't expect Bob to survive for too much longer sadly. The problem is that with the exception of Corinne, none of the other cast members is as isolated and friendless as Bob. His ties with Crystal, Matty and Kenny are non-existent, and his link with Susie has to be even more tenuous than his relationship with Sugar. In fact his only semi-solid alliance is probably with Corinne, cemented by his decision to vote for Susie. I expect Corinne to go home next week followed, sadly, by Bob the Survivor.

Short Takes – November 4, 2008

As a lot of you might know, in the past I used to do a regular series of posts called Short Takes in which I wrote about TV related news and gave my opinion on stuff. I sort of gave up on it, primarily because I got behind in grabbing stuff for the column and it got to be a bit of a hassle, and mostly because, by the time I had the column written it was usually old news. I can't say that I really miss writing those pieces but there is a bit of a hole, so I've decided to try to revive the idea. Well sort of. This is an experiment undertaken largely because I want to write about someone that I don't know much about who is in a situation that I don't know much about, but what I know about him, mostly his writing, I basically like and what has happened to him I basically don't like.

Another TV Critic Fired: Eric Kohanik, one time president of the TV Critics Association has been fired as editor and TV critic for the TV Times booklet that appears in most of the CanWest newspapers, including my local rag, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. According to Bill Brioux, former TV columnist for the Toronto Sun who currently does a weekly column for the Canadian Press (a column that is not seen locally) and produces the blog TV Feeds My Family the fault isn't with Kohanik's work but the general malaise that has infected newspapers in general: "TVTimes, one of the more handsome weekend TV supplements, has been deemed dispensable in this age of high newsprint costs, declining ad revenues and on-screen TV listings. At one time it appeared in 33 newspapers across the country as part of the Southam and later CanWest chains. Like the print edition of TV Guide in Canada, it is being phased out of circulation, reduced to mere listings without editorial content."

Making this about me for a moment, this leaves me without a TV critic that I can read in the local paper, as the local rag basically depends on the syndicate for most of its entertainment content. Now admittedly, even when the StarPhoenix was part of a two paper family owned chain as often as not they farmed out TV criticism to outside sources. For a long time in the 1960s they had a local critic – a man named Ned Powers, whose brother-in-law I bowl with, and who sometimes bowled with my mother – but he usually wrote about once or twice a week and I don't remember much of what he wrote. After all it was nearly 40 years ago. In the 1970s and early 1980s the paper had a column written by Gary Deeb of one of the Chicago newspapers. I think it was the Tribune but I'm not sure. Deeb used to infuriate me when he criticised shows I liked but that's part of being a TV critic. Deeb's column vanished rather suddenly as I recall, and I don't really recall anything replacing him. Eventually, along came Kohanik but I confess I wasn't really aware of when he started being a big part of the TV Times experience for me.

The death by inches of the TV Times and paper TV listings in general is something else that bothers me considerably. To be sure I have issues with the TV Times. For one thing it doesn't carry listings of the full spectrum of cable channels available to me while carrying listings for other channels that I have no way of getting, but I truly like having a full week listing even if it is a listing of majority of the channels rather than everything. Sure, my digital cable has a guide function, and there's a listings channel on the analog part of the cable, but the analog listings channel only covers the next hour or so, and the digital guide at most lets me see a day or two into the future. Beyond that I have to schlep off to the computer to check Zap2It. Sure it doesn't sound that arduous – and it isn't really – but so much easier just to have it in a magazine beside my watching position.

Of course, more important to me than the listings is to have someone who can give me their opinion of a shows, and just to write about them, and that's going, moving to the Internet. Maybe that's a good thing. If you read Ed Bark's blog you'll eventually discover that he has more independence now than when he was working for the Dallas Morning News which was owned by Belo Corporation, which also owned one of the Dallas stations. Bark wasn't allowed to critique local TV news stations even as the newspaper was moving its national TV coverage to wire service copy. I'm not going to speculate that Eric Kohanik had to deal with similar problems while working for the newspapers owned by Canada's third network (newspapers which conspicuously don't take ads from either CTV or CBC, and probably not from Rogers in areas where Rogers' CITY-TV stations are operating). He's always seemed pretty fair and balanced to me, calling crap crap regardless of the station on which it aired. What I am more than willing to say though is that having this sort of thing in my local newspaper is useful to me. And my local newspaper is giving me short shrift when it comes to TV coverage. The daily primetime listings were discontinued to give readers a full page of comics (up from the previous half page – the local rag doesn't like comics – takes away from ad revenue). TV get short wire service news squibs in the Entertainment pages...sometimes. On the Saturday there are a couple of columns that tells us the highlights of TV on Saturday and Sunday (no Sunday papers in the CanWest chain). But TV criticism? They spend more column inches on a snarky gossip columnist, and he doesn't get that much space in a week. Sure, TV criticism on the Internet is fine and may even be where it all ends up, but for me, I like being able to immerse myself in it in a way that I can't while sitting in front of a computer screen and can while reading my newspaper. I guess I'm going to have to buy the Globe & Mail more often.

Network Cancellations: Five so far this year. Do Not Disturb went first, in September. Next, ABC dumped the Ashton Kutcher created game show Opportunity Knocks on October 16^th after three episodes. Then CBS dropped The Ex-List on October 27^th after four episodes. Finally Media Rights Capital, which was programming Sunday nights from The CW has dropped two of their series, Valentine and Easy Money, although they will apparently burn off the remaining episodes produced of both series. The cancellation of The Ex-List comes as sweet vindication for those of us who came to love Moonlight. On the other hand I am one of those who is still mystified by the CBS decision to cancel the relatively successful Close To Home to create a hole for Moonlight.

I did review Do Not Disturb – found it dreadful – but missed the other four. Actually I had no earthly intention of writing anything about Opportunity Knocks which sounded like one of the worst ideas ever. I had no real desire to write or even view either Valentine or The Ex-List, so the decisions by their respective networks saved me the trouble

Network Renewals: NBC has given back nines to Knight Rider and Kath & Kim. They`re both mysteries to me but Kath & Kim is probably the bigger one – I just don`t get it. CBS's The Mentalist also received a full season order, not surprisingly given that it seems to be the only true success so far this season. They've also increased the order – although not yet to a full back nine – of their Thursday night drama The Eleventh Hour. The CW has given a back nine to their highly publicized 90210 although not to the show that follows it, Privileged. I mention Privileged because while the show loses audience out of 90210 its audience seems to consistently increase by 20-30% when the DVR "Live +7" audience is factored in.

Network Movements: NBC has announced that they will be bringing the original Law & Order back on Wednesday nights in the third hour. The show was originally intended to air on Sunday nights once Football ends but will instead replace the underperforming Lipstick Jungle. That show in turn will move to the third hour of Friday night, unseating the sophomore cop show Life which moves to the second hour of Wednesday night, reducing Deal Or No Deal to one episode a week. With the first hour of Wednesday being Knight Rider, the result is a new Wednesday block of shows labelled "Crime Night" by NBC.

Olbermania: Okay, I confess that since I've been able to get MSNBC for "free" (thanks to Shaw Cable which made it part of the Digital Basic package – though personally I'd rather they'd done that with BBC World instead) I've become a huge fan of Keith Olberman, who for better or for worse has been a huge part of this election cycle. Oh I don't really watch Olberman for his political views, though I largely agree with them, but because the guy is hugely entertaining. The guy's an okay interviewer but I don't watch him for that. I watch for his opinions – and he is opinionated – for his "Worst Person in the World!!!" bits and for those times when he goes on one of those famous rants of his. I mean if I want calm rationality I'll watch Rachel Maddow (I'm in love with Rachel, albeit a mostly platonic love that acknowledges her Lesbianism). I watch Olberman for the crazy. And as the election campaign has gone on the crazy has been infinitely entertaining. Thus it was probably inevitable that Saturday Night Live would turn its satirical light on Olberman. All that was needed was someone who could "do" justice to Olberman. Enter Ben Affleck...

Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – October 26, 2008

I confess that sometimes I get complacent about the PTC. Like I did this past month or so. It's the little things that drive you towards this. The vague hope that maybe they are sated, for lack of a better term. Alternately the sense that maybe they're losing steam. Certainly the continuing failure to update the "Misrated" column gives a hint of that. Of course they just might not be able to find interns to slave for them, what with the election and all that. And of course there's the repetitive nature of the thing. I mean how many times can you write about their vendettas against South Park and Rescue Men and Two And A Half Men and My Name Is Earl and just about everything that Seth McFarlane has created. And of course there's always the sense that they've gone about as far as they can go in the stupidity sweepstakes.

And just when you think that can't go any dumber, they get a little bit stupider.

I'm not sure how they're going to top their latest descent into the moronic. In a press release dated October 22^nd the PTC announced to the world – and more importantly to their 1.3 million members and assorted hangers-on – that they were filing an obscenity complaint against one of their perpetual targets, Two And A Half Men. According to the press release, the October 20^th episode "crossed the indecency line." In his statement announcing the complaint PTC President Tim Winter stated, "The shocking episode included a strip club scene that lasts three full minutes and features up close shots of a leading character being 'serviced' by a stripper complete with moaning and other sexual references. The scene was in no way 'fleeting' or accidental; rather, it was specifically written into this scripted program."

At this point gentle (and not so gentle) readers I would refer you to the PTC's "Worst of the Week" page for that very episode. Why? Well the PTC has supplied a clip of the very scene that they are claiming is so indecent that it is worthy of a complaint to the FCC by the PTC and its 1.3 million easily offended members (and assorted hangers on). For those of you using Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, just click the "Play" button on the Player; those of you using Firefox and Safari click the link that says download the clip. Go ahead and do that, I'll wait.

Doh de Doh de Doh Doh Dooooh.

Okay, are we all back? Have we taken care of any uh, side effects, that this scene might have provoked in we poor easily corrupted human males? Good. That is what the PTC currently thinks is indecent! I'm not sure how they get there to be honest with you. The setting is the world's most chaste strip club. The "stripper" in question is wearing more clothes than many women wear on the beach. She is not "Charlotte Ross nude" – the subject of the infamous FCC NYPD Blue decision which is currently under appeal. We are not seeing the "curve of her naked breasts" which was the cause of a PTC complaint about an episode of Las Vegas. No one in the scene is using any of the seven words you can't use on TV including the ones that you've been able to use for a while now. All of the participants in the scene are above the age of consent, which seems to have been the basis for the FCC fine in the Without A Trace "teen orgy" case, nor is it a simulation of a "sexual act" as most of us would be inclined to define it and as the FCC seems to have defined it in that same decision. It is certainly not of the standard of the bachelor party scene from the reality series Married By America which earned FOX an FCC fine. No, to quote the description from the "Worst of the Week" page (because it has the most comprehensive description of the scene that supposedly crossed the indecency line): "The episode begins with Charlie running into teenager Jake's former 5^th grade teacher, Dolores Pasternak. Dolores suffered a nervous breakdown and lost her teaching job after Charlie dumped her, and now works as an exotic dancer known as Desiree Bush. She chews out Charlie for ruining her life. In a rare moment of guilt, Charlie feels responsible for Ms. Paternak's misfortunes and decides to help her. Charlie visits the strip club where she works, bringing his brother Alan along. Once at the strip club, Charlie asks a dancer onstage, 'When does Ms. Bush come out?' The dancer replies, 'Whenever Ben Franklin comes out.' Charlie clarifies, 'I mean Desiree Bush.' He turns and recognizes Dolores' rear waving in front of his face. Dolores/Desiree refuses to talk to Charlie unless he pays for a private dance, whereupon Charlie offers to buy one for Alan. Once in the private room, Dolores bumps and grinds on top of Alan, who moans in pleasure: 'Whoo, doggies!' As she straddles Alan he stops her: 'Excuse me, I've got to readjust. I'm playing ring toss with my car keys.' She mounts him again, tosses her head back and sticks her chest out while Charlie offers to hire her as Jake's tutor. When she asks if Alan agrees with the proposal he squeaks, 'Oh…yes. Yes. YES!'" According to the PTC, "This scene was not just sexually suggestive -- it actually depicted a borderline sexual act. The graphic lap dance crosses the line into indecency." Oh puh-lease! Borderline sexual act? Graphic lap dance?! Maybe to an Islamic mullah, but for the rest of us it's hardly the stuff of arousal to sexual excitement. To be sure the script is full of double entendres, and even single entendres but that's pretty much expected of Two And A Half Men, and besides while it may be done in a way that offends good taste it is most assuredly not done in a way that offends the legal definitions of indecency.

Not surprisingly the mainstream media has not picked up on this story, and to be honest with you I'm not sure that they should if only because they can't give it the sort of ridicule that it truly deserves. I've only found two news items about the complaint. One is from OneNewsNow.com, "a division of the American Family News Network" and a website that has stories about whether Obama "supports the radical homosexual agenda espoused by one of his fundraising co-chairs," or how "there would be no mention of resurrecting the 'Fairness Doctrine' if talk radio were dominated by liberals." (The latter is one of those things that makes anyone with a bit of knowledge burst out laughing; the old and now discontinued "Fairness Doctrine" was established in law with the "Red Lion Decision" before the Supreme Court which essentially allowed regulation of the airwaves by the FCC because of the "scarcity of frequencies." Decry the basis of the Fairness Doctrine and weaken Red Lion and incidentally the case of people like the PTC. Click this link to read about Red Lion.) Obviously they drank buckets full of the cheap Kool-Aid substitute. The other news report is from TVNewsday which essentially reprints the PTC press release without comment. However broadening my search a bit further I came upon this from Tom Jicha, TV critic for the South Florida Sun-Sentinal and fellow PTC hater: "The Parents Television Council, which has been having trouble getting its name in the paper because of all the political news, announced it is filing a complaint with the FCC over Monday's episode of Two and a Half Men. The scene in dispute involved Jon Cryer's character getting a fairly explicit strip club lap dance. As it played out, I thought to myself, the Moral Mafia is going to get all worked up--no pun intended--over this. They never disappoint. They are still bringing up Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, largely because it was the last time anyone paid them serious attention. The Super Bowl, they had a point. That was an ambush. But anyone who doesn't know by now that Two and a Half Men is the raciest (and funniest) show on TV shouldn't be allowed near a remote control. This complaint, like almost all the other thousands the PTC and their fellow travelers file, will get nowhere but it will win them some attention that will help in fund-raising, which is what this is all about." He's right of course (except that I didn't find the scene all that racy but then I'm a Canadian and we're made of and used to stronger stuff) but really, the very fact that they even think they have grounds to complain makes it noteworthy in the annals of PTC intolerance.

I'm only going to give brief mention to the PTC's current Worst on Cable. It's another attack on the BBC America presentation of Skins which originally aired on Britain's E4, a satellite station owned by Channel 4, a broadcast network that is known for its cutting edge dramas. The series subsequently aired on the broadcast channel. The particular episode that the PTC found objectionable was a second season episode called Sketch, in which a teenage girl develops a major infatuation of Maxxie – an openly gay male character that goes to the point of stalking. When Maxxie gives her slight encouragement – he asks if she's "single" intending to set her up with his friend Anwar her obsession takes off, to the point where she sneaks into his room and masturbates on his bed upt to the time when he comes home at which point she hides under his bed and apparently stays there all night. Later, when she does surrender her virginity to Anwar, it is apparent from the way the scene is shot (as seen in the clip that accompanies the article) that the only enjoyment she gets out of the act comes from looking at a picture of Anwar and Maxxie, and presumably imagining that it is Maxxie who is making love to her rather than Anwar copulating with her. Having described the situation in explicit detail, the PTC doesn't seem to have many placed to take it. They don't even enter into their usual diatribe demanding Cable Choice and asking why the public is "forced to subsidize" programming such as this. Instead they latch onto something in an "inside look" type commentary that aired during the episode: "Incredibly, during an "inside look" at the show that aired during a commercial break, one of the actors made the audacious claim that '[Skins] is a very true-to-life program.' Only on TV are stalking, hiding in other people's rooms watching them undress, and masturbating in other people's beds considered 'true-to-life.'" But of course the character of Sketch is emotionally damaged – something that the PTC writer admits in his piece – and if there's one thing that we know from "real life" it is that stalkers exist and they are people who are emotionally damaged, and that they do things that go far beyond "hiding in other people's rooms watching them undress, and masturbating in other people's beds." But of course the PTC expects Sketch to be portrayed as though she were emotionally stable even after admitting that she isn't emotionally stable. And this is used as evidence that "Increasingly, on shows like Gossip Girl and Skins, sex is treated as a weapon, a tool girls must use to manipulate men at the expense of their own body. In this toxic media environment, sexual deviance is routinely pawned off as normal." But of course in Skins at least, that isn't the case; Sketch's activities, her "sexual deviance" as the PTC puts it, is most assuredly not portrayed as normal but rather the acts of a disturbed person.

Finally we turn to the PTC's TV Trends column. This time around the Council takes another run at demonizing anyone who dares to appeal an FCC decision that the PTC agrees with. The target this time around is NewsCorp President Peter Chernin. Chernin was recently given the Media Institute's Freedom of Speech Award – or as the PTC puts it, "the Media Institute's so-called 'Freedom of Speech' award." I want to start this part of this post with the conclusion that the writer of this latest screed offers: "Peter Chernin and his fellow media oligarchs claim that their 'First Amendment rights' are in jeopardy. Given the use to which they are already putting their freedoms – and the public's airwaves -- one may legitimately ask: if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Fox and allows it to air whatever offensive and harmful material it wishes, can America's cultural suicide be far behind?" Beyond the fact that I love how the writer puts the words "First Amendment rights" in quotes, as if such rights are an illusion or somehow non-existent for Chernin or the "media oligarchs" or maybe just the broadcast media in general, I have to wonder at a culture so fragile that someone saying "fuck" or "shit" on TV in the heat of the moment will lead to "America's cultural suicide." Because that of course is the issue that the PTC writer is so incensed about, the upcoming Supreme Court appeal of the "fleeting obscenities" ruling by the Second Circuit Court.

But let's go back to the beginning of the article. Chernin had made a speech after accepting the Media Institute Freedom of Speech award which was reported in Broadcast & Cable. The PTC claims that in that speech Chernins said that "the regulation of indecent and obscene entertainment programming on broadcast TV will somehow automatically lead to the overthrow of the democratic process in American politics." As usual this is a case of the PTC deliberately misinterpreting someone's words because what was actually said does not aid their cause. Here is the relevant portion of what Chernin said, as reported by Broadcast & Cable. He begins by noting the coincidence that the FOX case and the US elections are being held on the same day:

Chernin said the coincidence of the two events was appropriate. "The Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of the First Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic process. And the two are inextricably intertwined. The First Amendment is central to our democratic process because it ensures a full and open dialogue about the candidates for office. Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not be sustained," he said.

"While a case with Cher and Nicole Richie at its center is probably not one we would have chosen to argue before the Supreme Court," said Chernin, "we don't get to pick our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me that my company would be before the U.S. Supreme Court defending inane comments by Cher and Nicole Ritchie, I would have said, 'You're crazy.' But I would contend that the nature of this speech, and who said it, makes absolutely no difference."

That's because Chernin called the heart of the case "an absolute threat to the First Amendment. It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming – from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event. The effect would be appalling."

"As a media company," said Chernin, "we have not just a right but a responsibility to stand up to the government when it crosses that First Amendment line in the sand – even if the content we are defending is in bad taste. And in the indecency context, that line has not only been crossed, it has been obliterated," he said.

Now I may be blind, but I don't see anything like what the PTC claimed was in his speech in this article. You know, the part about "the regulation of indecent and obscene entertainment programming on broadcast TV will somehow automatically lead to the overthrow of the democratic process in American politics."

Of course for the PTC what a finding for FOX in this case will mean is a blanket permission to "allow any kind of language on TV, in any amount and at any time of day." But Chernin is clear in his statement that this is not what this case is about: "It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming – from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast television event." And in fact that is the context of the case. The court is dealing with a sudden and arbitrary change in a policy that had been in place essentially since the beginning of the FCC's ability to deal with "indecent" content – the understanding that from time to time people on a live broadcast might forget themselves and say a word that under most circumstances would not be allowed, or that such a word might inadvertently be picked up on a microphone.

Then again, to the PTC, FOX is a veritable cess pool of unacceptable content, worse even than the other broadcast networks. The PTC says of this, "Clearly, Peter Chernin has an extremely high opinion of the programming that his networks currently air. In such a context, it is fair to ask: if Fox is demanding the 'right' to air anything it wants, any time it wants, what are the contributions the network currently makes to American culture and civil discourse?" They give as an example – inevitably given the PTC's attitude toward Seth MacFarlane – a couple of scenes from recent episodes of American Dad and Family Guy. I won't go into details except to mention a comment in parentheses at the end of the excerpts: "Of course, if Fox gets its way, "f******" – and every other profanity -- will never be bleeped again." Not true, as we've seen from Chernin's previous statement. However I will counter with what Peter Chernin said in his speech:

Chernin conceded some of the content Fox was defending in this and other cases "is not particularly tasteful," citing "expletives, the brief nudity, carefully placed whipped cream, and, of course, the pixels." He said he would not have allowed his kids when they were younger to watch some of those shows. But he also said Fox would "fight to the end for our ability to put occasionally controversial, offensive, and even tasteless content on the air."

That doesn't mean Fox doesn't make mistakes, he said, but the alternative is a media "ruled by fear of crossing an ambiguous line. Then, he says, the product becomes "less vital and more homogenous," viewers will have less choice, programming that is "provocative and accurately reflects our society will be compromised," and the First Amendment would be chipped away "until it becomes toothless."

The writer of this piece goes to great lengths to attack Chernin's position as being not just ill-formed but elitist and therefore invalid. Part of this is pointing out that the Media Institutes Board of Trustees are "oligarchs" by thoughtfully providing a link to the Institute web page that lists the members of the Board, most of whom are executives at various media companies ranging from Time Warner and NBC Universal to Belo Corporation and Clear Channel. They don't distinguish between the political viewpoints of the various companies or their executives – which I suspect is far more diverse than the political viewpoints of the leaders of the PTC – but that omission is most likely an attempt to make it seem that they all hold a unitary view. The use of the term Oligarchy – rule by a self determined elite who decides what is and isn't good for you – is a keystone for the PTC's argument on this issue since it allows them to paint it as "The People", as defined and given voice by the PTC, versus the evil elite. In fact they come right out and say it:

The entertainment industry often claims that the Parents Television Council is a tiny minority unrepresentative of most Americans, and that therefore our actions in advocating modest limits on indecency should be ignored. But considering that approximately 90% of everything Americans see, hear or read in the media is ultimately controlled by a few dozen network presidents and corporate chairmen, and possibly a few hundred more writers and producers, such a claim rings false. The PTC would willingly wager that our more than 1.3 million members are more in tune with the thoughts and feelings of average Americans than are a tiny clique of media bosses and their so-called 'creative' lackeys.

Obviously the matter of the PTC's so-called "modest limits on indecency" is questionable given the subjects of the their most recent campaigns (The Today Show "obscenity", the Survivor penis, and the Two And A Half Men lap dance) but I have serious doubts that the PTC's 1.3 million members is truly in tune with the majority of the 305.1 million people in the United States.

The PTC takes a very definite leap in logic in "proving" that the American public supports the action of the FCC in levying the fine against FOX on the "fleeting obscenity" issue. See if you can follow this (Emphasis is theirs):

The position held by Peter Chernin and his media cronies is that the U.S. government, following mandates from a Congress elected by the American people, should not enforce the common-sense standards of decency that the overwhelming majority of Americans want. That the overwhelming majority of Americans do want such common-sense standards of decency in entertainment is undeniable; in 2006, the people's elected representatives in the United States Congress passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, increasing FCC fines for indecent content on broadcast TV. The House of Representatives voted in favor of this measure by a 10-1 margin; the Senate passed it unanimously.

But, because such measures do not meet with the approval of Peter Chernin and his fellow multi-millionaire moguls who control broadcast, cable and satellite television, radio networks, film studios, music companies, newspapers, magazines, and book publishing firms, these bosses demand that the law be overturned. The desires of average Americans be damned, say the Overlords of Media; anything that would limit the entertainment industry's "freedom" to make more obscene profits by deluging Americans with indecent and offensive content must not be allowed.

The logic is so faulty that it is laughable. Setting aside the fact that the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (not 2006) does not deal with the definition of indecent or obscene content but rather with increasing fines for content defined by the FCC as being obscene or indecent, we are supposed to believe that that the "overwhelming majority of Americans" want this because their elected representatives voted for it en masse. This is, of course because the Representatives and Senators all asked everyone in their states whether or not they should vote for this measure. This is at best fallacious logic on the PTC's part. Let's set aside the dangers that the increased fines pose in terms of creating a chill in terms of what can be broadcast, as described in an article by Garrison Keillor in Salon in September 2005. Let's even set aside the views of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (yeah I'm shocked that I'm citing them but it's a worthwhile quote) which wrote:

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which increases the fines for the broadcast of "obscene, indecent, and profane language," is itself an indecent obscenity.

The FCC's power to regulate any speech is a violation of the right to free speech. The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Such freedom requires that the airwaves, like the printing press, be used in complete freedom – any way their owners wish (short of libel, fraud and the like). Just as each individual should determine what he sees or hears, so each media company should determine what it broadcasts.

Parents – not media professionals or government bureaucrats – are the ones who have the responsibility for supervising what their children see and hear in the media. If people find a program objectionable, they are free to turn it off. It is as simple as that.

Instead, let's get back to the facts of the case that the Supreme Court will be hearing on November 4^th. The focus of the case is on the actions of the FCC in rewriting a policy that had been in place for over 50 years. In doing so, and not adequately explaining why it had abandoned this policy, the FCC was acting in violation of the Administrative Procedures which prohibits "arbitrary and capricious" behaviour by government agencies. In other words the FCC, an agency of the U.S. Government acted contrary to the laws of the United States. That this is a First Amendment question is obvious, but it is first and foremost a question of abuse of power.

It is actually my opinion that the position supported by the PTC is losing rather than gaining strength. Certainly that's the case amongst powerful people. Congressman John Dingel of Michigan of the House Commerce Committee wrote in a December 2007 letter to Kevin Martin FCC, that "given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner." In August of this year former FCC Chairmen Newton Minnow and Mark Fowler along with five other former officials of the Commission wrote in an amicus brief for the Supreme Court, "The indecency controls that began as a limited tool for reining in a small number of provocative broadcast personalities and irresponsible licensees have become a rallying cry for a revival of Nineteenth Century Comstockery," and they added that "Broadcasting is no longer unique and it is time for the Court to bring its views of the electronic media into alignment with contemporary technological and social reality." In September former FCC Chairman Michael Powell stated at a National Press Club Event that he had been wrong in approving the policy change: "It was a terrible mistake and I voted for it." He also said at the same event that the agency's regulation of broadcast decency had "gone way too far—we are dancing with the limits of the Constitution." But perhaps the most interesting position on this comes from Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens, who wrote the majority decision in FCC v Pacifica and is still a member of the court. In 2002, in a concurrent opinion on ACLU v Ashcroft Stephens wrote, "As a judge, I must confess to a growing sense of unease when the interest in protecting children from prurient materials is invoked as a justification for using criminal regulation of speech as a substitute for, or a simple backup to, adult oversight of children's viewing."

I don't pretend to know how the Supreme Court will rule on the "Fleeting Obscenities" case, although I obviously know how I would like them to rule (and I also know that this would not have been an issue in Canada). I do know that I found the PTC's rhetoric in this piece to be typically self-important and sneering and in a very real way dangerous. It's not something to be looked at complacently.