A Couple Of Short Takes

It's been a rather quiet Wednesday, which coupled with the fact that I've currently got a raging headache means that I don't have much for you. There are a couple of interesting items though.

Apparently the people who gave us Dr. Who as a children's program are wimping out. Marmite is a thick brown substance, made from yeast extract, vegetable extract, celery extract and an assortment of added vitamins (pronounced with the short "i" sound if you please) that the health conscious British man and woman have on their toast in the morning. Well the British are well known for their distinctive breakfasts - the fry up smoked herring to eat in the morning too. The advertising slogan for Marmite is "You either love it or hate it." Marmite recently released two new commercials (click yes when asked if you are in the UK otherwise you can't see the one that is available online) which have caused a lot of controversy. According to a report from Reuters, the Marmite ads have been banned from children's programming in Britain because six people complained that their toddlers had been terrified by the ad - four of the children refused to watch the telly after seeing them and the other two had nightmares. Unilever Bestfoods, the manufacturer of Marmite were able to avoid an "ex-kids restriction" which would have kept the commercial from airing on shows like Pop Idol (the British original of American Idol and Canadian Idol) that attract younger viewers. While most commentators describe the ad as resembling the movie The Blob, to me it bears a greater resemblance to the "Blanc Mange" sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

The other interesting thing comes from the blog-like portion of Tom Snyder's Colortini.com. Skipping past his comments on Million Dollar Baby and Chris Rock at the Oscars, we come upon his comments on the departure of Dan Rather from the CBS News and Snyder's reaction to Walter Cronkite's comment that Rather should have been replaced by Bob Schieffer long ago. Snyder was not impressed saying that "Cronkite was a prima donna when he was anchoring the Evening News, and apparently as he aged has turned into a nasty old man." The fact is that the relationship between Rather and Cronkite was rarely good, particularly after Rather took over the anchor chair - Cronkite apparently thought that even though he was retired he should still have a major role at CBS News, and Rather basically cut him out of the loop starting with the 1984 presidential elections if not earlier.

The really interesting thing however is Snyder's comments on the trials of Michael Jackson and Robert Blake. Jackson gets a sentence, but Blake gets the rest of the paragraph. Robert Blake was a frequent guest on The Late Late Show With Tom Snyder. If you remember those appearances you'll recall that Blake was frequently a nut. Sorry, but there's no other way to put it. He come out, sit in the chair, usually with a cigarette in his mouth or hand although it was usually unlit, and ramble on about whatever Snyder prompted him on, whether it was the Our Gang movies, getting high with Steve McQueen, or Blake's personal life. If you ever saw these segments you'll remember that it was entertaining in the sort of way that watching two trains crash into each other can be entertaining in a horrible sort of way. On one memorable occasion (years before Bonny Lee Bakely ever crossed his path) Blake spent an entire twenty minute interview begging a woman with whom he'd recently been involved to come back with him. At the end of the segment I was praying that she would get very far away from him. I think Snyder probably agreed - in his blog he mentions discussing Blake with the crew on the show and everyone would comment about how angry Blake always seemed. Snyder concludes that while the evidence against Blake is all circumstantial, he thinks that Blake did it. If you saw those segments on The Late Late Show, you'd probably agree.

Five Types In Search Of Character Development

There are certain things that go together naturally: Oreos and milk, soup and a sandwich, tomatoes and basil, cop shows and gimmicks. Not all cop shows have gimmicks, but it's not unexpected when you get a cop show that has a gimmick. In the past we've had cops in wheelchairs (Ironside), deaf cops (Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye), cops with OCD (Monk), robotic cops (Mann and Machine not to mention the syndicated Robocop), a psychic cop (well not really a cop, but the woman in Medium works for the local DA), vampire cops (Forever Knight) and if you count private eyes even a blind detective (Longstreet). Plus there was a real life private investigator named Jay J. Armes who didn't have hands, so why not a blind cop? The result is Blind Justice, the new ABC series from Stephen Bochco (and the whole Bochco clan if you can believe the credit list for producers and directors).

Blind Justice debuted last Tuesday, but I decided to wait to review it until this week. Pilot episodes frequently aren't exactly the way the actual series is going to be - they need tweaking and some smoothing of the rough spots. Blind Justice is no exception. There were some visual effects in use in the first episode that implied some things that weren't what the producers envisaged because they implied that the lead character, Detective Jim Dunbar, had some residual sight remaining when the producers and star Ron Eldard were clear that he was totally blind. Those sequences weren't present in Tuesday's episode.

In fact, decisions on visual effects may be the least of the problems Blind Justice is facing. I'm willing to buy the premise - a New York detective, blinded in the line of duty sues to not only get back on the police force but to go back to full time duty as a detective. I am even willing to buy the idea that he carries a gun. Hell there are plenty of people who shoot at things they can't see - they shoot intruders in the dark don't they? No, where I start to have problems is with the supporting characters. For the most part they are standard types that you can find in just about any cop show with this sort of premise. Type 1 - The Boss: not sure about the new guy, particularly with his "problem" but willing to give him a chance to prove himself. Type 2 - The New Partner: not sure about the new guy and how working with him will affect her career, but willing to give it a shot in the short term until he proves himself or falls flat on his face. Type 3 - The Enthusiastic Guy: usually the youngest person in the squad he's there to encourage the new guy because hey, he's blind and needs all the encouragement he can get. Type 4 - The Office Jerk: he's usually partnered with Enthusiastic Guy, and is constantly running down and tormenting the new guy because he's convinced that the new guy can't pull his weight and do the job. And because this is a Stephen Bochco drama, there's Type 5 - The Wife: there's been some marital difficulty in the past and she doesn't understand the changes that her spouse has gone through, but for now at least she's loyal. About the only supporting character who isn't a stereotype is the guide dog Hank. Speaking of Hank, I'm waiting for the episode where he gets shot (but not killed - the only dog ever to be killed while working with a cop was Hootch in the movie Turner and Hootch, and Tom Hanks got Mare Winningham out of the deal so it was almost a fair trade) and the squad rallies to find the crook while Jim has to cope without his dog.

The simple fact is that whether or not Blind Justice works is based entirely on whether Ron Eldard can sell us that his character, Jim Dunbar, really is blind and really is capable of doing his job despite that. So far I don't think that he's done too badly. For all the stereotypes surrounding him, this is Eldard's show. Watching his performance I haven't seen anything that screams "this is a sighted actor not a blind man." Which simply means that he hasn't slipped. Also, to be fair to the writers they haven't slipped into the "I was given a sainthood when I lost my sight" trap. Dunbar has his share of flaws, like jealousy and a temper. I wouldn't be surprised to see him edging towards an affair with his partner, but I'm betting they won't go there. Much has been made of the scene in the pilot episode where Dunbar pulls his weapon on a suspect. A lot of people disagreed with the character being armed or pulling his gun, but it is entirely in character for someone who recently lost his sight to instinctively try to do something that he would normally have done in a situation he was familiar with. A cop would pull his gun on someone who had attacked his partner, particularly when he can identify where the attacker is. What sold the scene was the subsequent reaction shot where Dunbar gains confidence in what his senses are telling him about what the attacker is telling him. He starts unsure but gains confidence as he becomes familiar with his surroundings. The subsequent scene in which his hands shake because the adrenalin is wearing off and he realizes what he has done is probably true of a lot of cops who can see, not just someone who can't. (I went to high school with a guy who later joined the local police force; at our high school reunion he told a few of us that the most scared he'd ever been in almost 20 years as a cop was the one time he'd been force to pull his side arm for real.)

All things considered while I like it well enough, I don't think that Blind Justice is anything special, but at the same time I don't think that it is terrible. The problem is that I expect more than average from Stephen Bochco after Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, and NYPD Blue. I'd like to see them get an extension into next season to see if Bochco and his creative people can improve on the characterization and make the supporting cast more multidimensional. If I had to give an opinion right now though I'd say that I prefer last year's NYPD Blue replacement, Line of Fire, to Blind Justice just for the way that Leslie Hope and David Paymer worked as characters. They were more dimensional than most of the characters in Blind Justice.

TV on DVD #2

Continuing my efforts at stealing other people's ideas I present this week's new TV series releases on DVD and my thoughts about them. List courtesy of the guys over at TVGeekSpeak.com.

Bit of a slow week, at least as far as shows I can give comments on - I haven't seen most of them. Is that going to stop me? Not on your life!

Court TV: Body of Evidence
- Starting with this one, although in this case I have a legitimate excuse. The saga of Court TV around here is pretty rocky. Originally the Canadian Cable companies offered the US channel, and I got it when I bought Digital Cable (it was bundled with BBC World - which was the one I wanted - and a couple of other channels). However because of programming clearances, the US channel was basically the trials and then dead air after 5 p.m. and on weekends. Eventually it was replace with Court TV Canada, which wasn't on my local system until about 6 months ago. Since I didn't have any interest in it I didn't subscribe. And I didn't watch it during the misnamed 31 Days of Great TV promotion the Canadian TV industry did in January.

Farscape: Starburst Edition Volume 3
- Huh? Is this a "clever" way to get you to buy something you already have or are they just being cute? Really, I want to know, because I've never watched Farscape. I know, it's a hard thing to admit but it's true.

Hogan's Heroes: The Complete First Season
- Now this I do know. And while I won't go quite as far as Jaime J Weinman does in his blog Something Old, Nothing New in calling Hogan's Heroes better than M*A*S*H I will suggest that any attempt to assert that Hogan's Heroes didn't understand the brutality of the Nazi regime doesn't get it. Hollywood had, during the 25 or so years following the end of World War II done a very good job of almost totally ignoring and downplaying the systematic extermination of people deemed to be enemies of the Third Reich, including Jews, Gypsies, Poles, political opponents, the mentally retarded and just about anyone else who struck their fancy. A look at the cast list of Hogan's Heroes shows a number of people who were directly touched by events: Otto Klemperer, John Banner, Leon Askin, Robert Clary. As a sop to those who hate Hogan's Heroes, I will note that Leon Kinsky (best known as Sascha in Casablanca) appeared in the pilot as a Russian POW but refused a permanent role because the premise struck him as offensive. "The Nazis were seldom dumb and never funny."

La Femme Nikita Season 1 and 2
- Never saw it. It was a Canadian-made adaptation (for an American network) of an American movie that had been adapted from a French movie ... or something like that. On the other hand the cast looks pretty good.

Starsky & Hutch: The Complete Third Season
- This one I did watch, but somehow the abiding images of it for me have always been the car, and Paul Michael Glaser standing in a total downpour in that stupid sweater that must have gained 20 pounds in water weight.

Whatever Happened To? (#3 of a series)

Whatever happened to good American versions of British shows?

There was a time, roughly between 1970 and 1980, when American producers made really good versions of British comedies. I think there were about four that really really worked. Since then the results have usually been less than desirable. There have been a few successes but a great many failures. And it isn't just comedies - the American versions of British shows, like The Antiques Roadshow, Changing Rooms and What Not To Wear are inferior to the British versions. But that's a story for another time.

The four successful British shows that became successful American shows were Till Death Do Us Part which became All In The Family, Steptoe And Son which was Americanised as Sanford And Son, Man About The House which turned into Three's Company, and Keep It In The Familywhich was remade as Too Close For Comfort in the United States. But now consider the fate of other American versions of British shows, starting with the two spinoffs from Man About The House/Three's Company. The British shows, Robin's Nest and George & Mildred each lasted three years (38 episodes) while the American shows lasted one season. Fawlty Towers was remade twice, as Amanda's (starring Bea Arthur) and Payne (starring John Laroquette) neither lasted as long as the British series, and Cleese only made 12 episodes of that. Then there was that classic PBS warhorse Are You Being Served. That show lasted 69 episodes and spawned a sequel called Grace And Favour (known as Are You Being Served Again in the United States). It was remade as Beanes of Boston but the pilot wasn't picked up. Similarly there were two attempts to make an American version of Red Dwarf, neither of which sold. Men Behaving Badly did make it onto the NBC schedule but while the British series lasted six season, the American version went under two. Most recently there was Coupling which lasted 4 episodes. And there are many more.

What makes the successes work. In the cases of All in the Family and Sanford And Son, the producers took the basic premise of a British show but adapted it to American realities and very quickly tailored it to the stars involved. It didn't hurt that the producer doing the adaptation was Norman Lear, or that he was working with Caroll O'Connor and Redd Foxx. In the case of Three's Company and Too Close For Comfort benefited from strong comedic leads in John Ritter and Ted Knight respectively, and a longer run allowed them to develop the shows beyond where the British series went. A later success, Cosby started with the premise of the British show One Foot In The Grave but almost immediately threw the concepts of the British series out and became a clone of The Cosby Show set in a less affluent neighborhood.

But as is usually the case it is the failures that are of more interest, if only to ask what on earth were they thinking? How could anyone imagine remaking Fawlty Towers a show that is so tied with its star John Cleese that no one else could possibly fit into the role? The show was about more than someone running a seaside hotel it was about Cleese, with his silly walks and his attitude, being the rudest person ever to run a seaside hotel. Similarly how can you do a version of Red Dwarf without the chemistry that existed between Chris Barrie and Craig Charles, and the unique talent that is Danny John-Jules as "Cat". Terry Farrell, who was cast as "Cat" in the second pilot for the American version, was scarcely an adequate replacement. Another example of not getting it is the American remake of men Behaving Badly. In the British series, the so-called men are as someone put it "just barely housebroken". They live in an apartment that could be called a dump if that weren't an insult to dumps, and treat the women they're involved with so badly that if these women possessed any degree of self-esteem they'd be long gone. In the American version they lived in a trendy apartment and have a series of attractive girlfriends. As for Coupling the producers thought they could assure success by using the scripts from the British. Unfortunately they totally misunderstood the nature of the characters and their relationships and cast the series based on these misperceptions. The result probably wouldn't have worked even if the original series hadn't been widely seen in the United States.

Based on the past performance of American adaptations of British series - particularly situation comedies - the prospects for the upcoming NBC version of the BBC's hit The Office is not too good. It is a very fine line to walk between sticking too close to the original series or throwing out all of the qualities that made the British series a success in the first place. Doing either can destroy what made the original series work. Many British series are idiosyncratic, and those qualities don't always translate well. We wouldn't expect an American version of Blackadder to work any more than we'd expect a British version of Reba to work. Come to think of it, it's more likely that most American series could be adapted by the British with comparatively difficulty. The question is, given the current state of sitcoms in the United States, why would they want to?

What's Going On With JAG?

It looks as if Donald Bellisario is trying to keep JAG running through the simple expedient of turning the clock back ten years. In the process he's easing out the actors that have made the show the success that it has been.

JAG has been running for ten years - one year on NBC and nine years on CBS - which if I'm not mistaken makes it the longest running drama currently on the six US broadcast networks now that NYPD Blue has left the air. David James Elliott has played Harmon Rabb for all ten seasons. In fact he is the only member of the cast who has been on the show since the start, although Patrick Labyorteaux, who plays Bud Roberts was in the series pilot playing that character. In the past few episodes, Elliott's role in the series has been reduced not just significantly but to near nonexistence. In the episode that aired Friday, Elliott had exactly five scenes totalling at most ten minutes of screen time. Labyorteaux by the way had one scene, and at most two minutes of screen time.

There's a story behind this. Elliott's current contract with the show ends at the end of this season. Before Elliott's agent even made an approach to producer Donald P. Bellisario, he was informed not to bother, Elliott's contract would not be renewed as a "cost cutting measure". The clear implication is that Bellisario believes that the show can continue, not just for one more season - at the end of which Catherine Bell's contract ends - but beyond. On the whole it seems to be a poor way to treat an actor who has been thoroughly identified with the show since its beginning and has become thoroughly identified with the show.

When JAG debuted, Elliott's character was a young hotshot lawyer - a naval Lieutenant - who was prepared to bend the rules in order to win a case. He was sometimes undisciplined - in one episode the character fired a pistol in a courtroom during a trial. He had adventures some of which had little or nothing to do with his duties as a lawyer. He was also very much a ladies man and in the pilot was having an affair with partner (played by Andrea Parker, later of The Pretender). Over the years he's settled down somewhat, although he still has an adventurous side, but with rank (he's now a full Commander) and age have come increased responsibility and stability. He even had an "adopted" daughter for a time over the past couple of seasons. At the same time the supporting cast - Labyorteaux's Lt. Commander Bud Roberts and Catherine Bell's Lt. Colonel Sarah Mackenzie among them - have also grown and developed a solid chemistry.

What Bellisario seems to be doing as he eases Elliott off the show - is to replace him with a carbon copy of the "old" Harmon Rabb. A new actor has been added to the cast specifically as a replacement for Elliott. The new character, Lieutenant Greg Vukovic (played by Chris Beetem, formerly of the daytime drama As The World Turns), is a young hotshot lawyer who is prepared to bend (and one at least one occasion break) the rules in order to win a case. He's had at least one adventure - in the three episodes that he's been on the show - which has had little or nothing to do with his duties as a lawyer. He's very much a ladies man. In fact, about the only difference between Rabb and Vukovic is that Rabb is pilot who joined the Judge Advocate Corps after he was disqualified from flying due to vision problems (later corrected), while Vukovic is a surface warfare officer.

Moreover this Friday's episodes introduced a couple of other characters who appear to be potential regulars - a new administrative officer, Lieutenant Catherine Graves played by Jordana Spiro, and a young female lawyer Lieutenant Tali Mayfield played by Meta Goulding. Lieutenant Mayfield has had a previous romantic and sexual relationship with Vukovic, while Graves appears as if she's interested in that sort of relationship with him. When Bud Roberts was first added to the series, he was a young administrative officer who later became a lawyer, although he did not have any interest in a romantic or sexual relationship with Rabb. That side of the equation was filled by Catherine Bell's character, who over the nine years that she's been on the show has had a love ... hate ... love ... fear commitment relationship with Harm. Tell me please, is this not an effort to take the show back to its origins?

By not signing Elliott to a one year contract which would coincide with the end of Bell's contract, and would presumably mark a way to bring the show to a natural conclusion by tying up loose ends in much the same manner that NYPD Blue did, Bellisario seems to be demonstrating his intention to keep the show on the air for as long as the audience is willing to accept it, even if that means replacing the entire cast. Assuming that JAG does survive this season, I would predict that Bellisario would not make a big effort to re-sign Bell beyond the end of her current contract. I already expect that Labyorteaux either won't be back next year or will have his role reduced to near nonexistence. The question is not whether the audience will accept JAG without David James Elliott, let alone without Elliott and Catherine Bell. If I were taking bets I'd say the answer is no.

Puzzling

Apparently I've managed to break something or something has become broken. I went to post a comment on Tom and Stephen's blog If Charlie Parker Was A Gunslinger, There'd Be A Lot Of Dead Imitators only to discover that I can't. An attempt to post a comment comes back with a Blogger screen saying that "The Blog you were looking for was not found." Come on, I've already found the Blog I was looking for, now I want to comment on it. Tried to comment on most of the other Blogspot blogs on my list and received the same response. Tried posting comments on my two blogs and no problem.

Oh, the comment? It was for They Were Collaborators #27, a picture of Mickey Mouse and Betty Boop on a package of "Puzzle Rings". Clearly Betty was a bit of a Dominatrix in that relationship and Mickey was her Sub. I mean Mickey is half into a pair of handcuffs and those other things are obviously toys for some kinky sex. As if a girl who started life as a dog doin' it with a mouse who is as tall as she is isn't kinky enough to be on an episode of CSI during sweeps.

Now you'll have to excuse me, I have to finish up an article that I'm ghost writing - for a real commercial website no less - that will pay me honest to gospel money if I can finish it on deadline. And if you happen to click on the comments section for this article, you could always click on the Google Ads there even if you can't post a comment. (That's another mystery: why can't I get the ads on the main page to show anything more than PSAs while the ads in the comments section are chock full of stuff that'll make me a very little bit of money if you click on them?) Because after all, what's TV without commercials? Okay, that's easy - the BBC - but it's not a model we're familiar with in North America.

They Call It The Sweet Science

Boxing, together with Wrestling and Running is one of the most ancient of Man's sports. The ancient Olympics featured a form of Boxing, although instead of gloves the fighters wrapped their hands in leather thongs called himantes, and unlike today there were no rounds and few rules. The fight continued until one man was knocked out or signaled his submission. It was nothing compared to the Pankration though, which only barred biting and gouging of the eyes nose and mouth. Despite the addition of gloves and rules intended to civilize the sport, Boxing remains one of the most primal and visceral of contests, which is why it attracts us and repels us at the same time.

Within the context of the history of Television, Boxing is equally ancient. Although the first scheduled weekly boxing matches on TV appear in the schedules for NBC, CBS and the Dumont Network in 1948 (there were a total of four boxing shows on the three networks in 1948), NBC began airing the Gillette Cavalcade of Sports in 1946, and while the name implies a variety of events, in practice the show was boxing twice a week. Weekly matches continued to be a staple of network prime-time schedules throughout the 1950s with the last weekly show disappearing from ABC in 1964. Boxing continued to be a staple of Saturday afternoons on shows like Wide World of Sports much longer. Championship fights, particularly heavyweight championships were amongst the first "pay-per-view" offerings, although in the very early days this consisted of going to a theatre and watching the television signal projected on a movie screen, and hoping that the feed didn't go out during the fight. The last heavyweight championship fight (or championship in any weight class for that matter) that I can remember on network TV was the second Ali-Spinks fight where Muhammed Ali won the heavyweight championship for an unprecedented third time by defeating Leon Spinks, the man who had take the title from him a few months before. Boxing hasn't abandoned television but has simply moved to cable and pay-per-view, a product of the greed and corruption of promoters, from Don King on down.

Into this situation comes The Contender, a new Mark Burnett show featuring Sylvester Stallone and Sugar Ray Leonard. The show brings together a group of 16 middleweight fighters in a tournament format with a prize of $1,000,000 at the end of the line. These fighters are all solid pros with good records, but guys who aren't ranked in the top 15 in the Middleweight or Super-Middleweight classes. Also seen - featured is too strong a word for it - is trainer Tommy Gallagher who interacts a lot with the fighters on a day to day basis, and boxing manager Jackie Kallen, who was played by Meg Ryan in the movie Against The Ropes. The show, which was intended to regain some respect for boxing - a sport mired in greed and corruption and a general sense that maybe its time has passed - suffered a blow when one of the prospects committed suicide. Najai Turpin killed himself. According to his manager, Turpin was despondent because he could not take any more bouts until the finale of the series aired.

Being a Mark Burnett show, the focus isn't as much on boxing as it is on interpersonal relationships. We see the boxers training. We see the boxers with their families, who have been brought out to California to be near the fighters, and of course to allow us to sympathize with them. We see the boxers trash talking each other, sometimes within their own "teams". That of course is another "Burnett Touch". The fighters are split into two teams based on their birth place/residence - East and West. The teams live in separate compounds and compete in various competitions loosely based on various types of boxing training. In the episode I saw the boxers had to run from the field of the Rose Bowl to a group of flags at the top of the stands and then carry a flag of their "colour" (East is Blue, West is Yellow) back down to the field, then go back for another flag. When they had brought down all the flags of their colour they would take a puzzle piece that was wrapped around the staff of each flag and attempt to put them in the proper order. The team that won the competition was able to decide which of their team members would box in the next fight and he would be able to choose who his opponent would be. The loser of the fight would be sent home, the winner would go through to the next round and wouldn't have to fight until all of the other members of his team had been in the ring. In addition his team would get a "reward" in the next episode. In the episode I saw the reward was a chance to spend some time with George Foreman.

This show isn't very good for a lot of reasons. Jackie Kallen says so little that not only didn't I know who she was, when I found out I started to wonder if Meg Ryan had appeared in a silent movie when she made Against The Ropes. The format didn't work for me either. Putting the boxers in teams doesn't really work because boxers are on the whole loners who are mostly focused on themselves; why should they since boxing isn't a teams sport. While there isn't an "I" in Team, there are the components to make "me". In the episode I saw, George Foreman gave the West Team a pep talk which included the advice "plan your work and work your plan". One of the fighters, Ishe, took this to mean "plan his work and work his plan" not his teams plan. He alienated the rest of the group when, despite all of the trash talk he had directed against a fighter on the East team he didn't volunteer to go into the ring. He also got into a confrontation with the West team member who was fighting that night and openly wished the Eastern opponent that the man from his team picked the best of luck. The family component really didn't work for me either. Having them present was designed to build sympathy for the boxers but it also tended to telegraph which fighters would be fighting at the end of the episode even before the competition to decide which team would choose and who would be chosen. Viewers knew it already. The families can also be a distraction, both for the fighters and the audience. One fighter had his pregnant wife (who I swear looked as if she was about ready to either give birth or pop like an over-inflated balloon) and four kids, who irritated the boxer on the night before the big match. The other fighter, who didn't get nearly as much screen time (was that a clue as to who would be around longer? mmmm could be) had his girlfriend and two small children.

About the best thing about The Contender was the boxing. At this point the fights are five rounds, not particularly gruelling for guys used to going 12 or 15. We see the fighters in their dressing rooms preparing as the crowd - supposedly full of celebrities like Tony Danza, James Caan and the guy who played Pauly in the Rocky movies took their seats. We see the families - the wife with four and 9/9ths kids (I swear I thought she was going to drop that baby during the match), and the girlfriend with son in (I swear) a white tuxedo and daughter in a fairy princess costume accessorized with sippy cup who didn't understand why that man was hitting her daddy - and the "team" members. And of course there's Sly, Sugar Ray, Tommy and Silent Jackie. What there isn't, is an announcer. We see the fighters fight, but all of the commentary was supplied by the faces of Leonard and Stallone and the words of the "team" and corner people. Although they often had to be subtitled to be heard over the swelling strains of the overly dramatic music and undoubtedly enhanced "cheering throng", this seemed to be an effective way to present a boxing match, about as up close and personal as you can possibly get. It's a pity it's not a way that a live boxing match could be presented since as often as not commentators get in the way of the action.

The Contender is an interesting failure but a failure nonetheless. For a reality show it comes across as forced and almost too unreal, not natural enough. Me? I'll stick with The Amazing Race or even Survivor, and give this a pass when it comes on this Sunday. This one example of mid-season spackle that I don't think will stick around after it finishes its run.

TV on DVD

The guys over at TVGeekSpeak.com have posted a list of TV series that are newly released to DVD this week and never being one to object to shamelessly stealing an idea and mutating it to my own purposes I present their list and my comments.

21 Jump Street: Season Two
- I don't think it was ever seen here, at least not in first run. Saskatoon got Fox (out of Rochester not Detroit like all the other US stations) much later than you'd expect, around the time that UPN started up.

Andromeda: Season Four, Collections Five
- And in partial scores Episodes 22. I don't know what's up with the numbering here, but I don't really care. I've lost interest in Andromeda except as a way to complain about Canwest-Global and their cable operations. Canwest-Global (which co-produces the Andromeda with Tribune Entertainment, which makes the show Canadian in the eyes of the government) owns the Mystery Channel on Digital Cable in Canada and managed to get their Canadian Content up high enough to pick up a Class A "must carry" ruling from the CRTC by stuffing just about anything they can get that is counted as CanCon onto the channel. Andromeda is a mystery?

The Best of Mister Ed: Volume Two
- There's a best? There's two volumes of best? There are no black & white episodes of Petticoat Junction available but there are two volumes of The Best of Mr. Ed?

Columbo: The Complete Second Season
- Somethin's bothering me. Andromeda is classed as a mystery.

Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids: Volume One
- Because we have to follow up on the boffo box office of the Fat Albert movie.

Felicity: Senior Year Collection
- And whatever happened to Keri Russell after she graduated? For that matter, whatever happened to her hair after she graduated?

Friends: The Complete Ninth Season
- My brother was a big fan of this show and got me hooked on it. By season 9 he was ridiculing me for watching it. To be fair he was ridiculing me for watching just about any TV but still...

Green Acres: Season Two
- It's been years since I've been able to see Green Acres - so long in fact that I think my perspective on the show is due for a major reassessment.

The Mole: Season One
- Okay, completely straight on this one - The Mole was the second best Reality Contest series (behind my beloved Amazing Race but ahead of Survivor and miles ahead of Big Brother) but the network weasels at ABC proved yet again their utter incompetence by canceling the "real people" version with Anderson Cooper and giving us Celebrity Mole with Ahmad Rashad and his cigar.

Popular: Season Two
- Not here it wasn't.

Saved By The Bell: Season Two - New Class
- That's not how you spell "No".

Sweet Valley High: Volume One
- Never heard of it, but just the name give me cavities.

Tsunami: Wave of Destruction - ABC News
- And unless every dime of profit is going to relief funds this has to be the most crass use of news footage since ..... I really don't know when.

Xena: Warrior Princess: Season Six
- Xena & Gabrielle can redeem almost anything, but the last season of this show might be the exception.

To Be Continued ... Next Week

Monday night is "must tape TV" night around my house. From September to April I'm out of the house on Monday nights, bowling, but so many of the shows I like are on that two VCRs and a time shifting feed on one of the TVs is just barely enough to catch everything I want to see. Take last night. VCR #1 - the mono JVC that I bought from my ex-sister-in-law when she and my brother got married and didn't need two VCRs - was taping Medium on CTV (an episode I hadn't seen otherwise I wouldn't have bothered) and CSI: Miami. VCR #2 - the Panasonic with Stereo and Commercial Advance and connected to the digital box - was taping Celebrity Poker Showdown and then, later 24 on the time shift feed. I also caught the last half hour of The Contender, but that wasn't enough to really evaluate the show. Today I'm writing about 24.

24 is a serial in the best sense of the word. Serials are a form that television has never really gotten, which is really surprising since as a form it would seem to be ideally suited for TV. To be clear about what I mean we need to define terms, or at least I need to define what I mean by some terms. In my book a serial is episodic, has continuity, has a definite beginning and ending, and at no point becomes episodic. The main storyline is the storyline. Episodes must connect with each other in an easily comprehensible manner and to hold audiences there should be a hook at the end of an episode in the form of a cliffhanger to get viewers to come back for the next one. There may be sequels but although the sequels may have references to the previous installment in the series but the end of a storyline is definitive. There are series that have had continuity over the years, many that have had ongoing story arc some of which have lasted a whole season, but in the case of most such shows - Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a good example - have submerged the season long story arc to do one-off episodes or even mini arcs within the year. There have been plenty of series to use cliffhangers, usually at the end of a season to pull fans back for the start of the next season. Soap operas, daytime or nighttime, are not examples of the serial using my definition because they don't have definitive ends even though storylines do. In a Soap one major story arc may be building to a dramatic climax while the next major story arc is starting to develop.

The serial is designed to bring people back each week, and they have a long and proud tradition. The novels of Charles Dickens were written as serials in magazines, as were the Sherlock Holmes novels. The adventure comic strips were serials. In radio the serial was a staple, primarily for juvenile audiences. In the movies the serial reached its high point. They were there at the beginnings of the movies with The Perils of Pauline and other films being made for mainstream audiences. The first Flash Gordon serial was the only serial reviewed by the New York Times. The form carried on, weakening gradually until the last serial was produced in the mid-1950s. In all cases the reasoning was simple - to get people coming back, whether coming back meant buying the magazine, the newspaper, Kellogg's cereal, or tickets to the movies. Strangely TV has never done much with the serial format. The last "real" serial (using my definition) on TV was probably the first season of Murder One, the season with Daniel Benzali as the lead actor. It treated the form seriously. An earlier series, Cliff Hanger (1979) didn't; it treated the entire genre with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Now there is 24.

24 works mainly because of its star, Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer. He's a brooding presence, someone of whom you'd expect anything, if you know him. If you don't he might seem ordinary. In a recent episode a character (who Jack has been torturing) describes Jack as a "common thug". Thug perhaps, but scarcely common. In the past he's killed a man and cut off his head with a hacksaw in order to reestablish his cover, set up a situation where it appeared that the children of a terrorist were being killed on his orders, become a heroin addict, and cut off the hand of his daughter's lover so that a deadly pathogen wouldn't be released in a school. Bauer is dedicated, even single minded, about his job and his job is protecting his country. He'd willingly die for his country - in fact he already has once.

Surrounding Sutherland is an ever changing cast of supporting characters. Only one other actor has been in all four seasons of 24 - Carlos Bernard as Tony Almeida although in the fourth season his character has appeared in fewer than half the episodes (there's also a promise that Dennis Haysbaert will make a guest appearance in the show). This doesn't mean that the supporting characters aren't engaging. Some are, some aren't but at best what they do is support Sutherland and at worst are somewhat annoying scenery for him to work with. An example this season is CTU office head Erin Driscoll, played by Alberta Watson, who spends most of here time second guessing Jack and part of her time obsessing about her mentally ill daughter. More interesting are the villains, but then villains usually are more interesting.

This season has featured a family of Arab terrorists, played by Nestor Serrano, Shohreh Agdashloo and Jonathon Ahdout. The portrayal has caused a protests against the show, notably in Britain, as portraying all Arabs as terrorists. There's a certain justification for this, although not all of the Arab characters that we've seen, even in this season, have been terrorists and in previous seasons there have been many more sympathetic Arabic characters than there have been terrorists. On the other hand, government agencies haven't exactly been portrayed as "nice guys" either. Although there have been occasional examples of torture in previous seasons, this season has seen three or four cases of characters being interrogated by a US government agency in methods that would be more suited to Argentina during the Dirty War. In three of those cases the characters who were tortured (Richard Heller, Sarah Gavin, and Paul Raines) have not only been American citizens, but non-Arab American citizens.

Direction and the visual look of the series are first rate. It is in the area of writing that it falls a little short of the mark it tries to hit. The plotlines at times seem a bit formulaic from season to season. A season usually starts with what seems like the "big threat" and the "big villain. As events proceed it turns out that the "big villain" is merely a cog in a bigger organization and the "big plot" is merely a prelude for something even bigger and deadlier. In addition viewers are asked to swallow various absurdities in a challenge to the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. In order to carry the storyline as whole you have to be willing to accept something like Jack dying of a heart attack, being revived and then an hour later literally being almost as good as new ... at least until the plot needs for him to suffer complications from the heart attack. You also have to endure poorly refined sub-plots for supporting characters. The series of stories surrounding the character of Kim Bauer are legendary - of Kim's three boyfriends in the series, one died, one lost his leg, and one had his hand cut off (although at least he got his hand sewn back on unlike the other guy's leg). And yet, accepting the absurdity of the situations is part of what makes the show worth watching. About the only thing we can be sure of in the continuing story of 24 is that each week is going to bring a big plot twist and another tense cliffhanger. And after all, isn't that what serials are all about?

Whatever Happened To? (#2 of a Series)

Whatever happened to PBS Pledge Weeks where the programming was actually worth watching?

One of the annoyances about PBS are Pledge Weeks, those periods when your local (and in the case of Canada not so local - I get two stations one in Detroit and, thanks to digital cable, one in Spokane) stations try to raise the money they need to meet operating expenses. Or, as the stations put it: "Pledge now to help keep public television alive in (insert name of city here). Without your generous pledges this service may not survive." Which, on the whole seems a worthy enough goal. There are good, worthwhile shows on PBS that a commercial network wouldn't put on, and although they don't occupy a lot of my viewing time there are a few that I don't miss. Too bad they don't show them during the beg-a-thons.

It wasn't always that way. Originally PBS here came from Fargo North Dakota, except for a few weeks when their transmitter blew down and we saw shows from the mothership in Boston. The Fargo station seemed to raise all of its money through bake sales because they never seemed to have Pledge Weeks. Believe me the cheap quality showed (but it was still better than the NBC and CBS stations we had at the time - the CBS station in particular looked as if it was been broadcast out of a tin shed on someone's farm with AV equipment the local high school had tossed out). When it finally dawned on someone at the CRTC that using stations that were 100 miles from the cable head-end in areas where summer electrical were as common as mosquitos wasn't really serving the public, we got stations in Detroit on our cable system. So did, and does, most Canada. The PBS station in Detroit, WTVS was our first experience with Pledge Weeks. The interruptions were annoying, but the programs shown during the Pledge periods were usually first rate. It was like that for a long time, a mixture of important new programs, old favourites and marathons of regular programs. It's hard to remember today but the first runs of the major Ken Burns series The Civil War and Baseball both occurred during PBS Pledge Weeks. And then there were the marathons (usually presented with a warning that if you don't pay for it you're going to lose it). My favourite was Doctor Who complete with denizens of the Detroit and Flint Dr. Who clubs - in costume - answering phones and always racking up huge amounts of donations. Of course the station would never tell anyone how much they needed to raise unless of course they didn't raise it.

Somewhere along the line things changed. Today, Pledge Weeks on PBS are not only longer - officially two weeks but the Detroit station usually follows the two weeks with one week of "Best of Pledge" which given what they show is an oxymoron of titanic proportions - but also create the feeling that one is watching a station that is primarily populated with infomercials. I always get the feeling at the end of a current Pledge Weeks show that I am expected to sign up for a self-help course or buy the set of CDs and DVDs that are being hawked. Consider some of the "highlights" from the current set of pledge weeks on WTVS Detroit:

• Ageless Skin, Secrets from Dr. Denese


• John Tesh: Worship at Red Rocks


• Suze Ormond: for the Young, Fabulous & Broke


• Stig Rosen: This is the Moment


• Heart of Pilates


• California Dreaming: The Songs of The Mamas and Papas


• David Carradine: Tai Chi for the Mind and Body


• Gary Null: Power Aging


• Art of Health with Gary Null


• Andre Rieu: Live in Tuscany (on tape)


• Daniel O'Donnell: Encore In Branson


• Dr Wayne Dyer: The Power of Intention


• Christianne Northrup M.D. (Actual show title is Mother-Daughter Wisdom: Creating a Legacy of Physical & Emotional Health)

This might not be so objectionable if it were the one station but this sort of line-up is also on the Spokane PBS station KSPS (check the schedule for the week of March 6) and WGBH Boston.

The major question I have is simply this: why does PBS think that this sort of programming will get money from me? For me, this sort of programming is so far removed from what I expect from PBS, not to mention what I actually watch on PBS that it is more likely to get me to abandon the station than it is to get me to support it, and the longer it runs - the Best of Pledge showings - the more it angers me. Are they being paid to put these things on? I don't know but if the trend to longer pledge periods and more pledge periods continues, someday they could lose me as a viewer no matter how much I like This Old House.

A Law & Order Too Far?

Winter series - the spackle that covers the cracks in the previous Fall's schedule. Some winter shows are designed to fill the gaps and disappear at the end of May sweeps, while other series are meant to succeed, and debut in the winter to exploit the weaknesses in the schedules of other networks and establish themselves sufficiently that, come next Fall they'll have an advantage over any new program that the "other guys" air. Clearly, the latest addition to the Law & Order franchise, Law & Order: Trial by Jury is firmly rooted in the latter category.

Unlike the other entries in the franchise Law & Order: Trial by Jury is focused almost entirely on the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. In Thursday night's debut episode there are two investigators, DA's Men, whose job it is to interview witnesses and track down additional bits of evidence to solidify the case. In the first two episodes the DA's Investigators are Lenny Briscoe (Jerry Orbach) and Hector Salazar (Kirk Acevedo). Neither is an active cop - Briscoe of course had retired, while Salazar had been badly wounded and is on disability. In truth they don't have that much to do; most of the burden for carrying the show falls on Bebe Neuwirth as Assistant District Attorney Tracey Kibre and Amy Carlson as Assistant District Attorney Kelly Gaffney as well as the assorted guest stars as defense attorneys. The show follows a trial from the grand jury examination of the prosecution's evidence to determine if there is enough material to indict the suspect, through jury selection, presentation of the case and jury deliberations. Unusually for a Dick Wolf produced series at least some of the process will be seen through the eyes of various defense attorneys.

I'm not sure about this series, although of course it's hard to evaluate it from one viewing. The elements seem to be there. The cast is solid, particularly Bebe Neuwirth whose work I've always enjoyed. And yet the show doesn't feel "right" somehow. Part of the reason is Producer Dick Wolf's oft-expressed dislike and disdain for defense attorneys. In Wolf's world, the prosecutors are always the "good guys" and defense attorneys always the "bad guys" and the cops always get the right person...eventually. In the first episode the defense attorney is played by Annabella Sciorra and is depicted as someone who will defend her client, who she suspects is guilty even before he tells her how he murdered the victim, because she's getting a seven figure fee. It is clear that Wolf will be making the defense attorneys into characters who are so flawed they are impossible to like or sympathize with and, in support of his contention that the defendant is usually guilty, the defendants thoroughly bad. In Thursday's episode the defendant was not only a rich and arrogant Broadway producer, he was a former attorney who was so corrupt that he was disbarred. This might be fine in the original Law & Order where the defense councils may have been major guest stars but were seen for far less than half an episode, but in Law & Order: Trial by Jury the defenders have a much larger role and have to carry at least some of the plot. It wouldn't hurt for them to have at least some sympathetic qualities. Instead Sciorra's character "Maggie Detweiler" came across as cold and grasping bitch, while her jury consultants came across as sleazy.

Thursday's episode was full of absurdities. Kibre has the suspect arrested and put before the grand jury after a year - despite the absence of a body, and blood evidence that was sufficiently contaminated that they couldn't prove that it belonged to the victim - because the victim's mother found a business card from an obstetrician and learned that the victim was pregnant. The key argument in the case centered not around the evidence in the murder case or about the victim, but that the defendant had some healthy dogs put to sleep because they'd be an inconvenience in the city. This satisfies the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Apparently it does. This sort of thing occurs of course. There was a murder case in Canada where a man was convicted of murdering the child of a neighbour because he was "different" (which apparently meant he didn't go out drinking and chasing anything in a skirt, and that he kept bees). The problem is that in that case Guy Paul Morin was innocent and his innocence was proved by DNA testing. About the only thing that rang true in the events surrounding the trial itself was that the final hold-out in the case decided to change his mind because he didn't want to miss "the playoffs".

Finally a few thoughts on Jerry Orbach. He looked ill and his colour seemed terribly artificial - as if the make-up had been put on particularly heavily and was the wrong shade at that. Then there was the hair which seemed to be the product of a bad dye job, but might well have been a wig to hide chemotherapy related hair loss. He did a good job with the material that he had, but clearly Briscoe was a secondary character in the series and would continue to have been secondary had he been able to continue in the part.

I have no doubt that Law & Order: Trial by Jury will do well in the ratings, at least for a while. I just can't help but feel that the show won't measure up to the non-ratings standards that the other shows in the Law & Order stable have set. It seems flawed somehow but I don't fully understand why. I'll watch it, at least for a while, and see if I can figure it out.

NYPD Blue - Goodbye, Farewell, and Thanks

On the same day that Alaska senator and chairman of the US Senate Commerce Committee, Ted Stevens, announced that he would support an extension of the FCC indecency regulations that cover broadcast TV to cable TV, the groundbreaking show that tested those regulations from the beginning has left the air. The last NYPD Blue to air was not quite as edgy as the first. There were no bare asses or almost exposed female nipples , and the famous dictionary of words that could be used has apparently shrunken somewhat. I doubt that today Andy Sipowicz would be able to grab his crotch and shout "Ipsa this you pissy little bitch."

It doesn't really matter of course. The point was never really to shock. It was much more about reflecting the realities of "the job" and the people who did it. The aim of series creator David Milch and his adviser, friend and later Executive producer of the show, former New York Police detective Bill Clark was to make a show as real as American TV would let it be. And while Law & Order which debuted three years earlier was all about the cases and never the people, on NYPD Blue was about the people. The cases they worked were part of the way we found out about them. The people were interesting because, as is rarely the case in television but is necessary in great drama, they were shown "warts and all", and there were some pretty prominent warts.

As the special that aired before the final episode showed, NYPD Blue evolved through a series of stages. The first year of the show was very much about David Caruso's character John Kelly. Sipowicz was a major figure but it was Kelly and the storylines that surrounded him that were the focus. The problem was that Caruso sincerely believed it and thought that the world was his oyster bar and being tied to a series was keeping him from enjoying it. He left acrimoniously and I think the show was better for it. I certainly think that the show wouldn't have lasted 12 years with Kelly as the focus. What Caruso leaving did do was to give Dennis Franz and his character Andy Sipowicz a more prominent role by bringing Jimmy Smits in to play Bobby Simone. The relationship between the two was far closer to being equals than it was with any of the other partners that Andy had. It was illustrated in the special with the clip of Simone and Sipowicz singing "Duke of Earl" together in the car, something that Bill Clark and David Milch did on at least one occasion. It was an intimacy that wasn't shared with any subsequent partners. When Jimmy Smits left the show in 1998 and was replaced by Rick Schroeder, the chemistry changed. Schroeder's Danny Sorenson was never an equal to Sipowicz; rather he was a cipher that Andy was never able to crack which made the character's departure wrenching. Finally there was Mark-Paul Gosselaar. His character, John Clark Jr., was a pupil. He was also a Sipowicz in the making buffeted by personal problems that drove him towards despair and addiction, but this time Sipowicz was able to see the problem and catch it. This evolution in the show was also an evolution of Sipowicz. He went from Andy the drunken screw-up with Kelly, to Andy the guy who tries hard but sometime slips with Simone, to Andy the guy who has all this stuff to teach but doesn't know how with Sorenson, to Saint Sipowicz with Clark.

NYPD Blue is a show that is a sparkling example of the theory that a movie or TV show rises and falls on three things: good actors, good writing and good direction. NYPD Blue all three elements. The acting has been strong throughout most of the series' run, with the supporting players delivering solid work and storylines that at time rose above simple support of the leads. They all had effective backstories and the ways the parts were played made the backstories believable. Actors brought elements that the writers didn't think of to their roles - Gordon Clapp decided that Greg Medavoy stammered when he was nervous (in an early episode, a director went to producer Steven Bochco and complained that he couldn't work around Clapp's stammer and the actor had to be replaced; Bochco told him that the stammer was part of Medavoy's character). The series went through a lot of actors but by and large the actors they used were able to deliver.

Writing and Direction were major areas of controversy. Like Andy Sipowicz, David Milch is an alcoholic and as he put it Andy got sober before he did. This caused problems in the writing, which Jimmy Smits pointed out in the special. By the time Smits left, the cast were getting blank call sheets and lines delivered hours or minutes before scenes were to be shot. It was chaotic but many of the cast consider this sort of working without a net to be some of the best episodes they did. What the writers did impressively week after week was to chart the progression of the characters in a manner that didn't seem staged. Andy's relationship with John Irvin, the civilian administrative assistant, progressed over the years from antagonism to acceptance to friendship in a way that was totally believable. As for direction, the use of the "shaky cam" helped to create the show's feel as well, giving it an almost documentary feel. Although appearing random the quick movements of the camera were deliberately planned to recreate the way the human eye moves when something suddenly attracts our attention. It helped to define the show's look and feel.

The final year of NYPD Blue wasn't as strong as many of the earlier seasons. The departure of Charlotte Ross, who played Andy's third wife Connie MacDowell, last season pretty much ended storylines that dealt with his home life. The fear of a crackdown on obscenity, which began with Janet Jackson's nipple, restricted both the language and the number of nude scenes in the show - the latter affected relationship stories for other characters in the show. It was starting to become more about the work not the people. Then too there was the feeling that, with ABC announcing that the show was in its final season, the show was sliding towards its end. Sliding but not entirely slumping. Some of the stories this season have been quite strong. It was fitting that it went out when it did, and fitting that last scene, featuring the guy who was the screw-up from the first season who knew he would never make it beyond Detective Third Grade, had made Sergeant and was running the detective squad. The Progress Of Andy Sipowicz was complete.

Amazing Race 7 Teams

I'm a "Big Fan" of The Amazing Race, which is generally regarded as the best of the reality shows. In fact I'm such a big fan that when the show is on I post an episode recap on the Amazing Race newsgroup. These posts are big - usually around 20 KB and I don't plan on posting them here. A summary maybe but not the whole thing. Before the season starts, I also post an evaluation of the teams and this is a somewhat edited version of what I posted last night. For details on the teams, check out The Amazing Race website which has biographies of all 11 teams and video clip interviews. As The Race goes on they'll also have episode recaps and video clips not seen on the show.

1. Meredith & Gretchen: Tricky this. Over 50s tend not to do at all well inThe Amazing Race. The best finish by any Over 50 was Ian in TAR3, but he was just 50. Couples who are both Over 50 don't win, and most tend not to make it beyond the first half of the race. I think Meredith is capable of going as far as Don & Mary-Jean did in TAR6 (8^thplace) but Gretchen seems a bit too naïve to succeed. Probably one of the first teams out.



2. Megan & Heidi: I wouldn't be surprised if they're the first team out. Based on their interview they just don't seem prepared for what they'll encounter. Being an all-woman team is a handicap; no all-woman team has been in the final hour of the show except as part of the cheering section at the finish line. Limited travel experience and Megan's fear of flying are definite negatives. Their personalities mesh but their self-perceived strengths and weaknesses are very much the same and don't strengthen them. If they make it to the fourth episode I'll be (pleasantly) surprised.



3. Susan & Patrick: I really don't like Patrick. He moved to my wrong side when he started talking about forming alliances and stabbing people in the back. He's on the wrong show if that's his strategy. If all he brings to the table is the sort of insight that has the other teams ganging up on Rob & Amber because they've won a million bucks then I don't think they're going to last on The Race. As well as the Over 50 factor, the parent-child dynamic comes into play - the best finish by a parent & child was Nancy & Emily in TAR1. They have learned the first law of The Race; never be apart from at least one other team. How much time will they have to put it into practice?



4. Uchenna & Joyce: I'm inclined to think that they are going to have a problem. They're worried about food and lack of sleep, two things that are almost a given on The Amazing Race. They have the physical part of it down, but most of the top 8 teams do. What I don't like is that there is some tension in their relationship. The Race is not exactly known for easing stress within relationships. They could do well but really I don't see them going much higher than maybe fifth or sixth.



5. Lynn & Alex: What is it about this season's trio of gay guys that irritates me so much? I know what it is about these two - they're hyper-judgemental. The love the old couple but think they'll be gone fast. They hate the Hillbillies (Ryan & Chuck) and think they're stupid. They think the Republicans (who? Ron & Kelly perhaps) won't do well in other countries where people don't like Bush. These guys haven't travelled much as a couple although they claim to have travelled extensively as individuals. They think that its an advantage that they're together 24/7. Lynn expects to argue about money and doesnt like the idea of sleeping outdoors - he wants hotels. If they last they could be this years villains.



6. Ray & Deana: I'd like to see this team go far simply because of their physical preparation- they've worked out a lot for this race. The problem is that they're another team with a relationship that can be described as rocky and he tends to be a bit controlling. They do understand that The Race isn't about alliances and that the team that they have to be most concerned about is themselves. For this and their physicality I like them better than Lynn & Alex and in the right circumstances they could make final four.



7. Brian & Greg: The Alpha-Male team makes a comeback. I like them but their lack of travel experience and foreign languages is - in theory at least - a weak point. They could go all the way of course, but there's something about them that doesn't sit quite well with me. This is one of those teams where I'll know better when I see them in action.



8. Ryan & Chuck: I love these guys. They're not afraid of hard work or hard conditions. I think teams are going to underestimate them, particularly Chuck, who speaks Portuguese fluently and has travelled in South America including their first destination, Peru. I'm also betting that their hard work muscles will surprise some of those with "Hollywood muscles". Their finish is a real wild-card, but I don't expect them to finish first or last. This year's answer to the Frat Boys and The Clowns.



9. Ron & Kelly: This might shock a lot of people but I don't necessarily see them as final three material. The weakness is her; I don't know if shes "a when the going gets tough the tough get going" type which Ron, the former POW in Iraq, clearly is. Another big weakness is that they havent been together as a couple for very long and they've been long distance dating since they did get together. They don't know the other person's foibles as well as couples that have been together for a while, or teams that are friends rather than romantically involved. The biggest thing in their favour is Ron's military experience. The stress won't be a big deal for him.



10. Rob & Amber: The hated Romber. I think they could be a major force in this. Unlike Donny & Allyson in TAR5 they've been through stress together. If 39 days on the Pearl Islands brought them together I can't see The Amazing Race pulling them apart. Language is a weak spot, but they seem to be approaching The Race more with a spirit of enjoying the adventure than the lure of the money. They're looking forward to challenges where they're confronted with things they don't know they can do. They seem to have a healthy attitude about the race, and Rob recognises that this isn't Survivor: here the only way you can win is by relying on yourselfs not by backstabbing or forming alliances.



11. Debbie & Bianca: These women impress me. Between the two of them theyve been to 34 different countries. Educationally they are very impressive. Debbie graduated summa cum laude from William and Mary, and Bianca has a BA in International Affairs and is working on her Masters in Education with a specialty in multi-cultural studies. Add in that Bianca spent time living on $5 a day in Thailand - which means living really rough - and it is entirely possible that we could see a female team in the final three for the first time. I don't think they'll win, but they'll be in the fight.

Housekeeping Matters

I've finally added a links section to some of my favourite blogs and blog-like entities. I'm sure the list will grow, and there's some links to blogs on my personal favourites list that haven't made it to the blog's list. I've also rearranged placement of some things on the sidebar to make them suit me. Now if only I can figure out how to get Google Ad-Sense to stop giving me PSAs.

Couple of notes on the stuff on my blogs list:

• Colortini is the personal website of Tom Snyder, who I consider to be the last erudite person to host a non-political show on US network TV. The link is to the blog portion of the site.


• I've never met Tim Gueguen even though we both live in the same city, but I've encountered him online since we were both posting through the old Saskatoon Freenet. He seems to be having as much trouble with Google Ad-Sense as I am - most of the time when I check his blog the Adsense bar isn't visible (honest Tim, I do click on the ads when I see them).


• Mark Evanier is a comics and cartoon pro who has been around since at least the 1970s and probably before. He knew such people as Daws Butler and Tex Avery. He's not too proud to post on newsgroups and there at least seems like a pretty nice and knowledgable guy.


• Jerry Beck's Cartoon Brew is a pretty good sumation of animation news and opinions. Check out Jerry's Cartoon Research website as well.


• The Comics Curmudeon, originally "I Read The Comics So You Don't Have To" but he ran into a newspaper that had a column with a similar title and weren't pleased with the duplication - never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel - does satirical (usually) looks at comics that interest/annoy him.

As I say, I'm sure there'll be more links added to this list and existing entries editted and tweaked as time goes by.

It's A Wonderful Night For Oscar...NOT!!

Well, that was several degrees of pretty bad.

Everyone says that the Oscar telecast is too long. Usually it clocks in at about four hours and somewhere along the line someone makes a joke about how long things are. This year's telecast clocked in at three hours and ten minutes and Chris Rock made a joke about how next year they'll be handing out the awards for the "lesser" categories at a drive-thru in the parking lot to speed things up even further. That's the thing; some of those four hour plus Oscar shows didn't feel like they were running for four hours because the pacing was good, the presenters entertaining, and there were those unscripted moments that happen that either touch you or make you laugh. Tonight's show wasn't well paced, stifled spontaneity, and suppressed the unexpected. It may have only run three hours and ten minutes but it felt a lot longer.

They seemed to run into troubles almost immediately. Chris Rock's opening monologue seemed to have the potential for what they hired him for initially - to be edgy - and his jokes about George W. Bush (and the laughter they got, even from Clint Eastwood) are bound to have the Raving Right yelling about "Hollywood Liberals". There was a nice bit about the quality of actors involving that had Rock's movie Pootie Tang as a punchline. The trouble is that he quickly lost steam. Just how badly Rock was floundering was proven when they aired the tribute to former Oscar host Johnny Carson. The contrast between the show that Rock was MCing, and the way he was doing it, and the show that Carson did, and the way he did it was obvious to anyone. Chris Rock had a bit where he went to a Magic Johnson Theater and asked the mostly African American audience whether they'd seen the nominated pictures. Not only was the answer uniformly no (but I'm betting the responses were scripted) but the people named some of the worst movies to come out this year, including White Girls. It was mildly amusing even when Albert Brooks made an appearance in the bit. There was a terribly lame bit with Adam Sandler that had Rock reading lines (supposedly) written for Catherine Zeta Jones and Sandler acting like a sex obsessed pig. By the end of the show, Rock was reduced to doing a boob joke about Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayak.

Then there was the way that the awards were presented. Some of the awards were presented the usual way - the nominees sat in their seats waiting for their closeup, the presenter read out the list of names, sometimes with clips then announced the winner, who came out of the audience, getting congratulated by fiends relatives and people they worked with - but this was mainly for the "big" categories. In many of the so-called lesser categories, all of the nominees were brought out onto the stage and given a group shot - no closeup Mr. DeMille - and then the names were read out with clips - where used - projected onto the floor of the stage in such a way that viewers at home would be hard pressed to realize that they were watching a clip of an Oscar nominated film. They were the lucky ones - they got on stage. In some categories the presenter went to the back part of the theater and read out the names on a hand-held mike while the nominees sat in their aisle seats. When the winner was announced he, she or they had to go to microphones located in the aisles to make their 30 second speech. This meant that if people wanted to actually see the person being "honoured" rather than watch it on the big screen TVs in the Kodak Theater they had to twist in their seats. I doubt many bothered. These winners probably didn't get to go to the interview area either. If I were a nominee, I'd want my closeup, I'd want my film clip to be seen in a form that people could see and dammit I'd want my Oscar Walk. Maybe next year they really will hand out awards at a drive-thru.

There were some moments, although nothing even approaching the emotion of Adrien Brody's acceptance speech in 2002. I liked the bit with Pierce Brosnan and Edith Head lookalike Edna "E" Mode (an animated character), but of course that was scripted. Jamie Foxx had the best speech but then he had the time to deliver it. Maybe the most spontaneous and heartfelt speech came from Cinematography winner Robert Richardson who took the opportunity to thank the doctors and nurses who were caring for his mother who had recently taken ill. I also sort of liked that the winner for best song sang some of his song from Motorcycle Diaries as his speech. He sounded better a acapella than Antonio Banderas did with Carlos Santanna as backup. The Best Song category is a problem though; I think it's time has passed. It used to be that every picture would have a song and the songs were known and heard on the radio. This years nominees included songs from two animated movies, two foreign language films and a song shoehorned into an existing musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber for the express purpose of getting his Lordship another Oscar (he's two down on former writing partner Tim Rice). The "In Memoriam" piece was short (shorter than the tribute to a guy who made only one movie - Johnny Carson) and had subdued reactions, thanks in part to Yoyo Ma being on stage playing during the whole thing. No one seemed to want to applaud in recognition while he was playing. And did we really need Beyonce singing three of the five nominated songs? I suppose it was part of the Academy's effort to attract young people. I hope it didn't work - it might encourage them.

The 2005 Oscars didn't really work. There was too many bad ideas and bad moments that outweighed any good stuff that there was. I can't really fault Chris Rock - he wasn't Billy Crystal but I don't know if Billy would have worked well under the restrictions that Rock worked under. I can and do fault the producers for sort of missing the point. Or maybe they just became so obsessed with bringing the show in fast that they forgot that faster isn't always better.

Oscar Predictions

Haven't got time to write up a set of Oscar Predictions, and besides I haven't been to a movie in a theatre (which is where you can really tell whether a movie is really good) since I saw Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring about three years ago. What I am doing is posting a link to an article at Blogcritics.org that cover the major categories. I mostly agree, although I'd like to see someone give Alan Alda a little more credit for playing against type in The Aviator than just - as Roger Ebert puts it "his nomination is his reward" - but he won't.

I have opinions on a couple of categories that aren't covered in the Blogcritic article. Best Adapted Screenplay - Paul Haggis, Million Dollar Baby. Haggis created a script that was so polished that the final draft he handed to Clint Eastwood was shot exactly as written, no revisions during shooting. Best Animated Feature - The Incredibles. I will however have to claim a bias on that one; I went to Darwyn Peachey, who is Vice-President of Research and Development at Pixar, was a fairly close friend of mine in high school.

Good Oscar night!

Oscar Travesties

This list of "Oscar Atrocities" appeared first in the blog Alternative Reel. I'm reprinting it here because even though I'm an Oscar Junkie, it doesn't take a genius to recognise that the Academy Awards are very much a "flavour of the month" kind of thing with a huge dollop of politics - real world and Hollywood - mixed in for fun, and the "flavour of the month" might not always be the all-time classic; the politics become dated too. That said, I tend to trust the Academy more than I trust something like The People's Choice Awards which once determined that Ghost was a better All Around Picture (their equivalent to Best Picture) than Unforgiven. And that was one of their good choices.

There are reasons for a lot of the things that are on this list, and I don't entirely agree that every thing Bill Chinasky labels as an "Oscar Atrocity" on this list is an atrocity. For one thing he tends to love the Lord of the Rings movies a bit too much to be objective, and describing Best Years of Our Lives beating It's A Wonderful Life as an atrocity is pretty harsh. There are things I'd add to the list as well. The Great Ziegfeld beats Mr. Deeds Goes To Town? Mrs. Miniver is better than Yankee Doodle Dandy? Jimmy Stewart (Mr. Smith Goes To Washington) loses in 1939 not to Clark Gable (The only actor nominated for Gone With The Wind not to win), but to Robert Donat in Good-bye Mr Chips. Alfred Hitchcock gets nominated for Lifeboat and Rebecca but not for Notorious Shadow Of A Doubt or North By Northwest? Jimmy Cagney never wins, and Cary Grant is never even nominated? Those are atrocities!

1927-28: Wings beats out Sunrise for Best Picture.1929-30: Norma Shearer (The Divorcee) wins Best Actress; Louise Brooks (Pandoras Box) isnt even nominated!
1930-31: Cimarron wins Best Picture; City Lights isnt nominated.Lionel Barrymore (A Free Soul) wins Best Actor; neither James Cagney (The Public Enemy) nor Edward G. Robinson (Little Caesar) is nominated.
1932-33: Cavalcade wins Best Picture over A Farewell to Arms, 42nd Street and I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang.
1940: Rebecca wins Best Picture over The Grapes of Wrath. James Stewart (The Philadelphia Story) wins Best Actor over Henry Fonda (The Grapes of Wrath).
1941: How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane. John Ford (How Green Was My Valley) wins Best Director over Orson Welles (Citizen Kane).
1943: Paul Lukas (Watch on the Rhine) wins Best Actor over Humphrey Bogart (Casablanca).
1946: The Best Years of Our Lives over Its a Wonderful Life. Frederic March (The Best Years of Our Lives) wins Best Actor over James Stewart (Its a Wonderful Life). Olivia de Havilland (To Each His Own) wins Best Actress; Ingrid Bergman (Notorious) and Donna Reed (Its a Wonderful Life) aren't even nominated.
1949: Broderick Crawford (All the Kings Men) wins Best Actor over Kirk Douglas (Champion); James Cagney (White Heat) and Gene Kelly (On the Town) aren't even nominated.
1950: Judy Holliday (Born Yesterday) wins Best Actress over Gloria Swanson (Sunset Boulevard).
1951: An American in Paris over A Place in the Sun and A Streetcar Named Desire; The African Queen and A Christmas Carol aren't nominated.
1952: The Greatest Show on Earth over High Noon; Singin' in the Rain isn't nominated.
1954: Grace Kelly (The Country Girl) wins Best Actress over Judy Garland (A Star is Born).
1955: Marty wins Best Picture; Rebel Without a Cause, East of Eden and Kiss Me Deadly aren't even nominated. Ernest Borgnine (Marty) wins Best Actor over James Dean (East of Eden)
1956: Around in the World in 80 Days over Giant and The Ten Commandments.
1965: Julie Christie (Darling) wins Best Actress over Julie Andrews (The Sound of Music).
1969: John Wayne (True Grit) wins Best Actor over Dustin Hoffman (Midnight Cowboy) and Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy).
1972: Bob Fosse (Cabaret) wins Best Director over Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather).
1973: Jack Lemmon (Save the Tiger) wins Best Actor over Marlon Brando (Last Tango in Paris), Jack Nicholson (The Last Detail) and Al Pacino (Serpico).
1980: Ordinary People over Raging Bull.
1990: Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas.
1994: Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction.
1996: Geoffrey Rush (Shine) over Billy Bob Thornton (Sling Blade) for Best Actor.
1998: Shakespeare in Love wins Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. Roberto Benigni (Life is Beautiful) for Best Actor over Nick Nolte (Affliction), Edward Norton (American History X), Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan) and Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters).
2001: A Beautiful Mind over The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings. Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind) wins Best Director over Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring). Jim Broadbent (Iris) for Best Supporting Actor over Ian McKellen (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings).
2002: Chicago over The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

Oscar Nominees On TV

I confess to being an Oscar junkie and will be posting several Oscar related items today and tomorrow. Accept it.

First of all, lets take a look at this year's Oscar nominees and their experience in Television. These are the nominees in the Acting and Director categories. A couple of things are apparent: Actors are more likely to have worked in series Television than Actresses, and British and Australian actors and actresses tend to have more (and more recent) television experience than North Americans. Only Alan Alda is currently working in a regular series, The West Wing. (Format is Person - Film nominated for - Television series - not mini-series - where credited as a regular). Apparently American Directors think TV is beneath them, except for the three biggest (Eastwood and Scorcese).

Actors

• Don Cheadle - Hotel Rwanda - Golden Palace, Picket Fences
• Johnny Depp - Finding Neverland - 21 Jump Street
• Leonardo DiCaprio - The Aviator - Parenthood, Santa Barbara Growing Pains
• Jamie Foxx - Ray - In Living Color, The Jamie Foxx Show
• Clint Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby - Rawhide

Supporting Actors

• Alan Alda - The Aviator - Story Theatre, M*A*S*H, The West Wing
• Thomas Haden Church - Sideways - Wings, Ned and Stacey
• Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby - The Electric Company, Ryan's Hope, Another World
• Clive Owen - Closer - Capital City, Chancer, Sharman (British)

Actress

• Annette Benning - Being Julia - Nothing except a voice credit in Liberty's Kids
• Catalina Sandino Moreno - Maria Full of Grace - Nothing (in fact Maria Full Of Grace seems to be her first acting credit of any kind)
• Imelda Staunton - Vera Drake - Thompson, Up The Garden Path, If You See God Tell Him, Is It Legal? (British)
• Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby - Evening Shade, Camp Wilder, Leaving LA, Beverly Hills 90210
• Kate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind - Dark Season, Get Back (British)

Supporting Actress

• Cate Blanchett - The Aviator - Heartland, Bordertown (Australia; although IMDB classes both of these as mini-series, there may be some argument, particularly about Bordertown)
• Laura Linney - Kinsey - Tales of the City, More Tales of the City, Further Tales of the City
• Virginia Madsen - Sideways - American Dreams
• Sophie Okonedo - Hotel Rwanda - Staying Alive, The Governor, In Defence, Clocking Off (and a special shout out for voice work in Doctor Who: The Scream Of Shalka) (British)
• Natalie Portman - Closer - Nothing

Directors (Directing TV - just about anything)

• Clint Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby - an episode of Amazing Stories
• Taylor Hackford - Ray - Nothing
• Mike Leigh - Vera Drake - The Wednesday Player, Play for Today (British)
• Alexander Payne - Sideways - Nothing
• Martin Scorcese - The Aviator - an episode of Amazing Stories, an episode of the mini-series The Blues

And a special mention goes to Paul Haggis the screenwriter for Million Dollar Baby, who has a ton of TV credits starting with One Day At A Time. Around here he's best known as the creator of Due South, but he also has a creator credit on Walker: Texas Ranger, something that embarasses him so much that in interviews he says that his greatest fear was that when he died the first thing that would be mentioned in his obituary would be creator of Walker: Texas Ranger.

We Use Math Every Day

Years ago, when I first became interested in gambling that was more than picking winners at the races - which I was actually reasonably good at; why I quit is another story entirely - I started reading a lot of books about the subject. Percentages are a big thing in gambling. In simple terms you want to make bets that give the House the smallest advantage possible. Roulette, particularly with an American wheel (which has 38 numbers including 0 and 00 - the European wheel has 37 numbers) is not a good choice for the gambler. The House edge on an American rules table is 5.26% (on a European wheel it's 2.70%) which mean that if you were to place a bet on Black, or Even, which seem to be even money bets, you will actually win only 47.4 percent of the time. By comparison Craps has an House advantage of 1.41% on the Come Line and 1.364% on the Don't Come Line, and both percentages can be significantly reduced by laying or giving odds if the casino allows it. One of the books I read at the time was called The Eudaemonic Pie. It was the true story of a group of hippie types in the early 1970s who happened to be geniuses at physics. They wanted to set up a commune but to do that they needed money and they thought that the "easiest" way to get it was by gambling and roulette is the game that offers the largest pay outs. Betting a single number wins 36 times the original bet (that is 35-1 even thought he odds are 37-1 against - that's the advantage). Being physicists and mathematicians these guys felt that there had to be a way to use physics and mathematics to reduce the odds to a manageable level where you could place a chip on six numbers (for example) and know that the ball would land on one of those numbers. They didn't succeed but their failure had more to do with implementation rather than the actual areas of math and physics. In reading the book I learned a lot more about how something like this can be analyzed mathematically. I was also the first time that I had encountered the concept of Chaos Theory. The new TV series Numb3rs tries to convey some of the sort of wonder that mathematics provokes in some people.

The series focusses on Don and Charlie Eppes, played by Rob Morrow and David Krumholtz. Don is a senior agent in the Los Angeles office of the FBI, while his younger brother Charlie is a brilliant young professor of mathematics who occasionally consults with the FBI and other agencies. In his own world Charlie is a superstar, a concept which Don doesn't seem to fully grasp. In the pilot episode it was implied that Charlie's primarily participated in fraud and other types of cases involving money which on the face of it would seem to be the equivalent of asking Picasso to paint a mural for the baby's room. In the course of the pilot Charlie convinces Don that mathematical analysis can be used in cases that don't involve numbers in an obvious way. In essence he contends that it's possible to analyze information mathematically and from the known data deduce patterns that the criminals repeat. It's not unlike what the Eudaemons were trying to do with the Roulette wheel - given data about the rate at which the wheel spins and the speed of the orbit of the little white ball and its rate of decay and other data, it should be possible (using a computer) to determine which sector of the wheel (and therefore which numbers) the ball will end up in. As a concept for a television show it has the potential to go over a lot of peoples' heads, and I'm given to understand that the math has been "dumbed down" for the average viewer. On the other hand the public has embraced the idea of scientific investigations of crimes in a big way - witness the popularity of the CSI franchise, Crossing Jordan, and in Canada DaVinci's Inquest. The way the show is presented is both dramatic and quirky. That said, I sometimes find the writing to be a bit pedestrian, particularly when they're dealing with the personal aspects of the character relationships.

The show has a workmanlike cast. Rob Morrow is probably best known for playing Dr. Joel Fleischman on Northern Exposure, but here seems to be channelling his investigator from the movie Quiz Show. He's fine playing a man who knows his brother is brilliant but sometimes has trouble really understanding him. Judd Hirsch, who plays Don and Charlie's father, has wisely decided to make closer to John Lacey from his old series Dear John than Julius Levinson from Independence Day. Alan Eppes is a man who is immensely proud of both of his sons, although mostly he's worried that they aren't romantically involved. Of special note in the supporting cast are Sabrina Lloyd as Don's FBI partner, a role that is different from what we normally associate her with, and Peter McNichol, who plays Charlie's friend, coworker and sometimes advisor. McNichol's character, Larry, is a typical McNichol character, quirky and comedic but extremely able and likeable not unlike the character of Alan Burch that he played in Chicago Hope.

The most important piece of casting is David Krumholtz as Charlie. Although known for comedy (including Bernard the "Arch-Elf" in the Santa Clause movies) he's also played a variety of dramatic roles, and was the man who stabbed John Carter on ER. As Charlie, he brings a sense of nervous, almost maniacal energy to character, particularly when he's involved in a problem. Charlie owes a little to Russell Crowe's portrayal of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind in that Charlie occassionally can't fully cope with reality particularly when it affects his family. Charlie isn't socially inept but he does have a comfort zone that he retreats into. But it's the mathematics where his true passion is. In Friday's episode, Charlie gives an explanation of the everyday importance of mathematics to Sabrina Lloyd's character that is at once beautiful passionate, and almost romantic. In addition there's a chemistry between Krumholtz and Morrow that makes them believable as brothers even though the real difference in their ages is closer to 16 years rather than the five or six that the show implies (Charlie and Don graduated from high school on the same day).

CBS has been promoting Numb3rs on the name value of Tony and Ridley Scott, whose production company makes the show. My suspicion is that the Scott Brothers' involvement has been limited to bringing money and the prestige of their names to the project. I don't think that it's necessarily the right approach. It is vaguely ironic that the fate of Numb3rs will be decided by numbers - Nielsen Rating numbers. Although Numb3rs has been the top rated show in its time slot since the show debuted, the ratings have also declined since it moved to its regular Friday night timeslot. Worse, beginning on March 4, it will be up against the newest entry in the Law & Order franchise, Law & Order: Trial By Jury. I'd like to see Numb3rs renewed for next season, possibly on a new night if the opposition from L&O: Trial by Jury is too great, but a great deal depends on how much confidence the network has in the show. That's a lot of pressure.