January sucks. It’s a fact of life and everyone knows it. If you were born or married in January, I’m sorry but it’s true and you should have known better. The weather sucks, the movies suck, and you have to listen to people you don’t care about talk about art movies you haven’t seen because they look really depressing. So, to ease the pain, here are five things that are great and will help tide you over until you can go outside again without putting on four layers. Also, all but one of these are on Netflix instant view, which will make them all easier to watch if you have it.
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Friday, January 13, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Very Special Episode
So, we’re doing something a little different today. We will be speaking as one person as we co-write this article and it will be about the most serous topic we can imagine: Glee.
Glee is the show that we love to complain about and yet still we watch it. Maybe it’s the musical numbers that keep us coming back or perhaps complaining gives us as sense of self-importance like our opinions matter. Of course, if we were to write comprehensively about all the issues we have with Glee, we would have a 200-page thesis, and probably a PhD. (That’s how you get a PhD, right? By writing a really long paper?) So, for our sakes and yours, we’re going to address the one topic we take the most issue with, a single character’s story arc.
Quinn.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Brian's Summer Picks: Four Hours Worth Watching
Since I have no papers to grade when the children aren't in school, I instead must grade television. This post consists of four mini-reviews, three ongoing seasons and one new premiere, on the USA and TNT networks. These four shows have primarily composed my TV docket for the summer, and I had a fair amount of loyalty going into each one. It’s worth noting that while I will attempt to control myself, it is almost impossible to discuss shows in their third, fourth, and fifth seasons without a few spoilers, so if you aren’t up to speed with Burn Notice, In Plain Sight, or Leverage and intend to get caught up, you may want to skip the appropriate sections. However you choose to read this text, enjoy and then share your thoughts in the comments.
Falling Skies
Network: TNT
Airs: Sundays, 9:00PM (Premiere Season)
Stars: Noah Wyle, Moon Bloodgood, Drew Roy, Will Patton, Colin Cunningham
In what I had hoped was going to be the highlight of my summer TV viewing, TNT premiered its sci-fi action/drama series Falling Skies in a ten episode summer season, amounting to eight weeks of viewing with double features for the pilot and finale. As I write this review, the season has been concluded but I have not yet watched the finale, which is probably just as well.
Unfortunately, I must begin by giving Falling Skies a resounding “meh” on the one-word reaction scale. It was and is a series that had significant potential, with audiences becoming increasingly more accepting of science fiction as a background, but through a variety of missteps and poor decision-making by people I’m sure I could never identify, the show felt like it went off half-cocked and hit the ground stumbling.
The plot of Falling Skies is only just over the border of originality; you can still look over your shoulder and see cliché, standing there in his drab suit. It departs somewhat from traditional alien invasion stories by bypassing the days leading up to and immediately following the invasion, saving us from the exciting scenes in the White House situation room, the failed attempts to assault the aliens with nuclear weapons, and the frantically constructed theories about vulnerability to disease. Falling Skies tells the story of the human resistance, or rather a small part of it, weeks and months into Earth’s occupation by extraterrestrial forces. We do a little bit of running from aliens, a little bit of fighting aliens, but in keeping with most science fiction, mostly we bicker amongst ourselves.
I don’t have a problem with using a science fiction background to explore the human condition—that is one of sci fi’s primary purposes (Star Trek comes to mind)—but Falling Skies fails to deliver any engaging characters to make those explorations interesting. We are handed a protagonist who could be interesting with his academic vs. battlefield conceptions of war and fanatical devotion to his three sons, but Tom Mason (Wyle) fails to stir sympathy even with the tried-and-true “concerned parent” model. He is bland and unlikable, framed obviously as “the good guy,” and doesn’t behave with the intelligence he supposedly possesses. He doesn’t demonstrate particularly successful parenting, and doesn’t even fail in an interesting way: his wife was killed in the early days of the invasion, and that conflict clearly causes tension between Mason and his sons. But the tension doesn’t really get explored, and we are left with a vague sense of awkwardness where there could be interesting drama.
De facto civilian representatives Dr. Glass and “Uncle” Scott are similarly two-dimensional, despite half-hearted attempts to create depth by exploring their pasts. Glass (Bloodgood), a pediatrician and the group’s medic / scientist, was clearly not designed as a love interest for Mason, but was forced into the role in an effort to show a more interesting side of him (it didn’t work). Mason’s sons are also fairly robotic, with the notable and ironic exception of middle child Ben (Connor Jessup), who is a “harnessed” slave of the invaders when the series begins and one of the only characters under the age of twenty who feels believable. I would be remiss if I did not mention the brilliant John Pope (Colin Cunningham), a complex and esoteric character whose motivations are simultaneously blatant and veiled. He also has a relatively high “awesome quotient,” which we always consider to be a bonus.
Falling Skies was not the trainwreck it could have been. It does not suffer from comically poor acting, as much science fiction is known to, and its plot is passable, if somewhat unsure of itself and slow to develop. TNT has renewed the series for a second season in the summer of 2012, in which hopefully the creative team will sit down and correct some of the narrative and characteristic mishaps that kept the first season from reaching its potential. Falling Skies is worth the watch for science fiction and post-apocalypse fans, but there’s nothing special here. Yet.
Grade: C+
Burn Notice
Network: USA
Airs: Thursdays, 9:00PM (Season 5)
Stars: Jeffery Donovan, Gabrielle Anwar, Bruce Campbell, Sharon Gless
I still remember when I saw the first promos for Burn Notice, advertising a new action-drama about a spy who gets “fired” and forced into early retirement in Miami. A few months later, I had already purchased the first season on DVD and was showing it to all my friends, advertising it as a cross between Grand Theft Auto and… well, every spy movie ever made. I always felt that the show’s creators shot themselves in the foot a little bit by making the title a prominent plot feature in the first season: protagonist Michael Weston (Donovan) is determined to get rehired as a spy, and it feels to me like if he’s ever to achieve his goal, which is something audiences like to see, the show would then end (or need to be renamed), which is something that audiences don’t want to see.
Burn Notice is still very much alive and kicking, and its individual micro-plots remain strong and engaging, but it feels as though the overarching story has stalled somewhat. We are trapped, along with the main characters, in a sort of limbo place where we aren’t sure if Michael is “unburned” or not, whether his enemies are still out there or not, and whether the show is going to risk leaving Miami to continue following its protagonist. For now, I believe season five has done a passable job of making that dilemma the plot focus for the season. But with season six already bought and paid for, where can we go from here?
Grade: A-
Leverage
Network: TNT
Airs: Sundays, 10:00PM (Season 4)
Stars: Timothy Hutton, Gina Bellman, Christian Kane, Aldis Hodge, Beth Riesgraf
Leverage is a show that I follow vigilantly and passionately, and then completely forget about when the season ends. Like my other summer stock entries, I followed Leverage from the beginning, lured in by the network’s advertisements, which advertised a team of quirky criminals who unite to become “good guys.” The show has always had a somewhat goofy, pseudo-realistic charm (particularly with regard to its treatment of computers and hacking) that makes it feel more like a piece of USA programming than the traditionally more staid TNT network.
Leverage had lots of places to go coming out of its third season. The show, which debuted and thrived with an emphasis on its ensemble, finally clearly identified its protagonist as former insurance claims investigator Nathan Ford (Hutton), who has developed significantly more depth than his comrades. This is not to say that there are not complexities associated with Parker (Riesgraf), Hardison (Hodge), and Elliot (Kane), but what was once a show about five thieves has essentially become a show about one man who works with four other thieves (as you may have noticed, I’m undecided on whether Sophie (Bellman) counts as a main protagonist). My only real concern about this show is that the depths of Nate’s psyche have perhaps been plumbed. Other than his alcoholism and dubious relationship with Sophie, I’m just not sure how much more there is to keep the character development relevant, which has always been what lifts Leverage above other action dramas.
Grade: B
In Plain Sight
Network: USA
Airs: Sundays, 10:00PM (Season 4)
Stars: Mary McCormack, Frederick Weller, Paul Ben-Victor
A handful of new television upstarts have promised to show me the “Dr. House of the _______ world,” but none have delivered quite like In Plain Sight’s Marshal Mary Shannon (McCormack), U.S. Marshal of the Witness Protection Program (or Witsec, as the cool kids apparently call it). Few characters on television today, even within USA’s “Characters Welcome” programming, have enthralled me like Mary Shannon. She’s a chick with a gun, which is always an excellent starting point, but she also combines bone-dry humor, a conflicted attitude towards authority, and the occasional softer moment to create a dynamic, interesting, and entertaining character.
In its fourth season, In Plain Sight finally embraces the inevitable plot device for a female protagonist- pregnancy. While Mary has never demonstrated any rampant promiscuity, neither has she been particularly monogamous (since the departure of boyfriend/fiancé Raphael), so it is not entirely unfeasible for her to experience an unplanned pregnancy. In that sense, this turn of events was very much in character for the show: In Plain Sight’s characters have always faced very real consequences for the events in their lives (for example, Mary’s mental breakdown in season two following her capture and near-rape).
While I was leery about such a cliché turn of events (just because she’s a woman we have to do a pregnancy season?), I’ve been pleased with the way the characters handle the issue. Without giving anything away, Mary is still Mary, and the unborn child, like everything else in her life, is a source both of comedy and reflection. The pregnancy plot also invigorates a latent question that has been asked since season one, which is “what makes a good parent?” The show is rife with examples of parenthood that lie across the spectrum, from witnesses who sacrifice everything for the safety and wellbeing of their children, to Mary’s sometimes-alcoholic mother Jinx and absent, romanticized, but probably criminal father. Would Mary be a good mother because she is fiercely protective, streetwise, and well-connected, or would she be a bad mother because of her borderline-obsessive dedication to her work (which is dangerous, I might add), responsibility for the protection of others, and general cynicism and caustic personality?
As always, In Plain Sight does not fail to entertain with wittiness, action, and intrigue, while keeping our minds abuzz with more poignant questions of life and philosophy.
Grade: A
Falling Skies
Network: TNT
Airs: Sundays, 9:00PM (Premiere Season)
Stars: Noah Wyle, Moon Bloodgood, Drew Roy, Will Patton, Colin Cunningham
In what I had hoped was going to be the highlight of my summer TV viewing, TNT premiered its sci-fi action/drama series Falling Skies in a ten episode summer season, amounting to eight weeks of viewing with double features for the pilot and finale. As I write this review, the season has been concluded but I have not yet watched the finale, which is probably just as well.
Unfortunately, I must begin by giving Falling Skies a resounding “meh” on the one-word reaction scale. It was and is a series that had significant potential, with audiences becoming increasingly more accepting of science fiction as a background, but through a variety of missteps and poor decision-making by people I’m sure I could never identify, the show felt like it went off half-cocked and hit the ground stumbling.
The plot of Falling Skies is only just over the border of originality; you can still look over your shoulder and see cliché, standing there in his drab suit. It departs somewhat from traditional alien invasion stories by bypassing the days leading up to and immediately following the invasion, saving us from the exciting scenes in the White House situation room, the failed attempts to assault the aliens with nuclear weapons, and the frantically constructed theories about vulnerability to disease. Falling Skies tells the story of the human resistance, or rather a small part of it, weeks and months into Earth’s occupation by extraterrestrial forces. We do a little bit of running from aliens, a little bit of fighting aliens, but in keeping with most science fiction, mostly we bicker amongst ourselves.
I don’t have a problem with using a science fiction background to explore the human condition—that is one of sci fi’s primary purposes (Star Trek comes to mind)—but Falling Skies fails to deliver any engaging characters to make those explorations interesting. We are handed a protagonist who could be interesting with his academic vs. battlefield conceptions of war and fanatical devotion to his three sons, but Tom Mason (Wyle) fails to stir sympathy even with the tried-and-true “concerned parent” model. He is bland and unlikable, framed obviously as “the good guy,” and doesn’t behave with the intelligence he supposedly possesses. He doesn’t demonstrate particularly successful parenting, and doesn’t even fail in an interesting way: his wife was killed in the early days of the invasion, and that conflict clearly causes tension between Mason and his sons. But the tension doesn’t really get explored, and we are left with a vague sense of awkwardness where there could be interesting drama.
De facto civilian representatives Dr. Glass and “Uncle” Scott are similarly two-dimensional, despite half-hearted attempts to create depth by exploring their pasts. Glass (Bloodgood), a pediatrician and the group’s medic / scientist, was clearly not designed as a love interest for Mason, but was forced into the role in an effort to show a more interesting side of him (it didn’t work). Mason’s sons are also fairly robotic, with the notable and ironic exception of middle child Ben (Connor Jessup), who is a “harnessed” slave of the invaders when the series begins and one of the only characters under the age of twenty who feels believable. I would be remiss if I did not mention the brilliant John Pope (Colin Cunningham), a complex and esoteric character whose motivations are simultaneously blatant and veiled. He also has a relatively high “awesome quotient,” which we always consider to be a bonus.
Falling Skies was not the trainwreck it could have been. It does not suffer from comically poor acting, as much science fiction is known to, and its plot is passable, if somewhat unsure of itself and slow to develop. TNT has renewed the series for a second season in the summer of 2012, in which hopefully the creative team will sit down and correct some of the narrative and characteristic mishaps that kept the first season from reaching its potential. Falling Skies is worth the watch for science fiction and post-apocalypse fans, but there’s nothing special here. Yet.
Grade: C+
Burn Notice
Network: USA
Airs: Thursdays, 9:00PM (Season 5)
Stars: Jeffery Donovan, Gabrielle Anwar, Bruce Campbell, Sharon Gless
I still remember when I saw the first promos for Burn Notice, advertising a new action-drama about a spy who gets “fired” and forced into early retirement in Miami. A few months later, I had already purchased the first season on DVD and was showing it to all my friends, advertising it as a cross between Grand Theft Auto and… well, every spy movie ever made. I always felt that the show’s creators shot themselves in the foot a little bit by making the title a prominent plot feature in the first season: protagonist Michael Weston (Donovan) is determined to get rehired as a spy, and it feels to me like if he’s ever to achieve his goal, which is something audiences like to see, the show would then end (or need to be renamed), which is something that audiences don’t want to see.
Burn Notice is still very much alive and kicking, and its individual micro-plots remain strong and engaging, but it feels as though the overarching story has stalled somewhat. We are trapped, along with the main characters, in a sort of limbo place where we aren’t sure if Michael is “unburned” or not, whether his enemies are still out there or not, and whether the show is going to risk leaving Miami to continue following its protagonist. For now, I believe season five has done a passable job of making that dilemma the plot focus for the season. But with season six already bought and paid for, where can we go from here?
Grade: A-
Leverage
Network: TNT
Airs: Sundays, 10:00PM (Season 4)
Stars: Timothy Hutton, Gina Bellman, Christian Kane, Aldis Hodge, Beth Riesgraf
Leverage is a show that I follow vigilantly and passionately, and then completely forget about when the season ends. Like my other summer stock entries, I followed Leverage from the beginning, lured in by the network’s advertisements, which advertised a team of quirky criminals who unite to become “good guys.” The show has always had a somewhat goofy, pseudo-realistic charm (particularly with regard to its treatment of computers and hacking) that makes it feel more like a piece of USA programming than the traditionally more staid TNT network.
Leverage had lots of places to go coming out of its third season. The show, which debuted and thrived with an emphasis on its ensemble, finally clearly identified its protagonist as former insurance claims investigator Nathan Ford (Hutton), who has developed significantly more depth than his comrades. This is not to say that there are not complexities associated with Parker (Riesgraf), Hardison (Hodge), and Elliot (Kane), but what was once a show about five thieves has essentially become a show about one man who works with four other thieves (as you may have noticed, I’m undecided on whether Sophie (Bellman) counts as a main protagonist). My only real concern about this show is that the depths of Nate’s psyche have perhaps been plumbed. Other than his alcoholism and dubious relationship with Sophie, I’m just not sure how much more there is to keep the character development relevant, which has always been what lifts Leverage above other action dramas.
Grade: B
In Plain Sight
Network: USA
Airs: Sundays, 10:00PM (Season 4)
Stars: Mary McCormack, Frederick Weller, Paul Ben-Victor
A handful of new television upstarts have promised to show me the “Dr. House of the _______ world,” but none have delivered quite like In Plain Sight’s Marshal Mary Shannon (McCormack), U.S. Marshal of the Witness Protection Program (or Witsec, as the cool kids apparently call it). Few characters on television today, even within USA’s “Characters Welcome” programming, have enthralled me like Mary Shannon. She’s a chick with a gun, which is always an excellent starting point, but she also combines bone-dry humor, a conflicted attitude towards authority, and the occasional softer moment to create a dynamic, interesting, and entertaining character.
In its fourth season, In Plain Sight finally embraces the inevitable plot device for a female protagonist- pregnancy. While Mary has never demonstrated any rampant promiscuity, neither has she been particularly monogamous (since the departure of boyfriend/fiancé Raphael), so it is not entirely unfeasible for her to experience an unplanned pregnancy. In that sense, this turn of events was very much in character for the show: In Plain Sight’s characters have always faced very real consequences for the events in their lives (for example, Mary’s mental breakdown in season two following her capture and near-rape).
While I was leery about such a cliché turn of events (just because she’s a woman we have to do a pregnancy season?), I’ve been pleased with the way the characters handle the issue. Without giving anything away, Mary is still Mary, and the unborn child, like everything else in her life, is a source both of comedy and reflection. The pregnancy plot also invigorates a latent question that has been asked since season one, which is “what makes a good parent?” The show is rife with examples of parenthood that lie across the spectrum, from witnesses who sacrifice everything for the safety and wellbeing of their children, to Mary’s sometimes-alcoholic mother Jinx and absent, romanticized, but probably criminal father. Would Mary be a good mother because she is fiercely protective, streetwise, and well-connected, or would she be a bad mother because of her borderline-obsessive dedication to her work (which is dangerous, I might add), responsibility for the protection of others, and general cynicism and caustic personality?
As always, In Plain Sight does not fail to entertain with wittiness, action, and intrigue, while keeping our minds abuzz with more poignant questions of life and philosophy.
Grade: A
Saturday, May 28, 2011
New On Fox: A Look at Fall 2011
Last week Fox released its schedule for Fall 2011 and Spring of 2012. Returning are some old favorites including House, Glee, and Bones, set to continue airing at their usual times. Surprisingly, Fringe continues to hold on to one of the Friday night death slots, previously used to kill of shows such as Dollhouse and Firefly.
New this Fall:
- New on Monday night is Terra Nova, a science fiction adventure. The year is 2149 and Earth is overcrowded and overdeveloped. Luckily, a particle accelerator unexpectedly finds a fracture in time that allows travel back to prehistoric Earth. The decision is made to start resettling people in the past with the hope of creating a better future. The story follows the Shannon family as they look for a new beginning, however they quickly discover that things are not as awesome in dinosaur times as they seem. Terra Nova looks interesting and potentially enjoyable. To me it seems like a crossover between the Swiss Family Robinson and Jurassic Park but with time travel. The cast is filled with actors with some experience, from shows that I have never heard of, but with Steven Spielberg listed as an executive producer, it might stand half a chance of success.
- New for Tuesday is New Girl (working title), a half hour sitcom staring Zoe Deschanel as Jess Day, a “offbeat and adorable girl in her lat twenties who, after a bad breakup, moves in with three single guys” (fox.com). Awkward moments and hilarity ensue as they, along with Jess's best friend Cece, become a dysfunctional sort of family. Overall, the trailer for the show contains a few funny moments and seems to be well suited for a short slot between Glee and Raising Hope. I'll probably catch the first few episodes online and decide if it's worth following.
- The next new non-reality show for the new Fox fall line up is a comedy called I Hate My Teenage Daughter (working title), which will be airing at 9:30pm on Wednesday nights. Annie (Jamie Pressly) and Nikki (Katie Finneran) star as best friends and single mothers trying to raise their teenage daughters. Annie and Nikki's original intent was to give their daughters the lives they themselves never had, but inadvertently the mothers end up creating new versions of the girls who bullied them through their teenage years. Realizing their mistakes, they now must try to fix what has been broken. I Hate My Teenage Daughter looks like it might have some funny moments as it takes a comedic look at the sometimes complicated mother-daughter relationship dynamic.
- I would be remiss in a review of Fox's fall TV lineup if I did not mention the two and a half hours it will be dedicating to The X-Factor on Wednesday (8-9:30) and Thursday (8-9) nights. This is the same block of time reserved for American Idol in the spring and is another variety of singing competition. The X Factor is really going to have to be something special if they hope to make it distinctive from every other singing competition on television, especially with Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul as judges on the show. Joining them are Antonio “L.A.” Reid and Cheryl Cole. I'm really not sure how I feel about Fox dedicating so much time to yet another singing completion. We all know that there are people in America who can sing. Pick a new topic, please.
- I also feel the need to mention Allen Gregory, the new addition to Fox's Sunday night comedy lineup. The show is about an ultra-smart and pretentious seven year old who leaves the homeschooling of his father to join elementary school with children his own age. The show looks to be about in line with the rest of the Fox Sunday night shows,which have never really been an interest to me, but some people find hilarious. If you like shows like Family Guy and The Simpsons, it might be worth it to check out Allen Gregory, airing at 8:30 on Sunday night.
For a more detailed description of the above mentioned shows, check out http://www.fox.com/programming/. Stop back sometime in the winter months for a look at the new mid-season pickups including Alcatraz, The Finder, and Napoleon Dynamite. Feel free to sound off below on your thoughts for new TV this Fall on Fox.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
A Few Gaps in the Evidence: A First Look at "Body of Proof"
ABC's new crime drama “Body of Proof” presents the flip side of most typical medical or crime dramas. The show asks, “What can you learn about a person's life and the way they died from their corpse?” Dr. Megan Hunt, played by Dana Delany, is the sassy, borderline bitter, former neurosurgeon who left her promising career to become a medical examiner following a serious car accident. The accident resulted in a condition where her hands sporadically go numb, for which there is no physical cause. She is joined in her investigations by Peter Dunlop (Nicholas Bishop) who is a “medical legal investigator.” Together, they collect evidence from the body of the murdered individual and look for clues to catch the killer. What is unusual about Megan's approach to her role as an ME is that she is very involved in the overall process, going as far as to accompany the detectives to interviews with suspects, witnesses and family members and even conducting interviews of her own.
While the show focuses on a different crime each episode, the overall story is connected through the conflicts of Megan's life. Her uniquely involved approach to her role as an ME puts her at odds with the detectives of the Philadelphia police department, particularly the two unlucky detectives who end up more or less assigned to her. Detectives Samantha Baker (Sonja Sohn) and Bud Morris (John Carroll Lynch) are initially depicted as somewhat bumbling and ignorant until they start to believe what Megan is trying to tell them about the body and the suspect. However, after a rocky first encounter or two, they develop into a formidable team of crime solvers, employing traditional police work and Megan's unconventional medical examination techniques to bring the guilty to justice.
The course of the story is also punctuated by issues caused by Megan's detachment from the world around her. Her failed marriage and strained relationship with her daughter Lacie (Mary Matilyn Mouser) are a constant source of disappointment, vexation, and eventually growth for Megan as she tries to figure out how to make amends with Lacie for her previous absence while pursuing her neurosurgery career. As Megan reaches out and connects with her daughter, the audience can connect with Megan and try to better understand her.
Megan also seems to have issues connecting to her coworkers in the morgue. Thus far, she seems to have almost constant friction with her superior, Dr. Kate Murphy (Jeri Ryan). Megan is not at all intimidated by Dr. Murphy, who seems to have very little control over her. Dr. Ethan Gross (Geoffrey Arend) and Dr. Curtis Brumfield (Windell Middlebrooks) provide the comic relief element as the quirky sidekicks to the strong and serious female protagonist, Megan.
“Body of Proof” recently aired its fourth episode and I have waited so long to post this critique in the hopes of giving the writers time to fill in some of the gaps in the story. One of the important background pieces of information the show has yet to explain is how a Medical Examiner is allowed to tag along on interviews with families and potential suspects. While her smart comments and ability to see to the point of the matter have, thus far, proved useful to solving the crimes, it seems a little unusual for a simple ME to be allowed that kind of privilege. You don't see “Castle's” Lanie or “NCIS's” Ducky tagging along outside of the lab following the initial recovery of the body. While I appreciate the attempt at a different look at crime solving, I need an explanation of her unprecedented privilege if the story is going to be believable.
The second gap I have been hoping to see repaired is the presence of Peter Dunlap. While he calls himself a “medical legal investigator” in the second episode, we have yet to see any explanation for his presence on the show. There are other detective characters to do the police work, yet Peter has a fancy badge to flash around at people and spends time looking for clues involving the case. Peter's main role seems to be as Megan's guide to the world. We are told that Megan was very busy as a neurosurgeon and, consequently, lost her connections to her now-ex husband and daughter, as well as to anyone resembling a friend. Peter's job seems to be to help Megan connect with other people. You can tell Peter is doing well in this function when the ABC-created mini-description for the fourth episode is “Megan starts taking an interest in what is going on around her.”
Regarding character development, the show has significantly improved since the pilot episode. Megan is much more likeable now that we've gotten to see more of what makes her tick. Her philosophy for her role as a medical examiner is honorable and personable in a way we would not expect from the distant Megan Hunt. The secondary characters have become more involved in the story and have developed into real characters who take an active role in the plot's progression.
“Body of Proof” offers a different perspective on crime solving that is worth checking out. While it starts slow, it does improve once it moves past the pilot and starts working to the heart of what the characters and the show are really about. If you were considering giving up on “Body of Proof” or were thinking of picking it up, I offer this piece of advice: it does get better, so hang in there. I decided to stick around and have started to see it as a show with a lot of potential.
Monday, April 04, 2011
There’s no wrong way . . . to watch TV
We here at Screenfix watch a lot of TV. I mean a lot. I mean like watching a season of 24 in a single day lot. It used to be there was really only one way to watch your favorite show. You had to tune in at the correct time and sit in front of your television to watch along with the rest of the world. Then came the DVR, and there was much rejoicing as TV fans could record and watch at leisure. Around the same time it became common for many shows to be released as whole seasons on DVD and eventually those DVDs came to be streamed on Netflix and other on demand sources. This created a new wave of viewing as people not only could watch when they wanted, but did not have to wait a week in between episodes as binge viewing rose. We are now seeing a new wave of viewing emerge that I call social viewing. Facebook has identified a desire in entertainment fans to watch something with their friends. To meet this need, they have begun using the Facebook platform to begin renting films for streaming. People often see watching entertainment as a social activity (I think this is insane, but I recognize I am the minority in this situation) and Facebook, Twitter, and other social online services seek to connect people as they watch the same entertainment. In a similar vein, Howard Stern made minor Twitter history when he found that his film Private Parts was being shown on cable and did a live tweeting session along with the film. Many followers tuned in to get a form of live commentary via Twitter. This social viewing has breathed life back into the old model of watching something at a time set by an external force rather than at one’s leisure.
So we have three forms of viewing when it comes to TV: Watching live TV, watching DVR’d programming, and binging on multiple episodes in one sitting. I think everyone in reality watches in some combination of these three, but as I was binging on Bones I realized I became very excited for the third season to unfold because of a season long plot. I felt that if I was watching it week to week there would have been too much time from the beginning to the end of the season for me to stay so invested, but with the power of Netflix I watched through the whole season in just about two days all because I wanted to get from the beginning of the story set up in the first episode to the end that was not resolved until the finale. This got me thinking about the pros and cons of the different ways of watching TV.
Live TV, in my mind, was a horrible thing that deserved to die and I can remember being in my young teens and thinking how dumb it was that I had to sit down at a certain time just to watch the show I wanted to watch. I couldn’t see why shows could not be released on the day they would air and we could watch when we wanted. Essentially, I wanted the internet to bring me my content back when the internet was too young to do so. With that being said, for a long time after the internet could bring me my shows, I never looked back. However, with the rise of the social sphere of the internet watching live TV now puts you in the middle of an audience. Watch Twitter or Facebook during an episode of a popular show like Glee or American Idol and you can find millions of people talking about the show as it is happening. This can be powerful and interesting and very very annoying at times. However, one cannot argue that the only way to benefit from this global conversation is to tune in live. People that need to DVR shows and watch later live in fear of spoilers in their Facebook feeds. In conclusion, I feel that live television is making a comeback and as people develop new ways to connect with one another online, we are going to see more and more people tuning in at primetime to watch with the rest of the world. More importantly these people are going to help the cable industries keep alive the primetime model that has been hurting more and more in the last few years.
The DVR may be the most important invention since the cotton gin. Okay I’m kidding . . . no one cares about the cotton gin. Being able to watch a show when you have free time is great and allows people who are not bound to the slavery of a nine to five work schedule to enjoy primetime programming. Although it lacks the social elements of watching TV live, it still allows a person to tune in week to week and be a part of the global conversation about their favorite show. I like watching a show on a weekly schedule. I feel like most shows are meant to be watched like this and there are several shows that I enjoy, but only in a one episode a week frequency. Specifically procedurals work well in the once a week format. I enjoy a Law & Order: SVU marathon as much as anyone, but sometimes watching a show that follows such a rigid formula can get boring when you watch it back to back and realize the episodes were so similar you can’t tell them apart. Disappointing shows like The Cape were made better by the fact that every week I tuned in hoping that it would be better than last week and if I had just watched the first season straight through I probably would have quit three episodes in. Likewise really great shows make you excited to come back every week and some great tension can be built wondering what is going to happen this week. When the entire season is sitting in front of you it is hard to build the same kind of tension.
However, binging through shows several episodes at a time, after the season has aired can have its own benefits. Once again you are on your schedule and can use the couple days you have the flu or that three day weekend to catch up on the TV you were too busy for during your normal day to day routine. Certain shows that tell a long story can seem a lot tighter and better polished when watched back to back. Lost is a great example of this because every episode sought to be a chapter in a larger story. When a season has a clear beginning, middle, and end it can be helpful, when watching the end, to have the beginning fresh from yesterday as opposed to garbled from six months ago. The famous “last time on . . .” beginning has helped with this slightly but still there are times when watching a whole season as if it was a really long movie can enhance the story. However, because shows are generally made to be watched on a week by week basis more often than not binging does not enhance the show and merely makes for a fun afternoon of catching up. The real advantage of binging comes in one of two situations: The first is when you find out about a show late and want to catch up so you grab the previous season and prep for the next season’s premiere. The second is if you are one of those mythical people with those things referred to as “jobs” or “lives” that do not involve watching several hours of television a day. In the case of these supernatural creatures using holidays and vacations to catch up on old seasons may be the only way they are in a position to speak with people like us.
These are just a few of my opinions and musing on the different ways I think about watching TV. What do you think? Are my three types accurate? Which method do you favor and why? I would love to continue this dialogue because the way we consume our entertainment is something that is very interesting and important to me. So let me know what you think in the comments and as always if you would like to become involved with Screenfix send an email to info.screenfix@gmail.com.
So we have three forms of viewing when it comes to TV: Watching live TV, watching DVR’d programming, and binging on multiple episodes in one sitting. I think everyone in reality watches in some combination of these three, but as I was binging on Bones I realized I became very excited for the third season to unfold because of a season long plot. I felt that if I was watching it week to week there would have been too much time from the beginning to the end of the season for me to stay so invested, but with the power of Netflix I watched through the whole season in just about two days all because I wanted to get from the beginning of the story set up in the first episode to the end that was not resolved until the finale. This got me thinking about the pros and cons of the different ways of watching TV.
Live TV, in my mind, was a horrible thing that deserved to die and I can remember being in my young teens and thinking how dumb it was that I had to sit down at a certain time just to watch the show I wanted to watch. I couldn’t see why shows could not be released on the day they would air and we could watch when we wanted. Essentially, I wanted the internet to bring me my content back when the internet was too young to do so. With that being said, for a long time after the internet could bring me my shows, I never looked back. However, with the rise of the social sphere of the internet watching live TV now puts you in the middle of an audience. Watch Twitter or Facebook during an episode of a popular show like Glee or American Idol and you can find millions of people talking about the show as it is happening. This can be powerful and interesting and very very annoying at times. However, one cannot argue that the only way to benefit from this global conversation is to tune in live. People that need to DVR shows and watch later live in fear of spoilers in their Facebook feeds. In conclusion, I feel that live television is making a comeback and as people develop new ways to connect with one another online, we are going to see more and more people tuning in at primetime to watch with the rest of the world. More importantly these people are going to help the cable industries keep alive the primetime model that has been hurting more and more in the last few years.
The DVR may be the most important invention since the cotton gin. Okay I’m kidding . . . no one cares about the cotton gin. Being able to watch a show when you have free time is great and allows people who are not bound to the slavery of a nine to five work schedule to enjoy primetime programming. Although it lacks the social elements of watching TV live, it still allows a person to tune in week to week and be a part of the global conversation about their favorite show. I like watching a show on a weekly schedule. I feel like most shows are meant to be watched like this and there are several shows that I enjoy, but only in a one episode a week frequency. Specifically procedurals work well in the once a week format. I enjoy a Law & Order: SVU marathon as much as anyone, but sometimes watching a show that follows such a rigid formula can get boring when you watch it back to back and realize the episodes were so similar you can’t tell them apart. Disappointing shows like The Cape were made better by the fact that every week I tuned in hoping that it would be better than last week and if I had just watched the first season straight through I probably would have quit three episodes in. Likewise really great shows make you excited to come back every week and some great tension can be built wondering what is going to happen this week. When the entire season is sitting in front of you it is hard to build the same kind of tension.
However, binging through shows several episodes at a time, after the season has aired can have its own benefits. Once again you are on your schedule and can use the couple days you have the flu or that three day weekend to catch up on the TV you were too busy for during your normal day to day routine. Certain shows that tell a long story can seem a lot tighter and better polished when watched back to back. Lost is a great example of this because every episode sought to be a chapter in a larger story. When a season has a clear beginning, middle, and end it can be helpful, when watching the end, to have the beginning fresh from yesterday as opposed to garbled from six months ago. The famous “last time on . . .” beginning has helped with this slightly but still there are times when watching a whole season as if it was a really long movie can enhance the story. However, because shows are generally made to be watched on a week by week basis more often than not binging does not enhance the show and merely makes for a fun afternoon of catching up. The real advantage of binging comes in one of two situations: The first is when you find out about a show late and want to catch up so you grab the previous season and prep for the next season’s premiere. The second is if you are one of those mythical people with those things referred to as “jobs” or “lives” that do not involve watching several hours of television a day. In the case of these supernatural creatures using holidays and vacations to catch up on old seasons may be the only way they are in a position to speak with people like us.
These are just a few of my opinions and musing on the different ways I think about watching TV. What do you think? Are my three types accurate? Which method do you favor and why? I would love to continue this dialogue because the way we consume our entertainment is something that is very interesting and important to me. So let me know what you think in the comments and as always if you would like to become involved with Screenfix send an email to info.screenfix@gmail.com.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Who's Gonna Hear You Cry? A Preliminary Review of Fox's "The Chicago Code"
It presents like every other cop drama: commercials with drab colors, grizzled cops in a notoriously crime-ridden city, a vaguely badass title, and a splash screen with the main characters in confident poses with shiny badges and matte black sidearms at their hips. Except for the occasional Law & Order marathon, I generally don’t watch shows like “
I can’t say it was the powerful female character: that’s nothing new for contemporary television or even this genre, with the likes of SVU’s Olivia Benson, CSI’s Katherine Willows, and NCIS’s Ziva with whom to compete. That being said, Jennifer Beals has outdone herself in “The Chicago Code,” making clear that her guest appearances on “Lie to Me” were far below her skill.
It may have been the geography:
If not the setting or the characters, the allure of “The Chicago Code” must come from its plot. Six months ago, if someone with a nice suit and a stack of research told me that all the stories we can tell about modern, fictional policework have been told, I would have believed that person. But “The Chicago Code” brings something different to the cop narrative party. It uses something akin to the parallel narrative plot structure that can be found in any hour-long drama on the air today: characters have a specific conflict in each episode, but also devote between ten and fifteen minutes each night to advancing a plot that spans the entire season, or sometimes multiple seasons. In this, “The Chicago Code” is no exception to the norm. Its stock protagonists, the newly-promoted Idealistic Superintendent of Police and the Grizzled Veteran Detective With Authority Problems, are pitted against the slightly-more-original Corrupt Politician Moonlighting as a Crime Boss. What’s interesting about how “The Chicago Code” handles the story arc is the frequent intersection of its episodic stories and seasonal goals. Frequently, Superintendent Colvin (Jennifer Beals) is forced to enlist the aid of the devious Alderman Gibbons (Delroy Lindo) to solve daily crimes and injustices in
Now that I have done my due diligence in highlighting clichés, it’s only fair to point out some more original things “The Chicago Code” does. Teresa Colvin, the Idealistic Superintendent, for example, is more than a James Gordon or Captain Cragen. She is a primary character with significant depth, who appears in roughly equal frequency in her full-dress uniform, bulletproof vest, business casual detective clothes, and (admittedly less often) casual civilian garb. The show admits she is a woman in a male-dominated world without it becoming a fetish: the occasional subordinate or villain will push her, she’ll push back, and the plot moves on. By the same token, her archenemy, Alderman Gibbons, is not an African American male by accident, but the show doesn’t constantly harp on his race or gender. Even Grizzled Detective Jarek Wysocki (Jason Clarke) is of overtly Scandinavian descent, though he otherwise remains in the uninteresting “middle aged white male” category. “The Chicago Code” is more interested in the problems of morality, loyalty, and integrity that are common to all of us, regardless of race, gender, or age.
I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the show’s significant cast of supporting characters. Junior detectives Vonda Wysocki (Devin Kelley), the younger sibling of the protagonist Jarek Wysocki, and Isaac Joiner (Todd Williams), to whom any “In Plain Sight” fan will be unable to refer as anything other than Bobby D, have thus far been marginal at best as far as the show’s plot, but are certainly fertile ground for development. Deep-cover cop Liam Hennessey (Billy Lush) is lucky to see five minutes of screen time each episode, but faces a plethora of his own moral dilemmas as he sinks deeper into the corruption Colvin’s team is determined to root out. Wysocki the Elder’s sidekick / apprentice, Caleb Evers (Matt Lauria), is barely worth mentioning as more than eye candy, although this early in the season, it would be premature to disregard him entirely. All that being said, the show’s characters (both primary and supporting) have a well-directed, polished feel to them. From their imperfect wardrobes that speak of hurriedness, dishevelment, and urgency to their subtle but noticeable accent work, they fit in their setting and never distract from the themes of the narrative.
“The Chicago Code” is young, having aired only six episodes since its premiere in early February, and is expected to run for at least seven more. However, let’s not forget this is on the Fox network, which is infamous for executing fledgling shows with significant promise (a generalization based almost entirely on its widely criticized destruction of Firefly before the completion of even a partial season [though I personally enjoyed the short-lived “Canterbury’s Law” as well]).
Did I mention Tim Minear (“Firefly,” “Drive,” “Dollhouse”) is one of the executive producers?
I’m not ready to give The Chicago Code a permanent spot on my television docket. There is still too much that can go wrong, even if it survives its first dozen episodes under Fox’s Damoclean cancellation sword. But I am cautiously optimistic, and would encourage the curious and open-minded to take a look at The Chicago Code. It’s fast, but it’s fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)