Dave Cullen: TV

Trying to stomach Studio 60

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:04:53 GMT

OK, I watched the first eight minutes of Studio 60, episode two, and I don't think I can take anymore. I'm just waiting for a line of believable dialogue.

The press conference was particularly appalling. And how could Amanda Peet be so bad playing Jordan? Is she ever going to drop that smug smile and the touche-style delivery of every line? Blech.

The most puzzling aspect was the "jokes." Are we supposed to believe that a room full of cynical reporters is laughing their asses off at rim-shot grade cutesisms, or does aaron actually think those lines are funny? Neither one seems plausible. Why would reporters behave that way? I've attended a lot of press conferences--never seen anything like that.

And the annoying part was Aaron constantly cueing us in to how well the press conference was going, by having one character after another watch it and tell us they were doing well. It kinda seemed like Aaron knew he had not written it convincingly enough to convey that to us by watching it, so he felt the need to have his characters tell us.

Sad.

Salon explains why Studio 60 stinks

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:04:04 GMT

Salon's great Heather Havrilesky weighs in on Studio 60, and she had a pretty similar sense to me of the downside, though she was bigger on its upside. A chunk:

All of which brings us to Aaron Sorkin's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" (10 p.m. Mondays on NBC), a show that, on the one hand, tackles the pathology of the professional circle jerk and its resulting mediocrity head-on, yet on the other hand, indulges the incredible self-importance of the TV writer to an extent heretofore unseen on the small screen.

Again, for the same reasons that it's easier to stomach the self-important banter of idealistic politicians and cops and doctors and other high-minded civil servants, it's also easier to stomach TV shows that focus on these kinds of people. On "Grey's Anatomy" or "ER" or "The Wire" or "The West Wing," we tolerate the melodrama that characters drum up about their jobs, we tolerate their all-knowing tones and their self-righteousness and their indignant attitudes because they do have pretty high-pressure jobs that serve the common good, at least in theory, and it makes sense that they're dogmatic and idealistic and stubborn about what they do and what they should be doing.

But self-important banter among magazine editors, just for example? Not so easy to swallow.

Then she spends a few paragraphs on some of its good points, where I think she's overly generous. Then more on the trouble:

The trouble is that, when Danny and Matt stop to gaze around the set of their new show, and the camera circles them dramatically like it's the last scene of Werner Herzog's classic film "Aguirre: The Wrath of God," at least one or two cells in our bodies can't help but rebel against the pomp and circumstance of the moment. It feels wrong, somehow, to romanticize TV writers this much, however talented and witty they might be. Meet a few TV writers and you'll see what I mean. It's not that they're bad people -- many of them are charming and smart and extremely friendly -- but they're richer than God, yet they always seem to be jealous of someone who's even richer and more successful than they are. Plus, even the ones who write for really crappy shows, shows that they should pay a tax for inflicting on the human populace, talk about their bad shows like they're saving the free world. ...

Plus, ask anyone who lives in Los Angeles or works in the industry: Hollywood culture is pretty distasteful, no matter how you slice it. Even though that's one of the points of Sorkin's show, dramatizing what dicks network executives can be or giving TV producers lines like Judd Hirsch's in the pilot -- "That remote in your hand is a crack pipe!" -- doesn't really change the fact that these are Hollywood wiseasses, not heroes.

Yeah, she really nailed it. The "Aguirre: The Wrath of God" reference was perfect. The whole show felt kinda that way to me. I think that ultimately, I resented Sorkin's presence, because half my brain was thinking, You've got a pretty good show here: interesting situation, good characters, etc.--so why the fuck do you have to piss all over it with self-importance, like it's Aguirre: The Wrath of God?

I remembered thinking that West Wing at first turned me off with it's self importance, but at least the characters were facing earth-shattering decisions. Here, not so much.

A small gift from Chile

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:43:37 GMT

I tivo Charlie Rose every day. I don't always get to them right away. I use them as radio--while I cook breakfast, clean up, exercise . . .

The great joy of that show is the incredible breadth of ideas and perspectives you hear. I tend to get the most out of the various sorts of artists he has on the show, though those are people I can often hear elsewhere, just not in such depth. (Outside of Fresh Air, the other great source.)

But weeks like this are always special, when most of the world leaders are in NY for the UN assembly, and so many of them stop by his studio for a chat. (It kinda started midweek and will continue through much of next week, if he follows his past pattern.)

In general, politicians are the least interesting guests on his show, but he either culls out the few who are not full of hot air, or perhaps they're not windbags when they're not talking to a domestic audience. These people aren't running for anything here. They do have an agenda with the American public, of course, but most of the ones he has on are smart enough to know they're going to impress us a lot more if they leave the BS at home and just talk candidly. (Or am I just used to American politicians--have they not gotten so slick and full of shit everywhere else?)

It can also be a tough week, because you have to deal with a lot of accents--tougher if you're in the kitchen cooking and trying to listen with one ear and one brain hemisphere, and sometimes the ideas sound a little foreign . . . it's a little more work, but usually worth it.

Tonight, was pure pleasure. The President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, a woman I'd never heard of--OK, I didn't even know they had elected a woman, I'm embarassed to admit--was something of a revelation. What an incredibly intelligent person. And such a wise, thoughtful take on everything. She had been tortured by Pinochet's goons, and her father, a general, had been murdered by them, but she spoke about it without anger. She spoke of the horrible anger she'd had in the past, but it was clear from her demeanor that it really was gone.

I think she was most refreshing the way she talked about issues passionately, but with none of the us/them mentality we have in our politics now. In fact, she talked about her frustration reading our press, which she sees as still speaking in a Cold War vocabulary, about good guys and bad guys in her region. She sees those countries struggling to enact economic reforms that will build their economies in the long run, but also improve people's lives, and how difficult that balance is, and how everyone is looking for the right answers. Essentially, she says that there are a lot of well-meaning people trying different approaches down there, and for us to split them down the middle and slap half of them with the goodguy label and half badguy is ludicrous, yet we do it with barely a thought.

She had a lot to say. I can't convey more than a fraction of it, but I'm the richer for having been exposed to her. I can't wait for the rest of the week.

'The Greatest Story Ever Sold'--what a title. and . . .

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:53:07 GMT

And the book looks pretty damn good, too, from my quick stab, tonight.

Frank Rich's The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina came out today, and is already #2 at Amazon, so you're prolly going to be hearing a lot about it.

I checked it out tonight at Denver's great local bookstore Tattered Cover. Really interesting opening, written in Frank's usual fluid style. And I was really glad to read this in the intro:

This book is not intended to be a harangue about George W. Bush or the war in Iraq, though my views will certainly be evident. What it is instead is a critical retracing of the sophisticated steps by which some clever people in the White House, handed an opportunity and a mandate by the shocking events of 9/11, unfurled a brilliantly produced scenario to accomplish a variety of ends . . .

Thank you! As much as our fearless leader irks the hell out of me, I don't really need to spend time on a detailed analysis of how. The man will come and go as a mediocre to horrible president, and I've already lost interest. He's just not an interesting guy. But, the way the media has been co-opted and participates in promoting these preposterous fictions upon us--that's important.

That's exactly what The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are ultimately all about, and that's why they are insanely popular, and brilliant at the same time. (And most of the press still doesn't quite get them--or chuckles along with them, but doesn't get that they are the butt of the joke more than the politicians. Either they don't get it or can't figure out how to change.)

Those shows do it on a daily basis, bit by bit, but so nice to have someone pull the whole picture together.

And what a gutsy move by his publisher to devote 100 pages to a timeline, showing side-by-side what the white house was saying internally, and the alternate reality they were pitching to us. That's worth the price of the book all by itself. (The book says the timeline will be updated continually at his website. It's not live yet, but there's a "coming soon" sign.)

So far, so good. I'll let you know more as I get further.

Meanwhile, he's going to be the guest on Fresh Air on NPR Wednesday.

And here's the PW review:

Starred Review. This blistering j'accuse has vitriol to spare for George Bush—calling him a "spoiled brat" and "blowhard"—and his policies, but its main target is the PR machinery that promoted those policies to the American people. New York Times columnist Rich revisits nearly every Bush administration publicity gambit, including Iraqi WMD claims, Bush's "Mission Accomplished" triumph, the Swift-boating of John Kerry and the writing of fake prowar letters-to-the-editor from soldiers. He uncovers nothing new, but his meticulously researched recap-cum-debunking—complete with appended 80-page time line comparing administration spin to actual events—builds a comprehensive picture of a White House propaganda campaign to bamboozle the public, smear critics, camouflage policy disasters and win the 2002 and 2004 elections through trumped-up security anxieties. Along the way, he pillories a sycophantic media (Bob Woodward gets spanked hard), spineless Democrats and an infotainment culture that happily accommodates the Bush administration's erasure of the line between reality and fiction. Sometimes Rich's critique of Republican politics as cynical image-manipulation goes overboard, as in his "wag the dog" theory of the Iraq war as a Karl Rove electoral maneuver; more often, though, it's on target. The result is a caustic, hard-hitting indictment of the Bush administration, timed to make a splash in the upcoming election campaign. (Sept. 19)

Amazon link here.

Wednesday Update:

Frank was on The Colbert Report last night, and NPR's Fresh Air today (the first 3/4 of the show). Listen to Fresh Air show here.

Comedy Central repeats Colbert endlessly through the next day, and a lot of stations play or replay Fresh Air at night, so you still have time to catch both. He was great on both.

(And if you watch Colbert, tune in two minutes early to see the preview on The Daily Show. Nothing to do with Frank, but it involves Stephen's word-a-day calendar, which I won't give away, but it still has me snickering just remembering.)

About that Survivor casting

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:39:43 GMT

you know, if you're going to cast a show along ethnic lines, it seems pretty lousy to pack two teams with A players and the other two with a lot of duds.

that white team has one jock, though hard to say yet how smart he is, and i don't see a lot of other potential. the sorority girl and the "alternative" "rollergirls" are likely to be worthless on all fronts. they always cast dorks with little to offer as writers (bastards!). seems pretty weak.

the black team was the only one with zero apparent brawn, which is a pretty basic component. it's hard to know from one puzzle, but the first indication is that he didn't cast the brightest bulbs. but then he never does. from day one MB has cast one dumb black person after another, especially men. (dumb lazy black is his most frequent cast move of all, followed by flaming homosexual and mean, hypocritical vocal christian.

i feel worst for the christians, believe it or not. the first few seasons i loved chuckling along to how nasty the hard-core christians they were, the very soul of hypocrisy. by about the third one, i realized it was just bigoted casting. of course you can make every christian look like an asshole, every homo look like a queen and every black man look dumb and lazy if that's how you cast them. it's revolting.

and i have no problem with ANY of those people getting cast. does he have to make it nearly every time? mark burnett's idea of a homo seem to equal a boa. if you're not belting out showtunes, you don't get cast. so what a surprise that the apparent gayboy turns out to be a fashion director. mark, what a departure for you. but at least he's a hunky, athletic one. that's a first, isn't it? (with all the gayboys packing the gyms, you'd think he could have found one before. and something tells me the hard-assed, muscled, outdoorsy gayguys are the ones applying a lot more than the drag queens. i don't think most drag queens really want to be on survivor. and yet, mark finds the marys and only the marys.)

Survivor goes racist?

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:38:53 GMT

I would say, no. I thought the early protests about dividing the show into racial/ethnic teams was a little premature: why not see what they do with it, whether it's revelatory or racist. So far, so good. Though some of the casting aspects have always sickened me. (More on that in the next post.)

These comments made real-time as I watched Thursday (I just can't stop myself), posted now:

I just started watching the first ep, and I literally get the chills at the beginning. I will get irritated as it goes, but the whole idea of the social experiment of Survivor is just incredible. It was one wonderful idea. (That needs some heavy tweaking, but there's time for all that.)

I'm about 20 minutes in, and so far, the cultural-split stuff has been fascinating to watch in so many different ways. It was interesting to see the Asians being almost bewildered by the lumping of them, with good reason. What they basically seemed to be saying was, "uh, we're half the population of the planet. you whiteguys may see us all as one thing, but we're a whole bunch of different cultures." they are probably the most culturally mixed of all the teams.

also fascinating to hear "cowboy" introduce himself and they're all ultra whitebread assimilationist names, like brad. (and is brad the big gayboy? i'm wagering on it.)

several of the asians seemed uncomfortable with the asian jokes, stereotyping and grouping, wanted nothing to do with it, and the black group was nearly the opposite, doing a chant about Representing.

it does some kind of unfair that the deck seems stacked physically heavily in favor of the asians and latins. the blacks have a couple big fat guys, the whites have a couple jocks, and the asians appear to have two muscle studs and possibly two female athletes, and the latins have a pro athlete and a young guy who looks like he could be the smart version of bobby jon, who will hurtle himself full-bore into anything. climbing that tree and getting the coconuts was kind of amazing. and i laughed my ass off at jp calling him jungle book.

and jp . . . he seems whiter than me, culturally--as do several of the asians. which is kind of interesting. i'm surprised/sad burnett did not cast an oreo or two on the black team, though i'm not surprised. he's been casting stereotypes on this show since day one. (stereotyping every stripe imaginable, whether it's blacks, homos, hillbillies, evangelicals . . . he's kinda gross that way.)

it is interesting so far to see how some of the groups do approach things very differently, though, and especially in how they see themselves.

it might get VERY sticky down the road when alliances come into play, though. god, picturing it getting ugly and the whites cutting down a group of blacks or whatever . . . that could be unappetizing. it will be interesting to see if things like white guilt come into play, though, and if some of them can't bring themselves to do it (or do it publicly).

i have a feeling burnett will mix up the teams soon, though, and then we'll get to see which people stick to the ethnic/cultural lines and which do not.

but so far, very interesting show.

The stench of network news

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:29:06 GMT

OK, maybe I get the situation after all.

For years, I've been flumoxed about the pathetic state of network news: not what's wrong with it, but why the net execs don't get what's wrong with it.

They are well aware that something is wrong. Ratings have declined rapidly for several years, and the story is monumentally worse demographically. The average age for the nightly network newscasts is now something like 60, which barely even seems possible. (Median age of 60 would be bad enough, but average? That means for every 20 year-old watching, there are three 80 year-olds, or six 70 year-olds. Unbelievable. The number of young adults watching is trending toward zero.

That's a huge problem for the nets now--because advertisers don't pay much for old folks--and a life or death problem for them in the medium run, because as Les Moonves admitted in so many words last night on Charlie Rose, those viewers are going to be dying off, and if we don't attract some young ones, it's over.

That viewing pattern seems pretty obvious: old people who grew up with decent news shows established a lifelong habit and many continue. Younger people with other options who tune in are repulsed by what they see and choose not to watch.

So what's the problem with the shows? It seems so freaking obvious, yet they've tried a million different fixes and they never seem to address the obvious one: they're shitty storytellers. I mean, really shitty. I only check in occasionally these days--like yes, I did check Katie Couric out, and she was fine, better than fine, actually, I think she's really good. And they tried to change the show surrounding her, making it magaziney, more feature pieces and all that, but that didn't do diddly, because it's these same retched cliche-ridden pieces that tell us almost nothing, but in a magazine format. And it really doesn't matter how wonderful Katie is introducing all this crap; at some point we still have to watch the crap, and why would we?

The correspondents just seem to rely on all the same tired lines night after night, stringing together lame conventional wisdom and expressing it with a string of cliches, but worst of all, they try so hard to make it cute, or sometimes to make it cool, or sometimes funny--none of which 90% of them have any talent at. And most nauseating of all, they feel this perpetual need to tie every freaking story up with a little bow: a final line or series of lines that "puts it all in perspective," or some such twaddle, like ". . . in one small town, they are learning never to forget -- but sometimes not to remember either" or some horrible reach to sound profound or something.

For me, the defining moment of modern news was--I hate to say this, but it really was 9/11. But not in the sense that it was a watershed event or it was so important that it changed our world or blah blah blah with that nonsense. I mean that for about 24 hours, they QUIT trying to be so damn profound or cute or . . . over-produced, I guess. There was no title to the tragedy yet, and no theme music. Those are obvious hallmarks, but those are just the symptoms. What was really different, was that nobody tried to do these damn packed "stories"--they just said what the hell was happening. It was wonderful. They stopped doing the gross shit they normally do and just spoke candidly about what was happening, what they had learned, what they were finding out. No wannabee-profound bows at the end, just stripped away to no nonsense reporting. And to my utter amazement, they were really good at it.

I actually dreamed, briefly, that they would both notice the difference, and notice that it was actually much better than when they were trying to hard--or when they just didn't have the time to package it.

For a long time I thought the problem was that they were just pretty shitty storytellers, and I couldn't get why the editors or execs or whomever could not see that. (Although I wonder how much of the problem is that the "anchors" got way too much power. Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings were all made the top editors of their shows, as well. That's almost always a problem. If the people writing or creating are the same people editing--I think that fails to grasp the concept of what an editor is: someone standing a few steps outside the creation-process, who can more objectively assess, and tell you when it's not working.)

But still, why couldn't someone--say, Les Moonves--not see the problem of shitty storytelling and just tell them.

And then I saw him on Charlie Rose, addressing it, and saying off-handedly once again that the key to the news is just like sports or fiction or movies or whatever: great storytelling. And it dawned on me suddenly that he gets that, but maybe doesn't get that they're trying too hard. Maybe the format of three-minutes of spoken word is hard to tell much of a story, and/or the correspondents aren't that good at it, and they're trying to tell a beginning middle and end to something without the space to do that, and so they are getting these incredibly hokey attempts. They're OVERtelling it. They're trying to end every freaking piece with some brilliant capper line like it's the great american novel--and by the way, not noticing that most great novels don't end with thundering profundity lines--and they're screwing up by pushing the storytelling thing too hard and just producing really shitty ones.

Maybe someone just needs to tell them, "Look. It doesn't need to be clever. It doesn't need to be cute. It doesn't need a bunch of yucks--and by the way, you're not actually a comedian. It doesn't need to be revelatory every time. Just let it be what it is, tell it like it is, don't try to make it intense or dramatic or solemn or A Lesson. Just tell the freaking story naturally. Quit trying to jazz everything up."

I get the sense that they have gotten the message that it's about great storytelling, so they're overtelling every story, the first instinct to really bad writing. Somebody please tell them to stop.

Amazing Race, revived

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:22:49 GMT

god knows why those emmy morons gave the reality-show award to amazing race, a once-great show that turned in two pitifully boring seasons this year. (especially when project runway was the best show of any genre on TV all summer--except maybe the colbert report.) the family edition was a disaster, the challenges had grown easy, the show predictable, and the crucial casting element just awful--way too much stunt-casting with way too many brands of nasty shouters, no one actually interesting, much less likeable.

so. i tuned in to the new season, just in case they overhauled it. (i wrote the following sunday night on my laptop as i watched. i'm a little delinquent in posting.)

ten minutes in, and i'm greatly relieved by the casting.

they really have assembled some interesting groups, at least at first glance. and glad to see they went all the way for some true diversity this time: three different asian cultures represented instead of one token "asian" group for half the world's population. the indian team looks interesting--and nice--and the muslims are likely to provide a different perspective. and my first reaction to the east asians was negative, because they were bragging about where they went to college--gag me; even though i'm sure the producers put them up to it--but i got a good chuckle when they said they were heading to the homeland and then cracked up that they weren't chinese.

unfortunate that they had to cast yet another apparently annoying, self-absorbed, conceited and stereotypical gay couple. why do they have to keep dipping into that same well?

the lesbian and dad was much more interesting, though i gaped that a parent could be so insensitive to say he was disappointed in his daughter on national tv. i was appalled before he said why--i was thinking, "god, what could she have done? robbed a bank? killed a person?" oh, she was born gay. what a crime. what a dick.

part of me thinks it will be interesting to watch them work some of that out, but mostly i think he's got to be a real dick to do that, and i hate watching the dicks on this show. i predict he'll find infinite ways to illustrate what a dick he is.

model/recovered-drug-addicts is also a clever category that i would not have considered. (i was disappointed they only used model for the subtitle ID during the show.) they could prove to be totally vapid, incredibly preachy, or really self-aware and interesting. i'm hoping for the best. and always nice to get some eye-candy, though i'd prefer them with a little meat. they're not too into the beef-casting on this show, though, especially compared to, say, survivor. (where they're half naked most of the time, so it's more relevant.)

who am i forgetting?

oh, more single moms: always nice to have, but they tend not to be with us long. (doesn't this show tend to cast rather weak black teams? there was that one really strong team in i think the second season (or the first?) that almost won, but since then, i can't remember any strong ones.)

god, the coal miners. interesting choice for color, though again, we're only likely to see them briefly. and that poor woman. she basically said that her husband has always been in charge, but on the race he's going to have to learn to be 50/50. god, she has a world of disappointment coming. i applaud her goal and her positive spirit, but lady, if you married a guy who expected to be in charge, and then you let him run the show your whole marriage to-date, do you really think an ultra-stress race around the world is the best moment to radically redefine your marriage? and you think it's a good idea to televise the inevitable war? timing is everything. and he's not going to change overnight, girl. god, i hope she doesn't actually believe what she said, though she seems to.

oh, casting the one-legged woman and her new boyfriend has potential. she does show signs of being the preachy martyr type, but hopefully they were just editing in the worst of her interview moments and she'll let her abilities speak for themselves most of the time.

this seems like a 100% more interesting cast than the last few lame seasons. at least these people have potential. the last couple groups were just incredibly dull, and almost all unlikeable.

---

and let's hope phil wasn't wildly exaggerating about the changes. this show desperately needs some. not that it was a bad format; it's just getting a little tired for those of us who have been with them since the start. in years past they only made the tiniest of tweaks, most of which had virtually no impact. hopefully they really realized they should switch things around a bit before they have lost all their audience. we'll see.

---

ok, halfway through. the early elim was definitely cool. it will be much more exciting knowing that people are vulnerable at every moment. though i doubt they'll use it much, and i fear it means more dreaded non-elim rounds, which i loathe.

but it sure beats knowing that the first half of the show makes almost no difference. (it will just usually make no difference.)

meanwhile, one of the most hilarious lines ever: Do muslims believe in Buddha? Good God.

which reminds me: two airhead-chick teams? what was the point of that? (and why are 80% of the airhead teams they cast young women?)

but what was the deal with the muslim guys not shaking hands? (or just not with women?) either way, i lived in muslim countries for two years and never heard of such a thing. an unusual sect? i guess we'll never know.

---

OK, I'm an hour in (took a long break to do some work), and have to say I'm really enjoying this one.

Really glad the prettyboys appear to be pretty bright, and also seem quite nice. So far. (It was touching to see them choked up about the other team getting kicked out so unexpectedly.)

And I may have spoken too soon on the single moms. This pair might be a lot stronger than a lot of the moms they have cast. They're definitely strong-willed, and appear to be pretty sharp. And kind of funny. I really like them so far.

It was a shame to see the muslims go so soon, but I already found myself rooting for the Korean guys. I think I'm going to like them.

---

oh, and the dating people . . .

i guess if you're dating and Amazing Race casts you, you can kiss your relationship goodbye. it basically means that the producers watched you interact, stifled their laughter in front of you, and howled it up as soon as you left the room.

they generally only seem to cast completely dysfunctional couples. why can't these people see how awful they are for each other?

the one-legged woman, and her man--i don't know. she broke my heart climbing up those stair with her malfunctioning prosthetic leg. i wanted her to win so badly for a little while there. but other times, she rubs me kinda wrong--and WHAT is she doing with that control freak? he can be so awful to her. the brick-laying was revolting to watch. he wants her to be his handmaiden--never mind that he was fucking it up.

---

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

i finally finished. i can't believe Team Karma is gone already. i loved them.

oh well.

surprising to see such a tough challenge thrown at them in the first round. many of the challenges have gotten incredibly easy the past several seasons--especially the early rounds--and it was really boring to watch. (last season one challenge was to ride in a helicopter and admire the scenery. they've had more and more like that. the absolute nadir was the family season, where half the challenges seemed to be watching them be essentially spectators.) the producers really seem to have reinvigorated this series. i can only hope it continues.

it was kind of amazing to watch them all overcome that wall. so many of the teams were sure they couldn't scale it.

nothing really matched that one-legged woman. wow. (dramatically it was a shame she went so soon. whose hardship could compete with that?)

though the wonder in seeing her finish it was tempered by the sadness that she's probably doomed. she was lucky--or skillful--to be well out in front, and in a huge field on this one, but sooner or later, she's likely to face a challenge like that--or even a footrace, or a simple staircase (they have a LOT of staircases on this show), soon after an equalizer, and she's going to get left in the dust.

but what amazing fortitude. and who knows, maybe she'll last longer than i think. plus, it's not necessarily winning for everybody, especially her. if she can outlast half these teams, and experience things like scaling the great wall of china, i think she'll go home a happy woman.

but on the downside, is she so enamored with her hero/provider that she never noticed what a big homo he is? sometimes he seems SO gay.

and speaking of that . . .

the prettyboys? anyone? sometimes they seem like total straightboys, but then there are moments . . .

i feel a little bad for saying that, because i think it's actually cool that two straightguys can be that close. but i did get a vibe sometimes, especially from the darker-haired guy. i think he may have a thing for the other one. maybe. or just wishful thinking. (nothing like last season, where those two fratboys were just jonesing for each other's bods, and protesting way too much that they were straight.) probably not with these two. but maybe.

the show actually feels re-invigorated in a whole lot of ways. like zipping us right to china, and giving us the great wall in ep 1. most seasons they seem to fritter around in more ordinary settings for a long time, before we can work our way to something exotic. (though way back in season two, didn't they go almost straight to argentina? it's been awhile.) nice to see them plunging right in, in a whole lot of ways.

oh, and new funniest line from the episode. when the squabbling daters jump into the cab and he says they want the great wall, and she clarifies, very sternly, the great wall of china. hahaha! too much!

Rough start to Studio 60

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:16:50 GMT

i'm halfway through the studio 60 pilot and i'm finally warming to it a bit.

the first 15 minutes were horrible.

what exactly is it about every aaron sorkin production that everything seems so incredibly high and mighty and self-serious? is it that control room operators supposedly flip their switches and cue their cameras every night with the sternness of houston space central on the first moon launch? or that every Important Person struts down every hallway and thrusts open each doorway into a burst of light as if he's augustus entering the senate to declare war on marc anthony?

i was rolling my eyes and clutching my stomach at week after week of that in the first 30 seconds. you can just feel the self-importance reeking out of it.

i stuck around because on The West Wing, he wrote some great yarns and created interesting conflicts for several years and i got numb to the self-importance and forgave him for it. it's just a bitter pill to have to swallow again.

but then . . . he kicked off his series with a lame rip-off of Network? except in a supposedly realistic setting? the thing that made network work--one of the many things--was that it was slightly over the top. it played as a heightened version of where we were heading; this--i think--is shooting for hyper-realism.

the other thing going for network was that it was original. the fact that the 60 script alluded to its ripoff for a nearly a minute straight--way too long; felt like an endless apology to the audience--and then peppered throughout the show didn't really help. it didn't feel one bit real when judd hirsh did it, because it just felt like he was re-enacting some lame version of network.

god, could he come up with a worse way to start his series? i don't know? the dinner scene sure rang false. maybe they really have dinners like that in hollywood (though aren't the networks run out of new york, by the way?)--but it sure didn't feel real.

the face-off with jordan and the wings guy--i wasn't really buying that either. it's soap opera, though, so maybe i should just enjoy it on that level. it would be easier to take it that way if it didn't drip with all this Self Importance, though. it looks like it's going to be more like Dallas than St. Elsewhere, so why not cop to that in its mood?

nothing has really felt real so far, particularly the dialogue, which is frequently razor sharp, but . . . i think they sharpened that razor too much. it's all too cute; none of it sounds real.

i did started warming when matthew perry came on, though. he's got a presence--i think he's under-rated, which is understandable--i was never a Friends-hater, but it was never a great show, and he was far better than the material.

---

ok, i finished.

interesting choice of ending/denouement, but i missed the moment where they hurled their knit caps into the air. (shouldn't that overblown queen/bowie music have been ". . . you might just make it after all"?)

If Ed Helms were funny

Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:24:16 GMT

Then the Daily Show would be funnier, too.

So many of their great correspondents keep graduating. Which is fine, because they keep finding great new ones, and we get to see the old ones in other things.

But then there's this Ed Helms situation. The show will be rolling amusing along and then Ed appears. And everything grinds to an immediate halt. In theory, his bits are funny, it's just that they're . . . not.

At first I thought he would grow into it, because they often do. They I realized he wouldn't, and they'd realize the mistake they made and move him back to writing or whatever they've done before.

But they seem to be going the opposite way. He's one of the few correspondents they've had without an ounce of humor, yet lately they seem to be using him every other day.

Strange.

When did 60 Minutes get so heinous?

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:48:30 GMT

Just a thought before I go.

Listening to 60 Minutes as I get my apartment ready for my mini convalescence. (Over the top anal on that score. Got a little nursing station for my ex, with ice packs, medication, and the assortment of remotes. And I covered every facet and refrigerator door plus my alarm cock and shouts with big sheets of paper labelled in thick magic marker: "NO WATER!" Terrified I'm going to wake up groggy and forget. Or take a show, so damn thirsty and wondering why I hadn't gotten drink, so I tilt me head back for a warm but refreshing fill-up. Better not happen. Or I'll be OFF schedule!)

God. A report from Bob Simon, who has always been hard for me to stomach, but the segment is puns and cliches and little cutesisms almost end to end. Interesting material--aside from being a total rah-rah for the oil industry, with a bit of the other side at the end--but who can listen past all that hokum? Who the hell wants to?

He's almost as bad as Dan Rather.

The worst thing about the invention of 60 Minutes II seems to have been that they packed it with horrifying correspondents, and presumably producers, and then merged them into the original show once the spinoff died. Yes, Simon already contributed to the old show, but mercifully rarely. Now they've got the awful people on there all the time.

Sad.

Only thing scarier, I checked out an episode of Love Monkey. Aggressively vile. Who will be punished?

My Nigga Moment

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:20:17 GMT

I've been loving this Boondocks TV series.

Makes me kinda squeamish sometimes, though. If this were written by a white guy, it would have been cancelled after one episode, and any TV executive involved in greenlighting it fired in disgrace.

But it's freaking funny.

And . . . how do you say this without sounding REALLY white . . . ? I'm understanding better.

Thought I understood the race stuff pretty well. Not well enough, apparently.

So I'm loving the show, for a whole lotta reasons. But the Nigga Moment episode--officially titled "Grandad's Fight"--that one was just too much. Grandad gets beaten up by a mean old blind man, and humilated for it. Everyone involved is black, including the narrator, who tells us and grandad about twenty times that it's just a nigga moment--where two niggas find themselves in a situation where they find themselves driven to act stupid, and it always ends badly.

Halfway through I literally felt like I was going to throw up. And all i could think was: I don't care how black the writer is, it's still freaking racist.

And I sure felt racist chuckling at it. And it was hard not to, it was funny. But good lord. Man, did I feel dirty.

I turned it off, but didn't delete it from the tivo.

Came back about a month later and decided to finish. More nigga nigga nigga, dumb niggas, stupid niggas, Goooooooood!

But finally, the episode climaxes with gramps and the blind guy in a rematch that ends horribly, followed by a mini riot among the crowd gathered to watch. Riley--the angry (eight year old?) grandson who set up the whole disgusting fight and took bets and charged admission and then instigated the riot to get the hell out of there when it went sour--stands back, looks at the mostly white crowd acting like idiots, and says, ruefully, "niggas!"

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Wow. Nicely done. Almost sounds heavy handed describing it now, but it sure lured me in. And enlightened me, too. And not just about white people, but about us, too. And the whole idea of niggas. Or one crucial nigga idea, at least.

This is the first show in ages that makes me feel like a nerdy white guy, and/or a white-guilt kinda guy. Discomforting, because I thought I was way past all that, but I guess that means I wasn't.

And it's funny as hell.

(FYI, It's on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim. Sunday at 11, I read at one point, but I have no idea. That's what your tivo is for.)

Everybody Hates Chris

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:55:12 GMT

The nice thing about the lame season of Survivor being over is my Tivo gets to finally get to shows like Everybody Hates Chris.

I saw two eps early in the season and enjoyed them, but didn't love them. Don't know if they took awhile to get rolling, or it took me time to get used to it, but saw a few more in the last week, and eating them up.

Also loving Boondocks and WonderShozen. Wondershozen really took some getting used to, and it can be pretty uneven, but at least half of it is wickedly funny. Beyond SouthPark.

What's with all the goofball Apprentice finalists?

Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:34:43 GMT

The Apprentice is one of the few good reality shows I still enjoy.

And I think Trump has picked the best candidate every time. By a mile. And I usually agree with his weekly decisions. With one big exception:

Why the hell does he always send one bozo to the finals? Does he want the finale to be pointless and obvious every time?

It has happened every time I can remember. Rebecca was the worst yet.

I just never got what was so good about her. A lot of hot air and medicore contributions, lots of bad decisions.

And on the final event, she nearly proved me wrong. Great job handling all the details. Too bad she completely blew the main objective.

I can't believe Trump and crew dismissed it as one little flaw. A fundraiser that raised nothing? Wow. That's one of the biggest failures they've ever had on the show. (Maybe second after the time this season that they actually reduced sales with that batting cage fiasco.)

And not figuring out who her client was? What? That's not just a failure, that's a failure to grasp the assignment. That's failure at business 101.

If she did that on any task all season, she would have been fired, no question. I couldn't believe she had the nerve, in her summary to say that Randall was great at details but didn't always see the big picture. Was she trying to describe her own performance?

I just don't get how/why Trump was going to hire them both. Is he just mesmerized by her for some reason? I love that Alla said she never saw Rebecca show any skill. Neither did I, from anything they showed all season.

And of course Randall looked bad refusing the two hires, but I think it was shitty to put him in that position. I think he figured out in an instant that if he said yes, they would always be seen as the two winners, meaning he wouldn't really have won, he tied. It's like asking someone who just won a race at the Olympics, "How about if we award two gold medals?" Uh, no, actually, that idea kinda sucks.

I was surprised he didn't agree to it anyway, realizing he'd look bad, but I'm kinda glad he didn't. But trump should not have put it on his shoulders. If he wanted to hire two, hire two. Why should randall have to be responsible for that?

I have a feeling the producers thought it would be a great gimmick and Randall would feel he had to, and they didn't really seriously consider the possibility he'd say no. We makes me all the happier that he took a big shit on their stupid manipulations. They kinda deserve it.

Glad he won, anyway.

I take back everything good I said about Amazing Race Family

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:33:59 GMT

OK, just a quickie.

It's no secret that Amazing Race Family was a horrible mistake, so I won't belabor the point. But since I expressed enthusiasm for the new interesting windows it opened at first, let me go on record retracting. It did have lots of potential, and blew it.

Worst of all, almost no interesting people, except The Hypocrites, that horrible Weaver family that goes around dissing everyone and wondering why no one likes them, invoking Jesus' name at every opportunity, but apparently oblivious to all he stood for.

And the challenges? Sorry, "challenges"? Last night they had to dress up and get their picture taken. That must have been stressful. Just awful. Enough.

Reality is almost dead. But I sure do love Boondocks.

Remember that great show, Survivor?

Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:58:20 GMT

Yes, I'm still watching; no, I can't quite explain why.

Habit?

Hope?

An occasional great moment?

Is that enough explanation?

I don't hate it by a long shot, I just quit looking forward to it since the ghastly All Stars debacle, found I was compelled to watch The Apprentice before it as soon as that show got started, now it's often Saturday or even Sunday before I get to it.

And feel the itch to hit the FF through much of it. I haven't yet, but I'm wanting to.

It doesn't help they seem to have purposely cast this as The Dumbass Season. They've always included dummies in the casts, but this season they've packed the jungle with them. Not so much the women, but man after man after man.

The two baboons bouncing their chests off each other like a couple of apes from a Diane Fosse documentary this week was the ultimate nadir. Not that it didn't make for a great laugh, but it was one of the few bright moments these morons have provided. The rest of the season, we're stuck with them acting just as stoopid, but without the unintentional comedy.

(Intentional by the editors of course, just not the actors.)

This show was getting dull enough already.

Hey, where's the great TV? Seems in such shrinking supply lately.

Hmmmm. Maybe anyone guilty of following a brilliant with a but deserves it.

Brilliant, but . . .

Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:30:25 GMT

Wow, what a revolting phrase to type. I kind of make myself want to vomit just for having written it. I'd like to believe I live in the world where people who say things like that ought to be metaphorically shot.

But . . .

But, The Colbert Report.

Yes, I'm still chucking every time he pronounces it pronounced "The Col-bear Ra-poor". I'm chuckling all the way through. Chuckling constantly, laughing my ass off, in fact.

It's not just funny, it's brilliantly funny. Funnier even than The Daily Show at the moment, and more biting, more incisive. And man, that's saying a lot.

But kind of one note, don't you think?

Not exactly, but kinda. I mean, every joke has about three sides to it, but they all tend along the same lines. So it's one chord?

I'm still loving it. Still, I say, after a week. But four shows in, I'm wondering the same thing I was after the first one, except I'm wondering it incessantly: How soon before I'm incredibly tired of this? How much do I really need?

The great smart thing about The Daily Show is that they mix it up so much. I don't really need 30 (22?) minutes of indictment of the press and the politicos every night, but they come at it in all sorts of different ways.

Even so, I'm kinda ready for a rest when they take a week off--I just wish they could figure out not to schedule them during disasters like Katrina. We needed them that week.

Which brings us to the other problem. Four half hours a week was prolly a bit more than I really needed of The Daily Show, despite its brilliance. Eight half hours of this stuff? Not sure I've got room for all that. Especially with four of the same exquisite chord.

I have always thought Stephen Colbert was the best thing about The Daily Show. Yes, prolly even nosing out Jon Stewart, in a very tight race. And I always prayed for more.

But this much?

I could be wrong. I hope so.

Jew Gold

Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:59:46 GMT

So South Park finally returned this week.

Kind of a disappointment. They did a Katrina episode after all. (They had told Charlie Rose they had big reservations about it in a wonderful appearance last month. (The link is to my post about them, not some dumb CR site. hahaha.)

Should have stuck to their instincts.

Was it just way too late or just way too lame? Seemed like one kinda pointless joke milked the entire episode. Until . . .

Well, their old standby, the jew joke. Somehow, they always manage to get away with them. Partly because the joke is actually on the anti-semites rather than the jews.

At least at first. They always seem to find a way to have it both ways. Skewer all sides. And that's why we love them.

Anyway, right near the end, one hysterical scene.

Pretty boring road to get there though.

Hopefully they're just revving their creative juices back up. This has been the rare show that's still stunning (nine?) years later.

Losing steam in Rome

Tue, 18 Oct 2005 04:26:02 GMT

Those Desperate Housewives were still dull this weekend, though maybe starting to gell a bit. Maybe. Nothing like the joy of last season, though.

Meanwhile, Rome was a fun guilty pleasure for the first month, but has grown kind of tiresome to sit through. The more they focus on the lives "two ordinary soldiers'" the harder it is to watch. Bad, bad idea.

This is going to sound harsh, but . . . That's a technique for really talented people.

Ouch. I even winced at that. But as I watch week after week, it's the thought I keep returning to. In really gifted hands, it could have been brilliant: two storylines running side by side, one of sweeping historical scope, the other forgotten but powerfully intimate.

Ahhhh, how that might have shaken us and moved and provoked unforeseen reflections as we sat there captivated week after week.

But you need a really great story for that. Great acting, great diologue, great directing, great everything. This is a hack soap job. Great sets and costumes--or at least expensive ones--and a single great story, the one cribbed out of the history books.

Much of the acting is passable, sometimes even good, but the more important of the ordinary soldiers is made entirely of wood. And his storyline. Ugh. Nothing.

It's important to grasp what it is you're doing, I think. Cheesy melodrama can be fun. But if you're making cheesy melodrama, stick to the elments that make enjoyable cheese.

Who in this production decided they were making Lawrence of Arabia?

Which by the way, stuck to an important historical story. The of watching this series in the early weeks came from watching history unfold. Really good soapy history. Too bad they didn't stick to that.

Last refuge of the modern scoundrel

Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:08:15 GMT

If you've been watching Survivor this season, particularly this past Thursday, you probably came to the conclusion that Blake Towsley is kind of a dick. If you missed him on The Early Show the next morning, you have no idea.

On Thursday, you had the footage of him babbling incessantly about his infinite superiority--about his high school state sports championship, about his girlfriend's size double-D breasts, about his wild drunken debauchery--and you had the outcome of the episode: his three original tribemates, who had everything to gain by sticking together, may well have written themselves out of contention just to get a human being so vile out of their vicinity.

That was nothing.

Friday morning, after months away from the game to get over his astonishment and anger over being disliked, and mere seconds after thumping his chest for having played the game so honorably, he chose the most spineless method possible to slander his former adversary Brian with what he surely regards as the ultimate insult.

Brian badmouthed him in Guatemala, and apparently engineered his ouster. Blake got his revenge Friday by "accusing" Brian of being gay--by pretending to "defend" him.

Judge for yourself. I transcribed his full screed, no edits or omissions of any kind (though I didn't bother with a few quick echoes of his comments from Harry Smith, spoken at the same time as Blake, in the midst of it):

"The thing that I wanted to come away with more than a million dollars was my honor and my integrity, and I did that. The one thing that was kind of--everybody in the, everybody on the cast and everybody thought that that Brian was gay. And made it a big issue, and a big hot topic and I was, you know, he was adamant about defending himself on that and never once did I speak a bad word about Brian. They had me in interviews and they're like, He's not gay, but everybody thought he was. Brian and myself were the only two the exceptions to the rule. So I'd tried be a good guy for everybody. I think I got out right before it got ugly."

Yeah. Until now.

It's bad enough to out someone on national television. To "accuse" someone who claims not to be on--especially by pretending to defend him--yow. How low can you get?

It's no insult to me, but I'm quite sure it is in Blake's world. Still the most damaging epithet you can slap a guy with in many circles. It's disgusting to do that to Brian, and more disgusting to gay people to use the "charge" as an insult.

Blake mentioned watching the show every Thursday night, and knew damn well the producers had chosen not to air any of those "allegations." So he knew it had probably never crossed the minds of most straight people in the country, and how easy to point it out for them. And if they did already suspect, he was all to eager to provide the compelling evidence that everyone there--other than Mr. Integrity, of course--thought it was true.

Playing the gay card. I keep forgetting we're not past that.

And Harry Smith, of course, said nothing about the slimy slam.

I'm so bored with the Desperate Housewives

Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:21:38 GMT

Not hating it, but sure not giddily gobbling up each new episode, like last season.

Yes, still more on The Amazing Race--something nice, this time

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:19:44 GMT

the coolest thing about this edition is the striking age disparities within the teams--nearly all the teams--which has almost never been true before. on nearly every team, the oldest member(s) of assumed the leadership, and it's fascinating to watch how on some teams their age makes them much stronger--than their children--while in others, it makes them much weaker than their adult daughters or sons in law.

do i feel for those people trying to lead their team, but knowing they're mainly dragging it down.

and the parents of children have such a different challenge: swallow the anger they must feel about their kid handicap, hold back the urge to lash out at the people dragging them down and encourage them instead. i am so utterly impressed by the gaghans and blacks and that christian family for doing that, so disgusted with the two families that pulled up the rear this week. and what a surprise that they were the last two.

(and it's nice to see an overtly-christian group on one of these shows actually act christian for once. so far, i'm really impressed with the way they treat each other.)

also no coincidence, i think, that the two teams with all four members closest in age came in near the top this week.

Amazing Race, the gross families

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:13:08 GMT

i liked episode two of the race nearly as much as the first, for mostly the same reasons.

but i've got to unload about the revolting families.

god. of course this show always casts several revolting teams, but rarely before have we had the chance to the horror that is one of these contestants, and the people who made them that way.

that bickering family from new jersey. are there words to convey the level of my disgust?

most of all for the mom. she constantly whines and complains about how they don't listen to or respect her, and she's right, it is disgustly to behold, but is the reason for it really beyond her vision?

look in the mirror, lady. all they're doing is mimicking your behavior. you have clearly been modelling it for them their entire lives, and they have grown up with all the values you instilled in them.

ugh. she does nothing but belittle and berate them, and respond precisely in kind. i don't even think they (only) doing it to get back at her, i'm guessing they treat everyone the way she does. she trained them, she's got to live with them.

unfortunately, so do we.

the only thing more galling than watching a woman destroy her family like that, though, is watching her then complain about it.

hideous. just hideous. can't parents like that have their licence revoked or something?

but . . .

while she appears to be the season's most horrifying character overall--so far--one of her peers actually outdid her on ep 2.

Most Nasueating Moment of the Week came right after the father in that horrible family eliminated this week put his son behind the wheel. dad put all the responsibility for finding the exit on the kid: you're the driver, you're in charge, it's all on you.

what? you've got three other people in the car, what the hell are you all doing? any decent team--most of the other teams--had all four people aggressively on the lookout. in fact, most successful teams over the years have put primary responsibility on the navigator, who is not driving, not dealing with all the mechanics of driving. the navigator is free to follow the map, watch what roads and landmarks they are passing and insure they're on course.

this was complete idiocy on the dad's part, but there was clearly much more going on. he was so obviously setting his son up. he grudgingly gave up his authority role at the wheel, and was practically drooling over the prospect of his son failing. his first act in the back seat was to pull back and do nothing, instruct everyone else to do nothing, and strand his son out there to fail, shaking the kid's confidence too by remarking steadily on how inevitable that failure was. he could just not wait for his moment, and then gleefully kicked him out of the front, took over again at his rightful position behind the wheel.

what a dispicable man.

maybe it's just a phase--where his son is finally coming of age, and for the first time in his life, he sees himself about to be surpassed in countless ways by his own progeny. maybe he's not always a dick, but he sure was here.

one of the most revolting displays i've ever seen on the show. right up there with that wife-beating dwarf with the blue hair and his blond wife the enabler. at least she was an adult, she was responsible for marrying the complete asshole. to see this kind of treatment of a kid. ugh.

and it was clear from the guy's many comments, and especially his post-loss interview that this was not an isolated incident. he's quite articulate about his dad being deaf to any ideas that come out of his mouth, but luckily he doesn't yet seem to see why. jealousy.

makes me feel grateful i never felt a hint of that from my dad. he's got his problems, for sure, but he's always been proud of me, never once seemed to worry about me overshadowing him. seemed to relish it.

thanks, dad. (maybe saying that here will atone a tiny little bit for almost never saying it to him in person. ugh. do i have to call him? don't you hate it when you see total jerks on tv and suddenly notice what a jerk you've been yourself in an entirely different way?)

---

it shows in the way they treat the people around them, too. did you notice how the bickering family just hurled the "wounded" guy they were carrying to the ground like a sack of potatoes when they hit the finish line? that was a person there, landing on his back on the hard lumpy ground with nothing but a sheet of burlap underneath. all they seemed to care about was their own relief.

meanwhile, the gaghans put their guy down a lot more gently, but still apologized.

(of course who knows about editing. maybe the bickersons apologized too at some point, but why do i doubt that?)

Downside of The Amazing Race Family

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:01:36 GMT

What's with this driving tour of PA and Jew Jersey?

I've already driven on that expressway. And hundreds like it. What happened to taking me to places I'd never been?

I don't get it.

And I understand most of this season is going to be that way. Ugh.

The absolute nadir of this element came in ep one, when the father-in-law expressed his wonder at getting to hand a costumed guy the guy the flag, and then watching him fold it up. Folding a flag? This guy needs to get out more. And what was with the long slow shot of the flag getting folded. That's a compelling visual? I could fold a flag at home. I have folded a flag at home. What were they thinking?

Not quite up there with the season contestants spent time in Nelson Mandela's cell. I have not been there. I am not likely to, though I have put it on my list ever since I saw that ep. One of the best things about this show is the places it takes us.

Further, please.

Update:

It's becoming clear that they have decided that instead of just taking us to faraway places this season, they will take us to faraway times. We're not just visiting the U.S. or its historical sites, but re-enacting the past.

Well, interesting idea. I give them props for thinking of it, trying it. And it's not completely unsuccessful so far. But they do seem to be demonstrating that contemporary cultural differences are much easier to bring vividly to the screen than American history--at least in this sort of entertainment TV vehicle.

But . . .

I am starting to see some upside to the historical re-enactments? While trite and routine in a lot of ways, perhaps they will add a bit of excitement to the challenge. I've been to a civil war re-enactment--for a feature story, for my college paper--and believe me, it's not that exciting. But as background to last week's challenge, it really added something. This time, it felt like more than nine teams running around doing some goofy task, they were doing it among a whole lot of . . . well, distracting movement and scenery, I guess. Distracting in a good way. Added to the sense of pandemonium. And color. And a lot of things. An all-around richer experience.

So that's some upside.

Trey Parker is adorable!

Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:43:49 GMT

Just freaking adorable.

(OK, one quickie daytime post. This just lit me up. Gotta get it out.)

My apologies for starting with that somewhat shallow and immature sentiment instead of something serious, but after 20 minutes with these guys, and all the hilarious, enlightening and above all inspiring things they had to say, the honest truth is, that is the one irresistible thought bouncing round my brain right now.

God. These two are a freaking riot.

Oh. Context. They were on Charlie Rose last night. Sort of a mindfuck right there, Charlie & The South Park Boys, which they commented on, of course: now we've won and Emmy, we've done charlie rose, how do you stay punk after that? heeheehee.

(Of course it makes sense as well, Charlie loves to have influential people from any realm of culture, though he does tend to lag nearly as far behind as Time magazine, and it has taken him nine years to get these pop culture titans. But still. The contrast is quite amusing. Also amusing that Charlie pointed out he had been a character on both South Park and The Simpsons.)

Hennyway, just watching while I had a bite. Usually use Charlie as radio, but these two were just too delightful to look away. Even as talking heads, they're fun to watch.

And delightful is not a word I'm too comfortable using out loud too often, but sometimes a slightly uncomfortable word just fits.

They are so giddy! That's the best part of watching them: not even the way they crack me up--though they do--but the way they crack themselves up. They talk about how the show is such a grind, not fun at all--hmmmm, sort of like writing, much of the time--but unintended inspiration here is, their LIVES are so much fun. Not by design, I'm sure, they just enjoy the hell out of existence.

That or they just popped a couple amyl nitrate capsules before they went on.

And not just laughter, their faces are just so damn expressive, particularly Trey. (And how did I overlook how handsome he was before? Great. Why does it always have to be the straight one. At least I think he's straight.)

I had to pause the Tivo right now to grab my laptop and type this on the couch, because Charlie has just asked Trey if he's a libertarian, and after a quick duck and Charlie's insistence, Trey is literally biting his lower lip trying to bring himself to -- presumably, I'm in freeze-frame anticipating his answer -- admit it.

OK, unfroze. In his best Newhart stutter, "It's, it's possible."

Heeheehee.

Just too freaking adorable for words.

---

OK, I really wanted to end on that note. But then . . .

Charlie--and here's why we love him--plays along wonderfully for most of the exchange, but doesn't let him duck, and at the end, asks Matt Stone, incredulously the exact question running through every audience member's mind, but that nobody else in the business but he and Oprah and maybe Katie Couric would actually spit out: "Why is he embarrassed by this?"

Matt laughs, Trey says, "I'm not embarrassed at all, it's just a difficult question."

Charlie is still more incredulous. "Why is it difficult!"

"Because it's it's . . .

"It's like saying are you . . .?"

Charlie loses the balls to finish that one.

First awkward pause of the interview. Finally, from Trey:

"It's like are you gay? It's like . . . a little."

He explodes with laughter. His face totally contorted in laughter.

{Editor's note: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! He's joking I'm sure--almost sure--but yea anyway for the tiny little idea of opening. Wait, he's not through yet:}

Raising his arms, palms up, like his eyebrows, "On a Friday night, maybe." Suddenly quiet, faux serious. "No chick around . . . sure."

Lots of laughs all around. And then a more serious explanation. And yet another thing I have in common with them. Ahhhhhh. Too bad it's just the odd Friday night.

But who knows, maybe Matt will drag him to check out our latest gaybar, won't be many chicks around there. And it just happens to be a Friday night spot. Hmmmmm.

Bigger hmmm. I seem to have just blogged through the rest of my lunch break. Can't even watch the rest of the interview. (But something to look forward to at 4 p.m. snack.)

Nice to have something to be proud of from Colorado. Eager to get back to writing to be the next thing.