The cast of Modern Family was interviewed by Larry King on Friday night. I'm not sure Larry quite picked up everything they were putting down -- blame it on either a generation gap or just a sense of humor gap -- but it was fun to see them all together, with just as much chemistry off-screen as they have on-screen (just a tad more tame).
Missing from the interview were Ella and Jaden Hiller, probably because they can't talk quite yet. The twins who play Baby Lily have everything the Olsen twins had (i.e. they are adorable), including a female John Stamos in the form of Sofia Vergara. The difference is: on Modern Family, Lily plays the straight man. Every other character is quirky, constantly joking, or just out of their mind, but Lily is consistently straight-faced and completely stoic. No matter how much absolute hysteria or chaos is surrounding her, she maintains a blank stare, only accentuating the absurdity of the adult world she lives in. No exaggeration: I cannot think of one scene she's in where this is not the case. And it is downright hilarious.
Speaking of hilarious -- and so this post isn't just a perhaps obvious comment about babies being cute -- CBS has really screwed the pooch on this one: a reality TV show is in the works that will allow commonfolk with celebrity names to swap lives with their namesake. While I'm sure the Justin Biebers of the world will be happy to swap places with that gem, I wonder if they will send some Lindsay Lohan from the deep south to rehab and prison...and rehab again. If only my name were Diane Kruger (so close!), maybe they'd let me date Joshua Jackson for a day?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Episode 510
The academic part of my brain has officially run out of dissertation-topic-picking steam. So, I have decided to enlist the more engaging and stimulating part of my brain: the TV lobe. While the connections between sixteenth-century Italian literature and contemporary American television may be few, I figured it was worth giving it a shot. Here are a few ideas I've come up with:
1) The role of Machiavellian thought in reality television.
2) The dialogue genre as a precursor to the talk show.
3) The relationship between the Commedia dell'arte and semi-improvised television.
4) Pietro Aretino's erotic works and their relationship to "That's what she said."
At first I was worried that my adviser would see right through these. But I think if I use enough big words in my title, I might be able to pull it off. So, here are the proposed corresponding titles:
1) The hegemonic discourse of Machiavellian anti-Utopian thought in the hermeneutics of strategy in contemporary American reality television.
2) The polyphonic Renaissance dialogue genre and its representation of Neoplatonic thought as a precursor to the discussion-based media culture of the American talk show.
3) The emergence of the Commedia dell'arte in response to the crisis of early modernity and its relationship to the current trends in improvisational and semi-improvisational television.
4) The presence of subversive erotica in the multi-generic works of Pietro Aretino and their implication in the commonly-employed television innuendo of "That's what she said."
And hey, I didn't even need to use the word "intertextuality." You may think I'm exaggerating -- it sounds kind of like Joey using the thesaurus to write Monica and Chandler's recommendation to the adoption agency -- but check out ProQuest with a search for any humanities-related term, and you will encounter titles equally, if not more, absurd.
Please send any other suggestions my way. If you can't tell, I'm kind of desperate.
1) The role of Machiavellian thought in reality television.
2) The dialogue genre as a precursor to the talk show.
3) The relationship between the Commedia dell'arte and semi-improvised television.
4) Pietro Aretino's erotic works and their relationship to "That's what she said."
At first I was worried that my adviser would see right through these. But I think if I use enough big words in my title, I might be able to pull it off. So, here are the proposed corresponding titles:
1) The hegemonic discourse of Machiavellian anti-Utopian thought in the hermeneutics of strategy in contemporary American reality television.
2) The polyphonic Renaissance dialogue genre and its representation of Neoplatonic thought as a precursor to the discussion-based media culture of the American talk show.
3) The emergence of the Commedia dell'arte in response to the crisis of early modernity and its relationship to the current trends in improvisational and semi-improvisational television.
4) The presence of subversive erotica in the multi-generic works of Pietro Aretino and their implication in the commonly-employed television innuendo of "That's what she said."
And hey, I didn't even need to use the word "intertextuality." You may think I'm exaggerating -- it sounds kind of like Joey using the thesaurus to write Monica and Chandler's recommendation to the adoption agency -- but check out ProQuest with a search for any humanities-related term, and you will encounter titles equally, if not more, absurd.
Please send any other suggestions my way. If you can't tell, I'm kind of desperate.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Episode 509
Reality TV has turned into amateur hour. Don't get me wrong - I don't expect the "stars" of reality shows to have the talent of professional actors. The problem is I don't expect them to be actors at all, but that's exactly what they've become. Since the debut of The Real Housewives of Orange Country (and only made exponentially worse by Jersey Shore), reality programming has veered away from reality and morphed into something we already know: scripted television. Except with these shows, the actors aren't trained. If I wanted to watch terrible actors follow a terrible script, I would just watch Two and a Half Men.
If we want to think about how reality television has progressed (or regressed, perhaps) over the years, we can look at the prototype: The Real World. A keen reader recently wrote the following letter to Entertainment Weekly: "In '5 Shows That Changed TV,' Ken Tucker said he was 'shocked' he gave The Real World an A when it debuted in 1992. But it was a much different — and much better — show back then. The roommates shared a cramped apartment, not a decked-out mansion. They all had to find their own jobs. And while the cast was diverse, it wasn't intentionally spiked with explosive personalities. It really was seven strangers living together in the 'real world.'" Well, Steve Thompson, from Hayward, CA, you're absolutely right.
The fact that these programs are now "intentionally spiked with explosive personalities" takes the reality out of reality TV. Project Runway has increased its episode length to 90 minutes and it seems like every one of the 30 extra minutes is being used to expose dramatic personal issues (one of the contestants even admitted -- for the first time -- to being HIV positive) and catty interactions among contestants. Top Chef has gone from the most cooking-related cooking reality show on television to what seems to be a "Who has more of a chemical imbalance?" contest on the now-playing Top Chef: Just Desserts. And the current season of Survivor has been awful: we haven't seen any strategizing, any interesting challenges - just a crazy young woman threatening to throw her competitor's prosthetic leg into a fire.
The list of too-dramatic reality shows goes on and on, but I want to remind America (in the form of the handful of people reading this) that it hasn't always been that way. And I have faith that we can return to the purity of just plain good reality TV. Just like we have recently been able to reinvent the scripted family program with shows like Modern Family and Parenthood, we can also hope that producers are able to reinvent reality TV, bringing it back to its roots and back to reality.
If we want to think about how reality television has progressed (or regressed, perhaps) over the years, we can look at the prototype: The Real World. A keen reader recently wrote the following letter to Entertainment Weekly: "In '5 Shows That Changed TV,' Ken Tucker said he was 'shocked' he gave The Real World an A when it debuted in 1992. But it was a much different — and much better — show back then. The roommates shared a cramped apartment, not a decked-out mansion. They all had to find their own jobs. And while the cast was diverse, it wasn't intentionally spiked with explosive personalities. It really was seven strangers living together in the 'real world.'" Well, Steve Thompson, from Hayward, CA, you're absolutely right.
The fact that these programs are now "intentionally spiked with explosive personalities" takes the reality out of reality TV. Project Runway has increased its episode length to 90 minutes and it seems like every one of the 30 extra minutes is being used to expose dramatic personal issues (one of the contestants even admitted -- for the first time -- to being HIV positive) and catty interactions among contestants. Top Chef has gone from the most cooking-related cooking reality show on television to what seems to be a "Who has more of a chemical imbalance?" contest on the now-playing Top Chef: Just Desserts. And the current season of Survivor has been awful: we haven't seen any strategizing, any interesting challenges - just a crazy young woman threatening to throw her competitor's prosthetic leg into a fire.
The list of too-dramatic reality shows goes on and on, but I want to remind America (in the form of the handful of people reading this) that it hasn't always been that way. And I have faith that we can return to the purity of just plain good reality TV. Just like we have recently been able to reinvent the scripted family program with shows like Modern Family and Parenthood, we can also hope that producers are able to reinvent reality TV, bringing it back to its roots and back to reality.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Episode 508
I was debating which of two topics to write about today, both equally heavy and meaningful: a) religion and b) Heidi Klum's overwhelming bitchiness.
I will begin with the more pressing of the issues: Heidi. Usually all we hear from her on Project Runway (other than a few incomprehensible and fluffy comments on the outfits) is "Hell-o-o!" and "See you on the runway!" and "I'm sorry, that means you're out." But this week, the contestants were charged with making garments for her active wear line, so she made an appearance in the workroom as well, and boy did we see her true colors. Among other things, she told one contestant his outfit was suited for a dog (and then accused him of being rude when he didn't respond positively) and cattily made fun of an outed contestant behind her back. This just corroborates my assertion that overly negative feedback a bad reality show does make. It's why I can't watch Chopped and why I suggest that Project Runway sticks to Tim Gunn for workroom commentary.
Now, for less relevant matters. Over the past several years, many different taboo subjects have made their way into television. Most recently, such topics as teen pregnancy, sexual assault, and abortion have been treated by everything from reality TV to teen soaps to Mad Men. But last week, a number of shows took up a topic not common (at least in my memory) to comedic television: religion. Usually when we see religion on sitcoms, it's akin to the anti-dentite bit on Seinfeld. This week - I believe coincidentally - Glee, Modern Family, and Community all aired episodes devoted in large part to spirituality and differing religious viewpoints. All three shows did it beautifully and comically, but Glee took the cake: we had yet another touching Sue Sylvester with a heart of gold scene and we saw religious experience expressed in everything from hospital bed-side prayer to The Beatles.
Which reminds me, Glee just surpassed The Beatles for most hits on the Billboard 100 by a non-solo act. My apologies to non-Glee fans for having just used the words Glee and The Beatles in the same sentence when referring to musical accomplishment, but that is just absurd.
I will begin with the more pressing of the issues: Heidi. Usually all we hear from her on Project Runway (other than a few incomprehensible and fluffy comments on the outfits) is "Hell-o-o!" and "See you on the runway!" and "I'm sorry, that means you're out." But this week, the contestants were charged with making garments for her active wear line, so she made an appearance in the workroom as well, and boy did we see her true colors. Among other things, she told one contestant his outfit was suited for a dog (and then accused him of being rude when he didn't respond positively) and cattily made fun of an outed contestant behind her back. This just corroborates my assertion that overly negative feedback a bad reality show does make. It's why I can't watch Chopped and why I suggest that Project Runway sticks to Tim Gunn for workroom commentary.
Now, for less relevant matters. Over the past several years, many different taboo subjects have made their way into television. Most recently, such topics as teen pregnancy, sexual assault, and abortion have been treated by everything from reality TV to teen soaps to Mad Men. But last week, a number of shows took up a topic not common (at least in my memory) to comedic television: religion. Usually when we see religion on sitcoms, it's akin to the anti-dentite bit on Seinfeld. This week - I believe coincidentally - Glee, Modern Family, and Community all aired episodes devoted in large part to spirituality and differing religious viewpoints. All three shows did it beautifully and comically, but Glee took the cake: we had yet another touching Sue Sylvester with a heart of gold scene and we saw religious experience expressed in everything from hospital bed-side prayer to The Beatles.
Which reminds me, Glee just surpassed The Beatles for most hits on the Billboard 100 by a non-solo act. My apologies to non-Glee fans for having just used the words Glee and The Beatles in the same sentence when referring to musical accomplishment, but that is just absurd.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Episode 507
It's official: Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn will be reuniting with J.J. Abrams in what will essentially be a buddy-cop show. Like most, I think this is the best idea ever. Like many, I am terrified that it will flop. If Will Arnett can't save Running Wilde (and after a viewing of Episode 2, it's pretty certain he can't), then Linus and Locke can't save whatever not-as-good-as-LOST-script is thrown their way.
Until the show premieres, I don't want to speculate too much, but I would like to revisit another LOST-inspired concoction that I mentioned in a previous post: The Event. This turns out to be one of those shows where I'd rather read a plot summary than actually watch. I had that same experience when trying to get through the original Beverly Hills, 90210, if that's any indication of its quality. Basically, The Event is trying so hard to be LOST that it either rips it off completely or somehow achieves the exact opposite effect. Some examples:
1) Mystery. LOST's mystery was developed as the series progressed, constantly creating questions that, in the end, didn't even need to be answered to satisfy the viewers. The Event is a mystery from the first episode. Yes, we had Charlie on LOST asking "Where are we?" quite early in the series, but other than a ghost horse and a polar bear on a tropical island, there wasn't one question that needed to be answered. The only reason anyone is watching The Event is to find out what "the event" is.
2) Others. After only two episodes, there is already a group of Others (semi-humans who barely age). There are already questions surrounding these Others' iinherent goodness/badness. There is already an Other or two infiltrating the non-Others. Now all we need is a plane crash and some electromagnetism...oh wait.
3) Plane crash and electromagnetism. Really, The Event? Really? In the first episode (and explained in the second), a plane disappears into an electromagnetic field. Sound strangely familiar yet all wrong? When the electromagnetic phenomenon was explained to the president (Blair Underwood), I was half expecting him to say "Wait, that's like straight out of LOST!" We all know that if a plane disappeared into an electromagnetic field in real life and it was reported to President Obama, he'd definitely think J.J. Abrams was punking him.
If you're still not convinced it's an unsuccessful remake/rip-off, try Google-ing " 'The Event' electromagnetism." The first hits are about LOST. And The Event is nowhere to be found.
Until the show premieres, I don't want to speculate too much, but I would like to revisit another LOST-inspired concoction that I mentioned in a previous post: The Event. This turns out to be one of those shows where I'd rather read a plot summary than actually watch. I had that same experience when trying to get through the original Beverly Hills, 90210, if that's any indication of its quality. Basically, The Event is trying so hard to be LOST that it either rips it off completely or somehow achieves the exact opposite effect. Some examples:
1) Mystery. LOST's mystery was developed as the series progressed, constantly creating questions that, in the end, didn't even need to be answered to satisfy the viewers. The Event is a mystery from the first episode. Yes, we had Charlie on LOST asking "Where are we?" quite early in the series, but other than a ghost horse and a polar bear on a tropical island, there wasn't one question that needed to be answered. The only reason anyone is watching The Event is to find out what "the event" is.
2) Others. After only two episodes, there is already a group of Others (semi-humans who barely age). There are already questions surrounding these Others' iinherent goodness/badness. There is already an Other or two infiltrating the non-Others. Now all we need is a plane crash and some electromagnetism...oh wait.
3) Plane crash and electromagnetism. Really, The Event? Really? In the first episode (and explained in the second), a plane disappears into an electromagnetic field. Sound strangely familiar yet all wrong? When the electromagnetic phenomenon was explained to the president (Blair Underwood), I was half expecting him to say "Wait, that's like straight out of LOST!" We all know that if a plane disappeared into an electromagnetic field in real life and it was reported to President Obama, he'd definitely think J.J. Abrams was punking him.
If you're still not convinced it's an unsuccessful remake/rip-off, try Google-ing " 'The Event' electromagnetism." The first hits are about LOST. And The Event is nowhere to be found.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Episode 506
It was a big week for reality TV. First, we heard the news that Brad Womack -- the Bachelor who started the string of Deanna-Jason-Jillian-Jake-Ali on the Bacherlor(ette) by rejecting both of his final two ladies -- is coming back for a second chance at love. So anyone out there who thought that The Bachelor had at least some class compared to say, Rock of Love with Bret Michaels or A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila or Paris Hilton's My New BFF, has been proven very, very wrong. The producers have decided that, although only one (and a half, if you count Jason and Molly) marriage has come out of twenty seasons of the franchise, maybe, just maybe, Brad will get lucky his second time around. I mean, I'm all for all-star seasons of reality competition shows (Survivor, Top Chef, etc.) but this seems like a little much. Maybe they should bring back some rejected Bachelorettes for him to choose from.
Other big news in reality TV this week is the discovery that Jeff Probst is actually a 16-year-old girl. He hides it quite well on air with his eloquent and even witty commentary, but when he takes up the pen, his true colors come out. His blog for Entertainment Weekly is perhaps the most hysterical TV "criticism" I have ever read, and it's definitely worth taking a minute to read. Highlights are his tendency toward redundant consonant use to create emphasis (see: "holllla" and "Hellllllo") and his use of the word "girl", as in "Girl, it's too late." I'm just going to assume that Probst didn't have to send a writing sample in as part of his application.
Other big news in reality TV this week is the discovery that Jeff Probst is actually a 16-year-old girl. He hides it quite well on air with his eloquent and even witty commentary, but when he takes up the pen, his true colors come out. His blog for Entertainment Weekly is perhaps the most hysterical TV "criticism" I have ever read, and it's definitely worth taking a minute to read. Highlights are his tendency toward redundant consonant use to create emphasis (see: "holllla" and "Hellllllo") and his use of the word "girl", as in "Girl, it's too late." I'm just going to assume that Probst didn't have to send a writing sample in as part of his application.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
