Saving Grace needs Redemption

Oh, how I so wanted to love this show. Instead, I'm beginning to resent it and only after the second episode. Of course, many good things take time but I'm not one to assume that a television show is one of them; there's just too many other good re-runs to watch. Here are the problems as I see them:

1. Grace is not likeable and it doesn't work. Unlike "House," who's gruff, ass-like qualities somehow draw the watcher toward the character, hoping eternally for him to see the light, Grace just makes me want to run away from her. Everything employed to make this character like the other diamond-in-the-ruff characters is too forced: the snappish dialogue is too snappy, her misgivings and failures too devastating and morally repugnant. Every redeemable character has something redeeming about them and I don't think Grace does.

2. The Angel dude needs to go. You know what...the concept of the "not yer typical" angel has been done...in a movie called "Michael"...and it sucked. Move on. Plus, it's cartoonish. I don't want to see the angel, I just want to know it's there. It would be much more complex if the only way we knew the angel existed was through Grace reacting to it. Instead we get angel blood last week and this week we have angel feathers. Hell, I'm a Catholic and even I know angels don't have physical qualities--that's why they're angels.

3. The "detective and her staff" set up is old. Question: How many other shows use this formula? Answer: TOO MANY. For a brand new show to employ this same old setting...not excusable.

To "Saving Grace" people in charge: I really want to like your show. Please fix it. Thank You.

Muggles Unite

What do an African-American male nurse, a 40-something red-haired mother of a 12ish daughter, a white male marathoner, several 20ish women with blond hair and beach wear, an African-American mother of 3, and a 30ish woman with a severe platinum hair-cut and a pin-stripe power suit have in common?

They were are reading this on the train the other day:
This would be "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," (the highly anticipated 7th of 7, in case you've been living in a cave somewhere off the coast of Fiji). All I have to say is I've seen a huge number of people toting this 743-page behemoth wherever they happen to be going without guilt or apology. I've heard strangers talk about it on the train, there was someone reading it in church on Saturday...I haven't seen this kind of unity of the masses in awhile.

Given this, it seems we've been going about this "World Peace" thing in a way that's all wrong. Clearly, what we need is a lovable wizard to lead the charge...and now that Harry's finally got some time on his hands, who knows what could happen...

Changing "The View"

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

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

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

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

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

So, what's up with that, Barbara?

"Singing Bee" Spells Good Singing Fun

I decided early that I was NOT going to watch this show. Possibly my principles had gotten in the way: another stupid gameshow, hosted by Joey Fatone (who I lovingly call Fat One only because his name obviously begs for it), where the singing doesn't count. All of this conceptually sounded like a formula for a loser. But, I was at the gym and stuck with 5 choices of which this show was the best option. From the minute I turned it on, I couldn't stop singing along.

It was simply good, clean, Karaoke-in-my-livingroom FUN. The idea is that contestants sing Karaoke-style but without the words given and must get the song-wording exactly correct to move into the next round. Sounds easy...but it's not. AND you think you won't sing along or get into such a loser-y show...but you will. I was jumping up and down when the first guy won the $50,000 prize at the end of the show.

Joey's great, the contestants have been great, the song selection is good, and the live singers who sing the provided portion of the song are awesome--they've obviously been selected because they sound eerily familiar to the actual artist who made the song great. AND the number of songs to which I've been singing the absolute wrong words is staggering. It gives me a whole new lease on radio-music life.

C'mon...it's on Saturdays which makes me nostalgic for the days when variety shows ruled the weekend nights...just watch it.

Dina Lohan--A Parent Trap

What has happened to this girl. Look at her. Before: Cute, Sweet, full of potential. After: A complete wreck. Again in the news after completing the second stint in rehab. Now with coke in her pocket and obviously jacked up on something...driving.

And how much does CNN have to capitalize on her misfortune? Every channel carried it, but yesterday evening I watched an entire "Nancy Grace" devoted to just slinging the mud all over this one. I usually find her shameless anyway, but yesterday she had experts on who were just repeating the police report over and over--for an hour. Bill O'Reilly, from whom we should expect no less, had a self-proclaimed (or should I say FOX-proclaimed) "expert" in public speaking (does this exist? I get images of the famous Roman orators in my mind) dissecting Lindsay's body language on a recent episode of "Ellen," suggesting that the frequent "head-swinging from left to right" and the "down-looking eyes" suggested the girl was playful yet a liar. Thank god for those public speaking experts or we'd never get down to the bottom of this.

Here's what scares me about this whole thing:

Is this Lindsay? No. It's Dina Lohan who, like CNN, is shamelessly profiting from Lindsay's problems. Difference: DINA IS HER MOTHER. Why is this woman famous? Because her daughter has been arrested twice before the age of 21, both for drinking and driving and possession of narcotics. Anywhere else in the world, this parent would lose custody. In Hollywood (which I don't consider part of America), she gets a spread in Harper's Bazaar.

In the Harper's interview as reported by the New York Post, Dina suggests that this whole problem is caused by paparazzi. In the article she compares Lindsay's situation to Princess Diana's, suggesting if the paparazzi doesn't wake up, tragedy is inevitable. My favorite line of her's is "Some of these kids are just lost," in reference to Britney and Paris. Um...anyone up for some self-relfection? In response to the idea that she might be criticized for her "parenting skills", Dina replies, "I'm living the American dream, and you can go . . ." Meanwhile, she also talks about Paris and Kathy Hilton suggesting, "Paris is a really smart girl, and she's come really far...Paris' mom was wonderfully embracing to me. You know, you can't blame parents for kids."

What is going on here and why do we continue to allow it? Is Dina Lohan ever going to pay the price for destroying this child? Should she be blamed? Is this the whole story?

Consider the evidence and then decide, I suppose.

Sorry Dina. I'm blaming you and Lindsay should too.

"Damages" Delivers

Oh. Man. This is going to be an amazing show. Thanks to F/X via corporate sponsorship for bringing the whole hour without commercials. I didn't move off my couch; in fact, I barely breathed. It was just that good.

Let's talk about the writing--amazing television. Just from the first episode, I think this show is really going to give the HBO/Showtime series ("The Sopranos," "Big Love," "Weeds,""Sex and the City") real runs for their money. The story was complicated without being full of its own effort. This first episode was the perfect exposition; it ran very much like a layered, nuanced novel that will unfold slowly and in its own time. I was nervous that this show would seem contrived and would try too hard coming on the heels of such tv successes as "Lost" and "24." I didn't think it did that at all.

But let's also talk about the actors and characters. While this seems to be a plot-driven show, the characters already appear real in the sense that each is complex, flawed, and just understated enough to make the person real. Glenn Close (who I find kind of bizarre and I worried would seem too "hard) was compelling; her Patty Hewes is charming and magnetic while the trailers for upcoming shows reveal her pure ambition-bordering-on-evil. It takes some kinda actress to do that. She was good. I was delighted to see Tate Donovan in a major role--I've loved that guy ever since "Space Camp." Rose Byrne (who's new to me) is the perfect "ingenue" in this case--already things look very bad for poor Ellen Parsons. This cast is packed with famous people . I always like to hope that they're famous for a reason and that'll mean good things for the show.

This show plays like a movie; it'll take all season to figure out exactly what's going on. And I'm going to enjoy every minute of it. THANK GOD I've found a suitable replacement for some of my favorite staples that are wrapping up (Kathy Griffin; Little People, Big World).

In case I didn't con you into watching, here's some video that will maybe pull you in:

Without Prejudice?(!)

I just heard a commercial for this show and I don't know what to think. It's appearing on the Game Show Network, which I don't get, and I'm thinking I'm okay with that. Basically, the premise of the show as listed on the GSN website is:

"Hosted by Dr. Robi Ludwig, a renowned psychotherapist and journalist, this provocative series focuses on five contestants willing to open their lives to examination. A panel of strangers will decide which ONE contestant deserves to receive a $25,000 prize. Both the panel and home viewers will discover more and more about each contestant as the examination progresses and subsequently, contestants are eliminated."

The commercial airing on tv right now shows blatant racist remarks and the tension and fighting that ensues. I think it's interesting that it's hosted by a shrink, attempting to boost the "credibility" factor somehow. I'm conflicted for several reasons: 1) issues aired on this show could actually be discussed as "very bad" within homes watching--which is good. 2) people could tune in and feel that their own intolerant views are vindicated--that's bad. 3) ultimately, this is a show about judgment--and the encouraging of it--that's bad. 4) whoever is judged most "societally acceptable" will win a lot of money--that's just weird.

As a sociologist, this is going to be a treasure trove of interesting and sad social commentaries. Basically, someone has decided that promoting the practice of judging others based on a deeply-ingrained sense of one's own intolerance is not only acceptable, but encouraged. AND...that the most "normal," "acceptable," or "deserving" person will get a lot of money for just living what is relatively the most "notable" life. I don't know...this seems like it could be the opening of Pandora's Box.

Sandra Lee is a Master Huckster

Every now and then, in the afternoons, I put The Food Network on as background noise while I'm accomplishing great things. I usually pick up the schedule with Sandra Lee, the brilliant mind behind "Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee" which happens to usually be a misnomer as this show is light on cooking and heavy on what we in the academic world call plagiarism. So it's with food...same difference.

In one half-hour, Sandra Lee will manage to make thoroughly unappetizing and, according to the ratings on www.foodtv.com, nearly impossible to re-create recipes using her "30% fresh ingredients, 70% store-bought" formula. She's also the woman who single-handedly forced the word "table-scape" into the public lexicon and re-invented the common usage of the word "embellishment." With her bizarrely proportioned figure (she resembles a Barbie Doll--no joke) and just as equally bizarre kitchen that always matches the type of food she's making, she is the First Lady of semi-authentic cuisine. Which is where I start to go all academic on the Food Network.

More so than ever, especially the rise of the network's own show "The Next Food Network Star," this network is less about cooking and more about some "hook" used by hosts who are not really cooking stars at all but really saavy business men and women who can sell the public an idea. Rachael Ray cooks dinner in 30 minutes, making sure to abbreviate EVOO and GB (garbage bowl) to "save time." Paula Dean (oh lord) makes down-home Southern cookin' y'all, whippin' up desserts and dishes that all include 5 pounds of butter and friend pork fat. Now her sons, Jaime and Bobby, travel the country and...well, eat. We can really be sure what they're contribution is (Bobby's only reasonable connection to food is that he's nice eye candy). Ina Garten desperately wanting to be French, makes inappropriately heavy lunch and dinner combinations and then asks her poor-but-rich invited guests from the Hamptons how good everything is, following up the inquiry with a weird squirrelly laugh. Robin Miller dresses up left-overs for five days. In my family, that would equal a mutiny of seismic proportions. And in the end how many of these fine chefs actually have a culinary career? None...because they're not chefs. In fact, they're not even experts. Their just people with a schtick and a knife (and Sandra Lee doesn't even have a knife.)

Where are the chefs? Bobby Flay, Michael Chiarello, Mario Batali, Giada DiLaurentiis, Alton Brown, Tyler Florence, Dave Lieberman, and Emeril (god love him) are legitimate. Most, however, have been consigned to time-slots that appeal only to those who are on break during the third-shift (Dave Lieberman doesn't even have a regular show...he's now only on the web). A glaring exception: Giada gets a lot of air time and for what I and my male friends insist are two very good reasons (just watch her show once and you'll know). Even if they get decent air-time, they're selling out: Emeril thinks he can sell toothpaste (BAM!) and act on a sitcom. Just the idea is not funny. Tyler Florence now makes quasi-delicious, mediocre and oft-recreated-on-the-line things for Applebees of all crappy chain restaurants.

I pine for the days before Marc Summers (cloying and cheesy host of "Unwrapped") got his grubby paws on the Food Network; these days were ruled by Ming Tsai, Sarah Moulton, and the Two Hot Tamales (Sue Finneger and Susan Millikan). Even Anthony Bourdain was on the network for about five minutes. They weren't catchy, they didn't have little copyrighted or mass-marketed sayings, and they didn't wear low cut t-shirts to make Arugula pesto. When these people told you why you were doing something, you believed them. Why? Because they're professionals, they own their own restaurants, and they KNOW about FOOD. They've earned the right to their authority on the topic of food. Sandra Lee belongs on the Apprentice or QVC...not the Food Network. Why? Because she just made and proclaimed the deliciousness of a drink involving peach schnapps, club soda, and ice cream that just happened to match perfectly with her Asian-inspired tablescape. I don't think Peach Schnapps has anything to do with Asia and making me believe that it does...well, that's the work of a saleswoman...not a chef.

"Damages" Debuts on FX Tonight 10/9c

Big excitement as we tv-watchers have finally been given more than the usual doldrums of summer re-run fare. "Damages" has been highly touted for it's cast, led by Glenn Close and Ted Danson (that's right...Sam from "Cheers" who has a shock of white hair now and seems to be playing the heavy in this series). The critical reviews for this show have been through the roof, but only time will tell what will happen with, from what I've heard" this mixture of "24" meets "The Sopranos" meets "other critically acclaimed dramas led by tough-yet-lovably flawed female characters (see yesterday's post).

Can we and this summer possibly handle yet another unlikable but totally lovable woman on cable?

And does network television exist anymore?

"Saving Grace" Debuts on TNT

So, I was totally pumped about this new show starring Holly Hunter (one of my favorites) as a tough detective haunted by demons from her past called "Saving Grace."

It was hyped and cleverly scheduled to run after "The Closer" which was TNT's huge hit drama of last year starring Kyra Sedgwick. It seems that TNT is becoming the channel of drama series led by quirky-yet-strong female characters who are deeply flawed yet ultimately redeemable on their own merits. But I digress.

A couple things really surprised me about "Saving": First, there was a lot of "God" and "Religion," involved...way more than I expected even though the commercials clearly showed an angel coming to her drunken rescue. Second, I was thrilled by the appearance of Laura San Giacomo (who we know better from Just Shoot Me and the movie Pretty Woman). I always thought she was a better actress than the aforementioned tv show permitted. I think this series confirms it. Third, I was pleased at how natural and normal the women look for their age. Both have wrinkles, freckles, and appear as they have for years. Thank god they've not yet succumbed to the pull of Botox or Dr. 90210.

I don't have much to say about the show right now; I like to take into consideration the whole arc of the show before I judge. But I'll say this: "The Closer" hasn't disappointed yet and my hope is that "Grace" will follow suit.

Pop Culture Tent Now Open

Hey,

I've realized that I need an extra space to just discuss things of a pop culture nature. This is where I'm going to do it. I can't promise deep, intellectual discussion. But, there's gonna be a lot of t.v. going on here, that's for sure.