One Heinous Show

I usually try to give new tv shows a little lee-way while they find themselves in the first season. HOWEVER--the cast at the left, the writers, producers, and anyone involved in the creation or airing of ABC's Big Shots should be ashamed of themselves. This is possibly one of the ugliest, most disgusting television shows I've ever seen. Here's why:

1. The plot: About for "big shots" (men, of course) who are despicable people trying to figure out "women" (the general, monolithic understanding of them as brainless vehicles for the men's pleasure), "life" (how to have more hot sex), and "family" (dealing with the bitches who divorced them and the burdens that are their children). Originally described (by ABC) as a kind of "sex and the city for men," this show is that except without the nuance, the humanity, the empowered women, and the wit. So, to summarize: it's not SATC but with men.

2. The characters: Both the men and women are sad caricatures of some pseudo-reality. The men are ulgy: womanizers (within and without their marriages), shallow, deceptive. And here's my favorite part--all of that is understood to be a good and natural part of man-hood (say that with the "movie announcer" voice and you get the picture). And now for the women: also ugly. These characters are completely either subservient to their (say with whispy voice) big, strong, men OR they're portrayed as constantly exhibiting symptoms of PMS. They might as well be blow-up dolls for all they give to the show in terms of "real-ness." And then there's what they say: they are somehow made to be complicit with the behavior of their men so that they help the men be womanizing, shallow, and deceptive--because that's what women do.

So, in summary, I have serious problems with plot and character which means, all in all, I'm never, EVER watching this again. But I have one last beef: this show is held up as a testament to "male bonding" and what it means to be a man in 2007. Let me be clear: if this is what manhood in 2007 is, they need to build loneliness into the characters--because no one, man or woman, would ever want to be near that.

Pushing What-sies?

And just when I thought tv was getting formulaic--this little gem arrives from ABC. When I first heard about it, it sounded bizarre. Basic concept: boy has extraordinary power to bring people back from the dead with his touch. Boy grows up, has an obsession with pies, and helps an investigator solve unsolved murders for the reward money. Catch(es): 1) The previously dead can only be alive for 1 minute or someone else dies to take their place and 2) if he touches them again, they die...again.
"Oh Lord," I thought, "could this get any more difficult to understand OR far-fetched." Well, I take it back. This has to be one of the most original television shows I've ever seen. But I'm not sure it's for everyone, especially for those who don't suffer the "magical fantasy" genre well. Here are the ways it deviates from "usual" (read "boring" or "formulaic" television):

1. It looks like the movies Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Nanny McPhee. The setting (and sets) are outrageously colorful and bizarre--a pie shop called "The Pie Hole" (which I LOVE), a garish house, a windmill someone lives in.

2. The characters are purely fictional. There's no realism here. This is like a children's book in that you have basically archetypal characters: Ned (the boy), Chuck (the girl he loves but can't touch b/c he's brought her back to life), Chuck's 2 spinster aunts, the Detective, the Pie Shop Girl. There's no sense of reality--just a sense of wonder from the characters that populate this bizarre "mystery" type of show.

3. The storyline is magical and planned but also bizarre. Because of Ned's powers, the way he relates to other people and his whole purpose is so out-of-left-field that it sets up really huge, unsubtle story lines, but it's mysterious. The story unfolds slowly and in a way that meanders so that some patience and "going with the weirdness" is required. But it makes you feel joyful and innocent somehow.

4. The supporting cast in IN-CREDIBLE. The two leads are virtual unknowns--all the better b/c we aren't hampered by lingering images of past characters. But Chi McBride (House, Boston Public) plays the Detective. Kristen Chenoweth (The West Wing, the original Galinda in Wicked, basic Broadway star and ingenue) plays the Pie Shop Girl in unrequited love with Ned. Swoosie Kurtz (Sisters, general Broadway star, appeared in multiple movies showing either on Lifetime or LMN) takes a turn as one of the spinster aunts. Couldn't ask for richer human scenery--and that's the key to this show: the supporting characters all get a turn at the front so that it's important to have great people in those parts. I love all of them.

This is by no means a laugh-out-loud opportunity. It's quirky, inventive, and shockingly different so that you almost have to switch into a totally different mental gear to appreciate it. But I was fascinated and mesmerized. It's like Teletubbies but for adults. I say give it a try.

(tip: catch up with the full episodes on line before jumping in to the primetime regular show, otherwise it'll be ultra confusing. If anything, at least watch the pilot--it makes the "rules" for Ned's dealing with others clear enough to actually get.)

Samantha Who?

Oh thank God the Monday-night doldrums are finally over. Out of sheer desperation, I tuned into to the new ABC comedy-slash-drama (I shun the word "dramedy" as cliche and trying too hard to be witty--like those celebrity merger names such as "bennifer" and "brangelina" which incidentally sounds very high in fiber) Samantha Who? starring Christina Applegate. Shockingly, I was pleasantly surprised. Although it's new and a show that could possibly become very old very fast (which seems more typical than not these days), the first episode ended and I wanted to continue to tune in, so that's gotta be a good sign. Here's why I think it's worthy for now:

1. The story may be formulaic but the beauty is we don't know it. For the same reason I love F/X's Damages, the facts of this show are doled out to the audience in little interesting pieces that cause the story to twist and turn in unexpected ways. Unlike Damages, however, this is attempting to be funny, not scary--which I appreciate. Whether or not it will be ultimately funny remains to be seen, but I wasn't repulsed by the initial attempt so that's probably a good sign.

2. Great supporting cast. There are some really big tv names showing up on this little newcomer. Of course, Christina Applegate (who's not supporting but actually the lead) has done some great tv in the past (Married...With Children, Jesse). I was also absolutely delighted to see Melissa McCarthy, who played Sookie St. James on Gilmore Girls in addition to Jennifer Esposito who made her tv debut on Spin City and carved a gaping hole in that show when she left (She also had an amazing turn in the movie Crash). Playing Samantha's parents in the show are Jean Smart of Designing Women fame (who is probably one of the most versatile actors I've ever seen) and Kevin Dunn who's played a lot of bit parts in movies. All are familiar faces who have proven to have some comedic timing and an ability to carry comedy throughout a show.

3. Christina Applegate showcases some great hair throughout the show. Her hair is just so *cute*. The little blonde ringlets and rumpled bed-head are almost enough motivation to keep tuning in. How do they get it to do that?

All in all, this show seems to have a little creativity, drama, and possibility for light drama--factors which, taken together, mean it will at very least be interesting. I'm just glad it doesn't follow typical ensemble sit-com format and suggests that the character Samantha had many layers--most not very nice. This dual character-within-a-character set-up compels me to watch at least one more show and then re-evaluate. Check it out: Monday's at 8:30 pm (CST) on ABC.

Restricted "View"

Oh, there are days. And usually, for this show, the days that Barbara Walters appears means nothing good. So this morning, I woke up, stumbled out to my couch (yes at 10 am...so?) and stretched out to tuck into the 20 minutes of on-air hilarity and, at the very least, topical segment aptly-named "hot topics" section of The View, only to see Barbara Walters in all of her "mommy dearest" glory. Accordingly, I sighed with exasperation and braced for the cringing that would staaaaart...now.

Barbara makes no bones about the fact that she often dislikes the topics that get "raunchy" too quickly--topping that list anything sexual in nature (including body parts, even if in a non-sexualized context. Quick story: this morning, Sherri Shepherd was mentioning that she was in a picture with Pamela Anderson. The bottom line of the story was that there were a lot of "boobs" (Sherri's word...well and mine I guess) going on. Barbara insisted they change the topic. Of course that went down like this--Barbara: "We're not discussing this." Sherri: Shocked and scared face.) She's also not fond of criticizing the "celebrati"--Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Lindsay Lohan (other's call them the bimbo summit which seems appropriate). Usually Joy will bring these issues to the table only to have Barbara pull her usual--"Her parents are personal friends of mine...blah blah blah." If you dis the Republicans, you better watch it--Barbara's comin' after ya. If you dis anyone she's interviewed--be careful and watch your back. To summarize: Barbara Walters is a no-sense-of-humor kill-joy who's so deeply involved in ass-kissing the rich and famous that she cannot see the sorry joke she has become.

All of this, then, becomes interesting when juxtaposed with the insane levels of credibility her "journalistic reputation" has granted her over the years. If you're wondering what that consists of just tune in to a show--Barbara usually name-drops like she's getting royalties on the mentions. People trust her as a journalist but on The View she appears ignorant, intolerant, and...well, stupid. No, really. Barbara censors her own show for the same reasons that people want to censor the Internet and the FCC fines networks gajillions of dollars for saying "shit." All of that causes chaos and (gasp) the possibility for free-thinking. And we can't have that--not in Barbara's world--where free-thinking only logically brings about the conclusion that we've been duped for 20 years about the intellectual capacity (or lack thereof) of this woman with a weird accent and a snooty air about her. No, here decorum (read: women are demure and speak when spoken to) counts for a lot. Then I have to wonder how this show is about women. Newsflash Barbara: Women have boobs...and sometimes we wanna talk about 'em.

So, we have The View that once brought women's perspectives (albeit often stereotyped and represented by an archetypal member of the aggregate) to the table in search for their experiences. Apparently, according to Barbara Walters women don't have sex (or don't enjoy it), don't swear, don't question authority, don't criticize others, should not be comfortable discussing underwear, bodily fluids of any sort, body parts in general, or anything that could become "raunchy."

Since when did journalists decide that getting up on their soapbox and claiming the position of "moral authority of the planet" was acceptable? And how in the world does BW become THE person who decides what is acceptable breakfast-table conversation? And how are the all the things she likes to discuss somehow perfectly appropriate? This morning, Barbara called Bill O'Reilly someone she was "fond of." The last time I checked, Bill O'Reilly was an ugly and ignorant bigot who proudly demeans anyone that is not Bill O'Reilly--but apparently that's acceptable conversation? That conversation is more ugly and raunchy than the discussion of any body part I can think of...

Barbara--for god's sake (or should I not say god...does that make someone uncomfortable...)--if you're going to preach to your audience and your panel about what is acceptable publicly these days, you need to give Oprah a call--she can set you up with the ultimate in "queen of the universe" lessons (I believe that comes with a t-shirt from Oprah's favorite "Queen-of-the-universe" t-shirt company as well). Otherwise, sit down and shut the fuck up...and possibly persuade Elizabeth to do the same.

Changing "The View"

So, "The View" has been without a 3rd and 4th seat for awhile and it's time to start fixing that problem. Barbara Walters has been on every day, a situation that I, as faithful "Viewer", find uncomfortable at best. This morning I clicked off the show thinking, "That woman is a credible newssource?!?" So, go figure that on the very day I get annoyed with this situation, my friend Monica sends me this Yahoo news story discussing the possible, nay, probable filling of seats 3 and 4 by none other than Sheri Shepherd, already nearly a regular host, and to my delight, Whoopi Goldberg.

Here's my two cents on such a move: I'm delighted with the thought of Whoopi filling Rosie O'Donnell's seat. Over the past weeks since O'Donnell abruptly left the show, Goldberg's filled in and every time has been great: she's able to maintain the same "edgy voice" as O'Donnell without the brassiness and...well...obnoxiousness. Rosie was good because she stirred things up. But little Ro liked to pick fights and, when Elizabeth was the usual target, it was funny. But sometimes it got old. Based on her past hostings, Whoopi still calls it like it is but in such a way that dialogue is actually encouraged. And I love her voice which ultimately swings my vote to a "two enthusiastic thumbs up".

Shepherd, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. Good point #1: She's funny and quick and able to spar with Joy entertainingly. Bad point#1: Conservative, thus putting her in a supporting role behind the inimitable, unlikable little one-note pixie Elizabeth. Good point #2: She seems to be intelligent and willing to say things that create conversation. Bad point #2: She's scared of Barbara which makes her more-than-likely to do a lot of fence sitting.

Of course, I've been ignoring the elephant in the room up to this point: the View's obviously looking to increase diversity. We know this because, according to the Yahoo article cited above, "The View" has been without a regular black cast member since [Star Jones] Reynolds left, and both Goldberg and Shepherd are black." Thanks Yahoo for clearing that up. Reynolds herself has actually commented on this fact (I don't remember where I heard this...probably FOX News, in between Lindsay and Paris).

Seriously, though...I wonder what the effect of such an "open agenda" will be for viewers. And, if diversity is the goal and these guest spots have been the "auditions," then I'd say the View is more interested in black co-hosts than diversity as I've yet to see any other "categories" of diversity tapped. Frankly, I can't remember there ever being a good cross-section of races and ethniticities represented in guest co-hosts, let alone categories of sexuality. Oddly enough, the only time sexuality is addressed in co-host choices are when Ross the Intern and Mario Cantone guest hosted (on separate days)...pivotal because they were the first men asked to guest co-host; typical because the joke was that they were obviously "two of the girls" (Mario Cantone is openly gay, I couldn't find an official statement from Ross regarding his sexuality).

So, what's up with that, Barbara?