[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
Last week, I wrote that NBC's decision to move Jay Leno to prime time was bad news for scripted shows, but that it could have been worse. Well, ladies and gentlemen, may I present the "worse" to which I was referring: "Momma's Boys," which launched on NBC last night and will air at Mondays at 9:00 p.m. Eastern. Viewers were also reminded of how bad things can be when the sequel to "A Shot of Love with Tila Tequila," "A Double Shot of Love," debuted last week on MTV (new episodes air Wednesdays at 10:00 p.m. Eastern).
Yet another entrant into the dating show sweepstakes, "Momma's Boys" has 32 women fighting for the attention of three men, with the twist being that the mothers of the three bachelors move into the house with their sons' pursuers. Virtually everything about this heaping pile of dog poop is manipulative, exploitative and mean-spirited.
Now before you go accusing me of being a curmudgeon who doesn't understand the dumb fun of reality television, let's set the record straight: I watched both seasons of "Rock of Love," in which has-been rocker Bret Michaels spent a couple of weeks making out with a collection of party girls. I even watched both seasons tracking Scott Baio's quest to grow up. I can rock the mindless reality show with the best of them. But where Baio, Michaels and the "Rock of Love" contestants weren't hurting anybody or anything other than themselves, those around them and the ear drums, eyes and self-esteem of their viewers, "Momma's Boys" is far more insidious. It's lazy. And creepy. And it's straight-out offensive.
The "Momma's Boys" house is filled with the same assortment of types you'd find in any dating show. There is the doctor and the shy hippie chick (who cleans up rather than socializing), the religious southerner and the loud, dumb southerner, the nude models and the non-nude models, and enough alcohol, peroxide and silicone to have the house classified as a chemical storage facility.
And then there are the mothers. Lorraine, the youngest of the three, still makes her firefighter son Michael's bed and calls him 100 times a day. At one point she tells the camera, "I pity my husband," and I thought to myself that I did, too. She talks about how great her son's body is, which is creepy enough, but not quite as creepy as Khalood, the Michigan mother to hockey player Jo Jo, who points out the sexy body parts on a photo of her son in a way that left you wondering if she needed some time alone with the picture. Of course, creepily drooling over a photo of her son while talking about how hot he is might be the least off-putting thing about Khalood, given that her video (played for the 32 women) talks about how she "can't have" a girl who is Jewish, black or Asian for her son. The woman has to be white, Catholic, not too tall, and not have a large butt (ironic, since, to borrow an old dozens joke, when Khalood sits around the house, she sits around the house). In the end, she says the girl for her son has to be just like her. I think she will be out of luck unless the producers hid a fat, loud, domineering, obnoxious, inappropriate, racist girl somewhere in the house. Hey, if Khalood can wait 20 years for Adolph Hitler Campbell's little sister, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, to grow up, she will be all set! Khalood hilariously claims she is not racist because she has black friends and knows "half of the Detroit Lions."
Poor Esther, mother to Rob, is portrayed by the producers as a stereotypical Jewish mother. With her frequent use of Yiddish terms and New Yawk accent, and her pride in buying her son's underwear, she comes off like Mike Myers's "Saturday Night Live" character, Linda Richmond, if she had taken a master class on how to be more stereotypically New York Jewish.
So if watching three mothers, one of whom is a racist, creepily hug, kiss and drool over their good-looking sons sounds like fun to you, then "Momma's Boys" is right up your alley (it also means that you really should seek some kind of professional attention, too).
"Momma's Boys" is truly odious in how it plays up every stereotype you can imagine. Beyond Esther's devotion to her "mensch" of a son, the show seems to have a rule that none of the black women can have clips of interviews shown unless they exaggeratedly move their heads like they were one of Whoopi Goldberg's characters. Rather than highlight some of the more articulate responses to Khalood's racism (one of the African American women has a master's degree, another is a nurse), the producers chose to show a woman saying to the camera, "Bitch, are you crazy?"
It seems as if the entire show is dedicated to portraying every woman in the most negative light possible, both the mothers and the contestants (although many of the women make it easy on the producers to do so). And none of them have any sense of themselves. A holier-than-thou woman named Jessica, reacting to one of the other women's admissions that she posed for Playboy in 1999, says she has "too much respect" for herself to do something like that, but apparently not too much respect to go on a sleazy reality dating show. And, like in every other dating program, the women talk about being there to find love, which means that there are only two possibilities: they're lying, or they're stupid enough to believe that going on television and competing with 31 rivals for the attention of three men they've never met is the best way to find a soul mate. Either way, it's hard to care what happens to them.
In fact, the mothers and bachelorettes are so over the top, I started to feel like they were, at best, being coached, or, at worst, actors playing parts. Esther's pronunciation of some of the Yiddish terms felt forced. Maybe she was nervous, but maybe the producers were feeding her lines. Hippie chick Megan (the compulsive cleaner) and vacuous and childlike Cara especially felt to me like they were actresses portraying extreme characters, but maybe the casting people just did an amazing job finding these oddballs. Whatever the case, it doesn't make for entertaining viewing.
The central conflict of the show, repeated again and again in the debut by the narrator, is what the men will do when their mothers disapprove of their choices of women. Will they side with their mothers or their girls? In real life, there could be some real drama in this set-up. But in the world of a reality television show, in which no right-minded person could honestly believe that true love is a realistic outcome, the drama is nonexistent. Will a guy pick a fling with the 2008 Penthouse Pet of the Year (yes, she's one of the girls) or listen to his mother and shoot her down? Duh. No guy agreeing to go on a program like "Momma's Boys" is going to turn down a romp with the hottie.
"Momma's Boys" does not offer a dose of trashy, silly dating-show fun (like "Rock of Love"). Rather, it makes you uncomfortable, trying to produce entertainment from watching a racist woman spew hate (and women hurt by the words react to the comments), mothers seemingly get aroused by their sons, and a group of mostly vapid and self-esteemless women behaving in ways that set back the women's movement 50 years. "Rock of Love" may be a guilty pleasure, but watching "Momma's Boys" just makes me feel guilty.
"Double Shot of Love," by comparison, is harmless. Although I wouldn't call it much fun. Don't get me wrong, there are things in the show that could easily offend. It's just not as blatantly mean-spirited as "Momma's Boys." To me, the problem with "Double Shot of Love" is that I just wasn't entertained.
Taking over the bisexual bachelorette reins from Tila Tequila are the so-called "Ikki" twins, Vikki and Rikki. The sisters are given 12 women and 12 men from which to choose their true loves (ahem). I'm not quite sure what the twins have to offer as show leads, short of looking awesome in matching bikinis. Maybe that's all that's needed and I'm overthinking it. But the Ikki girls don't have a lot of personality, and their line readings can be extraordinarily wooden when they talk to the camera.
The guys fighting for the Ikki's affections represent a limited group: Several are tattooed, pumped-up meatheads, others are glammed-up club owners and party planners. There is a token geek, and an emo-looking singer in a band. And there is one conservative (politically) party boy who makes it through the first elimination largely because one of the twins has a thing for Boston accents. Meanwhile, the girls aren't much different from the women on most reality dating shows (like "Momma's Boys"), except for one who is more masculine than the rest.
It seems the appeal of "Double Shot of Love" comes down to watching pretty people wearing little clothing while making out a lot. Both the guys and the girls have to do a "fashion show" for the twins, the women dressing as "sexy" farm animals (in a moment of questionable taste, the one girl who was not skinny portrays a cow) and the men donning odd superhero costumes (I guess clearing actual superhero duds would have been too expensive). Throughout, there is a lot of hanging out in bathing suits and tiny outfits.
And there is lots of kissing. Several of the girls make out with the twins on the first day, as do a handful of the guys. One dude walks into the house for the first time, grabs Rikki, and shoves his tongue down her throat. He survives elimination because Vikki said he was sweet when they spoke, but her definition of sweet seems to be limited to the fact that the always obnoxious jerk didn't stick his tongue down her throat.
I give the producers credit for coming up with some inventive stunts. The contestants are brought to the mansion in giant crates (one for each gender) dangled from helicopters. I'm not convinced that they were really in there (the hidden camera footage seemed staged), but even if it was all fiction, it was a funny idea. And the first episode turns on a kind of "Parent Trap" meets "Debbie Does Dallas" gambit, as the twins pretend to be one person, taking turns meeting the contestants but not letting on that they had switched. At the end of the hour, at a pool party at which the male and female suitors are together for the first time, Ricki says she has a confession to make, framing it like she's about to admit to being a guy (although standing in her bikini, it would seem quite obvious she was a woman). She then brings out Vicki, much to the delight of the remaining contestants, male and female alike.
"Double Shot of Love" is a by-the-numbers, MTV dating show. Not good, but what do you expect from MTV nowadays? I hold NBC, on the other hand, the network of "The Office" and "30 Rock," to a higher standard. "Momma's Boys" doesn't belong on a network, managing to be creepy, joyless and offensive all at once. Suddenly, five nights of Jay Leno at 10:00 p.m. is starting to look good. So long as he doesn't bring Khalood on to let her talk about how hot her son is, and how much she wants him to be with a white woman.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Cheney's Confession Should Lead to Criminal Investigation of Bush's Torture Policies
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
All it took was two words. Two simple words from Dick Cheney -- two words we're used to seeing in a completely different context -- settled a question I had been ambivalent about since Barack Obama was elected president last month. The question was, "Should Democrats go after Bush administration officials for the extra-legal activity of the last eight years?" Thanks to Cheney, I think that the Justice Department should investigate the criminal activities of, at the very least, the soon-to-be (but not soon enough) ex-vice president relating to the U.S. practice of torturing prisoners.
What were the two words? "I do." ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl interviewed Cheney on Monday and, at one point, asked him:
"[O]ne of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?"
To which Cheney replied: "I do."
Earlier in the interview, Karl asked Cheney, "Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?", and Cheney replied:
"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
(Keith Olbermann pointed out on Countdown last night that Cheney lied when he made that statement, since he and Bush first authorized the tactics used against Mohammed, and then the CIA came back looking for confirmation of the legality of the practices. Olbermann cited the bipartisan senate report on the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib on this point.)
In other words, the sitting vice president of the United States of America went on national television and admitted to millions of viewers that he was a war criminal.
Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. Waterboarding has been established in international law as a form of torture that is unlawful. After World War II, American prosecutors cited waterboarding as a war crime committed by Japanese officers. They used different names, like the "water cure" and "water torture," but the practice was essentially the same.
Cheney denies that the U.S. tortured prisoners during the Bush years, but his denial is weak, since he is admitting to putting into place practices that have nearly universally been considered to be torture.
Let's be clear what we are talking about here: As Evan Wallach, a judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade who teaches the law of war at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School, and a former JAG officer, wrote in the Washington Post in November 2007:
"The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death."
In another article by Wallach, he describes the practice in more detail, using testimony by American military personnel who experienced waterboarding. It is chilling to read, so disturbing that I have chosen not to reproduce the passages here. If you want to read it for yourself, click on the link and do so. Let's just say that the practice is more than just unpleasant; it results in the victim experiencing actual drowning.
As angry as I was (and continue to be) about the blatant disregard for the constitution and the rule of law showed by Bush and his administration, I was always hesitant over whether going after them would do more harm than good. When the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, there were calls by many on the left for the party to bring impeachment charges against Bush, Cheney and others. Rep. Dennis Kucinich did, in fact, introduce impeachment resolutions against Bush and Cheney, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not allow the resolutions to move forward in the chamber.
After living through the ridiculous and baseless impeachment charges brought by the Republicans against Bill Clinton, I am leery of Congress using the impeachment hammer inappropriately. I also felt like such action would turn the truly abhorrent actions of the Bush administration into a political circus, having the effect of giving Bush and his cronies cover for their shocking behavior. "See, the Democrats are trying to score political points." And since, with 49 Republicans in the senate, it was highly unlikely any convictions would be secured, impeachment attempts would have handed Bush and the others exonerations, making it look like they had not committed any wrongful acts.
So I opposed bringing impeachment charges against anyone in the Bush administration. But the idea of Obama's Justice Department examining possible criminal charges against them raised different issues. In 2009, when Obama takes over, the country will be facing an array of difficult problems, including the worst economic downturn since World War II and wars in two countries, not to mention potentially explosvie situations in Asia from the Middle East to Pakistan. Remember, all it takes is 41 Republican senators to filibuster and kill any legislation. Addressing these problems will require Obama to gain at least some support from the Republicans. The question becomes: Do we want the new administration fighting the battles of the last president or working full-time on the problems facing the country today? Related to that, do the Democrats want to drive the Republicans into defense mode, leading to obstruction, or is it time to try and forge a more civil relationship so that Obama can get his programs through Congress?
But at the same time, I was troubled at the precedent that would be set by allowing government officials to flout the law and not be held responsible for their illegal actions. The message should be sent at all times that nobody is above the law. Say what you want about corruption in Illinois, but no shortage of the state's recent governors have found themselves behind bars (or, possibly, in Rod Blagojevich's case, on his way). Something seemed wrong -- and weak -- to me about letting Bush spend eight years taking actions that struck at the heart of American democracy, and then not holding his administration responsible for its actions. What kind of message would that send?
I was torn. And then Dick Cheney uttered those two simple words: "I do." And the scales tipped. Here's the thing: If members of the Bush administration would have at least acted like they might have done something wrong, a truth-and-reconciliation-type Congressional commission like the one currently under consideration could have found out what happened, and we could have learned our lesson and moved on. At least maybe. But if Cheney is going to go on national television and endorse torture, I feel like he has tied the hands of the country. How can we change our image, both to the rest of the world and to our own citizens, if we allow a sitting vice president to confess to supporting a policy of torture and do nothing about it?
No, Cheney has tipped the scale. I would hope that he has now forced the hand of Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder (yes, it will be Holder, the GOP whines about Marc Rich and Elian Gonzalez are acts of pathetic grandstanding that should go nowhere). I think Holder now has to investigate, in some fashion, allegations of criminal activity by members of the Bush administration, at the very least relating to torture. And he should do so, even if Bush pardons some or all of the actors involved.
Of all of Bush's enablers, Cheney was always the most unapologetic and brazen about defending the misdeeds of the administration. It will be only fitting if his decision to openly confess to aiding in torture leads to investigations of the Bush administration's illegal actions. There was a time I wasn't sure if such a course of action was wise. Thanks to Cheney, I now think we have no choice in the matter. Let's hope Obama and Holder agree.
All it took was two words. Two simple words from Dick Cheney -- two words we're used to seeing in a completely different context -- settled a question I had been ambivalent about since Barack Obama was elected president last month. The question was, "Should Democrats go after Bush administration officials for the extra-legal activity of the last eight years?" Thanks to Cheney, I think that the Justice Department should investigate the criminal activities of, at the very least, the soon-to-be (but not soon enough) ex-vice president relating to the U.S. practice of torturing prisoners.
What were the two words? "I do." ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl interviewed Cheney on Monday and, at one point, asked him:
"[O]ne of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?"
To which Cheney replied: "I do."
Earlier in the interview, Karl asked Cheney, "Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?", and Cheney replied:
"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."
(Keith Olbermann pointed out on Countdown last night that Cheney lied when he made that statement, since he and Bush first authorized the tactics used against Mohammed, and then the CIA came back looking for confirmation of the legality of the practices. Olbermann cited the bipartisan senate report on the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib on this point.)
In other words, the sitting vice president of the United States of America went on national television and admitted to millions of viewers that he was a war criminal.
Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. Waterboarding has been established in international law as a form of torture that is unlawful. After World War II, American prosecutors cited waterboarding as a war crime committed by Japanese officers. They used different names, like the "water cure" and "water torture," but the practice was essentially the same.
Cheney denies that the U.S. tortured prisoners during the Bush years, but his denial is weak, since he is admitting to putting into place practices that have nearly universally been considered to be torture.
Let's be clear what we are talking about here: As Evan Wallach, a judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade who teaches the law of war at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School, and a former JAG officer, wrote in the Washington Post in November 2007:
"The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death."
In another article by Wallach, he describes the practice in more detail, using testimony by American military personnel who experienced waterboarding. It is chilling to read, so disturbing that I have chosen not to reproduce the passages here. If you want to read it for yourself, click on the link and do so. Let's just say that the practice is more than just unpleasant; it results in the victim experiencing actual drowning.
As angry as I was (and continue to be) about the blatant disregard for the constitution and the rule of law showed by Bush and his administration, I was always hesitant over whether going after them would do more harm than good. When the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, there were calls by many on the left for the party to bring impeachment charges against Bush, Cheney and others. Rep. Dennis Kucinich did, in fact, introduce impeachment resolutions against Bush and Cheney, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not allow the resolutions to move forward in the chamber.
After living through the ridiculous and baseless impeachment charges brought by the Republicans against Bill Clinton, I am leery of Congress using the impeachment hammer inappropriately. I also felt like such action would turn the truly abhorrent actions of the Bush administration into a political circus, having the effect of giving Bush and his cronies cover for their shocking behavior. "See, the Democrats are trying to score political points." And since, with 49 Republicans in the senate, it was highly unlikely any convictions would be secured, impeachment attempts would have handed Bush and the others exonerations, making it look like they had not committed any wrongful acts.
So I opposed bringing impeachment charges against anyone in the Bush administration. But the idea of Obama's Justice Department examining possible criminal charges against them raised different issues. In 2009, when Obama takes over, the country will be facing an array of difficult problems, including the worst economic downturn since World War II and wars in two countries, not to mention potentially explosvie situations in Asia from the Middle East to Pakistan. Remember, all it takes is 41 Republican senators to filibuster and kill any legislation. Addressing these problems will require Obama to gain at least some support from the Republicans. The question becomes: Do we want the new administration fighting the battles of the last president or working full-time on the problems facing the country today? Related to that, do the Democrats want to drive the Republicans into defense mode, leading to obstruction, or is it time to try and forge a more civil relationship so that Obama can get his programs through Congress?
But at the same time, I was troubled at the precedent that would be set by allowing government officials to flout the law and not be held responsible for their illegal actions. The message should be sent at all times that nobody is above the law. Say what you want about corruption in Illinois, but no shortage of the state's recent governors have found themselves behind bars (or, possibly, in Rod Blagojevich's case, on his way). Something seemed wrong -- and weak -- to me about letting Bush spend eight years taking actions that struck at the heart of American democracy, and then not holding his administration responsible for its actions. What kind of message would that send?
I was torn. And then Dick Cheney uttered those two simple words: "I do." And the scales tipped. Here's the thing: If members of the Bush administration would have at least acted like they might have done something wrong, a truth-and-reconciliation-type Congressional commission like the one currently under consideration could have found out what happened, and we could have learned our lesson and moved on. At least maybe. But if Cheney is going to go on national television and endorse torture, I feel like he has tied the hands of the country. How can we change our image, both to the rest of the world and to our own citizens, if we allow a sitting vice president to confess to supporting a policy of torture and do nothing about it?
No, Cheney has tipped the scale. I would hope that he has now forced the hand of Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder (yes, it will be Holder, the GOP whines about Marc Rich and Elian Gonzalez are acts of pathetic grandstanding that should go nowhere). I think Holder now has to investigate, in some fashion, allegations of criminal activity by members of the Bush administration, at the very least relating to torture. And he should do so, even if Bush pardons some or all of the actors involved.
Of all of Bush's enablers, Cheney was always the most unapologetic and brazen about defending the misdeeds of the administration. It will be only fitting if his decision to openly confess to aiding in torture leads to investigations of the Bush administration's illegal actions. There was a time I wasn't sure if such a course of action was wise. Thanks to Cheney, I now think we have no choice in the matter. Let's hope Obama and Holder agree.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Is Leno's Move to Prime Time Good for Television?
[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
In a recent profile of Robert Downey Jr. in Entertainment Weekly, the writer noted that smoking cigarettes was one of Downey's last vices. My reaction was, “Well, smoking is bad for him, but it beats him doing heroin.” That story came to mind when I heard about NBC’s plan to hand it’s weeknight 10 p.m. slot over to Jay Leno.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should first admit that I am not a fan of Leno or his version of “The Tonight Show.” I find his monologue jokes obvious and, even worse, not funny. I think his “Jaywalking” segments, in which he asks people on the street questions in order to laugh at them when they demonstrate ignorance, is mean-spirited and more sad than funny. And I'm not a fan of Leno's interviews, which can feel impersonal at times.
But my feelings about NBC’s move have nothing to do with my opinion of Leno or his show. “The Tonight Show” and its star are unquestionably popular, earning high ratings in the late-night slot, beating the far superior (in my opinion) David Letterman. And as a fan of late night talk shows (I like both Craig Ferguson and Conan O’Brien, although I think Conan is a bad fit for the “Tonight Show” desk, but that's a discussion for another day), I certainly have no inherent problem with the genre.
So why is NBC turning over five hours a week to Leno like a drug addict smoking cigarettes? I'm getting there.
Back in February, I wrote about how the short-sighted approach taken by networks was eroding the traditional bond between the medium of television and its viewers. How nickel-and-diming the writers into a strike, as well as the practice of employing a quick hook on low-rated new shows and the substitution of mediocre cheap reality programs for underperforming quality scripted offerings, demonstrated a practice of maximizing short-term profit at the expense of the long-term health of the industry.
Moving Leno to 10:00 p.m. checks many of the same boxes as dropping reality shows onto a schedule. NBC knows that the ratings for the talk show many not be as high as some of their scripted offerings. After all, at 11:35, Leno draws less than five million people. But like reality fare, a program like "The Tonight Show" is far less expensive to produce than a scripted series, even with the host's sky-high salary. Multiply that by five, and you can see that NBC will be saving a boatload of money in production costs. That lowers the bar for the ratings. Leno doesn't have to be an "American Idol"-level smash to succeed. In fact, the show can finish third in its slot and still be hugely profitable.
But on its face, the decision to fill five hours of prime time with a talk show, possibly the hardest five hours to fill with a hit (staying up to 11 p.m. is past some people's bed times), is a blow to scripted programming. That is potentially five fewer dramas (or ten fewer sitcoms) on the air, which, in turn, means that many fewer writing staffs, casts and production crews. And, even more importantly, that is five fewer hours that a new generation of television watchers will expect scripted storytelling. With the networks having experienced a huge drop off in ratings in the last ten years in the face of challenges from cable, the Internet and other distractions, every little surrender like this one just further pushes television away from its past special place in the living rooms of Americans.
But when you look at what NBC could have done, suddenly the decision to turn the 10 p.m. block over to Leno is more like Downey smoking cigarettes rather than doing heroin. Why? Well, it could have been much worse. NBC could have filled the time period with nonsense reality programs like "The Biggest Loser." Or worse, the network could have fallen back on past vices and gone with episodes of exploitative inanity like "Dateline: To Catch a Predator." While Leno's prime-time version of the "Tonight Show" won't help NBC build loyalty with its viewers (I don't see a daily Leno offering being appointment, TiVo-Season-Pass-inspiring television), at least the network is choosing to showcase a genuine star in a proven format with a built-in audience.
And in the world of modern network television, especially with the inability of the networks to consistently turn new programs into hits ("The Mentalist" is the only debut show this season that can truly be termed a hit), "it could have been worse" is actually not too bad.
But will this be a trend? Will we soon see CBS moving Ferguson to 11:35 p.m. and Letterman to 10:00 p.m.? It would certainly save money, but CBS has its share of hits at 10:00 p.m. (although with demographics that skew geriatric). Could this inspire ABC to jump into the 10:00 p.m. slot with a talk show, either using its existing late night guy, Jimmy Kimmel, or luring a bigger name to go to war with Leno? (Fox and the CW do not program after 10:00 p.m., so they would not be able to directly compete at that hour without a change in arrangements with their affiliates.) Given Leno's strength as the premier brand in the late-night talk genre, it's doubtful that it would happen right away. But if Leno generates better-than-expected ratings at 10 p.m., and, as a result, NBC makes piles of cash, you can be sure that the other networks will be looking to replicate the formula for themselves.
So I have mixed feelings about NBC's groundbreaking new strategy. But when Leno's show hits the air next season, I will keep telling myself that at least nobody on the screen is trying to win a contest to lose the most weight.
In a recent profile of Robert Downey Jr. in Entertainment Weekly, the writer noted that smoking cigarettes was one of Downey's last vices. My reaction was, “Well, smoking is bad for him, but it beats him doing heroin.” That story came to mind when I heard about NBC’s plan to hand it’s weeknight 10 p.m. slot over to Jay Leno.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should first admit that I am not a fan of Leno or his version of “The Tonight Show.” I find his monologue jokes obvious and, even worse, not funny. I think his “Jaywalking” segments, in which he asks people on the street questions in order to laugh at them when they demonstrate ignorance, is mean-spirited and more sad than funny. And I'm not a fan of Leno's interviews, which can feel impersonal at times.
But my feelings about NBC’s move have nothing to do with my opinion of Leno or his show. “The Tonight Show” and its star are unquestionably popular, earning high ratings in the late-night slot, beating the far superior (in my opinion) David Letterman. And as a fan of late night talk shows (I like both Craig Ferguson and Conan O’Brien, although I think Conan is a bad fit for the “Tonight Show” desk, but that's a discussion for another day), I certainly have no inherent problem with the genre.
So why is NBC turning over five hours a week to Leno like a drug addict smoking cigarettes? I'm getting there.
Back in February, I wrote about how the short-sighted approach taken by networks was eroding the traditional bond between the medium of television and its viewers. How nickel-and-diming the writers into a strike, as well as the practice of employing a quick hook on low-rated new shows and the substitution of mediocre cheap reality programs for underperforming quality scripted offerings, demonstrated a practice of maximizing short-term profit at the expense of the long-term health of the industry.
Moving Leno to 10:00 p.m. checks many of the same boxes as dropping reality shows onto a schedule. NBC knows that the ratings for the talk show many not be as high as some of their scripted offerings. After all, at 11:35, Leno draws less than five million people. But like reality fare, a program like "The Tonight Show" is far less expensive to produce than a scripted series, even with the host's sky-high salary. Multiply that by five, and you can see that NBC will be saving a boatload of money in production costs. That lowers the bar for the ratings. Leno doesn't have to be an "American Idol"-level smash to succeed. In fact, the show can finish third in its slot and still be hugely profitable.
But on its face, the decision to fill five hours of prime time with a talk show, possibly the hardest five hours to fill with a hit (staying up to 11 p.m. is past some people's bed times), is a blow to scripted programming. That is potentially five fewer dramas (or ten fewer sitcoms) on the air, which, in turn, means that many fewer writing staffs, casts and production crews. And, even more importantly, that is five fewer hours that a new generation of television watchers will expect scripted storytelling. With the networks having experienced a huge drop off in ratings in the last ten years in the face of challenges from cable, the Internet and other distractions, every little surrender like this one just further pushes television away from its past special place in the living rooms of Americans.
But when you look at what NBC could have done, suddenly the decision to turn the 10 p.m. block over to Leno is more like Downey smoking cigarettes rather than doing heroin. Why? Well, it could have been much worse. NBC could have filled the time period with nonsense reality programs like "The Biggest Loser." Or worse, the network could have fallen back on past vices and gone with episodes of exploitative inanity like "Dateline: To Catch a Predator." While Leno's prime-time version of the "Tonight Show" won't help NBC build loyalty with its viewers (I don't see a daily Leno offering being appointment, TiVo-Season-Pass-inspiring television), at least the network is choosing to showcase a genuine star in a proven format with a built-in audience.
And in the world of modern network television, especially with the inability of the networks to consistently turn new programs into hits ("The Mentalist" is the only debut show this season that can truly be termed a hit), "it could have been worse" is actually not too bad.
But will this be a trend? Will we soon see CBS moving Ferguson to 11:35 p.m. and Letterman to 10:00 p.m.? It would certainly save money, but CBS has its share of hits at 10:00 p.m. (although with demographics that skew geriatric). Could this inspire ABC to jump into the 10:00 p.m. slot with a talk show, either using its existing late night guy, Jimmy Kimmel, or luring a bigger name to go to war with Leno? (Fox and the CW do not program after 10:00 p.m., so they would not be able to directly compete at that hour without a change in arrangements with their affiliates.) Given Leno's strength as the premier brand in the late-night talk genre, it's doubtful that it would happen right away. But if Leno generates better-than-expected ratings at 10 p.m., and, as a result, NBC makes piles of cash, you can be sure that the other networks will be looking to replicate the formula for themselves.
So I have mixed feelings about NBC's groundbreaking new strategy. But when Leno's show hits the air next season, I will keep telling myself that at least nobody on the screen is trying to win a contest to lose the most weight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
