"Buongiorno! I'm Gino..."

Bert Large is a character I wish I'd created. To quote Barry (High Fidelity): "[He's] so good. [He] shoulda been mine."

Of course, I doubt I have the skill or talent to create such a fantastic character and then to bring him to life all on my own the way Ian McNeice does.

 Bert Large (Ian McNeice) as a ventriloquist for the Port Wenn Talent show.

If you don't know who Bert Large is, that means you haven't been watching Doc Martin and why haven't you? You're missing out. It's pure genius. Although, for some reason, I don't think a show of this caliber could survive on its own in the U.S. during prime-time against shows like CSI and Bones. I think it requires the genius of the British to come up with a show of this nature and then maintain an audience for it in the long run.

Maybe I'm underestimating American audiences, or maybe it's the American production companies. I don't know who, but SOMEONE is to blame for the lack of this quality of work in the U.S. Luckily, the British make it and ship it over, and it finds the niche audience like myself. I'm just glad there are others like me, otherwise the Brits wouldn't even bother to ship it over.

In any case, thank goodness someone out there cares about quality, otherwise I'd starve. The only other place to find such a colorful cast of characters is in a Dickens novel. Dickens is great, but it's fun to have someone else do the work for me when I can't sit down and read a book.

Doc Martin isn't just about the doctor. It's about a village on the Cornish coast.

Point one. A village. On the Cornish coast. Who even uses the term village anymore? That's one of the great things about the show, that it's got this colloquial sense about it. However, that doesn't mean it's some dreary, slow-moving account of each individual in Port Wenn (the fictional name of the village). Nope. Each episode usually consists of several strands of storyline that are braided together and which eventually meet up and make sense at the end.

Point two. Braided storyline. I don't dissect every TV show I've ever watched, but this one is cleverly done up into a sleek braid that has a pleasant snap to it. Like a whip. The show has a whippish intellect. Now, apparently whippish is not a word, but for my purposes it means whip-like. Makes sense, I think. So, another great thing about Doc Martin. I watched all thirty or so episodes almost without stopping (I had a lot of down time while taking care of the baby) and never once did I think, "Oh man, if Jack Bauer saves the world again at the last minute...." or "Oh no, if they say 'intubate' or 'he's seizing!' one more time, I'm going to throttle their necks!" Because, unlike many dramas, Doc Martin doesn't seem to rely heavily on plot-crutches. Yes, braided storyline and yes there's usually some kind of medical mystery the doctor ends up solving, but it's never overly predictable in an irritating fashion.

New paragraph here, but I'm still on the subject of the last paragraph (this paragraph is for purely cosmetic reasons), and that is that EVEN though there is always a medical mystery to be solved, it never ends up feeling formulaic. My theory is that this is because the cast of characters is so strong.

Point three. Excellent array of characters. You have your gaggle of village girls who wander around the neighborhood, popping up here and there to make cat-calls at the men. And sometimes they call the doctor a tosser. I have no idea what that is. I suspect it's a derogatory term, but since I'm not British I can hardly find it offensive. And that's why I feel comfortable writing it here, on my blog. No need to explain it (if you're British and feel like enlightening me). Anyway, the gaggle of village girls always cracks me up. What a waste of time! I mean, the girls. They're wasting their time. But it's totally amusing. "Heeeeeyyyy Al! Hee hee hee." "Heeeeeyyyy Doc Martin...." Etc. 

You have the plumbers, Bert and Al Large, who sometimes seem like the worst possible thing that could happen to your sink. And there's the village pharmacist with her eternal crush on the doctor, "How about tea? And we could finally go over those MHRA journals together..." who's never seen without her neck brace, but somehow feels she must be attractive, nasty neck-brace and all. There's the doctor's sweet Aunt Joan–really his only family at all (you get to meet his parents in an episode and wow, they suck). And of course, the love-interest: the gorgeous and kind (though sharp-witted) Ms. Glasson.

The doctor and Louisa Glasson. Don't worry: it's a dream.

I'd try to describe all of these characters better, but I'm no Dickens after all. The point is the show is fast-paced enough not to feel like it was done in the 70s (I tried to watch the old Hawaii Five-O one time and fell asleep), while maintaining a kind of small-town luster that makes you want to disappear into a country village and soak up the local color. No kidding. Local color.





P.S. And don't even think of suggesting that it's like Little House on the Prairie. Unless you always LOVED that show. In that case, it's a modern Little House on the Prairie meets House. Loads of houses here.

Is It So Wrong to Be a Little Obsessed?

A few people who I shan't name have mentioned that I get obsessed with things. They were talking specifically about the television show Doc Martin with a glancing reference to Dr. Who, as though it's a BAD thing to become obsessed with such quality story-telling and character development. 

Sometimes it's best to describe things as what they're NOT rather than what they ARE, even though I don't think I'd be remiss in describing how great these two television shows are (though they're worlds apart in subject matter). Like so: at least I'm not watching soap operas. At least I'm not watching and obsessing over Jersey Shore. At least I'm not absorbed in the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills or any other show of that nature.

Not that there's anything wrong with those shows. Well, I mean, I guess it depends on who you are and what your value system is. I suppose by the very fact that I'm saying "at least I'm not . . ." I'm implying that there's something wrong with a show like Days of Our Lives.

I guess I'll just say it. Soap operas are crap and I have no idea how anyone has ever gotten tied up in them. The sets are weird. The lighting is weird. The actors can't act. And the stories are so full of totally improbable scenarios that no one in their right mind could ever buy into the plot twists.

Also, the characters all seem to be egocentric and unlikeable.

Perhaps the problem isn't the shows I get obsessed with. Perhaps the problem is that I tend to get very absorbed in things. That IS the problem. And it's a problem for me too, because I find it extremely difficult to buy into anything halfway and in the long run, it ends up having been a waste of time. A phase. And I usually come away empty-handed.

The fact is that I can't go one hundred percent into anything, really. I'm not even one hundred percent invested in Dr. Who. If someone told me Dr. Who was doing a convention in Salt Lake, there's a good chance I wouldn't go, even though it'd be easy for me to attend. And well, would I attend? Probably not.

I can't even be one of those people who'd wait outside a theater to meet the actor of some show I'm obsessed with. Because, what would I say? "You're amazing. I love you so much. Your work is the best!" That sounds stupid and really, are they amazing? No. And do I love them? Not really. I love the character they portray and sadly, that character doesn't exist in reality. The only true statement I could possibly deliver that would even matter is that they do good work. And it's just not worth it.  Because they don't care what I think.

And that's why I don't get into anything one hundred percent. 

Despite all that, I still love Dr. Who and Doc Martin.

I think the term for a fan like me is a rainy-day fan. Once I see through it or the glamour wears off, I'm gone.

Where was I going with all this? Oh yes. I merely wanted to know what was so wrong with being obsessed with a show. The shows I get obsessed with (just like the books) are GOOD. I don't fall for crap. And despite how quickly I might move on, I'll defend to the death that the bits or pieces I WAS in love with (like season 1, that was the BEST! Or "it was good until so-and-so left or stopped writing or died, etc.") were worthwhile and amazing and well-done.

Like Eccleston was the best Doctor. And Fringe was good until the writers went all berserk. And Alias was gripping and excellent until they started getting all creepy supernatural. And Simpson's was fantastic except for those wobbly, questionable seasons starting right around the 14th season (or so). And so on.

In the end, I still haven't said my piece on Dr. Who and Doc Martin.

Is it wrong that I feel ridiculous saying (even with all the love I feel for it) Doc Martin and I'm talking about the show and not the shoe company?

"Happy Endings"? More Like "Crappy Endings"

I don't like to wish for anyone's failure. It seems rude. And not very classy. That being said, I'd really be happy if the show ABC's "Happy Endings" fails.

After I watch a really good show on television and another one comes on that's pure manure, I wish the network could hear me changing the channel or turning my TV off. But that would be creepy. So I'll just speak here, on my blog, and hope that ABC is paying attention. I know they have nothing else to do but peruse the blogosphere to find out what really important people like me think.

Here's more about what I think. It was terrible. Part of the time I left it on with the volume turned down and the acting was unconvincing, even without sound. With sound, I'm sure I would have longed more heartily to be able to punch each actor in the face.

I could liken the arrival of this show on the TV scene with that moment in "So I Married an Axe Murderer" when Mike Meyers walks into the girl's apartment and says, "You know what this room needs? A huge over-sized poster of Atlantic City." And he turns and pretends to just notice the huge over-sized poster of Atlantic City. Very funny and very cute and I love that movie.

But you know what we really really really need on television? Another piece of crap show about single people in their 30s being stupid and self-centered. I love nothing more than to watch story after story of people trying to find themselves when they've already lived over thirty years and still haven't learned how not to be a complete waste of oxygen.

Yes, yes. I have lots and lots of friends in their 30s who are single and I love them and hopefully my criticism of another show about a bunch of dummies (like "Friends") doesn't offend them. The point is that they're actually living that life. They're not sitting around bantering and saying witty things and being deplorable individuals. Hopefully. We're not together all the time, maybe they ARE doing that.

What I mean about not being a complete waste of oxygen is that no one is interesting once they reach a certain age and all they've managed to do is live for themself. They need a cause. There are circumstances where this is obviously an unfair measure of a person—of course I can't account for every single exception, but to name just one, there are plenty of great women who've never married because no one has asked them (not their fault)—and it's not like I'm here to make judgment's about the lives of specific individuals.

I'm merely making the observation that I personally don't find a show about yet another group of losers living in the city with their friends, in cool apartments with furniture and decor totally out of their income range (unless they're also living on entitlements...or trust funds), to be compelling.

And maybe it's just me. Maybe it's because I'm generally exhausted of the overwhelming decay of the family in our society and this show and others like it only contributes to the downward slide by showcasing the awesomeness of remaining single and living with your awesome friends in an awesome apartment in the awesome city. Want to go get beers or go to the club? Yeah? Awesome!

I'm old-fashioned, yep. So it wouldn't be witty of you to leave that comment on my blog (considering the usual clamor for readers to comment on my blog...I don't know what it is, seriously. I guess my tone doesn't encourage feedback....). I know. Yes. Old-fashioned, curmudgeonly old woman here! Point and laugh, please.

If you're thinking there's a lot of built-up resentment bubbling under the surface regarding this issue (people my age remaining single for forever and forever), you're right. There is. And it's not because I'm completely unfamiliar with being single. I didn't get married until I was twenty-seven. It wasn't that I didn't look, either. I dated and had a trillion boyfriends. I come from a culture that encourages marriage and where many people get married very young. So there was pressure for me to conform. I tried. But I didn't want to get married for the sake of getting married. I wanted to marry someone I loved.

Blah blah blah. The point is, even in the extremely oh-so progressive America of today, it is still not the fashion for women to ask a man to marry her. We have to wait for the question to be asked of us. But men aren't doing their job. And I suppose some of that falls to the women, who are somewhat confused about how they ought to operate in a culture where everyone just "hangs out."

I hate to point out the elephant in the room, but why not? I'm not good at burying my head in the sand, anyway, and I have to say, women make a huge mistake when they put on the attitudes of men and strut around acting like they don't give a crap and "hell yeah, I'll sleep with you. On the first date, even. I'm not a prude! I'm a modern woman! Girl-power!"

So, as much as my heart goes out to women who find it difficult to get a man to ask for her hand, I also think this is the bed we've made for ourselves. Women pretend to be men and feel the same way as men about sex and commitment and they do it to their undoing. Uncommitted sex only complicates relationships and as much as I hate the saying "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free," well...why? It's true. Think about it.

Men will often be the first to tell you they think that way. At least the ones who aren't trying to get you to sleep with them. So best ask a really old guy who's happily married and not looking to bag a younger woman. He's probably going to be most honest about it.

Anyway, I know it's a round about way of explaining my disgust with another show like "Happy Endings," but it's all melted into the same ball of wax. Singleness never was happiness*. That's all I'm saying. And I know most people will agree with me. I remember being single. It was me against the world, the universe, etc. Going to bed alone night after night was lonely. Even though I tried to put a good face on it, I really wanted to be part of a team.

The problem is that no one can tell you how to find someone. But shows like "Happy Endings" (from what I could tell from the first episodes, both muted and unmuted) don't help anyone in that search. And really, life isn't about "finding yourself." It's about losing yourself in serving others. And the best place to do that, historically speaking, is in a loving, committed relationship.




*I don't even want to qualify this statement because it's a given, but I would never make the claim that being in an abusive relationship is preferable to being single. I don't mean that at all. Yes, it is better to be alone than in a loveless or hurtful relationship.

Charlie Sheen Becomes Charlie Parker

 Partying like a rock star has been shown to age a person beyond their years. 

It's probably a chicken/egg argument, but am I the only who makes the connection between Charlie Sheen's hedonistic lifestyle and the fact that he played a hedonistic bachelor in Two and a Half Men (aka "the worst comedy series ever to last so long")?

I'm taking the view that he couldn't play such an incorrigible role without it bleeding into his real life. What a miserable guy. I actually feel bad for what an unhappy man he appears to be. I think he thinks he covers it up with his aggressive interview tactics, but it's fairly transparent, isn't it?

Ok, and what about David Duchovny in that HBO show (which I never saw, but heard about) Californication? So he plays a guy with a sexual addiction (amongst other addictions). Several years later, his marriage is falling apart because . . . why? He's got a sexual addiction.

Apparently even birth-control glasses couldn't prevent continued infidelity.

Y'ello? Is there a trend here? Could it be impossible to portray a character with such troubling demons for a long period of time without those attributes seeping into that actor's reality? It doesn't seem out of the question to me, but perhaps I'm superstitious or something.

I often wonder how actors act in films that reek of evil without feeling like they're treading into hell. I guess it comes down to what you call evil. I think the current trend in our culture is that there is no evil. It's just a bunch of people being human. And, you know, that's not evil, man. That's just people, having a human experience, man, which is good, you know?

But, in my opinion, that's just a candy-coated lie. Evil is obviously selfishness. What's more evil than putting your own needs over the needs of others? Even the tribes of American Indians believed in evil, and selfishness was what evil was generally thought to be. This is true, at least, of the Navajo. If someone in your tribe or clan was becoming wealthier than everyone else, that person was obviously practicing witch-craft. They manipulate the wheel of fortune to bring fortune to themselves at the expense of the rest of the tribe.

There are two kinds of evil: selfishness (no illustration necessary); and primordial evil, like Cthulhu. There's no way back from Cthulhu, once you're caught: madness. Selfishness allows for repentance. Here that, Charlie?

Not a bad definition of evil. But, I'm not trying to espouse communism or socialism, because I don't believe that's the answer to the problems of the world (at least, not government forced charity). I'm just making the case that it's not totally old-fashioned to believe in evil. There are lots of forms of it. I'm sure many people would agree that exploiting or hurting children is evil.

So then, why can't I say that Hollywood makes evil movies and wonder how the actors reconcile themselves to participating in such graphic and uncomfortable portrayals of evil? Because I really do wonder. They must have absolutely no conscience. Which is sad, because that's the only way to navigate the often troubling waters of our lives, you know, with Jiminy Cricket right there, guiding us.

I'm personally not comfortable with portrayals of extreme evil on television or film. Shows like Criminal Minds really disturb me. And I'd have to say, in fact, that it's refreshing to me to find out that others are likewise uncomfortable with certain subject matters. For example, Mandy Patinkin, who played one of the profilers on Criminal Minds, left the show after two seasons because he loathed violence on television and was uncomfortable with certain scenes in the show (source).

Mandy sought a six-fingered man as Inigo. As Jason Gideon, he sought criminals who might eat human fingers for breakfast. Which do YOU want to see? The Spaniard on a quest of vengeance? Same with Mandy.

So some people do have consciences! It's really a revelation to me that there are people in show business who have morals. So, thanks Mandy. I honestly wish Hollywood was better at producing fiction that could give me hope, rather than just making me laugh or feel utterly depressed. I must be in the minority, however, otherwise I'm sure the ratings would have shown as much.

At some point, I fully expect to bow out of consuming television and film. I'm almost there. Charlie Sheen's tantrums and embarrassing displays don't help me feel encouraged about what's happening in the entertainment industry. In fact, I'd sort of be happy if the whole system imploded. But I'm sure the executives would only blame piracy, rather than taking a microscope to the trash they're producing and try to fix it.

Superhero Fatigue

 Am I the only one who's tired of superheroes?

Just a sampling of recent superhero stuff in the media: No Ordinary Family, The Cape, The Green Hornet (the movie), X-Men, Batman, Watchmen, Spiderman, Superman, and I just heard they're going to remake the TV show Wonder Woman. I guess the time is really right for that kind of move. We haven't had enough of ordinary people with extraordinary powers doing special things out of the sheer goodness of their hearts for humanity as a whole. Motives of pure gold, that's what they have. The rest of us just have to watch and stare in wonder.

I tried to watch The Cape. I think I missed the first fifteen minutes of the show or maybe it was the first half hour. It didn't matter because the last bit I saw was boring, even though it involved a lot of double-crossing and fight scenes and chase scenes and spectacular explosions. It even involved a little boy watching the news as his dad ran from some bad guys one morning, as the little boy ate breakfast in the kitchen with his mom. Then they watched as a cargo trailer exploded. It was being filmed live. And his dad was under that trailer.

I didn't feel a whit of sadness for the family as they hugged and wept. Maybe because I knew the dad was alive? Or maybe because I wasn't invested enough in the show? Perhaps I have a heart of stone. Or . . . it could be that the story just sucked.

I don't know. But often, even when I know the opposite is true ("X is not dead, he's just buried under a pile of debris!" or "X is alive! She's just in a coma!"), I still manage to dredge up a few tears for the poor unsuspecting loved ones who feel the loss of their mother, father, or friend. I'm just following that wise admonishment to "weep with those who weep," and etc. And I'm a sap. Need I say more?

Ok, so I'm a sap. But I'm not mindless. And I'm trying to figure out what the crap is wrong with the networks and all their lame writers who think the public wants MORE superhero tripe. It wouldn't be so bad if the writing was actually good and the stories they were telling us were compelling. But so far I can hardly stand two minutes of No Ordinary Family. It's like the Invincibles. Only the Invincibles was cute and funny, and when it came out, there hadn't been a story about a family with superpowers.

To top it all off, why is it assumed that the public is enamored with the idea of heroes having special powers to assist them in their do-gooding? Can I say that? Do-gooding? Why do we want to celebrate heroes who are endowed with "special" powers and not a normal human who extends his or herself beyond the average and achieves something great, because that's the traditional definition of hero. And anyone can be a hero.

Currently, I suppose, there is this bubbling undercurrent of curiosity regarding the possibility that oh wow, humans have mutated and now all of us have the ability to fly! Or, suddenly I can see through walls! It was all those preservatives in the Twinkies. I ate a lot of Twinkies and it mutated my DNA. And now I'm superhuman. Yeah. It was the BPA. It toyed so much with my estrogen that now I have super-strength. Go figure.

That's what people are thinking. I know it. Sadly, the BPA and Twinkies are not going to mutate us into powerful creatures. And same with toxic waste and genetically enhanced spider bites. They'll just kill us, as bad things do.

For some reason, we'd apparently rather hear stories about morons who develop special powers through accidents that ought to destroy us (which, I guess you would argue, is how the superhero is born—because they're "no ordinary" human, they just become powerful, and not dead . . . ) and do awesome things rather than hear stories about real heroism.

Yesterday I deleted the Jack Handey quote in my Facebook information and put in a quote by James Talmage, and then I tried to fill in the "people who inspire you" section. I typed in "my mom, Stoker, my family," and hit save. Guess what? You can't put that sort of nonsense in (Facebook seems to say). It didn't work even when I typed their names in (so it could link to their pages).

Facebook will not have it. Facebook wants me to put in names of people so it can link my page to those pages of, I guess, people it deems appropriate for me to admire. It wants names like Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Galileo, and other sundry people who everyone can admire and link to.

I might admire those people, but this is the commercialization of hero-worship.

What bothers me is that I can't choose who I admire and for whom I wish to advertise my admiration. I would like the world to know and the people who know me to know that I'm not fooled by fame*, I'm not a member of some cult of personality, I have seen the reality of what a hero truly is: it is someone who does something very difficult, under the pressure of the possibility that if they fail, the people who matter to them will suffer, and yet they do it anyway. Even if they don't succeed, their sacrifice is noted, their attempt is recorded and the ramifications felt. Those ramifications might simply be the realization, "this person loves me very much," or "this person loves others more than him/herself."

And come to think of it, the only reason a hero ever does anything is because of that: love. But superheroes? I don't really know about them, having never known any personally.

All I know is that I'm done with superheroes. Green Hornet? Not going to see it. More iterations of Spiderman? Won't be seeing them. The new Wonder Woman? Ha. Fat chance. Her costume will probably be strips of tape and a bikini bottom and rather than using any skill, earned or inherent, she'll stop crime with her sluttiness. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha.

In the next few days, I'll be posting about being tired of the following: cop dramas, doctor/hospital dramas, firefighter dramas, law/courtroom dramas, crime scene dramas, serial killer/heinous crime dramas, and slutty housewife dramas. Does that encompass everything on prime time? Oh, dang.




*I really want everyone to admire me for not admiring moronic famous people. It's a defining characteristic of who I am.

"Lie to Me" Almost Ruined Our Relationship

I really like the show Lie to Me. And I was one of the first. That's right. For once in my life, I can honestly say that I've been with the show since the pilot. Usually something happens in the hour-long drama shows to offend me by this point and I've jumped ship. And something almost DID happen Monday night, but it's not grievous enough for me to slam the door in its face, turn off the porch light, and close all the blinds. Yet.

Usually it's the non-lesbian straight-hot-girl kiss that does it. Why? Because it's b.s. It's never in there because it adds to the story. It's deliberately contrived to be in there to titillate a male audience, which is offensive to me. It's like saying, "Hello, I know you're my girlfriend, but want to go to the strip club with me?" I know there are women who do that and that's fine, for them (of course I tend to think they're weak and insecure, but that's just me), but it's not ok for me. I demand civility and gentility and a bunch of other -ilities from the men in my life and if I don't get it, then . . . [fill in the blank].

Many of these shows know the largest part of their viewership is women, and what they end up counting on is the fact that women are not offended by seeing the non-lesbian straight-hot-girl kiss. So they throw it in to garner favor in their male audience, which is small, and which they hope to increase by the tantalizing chance of seeing such forbidden actions on prime-time TV.

If more women were as tough as me, they'd boycott the shows after such gratuitous, pointless, crap and teach the networks a lesson. Because it's not just offensive to me. It's offensive to real lesbians who have real relationships and not flings with women while actually being into men, just to be exhibitionists for men. It's reducing real lesbian partnerships into something that exists only for men, which is, as I understand it, what so many feminists (who often happen to be lesbians) want to escape.

So anyway. I haven't seen any of my pet peeves on Lie to Me. Yet.

But Monday night the show crossed a line. A faint line. Upon further reflection later on, it snowballed into something that could squash my enthusiasm for Tim Roth's character and the intriguing relationships he has with the rest of the characters.

What was it? What could it have been? you ask, holding your breath, sitting on the edge of your office chair.

At the very end, Cal Lightman's adorable daughter has broken up with her too-perfect boyfriend because . . . why? "He doesn't believe in sex before marriage." Tim Roth's character laughs. All this time he's been worried about what his daughter's getting into with the boyfriend and it turns out, the kid won't have sex before marriage. Not even a "is that so bad? Sounds perfect to me," from Tim Roth. Just laughter.

Am I insane that I think most decent fathers are going to be thrilled to find out their daughter has a boyfriend with standards like that? Am I insane to believe that most dads don't want their high school daughter sleeping around? Even in a culture that has determined that lots of sex before marriage—to see if you're compatible, of course—is a great idea, aren't dads a little more protective of their daughters than an "I give you my blessing" to a guy who wants to live with daddy's little girl before they get married?

What bothers me, really, is that this show I love has suddenly decided to twist what a girl wants into what men really want and not what women want. Sex in the City did enough of that. They've lied to women about what we want and a lot of women have bought it. It's not female empowerment to try to be what men are. We're not men. It doesn't empower women to sleep around and not demand commitment. It only serves men when women live like that.

So I don't need Lie to Me, to be trying to sell me some stupid Sex in the City ideology about what teenage girls want. GIRLS DON'T BREAK UP WITH GUYS BECAUSE A GUY DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE SEX BEFORE HE'S MARRIED. And if she does, her problem isn't the guy. It's the commitment. She's got commitment problems.

Ok. And that may be all me and me alone, because I'm not an idiot and lots of other people tend to be when it comes to logic and reason, nevertheless, it's really irritating. It's irritating that Cal (Tim Roth) didn't say anything, because in my opinion, his daughter was looking for fatherly advice, not laughter and best friend sort of crap. No kid in their right mind wants mom and dad to be their buddy. They want mom and dad to be their guide. They want dad to set them straight and show how important they are by pulling them away from the fire, not letting them get burned to a crisp. They want mom to establish rules and stick to the rules, because it makes them feel safe in a dangerous world.

Sure, teenagers pretend to hate it and they push against the boundaries, but until the kid is 18 or not living at home, they deserve to have the guidance of their parents. And even after they're 18 and have moved away, kids go back to their parents for guidance. Advice. Sound reasoning. Etc.

So it bugs me that Cal Lightman just laughed and didn't tell his daughter that a man like Liam (the boyfriend) is decent. That he respects her and sexual relationships if that's what his standards are, and that she shouldn't be breaking up with a guy over that, and oh yeah, she'll have sex before she's married over his dead body, etc. If a show is going to be trying to teach me standards, then it better be decent standards. And not Sex in the City standards, because that's no standards at all. And if I wanted that, I'd watch that show.

I hope Lie to Me straightens up after this and that if they want to do something about Cal Lightman's daughter having sex as a teenager, for pete's sake, show us that the consequences are detrimental. Because that's the reality more often than not. Sex complicates everything. And everyone knows it; if they think otherwise, they're lying to themselves.

Filling in the Missing (College) Years: Joss Whedon and Firefly

I just finished watching the "Firefly" TV series.  On DVD of course.  

I liked it alright, but I'm kind of baffled at how much I thought was lame about it.  Apparently I'm more like the network that canceled it and less like the countless fans who adore it.  

What I liked:

1) Most of the characters had something to love about them and things I thought were crap.  Which is something to like.  Weird, I know.  But there's nothing more obnoxious than an impossibly perfect character. In Joss Whedon's universe, however, morals are completely mucked up, so it's hard to gauge their morals based on their universe.  I'm going to be a jerk and base them on my universe, where prostitution is still illegal in most states and even if it weren't illegal, I'd still call it deplorable.  Just because Joss Whedon thought it'd be fun to make prostitutes/geishas into a respectable class, doesn't mean they're Good.  This is somewhat reflected in Malcolm's reactions to Inara's profession, but we never really know if that's because he's in love with her or if he thinks the profession is all around Terrible.  

2) Kaylee.  I really liked the way Kaylee's character unfolded.  The innocence about her was endearing and it warmed me up to Malcolm and some of the other characters who were protective of her.  She's sweet and naive--of course, this was totally exploited by the writers of the show who thought it would be real fun, later on in the series, to show us that Kaylee first met Malcolm while being a skank with the original engineer on Serenity.  Yay.  I get it.  I know I'm going against what I just said in the point number one, but they really sullied Kaylee by doing that.  Who wrote that episode?  Some slash-fiction creep?  But again, I get it that we're in a universe where Good equals people who don't rape you to death and rip your skin off while you're still alive and Bad equals people who do those sorts of things. Really airtight definition, that.  Thanks Joss et. al. 

3) The music.  At first it was really awesome.  This always happens when you watch a series on DVD.  It's too easy to watch the next episode right away.  Soon the motifs and any repeatable feature of the show becomes sickeningly obvious and obnoxious. So after a while the music started to bug me.  But I don't hold that against the show.  That's really a flaw of the continuous play feature.

4) Jayne.  He's great.  I mean, he's obviously supposed to be kind of a jerk.  But the things he liked and did were totally in character.  His guns.  Women.  Money.  It fit him, and his stupidity softened the questionable aspects of his character, so you end up loving him because he kind of doesn't know any better.  Perhaps this was what bugged me about Kaylee being a slut in the flash-back episode where Malcolm stays behind with the ship--Kaylee isn't a slut. Nothing about her before that episode EVER suggested that she's loose.  Suddenly she's banging a guy in the engine room of the ship--well, it just seemed like a mean trick.  And sorry, but when they tried to explain that away by saying she has a fetish for machines . . . well, once again, doesn't really fit.  

5) The universe itself.  Sometimes I thought it was really ridiculous and unformed, while other times I thought it clever and fun.  So I'm going to go with it being mostly good.  I thought it intriguing (word of the day) how they created a future where the Asian cultures had sort of merged with the American west.  Pretty cool.  Although the swearing in Chinese was often lame and instead of helping, it hindered the believability of the universe.  For me.  And I laughed, and felt embarrassed for watching the show.  

What I didn't like:

1) Inara.  She was the weakest link.  They should have let her die in the first episode. She was a Deanna Troi character, to me: completely unnecessary, tossed in to titillate.  Most of her lines were stupid, especially when she waxed philosophic about her job as a prostitute.  Though I get what the writers were doing, yes, I know, dude, it was like a western meets Asian culture, man, it was like the final frontier, like space is the old west and there are guns and outlaws and whores, only they've like elevated women who sleep with men for money to the status of like, Ambassadors (that was my frat-boy impression, although I don't imagine many frat-boys were watching this show). Blah blah blah.  She was stupid.  And the tension between her and Malcolm always felt forced.  Sadly. Because love is such a strong reason for why we do things.  His love interest could have been a better impetus for why he did dangerous missions or made bold moves, instead for me it always seemed like the authorial hand was in there manipulating Inara and Malcolm.  Oh well.  Perhaps this is why the show was canceled?  Inara?  It could be. Ha ha.  

2) River.  I know the show wasn't around long enough to flesh this storyline out, so I can forgive them for it.  But my initial impressions of it weren't positive.  In her favor, she did create some tense moments that made the story interesting, but for the most part I never wanted her onscreen.  

I get the impression that lots of people are disappointed the show was canceled.  I have to say I can see why it was canceled.  Yeah, it would be great if it had lasted, but by the time I got to the final episodes, I could see they were running out of steam.  Did I mention that I really liked Malcolm?  I did.  And sometimes the writing was truly brilliant, and by writing I mean the dialogue.  There were moments where the characters said surprising and witty things.  I loved it for that.  I'm going to try out some of the Buffy stuff.  I was in college during its heyday and completely missed it.  

Beautiful Comb-Over. Or Is that a Wig?

I surprised myself last night and watched Celebrity Apprentice. I was bored, eating my salad by myself, and the cats weren't in the mood for conversation, so I turned on the TV. We don't have cable or channel two, ABC. I don't even know what shows run on that channel. At least, I think it's ABC. ABC is channel two in Nashville, right? I don't know. I know I get the nightly news with Katie Couric and the channel with Brian Williams, so whatever that's worth. Guess you have to know your channels and the shows to know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, my favorite thing about the show was watching Donald Trump. I know nothing about this man aside from the fact that he's extremely, embarrassingly wealthy, he was married to a woman name Ivana, and he doesn't care what you think, he's going to comb his hair like that! So I've heard he's an ass on the regular Apprentice and maybe last night diverged from his typical behavior, but I thought he seemed very humane when he fired Stephen Baldwin.

Maybe I'm easily impressed, because I was also impressed by Stephen Baldwin, the way he took the bad news and all that. I would have been in tears and the night would have ended with me screaming obscenities at the Donald and at the camera and at Trace for being such a perfect country gentleman. I guess that's why I do what I do, I can't handle the truth. I'd never make it in a real dog-eat-dog world. Everything would end with me screaming obscenities at everyone.

So Donald. He's real interesting. To his secretary, "GET me the final four in here right NOW!" What a man. A man of action.

This weekend: chicks from the Feed/Co-op whatever it's called. A coop. A rain barrel.

Sleep, Read, or Watch T.V.?

Why can't I go to bed earlier? All my life I've been a night person and I really suffer in the mornings, like right now, when I can barely keep my eyes open. I curse the TV. On a nightly basis, Stoker gets home and wants to watch a quick episode of the Simpsons or Futurama, to wind down. The problem is that he falls asleep while watching it, and I'm wide awake laughing.

So then, I'm like, "Wake up! Drink your tea," and he's like, leave me alone. And then we have a comical little tiff wherein he blames me for keeping him awake. Ha ha. So then he goes into the bedroom and I brush my teeth in the bathroom. He sprawls on the bed and falls asleep again. "Did you brush your teeth?" I ask, because really, he might have brushed them an hour ago without me noticing. But now he's asleep again, and this question has woken him. He growls at me.

And then I say real sweetly, "Well, maybe you should just get in bed." And he tells me that he's just going to start going to bed when he's tired. Only he says it like it's a threat, and it'll ruin my life because I always want to watch the Simpsons, every night. By now he's in the bathroom brushing his teeth and his eyes are totally bloodshot from being pried open several times by my rousing conversation.

At this point in the night, after he's fallen asleep everywhere but in bed, under the covers, he's really just sleepwalking*. So I don't hold the childish fit against him, I've been known to have my own bursts of indescribable rage at being woken from my after school nap**. I respond to his "I'll just go to bed when I'm tired" jab with, "Great! I don't care if I don't watch television all night before bed."

Because I really don't. I love Futurama and the Simpsons, but moderation, people. Whatever happened to reading books? I miss books. I try to read a book and it's like pulling teeth. Stoker and I don't keep the same work schedule. Usually I'm home before him. But instead of reading, I run around like mad straightening up the apartment, or as my cousins used to call it, doing my chores. The new habit is to have the television*** on when I'm there alone. It's like a Ray Bradbury book. I have my fake family chattering away in the background and I don't feel so lonely.

How can a book even compete with free television? I can't clean out the cat litter while I'm reading a book, and that's part of the problem. And hey, what's wrong with being alone? Why can't I just enjoy the silence? What's with this dependence on noise?

I don't know. I guess it's habits. It's what you get used to. For so long I was used to being alone. I lived in Salt Lake in a house on a busy street, in a kind of slummy area (Sugar House, the greatest area in Salt Lake City) and I was alone at night quite often. It never bothered me. I used to walk down the street at night to the bookstore or the coffee shop, alone. I had no fear. But HERE, in Nashville, if I'm alone in the apartment and I hear a loud noise, I wish I had a gun.

Anyway, I'd like to read a book instead of watching television. Scrubs is entertaining, for sure, but I can feel my mind melting. Sitcoms do nothing for my intellect. Thousands of words I had learned from my years of bookishness have been replaced by obnoxious buzzwords and rude sitcom banter. That's no way to interact with people—as though you're in a sitcom. Honestly, has anyone else noticed what an effect sitcoms have on their interpersonal relationships?

Lifelong goal: become a morning person. The kind of thoughtful early-riser who sips delicious Celestial Seasonings tea and watches the sunrise color the sky (haven't you always wanted to be THAT person? Like in the coffee commercials, onlyI prefer tea). This WILL take a lifetime, for me.

Immediate goals: go to bed earlier and read books again. Is this possible?




*Remember, he falls asleep ON the bed, without brushing his teeth—and he needs to brush them, we just went to the dentist and they counseled him on not brushing his teeth into oblivion, and yes, floss more.

**"You BITCH." My poor sisters. I was ASLEEP! It's like being held accountable for your dreams. Plus, hello! It was high school. And because it was high school, I got into trouble. Double-dutch trouble, as they say. By the way, Anji, I'm still sorry about that.

*** It's free, like we'd pay for cable, and by free I mean we get about eight stations. Two of them are televangelists.

Melinda Doolittle Voted Off

Wha- wha- what? I caught the tail end of the results show last night and missed the entire show on Tuesday. But I know three things:

1) Jordin Sparks is annoying and she would have got to me with her obnoxious simpering, cutsey girl cheekey eyelash-batting faces. And that's why she shouldn't have made it this far. In my book her modus operandi is not so different from Sanjaya's. It's true that Jordin can sing better than Sanjaya, and she attempts to come across as bubbly and happy and I'm-so-cute-look-at-me, hee hee, mmm-wah, mmm-wah (those are kisses), vote for me, vote for me; but I see right through her. And I don't like it when someone is transparent. That's why I like Melinda.

2) Paula would have annoyed me with her stupid remarks, while I would have loved Simon's critiques. The only reason to have Randy and Paula on the show is to provide contrast for Simon. No one cares too much about what Randy and Paula say because they say the same thing over and over again. Especially Paula. Of course, it's always a shock when Paula says something not-so-nice and I do love those moments. I'm not a veteran American Idol viewer so I can't say for sure, but it seems like Paula's mean moments are rare, which is precisely why I value them so much. So, maybe I do appreciate Paula after all. Maybe the real reason she bothers me is because it seems like she just copies Randy. For once, just once, I'd really like Paula to go first. Then we'll know for sure. Except then I'd just expect her to confer with Randy before she was on camera.

Has anyone ever found out the reason behind the judges order?

3) Melinda probably ruled on Tuesday night. I don't get it. Wait no, I get it. It's because Blake and Jordin are somehow more attractive, isn't it? When it comes right down to it, girls are judged mainly by their looks, and men . . . well obviously not because Sanjaya got the boot a while ago. It's the whole package, right? America wants a female singer they can feel like making love to. The male voter wants a woman who can really belt a great vocal line, but also who they can wrap their sexual fantasies around. Is that it, do you think? Because honestly -- and we have to be honest about it, now, because these contestants are chattel, not people with feelings -- Melinda isn't as gorgeous and voluptuous as Jordin. And hell! Jordin's only seventeen. Guys love a younger woman, nay, a woman who's really just a girl (except Stoker, who really digs the older woman thing -- God bless Stoker and men who love older women).

It bothers me, because I don't think justice was done last night. All this time I've been really impressed and surprised by the American Idol voters because it has been clear that Melinda is/was the best contestant, and I couldn't believe people would keep voting for her, despite the fact that she is not the best looking. She's got her own beauty and she's got class, something Jordin hasn't got (class, grace, all those things acquired with age and experience).

Jordin makes me feel like I'm watching a Shredded Wheat commercial, the one where the kid has on adult clothes, except it's reversed because Jordin's trying to be all grown up -- like she really loves Shredded Wheat for healthy reasons, not the frosted side -- but she doesn’t know what it means to be grown up. So she nods her head all the time and acts like she's listening and smiles as if she understands, but somehow I don't feel like she does. There's nothing wrong with Jordin being young, except that her mannerisms bug the hell out me. But I've always been one who's irritated by anything I feel is fake -- like fake happiness. I go back and forth because of course I understand that half the time you just have to fake it, because life can be really shitty. So then I fake it myself. But then I get depressed because I'm faking it.

Anyway, in the long run this whole American Idol thing doesn't matter. It's just a nice distraction for me. Tomorrow I will have forgotten today's outrage. And America will probably end up forgetting Jordin Sparks, Melinda Doolittle, and Blake what's-his-name. See, I've forgotten him already.

Sanjaya, I Bid You Good Riddance!

Somehow I got sucked into watching "American Idol" this season. We figured out that we get a few basic channels with the antenna, and often I flip on the television while I stretch and do my weights in the evening*. Fox comes in the best. Is that any surprise?

Anyway, tonight Sanjaya got voted off. Do I care? No, he was annoying. His big, thick, girlish eyelashes; flashy, insistent smile: and abnormally white teeth. Honestly he seemed really sweet, yet obnoxious at the same time -- something ingratiating about his confidence. And the way he sang. Something about it made me want to smack him and yell, "Faker!"

Cheer up, Sanjaya! I'm sure you'll do fine without American Idol.

He really will, don't you think? Pretty much any of them could pursue their own thing, now that their names have a little cultural capitol**. So, even as they cry and sing their last song, we all know they'll go on to make albums, their own clothing lines, and their own colognes and all that schlock. Is schlock a word? I don't think I made it up, I'm not that clever. But I'm not sure whether or not it's a real word that means what I think it means. Inconceivable!



*I mean pump iron.
**Once their contracts run out. They sign contracts when they get to a certain point on the show, don't they?

Arresting Intelligent Development: Fox's Fall Lineup

This really gets me.

Anyone who really knows me, knows I'm a huge fan of the series Arrested Development. Not a fan in the sense of, crazy, stupid time-waster fan who creates a web site devoted to the show or any of the actors/actresses in it. Not like that. No, I just love the show.

I don't have an enormous dvd library. I have a few dvds (good dvds like Annie Hall, Manhattan, American Beauty and Harold and Maude [which actually belongs to a friend of mine. It's not my fault. I tried to give it back to him several times.]). Among my small collection is one season of Frasier and two seasons of The Simpson's. I also have both seasons of Arrested Development, with plans to get season 3 when it comes out on August 29th. Of the three television shows, I have watched Arrested Development the most. That I even own it is testament to my loving it. It should feel lucky. Lucky that it’s in my collection.

Stoker and I have found innumerable moments in our lives that can somehow relate to a comical or quotable phrase in Arrested Development (such as when Lucille says, "If that's a veiled criticism, I won't hear it and I won't respond." You can use it for just about any thing, from conversations with annoying co-workers to breaking awkward silences). It informs our lives almost as much as our religion. Does that sound psychotic? Or perhaps, crazy? Maybe it does. But I don't think of myself as an Arrested Development fundamentalist. I just worship the show in my spare time, that’s all.

So, what gets me is that the series wasn't renewed for the fall. In fact, last season was cut short. I don't know what the problem is with the retarded powers-that-be at Fox. I'm sure they'd say they gave it a fair shot. They gave it three seasons and it didn't turn into some shameless cult thing like American Idol. Their problem, then, is expecting every show they air to draw as many inane viewers as the embarrassing spectacle that is American Idol.

I know, I know. American Idol is like the ultimate American dream. It's the king of all game shows. It's the game show that never ends for the lucky final contestants who go on to riches and fame and a prolific recording career or sponsorships or something equally enriching and exciting. I just find it vulgar, that’s all. It embarrasses me. It embarrasses me to see artistic expression like singing, turned into a glittery spectacle. It embarrasses me to see, or rather to know—since I’ve never actually watched it—that there are horrible singers putting themselves out there to be ridiculed, laughed at, and verbally decimated by Simon and the viewing audience. In that way, in that some people know they suck, but they want to get on television at whatever cost, I see that American Idol is no different from Jerry Springer. It’s all trash.

Arrested Developtment is gone and what gets me is that Fox’s fall lineup consists of a bunch of crap. Crap that I feel pretty certain doesn’t, or shouldn't, get ratings as high as Arrested Development; crap that isn’t visionary, but is instead the recycled tripe of debased 1980’s television fare like Married with Children (The War at Home); crap that is essentially C.S.I., 24, Law & Order, Alias and E.R. all tossed into an Oster, pulverized, poured into a glass and served like it was something different, something new. But it’s not. It all tastes the same. It all sounds the same. The characters are all the same. (House, Bones, Standoff, Justice, Vanished, et al).

So finally, a show arrives that is insightfully funny, innovative, clever, witty, and that allows itself to be watched over and over again because of its deftly layered humor. It bursts upon the tired scene of lawyer/cop/doctor/FBI agent dramas, and exhausting and embarrassing “reality” shows, and what do they do? Essentially, they leash it and then as though punishing a bad child, take away its freedom (by cutting the number of episodes last season) and then in a final act of violent discipline, completely sever it from its friends. Me and the rest of the devoted fans and viewing audience. We should be happy, I guess is what they're saying, with drivel like Happy Hour and Standoff.

Arrested Development

Who knows if they'll read it?

But I thought you might want to:

********************


Dear Fox Big-wigs or Lowly-interns,

I love Arrested Development. I've heard from several, concerned friends that there's a chance the show will be taken off the air. I hope this doesn't happen, but if it does, please find a way to keep the Bluth family alive.

I rarely watch television, except while working out at the gym after work and those are usually Friends reruns. So, I think it speaks highly of your show that I try to always tune in on Sunday nights. Or I watch the Season One dvd's during the weekdays when I'm unwinding, after a long, draining workday, with my equally television-show discriminating fiance (which is to say, I've allowed Arrested Development to enter my "sacred circle" of friends) . I've never been a big fan of television and while what prevails on it is (what I would call) the crap known as reality shows, the humor and character development of Arrested Development is the proverbial breath of fresh air. Ron Howard's steady narration is television-land's last vestige of hope, the anchor amidst the raucous winds of shock-crime-law-and-order-CSI-cutting-people's-guts-out-one-hour-dramas (did you get that? Kind of long and grueling, but then, that's how those shows feel).

So please continue your most intense efforts to keep the Bluths on the air. They kill me, even though you had Buster's hand bit off by a seal. What?


Your most sincere fan,


Nicole


p.s. "I punish thee!"

*********************

Sign the save Arrested Development petition even if you don't watch it. What have you got to lose? Nothing. And you're doing me a favor.

Reunited: After 20 Years, I Rediscover William Shatner

Depressing.

So last night, while in my old town Logan (Utah), I stopped by my old haunt. Graywhale CD. While there, I purchased Fiona Apple’s Tidal for my lover (Stoker) and William Shatner’s album Has Been, for me.

I heard Has Been when it came out. It struck me, but I didn’t buy it. I heard it again on iTunes because I’m obsessed with that place—when they had Spaced Out! The Best of Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner on their home page (I want to get that too, some day). Anyhoo, haven’t been able to get the song “I can’t get behind that” out of my head. So I bought. And I love.

What’s depressing about that, you ask. I’ll tell you what’s depressing about that. It’s depressing because I think it’s damn good, and I want to tell good ole’ William that I think so. I want to be able to call William up and say, “William, I know you received some criticism and some people* made fun of you, but I want to tell you, maybe I am part of the ‘common people’** but I think it’s brilliant.” I’d like to be able to do that.

I’d also like to tell him that I really appreciate that he’s doing something. As you may know, because I told you, the title of his album is Has Been. But I don’t think he’s a has-been and maybe he’s just playing with that, capitalizing on the culture surrounding the idea that William Shatner is warshed up (yes, I said warshed, as in “y’alls need to get in thuh tub and warsh yuhselfs.”***). Since his days with Star Trek, he’s gotten a lot of criticism, you know, things like “Well, I heard William was a big jerk on the set, stealing lines and stuff all the time,” and etc. I don’t know if that’s true. But I’m willing to let bygones be bygones and say to hell with it. He’s doing something.

That’s my point. What I can’t get behind, is the jerks on stupid American Idol who suck and suddenly, one day the world is like “this guy is a superstar.” You know, because what can they do but stand on a stage and try to sing like annoying Mariah Carey? They sing songs someone else wrote, to music someone else composed, to instruments they can’t play. And here’s William Shatner talking (yes, not singing, because apparently he’s not like that) to music composed by Ben Folds. But here’s the tip of the point I’m trying to slowly make (brevity is the soul of wit), William Shatner is talking (because he’s not singing) from the heart. It’s real. And I love it.

So, William Shatner****, if you're reading, out there, somewhere in the cosmos of cyberspace, I want to tell you that Has Been defies expectations. It's poignant, moving, fun and I love it. I LOVE IT.


*Jerks.
** Though I really don’t think so, I think I’m extraordinary
***I have no idea if that’s a dialect anywhere except in my own head
****My first big crush as a 5 or 6 year old [wow, that’s super young to be thinking about being in love] [I know], catching every TJ Hooker episode. But alas, no longer