Saturday, July 4, 2009

Picture of the Day: George Washington


I'm trying to resist the popular blogging urges of today. I'm no more or less grateful to live in such a promising country as I was yesterday or will be tomorrow. But George Washington, well I like George Washington.

"Sometimes I smile and laugh when I think about all the great things that you're gonna do. I hope you live forever."

What's on the docket for your Fourth? Sci Fi (SyFy come Tuesday) is broadcasting a Twilight Zone marathon, in what I take to be anti-American brainwashing. Still, pretty entertaining. IFC's airing Agnes Varda's Cleo from 5 to 7 as we speak, a film that is so French I'm going to have to pop in the Mel Gibson CNN documentary The Patriot just to regain citizenship. Meanwhile Can't Hardly Wait airs on MTV. Unfortunately, I came in halfway through, about where it stops being funny and starts getting real.

What to do? I have Band of Brothers at my disposal, as well as the remainder of Season 2 of The Larry Sanders Show; I've been on an HBO bender lately, having just completed Angels in America for the first time since it set awards records. I'm also considering There Will Be Blood, one of the most unexpectedly bizarre meditations on America in recent years, or a more traditional western like Once Upon a Time in the West or The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. And I still can't wait to finish exploring the Criterion supplements for Last Year at Marienbad, to which I'll add my latest viewing of the film itself, naturally.

Most likely, I'll continue preparing for next Tuesday's Mad Men Season 2 DVD. Besides, the best Twilight Zones don't start for a couple hours. Tonight: stacked enchiladas topped with an egg.

Happy Fourth!

Click here for the full post

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Top 10 Television Networks


Inspired by James Poniewozik (or his robot incarnation, anyway), who to be honest, broke the dam on an idea that I'd been pondering since reading about Ted Turner's soon-to-be-released TV Everywhere, I decided to pick my essential television networks.

If instead of bundles, cable companies offered individual rates for individual channels, presumably tiered based on popularity, I wager I'd have more money and time. It helps that I almost unilaterally avoid high-rated shows and love the stragglers.

But put in concrete terms, if you had to pick only ten networks, excluding broadcast channels and barring the use of hulu, which would you choose?

1. AMC - I gots ta have my Mad Men. Breaking Bad seals the deal, and with a development slate that includes a Jim Caviezel- and Ian McKellen-starring miniseries remake of The Prisoner as well as Rubicon and Red Mars, well I think AMC may very soon inherit the HBO crown of quality drama. To be perfectly honest, I already think it has the best original programming of any network, including broadcast, and it only has two series!

2. Bravo - Look, my people don't do sports. We do lifestyle reality, whatever that means. All I know for sure is it includes fashion, design, real estate, and cooking shows, as well as candid socialite reality programming. And the holy grail of gay television: Kathy Griffin, stand-up and D-List.

3. Lifetime - Project Runway, y'all. Besides, I'm going to stretch to fill ten slots as it is.

4. Comedy Central - The Stewart/Colbert comedy block is the most satisfying hour of television year-round. I also enjoy the occasional Comedy Central Presents, Futurama, and on recommendation, South Park. And with seven seasons of Scrubs in syndication (soon to be eight?), Comedy Central is worth every penny.

5. SyFy - I'm hedging my bets here, hoping that one day, SyFy will produce something qualitatively similar to landmark drama Battlestar Galactica. Until then, SyFy's taking their sweet time working through all of Star Trek: The Next Generation, so I'll be just fine.

6. HBO - This is another one I'm only getting for its future development. Right now, all HBO has to its name besides the promising Hung is True Blood and Entourage. Since the futures of Flight of the Conchords and In Treatment are up in the air, I'll pass on HBO for now. But soon enough, David Simon's new series Treme will show up, and then Martin Scorsese's Atlantic City drama Boardwalk Empire as well as A Game of Thrones starring Peter Dinklage! Let's not forget HBO's phenomenal history with miniseries, soon to be continued with The Pacific.

7. Showtime - Kind of a surprise, but it shouldn't be. Showtime's just risen so gradually to prominence that it seems to have come out of nowhere. While I'm not keen on Dexter or Californication, and Weeds is probably content to rest on its stupid shock-comedy laurels, at least they've got Nurse Jackie and United States of Tara. I wonder what's in the pipeline.

8. Travel Channel - Anthony Bourdain, top ten roller coasters, and lengthy specials on Disneyland are all I really need in life.

9. Discovery Channel - And not for some preposterous reason like an appreciation of their science specials. No, I just really like Man vs. Wild. Bear Grylls is so dreamy.

10. E! - I realize I'm living up to every stereotype here, but I had an extra slot, and while House Hunters International is tempting, I ultimately must side with The Soup and Chelsea Lately. Kendra just sweetens the pot (go Kendra, go Kendra, go Kendra...). Plus: Tina Fey-era SNL reruns!

Ted Turner can keep TBS and TNT. I'm quite content without The Closer, thanks. Take USA while you're at it. Somewhat surprisingly, I'm at peace with my decision to dump Rescue Me, It's Always Sunny, and the rest of F/X. It also helps that I get neither my news nor movies from television, unless you count The Daily Show. Other notable exclusions: IFC, MTV, VH1, History, CNN, MSNBC, ESPN, TLC, Food, and G4, whose Attack of the Show has somehow seeped into my consciousness.

All right, your turn. What 10 networks are your essentials?

Click here for the full post

National Geographic: I'd get a restraining order if I weren't so flattered


Every now and then, typically about once a year, National Geographic produces an issue just for me. Every article intersects with my interests and surprises me at once. I'm reminded of the issue that covered both cowboys and dinosaurs! Well, friends, the July 2009 magazine is such a gift.

Angkor Wat, one of my personal 7 Wonders of the World, is the cover story, followed by a snappy look at manta rays. But it gets better: Garrison Keillor drops by to enchant us with his appreciation of state fairs, accompanied by the photographer responsible for the picture above, Joel Sartore. As excited as I get for the local carnival, I can't imagine how I'd recover from visiting the esteemed State Fair of Texas. (I'm talking about my hyperventilating jag, not the stomach-kneading impact of murderous roller coasters.)

And then! And then! "Enter the otherworld of The Lord of the Rings in New Zealand's Tongariro National Park." Yes, ma'am! But only on the condition everyone respects the rules of the toy ring. When I'm wearing it, you can't see me. At the end, I'll throw it in a volcano. Or at least a red trash can.


Photograph by Christopher Anderson

The party ain't over, kids. Maybe it's because I just returned from Central Europe--I don't know if you heard. I went to Europe for three weeks. Yeah, it was whatever--but the article on the Serbian nation really piqued my interest. Ljubljana's been on my to-do list, but I'm throwing in Belgrade, Sarajevo, and Prishtina, if only so I can at least try to snap some of the stunning photographs in the article.


Photograph by Joe McNally

For dessert, humongous telescopes! As a child, I dreamed of one day enjoying the stellar cartography lab in Star Trek: Generations. Which is kind of a reality now in NASA's hyperwall-2. Buy me one?

You can find most of this online, of course, but you'd be killing the print industry. It's your decision, but I'm just saying you might want to think long and hard about the state of your karma. Maybe we can explore that together at Angkor. Or at least the Texas State Fair. Just throwin' that out into the universe.

Click here for the full post

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Virtuality: Firefly was so 2002


By now you've probably heard. Fox bailed on Ronald D. Moore's Virtuality pilot, but to recoup what little costs they could, they aired it as a TV movie last Friday. This ambitious space saga doesn't work as a movie, since it's all set-up. But as a TV series? This is one hell of a start.

I can't imagine why Fox has yet to order this series. Like cable darling Battlestar Galactica, Virtuality is a philosophical serialized space drama about a crew on an odyssey. The gimmick here is that the ship's crew of twelve are simultaneously producing a reality series about their journey, complete with product placement and confessionals galore. The pilot builds to the big decision--go or no-go--as the crew of the Phaeton reach the point where they must slingshot around Neptune in search of a planet five years away or pack up and go home. You can probably guess the outcome.

I won't spoil anything. The collaboration of Ronald D. Moore and perennial Battlestar writer Michael Taylor ought to be enough, not to mention the direction of Peter Berg--he of Friday Night Lights fame--and if not, maybe the tremendous critical approval will be convincing.

The influences range from the aforementioned Battlestar as well as the Star Trek franchise where Moore cut his teeth to Fox's other doomed space serial Firefly to Danny Boyle's Sunshine and unsurprisingly Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. There's a bit of The Matrix thrown in for good measure--a lot, actually, considering some of the later shades--and top it off with a healthy dose of The Real World. Only, a lot more dangerous.

What dismays me about Fox's decision--and keep in mind, I think they still have the option to order it to series--is that Virtuality is about as good as network television gets. The crew of the Phaeton use virtual reality technology to release tension, whether participating in Civil War battles, climbing mountains, or playing spy. Then there's the space action, and what's more, the spectacle. Neptune was absolutely the right choice for the integral planet. The giant sapphire orb is mesmerizing.

You'll notice from the start that the plot thickens, then it thickens some more, and then it thickens still further, with multiple mysteries woven together that amount--two hours in--to a vague sense of dread. We understand the outlines of some of the mysteries, but mostly we're just uneasy. With twelve primary characters, two hours is barely enough time to begin peeling away the layers--there's romance, jealousy, paranoia, torn loyalties, and at least one touching moment of fraternity. Frankly, it's also nice to see a gay couple among the ship's crew. Take that, Star Trek!

But what really sells this space adventure for the high-minded arugula-eaters among us is its philosophical pursuits. You can imagine a series so invested in virtual reality technology and reality television might have some meaningful ontological inquiries. Without overselling it, the ending took my breath away.

The cast of mostly unknowns excelled across the board. Twelve actors, and not a weak link among them. The only actor I've seen before is Clea Duvall, who brought her usual charisma. Oh, and one of the McPoyle twins from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has a fun role, although I secretly pretend the McPoyle twins switch off playing the Virtuality character like the Olsen twins on Full House.

At this point, I'm raving like a fanboy, but it's frustrating to sit helplessly as Fox presents such a stellar pilot and yanks it from us in the same motion. Virtuality has received mostly high marks from critics, which is saying something. The past few pilot seasons have not yielded great returns for the networks. I'm not saying there's a huge hit inside Virtuality, but I think it has the populist appeal to at least score modest ratings.

As you can see, I strongly recommend checking out Virtuality. As others have said, I'd rather follow the future of Virtuality than Caprica. I haven't mentioned a single area of improvement, partly because I enjoyed it that much, but mostly because in my mind, it has no future anyway. But that can theoretically change. I think. Reality can be a tricky concept.

Click here for the full post

The Femmynist Agenda


Perusing the list of past Emmy-winners for Drama Actors, I'm reminded of a troubling pattern, and it's not baldness. More often than not, lead male actors are the indisputable centers of their shows, while lead female actors share the focus. Simply put, if a woman is the main character, she won't win an Emmy.

You want evidence, I presume. Going back, the men who won Best Actor: Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), James Spader (Boston Legal), Kiefer Sutherland (24), James Gandolfini (The Sopranos), Michael Chiklis (The Shield), Dennis Franz (NYPD Blue), Andre Braugher (Homicide: Life on the Street), Mandy Patinkin (Chicago Hope), Tom Skerritt (Picket Fences), Christopher Lloyd (Road to Avonlea). 1992 was the last year in which the Best Lead Actor in a Drama did not play the central character.

Our Best Lead Actresses since 1992, going backward: Glenn Close (Damages), Sally Field (Brothers and Sisters), Mariska Hargitay (Law and Order: SVU), Patricia Arquette (Medium), Allison Janney (The West Wing), Edie Falco (The Sopranos), Sela Ward (Once and Again), Christine Lahti (Chicago Hope), Gillian Anderson (The X-Files), Kathy Baker (Picket Fences), Sela Ward (Sisters), and Dana Delany (China Beach). Medium is the only series here built around a female lead, though Sisters and China Beach focus on an ensemble of women, and Damages splits the spotlight among two female leads, the hero and the villain.

The trend suggests men win on their own, but women need a man's help. At the very least, women playing a show's main character tend not to win, even in the category designated for women playing a show's main character.

A layered example of my issue is The Sopranos, which earned multiple Emmys for both James Gandolfini and Edie Falco. Both stars won in the lead category, though the series is indubitably centered around Gandolfini's Tony Soprano. So Edie Falco played the lead female of the series, but not the series' lead. In my estimation, she was second only to Tony, but when Gandolfini wins a lead Emmy, he wins for his show. When Falco wins, she wins for her and Gandolfini's show.

But The Sopranos is an excellent way to show my complaint is admittedly ludicrous. Does it matter that Falco wins for a show that's not exactly about her character when her performance is so electric? So what if she entered the lead category?

I'm not sure there's any nefarious agenda at work here. I'm not suggesting Emmy voters are averse to exploring a woman as thoroughly as they explored Tony Soprano for seven years. But let's not dismiss the impact of this kind of thinking out of hand. It took HBO until 2008 to build a drama series around a female lead, and let's just say Sookie Stackhouse ain't no Al Swearengen.

Showtime's thriving as a feminine counterpart to HBO lately, with Weeds, Secret Diary of a Callgirl, United States of Tara, and Nurse Jackie. Notice how each of these series has a single, female lead. ABC has perfected its brand, developing hourlong ensemble dramedies anchored by lead women. And The CW tries real hard, mostly to get pos-mens like this one! I like to think the acclaim for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Veronica Mars, and now Liz Lemon has made the networks a little safer for female leads.

Of course, the relative scarcity of female-centric shows is the primary cause here. Notice my personal Emmy hopefuls for Lead Drama Actress are January Jones and Mary McDonnell, both of whom reinforce the existing trend. For Lead Drama Actor, I have a full lineup of central males: Jon Hamm, Bryan Cranston, Gabriel Byrne, Michael Chiklis, Denis Leary, and Edward James Olmos. Sorry, but asking me to watch Medium or Saving Grace crosses the line.

The silver lining? The odds just got that much better for Mary McDonnell.

Click here for the full post

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

In Treatment: Season Two


Having finally caught up with HBO's In Treatment, I feel a lot like a patient ending therapy. A significant amount of my response has been projection, it has taken me to some dark places in order to ultimately reward me, and it has inspired both dependence and rebellion. This is me urging you to check it out, knowing Season 2 artfully improves upon an excellent foundation. Spoilers from here on out.

You could probably sum up my problems with Season 1 by saying it was too limited--limited by plot convention, strict adherence to format, and source material. It was tough enough to achieve a complete story (or set of stories) every day for nine weeks, much less aim for some philosophical investigation into modern life.

Cue Warren Leight, the showrunner for Season 2, whom I credit with taking a good show and making it one of the best on television. Part of that comes from liberties with the adaptation, which is just the tip of the iceberg; Leight has loosened the series up considerably. Notice how often we leave the two primary sets (the offices of Paul and Gina). Notice how many times a therapy session is merely a part of an episode, instead of the episode itself. Notice how much more comedy is played this season. The effect of all this loosening is to give us respite from the cruelty, and even there, the problems of Paul's new crop of patients pale in comparison to the horrors Sophie or Alex endured. Luke and Bess, parents though they are, come off merely as squabbling colleagues next to the vicious Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? acolytes Jake and Amy.

What's more, free from the tendrils of all that melodrama, Season 2 feels both less conventional and more intoxicating than Season 1. It's funny that the produers at HBO relied on the Laura character last year, thinking the "will-they-or-won't-they" suspense was a primary draw. In the final account, fans hated Laura for precisely that reason. We as television viewers are conditioned to despise the flirty young things that show up to disrupt the marriages of our central characters. It's why Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton joined Friday Night Lights on the condition their characters are never written into affairs.

People also apparently despised Jake and Amy, I'm guessing thanks to the intensity of their battles. There's only so much cruelty we can take. In fact, much as I loved the revelatory performance of Mia Wasikowska, I wasn't sure if I'd be able to handle learning more about her troubled past.

But the cast and crew pulled me through, giving me an excellent return on my investment in those final few weeks as Sophie begins to cope. Perhaps my favorite moment from the series is when April gives her gift to Paul: telling him Sophie credits him with saving her life, she's in college now, and she sounds happy. It's a transcendent moment, earned by In Treatment's unique format. If I hadn't spent all those sessions with Paul and Sophie and April, it would have been merely an epilogue instead of the series' peak, loaded with so much meaning: Paul's been fretting about the value of his work, and here he's shown exactly how much good he can do; Sophie was so far-gone as to attempt suicide four weeks into treatment, and now one of the series' most beloved characters, the one you just want to reach out and hug, is happy; and April presents this compliment to lead into her realization that Paul has saved her life as well.

I don't completely agree with all the criticisms of Laura, Jake and Amy, but I understand. Like I said, last year was intensely claustrophobic. Watching Josh Charles and Embeth Davidtz is a treat, but I won't deny the difficulty of enduring their weekly assaults. In Season 2, and this is also thanks to the relaxed format, every patient enthralls. The stories are unconventional and more subtle, the performances are compelling and never histrionic, and the patients relate to Paul less obviously. Instead of reflecting the surface elements of Paul's plot, like his marital trouble or alienation from his children, the Season 2 patients revolve around Paul's doubt.

Thus, Season 2 deftly challenges my leading criticism of Season 1, that In Treatment fails to have any perspective. What it means to be in therapy is examined deeply in Season 2, as are several criticisms of the process and a constant exploration of its ethical implications. I deflated at the Week 6 downturn, watching Paul receive his punishment for being a good person instead of a good therapist. He had to inform April's mother of her cancer when she collapsed, and he had to make Oliver a sandwich--his parents certainly aren't nourishing him, nutritionally or otherwise. Then he takes a week off for a legitimate emergency and returns to experience the consequences of dependence.

Those episodes exemplify what I wanted to see from the series. The basic requirement of In Treatment is that it be a television drama. In that respect, Season 1 succeeds. Going further, In Treatment ought to be a compelling show, which it is only intermittently in Season 1, mostly during the Sophie and Gina episodes (and, a personal favorite, the solo Jake session). Above that, it should aspire to something more, whether that be a rigorous study of the therapy process, an exploration of the psychological state of modern society, or a metaphor for something else entirely, say, the American political state after the series of democratic crises that introduced the decade.

Season 1 is often a compelling television drama that occasionally seeks to fulfill that higher need, especially toward the end. But Season 2 opens with a break in format--Glynn Turman's Mr. Prince serves Paul a lawsuit--immediately declaring its intentions to add to its surface therapy plots an examination of the value of therapy.

The risks pay off with a final week of involving sessions and natural conclusions for the characters. Overflowing with touching moments--Mia deciding to continue therapy, Paul giving April a new hat, Paul telling Bess he admires her, Paul calling Oliver from the kitchen, Gina and Paul taking in the news that the judge dismissed the Prince lawsuit--Week 7 is as good as television gets.

If this is the end of In Treatment, kept inexpensive thanks to its strict shooting schedule and limited sets but equally low-rated, Season 2 has given us a fitting finale. Personally, though, I think they can do even better. If it's ever ready to return, my door is always open.

Click here for the full post

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Picture of the Day


We watched Twilight today, and this elegant composition illustrates my appreciation of this sophisticated deconstruction of vampire mythology. "The lion fell in love with the lamb," indeed.

Edward Cullen is so dreamy. I mean, right? He's very dangerous, and very possessive, which is great, because I don't really like doing stuff on my own or making decisions or thinking. And that angst! It's so romantic. Especially when he bores right into Bella with those simmering, bloodthirsty eyeballs, regardless of whether or not she's awake. So dreamy. Where is my Edward Cullen?!

Only five more months till New Moon!

Click here for the full post