« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 31, 2005

Proceed with Caution

It takes time, but usually, the rest of the world catches up to me. It seems that, after umpteen years of ruling the broadcast schedule, procedural dramas are losing viewers.

For the jargon-impaired, procedurals are crime shows in which each episode follows a crime, and its solution. Sometimes the solution is the end of the episode. Sometimes the episode follows the criminal as he or she moves through the justice system.
Such shows are heavy on plot, light and character and almost devoid of humor, except for the occasional bad-taste one-liner (for instance, the assertion that a decapitated murder victim “lost his head.� Hardy-har-har.)
The grand-daddy of this genre is the unstoppable “Law & Order,� now in its 16th season, with two spin-offs “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit� and “Law &Order: Criminal Intent.� The new blood of this group (so to speak) is the “CSI� franchise, consisting of the original “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,� “CSI: Miami,� and “CSI: New York.�
These shows are all pretty hugely popular, but this season their ratings are slipping.
“Law & Order,� for instance, has seen a 16 percent slide in young viewers from last year. “Law & Order: Criminal Intent,� “CSI,� and the two “CSI� spinoffs are also down from last year.
To which I offer but two words: Woo. Hoo.
Now I must admit something: I am one of, like, eight people on earth who have NEVER liked the “Law & Order� shows. Not a one. I know America has historically loved them, but I find them dry and uninvolving.
I like some of the actors in them (including Sam Waterson, Christopher Meloni, Vincent D’Onofrio and the late, wonderful Jerry Orbach), but I have never warmed to the series.
I sort of like the funnier, kinkier “CSI� – particularly the central performance by William Petersen – but haven’t watched any of its sequels. I just can’t get into them.
Now, I admit the shows have appeal. For instance, you can miss one episode without skipping a beat. But I like shows that you have to follow and watch carefully for clues and character nuance.
I like television that makes you work a little. That includes shows like “Lost,� “Veronica Mars,� and “24.� I like to be engaged with characters and stories. Maybe other viewers are starting to feel that way, too.
This year’s schedule is loaded with new shows that combine character drama with their action plots, like “Invasion� and “Prison Break.� So does that mean the procedural has reached the end of its reign?
Well, it’s probably too soon to say. “Law & Order: SVU� is still going strong, so we’ll see. But perhaps this turn of events will inspire TV execs to break away from the mindset of procedural-as-safety-net and offer us some more intriguing stuff.

Posted by amanda on 11:53 AM | Comments (0)

October 25, 2005

The Unpopular View: There’s Nothing Wrong With “Desperate Housewives�

Any time anything becomes insanely popular, there’s always a backlash. So, because ABC’s “Desperate Housewives� made such a splash in its first season, catapulting its actresses into stardom (or back into stardom, as the case may be), it was only natural that fans and critics alike would turn on the show in its second season.

The attacks haven’t been vicious, but many have worried that the show has lost its luster. Now, no one is more willing to turn on a show than I am. I ditched “The O.C.� – a show I once loved – somewhere in its second season. I no longer acknowledge the existence of “The West Wing.� And I drift in and out of “CSI� with no discretion.
Yet I am still loyal to the “Housewives,� even as others turn away.
True, the show is maybe not as strong as it was this year. Yes, the fact that the gals haven’t yet banded together to solve a season-long mystery is problematic, as there is no glue banding them together. That means we haven’t seen them together much, which I admit is problematic.
And yes, the new plot featuring Alfre Woodard and her shackled basement-dweller is loony, even for a satirical show.
But the bottom line is, the thing is still good. It still features some of the best acting on television, particularly from Marcia Cross as tormented perfectionist Bree.
And, while some of this year’s plot developments are so-so, many moments are still laugh-out-loud funny (my favorite so far was Felicity Huffman’s Lynette planting a mouse in her home to spur her lazy hubby to tidy up more often).
I also thought this week’s episode was particularly strong, as it gave the stars their most scenes together this season. It also gave Cross that great graveside meltdown as well as that hilarious in-prison marriage counseling sequence with Gaby and Carlos.
Last but not least, it finally shed a little light on Woodard’s character and Mr. Chains and Shackles.
So, let everyone else whine about “Desperate Housewives.� Meanwhile, in a world where gunk like “Yes, Dear,� “Joey� and “Surface� are still on the air, I still have faith in the “Housewives.�
A Brief Aside: While we’re talking about “Housewives,� am I the only one that noticed that Lynette was dancing on a bar to the song “Boogie Shoes� in this week’s episode? It just struck me as funny, because that’s the same song that Huff-man’s character on the short-lived “Sports Night� danced to when she had too many margaritas.
Did anyone else see that connection?
Probably not. The rest of you probably have lives.
Unlike me.

Posted by amanda on 3:41 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2005

My Favorite Pointless Show

Ok, allow me a moment for hypocrisy. I know I’ve railed in this space about timewaster television, and how it takes up space that could be filled with more high-minded programming. That said, perhaps my favorite comedy on television kind of falls into this category. I’m speaking of ESPN Classic’s “Cheap Seats,� maybe the funniest program on television.

The show, for the uninitiated, is sort of a “Mystery Science Theater 3000� for the jock set. The basic concept is that comedians (and identical twins) Randy and Jason Sklar watch tapes of old, bizarre sporting events and mock them. Actually, the shows they watch can be considered “sporting events� in only the loosest of terms. I’m talking things like spelling bees, celebrity fishing tournaments and scrabble tournaments.
It’s pretty basic and definitely goofy, but it’s hilarious mostly due to the Sklars, the funniest twins since…hmmm. I don’t know how to finish that. Twins aren’t usually funny.
At any rate, the two bless the show with their rapid-fire witticisms. For instance, this week’s episode showed clips from the “1999 Ultimate Heavy Athletics� event, which featured men in kilts throwing heavy objects. An easy target, sure, and sometimes the boys’ jokes were a little obvious (“Full kilt ahead!�). But they can be sophisticated and literate, too. When an all-lowercase graphic popped on screen, one of the boys shouted “Graphics by e.e. cummings!� (You can hear the exclamation points in all the boys’ jokes). Funnier still were their quips about a hurling match in Ireland (“This feels like a game you’d make up while in prison,� they scoff).
And I love the little mockumentaries that occasionally pepper the shows. Last week’s episode, which showed clips from a junior putt-putt tournament, had a classic bit about a pair of putt-putting brothers -- one of whom walked off the putt-putt course in his youth during a strike, the other of whom acted as a scab. The latter brother was played by the always brilliant Patton Oswalt of “King of Queens,� who perfectly captured the arrogance of a former kid athlete (“Sanctioned strike player,� he haughtily corrects an interviewer at one point. “Not scab. Sanctioned strike player.�)
Yeah, I guess the parallels to Mystery Science Theater are a little too strong (one episode even featured the MST3K gang mocking the Sklars’ mocking. Whoa, heavy). But I actually like “Cheap Seats� better. For one thing, at a half-hour long, it’s shorter and tighter than MST3K, so it’s easier to digest. Also, “Cheap Seats,� though it’s been on for several seasons, hasn’t quite caught on in the mainstream, so no one’s sick of it yet. That’s why I’m reluctant to persuade people to watch it. What if it gets really popular and loses its outsider appeal? Well, I’ll risk it. The show is just too darn funny to miss.
“Cheap Seats� airs every night at 10 p.m. on ESPN Classic, with a new episode on Mondays. That same episode re-airs on Thursdays, so if you missed the hurling and the men in kilts, be sure to catch it this Thursday at 10 p.m.
A Brief Aside: I'd be remiss if I didn't take a minute mourn the sad passing of former SNL star Charles Rocket, 56, found dead of an apparent suicide last week near his home in Connecticut. Rocket was probably best known for uttering an obscenity on SNL, which led to his dismissal, but to me, he'll always be Richie, David's flaky but lovable brother on "Moonlighting." It's sad to see yet another SNL player succumb to personal tragedy. My thoughts go out to loved ones and fans alike.

Posted by amanda on 11:35 AM | Comments (0)

October 13, 2005

“Lost� no more

I have a confession to make. Unlike the rest of the television viewing public, I have been a bit concerned about the new season of ABC’s “Lost� (airing 9 p.m. Wednesdays). Like many shows coming off a hot first season, “Lost� had a lot to live up to, and it didn’t do itself any favors by going into summer hiatus with a big, expectation-building cliffhanger: just what was in that hatch that Jack (Matthew Fox), Kate (Evangeline Lilly) and Locke (Terry O’Quinn) unearthed in the finale’s concluding moments?

Of course, we all now know that the hatch led to some sort of bunker, home to the whacked-out Desmond. Now, no matter what was in the hatch, the build-up was such that some people were bound to be disappointed. I was one of them. I mean, I’m sure the hidden bunker has lots of possibilities for the crazy plot twists and revelations that the show is known for, but I admit that, at the season’s opening, I was a bit underwhelmed.
I was also unmoved by the show’s flashbacks in the first few episodes. Last season, the device gave us fascinating glimpses into the pre-crash lives of the main characters (Jack was married! Locke was in a wheelchair! Hurley won the lottery!). But in the first three episodes, the flashbacks were kind of, well, blah. Jack met his wife while saving her after a near-fatal car wreck (um, we already knew that). Michael’s ex took his son away from him (yeah – we knew that, too). Locke was mad about being betrayed by his biological father (well, duh – wouldn’t you be?).
Frankly, I was beginning to wonder if this once compelling show was losing it. Then there was this week’s episode – the best of the new season, by far. It took the two major plot strands of the new season – the hatch revelation and the guys on the raft stranded elsewhere on the island – and actually started fleshing them out.
Now we know that some of the passengers from the rear of the plane are definitely alive, but have gone through something traumatic. And the episode raised an interesting question by having the hatch contain supplies and food. That question was: when you’ve gotten used to living off nothing, is the sudden presence of plenty a good thing? Or will it just cause dissent and tension?
The vehicle for answering this question was some back-story on perhaps my favorite character, Hurley (Jorge Garcia). Again, the flashback was a bit of repeat (seriously – can we get some new back-story on these people?), about Hurley’s lotto victory, but it was done in such a sensitive intelligent way that it didn’t seem repetitive. We understood why Hurley was uneasy about the sudden presence of food on the island, and how the lottery changed his life (even leaving aside those mysteriously cursed numbers). And it provided another fine showcase for the excellent Garcia, with depths of pain visible in his bulky frame and sad eyes. His Hurley is probably the most openly likable character on television. He’s so adorable, I just want to pet him. Is that creepy?
Anyway, kudos to “Lost� for renewing my interest, and promising more strong episodes ahead.
A Brief Aside: Ok, I’ve praised “Lost,� but I’d be strongly remiss if I didn’t mention that the first season of its far less viewed time slot competitor “Veronica Mars� came out on DVD this week. As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am totally in love with this show, and you would be, too if YOU JUST WATCHED IT! The first season is packed with great moments, like this exchange between Veronica and her prospective suitor, Troy, who sees her fixing a flat tire:
He: Flat?
She: Hey, I’m just the way God made me.
It’s funny, it’s poignant, and it’s smart. What are you waiting for? Rent or buy the first season. Watch the current one. Please, please, please.

Posted by amanda on 2:36 PM | Comments (0)

October 10, 2005

Timewaster Television: What is the point?

Ok here’s my problem: I’ve realized that an increasing amount of television simply has no point. I mean, I guess all television has a point – to entertain. But there are a disturbing number of shows out there – mostly on cable -- that accomplish in the most vapid of ways. There’s no plot. No story. No character. There’s no news. No attempt to inform or educate. It’s just, well, a series of lists.

I’m speaking of course about shows like VH1’s “I Love the 80’s,� “I Love the 90’s,� “I Love the 70’s� and their various sequels. For the uninitiated, these are the shows where a group of Q-list celebrities talk about a bunch of stuff that happened 10 or more years ago. It’s hour upon hour of people saying things like “Remember when spandex leggings were popular? What were we thinking??!!�
The series must be popular, because VH1 keeps launching new versions of it. This month, the cable station will launch “I Love the 80’s 3D,� which will offer a new twist by asking viewers to wear 3D glasses while listening to mindless drivel. And it’s not just VH1. Bravo recently had a week-long series called “Great Things About Being,� with such installments as “Great Things About Being Fat� and “Great Things About Being Blond.� Like the “I Love� specials, these shows have no obvious point. Are they supposed to make you feel better about being fat, blond, etc.? I’ve got to tell you, if I’m really in the dumps about being 30 or overweight, I don’t think a Bravo special is going to pull me out of my funk.
Clearly, all these shows are pointless wastes of time. Who cares that fannypacks were big in the 90s? Yes – they were a fashion faux pas. Let it go. You say that being blond is great because no one expects you be smart? How is it great that an entire group of people is labeled dumb because of their hair color? Since when is an underestimated intelligence a good thing?
Now, don’t get me wrong. These shows are entertaining. I actually like “I Love the 80’s� and its brethren. I do. I’ve watched every single episode of every single edition. I laugh at every half-hearted quip launched by the likes of Michael Ian Black and Hal Sparks, for whom participation in these specials is a career highlight. They’re witty. They’re fun. They’re great to have on in the background as I cook dinner or put away my laundry. They’re good to watch when I can’t sleep at night.
But they’re not necessary. If they were to disappear, I wouldn’t bemoan their absence with nearly as much passion as I did that of “real� television shows like “Freaks and Geeks.� I know creating good, original programming is tough, but more effort must be made. Or, hey, remember when VH1 showed music videos? Maybe they could do they again. Remember when Bravo was classy? Maybe they could re-embrace that image.
Timewaster television is clever and it is entertaining, but cable stations can do better. These shows aren’t just a waste of viewers' time – they’re a waste of the networks' time as well.

Posted by amanda on 11:08 AM | Comments (0)