21st Century Television

I have seen the possible future of television, and it's exciting, and well crafted and well acted and strikingly produced...and it's airing on PBS.

SHERLOCK aired here in the U.S. on PBS as part of Masterpiece Mystery (Both Season 1 & 2 are now viewable on the PBS website). Season 2 was a three-part series (something we Yanks would erroneously call a mini-series) timed at 1:30 a piece. I don't want to get side-tracked about the smart programming strategy that the British have institutionalized on their side of the pond, but I think it's something that the programmers here in the U.S. should revisit as we go through television's shifting paradigm (I.E. the steady move of content to the internet as well as the ratings-disruptive habits of the audience who now prefers TV on demand to appointment viewing).  As we gather more and more outlets for viewing -- HULU, YouTube, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon Prime -- more content is going to be needed. If you shudder at the thought of more "reality," be prepared for the heebie-jeebies because less and less money is going to be available for upfront costs which means less development, fewer professionals, and basically no production value.  At least, not until we effectively monetize the web. How its going to shake out is anyone's guess right now, but my money continues to be on the creative side with odds favoring the person who can do more with less. Which brings me back to....  Where was I? Oh, yes. SHERLOCK. Blergh! I knew I was going to be side-tracked.

The series is genius not because they took arguably the best known PI ever written and slapped him back on TV. No. Anyone can tune in to CBS after 9PM and get a procedural, and anyone can take a character in the public domain and re-craft him to investigate a mystery (E.G. HOUSE, MD and NBC's upcoming ELEMENTARY). However, the lure here is usually in the sensationalism. How gross can we make a dead body? How lurid can we make the crime?  But the Brits have foregone the Ick Factor and decided to go for...shall I say "innovation?"  Perish the thought that a television show can be described so, and yet, there it is. Season 1, Episode 1 of SHERLOCK starts with a police inspector giving a press conference on a murder. Instead of having our devastatingly, detailed detective standing in the back of the room, poised to dramatically reveal himself and mock and question the officer, the audience hears numerous text alerts.  The sound your phone makes when you have received a text. All the journos look to their phones. As they look at the screens in their hands, floating above their heads, bobbing along with the actors heads are the text type written words, "He's lying." Text!  In Film!  Without the actor looking down, then cutting to the phone screen to give you a crappy reproduction of a cell phone screen shot so that you can read the text, too! In Season 2, John Watson, MD, has started a blog about Sherlock's exploits. Instead of blandly showing Watson typing then explaining what he's typing to Sherlock, we get another long shot with the type marching across the screen as Watson's fingers fly over the keypad. What he is typing is not important expect that a throw-away joke is made about Blog titles (how I suffer over them!). But we go further than just showing technology in use. We actually use technology in informing the character! What?! Is that possible?! It is, it is! As Sherlock looks at person, we see the character from his perspective. We are in Sherlock's head. Along a lapel line, the words "$400 suit" may appear. As he looks across a vista, a measurement might be taken. The film makers do not stop the motion of the camera, the text resides within the shot like a natural extension. They trust their audience to follow along because they force their audience to actually watch the screen. As someone who has texted or commented on FB photos or -- forgive me -- played Soltaire on an iPad while "watching" other TV shows, I must put down my techno gadgets if I want to follow the story. I can't just listen, I have to pay attention.  And by paying attention, I'm rewarded. In Season 2, Episode 1, "A Scandal in Belgravia," we are introduced to Irene Adler who drugs our dear Sherlock. Again, we are given Sherlock's perspective. A dreamlike encounter happens between the two. No, not sex -- keep it clean, people! Instead, Sherlock falls onto the floor and into his bed until he suddenly finds himself in a car that was featured earlier in a crime he has yet to solve for the audience. But it's not Sherlock who explains it to us, it's Irene Adler who reveals herself to be just as clever as Sherlock...and who consequently reveals that the writers of this series are quite clever themselves. Earlier, we are teased with a sight gag of our Sherlock in a deerstalker cap while Watson dons a driver's cap. But further, SHERLOCK's technology is used to immerse the viewer in the experience. As Sherlock stays home, Watson brings his laptop to a crime scene and uses the laptop's camera to show Sherlock the evidence. As Watson walks, the camera bobs along with his gait. When Sherlock sits down, it's like you're Skyping with the man. While 3D tries to deliver the experience of being in the room, SHERLOCK allows you to be a part of the process.  And let's face it, it doesn't cost the producers a ton of money. Not when you look at the costs of CGI'ing something like TERRA NOVA. 

As the end of the current television season closes, we have been treated to some interesting upfronts for next fall.  I look forward to the new Fox line-up which seems to have used THE NEW GIRL as a template. I will schedule a viewing of REVOLUTION on NBC and NASHVILLE on ABC, but nothing so far matches the feel of something that has been as thought out and crafted as SHERLOCK. Not even the new ELEMENTARY. It all feels like pop and fizz.  But if SMASH and GLEE taught us anything, it's that pop and fizz goes flat. You must engage your viewer with more than just great sets and big named actors. You have to give us something that feels fresh. You have to give us a story and if you can give us an immersive experience while you're at it, you might just have the next TV game changer.

A Woman's Man

Writing is hard. Anyone can come up with a concept, a hook, or a gimmick to sell to someone. But once that little gem of an idea is bought, someone needs to execute it. And nine times out of ten, it's probably not the person who had the originated it. Hence the ghostwriter in books and the script doctor in screenplays. But I have to tell you, I'm totally gobsmacked by Matthew Weiner, the creator and writer of MAD MEN, who not only concept'ed MM, but is infamous for driving the carriage at the tip of a whip. And when you seem to be this good of a creator, I can't blame him. I hate to call people brilliant, gifted or genius, because it's usually just a one-off and no one is Midas and everyone in Hollywood loves to throw those words around just to stroke egos, but in this case, I'll make an allowance. When it comes to this series, Matthew Weiner is quite something to behold. Each episode is like a polished jewel and I lay the complement squarely at his feet.

Warning: If you do not like slow plotting, regardless of fantastic character development and dialogue, you will not like this show. I, for instance, am not a fan of dick jokes and treating women like a punchline, so I don't watch TWO AND A HALF MEN. No judgements. To each their own. But if you like well-scripted film or television, and you are not watching MAD MEN, just skip on over to Netflix and start streaming the first three seasons to catch up. It is currently in Season 5. Last night's episode (4, "Mystery Date") might be this season's "The Suitcase." While "The Suitcase" episode was a risky drawn out sequence of just two actors going deep into Don's identity crisis, "Mystery Date" was an incredible commentary on feminist rhetoric, more pointedly, rape in the cultural conscience. And when "rape" is being thrown around by actresses comparing it to being stalked by paparazzi or a song that was composed for her movie being used in the current Oscar winner, it's about time someone try to put it back into its appropriate context. Just about every character had something to say about female sexuality and power last night. It was incredibly insightful and was written -- wait for it -- by two men, Matthew Weiner and Victor Levin. What really intrigues me about MAD MEN's writing is that it is wonderfully complex, authentic, and intentional. Everyone talks about the "attention to detail," but that usually refers to the set design, costume, make-up and language choices. Which makes for great visuals and fun brain-teasers, and I do enjoy those elements, trusting that someone at MM is verifying all of those nuances. But from a development stand-point, the arc of the characters and the psychological depths that the writers plumb, are probably the most intense on TV. (Film isn't even allowed to go there any more, unless you're talking foreign film or some down-and-dirty indie.) This is what episodic television can do. Which brings me back to "Mystery Date." If you didn't see it yet, don't read any further if you don't want to be spoiled. (Though with MM, it's not exactly Spoiler Alert viewing.)

The clever angle that the writers decided to use was to intersect the 1966 rape, torture, and murder of eight nursing students in Chicago with a popular board game of the time, Mystery Date. If your female fear of rape isn't tingling yet, you're probably a man. Just about every character plays out the psychosexual victimization of women. Early in the episode, the new copywriter, Ginso, is appalled at the pictures from the Chicago crime scene while his counterparts seem titillated by them. It is stressed that the ninth girl got out alive by hiding under the bed. Later, Ginso dry-runs an idea for Don for a pantyhose account which devolves into a pitch idea featuring that comely lass Cinderella and her missing shoe. Too cliche, says Don which prompts those other female icons Snow White and Sleeping Beauty to peek up for a minute before being deemed "narcoleptic." Are you seeing the parallel yet? If not, let's skip right ahead to the actual pitch to the pantyhose honchos where Ginso -- earlier, so offended by his co-workers salacious gawking -- pitches an extraordinarily dark and disturbing Cinderella scenario in which Cindy is running from a shady male character down a dark, cobblestone street, only to be caught...and grateful that her pursuer is the prince! Oh, thank god, I thought you were a rapist! The honchos love it, of course. Need I mention that everyone in the room is a man during this presentation? Men, getting wrong for... well, forever. Just in case, you think that every woman wants it, let's flip to all our female characters for a counterpoint, shall we?

First up, poor little Sally Draper who is calling her father to save her from her wicked step-grandmama! How perfect was that set up?! Did you notice that they played up the Gothic mansion bit, too? Don, of course, tells her that it's not his weekend and to suck it up. Sally's Daddy Issue just grows by leaps and bounds every week, doesn't it? Sally, who is in the prime of her sexual development and wants to be treated like an adult while whining like a child, wants to know about the murder. Step-grandmama refuses to talk about it. But little Sally fishes out the newspaper from the garbage and reads it under the covers that night like the horror story it is....then freaks the hell out! Who can blame her? Especially when Mystery Date is being sold to little girls just Sally's age to socialize them to open the door to any guy bearing flowers. Knock, Knock. Who's there? Could be prince charming...could be a rapist. How lucky do you feel? Sally wearing frilly, blue, baby doll pjs creeps out to step-grandmama who is sitting around reading a romance novel while keeping a butcher knife on the couch next to her (BTW: HA! Brilliant!). Step-grandmama makes the bad decision to tell Sally about the case in the most awful, gossipy way possible. Then...gives her half a sleeping pill. Sleeping Beauty, indeed.

Peggy, in the meantime, gets less money from Roger for working all weekend then Harry did just to switch an office. (IE, Peggy's time is less valuable than Harry's ego.) Then Peggy finds Dawn, Don's African-American secretary, sleeping in Don's office (Dawn, don't sleep on that couch. There's a lot of DNA in that couch). Dawn is afraid to go home to Harlem after dark since there's been all sorts of riots and every woman in the U.S. is currently terrified of Cinderella's shadowy male pursuer. Peggy takes Dawn back to her apartment in a show of sisterhood where Peggy is all mentor'y and asks Dawn if she acts too much like a man, and they both agree that if you're a woman in a man's world, it's best not to be too girly-girly...because then they will have to pursue you, have sex with you, strangle you and then stuff you under their bed. Or not. I don't know. I'm not Don. Anywho, Peggy then takes our feminist fairy tale script one step further and goes deep into the feminist schism. White women never understand why black women don't join the feminist front lines. After all, we're all after the same things, right? Equality! Liberty! Men are the enemy, not your sisters! Until, of course, Peggy remembers she has $410 in her purse and her repressed racism comes rearing its ugly, little head. You see, black women cannot be Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty or Snow White. The cultural mythology (based in reality) of African-American women have always been about slavery, rape, and otherness. Try to pantyhose peddle that to women. Even though Peggy tries to cover her prejudice, Dawn's sees Peggy's pause and all Peggy's comradettes-in-arms goes right into the garbage with the beer bottles.

And if all that feminist theory went right over your head, let's go to the one character who has been both raped and saved: Joan. Our darling Joanie Holloway is married to an upstanding, military surgeon who gets saluted in restaurants...and who we all remember raped her right there on the floor of the office. After hubby took off for Vietnam, Joan and Roger get their flirt back on, and after they are robbed on a dark street by a shadowy man, Joan allows Roger her defender to take her right there on a street corner...impregnating her in the process. If Sally is our innocent Sleeping Beauty, Joan is our Cinderella after her shoe has been returned. Neither one of these scenarios is working out well, is it?

And if our women are terrified of the Cinderella myth, and the men are selling it, our darling protagonist, womanizer Don Draper, is hallucinating the male psychosexual conflict for us. He's got a gorgeous, young wife who is coming to grips with Don's sexual past and on-going sexual appetite. Don, for his part, seems to be battling the flu. In his fevered dream, he is confronted by his libido in the form of a former paramour who keeps insisting that Megan has not changed Don. At first, Don resists. Then Don gives in. Then Don, angry at his own inability to keep it in his pants, must kill the object of his sexual desire, trying desperately to hide it before Megan sees it, but -- like all nightmare scenarios -- can't quite hide it all the way.

Even though MW and Co. had eighteen months to develop this particular season, the sheer construction of this episode alone would take most writers months to nail down especially with this level subtlety. So kudos to the writing staff. But a bigger curtsy to Matthew Weiner who either took feminist theory or just absorbed it at Wesleyan. Very few writers can write women as authentically as he can, and even fewer would take on rape as a topical theme for an episode. Writing is hard, but when it's this good, it doesn't look it.

Make It Better

It might have been mentioned before, but to refresh, I work in Development. For those of you who do not know what Development is: It is the department department that resources the concept for a film or television show whether it's a book, original script, play, article in a magazine, some fluff piece on internet, or a writer or actor or director saying over lunch, "I had this idea about a girl with a polka-dot skirt and a cupcake store who meets a guy with a striped tie and dog...and they HATE each other, but she's pregnant with his baby. I'm thinking Michelle Williams and Jason Segal" and crafts it into a pitch or treatment to be shopped around to the money people. If the piece gets the backing, then the Development person starts looking for a screenwriter and then holds the writer's hand through the process so that the producers, writer, and engaged talent come to a coherent consensus on the finished draft. The Development person usually works for a producer, studio, network, or "talent" who have shingles. Not the kind that comes from dormant chicken pox and brought on by stress (BTW: Yuck). But a director, actor, or writer who is established enough in the industry to get a movie or show financed based solely on their reputation and establish their own production company where they mold material they like. (See: Smokehouse, Plan-B, Amblin, and about a gazillion others.) When people find out what I do for a living -- basically, get paid to read and make suggestions so that other people look geniuses by spotting that Award winner -- they want in. But I'd like to take a moment to relive with you something that happened to me recently. I will take liberties with the timeline just a bit as part of my job is to prolong the suspense so that the climax feels cathartic.

About a year and a half ago, I read this book which I felt fit the current the mandate of the production company that employs me: A Christmas piece with family drama -- but not too much -- and a romance that targets the female demographic between the ages of 25 and 54 taking place in the contemporary time frame, preferably in a beautiful Americana locale (that Canada might easily double for if tax incentives for that American state aren't comparable). And, yes, this is how specific it can get. I have three bosses, overall, and while there is a hierarchy, it's a pretty casual one. The first is the Director of Development whom I call DD (prosaic? I know). Then the Producer who I'll call "Chip" and the Executive Producer whom I'll call "Bobby." In the beginning, DD totally saw what I saw in the piece, which makes sense because we are females in the target demo. One might want to listen to those voices, but as in D.C. and the GOP talking about women's health, why should we listen to the the people we want to support us? Chip "didn't get it." I admit, the book was a bit of a mess, but I wrote a treatment that reconciled a lot of the plot holes. Bobby got it, but Bobby often loses focus on Development and unless Chip is on-board some material can get put onto "the backburner," meaning that it's not a Pass per se, it's just Chip's hope that the mandate will change, and I won't bring the piece up a billion times more. But the mandate hasn't changed, and I keep banging my drum. (Do you like all these cliches? Welcome to Hollywood.)

Recently, we were doing our big Christmas push. This happens about five times a year as Christmas material is consistently derivative of A Christmas Carol, It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street, or someone seeing/being Santa Claus and -- unlike their progenitors -- not good. It's difficult to find honest Christmas material. For years, we used to do material that just took place around Christmas, but focus groups have now told us that audiences want Christmas to be the center of the storyline. (Focus groups -- taking creative out of Hollywood year after year!) I took it upon my self to pitch the book one more time to Bobby. I told him that I thought I could refocus the pitch.

Bobby: Can you make it good?

Me: I can make it better.

Bobby: Well, if you can get it to me by Friday, I'll put it in the pitch packet.

Me: *running to my office*

I reopened the treatment from 18 months ago and remembered it was eight pages. A year and a half ago, eight pages was about the norm. At some point, someone decided that we should do two-page pitches instead of longer treatments. It took the whole day, but I did a complete re-write, got it down to a page and half, refocused it from the child's point of view, and handed it to DD.

DD: I still love this concept. I thought there was a dog in it?

Me: Yes, there is, but I didn't want it to be too long, and the dog thread isn't imperative to the overall narrative.

DD: *Nodding the way women do to state that she understands your position while not necessarily agreeing with you*...still. It kinda gave it a little something, don'cha think?

Me: *Nodding while going back to my office*

I put the dog back in and it was two whole pages. The next day, I gave it to Bobby. On the third day, Bobby called me into his office.

Bobby: This is better!

Me: Thanks! *Big smile*

Bobby: I like the kid, and there's a little mystery now.

Me: Yep!

Bobby: And the dog is funny.

Me: Good!

Bobby: ...but...

Me: ......

Bobby: ...the guys kinda come off as...weird.

Me: Weird?

Bobby: You know, not like men.

Me: Um...

Bobby: Just make 'em funnier. They're supposed to be funny, right?

Me: Yeah! Totally. It's not supposed to be literal.

Bobby: Then just make sure that I know that they're funny.

Me: *going back to my office.*

To help get the male protagonists to seem funny, I throw in some dialogue and a bunch of adjectives and adverbs. But now the pitch is three pages. I bring it back to Bobby. The next day, I get called into his office.

Bobby: This is much better!

Me: Good! I'm glad. *Big smile*

Bobby: The ending is kinda...

Me: ... down?

Bobby: Not 'down,' exactly. Just...flat.

Me: Okaaay.

Bobby: *looking at me*....

Me: I can make it not flat. I just don't know, um, --

Bobby: ...*looking at me*....

Me: -- it's just that, uh, that's how the book ends. I didn't want to go to far afield from the source material.

Bobby: I don't care about that. Just make it not flat.

Me: *going back to my office.*

I come up with an idea that still holds true to the spirit of the novel while making the piece feel a bit more of a Happily Ever After. But it's just over three pages now. I give it back to Bobby. An hour later, I get called back into his office.

Bobby: There's a typo here.

Me: *going back to my office*

I fix the typo and bring it back to Bobby. The next morning is Friday. Bobby calls me back to his office.

Bobby: I'm sending it in.

Me: Good! *Big smile*

Bobby: Just show it to Chip then email it.

Me: Okay!

I bop into Chip's office and tell him that Bobby wants to put the treatment into the Christmas pitch packet, but wants him to look it over first. Chip sees the title of the pitch and groans. About an hour later, I get called into his Chip.

Chip: It's better, I guess. But it's long. Can you get it to two pages? Maybe cut back on the dog and this goofy shit with the guys.

Me: ...but...

Chip: .....

Me: *going back to my office.*

The sad fact is, this is nothing. Once we pass this on to the money people, they have their own ideas, and then once a writer is engaged, I have to start the negotiation phase all over again as s/he often can't figure out how the hell I got to where I did when the source material is nothing like my treatment. Then s/he has her/his own idea of how the material should play out...then the director gets involved...then the actor! It's a never ending tidal wave of "ideas." Let's just put it this way, I spend a lot of time in my office just trying to make it better.

Is SMASH a Smash?

Three things I like about NBC's new show SMASH:

1) Debra Messing with a gay guy BFF!

2) Anjelica Huston stalking around like Joan Crawford!

3) Broadway-like vignettes!

Two things I think SMASH needs to reconsider:

1) That worn-out chestnut of the dewy faced, wide eyed innocent fresh off the bus who has big, Big, BIG dreams of making it on the Great White Way because she was so pretty and so talented she locked all the leads in her high school productions...in Iowa. (And, in this case, luckily lands in the bed and heart of a British-speaking Mayoral assistant who has plenty of money to care for her while she's being turned down at auditions because otherwise, she would be living in a studio apartment with three other girls in Astoria, but instead gets to live in a HUGE ASS apartment somewhere in Manhattan. One would assume in Tribeca.) This might have worked before the advent of the internet, but when Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black can become part of the zeitgeist for a couple of YouTube videos, Kim Kardashin and Paris Hilton can have whole careers based on nothing but sex videos, and reality TV has given 5% of Americans 15-episodes of fame, the naive waif from Nowheresville is just kinda ridiculous. Even Iowans have the World Wide Web. Don't condescend, Hollywood.

2) Debra Messing's home life. I'm not sure what's going on there. Unfortunately, Brian d'Arcy James gets the awful character position that is usually left to a woman to play as the wife, but here we get the groundbreaking, role reversal of a man as husband taking on the trope: The shrill spouse who married an obsessive, but who now erratically swings between encouraging the raging workaholic in her endeavor and yelling at her for never being available, listening, paying attention, forgetting, etc. "Oh, fame-inducing, money-making success! Why must you exact such a price on the family life?! It's a curse - a CURSE! - I tell you! I preferred it so when we had no money and you were just a neurotic shell of a person and only MY love could salve your wounded vanity...." Stop! Please, stop. If you want to do something innovative, take this trope and really, psychologically dissect it and give the actor something to do.

One thing I think SMASH did disastrously wrong:

1) Casting Katharine McPhee. I know. I know that Steven Spielberg suggested her, his royal self. However, Bob Greenblatt, you are not "introducing" Katharine McPhee to anyone. I know you've been toiling over there in cable and probably looked down at network -- which was kinda evident when all you could do was talk about cable at the recent TV Critics Association -- but, you see, Katharine McPhee was on the only television show outside of the SuperBowl that Americans watch. It's called American Idol. And Ms. McPhee did very, very well on that show. And after she did that blockbuster show, she decided to dye her hair blond and marry some Hollywood player twice her age before being cast in a successful movie called The House Bunny. But let me tell you something about Katharine McPhee that you don't know and perhaps should have used a focus group to figure out before pulling the trigger: Katharine McPhee is bland. Seriously. Evidence?

Exhibit #1: She lost to Taylor Hicks. Taylor Hicks! Despite how successful she was on American Idol, she cut an album and it flopped. (BTW: Starting the show with "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," her AI breakout song? Passe. Don't ever do that again. All you did was serve to remind us that we saw this girl already...six years ago. When she lost to Taylor Hicks.)

Exhibit #2: While I remember she was in The House Bunny, I don't remember her actually *in*House Bunny. Do you know who I remember? Emma Stone and Kat Dennings. Hell, I even remember Rumer Willis, vaguely. But I don't remember Katharine McPhee.

Exhibit #3: When the cast of SMASH was announced, everybody's reaction was the same: Debra Messing! Anjelica Huston! That guy from Pirates of the Caribbean! ...Katharine McPhee? Then people started laughing about the "introducing" tagline. Then Bob Greenblatt tried to say how wonderful it was to "introduce" Katharine McPhee *again.* Reader, have you ever been to a dinner party where you've met everyone, but some people have forgotten who you were so you had to be introduced *again*? It's embarrassing. No matter how you spin it, and they've been spinning it, it's weird. You should be "introducing" Megan Hilty.

While SMASH does not want to be compared to GLEE, I think it's relevant to point out what GLEE did right: They hired Broadway vets to portray the leads. Who knew Matthew Morrison before GLEE? Well, I saw him in the Tony-winner A Light in the Piazza up at Lincoln Center. Who knew Lea Michele before GLEE? Anyone who saw Spring Awakening. These people could sing and act and dance. But unless you were living in New York and taking in the theater for the last ten years, you wouldn't know 'em. Which is why I think Megan Hilty will do gloriously on this show if they would only push Katharine McPhee and her big, brown eyes to the side to let the woman shine. And, by the way, I think it's fairly obvious that McPhee is going to "get the role" after that weird pyramid where Oscar-winner Anjelica Huston is at the bottom(!) while McPhee is holding it all together. If you had two unknowns portraying Karen and Ivy, I might be willing to go all fifteen episodes to find out Who Will Get The Part?! But, I kinda know, don't I? You're not going to give it to the real Unknown, you're going to give it to the unknown that we all know.

Is it a smash? That's hard to say. Ratings were good last night, but dropped a chuck of The Voice's lead-in, and will probably drop further next week. They can't afford to drop much, however, especially not with the overhead that a show of this size -- with these kinds of names both in front of and behind the camera -- must cost (pilot was 7.5 million). I, for one, don't know if I'll be checking-in back in long term. I might watch for the next four or five weeks on DVR, but I'm going to need more than what I saw in the "upcoming" package that aired at the end of last night's episode. If SMASH goes the way of GLEE -- hoping that the musical numbers are enough to keep eyes glued to the TV while we watch warmed-over plotlines -- then my days are numbered. And if you lose too many women and gay men, this one will go the way of the original "Marilyn" Broadway tuner.

A Purist's Review

I liked THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, so shoot me. According to every review I've read from The New Yorker to Salon to Variety -- and not to mention the Comment sections from some websites, oy! -- everyone seems to be offended by Spielberg's adaptation of Herge's comic hero. They're offended that Spielberg added Indiana Jones-like scenarios to the three cobbled together comic books that qualify as the source material. They're offended that TinTin has no depth of character. Some people are offended by the CGI and think it's a slight to the artist who pioneered the ligne claire style of cartooning. Some reviewers have called it "exhausting." To which I say, "Really?" I thought it was kinda fun.

While I will confess to an Archie comic infatuation at the age of ten (Team Betty!), I was never a true comic reader. When graphic novels became en vogue about ten years ago, I was working at the Barnes & Noble on 17th Street in New York City. Bouncy college kids from the School of Visual Arts would bop in, secure in their super cool, arty hipness, and ask where the Graphic Novels were located. At that time, they occupied three shelves next to Manga. (During a recent visit, they had four bookcases. Manga had expanded, too. I don't know what happened to Poetry and Essays which used to reside there. Poetry, I barely knew thee...literally.) I was perplexed enough to trek up to the fourth floor myself and check out Daredevil and Watchmen. I didn't get it and never bothered again. So, it seems I missed the gem TinTin in its original form. To which I say, C'est la vie. Herge would know what I mean. Now, don't get me wrong, I like to read books before they become movies. But some books can be skipped without feeling too badly about missing the literary purity of the story. I mean, it's hard to watch a Grisham adaptation and leave the theater saying, "Wow, in the book, that chase scene wasn't just a chase scene. It was the character's existential crisis where he wasn't just running away from that crooked judge, but running away from the ghost of his father's unrealistic expectations!" because, you know, that's not really the point of a Grisham novel. But I do think that people who loved the TinTin comics were bound to be disappointed, just like anyone who has ever loved any book has been disappointed by a theatrical adaptation. Choices have to be made, and perhaps they wouldn't be your choices. Which brings me to CGI.

People do not like CGI. People who plonked down $18 for IMAX in 3D to watch blue giants on another planet, got all weirded out about TINTIN. James Cameron is a genius, but people throw around the name Bob Zemeckis like it's a curse word. One commentator I read was in high dudgeon over the fact that TINTIN is going to be considered in the Best Animation category when it's sooo not animation in the classical sense! How "classical" do you want to go, because if I remember correctly, people were all hot and bothered over computer generated animation around the time of TOY STORY's launch. Should we insist that SHREK and UP! return their Oscars? The only reason there is an animation category is because of computer generated cartooning. CGI is just the next genesis of that evolution. Before I move on, I'll give you a moment to pick your wedgie, because obviously your panties are in a bunch.

One of the reasons I think Hollywood likes comics and graphic novels is not only the "platform" - IE. established material with its own following -- but, that it's basically just storyboarding. They get storyboarding! Hollywood creative execs are usually visual people who don't want the writer to mickey around with the "story" too much. Yet those pesky writers keep trying to put non-essential "stuff" into the script. You know, like character development, motivation, and dialogue that isn't just set-up>punchline. But we have far surpassed the days of "moving pictures" and there has to be more then just a lot of music and a title card every few minutes. Audiences are much more sophisticated and when we do cheat them out of a story, they get grumbly. And I think this is what reviewers were responding too in TINTIN. There was no character exploration that was being exercised through external conflict. I guess the only criticism, when viewed in this context, could be that Spielberg was enamored by the visuals with which CGI was allowing him to experiment. But, honestly, that is what I enjoyed most about TINTIN. Spielberg was so obviously enjoying himself! It felt like a kid in the candy store. He directed the film like he would have directed, yes, Indiana Jones, but with flourish! His little call backs to his own movies -- JAWS, JURASSIC PARK, et. al -- is something Pixar does in every film. Moving the camera around a space in a way that it would be difficult or dangerous on a set provided thrilling optics. He was able to pour in a little slapstick without it feeling out of place. It was like an amusement ride, and I enjoyed it immensely. However, maybe it was these visual gymnastics that reviewers didn't like, or why some people felt tired by the end of it. There was so much to see! Which is also why, maybe, the character development of TinTin wasn't up to par. But, *shrug* I enjoyed it.

OK, so maybe it wasn't a pure Herge movie for the Herge enthusiast. But it was definitely an enthusiastic Spielberg adventure film, and pure fun for people who like quintessential Spielberg films. And I do.

The One that Got Away

A few years ago, I was traversing the floor of Book Expo America when I came upon the Scholastic booth where a very large line had formed. Since the final Harry Potter had just been released the year before, I curiously asked a woman in line for what she was queuing. "The next HUNGER GAMES," she replied, happily. "Oh," I said with a little mental shrug and wound my way around the booth and past the seventy-plus middle-aged librarians excitingly chattering in line. About ten minutes later, I met up with my friend, Edie, who is an editor at Penguin. "Do you know what HUNGER GAMES is?" She froze like a deer in headlights right in the middle of the BEA floor (which one should never do...) "Scholastic has THE HUNGER GAMES?!" At which point, we sprinted back to the Scholastic booth. After Edie updated me on the emerging phenom, I quickly called my boss and asked her to check StudioSystem to see if THE HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins had been optioned because if it hadn't, I was willing to sell a kidney, a couple of eggs, and the lobe of my liver to raise the money for the film rights on the planned three books. Even though I hadn't read the first book and was holding the pre-published second book in my hand, it had obviously struck a nerve within the literary community. Unfortunately, Lionsgate had scooped it up a scant two months earlier. I read the first and second book back-to-back and then waited like a coke addict for pay day until the third book was published. Everyone I've given the trilogy to since has been desperately waiting for the movie along with me. This morning, the trailer was revealed. We may never get Wonder Woman, but we can at least have Katniss Everdeen.

Cream of the Crop

The new television season has started! Can I get a woot-woot?! (Did I just age myself? I did, didn't I? Well, get jiggy with it, and let's move forward.) I'm sure you have a life, dear Reader, and have not done what I have done and either watched or DVR'd almost every premiere aired and have already dedicated hours of precious life to faux-Chuck Lorre comedies and Friends knock-offs. And even though some -- Pan Am, Terra Nova, Grimm, and Once Upon a Time -- have not aired yet, I do have thoughts on the current crop already. I'm sure this is how vintners feel at the end of grape growing season. While the Chardonnays aren't quite ready yet, and the Pinots need to age a bit, some of these Merlots are excellent!

NEW GIRL: This is already getting bashed by a couple of my friends and my hairdresser, but I totally like it and I've moved it up on my DVR's priority list. I particularly liked that they didn't set up the romantic entanglement (though my money is on Nick). I feel like they're going to let it breathe and allow the actors to nurture their natural chemistry. I'm very upset, however, that Damon Wayans, Jr. had to go back to Happy Endings (who saw that getting a second season pick-up?!). While Happy Endings might become the best Friends knock-off we've seen yet, New Girl feels like it's going to become the next genesis of Friends and therefore will probably have legs. I like DW, Jr. in general and prefer Coach over Brad (yes, I did watch Happy Endings. Casey Wilson deserves a fantastic career, and I will devote myself to that end...at least for another mid-season replacement). I read that they replaced DW, Jr. in the second episode with a new new "roommate," but I think it screws with their gimmick a little. Not that the average viewer is going to care or probably pick up on it (See: Cougartown). But I did, it will bother me in the way that only a snobby development person can be bothered by such lame things. The complaints that I've heard have been over Zooey Daschanel's character. She's dumb, supposedly and/or annoying. Why did they have to make her so weird? I guess that "quirky" can come off "dumb," but I saw the character as more awkward, insecure, and nerdy. Which I like, because I'm really tired of hip, gorgeous, sexual secure women who trip while walking into a bar then open their eyes wide in wonder when a hip, gorgeous, sexual secure man likes them because, hey, she tripped! She's not perfect! How could he possible like her?! Blergh. I'll take quirky and weird over neurotic any day...which brings me to

UP ALL NIGHT: I've watched both episodes and if I watch any more, it's only because my roommate liked it, and I might sit through it while on my iPad answering emails. Maya Rudolph, like Casey Wilson, deserves a stellar career. I don't know if she deserves this show. I did read that they re-shot the pilot to add more Maya to which I think we should all thank the network gods. In fact, they should scrap this and spin-off Ava into her own show. While Christina -- completely gorgeous -- and Will -- totally handsome -- are pretty funny people with terrific timing, I think they both belong in ensemble casts. I just don't get this. Possible because I'm not a parent working in L.A.'s entertainment industry. Their neurosis chafed at me. These are privileged, entitled people wondering if their hipster neighbors who just bought a million dollar house in, what, Los Feliz, will like them. This is what they worry about? Check, please! Maybe because I work with these kinds of people and can't stand them, I'm the wrong audience for this show. Additionally, the scripts have been uneven, and Glee has taught me never to brush off an uneven episode.

FREE AGENTS: Another show that people are already bashing. I've watched two episodes, and I'm on the fence. I love Hank Azaria, and Kathryn Hahn needs something big to happen. She's very smart and funny. I don't know why she's not catching on. But this isn't it for her. And it won't be it for Hank, either, but Hank has a solid career. How he's doing this and ten voices on the Simpsons, I don't know. The big problem with this show is that the pilot felt like Episode Ten. There is something sweet between Helen and Alex, however, they've already answered the Will They or Won't They question (they did) and we're now in a FWB situation with 40-year olds. Is this exciting? I don't think so. It's all a little familiar. But I love Hank and Kathryn, so, *shrug*

RINGER: *Disclosure* I am not a Buffy fan, ergo Sarah Michelle Gellar's return to series was not an impetus to watch this show...Ioan Gruffudd was! Hello, Captain Hornblower! *kiss, kiss* I think they threw everything and the newly renovated apartment's kitchen sink into this pilot's script. It was a lot to take in, and the special effects were pretty atrocious. With that said, if I catch it, I catch it if only to gaze in adoration at Mr. Fantastic. But the evil twin storyline is laughable, not to mention that I can probably chart out the next two seasons' plotline for you right now. But if you liked it, I'll let you be semi-surprised by this soap opera.

THE SECRET CIRCLE: Don't hate me. I love it. LOL! Won't do Vampire Diaries, but this totally looked like the The Craft, and I was all for it. I also like Britt Robertson. She was terrific in Dan in Real Life, though a little stiff in Avalon. She's a little stiff here, too, but I think she has potential.

PERSON OF INTEREST: *Sigh* I don't know what to say about this. First, I guess the tenth anniversary of 9/11 means we can use it now as character/plot motivation in series TV to give -- what, gravitas? -- I don't know. Person of Interest used it, as did last night's CSI:NY. In the case of Person of Interest, it is used to set up the world: A 1984-like police state where we are all being monitored all the time and there is a Big Brother computer collecting this data and hypothesizing who is going to either commit or be a victim of a violent crime. The conspiracy theorists are going to luuuv this show. With that said, I like this show. Jim Caviezel's cheekbones alone will keep me tuning in for awhile, and maybe it'll either completely hook me like Lost -- hello, Michael Emerson -- or be my go-to show like House. Solid, well-acted, and good TV. In fact, smart money would be on a House-like scenario. Close-ended episodes perfect for dipping into and syndication. But we'll see.

2 BROKE GIRLS: This show wins for the most Chuck Lorre-like show that is not produced by Chuck Lorre. I adore -- AH-DORE -- Kat Dennings. But I'm not sure about this show. It is definitely on the right network, unlike Whitney, and it'll probably work out, unlike Whitney. Luckily, Whitney Cummings is the co-creator and probably getting a nice paycheck which she is going to need when NBC axes Whitney. Why am I talking about Whitney in the 2 Broke Girls paragraph? Because there's really nothing to talk about in regards to either. In 2 Brooke Girls, two girls with no money are going to start a cupcake shop (so NYC 2005, btw) by pooling their waitress'ing tips. The gimmick is that at the end of episode we see how much money they have cumed towards their $25,000 goal. Hopefully, the economy turns around and they are able to get a small business loan in three years, but, hey!, it's TV! In the middle of that, hi-jinks ensue because they are, you know, two broke girls. CBS comedy, what can you say...

A GIFTED MAN: Probably my second favorite of the season. I want to hate Susannah Grant, but I can't. I will reserve, however, that I don't know how long they will be able to sustain the gimmick. Considering the love story is between a very hot and gifted surgeon and a dead ex-wife, well, other than Patrick Wilson growing enough to fall in love with someone else and letting Jennifer Ehle go, it's kind of a Gothic romance like Heathcliff and Katherine, isn't it? He can't have the girl. Literally. But, Jennifer Ehle is luminous. She, like Kathryn Hahn, deserves so much more than she's been given. She is incredible actress. I'm hoping that between Contagion and this, she will finally gain the eye of Hollywood's power producers. HIRE HER! Good god! I also don't know how this is going to do once Jonathan Demme is no longer directing. The pilot was just gorgeously shot, and I'm afraid of what's going to happen to the enormous set pieces once the production value is wrangled to the one million mark. Bad, bad things can happen. But I'm totally going with this one if just for the cast. Speaking of a kick ass cast

PRIME SUSPECT: I have not watched an episode yet, but I just saw a publicity shot and Brian F. O'Bryne and Aiden Quinn are in this? Hm, I might have to Hulu this one just to check out. I was on protest because, well, American versions of British hits aren't exactly good. Just look at Being Human and just about everything else. Even The Office, while a hit, never really worked for me. And while I'm on protest

THE PLAYBOY CLUB: No. NOOO. You can not make me. First, cloaking misogyny and sexual exploitation in the guise of a period drama is ridiculous. Calling it sexual equality makes me want to vomit. Second, you can't call it female empowerment then start the show off with a girl almost getting raped, killing her attacker, and then needing a big strong man to come and save her. Third, you're no Mad Men. Unless you can pull off an episode like "The Suitcase," you're just a wannabe and totally don't get what Mad Men is about anyway. All style, no substance. Will not. NO. Ditto for Charlie's Angels. Minka, darling, be the Farrah and GET OUT!

As I've said, there is more to come in the next few weeks, and I'm very interested in which of these get the ax first. While there is a lot of serviceable material out, they will have to compete with Modern Family which started off strong, Community and its cult following, Simon Cowell shows old and new, and all the Chuck Lorre and Shondra Rhimes programs that have their own legions of fans, not to mention cable. When is Mad Men starting again? My DVR is jammed and I've had to make some tough decisions. However, if some of these can just limp through this season, I think we're going to need them for next year when Desperate Housewives, House, and possibly Grey's Anatomy, Chuck, and The Office finally go away because all in all, there's nothing atrocious that can't be ironed out with some solid acting and a good story arc.

Here's to the new season, darlings! Cheers!