Reality TV Takeover

(Harumph). I'm starting to feel the weight of this writers' strike as my lack of posting is really due solely to the fact that THERE'S NO NEW TELEVISION ON except for reality shows that are even starting to show the stress of lack of creativity. I'm stuck in an endless cycle of re-runs and marathons which were fun for a few weeks but are now making me feel lifeless and lethargic. So, in an attempt to save the pop culture tent from it's dearth of television, I'll give you a quick up date on the shows I have been watching...and re-watching...and re-watching....and re-watching...oh, sorry--I fell into the endless loop again.

Project Runway (BRAVO): I do look forward to this show b/c it's still able to maintain some sense of newness. Finally (half-way through the season), I feel like the people left make sense. I just want to know what kind of good luck potion Ricky's been taking...he should have been gone weeks ago. Everyone else at least creates compelling designs. And Michael Kors just makes me happy. He's just powerful enough to say whatever he wants and people listen, no matter how bitchy. And Tim Gunn, although for awhile seemingly a robotic version of himself, has managed to wittily regain my loyalty. That man does have a big ol' compassionate heart, albeit with a starched collar.

Make Me a Supermodel (BRAVO). No. No I won't. Because this is an awful show. If you want to know how bad, I'll tell you. It makes me regularly think, "Tyra Banks really is talented." Niki Taylor and Tyson Beckford--two of the weirdest, boring-est, plastic animatrons I've ever seen. And who are these dregs of model hopefuls who they found? Bad.

Jon and Kate Plus 8 (TLC). These two (Jon and Kate) wanted three kids and ended up with 8. It's fascinating to watch what family chaos really looks like. And the kids are cute. And Kate's crazy. Not a bad way to spend an hour on Monday evenings.

America's Next Top Model Marathons (MTV, VH1). These have been running non-stop since Christmas and I'm officially running out of desire to watch them. I know every episode now and I do have my favorites, so given the marathon format, I can tune in at certain times to watch my favorites. Serves as a great reminder of just how bad the afore-mentioned modeling show really is.

The Office Rerun's (TBS). I'm just new enough to the series that these reruns are like little gems on Tuesday nights. Like Forrest Gump's box a'chocolates, ya never knaw what yure gonna git.

Scrubs Reruns (Comedy Central). This has been my one savior as I never watched this show when it was actually running on primetime, so it's like a new series to me. JD and the crew--love 'em.

Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew (VH1). Despite it's title and the fact it's on VH1, I haven't found this show necessarily exploitative or disgusting. It's fascinating to watch Dr. Drew Pinsky (of Loveline fame) treat these "celebrity" clients (Joanie Laurer--Chyna Doll--is a stretch on *celebrity* I think) who are withdrawing from a variety of drug addictions. As Dr. Drew says, the point is not to make "trainwreck" tv but to display the reality of rehab and I think this show does that. Is it "iffy" that the star's get paid to do this--yes, but it's VH1--they pay for celebs to lose weight, to live in a house together for no reason, to get married. It's what they do. Of all of these shows, Dr. Drew brings a little credibility and reality (truly) to a painful experience.

And while I'm reaching a point of desperation there are some shows I absolutely refuse to watch no matter what. No condition makes it ever okay to watch:

Rock of Love II with Bret Michaels (VH1). We had to suffer through RoL I and now there's another. The women on this show are disgusting. Bret Michaels is disgusting-er. No. No. No.

American Idol. When will this show go away? A parade of sucky singers being sold as what Americans should want to hear.

Almost anything on E! Now that Ryan Seacrest has his manicured, curiously feminine hands all over that channel, it's like American Idol lite.

Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader? Not if you watch this show.

There's a whole list, but they all look basically the same. Let's just say this: I've never appreciated television writers more than I do at this very moment. Please writers, come back soon!

The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade

Some habits never die. For my family (really for me), the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is an annual ritual. While my mom slaves away in the kitchen making what is certain to be an excellent meal after which I'll drop off into a deep and satisfying coma nap, I'm within shouting distance (in case of kitchen emergency) watching the parade. But even as I sit here, watching a high-school marching band from Kansas play a selection from the nutcracker while their flag corp and dancers are dressed as the little girl (whatshername) and dancing with teddy bears, things are not copacetic. Why is there no joy today? Allow me to break it down:

1. I don't know at least half of the "featured" performers. Since I've been watching, the average age of such gems is about 15 and the word "Nickelodeon" has been thrown around more than several times. Frankly, they don't even look remotely exciting or interesting to me.

2. The best "features" of the parade--the enormous helium balloons and the marching bands--seem few and far between, replaced by crappy tween pop-stars and, well, crappy tween *up-coming* (or so they say) pop-stars. Instead of a festive and felicitous atmosphere, it's now a celebration of mediocrity. (It was always somewhat mediocre, but at least the atmosphere saved it).

3. The loss of Katie Couric as the parade play-by-play gal. Hey, you know--I don't like Katie Couric. But she was perfect for this job--that morning mix of perky and witty. Matt Lauer and (unfortunately) Al Roker don't cut the mustard on their own and Meredith Viera will never be able to fill Katie's annoyingly but perfectly *up* shoes.

4. And last: every musical performer (except the bands, of course) lip-synch. Ever since Tony Bennett royally screwed up "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire" Macy's canned all live-performances (literally) including the Broadway Show(let)s. So now instead of watching and hoping for these pre-teen tartlets to bite it while also looking forward to the prospect of getting to hear really excellent performers live, we get to watch people (poorly) attempt to matching their lip movements to their own song. The only joy I can try to find is waiting for the performer to stumble so that it appears that their voice is dis-embodied. See, it doesn't even sound fun.

So, I'm considering shopping for a new Thanksgiving tradition. While I have never objected to the overt consumerism or exploitation of Macy's workers in the name of an excellent parade, the fact that it now has lost any prior sense of entertainment is the last straw. I'm open for suggestions...be in touch if you have any.

Unnecessary Apocalypse Now

I'm starting to have a huge issue with The Weather Channel. I know, I know..it's harmless enough, right? "Your Weather on the 8s" is nothing but informative and convenient. The meteorologists are appropriately perky in the morning and sympathetic during a weather crisis. Jim Cantore has spent years and has finally reached his goal of making weather fun- slash-exciting-slash-scary. He single-handedly made weather "manly" and I say good for Jim--it's obviously important to him. I'm from the Midwest and it's what we talk about. I talk to my mom and literally the conversation opener is "What's the weather like?" With my dad it's not just an opener--it's a running theme in every discussion and decision he makes. Let's just say I grew up on The Weather Channel, watching it as a regular program even before they started producing their own shows. I know. Seriously.

So, you can imagine the ire I have to have to speak about TWC with such strong language and it's over this show:

I just happened to come home and turn on the tv which is usually set to Channel 43 (TWC) and I saw the most amazing devastation in Miami. The voice over was talking about the majorly devastating hurricane that hit the city, crippling it by destroying it's infrastructure and killing thousands. I panicked. "Oh my god...this is tragic," I was thinking, stunned, until I figured out that it was a show about hypothetically what would happen if such a hurricane hit the city. Other episodes include "What would happen if a tornado hit Chicago," "A 8.0 Earthquake in San Francisco," and "A Tornado in Dallas." It took me a couple minutes to recover from my initial panic and then I thought, "Why exactly do we need such a show?"

There's a couple issues here: First, TWC has become a news channel about the weather. They have the best coverage of natural disasters in terms of fact gathering. I trust what they say when they're covering a story (the tsunami would be one example). I don't need them (nor want them) to tell me the horrors of disasters that haven't happened. Second, what other purpose than fear is there to discussing such things? I'm worried enough that my apartment with inexplicably catch on fire or something will blow up outside--I don't need the added stress of guessing what the destruction will look like if a tornado blows through here. Third, the most annoying part of this show is that there's no story of how the places are getting ready for such disasters or if that's even possible. The end of every episode is "and the city ceased to exist, the [insert weather phenomenon here] leaving death and destruction in its wake." That is NOT acceptable.

I've got enough to worry about on a daily basis. If you're going to tell me tales of destruction I can't control or ward off, you can save it Weather Channel. I'll just watch my "Weather on the 8s" and get the heck out of there. In fact, just tell me it'll be sunny. That's really all I want from you.

It Begins!

Oh man, I wait every tv season for the next installment of The Amazing Race. This show is *amazing* and here's why:

1) Teams travel all over the world and we can watch it from the comfort of our own homes. I've seen amazing things while sitting under my down blanket and munching cookies. It's the best kind of travel ever. Are there delays? Yes. Travel stress? Yes. Do I feel any of it? No...I sit and watch how crazy it looks when someone else feels it.

2) The teams. The format is such that they start with 11 2-person teams and each week (except for 3 installments) one team gets eliminated. But the teams chosen range from your "Average Joes" to "some of the weirdest freaks ever to be broadcast on prime time." This year my favorites include a 23-year old and his grandpa, 2 lesbians who are married and are ordained clergy (nothing like stacking up the interesting social factors), and a Goth couple from Kentucky (is there such a thing?). Then, of course, there are the dating couples and the "blonde bimbo" teams. Awesome.

3) Mix the above with this element of competition and things get interesting. Often the travel woes make the competition exciting and nail-biting. The best way to watch this show is to pick a team at the beginning and root for them--it keeps you invested in the competition. Oh, and if it's possible to watch with others it only ups the excitement factor. If you're totally not into the first couple episodes, don't panic. Right around the 4th leg, everybody's exhausted and people start saying incredibly mean and/or funny things to their partners. Tears start rolling and very often whining's involved. It doesn't sound fun but somehow any viewer with a soul and a travel experience gets sucked in.

4) "The editing is phenomenal." It is. It always looks like teams are rolling in to the "pit stop" right after each other, sometimes actually running to beat the team ahead of them when in actuality they were 13 hours behind. Genius.

5) Phil Keoghan. He's australian. He's hot. And he's *mysterious* in that completely "Phil" sorta way. You have to watch to understand but I'll provide some clue right here:See how cute he is?

Check it out--you won't be sorry! CBS Sunday nights at 7pm or after 60 Minutes which is almost always delayed because of football. (Tonight it started at 7:20).

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.

Aaaaannnd...Iiiiii'm.... Ready to Take a Chance Again

...Ready to put my love on the line...with you. (Thanks Barry Manilow for the opening song)

Okay, so as I'm sitting here sweating out the Cleveland Indians Game 3 in the series with the Yankees, I was blazing through the channels, dealing with sub-par Monday night programming when I stumbled upon No Reservations. After deep consideration, I decided to stick with it--Tony's in Brazil (in a re-run), drinking caipirinhas and feasting on traditional Brazilian dishes in Sao Paolo...and he was a different person. Despite being hung-over from an over-abundance of caipirihnas, Tony was happy, he looked healthy and content and was drooling all over the food as he chowed down in a tiny dining room of a local woman, decorated with multiple crucifixes and a wall painted orange.

And here's where I've decided: Tony requires the new and exotic to be happy. He's a 50-year-old chef with ADD who thrives on traversing lands that serve as homes to bugs (and spiders) the size of your head. He's happier--and edgier--drinking a cocktail in Peru made from yuca fermented with spit than being content eating delicious meals made with fresh but conventional ingredients somewhere in the contiguous United States. He sneered at Las Vegas. He mocked Cleveland. (I'm not sure what he did in South Carolina, but my guess is that if he liked it, he treated it as an exotic "other country.") Why? Because they were not "authentic" (gasp...I hate that word) in the sense that they were nothing new to him. He seems most impressed when he's just floored by the surroundings because they're new and so different and they kick his ass in someway. Thus, when he's in Cleveland, he has to find the sewer surfers and suck Twinkie cream from a warehouse pipe--because in some way those things will assault his senses...or his sensibility.

But, whether I'm just rationalizing (very possible) or really on to something, I have a question: Tony...why does the local experience of people around the United States require a sneering while local experiences of other countries are the "real thing"? If a place doesn't beat all 6'5" of the lanky you--yes you, Tony--then is it not worthy...or is it just what you consider fake...or commercial...or (gasp) touristy? And we all hate all of those things sometimes (my personal beef is with Walmart but who's counting) , but does it mean that they're not real? Does it mean the food or the atmosphere or the people who create it are somehow less?

As I watch the start of the next episode, Tony's on a mission to find the real Puerto Rico. He said it himself--the Puerto Rico only found by hanging with the locals. And while I get and actually agree that we cannot take an already touristy place (like Cleveland?) at face value to understand the "real" experience of it, what I don't understand, then, is the lack of interest--or abject disdain-- for the "real" experience of people living in Las Vegas or Cleveland or South Carolina (or wherever). Is it because it's not real--or it's just not exciting?

If "exciting" and "real" are what Tony's after, then I think the show needs a name change--because those obviously constitute "Reservations."

But, just for the record Tony, we're friends again.

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.

Social Experiments...No. Social Exploitation...Yes.

I've been annoyed in the past couple weeks at the categorization of shows like Kid Nation and Beauty and the Geek as "interesting social experiments." These are NOT social experiments; experiments have some method, a sense of ethical grounding, and an outcome of furthering our understanding of something. Let's call them as they are: Lame attempts by morally wayward television networks to play up fabricated, stressful, and often exploitative social environments in such a way that seems socially relevant. The only relevance is that the networks somehow assume that we'll take these to be as "interesting" as they do. Let's deconstruct both so that you can decide for yourself, shall we:

Kid Nation is CBS's brainchild. A show that transplants 40 kids, ranging in age from 8-15, in a deserted "Western Town" to "see what they'll do." I object on several levels, but most of all on the fact that "see what they'll do" has been obviously directed by creating a Survivor-like game that further splits the group into "tribes" who competes to see who gets to be what class for that week. The winners call the shots, while the losers basically become the slaves, cleaning the latrines and doing the other unsavory work. Lord of the Flies this is not. By virtue of "the game," the kids automatically fall into a very clear hierarchy of status, basically dictating the ways in which the winners will treat the losers. Just to add a little something extra, a town council--4 "very special" children chosen by CBS for their "leadership abilities" get to award a gold star (literally a gold block worth it's weight--$20,000--to the best kid.) So, we now must consider the rift that this individual prize can inflict on the tribes. SUMMARY: To ensure this group of kids is really rotten to each other, all of their social interactions have been dictated by an economic class structure imposed on them, which ultimately will mean kids crying and in pain on television for the whole country to watch. Well done, CBS--I didn't think we could sink any lower than the race-divided Survivor season, but I think we've achieved that here.

Not to be outdone, another fine season of Beauty and the Geek premiered last week on the CW.
As the graphic shows, this fine offering by none other than executive producer Ashton Kutcher, pairs nerdy guys (self titled) with hot-but-stupid girls. The idea is to see who can win the prize at the end by employing savvy teamwork (anytime thinking is involved, the geek's the go to guy; if the challenge involves waxing of any sort, the beauty's up to bat). Again, this is only a social experiment if we are learning something and, alas, we're actually getting stupider watching this show. More disturbing, these qualities are treated as essentials so that all the girls are assumed to be dumb, and play the role well, while the guys couldn't be more socially awkward. Watching this show makes it impossible not to laugh at and not with the boys, which makes it no better than Kid Nation. You just get the sense that somehow the boys think they'll now be cool for having been on this show--that it will change something for them socially. It doesn't. The girls still think they're disgusting.

This is my point of departure from the "social experiment" nomenclature. Nothing learned, nothing gained, and in fact, our own ideas about these social labels only become more embedded--more condoned--than ever before. What I really don't like about these shows that I feel is different from other reality-show games is that the intention is to exploit how socially unknowing these people are. It's as heartbreaking, sometimes, as watching the Average Joe finale--another great example of taking advantage of someone on tv.

And that's exactly what this is: Dangling a modest amount of money at groups of people who need something (kids who need the money for their families or guys who need the money to feel like they're socially acceptable) and then asking them to debase themselves for the whole country to laugh at...it's not cool. And it's certainly not a social experiment. I happen to be in the business of social experiments and I can tell you without doubt that this is very simply and clearly exploitation. The problem is, that word is just so hard to make look good on a commercial or on a billboard.

Kenneth, Where Have You Been All My Life?

I'm not proud to admit that before the Emmy's this year, I really gave Tina Fey's 30 Rock no notice. It wasn't a purposeful neglecting...it was merely a show that fell on a historically bad tv night for me (Thursdays...on which I always have class for 4 hours). But the fact that they were awarded an Emmy made me think that maybe it was time to pay the good folks over at the sitcom about SNL (basically) some attention. So last night, armed with a little sauvingnon blanc and a towel (as it was 90 degrees here) I sat in front of my computer and watched nearly 5 hours of full episodes on line starting at the beginning. And it was good.

This, like The Office, took a little time to catch on probably because it's SO smart that most people don't get it. Tina Fey's Liz Lemon is endearing and real in a world that is built to make money. I'm guessing most of Fey's greatness both in this part and in the writing comes directly from her experience as head writer at SNL--I believed the relationships shown on screen. Alec Baldwin is always a tour de force and he doesn't disappoint here as the corporate-loving executive producer of the show. I was most worried about the Tracy Morgan (on the show Tracy Jordan) part simply because I never warmed to Morgan when he was on SNL. Again, I was surprised--he's incredibly nuanced playing a character that serpentines between hardcore insanity (literally mental illness) and tender moments of lucidity. He's a much better actor in this format than he was in a sketch comedy format.

All of this is great, but Kenneth steals this show. Jack McBrayer brilliantly plays Kenneth the Page, the NBC go-fer for the show. His sweet naivete in the midst of this zany but deeply smart, often sarcastic, writers room scenario provides the perfect foil; his wide-eyed enthusiasm for "the business" that leaves bitter, washed-up stars in its wake keeps things fresh and new--and hysterical. Truth be told, I love Kenneth and and I think he plays a hugely important role in the success of this show.

My only disappointment in this whole thing is Jane Krakowski, replacing one of my SNL favorites Rachel Dratch, as the campy star-now-second-banana to Tracy Jordan. She's had great moments in the sun, including her entire run on Ally McBeal, but sadly times have changed and her character--the one she plays on every show--doesn't. It's the same old, one-dimensional blonde bimbo. Meanwhile, Dratch is making the most of her small character guest spots (the granola-eating cat trainer, the Latina maid hiding in the closet on a stolen yacht) but it still feels like too little compensation for being passed-over for what was her and now is Krakowski's role. Dratch could have given it a lot more.

Otherwise, I've concluded that 30 Rock is, indeed, "must see tv" on Thursday nights and, despite my class schedule, the VCRs warmed up and ready to the task. Watch it. It's good.

Tim Gunn is da Man

For those of us who ADORE Stacey and Clinton on TLC's What Not to Wear, the Bravo show Tim Gunn's Guide To Style may have seemed like television plagiarism. On WNTW, rapier-witted Stacey London and cute and compassionate (and very tall) Clinton Kelly, both stylists, spend an hour transforming a fashion dimwit into a new, sleeker fashion self. Touting the fashion adages of "great fit" and "silhouette," Stacey and Clinton have wracked up seasons of wins--I've never watched a show that ended up badly. The ugly duckling always looks like a swan at the end, even if the process has proven obnoxious. To help with the new look, Nick Arrojo recreates the hair (which can be and usually is the most dramatic part of the show) and make-up artist Carmindy, somewhat dimwitted herself, helps to complete the transformation.

Compare this to TGGTS: Tim, former artistic director at Parson's School of Design and a break-out fan favorite on Bravo's Project Runway, and famous supermodel Veronica Webb help transform a fashion misfit into a fashion maven by 1) ransacking the misfit's closet 2) rummaging through the underwear drawer 3) sending them out with rules to follow in picking up a 10-piece "core" of the new wardrobe 4) getting them new hair and make-up and 5) finishing off with an exciting "reveal." I watched one show partially and turned it off, spurning the obvious copying of WNTW, a show for which I have undying love.

BUT

Upon another viewing, I think TGGTS actually offers some unique qualities to fashion reality-tv that are both entertaining and, dare I say, heartwarming. I could go into very serious detail, but it all comes down to the person of Tim Gunn and what a one-of-a-kind eclectic bird he is. I grew to love Tim on Project Runway because he's a perfect mix of critical eye, fashion snob, with a compassionate heart, and a great sense of humor. Tim's a teacher...but one who practices tough love. He is a rare bird--and I think I might mean literally because he does kinda strike me as a bird (shrug...I don't know)

So here's why everyone should give this show a chance:
Tim Gunn is funny pulling out phrases like "it's the slobbification of America" and my personal favorite, in critiquing an oddly patterned dress, "it looks like it came straight out of the vomitorium." The best part is that it appears he's slapping the wrists of the horrible designers of such fashion horrors and not the suckers who just think they're looking good in flared camouflage cargo capris.
Veronica Webb is a great 2nd Unlike WNTW, Veronica is neither a stylist or a designer; she's just a wearer of clothes (albeit a model) but she presents this very mother-like quality that's comforting. She does a lot of shopping with the misfit which clearly comforts them but allows the misfit to build on some guidance and not just have it be a game.
There are lots of famous names. It's clear that Tim Gunn doesn't mess around with up-and-comers. He, with his impeccable taste, teaches the misfit himself, they go shopping with Verionica, he calls in a lot of designer friends to provide beautiful clothes to fit every misfit that has appear and hair is done by none other than Frederic Fekkai. This is varsity WNTW and it's fun.

Bottom line: there is a distinct place for both these shows. Though they follow the same formula, they're distinct and accomplish different things for the mostly women who participate. Check it out. It's worth it.

Top Chef--The End Is Near

Thanks to the fact that Bravo reruns Top Chef episodes hourly, I was able to catch the next episode which is the last from the finale. Frankly, I'm still reeling from the fact that CJ was ceremoniously showed the door a couple weeks ago; with him exited my own personal choice for the winner. CJ not only made beautiful food (which I can only assume smelled and tasted delicious) but he was awfully cute and incredibly tall. As a character on an unscripted, competition-based show, CJ was one of my favorite people by far. Anyway, CJs gone and I'm trying to get over it.

So who's left. Hung who possesses in his being the heart of darkness. Casey who's the pretty home-town Texas girl with no classical training. Dale the Chicago, supposedly "edgy" gay chef (we know because he's reminded us hundreds of times) who contributes...well, I'm not sure. It always seems like he should be better than he is. Brian, the chef who only makes fish and generally makes it mediocre...and who's basically a tool. And Sara who is a cheese chef and not really up to snuff.

Here's the problem with this show as I see it at this point: It's boring and not in any way a run for Top Chef. Every week looks more like, "Who sucked bad enough to go home." This week Sara was the one who bit it (for serving raw chicken to the major deans of the French Culinary Institute). She was not a Top Chef.

But the problem is that none of them really are. From here on out I'll root for Casey; she could be the first female winner of Top Chef. BUT...she clearly is not "a top chef." She's just the most likable left. And I HATE THAT in a show that promises amazing things...like Season 1 delivered in Harold.

Tony, Tony, Tony...You've Hurt Me

Dear Tony,
My dear, sarcastic-yet-lovable and awesome Tony. I write this with regret because up until now I've loved you unconditionally. I've laughed at every dig you've landed at the often dim-witted contestants on Top Chef. I've read your blog as though a religion unto itself. I've praised your style and awkwardly good-looks to friends of mine. I felt a connection.

But we need to talk. About what you did to and with Cleveland on No Reservations not so long ago. I remember fondly the day I heard you would be traveling to my beloved homeland to, what I assumed would be, showcase the ways in which the city has hung in during hard times. I was sure you'd hang in up-and-coming Tremont, venture up and around the Case Western Campus, and check out the bohemian shades of Coventry. I couldn't wait to see it. I was thrilled that you would revel in the unique cuisine in a city dominated by countless varieties of Slavic and Eastern European cultures.

And then I saw the show. And my heart broke. And then I got angry. Instead of celebrating the city, which is in dire need of some celebration, you took your size 12-cowbooted foot dangling off that impossibly lanky leg and gave it a sharp kick like a dog on the ground. Not only do you start the start off at Skyline Chili which is 1) a fast food chain 2) FROM CINCINATTI but then you proceed to find the crazy, anti-social Harvey Pekar as your personal tour-guide and SYMBOL of the entire CITY. Of course you met up with Toby, apparently the one friend of Pekar and Cleveland's version of Rainman, to guide you to the Free Stamp only to stand and make fun of it. Clearly relevant because all Clevelanders must harbor some degree of autism and general weirdness. But wait, I forgot to mention the visit to the Sewer Surfers, numbering in the 10s of Clevelanders--most of them transplants from other surfing-friendly climates, who themselves have not embraced the city. Every Clevelander I know 1) wouldn't step foot in Lake Erie 2) in February or really any other month for that matter. Of course, there was also the lame drag race in the broken down warehouse district just to make sure the desolation and down-troddeness of the city that you repeatedly claimed you loved showed through.

And then, only after all other shenanigans had been exhausted, there was the food. As an afterthought to stomping on the apparently cobbled-together inferior culture, that included the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that you hated not only in reality but also on principle, of what clearly for you is "the mistake on the lake" (despite the deep and abiding love you professed repeated), you ate a couple things. Cincinatti chili, a beer chilled by the snow over by the sewer drain, and just for good measure, pure aerated high fructose corn syrup from a pipe in a book warehouse that once produced Twinkies. I was particularly glad you showcased this as that is so typical of Clevelanders--nothing says a good end to the day like a shot of 30-year-old Twinkie filling straight from the pipe. Ah, but that's Cleveland for ya. While you did head over the the University Inn for some home-cooking that actually spoke a sentence about the ethnic background that still pervades and defines Cleveland down-home cooking, you completely glossed over the greatness that is Michael Symon and "Lola" both as a culinary destination and as a cornerstone of innovation and a breath of life in what is the slowly-rebuilding cultural scene. Of course, how could you concentrate when Jimmy Ramone was stuffing his face as though he'd never eaten before. And just to make sure that the slap on the face you were intending to serve up held its sting long enough to make it meaningful, as the great culmination of this expedition--YOU COOKED AT HOME with two things you bought at the famous West Side Market. Conclusion: Nothing says Cleveland like " I'm going to run away from the depressing and apparently slightly retarded social fabric of the city and escaping to a rich friend's house in the suburbs to cook for myself and try to forget I'm in Cleveland." Well done. Bravo.

Truly, Tony, congratulations. For a man who prides himself on seeking out, exploring and celebrating the uniqueness of every place you visit, you managed, in grand fashion, to mimic exactly what every other influential person has done to this city and thus personally contributed to its continuing depression. Now you're just another asshole on tv who questions an investment in the city thereby questioning the value of the people who love it and call it home. Frankly, save it. Oh, and please--I'm begging--do us a favor and don't come back.

We are so totally not speaking right now.

America's Next Top Model Cycles Back

THANK GOD the new fall tv season is about to get underway. I've about had it with stale re-runs and the heinous omni-presence of According to Jim which is a whole different post. So, to celebrate the return of America's Next Top Model I thought I'd outline the pros and cons to watching what is blatantly and unapologetically my favorite brand of brain candy. (The following reflections could not be possible without MTV's fantastic choice to air two ANTM marathons back-to-back a couple weekends ago--cycle 3 on Saturday and cycle 7 on Sunday).

PRO1: The product of this show is something I consider art. Now, I don't consider the show art--that's something very different but the photoshoots they do are often strikingly beautiful and fascinating to watch. Talk about taste cultures.

CON1: It's addictive. Often one show isn't enough and if a marathon does happen to pop up on MTV or VH1, the whole day is just shot. This, I think, is a consequence of the competition aspect. Modeling can be fierce...apparently.

PRO2: Mr. and Ms. Jay. Jay Manuel is the artistic director of the photoshoots who actually teaches these bizarrely awkward girls, hailing from every po-dunk town around the country, to be models in their own right. His critique often ranges from purring a "That was beauuuutiful, Jontelle" (the names of these girls...I swear they're made up) to "Lurice...tha's just UGLY, girrrl." I love Mr. Jay with his bleach blonde hair and his half-open hindu inspired blouse (and yes, it's a blouse). He, like Tyra, (and Oprah) possesses the ability to morph instantaneously between sophisticated fashionista and tough-talking ghetto punk. Now, Ms. Jay is another story. The famous runway trainer who taught Tyra to stomp, Ms. Jay is the absolute cutest 6'4" (6'8" in heels, which he frequently wears) black man to ever appear in pigtails. He's often coiffed (last season it was a beehive inspired do) or weaved, wears dresses with heels, and stomps a fierce runway. The Jays are amazing.

CON2: ANTM has become the platform on which Tyra is becoming as unbearable as Oprah. Routinely, she gets all righteous on the girls and says something that starts with, "When I was..." By my count, Tyra's in her early 30s which means she's too young to pull that. She's also full of contradictions. She'll chastise a girl(no, seriously...they might as well be boxed on the ears) for gaining weight and then yell at Janice Dickinson for calling the same girl "fat." Janice is an obnoxious pig--everybody knows that including her. Tyra tries to play both sides of the coin. Not good.

PRO3: Watching this show is a gateway to knowing and seeing the fashion world. Tyra doesn't mess around with unknown designers and stylists. These girls *become* the world of fashion, they end up with a "book" of photos they can use, and meet important people. It's the ultimate in networking for which every one of those contestants that makes it to the house (top 13) should be VERY appreciative.

CON3: This show has made fashion modeling seem like a desirable and achievable career for any skinny chick who might be scooping ice-cream or brewing coffee right now. It's the desirable part that gets me. Many of those girls say things like, "I've known I wanted to model since I was 12." Is that good? Isn't it basically saying, "I've known that I want to be objectified and judged on my physical attributes, posing in a variety of questionable clothing in the name of a haughty and socially irrelevant business since I was 12." Why do we perpetuate and, in this case, encourage what seems ultimately a despicable and shallow business. Then again, I'm in academics and maybe that's not much different.

Anyway, despite any pro or con, I will be watching (actually taping) the first episode of Cycle 9 which proclaims to be the "future of fashion." With a tag line like that, how could I stay away?

Wonder-ful Sesame Street

Alright, so my friend Jacob makes an excellent point. After the last post I left on James Blunt appearing on Sesame Street, Jacob sent me this:

Now I really don't know what to think about Sesame Street as I completely don't remember this at all. Stevie Wonder, circa 1970s, is singing "Superstition" on this show for kids and makes no excuses. He jams the whole song that is about seven minutes while the little kids in the background, apparently residents of "the Street" flail wildly or, at the very least, keep the beat: okay, okay, they're jiving. That could have been me.

So, now, to me the question gets even more complex: Stevie Wonder in the 70s sings "Superstition" (which I thought was excellent upon the revisiting) in a concert format with his whole band there, including the saxophones (really, what were the 70s if they weren't about the saxes). Meanwhile, in aut-7 we've got James Blunt singing about Euclidian geometry in his revised version of a song I just happen to hate, helped by Telly. Are the effects different for children? Obviously, I remember the "Numbers song" and not Stevie Wonder. Is this the same for James Blunt, do you suppose?

And, of course, I'm assuming these appearances then, become much more important in attracting the parents to turn on Sesame Street. If it comes to turning on Teletubbies which kids love but freaks parents out with that weird "baby in the sun" thing or Sesame Street which features the hottest bands and celebs, deemed so by the parents, then is it really good fun for everybody?

My issue is this: my guess is that I learned to dance (gulp) from Steve Wonder on SS. I got up in my little toddler velour outfit--horizontally striped of course--and busted it out. But Stevie didn't teach me anything other than how to groove. Thus, today, when I hear "Superstition" I'm still willing to bust it out, although I need more coaxing today than I probably did then. However, when I hear "Euclidian geometry" I think of Mrs. Strunk who was my high school geometry teacher and who slaved away to teach me what a hypoteneuse was and why I needed to know it. She had those answers. Did I rely on her to teach me how to groove--no, that was Stevie's territory. I think we have a lack of bracketing in this world: James Blunt may be an expert at whining in song (and if you've heard his songs you know that's true) BUT my guess is he's not an expert at Euclidian geometry. So what's he doing singing about triangles? We're setting up a weird system of legitimacy that goes something like this:

Celebrities know Everything.
James Blunt* is a Celebrity.
--------------------------------
James Blunt knows Everything
Thus, he must know about Euclidian geometry

*(Substitute your favorite celebrity's name here; I could see this working with Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Madonna--especially those that have adopted "very important" humanitarian causes as those they invented them.)

The Stevie Wonder appearance on SS wouldn't fit using this syllogism, because the assumptions were different back then: Stevie Wonder was the guy who played awesome music who had that weird head-wave thing. No one assumed he knew anything other than music, thus he was a legitimate source for music. Nothing should be different with James Blunt, but I feel like this show made it different. There is a world full of math teachers ready to be called up for SS duty--who would love to tell all those little tots in their Baby Phat velour jumpsuits what a triangle is. Did they appear on the show? No. They were Blunted. And they should be as inexplicably angry as I am.

Frankly, I'm still abhorred by the fact that we feel the need to introduce three year-olds to Euclidian geometry via the triangle (for the record, the song actually included the word "hypoteneuse" which upon hearing I broke out into a rash). I guess the introduction of the concept of "celebrity" is all the same. But let me warn everyone: I am a product of Sesame Street in the 70s...and now I write this blog...about celebrity and pop culture. I am a testament to the effects of that early introduction. But at least I can thank Mrs. Strunk, who is not a celebrity, for teaching me legitimate things about math--in school.

Blunt Message on Sesame Street

I was fascinated on several accounts: 1) I thought the re-imagining of the song was pretty hilarious, including the harmony provided by Telly. 2) I was surprised to see James Blunt, who I don't particularly consider "kid friendly" singing about one of my favorite Euclidian shapes (and I actually wondered if he even knew who Euclid was) and 3) I was horrified that now a whole generation of youngsters would forever hum and sing the melody of that damn "Angel" song which now will invade my dreams for at least the next two weeks.

Clearly times have changed. When I watched Sesame Street as a member of the target audience, we used to sing "The numbers" song (jivey one-two-three-FOUR-five, six-SE-ven-eight-nine-ten...E-LE-VEN-twelve) and other made up tunes. Mine never included a discussion of Euclidian geometry and/or James Blunt. Furthermore, a little investigation told me that this is usual M.O. for sesame street--to have whoever the "it" people of the day are on to either interact with the puppets, sing, or rap, all the while talking about what great friends they are to the residents of Sesame Street.

Honestly, this makes me feel a little dirty. Nothing like marketing music and movies directly to the kids. Maria and Gordon weren't good enough--no, now we have to have Lindsay Lohan on telling the kids that drugs are bad or James Blunt singing about triangles. WHAT IS JAMES BLUNT'S RELATIONSHIP TO TRIANGLES??? This just seems very wrong; let's keep those fertile minds focused on what's important: Celebrity.

Yuck.

"Top Chef" is Lowdown

Top Chef producers and judges, I just have one bone to pick--that's right I have a beef. You people are all chicken. (cramming in as many food idioms as I can): The "Restaurant Wars" episode this season (3) was not good. Here's why:

1. There's no such thing as a "do-over." Yes, both teams equally sucked on the first go around. Dale screwed up on the scented candles, Howie made disgusting risotto. So judge them on that!!! You've only been saying all season, "We have to judge them based on what they've done tonight." Instead, on this one episode, you put that rule aside immediately and gave them another go-around.

2. You gave them a crappy designer and sicced the winner of the QuickFire with Steven from last season. Master sommelier or not, that dude is 100% hindrance. He was that way on his own season. You really think it helped by having him run his yap again... to the point that Dale had to tell him to shut it. It was like baby-sitting a guy with a free-run of the wine cellar.

3. Tre got the boot. This is my biggest annoyance. He was a great chef and to have Howie and Casey standing there while Tre goes home...please. Somebody step in and do something. At the end of the show, there's a disclaimer that reads that contestants are eliminated based on the judges' decisions in consultation with the producers. When you kick a guy off like Tre (Padma, are you listening?) it makes it easy to enact the Conspiracy Theory offensive. Is there a coincidence that Howie, who's made questionable food and been up for elimination many times, also happens to make great television while Tre, who's been solid since day one, happens to be a little less, shall we say, "televisonally appealing." (Buddy Tre is totally boring...that's the problem). Casey who's all homespun and everything (the only chef not formally trained (Tre was the other...hmmm)...as was evidenced in the Chopping Onions Debacle of '07 on Wednesday) gets a huge amount of screen time. Why? Her cooking ability? I think not...she's a cute girl with an unfortunate hair-do (in my humble opinion) from Texas (perhaps also unfortunate)...that's why. C'mon.

4. Executive Chef's get all the blame. Another problem. While I understand leadership skills are important, in this case Tre and Sara Mair took the "heat" for whatever went right or wrong in their kitchen. (And Sara did deserve all the credit she got for dealing with Howie who is an ass...lovable maybe but still a complete, utter ass.) However, the problem with just holding them accountable is that it's allowed slackers like Casey and even CJ (who I love) to 'skate' through to this level. Other "team leaders" who were much more talented (from what I could see) were kicked off much earlier in the competition while their team members almost got a free pass because they weren't in charge. This is how we have Casey, who can't chop onions, still here.

I love this show. It is good tv. But let 'em cook and judge 'em fair. If the whole disaster that was the "first" Restaurant Wars challenge got another chance, then Tre should get one too.

"Damages" Kills Me Softly

I'm always thrilled with this show and frankly I've glowed enough about it. It's the best written thing I've ever seen. The story just gets better and better. I'm hanging on my seat for the entire hour of the show and then the following 144 hours in the week until the next show. But it's that last part that's gonna get me this week.

The last show was all about Tom (Tate Donovan) who realizes through others and finally in himself that he needs Patty Hewes, as evil and conniving as she is. He's a #2 man who needs that person out there who's the #1. A hard lesson for any effective #2 whose thinking about striking out on his own.

We got more insight into Katie (who seems totally screwed up), they still want us to like Patty who reveals that she's a lawyer because she was tired of getting bullied...by her father. Things aren't looking good for Gregory--he gets the snot beat out of him in the alley by thugs working for the dude with the baby carriage. Frobisher thinks he's out of the woods but we, the viewers, know he's so not. David and Ellen make up...sorta. Ellen's starting to break under the pressure of working 20 hour days (possible for Satan) and planning a wedding and keeping a relationship afloat.

See, things are getting good. So here's what kills me.

"Tune in to the new episode on Tuesday, September 4."

"Wait a minute...wait just a cotton-pickin' minute. That's two weeks away. Two weeks! TWO WEEKS!?!" If you're counting, that's 288 hours. And that's not fair.

Proving, in fact, that Damages is all love and hugs one minute and then will turn around and kick ya in the shins. I should have taken Patty Hewes' advice before now: Trust no one. Not even the scheduler of this show...

My Friend Jacob

"I need your regular address. Don't argue, just send it."

This was the directive e-mailed to me about a week ago from my across-the-country partner in crime (opposed to my in-town partners in crime), Jacob. Jacob and I are both captains in the Pop Culture army--we have different takes but I think what is a mutual love of pop culture, having bonded over such wonderful pop culture items as Homicide: Life on the Street, Indiana Jones Movies and a baseball game (Jacob, what's it called?) that we played on playstation (?) for hours every night. He introduced me to Bruce Campbell of Army of Darkness fame (for which I'm eternally grateful and who, coincidentally is on Burn Notice on USA) and, while I can't be sure what effect I've had on him (he's usually light years ahead of me in terms of finding new things), if he's watching Damages I'm taking credit for that. Anyway, back to the story.

"I've sent you something," he tells me via e-mail.
Not usually one for completely unbridled surprises, especially when I've been commanded to fork over my street address which I try to keep private so the stampeding tens of people I know can be kept at bay.
"Okay, if it's a wedding announcement, I'm gonna need a heads up b/c I need time to adjust to that, " I write back, hoping to gain some modicum of control back in this *crazy* surprise scenario.
"No, it's better than that. Look for it in the mail in a couple days."
"Oh God."

So Wednesday I reappear in town after a week away and open my tiny cubby of a mailbox to find an Amazon box wedged in so tightly that extracting it became possibly as complicated as open heart surgery. (I stood there and tugged with the weight of my whole body needed to pry it out of there...at one point I thought I would rip the front off of all the mailboxes which would have been a good story...unlike this one). Anyway, I think, "Oooh...Amazon. Did he send me a book? Is there something I've been hinting that I want? What can possibly be so important and urgent that he buy it for me rather than just telling me to get up off my lazy ass and go and get it?" Trying to keep my cool after nearly destroying 50 mailboxes, I ran upstairs and dove in with an enthusiasm enough to shred the packing. "What can this BE!"

And here's what I found:And my heart exploded with joy. For several reasons:

1. This is an awesome television show (I've heard)...
2. That I've never seen...
3. That I've been meaning to watch for years...
4. That I can now watch tomorrow...
5. And the day after...and the day after...and the day after...with no late fees...
6. or commercials....
7. That I can write about here...in this forum.

Oh man. Good ol' Jake was right. This is totally better than any wedding announcement. To thank him, Jacob has officially been added to my will (all my Indians paraphernalia and 50 cents, which invested wisely is a potential fortune). Thanks Jake.

And look for BG posts in the future. I'm so excited I can barely contain myself!

"Top Chef" is Tops

There truly are a lot of reasons to love Bravo's "Top Chef."It's awesome reality television. Here's why the recipe works:

1. Really interesting food challenges. It's been progressive across the seasons; now in it's third season, we're seeing some really cool food prepared beautifully (I'm sure it smells awesome--if only they'd hurry up with that "smell-i-vision" idea) but under impossible time and/or budget constraints. The contestants have to rise to the challenge consistently--and usually they do.

2. Tom Colicchio as the "head judge." This guy is a great mixture of gruff Burgess Meredith in Rocky ("C'mon Roc!) and really refined and respected opinions in the food world. He makes great television because he does not appear elitist--he might be finicky and an utter nightmare to work for (which is strictly hypothetical--I have no idea) but we'd never know it. Other judges from the culinary world appear "bitchy." Not Tom. Not only do I trust what he says but he also rocks the "Mr. Clean" look that just makes him so darn cute. I'd love to sit down and have lunch with Tom.

3. A stable of past contestants involved in the current season. Leanne Wong (Season 1) is the food producer (she devises the menu/rules for the challenges and tests them) and she's really brought the level of cooking up with demanding yet really innovative challenges. Both Harold Dieterle (Season 1 Winner and my overall TC favorite) writes an incredible blog responding to the most recent episode as does fan-favorite Sam Talbot (Season 2 Final Four). While I don't read them, Ilan Hall (Season 2 Winner) and infamous Marcelle (Season 2 Runner-up) also give their two cents in blog form. What's nice about this is not only some continuity to the show (this presence seems to make it more fulfilling in a way that other reality shows are not--have you heard from Colby, the winner of one of the middle "Survivor"s recently?) but they also provide the really interesting behind the scenes details. They've walked in those Crocs--they know the pain of a Quickfire challenge intimately and hearing their takes on things adds yet another dimension to an already good show.

4. Really good guest judges. Out of the four judges on the panel, one is always a guest from the culinary universe. In the past seasons, they've been kinda lame (with some notable exceptions). Season 3 has brought out some really famous chefs. Although some say they've gone more commercial (lately Rocco DeSpirito was hawking his Bertolli frozen dinners), I don't care. It's people I know which makes it all the more fun when they saw awful things about how the chefs mutilated the challenge. Definitely ups the train-wreck factor.

and last but certainly not least: 5) Anthony Bourdain (often guest judge) is now a regular blogger about the show! I couldn't be more thrilled. The regular judges' blogs have been good (especially Tom's and Gail Simmon's) but because of schedule conflicts, Tom's had to "take a leave" from blogging for awhile. Bourdain filled in a couple weeks on Tom's blog but now he's got his own and it's awesome. It's a mini Kitchen Confidential every week and I'm drinking it in. Thank God for Anthony Bourdain.

And more on Top Chef Season 3 to come; it's getting good now and the cuts are starting to get more important...and painful to watch.