« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

November 28, 2005

Resting in Peace: TV season claims new victims

Every year, it seems, those who love television begin asking rather morbid, but increasingly necessary, question about their favorite shows: Who do you think will die this year?

Killing off main or semi-regular characters has become so common, that it’s hard to imagine a time when it wasn’t a seasonal event.
We’re not even halfway through the current TV season and already some characters we loved (well, mostly those we loved to hate) have gone to the big tube in the sky.
Perhaps the most shocking was the death of Michael Vaughn (Michael Vartan) on “Alias.� The prime love interest for Jennifer Garner’s Sydney Bristow throughout the series’ run, Vaughn was blown away in the season premiere – not long after discovering that he and Syd had conceived a child together.
Yes, that’s very sad, and the loss of Vaughn may have signaled the coming demise of the series, which, it was recently announced, will end this season.
But I wasn’t really torn up about Vaughn’s death, although most fans are outraged. In truth, I never felt that the character recovered from his ill-fated marriage to another woman (a double agent he eventually killed) while Syd was presumed dead.
Ever since, he’s stuck me as kind of a weak character, and I don’t understand what Syd saw in him.
Also not greasing my tear ducts was the loss of Shannon (Maggie Grace) on “Lost.� Perhaps the show’s most grating character and a mistake from day one, she’s that rare TV character that you’re actually glad to see go.
Granted, it’s sad whenever a fictional character’s time is up, but killing Shannon off was the only interesting thing the show’s writers ever did with the character. Her death set up tension between the main group of survivors and the so-called “Tailies,� whose leader, Ana-Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez) accidentally shot Shannon.
However, there has been at least one characters whose death I mourned this season: George (Roger Bart), the smarmy pharmacist who inexplicably charmed Marcia Cross’s Bree on “Desperate Housewives.�
Yes, he was oily, creepy and a psycho, but face it – George had panache. Every time he was on screen, the show had a tension and sense of danger that it lacked when he was gone. He also was one of the few “DH� characters who did truly shocking things, like slowly killing Bree’s husband, Rex, with a tainted prescription.
He definitely deserved a better death than the overdose of pills that led to his demise in this week’s episode.
I was hoping that, once Bree discovered George was the one who killed Rex, George would try to implicate her in the crime. That would lead to a knockdown, drag out battle between Bree, arguably the show’s strongest character, and George, its strongest villain.
I pictured a grand bloody showdown, in which Bree, a card-carrying NRA member, would blow George away, then collapse into tears, as only Bree can. Alas, that wasn’t the case, and “DH� fans now must mourn the loss of George, and what could have been.

Posted by amanda on 1:59 PM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2005

Taste the sadness

It’s unofficially official: “Arrested Development,� the gloriously demented Fox sitcom that managed to stay afloat for three seasons despite low ratings may soon be history.

A number of news organizations have reported that the show – which survived due to the love of critics and an ardent cult of fans – has been cut from 18 episodes to 13, leaving only five episodes remaining. Those will likely run in December, but many believe that the sliced order means an end for “AD� and its wacky family, the Bluths.
Though that’s a depressing prospect, let’s not, in the words of the priceless G.O.B. Bluth “taste the sadness.� Let us instead “taste the happy,� and cheer the fact that such a witty, deadpan and unconventional show managed to hang on for this long.
Oh, the pleasures that “AD� has brought me in its brief run.
Packed with lovable (yet undeniably mean-spirited) characters, every single episode provided more laughs than an entire season of “Friends.�
For those many who are unfamiliar with the show (shame on you, by the way), the show centers on the Bluths, a formerly rich corporate family who lost their wealth after patriarch George (the wonderful Jeffrey Tambor) was arrested for a bevy of corporate crimes. The family’s fate is constantly in the hands of its lone sane member, Michael (Jason Bateman, in a career-reviving role).
Every role was perfectly cast right down the line, but my favorite was Will Arnett as the incredibly needy, stupid and selfish G.O.B. A talentless magician (sorry, illusionist) doomed to obscurity, G.O.B. ruthlessly competed with his brothers for the love of his soulless Pop.
Any time G.O.B. would launch into an ill-fated “illusion� (often with “The Final Countdown� blaring in the background), you knew something special was coming.
The show also had some of the sharpest writing on television. My favorite line from the current season came after matriarch Lucille (Jessica Walter) announced that she finally had stopped taking her post-partum depression meds, after nearly 40 years. She explains that the decision came after she “this handsome doctor� denouncing the medication on the “Today� show.
To which the put upon Michael replied: “Mom, that wasn’t a doctor. That was Tom Cruise.�
Cruise, Michael Moore, reality television and even Fox itself all took hits in the show’s smart, witty dialogue. The funny extended even to the smallest touches, including having a lawyer, played by Scott Baio, named Bob Loblaw (say it fast).
So why didn’t the show score with audiences? Maybe because its jokes were too intricate for mass appeal. Maybe because the characters are often unrepentantly nasty. Or maybe people just couldn’t get into show’s weird plot twists, such as the love triangle between Lucille, George and George’s twin brother, Oscar (also played by Tambor).
But let’s not dwell on that. Let’s hope against hope that the show continues. And if it does disappear, let’s just be grateful that we got to meet the Bluths at all.

Posted by amanda on 2:20 PM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2005

Attack of the two-faced monsters

They invade your screen stealthily, so quietly that might not notice them at first.
Then, while watching your favorite show, you may gaze upon on actor’s face and realize: “Wait a minute – that’s not (insert name of television actor here). They hired a new actor!�

Yes, throughout television history, producers have replaced their original actors, sometimes mid-series, with new ones.
It’s what I like to call “Two-Faced Monster Syndrome,� a distant cousin to “Missing Character Syndrome,� in which a major character disappears without ceremony or explanation (see Richie’s brother on “Happy Days,� or Judy Winslow, on “Family Matters�). Both are a mite insulting to the audience, as they assume we won’t know what’s happened.
This is most common when a pilot for a show becomes a series, a la “The A-Team� (I bet you didn’t know that Dirk Benedict was not the original Face. And I bet you didn’t care).
It also happens a lot with relatively minor or new characters. Take, for example, two recent casting changes. First, Page Kennedy, who played Caleb Applewhite a.k.a. “Mr. Chains and Shackles� on “Desperate Housewives� was fired after only a couple of appearances in the role (he makes his last appearance in this Sunday’s episode).
Then, Shailene Woodley, who played ignored Cooper sister Kaitlin on “The O.C.� went from “Missing Character� candidate to a two-face, when she was replaced with actress Willa Holland.
There are always reasons for this. Maybe the original actor had personal issues or a contract dispute. Or maybe he or she hadn’t been on the show for a while, and had moved on by the time the show’s producers needed him or her again.
Whatever the reason, it’s always disorienting, and even a bit irritating. Yet, this strange phenomenon is an undeniable part of television history. Below are some of the more egregious two faces on television, starting with the most well known.
1. Darrin, on “Bewitched�: Who doesn’t know that Dick Sargent replaced Dick York on this beloved old sitcom? It’s maybe the best-known switch and one of the cleverest: actors with the same first name, who bore a vague physical resemblance to each other? Who would know the difference? Well, we know now.
2. Becky, on “Roseanne�: Lecy Goranson and Sarah Chalke switched off playing eldest daughter in the working class sitcom. First, it was Goranson. Then Chalke. Then Goranson came back, leaving Chalke in the dust.
She may have lost that role, but Chalke has the last laugh now. She’s on critically acclaimed sitcom “Scrubs.� And what have we heard from Goranson lately? Not much.
3. Jan Brady on “The Brady Bunch Variety Hour�: Like the multiple Darrins, most people know that the original Jan, Eve Plumb, declined to participate in this spin-off of the sitcom “The Brady Bunch.� The replacement actress was Geri Reischel. The show was a dud. And Eve Plumb has secretly felt superior ever since.
4. Laurie, on “That 70s Show�: Ok, not up there with Darrin, Jan or even Becky. But the show did replace original Laurie Lisa Robin Kelly with Christina Moore a few seasons ago. Moore is gone, now, but the recasting of the role was one of many signs that the show was going downhill. It’s still on, and officially at the bottom of said hill.

Posted by amanda on 2:38 PM | Comments (0)

November 8, 2005

TV’s most daring drama…available at a video store near you

Perhaps, like me, you’ve been watching “Desperate Housewives� the past few weeks and were struck by the handsome, highly charismatic actor playing Carlos’s attorney.
Those piercing eyes! That hypnotic voice! Who is he, I thought, and where on earth did he come from?
The answer is, he’s Adrian Pasdar. And, while he’s captivating on “Housewives,� to die-hard couch potatoes, he’ll always be Jim Profit, the protagonist of the jaw dropping, short-lived Fox drama “Profit.�

Debuting in 1996, "Profit" only aired for four episodes. I must admit, I, like most people, missed the show’s original run, but it was recently released on DVD. Having heard rumors about the show’s weird premise, I checked it out recently.
I wasn’t disappointed.
The show centered on Pasdar’s Profit, a good-looking ambitious businessman rising through the ranks of the corporate giant Gracen & Gracen. Profit is charming, smart… and a total psychopath.
In the course of the show’s two-hour pilot, he blackmailed an executive secretary into giving him confidential files, tricked one exec into revealing information that almost cost him his job and got another exec canned for violations that Profit committed.
Now, in today’s television landscape, dominated by complex characters such as Tony Soprano and Vic Mackey of “The Shield,� that doesn’t sound so bad. But I’ve just scratched the surface.
He also turned out to be having an affair with his stepmother and eventually tracked down and killed his abusive father.
Yet, what made the show truly inspired and daring wasn’t Profit’s oedipal tendencies. No, its true genius was that “Profit� was a television show that condemned television!
You see, Profit’s dad was a monster whose idea of child-rearing was to put his son in a cardboard box with a hole cut out of it. The hole faced the TV set, so Profit’s only interactions as a child were with the boob tube.
And he grew up to be a nut. No wonder the TV-viewing public didn’t embrace the show.
Watching “Profit� on DVD (which includes five unaired episodes), you realize how tame most television is, including the shows that pitch themselves as “daring� or “edgy.�
Yes, “The Sopranos� broke new ground by asking us to empathize with a pack of murderers. But, while those guys may be killers, they’re human. They have families. They have feelings. They have souls.
Not Jim Profit. Here’s a character completely detached from the human experience. The most he feels for anyone is a sort of distant admiration. And Pasdar was brilliant in the role.
Most actors would have felt compelled to make the character likable. But Pasdar didn’t care about that. He delved into the dark recesses of this sick character. And, by refusing to compromise him to make him more sympathetic, Pasdar made Profit weirdly likable.
Oh, he’s a monster and impossible to root for. But you can’t take your eyes off him.
He was surrounded by an equally wonderful supporting cast. My favorite is Lisa Darr as the blackmailed secretary, Gail, who starts as Profit’s victim, manipulated into being his accomplice, and evolves into a somewhat willing sidekick, strangely enjoying how his schemes test her brains and resourcefulness.
The show is just genius, and it’s too bad that we didn’t get see more of Jim Profit and his evil scheming. But thankfully, we can view him on DVD in all of his sick glory. So go rent or buy it, and prepare to be shocked out of your complacency.

Posted by amanda on 4:52 PM | Comments (0)

November 3, 2005

Every night live? No thanks

There was a time when nearly all television was shown live. Then, eventually – I don’t really know the timeline – episodes were taped. This allowed for more polish and, of course, gave performers more latitude to screw up and fix their mistakes.
But, suddenly, and for no apparent reason, live television is making a comeback.

Earlier this season, lame duck NBC sitcom “Will & Grace� shot a live episode, to such good response that it may go live again before signing off this season.
On Sunday, another NBC show uses the tactic, as “The West Wing� stages a live debate between its two fictional presidential candidates.
Now live TV has threatened to come back before, and I’m not talking about historically live shows, like “Saturday Night Live.� I’m talking about shows that, seemingly out of nowhere, decide to go live.
“The Drew Carey Show� had a few live episodes, as did the 90s sitcom “Roc.� “ER� did a live episode, and that show’s former star, George Clooney, produced a live made-for-TV remake of the movie “Fail Safe.�
But this fall, live TV is everywhere. It’s the new celebrity guest star.
Apparently, people must like these live broadcasts. But not me. I just don’t get them.
For one thing, live television in today’s world smacks of gimmickry. There’s no reason for it to be live. These episodes probably won’t be improved by the sheer fact that they are live.
The people behind these shows are really just showing off. “Look at us! We’re so good, we’ll risk the possibility that our actors might curse, or forget a line or laugh! We don’t care! We’re living on the edge! Watch if you dare!�
Other shows have an even more daring method of garnering attention and ratings – they produce episodes that people actually want to see.
Live TV seems like just another way to cover up a dip in a show’s quality. Face it -- if “Will & Grace� hadn’t lost comic momentum several seasons ago, it wouldn’t need live episodes to boost its profile.
But going live isn’t just gimmicky. It also reeks of pretense. By flying without a net, television shows are basically comparing themselves to theater. At one time, when theater was less expensive and television was a novelty, that wasn’t an unreasonable comparison.
The gap between television and theater was, and I’m just guessing here, probably far narrower than it is today.
But now, with higher ticket prices, theater is much more of a privilege than in the past. And television, with its hundreds of channels, is vastly more accessible.
It’s the medium of the people. It can be good. It can be smart. It can, at its height, change your mind and enrich you intellectually, just like theater can.
But whereas someone might pay a couple of hundred dollars for tickets to “The Odd Couple� revival, I don’t know anyone who would lay down that much cash to watch “The West Wing.�
Let’s not concentrate on why that is. Let’s just say that theater is theater and television is television and there is no reason for one to pretend it is the other.
I like my TV polished. I even prefer my sitcoms not to have laugh tracks.
Maybe this means I’m hopelessly newfangled. Maybe I’m hard to impress.
Or maybe I just don’t care if Alan Alda curses while waging a fake debate with Jimmy Smits.

Posted by amanda on 3:25 PM | Comments (0)