[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
Summer is not the easiest time of year to find new shows. With the networks rolling out one inane reality show after another, to find alternatives, you have to open your mind up to possibilities you might not normally consider and take chances. Last week, I was pleasantly surprised by "Dating in the Dark." This week, I was far less lucky with "Ruby & the Rockits" (ABC Family, Tuesdays at 8:30 p.m. Eastern) and "Michael & Michael Have Issues" (Comedy Central, Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m. Eastern).
I have twice written about programs on ABC Family, which can be difficult because I am about as far from the cable network's targeted demographic (teenage girls) as one can get. Last year, I talked about how "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" worked better for teens than for adults, and earlier this summer, I wrote about the lead-in to "Ruby & the Rockits," an adaptation of the film "10 Things I Hate About You," which I found to hold some charms for adults, even as teens were the clear target audience.
I decided to give "Ruby" a chance mostly because I was taken in by the premise: A former 1980s pop star finds out he has a teenage daughter, which causes him to try and reconcile with his brother, who is also his former bandmate. I find something very entertaining about the idea of a 1980s star living in the 21st century. I have a soft spot for the Hugh Grant film "Music & Lyrics," and the former 1980s star premise is a big reason why. Early in the movie, we see the 1984 music video for Grant's character's old band Pop!, "Pop! Goes My Heart," and it is so dead-on in every way for that era of music, from the song itself to the tremendous period detail of the video, that it is truly brilliant (see for yourself here).
Similarly, early in the first episode of "Ruby & the Rockits," two kids watch the hit video of the titular Rockits, and watching it pretty much tells you everything you need to know about this program. Namely, that what was on screen didn't look or feel anything like a 1980s music video. To call it lazy would be, well, lazy. The complete lack of production value makes A Flock of Seagulls' low-tech classic "I Ran" look like Tom Petty's epic Alice in Wonderland homage "Don't Come Around Here No More." Taped in front of a black background that looked like someone's basement, with smoke resembling fire extinguisher exhaust, the Rockits video isn't believable for a nanosecond (the song, either), and it was an omen of things to come, since, even by ABC Family standards, nothing in "Ruby & the Rockits" has a scintilla of authenticity, credibility or believabilty.
The pilot begins with teenager Ruby (Alex Vega of the "Spy Kids" franchise) showing up at a rehearsal of former Rockits lead singer David Gallagher (David Cassidy of the Partridge Family), who is doing an extended gig at a Florida casino. Ruby tells David that she is his daughter and has come to live with him. David, a self-professed devotee of the rock-and-roll lifestyle, proceeds to try and dump Ruby on his brother and former bandmate, Patrick (Cassidy's real-life half-brother, Patrick Cassidy), who for the last 20 years has owned a car dealership and adopted a suburban lifestyle with a pretty wife, Audie (Katie A. Keane), who used to dance backup for the Rockits, and two typical sitcom kids: pudgy wise-cracking pre-teen Ben (Kurt Doss) and doltish Jason Mraz/John Mayer-wannabe teenager Jordan (Austin Butler).
Patrick and Audie agree to take in Ruby, and the first episode ends with Patrick learning to get along with David to show his kids how brothers should behave, even going on stage with David during his gig to perform some old Rockits hits. Ruby is behind the reconciliation, and she even takes Jordan's saccharine-weepy ballad and turns it into a decent teen pop song (a device used earlier and better in both "The Doors" and "That Thing You Do").
I get that this is ABC Family, not FX, so the story isn't going to be dark. But the tone goes beyond teen-friendly (and even tween-friendly) to toddler-friendly, which is kind of disconcerting when you think about the drama at the heart of the show. Ruby's mother has died, and her grandparents are so senile that they don't recognize her, so she runs away on her own and seeks out her biological father, whose first act as a parent is to foist her off onto his brother's family. But from Ruby's reaction, it is all just the greatest thing, as she instantly finds a replacement mother figure in Audie, a music collaborator in Jordan, and even a new father to go to a parent-teacher meeting in David (by the end, the insufferable and self-interested David learns just enough to know he has to go with her). The speed with which everything settles for Ruby, and the off-handedness with which the tragedy of her situation is treated, felt shocking (and, honestly, irresponsible) to me, especially considering the target demographic.
I'm sure, though, that if "Ruby & the Rockits" had been entertaining, and if the show felt plausible in other regards, I wouldn't have been so distracted by Ruby's tragic back story. But little about "Ruby" works or entertains. Virtually every scene felt forced and false. The dialogue is stiff and cliched. Like the lazy attempt at recreating a 1980s music video, a scene that encapsulated the diagrammed nature of the show had Patrick walking from his bathroom through his bedroom holding a hair brush. You knew immediately that when he reached the mirror, he would be prompted by his image to use the brush as a microphone as he dusted off his old 1980s singer moves. And you knew newcomer Ruby would catch him in the act. And yet there was no plausible reason for Patrick to be holding the brush, other than to eventually be inspired to perform. And, to me, when things feel false and choreographed, any possibility of humor is lost. The set pieces and jokes in "Ruby" nearly always seemed to fall flat.
Aside from the implausible nature of the action, the biggest problem with "Ruby & the Rockits" is David Cassidy. Granted, he's not working with the best material (typical joke: he complains of his brother: "The man is a total prima donna," before immediately turning and yelling to a lackey: "I'm still waiting on that water!"). But his performance is so forced, over-the-top and false (I know I've used the word a lot, but it fits), it's hard to watch. For someone who grew up on a sitcom, it's shocking how Cassidy seems to lack even the most basic sense of comic timing.
The rest of the cast is fine. Vega is obviously talented. She sings the show's theme song, and also performed the song she rewrote for her cousin, and she has a perfectly acceptable teen pop voice. Her eager-to-please performance in the show made me think she belonged on ABC Family's sister station, Disney, in a Miley Cyrus-like sitcom. Even though Vega is 21, she still has the bearing of a teenager. Keane is fine as the warm-but-strong mother figure, and Patrick Cassidy is blandly fine as the responsible brother/parent.
As I noted when I wrote about "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" and "10 Things I Hate About You," I fully understand I am not in the target audience for these shows, and the same rings true for "Ruby & the Rockits." But I do have eyes and ears, and I can easily see and hear that "Ruby" isn't up to the level of its ABC Family colleagues. I'm sure even tweens and teens will be able to figure out that "Ruby" just doesn't work.
As for "Michael & Michael Have Issues," I would have to agree with the title, with no issue bigger than that the show isn't funny. I didn't laugh once in the 30 minutes of the first episode. Not a giggle, not a tee-hee, not even a chortle. I didn't even move my lips into a quasi-smile. Nothing.
The eponymous Michaels are Michael Ian Black ("Ed") and Michael Showalter (writer-director of "The Baxter"), who have performed together often, most notably on "The State" and "Stella." The premise is a meta show-within-a-show (a sketch program also called "Michael & Michael Have Issues"), with the Michaels enjoying a love-hate relationship with each other. Black and Showalter have historically embraced a kind of smart comedy that challenges audiences. Black is a love-him-or-hate-him kind of guy (I'm definitely not on the love side, although "Ed" is a favorite of mine), consistently playing obnoxious characters who think they're a lot smarter than they really are. Thankfully, playing "himself" on "Michael & Michael," that persona is turned down a bit, so that Black is not really the problem here.
The problem is that smart comedy doesn't work without comedy. In the first episode to air (which, from what I can tell, was originally meant to be the second installment, but networks sometimes jump ahead if they're afraid the pilot isn't funny enough), the bits were predictable, and ideas were beaten into the ground, as if saying something for long enough would suddenly turn it funny even if it hadn't been earlier. A central part of the story involves Showalter and Black going to a park to try and buy marijuana as a birthday gift for their uptight producer, Jim Biederman (playing "himself"). Showalter wants to approach the white guy in the hockey jersey and a "Da Bears" mustache, on the theory that he looks so much like a cop, he couldn't be a cop. (Showalter is sure the Rasta guy is the undercover officer.) Black disagrees. Showalter is insistent, but instead of approaching the target, he tells Black to go. I wonder if there was one person watching who didn't know exactly what would happen next: Black, even though he has no reason to do so (remember, he has stated he's sure the guy is a cop), approaches the guy in the hockey jersey and offers him money for pot, the guy turns out to be a cop, and Black is arrested. Showalter, rather than doing anything to help, runs away, failing even to go to the station to bail out Black.
Showalter ends up giving Biederman the book Black suggested earlier as a birthday gift and going home with the pretty new girl at Biderman's birthday party, while Black goes to prison. When Black shows up at Showalter's apartment at 4:00 a.m. to exact revenge, he forces Showalter to go to the park and try and buy pot (really?), only the cop-looking guy turns out to be an actual dealer. While Showalter is buying the pot, Black is mugged and beaten by three hoods. Showalter leaves the park, not seeing Black semi-conscious off to the side.
What is smart and/or funny about all of that? None of it worked for me. And I certainly didn't want to spend 30 minutes with either of these guys, let alone both of them.
"Michael & Michael" goes for the early "Seinfeld" ploy of showing you real-life situations and then the comedy that resulted from them (with "Seinfeld," it was the stand-up jokes; on "Michael & Michael," it's the sketches). It's a good idea, but the problem is that the sketches are not funny. The gift-giving dilemma in real life plays out as a sketch in which nobles give birthday gifts to the king, but Showalter's minister has nothing (he's forgotten). So he offers an I.O.U. for a back rub and, when that isn't enough, five guitar lessons. I remember that "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" took a lot of heat from those who thought the sketches in the show-within-the-show weren't funny enough, but I think that charge is far more accurate with "Michael & Michael." The minister-king sketch later finishes with the minister giving the king a massage with a "happy ending." Disturbing? A bit. Funny? Not at all.
I know that Showalter and Black are critical darlings. (One of their jokes about drugs being bad for people that devolved into a list of all the people for whom drugs are good even made Entertainment Weekly's "Sound Bites" list of funny quotes for the week.) But I don't see it, at least not in "Michael & Michael Have Issues." If you are a fan of Showalter and Black, well, then maybe you need to chalk up my opinion as being from a guy who just doesn't get it. Because I don't. It feels to me like two smug guys who are convinced they are hilarious, so convinced that they believe anything they do will get laughs, no matter how stupid. But if you are not already a fan of the Michaels, I doubt you will find their new show the least bit entertaining.
If summer television can be a bit of a dumpster dive when you look for something worth watching, this week I came up with a couple of cartons of spoiled Chinese food. If you're sick of bad reality television, I doubt you'll find "Ruby & the Rockits" or "Michael & Michael Have Issues" to be much of an improvement.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
When "Yes We Can!" Meets "No We Won't!"
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
I am very concerned about the future of this country.
No, not just because health care reform is being so watered down in Congress that it now completely fails to address the underlying dire (and spiraling) problems of the health care system. (As I've written previously, there is no defensible position to opposing a public option.) Rather, it's watching how the health care debate has unfolded (and other attempts at legislation this year, too), and how Congress has handled the relevant legislation. And also how the American people have reacted.
At the risk of oversimplifying something that is far more complicated, in their most basic form, I see two trends that are disturbing:
1) Congress (not just the Republicans, either) have not supported President Obama's attempts at delivering the change on which he campaigned (and the change for which Americans overwhelmingly voted).
2) The American people have not been savvy about the dynamic in Washington, mainly because, it seems to me, they are in total denial as to the severity of the problems facing the country.
As I removed my New York Times from its three (!?!?!?) protective bags yesterday morning and glanced over the front page, I noticed that four of the six articles directly or indirectly revealed how neither Congress nor the American people are really confronting the problems facing the country. On health care, there is a piece that details how the millions of dollars in campaign donations raised for Democrats by a Texas hospital are affecting how Democrats in Congress are approaching health care. With insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies having poured $81 million and $134 million, respectively, into Congressional coffers, it's not surprising that more senators and members of Congress seemed to be concerned with the profit margins of these companies than with the health and wallets of the American people. I expect Republicans to out-and-out lie to protect their health insurance company benefactors (like Sen. Tom Coburn saying that people will die if health care reform is passed). But when you have a Blue Dog Democrat like Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas proudly saying Wednesday, "We have successfully pushed a floor vote to September," you really start to wonder if there is any pretense left as to who those who oppose the president's health care reform are working for. What is he so proud of? Delaying relief to the American people?
Another article addresses how despite the Obama administration's aggressive plan to cut down on home foreclosures, mortgage servicers are subverting the process, because they make so much in fees from foreclosing on delinquent homeowners. This was just another reminder that the banks, despite nearly bringing down the economy last year, still rule on Capitol Hill, which is directly related to the massive amount of money the industry funnels to campaigns. (For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, in the 2010 cycle, the finance/insurance/real estate industry has contributed more than $14 million to 422 members of the House and more than $6 million to 89 senators, and one subset of that group, the securities and investment sector, has given more than $2.8 million to 300 members of the House and more than $1.9 million to 58 senators. )
On the bottom of the front page, there is an item about how the popularity of installing white roofs is increasing in an effort to cut energy costs, which only reminded me of how little this year's energy bill does to actually address the country's dependence on foreign oil (impacting national security, the economy, and the environment, including the threat of global warming).
The articles were a reminder of what I've been thinking since it became clear that Congress had no intention of passing anything resembling Obama's ambitious health care reform plan that addressed the underlying systematic problems, rather than just handing out more money to the industries that are responsible for the current broken model: While voters enthusiastically embraced Obama's calls for change, too many senators and U.S. representatives have no interest in signing on to a new agenda. In fact, beginning with the stimulus bill and moving through energy, financial regulation and now health care, Congress has gutted Obama's proposals. Instead of embracing necessary systematic change, Republicans have concentrated on opposing anything Obama proposed to win political points, moderate and conservative Democrats have looked to ensure that Obama's proposals were defanged, and even the mainstream wing of the Democratic party seems more intent on winning old battles than furthering the president's ambitious proposals, the very ones that carried him (and, to some extent, Democrats in Congress) to power last November.
To me, the battle has shaped up as a forward-looking president (the "Yes We Can!" of my title) trying to deliver the change he promised against an inward-looking Congress more interested in self-preservation (which has different meanings to mainstream Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans, but all adds up to the "No We Won't!").
You would think that this breakdown would be clear to Americans observing the process unfold. As is often the case when trying to figure out the U.S. electorate, you would be wrong.
The fourth article that caught my attention on the front page of the Times was about poll results that show not only that the country is growing uneasy about Obama's health care reform plan (even though Obama is still more trusted on the issue than Republicans are), but that, according to the piece, "Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors and, treatments and tests."
Clearly, the Republican misinformation campaign, equating a public option with a single-payer Canadian system (and we all know we can't do anything the Canadians would do ...), has found traction, which is depressing, considering the judgments are being made based on lies. It's Harry and Louise all over again. (I re-read the transcript of Obama's July 22 press conference today, and I think anyone who thinks that the president's plan will hurt them should really give the speech transcript a look.)
And there was something even more disturbing in the article. According to the Times, "The percentage who describe health care costs as a serious threat to the American economy ... has dropped over the past month." Wow. Fantastic. Denial has set in. (As I pointed out last week, the nonpartisan/bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care has detailed the exponentially growing health care burden on the country, and how despite the high cost, we still receive comparatively lousy care.)
How can we address our serious problems if, as a nation, we aren't prepared to admit they exist? I feel like the country is an ocean liner heading for an iceberg, but the captain can't convince the crew to change course because doing so would affect the suntanning opportunities of the passengers (who would then vote the crew out of jobs).
To me, it looks like Obama is trying to honestly take on the mammoth problem of health care, advocating for reform that would reduce costs, increase coverage, improve quality, and protect people from the whims of the insurance companies, but he is being opposed by Congress, even though his party has 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House (thanks to the Blue Dogs who are siding with the Republicans and mainstream Democrats who lack the constitution and compass to stand firm for systematic change). And, what's worse, Obama is taking the blame.
Yesterday, in a response to a Facebook friend's status bashing Obama, someone commented that he was sick of the president making "empty promises" and that he should start fixing the problems facing the country. I felt like I was reading a Facebook page through the looking glass. An "empty promise" is one where the person making the promise has no intention of carrying it out. You can make that charge about Democrats in Congress, but I don't see how you can put such an accusation at the feet of the president.
I can argue the facts all I want, but in this guy's mind (and based on the Times poll, he's not alone), it's all Obama's fault, even though, despite George W. Bush's belief to the contrary, a president is not a dictator who can act alone. To pass legislation, Congress has to do its part. And right now, a majority of members of Congress are not helping Obama face our very real problems.
I'm not sure I have an answer to all of this. Sometimes it feels like our current corrupt system of status quo government is unbreakable. But I do know that if the Democrats in Congress don't find a way to become co-advocates with the president on these important issues, their future political problems (and there will be losses if things don't turn around, especially considering that the president's party traditionally loses Congressional seats in mid-term elections) will be the least of it. The real result will be that we will fail, as a society, to make the truly make-or-break decisions that need to be made to address serious problems that threaten our stability and prosperity. Health care is one of these challenges, and it's as good a time as any to turn the tide.
And if Americans don't acknowledge the depth of the health care problem and the role Congress is playing in choosing the interests of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies over their constituents (as well as the other challenges facing the country), the problem won't be addressed, and the results could be catastrophic.
Actually, Americans have an even bigger job right now. They have to stand up and take responsibility for their country. Even though health care will benefit nearly everybody, we still have to look past self-interest to address the looming threats that escalating health care costs pose to our personal bottom lines, and the economy of the country. The time for placing our heads ostrich-like in the ground and thinking only for today has to end. As the president said in his speech, when you look at the current health care system as a proposal, it's one no sane person (outside of an insurance or pharmaceutical company) would support.
Am I optimistic? Not really. But it's important for everyone to speak out now, before it's too late.
I am very concerned about the future of this country.
No, not just because health care reform is being so watered down in Congress that it now completely fails to address the underlying dire (and spiraling) problems of the health care system. (As I've written previously, there is no defensible position to opposing a public option.) Rather, it's watching how the health care debate has unfolded (and other attempts at legislation this year, too), and how Congress has handled the relevant legislation. And also how the American people have reacted.
At the risk of oversimplifying something that is far more complicated, in their most basic form, I see two trends that are disturbing:
1) Congress (not just the Republicans, either) have not supported President Obama's attempts at delivering the change on which he campaigned (and the change for which Americans overwhelmingly voted).
2) The American people have not been savvy about the dynamic in Washington, mainly because, it seems to me, they are in total denial as to the severity of the problems facing the country.
As I removed my New York Times from its three (!?!?!?) protective bags yesterday morning and glanced over the front page, I noticed that four of the six articles directly or indirectly revealed how neither Congress nor the American people are really confronting the problems facing the country. On health care, there is a piece that details how the millions of dollars in campaign donations raised for Democrats by a Texas hospital are affecting how Democrats in Congress are approaching health care. With insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies having poured $81 million and $134 million, respectively, into Congressional coffers, it's not surprising that more senators and members of Congress seemed to be concerned with the profit margins of these companies than with the health and wallets of the American people. I expect Republicans to out-and-out lie to protect their health insurance company benefactors (like Sen. Tom Coburn saying that people will die if health care reform is passed). But when you have a Blue Dog Democrat like Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas proudly saying Wednesday, "We have successfully pushed a floor vote to September," you really start to wonder if there is any pretense left as to who those who oppose the president's health care reform are working for. What is he so proud of? Delaying relief to the American people?
Another article addresses how despite the Obama administration's aggressive plan to cut down on home foreclosures, mortgage servicers are subverting the process, because they make so much in fees from foreclosing on delinquent homeowners. This was just another reminder that the banks, despite nearly bringing down the economy last year, still rule on Capitol Hill, which is directly related to the massive amount of money the industry funnels to campaigns. (For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, in the 2010 cycle, the finance/insurance/real estate industry has contributed more than $14 million to 422 members of the House and more than $6 million to 89 senators, and one subset of that group, the securities and investment sector, has given more than $2.8 million to 300 members of the House and more than $1.9 million to 58 senators. )
On the bottom of the front page, there is an item about how the popularity of installing white roofs is increasing in an effort to cut energy costs, which only reminded me of how little this year's energy bill does to actually address the country's dependence on foreign oil (impacting national security, the economy, and the environment, including the threat of global warming).
The articles were a reminder of what I've been thinking since it became clear that Congress had no intention of passing anything resembling Obama's ambitious health care reform plan that addressed the underlying systematic problems, rather than just handing out more money to the industries that are responsible for the current broken model: While voters enthusiastically embraced Obama's calls for change, too many senators and U.S. representatives have no interest in signing on to a new agenda. In fact, beginning with the stimulus bill and moving through energy, financial regulation and now health care, Congress has gutted Obama's proposals. Instead of embracing necessary systematic change, Republicans have concentrated on opposing anything Obama proposed to win political points, moderate and conservative Democrats have looked to ensure that Obama's proposals were defanged, and even the mainstream wing of the Democratic party seems more intent on winning old battles than furthering the president's ambitious proposals, the very ones that carried him (and, to some extent, Democrats in Congress) to power last November.
To me, the battle has shaped up as a forward-looking president (the "Yes We Can!" of my title) trying to deliver the change he promised against an inward-looking Congress more interested in self-preservation (which has different meanings to mainstream Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans, but all adds up to the "No We Won't!").
You would think that this breakdown would be clear to Americans observing the process unfold. As is often the case when trying to figure out the U.S. electorate, you would be wrong.
The fourth article that caught my attention on the front page of the Times was about poll results that show not only that the country is growing uneasy about Obama's health care reform plan (even though Obama is still more trusted on the issue than Republicans are), but that, according to the piece, "Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors and, treatments and tests."
Clearly, the Republican misinformation campaign, equating a public option with a single-payer Canadian system (and we all know we can't do anything the Canadians would do ...), has found traction, which is depressing, considering the judgments are being made based on lies. It's Harry and Louise all over again. (I re-read the transcript of Obama's July 22 press conference today, and I think anyone who thinks that the president's plan will hurt them should really give the speech transcript a look.)
And there was something even more disturbing in the article. According to the Times, "The percentage who describe health care costs as a serious threat to the American economy ... has dropped over the past month." Wow. Fantastic. Denial has set in. (As I pointed out last week, the nonpartisan/bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care has detailed the exponentially growing health care burden on the country, and how despite the high cost, we still receive comparatively lousy care.)
How can we address our serious problems if, as a nation, we aren't prepared to admit they exist? I feel like the country is an ocean liner heading for an iceberg, but the captain can't convince the crew to change course because doing so would affect the suntanning opportunities of the passengers (who would then vote the crew out of jobs).
To me, it looks like Obama is trying to honestly take on the mammoth problem of health care, advocating for reform that would reduce costs, increase coverage, improve quality, and protect people from the whims of the insurance companies, but he is being opposed by Congress, even though his party has 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House (thanks to the Blue Dogs who are siding with the Republicans and mainstream Democrats who lack the constitution and compass to stand firm for systematic change). And, what's worse, Obama is taking the blame.
Yesterday, in a response to a Facebook friend's status bashing Obama, someone commented that he was sick of the president making "empty promises" and that he should start fixing the problems facing the country. I felt like I was reading a Facebook page through the looking glass. An "empty promise" is one where the person making the promise has no intention of carrying it out. You can make that charge about Democrats in Congress, but I don't see how you can put such an accusation at the feet of the president.
I can argue the facts all I want, but in this guy's mind (and based on the Times poll, he's not alone), it's all Obama's fault, even though, despite George W. Bush's belief to the contrary, a president is not a dictator who can act alone. To pass legislation, Congress has to do its part. And right now, a majority of members of Congress are not helping Obama face our very real problems.
I'm not sure I have an answer to all of this. Sometimes it feels like our current corrupt system of status quo government is unbreakable. But I do know that if the Democrats in Congress don't find a way to become co-advocates with the president on these important issues, their future political problems (and there will be losses if things don't turn around, especially considering that the president's party traditionally loses Congressional seats in mid-term elections) will be the least of it. The real result will be that we will fail, as a society, to make the truly make-or-break decisions that need to be made to address serious problems that threaten our stability and prosperity. Health care is one of these challenges, and it's as good a time as any to turn the tide.
And if Americans don't acknowledge the depth of the health care problem and the role Congress is playing in choosing the interests of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies over their constituents (as well as the other challenges facing the country), the problem won't be addressed, and the results could be catastrophic.
Actually, Americans have an even bigger job right now. They have to stand up and take responsibility for their country. Even though health care will benefit nearly everybody, we still have to look past self-interest to address the looming threats that escalating health care costs pose to our personal bottom lines, and the economy of the country. The time for placing our heads ostrich-like in the ground and thinking only for today has to end. As the president said in his speech, when you look at the current health care system as a proposal, it's one no sane person (outside of an insurance or pharmaceutical company) would support.
Am I optimistic? Not really. But it's important for everyone to speak out now, before it's too late.
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Dating in the Dark" Is Not Your Average Dating Show
[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
It all started out so ordinary. As I watched the opening seconds of ABC's new summer reality program "Dating in the Dark" (Mondays at 10 p.m. Eastern), with it's sweeping shots of a mansion surrounded by palm trees, and with the drama-inducing synth music playing in the background, it felt like the network was tossing out another "Bachelor" knock-off. After all, while ABC has a track record of programming innovative dramas and comedies (like, for example, "Better Off Ted") over the last season or two, it is also responsible for the patient zero of dating programs ("The Bachelor"), as well as reality fare both light ("Dancing with the Stars") and ridiculous ("Wipeout").
So it would not have surprised me at all if "Dating in the Dark" was just another piece of summer fluff, and my hope was that it wouldn't be toxic (like, say, NBC's "Momma's Boys"). But from the very beginning, "Dating in the Dark" announces that it is trying to do more, telling us in a voice-over that there are no cash prizes and no eliminations. Rather, the show is an "experiment" to see what happens when people are forced to put aside some basic ideas -- namely, judging people based on looks -- when meeting members of the opposite sex.
The premise of "Dating in the Dark" is pretty simple: Each week three guys and three girls move into opposite wings of a mansion. They only interact in a room kept so dark that they cannot see anything. Luckily, due to the wonders of infra-red technology, television viewers can see everything that happens in the dark room.
The premiere episode brought us two sets of daters that fit neatly into types. Stephen is a 31-year-old self-described genius, an SAT tutor whose brain seems to be running a million miles per hour at all times. Melanie, also 31, is a brainy hippie chick who "never learned to flirt," mainly, she says, because she was raised by a single dad. On the opposite side of the spectrum are Leni and Allister. Leni, a 27-year-old nanny from Melbourne, Australia, is outgoing and pretty, and you get the sense she has no trouble attracting guys. Similarly, Allister, a 29-year-old DJ from Manchester, England, is handsome and charismatic, but he has commitment and intimacy issues stemming from a rough upbringing, including his mother abandoning his family when he was a child. Finally, Seth, a 31-year-old audio-visual designer, and Christina, a 28-year-old marketing manager, are more a kind of average Joe and Josephine, both attractive enough to find dates, but neither the type that stands out from the pack.
After a group date in the dark, a series of one-on-one get-togethers followed. Interestingly, after the group date, each person was allowed to ask one person out, and the only person not to get an invitation was Allister. Already, we see the difference that being in the dark makes.
In fact, during the dates (group and individual), the house guests reached some interesting conclusions. Leni immediately realized that she didn't have to worry about how her hair or clothes looked in the dark, noting, "I love that. They're not looking at your boobs. They have to listen to you." Christina unintentionally reveals her true colors early on, saying that it is "weird" making judgments about people from only their voices. After connecting with Seth during a one-on-one date, they kiss, and Christina says afterwards, "I have no idea what I kissed in there." She hopes that when she sees him, he doesn't "turn out to be Shrek." Melanie, meanwhile, immediately nails Allister, explaining that he uses his sense of humor to deflect people so he doesn't have to open up to them. That realization went a long way toward building a bond between them.
An interesting twist came part-way through, when host Rossi Moreale, a veteran MC of low-level reality shows like "Can You Duet?" (and, according to the ABC Web site, a former starting wide receiver on the University of Arkansas football team), reveals to the guys and women that experts analyzed questionnaires they filled out and determined who their ideal matches in the house were. Not surprisingly, the experts placed Seth and Christina together, but in a switcheroo, Leni and Stephen and Melanie and Allister, seemingly opposites, were judged to be best-suited together. As the house guests had more dates and began pairing up, the experts turned out to be correct, as the three "ideal" couples were formed.
At this point, a sketch artist was brought in so that the participants could describe what they thought their dates looked like. Leni's description resulted in a sketch of bookish Stephen that, as one of the guys later pointed out, resembled Dolph Lundgren. Seth had Christina as a blonde, but, as she spits out, she is very much a brunette. Allister correctly ascertains that Melanie has curly hair and glasses, but he doesn't associate those attributes with her plain look, resulting in a picture of a woman more glamorous than Melanie.
The whole episode leads to what is, essentially, two moments of truth. First is the reveal, in which each couple goes into the dark room, and then, one at a time, one person is revealed, then the other. The idea is that each person can't see how his or her selected date reacts upon seeing him or her for the first time. Not surprisingly, the interviews after the reveals were interesting. Leni is shocked that Stephen is not Dolph Lundgren, describing him as the kind of man her mother would call "a lovely boy." And she doesn't mean it as a compliment. Christina looks like she's swallowed a bug (an army of bugs, really), clearly appalled at Seth's looks, which I have to say, shocked me. Seth may not be mistaken for Brad Pitt, but I can't imagine most women would have been as disappointed as Christina was. (Interestingly, Seth was a bit too excited about Christina's appearance, waxing rhapsodic about different parts of her body.) Finally, Allister was clearly unhappy with Melanie's plain-Jane looks, as much as he tried to cover it, while Melanie seemed mildly surprised at how handsome Allister was, later explaining that in the real world, she would never be able to approach someone who looked like him.
In the second key moment, each person had to decide whether or not to meet his or her date. If a meeting was desired, the person proceeded to the balcony overlooking the driveway. If not, the person went out the front door. Stephen was up first, and, obviously, he chose to meet Leni. Leni, on the other hand, tells the camera that while she and Stephen got along great, she goes for the bad-boy type, not a guy like Stephen. Nevertheless, after a sufficient reality-television-approved amount of time to build dramatic tension, Leni appears, and she and Stephen embrace, later leaving together in a show-provided car.
Next up was Seth and Christina. Again, Seth headed for the balcony, while Christina talked to the camera, admitting that she and Seth connected, but also complaining that she wasn't attracted to his physical looks. In the end, she walks out of the house without even looking up to say goodbye to Seth, leaving him staring on in disbelief as she left. Seth was shocked and angry, and his reactions seemed real, way more legitimate than what you expect to see on reality television. In a tearful interview, Christina confronts her shallowness, admitting that looks are important to her and saying, "I wish that aspect didn't matter so much to me." But what is stopping her? I can't imagine she will have garnered a lot of sympathy with viewers, and, more importantly, I can't imagine her ending up in a healthy relationship with such an unhealthy approach to men.
The Melanie-Allister finale was a bit of an anti-climax after Christina's cold-blooded ditching of Seth. Much like it was assumed the guys would show up in the first two instances, Melanie heads straight to the balcony while Allister dithers, giving the guy version of Leni's speech (she gets him, but he dates a different type of girl, which was really code for the fact that he dates better looking women). And much like Leni, Allister shows up anyway, and the two of them leave in a car together.
I have to say, I didn't believe for a second that Allister and Leni, the "hot ones," had discarded their biases to date the "nerdy ones," Melanie and Stephen. Rather, I think each had decided to be nice, nothing more. It's not like they were agreeing to a wedding. From what I can tell, all they were consenting to was, at most, a date. Showing up and spending some time with someone they liked but had discovered was not as attractive as they had hoped hardly asks for much, and it seems to be a small price to pay for (depending how cynical you are) either protecting their dates from the humiliation of a television rejection or protecting themselves from having to admit in front of millions of viewers that they were rejecting people they liked because they weren't good looking enough. I'm not sure if that makes Christina a hero or an even bigger selfish brat. Should we applaud her for her honesty (which revealed her to be shallow)? Or slam her for needlessly embarrassing someone she thought she really liked? I guess that's up for each viewer to decide. I went with the second option.
I was kind of fascinated by "Dating in the Dark." On a network reality dating show, you don't expect to see people act kind of real, at least at key moments, and you certainly don't expect the result to be so complicated and challenging. I found it interesting how amazingly shallow Christina revealed herself to be. She wasn't the most likable person throughout, but when she leaves Seth hanging because he wasn't up to her lofty standards for the perfect guy, she lost what little good will she had fostered. It was also interesting to me how little effect the experience seemed to have on Leni and Allister. Sure, they connected with people very different from their normal types. And sure, unlike Christina, they had the decency to show up at the end. But I didn't feel for one second like either of them would approach relationships differently the next day.
But I guess that's the one missing piece of "Dating in the Dark": the future. We don't know how this experience will really affect the participants down the line. Leni and Allister were asked to do so little in the end (show up), so as much as was revealed about the six house guests throughout the episode, we don't really know what the payoff was. A segment looking at everyone six months later would have told us far more about what was really learned (if anything) by everyone involved. (At the end of the premiere episode, there was a notice that you could learn more about what happened with the three couples by going to ABC.com, but as of this writing, there is no information about them on the site.)
That quibble aside, I have to give ABC full credit for, once again, going against the grain and taking a chance on a smart and unique approach to a familiar genre. While I'm not arguing that "Dating in the Dark" is science on television, it is more thought-provoking, thoughtful and, really, good-natured than any dating show I've seen. The program tests the participants, it doesn't set out to humiliate them. It's not Michael Apted's "Up" films, but at the same time, the heart of "Dating in the Dark" is closer to those classic documentaries than it is to "Momma's Boys."
I don't mean to suggest that the program is work, though. I found it genuinely entertaining. The participants were clever at times, and because the aim was more than just hooking up, there was actual drama in waiting to see how things turned out, way more than in the contrived ceremonies on other dating shows. (Does anyone really care who wants to stay in a house or on a bus with Bret Michaels, Tila Tequila, Flavor Flav or the Ikki Twins?)
Even the production was more interesting than the average dating show. When Moreale would explain to the house guests what would be happening next, the boring exposition was spiced up a bit by clever editing, with Moreale beginning to speak to one group, and then seamlessly continuing to speak with the other. The use of light in the reveals in the dark room were interestingly done, too. Everything was low-key, but given the less exploitative bent of the show, it worked.
When I decided to watch "Dating in the Dark" so I could write about it, I never thought I'd watch another episode. But the premiere was so well done, and raised so many interesting questions, I think I'll have to check it out again to see if the premise wears well over time.
Don't let the shots of the mansion and familiar musical cues fool you. The program may be on the same network as "The Bachelor," but ABC has broken new ground with "Dating in the Dark."
It all started out so ordinary. As I watched the opening seconds of ABC's new summer reality program "Dating in the Dark" (Mondays at 10 p.m. Eastern), with it's sweeping shots of a mansion surrounded by palm trees, and with the drama-inducing synth music playing in the background, it felt like the network was tossing out another "Bachelor" knock-off. After all, while ABC has a track record of programming innovative dramas and comedies (like, for example, "Better Off Ted") over the last season or two, it is also responsible for the patient zero of dating programs ("The Bachelor"), as well as reality fare both light ("Dancing with the Stars") and ridiculous ("Wipeout").
So it would not have surprised me at all if "Dating in the Dark" was just another piece of summer fluff, and my hope was that it wouldn't be toxic (like, say, NBC's "Momma's Boys"). But from the very beginning, "Dating in the Dark" announces that it is trying to do more, telling us in a voice-over that there are no cash prizes and no eliminations. Rather, the show is an "experiment" to see what happens when people are forced to put aside some basic ideas -- namely, judging people based on looks -- when meeting members of the opposite sex.
The premise of "Dating in the Dark" is pretty simple: Each week three guys and three girls move into opposite wings of a mansion. They only interact in a room kept so dark that they cannot see anything. Luckily, due to the wonders of infra-red technology, television viewers can see everything that happens in the dark room.
The premiere episode brought us two sets of daters that fit neatly into types. Stephen is a 31-year-old self-described genius, an SAT tutor whose brain seems to be running a million miles per hour at all times. Melanie, also 31, is a brainy hippie chick who "never learned to flirt," mainly, she says, because she was raised by a single dad. On the opposite side of the spectrum are Leni and Allister. Leni, a 27-year-old nanny from Melbourne, Australia, is outgoing and pretty, and you get the sense she has no trouble attracting guys. Similarly, Allister, a 29-year-old DJ from Manchester, England, is handsome and charismatic, but he has commitment and intimacy issues stemming from a rough upbringing, including his mother abandoning his family when he was a child. Finally, Seth, a 31-year-old audio-visual designer, and Christina, a 28-year-old marketing manager, are more a kind of average Joe and Josephine, both attractive enough to find dates, but neither the type that stands out from the pack.
After a group date in the dark, a series of one-on-one get-togethers followed. Interestingly, after the group date, each person was allowed to ask one person out, and the only person not to get an invitation was Allister. Already, we see the difference that being in the dark makes.
In fact, during the dates (group and individual), the house guests reached some interesting conclusions. Leni immediately realized that she didn't have to worry about how her hair or clothes looked in the dark, noting, "I love that. They're not looking at your boobs. They have to listen to you." Christina unintentionally reveals her true colors early on, saying that it is "weird" making judgments about people from only their voices. After connecting with Seth during a one-on-one date, they kiss, and Christina says afterwards, "I have no idea what I kissed in there." She hopes that when she sees him, he doesn't "turn out to be Shrek." Melanie, meanwhile, immediately nails Allister, explaining that he uses his sense of humor to deflect people so he doesn't have to open up to them. That realization went a long way toward building a bond between them.
An interesting twist came part-way through, when host Rossi Moreale, a veteran MC of low-level reality shows like "Can You Duet?" (and, according to the ABC Web site, a former starting wide receiver on the University of Arkansas football team), reveals to the guys and women that experts analyzed questionnaires they filled out and determined who their ideal matches in the house were. Not surprisingly, the experts placed Seth and Christina together, but in a switcheroo, Leni and Stephen and Melanie and Allister, seemingly opposites, were judged to be best-suited together. As the house guests had more dates and began pairing up, the experts turned out to be correct, as the three "ideal" couples were formed.
At this point, a sketch artist was brought in so that the participants could describe what they thought their dates looked like. Leni's description resulted in a sketch of bookish Stephen that, as one of the guys later pointed out, resembled Dolph Lundgren. Seth had Christina as a blonde, but, as she spits out, she is very much a brunette. Allister correctly ascertains that Melanie has curly hair and glasses, but he doesn't associate those attributes with her plain look, resulting in a picture of a woman more glamorous than Melanie.
The whole episode leads to what is, essentially, two moments of truth. First is the reveal, in which each couple goes into the dark room, and then, one at a time, one person is revealed, then the other. The idea is that each person can't see how his or her selected date reacts upon seeing him or her for the first time. Not surprisingly, the interviews after the reveals were interesting. Leni is shocked that Stephen is not Dolph Lundgren, describing him as the kind of man her mother would call "a lovely boy." And she doesn't mean it as a compliment. Christina looks like she's swallowed a bug (an army of bugs, really), clearly appalled at Seth's looks, which I have to say, shocked me. Seth may not be mistaken for Brad Pitt, but I can't imagine most women would have been as disappointed as Christina was. (Interestingly, Seth was a bit too excited about Christina's appearance, waxing rhapsodic about different parts of her body.) Finally, Allister was clearly unhappy with Melanie's plain-Jane looks, as much as he tried to cover it, while Melanie seemed mildly surprised at how handsome Allister was, later explaining that in the real world, she would never be able to approach someone who looked like him.
In the second key moment, each person had to decide whether or not to meet his or her date. If a meeting was desired, the person proceeded to the balcony overlooking the driveway. If not, the person went out the front door. Stephen was up first, and, obviously, he chose to meet Leni. Leni, on the other hand, tells the camera that while she and Stephen got along great, she goes for the bad-boy type, not a guy like Stephen. Nevertheless, after a sufficient reality-television-approved amount of time to build dramatic tension, Leni appears, and she and Stephen embrace, later leaving together in a show-provided car.
Next up was Seth and Christina. Again, Seth headed for the balcony, while Christina talked to the camera, admitting that she and Seth connected, but also complaining that she wasn't attracted to his physical looks. In the end, she walks out of the house without even looking up to say goodbye to Seth, leaving him staring on in disbelief as she left. Seth was shocked and angry, and his reactions seemed real, way more legitimate than what you expect to see on reality television. In a tearful interview, Christina confronts her shallowness, admitting that looks are important to her and saying, "I wish that aspect didn't matter so much to me." But what is stopping her? I can't imagine she will have garnered a lot of sympathy with viewers, and, more importantly, I can't imagine her ending up in a healthy relationship with such an unhealthy approach to men.
The Melanie-Allister finale was a bit of an anti-climax after Christina's cold-blooded ditching of Seth. Much like it was assumed the guys would show up in the first two instances, Melanie heads straight to the balcony while Allister dithers, giving the guy version of Leni's speech (she gets him, but he dates a different type of girl, which was really code for the fact that he dates better looking women). And much like Leni, Allister shows up anyway, and the two of them leave in a car together.
I have to say, I didn't believe for a second that Allister and Leni, the "hot ones," had discarded their biases to date the "nerdy ones," Melanie and Stephen. Rather, I think each had decided to be nice, nothing more. It's not like they were agreeing to a wedding. From what I can tell, all they were consenting to was, at most, a date. Showing up and spending some time with someone they liked but had discovered was not as attractive as they had hoped hardly asks for much, and it seems to be a small price to pay for (depending how cynical you are) either protecting their dates from the humiliation of a television rejection or protecting themselves from having to admit in front of millions of viewers that they were rejecting people they liked because they weren't good looking enough. I'm not sure if that makes Christina a hero or an even bigger selfish brat. Should we applaud her for her honesty (which revealed her to be shallow)? Or slam her for needlessly embarrassing someone she thought she really liked? I guess that's up for each viewer to decide. I went with the second option.
I was kind of fascinated by "Dating in the Dark." On a network reality dating show, you don't expect to see people act kind of real, at least at key moments, and you certainly don't expect the result to be so complicated and challenging. I found it interesting how amazingly shallow Christina revealed herself to be. She wasn't the most likable person throughout, but when she leaves Seth hanging because he wasn't up to her lofty standards for the perfect guy, she lost what little good will she had fostered. It was also interesting to me how little effect the experience seemed to have on Leni and Allister. Sure, they connected with people very different from their normal types. And sure, unlike Christina, they had the decency to show up at the end. But I didn't feel for one second like either of them would approach relationships differently the next day.
But I guess that's the one missing piece of "Dating in the Dark": the future. We don't know how this experience will really affect the participants down the line. Leni and Allister were asked to do so little in the end (show up), so as much as was revealed about the six house guests throughout the episode, we don't really know what the payoff was. A segment looking at everyone six months later would have told us far more about what was really learned (if anything) by everyone involved. (At the end of the premiere episode, there was a notice that you could learn more about what happened with the three couples by going to ABC.com, but as of this writing, there is no information about them on the site.)
That quibble aside, I have to give ABC full credit for, once again, going against the grain and taking a chance on a smart and unique approach to a familiar genre. While I'm not arguing that "Dating in the Dark" is science on television, it is more thought-provoking, thoughtful and, really, good-natured than any dating show I've seen. The program tests the participants, it doesn't set out to humiliate them. It's not Michael Apted's "Up" films, but at the same time, the heart of "Dating in the Dark" is closer to those classic documentaries than it is to "Momma's Boys."
I don't mean to suggest that the program is work, though. I found it genuinely entertaining. The participants were clever at times, and because the aim was more than just hooking up, there was actual drama in waiting to see how things turned out, way more than in the contrived ceremonies on other dating shows. (Does anyone really care who wants to stay in a house or on a bus with Bret Michaels, Tila Tequila, Flavor Flav or the Ikki Twins?)
Even the production was more interesting than the average dating show. When Moreale would explain to the house guests what would be happening next, the boring exposition was spiced up a bit by clever editing, with Moreale beginning to speak to one group, and then seamlessly continuing to speak with the other. The use of light in the reveals in the dark room were interestingly done, too. Everything was low-key, but given the less exploitative bent of the show, it worked.
When I decided to watch "Dating in the Dark" so I could write about it, I never thought I'd watch another episode. But the premiere was so well done, and raised so many interesting questions, I think I'll have to check it out again to see if the premise wears well over time.
Don't let the shots of the mansion and familiar musical cues fool you. The program may be on the same network as "The Bachelor," but ABC has broken new ground with "Dating in the Dark."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
