summer TV: a time to catch up, revisit, and slow down

(Remember that all articles are now posted at my new site: heathermclendon.com. This WordPress blog will soon only operate as a re-direct.)

In regards to television, summer is kinda a drag. It’s a time of re-runs, bad reality TV, and a growing number of “summer series.” Does anybody actually watch Rookie Blue? I think the only people who watch The Bachelorette and Bachelor Pad are either masochists or hate-watchers. Why else would you watch overly contrived programming? Yes, So You Think You Can Dance is an exception — and I’ve watched it religiously since its second season. But apart from the odd dance competition or surprising newbie (like the CW’s Breaking Pointe), the tube becomes a wasteland.*

*On network television, that is. If you own cable, you have several scintillating options, like the season five premiere of Breaking Bad on AMC, Aaron Sorkin’s new drama The Newsroom on HBO, and the second season of the extraordinary, laugh-until-you-pee comedy Episodes on Showtime. Seriously. I need to subscribe to a boutique channel; this is where golden television lives.

For the non-cable, non-boutique subscriber, however, it’s lookin’ pretty sparse. Just this evening a Twitter conversation illustrated this scarcity so perfectly, I had to preserve it for posterity:

Hm. Rather than lament (or joke) about the barren landscape of television, I have two thoughts. Read more…

 

The last show standing: Revenge

(Remember that all articles are now posted at my new site: heathermclendon.com. This WordPress blog will soon only operate as a re-direct.)

We’re in the midst of finale season. Shows are ending; series are closing. It’s an interesting time of year for me because it highlights the number of new shows from last fall that I actually stuck with for the entire year. The grand total for me this year? One. One show survived my viewing habits, standards, and critical eye. Revenge.

I dismissed Revenge for the first several weeks. I thought the premise too soapy and unrealistic. Another example of aspirational television coupled with overly dramatic plotlines. But it kept showing up in my Twitter feed. A few critics were surprised by the depth and absorbing storyline. So I decided to check it out. Two episodes later, I was hooked. Read more…

 

The Upfronts Half-time Show: a look at FOX and NBC

(Remember that all articles are now posted at my new site: heathermclendon.com. This WordPress blog will soon only operate as a re-direct.)

We’re halfway through Upfront Week — and already I am fascinated, perplexed, and slightly disturbed by the array of new shows that the networks have ordered.

What is Upfront Week? It’s the annual dog-and-pony show (no, that’s too tame — make that the moose-and-tiger show) in New York during which television executives present their most promising crop of new shows to advertisers for the upcoming fall season. What is deemed “promising” is all relative, clearly, and it’s mystifying how some of these programs made the final cut. Most won’t be renewed for next year; some will be canceled before the season is over.

So what’s on the schedule for this upcoming fall? Here are my preliminary thoughts on FOX and NBC. The ABC and CBS line-ups will be posted tomorrow. Read more…

 

New website is up

I said that you’d be the first to know.

My new website www.heathermclendon.com is now live. The process took far longer than expected. (This is a mad season in my life.) I’ll write a farewell post to (edge)wise before the week is out. But for now, go ahead and check out the new site! Give feedback if you feel so inclined — I’d love to hear it.

If you’re subscribed to (edge)wise, make sure to re-subscribe to the new site so you don’t miss out on any forthcoming articles. There’s a handy little subscribe box in the sidebar.

Thanks for your patience – and enjoy the new site!

 

Not the season premiere I expected | a review of Sherlock

The only thing worse than disappointment in one of your favorite shows is disappointment before the show even begins.

After nearly six months of waiting, I was all ready to watch the second season premiere of Sherlock – glass of prosecco in hand – when my television abruptly dropped all channels due to a “weak signal.” Despite feverish attempts at restoring the signal, I couldn’t get service to OPB for another 25 minutes. (And only after I followed IT Crowd protocol by turning everything off and back on again.)

Needless to say, I entered the second season of Sherlock thoroughly disoriented. There was a woman in a robe (presumably Irene Adler) and Sherlock in a sparsely furnished room with a safe, a mobile phone, and a couple snarly Americans. It took another fifteen minutes to figure out what the heck was going on.

I have very mixed feelings about “A Scandal in Bohemia.” I really enjoy Steven Moffat’s work; I adore Benedict Cumberbatch’s and Martin Freeman’s acting. Yet “Bohemia” failed to capture the same level of cleverness as the first season. It didn’t crackle and rush like the first three episodes. It wasn’t a bad episode; I just didn’t love it. The puzzle or mystery plot of “Bohemia” seemed to serve more as an apparatus upon which to hang the “love” story between Sherlock and Irene Adler.

(And yes, I use the phrase “love story” loosely.)

It was intriguing to see Sherlock flummoxed by a woman. It revealed an emotional depth to him that had been hinted at before but not examined. Still…I liked the sexually ambiguous Sherlock from the first season. His romantic/emotional attachment to Irene felt wrong somehow. Like a betrayal unto himself. (My own interpretation. I’m sure others feel differently.)

And what about Irene Adler? I’m not sure about her either. I really like her strength and intelligence, yet did anyone else find her to be too much? As though we were hit over the head with her wit and schemes and mystery? If Irene were so intelligent – rivaling Sherlock – why did she need to consult Moriarty? Why did she have to fall in love with Sherlock? (Well, to be fair, who wouldn’t?) It felt a little cliche for “the only woman to beat Sherlock Holmes” to succomb to sentiment in the end.

I need to watch this episode again. This time in its entirety. Maybe I’ll like it more the second time around. What did you think? Sound off below!

 

 

Hate-watching TV — a cultural trend

Today I stumbled upon this little treasure: Emily Nussbaum’s critique of Smash. I’ve stopped watching the pathetically awful show for some time now. Yet for some reason I have kept reading Alan Sepinwall’s increasingly scathing recaps of the show. It’s like I enjoy reading how desperately bad this program has become. So when I saw the title of Nussbaum’s review: “Hate-watching Smash,” it was as though she and I were sharing brainwaves.

I gleefully read through the article and laughed out loud at such exquisitely biting remarks such as: “McPhee has a pretty pop voice, but she plays every scene with a Splenda-flavored neutrality, which might not rankle so much if the show didn’t keep insisting that Karen is a star whom everyone adores.” Ouch. But so satisfying to read!

Or how about this one? “During the last episode, I spent most of my time mentally replacing the awed facial expressions of cast members gazing at Karen as she sings with the horrified expressions of “Game of Thrones” characters staring at King Joffrey as he tortures minions. It helped.” If you’re a Game of Thrones fan (I am), this is deliciously hilarious. And spot on.

The stinging hate-review goes on. And I loved it. Which got me thinking: Why do we continue to watch (or read about) the shows we hate? Is there really such a thing as “hate-watching”?

Anti-fandom – termed as such – has been around for a few years. The site “Television Without Pity” is based upon the practice of writing snarky reviews. Just yesterday Melissa Silverstein posted this video about female viewers’ reactions to HBO’s Girls. The very title “Shit Girls Say About the Show Girls” highlights our culture’s tendency to sarcastically and meanly comment about the things we don’t like.

But this is the first time I’ve come across the phrase “hate-watching.” How many of us do this? And why? I know I’m guilty. I started watching Gossip Girl one day because I was bored. I found so many things to hate about the show, yet I kept watching – like some kind of perverse fascination. As it turned out, I used Gossip Girl as one of the main case studies in my dissertation, and I eviscerated the show with my severe critique of its sexism.

Therein lies one possible reason to “hate-watch” a television show: If one is intentional about it, the process can be instructional. As Sepinwall puts it, “[A]s an observer of TV, it’s instructive to watch a show like ["Smash"], or “Studio 60″ or “Heroes” where you go in with lots of expectations and it all starts going wrong, and continues going wrong, in so many different ways.” We can learn from truly bad programs. Viewers can express their displeasure. In this age of instant, digital information, networks can observe feedback and either rectify or cancel. (Or do what they often do – just ignore it.)

We can also learn about ourselves. Why do we passionately dislike the kinds of shows we do. They differ for each person. I would be interested to talk to people about the shows they so thoroughly hate and the reasons why. Storyline? Characters? Dialogue? Is the show sexist? Does the program support materialism and superficiality? Here we can discover things about our own viewing habits — what makes us tick. What values do we subconsciously bring to a television program? And how do our responses connect with the greater cultural context?

Questions to ponder…

Do you “hate-watch” any television shows?

 

Vanity Fair, the “Ladies of TV” deserve better – as do your readers

The other day Melissa Silverstein published a rant on the newly-released Katniss Barbie doll. It’s a fine rant as far as rants go. Worth a look if you’re a Hunger Games geek like me.

Today, I have my own rant. And it’s about this…

The May issue of Vanity Fair. I received it in the mail yesterday. I was psyched to hear that May would be the TV issue. And then I saw the cover. And the feature spread…

Seriously, Vanity Fair? You’re gonna talk about how awesome the women on primetime are by photographing them in lingerie and half-covered by sheets? This photo shoot sexually objectifies women. It’s insulting and offensive.

I’m in full rant mode now.

1. First of all, the cover. You’ve got The Good Wife‘s Julianna Margulies, Downton Abbey‘s Michelle Dockery, and Homeland‘s Claire Danes – three incredibly strong and compelling female characters on television right now. (I can’t comment about Modern Family‘s Sofia Vergara because I haven’t watched that particular show.) And Vanity Fair drapes them with sheets. Yes, these women are beautiful and sexy. But they have so much more to offer than their appearance and sexuality. They should not be reduced to eye-candy.

2. The same goes for the feature spread inside the magazine. You’ve got bustiers, garters and a bear-skin rug, for goodness’ sake. The actresses lounge about in provocative poses as they toss popcorn and drink alcohol. A spread like this perpetuates the slumber party fantasy that women hang out in their underwear and…whatever else people think goes on when a bunch of girlfriends stay in for an evening. I’m telling ya, the majority of women do not lounge around in lingerie. Sorry to break that myth. We unwind in sweatpants and t-shirts, drink a few glasses of wine, talk about careers and life and relationships.

As long as publications like Vanity Fair support photo shoots like this, women will continue to be misrepresented in media. (True, the actresses made the choice to participate in the shoot, so I can’t blame VF entirely. One of these days, I would love to hear of a story in which celebrities arrive to a photo shoot, note the sexism inherent within the theme/outfits/etc, and walk out. Talk about making a statement.)

Why couldn’t the photographer have had more fun with this stellar collection of actresses? It would be fabulous to stick them all in a paintball arena. Something that generates some friendly competition. If Vanity Fair wanted to stay with the “Evening in America” theme, then choose some activity that many Americans do in the evening. Workout at the gym. Walking an assortment of dogs down a city street. A poker game. Shoot, photograph them in a bar or pub somewhere, playing darts or pool. Where is the creativity?

3. As if this weren’t awful enough, the cover copy includes the words, “Admit it…you love TV more than movies.” Uh, people are admitting it. By the tweetloads. Next to this woefully ignorant and outdated subtitle is a quote by T.S. Eliot: “Television is a medium of entertainment which permits millions of people to listen to the same joke at the same time, and yet remain lonesome.” I want to find the person who wrote this copy and chose this quote. I want to ask this person if they have read a single article or post or tweet in the last year about the evolving landscape of television.

People are watching more tv than ever before. The amount of time spent on Netflix and Hulu for television continues to rise. Sure, there will always be the guilty-pleasure tv show. But we are getting higher and higher quality television with the likes of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Downton Abbey, and Revenge. Shows like HBO’s Game of Thrones garner massive cult and pop followings, usually reserved for the film franchise superheroes. With this quality programming, there isn’t the same kind of “shame” in watching television and as in the past. In fact, much of the cultural dialogue has turned away from film and towards tv. It’s “cool” to stay up to date with the latest episodes and to drop tv references into everyday conversations.

Miso, GetGlue, and Zeebox are apps specially designed for viewers to check into programs and chat about what they’re watching. Reuters recently published an article that claimed that 2012 will be the year of “must-tweet tv.” So not only are people admitting their love of tv, but they’re engaging fellow viewers – on a global scale, thanks to social media.

Vanity Fair, do your homework next time. And stop objectifying women. Okay, rant over.

 

the virus diaries part 1

Seriously. If viruses earned awards in the germosphere, the one plaguing my immune system would get a gold star for dogged persistence. It is determined to survive, by whatever mutative means necessary.

Why is it that when we’re sick we are overcome with the insatiable desire to watch horribly bad tv? Or is that just me? Some people dig out old copies of childhood favorites — Fraggle Rock, The Goonies, The Princess Bride. Me? I go straight for Remington Steele. When I’m ill and stuck in bed, there is nothing more satisfying than that gem of fabulously awful ’80′s television.

DayQuil, a heap of Kleenex, eight cups of tea, and Remington Steele? Oh yeah.

The show is a detective procedural whose premise is that private female detective Laura Holt (Stephanie Zimbalist) opened a detective agency under her name – and she never received any clients. So she invented a boss with a “decidedly masculine”  name: Remington Steele. And viola! She suddenly had more cases than she knew what to do with. Things heat up when a mysterious con man (Pierce Brosnan) assumes the identity of Remington Steele on a case involving rare gems. While he doesn’t succeed in obtaining the diamonds, he happens to like masquerading as a fake, famous detective and decides to take on the persona permanently.

Sound bad? Oh, deliciously so. You’ve got a British, classy yet often clueless ex-con who’s obsessed with classic movies, and a hyper-feminist, stubborn control-freak — and they somehow are attracted to one another like a shark to chum. Remington Steele‘s entertainment lies in its shockingly corny dialogue, unrealistic plots, overly exaggerated acting, and outrageous fashion. Gah – the fashion! Laura Holt has a penchant for sling-back heels, ill-fitting pencil skirts, and (I kid you not) fedoras. Brill-i-ant.

I cannot help but love a program in which characters deliver these kind of lines: “Nothing titillates the senses more than a first rate sting.” It’s cheesy, absurd, tacky…and terrific fun.

I don’t know what it is about bad television, but it’s the perfect antidote for when I’m ill. Remington just makes me feel better as I cough up chunks of lung. It’s as simple as that.

And on that note, I’m gonna pour another glass of o.j., slather on the Vicks, and have a hot date with Remington Steele.

 

A review that isn’t a review: The Hunger Games and its ripple-effect

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, Hunger Games 2012.

A week ago I was standing in line for The Hunger Games. After three years of waiting, it was exhilarating to finally watch the characters and places I had formed in my imagination take shape and flesh and color on screen. I left the cinema that night with the intention to watch the film again – this time with my fiance who has not read the book – compare notes, and write a review dialoguing the two perspectives.

And then a monster virus struck. Not a computer virus – the old-fashioned kind that strikes your immune system. Talk about annoying. I am the kind of person who is too busy to get sick. I don’t allow colds or flu-like symptoms to interfere with my work or writing or projects, damnit. So imagine my shock when this wretched virus knocked me out flat. For four days. My brain and muscles are equally exhausted. I feel completely out of the social media loop. And I’m sure hundreds of Hunger Games reviews have been written and posted by now, such as this one by my good friend Nicole M. Miller.

Today is the first day that my brain has been able to grasp a coherent, fully formed thought. The rest has been a haze of fitful sleep, NyQuil, fabulously bad ’80′s television (Remington Steele) and Torchwood marathons. (More on the latter two in a future post.)

Three Hunger Games items have punctured through the drug-head fog this past week. First, box office numbers. The Hunger Games made $155 million during its opening weekend, making it the third-best opening weekend ever. Thar’s right – it surpassed all Twilight movies and all Harry Potter installments save the final one (Deathly Hallows Part 2). Pretty impressive for the little studio Lionsgate.

Writers such as Melissa Silverstein and Thelma Adams have pointed out that HG‘s success is all the more significant due to its central female protagonist. This isn’t a blockbuster about Spiderman or Batman. Katniss is a sixteen-year old girl, and this powerful character is providing a strong role model for young girls across the country.

Second item: Astonishingly, despite the popularity of Katniss, some have criticized Jennifer Lawrence’s body in the film, claiming she doesn’t look “hungry enough” or that she is “too big” to play Katniss. One critic (Todd McCarthy) actually calls attention to Lawrence’s “lingering baby fat.” Such comments are repulsive. Are you frickin’ serious?

I found Lawrence utterly refreshing to watch onscreen. She is healthy, normal, and, um, beautiful. There are too many ultra-skinny women in film, television and media. How sad is it that underweight, dieted bodies are the “norm” for Hollywood – so much so that critics cannot recognize a normal, fit, and healthy body on screen? Thankfully people have been speaking out against this appalling bodysnarking, and the reviewers ought to feel ashamed of themselves.

Third item: the Jezebel article. You know what I’m talking about if you’ve read it. For those that haven’t, here’s a brief summary: Several Hunger Games fans expressed racist comments on Twitter and Tumblr after watching the film last weekend. Apparently, even though Suzanne Collins described Rue and Thresh as having “dark brown skin” in the novel, these viewers were shocked and angry that their “favorite characters” were black in the film. One particularly loathsome tweet said that the casting “ruined” the movie, and another confessed that Rue’s death was not as sad because she was black. WTF?

I don’t know what’s worse: that this kind of racism is still present  – and so highly vocalized! – in 2012, or that the hateful tweets were predominantly posted by teenagers. In what kind of culture is this behavior deemed okay to our youth? I am outraged that this kind of prejudice is still so clearly and unapologetically demonstrated in this country. It’s the kind of prejudice that leads to vigilante citizens shooting an unarmed black teenager wearing a hoodie.

A review on the actual film will be posted in the coming days. For now I thought it important to recognize that The Hunger Games is highlighting issues that extend far beyond war and youth and hunger. This movie is (unintentionally, I’m sure) provoking dialogue on the current state of gender, body image, and race in this country. That’s pretty powerful.

What conversations have you seen or been a part of relating to The Hunger Games?

 

For the first time ever, my beloved Doctor disappoints

This morning Doctor Who announced the new companion for the Doctor. This actress will replace Amy and Rory Pond, who will exit the show this upcoming season. Moffat’s choice?

Jenna-Louise Coleman.

Is anyone else disappointed with this casting decision? Coleman seems an utterly unoriginal choice for the next companion, especially as the series enters its 50th anniversary next year. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to inject the show with something new, dynamic…even a bit daring?

For a show that is all about the exploration of time, space, and the very ends of the known universe, the casting decision seems to betray a lack of imagination. At least in regards to character. As a friend of mine commented, “Oh look, a young, perky, gorgeous female as the companion. How novel.” Why not cast another older woman (like the spectacular Catherine Tate)? Or a man? Straight, bisexual, or gay – a male companion would change the dynamic. A different nationality or ethnicity – Yank, Japanese, French – would offer an intriguing change. Instead we get the same ‘ol, same ‘ol.

Granted, I have not seen Coleman in Emerdale or Waterloo Road. I’m curious to see her in Fellowes’s Titanic, set to air on ABC this spring. Her interview doesn’t offer much. I know Coleman cannot give details about the show, but she could have certainly expounded on what this casting decision means to her personally instead of providing empty, inarticulate, stock answers. Harsh? Perhaps.

I remember watching Matt Smith’s first interview after BBC announced him as the new Doctor. While he couldn’t give details either, he at least conveyed the level of honor and responsibility he felt towards portraying this iconic character. He shared his personal history with the show, recalling how he watched it as a kid. I instantly trusted the Doctor in his hands. Coleman? Not so much. Maybe she’s still in shock. Or maybe the producers are saving all their edgy creativity for the next doctor. I guess time will tell.

What do you think of the casting decision?