Pages

Monday, January 31, 2011

I've Got a New Wednesday Show!

I think that the day I have dreaded may have come. I think I may have to finally admit that I might possibly have been a teeny tiny bit wrong. You see, for the better part of the last two years I have made an absolute declaration that NBC's Community is the best comedy currently on the air. Up until now, I made this statement because I believed it to be true.

Let that one sink in for a minute. Allow me to explain. I still think that Community is one of the two best comedy's on the air. It might even still hold the number one slot, but it's harder to claim with absolute certainty anymore. I suddenly have realized what all of my friends who have had the gall to argue with my opinion were talking about the last two years when they told me I had to watch ABC's Modern Family.

I remember being six or seven weeks into Season 1 of Community and starting to make my proclamation to all of my friends. Several times I was challenged by people who claimed that Modern Family might be able to make a stake to that claim as well. However, I have an obsession with watching shows from start to finish in the order the writers intended them to be viewed (or at the very least, in the order the network aired them) and by that point, it was more than five episodes in and "Hulu Plus" wasn't a thing yet, so I decided I would wait and catch up on Season 1 of Modern Family later, when the episodes came out on DVD.

Well guess what I finally finished catching up on today? 

Looking back now, I wonder what sort of hubris led me to dismiss ABC's comedy front-runner without watching it first. I'm pretty sure it wasn't network bias, but my justification of that statement sounds like a racist's favorite retort: "Several of my favorite shows belong to ABC!" Although, come to think of it, that's not even entirely true. Of all of ABC's line up, I really only like Castle...... but I really like Castle, so it feels like I enjoy more of their shows by association. And it's not like Modern Family was on the CW or something. I just couldn't believe that what I thought of as an Arrested Development rip-off could possibly live up to the hype. It is time to admit that I was dead wrong.

From now on, I have two favorite comedies, and ABC has earned an apology. So I'm sorry ABC, you guys can be funny sometimes too, and I'm not too proud to admit that I made a mistake (I've done it at least four times in this blog alone!). 

Add one more show to my weekly roster. And honestly, what else was I going to be watching at 9:00pm on a Wednesday, Minute to Win It? 

Before I go making any more inaccurate declarations, are there any other shows I should be sure to catch, to help me form a complete opinion?

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Update: Harry's Law

So I just caught up on Harry's Law by watching the second episode. I found myself laughing internally pretty much throughout.

Whether it was Adam's instant love affair with the girl from the Chinese Laundromat or when he spontaneously switched defenses from private business rights to the legitimacy of China's one child policy as an overpopulation control, I couldn't say.

Or maybe it was the fact that we got to see the prosecuting attorney with the speech problem (speech problem) suddenly without a single repeat in his dialogue. There were even some good opportunities for it. The "are you kidding me!?" when he loses at the end especially would have lent itself to his comedic repetition.

Instead, I guess they transferred it to the overly boisterous lawyer defending the pregnant lady. This is the United States of America you know, and here we choose baby's over China. Baby. China. Baby. China. *Camera Flash!* I mean, come on! The guy even called himself a cartoonish  buffoon.

Character Analysis Thus Far:


The 2 Dimensional character choices are easy to spot. Let's see if they hold up for the rest of the spring.

Harriet: Dull and Droll but Never Emotionless
Adam: Idealistic and Dramatic. A Chronic Over Reacter.
Jenna: The Shoe Obsessed Girly Girl Secretary.
Malcolm: The Naive Innocent in Over His Head, but Trying Hard

Did the writers decide to just do away with the drama part of "dramedy" all together or is the satire just becoming more pronounced?

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Why White Collar Could Be Brilliant!

Brace yourselves. This one is long.


I'll admit it. When I first tuned in to the pilot of USA's White Collar last year, I really only did it because I wanted to see Bryce Larkin (Matt Bomer's role on NBC's Chuck) as a charming con-man instead of smarmy super spy. My hopes for the show weren't terribly high. The premise sounded a little too much like the ending of Catch Me If You Can for my tastes. 

Since the pilot aired, I've only watched two episodes on Hulu. The rest I've seen live when they aired.
I say this to demonstrate the depth of my awe and devotion to this show, as a busy college student fully aware of, and at ease with, the new media markets that are available to young tech savvy viewers like me. 

The show plays itself out like a masterfully executed con. An overarching through-line pulls the audience along with Neal from episode to episode, all the while slipping in new players and new information for viewers to sort out. The brilliance of White Collar comes from its subtlety. The writers have mastered the art of the mislead and foreshadowing. They’re the con man and we’re the FBI agent.


To Jeff Eastin and the writers at White Collar, I have only this to say. “It’s my job to catch you. It’s your job to not get caught.” 


This week's episode was brilliant. From almost the moment Burke walked in Neal’s door, I started chanting “It’s a flashback episode, it’s a flashback episode!” over and over again at my TV, much to the annoyance of my younger brother, who is also a fan. You see, I wasn’t excited because I would get to learn how Neal and Mozzie met, or how Neal and Kate fell in love. I was excited because finally we, as the audience, would get to uncover the missing pieces in the through-arch fractal puzzle that our main characters have possessed all along. This episode would give us the chance to figure out if we were smarter than Neal and Peter by pitting us against one another on a relatively even playing field.


So here’s what this episode told me.

One, Adler is the top of the Music Box food chain. He’s not working for someone else or being held against his will. Whether or not the fractal is his final goal or just another piece of a larger puzzle remains to be seen.
Two, Adler has been (and still is) working a “long-con” on Neal from the moment they met.
Three, Alex is in on it, working for Adler, and has been all along.
Four, so is Kate, but she’s conflicted about it. And she’s not dead.
Five, Mozzie isn’t working for Adler. But the writers have set it up so that he could be.


Here’s why.

The nature of the long con is simple. “You ingratiate yourself, become a trusted friend, and then convince him [The Mark] to tell you.” Mozzie’s words. Assume for a moment that I’m right, that Adler is conning Neal, trying to use him to find the music box. How would he go about doing it? He’d ingratiate himself, become a trusted friend and convince him. But he can’t get close to his mark, because it would mean Neal would be getting close to him too, and as Alex points out later in the episode, grifters tend to know their own. So how would he do it? He’d use his pretty assistant.

Vincent Adler barely seems to notice Neal except as a fly buzzing around his ear. He’s casually and politely interested in what Neal has to say, but eager to move on. I’ll point out that this is very similar to how Neal acts towards Peter when he passes off the Unfinished Business to help make the point. Instead, he passes Neal off to Kate and walks away. Almost immediately, Kate “guesses” Neal’s true motives (upon seeing the bottle of Bordeaux… we’ll come back to that) playfully accusing him of being “here to cozy up to my boss.” Kate knows from the get-go what Neal is up to, if not every detail or even the nature of the con, so it’s reasonable to suspect that Adler does as well. Also, maybe it’s just the actress, but when Kate says goodbye to Neal after their first meeting, she places a bit of an emphasis on his false name. It’s almost exactly the same emphasis that Alex will put on the name later when she reveals she knows Caffrey’s secret.

All the romantic viewers are now screaming. “But Kate loves Neal! She wouldn’t con him!” Well, as Mozzie points out so eloquently, “Every con man gets his heart broken. Once.” Kate’s motivations come shining through in her first conversation with Neal, standing before a piece of art. When Neal tells her he’s dabbled in art, Kate reveals, “I tried, but the romance of being a starving artist wore off very fast.” When Adler disappears, and she and Neal are left unemployed, she complains to Neal saying, “No money! No Jobs! It’s all gone!” Kate is a person who enjoys the finer things in life, just like our good buddy Neal, and she has realized that romantic notions of artistry are not enough to get them for her. She needs money. So let’s assume that this means that she can be bought, even if it doesn’t mean that she was.

So what makes her appear to be Adler’s pawn? The fact that Adler keeps pushing Neal on her. He practically throws them together in the first meeting, he gives Neal his assignments through her so that they will have time to interact. He inquires about their relationship encourages it, telling Neal, “You and Kate have gotten close. You look good together.”

So what happens with Kate after Adler disappears to whatever tropical island or Siberian silo he hides in and stops visibly manipulating Neal and Kate’s relationship? She starts pulling cons with Neal and Mozzie showing a skill that usually comes from practice (granted, there’s a cut scene before we see her in the cop outfit, we didn’t get to see the Neal and Mozzie Train Kate Montage, but it might have existed). She accepts Nick as Neal alarmingly easily (granted, we don’t get to see Neal actually tell her, she might have thrown a fit). She even goes so far as to try to convince Neal she’s more important than his friends. After Caffrey has claimed the false password, he walks with Kate with his new hat. Neal tells her he has to go. “I promised a riend, I can’t back out,” he tells her. What is her response? “I think you should blow off said commitment” (granted, this is all in the context of a flirtatious conversation, and attributing deeper meaning to it might be a bit of a stretch).

Here’s the kicker though. When Kate leaves Neal, what is it that makes her leave? She admits that it’s not Alex. She says that it’s that Caffrey tried to con her. What if she gets upset with Neal because he isn’t including her in the search for the music box, the thing she’s been working towards all along? What if her disappearance is her pulling out of the con when she realizes that Neal, the man she’s grown to love, isn’t going to give her what her boss wants? So when Neal finds her again, Adler starts to use her again. Enter Pilot Episode.

There’s also Alex. Assume for a moment that she’s a plant: hired by Adler to fake an investigative attack on his company to test Neal’s skills. Only after Caffrey catches her does he learn about the music box. She practically tells Neal that he wants it when she says her target is “Something Adler doesn’t have.” Neal counters with, “He has everything.” And she nails the point home with “He doesn’t have this.” There’s also the interesting exchange between Alex and Adler in his office while Neal watches over them. I suggest watching that particular scene again with her potential complicity in mind.

Subtlety Abounds

This has all been just surface level analysis of characters and potential motivations. Plus, that would be a ridiculously long con for Adler and Kate to be pulling on Neal. Assuming that the writers are as brilliant as I’ve been giving them credit for, then if I’m right about where the show is heading, the episode should be laden with subtle foreshadowing. Guess what? It is.

Let’s do an SAT style analogy. Neal is to Adler as Kate is to Neal. Do the writers hint at Neal’s upcoming role reversal? You bet they do.
Adler tells Neal, “You’ve got diverse interests.” Neal’s response is, “like you. Art is my passion.”
Later Adler points out their similarities himself starting a conversation with “Nick, men like you and I…”
Caffrey brings the bottle of Bordeaux as a gift for Adler, it later will become a symbol or Kate and Neal’s romantic future.
About his fake relationship with Kate, Neal says “I feel like I could blink and it would all be gone.”

Additionally there are at least 8 references in the episode to cons taking an extensive amount of time. References to long cons or time clocks and the like. I’ve time stamped them for you based on the Hulu clock I used when I re-watched the episode.

Mozzie – “A long con” 6:24
Mozzie – “Our clock is five months” 10:52
Neal – “The job became my life” 22:34
Mozzie – “Every day with Adler counts” 24:20
Burke – “You and Mozzie were still running the long con” 25:30
Neal – “Every con has an expiration date” 25:37
Neal – “I have to be somewhere by six. It’s a commitment I made a long time ago” 28:51
Neal – “You said it yourself. This is a long con.” 29:53

Finally, for those of you still reading, here are some interesting lines (taken way out of context) that could be potentially hinting towards this version of the rest of the season if you want them to be.

Burke: “And Kate was there the whole time”
Alex: “I don’t work for anyone. Yet.”
Neal: “Trying to make the lie real”
Mozzie: “Don’t kid yourself, Kate doesn’t even know your real name”
Mozzie: “She cares about Nick Haldan and he doesn’t exist”
Adler: “Some people say ‘dress for the job you want.’ I say dress like the man you want to be”
Adler: “Don’t sell yourself short. Kate will love you for who you really are. As will others”
Mozzie: “Neal. This smells like a trap.”
Neal: “He conned us.”
          Burke: “He conned everybody.”
And my personal favorite:

Burke: “Nobody saw this coming?”


 ... I did.

Now all that remains is for the writers to take the show in a completely different direction that I didn't see coming at all and blow my mind yet again. 

Friday, January 28, 2011

The Set Up...

I realized recently that most of my blog posts have been of the negative variety. "I don't like this show" or "that network should give brilliance a chance rather than flushing them out of hand like a 4 year old's dead gold fish." There's a whole lot of what I don't like on here, and I don't like that.

Pause for comedic effect.

You see, I tend to be an optimistic person, especially when it comes to television, and I like almost everything I see. Almost every show I start to watch, I like. Even the shows like Glee and 30 Rock that I believe are good but extremely over rated, I end up following from the pilot through to the final episode. Even with the shows I really dislike, I still give them at least one full season (assuming the networks give the shows a full season run) to find their footing and turn themselves around, to impress me as it were, before I stop following their progress altogether.

All of this is basically my way of promising that the next post will be positive rather than negative. Tomorrow's post will be about this week's episode of what I consider to be absolutely, without question, the most cleverly written television drama currently on the air. Here's a hint. It's not Chase. Sorry NBC.

New Show Review: Harry's Law

The show is being advertised as a dramedy. In other words, it's supposed to be a dramatic show with laughs thrown in. Whether you like the show or not, whether you agree with its "spirit of the law" message or not, watch it again with this in mind: It's not a dramedy. It's a satire.

It's subtly and brilliantly poking fun at the underdog lawyer genre that we as the American viewing public have come to love and accept out of hand. The show is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Harriet gets sent to the hospital twice in one day by pure chance (the "everything happens for a reason" motif, I get it, but still). She spends the first 60 seconds of the episode complaining about how boring patent law is, then almost dismisses her first potential client out of hand because his is a criminal case, not a patent one. The prosecuting attorney in her first case has a comically  fast and repetitive speech pattern (repetitive speech pattern) that is not found in nature. Her partner/junior associate views his first client as a deserving criminal, then, in one half-hearted speech by the client accompanied by moving music, he changes his point of view so completely there's no chance the writer's intended it to be realistic. And to top it all off, everyone speaks in an overly scripted dialogue reminiscent of Lorelai Gilmore or any of Aaron Sorkin's characters. (I guess that's the more fitting reference considering lead actor, Nate Corddry's one season stint on Sorkin's Studio 60.) The problem is, that kind of dialogue has always seemed excessively fake and requires quite a bit of "suspension of disbelief" even when it's done well, and this show just doesn't pull it off. Things have to move too quickly for the tone to settle and everything anybody says seems forced (seems forced). Either that's because the Academy Award winning lead and her ensemble just can't handle this style of speech or maybe it's simply that the writers of the new show are still struggling to figure out the natural rhythm of speech.

But here's the catch. It's not awful. None of these issues I've pointed out are glaring mistakes. None of them make me want to change the channel. They're all exactly small enough that a viewer can move past them and keep watching with a little more suspension of disbelief. It was only when I started to notice how consistently these annoying little blips showed up that I came up with my theory that it was intentional.

It has to be a satire, because if it's not a satire, it's just bad. I choose to be optimistic and give the writers the benefit of the doubt.

New Show Review: Perfect Couples

See Review of Better With You.
Add Olivia Munn,
Subtract Humor, Family Dynamic, and Realism...
That's right.Perfect Couples is less realistic than Better With You. And Better With You had a laugh track.

Too harsh? No. Too hackneyed.

Basic Format: Three different couples, rather than varying stages in their relationships, they're just in varying styles of relationships. Trust me, it's as drastically similar as it sounds. They're all good buddies and spend most of their time in a closed off environment without external interference. It's like Friends only they're all coupled off, even Joey and Phoebe. I don't know everyone's names yet, so I'll just refer to them by number. Couple 1 is the happily married, relaxed and realistic couple (in my loose Friends analogy, this is Monica and Chandler). Couple 2 is the over the top, everything has to be perfect, impose their perfection on everyone else, basically exist to add random ridiculousness and chaos, couple (Joey and Phoebe... again, it's a loose analogy). Couple 3 is the angry, fights all the time, can't commit to anything, immature couple (the Ross and Rachel).

Episode Formula: Man 3 approaches Man 1 with some crazy relationship based scheme. Man 1 reluctantly agrees to contribute to Man 3's insanity, with Woman 1 either encouraging him or discouraging him, depending on which is funnier given the situation. Meanwhile, couple 2 finds out and decides, unasked, to involve themselves. "Hilarity" ensues as everything devolves into chaos, usually with Woman 3 yelling at her boyfriend. Couple 1 is frustrated because they didn't want to get involved, Couple 2 is oblivious to everything but remains happy throughout, and Couple 3 miraculously finds a balance again just in time for another fight next episode.

In other words Couple 3's "lack of chemistry and sexual tension" drives the show, Couple 1 grounds it, and Couple 2 is supposed to make it funnier than real life relationship drama ever is.

Also, consider points awarded to people who got the Community reference in that last sentence.

Sound like the show to watch this season? Personally, I'm not invested.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Time to Catch Up

So. Some of my more devoted non-existent followers may have noticed that there was a gap of almost 4 months between recent postings. There is a two-fold reason for this. The first is that I got a job and became somewhat more busy. The second is that I am lazy. I figured that since I didn't have a rabid fan base begging me for further commentary, I had no reason to write anymore. Of course, that's just stupid, also for a two fold reason. First, I wrote the first post knowing I had no readers, so why should I let it start to bother me now? Second, I've always been an internally motivated individual, so why should I let myself bow to the evils (or so my ND Business classes all seemed to teach me) of external motivation? Answers to both: I shouldn't.

Solution: I have decided that as an exercise for my own sanity, I will try to write a daily addition to this blog, at least until the spring season of television ends. Mostly it will be a personal challenge just to see if I can pull it off. The rough schedule will look something like this, based on the shows I enjoy watching enough to comment on.

Monday: Castle or Chuck, and in extreme rarity, How I Met Your Mother
Tuesday: White Collar, Raising Hope, or if I've got a real bone to pick, Glee
Wednesday: Castle or Chuck, whichever I didn't get around to on Monday
Thursday: Community or Big Bang Theory. Also, let me get this out of the way right now. I don't like 30 Rock. There I said it. Those of you who are going to anyway, you may as well just abandon me now. Go ahead, I'll wait.




Alright, moving on.
Friday: White Collar or Raising Hope, whichever I didn't get around to on Tuesday
Saturday: Nothing happens in television on Saturdays, so I'll have to come up with something interesting to fill this space with. Maybe I'll just post a sudoku puzzle or something.
Sunday: Stuff happens here, but I don't really follow any of it. Maybe I'll go with Family Guy.

OK, yeah I agree, looks like my non-existent readers can pretty much sleep through the weekend without missing anything epic from me. But the weekdays should be interesting at least.

To give you a hint of what's to come, here's a list of upcoming topics I already know I'm going to be writing:
Glee's Genre Gap: Drama or Satire? Choose a Side!
30 Rock in 3D: An examination of character sustainability.
What White Collar Could Do During Eventual Episodes
         (This one doesn't get a subtopic, the Alliteration is Awesome enough to Stand Solo... ok now I'm forcing it)
Believing the Big Bang Theory: Why the Laugh Track Works
Castle's Keep: Finding a Comfortable Niche in a Season of Cop Dramas
Oh! Is That a Cat?: Family Guy is Directly Responsible for Rising ADD Diagnoses in America
That last one isn't a topic, I just got distracted by a cutaway flash back to that time I got a job working as Hermione Granger's Image Consultant.



As my good buddy Dan Harmon said: See you all in the ratings, I mean morning.

Mid Season Score Card

Well it's finally here. That time of year when all our favorite shows get, not rated - no, they've been doing that all along - but evaluated. If you want to see for yourself how all your favorite shows stand, just take a peek here:

http://www.tvline.com/2011/01/renewal-scorecard-whats-coming-back-whats-getting-axed-whats-on-the-bubble/

For the most part, the year looks pretty steady. All the really good stuff is all but guaranteed to come back on most of the major networks. NBC is the only one that's looking like it is having some trouble keeping anything around. Which means that die hard NBC fans like me are once again facing the same question that we faced at this time last year. Will Community and Chuck be back next season?

In all honesty, I'm ready to let Chuck go. It's had a good run, and I'll be the first to admit I'm still greatly enjoying it and would keep watching it for years, but I can also admit that it's going down hill. Seriously, if the show had ended with Casey's famous line, "Oh Chuck me!" I could have been happy. And we got another two full seasons after that! Let it go Chucksters, before it falls apart anymore than it already has. Chuck is impossibly invincible, Linda Hamilton isn't all she was cracked up to be as a spy or as a mother, Timothy Dalton won't be around much longer, and while Yvonne is still gorgeous and Adam Baldwin is still a badass with manly grunts to accent his every line, those aren't enough to keep a show on its feet. I fear (and readily accept) that this year will bring the end for the intersect.

As for Community: I in no way intend to leave the BEST comedy on television to its fate. Facebook/Twitter campaigns, here I come. Now I just need to come up with a catchy fan-rallying slogan. "Save our Study Group" seems too boring to be in keeping with the tone of the show and "Gaggles for Greendale" is a little bit more ridiculous, but I run into the same general problem. Maybe Dan Harmon will help me come up with some good ideas.

Note to self: Befriend Dan Harmon....

It's a work in progress. I'll let you know what I come up with.