Grid Effect

So as previously mentioned, we “finally” finished the first three seasons of Dexter, and while there is plenty to enjoy about the series and I can certainly understand why it’s popular, I’m not really understanding the critical acclaim. Is it me? It’s probably me and my insecure nature. Not having Showtime for all these years just pushed me over the edge. You should know that if you’re watching this series on DVD or on demand or for whatever reason you’re behind on it, there will be heavy spoilers after the jump.

(more…)

With the arrival of Tony Soprano in 1999 to HBO, people were as impressed as they were insulted that such a character even existed that could make everyone so angry. A year or two later, television was overrun with anti-heroes. That is, lead characters with a moral flexibility that allows them to occasionally (or predominately) act in an unsavory manner.

Typically, I enjoy watching characters like this. They’re unpredictable, their motives are always in question and you spend half the series undecided if you want to see them win or not. But they are alway portrayed as better than those around them. Who would you consider more redeemable, Tony Soprano or Ralphie Cifaretto? Or Paulie? Or Silvio? While Tony might be a scumbag in every sense of the term, he always managed to seem morally superior to his henchmen. He could senselessly beat the shit out of his bartender, but show enough fatherly concern for his kids that rooting for him was always an option.

"Did you warble, my little wren?"

Ten years later though, and television’s leading men are all adopting this same moral ambiguity that was once so unique. From Don Draper to the now dispatched Vic Mackey to Tommy Gavin on Rescue Me (The show’s been off the air for so long I feel compelled to remind everyone what show the character is on), any character considered original is now almost a cliche. Or at least, so says this Newsweek article. Which brings up an interesting point: while we enjoy characters that aren’t walking stereotypes of 50’s television that manages to typecast every single person as a hero or villain, has television gone too far the other way? In which every dramatic series attempting to avoid cliches has become a cliche in and of itself?

I’m hardly an authority on the matter, as I do not regularly watch Dexter, The Shield, Deadwood or the droves of series that strive for the Tony Soprano-esque mob boss by night and family man by day dichotomy. But I will definitely say that this isn’t true for every series. Obviously, if you judge each on a case-by-case basis, some do it better than others. And in some cases, by the end of the series, the character’s actions are supposed to be predictable (such as on The Sopranos, when it was emblematic of the theme that people never change).

But I do think there is plenty of room for script writers to improve. For example, why is there never a character on television who’s, for the most part, morally decent that sometimes acts out of character for the greater good? Right now, it is virtually always the exact opposite: A character whose essentially amoral, but will occasionally do the right thing. The former is almost non-existent on television. Save for a DA who will throw a case because he believes his client is guilty, which isn’t exactly pushing the envelope as far as controversy goes.

But even this would eventually prove to be repetitive. If this model was adopted and done successfully so that it kept the audience guessing, we would undoubtedly see more of it. Because that’s how the entertainment industry works. They look for a successful mold, someone eventually finds it and then it is rehashed again and again by varying outlets. Same goes for the film industry. Right now all the films taking home awards are inarguably macabre compared to years past. And all the movies sweeping the box office are either comic book adaptations, kids movies and comedies. There is some crossover (Dark Knight being the best example), but clearly the tone of Hollywood is shifting, because audiences want something different than artists. And at the end of the day, money is going to take precedence over art.

But for the time being this is what we are dealing with. David Chase always made a point to demonstrate that Tony Soprano wasn’t someone we should be rooting for, but the character was so charismatic that half the audience couldn’t help themselves. It spoke to the darker nature of not only his subject matter but also those consuming it. I do feel like we are starting to drift away from that, and the character in question is often either not all that much of an anti-hero or is too despicable to actually watch. With a little effort, maybe we can avoid rendering the characters that are actually interesting studies completely redundant. That is, if they aren’t already.

One probably could have assumed as much, and this seemed to be the entire point of the series premiere of True Blood last night. We’ll try to keep this short, as we have no intention of writing a weekly recap for the series run but we will say that while it was certainly a contemporary look at the genre, it really wasn’t all that fascinating.

We’ve never been much into the genre, off the top of my head the only vampire book/film/TV series we ever recall enjoying was the first and second Blade movies, and we haven’t seen either of them since we were in high school and our sensibilities have most certainly changed over the years (We saw Bordello of Blood in middle school and thought that was just spiffy). So if you are looking for a balanced review of what Alan Ball presented last night, you might be looking in the wrong place, because we were already predisposed to hating it (even though the trailer looked promising).

If you don’t know, the premise is Vampire’s live amongst humans in everyday life going shopping, going out to eat, working a 9 to 5, raising kids and fucking. Mostly fucking.  It is basically like the X-Men movies, except whereas mutants we persecuted harshly by the federal government, the portrayal of vampires on True Blood (or at least what we saw in the pilot) is done so on the local level in a small Louisiana town (save for some woman defending vampires on Bill Maher’s show) that is populated mostly by New Yorkers with really fake southern accents.

The vampires are kind of objectified by the humans, and this seems to annoy them greatly. Having sex with a vampire is the real world equivalent of having a three-way. There is obvious social commentary with the way they are either fetishized or feared, particularly when a sign during the credits reads, “God hates fangs”, and we see the appeal of that commentary. But wasn’t this all done (without the sexual overtones) in X-Men and like a thousand other vampire stories before? We have no idea where it is going, but after a one hour episode we are kind of uninterested.

The characters, while meant to be quirky and intelligent, come off as dull and dissatisfied with their place in life. Living in a small town and working wage jobs with seemingly no ambition will do that to a lot of people, so it’s logical. But it permeates while watching the story to the point that the viewer is as uninterested as the characters.

Maybe a dysfunctional Manhattan family will pop in to spice things up.

Case in point, Sookie Stackhouse, the series protagonist played by Anna Paquin is good natured to the point of inducing nausea. For whatever reason she is also telepathic and does everything she can to not hear her customers thoughts about her as she serves them food. She stumbles onto a meeting between Bill (a 167 year-old vampire) and a couple of “rats” who are apparently a lead gang ’round these here parts, little does Bill know that they intend to drain his blood and sell it to someone (we are never told to who or for what purpose. Other vampires? A science fair? Never really explained).

Sookie, using her mind reading talent provided by the powers of her incredibly unfortunate name, stumbles upon this information and rushes outside to find Bill tied to the ground and having his blood drained. She fends off the two “rats” with a metal chain in probably the feeblest successful act of heroism in the history of television. Basically she swings the chain a couple times, and this sends the two villains hauling ass in terror and claims of revenge.

Now, we never get an explanation as to why anyone would defend a vampire. They kind of hint at them being somewhat peaceful, but obviously there are a few bad apples in the bunch. We understand this, but Vampires’ are inherently a threat to humans as they feed off their blood. This is demonstrated in the cold open in which a store clerk pretends to be a vampire, much to the disgust of an onlooking vampire, who threatens to kill him if he ever suspects the clerk of posing as a vampire again. Now, we understand the obvious good and bad lies in every social group in every sect of the world. The obvious analogy here is with homosexuality, so we’ll go ahead and call to attention the fact that gay men and lesbian women aren’t inherently a threat to straight people, we aren’t prey for gays. In other words, it doesn’t really work.

Supposedly this obvious conflict of interests is curtailed with a product called Tru Blood that is purchased in groceries and gas stations the world over. This doesn’t seem to quell anyone’s concern. Everyone in Sookie’s world seems to express a level of trepidation towards the presence of vampires except Sookie, but they aren’t noticeably persecuted in any way that a human wouldn’t be. This all seems perfectly reasonable to me. If a bear is in my near vicinity I don’t necessarily hate the bear, but I am scared shitless he is going to eat me alive.

Other than Sookie, there is the boss who wants to fuck her, her brother who wants to fuck everyone, her annoying “sassy” best friend and the flamboyant gay chef. None of them are especially interesting and are all pretty much a variation of another character you’ve seen on some other TV series roughly 1,000 times. Not much to write home about.

We have to wonder what HBO was thinking with this series. It seems their goal, first and foremost is to bring in an audience. They clearly thought that ramping up the sex would do just that with the 18-25 male set that has every intention of watching Entourage afterwards. But it is just to abnormal and surprisingly bland to hold a demo infamous for their short attention span. We’ll give the series one more viewing, but we have no delusions of hope for the fate of True Blood.

I know we said that we would bring part three of our NBC executive drama today, but of course we forgot HBO aired their original movie Recount about the debacle that was the 2000 presidential election in Florida. So we’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

In the fall of 2000 we were just starting our freshman year of college, and while we were aware of the ongoing struggle to officially determine the next president, we were preoccupied with everything that college entails other than academics. So when we say we found it insightful, if hastily thrown together and poorly executed, then you’ll understand why our opinion of it is still non-committal.

The movie revolves around essentially everyone that was integral to the process other than the two candidates. Bush and Gore are played by two mostly unseen actors with horrible approximations of their voices. We occasionally might see the side of their faces, but for the most part it’s similar to Steinbrenner on Seinfeld. We have no idea why the dialogue for those two was so generic and insipid. It makes them both look like dependent children compared to all the characters dominating the screen, that need to be hand held and guided through the process.

Presidential candidates non-portrayal aside, the acting is pretty solid. Between Spacey, Dern, Leary, Wilkinson, Balaban (who has a contractual obligation to appear in every HBO original movie, we presume) and Bruce McGill, that isn’t the problem we have with it. The shortcomings of Recount all have to do with pacing.

It probably would have worked better as a miniseries rather than an original movie. And probably would have benefited from a director not responsible for Meet The Parents, because it jumps around so frenetically and unabashedly that even settling in to actually appreciate the story they’re trying to tell requires more effort than should be necessary. Two hours isn’t a lot of allotted time to tell something so nuanced and historically, especially when a considerable chunk of time is devoted simply to character introductions. If we had to apply a tag line to a movie poster, it would be like a music video without the attractive women or music.

Our central character is Ron Klain, a recently demoted Al Gore political adviser, who begins the movie with a chip on his shoulder and is seemingly unconcerned with the outcome for his boss. It isn’t until after election day, when Michael Whouley (Leary) explains to Klain how the process of paper ballots and there inefficiency can potentially skew the outcome of an election. And motivates Klain to use this inadequacy in the US electoral process for his professional advantage.

This scene, that literally takes place in an alley behind an office building, is the highlight of the film. We are treated to a brilliant speech from Leary, whose showing his performance on Rescue Me isn’t a fluke; and a brilliant visual illustration of how paper ballots are tabulated, and the folly of the hanging chad, which is simply too stupid to fully process and take seriously. We also get a great exchange about the plural of chad (it’s chad).

This caused a national crisis.

Recount reminded us of The Wire in a lot of ways, because much of the delay in the recount process came from human error and indifference. Everyone’s just trying to get through the day to get home for dinner. The passionate few struggle to be heard while the collective carefree majority ignore their pleas. In hindsight, what was amazing is not that the recount extended for so long, but that the voices of those calling for it actually had enough influence to make it impossible for everyone to just ignore the problem. That isn’t to say ego wasn’t driving any of this. At one point, Klain even says, “I’m not even sure I like Al Gore”. With politics, as with it seems everything, nothing gets done until it effects someone who matters personally.

The political tone of the film it is definitely more sympathetic to the left. And even if all the people involved weren’t Hollywood democrats, the movie would kind of have to be in order to be taken seriously. I mean, Gore lost. They couldn’t make a movie confirming what we’ve been living with for the past eight years. There wouldn’t be any conflict and thus, no point to the movie. But when the democrats complained of an unfair negative portrayal, they weren’t necessarily being overly sensitive. In other words, Recount isn’t as biased as one might assume it to be.

Basically, I’m going to recommend the film for anyone under the age of twenty-six who was as apolitical as your average teenager in 2000, or for anyone who wasn’t following the conflict in 2000. Of course, those are probably the same people that will avoid this like the plague. But if you were politically conscious at the time and are fully aware of what a hanging chad and a dimpled voting ballot are, this probably isn’t worth your time. If you’re a democrat it’s simply going to conjure up bad memories, and if you’re a republican, it will do nothing more than put you on the defensive.

So, in short if you’re under the age of twenty-six, only recently became concerned politically or are an independent, then by all means, catch one of the 50,000 replays on HBO over the course of the next week. Otherwise, stick to FOX News or NPR or whatever echoes your worldview. Because if you’re looking at this for some sort of ideological validation, then you’re probably looking in the wrong place.

A couple highly rated programs are on tap tonight, so we figured it convenient to preview this evenings network lineups. We didn’t watch any television beyond the OSU-PSU basketball game and rewatch the new Wire episode, so we are left with little material. Anyhow, though we aren’t exactly fans of anything airing, there is a variety of options to choose from so why not do an overview?

NBC

8pm: Deal or No Deal
Our feelings about this show have been made quite clear. But this week, we hear if you pick out a suitcase containing $100,000 or more, Howie Mandel douses you in that head slicker he liberally shines his dome with. Of course, that could always just be Mandel perspiration, in which case we wouldn’t wish that on anybody. See, if they actually did the former we might watch, but the show probably has to be moved to Nickelodeon for anyone to be doused with anything.

9-11pm: Law and Order
Two different episodes, probably a remarkably similar premise. We imagine a coed turns up dead and the main suspect is the boyfriend. In fact, they know it’s the boyfriend. Why? Because she was such an incorrigible bitch when they were dating (in TV Land, this qualifies as motive). But we are all stunned when it turns out to be her landlord or something. Who tearfully (yet comically) confesses while testifying that he didn’t mean to kill her…just scare her because she lead him on and he offered her a discounted rent as a result. This is surely how these episodes will go.

For those who don’t know, when Richard Belzer isn’t disparaging conservative politicians on Real Time, he plays a homicide detective on NBC.

ABC

8pm: Wife Swap
Oh My God! Two families with different lifestyles and different approaches to domestic duties switch matriarchs, and combative hilarity ensues, culminating with one of the husbands crying and one of the children cursing their TV mom.

9-11pm: Lost
Two hour season premiere, bitches. Gonna go home, get my beer on, get my Lost on. Actually, our enthusiasm is a farce, we can’t stand this show. Apparently they’re going to run notes across the screen telling you facts about each of the characters, which is about the laziest narrative structure imaginable. What good are these facts if they never materialize on screen? It could just be footnotes from past seasons for new viewers they’re anticipating (due to the writer’s strike), but either way it strikes us as tacky. Oh, and ABC is referring to this as an “enhanced version”. Meaning, if you were lucky ABC would always put into text what they can’t fit into plot.

FOX

8pm: American Idol
If you want to see a middle-aged British man cut seventeen year-olds down to size because they are unfit to compete on an elaborate talent show, no one does it better than American Idol. Its genius is its simplicity. Tonight they’re in Miami, so he’s bound to put some impoverished immigrants in their place to the amusement of the masses.

9pm: Moment of Truth
Unlike its lead-in, at least the people get paid for the national exploitation. Of course, after the divorce and other inevitable legal issues, that take-home prize will probably be swallowed up by lawyers. Still, the chance for a pay day is there.

CBS

8pm: The New Adventures of Old Christine
The show that supposedly broke the Seinfeld curse that nobody watches. If Julia Louis-Dreyfus hadn’t gotten an Emmy for her role on this after it was already canceled a couple years ago, this show would have been long forgotten. Instead, Elaine gets a bullshit Emmy on name recognition and it continues to haunt the airwaves for two more years. Anyways, there are two episodes on tonight.

9pm: Criminal Minds
If these shows even remotely resembled the country we lived in, one would assume that the U.S. had a Gaza Strip level of violence and you are lucky if you make it to work alive. Tonight’s episode details the investigation of home invasion murders, which will probably be treated like another day at the office. Christ, even The Wire treats a home invasion murder as something out of the ordinary, and it is set in fucking Baltimore.

10pm: CSI: NY
“Mac and the team find human blood on the crown of the Statue of Liberty, leading them on a race against time to save a famous musician from death at the hands of a vigilante.”

This is the episode description on CBS’ website. It sounds more like Treasure Hunters than a cop procedural. Of course, nothing about any CSI has ever resembled a realistic crime investigation.

Enjoy your bevy of options. While we’re not going to watch any of this, at least there is a wide variety of material, even if it’s all easily dismissed.

For week or two now I have been suggesting that I would watch and review HBO’s new David Milch drama, John From Cincinnati, a series about a generation of surfers trying to figure out their purpose. Well, I watched the first episode and part of the second, and all I can conclude is HBO felt indebted to Milch for prematurely cancelling Deadwood, a critically acclaimed series that never got much traction in the Nielsen’s. As a result, they let him piece together anything he wanted with the promise to air it, right after the series finale of The Sopranos!

To be honest, the show has promise: solid acting, interesting/original premise, stylistically unlike anything I’ve ever seen. While we usually encourage abnormal television efforts ’round here, this exceeds even our boundaries, and wreaks of a guilt-ridden deal by HBO who wanted to keep Deadwood but had no choice other than to cancel it in its prime. HBO has never been one to concern themselves with mass appeal, they tend to greenlight a series then wait for the audience to come around. But with Sopranos just ending, cancelling Deadwood and Rome, Curb Your Enthusiasm beginning its final season later this year and only one season left of The Wire; it might have been in HBO’s best interest to pick a series with a little more mass appeal.

If I hear John From Cincinnati turns out to be a phenomenal series with season long character arcs that make me question everything I knew about surfers, then I’ll Netflix the DVD’s or watch the series OnDemand. But for the time being I’m on hiatus from HBO drama, still too perplexed about the end of The Sopranos.

In broadcast network news, with reality television sort of teetering on the brink of irrelevancy (save for American Idol and Dancing With The Stars, but are those even reality series?), NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS seem to throw most of their new reality series on during the summer as a test run, then based on their success decide whether or not they deserve a shot at primetime in the fall.

Hell’s Kitchen, though being on for several seasons and experiencing moderate success, FOX has decided to keep it as a summer mainstay. For those who are unfamiliar with the show, Gordon Ramsay, a chef with an attitude takes in a collection of aspiring cooks to mock and humiliate them on national television for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch’s wallet. I had never watched an episode until this past Monday and its undoubtedly the most incredulous reality show I’ve ever seen, which is saying something. Of course, the contestants are so piss poor that Ramsay’s abusive actions are almost warranted.

For instance, the episode I saw had two teams (men vs. women, someone must have lost sleep conjuring up this gimmick) and the women’s team ended up losing based on Ramsay’s decision, I’m assuming because the men had lost a teammate to medical leave and they also got their appetizers out faster, neither team served any entrees. It came down to three women for elimination, team nominates those for the chopping block, then Ramsay swings the axe.

One was unjust because her prior experience is at a Waffle House, and the team turns up their collective nose at that. So Ramsay immediately excluded her from elimination. The other two contestants however, one was thrown out of the kitchen for damn near serving rancid food, the other one tried to serve food out of a trash can before a teammate stumbled onto her actions and put the kaibosh on it. Ramsay never saw her so she wasn’t kicked out of the kitchen until the rest of the team was.

Thing is, the one who served food from the trash can got to stick around. Doesn’t that lower the bar for all reality television? This guy actually said to himself at one point, “well this girl almost served our customers trash, but i’ll give her a pass”. I mean, what’s the Survivor equivalent of that? I suppose their isn’t one because its a democracy as opposed to a tyranny, but in terms of actions it would be like someone eating all the food, urinating on the fire and sabotaging a challenge then someone else being voted off because they are small.

Anyhow, its a disturbing show, one I never intend on watching again. But Ramsay really carries it. Despite the seemingly utter incompetence of the contestants, he curses them out on a regular basis, throws food at them and when he “fires” them, he tells them to “fuck off” or something else completely unnecessary. The one thing I like about this series, as opposed to Dancing With The Stars or Big Brother or The Apprentice, is this show doesn’t pretend to have any dignity. It accepts what it is, and is perfectly comfortable with contributing to the Idiocracy this country is becoming. Congrats.

Watched a half hour or so of On The Lot, Spielberg’s reality series on FOX. Will come back with a post about that later.

Wow, that was a lot of confrontation compiled into one episode. I don’t think a network drama has ever portrayed racial tension so aptly before. With the exception of Mac, there were no real villains, no right answers and a litany of regret and misunderstanding, but managed to couple the intense drama with the humorous annual powderpuff game.

The episode opens with Dillon routing their opponent in their first playoff game. Afterwards, Assistant coach Mac is drilled by a couple reporters about the quarterback issue on the team after Smash threw a TD completion to Saceran on an option play, the reporternoted that Smash played quarterback in JV (What?). Instead of giving the simple answer, that they were maximizing the teams talent. When they were forming this team, the coaching staff didn’t feel like they were losing much at quarterback from Smash to Street, when Street was tragically injured, Smash was already comfortable and productive at running back, so they decided to begin grooming Saceran. He goes into some stammering explanation about Smash being a natural athlete, then after further extremely presumptuous and suggestive questioning, in an attempt to explain Smash’s physical tenacity relates him to a “junkyard dog”, and that’s why he isn’t at quarterback.

It is proven later in the episode that Mac is something of a racist, but in this situation he was caught completely off guard (randomly questioned about race within his team) in a moment of jubilation (fresh off a convincing playoff win) and verbalized some (at the very least) sub-conscious beliefs. Ultimately, what he was trying to say is that Smash excels in the trenches, he moves the ball exceptionally on the ground and while he would be a decent quarterback, he is an even better running back. One could say the same thing about Riggins. So given the inarticulate presentation of Mac, while I do not condone the comparison, and resent everything that Mac stands for in terms of social politics, I do not think he was trying to be divisive or disparaging in this regard.

After a series of perceived injustices and condescension, Smash, at the behest of Waverly, goes from trying to ignore the entire situation and for the sake of the team to forming a walkout with all of the other black players on the team. There was one poignant moment in a bank with his mother in which they are turned down for a loan. Smash begins to lose his temper, and his mom grabs him by the arm and quells the situation by explaining, “Look around you, look at all these eyes on you, waiting, expecting you to do something violent, to become that junkyard dog of Matt McGill’s”, and the camera pans around the bank, all white spectators, most of which leering because there was a slight eruption, but can be interpreted one of a million ways, especially from Smash and his mothers perspective.

On a much, much, lighter note, the writers for FNL have decided to incorporate an annual powderpuff football game into this script, and as a result of skipping PE classes, Tami forces Julie and Tyra to participate in it. Riggins ends up coaching one team and Saceran the other. Lyla, as one would expect, is participating as well. The two coaches pick teams which we are privy to the first few. Saceran picks first, he turns around to pick Julie, who is seated with Tyra behind him on the bleachers (all the other girls are standing at center court), but he gets a little flustered and murmurs, “uh, I’ll pick, uh, Tyra, please”. Riggins turn, he asks the group, “does anyone know how to chop block?” Some girl timidly replies that she does, and that is Tim’s first pick. Matt sheepishly makes his second pick. Then Riggins, just to piss of Tyra even further, says, “Lyla, get over here.”, which draws a unison “oooohhhh” from the crowd. Saceran finally makes Julie his third pick.

The distinguishing personalities are really highlighted in the practice and game scenes. Riggins has an authoritative presence, while Saceran has a passive one. Lyla does exactly what she is told, while Tyra rebels and Julie is dismissive. Despite their faltering relationship, Saceran manages to talk Julie into playing quarterback, to which she hesitantly agrees, but is sure to get in a “You’re pathetic” as she does. Her and her father almost immediately recover from an argument about her skipping classes after he discovers she is playing QB in the powderpuff game. He teaches her some tricks of the trade, and Julie ends up bonding with both men in her life after this supposed “punishment”.

A few other points too mention:

-Street was invited to a tryout in Austin for the national quad rugby team after returning to school, his inability to perform an incision in biology class coupled with this invite motivates him to re-dropout and simply get his GED, much to the chagrin of Lyla.

- Tyra’s mom, if she isn’t already, will be sleeping with Buddy Garrity before the season is over. This development just increases Tyra’s seething hatred for Lyla. As of now, Lyla has slept with her estranged boyfriend, her dad gets routine lap dances from her older sister and her dad is about to start laying the wood to her mom. Might explain her seemingly unjustified disdain for Lyla and that hit she laid on her in the powderpuff flag football game.

-Landry returned in rare form as the referee for the powderpuff game. Not only giving coach Taylor a penalty for stepping across some line, but signaling the winning TD right in Riggins’ face. Good to have him back, that Landry.

Thoughts on The Office and Survivor tomorrow.

I tried. I mean, I really, really tried. But I can’t continue the facade. Actually, a facade would suggest that at one point in time, I pretended too enjoy the series, Dirt. My predicament is more accurately described as a charade, in that I am watching a dreadful TV show for the sole purpose of this website. And since no one wants too listen to me bitch and moan, last nights episode will be my final viewing.

Not too say the show lacked all creative execution. I enjoyed the storyline with the photographer (even if it was completely isolated from the rest of the plot), but with every interaction he has with his only confidante (Lucy), being one where she is trying too even him out from his schizophranic induced hallucinations, it grew a little tiresome. Literally every conversation began with him saying something cryptic while she is barking orders at him. Then he would trail off, she would looked bewildered then place her hands on his shoulders and lead with, “Okay, Don…” In other words, the dynamic between the two leads is already redundant in only its second episode.

There has been any real description of Cox’s Lucy Spiller, either. Without any real explanation of who she is, by the end of the first ten minutes of the second episode, her job is on the line, she has expressed moral uncertainty about her profession and we already know she is terribly lonely after her reaction too a lecture from some actor she setup/blackmailed. All of this drama and the only thing we know about her is she’s career oriented and doesn’t have a boyfriend or husband.

But now even that is not true. It took approximately one and a half episodes for her too entirely change her demeanor and ask a casual sex partner (the same one she tasered in the groin last week) out too dinner for a potentially more sustainable relationship. See, she is human!

Not too mention, the acting from all of the hollywood youngsters and protege journalists is horrendous. There are two scenes in particular from last night that I almost hurled my laptop through my television because they were so unnatural. One in which a young up-and-coming journalist is looking to impress Lucy, so she stages a covnersation with a celebrity nanny at a playground too extract sympathy and subsequently names from her.
After she gathers all sorts of privileged information about some people we haven’t even been introduced to, she gives it back to Lucy, who in turn rewards her with something from the Swag box. And what happens next is just nauseating.

The girl turns down the offer, and, well, I’ll put it in her words because mine won’t do it justice: “I know this may sound stupid, but I did it for the story”. How noble. You dug into the personal lives of total strangers for the sake of a celebrity gossip rag. Next thing you know this girl will be murdering people on the street too feed some stray puppies. Too make things worse, Lucy is actually impressed by this refusal of the Swag.

I could drone on for a few more paragraphs, but I think I’ve made my point. So that’s the end of the road for me and Dirt, it is FX’s first real critical, technical and (potentially) commercial bomb. And it was bound too happen eventually, hopefully this is a bump in the road and not going too result in an unfortunate trend for FX programming.

Since debuting its first original series The Shield several years ago, FX has been known for infuriating parental concern groups with its lack of concern for FCC regulations. Typically, though, the decision to push the envelope has always been beneficial for the development a series characters and themes, with their most recent original series, Dirt, this is simply not the case.

I have only seen the pilot, but given its content, I can honestly say it is the most misguided show I have ever watched. Everyone involved in this series treats tabloid news junkets like an evil slightly below genocide and just above a school shooting. When in the pilot episode, a girl dies, another one ends up in the hospital on life support, our anti-heroine has tasered a fuck buddy in the genitals and her sidekick is a schizophranic photographer who got his ass-kicked by a struggling actor (judging by the preview montage for the rest of the season, this will be a reoccurring theme), things need too be a little toned down.

Structurally, this show is a mess. Apparently the photographer (Don Kinney) was supposed too be the central figure, but the network objected, saying they needed a more relatable character to develop an audience. So they threw Courtney Cox into the lead role as Lucy Spiller, the head editor of two magazines. One, a sleazy tabloid rag akin too “Star”, the other, a cushy celebrity worship magazine of the “Entertainment Weekly” ilk. The episode hopped back and forth between Spiller and Kinney, with the latter essentially doing all of the work while hallucinating due too a lack of proper medication (he selectively takes the pills prescribed too him) and worrying about his cancer stricken cat, who eventually dies.

But the crux of the problem is a lack of cohesion. Other than the fact the two characters work together, their stories have nothing too do with each other. Don’s story is like horrendous Paul Thomas Anderson, and Spiller’s reminds me of some extended generic party scene from a CSI episode. Too be honest, it would be preferable if the photographer were the focus. Ian Hart is simply a better actor than Courtney Cox, and it is evident that the writers valued his character arc, more so than Spiller’s.

The writers also have a little something too learn about patience. As previously mentioned, the episode was entirely too eventful. That might sound preposterous, because most would probably be of the mindset that eventfulness is one of the main reasons to watch a television series, maybe the only reason. But when a series is trying too illustrate the immoralities of paparazzi and confront the absurdity of celebrity worship, it makes it impossible too suspend disbelief when bodies are dropping like flies as the result of a few magazine articles.

Anyway, our protagonist (I guess? I hate her guts so she is not really a protagonist) is already suffering a moral crisis over her job. I am certain that by next week, she will have already inoculated herself of all responsibility for her role in everyone dying.

I’ll give it one more viewing next Tuesday, but if there isn’t any improvement, I’ll have to jump ship.

Plenty too come tomorrow, including thoughts on tonight’s Firday Night Lights and the season premieres of Knights of Prosperity and In Case of Emergency. Until then…

Like I said in an earlier post I would get around to commenting on Dexter, the new series on Showtime. I do not subscribe to Showtime, but the network decided to post the first two episodes online so I figured I would take advantage. For the most part, I am witholding judgement on the story, because I have watched two episodes and the rest are unavailable to me.

For those who don’t know, Dexter is a forensic scientist who doubles as a serial killer. The nitch being he only kills those he thinks have avoided judicial punishment. It is a novel concept even if its similar (but not a carbon copy) to about a dozen other series on television. The setting is Miami and the characters are moderately interesting, the one thing I don’t understand is why is he perceived as charming to those around him?

The narration from Michael C. Hall (Dexter) is really heavy handed. He says things like, “I don’t have feelings for anyone, but if I did I suppose it would be for Deb” and, “Another beautiful Miami day, mutilated corpses with a chance of showers”. So yeah, It’s lacking subtlety.

The aforementioned “Deb” is his sister who doubles as a homicide detective. I give it maybe five episodes before she’s investigating one of his murders. Though he is extremely meticulous in disposing of them. You know, because he is smarter than everybody else.

As you would expect, the bloodshed is egregious, often and descriptive. Let’s just say they really took advantage of being on Showtime, like CSI without a conscious. Cases in point:

-Finding and examining a bloodless corpse in a pool.

-A severed head being hurled at Dexter’s car from a moving vehicle.

-Torturing a guy who had murdered several young boys (supposedly a pedophile) before restraining him on a table and hacking him into pieces (they do not show much of this, but it is all implied and is also the opening scene).

Dexter has a very perverse blood fetish. He doesn’t masturbate while rolling around in puddles of it or anything, but he collects samples from all of his victims and gazes at them, almost lovingly. He even states at one point, “blood is my life”. Also, his technical title is “blood splatter analyst”. Clearly he’s in it for the love, not the money.

Like I said before, I do not understand why everyone around Dexter finds him charming. He carries himself with an indifference that is chilling and awkwardly postures his way through conversations. I guess I am somewhat biased, because I am privileged (depending on your perspective) to this guys skeletons (no pun intended). But he doesn’t seem like the most personable gent I have ever seen. That being said, there is one character named Doaks that is skeptical of Dexter. Dexter even wonders early in the pilot: “In a roomful of cops, why is Doaks the only one who gets the creeps from me?” Why, indeed.

There are some interesting traits to his character. Apparently from childhood Dexter had always had a fascination with murder (started with small animals). So his Father, not wanting to commit his only son, helped him harness his sickness by taking it out on those that might deserve it: violent criminals. Kind of like the sociopathic father-and-son version of playing catch. He is also disinterested in sex. So is the woman he is currently dating, Rita. Her aversion is a result of sexual abuse at the hands of her ex-husband, as opposed to the ritualistic murder of the evil and a chemical deficiency. I don’t know, I am not entirely convinced that this guy isn’t gay. Maybe its just the trendy Miami setting. I also appreciate the fact he is self-aware of how screwed up he is, “In many ways she is as damaged as me” he says in reference to Rita.

But I guess my ultimate conundrum from what I have seen so far with Dexter is the concept of having to sympathize with the main character. He is essentially like any serial killer but he justifies it by murdering unpunished criminals. And there is never any moral conflict within the series. So far he is illustrated as a Robin Hood type figure, doing the publics dirty work by eliminating those who managed to take advantage of the flawed judicial system. I do not want to argue the right and wrong of his actions, but the notion of this guy taking the law into his own hands through brutally torturing and murdering his victims is, unsettling, to say the least. I am not offended in anyway, it just seems that this series hinges mostly on shock value versus quality storytelling.

I am hesitant to admit that I caught a half hour of the ABC series What About Brian? tonight and, um, who watches this nonsense? I apologize if you do, it is not my intention to be caustic. But this is the most heavy handed melodramatic show I have ever seen. And that is not an exaggeration. Literally every scene involved someone crying or on the verge of crying, and judging by the atmosphere the show presents, it isn’t an anomaly.

Most of the aforementioned crying jags involved some girl named Marjorie, who was marrying Brians best friend, Adam. But Adam apparently fell in love for Marjorie at some point and she reciprocated. When? You ask? The night before her wedding (its moments like this that I regret The Graduate was ever released, but then I assure myself there is a reason virtually everyone rips off this gimmick, and how groundbreaking that film is). But he rejected her advances for the benefit of his friend. His sister then, in so many words, called him a wuss (under the guise of “nice guy”) which prompted him to accost her right before she walks down the aisle. She rebuffs his advances, they both cry then Adam and Brian stared each other down while Brian is standing at the altar. Apparently they had confronted each other about Marjorie before. The end.

I understand there is a place for entertainment like this. It is ultimately harmless and better than another reality show… probably. But I just can’t help noticing how contrived it is. Every single conversation is this intense encounter with the world at stake for both parties. And the dialogue is cheap:
Adam: Are we really getting married today?

Marjorie: Yeah… we are.

Adam: So, this is the beginning.

Marjorie: Yes (sniffle) it is.

I might be paraphrasing, but my interpretation isn’t far off. Does anyone really talk like this? I certainly haven’t met anyone of this archtype. It reminds me of the “chick flick” equivalent to the standard action movie where some guy slaughters an entire military with no remorse. In the sense that both examples shamelessly pander to their very specific desired audience.

Is there someone who likes this show? Am I off base or out of line? I would love to hear from someone who regularly watches and enjoys the series. Either way, feel free to comment.

Recap and thoughts on Studio 60 tomorrow.