Reality Shows “Celebracadabra” and “The Paper” May Sound Like Parodies, But They Really Exist

[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]

Reality shows have become so formulaic, the knock-offs are starting to look and sound like parodies. In the past week or two, when I saw promos for “Celebracadabra” (C-list celebrities try and be magicians, VH1, new episodes air Sundays at 9 p.m. Eastern) and “The Paper” (the intrigue at a high school newspaper, MTV, new episodes air Mondays at 10:30 p.m. Eastern), I honestly thought for a second that they might be jokes.

Couldn’t you picture Amy Poehler, as Hillary Clinton, going to pull a rabbit out of a hat but instead ending up with lingerie from one of Bill’s dalliances? What about Kristin Wiig as one of the vacuous bimbos on “The Hills,” telling her friends that she is going to work on her old high school’s newspaper so she could “learn about news and stuff”? Once I figured out for sure that these were actually two new reality programs, I had to watch them to see if they are as bad as they sound.

“Celebracadabra” is about as derivative and steeped in the (not very) time-worn traditions of celebrity contest shows as you’ll ever see. Has-been and never-were celebrities grasping for another 15 minutes of fame? Check. You can watch comic Ant, 1980s heart-throb actor C. Thomas Howell, Kid (Chris Reid) from rap duo Kid ‘n Play, former “Talk Soup” host Hal Sparks, comic-actress Lisa Ann Walter (don’t worry, I had no idea who she was, either), singer and professional celebrity offspring Carnie Wilson, and Pussycat Doll Kimberly Wyatt try to win $100,000 that they probably need more than they would like us to know. A competition in which the faux celebs have to learn a new skill? Check. Magic fills in the space occupied by dancing and ice skating in similar, but higher-rated, network programs. An elimination element? Check. After the faux celebs do their magic tricks, the three magician judges, host Jonathan Levit, magic teacher Jeff Magnus McBride and illusionist Franz Harary, eliminate a contestant. Cheesy gimmick for elimination? Check. The contestant voted off the island, er, show, has his or her magic wand snapped in half, and he or she has to sit in a chair, get covered by a tarp and literally disappear. Characters placed into roles, and drama manufactured? Check. Ant is cast as the bitchy troublemaker. He tries to build alliances, first with Wilson, and then after she rejects him, with Walter and Wyatt. Ant proceeds to harass Wilson while she performs in an effort to get her eliminated.

So is “Celebracadabra” as awful as it sounds? No, actually. Look, there is a lot not to like here: Wilson’s personality, overexposed on talk shows and reality programs, grates. She can really use a sabbatical from the spotlight (and so can we, as viewers). It’s hard to look at Howell, who appears unwell, gaunt and dazed (and possibly on the wrong VH1 show, since he may be better suited for “Celebrity Rehab”). Ant is an acquired taste, one I have yet to acquire. Wyatt is pretty to look at, but not very interesting to listen to. Sparks is actually kind of funny, but his over-the-top hipster look, with Melrose Avenue clothes, long hair and a soul patch, seems so calculated, it’s ridiculous and saps any interest I might have in his comedy. (You won’t recognize him from “Talk Soup” until he speaks.) Walters is fine, and Reid is the best thing on the show. He comes off as smart and funny, begging the question of why he is doing reality television.

So if it’s such a train wreck, why did I say it’s not so bad? To quote the rock band the Cars, “Oh oh, it’s magic.” I have never been a fan of magic shows or magicians, but the tricks on “Celebracadabra” entertained me. I can only imagine how much fun a magic aficionado would have watching the illusions on the show, many of which are pretty elaborate. Each of the contestants gets paired up with a real, working magician to coach them, which works out quite well, since we get to see the teachers demonstrate tricks, before later watching the faux celebs try their hands at them.

The debut episode was dedicated to street magic, so the seven contestants hit two locations in Los Angeles to do their newly learned routines for the general public. Five of them did a great job. Wyatt pulled off an amazing trick, identifying someone’s card by throwing the deck in the air, breaking a beer bottle, and then spearing the right card with the jagged edge of the bottle. Sparks also wowed his crowd, producing a mouse from a torn up newspaper chain. I liked Walter’s showmanship in executing a nifty illusion, getting a muscle-bound guy to rip open her fishnet stockings, revealing the card he had selected lying flat against her thigh. I also liked Reid’s ability to make a ring disappear, and then reappear tied to his shoelace. As the judges later pointed out, while the trick was solid, Reid’s performance for the audience was top-notch. Ant’s trick was odd, reassembling a one-dollar bill that he tore into four pieces after a guy had signed it, but he completed it successfully. Only Howell and Wilson crashed and burned on their first attempts, looking extremely uncomfortable in the process. Howell failed to get a crumpled dollar to levitate over his hand, and Wilson caused the wrong card to stick to a window when she threw the deck at it. Both were later able to get things right on their second attempts in front of different crowds.

In the end, there is a lot more magic than anything else on “Celebracadabra,” which is good, since it allows the show to rise above the level of a bad knock-off. If you like magic, it’s worth a watch. Maybe just turn the sound down when Ant talks to the camera.

“The Paper,” on the other hand, is every bit as disastrous as it sounds. After finding success with the rich boys and girls of “Laguna Beach” and its spin-off, “The Hills,” MTV decided to go across the country and try the formula in a different setting. This time, the cameras follow the students of Cypress Bay High School in Weston, Fla., as they work on the school’s student newspaper. “Laguna Beach” presented a kind of iconic world of wealthy, pretty kids of an idyllic, upscale, California beachfront town that would inspire teens around the country to watch and wonder what it would be like to live there. I can’t imagine anyone would look at “The Paper” and feel the same way.

The Cypress Bay crowd, suburban upper-middle-class teens who are way nerdier than their West Coast counterparts, live in McMansions and complain about the politics of their school newspaper. This is not glamorous stuff, and the average life of the average American high schooler is probably as interesting, if not more, than the existences waded through by the kids in “The Paper.”

The center of the show is Amanda, an awkward, odd-dressing girl with a new nose job, who beats out her old friend Alex, a skinny, nasal-voiced guy, to be editor in chief of the newspaper. Alex, feeling like he deserved the top spot, is stuck with the second-in-command position of managing editor. This is MTV, so you would be completely correct in expecting some major plotting, subterfuge and intrigue on Alex’s part, leading to instances of sabotage, conspiracy and attempted coups. At least through the first couple of episodes, you would be sorely disappointed. Alex is more Barney Fife than Iago. He whines to his mother and friends on the paper that he should be editor in chief, but equally moans that he wants to stay buddies with Amanda.

Not that Alex is a loyal ally. He tells Amanda that he supports her, but when he’s with his friends, he is quick to make fun of her while once again saying he should be in charge. He manages to be neither an interesting schemer nor a brave guy standing up for his affection for an unpopular girl. He’s just weak. If he had some balls and tried to bring Amanda down, at least it would make for some engaging drama. Instead, he just comes off as two-faced and ineffectual.

Then again, it’s not like you can like Amanda very much, and, even worse, she’s not interesting. The two words that perfectly sum up Amanda are delusional and pathetic. She is reviled by the rest of the editors, and she oversees a wreck of a first staff meeting, during which nobody listens to her, and the seniors all but openly make fun of her. Her reaction? She thinks the meeting went great. She then decides it would be a good idea to throw an ice cream social as a team-building exercise. People attend the party out of obligation, but they couldn’t have expressed their unhappiness at being there any more clearly if they had worn T-shirts reading: “This Sucks.” Not surprisingly, the guests look uncomfortable and unhappy before clearing out early. Amanda’s response to this turn of events? She says the party was “a total success,” leading her to declare, “I’m the luckiest editor in chief in the world.” Amanda’s role model must be Nero: She eats ice cream while her newspaper career burns.

Delusional would be easier to handle if Amanda wasn’t also a bit of an egomaniac. While gearing up for the big staff meeting, she says, “I hope it goes well, because if it doesn’t, I’ll have to think that bad things happen to good people.” Amanda embodies one of the most annoying types of people you will meet: Someone who isn’t even half as fabulous as she thinks she is.

We’re told Amanda was smitten with Alex in third grade, and he had a thing for her in ninth grade. They should just get together now, since the audience certainly won’t have a crush on either one of them. Alex and Amanda, as uninteresting as they are, deserve each other.

Don’t look to the group of newspaper staffers for someone to root for. It’s hard to enjoy news editor Giana’s hatred of Amanda. Thin, pretty and smart, Giana violates the basic principle of comedy that people with power should never pick in on people with less power. I guess some people will enjoy the sadistic thrill of listening to Giana slam Amanda, but I found it off-putting. And it’s not even like Giana is clever about it. She’s like a cooler version of Alex, complaining all the time about Amanda but not doing anything about it. Advertising manager Adam is like an Ant in training, out-bitching any of his fellow staffers. But you can’t help thinking that someone that aggressive should have more clever things to say about Amanda. He’s not funny, just loud. The rest of the staff is pretty much nondescript.

I have a headline for “The Paper”: “Boring Students Staff High School Newspaper, and America Doesn’t Care.” Too bad “The Paper” wasn’t actually a “Saturday Night Live” parody of “Laguna Beach.” That might have actually been entertaining.

Important News From Iraq This Week, But You Probably Didn't See Much About It

While the news outlets have been obsessed with the Austrian father who kept his daughter as a sex slave, the weirdo religious sect in Texas that paired middle-aged men with teenage girls (is this a trend?) and non-stop discussion of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (wait, is he running for office?), there is precious airtime, print space and bandwidth left for less interesting stories ... like what is going on in Iraq. At least that's how it seems the TV news folks see it.

As a public service, here is a reminder of some Iraq-related stories you might have missed in the last week.

Last Friday Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who does not support the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, spoke out to clarify exactly what he and his army stand for. He said, "When we threatened to declare an open war until the liberation, we meant war against the occupier." He made it clear that he had no interest in fighting the Iraqi government, who recently tried to clear his army from Basra, but only the American forces currently in Iraq.

This statement is actually pretty staggering when you consider that George W. Bush, John McCain and the rest of the Republican crowd supporting the war in Iraq tell us over and over again that if the U.S. was to pull its forces out of the country, there would be carnage. Others have argued for quite some time that the American presence in Iraq is the very factor that gives rise to much of the violence, and if the U.S. was to leave, the violence could actually abate to some extent.

It would seem that the statement by al-Sadr, one of the most powerful anti-government leaders in Iraq, leaves the foundation of Bush and McCain's position quite shaky. Al-Sadr's remarks only serve to focus how the U.S. is now simply refereeing a civil war, a venture that has broken our army, killed more than 4,000 of our soldiers, injured tens of thousands of our servicepeople, and sucked hundreds of billions of dollars from the country at a time of economic uncertainty.

But none of the television news outlets saw fit to give this news much air time. I guess if Al-Sadr had admitted to having sex with a 15-year-old girl, the story would have rocketed to the lead.

Monday brought the news that Shiite insurgents launched rockets and mortar shells into the Green Zone in Baghdad. As you will recall, the Green Zone is supposed to be the safe, protected area of the capital and the center for the international presence in the country. Now, Republicans keep telling us that their vaunted surge made Iraq safer, and that this improvement is why more than 140,000 U.S. forces have to remain in Iraq. So what does it mean now if things are at the point where the Green Zone isn't safe? Similarly, demonstrating that the surge was not something that could be sustained, it was reported today that the death toll in Iraq for April was the highest in seven months. The month has seen 47 American soldiers killed.

The news outlets are so quick to parrot Republican claims that "the surge is working," but apparently reporting the rise in deaths in Iraq is too much of a downer. Now, if American soldiers in Iraq were having sex with 15-year-old girls in the Green Zone, that just might warrant at least a fraction of the coverage now devoted to the speeches of a guy who used to be the pastor for one of the presidential candidates. (As I wrote about on March 24, the news media, despite being obsessed with Rev. Wright, seems not to care at all about the war-mongering, homophobic and downright loopy statements made by the Rev. John Hagee, a man McCain was "very proud" to have endorse him, but I digress.)

Also today, a U.S. report found that al-Qaeda has rebuilt much of its pre-9/11 capabilities from its refuges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That would be the same al-Qaeda that Bush and McCain keep telling us is the number one enemy, and the same al-Qaeda that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. One can only wonder how much damage the U.S. military could have done to al-Qaeda if Bush hadn't lost focus and moved the bulk of American military capabilities from Afghanistan to the useless, unjustified, poorly planned, disastrous, draining entanglement in Iraq.

On September 13, 2001, Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." By January of 2008, the top military officer in the pentagon, Adm. Mike Mullen, said, "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must."

In other words, Bush chose to pursue his war in Iraq at the expense of fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. How many Americans do you think agree with that decision (even accounting for the section of the country that believes, thanks to Bush's propaganda, that Iraq was behind 9/11)?

The report that al-Qaeda is resurgent should be breaking news. Maybe if al-Qaeda was having sex with 15-year-old ... yeah, yeah, you know where I'm going with this.

As I discussed at length on April 14, it has become clear, even in the minds of the U.S. military and some Republicans in the Congress, that the U.S. cannot sustain its current level of engagement in Iraq for much longer (or, more accurately, any longer). The stories of the last week in Iraq only crystallize that there is no justification for the U.S. to remain there. And yet, these news items were buried behind sensationalistic tabloid stories. It's shocking to think that the mainstream media has become not much better than the National Enquirer.

Then again, if you were watching the news for the last week, you are probably an expert on the teachings of Rev. Wright, and you've heard a lot about religious fanatics dressing women in pioneer outfits, not to mention getting your fill of the "Saw"-like sadistic thrills hearing about the sicko in Austria who brutalized, isolated and sexually assaulted his daughter for decades.

Personally, I found the interest in the Wright story overblown, the religious sect silly, and the Austrian criminal sick, and I'd rather hear more about the truth of what's going on in Iraq. But I guess, to television news executives, I'm the odd one. Go figure.

Democrats Failing Despite Having Everything Going Their Way

As I look at the poll numbers and the never-ending stream of stories about the Democratic presidential race, I feel like my head is ready to explode. At first glance, nothing seems to add up.

Consider the following:

In a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 81 percent of respondents said that the country is on the "wrong track." That same poll also revealed that 78 percent of those asked think they are worse off than they were five years ago, which represents the highest total since CBS started asking that question in 1986. The poll also found that 21 percent thought the economy was in good shape (the lowest number since 1992), and that the economy is the number one concern of voters, far outdistancing the second-place finisher (the war in Iraq).

President Bush's approval rating in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll was 28 percent, with 69 percent of respondents disapproving of his performance. And a Congressional Quarterly voting study revealed that John McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 (and 89 percent of the time since Bush took office). The alleged maverick McCain managed to vote with his fellow Republicans on 98 percent of his votes (43 of 44) in 2007, up from a still-high 76 percent in 2006.

And, in a recent AP-Yahoo! News poll, people chose a generic Democrat over a generic Republican for president by 13 points.

With that body of evidence, you would think that it is the Democrats' race to lose, and with the right candidate and a good campaign, the party should have no trouble securing the White House in November.

And yet, here is where we stand: The same CBS/New York Times poll has Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both only five points ahead of McCain. In fact, compared to many other polls, that's a positive result for the Democrats. Gallup has McCain beating Obama by two points and trailing Clinton by only two points. Obama's margin over McCain is merely two points according to Rasmussen and three points according to Newsweek, while Clinton's advantage over McCain is only one point in Rasmussen and three points in Newsweek.

How do you explain such a huge disconnect between the mood of the electorate in general and its views on Obama, Clinton and McCain specifically?

I see three main factors in play.

First, as I have been writing since last year, the Democrats seem to actively ignore the history of past elections in choosing its candidates. As I laid out in great detail in my July 31, 2007 piece on why Clinton is not electable, since 1964, the U.S. has not elected a U.S. senator to the presidency (that will change this year, of course), and, as importantly, no Democrat from a blue state has won the Oval Office during that time. The only Democrats to win were Lyndon Johnson (Texas), Jimmy Carter (Georgia) and Bill Clinton (Arkansas).

So who are the two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination now? Two blue state U.S. senators. This fact, while not dispositive on its own, is symbolic of the failed approach of the party in selecting the types of candidates Americans tend to elect to the presidency.

The second factor is the challenges facing the two Democratic front runners that could be a fatal impediment to winning in November. As I noted in that July 31, 2007 column, Clinton's history of staggeringly high disapproval ratings would make it very hard for her to prevail in a general election. And her decision to "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama in Pennsylvania, while successful in the short run, only damaged her already sketchy public perception further. As I noted on April 22, Clinton's numbers have plummeted recently, with a Washington Post/ABC News poll showing that only 39 percent found her to be "honest and trustworthy," only 63 percent of Democrats found her trustworthy, and only 37 percent of independents said they trusted her.

Obama's albatross seems to be his lack of appeal with white working class voters. While there are a load of factors that have played into this challenge of his (from hot-button issues like race to more subtle perceptions of personality), the real threat facing Obama's candidacy now is how the Republicans, Clinton and the media have teamed up to fan his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright into a huge issue with voters. Obama is finding his sheen of being above the fray greatly tarnished. He is sounding more and more like a typical candidate, agreeing to go on Fox News for an interview after a two-year embargo and strongly denouncing Wright's most recent remarks at a press conference today. Not surprisingly, the increasingly bitter campaign is affecting how Democrats view their own candidates. Obama's appeal has always been his message of hope and how his campaign would not be politics as usual. That line of argument has taken a major hit in recent weeks.

Finally, The media has bought whole-heartedly into McCain's fairy tale that he is a "maverick" who is not a traditional Republican. That narrative has given voters leeway to support him even though they do not want to continue the policies of the Bush administration. McCain's successful poll numbers have come at a time when he is not being challenged by anyone, since the Democrats have been busy training their fire on each other. The Democrats have to show the American people that McCain has faithfully supported Bush's presidency at virtually every turn, but that's a hard thing to do when the media is more interested in perpetuating the myth. And it's especially hard when the two Democratic contenders are ripping each other to shreds.

So, despite everything pointing to a Democratic success in November, the party finds itself in a dog fight it could easily lose. I am sick and tired of the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot time and time again. It's too late to find a more ideal candidate, but it's not too late for the candidates themselves to start taking smarter steps. For Obama that means remembering what got him this far and conducting a more hopeful, forward thinking campaign, and for Clinton that means dropping out. (I wrote on April 1 and April 22 about why that is the appropriate course of action for her.)

Most of all, the party has to unify and show the country not only what it stands for, but also that McCain's record demonstrates that his presidency would essentially continue the failed policies of the Bush administration.

It's all sitting there for the Democrats. Let's hope they don't blow it. Again.