I will admit that I watch "Jersey Shore." In fact I haven't missed an episode. It renewed my faith in reality TV. And the creator, SallyAnn Salsano is a genius. Her newest project appears to be even better.
How is this not the best idea for a reality TV show ever? It's like Mean Girls in real life.
The amount of awkwardness and discomfort will be through the roof. And I will love every minute of it. Think about it. Mothers and daughters fight and that is entertaining. Now add the competing parent syndrome, the uncomfortable "I think I'm the same age as my daughter," and general bitchiness between young women that age and what you have is a napalm of endless unintentional comedy, entertainingly ridiculous drama, and good old fashioned American family dysfunction. I know I will tune it.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
My Last Nerve
I am a Washington Redskins fan. It has been mostly a painful experience, but since my first memory of watching pro football was watching the Redskins beat the Bills to win Super Bowl XXVI I have been a fan. I tried very hard to de-fan myself in the early 2000s when the outlook was bleak but I couldn't do it.
Well I am almost at that point now. One move could make me give up the Redskins for good: trading for Peyton Manning. This is the exact type of move that set the Skins back so many times, wasting valuable draft picks to get the immediate impact player, who is past their prime (see. Donovan McNabb, Bruce Smith, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle-El, Alber Haynesworth, I can keep going but I would run out of page length). But this trade would be devastating.
The Colts would never trade Manning right? Ask Joe Montana about that and he actually won multiple Super Bowls. Since it is no secret the Colts are actively trying to go 0-16 so they can land the top pick you have to assume they want Andrew Luck. With the salary structure, Manning's contract, his age, his health, the smart move for the Colts is to get someone to over-reach for Manning. They could get multiple draft picks and a quality player to fill many of their other holes that Manning was able to paper over.
Why would this be a bad thing for the Redskins? Besides the McNabb experiment as an example I give you this. The Redskins, when healthy this year looked like a decent team. There is no depth in the secondary, or the offensive line, and we still need a quarterback. If we were getting Peyton Manning from 3 years ago maybe this would be an excuse. But we wouldn't. The Redskins would be getting a 36 year old who has had 3 neck surgeries in 2 years. And behind that offensive line, there is no chance he would stay healthy.
The other reason this would be bad is because of the way the new CBA locks rookies into teams for much cheaper than they have in years past. This means the best way to build a team is through the draft. This is one lesson the Redskins have failed at under Snyder. It is why they brought in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan: they know that value comes in the draft because you build depth cheaply. To get Manning the Redskins would have to give up a lot of draft picks, which would set the team back on course to where it had been since 2000 when Snyder took over and began treating it like a fantasy football team.*
*This year's draft especially should have good depth in both the defensive backfield and offensive lines (two gaping holes), and there should be more than one QB (I'd like to see Kellen Moore as Drew Brees 2.0, undersized but smart, accurate, and a winner).
I can't go through that frustration again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results (thank you Albert Einstein). If the Redskins start doing the same thing they used to and expecting it to be different, they are insane to think I can keep rooting for them.
Well I am almost at that point now. One move could make me give up the Redskins for good: trading for Peyton Manning. This is the exact type of move that set the Skins back so many times, wasting valuable draft picks to get the immediate impact player, who is past their prime (see. Donovan McNabb, Bruce Smith, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle-El, Alber Haynesworth, I can keep going but I would run out of page length). But this trade would be devastating.
The Colts would never trade Manning right? Ask Joe Montana about that and he actually won multiple Super Bowls. Since it is no secret the Colts are actively trying to go 0-16 so they can land the top pick you have to assume they want Andrew Luck. With the salary structure, Manning's contract, his age, his health, the smart move for the Colts is to get someone to over-reach for Manning. They could get multiple draft picks and a quality player to fill many of their other holes that Manning was able to paper over.
Why would this be a bad thing for the Redskins? Besides the McNabb experiment as an example I give you this. The Redskins, when healthy this year looked like a decent team. There is no depth in the secondary, or the offensive line, and we still need a quarterback. If we were getting Peyton Manning from 3 years ago maybe this would be an excuse. But we wouldn't. The Redskins would be getting a 36 year old who has had 3 neck surgeries in 2 years. And behind that offensive line, there is no chance he would stay healthy.
The other reason this would be bad is because of the way the new CBA locks rookies into teams for much cheaper than they have in years past. This means the best way to build a team is through the draft. This is one lesson the Redskins have failed at under Snyder. It is why they brought in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan: they know that value comes in the draft because you build depth cheaply. To get Manning the Redskins would have to give up a lot of draft picks, which would set the team back on course to where it had been since 2000 when Snyder took over and began treating it like a fantasy football team.*
*This year's draft especially should have good depth in both the defensive backfield and offensive lines (two gaping holes), and there should be more than one QB (I'd like to see Kellen Moore as Drew Brees 2.0, undersized but smart, accurate, and a winner).
I can't go through that frustration again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results (thank you Albert Einstein). If the Redskins start doing the same thing they used to and expecting it to be different, they are insane to think I can keep rooting for them.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Trying to Understand Penn State
Everyone is quick to damn Joe Paterno. This makes no sense to me. Everyone loves Michael Jackson. It was the worst thing to ever happen when he died. His doctor deserved to rot in jail for his part in it. Everyone conveniently forgot that Mr. Jackson was the one touching the kids. Joe Paterno never once laid hands on any of the alleged victims here. In fact I would venture to say he probably doesn't even remember seeing them.
What is hard to stomach is that Joe Paterno was a coach dedicated to the true purpose of college football. His players graduated. His players didn't take money. His program was clean. The entire athletic department had never been found guilty of an NCAA violation. Yet coaches like Lane Kiffin, John Calipari, Nick Saban, Mack Brown they all get to keep their jobs despite putting winning before the rules and even worse academics. Those coaches chew their players up, get what they want out of them, tell them they will go pro so class doesn't matter (even though a majority won't), don't prepare them for life after sports. JoePa not only put his players first, but in doing so he was successful. That is not something you see in college sports today.
Today you win by buying the best junior college QB. You win by having someone take the SAT for your star recruit so he can remain eligible. You win by paying the mortgage of you running back's parents' house. Then you split town when as soon as trouble shows up leaving the school to pay for your crimes. Paterno not only played within the rules, but he did it with steadfast loyalty and success. And how did the Penn State trustees repay him: a phone call telling him he was fired. All as a knee jerk reaction to public misconception.
Judging from 90% of the statuses on Facebook, most people did not know the facts of this story. Most people believed that Joe was standing there watching as his defensive coordinator did unspeakable things to children. That simply is not true. Joe Paterno was told by an graduate assistant of suspicious behavior of a former employee. He did not witness anything. He is not the police. His job is to coach football. He told his superiors the information he was told. Those two men were the ones who failed to act. Those two men were the ones who decided to cover it up. Not Joe Paterno.
Can you make the case that Paterno should have done more? Yes, of course. It is easy to sit back almost 10 years later and say he made a mistake. And that is where the tragedy is: one mistake brings what should be considered a shining model of how to be a college coach crashing down as some sort of devil. One instance of not doing quite enough is enough to destroy a man's otherwise spotless legacy.
For 46 years Paterno did things the right way. That kind of loyalty and success is unprecedented. I am not saying that he should have kept his job, I am simply saying that he is being treated totally unfairly. If anything his resume earned him the benefit of the doubt to at least be told in person he was getting let go, if not let him finish the season out.
I guess Harvey Dent got it right: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
What is hard to stomach is that Joe Paterno was a coach dedicated to the true purpose of college football. His players graduated. His players didn't take money. His program was clean. The entire athletic department had never been found guilty of an NCAA violation. Yet coaches like Lane Kiffin, John Calipari, Nick Saban, Mack Brown they all get to keep their jobs despite putting winning before the rules and even worse academics. Those coaches chew their players up, get what they want out of them, tell them they will go pro so class doesn't matter (even though a majority won't), don't prepare them for life after sports. JoePa not only put his players first, but in doing so he was successful. That is not something you see in college sports today.
Today you win by buying the best junior college QB. You win by having someone take the SAT for your star recruit so he can remain eligible. You win by paying the mortgage of you running back's parents' house. Then you split town when as soon as trouble shows up leaving the school to pay for your crimes. Paterno not only played within the rules, but he did it with steadfast loyalty and success. And how did the Penn State trustees repay him: a phone call telling him he was fired. All as a knee jerk reaction to public misconception.
Judging from 90% of the statuses on Facebook, most people did not know the facts of this story. Most people believed that Joe was standing there watching as his defensive coordinator did unspeakable things to children. That simply is not true. Joe Paterno was told by an graduate assistant of suspicious behavior of a former employee. He did not witness anything. He is not the police. His job is to coach football. He told his superiors the information he was told. Those two men were the ones who failed to act. Those two men were the ones who decided to cover it up. Not Joe Paterno.
Can you make the case that Paterno should have done more? Yes, of course. It is easy to sit back almost 10 years later and say he made a mistake. And that is where the tragedy is: one mistake brings what should be considered a shining model of how to be a college coach crashing down as some sort of devil. One instance of not doing quite enough is enough to destroy a man's otherwise spotless legacy.
For 46 years Paterno did things the right way. That kind of loyalty and success is unprecedented. I am not saying that he should have kept his job, I am simply saying that he is being treated totally unfairly. If anything his resume earned him the benefit of the doubt to at least be told in person he was getting let go, if not let him finish the season out.
I guess Harvey Dent got it right: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Why It is WE
Today on my favorite website (that isn't Facebook), Grantland.com, there was a piece on why saying "we" in reference to a sports team is the dumbest thing ever. The crux of the piece was that unless you are actually attending a college, a Green Bay Packer shareholder, or employed by the team there is no "we." The writer made a point that we as a society don't say "we" when watching a movie, seeing a band, reading a book. He used the Florida Marlins as an example of how little fans mean to sports.
I respectfully don't agree with this approach. The flaw to me is comparing your favorite sports team to a book, a movie, a band. When I go see a movie I know that what is going to happen will happen no matter how much I don't want it to (just tell Joaquin Phoenix you'll be loyal to him Maximus!). Same goes when I read a book, or listen to a band play. I can't influence the outcome. That is not the feeling we get with sports. And there is plenty of evidence to prove that. In the last two Detroit Lion home games Ford Field was so loud the Bears and 49ers combined for 14 false start penalties. No fan influence there. Arsenal vs. FC Barcelona in the Champions league: at the Emirates in North London 2-1 to the home team, in the Nou Camp 4-1 to the home team (Arsenal only getting a goal on an own goal by FCB as they had 0 shots on target). No home field advantage there.
I have been in stadiums, bars, field houses where the crowd is an entity. Seattle and Texas A&M call their crowd the 12th man. Players pick up on the vibe of the fans, the fans pick up on the vibe of the players. There is a give and take, an actually relationship. You cannot tell me that it does not exist because I have been on both sides of it. Fans can provide the energy to lift the team's level of play. Fans can provide the chaos to strike fear, or at the very least poor execution, into the hearts of the opponents. There is an emotional connection between team and fan you don't have in any other area of society. We wear our lucky jerseys (or don't wear unlucky ones in some cases), sit in our lucky seats, pray to whatever god we chose for success of our team; Our days are ruined by a poor performance and completed by a great one. I don't run around screaming for joy when Colin Firth nailed his performance in The King's Speech but I do when Chipper Jones belts a game winning homer.
It is the emotion that makes it We. It is the personal connection between fans, players, owners, towel boys, coaches. It is being a part of something bigger, no matter how small your contribution, that makes sports a WE endeavor. We don't say "Let's Go!" for no reason.
I respectfully don't agree with this approach. The flaw to me is comparing your favorite sports team to a book, a movie, a band. When I go see a movie I know that what is going to happen will happen no matter how much I don't want it to (just tell Joaquin Phoenix you'll be loyal to him Maximus!). Same goes when I read a book, or listen to a band play. I can't influence the outcome. That is not the feeling we get with sports. And there is plenty of evidence to prove that. In the last two Detroit Lion home games Ford Field was so loud the Bears and 49ers combined for 14 false start penalties. No fan influence there. Arsenal vs. FC Barcelona in the Champions league: at the Emirates in North London 2-1 to the home team, in the Nou Camp 4-1 to the home team (Arsenal only getting a goal on an own goal by FCB as they had 0 shots on target). No home field advantage there.
I have been in stadiums, bars, field houses where the crowd is an entity. Seattle and Texas A&M call their crowd the 12th man. Players pick up on the vibe of the fans, the fans pick up on the vibe of the players. There is a give and take, an actually relationship. You cannot tell me that it does not exist because I have been on both sides of it. Fans can provide the energy to lift the team's level of play. Fans can provide the chaos to strike fear, or at the very least poor execution, into the hearts of the opponents. There is an emotional connection between team and fan you don't have in any other area of society. We wear our lucky jerseys (or don't wear unlucky ones in some cases), sit in our lucky seats, pray to whatever god we chose for success of our team; Our days are ruined by a poor performance and completed by a great one. I don't run around screaming for joy when Colin Firth nailed his performance in The King's Speech but I do when Chipper Jones belts a game winning homer.
It is the emotion that makes it We. It is the personal connection between fans, players, owners, towel boys, coaches. It is being a part of something bigger, no matter how small your contribution, that makes sports a WE endeavor. We don't say "Let's Go!" for no reason.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
A Retrospective
Thanks to Netflix I have just powered through the first 3 seasons of critically acclaimed Breaking Bad. All I can say is that I was underwhelmed. I am not saying the show is not good, I quite enjoyed it actually. However, for as much talk as the show gets as being put in the same pantheon as The Wire and Mad Men it completely failed to deliver, and I am biased because Vince Gilligan is a fellow Richmonder.
The one thing the show has going for it is strong characters. Bryan Cranston does an excellent job as high school chemistry teacher slowly turned drug lord. I can see why he has won an Emmy for it. What I can't see is why he has won more than one. His character, while not static, is on a very static path. There is this slow decay, which granted is hard to pull off, but seems once you get the hang of it, it's there. He really only plays three sides: happy, depressed, ruthless. I am failing to see why his performance is considered so much better than Jon Hamm as Don Draper. Draper has dealt with almost the exact same concerns: a secret that threatens life as he knows it, putting on appearances, ruthlessness in the business world. We also get to see what inspires Draper, what moves him, what really makes him tick. I feel like Walter White just is. He is happy he has money for his family, he is depressed his wife left him, he is ruthless in protecting his drug trade. For a show that really seems to be basing itself on character there isn't quite as much exploration as I'd like to see.
The this Breaking Bad really does not have going for it is plot. Constantly I found myself 3 steps ahead of the characters on screen. (SPOILER ALERT) A simple example comes when Walt needs a way to use his drug money on his family without raising eyebrows. A few scenes earlier his son set up a website asking for donations for Walt's cancer treatment. Duh. If I have to connect those dots for you, please watch this show, you'll be shocked by all the twists and turns. Season 2 also had a big fail moment for me when they teased the pink stuffed bear in the pool and the body bags in Walt's driveway all season. Maybe it was because I knew that there were 2 more seasons, but I knew that those two body bags did not contain anyone important. Then the show tried to tie it all together with a Soderbergh-ian moment of (SPOILER ALERT) Walt letting Jane die, which in turn depressed her dad, who Walt met at a bar who happened to be an air traffic controller, who let his depression distract him, which caused a plane crash right above casa de White. Except all of these connections came a few steps before the reveal.
The show really fails as far as suspense. In The Wire anyone could go at any point. (SPOILER ALERT) Brodie and Poot murdered Wallace for crying out loud! I don't get that sense here. Breaking Bad is almost like "Ok so what's going to get them out of it." To me that isn't good story telling (and it reeks of Entourage).
While Breaking Bad is a good show, I would not put it in the same category of The Wire, Mad Men, or even Lost (at least with Lost you literally had no idea what was coming next). It has great acting, but not above and beyond it's AMC counterpart. It is a decent exploration into the human psyche, but again on par with, not better, than Mad Men. And it has average story progression with very limited twists that generally aren't shocking because it becomes an obvious twist before it gets there.
The one thing the show has going for it is strong characters. Bryan Cranston does an excellent job as high school chemistry teacher slowly turned drug lord. I can see why he has won an Emmy for it. What I can't see is why he has won more than one. His character, while not static, is on a very static path. There is this slow decay, which granted is hard to pull off, but seems once you get the hang of it, it's there. He really only plays three sides: happy, depressed, ruthless. I am failing to see why his performance is considered so much better than Jon Hamm as Don Draper. Draper has dealt with almost the exact same concerns: a secret that threatens life as he knows it, putting on appearances, ruthlessness in the business world. We also get to see what inspires Draper, what moves him, what really makes him tick. I feel like Walter White just is. He is happy he has money for his family, he is depressed his wife left him, he is ruthless in protecting his drug trade. For a show that really seems to be basing itself on character there isn't quite as much exploration as I'd like to see.
The this Breaking Bad really does not have going for it is plot. Constantly I found myself 3 steps ahead of the characters on screen. (SPOILER ALERT) A simple example comes when Walt needs a way to use his drug money on his family without raising eyebrows. A few scenes earlier his son set up a website asking for donations for Walt's cancer treatment. Duh. If I have to connect those dots for you, please watch this show, you'll be shocked by all the twists and turns. Season 2 also had a big fail moment for me when they teased the pink stuffed bear in the pool and the body bags in Walt's driveway all season. Maybe it was because I knew that there were 2 more seasons, but I knew that those two body bags did not contain anyone important. Then the show tried to tie it all together with a Soderbergh-ian moment of (SPOILER ALERT) Walt letting Jane die, which in turn depressed her dad, who Walt met at a bar who happened to be an air traffic controller, who let his depression distract him, which caused a plane crash right above casa de White. Except all of these connections came a few steps before the reveal.
The show really fails as far as suspense. In The Wire anyone could go at any point. (SPOILER ALERT) Brodie and Poot murdered Wallace for crying out loud! I don't get that sense here. Breaking Bad is almost like "Ok so what's going to get them out of it." To me that isn't good story telling (and it reeks of Entourage).
While Breaking Bad is a good show, I would not put it in the same category of The Wire, Mad Men, or even Lost (at least with Lost you literally had no idea what was coming next). It has great acting, but not above and beyond it's AMC counterpart. It is a decent exploration into the human psyche, but again on par with, not better, than Mad Men. And it has average story progression with very limited twists that generally aren't shocking because it becomes an obvious twist before it gets there.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Jabber Jaw: "Door to Door"
One of the funniest shows on TV is ABC's Modern Family. This week I've asked my good friend AW to talk about this week's episode "Door to Door." So let's give her a warm welcome and get talking about some TV. Overall I found the episode heavy on jokes, light on plot. There is nothing wrong with this at all, in fact it worked really well tonight. I didn't care if Manny sold wrapping paper, Gloria found the dog, Claire got her sign, or if Phil and Luke could get the ball back in the net. What worked was the interactions between the characters. It's always great seeing Jay be a dad to Manny, the two divas (Cam and Gloria) on a mission, and Phil and Luke do anything. Claire, eh I could do without the pissy, crazy Claire; it's been done so much she's just annoying (although it was toned down tonight). What are your overall thoughts AW?
AW: I appreciate this opportunity, Matt. I’m a big fan of the blog. Or, am I? Let me just start off with a little self disclosure:
1. Modern Family is my second favorite television show, hands down. It is bookended by crime dramas, followed by a never-ending satire about how a winey New Yorker meets the love of his life (Matt, I think you’re familiar).
2. I’m not going to lie about how I like to spend my Wednesday nights: couch, roommate, puppy, chocolate, and wine. So please take up any problems you have with me or this post with my friend, Merlot.
Saying that, I hope I can give this week’s Modern Family a fair assessment. First, I totally agree with you on Claire: been there, done that, signed a petition. Like what I did with that? We’ve seen her get mad at neighbors, chastise the carpool lady and now with the traffic commission? It’s played out. You know what I love? Claire and Mitchell. The brother/sister repertoire needs to make a comeback, no?
Speaking of chemistry, you can tell the writers are really trying to play up the actors who work well together: Phil/Luke (in my opinion, they could start their own sitcom), Haley/Alex, Jay/Manny, Gloria/Cam. All genius pairs, but it didn’t quite fit together for me this episode. All in all, it wasn’t my favorite. I’m really rooting for it, but something just is off this season.
MTA: I agree. We are four episodes in and we haven't really had an episode that stands out. I think this week was much better than last week and the opener on location in Jackson Hole, but about on par with "When Good Kids Go Bad." Interesting that like that episode this one featured Jay/Manny, a Cam-Mitchell fight (which is treading dangerously close to insufferable/ overdone Claire territory), and Claire at her worst. Maybe we have to hate Claire to enjoy everyone else?
Where this season has excelled though is it's use of Luke. He is no longer this clueless kid who runs through a screen and wonders what happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbSRRTax8w). He was already my favorite character and this new combination of carefree-ness, creativity, deceptive intelligence, and (selective) self-awareness has actually made him funnier. And I think that he Phil's personalities feed off each other so well (not to mention Ty Burrell and Nolan Gould have phenomenal chemistry). Give me more of that team please.
What's working for you this season? You made a great point that more Mitchell/Claire could entertain us without hating Mrs. Dunphy. What else would you like to see more of?
AW: agree with the Cam/Mitchell bouts. Although they are far more entertaining than "The Claire," I'm ready for something new. I think the adoption will either take care of or continue to drag this theme out. Crossing my fingers for the former.
What is working for me? The one-liners. The show has always capitalized on these in the one-on-one interviews, but they've done a good job stringing them through the dialogue this season. A big pat-on-the-back to the writers for some phenomenal puns (which I believe are the highest form of intelligence). Phil's Blindside "offensive line" comeback had me in tears laughing.
What would I like to see more of? The whole family together. The one-on-one relationships are great and I can't wait to see those continue to develop, but comedic genius happens when they all get together. Dinner parties almost become battle royales of who has the best story of the episode. These family get-togethers also help tie the plot together. Bringing me to the next point ...
The writers need to set up the plot earlier and stick to 2-3 main story-lines. We were halfway though the episode when I finally had a grip on what was going on. My rule of thumb: the story should develop before the first commercial break. And finally, more Phil. This might be personal because I have deep feelings for that weird quirky man. But he absolutely kills it.
Speaking of one-liners, what was your favorite this episode?
MTA: I agree with you on the moving the plots faster. Like you by the first commercial break I didn't really know what anyone was going for. And you are also spot on with the one-liners although I would expand that to more of the isolated jokes. Concussed Phil might have been the funniest thing on TV that didn't happen in a bar in Philadelphia in a long time. My favorite one liner last night was Luke's how many moms it takes to change a light bulb, not for the joke, but how it shows that subtle I'm-smarter-than-I-let-on quality Luke rocks like a champ, and the "Sucker!" ending.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on getting the whole family together. You are right that the comedic value is very high, but so is the degree of difficulty. And I think the writers know this. There have been a few whole family plots where there is just too much going on for anything to really click. When they are battling for the best plot yes it works, but sometimes no plot is strong enough and everything falls flat (cf. "Dude Ranch").
What actually really disappointed me last night was how the writers kept hinting they would finally string some episodes together with Gloria losing the dog. There was a loose connection because we know she hates it, but I was hoping that it would lead to a confrontation where Jay suspected her of doing it on purpose (like Gloria's Rat Shovel). It was saved with Cam's gayest Stanley Kowalski ever finding the dog with a 10 year old Blanche, but still lost opportunity. Also good nod to Alex still skyping with Gino the Ginny BF from the premiere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUhOvJOVetg).
AW: Yes. First, I would like to address the video referenced at the end of your email. What is this and where did you find it. Really? I mean, really?
Second, I'm going to disagree with your disagreement with getting the whole family together. How absolutely perfect was it last season when they all gathered for Jay's birthday? Granted, it was the season finale, but sweet Jesus that was smart. However, you are right (as much as that pains me to say) about the Dude Ranch. It did not work, except for Dylan, who came out of nowhere and finally made a legitimate contribution. But that is neither here nor there since that is clearly not the focus this week. Do you think he will come back? I think Phil, Luke and Dylan could make a really good story line soon.
And I am going to have to agree with you on Luke's quote, not for the content but for the delivery. Who cast him? Sir/Madam, you deserve a raise.
And I agree with you once again on Cam's "Stellaaaaa!" I wanted to like it so much, but it was forced. I found myself feeling sorry for him and desperately wanting him to put his shirt back on. They could have done a lot more with the Gloria and Stella rivalry but it fell flat. Move on.
One last thing. I would like to extend an honorable mention to Phil's Austrailan accent.
MTA: Gino the Ginny is a throwback to college, pre-Jersey Shore when Gino, My New Haircut (and the equally funny my new syrup) made the rounds on the frat email chain (or was it the swim team? I can't ever remember).
I'm not saying that the whole family together doesn't work; I'm saying if it's going to be done it has to be done right. You are totally right on last season's finale, pure genius. I'm always cautiously optimistic with those episodes. When it works it works fantastically, when it fails it is probably the lowest the show can go (which would be very high for many shows).
I think that about wraps up with this week's Modern Family. AW, I want to thank you; you've done great in your first at-bat here on the blog. I know the reader(s?) will appreciate a fresh voice and perspective. Hope to do this again soon.
AW: I appreciate this opportunity, Matt. I’m a big fan of the blog. Or, am I? Let me just start off with a little self disclosure:
1. Modern Family is my second favorite television show, hands down. It is bookended by crime dramas, followed by a never-ending satire about how a winey New Yorker meets the love of his life (Matt, I think you’re familiar).
2. I’m not going to lie about how I like to spend my Wednesday nights: couch, roommate, puppy, chocolate, and wine. So please take up any problems you have with me or this post with my friend, Merlot.
Saying that, I hope I can give this week’s Modern Family a fair assessment. First, I totally agree with you on Claire: been there, done that, signed a petition. Like what I did with that? We’ve seen her get mad at neighbors, chastise the carpool lady and now with the traffic commission? It’s played out. You know what I love? Claire and Mitchell. The brother/sister repertoire needs to make a comeback, no?
Speaking of chemistry, you can tell the writers are really trying to play up the actors who work well together: Phil/Luke (in my opinion, they could start their own sitcom), Haley/Alex, Jay/Manny, Gloria/Cam. All genius pairs, but it didn’t quite fit together for me this episode. All in all, it wasn’t my favorite. I’m really rooting for it, but something just is off this season.
MTA: I agree. We are four episodes in and we haven't really had an episode that stands out. I think this week was much better than last week and the opener on location in Jackson Hole, but about on par with "When Good Kids Go Bad." Interesting that like that episode this one featured Jay/Manny, a Cam-Mitchell fight (which is treading dangerously close to insufferable/ overdone Claire territory), and Claire at her worst. Maybe we have to hate Claire to enjoy everyone else?
Where this season has excelled though is it's use of Luke. He is no longer this clueless kid who runs through a screen and wonders what happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbSRRTax8w). He was already my favorite character and this new combination of carefree-ness, creativity, deceptive intelligence, and (selective) self-awareness has actually made him funnier. And I think that he Phil's personalities feed off each other so well (not to mention Ty Burrell and Nolan Gould have phenomenal chemistry). Give me more of that team please.
What's working for you this season? You made a great point that more Mitchell/Claire could entertain us without hating Mrs. Dunphy. What else would you like to see more of?
AW: agree with the Cam/Mitchell bouts. Although they are far more entertaining than "The Claire," I'm ready for something new. I think the adoption will either take care of or continue to drag this theme out. Crossing my fingers for the former.
What is working for me? The one-liners. The show has always capitalized on these in the one-on-one interviews, but they've done a good job stringing them through the dialogue this season. A big pat-on-the-back to the writers for some phenomenal puns (which I believe are the highest form of intelligence). Phil's Blindside "offensive line" comeback had me in tears laughing.
What would I like to see more of? The whole family together. The one-on-one relationships are great and I can't wait to see those continue to develop, but comedic genius happens when they all get together. Dinner parties almost become battle royales of who has the best story of the episode. These family get-togethers also help tie the plot together. Bringing me to the next point ...
The writers need to set up the plot earlier and stick to 2-3 main story-lines. We were halfway though the episode when I finally had a grip on what was going on. My rule of thumb: the story should develop before the first commercial break. And finally, more Phil. This might be personal because I have deep feelings for that weird quirky man. But he absolutely kills it.
Speaking of one-liners, what was your favorite this episode?
MTA: I agree with you on the moving the plots faster. Like you by the first commercial break I didn't really know what anyone was going for. And you are also spot on with the one-liners although I would expand that to more of the isolated jokes. Concussed Phil might have been the funniest thing on TV that didn't happen in a bar in Philadelphia in a long time. My favorite one liner last night was Luke's how many moms it takes to change a light bulb, not for the joke, but how it shows that subtle I'm-smarter-than-I-let-on quality Luke rocks like a champ, and the "Sucker!" ending.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on getting the whole family together. You are right that the comedic value is very high, but so is the degree of difficulty. And I think the writers know this. There have been a few whole family plots where there is just too much going on for anything to really click. When they are battling for the best plot yes it works, but sometimes no plot is strong enough and everything falls flat (cf. "Dude Ranch").
What actually really disappointed me last night was how the writers kept hinting they would finally string some episodes together with Gloria losing the dog. There was a loose connection because we know she hates it, but I was hoping that it would lead to a confrontation where Jay suspected her of doing it on purpose (like Gloria's Rat Shovel). It was saved with Cam's gayest Stanley Kowalski ever finding the dog with a 10 year old Blanche, but still lost opportunity. Also good nod to Alex still skyping with Gino the Ginny BF from the premiere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUhOvJOVetg).
AW: Yes. First, I would like to address the video referenced at the end of your email. What is this and where did you find it. Really? I mean, really?
Second, I'm going to disagree with your disagreement with getting the whole family together. How absolutely perfect was it last season when they all gathered for Jay's birthday? Granted, it was the season finale, but sweet Jesus that was smart. However, you are right (as much as that pains me to say) about the Dude Ranch. It did not work, except for Dylan, who came out of nowhere and finally made a legitimate contribution. But that is neither here nor there since that is clearly not the focus this week. Do you think he will come back? I think Phil, Luke and Dylan could make a really good story line soon.
And I am going to have to agree with you on Luke's quote, not for the content but for the delivery. Who cast him? Sir/Madam, you deserve a raise.
And I agree with you once again on Cam's "Stellaaaaa!" I wanted to like it so much, but it was forced. I found myself feeling sorry for him and desperately wanting him to put his shirt back on. They could have done a lot more with the Gloria and Stella rivalry but it fell flat. Move on.
One last thing. I would like to extend an honorable mention to Phil's Austrailan accent.
MTA: Gino the Ginny is a throwback to college, pre-Jersey Shore when Gino, My New Haircut (and the equally funny my new syrup) made the rounds on the frat email chain (or was it the swim team? I can't ever remember).
I'm not saying that the whole family together doesn't work; I'm saying if it's going to be done it has to be done right. You are totally right on last season's finale, pure genius. I'm always cautiously optimistic with those episodes. When it works it works fantastically, when it fails it is probably the lowest the show can go (which would be very high for many shows).
I think that about wraps up with this week's Modern Family. AW, I want to thank you; you've done great in your first at-bat here on the blog. I know the reader(s?) will appreciate a fresh voice and perspective. Hope to do this again soon.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
And We're Back
It is the TV version of Christmas (or is it Hanukah?): Premiere week. So I am going to give my thoughts on two old favorites and two new ones.
The first favorite: How I Met Your Mother. Last year was eh: some great episodes, some not funny at all episodes. We wasted a lot of time with Zoey who was neither funny, fun, interesting, nor the mother. However, we did find out where Ted finally meets the mother and that Barney will in fact get married. Monday’s double feature premiere was not exactly pantheon material but it was entertaining and a good start to what hopefully will be a solid year for the show. It was great seeing Jason Segel actually get to be Jason Segel between taking shots for two at Punchy’s wedding and beating an old college friend (played by Sunny alum Jimmi Simpson aka Liam McPoyle) in everyone’s favorite Edward 40 hands. I’m also interested to seem how the intricacies of the Barney, Nora, Robin triangle works out. Clearly Bays and Carter want us to think that both are in the running to be Barney’s wife. Here’s hoping that they don’t drag that mystery out like they have at times with who is the mother; if it is coming soon great, if not please keep it out of sight/ out of mind. We also had three returns with Ted: great chemistry between Josh Radnor and Cobie Smulders (Ted and Robin), Ted’s incredible douchiness (played surprisingly entertainingly with the magazine cover at the newsstand), and finally the big bombshell: Victoria. I don’t know how I feel about this; my gut reaction was “not another non-mother relationship that isn’t interesting.” But then I thought: there is a lot of unfinished business between Ted and Victoria, Radnor and Ashley Williams do work well together (can’t say the same Jennifer Morrison aka Zoey), Ted is in kind of a dark place as far as given up on the “the one concept.” Victoria could be a great relationship to put Ted one step closer to the ever-elusive Mother.
Now for the two new shows. I’m guessing the success of Bridesmaids had ripple effects in TV (no not Melissa McCarthy getting an Emmy for it even though the show she “won” it for is mediocre at best). Both CBS and Fox have rolled out female centered comedies that have potential. 2 Broke Girls debuted Monday and I have to say I was not impressed. Kat Dennings was Kat Dennings, who is hilarious, intelligent and witty in her role for the most part. Beth Behrs’ Caroline kind of fell flat. Half of the episode she was a clueless spoiled brat. The second half she showed she is actually very deserving of a degree from Wharton Business School. Hopefully the writers pick the latter approach because it will be nice to see a smarter-than-she-holds-herself-out-to-be character. I am ambivalent on the goal of a cupcake shop; it could be a great plot engine, but it very well could get in the way by narrowing the focus to the point of no options but to drag out one long quest, and CBS already has one of those. We didn’t see enough of any other characters to think of them as anything more than trite clichés, so there is some work to be done. That being said, the show will probably get a few more than my usual three episodes of proof to make the rotation.
Tuesday night brought Fox’s version with The New Girl starring the charming Zooey Deschanel. Again, a lot of potential, but not much that went well in the pilot. The Dirty Dancing thing barely worked out well. The hysterical crying while watching it was too much for sure, but at the end when the guys serenaded her in the restaurant was a nice moment. I’m also not crazy about the singing to herself all the time. I love, love, love Deschanel’s voice (watch Elf and tell me the girl can’t croon), but the weird theme songs not only did not showcase it, but felt forced and awkward. I understand that the whole point of her character is to be awkward, but this just didn’t seem to fit. Deschanel is very charismatic on screen and it is interesting and entertaining to see her not as some untouchable mega-babe, but as a delightfully nerdy (she dropped a Gandalf AND a Smeagol reference) goof. The roommates did not show me much besides a great alternative to a swear jar (a douche jar!). Like 2 Broke Girls there is tons of potential that just needs some time to work the kinks out. More than 3 episodes for this one too.
Lastly, there is Emmy award winning Modern Family. It is hard for me to write about Modern Family because there doesn’t seem to be a steaming narrative. Each episode seems to be its own capsule easily digested individually. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. As long as the show stays clever and poignant towards family dynamics it will remain entertaining. Tonight had great jokes, like Dylan thinking Claire was hitting on him, or Phil flirting in the grocery store. There were great plots: Alex’s first kiss, Mitch trying to be manly, Manny under pressure. There were great sub-plots: the attic, firecrackers. There were great gags/ one-liners (Gloria’s ears, Phil’s “only we can touch our women when they don’t want us to”). There were a few things I didn’t like. First, possibly as a result of the individual serving quality, the Phil trying to win Jay’s approval has already been done and supposedly resolved. Second, the Claire doing something crazy to prove she was right is a cliché sitcom trope that didn’t work even if there was the “where did you get it from” piece. And thirdly, I am getting a little weary of Mitchell thinking Cam wrong only for him to be the one in the wrong. I feel like they’ve done it at least once and this time, while mildly amusing, this joke has diminishing returns. Overall though, it was everything it has been the last two years, which rightfully won it many Emmys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
