[The editors of Huffingtonpost.com asked me to write a Thanksgiving-themed column. What appears below is the result. You can access it on Huffingtonpost.com from my author page here.]
I have so many important things to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.
I could write about how thankful I am that my country decided to send a smart, forward-thinking Democrat to the White House just four short years after re-electing a historically awful president who had demonstrated his incompetence in myriad ways, including ensnaring the nation in a needless, poorly managed and draining war in Iraq. And I could express my thanks that my country, with a difficult history of race under its belt, looked to an African American candidate to lead us at such a difficult time, no matter if a voter opted for Barack Obama despite his race, because of it (for what it would mean symbolically to the world), or if race had no bearing on the decision at all.
I could write about how thankful I am that Arianna and her stellar editorial staff have allowed me to express my opinions in such an important forum like Huffingtonpost.com, and that so many people seem to read my work and chime in with their own comments.
And I could write about how thankful I am to have a supportive and loving wife, a great family, and a fun and inspiring group of friends.
But I won't be writing about any of these important things, mainly because I just don't think it would be especially interesting to anyone not named Mitchell Bard. No, instead, I'm going to express my thanks for some of the simple pleasures in my life. Because no matter how silly nearly everything on my list is, every item brings me joy on a regular basis.
I am thankful for the Mount Rushmore of current network situation comedies: How I Met Your Mother, Scrubs, 30 Rock and The Office. I am old enough to remember a time when comedies dominated the networks' schedules (as well as the ratings), when a serial drama meant a nighttime soap and a reality program was the news. So with fewer and fewer sitcoms on the air, I savor the 30-minute bursts of smart, original laughs these four programs provide to me, week after funny week. And with the news the way it's been the last few months (years, really), we all need to laugh.
While I listen to all kinds of rock music, I am thankful that I have recently rediscovered my guilty-pleasure love of rock anthems, which make me smile and allow me to indulge in a bit of nostalgia. My five favorite classic rock anthems, which I define as dramatic, emotional, over-the-top songs in which the singer seems to be pleading for us to do something and which contain at least one passage that induces audiences to pump their fists, are, in order: "Baba O'Riley" by the Who, "More than a Feeling" by Boston, "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey, "Sunday Bloody Sunday" by U2, and "Alive" by Pearl Jam (with honorable mention to "Highway to Hell" by AC/DC, "I Love Rock N' Roll" by Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, "Juke Box Hero" by Foreigner, "Livin' on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi, and "Find Your Way Back" by Jefferson Starship).
And speaking of music, I am thankful that my midlife crisis this year didn't involve a sports car or a fling with a younger woman, but instead led me to purchase tickets to seven concerts this past summer, all by artists who got their starts in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s (The Eagles, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Billy Joel, Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band, a triple bill of Cheap Trick/Heart/Journey, Pearl Jam, and the Regeneration Tour, which featured Naked Eyes, Flock of Seagulls, ABC, Belinda Carlisle and the Human League).
I am thankful that even as I make my way into my early 40s, I can still appreciate a stellar teen movie like Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, which features two talented, relatable and likable leads; genuinely smart and funny writing; and a dead-on eye for downtown Manhattan (not to mention a great soundtrack).
I am thankful that after more than 200 trips to Yankee Stadium in my lifetime, I still got a thrill all 10 times I entered the Cathedral of Baseball this past season, and was genuinely emotional during my last trip to the stadium for the third-to-last home game ever in the old building. And I am thankful that despite the Yankees pricing box seats in the new stadium at an amount roughly equal to the gross domestic product of several Central American countries, I will still be able to retain my $25 nosebleed seats for my Friday night season ticket plan next season.
And while we're discussing ridiculously overpriced sports tickets, I am thankful that this year I got to attend my first Arsenal match at the wondrous Emirates Stadium in North London and not only enjoy 90 minutes of outstanding atmosphere, including non-stop chanting and singing, but also witness a 2-0 victory for the Gunners.
And finally, I am thankful for my pet rabbit Oscar, who can be found roaming free in our kitchen and living room. Despite being convinced at every moment of his life that predators are out to get him, he manages to remain a ridiculously cute, well-behaved and entertaining presence in our home. Maybe there is a lesson in there for all of us. Or maybe it's just fun to watch a rabbit submerge his head in a pile of hay looking for the perfect strand to munch on. I'll leave that for you to decide.
I wish everyone a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
It's Time for a War on War on the "War on Christmas"
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
After enduring eight years of a president who was determined to impose his religious beliefs on the country, I've just about had it with people trying to shove religion down my throat. Maybe that is why I have no patience for the (completely ludicrous) claim that there is a "War on Christmas," made by right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly. But what put me over the top is that now a deputy editor of the once reputable Wall Street Journal has weighed in on the issue, actually equating the current economic crisis with the fact that people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
Daniel Henninger wrote in the WSJ yesterday:
"This year we celebrate the desacralized 'holidays' amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say 'Merry Christmas' is a nation capable of ruining its own economy."
Henninger's point is that the economic downturn was caused by "borrowers, lenders and securitizer shamans" who were "operating in a zero-gravity environment, aloft on moral hazard," which was due to a loss of "responsibility, restraint and remorse." He goes on to say that "responsibility and restraint are moral sentiments," and that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." He claims that the "disappearance of 'Merry Christmas'" is indicative of this "dereligioning." Thus, the link between not saying "Merry Christmas" and the failing economy.
Convinced? Me neither.
Somehow, people like Henninger and O'Reilly think it's important that people say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." But what Henninger and O'Reilly don't seem to want to understand is that the United States of America, as much as they would like it to be otherwise, is not a Christian nation. The majority of its citizens may currently be Christian, but, again, that does not make the country, as an institution, Christian.
(Full disclosure: I am a nonreligious Jew, so the "War on Christmas" crowd will, no doubt, dismiss all of my opinions.)
The last time I checked, the First Amendment was still in full force and effect. As a reminder, it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You will notice in the very first words of the Bill of Rights that the founders made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that there was to be no one religion "established" for the country. The First Amendment makes clear that everyone should be allowed to practice his/her religious faiths ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), but that no one faith was to be elevated above the others by the government. Being Christian does not make one more American.
And yet that is exactly what the O'Reillys and Hennigers of the world seem to want. I'm sorry to report this fact to them, but not everyone in this country celebrates Christmas. According to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study from earlier this year, 1.7 percent of the population identified themselves as Jewish, 0.6 percent as Muslim, 0.7 percent as Buddhist, 0.4 percent as Hindu, 0.7 percent as Jehovah's Witness, and more than 0.2 percent as from "other world religions." On top of that, according to the Pew study, more than 16 percent of Americans do not consider themselves any religion.
All of that translates into millions of people who do not celebrate Christmas. Do O'Reilly and Henninger think that these people should be made to feel "other," outsiders in the American experience? I hope not. That is not what America is about. Many of the founders of the country moved here to flee religious persecution. They just wanted to be free to practice their own religion here. And that doesn't mean that only they get to do so.
This country has some tragic history when it comes to its treatment of minorities. We enslaved African Americans as recently as 145 years ago, and we had laws on the books repressing them until quite recently. It was only 65 years ago that we rounded up American citizens who just happened to be of Japanese descent and placed them into internment camps solely because of their country of origin. And it was only two weeks ago that three states voted to amend their constitutions to ensure that homosexuals cannot enjoy the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.
In light of that history, it seems to me that we, as a nation, should be looking at more ways to come together and make everyone feel a part of the American family, not stressing our differences and making those in the minority feel as though they are not true Americans. And through the simple act of saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," we, as a country, can show our tolerance for other faiths and make everyone feel a part of the holiday season.
If nothing else, doesn't it come down to simple manners? Why would you want to say "Merry Christmas" to someone that doesn't celebrate the holiday? Clearly, such a greeting is only going to make the recipient uncomfortable, pointing out that he/she does not practice the same religion that the majority of the country does. Meanwhile, the dreaded "Happy Holidays" invocation is actually inclusive and polite, saying, in effect, "There are a lot of holidays this time of year, so if any of them apply to you, we hope it's a nice time for you." Isn't such a tolerant attitude more in keeping with what the United States is supposed to represent?
Of course, nothing I've said would stop those who observe Christmas from going to church, decorating their houses (inside and out) and celebrating with their families and friends. And certainly, saying "Happy Holidays" in public venues doesn't stop two people from greeting each other with "Merry Christmas" when they both observe the holiday. My only point is that in public displays, when not all of the recipients will be Christian, there is nothing wrong with using the more inclusive "Happy Holidays." That idea hardly constitutes a "War on Christmas."
There is also a dangerous, insidious strain to the movement complaining of a "War on Christmas." Go back to Henninger's words in the WSJ. He says that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." I refuse to accept that the immorality of finance professionals is due to a lack of religious piety. The implication is that without religion, there can be no morals or ethics. I, and I'm sure many others out there, absolutely reject such an assumption. Moral behavior does not have to come from the teachings of a religion. An atheist is every bit as capable of drawing on his/her beliefs to lead an ethical life as a religious person.
And by turning to an argument about Christmas, Henninger is also implying that it's not enough to be religious, you have to be an adherent of his religion. That is certainly a dangerous idea, and it is also completely sanctimonious, given the myriad scandals that have enveloped U.S. churches in recent years. Being religious didn't stop, for example, priests from molesting boys (and the church covering it up), nor did it prevent Rev. Ted Haggard, the founder of the New Life Church, from getting caught buying crystal meth and patronizing a male prostitute (after crusading against homosexuals).
I would further argue that the injection of religion into politics has not produced the kind of moral and ethical behavior Henninger longs for. It seems to me that the emergence of an argument that if you oppose the Republican party and support the Democrats, you are somehow not righteous in the eyes of the church, is a pretty dangerous way of thinking. I don't think it's helpful that a South Carolina priest would tell his parishioners that they should not accept Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama. And I don't think the national interest is served by actions like the recently deposed Republican North Carolina U.S. House of Representatives member Robin Hayes saying during the campaign that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
Clearly, I'm not making the argument that all religious people are bad. (Sorry, but I can't help but anticipate the potential "he is criticizing religion!" charge of those who believe there is a "War on Christmas.") What I am saying is that there is nothing in being religious that makes someone inherently more moral and ethical than someone who is not religious.
So you'll forgive me if I don't buy into the Henniger/O'Reilly view of America. I see this country as a place in which we respect the religious beliefs of all of our citizens, and, more importantly, we would not seek to impose our faiths on our neighbors. And yes, I would like to see a country where we don't seek to make non-Christian citizens feel like they are not part of the national fabric by pointing out to them, again and again, that they are different than a majority.
Or, put another way, I want to live in a tolerant, respectful country that says "Happy Holidays," rather than a divisive nation that seeks to make people uncomfortable by saying "Merry Christmas." Isn't that what "peace on earth, good will toward man" entails? There is no war on Christmas. We only ask that those who celebrate the holiday not insist that those who don't celebrate with them. Actually, that statement of my belief is my declaration of war on the war on the "War on Christmas."
Happy holidays everyone.
After enduring eight years of a president who was determined to impose his religious beliefs on the country, I've just about had it with people trying to shove religion down my throat. Maybe that is why I have no patience for the (completely ludicrous) claim that there is a "War on Christmas," made by right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly. But what put me over the top is that now a deputy editor of the once reputable Wall Street Journal has weighed in on the issue, actually equating the current economic crisis with the fact that people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
Daniel Henninger wrote in the WSJ yesterday:
"This year we celebrate the desacralized 'holidays' amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say 'Merry Christmas' is a nation capable of ruining its own economy."
Henninger's point is that the economic downturn was caused by "borrowers, lenders and securitizer shamans" who were "operating in a zero-gravity environment, aloft on moral hazard," which was due to a loss of "responsibility, restraint and remorse." He goes on to say that "responsibility and restraint are moral sentiments," and that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." He claims that the "disappearance of 'Merry Christmas'" is indicative of this "dereligioning." Thus, the link between not saying "Merry Christmas" and the failing economy.
Convinced? Me neither.
Somehow, people like Henninger and O'Reilly think it's important that people say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." But what Henninger and O'Reilly don't seem to want to understand is that the United States of America, as much as they would like it to be otherwise, is not a Christian nation. The majority of its citizens may currently be Christian, but, again, that does not make the country, as an institution, Christian.
(Full disclosure: I am a nonreligious Jew, so the "War on Christmas" crowd will, no doubt, dismiss all of my opinions.)
The last time I checked, the First Amendment was still in full force and effect. As a reminder, it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You will notice in the very first words of the Bill of Rights that the founders made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that there was to be no one religion "established" for the country. The First Amendment makes clear that everyone should be allowed to practice his/her religious faiths ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), but that no one faith was to be elevated above the others by the government. Being Christian does not make one more American.
And yet that is exactly what the O'Reillys and Hennigers of the world seem to want. I'm sorry to report this fact to them, but not everyone in this country celebrates Christmas. According to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study from earlier this year, 1.7 percent of the population identified themselves as Jewish, 0.6 percent as Muslim, 0.7 percent as Buddhist, 0.4 percent as Hindu, 0.7 percent as Jehovah's Witness, and more than 0.2 percent as from "other world religions." On top of that, according to the Pew study, more than 16 percent of Americans do not consider themselves any religion.
All of that translates into millions of people who do not celebrate Christmas. Do O'Reilly and Henninger think that these people should be made to feel "other," outsiders in the American experience? I hope not. That is not what America is about. Many of the founders of the country moved here to flee religious persecution. They just wanted to be free to practice their own religion here. And that doesn't mean that only they get to do so.
This country has some tragic history when it comes to its treatment of minorities. We enslaved African Americans as recently as 145 years ago, and we had laws on the books repressing them until quite recently. It was only 65 years ago that we rounded up American citizens who just happened to be of Japanese descent and placed them into internment camps solely because of their country of origin. And it was only two weeks ago that three states voted to amend their constitutions to ensure that homosexuals cannot enjoy the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.
In light of that history, it seems to me that we, as a nation, should be looking at more ways to come together and make everyone feel a part of the American family, not stressing our differences and making those in the minority feel as though they are not true Americans. And through the simple act of saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," we, as a country, can show our tolerance for other faiths and make everyone feel a part of the holiday season.
If nothing else, doesn't it come down to simple manners? Why would you want to say "Merry Christmas" to someone that doesn't celebrate the holiday? Clearly, such a greeting is only going to make the recipient uncomfortable, pointing out that he/she does not practice the same religion that the majority of the country does. Meanwhile, the dreaded "Happy Holidays" invocation is actually inclusive and polite, saying, in effect, "There are a lot of holidays this time of year, so if any of them apply to you, we hope it's a nice time for you." Isn't such a tolerant attitude more in keeping with what the United States is supposed to represent?
Of course, nothing I've said would stop those who observe Christmas from going to church, decorating their houses (inside and out) and celebrating with their families and friends. And certainly, saying "Happy Holidays" in public venues doesn't stop two people from greeting each other with "Merry Christmas" when they both observe the holiday. My only point is that in public displays, when not all of the recipients will be Christian, there is nothing wrong with using the more inclusive "Happy Holidays." That idea hardly constitutes a "War on Christmas."
There is also a dangerous, insidious strain to the movement complaining of a "War on Christmas." Go back to Henninger's words in the WSJ. He says that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." I refuse to accept that the immorality of finance professionals is due to a lack of religious piety. The implication is that without religion, there can be no morals or ethics. I, and I'm sure many others out there, absolutely reject such an assumption. Moral behavior does not have to come from the teachings of a religion. An atheist is every bit as capable of drawing on his/her beliefs to lead an ethical life as a religious person.
And by turning to an argument about Christmas, Henninger is also implying that it's not enough to be religious, you have to be an adherent of his religion. That is certainly a dangerous idea, and it is also completely sanctimonious, given the myriad scandals that have enveloped U.S. churches in recent years. Being religious didn't stop, for example, priests from molesting boys (and the church covering it up), nor did it prevent Rev. Ted Haggard, the founder of the New Life Church, from getting caught buying crystal meth and patronizing a male prostitute (after crusading against homosexuals).
I would further argue that the injection of religion into politics has not produced the kind of moral and ethical behavior Henninger longs for. It seems to me that the emergence of an argument that if you oppose the Republican party and support the Democrats, you are somehow not righteous in the eyes of the church, is a pretty dangerous way of thinking. I don't think it's helpful that a South Carolina priest would tell his parishioners that they should not accept Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama. And I don't think the national interest is served by actions like the recently deposed Republican North Carolina U.S. House of Representatives member Robin Hayes saying during the campaign that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
Clearly, I'm not making the argument that all religious people are bad. (Sorry, but I can't help but anticipate the potential "he is criticizing religion!" charge of those who believe there is a "War on Christmas.") What I am saying is that there is nothing in being religious that makes someone inherently more moral and ethical than someone who is not religious.
So you'll forgive me if I don't buy into the Henniger/O'Reilly view of America. I see this country as a place in which we respect the religious beliefs of all of our citizens, and, more importantly, we would not seek to impose our faiths on our neighbors. And yes, I would like to see a country where we don't seek to make non-Christian citizens feel like they are not part of the national fabric by pointing out to them, again and again, that they are different than a majority.
Or, put another way, I want to live in a tolerant, respectful country that says "Happy Holidays," rather than a divisive nation that seeks to make people uncomfortable by saying "Merry Christmas." Isn't that what "peace on earth, good will toward man" entails? There is no war on Christmas. We only ask that those who celebrate the holiday not insist that those who don't celebrate with them. Actually, that statement of my belief is my declaration of war on the war on the "War on Christmas."
Happy holidays everyone.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
"Samantha Who?" and "The Big Bang Theory" Are Very Different, but Both Deliver Laughs
[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
"Samantha Who?" (ABC, Mondays at 9:30 Eastern) and "The Big Bang Theory" (CBS, Mondays at 8:00 Eastern) have a couple of things in common. They are both sitcoms in their second seasons, and both air on Monday nights. But beyond those surface facts, the two programs are different in nearly every way. Well, except one: They're both funny.
"Samantha Who?" is an ambitious, single-camera comedy that burst onto the scene last season with high ratings, mainly thanks to its cushy scheduling slot after "Dancing with the Stars." The high-concept premise follows Sam (Christina Applegate) as she wakes up from a coma with amnesia (she was hit by a car), only to discover that she was a mean, boozing, selfish, cut-throat workaholic before her injury. Determined to be a better person, she sets out to do better, which isn't easy, since she is surrounded by a motley crew of potential obstacles: her manipulative, trophy-wife-gone-to-seed mother, Regina (Jean Smart); her fellow barracuda best friend Andrea (Jennifer Esposito); and her awkward, Newfie-loving, terminally uncool childhood best friend Dena (Melissa McCarthy), who used Sam's amnesia as a way of reinserting herself into Sam's life.
The first season of "Samantha Who?" was clever and ambitious, and Applegate showed a great comic touch, especially in essentially playing two characters: the current "good Sam," and, in flashbacks, the old "bad Sam." (You can read the review I wrote last year here.) As last season came to a close, "Samantha Who?" had cemented a place on ABC's schedule, and I had high hopes for the future.
Which is why the season premiere was such a disappointment. The episode turned on a predictable and less-than-funny dance contest that Regina wanted to win over her long-time rival. She dumps her delighted husband (Kevin Dunn) as her partner in favor of Sam after seeing one of her old dance recital videos (Applegate, who starred on Broadway in "Sweet Charity," certainly knows how to move). But, of course, post-accident Sam turns out to have forgotten how to dance. By the time the episode's climactic contest scene rolled around, in which Regina asks Sam to dance with her, even though she's awful, I felt like I was watching any run-of-the-mill sitcom, not one that was so promising last season.
Luckily, as the season wore on, the show started to find its footing again. An episode about Sam deciding to work as a volunteer in Africa, but then chickening out and going into hiding in Chicago instead, had as silly a premise as the season premiere, but the comedy was sharper, and it was good to see "good Sam" in a little more human way. Things got much better with the next installment, "The Pill," in which Sam's doctor gives her a pill that helps restore some of her memories (but only while she's under the influence of the drug). The flashbacks gave Applegate the chance to play "bad Sam," to great comic effect. By the time the end of the episode rolls around, and Sam is desperately trying to act on what she has discovered about herself and her relationship with her ex-boyfriend/current roommate, Todd (Barry Watson), before the drug wears off, the "Memento"-like sequence was both funny and heart-tugging. In other words, like the old "Samantha Who?"
"The Pill" seemed to turn the tide, and the three offerings that followed, which have concentrated on Sam's new relationship with a wealthy environmentalist, Owen (James Tupper), and her new real estate business with Regina, were much stronger. Sam working her way through her feelings for Todd has been fertile ground for comedy and plot development, and her "Odd Couple"-like business interactions with her mother have been very entertaining (like Regina's declaration that cupcakes are in for house showings, while chocolate chip cookies are passe, but Sam saves the day by serving smores).
To me, "Samantha Who?" works best when the action revolves around Samantha. I still don't like Tim Russ's doorman, Frank, which I still think is a case of monumental miscasting, and as much as I loved McCarthy as Sookie on "Gilmore Girls," Dena is like Sookie on amphetamines, and she's sometimes a bit hard to take. As is spending time with the with the loathsome Andrea, who starts to grate after a while. I am totally uninterested in whether she will succumb to the wooing of Todd's old friend Seth (Stephen Rannazzisi). But when we are with Sam, the show works. Full credit to Applegate, who gives the performance of her career, and to the writers, led by executive producer Donald Todd, a true TV veteran (he was a writer on "Alf"), who keep things funny and interesting.
As an aside, Applegate's breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent double mastectomy before the season started hasn't been a distraction. I'd challenge anyone who didn't know about the story to see any difference in her performance, wardrobe or appearance. Obviously, Applegate's health is far more important than "Samantha Who?", but it's nice that she seems to have both under control.
"The Big Bang Theory" is, in so many ways, the opposite of "Samantha Who?" "Big Bang" is a traditional, multi-camera, studio-set sitcom, with more of a set-up-punch approach to its comedy. When it debuted last year in the slot after the great "How I Met Your Mother," I thought it was funny, but I wasn't sure there was enough there to support an ongoing show. (You can read my review here.) A little more than a year later, I am happy to say that the concept works just fine.
Far less plot oriented than "Samantha Who?", and also less interested in character development, "Big Bang" goes straight for the laughs. The program follows roommates and friends Leonard (Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon (Jim Parsons), two physicists who share an apartment in a slightly run-down Pasadena building. In last year's pilot, blonde aspiring actress Penny (Kaley Cuoco) moved in across the hall, and Leonard was immediately smitten. The Penny-Leonard will-they-or-won't-they arc was the closest thing "Big Bang" had to a an overriding plot, and it was nearly disposed of in last season's finale and this season's debut. Leonard and Penny finally go on a date in the finale, but by the end of the first episode of this season, Leonard had blown things, and the two were just friends again. So much for any plot dependence.
"Big Bang" is happy to introduce a new story each week meant to mine comedy from its ensemble. Leonard is the more socially adept of the roommates, able to successfully interact with other human beings in normal situations. He's even been able to bed two women this year, including fellow scientist Leslie (played by Galecki's former "Roseanne" castmate Sara Gilbert, who is a recurring presence on the show). But Leonard knows he's a nerd, and while he's not entirely happy about it (he will often try and hide a geeky activity when Penny enters the room), he also has enough self-esteem to know that he's fine as he is. As the more human of the two, Leonard is the heart of the show. He's the guy we're rooting for.
Sheldon, on the other hand, is the guy who makes us laugh. Although Sheldon may not always know why. He is completely befuddled by societal niceties (and he only has a passing interest in them, at best). For example, when a science groupie offers to bring Sheldon dinner, he doesn't see she is smitten by him, so that when Leonard asks him if he knows what just happened, he responds, "Yes, I just got a free dinner." Sheldon is really not, by any definition, a nice person, what with his single-minded pursuit of his goals (which range from his lofty science ambitions to his refusal to change his everyday routines, like where he sits in the apartment and what night the group plays "Halo"). But as "Big Bang" is going for laughs first and foremost, we, as an audience, are more likely to give Sheldon a pass, especially since, nearly always, he faces comeuppance for his selfish actions.
The excellent ensemble is rounded out by the two scientists who hang out with Leonard and Sheldon. Raj, from India, somehow plays into and also explodes the worst TV stereotypes of people from his country. His computer video conversations with his parents, which bring out the cultural tug-of-war Raj experiences, are always good for laughs. He is no wilting flower around the guys, but in the presence of a woman, he is unable to speak (unless he's drunk, in which case he becomes another person, confident and arrogant).
The funniest character on the show just might be Howard (Simon Helberg), usually referred to by his last name, Wolowitz. Howard lives with his mother and "only" has a Masters in engineering (as Sheldon likes to remind him, even though he builds stuff for the space program), but he is constantly on the prowl, trying to land beautiful women. You have to give the guy credit for taking so much abuse but continuing to move forward. While watching "America's Next Top Model" (a shameless plug for a corporate sibling of "Big Bang"), Howard refers to each of the women as "the future Mrs. Walowitz," and he ends up using every scientific tool at his and Raj's disposal to track down the models' house. Once they get there, when Raj asks which way they should go, he says, of course, to "follow Mrs. Walowitz."
The producers made a smart decision this season to slowly develop Penny from the kind of traditional sweet-but-dumb bimbo she was early last season into a more three-dimensional character. Penny now may not be book smart, but she is certainly sharp enough when it comes to people. A credit to the show is that even though Penny has dated a parade of good-looking guys, you totally believe she would hang out with the four dweebs in the apartment next store. Because to Penny, they are not just four dweebs. They are individuals: One she genuinely likes (Leonard), one she tolerates (barely) because she understands that he doesn't know better (Sheldon), one she likes but can't really have much of a relationship with because he's mute around her (Raj), and one she can laugh at while rejecting his advances (Howard).
"Big Bang" has developed into the kind of solid, funny sitcom that used to be more common on the networks' schedules. It is looking for a broader audience than "30 Rock" or "The Office," and it doesn't aim to be as cinematic as "Samantha Who?" It just wants to make audiences laugh. And it does so, in fact much more so than "Two and a Half Men" (Chuck Lorre is an executive producer on both "Big Bang" and "Two and a Half Men").
As different as "Big Bang" and "Samantha Who" are, they both deliver laughs on Monday nights. And with so few sitcoms on the air right now, I am grateful to have them both.
"Samantha Who?" (ABC, Mondays at 9:30 Eastern) and "The Big Bang Theory" (CBS, Mondays at 8:00 Eastern) have a couple of things in common. They are both sitcoms in their second seasons, and both air on Monday nights. But beyond those surface facts, the two programs are different in nearly every way. Well, except one: They're both funny.
"Samantha Who?" is an ambitious, single-camera comedy that burst onto the scene last season with high ratings, mainly thanks to its cushy scheduling slot after "Dancing with the Stars." The high-concept premise follows Sam (Christina Applegate) as she wakes up from a coma with amnesia (she was hit by a car), only to discover that she was a mean, boozing, selfish, cut-throat workaholic before her injury. Determined to be a better person, she sets out to do better, which isn't easy, since she is surrounded by a motley crew of potential obstacles: her manipulative, trophy-wife-gone-to-seed mother, Regina (Jean Smart); her fellow barracuda best friend Andrea (Jennifer Esposito); and her awkward, Newfie-loving, terminally uncool childhood best friend Dena (Melissa McCarthy), who used Sam's amnesia as a way of reinserting herself into Sam's life.
The first season of "Samantha Who?" was clever and ambitious, and Applegate showed a great comic touch, especially in essentially playing two characters: the current "good Sam," and, in flashbacks, the old "bad Sam." (You can read the review I wrote last year here.) As last season came to a close, "Samantha Who?" had cemented a place on ABC's schedule, and I had high hopes for the future.
Which is why the season premiere was such a disappointment. The episode turned on a predictable and less-than-funny dance contest that Regina wanted to win over her long-time rival. She dumps her delighted husband (Kevin Dunn) as her partner in favor of Sam after seeing one of her old dance recital videos (Applegate, who starred on Broadway in "Sweet Charity," certainly knows how to move). But, of course, post-accident Sam turns out to have forgotten how to dance. By the time the episode's climactic contest scene rolled around, in which Regina asks Sam to dance with her, even though she's awful, I felt like I was watching any run-of-the-mill sitcom, not one that was so promising last season.
Luckily, as the season wore on, the show started to find its footing again. An episode about Sam deciding to work as a volunteer in Africa, but then chickening out and going into hiding in Chicago instead, had as silly a premise as the season premiere, but the comedy was sharper, and it was good to see "good Sam" in a little more human way. Things got much better with the next installment, "The Pill," in which Sam's doctor gives her a pill that helps restore some of her memories (but only while she's under the influence of the drug). The flashbacks gave Applegate the chance to play "bad Sam," to great comic effect. By the time the end of the episode rolls around, and Sam is desperately trying to act on what she has discovered about herself and her relationship with her ex-boyfriend/current roommate, Todd (Barry Watson), before the drug wears off, the "Memento"-like sequence was both funny and heart-tugging. In other words, like the old "Samantha Who?"
"The Pill" seemed to turn the tide, and the three offerings that followed, which have concentrated on Sam's new relationship with a wealthy environmentalist, Owen (James Tupper), and her new real estate business with Regina, were much stronger. Sam working her way through her feelings for Todd has been fertile ground for comedy and plot development, and her "Odd Couple"-like business interactions with her mother have been very entertaining (like Regina's declaration that cupcakes are in for house showings, while chocolate chip cookies are passe, but Sam saves the day by serving smores).
To me, "Samantha Who?" works best when the action revolves around Samantha. I still don't like Tim Russ's doorman, Frank, which I still think is a case of monumental miscasting, and as much as I loved McCarthy as Sookie on "Gilmore Girls," Dena is like Sookie on amphetamines, and she's sometimes a bit hard to take. As is spending time with the with the loathsome Andrea, who starts to grate after a while. I am totally uninterested in whether she will succumb to the wooing of Todd's old friend Seth (Stephen Rannazzisi). But when we are with Sam, the show works. Full credit to Applegate, who gives the performance of her career, and to the writers, led by executive producer Donald Todd, a true TV veteran (he was a writer on "Alf"), who keep things funny and interesting.
As an aside, Applegate's breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent double mastectomy before the season started hasn't been a distraction. I'd challenge anyone who didn't know about the story to see any difference in her performance, wardrobe or appearance. Obviously, Applegate's health is far more important than "Samantha Who?", but it's nice that she seems to have both under control.
"The Big Bang Theory" is, in so many ways, the opposite of "Samantha Who?" "Big Bang" is a traditional, multi-camera, studio-set sitcom, with more of a set-up-punch approach to its comedy. When it debuted last year in the slot after the great "How I Met Your Mother," I thought it was funny, but I wasn't sure there was enough there to support an ongoing show. (You can read my review here.) A little more than a year later, I am happy to say that the concept works just fine.
Far less plot oriented than "Samantha Who?", and also less interested in character development, "Big Bang" goes straight for the laughs. The program follows roommates and friends Leonard (Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon (Jim Parsons), two physicists who share an apartment in a slightly run-down Pasadena building. In last year's pilot, blonde aspiring actress Penny (Kaley Cuoco) moved in across the hall, and Leonard was immediately smitten. The Penny-Leonard will-they-or-won't-they arc was the closest thing "Big Bang" had to a an overriding plot, and it was nearly disposed of in last season's finale and this season's debut. Leonard and Penny finally go on a date in the finale, but by the end of the first episode of this season, Leonard had blown things, and the two were just friends again. So much for any plot dependence.
"Big Bang" is happy to introduce a new story each week meant to mine comedy from its ensemble. Leonard is the more socially adept of the roommates, able to successfully interact with other human beings in normal situations. He's even been able to bed two women this year, including fellow scientist Leslie (played by Galecki's former "Roseanne" castmate Sara Gilbert, who is a recurring presence on the show). But Leonard knows he's a nerd, and while he's not entirely happy about it (he will often try and hide a geeky activity when Penny enters the room), he also has enough self-esteem to know that he's fine as he is. As the more human of the two, Leonard is the heart of the show. He's the guy we're rooting for.
Sheldon, on the other hand, is the guy who makes us laugh. Although Sheldon may not always know why. He is completely befuddled by societal niceties (and he only has a passing interest in them, at best). For example, when a science groupie offers to bring Sheldon dinner, he doesn't see she is smitten by him, so that when Leonard asks him if he knows what just happened, he responds, "Yes, I just got a free dinner." Sheldon is really not, by any definition, a nice person, what with his single-minded pursuit of his goals (which range from his lofty science ambitions to his refusal to change his everyday routines, like where he sits in the apartment and what night the group plays "Halo"). But as "Big Bang" is going for laughs first and foremost, we, as an audience, are more likely to give Sheldon a pass, especially since, nearly always, he faces comeuppance for his selfish actions.
The excellent ensemble is rounded out by the two scientists who hang out with Leonard and Sheldon. Raj, from India, somehow plays into and also explodes the worst TV stereotypes of people from his country. His computer video conversations with his parents, which bring out the cultural tug-of-war Raj experiences, are always good for laughs. He is no wilting flower around the guys, but in the presence of a woman, he is unable to speak (unless he's drunk, in which case he becomes another person, confident and arrogant).
The funniest character on the show just might be Howard (Simon Helberg), usually referred to by his last name, Wolowitz. Howard lives with his mother and "only" has a Masters in engineering (as Sheldon likes to remind him, even though he builds stuff for the space program), but he is constantly on the prowl, trying to land beautiful women. You have to give the guy credit for taking so much abuse but continuing to move forward. While watching "America's Next Top Model" (a shameless plug for a corporate sibling of "Big Bang"), Howard refers to each of the women as "the future Mrs. Walowitz," and he ends up using every scientific tool at his and Raj's disposal to track down the models' house. Once they get there, when Raj asks which way they should go, he says, of course, to "follow Mrs. Walowitz."
The producers made a smart decision this season to slowly develop Penny from the kind of traditional sweet-but-dumb bimbo she was early last season into a more three-dimensional character. Penny now may not be book smart, but she is certainly sharp enough when it comes to people. A credit to the show is that even though Penny has dated a parade of good-looking guys, you totally believe she would hang out with the four dweebs in the apartment next store. Because to Penny, they are not just four dweebs. They are individuals: One she genuinely likes (Leonard), one she tolerates (barely) because she understands that he doesn't know better (Sheldon), one she likes but can't really have much of a relationship with because he's mute around her (Raj), and one she can laugh at while rejecting his advances (Howard).
"Big Bang" has developed into the kind of solid, funny sitcom that used to be more common on the networks' schedules. It is looking for a broader audience than "30 Rock" or "The Office," and it doesn't aim to be as cinematic as "Samantha Who?" It just wants to make audiences laugh. And it does so, in fact much more so than "Two and a Half Men" (Chuck Lorre is an executive producer on both "Big Bang" and "Two and a Half Men").
As different as "Big Bang" and "Samantha Who" are, they both deliver laughs on Monday nights. And with so few sitcoms on the air right now, I am grateful to have them both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
