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…

 

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.

 

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?

 

Katniss vs. Bella — a comparison feminists can get behind

This morning I read a post on the Women Media Center’s blog, written by Melissa Silverstein. Ms. Silverstein’s post focuses on the current Katniss vs. Bella comparison, and she laments that such comparisons are pointless. She concludes that Hollywood doesn’t know what to do with films such as The Hunger Games and thus turns the comparison between Katniss and Bella into a “cat fight.” You can read her entire post on the WMC blog.

I have trouble with Ms. Silverstein’s conclusions, and I submitted a response to her post. I thought I would republish my thoughts here for your consideration:

“I would like to think there is something more to the Katniss/Bella juxtaposition than a mere cat fight. Both The Hunger Games and Twilight series amassed massive fan followings and provoked similar fan “mania,” if you will. Both began as young adult novels. Tenuous similarities to be sure, but I suppose those are a few of the reasons why people are comparing the two characters.

Twilight, whether you loved or hated the series, catapulted Kristen Stewart and her character of Bella into the media spotlight. Bella was the most recent megastar of fiction until Katniss came along. Perhaps this is another reason why the two characters are being compared. These characters have risen beyond their textual and cinematic confines and have become pop culture figures. Icons, even. What other young female characters have risen to this level of public and pop culture awareness within the past few years? Maybe Hermione Granger, though she was usually bundled together with Harry Potter and Ron Weasley.

You write that comparing these two characters makes no sense. In regards to theme, style, and franchise, you are absolutely right. However I have found the comparison between Bella and Katniss to actually open up conversations amongst young women about the differences found in these two characters. Teenage girls are identifying the traits within Katniss that they like – those they want to emulate. She is fierce, strong, independent, resilient, resourceful. Girls find her strength attractive and compare it to Bella’s weak passivity. They admire Katniss’s independence instead of Bella’s willingness to remain in a violent relationship. Through this activity, young women are recognizing for themselves what kind of young woman they want to be—and, in turn, what kind of character they want to support. My hope is that this will translate into a dialogue about how these young women want themselves to be represented in media.

If nothing else, I think that the Katniss/Bella comparison offers a tremendous opportunity to encourage feminism within girls and young women. Instead of dismissing the comparison as silly (even though it certainly appears so at first), let’s turn the conversation around, note the differences, and encourage women – of all ages – to aim for strength and confidence.”

Have you encountered Katniss/Bella comparisons? What do you think of them? Share your opinions below!

 

The ’90s are back so, like, talk to the hand

I discovered Spaced last night.

Okay, perhaps “discovered” is not the appropriate word. Spaced aired on Channel 4 in the late 1990s. It is more accurate to say that it popped up on my “Recommended” list on Netflix and, being in a curious mood, I watched the first two episodes.

Spaced is an offbeat comedy about two twentysomethings who pretend to be a “professional couple” in order to rent a flat, and they’re joined by a thoroughly bizarre ensemble of characters. (Brian is a personal favorite). Couple that with utterly random humor and frequent surrealism, and you’ve got entertainment.

Plus, it is just so kitsch. So…nineties! You’ve got choker necklaces (the fake hemp ones) and piggy-tail buns (made popular by Baby Spice, remember those?). There is awkwardly-layered clothing and midriff shirts. I’ll be honest: the main reason I kept watching Spaced last night was due to its ’90s setting.

I recently read that the 1990s are re-emerging in pop culture with surprising force, and indeed the decade seems to be experiencing a second life of popularity. Several months back, I posted a picture of the Ghostwriter cast on Facebook and received dozens of likes and comments. Items like the original Nintendo Game Boy, scrunchies, and floppy disks are now über cool in their retro nature. Nickelodeon brought back its ’90s shows last summer as part of its “The ’90s Are All That” programming, much in part because young adults on Facebook were lamenting their beloved, dead-and-gone TV shows of their childhoods.

As a kid of the ’90s, I understand the retro appeal. I’m on a personal mission to track down my favorite computer games from my childhood, like Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, Treasure Mountain, The Incredible Machine, Oregon Trail, Word Munchers, and Lode Runner. I want to find old Wishbone episodes from PBS and a Magic School Bus lunchbox. (I know, educational games and PBS programming. I was a painfully geeky child.)

This is a growing trend – that of recycling old fashions and celebrating pieces of “retro” culture. Then again, perhaps this has always been the case but we are more aware of it now, thanks to our digital, instant, and sharing culture. Nostalgia is a powerful force. But is it more than that?

Check it out: items from bygone eras are re-trending right now. Woolly beards and monocles are reappearing in hipster culture. (I’ve yet to see folks carving their own ice cubes.) Women are fashioning 1930′s Art-Deco weddings. Banana Republic just released its second “Time Capsule” Mad Men collection of 1960′s-inspired clothing. Estée Lauder joined the ’60′s caravan with its Limited Edition Mad Men Lipstick and Rouge collection. (I wish I were joking.) Even the CW is casting its vision back this fall with its new drama The Carrie Diaries, the prequel to Sex and the City, set in the 1980s.

Are we so dissatisfied with our current cultural climate that we are retrieving the past and refashioning it for the 21st century? Why this fascination and reincorporation of retro artifacts? It’s more than nostalgia. I believe it is a way for people to connect over something outdated and to refashion it into a hip commodity, thereby acquiring both cultural capital and sense of belonging in one fell swoop.

I plan to examine this further within our current television culture, resulting in a series of posts on our retro obsession and its relationship with tv. I’d love to hear your thoughts. What decades or items have you seen re-trended? What shows have you watched that depict or borrow from retro eras? Are you a retro geek, like me? (It’s ok, you can admit it. Truly.)

 

Twitter and a tablet: tools of the DIY journalist?

I’m in Los Angeles this week for a web conference. Naturally, when you stick a bunch of IT and web specialists together, the topic of social media surfaces. So far I have attended two sessions on social media and mobile. Tomorrow holds a third.

With all this discussion on social media, I am seriously tempted to bust out this video tomorrow morning at breakfast. It’s an advert for The Guardian, and I still don’t know how I feel about it.

What is happening here? Clearly The Guardian is commenting on the instantaneous and ubiquitous nature of social media. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, explains that the advert is part of a re-branding initiative. The Guardian believes in open journalism, and “Big Bad Wolf” is meant to promote that philosophy.

While I understand the significant value of open journalism, this advert still makes me uneasy, for it speaks to the often unrecognized (or overlooked) power of social media.

Watch the video again. See how quickly the public’s opinion jumps from empathy and justification, to anger, to suspicion, back to empathy, and finally to rage – not against the murderous pigs, mind, but the economic structures that “caused” the pigs to murder in the first place. All these shifts in public opinion were encouraged and fueled by uploaded video from smartphones, tweets, and personal commentary on social networks.

Social media is a useful tool – one that integrates voices into the news that would have never been publicly and widely shared otherwise. As with any tool, however, comes responsibility. A healthy dose of skepticism is important when utilizing social media. Is there a point when too many voices actually hinders objective journalism? A point when it complicates court proceedings and crime investigations? Does “open news” invite too many perspectives to the table, thus creating a noisy squabble of citizen and do-it-yourself broadcasters? Or does it add to, as The Guardian puts it, “the whole picture”? If a news organization tried to streamline and reduce the noise of social media, would that be considered censorship?

This advert presents me with a list of questions which, in turn, produces even more questions. These sort of queries will only continue as the honeymoon phase of social media ends, and the legal cases begin. I’m very interested in your thoughts. How do you interpret this new advert from The Guardian? What is your opinion of the role that social media plays in journalism?