[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
It wasn't that long ago that Thursday nights on NBC really were "Must See TV." With "Friends" and "Seinfeld" anchoring the 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. slots, the network used the 8:30 p.m and 9:30 p.m. perches to launch successful sitcoms like "Mad About You" and "Frasier" (as well as a bunch of less memorable ones).
Now, NBC still provides some of the best comedies on television on Thursday nights, even if none of them get monster ratings. "My Name Is Earl" at 8:00 p.m. and "The Office" at 9:00 p.m. are the relatively successful anchors, but the network is only batting .500 with its choices this year for the launching pad half-past slots. "30 Rock," which debuted its third season Thursday night, is a natural fit to follow "The Office" at 9:30 p.m., but the only place "Kath & Kim," the new American adaptation of the Australian comedy that airs after "Earl" at 8:30 p.m., belongs is in the cancellation pile.
"Kath & Kim" didn't make my August list of the five shows I was most looking forward to seeing, mainly because I'm not a fan of Molly Shannon and the snippets aired by NBC were insipid. But as a single-camera sitcom on NBC's Thursday night lineup, I figured "Kath & Kim" had to at least be watchable, so I also didn't place it on my list of the five shows that looked the most ridiculous.
Man, was I wrong. There is no way to sugarcoat it: "Kath & Kim" is a train wreck.
Shannon and Selma Blair star as the eponymous mother-daughter team. In the series premiere (which aired on October 9), Blair's Kim leaves her simpleton husband Craig (Mikey Day) and moves in with Shannon's Kath, her mother, who after many romantic travails has met the man of her dreams, food court fast food restaurateur Phil (the always excellent John Michael Higgins; I feel bad for him every moment he's on screen). Phil's last name is Knight, and Kath's last name is Day. "Kath & Kim" is the kind of show in which this fact is played up like it's the funniest thing in world. Trust me, it's not.
I guess it's supposed to be cute and funny that Kim is always sniping at her mother and that she's not very smart. But that's not how it reads on screen. Instead, Kim is one of the least likable characters on television. She is bitter, mean, lazy, judgmental, materialistic, dumb and shallow, and she lacks any kind of compassion or core that makes her the least bit relatable or inspiring of any compassion. You just don't give a crap about her, and within seconds, you just don't want to be around her anymore. Kim is like Paris Hilton, only with no money. Who would want to spend time with that?
At least if Kim was funny, there would be a reason to watch. As written, she is not. Unless you find yourself cackling at lines like, "Doing your own nails is poor," or "When did you start caring if gross dogs have fleas?" Or when she gets angry at her husband for not being wealthy, even though he keeps trying to woo her back despite the fact she left him for no good reason and treats him like garbage, and says, "Why didn't you come up with Craig's List?" It's unclear why Craig would want Kim back; she seems to have no redeeming qualities (other than looking like a trashy version of Blair, but that certainly doesn't come close to making up for her putrid personality).
Shannon's Kath isn't a horrible person like her daughter, but she is an exceedingly boring one. We have seen Shannon do this same character a thousand times before: the cluelessly lame optimist who thinks she is a winner, but clearly isn't. Kath is left with plots like her quest to rent a garish pumpkin-shaped carriage for her wedding, even though she can't afford it, and she's afraid to ask good guy Phil to help, since he doesn't want a big wedding. Again, we've seen this shtick before from Shannon, and it's grown tired.
Of course, in the end, Phil comes through as a real prince charming. At that point, I was just happy that the episode was over.
I'm not saying I expected NBC to replace "Scrubs" in its Thursday night lineup with something of equal quality. "Scrubs" was a groundbreaking sitcom that, from a quality point of view, would be hard to replace. But I didn't think the network would come up with something that was on par with "The Bill Engvall Show." Considering that the night's programs have survived based on buzz and critical praise more than actual viewership, I will be shocked if "Kath & Kim" is on the air much longer.
When we last left the staff and cast of the fictional "TGS" on the very real "30 Rock," as I wrote last May, things had gotten a bit weird. Network honcho Jack Donaghy (a pitch-perfect Alec Baldwin) was about to be made the new chairman of the company by his boss, Don Geiss (Rip Torn), only for Geiss to slip into a coma, leaving the devious barely-in-the-closet Devon Banks (Will Arnett) in charge, as he had romanced Geiss's child-like daughter, the new chairman of the company. Jack, distraught, had taken a job in a hilariously lame duck Bush administration. I complained that separating Jack from "TGS" head writer Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) was a mistake, as the the show really is built around their odd-but-great chemistry.
The season premiere on Thursday demonstrated that "30 Rock" has shaken off it's slight misstep of last season and is back in fine form. Jack has returned to New York, and he takes a job in the NBC mailroom as a way of getting his position back in the company (he explains that it took him 19 years to reach the top the first time, but now that he has learned so much, this time he thinks it will only take him nine years). Liz, meanwhile, wants to adopt a baby, so she has to impress the cranky agency investigator sent to evaluate her (a very funny Megan Mullally).
The episode was classic "30 Rock": a blend of smart, laugh-out-loud lines; silly physical comedy; and bizarre, wacky (and funny) story lines, but all of it done with enough heart to make you care. And with Jack and Liz back in the same building, the whole thing snapped into place beautifully. Their relationship, an odd mix of liking each other but also feeling like the other is insane, is like no other one on television. Jack can toss off a line about how being the victim of unwanted advances by a boss is bad ("It's not fun, like when men do it to women."), and then follow it up with a shot at Liz ("Have you ever been sexually harassed? No, of course not."). And their inability to even fake a kiss in front of Geiss's daughter was a moment of great awkward comedy.
But at the end, you see some emotion. With Jack back in power, Liz steps into his office again after leaving it. Jack asks her if she needs something else, and she simply smiles and says, "I just like seeing you in there." They may be my favorite couple on television, and they're not even a couple.
The sheer lunacy and volume of silliness is great. When Liz asks the staff to make their offices safe for the investigator, producer Pete (Scott Adsit) can be seen in the background with an inflatable sex doll. Liz, upon seeing baby dolls from the fake nursery she had Pete create for the investigator, says, "Is it wrong I just want to have one of these to grow up and resent me?" Jack tells Liz how he worked his way through school doing "the day shift in a graveyard and the graveyard shift in a Days Inn." And the investigator's short-term memory loss after accidentally getting hit in the head with writer Frank's (Juda Friedlander) gold nunchucks (a gift from Tracy Morgan's Tracy Jordan as payment for working on his porn video game) leads first to Liz's joy (a "do-over" after the investigator forgets all the disastrous things she's seen) and then pain (when the investigator then forgets the second interview in which Liz impresses her). And the little threads of the show always lead to unexpected payoffs, like when Liz and Jack act like they're in a soap opera to get the soap-loving Geiss's daughter to leave him alone.
The amazing thing about "30 Rock" is that it is one of my favorite programs on television, even though I'm not a huge fan of the supporting cast. Tracy Morgan's persona is off-putting, Friedlander's trucker hats are a joke that has gone on way too long, and Jane Krakowski's insecure actress has her moments, but often feels like she's repeating the same joke over and over again. Even page Kenneth (Jack McBrayer), who is very funny, is running the risk of his one-note character (the eternally upbeat hick oddball) becoming tiresome.
And yet the show remains smart and fabulously entertaining, mainly due to the top-notch writing and the brilliant performances by Fey and Baldwin. I've been waiting for the ratings to catch up with the critics on "30 Rock." Watching it doesn't feel like homework. There are more than a few laugh-out-loud moments each half hour.
"30 Rock" is as good as any comedy on television, and it is a perfect fit for NBC's Thursday-night lineup of smart, single-camera sitcoms. "Kath & Kim," on the other hand, isn't a good fit for any network on any night.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama Is Dominating in the Polls, but Four Things Keep Me Awake at Night
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
We are one week from election day. Barack Obama leads John McCain in every poll. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com gives Obama a 96.7 percent chance of winning. And some McCain supporters with a nose for survival are jumping off of the Republican bandwagon faster than Sarah Palin running to an Alaska consignment shop (yes, I'm talking to you Joe Lieberman).
And yet I can't bring myself to believe Obama will win next Tuesday.
You have to forgive me. As a 41-year-old Democrat, I've seen too much to ever be confident. I watched the nation choose a bumbling Bush (the first one) over a smart, successful governor, all because the governor was a bit of a nerd. Okay, a lot more than a bit, but still. (I often think about the Saturday Night Live sketch in which Jon Lovitz, as Michael Dukakis, in a debate with Dana Carvey's George H.W. Bush, responds to a nonsensical response by looking into the camera and saying, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!") I've seen Americans twice put into office a language-bungling, shallow-thinking, political legacy who, as was brilliantly said once, was born on third base but acted like he hit a triple (one of the elections coming after it was clear he had led America into a dangerous, damaging, unnecessary war that was completely mismanaged by his administration).
So you can at least understand why I won't believe that the U.S. has elected Obama until/if I see McCain giving a concession speech.
I know what you're thinking right about now: "But Mitchell, it's over. Just look at the polls." I get it. I'm not pretending that there is necessarily a rational underpinning for my paranoia. I wouldn't begin to set out an electoral path to victory like Silver gamely tried to do for the New York Post (give the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid credit for asking a smart Obama supporter how the paper's guy could pull an upset).
But I can tell you the four things that keep me up at night and make me wonder if there ever really will be an Obama inauguration in January.
Close Races
When the polls are viewed through the prism of how many of the close states McCain has to win, they certainly look daunting for the Republicans. But consider that Obama holds fairly small leads in nearly all of the toss-up states, according to Rasmussen, which is ranked as the most reliable of all the major polling organizations by fivethirtyeight.com (only Seltzer and SurveyUSA have a better record, and Rasmussen is the top daily tracking poll).
According to Rasmussen:
- Virginia: Obama up 51 percent to 47 percent.
- Colorado: Obama up 50 percent to 46 percent.
- Missouri: McCain up 48 percent to 47 percent.
- Ohio: Obama up 49 percent to 45 percent.
- North Carolina: McCain up 49 percent to 48 percent.
- Florida: Obama up 51 percent to 47 percent.
- New Hampshire: Obama up 50 percent to 46 percent.
- National Daily Tracking Poll: Obama up 51 percent to 46 percent.
Considering that, depending on the scenario, McCain has to win most (if not all) of these states, the numbers I have laid out above look very good for Obama. It's hard to imagine McCain sweeping so many close races.
But here is where the dread creeps in: The biggest lead Obama has in any state is five points. So if there is one big event, or one big factor, that can put a jolt into the election nationally, it can change the look of the map in a hurry. As you consider the next three nightmare scenarios, remember how relatively little effect they have to have on the electorate to shift the outlook of the race.
Voter Fraud
Make no mistake: If the Republicans cannot generate more votes for their candidate, they are happy to win by decreasing the number of votes of their opponent. Shortly after the 2004 election, Robert Kennedy wrote about voter fraud in Ohio, and there have been a number of films to cover the story, as well.
And it's not like the GOP is going to suddenly play fair in 2008. On Friday, Bush asked the Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, to investigate 200,000 voter registrations for minor discrepancies in data. Bush is quick to look into non-issues like this one and the minor voter registration (note, voter registration, not voter fraud) allegations at ACORN, but he can't be bothered to enforce congressional subpoenas or investigate actual voter fraud allegations. (Hendrik Hertzberg wrote an excellent piece in the New Yorker explaining how the ACORN issue has been completely distorted and misused by the Republicans.) It's fair to say that McCain has the might of the federal government on his side in any election fraud-related issue.
The Ohio problems are not unique. Early voters in West Virginia had their computer monitors flip their Obama votes to McCain, and a confusing North Carolina ballot, which excludes the presidential race when someone chooses to vote a party line, may cost Obama, by one estimate, tens of thousands of votes. Today brought news of a flyer in Virginia telling Democrats to vote on November 5 (the day after the election), and a man in Florida posing as a worker for a Democratic candidate for Congress (but whose information was traced back to a consultant of the Republican incumbent) taking ballots from Democrats and promising to deliver them. And that doesn't even include the widespread purges of voters in Democratic neighborhoods conducted by Republican state officials. An excellent article on voter fraud, also co-authored by Kennedy, can be found here.
Remember, it only takes a few points in the key swing states to make a difference.
So even if the polls are correct and most Americans support Obama, I would not be the least bit surprised to wake up next Wednesday to a "miraculous" McCain comeback victory (with the miracle provided courtesy of election irregularities). Of course, this year, the Democrats are better prepared for such an eventuality, and any fraud will be more vigorously challenged. But that only does so much to assuage my fears.
October or November Surprise
It's not too late for the president to engineer an event to put national security on the front burner of the election. After all, security is the one issue on which McCain outperforms Obama in polls. If we've learned one thing from watching McCain run a disgusting smear campaign, it's that Republicans, who seem to see the White House as a birthright, are not below doing anything to secure victory.
I fear that Bush's move to have Mukasey investigate voter registration in Ohio is not the end of his involvement, but only the beginning. It's not like any Republicans right about now are looking for Bush's endorsement or want him to campaign for them. But this is a way the president could actually affect the race.
More Than Just the Bradley Effect
There has been a lot of debate about whether or not there is a Bradley Effect; that is, if there are white voters who tell pollsters they will vote for a black candidate, but when they get into the voting booth, they can't bring themselves to actually do it and cast a ballot for the white opponent.
But there is nothing to which one can compare this election. An African American has never been a Republican or Democratic nominee for the presidency before. There is just no way to judge what will happen on election day.
Even if the Bradley Effect does not exist (and there certainly is a strong argument to be made in that regard), I am concerned that there are white voters who won't vote for an African-American candidate, and that many of them are contained in the "undecided" category of the polls. (Despite an interesting science-based defense of undecided voters in today's New York Times, I still can't imagine how anyone at this stage of the race can't decide between two candidates who are different in virtually every way.)
There are things to look at if you want to scare yourself into thinking that race may be a deciding factor in this election. For example, in the race for governor in Missouri, a state that leans red (Bush carried it in 2000 and 2004), Attorney General Jay Nixon leads Republican Congressman Kenny Hulshof by nearly 20 points (57 percent to 38 percent) in the latest Rasmussen poll (October 17), and yet in the presidential race in the state, Obama trails McCain by one point in Rasmussen's latest survey (October 27). On CNN this morning, a radio host from Missouri didn't shy away from explaining the difference in the numbers: He attributed it to Obama's race.
Maybe race is the reason, and maybe it's not. We don't know for sure, but I'm certainly afraid it is. The Missouri factor is not unique. Based on Rasmussen results, the Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate seats in Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and New Hampshire are all outperforming Obama in their states.
Both the New York Times (Pennsylvania) and the New Yorker (Ohio) have recently done features on rust-belt white voters, and in each case, it's clear that Obama has to overcome some pretty strong race-based biases. The Times piece features one voter saying, "I’m no racist, but I’m not crazy about him either. I don’t know, maybe ’cause he’s black" (the person claimed to be voting for Obama anyway), while another remarks, "He scares me. The coloreds are excited, but my friends and I plan to write in Hillary’s name." When I read the last line, chills of fear and disgust literally shot up my spine. I don't know what bothered me the most: that someone would care so much about a candidate's race (the positions of Clinton and Obama are so similar), that the person would admit it to a New York Times reporter, or that the person would use the term "colored." It's 2008. How often do you, in your day-to-day life, hear that word? I can remember someone using it to me once in the last 20 years (and, oddly, it happened a few weeks ago, but it had nothing to do with Obama).
Look, I get it. Despite yahoos like the people quoted in the article, the polls look good for Obama right now. But with this kind of race-based nonsense floating in the ether, especially when the McCain campaign is all too happy to fan these flames whenever possible (like when a McCain staffer pushed the phony attack story of Ashley Todd to reporters), I can't feel entirely comfortable.
McCain and Palin have spent a lot of time in Pennsylvania, despite every poll showing Obama with a more-than-10-point lead. Why? Is it a suicide mission? It just may be. It may be that McCain has run out of viable options, so he is going for one of his now-patented Hail Mary plays and hoping it is more successful than the last two (choosing Palin and "suspending" his campaign to work on the financial crisis), which both backfired on him. But since we're talking about what keeps me up at night, what if race is the wild card that McCain is counting on in Pennsylvania? I'm not saying he's right (in fact, I don't think he is), but since I'm admittedly looking for doomsday scenarios, I can't help but think of this one.
And again, with the numbers fairly close on a state-to-state basis, it's easy to be afraid of one false inflammatory rumor taking hold in this final week and tipping the scales to McCain in too many states. It's not like there is any shortage of McCain robocalls or flyers trying to scare voters out of supporting Obama.
To be perfectly clear, it's not that I am predicting McCain will win the election. The logical side of my brain realizes that McCain's scare tactics have seemingly failed, and it is really hard to make a mathematical case right now that he has a real shot of winning. But as a lifelong Democrat who has seen my party lose winnable races, I can't help thinking about how things can go wrong this year. And these four factors are what keep me up at night. Let's hope I'm worrying for nothing.
We are one week from election day. Barack Obama leads John McCain in every poll. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com gives Obama a 96.7 percent chance of winning. And some McCain supporters with a nose for survival are jumping off of the Republican bandwagon faster than Sarah Palin running to an Alaska consignment shop (yes, I'm talking to you Joe Lieberman).
And yet I can't bring myself to believe Obama will win next Tuesday.
You have to forgive me. As a 41-year-old Democrat, I've seen too much to ever be confident. I watched the nation choose a bumbling Bush (the first one) over a smart, successful governor, all because the governor was a bit of a nerd. Okay, a lot more than a bit, but still. (I often think about the Saturday Night Live sketch in which Jon Lovitz, as Michael Dukakis, in a debate with Dana Carvey's George H.W. Bush, responds to a nonsensical response by looking into the camera and saying, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!") I've seen Americans twice put into office a language-bungling, shallow-thinking, political legacy who, as was brilliantly said once, was born on third base but acted like he hit a triple (one of the elections coming after it was clear he had led America into a dangerous, damaging, unnecessary war that was completely mismanaged by his administration).
So you can at least understand why I won't believe that the U.S. has elected Obama until/if I see McCain giving a concession speech.
I know what you're thinking right about now: "But Mitchell, it's over. Just look at the polls." I get it. I'm not pretending that there is necessarily a rational underpinning for my paranoia. I wouldn't begin to set out an electoral path to victory like Silver gamely tried to do for the New York Post (give the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid credit for asking a smart Obama supporter how the paper's guy could pull an upset).
But I can tell you the four things that keep me up at night and make me wonder if there ever really will be an Obama inauguration in January.
Close Races
When the polls are viewed through the prism of how many of the close states McCain has to win, they certainly look daunting for the Republicans. But consider that Obama holds fairly small leads in nearly all of the toss-up states, according to Rasmussen, which is ranked as the most reliable of all the major polling organizations by fivethirtyeight.com (only Seltzer and SurveyUSA have a better record, and Rasmussen is the top daily tracking poll).
According to Rasmussen:
- Virginia: Obama up 51 percent to 47 percent.
- Colorado: Obama up 50 percent to 46 percent.
- Missouri: McCain up 48 percent to 47 percent.
- Ohio: Obama up 49 percent to 45 percent.
- North Carolina: McCain up 49 percent to 48 percent.
- Florida: Obama up 51 percent to 47 percent.
- New Hampshire: Obama up 50 percent to 46 percent.
- National Daily Tracking Poll: Obama up 51 percent to 46 percent.
Considering that, depending on the scenario, McCain has to win most (if not all) of these states, the numbers I have laid out above look very good for Obama. It's hard to imagine McCain sweeping so many close races.
But here is where the dread creeps in: The biggest lead Obama has in any state is five points. So if there is one big event, or one big factor, that can put a jolt into the election nationally, it can change the look of the map in a hurry. As you consider the next three nightmare scenarios, remember how relatively little effect they have to have on the electorate to shift the outlook of the race.
Voter Fraud
Make no mistake: If the Republicans cannot generate more votes for their candidate, they are happy to win by decreasing the number of votes of their opponent. Shortly after the 2004 election, Robert Kennedy wrote about voter fraud in Ohio, and there have been a number of films to cover the story, as well.
And it's not like the GOP is going to suddenly play fair in 2008. On Friday, Bush asked the Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, to investigate 200,000 voter registrations for minor discrepancies in data. Bush is quick to look into non-issues like this one and the minor voter registration (note, voter registration, not voter fraud) allegations at ACORN, but he can't be bothered to enforce congressional subpoenas or investigate actual voter fraud allegations. (Hendrik Hertzberg wrote an excellent piece in the New Yorker explaining how the ACORN issue has been completely distorted and misused by the Republicans.) It's fair to say that McCain has the might of the federal government on his side in any election fraud-related issue.
The Ohio problems are not unique. Early voters in West Virginia had their computer monitors flip their Obama votes to McCain, and a confusing North Carolina ballot, which excludes the presidential race when someone chooses to vote a party line, may cost Obama, by one estimate, tens of thousands of votes. Today brought news of a flyer in Virginia telling Democrats to vote on November 5 (the day after the election), and a man in Florida posing as a worker for a Democratic candidate for Congress (but whose information was traced back to a consultant of the Republican incumbent) taking ballots from Democrats and promising to deliver them. And that doesn't even include the widespread purges of voters in Democratic neighborhoods conducted by Republican state officials. An excellent article on voter fraud, also co-authored by Kennedy, can be found here.
Remember, it only takes a few points in the key swing states to make a difference.
So even if the polls are correct and most Americans support Obama, I would not be the least bit surprised to wake up next Wednesday to a "miraculous" McCain comeback victory (with the miracle provided courtesy of election irregularities). Of course, this year, the Democrats are better prepared for such an eventuality, and any fraud will be more vigorously challenged. But that only does so much to assuage my fears.
October or November Surprise
It's not too late for the president to engineer an event to put national security on the front burner of the election. After all, security is the one issue on which McCain outperforms Obama in polls. If we've learned one thing from watching McCain run a disgusting smear campaign, it's that Republicans, who seem to see the White House as a birthright, are not below doing anything to secure victory.
I fear that Bush's move to have Mukasey investigate voter registration in Ohio is not the end of his involvement, but only the beginning. It's not like any Republicans right about now are looking for Bush's endorsement or want him to campaign for them. But this is a way the president could actually affect the race.
More Than Just the Bradley Effect
There has been a lot of debate about whether or not there is a Bradley Effect; that is, if there are white voters who tell pollsters they will vote for a black candidate, but when they get into the voting booth, they can't bring themselves to actually do it and cast a ballot for the white opponent.
But there is nothing to which one can compare this election. An African American has never been a Republican or Democratic nominee for the presidency before. There is just no way to judge what will happen on election day.
Even if the Bradley Effect does not exist (and there certainly is a strong argument to be made in that regard), I am concerned that there are white voters who won't vote for an African-American candidate, and that many of them are contained in the "undecided" category of the polls. (Despite an interesting science-based defense of undecided voters in today's New York Times, I still can't imagine how anyone at this stage of the race can't decide between two candidates who are different in virtually every way.)
There are things to look at if you want to scare yourself into thinking that race may be a deciding factor in this election. For example, in the race for governor in Missouri, a state that leans red (Bush carried it in 2000 and 2004), Attorney General Jay Nixon leads Republican Congressman Kenny Hulshof by nearly 20 points (57 percent to 38 percent) in the latest Rasmussen poll (October 17), and yet in the presidential race in the state, Obama trails McCain by one point in Rasmussen's latest survey (October 27). On CNN this morning, a radio host from Missouri didn't shy away from explaining the difference in the numbers: He attributed it to Obama's race.
Maybe race is the reason, and maybe it's not. We don't know for sure, but I'm certainly afraid it is. The Missouri factor is not unique. Based on Rasmussen results, the Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate seats in Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and New Hampshire are all outperforming Obama in their states.
Both the New York Times (Pennsylvania) and the New Yorker (Ohio) have recently done features on rust-belt white voters, and in each case, it's clear that Obama has to overcome some pretty strong race-based biases. The Times piece features one voter saying, "I’m no racist, but I’m not crazy about him either. I don’t know, maybe ’cause he’s black" (the person claimed to be voting for Obama anyway), while another remarks, "He scares me. The coloreds are excited, but my friends and I plan to write in Hillary’s name." When I read the last line, chills of fear and disgust literally shot up my spine. I don't know what bothered me the most: that someone would care so much about a candidate's race (the positions of Clinton and Obama are so similar), that the person would admit it to a New York Times reporter, or that the person would use the term "colored." It's 2008. How often do you, in your day-to-day life, hear that word? I can remember someone using it to me once in the last 20 years (and, oddly, it happened a few weeks ago, but it had nothing to do with Obama).
Look, I get it. Despite yahoos like the people quoted in the article, the polls look good for Obama right now. But with this kind of race-based nonsense floating in the ether, especially when the McCain campaign is all too happy to fan these flames whenever possible (like when a McCain staffer pushed the phony attack story of Ashley Todd to reporters), I can't feel entirely comfortable.
McCain and Palin have spent a lot of time in Pennsylvania, despite every poll showing Obama with a more-than-10-point lead. Why? Is it a suicide mission? It just may be. It may be that McCain has run out of viable options, so he is going for one of his now-patented Hail Mary plays and hoping it is more successful than the last two (choosing Palin and "suspending" his campaign to work on the financial crisis), which both backfired on him. But since we're talking about what keeps me up at night, what if race is the wild card that McCain is counting on in Pennsylvania? I'm not saying he's right (in fact, I don't think he is), but since I'm admittedly looking for doomsday scenarios, I can't help but think of this one.
And again, with the numbers fairly close on a state-to-state basis, it's easy to be afraid of one false inflammatory rumor taking hold in this final week and tipping the scales to McCain in too many states. It's not like there is any shortage of McCain robocalls or flyers trying to scare voters out of supporting Obama.
To be perfectly clear, it's not that I am predicting McCain will win the election. The logical side of my brain realizes that McCain's scare tactics have seemingly failed, and it is really hard to make a mathematical case right now that he has a real shot of winning. But as a lifelong Democrat who has seen my party lose winnable races, I can't help thinking about how things can go wrong this year. And these four factors are what keep me up at night. Let's hope I'm worrying for nothing.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
"Brothers & Sisters" and "Dirty Sexy Money": Family Soaps, But Very Different
[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
I was never much for nighttime soaps. Back in the day, I wasn't a fan of "Dynasty" or "Dallas"; despite watching "Beverly Hills 90210" for a couple of years, I never even saw one episode of "Melrose Place"; and I gave up on "Desperate Housewives" after two seasons. I just generally don't enjoy the over-the-top, far-from-real, always-something-going-on story lines, and I have trouble with over-acting (also known as Dylan McKay-Edie Britt Syndrome). So a glance at my TiVo Season Pass list will reveal two surprises: "Brothers & Sisters" (ABC, Sundays at 10:00 p.m. Eastern) and "Dirty Sexy Money" (ABC, Wednesdays at 10:00 p.m. Eastern).
I'm not entirely sure why I consider these shows to be different. I wholly admit that my decision to stay with these soaps may very well be arbitrary. Now that we've had a few episodes to see where each of their seasons are going, I figured it was a good time to take a closer look at them. And since I'm way more likely to drop a soap than, say, a sitcom (it was easy enough for me to say sayonara to "Desperate Housewives" and "Beverly Hills 90210," but I watched every episode of "Caroline in the City"), it's fair to ask if "Brothers & Sisters" and "Dirty Sexy Money" will stay on my Season Pass list.
Both shows follow the personal and business lives of families with five kids and a family-run business, and both, at one time or another, were run by Greg Berlanti. But the similarities mostly end there, since the tones of the two shows are so radically different.
The approach of "Brothers & Sisters" is a cerebral take on the soap formula. Created by playwright Jon Robin Baitz ("The Substance of Fire") and executive produced by, among others, Ken Olin of "thirtysomething," "Brothers & Sisters" is like an experiment to see what happens when serious writers and quality actors tackle soapy dramatic material. And the show made a splash in its premiere (literally and figuratively) when the family's patriarch, William, played by Tom Skerritt, died suddenly, collapsing into the swimming pool while sitting with his granddaughter.
"Brothers & Sisters" follows the trials and tribulations of the Southern California-based Walker clan and the family's business, Ojai Foods, in the wake of William's death, including the revelation that he had a second life with a long-term affair. The cast is a mix of well-known stars with respected resumes (like Sally Field, Calista Flockhart and Rachel Griffiths), theater actors (Ron Rifkin and Matthew Rhys, for example), and unknown performers with solid backgrounds (Dave Annable, Sarah Jane Morris and Emily VanCamp of "Everwood" are good examples). The cherry on the casting sundae is a pair of TV veterans (Rob Lowe of "The West Wing" and Patricia Wettig, who is Olin's wife and former "thirtysomething" cohort), bringing with them the gravitas of their former programs.
The story lines of "Brothers & Sisters" mainly consist of the kind of things you are used to seeing in a nighttime soap, with lots of drama involving the romantic relationships of the family members, the intrigue at the family business, and "big" issues like drug addiction and the loss of a child. To enter the world of the program thinking that it is too high-brow to take on more tabloidy turns would be a mistake. After all, we've had the discovery of a long-lost half sister who turns out not to really be a half sister after all, but who then enters into a romantic relationship with one of the guys she thought was her brother. That's the kind of thing you could see on a daytime soap, but it happened on "Brothers & Sisters."
So to enjoy the program, you kind of have to go along with the soapy story lines. And what do you get in return? Well, for one, the writing is very good. There is a lot of sharp humor, and there are genuinely affecting moments that go beyond melodrama. When youngest son Justin (Annable), a recovering junkie and veteran of the Iraq war, breaks down and admits to his girlfriend/former sister Rebecca (VanCamp) his inability to accept praise for saving one man's life because on the same day, he watched his good friend die a few yards away from him, it's a genuinely heart-tugging moment. As the scene unfolds, the soapiness of Rebecca and Justin going from siblings to lovers is not something you are even thinking about.
And a lot of the credit has to go to the performers. Annable is exceptional as the conflicted Justin, and VanCamp brings warmth and openness to the uncertain Rebecca. Field is her excellent self as the family matriarch, equally adept at reveling in campy dramatic moments (like telling her dead husband's long-time mistress about the existence of another lover with whom he had a son) as genuinely emotional ones (her breakdown after a garage sale in which she disposed of all of her husband's things featured a first-rate performance).
Flockhart plays Republican pundit-turned-political-staffer Kitty like a grown-up, settled down version of her Ally McBeal. Griffiths brings her usual intensity to oldest sister Sarah, who nearly ruined Ojai with a bad deal and is now forced to work under her brother Tommy (Balthazer Getty) and her father's former mistress (Wettig) at the company. And Rhys does a great job of keeping middle brother Kevin, a corporate lawyer, from descending into a gay stereotype.
In fact the willingness of "Brothers & Sisters" to matter-of-factly handle topics other shows are often afraid to go near is one of the things that sets it apart. Kevin's relationship with his husband Scotty (Luke Macfarlane) is treated the same as the romantic entanglements of his straight siblings. And Justin's Iraq war veteran is neither a recruiting poster nor a cautionary tale, but one of the more interesting and nuanced characters on nighttime television.
My only complaint about "Brothers & Sisters" is that it's sometimes too wide-eyed and naive for its own good. Lowe plays a Republican U.S. Senator from California (in and of itself odd, since California hasn't sent a Republican to the senate in 16 years) who is a liberal fantasy of the ideal Republican: He is young and good looking, pro-choice, has a great relationship with his gay brother, and has impeccable ethics and morals, so much so that he refuses to smear his opponent in the Republican presidential primary and later rejects an offer to be his running mate. It's such an unrealistic characterization that it takes me out of the show. And it's not the only time "Brothers & Sisters" descends into if-only-it-was-really-like-that territory.
But if you're going to eat candy, it might as well be good candy. So on that theory, "Brothers & Sisters" provides some old-fashioned dramatic entertainment, even if is soapier than a car wash. And it features some of the best acting and writing on TV. So I'm happy to leave it on my TiVo Season Pass.
The Walkers have little in common with the Darlings, the family at the center of "Dirty Sexy Money." While "Brothers & Sisters" tries to be the Merchant-Ivory of nighttime soaps, "Dirty Sexy Money" burst onto the scene last year as an over-the-top, near parody of the genre.
Like "Brothers & Sisters," "Dirty Sexy Money" boasts cast members that some might say are slumming on this job. Peter Krause, who starred in the high-end, dark HBO drama "Six Feet Under," is at the center of "Dirty Sexy Money" as Nick, a crusading attorney who accepts an offer to become the family attorney to the Darlings, a Kennedy-esque (but way trashier) New York City wealthy clan. Nick's father had served in the same role, until he was killed in a mysterious private plane crash in the debut episode. Nick, who was on the outs with his father at the time of his death, had always resented the Darlings for dominating his father's time. But he has a serious love-hate relationship with the family, realizing he is an odd part of their lives even as some of their actions appall him.
Donald Sutherland plays Tripp, the head of the Darling clan, and Jill Clayburgh is his unstable wife, Letitia. The two film veterans don't shy away from the soapy nature of their parts. Sutherland is quiet and mysterious, and, as the story lines demand, you're not quite sure when he is being played and when he is just pretending to be played to play others (more often this is the case). Clayburgh, meanwhile, dives into being the wealthy, quasi-insubstantial dutiful wife, looking after the needs of her grown kids.
And what a group of kids they are: all over the top, and all out of control. Brian (Glenn Fitzgerald) spent last year as the meanest, surliest minister ever to appear on television, but as of last season's finale, he left the church to work for the family business. Patrick (William Baldwin) is the state's attorney general and a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Despite having two kids with his wife Ellen (the always solid Bellamy Young), Patrick's heart really belongs to transvestite Carmelita (Candis Cayne). Karen, who was Nick's childhood sweetheart, has grown into a multiple-marrying socialite, who also, paradoxically, has an MBA from Columbia and is now having a spy-vs.-spy affair with the Darlings' arch enemy, mogul Simon Elder (Blair Underwood). And Jeremy is the baby of the family, the party boy romantic who is good-natured but completely allergic to responsibility. His twin sister and fellow partier, Juliet (Samaire Armstrong), has disappeared this season (producers deny it's because of Armstrong's personal problems).
The Darlings' battles and trials and tribulations are as soapy as those faced by the Walkers, but much grander. Consider: Letitia is arrested for killing Nick's father, Tripp insists on Nick defending Letitia (even though he is the son of the victim), and Jeremy is dating (on the sly) the barracuda prosecuting the case, Nola (Lucy Liu, as a more joyful and upbeat version of her Ling Woo from "Ally McBeal").
Last year, it seemed like everyone at "Dirty Sexy Money" was in on the joke. It was like they knew how silly soaps were, and they played it up for all it was worth, committing to the lunacy and making fun of it, all at the same time. There were over-arching mysteries more reminiscent of "Heroes" than a nighttime soap, and the intrigue was so convoluted, plausibility wasn't even a concern. But after months of inactivity (the show didn't return after the writer's strike, leaving nine months between the end of the program's abbreviated first season and the launch of its second campaign), "Dirty Sexy Money" seems to have lost its sense of humor.
This season has played like a more conventional soap, with plots that aren't so different than those found on "Brothers & Sisters." All the intricate strands relating to the mystery of who killed Nick's father have been tossed aside, replaced with the more simple charge that Letitia is responsible. The focus is on who is sleeping with whom, and who is out-maneuvering whom for control of the Darling empire. And Letitia's trial is straight out of "Dynasty" or "Dallas," completely devoid of both reality and sly in-on-the-joke excessiveness.
Sadly, "Dirty Sexy Money" now too often feels like it is just missing the mark. The show is set in New York but lacks any feel of the city, mostly because it is shot in Los Angeles. Nola, the assistant district attorney, lives in a luxury Manhattan apartment building, drives a luxury convertible (in New York), and has an office that most big-firm partners would envy, all horribly unrealistic for someone living on the salary of a city employee. (Her character violates my Perry Mason Rule, which says that television shows and movies don't have to be 100 percent accurate on legal issues, but they cannot present something that the average person would know is false from watching legal entertainment like "Perry Mason.")
Worse, the central story conflicts seem to go around in circles, until they've worn out their welcome. I'm so over the constant "you're choosing the Darlings over me" whines of Nick's wife Lisa (Zoe McLellan). It's the same argument over and over again. You just want to scream at her, "We've been over this 100 times. Either dump him or leave him alone!" And the family dynamics -- Karen's crush on Nick, Brian's hatred of Nick, Patrick's battle to get out from under Tripp's control -- are getting stale.
I don't mean to be too negative about "Dirty Sexy Money." The cast does a good job with the scripts they're given, and the writing can be very funny and clever at times. It's not that I think the show is bad at what it does, but rather that last season's approach seems superior to this year's plan. I liked the program better when it was trying to send up the soap genre, rather than just being another entry in the field. I liked it better when it was smarter than its competitors, not emulating them. But I'll stick around for a while longer, but I make no promises for the future.
In the end, the Walkers and the Darlings live lives that are nothing like ours, but we can tune in and, at the same time, feel better about ourselves that we don't have to deal with the messes they have to deal with and live vicariously through the glamor of the lives they lead. "Brothers & Sisters" and "Dirty Sexy Money" are both solid nighttime soaps, fully worth watching if you're looking for something in that genre. And "Brothers & Sisters" takes an interesting, more cerebral approach to its material. I just wish "Dirty Sexy Money" was as in on the joke as it was last year.
I was never much for nighttime soaps. Back in the day, I wasn't a fan of "Dynasty" or "Dallas"; despite watching "Beverly Hills 90210" for a couple of years, I never even saw one episode of "Melrose Place"; and I gave up on "Desperate Housewives" after two seasons. I just generally don't enjoy the over-the-top, far-from-real, always-something-going-on story lines, and I have trouble with over-acting (also known as Dylan McKay-Edie Britt Syndrome). So a glance at my TiVo Season Pass list will reveal two surprises: "Brothers & Sisters" (ABC, Sundays at 10:00 p.m. Eastern) and "Dirty Sexy Money" (ABC, Wednesdays at 10:00 p.m. Eastern).
I'm not entirely sure why I consider these shows to be different. I wholly admit that my decision to stay with these soaps may very well be arbitrary. Now that we've had a few episodes to see where each of their seasons are going, I figured it was a good time to take a closer look at them. And since I'm way more likely to drop a soap than, say, a sitcom (it was easy enough for me to say sayonara to "Desperate Housewives" and "Beverly Hills 90210," but I watched every episode of "Caroline in the City"), it's fair to ask if "Brothers & Sisters" and "Dirty Sexy Money" will stay on my Season Pass list.
Both shows follow the personal and business lives of families with five kids and a family-run business, and both, at one time or another, were run by Greg Berlanti. But the similarities mostly end there, since the tones of the two shows are so radically different.
The approach of "Brothers & Sisters" is a cerebral take on the soap formula. Created by playwright Jon Robin Baitz ("The Substance of Fire") and executive produced by, among others, Ken Olin of "thirtysomething," "Brothers & Sisters" is like an experiment to see what happens when serious writers and quality actors tackle soapy dramatic material. And the show made a splash in its premiere (literally and figuratively) when the family's patriarch, William, played by Tom Skerritt, died suddenly, collapsing into the swimming pool while sitting with his granddaughter.
"Brothers & Sisters" follows the trials and tribulations of the Southern California-based Walker clan and the family's business, Ojai Foods, in the wake of William's death, including the revelation that he had a second life with a long-term affair. The cast is a mix of well-known stars with respected resumes (like Sally Field, Calista Flockhart and Rachel Griffiths), theater actors (Ron Rifkin and Matthew Rhys, for example), and unknown performers with solid backgrounds (Dave Annable, Sarah Jane Morris and Emily VanCamp of "Everwood" are good examples). The cherry on the casting sundae is a pair of TV veterans (Rob Lowe of "The West Wing" and Patricia Wettig, who is Olin's wife and former "thirtysomething" cohort), bringing with them the gravitas of their former programs.
The story lines of "Brothers & Sisters" mainly consist of the kind of things you are used to seeing in a nighttime soap, with lots of drama involving the romantic relationships of the family members, the intrigue at the family business, and "big" issues like drug addiction and the loss of a child. To enter the world of the program thinking that it is too high-brow to take on more tabloidy turns would be a mistake. After all, we've had the discovery of a long-lost half sister who turns out not to really be a half sister after all, but who then enters into a romantic relationship with one of the guys she thought was her brother. That's the kind of thing you could see on a daytime soap, but it happened on "Brothers & Sisters."
So to enjoy the program, you kind of have to go along with the soapy story lines. And what do you get in return? Well, for one, the writing is very good. There is a lot of sharp humor, and there are genuinely affecting moments that go beyond melodrama. When youngest son Justin (Annable), a recovering junkie and veteran of the Iraq war, breaks down and admits to his girlfriend/former sister Rebecca (VanCamp) his inability to accept praise for saving one man's life because on the same day, he watched his good friend die a few yards away from him, it's a genuinely heart-tugging moment. As the scene unfolds, the soapiness of Rebecca and Justin going from siblings to lovers is not something you are even thinking about.
And a lot of the credit has to go to the performers. Annable is exceptional as the conflicted Justin, and VanCamp brings warmth and openness to the uncertain Rebecca. Field is her excellent self as the family matriarch, equally adept at reveling in campy dramatic moments (like telling her dead husband's long-time mistress about the existence of another lover with whom he had a son) as genuinely emotional ones (her breakdown after a garage sale in which she disposed of all of her husband's things featured a first-rate performance).
Flockhart plays Republican pundit-turned-political-staffer Kitty like a grown-up, settled down version of her Ally McBeal. Griffiths brings her usual intensity to oldest sister Sarah, who nearly ruined Ojai with a bad deal and is now forced to work under her brother Tommy (Balthazer Getty) and her father's former mistress (Wettig) at the company. And Rhys does a great job of keeping middle brother Kevin, a corporate lawyer, from descending into a gay stereotype.
In fact the willingness of "Brothers & Sisters" to matter-of-factly handle topics other shows are often afraid to go near is one of the things that sets it apart. Kevin's relationship with his husband Scotty (Luke Macfarlane) is treated the same as the romantic entanglements of his straight siblings. And Justin's Iraq war veteran is neither a recruiting poster nor a cautionary tale, but one of the more interesting and nuanced characters on nighttime television.
My only complaint about "Brothers & Sisters" is that it's sometimes too wide-eyed and naive for its own good. Lowe plays a Republican U.S. Senator from California (in and of itself odd, since California hasn't sent a Republican to the senate in 16 years) who is a liberal fantasy of the ideal Republican: He is young and good looking, pro-choice, has a great relationship with his gay brother, and has impeccable ethics and morals, so much so that he refuses to smear his opponent in the Republican presidential primary and later rejects an offer to be his running mate. It's such an unrealistic characterization that it takes me out of the show. And it's not the only time "Brothers & Sisters" descends into if-only-it-was-really-like-that territory.
But if you're going to eat candy, it might as well be good candy. So on that theory, "Brothers & Sisters" provides some old-fashioned dramatic entertainment, even if is soapier than a car wash. And it features some of the best acting and writing on TV. So I'm happy to leave it on my TiVo Season Pass.
The Walkers have little in common with the Darlings, the family at the center of "Dirty Sexy Money." While "Brothers & Sisters" tries to be the Merchant-Ivory of nighttime soaps, "Dirty Sexy Money" burst onto the scene last year as an over-the-top, near parody of the genre.
Like "Brothers & Sisters," "Dirty Sexy Money" boasts cast members that some might say are slumming on this job. Peter Krause, who starred in the high-end, dark HBO drama "Six Feet Under," is at the center of "Dirty Sexy Money" as Nick, a crusading attorney who accepts an offer to become the family attorney to the Darlings, a Kennedy-esque (but way trashier) New York City wealthy clan. Nick's father had served in the same role, until he was killed in a mysterious private plane crash in the debut episode. Nick, who was on the outs with his father at the time of his death, had always resented the Darlings for dominating his father's time. But he has a serious love-hate relationship with the family, realizing he is an odd part of their lives even as some of their actions appall him.
Donald Sutherland plays Tripp, the head of the Darling clan, and Jill Clayburgh is his unstable wife, Letitia. The two film veterans don't shy away from the soapy nature of their parts. Sutherland is quiet and mysterious, and, as the story lines demand, you're not quite sure when he is being played and when he is just pretending to be played to play others (more often this is the case). Clayburgh, meanwhile, dives into being the wealthy, quasi-insubstantial dutiful wife, looking after the needs of her grown kids.
And what a group of kids they are: all over the top, and all out of control. Brian (Glenn Fitzgerald) spent last year as the meanest, surliest minister ever to appear on television, but as of last season's finale, he left the church to work for the family business. Patrick (William Baldwin) is the state's attorney general and a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Despite having two kids with his wife Ellen (the always solid Bellamy Young), Patrick's heart really belongs to transvestite Carmelita (Candis Cayne). Karen, who was Nick's childhood sweetheart, has grown into a multiple-marrying socialite, who also, paradoxically, has an MBA from Columbia and is now having a spy-vs.-spy affair with the Darlings' arch enemy, mogul Simon Elder (Blair Underwood). And Jeremy is the baby of the family, the party boy romantic who is good-natured but completely allergic to responsibility. His twin sister and fellow partier, Juliet (Samaire Armstrong), has disappeared this season (producers deny it's because of Armstrong's personal problems).
The Darlings' battles and trials and tribulations are as soapy as those faced by the Walkers, but much grander. Consider: Letitia is arrested for killing Nick's father, Tripp insists on Nick defending Letitia (even though he is the son of the victim), and Jeremy is dating (on the sly) the barracuda prosecuting the case, Nola (Lucy Liu, as a more joyful and upbeat version of her Ling Woo from "Ally McBeal").
Last year, it seemed like everyone at "Dirty Sexy Money" was in on the joke. It was like they knew how silly soaps were, and they played it up for all it was worth, committing to the lunacy and making fun of it, all at the same time. There were over-arching mysteries more reminiscent of "Heroes" than a nighttime soap, and the intrigue was so convoluted, plausibility wasn't even a concern. But after months of inactivity (the show didn't return after the writer's strike, leaving nine months between the end of the program's abbreviated first season and the launch of its second campaign), "Dirty Sexy Money" seems to have lost its sense of humor.
This season has played like a more conventional soap, with plots that aren't so different than those found on "Brothers & Sisters." All the intricate strands relating to the mystery of who killed Nick's father have been tossed aside, replaced with the more simple charge that Letitia is responsible. The focus is on who is sleeping with whom, and who is out-maneuvering whom for control of the Darling empire. And Letitia's trial is straight out of "Dynasty" or "Dallas," completely devoid of both reality and sly in-on-the-joke excessiveness.
Sadly, "Dirty Sexy Money" now too often feels like it is just missing the mark. The show is set in New York but lacks any feel of the city, mostly because it is shot in Los Angeles. Nola, the assistant district attorney, lives in a luxury Manhattan apartment building, drives a luxury convertible (in New York), and has an office that most big-firm partners would envy, all horribly unrealistic for someone living on the salary of a city employee. (Her character violates my Perry Mason Rule, which says that television shows and movies don't have to be 100 percent accurate on legal issues, but they cannot present something that the average person would know is false from watching legal entertainment like "Perry Mason.")
Worse, the central story conflicts seem to go around in circles, until they've worn out their welcome. I'm so over the constant "you're choosing the Darlings over me" whines of Nick's wife Lisa (Zoe McLellan). It's the same argument over and over again. You just want to scream at her, "We've been over this 100 times. Either dump him or leave him alone!" And the family dynamics -- Karen's crush on Nick, Brian's hatred of Nick, Patrick's battle to get out from under Tripp's control -- are getting stale.
I don't mean to be too negative about "Dirty Sexy Money." The cast does a good job with the scripts they're given, and the writing can be very funny and clever at times. It's not that I think the show is bad at what it does, but rather that last season's approach seems superior to this year's plan. I liked the program better when it was trying to send up the soap genre, rather than just being another entry in the field. I liked it better when it was smarter than its competitors, not emulating them. But I'll stick around for a while longer, but I make no promises for the future.
In the end, the Walkers and the Darlings live lives that are nothing like ours, but we can tune in and, at the same time, feel better about ourselves that we don't have to deal with the messes they have to deal with and live vicariously through the glamor of the lives they lead. "Brothers & Sisters" and "Dirty Sexy Money" are both solid nighttime soaps, fully worth watching if you're looking for something in that genre. And "Brothers & Sisters" takes an interesting, more cerebral approach to its material. I just wish "Dirty Sexy Money" was as in on the joke as it was last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
