Showing posts with label Sitcoms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sitcoms. Show all posts

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Am I Getting Too Old For This?

master-of-noneThis isn’t a review of the show I’m going to be talking about because I broke one of my cardinal rules of reviewing anything. I suppose you could call it more of a musing about the universe and my place as an amateur TV critic, as revealed by my reaction to a new show.

I signed up for Netflix a couple of months ago. There’s a whole story about being Canadian streaming video and how it’s a different experience from the one that Americans face, but that’s for another time. Generally the Netflix experience has been an enjoyable one even though I haven’t been binge watching every show available on on the service, the way we’re apparently supposed to. I usually end up watching one or two shows a night, depending on the night, but sticking with them until I’ve seen all of the available episodes.

Saturday night, after watching Ocean’s 13 (nowhere near as enjoyable as either version of Ocean’s 11 or even Ocean’s 12) I decided that I felt like a comedy. I’ve gone through the first season of Grace & Frankie which I loved so I decided that I’d try Aziz Ansari’s new series Master Of None. I had seen the rave reviews that the series had received from everybody from the New York Times to Vogue Magazine which basically called it hilarious and the greatest thing since sliced bread, or at least the greatest comedy of this year (okay, so admittedly that’s not a high bar to clear based on what the broadcast networks came up with this season. Or last season. I figured I’d give it a try and see what all the fuss was about.

I watched about half the first episode.

That’s why I’m not reviewing Master of None; my cardinal rule of reviewing anything is that you can’t give an informed opinion of anything if you only experience a portion of if. What I can tell you is why I stopped watching it. I didn’t find it funny. More importantly I didn’t find anything or anyone that I could latch onto that could hold my interest. Ansari and the three characters at the start of the episode (after his little tryst and subsequent trip to the pharmacy) were self-absorbed, self-involved, self-satisfied a--holes. There discussion of children and the impact that having children would have was enough to make me want to bludgeon all three of them so that they wouldn’t have children. An example of this was when Ansari was talking about how being a parent would keep him from having pasta. He wants pasta but having a kid means that he has to stay at home to look after the kid so he can’t have pasta. When it’s pointed out that people with kids actually have pasta, the response is that they’re just eating their kid’s Spaghetti-os. I managed to make it a few minutes longer to when Ansari and his buddy Brian were at the party for a one year-old (Brian hogs the bouncy house and gets mad because a kid in there prevents him from getting “his bounce on”) before I said to hell with this and looked for an episode of What’s My Line (with Fred Allen!) on YouTube.

The thing I look for when I’m watching most TV shows is something to hold my interest. This is usually a character that I can feel some empathy for, or sympathy for, or a situation that catches my interest. That’s what got me hooked on The Big Bang Theory from the start; I felt an empathy for Leonard being in love with someone who – at least at the beginning – had no romantic feelings for him. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt too many times. The initial mystery got me into How To Get Away With Murder, but I dropped the show recently – after the initial mystery was solved – because I didn’t like any of the characters. Actually I thought that all of the main characters should be arrested and have the keys to their cells thrown away. Having eliminated the thing that got me interested in the show it had to hold me with the characters and it didn’t have any characters that I felt any empathy or sympathy for. As far as Master of None goes, I felt nothing for Ansari or his friend who monopolized the bouncy house which was as far as I got into the regular characters.

So here’s the thing. I know I have the right to say that I didn’t like what I saw of this show. I can express a personal opinion just as well as anyone.The fact that I can give reasons – or at least I can reasonably cogently explain – why I dislike the show is even better. The problem I have is with being the voice in the wilderness; the guy who says “I hate this,” when everyone else says that “this is genius.” It bothers me because I want to know why I am this out of step with things.

(By the way I’m not kidding about “everyone” liking this show. It has an approval rating of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, and a score of 91 on Metacritics with all 28 critical reviews being positive.)

There are probably a lot of reasons why I didn’t rave about this show. I have always stated that I don’t really like most comedies, with a particular distaste for Seinfeld and shows that remind me of it (and boy did Master of None remind me of Seinfeld). Then, as I have said, there is the high annoyance factor that I felt about the characters that I’ve seen. Maybe the show and Ansari would have shown me something if I’d watched more of the episode or a different episode of the series or more episodes of the series? Maybe you have to watch all ten episodes to truly appreciate the show’s genius. The question then becomes whether that is necessarily a good thing, but that’s an issue for another time. Clearly I don’t know enough about the show to deliver a truly informed impression, which is why I didn’t label this as a review of the show.

But there is a nagging doubt in my mind, and that is that I can’t truly appreciate this show because at 59 years of age I am far away from being the target audience of this show. Mark Peikert of The Wrap wrote the following: “Master of None is more articulate than any other show at putting under a microscope that generation’s neuroses, desires, and ambivalence. The series also happens to be sexy, hilarious, and very moving, a tribute to Ansari’s observational powers and ability to pinpoint the zeitgeist.” But if the reason that I can’t appreciate this show is because I can’t insinuate myself into “that generation’s neuroses, desires, and ambivalence,” is it valid for me to try to review shows for a general audience?

Saturday, October 12, 2013

First Comedy Cancelled No Surprise

We are menIt’s We Are Men.

And I’m not kidding that it wasn’t a surprise. There are so many reasons why this show was going to fail that would be apparent to anyone who isn’t a network TV executive that it really is a shock to me that any network would pick it up. Let’s go through them shall we.

1. The central plot device – guys coming together and bonding.
Without resorting to notes I can tell you of two previous series where this central plot device: CBS’s Welcome To The Commodore and ABC’s Carpoolers. The former featured a young man moving into a historic hotel and being taken under the collective wings of the people living there, including the supposedly wiser older man (played in that case by Jeffrey Tambor; in this show it was Tony Shaloub). For the latter I’m going to have to hit IMDb and Wikipedia because memories for failed TV shows isn’t encyclopaedic and this one was gone and forgotten so fast that it would make your head spin. Oh wait, it wasn’t; it lasted 13 episodes. It was just forgotten so fast that it would make your head spin. It was about four guys who carpool together, each with different problems at home. Even reading the descriptions in the Wikipedia article makes me want to turn off my monitor. Suffice it to say that this sort of group of men getting together comedy doesn’t fly very well in the ratings.

2. The other part of the central plot device – Guys trying to regain their masculinity:
If I’m not mistaken we went through a recent spate of comedies that looked at how men were trying to regain their lost masculinity. It was back in the 2011-2012 season, and only one of those shows is still in the line-up. That was the season of such gems as How To Be A Gentleman (the first comedy cancelled that season), Man Up! (which, from looking at the description, is also one of the shows with the first problem – I forgot that this one even existed, lucky me), and the too horrible for words Work It! The only show to survive that trend was Last Man Standing which is still on and is Tim Allen reviving his old Home Improvement series with daughters instead of sons and apparently a lot other similarities that showed up after I gave up on watching this show…about three weeks after it debuted.

3. Show killer Jerry O’Connell: That’s right, I’m labelling Jerry O’Connell a show killer. Take a look at the record. Since Sliders, O’Connell has been a regular on Crossing Jordan, Carpoolers, Do Not Disturb, and The Defenders. Of those series, only Crossing Jordan lasted more than 18 episodes, and that is largely due to the fact that O’Connell’s part wasn’t the lead or even the co-lead. Crossing Jordan was very much Jill Hennessy’s show while O’Connell was the detective who usually worked with her and occasionally expressed romantic feelings towards her. Of the other three series, Carpoolers lasted 13 episodes with O’Connell as one of the four title characters, Do Not Disturb aired 3 episodes (two or three others were made but mercifully never aired), and The Defenders (where he was equally billed with Jim Belushi and was in a semi-dramatic role for the first time since Crossing Jordan), last 18 episodes.

4. A guy in a Speedo: In this case it was Jerry O’Connell, which makes it worse, but really pretty much any guy who isn’t an Olympic swimmer wearing a Speedo is going to make a show a failure. I’m fine with nudity and near nudity on TV – I actually applauded the producers of NYPD Blue for having Dennis Franz bare his butt – but there are some boundaries that just shouldn’t be crossed and a guy in a Speedo - aka a Banana Hammock – is one of them.

We Are Men will be replaced at 8:30 p.m. (Eastern) by 2 Broke Girls which had been at 9 p.m. Reruns of The Big Bang Theory will air in the 9 p.m. time slot for the next three weeks. Mike and Molly will return to that time slot on November 4.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Forgotten TV Shows–The Life Of Riley (1949)

LifeofRiley2Yeah, I’m back… sort of. I think that in the past two months I’ve started three or four different articles but so far nothing has germinated into being good enough to post.I’m not second guessing myself, I have just been quite busy and as a result quite tired. And besides, I bought one of the cheap Kindles, and I’m reading quite a bit.

Still I’ve been wanting to get back in harness and putting something together on “forgotten” TV shows on a weekly basis – well an approximately weekly basis – seems like a direction to take. After all my blogging buddy Bill Crider features postings about “Forgotten Films” or “Forgotten Books” on an almost daily basis in his blog Bill Crider’s Pop Culture Magazine, and frequent commenter her and elsewhere Todd Mason regularly collects links about overlooked film and other A/V material in his blog Sweet Freedom, so I figured I might as well join the trend. After all, if you`re going to steal an idea, steal a good one. And since my blogging buddy Ivan G. Shreve Jr. is just ending a contest to give away a box set of Radio Spirits’ Life Of Riley CDs (the program guide for which was coincidentally(?) written by that distinguished radio historian Ivan G. Shreve Jr.) at HIS blog Thrilling Days Of Yesterday, well the choice for the first show to profiled is pretty obvious.

Title: The Life Of Riley
Dates: October 4, 1949 to March 28, 1950 (26 episodes)
Starring: Jackie Gleason, Rosemary DeCamp, Lanny Rees, Gloria Winters, Sidney Tomack, John Brown.
Surprising Fact: The show won an Emmy in 1950 as “Best Film Made for and Viewed on Television in 1949,” the first situation comedy to win an Emmy (it beat out The Lone Ranger and Silver Theater).
Why Forgotten?: Several reasons: First the star: Jackie Gleason (in his first TV series) instead of William Bendix who played the part on radio and in a movie that debuted the same year that the TV series did. Second, the show lasted less than a full season.Third, it was 1949. Fourth, both the show and the star went on to better things.

Now let’s go into the situation in depth. The Life Of Riley began as a radio show in January 1944 on the NBC Blue Network which was in the process of becoming ABC. It shifted to NBC in September 1945. The radio show starred William Bendix as Chester A. Riley,  Paula Winslowe as his wife Peg, and John Brown as both Riley’s best friend Jim Gillis and most famously as Digby “Digger” O’Dell “the friendly undertaker” (he also played a third character named Waldo Binny) The told the story of Riley, a Brooklyn born riveter at a California aircraft plant, his wife two kids and their friends. Riley is a sentimental guy whose attempts at taking a tough line or do something he thinks is right – usually on advice from Gillis – he ends up getting into trouble. With some good advice from Digger and a lot of help from the level-headed Peg he manages to survive the situations he finds himself in. As an interesting side note, one of the developers of the radio series was theatrical  Milton Marx – known to Marx Brothers fans as Gummo, the brother who never appeared in the movies.

In 1949 a Life of Riley movie was made starring Bendix, Rosemary DeCamp as Peg, Meg Randall and Lanny Rees as Riley’s kids, Babs and Junior, Brown as “Digger” O’Dell and James Gleason as Gillis. With TV beginning to gain ground and the movie further building awareness of the visual possibilities of the show, It seemed like a great idea to put The Life of Riley on TV, with Bendix recreating his radio role. The problem was that Bendix was under contract to RKO Radio Pictures as a movie actor, and like a lot of movie stars his contract prevented him from doing TV. So, the role of Riley had to be recast. Sometime movie actor and nightclub comedian Jackie Gleason was tapped for the role. Rosemary Decamp and Lanny Rees came over from the movie as did Brown. Gloria Winters – who is much more famous for her later role on Sky King as his niece – played Babs. Gillis, who was played by John Brown on the radio show, was played by Sid Tomack. The problem was of course that the radio show was still on the air and would stay on the air until 1951. There were obvious comparisons between the TV Riley and the radio version – who had also been seen in the movie – and Gleason, with his popping eyes didn’t fit people’s vision of Riley. Plus, Gleason was 33 when he got the role as Riley, a man with a teenaged daughter and a son who either was a teenager or was about to become one.

And yet, it does not appear that the show was cancelled for poor ratings. The show ran for 26 episodes which today seems like a full season or even more than a full season at a time when the typical series runs between 22 and 24 episodes. However in 1949-50 the typical season was 39 episodes. So what happened? Apparently the show’s producer Irving Brecher, got into a dispute with the show’s sponsor Pabst Brewing over extending the show to a full 39 episode season. In those days shows were effectively controlled by sponsors and their advertising agencies, with the networks having far less power.

Another reason why the show is largely forgotten today is that it was being made in 1949. There were only about 125 TV stations in the entire country. Many TV shows, and most comedies were shot and broadcast live from New York for much of the country. Stations in the Pacific and Mountain time zones were provided with kinescopes; the episodes were filmed off of the TV monitor which were then flown to California to air on NBC regional network based there. Kinescopes were inevitably poorer quality than would be seen either when the shows aired live or once the three camera set-up became the standard for producing TV series. The net result is that while a considerable amount of Gleason’s version of The Life Of Riley apparently survives, not many people saw it at the time, and the whole idea of syndicating reruns wouldn’t really be thought of until I Love Lucy came on the scene a few years later.

Maybe the biggest reason why the show qualifies as “forgotten” is that both the show and its star went on to bigger and better things. Gleason would get his own variety show, The Cavalcade of Stars, on the Dumont Network in 1951. The show was a hit for Dumont, and so was promptly poached by CBS which could promise the advertisers a much bigger audience than Dumont could deliver. The show then became The Jackie Gleason Show which spawned a number of character driven sketches including The Honeymooners, which ran as a stand-alone series in the 1955-56 season. Gleason himself would continue to work with CBS on a number of series until 1970. The Gleason show for much of he 1960s – initially known as American Scene Magazine and later as The Jackie Gleason Show would feature Honeymooner episodes, many in colour.

As for The Life of Riley, in January 1953 William Bendix – apparently freed from the restrictions of his RKO contract – appeared in a revival of The Life of Riley. Marjorie Reynolds played Peg, Wesley Morgan was Junior, Lugene Sanders played Babs and Tom d’Andrea was Jim Gillis. Joan Blondell’s sister Gloria Blondell appeared as Gillis’s wife Honeybee for most of the show’s six seasons, and Groucho Marx had a writer’s credit for “story”. The show ran until 1958 with various neighbours coming and going. Even the Riley kids eventually left the show; Babs got married and Junior went off to college. They would however make frequent appearances on the show. One character who did not make the transition from the radio version – and the first TV version – of the show was Digger O’Dell. John Brown, who played Digger was blacklisted as a result of accusations made in the pamphlet Red Channels. Although Brown lived until 1957, dying a few weeks after his 53rd birthday, he career ended in 1952. For whatever reason however it was decided not to try to find someone else to play the O’Dell character. The show did fine without him, spending four of its six seasons in the top 30 in the ratings and entering syndication after production on the 217 episodes was completed.

The 1949 version of The Life Of Riley is apparently in public domain. Several releases of the Gleason version of the show are available. Depending on the version these can be expensive. Some episodes are also on YouTube. What follows is the complete second episode of the show. Note that there is no laughter, and that the theme is whistled. The former is because the show was filmed and before the three camera system was developed that meant that there wasn't a studio audience to react to the jokes. The latter is because the musicians union was on strike when the show was being made.


Monday, January 16, 2012

¡Rob! Stomps On My Memories

ROBThe new CBS series ¡Rob! takes the idea behind an old Canadian show that I remember quite fondly and manages to strip out everything that I found charming and funny about the original. And really all it took was some really bad writing and Rob Schneider.

Many years ago (about 40 years ago actually) when I Was A Teenaged Child of Television (hmm, that might be a good title for some sort of blog) and CTV first established itself in the Saskatoon market, one of the shows they had was a sitcom called Excuse My French. The show was about a young couple who decide on the spur of the moment to get married. There are a number of complications. For one thing, his family (well there’s only his father really) is rich while hers is working class. But the big hang up is that they’re living in Montreal and he’s an anglophone and she’s a francophone (although in Montreal then, and even now, if you were French-Canadian you probably spoke some English). The show starred Stuart Gillard (probably best known today as a director in Canadian and American TV, whose credits include Charmed, One Tree Hill, and 90210) as Peter Hutchins and Lise Charbonneau as his new wife Marie-Louise and a number of French-Canadian actors who are pretty much unfamiliar outside of Quebec playing Marie Louise’s family. This included her parents, an uncle and a separatist brother (also in college). I remember the show as being rather funny even if it was being done on a budget that would make a shoestring look obese.

Over the years I’ve often thought that you could take the basic concepts behind Excuse My French and use them in an American sitcom. The basic idea would be a clash between cultures and across economic class lines. You could make the lead characters the college aged son of a rich Anglo and the daughter of a working class Tejano family. In fact, if you wanted to throw in a really fun twist, you could make the husband be the first generation of the family born in the United States (his family are Canadian – a recognition of the Canadian original) while his wife’s family can trace their history in Texas back to before Texas was a republic, in fact before the American Revolution. I’m not saying that the concept would work of course. There are a lot of ways that this could go wrong, and ¡Rob! not only finds all of them, it finds a few that I never thought of.

I should start out by stating that I don’t like Jon Schneider. He evokes Jon Lovitz levels of annoyance in me and that’s saying a lot (its an 8 on the annoyance meter, with the late Chris Farley being a 10) and I find myself unable to even think of watching just about anything that he’s in. And with all that being said, even if I liked him as an actor, Rob Schneider would have been wrong for this part because of his age. At 48 he’s too old for the role playing opposite 32 year-old Claudia Bassols as Maggie, his new bride. In fact Schneider is six years older than the woman playing his mother-in-law on the show Diana-Maria Riva (who you might remember from Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip or the last season of The West Wing). The age difference between Schneider and Bassols removes any charm that the relationship might otherwise have possessed had the characters (particularly Schneider’s) been younger or at least closer together in age. The thing is that the Rob and Maggie relationship has to work from the very beginning because it is the source of conflict between Rob and Maggie’s family.

The Spanish speaking members of the cast are generally good at least in terms of acting qualifications. Cheech Marin plays family patriarch Fernando, opposite Diana-Maria Riva as Rosa. Eugenio Derbez, one of Mexico’s best known comedic  actors plays Rosa’s younger brother Hector (despite being seven years older than Riva), and Lupe Ontiveros (who played Gabrielle’s mother-in-law in the early episodes of Desperate Housewives) plays Rosa’s mother. Claudia Bassols is probably the least experienced cast member with most of her previous work being in series in Spain. They’re a good cast but the writing that they are forced to work with in this show is abominably bad.

Many of the alleged jokes in this show are either borderline offensive or sophomoric; and high school sophomoric not college sophomoric either. Some of the others are allegedly funny because they’re trying to play the turn-about card. Here’s a few examples:
  • When Rob first arrives he’s mistaken for Maggie’s cab driver.
  • Rob goes to meet his new in-laws and meets his new wife’s extended family. Rob: “Well now I know what’s going on with all of those siestas.”
  • Rob tells to his new mother-in-law (whose husband owns eight car washes) that he’s a landscape architect. She thinks that means that her daughter has married a gardener. Later in the episode she complains to him, “I wish you people wouldn’t use a leaf blower”. This is funny(?) because one of the stereotypes of Mexican immigrants is of the gardener using a leaf blower.
  • Rob assures his new father-in-law of his liberal credentials on immigration. His father-in-law responds that he thinks they should build a big wall along the border with gun turrets to keep the illegal immigrants out. They’re competition (although of course all or almost all of his employees are illegal immigrants). This is funny because it’s coming from a immigrant who’s got his and doesn’t want anyone else to get theirs.
  • Eugenio tells Rob that he’s in the US “for a visit”…and then immediately confides to Rob that he’s not going back. He then announces that Rob is lending him $7,200, which is news to Rob.
  • Rob goes upstairs to find Maggie and somehow wanders into her grandmother’s bedroom. He accidentally tips over the candles in a shrine in her room, spilling was onto his pants. He takes them off because his genitals feel like they’re burning, just as grandma comes into the room. She shrieks and people come running. Rob tries to hid behind her but she bends down in front of him, so when the family arrives it appears as though he’s somehow humping her. It’s a visual joke that comes damned close to being a joke about rape.
  • Maggie claims that Rob has some sort of OCD. When they are planning a party at Rob’s place for his in-laws, Rob has to have everything planned out meaning, naturally, that “hilarity” will ensue when his “well planned” evening goes awry.
  • Things are icy between the in-laws and Rob until Rob announces that he has wedding pictures. Of course they’re on his phone only, and of course within one or two photos, Rob clumsily drops the phone into a pitcher of Sangrias. He then reaches in to try to grab the phone, and then serves the Sangrias that he just had his hands in. This did allow Eugenio to get one of the few good – or at least above the standards of the rest of the show – jokes in the show: “This is very good. What type of phone did you use in it?”
  • Trying to make small talk he brings up the murdered Tejano singer Selena. “What a tragedy. So sad.” Everyone looks at him like he’s a tonto. Or perhaps an idiota.

Rob wasn’t the worst comedy to debut in the past couple of weeks. After all it did appear two days after the second (and as it turned out the last) episode of Work It, a show so abysmally bad that most people are convinced that it wasn’t released it escaped. As bad and at times distasteful as it might be ¡Rob! isn’t as bad as that. There is also the possibility, albeit an incredibly slim possibility, that the show’s writing could get better in the next few episodes. I don’t think it will, but if the ratings for the first episode manage to hold up it is likely to get a chance. There are so many ways that this show could be improved without actually eliminating the guy the show was named for.

I hope and expect that the ratings for ¡Rob! will collapse in the next couple of weeks. It’s not a great thing to say but the fact is that I hope that public, having seen the first episode of the show, will desert it by the time the second episode airs. I know I won’t be watching it. Forty years ago I saw something better done for a fraction of the cost of this mess. But very few people even knows it existed. Too bad, because the people responsible for ¡Rob! could have learned a few things from it.

(Correction: Apparently CBS changed the title from ¡Rob! to Rob. I’m sticking with the first title because that’s what has appeared in the promos.)

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Tim Allen Retread, And Why I Don’t Like It

last-man-standing-tim-allen-stillWhat do you get when you take comedian Tim Allen, add a “manly” work environment with a work place friendship with a guy with facial hair, three kids (including one who makes with the wise cracks), and a real actress to play his wife? That’s right, you get Home Improvement, Allen’s 1991-99 series with Richard Karn, Zachary Ty Bryant, Jonathon Taylor Thomas, Taran Noah Smith, and Patricia Richardson.

Now take that show and turn the three boys into three girls, make the work place friend with facial hair into his boss (and friend) with facial hair, and replace Patricia Richardson with Nancy Travis, and what do you get? Tim Allen’s new show Last Man Standing.

In Last Man Standing, Allen plays Mike Baxter, the Marketing Director of a chain of sporting goods stores owned by Ed Alzate (Hector Elizondo), who also happens to be one of his best friends. In the past this has meant travelling to various places around the globe to shoot ads for their catalogues. However the catalogue is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the Internet Age, and Ed needs Mike to focus more on the website. The website includes videos for demonstrations of the merchandise, but Mike turns these into personal rants with only passing reference to the merchandise, but that doesn’t matter since his rants generate hits for the website, and as one of his younger employees tells Ed, “Hits are good.”. Though Ed is willing to let Mike go back on the road for the catalogue, he decides that maybe he should spend more time with his wife and daughters.

At home, Mike has to deal with his wife Vanessa (Nancy Travis) a normally level-headed woman who sometimes goes a bit overboard, and his three daughters. Kristin (Alexandra Krosney) is his oldest, a 20 year-old single mom (she has a life-long memory of her prom in the form of her two year-old son Boyd) who works as a waitress and is trying to go back to college. Middle daughter is Mandy (Molly Ephraim), a self-centered 17 year-old “girly girl” who loves to shop (as long as she’s spending her parents’ money), hang out with her boyfriend Travis and update her website, Mandyland. Finally there’s Eve (Kaitlyn Dever). She’s her father’s favourite largely because she a tomboy interested in all of the things he’s interested in, including sports and guns.

The most recent episode of Last Man Standing is a fairly typical one. There are two plotlines, a “Home” plotline and a “Work” plotline with the “Home” plotline being the dominant one of the two. This time around the story focuses on Mike always being the “good cop” of the parents in their relationship with their daughters – the one who says “yes” to whatever they want – while Vanessa feels that she’s forced onto the role of the “bad cop” – the one who always has to say “no”. This might have been fine when Mike was on the road so much but now that he’s back home it’s causing problems. One of the problems is that Mandy wants to enter the Denver audition for a reality show, America’s Next Hot Teen Model. There’s probably only going to be 10,000 girls there so she figures she’s got a pretty good shot. Her mom forbids it but Mike figures why not, since she’s too short anyways. Eventually Vanessa browbeats him into saying no as well. But that’s not enough to stop Mandy from doing what she wants to do. She enlists Kristin and Eve into helping her shoot some photos for a portfolio, but her full blown diva attitude alienates them and they walk out, without a photo being taken. Even that doesn’t stop Mandy. She can take her own photos with a remote control, and proceeds to do some shots that she thinks will work. Then she decides to do something a bit more provocative, and takes off her top. Of course it’s fine (as far as she’s concerned) because she’s got here hands over her breasts and you can’t see anything except the bottom of them sometimes.


Of course her  parents find out – Kristin finds the pictures on the camera – and they both go ballistic. Pictures like these will get out and they have the potential to harm her future prospects if an employer or someone else finds them. They take the SD Card from the camera, but Mandy is one step ahead of them; she’s emailed the photos to her boyfriend Travis’s phone! So Mike has to go to Travis’s house. He’s practicing his trombone so his mother answers the door. When Mike mentions that the photos involve Mandy not wearing her top – even though nothing was showing – Travis’s mother calls the photos pornography, and says she should have known better than to allow Mandy in her house because she comes from such an “immoral” family. Proof of their immorality is that Kristin had a baby out of wedlock. Mike gets very angry at her over that, and rather than simply taking the pictures off the camera before Travis had the chance to see them, he drops the phone into a vase full of water. Which, as we find out, is not nearly as extreme as what Vanessa would have done if the woman had called Krisitin and Mandy immoral to her face; Vanessa says she would have “cut her.”

The Workplace plot of the show always takes second place to the Home storyline. In this episode, Ed is feeling left out because Mike is making marketing decisions (he is the marketing director) like moving the parkas out front in the stores and moving the fishing vests back – well it is nearly winter and fishing season is over. He feels like he’s losing some control of his business so he decides to do some marketing of his own. To promote the store’s selection of snowmobiles, he hires some local models – his “snowmo-bunnies” – to dress in fur bikinis and talk to customers. Initially Mike is fine with this – at least he is when he sees the sales figures that the models are ringing up – but he eventually ends the promotion before Ed wants it to end (when all of the snowmobiles are sold). It seems that in his argument with Mandy over her entering the America’s Next Hot Teen Model auditions she brought up the calendars featuring scantily clad models that he can’t get enough of. He said that “They aren’t my daughter,” to which she responded, “They’re somebody’s daughters.” It doesn’t hit home until he discovers that one of Ed’s “snowmo-bunnies” is a girl who went to school with Kristin. Needless to say, Ed isn’t happy about yet another decision being taken away from him, and all of his feelings come out. He’s afraid that Mike is trying to force him out of his own company, and that he’s at the age his father was when he retired. Retirement killed Ed’s father. Actually it was the husband of the woman that Ed’s father was having an affair with who killed him, but he wouldn’t have had time for that if he hadn’t retired. Mike reassures Ed that he’s not trying to force him out of the company and the whole crew at the store has a birthday party for him. That restores Ed to his normal, cranky, self as he complains about breaking the “no birthday party rule”, then about the cake and about their present (they had his chair reupholstered).

Last Man Standing is a pretty bad show that is getting pretty good ratings and a full season order because Tim Allen is in it. The three daughters are a pretty standard set of TV tropes; the smart tomboyish one, the self-centered shopping obsessed one, and the one trying to get her life on track. They’re a cookie cutter assortment of problems that could be fitted into just about any family sitcom. They really don’t have any discernable character traits beyond those that define the stereotype. Nancy Travis is fine as Mike’s wife Vanessa, but Vanessa is no Jill Taylor because Travis isn’t given the same sort of material that Patricia Heaton was given to work with, even at the start. As for Hector Elizondo, well casting him in this role seems like such a waste of a first rate character actor in a role that could be played by just about anyone.

The writing of this series shows little in the way of originality. It wouldn’t have been hard to take these characters and this concept and give it a real twist that would the people more “real” with more than one dimension. They have had solid situations to deal with – a teen taking inappropriate pictures of herself; “too sexy” Halloween costumes; a tomboy who wants to get a particular boy to “notice” her – but their approach to these situations has scarcely pushed the envelope in either developing their characters in these situations or taking a different direction. They seem most interested in going for the cheap and easy laugh. My big concern is how many of these decisions are flowing from series star Tim Allen through the Writers’ Room and onto the screen. Sure, I know that this show and this character fits into ABC’s current efforts to show the problems that face affluent married employed white men in modern society as comedy. And yes, I do get that part of the way to do that is to recycle a well remembered character (someone who is a lot like Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor) that fits right into that mould. But I think it does a disservice to the audience, because the show isn’t funny, and it does a disservice to its star.

You see, my big problem with Last Man Standing is that it’s not a property that is going to stretch Tim Allen’s acting ability. See here’s the shocking thing; I happen to think that Tim Allen has some acting ability. Oh he’s no Kelsey Grammer, let alone a Tom Hanks, but he is personable and shows more range as an actor than Roseanne Barr ever did (there’s a reason why Roseanne’s filmography is a tiny as it is – she’s a lousy actress). Maybe he couldn’t replace Steve Carell on The Office (but that might have been something to see if just for one episode) but he could have given us something new that represents the next step in his development as an actor. Instead, Allen is in a property that is a bad retread of what he did before on Home Improvement. And a car guy like Tim Allen should know that a retread rarely performs as well as a new tire. I’m sure that barring a catastrophic drop in ratings this show is going to be back next season. I just don’t think it should be. I just wish that Tim Allen would have waited for something better to come along. He deserves it, and we, as an audience, deserve it as well.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Put “Man Up” Down

man-up-abc-tv-show(Author’s Note: I started writing this review of Man Up a week ago when the show debuted. However there were some things from the pilot that I was unable to remember. And believe me when I say that this in itself is an indictment of the show since I normally remember just about all the details from a TV show that I watch. As I’ve said, I didn’t remember details of the episode and so was forced to try to locate and watch the show online. I eventually found it on the CTV Two section of the CTV website. However I kept finding reasons not to watch it and relive the agony I felt when watching the show the first time. I eventually watched it and that is what I am reviewing. I am not going to willingly watch this show again.)

I have, for the most part, attempted to avoid reviewing the pilot episodes of series this year. I am breaking this self-imposed restriction in order to review Man Up, the new ABC Tuesday night comedy, and I am doing this for one reason: I would do anything short of ripping my own testicles off with my bare hands in order not to have to watch a second episode of this abomination. And under the right – err, wrong – circumstances I’d think about the testicle thing.

Man Up is a comedy (allegedly) that centers around three friends, Will Keen (Mather Zickel), Kenny Hayden (Dan Fogler) and Craig Griffith (Christopher Moynihan). Will is married to Kenny’s sister Theresa (Terri Polo) while Kenny was married to Theresa’s friend Brenda (Amanda Detmer). Rounding out the adult cast is Bridgette’s new boyfriend Grant (Henry Simmons).

The pilot opens with Will, Kenny and Craig playing Call Of Duty online together while talking in their headsets (sorry I don’t own a game console so I have know idea of the exact terminology). Will was able to get permission to play by suggesting to Theresa that they have sex while she was folding laundry, a suggestion that provoked an eye roll from Theresa. The game chat isn’t entirely game related. Will’s son Nathan’s thirteenth birthday is later that week and Will doesn’t know what to get his son that says “I’m a man.” Craig (who has never been married) is obsesses with  Lisa, a former girlfriend who he had lunch with earlier in the day. She’s getting married on the same day as Nathan’s birthday party but from their conversation and she talked about a song he used to play for her on his guitar. This he took as “a cry for help.” Kenny says that this woman is crazy and he should know because he used to be married to a crazy woman. Will then has to tell Kenny that Brenda will be at the party. Kenny calls Theresa on her cell phone to tell her to uninvite Brenda, while Craig calls Lisa, which breaks up the game because the only one playing is Will.

The next day Will and Theresa are in their kitchen. Theresa gets a package which she has Will open. He uses his pocket knife. It turns out to be a video game which Will initially thinks is for him because it is violent and scary and rated for 17 year-old and older. In fact it’s her gift for Nathan. He himself is searching for the right gift for his son to usher him into manhood and he thinks that this would have been a perfect gift to usher him into manhood. His point is undercut somewhat by his use of Hazelnut coffee creamer. Theresa further undercuts him by telling him that his grandfather fought in World War II and his father fought in Vietnam but he plays video games and uses pomegranate body wash. He’s “man…ish.” Just then Kenny arrives to tell his sister that Brenda has to be uninvited, that she can’t come to the “fluffin’” party (the kids are present and he has to use a substitute word). Just then Brenda arrives with some party hats and tells Kenny that there is no way that she isn’t going to be at the party They argue about her coming to the party. Eventually Will pulls Kenny out of the argument and tells Kenny that he has to deal with it and he should try to act like the “coolest guy he can think of .” For Kenny that’s Toby McGuire (?!). Kenny tries to act cool like Toby McGuire but then Brenda informs him that she’s bringing a date to the party, and Kenny loses it.

Will’s at work but still looking for a “manly” gift for Nathan’s birthday.when Kenny comes in. He’s a pharmaceutical salesman with a product that has side effects worse than what it treats. Will lists some of the options that Will has found for Nathan’s gift when Craig, who works at the same insurance company, comes in to tell him that not only aren’t they paying a particular claim but that not claims would be paid that day; it’s in a memo. Kenny notices that Craig is growing a beard to which Kenny objects, because a beard is “my thing.” Will remembers that Lisa liked him with a beard and this is how it’s revealed that Craig called Lisa six times the previous night. Kenny and Craig still want to go out for lunch in spite of the fact that it’s only 10:15 but Will does go out because all the talk of beards gives him a great idea for a gift for Nathan.

At the party, Craig is telling Brenda and Theresa about Lisa, and while everybody is telling Craig that Lisa is just feeling a bit nostalgic for what they had, Brenda totally agrees with him that it is a call for help and that he needs to make some sort of a gesture, that when you realise that someone is your soul mate it is forever. Kenny says that Brenda used to say that he was her soul mate she tells him that her soul mate is coming soon and he is bringing lemon bars. There’s a first meeting between Kenny and Grant that really shows a certain amount of perfect pomposity on Grants part, and which is hard to explain in words. Later, when Grant is shooting hoops with some of the kids, Kenny decides to challenge him to a game of one on one. It does not go well for Kenny. every time he tries to make a shot Grant blocks him (not surprisingly since Grant is tall and perfectly muscled, while Kenny is short and not muscled at all.

The crisis suddenly erupts when Nathan unwraps Grant’s gift. It’s a shaving kit. Will’s gift for his son, something that only a father would get his son (he thought) was a shaving kit. So he has to make a mad dash to the mall to get a replacement gift, and he takes Craig and Kenny with him, with Craig driving. Suddenly Craig announces that he needs closure with Lisa. Coincidentally (not really) they’re right in front of the church where Lisa is getting married. Will needs to be back for the cutting of the cake so he gives in and let’s Craig go in the church. Lisa is in the middle of her vows when Craig bursts in singing “Brown Eyed Girl”. Soon after he, Will and Kenny are rushing for the car, with an angry mob of groomsmen following them, yelling “You’re dead.”

Back at the house Will gets everybody in the house just as the angry wedding party shows up and demolishes his mail box. They want “the brown-eyed girl,” meaning Craig. Kenny wants him to give himself up while Craig is about to call the police. Then Nathan says “Dad” and Will decides that the three of them will go out to confront them, because that’s what their fathers would have done, because “they were real men, not the over evolved generation of pantywaists we’ve become.” Craig will stay on the porch while Kenny will go through the garage and get Nathan’s hockey stick to cover Will’s flank. Then Grant wants a job. Kenny doesn’t want him involved but Will tells him to stay on the porch with Craig. Grant says he’ll do something cool. Kenny can’t find the hockey stick; the best he can come up with is a pink pogo stick. The two groups stare each other down when suddenly Grant charges off the porch and tackles the groom and two of the other men. Later as Craig, Kenny and Will are congratulating themselves, we find out that he’s the only one who actually got into a fight, which was why he was the only one actually arrested. Brenda then tells Kenny that they are leaving; they have to go bail out Grant…and Kenny had better have his ATM card because they’re going to need bail money. Finally, after everyone leaves, Will has some time with Nathan. Turns out that between the party and the fight (and kissing a girl named Samantha in the “bounce house”) it has been the best day of his life. Will is about to apologise for not getting Nathan a gift when the boy reveals that Theresa said that the game was from Will. He can’t get it unwrapped so Will takes out his pocket knife and suddenly he realises what the perfect gift would be. He passes down “the old Mohaska” to his son just as his father passed it down to him.

I can’t fault the cast of Man Up. This is a Grade A cast in a Grade F series. Dan Fogler is a Tony Award winning Broadway actor, while both Mather Zickel and Christopher Moynihan have extensive experience both in series and in film roles, as has Amanda Detmer. And I’ve always been impressed by Terri Polo in just about anything that she’s done, either comedies like Sports Night and dramas, including the last season and a half of of The West Wing where she played Helen Santos. She has a nearly chameleon-like quality that allows her believably take on a variety of roles an not only be believable in them but to sometimes make me fail to recognise her in a role until I look at the credits. And while Henry Simmons will always be Detective Baldwin Jones (from NYPD Blue) to me he was almost ideally suited to play the all too perfect (if not necessarily too bright) Grant. Part of the problem is that he has to play that role, just as all of the other actors have to play their characters they way they do.

A big problem that the pilot had was that it was simply not funny. In fact there were places where it was catastrophically unfunny. The scene where Craig went into the church was cringe worthy, as was the scene where Grant charges into the weeding party. The scene where Kenny “played” basketball with Grant didn’t make me feel any sympathy for Kenny at the same time that it didn’t make me feel anything at all about Grant. I don’t really know how to feel about that scene. It’s sort of like watching someone goading a peaceful animal into charging and then feeling ill-served that it attacked. And yet, in watching that scene play out the way that it did, I don’t feel any sympathy for Grant because of the way that he was introduced.

But the biggest problem in the writing is with the characters. I don’t feel any emotional attachment to any of them. There's nothing about any of them that I fell that I can relate to, and they are too self-centered and self-aware. In their own ways, Will, Kenny and Craig are all doofuses. No sane man would take a lunch with a former girlfriend who is about to get married as a “cry for help” or an effort to rekindle an old relationship the way that Craig does. And Kenny, who plays the angry divorced guy, is still so “whipped” by his ex-wife that despite seemingly trying to “lay down the law” he ends up paying the bail for her new boyfriend. Grant is basically “The Old Spice Guy” brought into the everyday world, and even then it is a caricature rather than a character with any real dimension. And while Henry Simmons has the ideal look to portray him, and he did a good job with it, it’s not exactly a character that you can deal with in large doses.

And the two female characters don’t come off very well either. Brenda is a bitch, and not in the pro-feminist badge of pride sense that the word can have if said in the right way. She delights in treating Kenny like dirt and humiliating him at every opportunity. In fact that’s the reason – maybe the only reason – why she’s dating Grant. She treats Craig just as badly by encouraging his delusion that Lisa wants to reconcile with him. The only reason I can see for her taking that action is to see the “fun” when Craig takes the advice of the only person who agreed with him. And Theresa is only slightly better. Her best friend is Brenda, someone who takes pleasure in messing with Theresa’s brother. She’s the one who undercuts Will when she says that his grandfather fought in World War II and his father fought in Vietnam but he just plays video games on a console and uses pomegranate body wash. Theresa calls Will and his friends “man…ish” And the thing is that the qualities that she presumably finds unmanly are undoubtedly the qualities that she found attractive in the first place.

It is the concept that is probably the worst part of Man Up. The basic notion, that modern man are “an over-evolved generation of pantywaists,” is a running theme through a number of series. It was the basis of the late and unlamented How To Be A Gentleman, and of the ABC series which precedes Man Up, Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing. I think that the idea that men in general are becoming less masculine, or “man…ish” as Theresa puts it, is a fallacy. Maybe it’s a by-product of the feminist movement and the or maybe it’s just a result of a misguided view of what being a man entails. When Will tells his friends that their Vietnam War vintage fathers (and presumably their grandfathers, the World War II fighters) wouldn’t have called the police when there was a mob of angry groomsmen on their lawn threatening to beat Craig to a pulp, he was wrong. They would absolutely call the police. (Of course if they had met Craig, they might well have thrown him out to the mob, but that’s a different story.)

Man Up fails in some of the most important ways. The characters are poorly drawn and in several cases are unlikable. At best they are only mildly engaging, and the leading male characters were people that you didn’t really want to know (and hope that other people don’t thing you’re like). The humour was at best weak and at worst depressingly unfunny, and median edged closer to the latter than to the former. In a year which has produced a number of good comedies (several of which have featured strong female characters) this is particularly bad show. If you’ve watched the first episode – or worse the first two episodes – do yourself a favour and don’t watch any more. If enough people do that maybe this abomination will go away.

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Polls Closed - NBC Cancels Free Agents

Free_Agents_NBCThe second – or maybe the third – series cancelled this year and the first comedy is…

Free Agents

NBC has cancelled Free Agents after four episodes. The American remake of the frankly profane (not to mention nudity filled) series from Britain’s Channel Four lasted four episodes in the United States despite the presence of Anthony Stewart Head who appeared in the original. Just as a matter of interest, the American series lasted 2/3s as long as the British version. For the foreseeable future, Free Agents will be replaced by reruns of NBC`s new comedy Whitney.

Also cancelled today (and the reason why I can’t really decide whether Free Agents was the second or third new series cancelled this year) was The CW`s reality series H8R created and hosted by Mario Lopez. Apparently The CW`s viewer (and given the ratings the network as a whole has been pulling this year the lack of an ‘s’ there is only barely an exaggeration) didn’t care to see “celebrities” confront the people who claim to hate them and convert them into fans.

I didn’t poll on reality shows, but the voting on the comedies was quite lively, with 25 votes being cast. All but two of the shows got votes. FOX`s New Girl and ABC`s Last Man Standing (which debuts next week) had no votes. Suburgatory from ABC, Up All Night from NBC and FOX animated comedy Allen Gregory (which has not yet debuted) had one vote each. CBS`s How To Be A Gentleman had two votes while the network’s 2 Broke Girls and Free Agents both had three votes. FOX live action sitcom I Hate My Teenaged Daughter got four votes and NBC’s Whitney and ABC’s Man Up had five votes each. Last Man Standing, Allen Gregory, I Hate My Teenaged Daughter and Man Up are all yet to debut. Additionally Up All Night and Whitney have been given full season orders from NBC, 2 Broke Girls has received a full season order from CBS, and New Girl has a full season order from FOX.

Update: CBS has announced that production on How To Be A Gentleman will be moving to Saturday nights effective immediately while Rules Of Engagement, which had been scheduled to air on Saturdays will be moving back to the time slot following The Big Bang Theory on October 20th. Production on How To Be A Gentleman will halt after the completion of the show`s ninth episode. According to Deadline Hollywood, "That is effectively a cancellation for the sitcom with the Saturday run qualifying as a burn-off, though CBS never officially cancels a series before the upfronts." For our purposes, while the series has aired only two episodes, the fact that the remaining seven episodes will in fact air, even if it is in the Saturday "death slot," still qualifies as airing more than the four episodes that Free Agents got.

Second Update: CBS has pulled the episodes of How To Be A Gentleman from Saturday nights after a single episode. While the network still has six episodes in the can and won't announce the final fate of any of its shows until the May upfronts this amounts to the cancellation of How To Be A Gentleman with three episodes having been aired, one fewer than Free Agents.

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Down A Man–Charlie Sheen Fired From Two And A Half Men

TWOHALFMEN RedoneSo CBS and Warner Brothers have fired Charlie Sheen from Two And A Half Men. HOORAY!!!

Now what?

Look, I’m as happy as anyone that Sheen and his absurd activities will be disappearing from the medium in short order. And I certainly get why the show’s creator Chuck Lorre, Warner Brothers and CBS are fed up with him. But it seems to me that this firing leaves the network, the production company and the show with a large, Charlie-sized hole. A hole in the network’s line-up or a hole in the show depending on what the network decides to do. None of the options that the network has before them is particularly palatable.

What are the options?

1. End the show

Maybe the best or at least the easiest solution, but this is a potential earthquake across the CBS line-up. One problem here is that Jon Cryer, Angus Jones and the rest of the cast are signed for another season, but for the most part this could be dealt with. The network has a bigger problem though. Two And A Half Men is one of their biggest shows, the anchor of their Monday line-up. If you drop the show you need something to replace it that has the same sort of drawing power for their Monday line-up. The obvious answer would be to bring The Big Bang Theory back to Monday nights from its current time slot on Thursday, but then what do you do on Thursdays? Do you keep comedies in the first hour and if so what anchors the night? How I Met Your Mother? Mike and Molly? Rules of Engagement or $#*! My Dad Says (the two shows that have held down the second half hour on Thursday following The Big Bang Theory)? Probably not that last option since neither of those series has shown any particular strength on the night.

Or do you decide that the whole experiment was a bad idea and move Survivor back to Thursday night? Or do you keep Survivor on Wednesday night and replace the comedies with a drama? If you do go with a drama is it a new show that you might have put elsewhere or do you move an established show to the time slot?

2. Kill off the Charlie character – or otherwise take him off the show – and just not replace him

This is really a non-starter. Oh sure, NBC initially did that with Valerie Harper’s character on Valerie when NBC and Paramount fired here from that series (for reasons that were far far less disruptive than what we’ve seen from Sheen). The problem is that this totally violates the premise of the show. At its heart Two And A Half Men is The Odd Couple with Jake as the equivalent of Murray the Cop, or something like that. Take away Charlie without some sort of replacement and what you get is One And A Half Men, and the show becomes a father dealing with a teenaged son. That’s a quick death for this show.

 

Still I like the idea of killing Charlie off…preferably in a messy and totally absurd way, like having a boulder drop on him. A piano would be good too.

3. Kill Off Charlie – or otherwise dispose of him – and replace him

This is probably what they’re going to do if they continue on with the show. It’s what they eventually did with Valerie Harper, and what happened when John Ritter died in real life. There are a couple of options they could use in this situation.

 

a) Bring in an older relative

They did this when John Ritter died. James Garner became the adult male lead on Eight Simple Rules, along with David Spade. Maybe Charlie and Alan’s father didn’t die of food poisoning but rather escaped from Evelyn. Maybe some other older male relative shows up after Charlie gets turned into a bloody splat in the road. The point is that whoever this relative is he has to be as thoroughly debauched as Charlie was, and just as good looking in spite of it. Too bad they killed off Robert Wagner’s character a few years ago.

b) Alan and Charlie’s long-lost and never before mentioned half brother of roughly the same age as Charlie

This was after all the way that they finally replaced Valerie Harper on what became Valerie’s Family (and later The Hogan Family) – Valerie’s sister-in-law, played by Sandy Duncan – came to live with the family after her death. And with Evelyn’s history why wouldn’t there be a forgotten brother or half-brother or “something” vaguely unsavoury, running around. You could even bring on Charlie’s previously unsuspected bastard son – and let’s face it, there’s plenty of potential for many such unsuspected mistakes to show up and take up residence.

4. Replace Sheen, keep Harper

This is the classic soap opera solution to this sort of situation, and what they did when Dick Sargent replaced Dick York. If you need an explanation (as often as not soap operas didn’t offer an explanation; they’d just say that the role of so-and-so is no being played by a different actor; Bewitched didn’t even do that) say that after a fire – probably related to his drinking – Charlie had to go through reconstructive surgery and now looks like John Stamos instead of Charlie Sheen. Sure, it’s a hokey solution but there are some reasons why it can work. Not only does this provide a smooth transition, it lets the writers just keep writing the same character as they have been from the beginning. The face changes but the attitude and the character traits remain the same. The question is whether the public would accept that Charlie Harper as played by John Stamos? Or should they just cast Ted “Show Killer” McGinley in the part and admit defeat.

Personally I think that CBS should bite the bullet and end the show. Maybe they can get Chuck Lorre to come up with something new. After all he seems to be the current CBS “King of Comedy.” Do I think that they’ll pull the trigger though? Probably not. I think that the network will go with the “non-nuclear option” and keep the show on the air for all or part of another season to clear the actor’s contracts and give Lorre or someone else time to create something outstanding to replace it. No matter what the network decides to do, I would be very much surprised to see Two And A Half Men on the 2012-13 line-up, which is not something I would have been sure of before this whole mess with Sheen blew up.

I would be even more surprised to see Sheen acting in just about anything in the next few years. I think his recent behaviour has made him box office and TV screen poison, and if it is possible for him to recover his reputation it will take a long stretch of good behaviour to manage it. I wish him the best in all of the recovery that he needs to do, but I think I’ss stick with the smart money when it comes to his future employment prospects.

Monday, November 08, 2010

This $#*! Ain’t So Hot

There are reasons why I don't like reviewing a new show based on the pilot, and this show is an example of why. If I had written about $#*! My Dad Says after the first episode of the show aired I would have panned it quite badly. And it would have deserved it too because that pilot episode was pretty dreadful. About the only sympathetic character in the whole episode was Tim, the "nice homosexual from the DMV," and his role was almost entirely as a deus ex machina, intended to make the Shatner's character stop being so damned obstinate about his relationship with his kids. If the show had continued in this vein it might have survived but wouldn't have been enjoyable to watch. Fortunately something changed, and while the show is never going to be an outstanding artistic success it also isn't going to die a quick death.

William Shatner plays Ed Goodson, a retired Navy Doctor in his mid 70s whose relationship with his two sons can best be described as strained. Ed is opinionated and is not shy about sharing his opinions with anyone who is nearby, whether they're interested in them or not. This may at least partly explain why Ed's two marriages broke up. Ed thinks he's perfectly happy living alone – he doesn't need anyone and he doesn't have much patience for anyone who isn't as self-sufficient as he is. That would include his younger son Henry (Jonathon Sadowski) who lost his job at a magazine as a result of the recession and needs a place to live. Ed was ready to give him the bum's rush until some he met Tim at the DMV and he came to realise that unless he at least tried to compromise with his sons he'd be all alone. As a result Ed finds himself living with Henry in a relationship that is not without its disagreements (massive understatement) – which of course is the root of the humour. Rounding out the cast are Will Sasso (MadTV and Less Than Perfect) and Nicole Sullivan (also from MadTV as well as King Of Queens) as Ed's other son Vince and Vince's assertive wife Bonnie.

Unusually, Thursday night's episode focuses on the relationship between Ed and Vince with Henry taking a back seat and the B Plot in the episode. Vince has always craved affection from his father, affection which – of course – he's never had. Every week Vince invites Ed over to their place, which as we discover is just a few blocks away from Ed's house, (and has a view of a place that has a view of the ocean), and every week Ed never shows up. One might expect that this would discourage Vince and he'd give up on his father showing up, and it might to an ordinary man. But Vince is no ordinary man. At least where his father is concerned he's an eternal optimist hoping that he'll get some sort of recognition from his dad. At work – they sell real estate – Vince and Bonnie arrange to have Henry take their bulldog Root Beer out for a walk. However, because Henry has an emergency meeting with an editor who wants to publish some of his freelance writing, Henry is forced to leave the dog with Ed. Naturally Ed is determined not to bond with the dog, and just as inevitably he ends up doing just that, to the point where he sings a lullaby to the dog ("Hush Little Baby") and seems depressed when Vince and Bonnie come to take the dog home. In fact he's so put out by the dog leaving that he actually goes to their condo "for dinner." Vince has set a place for his dad, like he does every week, while Bonnie is so sure that he won't show up that she makes a bet with him, like she does every week (apparently it involves sex). They're both surprised when Ed walks in the door, but it soon becomes apparent that Ed isn't interested in spending time with his son and daughter-in-law; all he wants to do is spend time with Root Beer. Ed claims that spending time with Root Beer has led him to a breakthrough, that there was a member of the family that he neglected and was never there for. This gets Vince's hopes up that his father is about to acknowledge that maybe he wasn't there for his eldest son and that he's sorry for all of that. But it doesn't work out like that. It turns out that the family member that Ed is sorry about neglecting is his former dog Schwarzkopf. Ed leaves as soon as he gets that off his chest. Vince is crestfallen but it is the effect on Bonnie that is really galvanizing. She goes all "mama grizzly" on Ed and tells him how much Vince looks forward to seeing his dad, and how Schwarzkopf wasn't the only one that Ed neglected and was never there for when he was working. When Ed tells her that Vince is fine, Bonnie makes it absolutely clear to him that Vince isn't fine, that he craves his father's attention and every time his father blows him off or ignores him it hurts and disappoints him and makes him feel inadequate. When Vince comes home from walking Root Beer, he finds his father there. He tells his son to come over to the couch where he's sitting and indicates that Vince should put his head on Ed's shoulder. Once he does he starts singing "Hush Little Baby" to Vince. When Bonny comes home she found Vince, asleep on his father's shoulder. Ed tells her to be quiet; that he'd just got him (Vince) down.

The B Plot in this episode was much weaker than the main plot. It featured Henry, who is supposed to be the second lead in this series, looking to "expand" his love life. This is after a date with a girl named Donna who is "safe" and in Henry's view boring. As we discover, her job is literally to watch paint dry. Henry is looking for someone who has a bit more of an edge. When he visits Vince and Bonnie's office he meets their boss, Katie. What he doesn't know about Katie is that she's manipulative and doesn't appear to have any boundaries. She had previously given Bonnie listing that would have represented half her total commission for the year, but suddenly took it back. Then Henry shows up at the office and suddenly Katie turns all sweet and charming as she flirts with Henry. Henry is clearly interested in Katie. When Henry leaves, Katie reverts to type and informs Vince and Bonnie that if they can deliver Henry to her for dinner she'll give them back the listing. She makes it clear to them that Henry will be dinner. When Henry arrives at the office, he's expecting a normal date starting off with dinner. Katie has something different in mind. She's wearing a trench coat which she strips off to reveal a lacy black bustier and stockings. She proceeds to ravage him. When Henry returns home his shirt is torn and he can barely walk, and he spit out at least one tooth. After giving Bonnie her listing, he informs his father and sister-in-law that while he was looking for someone crazy, he had in mind Playboy Mansion crazy, not Bates motel crazy. As henry described it, Katie did something that was "so profound and so disturbing to me that it would make German pornographers blush." Suddenly boring Donna doesn't look so bad to him.

There is nothing particularly innovative about $#*! My Dad Says. The basic premise is of a man who is forced by circumstances to move in with someone who is the polar opposite of himself. Think of The Odd Couple mixed with Two And A Half Men and you won't be far from the direction of this show. Into the mix you can add just about any show in which a parent is forced to deal with the mistakes he (or she) made in raising their adult kids. Or not as the case may be (Alan and Charlie's mother on Two And A Half Men refuses to face her failures in raising her sons; at least Ed is trying... a little). I think that this has a lot to do with the source material. As everyone knows, $#*! My Dad Says started out as the Twitter feed (and later book) Shit My Dad Says by Justin Halpern. Halpern's explanation on the Twitter feed is simple: "I'm 29. I live with my 74-year-old dad. He is awesome. I just write down shit that he says." Which if fine for 140 characters at a time, or a collection of those 140 characters at a time. The problem comes in taking those pithy remarks and building a television series around them. While the writing, particularly for Shatner can be quite funny, the show as a whole comes across as feeling like a bit of a retread. Yes it's funny – much funnier than I found the pilot to have been – but the sense of "I've seen this before" is inescapable.

Which leads us to the cast. The supporting cast is something of a mixed bag. I love Nicole Sullivan in just about anything that she's done and while I'm less familiar with Will Sasso, I'm quickly becoming something of a fan. He's a strong actor in a supporting role and his face is capable of conveying his emotions in a way that we don't see with some other actors. It's a significant part of his acting arsenal, and it gives him a sympathetic air. As for Sullivan, Her character of Bonny is very much the dominant member of this pair, even though she can be kind of pathetic in her desire to please and to be upwardly mobile. In a previous episode she tried very hard to become friends with two married high end brokers, and it didn't matter that they may have run over a guy in Mexico and killed him (what broke up the "friendship" was that the wife was pro-Angelina Jolie while Bonnie was pro-Jennifer Anniston). Sasso and Sullivan work well together, having spent several years at MadTV during the same period, and I don't think it is that hard to see them as the leads in a fairly typical domestic comedy. For me, the weakest of the supporting actors on the series is Jonathon Sadowski. Much of Sadowski's role is spent reacting to Shatner of course, but there is something about Sadowski that is doesn't measure up to the other three actors in the show. Sadowski spends a lot of his time reacting to Shatner and generally being antagonistic to the character of Ed. Henry is the voice of "sanity" in this family, even more so than Bonny. I think part of the problem is the way that Henry is written. His major reaction to any opposition from Ed is to threaten to leave or to feel insulted, and for me that just doesn't work. Still part of the problem has to go to Sadowski because I just don't think that he has the comedy acting chops that the other actors in this series do.

Sadowski's biggest problem may be that he's the actor who spends the most time working with Shatner, and Shatner kind of overpowers him. Shatner isn't brilliant in this, at least not as brilliant as his list of Emmy wins for The Practice would indicate, but he delivers what he's asked to deliver here. They've given him the character of a crusty curmudgeon when, when you eventually get through the crust has a somewhat less crusty interior. Shatner is loud (few scenes with him are delivered below a low bellow) bombastic, and chews the scenery with the intensity of my dog when she gets a dog treat. In an earlier episode there was a scene where Ed has to sing karaoke. He did "I'm Too Sexy" in a fashion that wasn't quite as painful as Shatner's version of "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" was very much in the expected Shatner style. And this Shatner, who is very much a caricature, is probably exactly what the producers is looking for. I think that's true about just about any producer who hires Shatner these days. The effect can be quite funny, and it's part of what makes Shatner work as a comedic actor. Still it's got to be hard for someone like Sadowski to work against a presence like William Shatner.

To sum up my feelings about $#*! My Dad Says is kind of difficult. I think it is funny, but I'm well aware that there are people who found According To Jim to be funny (I just don't know anybody who'll admit it). Having said that it's funny I'm also wise enough about the show to know that it isn't innovative in the way that shows like 30 Rock, The Office, or Modern Family are innovative, and I don't find it hilarious the way that I find The Big Bang Theory which precedes it on Thursday nights to be. I mostly like the cast even though I think that Jonathan Sadowski is not the ideal person to play opposite Shatner in as key a role as Henry should be. I think that the writers were presented with a significant problem given the vague and limited nature of the original source material. There were directions that they could have taken that might have been more innovative but they didn't; they took the safe and well trodden path. And, as Robert Frost might said, that made all the difference, because $#*! My Dad Says could have been more than just a funny show, it could have been a very funny show that been another option for future writers. In twenty years people may feel nostalgic for the show, but nobody will be talking about the new ground that it broke. I think we may have been spoiled by the shows that have debuted in recent years.

Full episodes of $#*! My Dad Says can be found online at the show's CTV website for Canadians. Apparently it is not currently available online in the United States.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

The Poker Conundrum

So the other night I fired up the DVR to watch something other than the Olympics. Yes it's true. Olympics junkie though I may be, there are times when I just have to watch something other than the Olympics. It usually happens when the "Olympics Broadcasting Consortium" (meaning CTV and its cable networks TSN and TSN2 aswell as Rogers Sportsnet) are showing tape of events I've already seen – or some figure skating – but that's beside the point. On this particular night I decided to catch up on an episode of The Big Bang Theory whichis one of the few sitcoms that I can not only sit through but actually enjoy. I was rewarded with the episode in which Sheldon – the character who elevates the show to another level – encounters his mortal enemy Wil Wheaton.

The reason why Wil Wheaton is Sheldon's mortal enemy is complicated but when is anything with Sheldon not complicated. Essentially Sheldon's favourite character on Star Trek: The Next Generation was Wesley Crusher – well you knew there had to be one – and when the opportunity to see Wil Wheaton at a Star Trek convention and to have him autograph a collectible action figure came up, Sheldon travelled nine hours by bus (twice violating his personal rule going to the bathroom on a moving vehicle – I have the same rule for busses and so do most people who have travelled by bus; gross!) to attend a Star Trek Con in Jackson Mississippi only to discover that Wil Wheaton wasn't going to be there. Finally Sheldon's chance for vengeance comes when he discovers that Wil Wheaton will be competing in a collectible card game that sounds like Magic: the Gathering...but isn't for copyright reasons. It is also a tournament that Raj has been begging Sheldon to enter – Raj wants the money – but that Sheldon has been dismissive of...until he learns that Wil Wheaton is playing in it. Inevitably Sheldon and Raj triumph over all opponents on the back of Sheldon's eidetic memory which allows not only to remember what cards have already been played but to deduce with incredible clarity what cards each of his opponents has. It's something that, in his smugly arrogant manner, he delights in telling them. Eventually he comes face to face with Wil Wheaton. And it is Sheldon's delight in explaining things to his opponents that proves to be his eventual downfall. He explains to Wil Wheaton why he is so hostile, and Wheaton explains that he missed the con because his grandmother died. Suddenly Sheldon, who is devoted to his Meemaw, melts and much to Raj's consternation throws the match to Wil Wheaton, who after winning informs Sheldon that his Grandmother will probably be very pleased that he won the money in the tournament – she's still alive.

The episode contains some elements of truth. Wil Wheaton is well known as a gamer, particularly a Dungeons & Dragons player. What's also fairly well known is that Wheaton is a competitive Poker player. How good is he? Well I've outlasted him in a couple of tournaments but that occurred in large part because I never played a hand against him. He's a solid recreational player who would have cleaned out the game on the USS Enterprise (those of you who remember Star Trek: The Next Generation will recall that a number of episodes centered around a Poker game featuring Riker, Worf, Data, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, and Counsellor Troi; like all TV poker players they played Draw Poker, a version of the game that is largely extinct in the casinos). This connection got me to thinking about how Sheldon would do as a Poker player. It's not really idle speculation on my part, rather it stems from a couple of things that's I've observed about Poker and what non-Poker players think about the game. One is that the most successful Poker players tend to be highly intelligent. Several of the top players either have PhDs or (in the case of Annie Duke) were close to getting the post-graduate degrees. Several were involved in high tech companies. We are also confronted by people who insist that poker isn't a game of skill but rather all about the luck of the draw.

If you believe that Poker is about the luck of the draw, which a recent "gamble responsibly" ad around here stated (not even suggested) then Sheldon would be an excellent Poker player. He's capable of calculating odds almost instantaneously, and obviously he'd know the relative values of various hands. His Eidetic Memory would be a tremendous asset in any of the games based around Seven Card Stud because he'd remember every card that had been played including the ones that had gone into the muck and been able to tell what each of his opponents had. It would be like the scene in Rounders where Matt Damon's character tells each of the players in the "Judges Game" what they had. That of course is what the situation would be if poker were entirely about the "luck of the draw."

In fact Sheldon would be a lousy Poker player just as Wesley Crusher, admitted into his mother's game, would be a terrible poker player (but not as bad as Sheldon; in this Sheldon would be more like Data). Sheldon would be easy to bluff because he wouldn't understand why someone would lie in that sort of situation or would always expect an opponent to bluff once a bluff is exposed. He'd only play good to great hands rather than the marginal hands that turn into something. As a result, when he does collect pots they wouldn't be as big as they might be. Big pots are usually pulled in when a player has a hand that develops into something greater than the losers expect them to be. With Sheldon playing only strong hands opponents would know that when he bets he has a very strong hand. In being a winner in the luck of the draw he would lose in the game of taking ships from opponents. Sheldon would be a disaster playing a Seven Card Stud style game because of his tendency to gloat when he wins, or more accurately when he knows he's going to win and sets out to explain why his opponents will lose while the hand is playing out. This is a breach of poker etiquette which in tournament play would probably result in penalties from the organizers and in standard "ring" games would probably result in a player being thrown out of the card room.

Sheldon's greatest weakness as a poker player is that he doesn't relate to people. In Poker playing the person is often a bigger thing than playing the cards, which is why Poker is a game of skill. An experienced poker player will be able to read his opponents, even online, and know when one of those opponents has a good hand and when they don't. They know when to bluff with a weak – or at least a not very strong – hand and when to fold their cards and wait for a better hand. It's about knowing when the other player is bluffing and when that player really is strong. It's about knowing the right time to apply pressure. It's about adopting different personas and styles of play during a tournament based on the skills and actions of opponents. Poker is about being one person at one table and a different person at another. It's knowing the right time to be loose and aggressive and when to be tight and conservative. They say that great comedy is all about timing. So is great Poker playing..Great comedy is about understanding people, at least in so far as it involves knowing what they'll laugh at. The key to great Poker is also understanding people and how they think. Sheldon would never get any of that – you can see that from the way he interacts (if you can call it that) with other people not to mention what he allegedly describes as his sense of humour – and more to the point he would care that he didn't get it. Sheldon's Eidetic memory would make him a great Blackjack player (at least until the casinos banned him and put him in "The Black Book") and his skills as a physicist would turn him into a wonder at the Roulette table, calculating orbital mechanics in his head, but when it comes to Poker, he'd be a disaster.

Now his roommate Leonard might have potential....

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Kath & Kim – Better Than Advertising For Aspirin Sales

I may not have mentioned this before, but I have three basic rules – so far at least – about reviewing TV shows: (1) Never review a show where you haven't seen an episode from start to finish – it's unfair to not see just how bad it really is before you talk about it; (2) Never review anything when you have a headache – it's hard to focus when every heart beat seems to bring a new pulse of pain; (3) Never give anything resembling a good review to a show that gives you a headache – the thing never turns out well in the end. That particular rule never fails to be accurate by the way. I have never gone into a show without a headache and gained a headache during it and found the show to be worthwhile. Ever.

On Friday night I watched a tape of two NBC comedies. The first was the premiere episode of Saturday Night Live's Thursday Weekend Update. It did not give me a headache. It wasn't very good, and I was hard pressed to find a laugh without Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, but it didn't give me a headache. Then I watched the other NBC comedy Kath & Kim and my head started to ache. As the half hour progressed, the pounding got worse. When that show ended it was time watch the latest episode of Life. It took a little bit but as if by magic the headache started to go away. The headache test doesn't fail.

I am not going to give an episode recap of the first episode of Kath & Kim. I have no desire to relive that memory, and it was a basic pilot episode designed to set up the characters. It was something about Kath Day, who is described by her daughter Kim as being a loser magnet, being exultant about her new romance with Phil who owns a mall sandwich shop. At the same time Kim has broken up with her husband of a few weeks (days? – with Kim it could be either), Craig because he wants her to "do things" like microwaving supper and asking him how his day was. Kim has decided to move home only to discover that Kath has turned her old room into a home gym. There are some problems about Kim's romance with Phil because he sees her eating a sandwich from another shop in the mall, but by this point my head was really throbbing and I didn't write down much more about the show.

Instead, let's try to find out what went wrong with this show. It's not the actors. Both Selma Blair, who plays Kim and Molly Shannon are talented actresses, although Blair seems to be known more for non-comedic roles while Shannon appeared on Saturday Night Live for a number of years and has made appearances in a number of sitcoms. Of the two supporting players the actor who plays Phil – John Michael Higgins – is by far the more experienced. He has appeared on a number of TV series including several episodes of Arrested Development as well as working on the Christopher Guest movie A Mighty Wind where he also arranged some of the music. Mikey Day, who plays Craig is primarily known for his work in improve comedy.

So if you can't legitimately blame the actors, where does the problem lie? Well the scripts aren't really that funny and the situations that the characters are placed in are, well they're pretty dumb, but the real fault goes deeper than that. There is nothing at all about any of the two main characters that is likable, and very little about the two males in the cast works either. Kim is so awful that the term "spoiled brat" doesn't really cover it. Her great ambition is to be a trophy wife and when Craig, who works for a Circuit City type store in the mall, doesn't cater to her every whim – presumably like her mother did – she left him. Kath is almost as self-centred, although her major problem is that she keeps falling in love and most of her romantic choices are wrong. She's not particularly bright and is easily distracted by whatever comes into her flighty little head. Neither woman is particularly happy about not getting her own way – the both have a tendency to sulk at the drop of a disappointment.

I think a major part of the problem is that this is yet another imported series – this time from Australia – and this time around the American "creators" don't have any real understanding of the series that they're trying to recreate for the North American audience. The original Australian series was created by series stars Jane Turner and Gina Riley and was based on skits that the two had done for almost eight years on a number of comedy shows. These in turn were based on a number of Australian "fly on the wall" reality shows and were essentially a satire of aspects of those shows. As a result the characters were not only well understood by creators/actors, but they had a basis that viewers could identify with. On the American series the writers have no connection with the characters. All they have to base their version of the characters on is the Australian version of the series and they seem to have taken all the most prominent characteristics without any understanding of where those characteristics came from and don't have any concept of the redemptive qualities that these characters have (well maybe not Kim if I read the Wikipedia entry on her character correctly). That's certainly evident in the transition of the Kath character from the Australian series, who is described as, "a strong, successful mother who embodies the stereotypical housewife/mother personality. At times Kath is naive, and gullible to her daughter's antics, but is usually determined and strong in handling difficult situations." The character has none of those qualities in the American show.

Earlier this year I described Do Not Disturb by saying that it "doesn't suck as badly as I thought it would." Kath & Kim "doesn't suck as badly as I thought it would" either. It literally sucks worse than I thought it would. There were at least a few redeeming features to Do Not Disturb if only for a couple of the character who went slightly beyond the stereotype and because there were situations in the one episode I saw were sort of funny, even with the oppressive laugh-track that the network inserted. Not only am I unable to find anything really redeeming in the main characters, but I didn't find anything really funny in the situations that the characters were involved in. I don't even think a laugh track would work for this show.

Under normal circumstances I would say that I couldn't understand how this show managed to get as far as actually showing up on a TV network. Someone should have caught just how bad this show was during the pilot process and either revamped the show, or not picked up the pilot. But of course under the supervision of Ben Silverman, NBC decided that the pilot process was outmoded and too expensive, so the network decided to go with a system where only scripts were submitted. This is the first example of this new system in action, since Knight Rider had a backdoor pilot in the form of a TV movie. If Kath & Kim is an example of the fruits of Silverman's new regime the stockholders of NBC-Universal are going to yearn for the happier times of Kevin Reilly's tenure as head of NBC Entertainment. Reilly's shows may not have drawn any better ratings but even the worst was measurably better in quality than Kath & Kim.