October 2004 Archives

'The Benefactor': What Went Wrong

If you’ve watched even an inning or two of Fox’s baseball coverage these past few weeks, you’ve no doubt seen 15 dozen promos for My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss. Just as its predecessor, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee, sought to take the piss out of the forced-marriage reality-program sub-genre, Big Fat Obnoxious Boss is a parody of Apprentice-style programming with would-be MBAs competing for the favor of a Trump-esque corporate sugar daddy. As you no doubt know, those kinds of shows feature a blowhard captain of industry barking non-sensical orders at the contestants, who are competing for the promise of some sort of gainful employment or cash prize or both. The difference with with My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss is, that it’s all supposed to be some sort of goof.

Well, I hate to break it to Fox, but someone has already beaten them to the punch with an Apprentice parody. There’s already a show on the air featuring deluded contestants vying for the favor of a mercurial business titan who forces them to obey ridiculous orders in exchange for an illusive cash prize. Only unlike My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss, ABC’s The Benefactor, starring ridiculously lucky Internet mogul and basketball owner Mark Cuban, appears to be on the level.

Of course, The Benefactor’s immediate future is not nearly so promising as that of My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss. ABC scaled back its original eight-episode order to six episodes; the last installment airs tonight. And it’s a safe bet that tonight will be the last you see of Mark Cuban on your TV unless it’s shots of him making boo-boo kitty faces at the referees during televised Dallas Mavericks games.

It wasn’t supposed to end this way. Reality programming is the Aughties’ opiate of the masses. Slap just about anything up on the TV screen — C-level celebs sharing a Hollywood Hills condo, a hotel heiress driving cross-country with her slutty friend, a slack-jawed yokel trying to trick gold-digging hussies into thinking he’s a millionaire — and you’re bound to drum up some sort of audience. Throw in Cuban — who has shown in his other ventures an innate ability to give the people what they want — and 18 people debasing themselves for his chump change, and you would figure that The Benefactor would at least be watchable.

It wasn’t — not by a long shot. Cuban’s blog about the show turned out to be more interesting than anything on camera. The contestants were unengaging dullards. The challenges were arbitrary. And the ratings suffered as a result. Now, even Donald Trump laughs. And when that happens, it’s best to beat a hasty exit before anyone else notices the stink.

Still, before we toss The Benefactor onto the pile of moldering reality programs next to Last Comic Standing and The Next Great Champ, we should give the corpse one last going over to see if there are any lessons to be learned. It may be too late to save The Benefactor from its own crappiness, but maybe, producers of forthcoming reality shows can avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I would contend that every reality-show producer should be forced to sit down and watch The Benefactor, not only because it offers a step-by-step guide on what not to do when putting together a reality program, but also because the folks responsible for Extreme Makeover, The Swan and whatever other nonsense is airing on network TV these days deserve a little misery in their lives, too.

Lesson One: Reality TV is not a Valuable Learning Tool

The appeal of reality TV is that it’s only a little more challenging than respiring. Reality shows ask for very little of your brain power and, in return, give you nothing more complex to think about than whether the Pagong tribe is going to squander this week’s rice ration or if some warbling teen-ager managed to stay on key while belting out “It’s Raining Men.” It’s really not a medium for conveying important life lessons.

Someone in charge of The Benefactor clearly forgot this important point, as much of the drama centered around, in the words of Mark Cuban, ” a series of tests to reveal the qualities to be successful in life.” And what would those qualities be? Platitudes cribbed from Life’s Little Instruction Book, if Cuban’s constant voice-overs are anything to go by: What separates the doers from the dreamers? The doing! Fear can either be a roadblock or it can be an amazing motivator! Make sure you sell to Yahoo just before the Internet boom collapses!

OK, maybe not the last one.

The point is, when people come home from a hard day of work and flip on the TV, they are not sitting down with a highlighter, a dog-eared copy of Who Moved My Cheese? and a notepad to jot down the 411 from Mark Cuban on how to scare up a billion dollars. They want a show that will take the edge off, that will give them a chance to decompress, that, at the very least, will provide relaxing white noise. What they are not looking for is to have pearls of wisdom barked at them by a guy who looks like he should be take some of that discretionary cash he’s looking to hand over to total strangers and invest it at SuperCuts instead.

Lesson Two: Viewers Like to Watch Total Strangers Get Torn Apart

What’s your favorite part of American Idol? If you’re the least bit honest, it’s that moment after every song when Simon Cowell gives his point-by-point analysis of why some would-be chanteuse should never, ever sing again — not even in the shower.

Same question about The Apprentice: what’s your favorite part? If you’re like me — and I’m afraid for your soul’s sake, that you are — it’s when Donald Trump provides painstaking detail about why someone is getting the boot.

The lesson here? We watch figure-skating competitions to see ice princesses land on their kiesters. We watch presidential press conferences to see which world leader’s name will be butchered this time around. And we watch reality programs to see deluded saps get what’s coming to them.

Unless you tune into The Benefactor. Then, you’re watching to see Mark Cuban give his charges — even the ones who fail spectacularly — a slap on the back and a hearty handshake. The hell?

A few episodes back, Cuban presented his would-be benefactees with a challenge: he would give them $1,000 and they would use that money however they wanted to do something amazing by 8 p.m. that evening.

One idea, in particular, stood out for its audacious stupidity. A contestant by the name of Dominic decided to spend his $1,000 to be a rock star for a day — a pretty bold plan considering he didn’t actually know how to play any sort of musical instrument. So he plunked down a grand on a fancy guitar, convinced a local rock band to back him up for free, and spent the rest of the day learning how to play a chord. That night, he and his band gave Mark Cuban a concert — well, the band did; Dominic mostly hopped around playing the same chord over and over. And once the song ended, Dominic took his guitar — the instrument he had just plunked down $1,000 of someone else’s money, mind you — and smashed it to bits.

As a wise investment of $1,000, that would seem to rank just behind placing the bills in a big pile in front of your benefactor, setting it on fire and then dousing the flames with your own urine.

Cuban’s reaction? “I am so, so proud of you guys,” he says. Dominic “may not be the brightest guy in the world, but he’s got a heart of gold, and he follows his heart, and he’s fearless.” I reiterate: the hell?

In a world that demands Simon Cowells, The Benefactor offers us a roomful of Paula Abduls. That might be great for the self-esteem of the people on the show, but it doesn’t give viewers much of a reason to stick around.

Lesson Three: Viewers Like to Know Why Contestants are Sent Packing

If you irritate your fellow tribe members on Survivor, the odds are pretty good that Jeff Probst will be snuffing out your torch sometime soon. If you miss a connecting flight on The Amazing Race, count on having Phil Keoghan point you toward the door. And if you completely butcher a Diane Warren song on American Idol, don’t expect that record contract any time soon.

Clear-cut rules for elimination — they’re important if you want the home-audience to feel like they’re playing along. “They shouldn’t have gotten on that flight to Istanbul if it meant a layover in Budapest,” viewers can say, as they stroke their chins wisely. “And who opts for ‘Unbreak My Heart’ in this day and age, anyhow?”

So on The Benefactor, it stands to reason that you can expect a contestant to get eliminated whenever… um… uh… ah….

Look, I’ve watched four episodes of the program now, and I have no earthly idea why Mark Cuban eliminated the people he did. Maybe they rubbed him the wrong way. Maybe they failed to caper sufficiently for his amusement. Maybe he had a particularly bad sandwich at lunch that day and took it out on the first person he saw after his stomach began cramping. I simply do not know.

And I found that problematic in my efforts to enjoy The Benefactor.

I mean, there’s something to be said for introducing the vagaries of chance into your little game. But there’s also something to be said for introducing easy-to-follow rules. And when you decide one week to leave the elimination up to a panel of school children — “Kids see things the rest of us don’t,” Mark informed us as the knee-high Star Chamber voted on which contestant to sack —- you probably have a little too much chance and a little too few rules.

Or to put it another way: last week when the competition was down to five contestants, Cuban ordered the remaining contenders to pair up into teams of two; the one player to find a partner risked elimination. Well, three of the contestants decided to leave things up to a game of Jenga — the loser would be left without a partner. Well, that turned out to be the thrice-damned, guitar-smashing Dominic — which is when Mark Cuban emerged to announce that Dominic wouldn’t be eliminated after all. Instead, he would be sent on a trip to Cancun while the people who successfully managed to partner up would be left to compete for Cuban’s favor. “Sometimes, the best deals are the ones you don’t make,” Cuban said, flipping to page 44 of The Big Black Book of Aphorisms for Entrepreneurs.

And at home, The Benefactor’s remaining 12 viewers think to themselves, “I’ve lost plenty of games of Jenga. And nobody’s ever given me a trip to Cancun.”

Hey, it’s great Mark Cuban gets to run his reality show by his rules. (He is putting up the $1 million prize money, after all.) It just might be nice if he were to occasionally take the time to let the rest of us in on what exactly those rules are.

And that brings us to The Benefactor’s final problem…

Lesson Four: The Host Matters

A few months after the fact, we’re hard pressed to remember anyhow who appears on a reality show, even the winners. Seconds after their stint ends, the clock begins ticking on how long it takes before one-time reality show contestants are reduced to signing autographs alongside Miss October 1982 at local comic-book conventions or faxing off their resumé to the producers of The Surreal Life.

Contestants come and go. Reality show hosts will be with us always. And as a host, Mark Cuban is an unmitigated disaster.

His criticisms of contestants are neither biting nor memorable. His introduction of unexpected twists is more maddening than surprising. He is one “carpe diem” away from switching into a language composed entirely of clichés. On a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the butler on Joe Millionaire and one being Ryan Seacrest, Mark Cuban is a negative-12. He is the Los Angeles Clippers of reality show hosts.

It’s a shame, too. Outside of his terrible TV show, Mark Cuban comes across as a bright, engaging fellow. He’s enjoyed many of his successes because of a willingness to challenge conventional ways of doing things. So it’s just a little bit ironic that his TV show failed precisely because he didn’t follow a few simple conventions of reality programming.

Maybe The Benefactor’s producers would have been better off tapping Fox’s Big Fat Obnoxious Boss guy instead.

Spinscape

So Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars finally aired Sunday and Monday, bringing some resolution to the story arcs of the characters I followed faithfully though four seasons of episodes.

And Farscape fans everywhere should be happy, because as Sci-Fi Wire reports (TV Barn has the press release), Farscape bowed to boffo ratings!

Now, I would be very happy if this turns out to be this the case. I would like to see more Farscape in the future, be it a new series, a feature film, another miniseries, what have you. And perhaps a 1.5 rating for Sunday's airings and a 1.9 rating for Monday's will mean that.

But you've got to read carefully here. Sci-Fi's ratings "win" is in a laughably restrictive category ("#1 non-sports cable network for P25-54 and P18-49 for the time period"), and not even the Monday airing rated as highly as your average episode of Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis. (Then again, it blew away the ratings for Andromeda -- and let's keep in mind that Stargate's summer airings are up against limited competition.)

It's nice that the Farscape ratings news out here in the outside world is good. Will it be good enough for more happy return of this wacky, weird, complicated and kooky sci-fi series? I hope so, but I'm not going to take Sci-Fi's press release as vindication.

(Update: Leave it to Variety to confirm my gut reaction: The industry bible called Farscape's ratings "so-so.")

TeeVee Awards '04: Most Disappointing Show

If we could, we’d take the trophy for most disappointing show, chop it into dozens of pieces, and mail each one off to nearly every show that reached the airwaves last year. That may be the only way to completely and accurately recognize just how lackluster the 2003-2004 TV season was. Shows that aimed high fell flat — assuming they even bothered to have any ambition at all outside of padding their episode total to bolster their syndication value.

Take the top-rated program in the land, CSI. (Believe us, we are as shocked typing that sentence as you are reading it.) CSI’s narrative abilities will never make anyone forget Tolstoy, but in the show’s early years at least, it managed to blend an interesting storytelling style with just enough geekery to freshen up the tried-and-true crime-stopping genre. Sadly, for reasons known only to Anthony Zuiker’s accountant, the show got away from that this season, instead favoring plotlines that involved increasingly lurid sex crimes and ill-conceived personal revelations about CSI’s cast of ciphers. But why worry about petty details like writing when you’ve got to knock out pilots for CSI: Portland, CSI: Phoenix-Scottsdale and CSI: Tri-State Area so that Les Moonves can fulfill his dream of an all-CSI prime-time lineup by 2008?

Or, take The West Wing, finally freed from tyrannical rule of Aaron Sorkin (motto: who needs continuity when you can have characters spouting off arcana about jai alai and the Missouri Compromise?). Who would have guessed that the price of coherent plotlines from week-to-week would wind up being an infusion of ER-style soapiness? Probably anyone paying attention to what’s become of ER over the years, actually… but still, a disappointing turn of events, nonetheless.

Even Scrubs — a show we happen to enjoy, by the by — disappointed us this season by going to the romantic tension well once too often. Yes, we know, Scrubs producers… will-they-or-won’t-they romances are the hallmark of post-Cheers sitcoms, and Mr. Zucker was probably most insistent that you go back to having J.D. and Elliot making goo-goo eyes at one another. But that didn’t make the decision any less disastrous. Fortunately, you seem to have realized the error of your ways, though not soon enough to salvage the last couple of episodes from last season. We only hope that you continue to keep these two characters far apart from each other — make like a junior-high dance chaperone and use a yardstick to separate them if you have to — because we don’t want to be repeating this conversation at this time next year.

We could go on in this vein for some time, flipping randomly through TV Guide and detailing how the shows listed on each page have wronged us over the past 12 months. But you probably get the point — last season was a double-dog drag for nearly everybody concerned. Besides, while we’re famous for our crippling indecision with the TeeVee Awards, we do like to avoid the embarrassment of 128-way ties. And all this kvetching about the rotten state of television in this, the 2,004th year of our Lord, is not getting us any closer to uncovering the one program that disappointed us more than all the rest.

Because, for all the uninspired mediocrity to be found up and down the dial this past season, there was one show whose return we anticipated and whose subsequent performance left us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell happened. Only it didn’t originate from this side of the Atlantic.

We’ve had nothing but nice things to say about Coupling over the years — largely because the first three season’s worth of episodes provide some of the best laughs you’ll ever enjoy courtesy of a television program. Great writing, a terrific cast, an ever-changing arsenal of narrative tricks — you can understand while we were waiting for the fourth season of Coupling to make its way over to BBC America with the same giddy anticipation that kids wait for Christmas.

Only this was the Christmas when Santa brought socks. And really itchy socks at that.

To be fair, at least one episode from this season — the brilliant “Night Lines” — deserves instant induction in the TV Comedy Hall of Fame for wringing laughs out an unending, episode-long phone conversation involving the entire six-person cast. But the other episodes ranged from middling to “Did somebody accidentally swap in a tape of the NBC version of Coupling by mistake?”

And here’s the funny thing: we have no idea why. It’s not like we have any special insight into the inner workings of Coupling. (Really. We don’t. We can’t emphasize this enough. Please don’t write.) But if we might be allowed to just spitball for a moment here…

  • Maybe it was the predictability. For all its narrative acrobatics — flashbacks, nonlinear narration, the same scene shot from different points of view — Coupling can be a little formulaic. (Unusual narrative device! Sexual frank catchphrase of the week! Ever-escalating series of misunderstandings! Steve’s episode-concluding exasperated monologue on the differences between men and women!) Most of the time, we hardly even notice Coupling’s assorted tics and idiosyncrasies; this year, for whatever reason, the wires were more visible.
  • Maybe it was the change in cast members. We have no idea why Richard Coyle left the show. (Again, no letters!). All we do know is that he left, and his absence was badly felt. Richard Mylan is a probably a nice guy and a fine actor, but his character was a little too much like Coyle’s Jeff in some aspects (sexually frustrated to the point of madness) and a little too unlike him in others (being funny). It’s not a very fair comparison, stacking up the character who’s been written off the show with the one who replaced him, but it’s a comparison that, fair or not, is going to be made. And, for this season at any rate, Mylan’s Oliver came up on the short end.
  • Maybe it was the baby. Pregnancy plotlines have doomed more shows on this side of the pond than pinkslip-happy Fox executives. Why should British shows be immune from the ravages that adding a baby (or even the possibility of a baby) can wreak upon a comedy?

Or maybe it was a combination of all three things. Whatever the reason, we didn’t care for what we saw, certainly not in the ecstatic way we cared for the 22 episodes that preceded this year’s run.

Not that we’re about to write this show off. According to our friend, the Internet, a fifth season of Coupling is in the works. Since the people involved with the show are the same folks who turned in such memorable work before, we have every bit of confidence that our disappointment with the last round of Coupling is just a momentarily blip. Our disappointment with television as a whole? Not so temporary. But Coupling, we’re willing to give another chance along with our dubious award.

Additional contributions to this article by: Philip Michaels.

Stewart: 'Crossfire' Ruining America

If you missed Jon Stewart on today's Crossfire, you missed a whopper. The Daily Show host bitch-slapped CNN's half-hour (formerly hour, formerly half-hour) show of party-line hackery in a scathing (and funny) rant. Also, Crossfire's Tucker Carlson managed to expose himself as a complete prick, while Carlson's co-host Paul Begala just sat there looking amused.

"What you do is not honest," Stewart told the hosts. "What you do is partisan hackery."

"I do think you're more fun on your show," Carlson told Stewart.

"You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show," Stewart retorted.

Read the transcript; see the video.

Maybe It's the Fever and Not the TV

I'm home sick today, so I'm watching Sesame Street with the kids. Before the rash-inducing "Elmo's World" segment came on, and there's a skit with the Count and Julianne Moore playing subdued, unfaithful spouses called "Far from Seven."

I guess it's better than "Boogie Eights."

Thank you! You're a beautiful audience! I'll be here all week!

10 Reasons to Watch 'Farscape'

Farscape's back. The wildest, messiest, most ridiculously entertaining space opera to hit the small screen rises from the dead after two long years with The Peacekeeper Wars, a four-hour Sci Fi Channel miniseries that kicks off Sunday, Oct. 17 at 9 p.m. ET.

So why should you care?

Why did fans around the world launch an unprecedented campaign to save a Australian-filmed show that inexplicably combines laser guns and Muppets? Why did this simple sci-fi series about a lost astronaut in a distant galaxy snag the Vidiots' Best Hour Show award in 2002, and Most Unjust Cancellation in 2003? I've raved about the show before, but for the uninitiated, here are ten simple reasons why Farscape is first-rate viewing, and why The Peacekeeper Wars will almost certainly be worth your TV time.

1. There's something for everyone. Farscape strikes a fantastic balance between action and romance, drama and comedy. Science fiction fans will dig Farscape's unusually savvy take on the genre, with a fresh spin for everything from time travel to gender relations. Sci-fi haters will appreciate Farscape's absolute refusal to take itself seriously; characters make fun of their own technobabble, drop Star Trek references and aren't afraid to interrupt a tense moment by announcing their urgent need to pee. Adrenaline junkies will love the massive, John Woo-inspired gun battles and thrilling space dogfights, while soap opera enthusiasts can get hooked on the tortured romance of astronaut John Crichton (Ben Browder) and exiled soldier Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black.)

2. This ain't Star Trek. Honestly, aren't you just a little bit sick of that happy-happy future world where we're all part of one big Federation? Don't you wish that at least half the cast of Enterprise did something more than fill chairs on the bridge? Thanks to creator Rockne S. O'Bannon and executive producer David Kemper, Farscape subverts every tired Trek cliche you can think of. Our heroes make mistakes and deal with the consequences. Happy endings aren't guaranteed, and things don't always get back to normal at the end of every episode. And Farscape's characterization is unusually sharp, allowing for arrogant, destructive heroes and surprisingly sympathetic villains.

3. One hell of a cast. Let's face it -- too many science fiction actors are just showing up, reading their lines and collecting a paycheck. On Farscape, you get the sense that the actors are having an incredible amount of fun, and really care about their characters. Ben Browder has peerless comic timing and real dramatic chops, not to mention combustible chemistry with his superb costar Claudia Black. Anthony Simcoe makes the burly warrior D'Argo an appealing regular Joe despite his fierce looks. Gigi Edgley's Chiana could be a thankless stereotype -- the sexy thief girl with loose morals -- but she's warm and sassy and more than a little bit damaged. Wayne Pygram brings a droll, delicious charm to the evil Scorpius, a ghoulish supergenius with a pronounced leather fetish. Unlike most sci-fi baddies, he actually gets a sex life -- a seriously kinky sex life -- courtesy of the equally brainy and ethically challenged Sikozu (Raelee Hill), who used to side with the good guys. Even the Muppets are terrific; Rygel XVII, the tiny deposed emperor, is a delightful little bastard with a keen mind, a voracious appetite and an ego the size of a small planet.

4. It's Buffy gone sci-fi. You don't have to be a fundamentalist Whedonite to enjoy Farscape, but Buffy and Angel fans will find a lot to enjoy here. A hero who's torn between ordinary life and an epic destiny. Smart, kickass women and fascinating antiheroes. Witty dialogue loaded with pop culture references. Characters who grow and change over time. Season-long story arcs with neck-snapping surprise twists. Farscape is very different from the late, lamented Firefly, but it's nonetheless a worthy complement to the Joss Whedon canon.

5. It looks like a million bucks. Farscape's behind-the-scenes talent is some of the best in the industry. Production designer Ricky Eyres' resume includes Saving Private Ryan. Visual effects team Animal Logic contributed to the Matrix trilogy. And Dave Elsey's team of makeup artists and creature creators are back for the miniseries after being handpicked by George Lucas for the third Star Wars prequel.

During its four-year run, Farscape managed to look consistently superb despite filming at a breakneck pace in the un-air-conditioned buildings of an abandoned air force base. The miniseries promises to raise the bar even further: for one thing, the producers exhausted Australia's supply of explosives during filming, and had to send for the States for more.

6. The writing has real meat. What started as the simple story of a band of escaped prisoners has escalated over four years into a gripping political epic. When a wormhole, a hole in space and time, spat John Crichton out on the far side of the galaxy, all he wanted was to find a way home. But when he found it, he discovered that the same wormhole technology could also create planet-destroying superweapons. Crichton and his fugitive pals are now trapped between two rival galactic empires who hate each others' guts and hunger for wormhole weaponry: the fascist Peacekeepers and the genocidal reptile Scarrans. That conflict promises to boil over in the miniseries, and the results should be suitably explosive.

7. Anything can happen. Will our heroes chop off one of their kindly Pilot's arms to buy themselves a way home? Yep. Is that lovable little slug of a Muppet going to decapitate his hated foe, then tool around waving his nemesis' head on a stick? Absolutely. The only rule on Farscape is that there aren't any.

Take the series finale, for example. John and Aeryn have been stuck on the relationship merry-go-round for four years. In the last two minutes of the show, they manage to finally reconcile their differences and begin a happy, stable relationship.

And then a weirdo alien swoops out of nowhere and blasts them both into fishtank gravel.

The kicker? Knowing full well that the show had been cancelled, the producers still ended the series with a big, fat To Be Continued.

8. It respects your intelligence. Farscape moves like lightning, packing as much story as it can into every episode. Attentive viewers are rewarded with rich character insights and compelling plotlines; more casual viewers may struggle to keep up with the admittedly dense and dizzying narratives. (New viewers and returning fans can get caught up at farwhat.com.) You get the sense that the producers are just so excited about the stories they're telling that they can't bear to slow down. Unlike most series, the creators of Farscape seem to have faith that their audience is smart enough to keep up.

9. It's a victory for the little guys. This miniseries never should have happened. When Sci Fi opted out of an already-renewed fifth season and cancelled Farscape in 2002, the show was dead. When last-ditch negotiatons between Sci Fi and the show's producers couldn't revive matters, it was deader than dead. Undaunted, the show's dedicated (and, in some cases, slightly insane) fans launched an amazing campaign to get Farscape back on the air. Their considerable efforts attracted the attention of a group of independent financiers, who helped the Jim Henson Company produce the miniseries. Both David Kemper and Brian Henson, CEO of his father's company, have repeatedly credited the fans' efforts for bringing Farscape back to television.

10. It's just plain fun. Think of Farscape as The Princess Bride of TV science fiction. You've got handsome heroes, beautiful heroines, fights, chases, narrow escapes, valiant companions, evil villains, and true love. All you need to bring is an open mind and a big bowl of popcorn.

Fall '04: “Life” Out of Balance

ABC's Life as We Know It is from the producing team of Jeff Judah and Gabe Sachs, both of whom also worked on the critically praised, commercially unsuccessful Freaks and Geeks. (If you haven't seen the show, do yourself a favor and get the DVD.)

Judah and Sachs are smart guys. They know that to deal with high school in all its ego-destroying glory is to court ratings disaster. So in creating Life as We Know It, a series about a trio of high-school boys, the girls they know, and their assorted families, Sachs and Judah have gone a little bit lighter on the realism.

In Life as We Know It, one of the characters is a handsome, popular athlete. Another is a handsome, sensitive kid. Another is a handsome everyman. And all of them are this close to having sex, while engaging in some serious heavy petting in the meantime.

Suffice it to say that none of these scenarios really fits well with my memories of high school. But perhaps it's mentally healthier for me to watch a show about high school that doesn't make me want to slit my wrists. Let's try, shall we?

For the show's three lead boys, heavy petting and the prospect of sex should mean that life is pretty good. But Life as We Know It wouldn't be an hourlong drama without some drama.

Dino (Sean Faris) is the hockey star with more than a passing resemblance to Tom Cruise (and don't think the girls don't notice). But Dino's seemingly golden life is about to become a lot more complicated, thanks to his discovery that his mother is having an affair, which leads to a series of other (somewhat obvious) complications with his beautiful girlfriend Jackie (Missy Peregrym).

Ben Connor (Jon Foster) is the young sensitive type. In the show's very first episode he begins an improbable romance with his mega-hot English teacher Miss Young (Marguerite Moreau). The pairing might be every horny teenaged boy's dream, but it also verges on the laugh-out-loud implausible. And with the pairing happening so soon, the show's producers run two big risks: first, that they'll turn off viewers who find the romantic portrayal of a high school teacher coupling with a student just a tad bit offensive. And second, that they have almost no place to take these two characters, short of having Miss Young fired from her job and run out of town.

The first problem is a bigger one. Life's writers and producers may think they're writing about wish fulfillment -- and they are. They may be planning serious ramifications for this relationship -- and they should be. But outside of teenaged boys, will anyone be able to watch the budding relationship between Ben and Miss Young without feeling remarkably uncomfortable?

The third boy is Jonathan Fields (Chris Lowell), often forced into the comic relief role. His girlfriend is Deborah (Kelly Osbourne). Yes, that Kelly Osbourne. And while Osbourne is a much better actress than I ever expected, she's still the weakest link in the cast. Even worse is the position her character has been forced into: she's the "fat girl"... a concept that's really laughable when you get a look at Osbourne. Yes, she's not willowy. But fat?

And if Deborah is the fat girl, why is she pals with Jackie and Sue (Jessica Lucas), two smokin' hotties? Soon after we meet Deborah, she's opening up to the pair of pretty, skinny girls (one of whom just shot down a pick-up attempt by Ben), getting advice from them about sex in the bathroom. It's an instantly incongruous scene -- how in the world would these three girls be talking to one another civilly, let alone speaking as best pals, were it not for the convenience of a TV show which only has a handful of female characters and needs to put them together in the same room.

Taking a cue from The O.C., the parents in Life aren't as peripheral as you might expect for a show about the sex life of teen boys. At the front are Dino's parents, Michael (D.B. Sweeney) and Annie (Lisa Darr). Annie's having sex with Dino's hockey coach, the act that begins the dramatic spiral that kicks off the show. (That plot point reminded me of "The Garage Door," a strong episode of Freaks and Geeks about uncovered parental infidelity co-written by... Jeff Judah and Gabe Sachs!)

The real problem with the parents is Michael, who is portrayed as a bit too slow on the uptake. In Life's pilot episode, it seemed that Sweeney had made the interesting choice of playing the character as severely retarded. In the show's second episode, Michael progresses -- but still isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Clearly, viewers are supposed to think that infidelity is bad. (As bad as teachers fooling around with students? That's your call.) But then again, if Annie's husband is as much of a dimwit as he's portrayed here, can you blame her for wanting to escape? It's a dramatic situation that's gutted by the weird way the show has chosen to portray Sweeney's character.

In the show's post-pilot episodes, there seems to be quite a bit of rethinking of the style and substance of the pilot. Even after seeing three episodes, it's pretty hard for me to judge Life as We Know It. The pilot had serious weaknesses, but the scenes with the three boys were really strong. The successive episodes have attempted to address some of the pilot's shortcomings, but still haven't managed to pull it all together. Throughout, the show has some problems with plausibility and poorly drawn characters. Sometimes it simply feels like Life as We Know It doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up.

I can't count the show out. The three male leads are all appealing actors, and the show's premise -- an exploration of the secret life of high-school boys -- could really take it a long way. But the show's attempt to mix soapy plot action, goofy comedy, and a taste of the bittersweet pain of high school doesn't quite work yet. I worry that by the time Sachs, Judah, and company get all the pieces working properly, it may be too late for this show to make it with audiences.

If that's true, Life as We Know It might end up sharing the fate of Freaks and Geeks... even though it got there by a remarkably different path.

It's Da Vinci's Seventh, Eh!

If you get Canada's CBC network, the seventh season of the gritty, much-honored crime drama Da Vinci's Inquest premieres at 9 P.M. Tuesday. Da Vinci's Inquest centers on obdurate Vancouver coroner Dominic Da Vinci (played by ace vet Nicholas Campbell) as he investigates deaths and, through the coroner's office, tries to improve the city, particularly Vancouver's downtown east side. Last season saw Da Vinci wrangle to create a safe injection site for IV drug users while investigating police abuses and waging a tooth-and-nail back room campaign to become chief of police. Will Da Vinci become top cop, take a run at elected office, or maybe get kicked out of the coroner's service? Da Vinci's ongoing stories and characters should get full treatment, too: expect more of the hyperkinetically crooked vice cop Brian Curtis (deliciously played by Colin Cunningham) and the angle-playing teen prostitute/police informant Sue (Ginger Snaps' Emily Perkins), plus new complications for the ever-growing circles of new characters and outstanding series regulars. If you receive CBC, Da Vinci's Inquest is more than worth a look: each season, they've raised the bar with innovative writing, strong performances, unique characters, and unsentimental yet always-human stories. This is no formula-driven CSI or Law & Order franchise: on Da Vinci's Inquest , shit happens, and it'll bite you in the ass if you aren't careful.

TeeVee Awards '04: Best Animated Show/Most Unjust Cancellation

Gather ‘round, children — you’re about to witness history. Because this might be the first time in the annals of recorded time that someone bemoans the end of a show that got its start on UPN. Well, someone without Vulcan ears stapled to their head, at any rate.

OK, to be fair, it’s been a good, long while since Home Movies aired on broadcast television’s most inept network — 1999 to be exact. In the ensuing five years, the show was discarded by UPN, sat on the shelf for a year and a half, got picked by the Cartoon Network, ran for four seasons and 52 episodes, and picked up a not-nearly-as-coveted-as-we’d-like-to-think TeeVee Award for Best Animated Show. Oh, and earlier this year, the Cartoon Network opted not to pick up Home Movies for another season, meaning we’ve seen the last original episode of this sharp, inventive series. And that makes us more than a little sad.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Before we tell you why we think Home Movies had more stories to tell, we should probably talk a little bit about how well it told those stories in the first place. Because that’s the reason, Home Movie is taking home another Best Animated Show award.

There’s the dialogue, of course. Even in its UPN days, Home Movies has had a natural, unforced feel to it. The words coming out of the character’s mouths didn’t sound as if they had been polished by a gaggle of writers until every last bit of spontaneity had been buffed out. And that gave the characters on the show the richness and depth of real people — an especially impressive trick in that these aren’t really people at al,l but Flash-generated squiggles on someone’s computer screen. Even better, the show’s vocal talents — series co-creator Brendon Small, H. Jon Benjamin, Melissa Bardin Galsky, Janine Ditullio, and a cadre of supporting players — clearly get a better grasp on the characters they were voicing with each passing episode. By this season, you got the sense that the actors completely inhabited their Home Movies counterparts — something you rarely see even for flesh-and-blood characters.

Home Movies always delivered laughs; this year, it provided something a little more difficult for episodic television to pull off — season-long thematic continuity. From the get-go, one of the central elements to the show has been the on-the-cheap movies Brendon and his pals make in the basement of his home. The movies, whether rock operas based on Franz Kafka or sci-fi spectaculars in which spacemen battle arch-villain George Washington, have always come fairly easily to the grade-school-aged characters. But this season, making the movies became increasingly difficult. Unreceptive audiences, discouraging feedback, a dearth of good ideas—all of that conspired against Brendon and his cohorts. It’s a theme that should resonate with anyone who’s ever woken up to the sudden realization that they are not touched with a unique brand of genius — i.e., pretty much everyone in the room right now, unless we have a few Nobel laureates on our mailing list that we don’t know about. Only Home Movies managed to make this recurring theme funny instead of just one more excuse for us to sob openly into our bourbon.

The last episode of the season — of the entire series, as it turns out — featured Brendon and his two collaborators, Jason and Melissa, concluding that their movies should never be watched by anyone, anywhere. And Home Movies came to an end with Brendon accidentally dropping his video camera and breaking it. It’s not exactly Prospero snapping his wand in two, but it’s still much headier stuff than you see on Teen Titans or Yu-Gi-Oh.

OK, so at least Home Movies ended on a high note and with a degree of closure not normally afforded TV shows. But that didn’t mean it needed to end. If anything, the show was as solid as ever, with the show’s creators finding new directions in which to take stories. For that reason, Home Movies is a double winner this year, taking home the dubious distinction of Most Unjust Cancellation.  

Usually, competition for that piece of hardware is fast and fierce, with martyred shows lined up three deep to testify to the callow foolishness of TV executives. But 2004 wasn’t exactly a banner year for unjust cancellations. That’s not the ringing endorsement of this year’s TV offerings that it probably sounds like. Just as many TV shows got potted this year as in season’s past — only this time around, most of the programs deserved their permanent dirt nap.

You could maybe make a case that Wonderfalls got a raw deal, what with its unique premise, clever writing, and sassy heroine. Then again, you could also make the case that unique doesn’t excuse dull and meandering, that one man’s clever writing is another man’s pretentious twaddle, and that it’s hard to appreciate sass when you’re too busy looking for something to knock that sneer off the heroine’s face. Also, at some point, somebody other than the cast, the crew and the half-dozen so Tim Minear cultists still living outside captivity, needs to tune in to watch a show. It’s not like that’s some rule Fox invented on the fly just to make sure 63 people would have nothing to watch on Friday nights.

Angel, too, might have been called home before its time. Then again, the normally feckless WB did give the show enough time to get its affairs in order instead of treating it to the tried and true method for disposing of unwanted programming (snatching it away in the dead of night so that no one can hear its muffled screams). Besides, better to go away too soon than too late — isn’t that right, Buffy?

Finally, there was Karen Sisco, a fairly well-reviewed program treated to a half-hearted promotion and a problematic time slot before ABC yanked it off the airwaves for “retooling.” The show never made it back to the Mouse House, but if the few, supposedly improved Karen Sisco episodes that made it to basic cable are any indication, maybe an early cancellation that leaves our happy memories of the show’s pilot intact is all for the best.

Which leaves Home Movies and its untimely cancellation as the most galling departure of the year. Sure, we’re grateful Brendon Small and company had the foresight to end what turned out to be the final season without any loose ends or unresolved stories. But we just have the nagging sense that they still had more stories to tell. And the fact they won’t get a chance to do so deserves some recognition, even if it is a meaningless award and a sad shake of the head from us.

Ah well — we’ve still got the reruns, airing on the Cartoon Network in the dead of Monday mornings. And the upcoming DVD release. And the peculiar realization that at least one thing that got its start on UPN actually leaves us with pleasant memories.

Additional contributions to this article by: Philip Michaels.

Get to Know "Life as We Know It"

Life as We Know It, premiering tonight on ABC, is an interesting hybrid. People complained that Freaks and Geeks was too much of a downer. And for whatever reason people didn't like Undeclared. So now here's Life as We Know It, which fuses some Freeks and Geeks-style portrayals of high schoolers with a soapier, less realistic series of plot complications and character hook-ups. It's the story of three high school boys -- we're reminded immediately that boys have a sexual thought every five minutes, or was that five seconds? -- and their relationships with one another, with girls, and with their families.

We'll have a full review later, but although we're somewhat on the fence about Life, it's worth a look tonight. The pilot episode's first few minutes are a little bit extreme, but if you watch for the whole hour you'll begin to realize that some (but not all) of the show's characters have hidden depths.

Fall '04: "CSI: New York"

I do not hate cop-n-lawyer shows. As proof I offer the fact that I am up to my neck in the Law & Order franchise, loved Boomtown beyond all reason, missed The Job terribly until it was reincarnated as Rescue Me, absolutely loved the first season of NYPD Blue, and consider Miami Vice one of the great cultural pillars of the (otherwise unlamentably passed) 1980s. Hell, I grew up on ADAM-12. This is but a small sample of my vast personal experience with the cop-n-lawyer format on TV.

I do not hate franchises, either. I’m faithful to L&O in all its variations and even find myself looking forward to the upcoming L&O: Trial By Jury despite the fact that Jerry Orbach has seriously worn out his welcome and Dick Wolf is a hack.

Also, I love New York City. I really do. It took me a long time to realize that. For years I thought I hated the place, couldn’t wait to leave it and move to Toronto or something. Then I didn’t move to Toronto, and eventually I figured out why: Because I love New York City, plain and simple. It’s ugly, it smells like urine most of the time, and it’s always being run into the ground by high-minded politicians intent on cleaning up the interesting parts, but I love it just the same.

And I love Gary Sinise. I consider him one of the finest actors working today. The film around him may suck — in fact, his films usually do — but Sinise is always worth watching.

So when I heard that Gary Sinise would be starring in the latest CSI offering, CSI: NY, I rushed to my DirecTiVo and punched it in. Breathlessly I waited, and when it at last arrived, I sat the wife down and said, “Are you ready for this?”

She was. I wasn’t. I thought it would be good.

CSI: NY is, in fact, absolutely dreadful. It contains not one single second of worthwhile television. Even the blank space between raster lines should be embarrassed to be seen on the same screen. CSI: NY is very nearly reason enough to ban the English language from the planet, even if it means losing Shakespeare and Milton.

Take, for example, the opening scene of the first episode. A body is found near the waterfront. Gary Sinise, as Detective Mac Taylor, is called to the scene to investigate. He is, after all, the titular crime scene investigator. He looks over the body, asks some questions, takes some pictures, whatever, and then lifts up the dead woman’s left hand. The camera clearly shows the wedding ring on her finger; it glows because the scene is shot with some grainy, washed-out filter or digital effect or something, so anything yellow looks like Day-Glo. There is a pause — the kind of pause that hack writers always call pregnant — the kind of pause that signals that the TV show is waiting for the viewers to catch up — there is a long pause. Cut to Gary Sinise, his face creased as if he were trying to fart out a cantaloupe.

“Someone out there’s missing a wife,” he intones.

Which would be why they pay him the big bucks, wouldn’t it? If there is a single person who heard that line and did not at least think “No shit, Sherlock,” I’d like to meet them, because I enjoy throwing rocks at morons.

Sinise spends the rest of the episode trying his damnedest to get that cantaloupe out, but no luck. He is joined in this endeavor by Melina Kanakaredes as Detective Stella Bonasera, a character who floats so vacantly through the pilot that she left no impression other than my thinking that Kanakaredes had better get off the Atkins diet before her cheeks meet in the middle. Some other actors are also involved, but I’ll let you look them all up on the IMDb, because that’s what I’d have to do to tell you anything about them. They walk on, they say some stuff, they walk off.

The only other actor with any presence on the show is Grant Albrecht, playing Dr. Leonard Giles. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention either time I watched the pilot — I kept getting distracted by more engaging things in my vicinity, such as watching the philodendron grow — but who this guy is and what he’s doing didn’t seem to be explained. In fact, to find out the actor’s name I had to do a little Internet sleuthing, because I couldn’t even find his credit in the episode. Which is probably just as well for Albrecht’s career, such as it is.

The character of Giles plays a very important part in CSI:NY: He’s the Explainer. When the lead character can’t figure things out, he goes to the Explainer, who explains everything for him, and then the lead rushes out with dramatic conclusions thundering in his brain. Being the Explainer would be enough to get this character to stand out, since no one else seems capable of anything but the most terse, pointless dialogue. But Dr. Giles stands out even more, because his scenes are totally unrelated to anything else in the show and they take place in this cavernous, poorly-lit, dusty museum-like office. It’s the perfect set to show off Albrecht’s gravelly Expository Dialog Delivery System. “Argle bargle bargle arg,” he says, neatly wrapping up the episode’s mystery with some aimless medical jargon, and Gary Sinise rushes out to nab the bad guy while Dr. Giles is creakily raised back above stage in his machina.

CSI:NY as a whole is, above all else, insultingly stupid. Take the scene in which a camera is found near another dead body. The detectives decide to develop the film, and we find ourselves in a darkroom looking over the comely shoulder of Vanessa Ferlito as she slips photo paper into the developing solution. A picture begins to appear and she declares to the other guy in the room, “Wait, something’s coming.”

Anyone who has even the dimmest idea of how photos are developed probably knows that you make a print from a negative. And since you project the negative onto the paper to make a print, it should be pretty obvious that “something’s coming” quite a while before you put the paper into the developing solution. Because if the negative was blank, you wouldn’t try to develop a print from it.

Stupidity isn’t necessarily insulting. But when you make a show as serious, as deadpan, as downright depressing and oppressive as CSI: NY — when your clear intent is to craft a drama of weight and consequence, and you’re either too dumb to know what you’re doing or you think your audience is too dumb to care, that’s when stupidity becomes insulting. When you think your TV show is powerful and important enough that you can end your inaugural episode with a shot of Ground Zero, but you’ve surrounded that image with gaffes you shouldn’t make in your freshman year writing class — in high school — you’re not just insulting, you’re downright boorish.

That sums up CSI: NY. Boorish and bad. Rude and awful. Worthless and wasteful. The only positive thing which might come from it: If this spreads the CSI franchise talent pool so thinly it finally evaporates entirely, we might be rid of the whole blight in one season.

We can hope, if only for the good of cop-n-lawyer shows, franchises, New York City, and Gary Sinise. On second thought, Gary’s off the list.

Fall '04: "Desperate Housewives"

For reasons far too irrelevant to go into during a TV show review, one of the few albums my parents let us listen to on family car rides was Glen Campbell’s Witchita Lineman. It’s not a bad album, but one song on there, “The Dreams of the Everyday Housewife,” was the kind of prepubescent consciousness-raising tool Free to Be … You And Me could only wish it were.

The song starts off clocking the everyday housewife’s physical deterioration:

She looks in the mirror and stares at the wrinkles
That weren’t there yesterday

then swings through verses detailing how the housewife makes it through the day: by pretending her apron is the ball gown she wore in her swinging single days, and by obsessively flipping through the scrapbooks she compiled back when she enjoyed her life. These verses are punctuated with the chorus:

Oh, such are the dreams of the everyday housewife
You see everywhere any time of the day
An everyday housewife
Who gave up the good life for me

That album ought to have come with its own copy of The Feminist Mystique. Whatever the intended effect of the song, I came away from it determined not to spend my adulthood segregated from other grownups and reduced to poring over old photo albums lest I be tempted to gargle with Pine-Sol.

Despite later evidence that housewives were not, in fact, confined to the house, I still never shook my ambivalence about housewifery in general. A lot of people evidently listened to Glen Campbell or arrived at their uneasy regard of stay-at-home wives and mothers by other means: a survey of articles in major publications over the last 18 months shows everyone from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to the Atlantic Monthly discussing what my mother used to call “domestic engineering” — why people choose it, whether they’re happy with it, how it affects the economy, whether it should even be a choice at all.

Putting aside the usual claptrap wherein people whine about the awful burden of being able to choose how to conduct their family life, the same innately obvious idea gets trotted out again and again in these whither-housewives pieces: stay-at-home moms are thinking, feeling people too, just like people with jobs. They have inner lives! Isn’t that surprising? They remained people even after ceasing to draw a paycheck!

Such is the radical premise behind Desperate Housewives. Sometimes, women don’t like staying home! It makes them crazy! Because they have brains and emotions too! So don’t underestimate that nice-looking lady standing behind you at Ralph’s!

If the preceding statements are genuinely surprising, you’ll probably enjoy Desperate Housewives as a sharp-edged new kind of show.

For the rest of us, however, a show satirizing the supposed duplicity of placid suburbia and its emotionally turbulent underbelly is kind of played out. David Lynch did it first in Twin Peaks and Alan Ball does it in … well, everything. And commenting on the quaint idea that men and women occupy different frames of reference because they occupy different spheres is … well, we live in a country where 72.2% of households with children have both parents working outside the home (as of 2002, statistic courtesy of the U.S. Dept. of Labor). Is the housewife-stocked suburban enclave really all that typical, or is it merely another lifestyle niche? And if it’s the latter, does it really need to be satirized?

To its credit, Desperate Housewives is self-aware enough to at least be aware of these questions, even if it doesn’t bother to address them. The pilot — which is one of the most deftly executed inaugural episodes I’ve seen — is up front about the moneyed bubble in which its women float. These housewives aren’t desperate the way a young mother forced to feed a family of four on an E-2 salary might be. They’re pinned by their own anomie.

In other words, this show is shaping up to be the Aughties version of the primetime soap: a peek at the lives of people upon whom we wish plenty of juicy problems, served with a neat twist of self-conscious irony. We saw it last year with The O.C., we’re seeing it now on Wisteria Lane. These people have everything. Let them suffer.

Desperate Housewives plays up our darker desires to feel better at the expense of other people’s personal trainwrecks by giving us desperate divorcee Susan (Teri Hatcher), disgruntled trophy wife Gabrielle (Eva Longoria), manic Martha manque Bree (Marcia Cross) and trapped fertility goddess Lynnie (Felicity Huffman). They’re all put-upon to some degree or another. They’re all constrained by the kind of social pressure that hazing fratboys would find oppressive. Now throw in the mystery — why did their pal Mary Alice off herself? — and go. You’ve got a premise that may actually take you through a season.

Like its predecessor in surreal suburbia, Twin Peaks, a lot of the show’s appeal comes from its brilliant, comprehensive aesthetic. The houses and gardens were lifted straight from the pages of a women’s magazine, but coated with a toxic sheen suggesting that nobody could possibly thrive in such a pristinely perfect environment. The acting is highly stylized — Marcia Cross’s tightly wound performance is a hoot, and Felicity Huffman is practically playing two characters with the way she manages to display both her seething inner despair and her outward attempts to appear normal. The dialogue is as goofily arch as Twin Peaks or Sex in the City — the occasional zinger, slilding like a stiletto into patter so silly, real people would smirk as they said it.

And, like Twin Peaks, the show relies on the terrarium premise to sustain its characters’ claustrophobia: it never occurs to anyone that they don’t have to confine their lives to their local geography. Again, in an era where relocation and rootlessness are rampant, the near-agoraphobic premise of housewives pinned into place more or less debunks the idea that this a show in which the masses will find themselves reflected.

(The commercials, however, are another story: Crock Pot Classics, Talbots’ clothing and vacuum cleaners galore. Clearly, the advertisers aren’t worried that anyone watching this show is going to question why they should bother buying into suburban conformity. That should be a clue about exactly how subversive this show is.)

So the show’s basically a soap. It’s far from perfect — for one thing, all the characters are threatening to fall into the same obsessive navel-gazing about appropriate life choices that has driven the nation’s editors to assign pieces on the state of the American housewife. All that ambivalence gets old: I would have loved to see someone who thumbed her nose at the discomfort all the other women feel by cheerfully admitting she’s a housewife because ferrying around the kids in exchange for the hubster underwriting her scrapbooking hobby is a sweeter deal than anything she could have pulled while working. Someone who unrepentantly embraced housewifery — or roundly and unapologetically rejected it — would go a long way toward cutting the Prufrockian discontent in which the other women marinate.

But ultimately my biggest problem with the show is this: it tries to have its cake and eat it too, and it fails. There’s a genre in mystery publishing called “cozies,” wherein murder and mayhem are balanced by cookie-baking heroines or people whose talking cats solve crimes. This is the cozy of the suburban satire genre: it’s attempting to make us think about women’s roles in society, but it’s managed to completely eliminate larger society from the equation. Which is, in the end, kind of weird, given that the same women being shown bouncing around their airtight bubble are the ones who, in reality, drive the economy of this country, people the grass-roots movements that politicians respond to and — when they have time — raise the next generation of voters.

Just as actual Orange County citizens aren’t present anywhere in The O.C., so it goes with real housewives on Wisteria Lane. However, I’m already anticipating the first pundit piece in which it’s argued that Desperate Housewives demonstrates all the ways in which feminism has failed women by making their lives harder. The pundit will have missed the point on two counts: too many choices is still better than no choices at all, and if anything, Desperate Housewives is a look at the everyday housewife as someone who’s never held the job thinks she exists. She doesn’t have to dance around the living room anymore. All she has to do it turn on the television.

Kidz Bop Drives Father to Violence

My kids are learning songs entirely from the commercials for the various Kidz Bop compilations and the Now That's What I Call Music CDs. And I am mystified as to how anyone can consider these songs for kids.

Well, that's not quite right. Since I think sex, nudity, cursing, and violence are all okay for kids -- why should they be surprised to learn the world is a pit of degradation and filth when they turn 18? -- I don't have a problem with any of these songs. Beyond purely aesthetic concerns, of course. But then I've got lousy taste in music. I actually like Britney Spears' "Toxic" and Justin Timberlake.

So, to reformulate my research question: I am mystified as to how mainstream America, which rose up en masse to decry Janet Jackson's errant nipple, which allows PAX to flourish, which requires that Maxim be sold from behind the 7-11 counter as if it were "Show Me the Pink" despite my own personal 7-11 being less than 10 miles from Greenwich Village, where I had to explain to my 7-year-old son why he couldn't go into the video store he passed with all the colorful merchandise in the window, I am mystified as to how mainstream America allows anyone to sell these CDs to kids.

Kidz Bop prides itself on being kid-friendly -- the songs are all sung by kids, after all -- and yet I can't figure out how to make the lyrics to Evanesance's "Bring Me to Life" kid friendly: "Save me from the nothing I've become." If you're nothing at age seven, I don't think anyone can save you. And if you're still listening, by the time you get to their second Kidz Bop entry, "My Immortal," you might not care: "Your face it haunts/My once pleasant dreams/Your voice it chased away/All the sanity in me." Which is how I feel when I listen to this music.

Or take "The Ketchup Song" from Las Ketchup. "Many think its brujeria/How he comes and disappears". Indeed.

Both Kidz Bop and NTWICM boast of having Outkast's great song, "Hey Ya!" with its kid-friendly lyrics, "Don't want to meet your daddy/Just want you in my Caddy/Don't want to meet yo' mama/Just want to make you cumma".

Kidz Bop 6 raises the stakes with a little number from Maroon 5, "This Love": "I tried my best to feed her appetite/Keep her coming every night/So hard to keep her satisfied" and "My pressure on your hips/Sinking my fingertips/Into every inch of you/Cause I know that's what you want me to do". Kid friendly as in explaining how one goes about making kids, yes. Kid friendly as in something kids can understand and relate to, perhaps not so much.

NTWICM counters with the Black Eyed Peas and "Hey Mama," which is brilliant in its subtle exploration of adult sexual relationships, as exemplified by the lyric "The girlies in the club with the big plump plumpas/And when I'm makin' love, my hip hump humps/It never quits we need to carry nine millimeter clips/Don't wanna squize triggers, just wanna squize tits". Certainly there's something about being direct and to the point. Of course, it's okay, because "The true niggers know that the peas come through."

Both CD lines cover Britney "Toxic" Spears, who sings, "It's getting late/To give you up/I took a sip/From my devil's cup".

Kidz Bop, at least, wouldn't even touch Nina Sky and her "Move Ya Body": "I lick my lips while I'm feeling you/Now I'm going to make you go/Ohhh move ya body girl makes the fellaz go/It's the way you ride it girl makes the fellaz go." The fellaz do, in fact, go, yes: They go to Now That's What I Call Music, which allows this sort of thing.

I imagine the versions on these CDs are edited in some way. But then I figure the songs would all sound like every hip-hop song I hear on the radio. All of them have every reference to sex, drugs, and violence removed, and they all sound like this: "Hey...on my...with...at the...other... with your...hey! What...near...on top...yeah! Yeah!" Which always makes me wonder why anyone bothers putting these songs on the radio. It's like TBS running "Deep Throat" on Saturday morning. "Next up: 'Behind the Green Door' starring Marilyn Chambers, starting at 11:30. Then, at 11:38, 'The Devil in Miss Jones.'"

In any case, my kids now have learned enough to sing this much of "This Love": "This love blah blah blah!"

If I never write for TeeVee again, it will be because I heaved my television out the window.

The Egg and I

There's a fast-food chain here on the Left Coast called Carl's Jr. that for the better part of a decade now has aired the hands-down stupidest TV commercials of any hamburger joint. (Quite an impressive feat at a time when McDonald's is telling you to make nice with your neighbors by buying them a Filet o' Fish and showing some delusional lunatic telling imaginary people to stay away from his Chicken McNuggets). I think the Carl's Jr. equivalent east of here is Hardee's. Maybe they run the same ads as Carl's Jr in your area., maybe they don't. If they don't, fall down on your knees tonight and murmur sweet hallelujahs.

I'm convinced that Carl's Jr. targets its ad campaigns as rebuttals to complaints people have about the chain. For instance, about 10 years ago, Carl's Jr. had the reputation of taking an entire geological period to provide you with the burger you ordered. So the company trotted out a series of ads explaining that the disaffected youths working back in the kitchen don't start the more-complicated-than-it-looks task of burger assembly until you placed your order -- those other fast-food joints, they made your sandwich weeks ago. Then, there was the complaint that Carl's Jr. burgers were a tad messy. That brought on another ad campaign -- "If it doesn't get all over the place," Carl's Jr. declared, "it doesn't belong in your face." Because hamburgers are supposed to drip goo and fall apart once you pick them up, you see.

The current TV ads are attempting to paint Carl's Jr. as the food emporium of choice for demographically attractive males between the ages of 18 and 44. Under the slogan "If it wasn't for us, guys would starve," the commercials depict ordinary Joes unable to cope with a world in which they must prepare their own meals. One ad shows a young man trying to whip up a batch of guacamole by throwing an entire avocado -- pit and all -- into a blender before he gives up and ostensibly heads off to Carl's Jr. for a guacamole burger. In another, a second man is standing in the butcher section of his local grocery store, staring uneasily at the various cuts of beef available to him. Yes -- our hero, the fellow we're supposed to identify with, is flummoxed by meat. Get thee down to the Carl's Jr., my man, where teen-agers earning minimum wage will take all the guess-work out of those tricky beef-buying decisions.

The ad that finally made me wonder just what kind of open-mouthed breather Carl's Jr. hopes to attract promotes one of the restaurant chain's artery-clogging breakfast sandwiches. In the commercial, a man who is either shaking off an all-night bender or a recent brain injury is attempting to make himself eggs for breakfast. But he seems to be having trouble cracking an open an egg.

Let me repeat that just in case you glossed over this critical plot point: this lummox doesn't know how to break an egg.

He tries pulling it apart with his hands -- no go. He smashes it palm down on the counter -- that's a non-starter, too. He furrows his brow and stares at the egg, unable to figure out how to free the yolky goodness awaiting inside. The ad ends with him giving up, grabbing his coat and beating feet to Carl's Jr., leaving the egg cracking in the hands of the professionals where it belongs.

Now, I don't know where your level of culinary skill lies, but I think we can all agree: on an ascending scale of difficulty from one to 10, cracking an egg clocks in at negative-72. You take the egg, tap it upon a flat, even surface, and pull apart the shell, releasing the yolk and egg white into a waiting skillet or bowl. This isn't exactly butterflying a trout or whipping up a souffle or figuring out what wine to have with the chicken.

I don't know what's the most troubling thing about this ad. The fact that Carl's Jr. thinks I'm incapable of performing a task you could train a chimp to do in a single afternoon? The belief that pointing out what a nitwit I and my fellow males are should make me want to beat a path to the nearest Carl's Jr.? Or the chilling realization that Carl's Jr. believes it's perfectly all right to encourage people with neither the mental acuity or motor skills to crack eggs to get behind the wheel of a car and drive themselves to a fast-food chain, putting lives and property at risk?

That Filet O' Fish is sounding better all the time, I tell you what.

Categories

Monthly Archives

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from October 2004 listed from newest to oldest.

September 2004 is the previous archive.

November 2004 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.