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!

"Harry Potter" Valley

I am a Harry Potter fan....there I said it. I always have been--ever since book 1 and 2 saved my life while I was temporarily living in the Dominican Republic. Aside from their salvific qualities, it's an amazing story. And the movies are amazing. So, I waited with a gnawing hunger to go and watch the 5th movie--Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix--which was finally satisfied yesterday. And the wait was worth it. I was mesmerized (and I've known how it ends for years), enchanted (hah!), and drawn in both by the lush visual quality of the movie and the theatrical ride that every HP movie since #1 has almost guaranteed before you walk in the door.

But as I walked out of the theater into the blinding, glaring 93-degree heat yesterday, I felt sad. I was experiencing, what I'm sure is the Harry Potter let-down--not because the movie was a disappointment (far from it) but because I won't get another visual dose of Harry for another 2 years. I felt like I'd just had the best 2 hour and 38 minute period two old friends could have and that friend has up and gone, of course promising to come back but not for awhile. Surely, I will watch this 5th installment at least 20 more times before...this year ends. I will pick apart every detail, I will analyze every single DVD extra offered on the DVD that will surely (IT MUST!) come out in time for Christmas shopping, I'll even read the book again. But yesterday, as I was assaulted by glaring reality as I exited the movie theater, I realized that the line between fantasy and reality has become blurred for me: I strongly identify with Harry and his crew...I feel like we're friends. What I wonder is whether or not I should be worried.

I'm pretty sure I'm not insane, but I also don't feel normal admitting that a character out of a book (and now movie) actually informs the way I act. I left the movie feeling all of these emotions: sadness, worry, a sense of triumph and empowerment. I also happen to be reading book 7 right now and even as I write this I'm worried for Harry, Hermione, and Ron even though I know how the book ends (if you're going to chastise me for skipping to the end of almost every book I read, get in line). I get that sense of fulfillment--admiration really--in ways my real life does not provide. It has real consequences outside of the movie. But is that a bad thing? Is it because I've become so sensitive and socialized into a world of pop culture (in which I've admittedly immersed myself) that "everyday, ordinary reality" seems just that--not extraordinary. And, if movies/books/tv can influence people in a positive way (make them feel empowered and even emboldened) should we be okay with that? Of course, the flip side is the negative impacts on which we always seem to focus. And at what point, then, does the creation of pop culture become something of morality--an embodiment of a certain value system "hidden" within the media of film or novels?

I feel lucky that J.K. Rowling seems to endorse a value system governing society that can be read as a "tolerant" view of the way the social world should work--Dumbledore and those who follow him seek what is "right" (which in her case means "equality" and "democracy") and those happen to coincide with my ideals. For me, Harry is the model of a freedom fighter, answering the call to accept and fight a war on the side of justice as opposed to fascist, racist Voldemort. What about those items of pop culture that spew and endorse hate? Should any of these producers be held accountable for the value systems inherently injected into their art if we sense that those items become the basis for action based on those value systems within?

Okay...too heavy...come back. I'm just saying...I love Harry Potter. The series, yes, but also the character. And Hermione and Ron and Lupin and Sirius. James and Lily. Albus Dumbledore and Minerva McGonigle. Ginny, Fred, George, Bill, Charlie, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley. I feel their pain, their worry, their joy. I've watched Harry (through Daniel Radcliffe) grow from a boy to a man--and I still like him. And maybe that's why J.K. Rowling is a genius. She's allowed me an every other HP Fan to be part of the family and part of the fight. And I love that. This is only the 5th movie--imagine what will happen to me when the 7th movie (the final, final installment of anything Potter to ever be created) is over and done with. I'm already planning Harry Potter Marathon Screenings just to keep the dream alive.

"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.

Come See the Softer Side of...Patty Hewes?

Alright, alright. I've already raved about how awesome this show is, but Tuesday night's episode scared me a little--not in the content, but in the lack thereof. I though it was equivalent to the middle laps of a 1600 meter Swim watched on an Olympics telecast. You know that you cared at the beginning, you fully anticipate being riveted at the end, but these middle laps are just swimming back and forth. That's how I felt but I wasn't totally disappointed. It's giving the show time to settle itself in.

But there was one little thing that irked me about the move in the episode last night to reveal Patty's "softer side." Let's just say upfront that there is nothing "soft" about this "soft side," it's merely soft-er. So, it turns out, Patty has these horrifying dreams that forecast her own, violent death. (The title of the episode was "My paralyzing fear of death"). Throughout the episode we see her breaking down just a teensy bit as grenades keep arriving randomly, scattering themselves about her life: one at the office (her response at receiving the gift-wrapped weapon of destruction was wicked awesome, though: "Oh, this is going to be a crappy week."), one in the glove-box of her husband's car. As I watched it, I was just waiting for the explosion, but Damages is tricky that way--kill the husband in the 3rd show--I daresay that's so jumping the shark way too soon. "My irk?" you might ask: I don't want to like Patty.

This hits up against one of those basic, fundamental questions regarding a viewer's own tv habits. Do I watch tv passively or actively? Am I just there to absorb what you give me or can I take something away from the experience? Last night, I found myself thinking it's too much work to learn to like Patty. She's the villain (right?); I don't want to like her. I already like Ellen and Tom, and poor David who is clearly doomed. Katie is obviously devious beyond belief. Arthur Frobisher is kinda maniacal. I have a weird soft spot in my heart for Ray Fiske that somehow has to deal with Arthur Frobisher. But the truth is, I just want battle lines drawn neatly with a red Sharpie. I just want to turn on the show and watch it fit into the formula of spaghetti* Westerns: there's a good guy and a bad guy and one wears black and the other white (as utterly wrong as those convenient "colors-that-correspond-to-race" are).

*(which are named such because it was cheaper to shoot and produce the movie if they filmed them, not in the American "Wild West" but in the Italian Alps...where they eat a good deal of spaghetti...fun fact.)

But, this very lament is ultimately the reason I go back again and again to this show. The fact of the matter is that this show will not allow me to be a passive consumer of its messages and relationships. It is bursting open the conventions of regular one-hour drama and making it...dare I say, real and challenging. No one in reality is one-dimensionally good or bad. People wear colors (some of them which should never be transferred into apparel, but that's beside the point) not just black and white. The story is complex. It's normal to feel empathy for someone who is heinous...and then feel guilty for somehow realizing that they are, at the very least, human. So, while I don't want to know that Patty is scared of death and, maybe even in the deepest darkest corner of her heart sometimes cries (shudder), I have to know that because it's real. That's why everyone should be watching this show!!! Sorry...lost it there for a second.

By the way, if you were wondering who was sending the grenades--it was NOT Arthur Frobisher. Why? Because that would be prosaic and easy. No...the harbinger of gift-wrapped death was none other than PATTY'S OWN BRILLIANT BUT WAYWARD SON! That's why everyone should be watching this show!!!

Singing Bee vs. Don't Forget The Lyrics: A Karaoke Smackdown

At the request of my (one) faithful reader on this blog, Jacob, I was asked to compare the virtues of NBC's "The Great American Singing Bee" to FOX's lamely-titled "Don't Forget the Lyrics." Let's begin the smackdown shall we:

This show blatantly stole the "Millionaire" format; thus it has one contestant for the entire 1/2 hour. While each contestant has 3 "life-lines" and they can choose the category of the song they have to identify while they hike up the "Pyramid" what everything comes down to is this: a lot of bad singing by one person who tried out but didn't make the cut at "American Idol" + Wayne Brady being his usual annoying self. The only PRO I could come up with for this show was that it's only on one night a week. Save yourself aggravation and switch over to...

NBC's the Singing Bee. Here's why this show is just fun, although I've already written about this:

1. Great band and "song introducers": Like on "Name That Tune" a singer from the band "introduces" most of the song and contestants are asked to fill in the words exactly correctly. The "stable" of singers they got covers all ranges and they really sound like the original artists.

2. Joey Fatone. I hate to say it. It almost makes me cringe. But Mr. Back-Street Boy knows how to host a show. Unlike attention-hogging Wayne, he doesn't sing a note (hey, he concedes his weaknesses) and creates a fun atmosphere full of laughing at the goofy contestants. The picture above is from the "80s Night" Special to which he showed up with a mullet and thin pink pleather tie--10 extra points.

3. Much better choice of songs and theme nights. These are actually songs you can and should sing to. They've already done "80s night" and "Girl-Power Night"--I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

4. Better game show format. It really does work like a spelling bee, only with songs...and singing.

5. Contestants clearly are not trying for 15 minutes (or 22 minutes not counting commercials) of singing success. They were chosen randomly by Joey at the beginning of the show and they come out with some awesomely-bad versions of the lyrics of the songs. It's hysterical.

My only issue: The Honey Bees. They're like the Fly-Girls...only not...and they're annoying and model-y and their presence is somehow exploitive (but thank god they have their own blog...sadly I assumed they were just mindless eye-candy)

CLEAR WINNER AND STILL CHAMPION:

Take that Wayne.

Marketing of Sherrybaby

Just an addendum to my previous post. I thought this was interesting. The cover of the DVD shows this picture: Sherry the bedraggled woman. You can see her either going or coming to a job interview. She doesn't look happy. The skirt is maybe a little too pink. Clearly, just a woman trying to do good.
But, this picture was not the mass-marketed version. That was this:
In this one, she looks different and, frankly, like she could use a little support (and I mean that in a lot of ways).

What I wonder is why they chose such a different look for the DVD when this "halter top" Sherry is the predominant image of Sherry we get in the movie and in all the trailers. I don't know, but I found that while I was searching around for pictures and thought it was worth mentioning...or at least questioning.

My First Venture into blogging movies: Sherrybaby

This movie has been sitting on "My Q" on Blockbuster for months. Finally it arrived on my doorstep and given my new-found sense of getting things accomplished, I had the gumption to watch it. From trailers, it looked great.

But something was off.

Sherry is a woman coming home from jail after having done some hard time for stealing to get drugs; she's going through a 12-step program, living at a half-way house, and trying to get her relationship with her daughter back. The girl, Alexis, doesn't remember Sherry, having been raised by Sherry's brother and his wife.

Here's where the wheels started coming off. We're only 10 minutes in, by the way. Sherry is consistently portrayed as "a good heart" who's been dealt an awful lot in life. She, admirably, is trying to get past that and be the parent that she knows she can be; I'm just not convinced and that's what's weird about this movie. Sherry is framed as this downtrodden heroine who we should root for, but I don't. (And I feel guilty about it because I should...I should be on the side of a woman who's persevering and overcoming). I don't. I feel pity, which makes me feel even guiltier--and maybe it's because she's still such a woman-child who's trying to grow up through her own daughter who calls her "Sherry."

Maggie Gyllenhaal is awesome in this, but Sherry isn't and that's the problem. I want to root for Maggie for portraying the sloop-shouldered, raggedy-haired, fawn-eyed make-good woman. But there is no character there. People have relationships: Sherry does not. People have dimensions--again, Sherry does not. It's almost as if slinging a poor white woman just out of the clink onto the screen would be enough to make this work. I don't think this does. It's a disservice; it allows us "viewers" to fall back into all the ready, generalized, idealized stereotypes we've gotten used to assuming are true. I hate when movies do this; it's lazy. Well-conceived and executed details were skipped: who is Sherry and what motivates her? Her desire to break free from past parental relationships? To break out of her current social situation? Just wanting to be happy? Attention to any of these might have given us some insight into a woman of dealing with the consequences of of choices made through the experience of a certain socio-economic status. She's trying to "make it right" without any kind of past framework to guide her. "Making right" is a scary world. But Sherry was done the disservice of being written off by the writers as a floozy who gave in to the demons of her past life; even her creator didn't think she could do it. We have the portrayal of a "white trash" woman embodying everything that label implies (all of which is stereotypical and too simple).

And she seems to deserve more than that.