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…

 

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 ’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.)

 

coming attractions at (edge)wise…

Times have slowed here at (edge)wise over the holidays. This has more to do with my new job, though, than Christmas. I have been settling into my work as a social media specialist (dream job!), and (edge)wise has been patiently waiting for my attention.

Isn’t it interesting how pop culture seems to take a break through much of December? At least, most of the pop culture articles that appear on my Twitter stream relate to year-end summaries, top ten lists, and 2012 predictions. Many television shows are on hiatus until the new year, and we’re inundated with reruns and holiday specials. Obviously there are exceptions. (The thoroughly anti-climatic finale of The X-Factor being one.) Several films have been released for the holiday masses. Yet there remains an overwhelming presence of reflection and assessment.

So here at (edge)wise I offer no top ten lists or favorite films of 2011. No social media predictions for the upcoming year. I don’t want to add to the noise.

Coming soon: a feminist’s perspective of Doctor Who, a retro look at The Avengers, and a playful dialogue about my newest obsession – Downton Abbey. Can you sense a theme? Yes, I seem to be enjoying an awful lot of British television these days. Just call me an Anglophile. I also have some scribblings on the Pinterest craze, the awkwardly adolescent relationship between TV and social media, Jennifer Lopez (yes, you did read that correctly), Vanity Fair, and that deliciously addicting affair on ABC called Revenge.

And lest we forget, January presents the mid-season premieres of Alcatraz (hmm) and Smash (groan), so you can expect my thoughts on those.

Finally – and the moment you have probably forgotten, er, been waiting for…my new website will launch on March 3, 2012. Mark your calendars.

 

Doctor Who & David Yates: disaster or brilliance?

Courtesy BBC America

 

The Guardian offered an editorial today, written by Dan Martin, on the announcement that Yates is planning to direct a new Doctor Who big-screen movie. Martin’s article precisely captures my thoughts and feelings on this piece of Doctor Who-related news. Now this is David Yates of Harry Potter fame and, before that, The Way We Live Now and the superb BBC’s State of Play. Despite his abilities, the idea of a Doctor Who film that “starts from scratch” is deeply unsettling. As Martin argues, “The genius of Russell T Davies’s 2005 revival was that it wasn’t a reboot at all, but the continuation of one long story that started in 1963…But it managed that without new fans requiring any pre-knowledge whatsoever.” 

 

Moreover, this long-standing story that has spanned nearly 50 years is perfectly suited for the TV medium. Fans can tune in weekly and follow the progression of the show with their own lives. I cannot comprehend condensing the complexity and development of Doctor Who into a two-hour film. Maybe that notes a lack of imagination on my part. But right now, I’m nervous that Yates might not fully understand the complicated, nuanced character of the Doctor, nor appreciate the longevity of the television series, nor the near-obsessive passion of the series’ fans. After all, the past two executive directors of Doctor Who (T. Davies and Steven Moffat) started out as nerdy fans of the Doctor Who universe. They knew the insides and outs of the canon and how the story interacted with fans over the decades.

 

Some may argue that Yates accomplished a similar translation by transforming the final Harry Potter books to film. How is a television series any different? Despite the similarity in visual form, television and film function very differently, and if a director does not fully understand or appreciate the televisual form, then moving that story into a cinematic form could prove messy. It’s still too early to say how – or even if – this “bigscreen” movie will manifest. Perhaps it will be brilliant. But I’m still nervous. As Moffat tweeted earlier today: “Announcing my personal moonshot, starting from scratch. No money, no plan, no help from NASA. But I know where the moon is – I’ve seen it.” Snarky? A little. But he does have a point.

 

Fans seem to be divided in their opinions. Are you a fan of Doctor Who? How do you feel about the series being made into a full-length motion picture?

 

the women of ABC’s Pan Am

I did not want to.

 

I have fought against it.

 

But the truth remains: I thoroughly enjoy watching Pan Am. It’s fun and colorful. Sure the music is grandiose and everything looks über shiny (read: fake). Some plot developments are overly predictable, and actors deliver their lines in that ‘I know I’m in a period drama’ way. Despite all its flaws—and there are many—I really like the show.

 

Why? I’m still figuring that out. I enjoy the era—it’s rich in style and fashion. Major conflicts occurred, and while I’m wary of too many shows trying to capitalize on that—and thus empty the ‘60’s of its punch—Pan Am has avoided repetitiveness by including European perspectives of American politics (via Colette) and uncommon settings (e.g. Jakarta and Haiti).

 

Pan Am's Kate Cameron (Kelli Garner)

 

And then there is the fact that Pan Am primarily follows four women. A show whose four protagonists are females, ranging from a free-spirited, scrappy feminist to an optimistic, emotionally vulnerable femme française! Recently, MissRepresentation.org promoted an article on its ‘Sexy or Sexism?’ blog, and the writer dissected each Pan Am episode for all instances of sexism. I agree that Pan Am plays into sexist stereotypes. (I was bitterly disappointed that writers decided for Kate—the undercover courier-turned-spy—to fall in love with one of her marks, rather than remain an independent, cool professional). However, the critique does not allow for Pan Am to include sexist comments or pre-feminist situations for the sake of exposing the sexist attitudes and beliefs of the time period. Nor does it acknowledge that these kinds of tensions create a space for female viewers to wrestle with contemporary issues.

 

This past Sunday’s episode, ‘Truth or Dare’, offers one such example. The episode opens by revealing the four main female characters lounging in the empty economy cabin, with free-flowing alcohol and pantyhose hanging around shoulders. The amount of girlish giggling is admittedly a bit much; they’re playing a game of Truth or Dare, during which Laura—the doe-eyed, naïve ex-beauty queen—admits that she had nude pictures taken of her. Her sister, Kate, is shocked and disapproving, to which Laura says the photos were a form of empowerment and for her eyes only. I could quickly disagree with her. Nude or pornographic photographs all too often feed into continued sexism, instead of empowerment. Yet it touches upon a current debate. How much can women exhibit, celebrate, and showcase their sexuality before it becomes taboo, sexist, or gratuitous?

 

I am certainly not claiming to have answers. My point is that Laura’s situation—which could be labelled as another ‘sexist’ instance in Pan Am—speaks to an ongoing discussion about female sexuality. The scene has the potential to open a space for dialogue and reflection; it allows for tension to be aired, examined, and debated.

 

ABC has still not ordered a full season for Pan Am. It is still working out its kinks. Thankfully Pan Am has moved away from the ‘new location per week’ pattern with which it began. Hopefully the episodes’ plots will become more sophisticated—instead of its current clunky formation. Problems need to be stretched out, rather than being resolved one episode later. I want Pan Am to find its groove and to explore women’s issues in greater depth and complexity. Let’s hope that ABC gives Pan Am that chance to further develop.

 

Have you been following Pan Am? What are your thoughts?

 

a new direction

York Minster & Low Petergate, October 2010

A lot of changes have transpired this past year. A year ago today I was living in York, getting ready for my first departmental meeting. I was anxious and excited for the year ahead, unknown of what it would include. I still believed I would study the political and activist uses of film for my dissertation. And I walked into town every weekend so I could sit on the bench outside the Minster.

 

Now I am back in the States. My year in England has influenced and shaped me in ways I have not fully processed yet. But my studies abroad have revealed three things for certain.

 

1. I love analyzing television. More so than film. I enjoy the continuity of television seasons and the ability to craft ongoing, multi-layered, complex narratives. With television (if written and produced well), viewers can emotionally engage with characters—potentially over several years, an aspect distinctly different from that of the two-hour film. I now know that, at some point, I will be involved with television production.

 

2. Social media fascinates me, especially when joined with television. Because of the weekly format of most television shows, social media are used to further engage viewers, maintain interest between episodes, and deepen the narrative experience. Social media can create hyperdiegetic spaces, and we are only beginning to see the creative (and sometimes banal) ways in which entertainment and culture industries are employing social media to immerse their audiences.

 

3. I am a firebrand feminist. Apparently this is old news to everyone who has known me the past ten years. I never recognized this aspect of myself until college. Even then I saw it as a supplementary feature. Politics and theatre were my defining ‘passions’, if you will, during that time. Then I moved to York and met Dr. Kristyn Gorton.

 

While her area of research is television, she often analyzes television through a feminist lens. My first term of Television Case Studies was heavy with feminist analysis, and something within me finally sparked alive. Took root. Feminist analysis appeared in my critique of Mad Men that autumn, two more essays in the spring, and my final dissertation. Despite my efforts at searching for other analytic perspectives, I kept returning to feminism.

 

Feminism is more than a supplemental aspect of my being—something friends and family have recognized for years now. It defines me; I cannot separate my passion for female equality and empowerment from who I am. Now that I am fully cognizant of this passion—and embrace it—I am excited for the ways in which to pair feminism with media.

~ ~ ~

 

These three things, my readers, will come to define (edge)wise over the coming months and years. (Edge)wise will be undergoing a major face-lift over the next several weeks—a new direction. It will be a place for commentary on television, entertainment, and media; television and film reviews will remain a major component. I will have a new section specifically focused on girls, women and media. Interviews will become a regular feature. Book reviews will still make an appearance. Recipes will not. More attention will be given to the developments within social media and related technology. The hope is for (edge)wise to become your first-read on television, pop culture, and social media through the perspective of an everyday feminist. Fun, exhilarating stuff.

 

This is an exciting time for (edge)wise. Please be patient as the website undergoes creative re-design and construction. As always, I appreciate your feedback and your readership.

 

I am media maven. Hear me roar.

 

 

 

selected round-up of new fall dramas

I watched a few shows last week, mostly new fall dramas that caught my interest. I already posted a brief review of CW’s Ringer and NBC’s The Playboy Club. Here are my thoughts on five more shows. I will watch two of them again; the rest are not worth my time.

Person of Interest

CBS, Thursday 9pm

Caviezel and Emerson in 'Person of Interest'

I enjoyed this show, though I had been hoping for more narrative complexity. Person of Interest seems to follow the same episodic pattern as most weekly crime shows. No overarching meta-narrative is present as of yet. Jim Caviezel plays John Reese, an ex-government agency hitman, slowly drinking himself to death until the enigmatic Finch (Michael Emerson) intervenes. Finch used to work for the government as well; he invented a ‘machine’ that drew information from a myriad of surveillance methods (wiretapping, email records, security cameras) and separated people into two lists—those of ‘interest’ and those that were not. The idea behind this 1984 surveillance is to stop another 9/11 occurring, but as Finch suggests, the non-interest list results in thousands of ‘common’ murders and kidnappings, eating away at society’s numbers. So he partners with Reese as dual vigilantes of a sort—one geeky and wealthy, the other street-smart and violent to stop these awful events from happening. The surveillance angle is intriguing. I’m curious to see whether the show develops the surveillance motif into social commentary or merely uses it as visual filler. 

 

Prime Suspect

NBC, Thursday 10pm

Unfortunately, if you watched the preview for Prime Suspect you essentially watched the entire pilot. Maria Bello is dynamic and wonderful to watch, but the script is average. The plot is average. Prime Suspect is just another average cop show. Not having worked for NYPD, I don’t know whether the sexist, male-dominated workplace is still an issue for female officers. If so, Prime Suspect offers a window into the struggles that a woman faces in a male-dominated profession. This show is definitely character-focused, rather than department or crime focused. I might watch another episode for Bello, but I probably won’t. 

 

Pan Am

ABC, Sunday 10pm

Pan Am's Ricci, Garner, Vanasse, and Robbie.

This was the shocker of premiere week. I really enjoyed Pan Am. Yes, its score recalls that of Remember the Titans, full of self-grandeur and bravado. Yet Pan Am offers an engaging set of characters and sophisticated, multi-layered plot. This might not hold up over the next few episodes, but the pilot presented an ensemble of six characters—all employees of Pan Am—and provided flashbacks for further character development. Unlike The Playboy Club’s unsubstantiated claim to be ‘all about’ female empowerment, Pan Am heavily focuses on its four female leads, granting them more screen time than their male counterparts.

I do wonder if ABC is offering viewers a replacement to Desperate Housewives, which started its final season this year. For my own amusement, I matched each of the four women from Pan Am to her Desperate Housewives equivalent. The French, sex-hungry Colette (Karine Vanasse) provides the same exotic air as Gabrielle; doe-eyed beauty queen Laura (Margot Robbie) effuses the same suppressed emotion as Bree (though Laura actually runs out of her wedding in the pilot instead of waiting nearly two seasons before emotionally cracking, like Bree). Maggie (Christina Ricci) is not as airheaded as Susan, but they share a certain fly-from-the-seat-of-your-pants attitude. And Pan Am’s Kate (Kelli Garner) balances family trials (sister competition in this case) with her work (both stewardessing and undercover spy work for the U.S. Government), like Lynette. Okay, it’s a bit of a stretch. Still, it’s four differing women on an ABC drama on Sunday nights. Makes one wonder.

Of course I cannot ignore the interactive Twitter game that NBC has created for Pan Am. Every time you mention #PanAm, you collect points (er, rather ‘air miles’) on an interactive map. The further you fly, the more eligible you are for giveaway prizes. I know it’s a way collect viewer information and spread brand content (for goodness’ sake, I researched this tactic for the past six months), but I cannot help but want that adorable Pan Am bag. So retro. Sigh…nostalgia sells, as does vintage appeal.

 

Terra Nova

FOX, Monday 8pm

Disappointment. Total disappointment. Terra Nova begins at the dawn of the 22^nd century, and mankind has exhausted the Earth’s resources. The cities look strikingly similar to Blade Runner (minus the number of Asian food carts) and the only hope of human survival resides in a trippy time vortex that sends people back 85 million years to prehistoric dinosaur-land. With Spielberg serving as one of the executive producers, I had high hopes for this time-traveling/futuristic programme. Unfortunately, Terra Nova tries far too hard. For a show that depends upon secrets and mystery, the two-hour pilot released too many details too soon. Unlike Lost—which introduced far more questions than answers in its two-hour pilot—Terra Nova announced its secrets with a loudspeaker, thereby emptying out all future mysteries and relegating the show to predictability. All is not right in ‘Paradise’. Someone from the future has sent an expedition to Terra Nova for its own ‘purposes’. Enigmatic, geometric sketches on rocks are attributed to the missing son of Terra Nova’s commander. And it is mentioned that the ‘real’ reason for Terra Nova was the fact that whoever controls the past, controls the future. Right there are at least four major plot points that could have been stretched out over several episodes—even the entire season. In comparison, the introduction of the ‘Others’ in Lost did not occur until the tenth episode; the mysterious hatch was not introduced until the eleventh. Terra Nova relies too much on special effects (which bizarrely results in dinosaurs that look less realistic than 1993’s Jurassic Park) and family drama. I won’t be watching Terra Nova again.

 

Oh, and Charlie’s Angels.

ABC, Thursdays 8pm.

I endured the first eight minutes before closing my browser. The horrendously poor dialogue hurt my brain.

 

Fall premiere reviews: Ringer and The Playboy Club

 

Sarah Michelle Gellar is back. Her sharp face and anorexic limbs are no longer fighting vampires. This time she plays a pair of twin sisters in CW’s new Ringer. Twin #1 Bridget is a recovering addict on the run from the law. Twin #2 Siobhan has the privileged, ‘perfect’ life in New York until she ‘commits suicide’ while boating with the newly-reconciled Bridget. And, in true sister form, Bridget steals her sister’s identity in order to escape her problems. Too bad Siobhan has a bundle of secrets of her own—including a secret affair and pregnancy. Oh, and hired assassins with a photo of Siobhan in his pocket.

Despite the horrendously bad lines, voiceovers, and montages, I enjoyed Ringer. The plot hooked my attention. Here is a young woman trying to escape a traumatic past, only to discover that her traded life might be more dangerous and complicated than the one she left. Not to mention, it’s always interesting to watch a character step into a life that is not her own. Gellar offers a complex character to watch and care about—especially since her ‘Siobhan’ is drastically different (read: understanding and easy-going) than the actual one. Another plus: Nestor Carbonell (Richard from Lost) plays the detective searching for Bridget. I love watching that man act—mascara eyes and all.

Photo by: John Russo/NBC

The Playboy Club (NBC) on the other hand is an abysmal, high-budget disaster. Within ten minutes, so many clichéd lines were spoken that I wanted to switch off the television. Unfortunately the entire show is tired and predicable. The relationship triangles (which are further emphasized in the ‘scenes from the upcoming season’ montage) are not worth any investment. The main bunny (Maureen, was it?) with her blonde hair and doe-eyes constitutes the epitome of a clichéd character. She has fought her way on her own since the day she was born, damn it. And yet she can’t even fight off a man who attacks her in the back room. She shudders and cries as the grossly coiffed Nick Dawson (Eddie Cibrian) comes to her aid. And Maureen wants to be a star performer—up on that Playboy stage. It’s like Roxy from Chicago all over again, minus a worthwhile plot and jazz shoes.

NBC wanted to jump onto the stylish, 1960’s bandwagon that Mad Men started. Yet like The Hour, The Playboy Club has decided that slow-burn narrative is not good enough for the everyday viewer. Murder and intrigue and suspense and mobs are needed to capture America’s attention! I enjoy the subtlety of Mad Men, especially when the show addresses social issues like race tensions and homosexuality. Issues are not forced or highlighted, indicative of the time period. In the pilot of The Playboy Club, Dawson—a lawyer—is defending a ‘colored’ man, and two characters collect money from the Playboy Club to start their own secret society that champions gay rights. Both situations are commendable. Yet the show forces them upon the audience—it tries too hard to be ‘good’. Somehow its efforts come off as an attempt to be PROGRESSIVE when, really, NBC is behind the times and frantically trying to catch up.