television

You are currently browsing the archive for the television category.

The Real Housewives of New York City Ultimate Crib Sheet

May 16, 2009 in craptastic, relationships, television | 8 comments

I don’t usually watch The Real Housewives, which is to say I don’t set my TIVO to record it, but I somehow always manage to see it. I guess it’s on in repeats enough damn times (Law & Order style) that I always manage to catch it. The Real Housewives is the definition of reality television to me – just riveting and dramatic and horror inducing enough that I can’t help but look, but tacky and terrible and a horrible enough statement about our world that I generally don’t want to admit I watch it.

Last night’s part two of The Real Housewives of New York City was actually crazy enough to illicit a post…and not just a post but a little photo-shoppy fun to create the ultimate crib sheet. First, meet the players in case you’re not already intimately familiar with them…

And, here is the ultimate REAL HOUSEWIVES OF NYC RELATIONSHIP CRIB SHEET…and you all better read this, it took like half a day to build in photoshop!

I’m a Cynical Jerk, and THIS Moved Even Me

April 14, 2009 in awesomeness, television | 6 comments

I’m kind of a jerk.

Especially lately, I’m not that fun to be around (feel free to ask Adam for confirmation). My humor, if present at all lately, is self deprecating, or sharp and pointy and mean.

I think this isn’t something that I “achieved” overnight. It’s something I’ve been working on for years…and now, unemployed and working non-stop on a book that just won’t freaking let itself be finished, I sometimes feel like I’ve kind of imploded on myself.

So it was nice to see this (YOU MUST CLICK THE LINK!) today and realize I’m still human, and maybe not as cynical and jerky as I thought I was. I don’t watch and in fact pretty much revile American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and Britain, Spain, Australia, Whoever has Talent…or any of their ilk, and yet I had goosebumps when this woman sang like I haven’t had in…well, I can’t remember how long…and by the end my eyes were honest to gods misty…I think a tear might have even rolled out onto a cheek.

And let’s just talk about the fact that from what she says about herself, AND the performance, she could not have picked a better song in all the world. I’ve always loved that song, since I was a teenager, but this just gave it a whole new dimension to me.

I wish all the world will watch this, and take a step back and be less cynical…even if it’s just once a day, to allow for the possibility of more extraordinary women like Susan Boyle to be heard – because they’re out there – I know they are.

Why The West Wing Was Completely Badass and Studio 60 Never Had A Chance…

January 19, 2009 in art, studio 60, television, television reviews, the west wing | 3 comments

studio 60

the west wing

Let me be clear about two things first:

1. I thought Studio 60 was brilliant – one of the best shows I’ve seen in years and I was devastated when it was cancelled.

2. I’m aware this post is about a year (or more?) too late and likely completely unnecessary at this point in time, but I’ve been watching The West Wing reruns on cable in an effort to stave off buying the complete West Wing collection (which I cannot remotely afford right now) and I’ve been moved to write an epic (okay, not quite epic) post…so here it is.

Studio 60 never had a chance, in a nutshell because though it was beautifully written, exceptionally performed, and extraordinarily executed – as few television programs are these days – it just couldn’t compare in content to The West Wing.

What was it about The West Wing that so moved me (us)? Well, I cannot speak for the whole of society, but for me, it was that my life is pointless. I essentially shuffle (or did – more to come on that later) paper. I am (was) incredibly valuable to my company and employers and fellow co-workers for what I do every day, but in the larger scope of the world it means absolutely nothing. The world is not a better place for my working existence and I find myself (then and now) yearning for a purpose. To know that I am doing something with my day that matters. And that is what they did everyday on The West Wing. Regardless of how the story worked out, their main objective, whether obtained or not, was to do good…to try to do good…to try to change the world. My day to day life has nothing to do with these things, and so it remains ultimately completely uninspiring.

And this is why Studio 60 couldn’t work when it came AFTER The West Wing…no matter how brilliantly executed, who can care about some silly hollywood SNL type show and the intricacies involved in producing said show and the relationships revolving in and around it…when the show that came before it was about the people who shape the very world? Studio 60 never had a chance…unless Sorkin did it first…as a beautiful prelude to The West Wing. But that was not to be, and so we lost out on Studio 60 – a ‘could have been’ brilliant long running show…because he showed us his perfection first in The West Wing. The West Wing was the most perfect show I have ever had the opportunity to watch, a program that managed to both entertain and inspire, a show that I nearly had to turn off (and sometimes did) when George Bush became president, because it was too difficult to watch a brilliant and imaginary Jed Bartlett be the president I yearned for while my country was run by a moron. Never have I so wished to transport myself into a television world than when I had to watch Jed Bartlett be good and honest and intelligent, and surround himself with the same, while in my world an idiot boy with a crooked smile was run by corrupt puppeteers and crooks.

But there is hope. Because I’m able to watch The West Wing with renewed faith these days, hoping that Obama will be able to slowly restore my faith in this nation and in my own governement.

And I guess with that, I managed to make this post relevant after all…

SIDENOTE: I should mention Sports Night. Also brilliant, and worthy of mention and a mark in history on its own. It’s a crime it too did not last much longer than Studio 60…only 45 episodes…but since it came first I like to think of it as both proving my point, and as Sorkin getting his feet wet. Of Sorkin learning what he needed to do to make The West Wing so powerful…and he really just nailed it.

SIDENOTE 2: If any benevolent benefactors out there would like to send me The West Wing collected series on dvd, please don’t hesitate to be in touch and I’ll get you an accurate shipping address

Cold Case…Oh How I Hate You

December 3, 2008 in craptastic, entertainment, television, television reviews | 2 comments

So I’m watching an episode of Cold Case yesterday (okay, fine, three episodes) and I realize I really hate this show, yet cannot tear myself away. Damn you Cold Case, and damn you TNT for running them back to back so cleverly that I only have approximately six seconds to turn off the television before being drawn into a new crime.

Cold Case has all the train wreak-y elements that Law & Order has that makes it impossible to turn off: A violent crime in the first few minutes? Check. An interesting and immediate twist of events? Check. A red herring? Check. An attractive and “intelligent” cast set to solve the crime? Check. But there are some things that Law & Order has, or rather doesn’t have that allow me to hate myself slightly less in the morning after being drawn into an episode (or twelve).

Cold Case has these elements in spades, and I end up hating myself for watching it not only in the morning, but also WHILE I’m watching, which is just not good for anyone. What are these things you may ask? Don’t worry, I’ve laid them out for you below:

1. Cheesy Music. The music is off the charts cheesy and obvious. I know it’s often put there to mark a point in time – old hippie 60’s music? Our cold case must take place in the 60’s! But it’s WAY overused, and also so obvious as to cause multiple eye rolls per scene. Here’s a hint – unless you’re playing it for comedy, you don’t have a music cue for say, “Brickhouse” when a hot chick enters a room. Subtlety is not a word these people are familiar with.

2. Heartstrings & Happy Endings. Law & Order sometimes has happy endings and/or eye-rollingly obvious attempts at cheese, but it’s not the standard. You cannot find an episode of Cold Case without these things. What should be a straight intelligent procedural instead becomes a “heartfelt drama” about reuniting people or whatever. It’s annoying. Be a procedural, or be a lifetime movie of the week. Pick one.

3. Personal Details about the Recurring Cast. Law & Order (the flagship version) is really good about keeping the personal stuff for the detectives and lawyers basically non-existent, and it’s the reason it’s the best of all the L&O versions. SVU is REALLY bad at it, and Criminal Intent is also bad at it, but it seems more forgivable if only because D’Onofrio is such a talent. Regardless it’s a mistake. SVU becomes all about Olivia’s personal feelings about rape or about Elliot’s feelings about child abuse. Guess what – they don’t like them. Whoo! Surprise! Are you surprised that detectives that have kids and a mother that was raped have really really personal feelings about these issues? No, no you probably weren’t, because it is super obvious and talks down to the viewer. Also, in the billions of episodes I’ve seen of SVU (yes, it feels like billions) I’ve never seen them effectively delve into the detectives’ actual feelings about these issues beyond the basic “this makes me really really mad!” concept.

Cold Case skates the line on this issue of adding personal details in the most annoying of ways. They don’t come out and say anything obvious about these characters lives, but in the one of the episodes I watched yesterday (hopefully my last ever) they dropped at least six (SIX!) hints about blondie’s past experience dealing with addicts and her subsequent abandonment issues. Hello! We get it – her mother or father or whoever was an addict – she doesn’t trust addicts. She has DRAMA about addicts. Move the freak on and solve the god damn case.

So here’s what Cold Case does have going for them: BOBBY CANNAVALE. I would watch paint dry if there was even a hint of a suggestion of Bobby Cannavale making a brief apperance. Especially if he’s going to be all rakishly handsome (as usual) and all funny and full of life but with a slightly shady past…which he is on Cold Case.

So there, now you really know why I watched three freaking old episodes of Cold Case on TNT last night. Never again though, never again. Let’s conveniently ignore the fact that Cannavale’s on a new show CUPID soon on ABC – which allows me to be a little more confident in my “never again” declarations in that I can get my Cannavale fix elsewhere.

SIDENOTE: I’m officially adding Bobby Cannavale to my “list” (top 5)…which I’ll be laminating shortly. Clive Owen, Bobby Cannavale, and man, I can just never decide between Brad Pitt and George Clooney…

Damnit!

November 21, 2008 in buffy, comics, craptastic, hollywood, pushing daisies, television | 2 comments

Pushing Daisies has been canceled.

Well, no new episodes have been ordered, which is basically pussy network code for canceled. This is one of those times when you remember that Hollywood totally blows…oh wait, that’s all the time. Damnit! A great show.

I always feared it was too quirky and quite frankly too GOOD to survive on television (it should have been on HBO perhaps) but the fact that it was renewed last year gave me hope. Silly me to try and hope, why do I never learn? I think in this case the writers strike really did hurt Pushing Daises – it had such a tenuous grasp on a small quirky intelligent audience…and people forget quickly these days. I have to admit that I was not as enamored of PD this year as I was last, but I still watched, and it still remained one of the smartest shows on TV…also, ironically, one of the most upbeat…and who doesn’t need upbeat these days?! C’mon!

There’s talk of the show finishing as a comic book, but I think we all know how fulfilled that will leave the majority…hardly the same number of people read comics that watch TV…and that’s just part of the problem. The Buffy “season eight” comic book series works well – largely because Joss Whedon knows his comic books and is heavily involved…also, while the Buffy universe is an always continuing growing and changing universe, we were not left on a cliffhanger with the actual series end on TV, the way Pushing Daisies supposedly will. So having a “season eight” in comic books was not absolutely necessary, but rather a decadant way for fans to let the show live on long beyond when any actors etc. would want to stay involved. Angel also has an ongoing comic based off the show, and it is less successful in my opinion. There is the cliffhanger aspect the show was left on, which is pretty difficult to live up to in comics, and also just the handling of the book has been complicated and difficult to follow, as the show was in certain seasons as well. I also think, all due respect, that there’s not quite as much talent in the room on the Angel books as with the Buffy book. That said, I’m still reading the shit, so it can’t be that bad.

Would I read a Pushing Daises comic? Maybe. Probably, but only if I was already at the comic shop. If I was the average fan there’s no way I’m heading into comic stores (unknown territory for many people) to find out about an ending to a show that is pretty much guaranteed to be a let down. Then again, maybe this “we’ll finish it in a comic book” revolutionizes the industry and brings thousands (hundreds of thousands!?) of new fans to the comic book industry…a girl can hope. Wait…wasn’t I just saying something about hope a little while ago…? Hmmm…I forget. Oh well.

#212 ~ Rabid Lamb Comics

October 6, 2008 in cartoons, comic of the day, comics, entertainment, hbo, relationships, television | 4 comments

Yes, apparently I am in the minority to have been paying my fair share (or more) over the years. And in Adam’s defense it has always been that way with me. I don’t know why. I could certainly probably get used to someone paying my way…actually that might make me totally uncomfortable. Nevermind.

#205 ~ Rabid Lamb Comics (and a mini-review of True Blood)

September 25, 2008 in anna paquin, cartoons, comic of the day, comics, entertainment, television, television reviews, true blood | 9 comments

That’s right Anna*, you rock that side ponytail. Sadly I could not find a picture on the interwebs of said side ponytail so you could see how awesome it is, but if you saw episode #2 of True Blood you KNOW what I’m talking about.

So what about True Blood? Is anybody watching it other than Adam and I? It doesn’t seem like it, yet it has already been renewed for a second season. I’m glad HBO is giving it a chance, but I’d gladly trade True Blood (season one or two) for a third season of Carnivale.

What can I say about True Blood? I guess I can say that I desperately WANT to like it, but that it continues to fail me, but not enough that I can actually write it off just yet. I will say that without Anna Paquin I would have checked out immediately, the one thing True Blood has done (other than teach me about Paquin’s ability to rock side ponytails) is that I’m even more smitten with Anna Paquin than ever. She’s just gorgeous. I don’t love the accent, but it’s passable and I could do with less wide-eyed acting, but otherwise she’s pretty much saving the show for me. The main vampire character Bill is slowly growing on me, but just when I feel like he’s reigned the character in we get another weird over the top scene that is pretty laughable.

The biggest problem for me with the show so far is that the characters are fairly stereotypical and the actors they have chosen for these stereotyped roles may lack the ability to add the necessary dimension to take them to the next level – right now they just appear to be overacting in every scene which makes everything laughable. Sookie’s (Paquin) best friend Tara (Rutina Wesley) and Sookie’s brother Jason (Ryan Kwanten) are probably the worst over-acting offenders, other than the actors playing the other over the top vampires (that we’re kind of just getting introduced to now), but everyone is pretty guilt of it at this point, including at times Paquin. I know the overall style of the show is designed to be somewhat campy and over the top, but in its current form it’s making it difficult to take any of it seriously or connect with any of the characters.

[Spoiler]

The other problem for me is that so far, the only thing supernatural about the True Blood world is Vampires…oh, and that Sookie can read minds. Yeah. I have a problem with this. It needs to be explained, or more things in the True Blood world need to be revealed as “not what they seem”…you throw a werewolf in there, or a guy who changes into a dog (hint), or some other weird crap and suddenly I can buy that Sookie can read minds, but right now, with the world as is, it doesn’t work. At all.

I’ll hang in there for now (let’s call it 2.5 stars for now), but mostly just because there’s not much else on TV that I’m interested in (though I eagerly await the Pushing Daises premiere).

Here’s a photo of Sookie and Bill from True Blood:

Here’s a shot of Anna Paquin with the new blonde hair:

And here, because I’m totally smitten, is Anna looking absolutely GORGEOUS in some silly magazine:

* And yes, she’s naked in my comic at the top of the page – if only because it’s now officially a nice running gag.

Ten Things I Learned Watching The Third Season Premiere of Heroes

September 23, 2008 in entertainment, television, television reviews | 2 comments

[Spoilers – Read With Caution]

1. They learned from their mistakes last year. While this Season Premiere was full of holes (as I’m beginning to accept the show will be) it was far and away better than the ‘stab my eyes out rather than watch’ premiere of last year.

2. Claire should not try to “be a badass dark-haired future chick”. This is beyond Panettiere’s acting ability, and was laughable at best. She looked gorgeous actually with the dark hair, but the acting. Yikes.

3. Hiro should be kept doing what he is great at – comedic relief. He and Ando are a great funny pair, and a welcome bit of levity with all the serious stuff that goes on in the show, but either the writers don’t know how to write him serious or Oka is not capable of the performance. Like Claire, the “serious” scenes with Hiro are laughable. And while I adore Hiro in theory, the more they have him harping on being a “hero” and “saving the world” the less likable he is. Call me naive but to my mind real heroes don’t run around desperately looking for people to save, they just are. If this is an attempt at future character development it’s a really clunky attempt that is painful to watch.

4. Niki is a terrible character no matter what they name her (Jessica, Gina, Tanya, etc.) it doesn’t seem to matter. She sucks. Get her off the goddamn show. I’ve never had a serious problem with Ali Larter outside of Heroes, which is to say that I rarely have thought much one way or the other about Larter, but she just sucks on this show. And it’s too bad, because the idea of Niki is a good one (and one I actually had when I was a kid and created a comic book character called Angelica – who had three split personalities that all had power over different aspects – one body, one mind, and one soul – combining them would have made Angelica a very powerful hero – or villain – but her mind was so fractured she couldn’t control them and usually operated as only a shell for one of the other personalities) so OBVIOUSLY, I personally think this character has a lot of potential and is an interesting idea – but between Larter and the writers they’re botching it. Royally.

5. Maya is a terrible character and Ramirez is a terrible actress no matter who she’s on screen with. Every single scene is over acted, and always with those huge eyes attempting to get bigger with every word spoken. This is not acting.

6. Suresh is the stupidest scientist in the history of time. Duh, of course you were going to mutate you moron. This is why only idiots in comic books try out their own serums on themselves. See: Dr. Hank McCoy aka The Beast (a personal favorite of mine, despite the idiocy of using his own serum on himself). Even major villains like Green Goblin and Dr. Ocotopus usually have an “accident” with their experiments before turning into something horrible, rather than purposefully injecteing shit in their arms. I know they wanted to drive the Suresh character here, but I believed he was smarter (and more “moral”) than this. I didn’t buy it, it seemed forced. Good work Heroes. Good work.

7. Nathan is still a good character and Adrian Pasdar is still a good actor one that brings some much needed acting chops to the table. I am a little sick however of watching him weigh good versus evil for an entire season before he remembers that he’s good. Let’s give him something different to do okay?

8. Heroes loves some convenient plot points!

Suresh puts Molly on a plane with a stewardess to look after her. Really? Really.
Peter’s mom blames future Peter for what happened with Claire, because he told her to stay home after Nathan got shot, and because of that she was home for Sylar to get her. But if Nathan hadn’t gotten shot wouldn’t she have been home watching the press conference (etc.) anyway? I guess we are supposed to assume she was getting ready to run out and buy milk or something and that Sylar obviously wouldn’t be able to find her while she was out getting milk. Yeah, Sylar is that limited, for sure.
Future Peter can do almost anything – turn invisible, stop time, time travel, fly, heal, read minds, apparently vanish people into other place (or other bodies) and yet he had to run into the supply closet to hide the gun? Wha-? Yeah, that made no freaking sense.
HRG leaves all his highly confidential files on people with powers in a little brown box marked “Dad’s Office” on the kitchen table. Really? I don’t care that he’s in prison and we’re all in mourning or distressed, his family freaking know how serious his work and their lives are – it’s life and death on a daily basis – you think they’d be a LITTLE more careful. It’s a given that Sylar could probably break into a safe, or find the files eventually, but we can’t just make it a little bit difficult for him? Jeezus.

9. The “new” villains don’t seem that scary to me. Not compared to Sylar. They do seem like jerks and killers that should be locked up, and I’m not saying they’re not a force to be reckoned with, but they also seem like kids who leave horrible destruction in their wake but are pretty unfocused. I guess I’m more of an intellectual villain kind of girl (Sylar) than a mob mentality brute force villain (the rest of these guys – thus far). I suppose it’s possible they’ll turn out interesting, and I know Heroes needs to up the stakes, but they just seemed like The Brotherhood Of Evil Mutants, Magneto’s villain team from the X-Men comic books, and quite frankly, The Brotherhood always seemed as lame as their name.

It did look like Adam Monroe (aka Kensei) is going to show up though later as part of this gang according to Mama Petrelli’s future vision, so maybe there is hope for this rowdy group to be impressive. It also looks like maybe Monroe was at some point married to or maybe more likely related to Niki as one of his alias’ is Richard Sanders (at some point in the past). Maybe he’s her great grandfather? Who knows – could be interesting. It also looks like Sylar is going to walk the side of the angels, at least temporarily this season, which I’m unconvinced they can do successfully. I’m a huge Sylar fan, so they better do it right, which is unlikely.

10. When Heroes gets it right, they really do get it right – the scene with Sylar and Claire was AWESOME. Good writing, good acting, great plot development.

Future Peter was completely badass, just casually using his powers for good (possibly well-intentioned but bad good, but whatever), popping in and out wherever he wanted, changing shape, it was great.
Elle remains an interesting and complex character and Bell continues to up the acting level, which this show is in desperate need of.
The Sylar as Petrelli brother reveal was good, not really unexpected, but still good. I’ll be interested to see where this takes us.
HRG’s reaction to realizing that Sylar could heal and had taken Claire’s powers was moving and great – although the follow up reunion was mishandled in my opinion – that reunion could have been much more powerful without being over the top. It was kind of a let down.
Sylar was a stong point throughout the show – back to his true (and awesomely terrifying) form. His exchange (and the reveal) in his scene with Claire, was the highlight of the entire two hours.
Peter in a villain’s body is a nice plot point. It’s interesting. I love when Sci-Fi shows have people in other people’s bodies. It’s a favorite trick of mine. Any Buffy fans remember Faith switching bodies with Buffy – that was a great little arc. Let’s hope Heroes can be as successful with it here. It’s opened up nice questions. Does Peter still have his powers in there? Does he have this other guy’s (apparently so terrible we can’t say what his powers are) powers? A good set up.

So overall, hit and miss. But they did a good enough job that I’ll stick around for a while and see if they can hang onto it. A lot of good, and a lot of bad land us at about 2.5 stars.

The Worst Show Revamp Ever

September 15, 2008 in at the movies, ben lyons is a fucking moron, entertainment, movie reviews, movies, television, whores | 2 comments

“Film EXPERTS(?!!?) Ben Lyons (L) and Ben Mankiewicz (R) are shown in this combination photo of publicity images released to Reuters July 22, 2008. The Walt Disney Company named the two men on Tuesday the new hosts to replace Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper on the popular movie-review show “At the Movies,” in the wake of the influential critics’ departure from the program.” (Emphasis is all mine).

Disney does it again.

At The Movies (also known as Siskel & Ebert and then Ebert & Roeper, and then most recently Roeper and “rotating co-host”) has been killed and resurrected as a horrible disfigured incompetent frankenstein version of its previous self. The rotating co-host of At The Movies had recently “unofficially” become Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune, ironically my least favorite of the rotating co-hosts (I would have loved to see A.O Scott of The New York Times or Robert Wilonsky who was also good). Phillips and Roeper however were SO MUCH better than the “NEW” At The Movies, I cannot accurately articulate it in words…in my lifetime. Ever.

Let’s start at the very beginning which is to say that I don’t listen wholeheartedly to movie reviewers, I don’t go, “Oh – so and so likes it – let’s go!” but what I do like to do is read/listen to a few different reviewers that I don’t find to be totally off base (Roeper included) and judging on the kinds of things they say, help me decide which movies to see since I don’t have the time (or the money) to see them all. This has been a pretty good system for me, as it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a movie that I hated and wished I hadn’t spent my money on. Goal achieved! So Adam and I have tivo’d At The Movies and used to enjoy catching it on weekends.

I read online sometime in June or July 2008 that At The Movies was getting canceled. I was disappointed, but I had already had to absorb the new “see it”, “skip it”, or “rent it” nonsense rating system instead of the thumbs up/thumbs down rating system. This was apparently due to the fact that the latter is owned by Ebert and as contract negotiations dragged on I guess Disney decided it was best to just move on and try to force their new inane rating system (devised by an intern over the summer perhaps?) down our throats while we still had a familiar face (Roeper) delivering them. So since May 2008 the show has been a little less than it should have been. But now I know that the truly horrible changes were still to come.

The new formatting totally sucks. The set, graphics, and entire production is cheap and terrible looking. A far cry from the “theater seating” look that was so appropriate (and pretty good looking) of the old show. The new show has the two “hosts” standing at a counter (one behind it, and one in front of it) and it is a totally uncomfortable way to watch them talk about something. You feel like there is no way they can actually have a serious debate or even a conversation about any issue because they are standing there together, facing the camera and not each other at all. It also feels like they could just dart off stage at any moment. At the end of the show they did sit in chairs (on the still horrible set with the still horrible graphics) but the chairs were so close that they were touching, and it remained completely uncomfortable to watch.

The show does have a somewhat interesting new segment that brings in a “critic roundup” where they have three guest critics (all very young) that comment on one of the movies they are reviewing. Unfortunately however this did not work either because the critics were given far too little time to articulate any point of view other than “yes” or “no”. It didn’t help that on the segment I saw, the critic from IFC (Independent Film Channel), Matt Singer was quite knowledgeable and so made Ben Lyons the new idiot co-host of the show seem even more incompetent than he obviously is.

Onto the meat, the new “hosts” (I use that term very loosely). Actually, Ben Mankiewicz was pretty good. He seemed knowledgeable and well spoken and more importantly he seemed interested in actually discussing the films, rather than just looking pretty for the camera and getting his sound bites in. Which brings us to the idiocy that is Ben Lyons. This dude is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe the producers of this show think that throwing a pretty face at viewers will help us ignore the fact that the guy is a complete moron that doesn’t seem to even know anything about film (he hails mostly from the E! channel). It’s not that I disagree with his point of view on films…it’s more that he doesn’t seem to have one.

Also, let’s talk about the fact that Ben Lyons, who is obviously the worst kind of star whore (see his blog, which is essentially pictures of him with famous people), with his E! Entertainment credentials is actually a conflict of interest reviewer. It’s like having Karl Rove come in as an “independent commentator” on Fox News to talk about Obama’s or McCain’s speeches. Rove is CLEARLY not an objective observer, he has an obvious stake in the Republicans winning the election, just as Lyons has a stake in certain movies doing well, and/or maintaining relationships with actors, directors, producers, writers, etc., in order to keep getting his interviews and oh so important photo ops. This is a total conflict of interest.

And as if to really solidify my viewpoint that this show is a pandering ridiculous revamp that is now intending to not actually review films, but to create even more PR and spin for the Hollywood machine, Lyon’s choice for ‘Three to See‘ (a fairly new feature where they pick the three best films currently in theaters) was not even a FILM! Yes, you read that correctly. Mankiewicz picked Hamlet 2 and Towelhead as his picks and Lyons said that people should watch the trailers for Twilight. A TRAILER? Wait, let me rephrase that…A FUCKING TRAILER? A trailer for a giant Hollywood machine of a movie coming out in November 2008? That is your current movie pick? You fucking idiot. Don’t EVER show up on my TV ever again.

Jerk.

The Tudors…BAD.

April 18, 2008 in entertainment, rants, television, television reviews, the other boleyn girl | 16 comments

So, in finally getting back to my previously promised Tudor rant/review, here we are.

I guess part of my problem with this show is that, at this point, I have a surprising amount of actual knowledge about this time period and these people and all the events that led up to these kind of amazing (and horrible) things that happened to these people. And so, knowing what I know, I just don’t understand the choices that they make for the show. They will make these seemingly valiant attempts to keep it true to the facts in certain ways and then just go wildly off the mark for no apparent reason.

Adapting material is difficult, and it’s very difficult to do it well, so I do try to cut them some slack, but some of this stuff they have added in or changed is just ridiculous and unnecessary. The great thing about Henry VIII and his six wives is that it was rife with drama and intrigue to begin with. There were murders, conspiracies, marriages, affairs, sexual escapades, religious persecution, beheadings, trials, rumors, it’s all there – you actually have to invent very little to “sex it up” and make it pretty for the masses…so I just don’t understand the choices they make.

The Good: It’s interesting to see these characters brought to life and the scenes shot on location are rich and beautiful, unfortunately, too large a percentage of the show is shot on sets, which despite a good effort for a television show, look pretty sad and small and cheap. The costumes however, show no expense spared, and are fantastic.

*spoilers*

The Bad & The Ugly:

Mary of Tudor (Henry VIII’s younger sister) was married to King Louis XII when she was 18. This character is played by…wait for it…38 year old actress Gabrielle Anwar. Now I hate Anwar, and have never liked her ever, so I’m a bit aggressively biased here. However, even for the non-biased, Anwar is not looking too good these days (and certainly not anywhere near 18 ) and she has a really bad habit of making these terrible expressions while she is “acting” that make her look even older than her 38 years. It is a painful experience watching her play this interesting character.

I know of course that people play characters much younger than their age all the time on TV, but it’s actually kind of important here when you understand that these women were being married off at very young ages. It was a huge part of what was going on at that time, and it’s difficult to understand as a viewer when we see Anwar, looking 40-ish and being horrified because she’s marrying an ugly old king. It’s far less dramatic to see Anwar marry this guy, than if they had cast an innocent looking 18 year-old.

Additionally, in the show they had her marrying the wrong king (who cares about any kind of accuracy, right?). They invented (or stole?) some King of Portugal for her to marry. This seems to be not such a sin until you understand what a complex web of alliances there were at this time, and marrying off princesses to other countries was a chief way of solidifying an alliance. In reality, she married King Louis XII of France…and Portugal had nothing to do with it.

But the greatest sin is in how it all plays out. In reality, Mary didn’t kill her husband as Anwar does (a crime of treason for which she could easily be killed). In truth the King dies about three months after the marriage (an old guy putting it to an 18 year-old for three months can be exhuasting – and fatal). After King Louis VII died, Mary very cleverly arranged to marry the man she was actually in love with, Charles Brandon, with the help of King Francis I (the new King of France) and much to the anger of her brother King Henry VIII, since it was without his permission. In the show, Anwar kills this ‘King of Portugal’ and heads back home within a week, marrying Brandon in the process. It’s like they want to tell the story, but they just can’t manage it. And I have to say, again, a far less dramatic take than the actual original story, which is pretty tragic and then redeeming in its own way. A headstrong young woman being sold off to a foreign country but then cleverly managing to marry the man she loves anyway (unheard of in that time)…fascinating.

Henry Fitzroy. Son of King Henry VIII by his mistress Elizabeth “Bessie” Blount. This is true, and handled pretty accurately. And then they suddenly decide to kill the kid with the “sweating sickness”. Why? I have no clue. It’s not like they milk it for high drama. There is literally one scene in which the kid’s mother comes to see him (already dead) and there is a maybe five-second scene of King Henry looking at the tiny crown of the kid (who he never saw anyway). In reality Henry Fitzroy lived to the age of 17 and died suddenly of consumption (tuberculousis).

Anne Boleyn. They’ve done Anne the biggest disservice of anyone, which is really a crime for a series focused partially (for the first two years at least) on the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn. I’m not a huge Anne Boleyn fan, she was a manipulative clever woman and a vindictive tyrant of sorts, but she was also incredibly witty and wise in a way and she rose to a power no women had previously imagined, based solely on her own merit (and maybe beauty).

She also had a very good reason for being as angry as she was and for becoming the tyrant she became. Much of what Anne Boleyn did in her rise to becoming the Queen of England can be chalked up to revenge. In reality, Anne was very much in love with Henry Percy (eventually to become the Earl of Northumberland) and he with her. They were likely married or “pre-contracted” which was as good as marriage in those days (and the relationship was likely consumated). This was a great match for Anne, both in that it would rise her up in the societal ranks, and also because, rare in that day, she loved the man and he her.

This marriage was deemed unworthy by both Cardinal Wolsey and Henry Percy’s father and possibly King Henry (although it was a time before Anne would realize the king had anything to do with it – and there is speculation as to whether he actually did). Wolsey and Percy’s father undid her marraige quite cruelly and Anne was temporarily banished from court. It was a very hard lesson to learn. And for a woman like Anne, it was not taken lightly. She came back to court with a very clear idea about how to get power, and that she would need to play the game like a master. There was no way to get that power, or revenge on Wolsey without rising as high as possible, and there was nothing above Queen for a woman. It’s unlikely she ever really loved Henry VIII, although it’s possible that after years of courting she did fall for him. It’s also highly unlikely she was guilty of any crimes against him.

In The Tudors there is none of this backstory. None. We never know why she hated Wolsey so much. Religious reasons are given, and they were certainly present as well, but her single minded hatred of the man is far too personal for it to just be religious difference, and Wolsey was actually fairly light in punishiment for the followers of Martin Luther (i.e. heretics) compared with his successor Thomas More, who also opposed Anne’s marriage to Henry, yet she did not set out to destroy More, she had a very specific reason to go after Wolsey, and none of that is addressed. They do give her a previous “dalliance” with the poet Thomas Wyatt, which is completely out of context and just wrong. There is a recorded flirtation, but an affair is very unlikely. So overall it is an incredibly unfair portrait. All the history that built this amazing woman and character is just dropped. It makes it impossible to understand her motivations and as such it is the broadest of sketches of a fascinating woman. And it makes me angry. Really angry.

In the end, I don’t mind so much if you want to create a completely fictionalized world of The Tudors, I probably couldn’t ever love it, but I certainly can’t even like it if you can’t make it more interesting than what really happened. If you’re going to make it fiction…it’s gotta be better than reality. And this, isn’t.

2 Stars. Blech.

« Older entries § Newer entries »

television

Blogroll