It’s been six years since Aaron Sorkin’s “The West Wing” had many of us eagerly awaiting our weekly dose of presidential politics. Love it or hate it, Sorkin’s version of the inner workings of the presidency made an impact. For some, it was what politics should be. For others, it was pure fantasy. Whatever your view, the show’s earnest and optimistic image of public servants was a refreshing change from the notion of the corrupt politician. Its signature “walk and talk” style where characters had fast-paced, clever conversations while moving through the corridors of power gave otherwise dry policy discussions an appealing energy. Sorkin’s version of government was meant to inspire.

HBO’s new comedy “Veep” will probably not inspire you but it will make you laugh. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is Selina Meyer, the well meaning vice president who, along with her equally well meaning but bumbling staff, is trying to navigate the stormy seas of Washington politics without sinking. Selina wants to be an agent of change in perhaps the most ineffectual political office in the American government. It’s a good set-up for laughs and Louis-Dreyfus puts her talent for physical comedy to good use. In the pilot episode, Selina pushes for a cornstarch utensil initiative only to find that the plastics industry is a powerful lobby and her cornstarch spoon bends when she uses it to stir her coffee. Louis-Dreyfus’ reaction hits the mark as does her frustrated hand-waving whisper/scream of “What the f*#k!” when she finds out a member of her staff made a mistake that will embarrass her.

Working for Selina are her Chief of Staff Amy (Anna Chlumsky), personal aide Gary (Tony Hale), Director of Communications Mike (Matt Walsh) and Deputy Director of Communications Dan (Reid Scott). They try to be sharp political operatives but are routinely exposed as rookies. In other words, they are the B-Team in a world of pros. But like most B-teams, they are a likeable group because their mistakes and the efforts they make to fix them come with the best intentions. When Amy accidentally signs her name instead of Selina’s on a condolence card for the widow of a recently deceased senator, Gary tries to get the card back from the president’s aide. There is nothing stealth about Gary’s efforts at retrieval but it’s not slapstick or overplayed. It’s subtle and expected. He gets caught in a matter of seconds. Yet, it’s funny because it’s such a non-event.

Where “Veep” struggles is in its characterization of Selina. I’m not sure it’s believable that she would have such a soft touch having survived politics long enough to make it to the office of the vice president. But “Veep” works because Louis-Dreyfus makes you forget about this type of criticism. When she asks her secretary if the president called, she answers her own question. She already knows and this is what makes her interpretation of being an afterthought in the world of Washington politics simply fun to watch.

Technorati Tags: julia louis-dreyfus, veep

Related posts:

1. Dirty Politics Meets its Match in ‘Scandal’

Edwin Starr got it wrong. War isn’t good for absolutely nothing. Turns out, it’s good for reality television titles. There’s “Shipping Wars,” “Whale Wars,” “Storage Wars” (with an added Texas edition) and yes, even “Parking Wars.” The fighting continues over on the Travel Channel with the premiere of “Baggage Battles,” a show that follows the highs and lows of those who attend the international auction circuit for unclaimed luggage. According to the show, 70,000 bags are lost per day in airports around the world. When this luggage goes unclaimed for 30 days, it is put up for auction along with jewelery and watches that have been placed in separate, clear plastic bags. The auctions are crowded. The bids are hundreds to thousands of dollars. But, it’s more than buy low, sell high. This show fascinates me for the simple reason that I don’t get bored thinking: People put what in their bags?

“Baggage Battles,” despite the attempt at alliteration, is basically “Storage Wars” re-imagined to suit the programming needs of the Travel Channel. Instead of watching people try to outbid each other for abandoned storage units, you watch people try to outbid each other for unclaimed luggage. In “Baggage Battles,” the featured players are Billy, a former advertising executive who resembles a silent movie villain, Mark and husband and wife team Laurence and Sally. Mark could easily be cast in the role of “pushy New Yorker” should he ever want to change careers. Laurence is British, a former aerospace engineer and a man who never met a pair of red or purple pants he didn’t like. He wouldn’t be out of place in a Rolling Stones cover band. His wife Sally is the voice of reason and the keeper of the money. Billy, Mark and Laurence and Sally travel the auction circuit hoping to discover that one perfect suitcase or bag of jewelery that will make them rich.

Like any show that features an auction, part of the appeal is the tension created by the fast-paced, back and forth rhythm of bidding. Once the winner is decided, the appeal is the anticipation of opening a sealed bag. It’s a little like Christmas morning. Where “Baggage Battles” is most appealing however, is that it’s almost impossible to watch it and not be continually surprised by what people pack in their checked baggage. In the first two episodes, Billy finds a stash of rare coins hidden in the folds of someone’s clothes and Laurence and Sally discover a first edition book worth thousands of dollars. Seeing the contents of a stranger’s luggage is voyeuristic but wondering why in the world they didn’t wear that gold watch or diamond pendant instead of packing them is just entertaining. Who does that? More importantly, who does that and doesn’t claim their bag? Maybe the real battle is between the anonymous luggage owner and their common sense.

Technorati Tags: baggage, travel channel

No related posts.

I had high hopes for Kiefer Sutherland’s new series “Touch.” I really wanted to like it. It had an interesting premise, an excellent leading man (he’s “24’s” Jack Bauer, after all!) and a child actor who doesn’t actually speak. This part I considered a huge bonus because most male kids on screen are called ‘Tommy’ or ‘Jimmy,’ need a haircut and are not as cute or clever as they think they are. So I settled in and watched the pilot. Then I watched a few more episodes. Then I just wished Jack Bauer was back.

“Touch” is about a father and son and strangers and numbers—lots and lots of numbers. Martin Bohm played by Sutherland is a widower and father of Jake (David Mazouz). Martin struggles to communicate and care for Jake who is a mute 11 year-old. Jake does not like to be touched and shows almost no emotion but he does like numbers. He writes endless sequences of them. When he looks at numbers, we’re told by one character, Jake sees the whole universe. Or, in less New Age speak, Jake sees patterns in numbers that show him how people all over the world are connected in emotional or spiritual ways when their lives intersect.

The action focuses on Martin who figures out that Jake’s numbers are a kind of map that leads him to strangers who then lead to other strangers who are somehow all connected to one another. They all have a physical, spiritual or emotional need. So Martin spends each episode introducing himself to people he doesn’t know with variations on the line: “I know we’ve never met but somehow I’m supposed to help you.” One thing leads to another and Martin, in a “Touched by an Angel” sort of way, helpfully intervenes in a stranger’s life. All the other characters that have been introduced since the start of the episode turn out to have a purpose in each others’ lives as well, including the one who Martin was meant to help. Basically, the message is that we’re all connected. Nothing is random. Everything has a pattern and everyone has a purpose.

“Touch” is trying out a complex idea and I appreciate the effort and the creativity it takes to connect seemingly random characters. Where the show is losing me is in the predictability this format necessarily creates. I know where it’s going. It’s only the how that’s a mystery and it’s not a puzzle I can’t wait to see solved. The other problem is the increasingly mystical powers of Jake. He not only sees connections between people through numbers, he also seems to know the future. By episode two he strategically positions a baseball bat against a couch, anticipating that his father will need to use it in a fight that hasn’t happened yet.

With “Touch,” Kiefer Sutherland is still saving the world but this time it’s Jack Bauer-lite. Unfortunately, I’m skipping this kinder, gentler version and looking for a repeat of “24.”

“Touch” is on Thursdays at 9/8c on Fox.

Technorati Tags: 24, kiefer sutherland

Related posts:

1. To: “New Girl”
2. To: “The Event” & “The Real Housewives of D.C.”
3. Healing the Oprah way on ‘Beverly’s Full House’

“Whale Wars: Viking Shores” begins with scenic shots of the Faroe Islands, an 18 island archipelago about halfway between Iceland and Norway. As far as vacation spots go, it checks all the boxes for a picturesque getaway—rugged coastlines, green pastures, quaint towns and more than 20 beaches. But once a year the waters of these idyllic beaches turn red from the “Grind” which is the Faroese term for a whale hunt. Using small boats, the Faroese herd hundreds of pilot whales into the shallow water off the beaches. When the whales are in position, the people waiting on shore rush in and stab them with hooks. According to the Faroese, it takes two minutes to kill a pilot whale. If Paul Watson is successful, it is two minutes that will never happen.

“Whale Wars: Viking Shores” documents the efforts of Watson and his marine conservation group Sea Shepherd to get between the whales and the Faroese who hunt them. As the narrator tells us in the opening episode, “There’s a storm coming and it has nothing to do with the weather.” The storm that is Paul Watson has been well documented over previous seasons of “Whale Wars.” He is willing to risk his life to save marine animals from mass killing and requires his followers to do the same. However, this single-mindedness, along with two seasons of chasing the same enemy (Japanese whalers), has meant that Watson and the “Whale Wars” franchise has become predictable.

“Viking Shores” tries to overcome potential viewer fatigue by introducing a new enemy in the Faroese. It’s an effective strategy because unlike the Japanese whalers who were mostly silent enemies, the Faroese are prepared to use the presence of the cameras to launch a more contentious defense.

While the “Whale Wars” series has always used television as a platform to heighten awareness of Sea Shephard’s cause, “Viking Shores” is an even more self-conscious production because the Faroese are playing to the cameras as much as Watson and his crew. While the Japanese responded to Sea Shephard’s acts of sabotage physically from a distance, the Faroese do not hesitate to use the show to draw attention to their position. In the first episode, a foreman of the Grind approaches a Sea Shephard member to explain how most of the local population feel about the hunt. Later, a Faroese man accuses Watson of launching his campaign against the Grind purely for the publicity it will bring him and his organization. Their arguments may not convince you, but they will make you stop and think.

The Faroese claim that the Grind is a tradition that has taken place for 1000 years. For many, it is an intricate part of who they are as a people. They compare the killing of whales for their meat (which they claim is a regular part of their diet) to the killing of pigs or chickens. This dynamic makes the fight to stop the Grind feel more personal. Whereas the Japanese whalers used the dubious excuse of conducting “research” to justify their killing of whales, the Faroese are transparent in their purpose. This doesn’t make their hunt less of a senseless slaughter but it does challenge the viewer to understand the fight to stop it in a different way.

“Whale Wars: Viking Shores” premieres on Friday, April 27 at 9pm/EST on Animal Planet.

Technorati Tags: paul watson, sea shepherd, whales

No related posts.

“Californication,” the raunchy comedy on Showtime about the sexual and relationship misadventures of novelist Hank Moody (David Duchovny), recently ended its fifth season and it will probably be the last for me as a viewer. I blame Charlie Runkle. He’s forced me to call it quits on a show I used to really enjoy. Charlie is Hank’s best friend and agent. His defining characteristics are his loyalty to Hank and his crazy sexual exploits.

In the early days of the show, Charlie’s adventures in the bedroom (or more often than not, anywhere but the bedroom) were funny in a cringe worthy sort of way. Insecure but likeable, he tried to please his wife but mostly fell short. This left him open to temptations and eventually a divorce. Single man Charlie then spent a season working toward the goal of sleeping with 100 women—this is a show called “Californication” after all—and yet, I can’t find the funny in Charlie or his fornicating like I used to. It’s all become a bit too predictable. I know that every time Charlie is in a scene with a woman that woman will end up offering herself to him in numerous and often, outrageous ways.

Charlie’s repetitive storyline has lead me to reassess my feelings for the show. To be completely fair, it’s also probable that I’ve grown tired of the overall narrative. The problem is no one seems to change but Charlie is a particularly blatant example. Some might argue that if a sitcom character is funny they don’t need to change because their role is to simply be funny. I think we should demand more.

Certainly, Charlie is meant to be comic relief within a comedy and Evan Handler is a talented actor who plays the character with gusto. But even the comic relief needs to occasionally re-work the act to keep it fresh and interesting. It’s not that Charlie doesn’t reflect on the consequences of his actions. It’s that he doesn’t learn from them. Arguably, this is why his character can be humorous and tragic but the always expected set-ups make it hard to see him as anything but two dimensional. He never learns, over and over again.

This is not to suggest that Charlie or his fellow sitcom characters need to be continually surprising but they do need to occasionally stray from the usual. If Charlie Runkle actually walked away from at least one of his you-can-see-it-coming-a-mile-away dalliances, I would take notice and maybe even like him a little more for it.

So how much change is needed to maintain a character’s balance between cozy sameness and sit up and take notice difference? I think the answer is: Not so much change that you miss the character you love but enough to make you love them even more. It’s about achieving a three-dimensional representation that injects a small dose of reality into the absurd. It’s not an easy balance but one without the other falls flat.

Technorati Tags: californication, duchovy

Related posts:

1. The Worst TV Characters of 2011
2. To: “Game of Thrones”

On the second episode of “Beverly’s Full House,” a new reality series on OWN, former supermodel Beverly Johnson tells her daughter Anansa (a plus size model) that she will be back at their hotel room at 11am. Hoping for some bonding time, Beverly has set-up an out of town photo shoot for the two of them so she leaves early to check on things. Anansa is a new mother to daughter Ava and is expecting Beverly, an enthusiastic grandmother, to return to help her with the baby. Beverly is a no-show. When Anansa arrives at the studio she confronts her mother about why she never came back. Beverly’s reply is: “Oh, you took that literally?”

Aah, the joys of mother/daughter relationships. They can be contentious and loving all at the same time and it’s this balancing act, familiar to many mothers and daughters, that “Beverly’s Full House” is hoping will entertain you. The set-up is that Anansa, her husband David and their newborn baby move into Beverly’s house in Palm Springs so that Beverly and Anansa can work on their relationship. The family dynamics are admittedly rocky. Beverly, the first African-American model to be on the cover of Vogue, lost custody of her daughter until the age of 11 when Anansa came to live with her. As a result, Anansa has some issues to work out, namely feeling abandoned by a mother whose parenting responsibilities (at least for a time) took a backseat to her career. They are now close but the emotional baggage between them is unresolved, simmering just under the surface of their civility to one another. Sounds like a recipe for reality TV success, right? Former supermodel, daughter with buried resentments—cue tears and tantrums.

But this is a reality show on Oprah’s network which means that people will learn and grow rather than scream and fight. To this end, Beverly is shown having a phone session with her therapist and hiring a life coach who conference calls his advice to mother and daughter over breakfast. Despite feeling staged, the therapy sessions yield a few genuine moments that touch on the pair’s troubled dynamic. Anansa recalls how hurt she felt when, as a teenager, she caught her mother mocking her weight behind her back. She also tells the story of how Beverly, upon seeing Ava for the first time, said “I was ugly like that when I was a baby.” It’s an uncomfortable moment to say the least.

Anansa tells the audience that she is determined to work things out with Beverly so that Ava will see them in their “best light.” It’s straight out of the Oprah playbook and I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Phil makes a surprise visit, but at least it’s an admirable goal. That’s not to say that playing out relationship dramas on unscripted television is wholly without other agendas—by episode two Beverly manages to plug her line of wigs.

Technorati Tags: beverly johnson, oprah, own

No related posts.

The first scene of the new ABC series “Scandal” opens with a woman meeting a man in a bar:

Woman: I can’t stay. I don’t do blind dates.

Man: It’s not a blind date.

Woman: I can’t stay. I don’t do blind dates.

Man: It’s not a blind date. It’s a job interview.

Woman: What do mean this is a job interview?

Man: This is a job interview.

Woman: I didn’t apply for a job with you.

Man: You did.

Woman: I didn’t.

Man: You did…

Man: Ask me who I work for. You really want to ask me who I work for.

Woman: Fine. Who do you work for?

Man: Olivia Pope.

Woman: Olivia Pope. The Olivia Pope?…

He tells her that people who work for Olivia Pope are “gladiators in suits” and does she want to be a gladiator in a suit? Awe struck, she slowly repeats that yes, she wants to be a gladiator in a suit.

Now go back and read the scene again as fast as you can and you’ll get the idea of the pace of this show. Taking a page from Aaron Sorkin, who made rapid fire exchanges with repeating phrases a signature of “The West Wing,” creator Shonda Rhimes (“Grey’s Anatomy,” “Private Practice”) uses the opening dialogue of “Scandal” for tempo and for a tease. Namely, who is Olivia Pope?

Pope (Kerry Washington) is a lawyer turned crisis manager who used to work for the president but now “fixes things” for private clients. She’s smart, confident, connected and works by trusting her gut which we are told more than once is never wrong. Her employees worship her with lines like: “Olivia’s not one of the good guys. She’s the best guy” and “She wears the white hat.” Despite these lines and plots that don’t stray too far from Rhimes’ comfort zone of clever people doing clever things, I found myself wanting to see more of Olivia. Washington, with her deliberate enunciation gives the character appealing swagger and in an interesting set-up, the first three episodes develop a storyline that threatens to crack Olivia’s seemingly indestructible armor.

With “Scandal,” Rhimes also treads familiar territory with her characters. If you’ve watched “Grey’s Anatomy,” you’ll recognize her stock character of the “rookie” who is high strung, tries really hard to make a good impression and somehow stumbles into a life changing moment. But what Rhimes does well here is leave doctors behind for lawyers and politicians without the lengthy courtroom scenes, police investigations or policy discussions typical of other dramas that deal in these subjects. Instead, she gives us a strong woman who is political but not a politician. She cleans up messy situations for members of Washington’s powerful elite without getting dirty. It’s idealistic and perhaps unrealistic but who wouldn’t want a gladiator fighting for them? Particularly when they wear a white suit as well as Pope.

“Scandal” premieres on Thursday, April 5 at 10/9c.

Technorati Tags: scandal, shonda rhimes

Related posts:

1. “Veep” is Fun Politics

If television has taught us anything about female friendships it’s that they’re often sweet on the outside and tart on the inside (“Real Housewives” anyone?). ABC’s new comedy, the oddly titled “GCB,” plays off this idea with an added dose of religion and Texas swagger. Based on the book “Good Christian Bitches,” by Kim Gatlin, the ladies in this crowd of fictional Dallas housewives get the chance for some payback when the woman who bullied them in high school is forced by a set of unfortunate circumstances to move with her two teenage children back to her hometown. Broke and desperate, Amanda Vaughn (Leslie Bibb) returns to live with her mother, a wealthy Dallas socialite and quickly discovers that you can go home again but not everyone may be happy to see you.

Kristin Chenoweth, plays Carlene Cockburn, the leader of the group of women who were bullied by Amanda in high school. Carlene, now an influential member of society and her church, uses her pious reputation to mask her schemes to get back at Amanda. But Amanda, despite being remorseful about her past and determined to start over on good terms with the women, is no pushover. For every slight humiliation that Carlene and the other women engineer, Amanda returns the favor. This back and forth plotting would quickly grow tiresome if the characters weren’t equal parts likeable and unlikeable. When Carlene and her partners in crime, Cricket (Miriam Shor) and Heather (Marisol Nichols), tell stories about Amanda’s cruelty toward them as teenagers, you don’t feel so bad when they plan something to embarrass her. At the same time, the ladies’ insecurity, pettiness and refusal to forgive and forget means that you don’t feel so bad when Amanda beats them at their own game.

The other aspect of Amanda’s life that makes her sympathetic is that her mother drives her a little crazy. Played by the charming Annie Potts, Gigi is a Dallas society matron and sees her daughter’s return as a chance to reintroduce Amanda to the privileged life she rejected. Amanda, on the other hand, sees her mother’s mostly funny attempts to help her as an unwelcome reminder of the controlling nature she tried to escape.

The comedy of “GCB,” Miriam Shor in particular, has some great moments delivering caustic one-liners with subtle but hilarious facial expressions, is balanced with some solid dramatic moments. In one scene, Amanda’s daughter Laura, upset that her mother is interfering with her attempts to be accepted by the popular girls at school, tells her that she’s just trying to survive the system she created. It’s a sobering moment for Amanda and one that grounds the comedy in a small dose of reality.

At times, the series relies on stereotypes of Texans but it makes the point that hypocrisy is unattractive even when those hypocrites happen to look like the good Christian women that Carlene and her friends work so hard to appear to be. In less skillful hands, this message might seem heavy handed for a comedy but for the most part, these “GCB’s” make it work.

Technorati Tags: gcb, kristin chenowith, texas

Related posts:

1. On “Jane By Design” Being a Teenager is Hard
2. “Work It” Doesn’t Work

So I have this idea for a business…Okay, not really but after watching “Shark Tank,” I’m inspired to think of something. The last time I was inspired by a television show I was watching an operation on “Boston Med” that was straight out of science fiction. On that show, a patient was getting a new face. On “Shark Tank,” the participants haven’t suffered the same level of loss but the stakes feel almost as high because they are also seeking something new. Or rather, something old. “Shark Tank” is all about achieving the American dream. In fact, it’s practically an exercise in American dream propaganda, so obvious is its reliance on this tenet of the national belief system. The surprising thing is, I’m buying the sales pitch. I’m all in. Money on the table. Even more surprising is that you should buy too.

The idea of the American dream isn’t as bright and shiny as it used to be. With the “one percent” a target of protest and communities suffering under the weight of widespread job loss, it’s difficult to embrace the notion that with hard work and determination anyone can achieve anything in America. Yet, here’s a television show that very transparently says the opposite. Here’s a television show that says: You have a chance to change your life because you worked hard and believed in yourself. It’s a simple and effective message that makes for a very entertaining hour of TV.

“Shark Tank” is not unique. Much of reality TV is about change. It’s reinvention through physical, psychological or economic transformation—fat to thin, single to married, ugly to beautiful. “Shark Tank,” at its most basic, is poor to rich. Hopeful entrepreneurs appear before a panel of “sharks,” or self-made multimillionaire investors, give a brief presentation and ask for money to develop their businesses. So in one way, the show’s appeal is the tense waiting period that may or may not have a big payoff.

There’s also an element of role play. As the sharks sit in judgment so do you as a viewer. You might not know what p.o.p. means or care about valuations and costs per unit. You might roll your eyes when the sharks call each other names but the panel/presentation format means that they are not the only ones who get to evaluate the participants.

The show’s simple format is also appealing because it allows for vulnerability and immediacy. Unlike shows that give participants an entire season to lose weight or win a cash prize or land a job, “Shark Tank” gives its contestants about 10 minutes. In that time, they have to be articulate, informed, confident and persuasive but no matter how polished or rough their pitch, they all have one thing in common: unwavering hope. You might not like their idea. You might not like them. But it’s hard not to admire their self-belief.

Technorati Tags: american dream, shark tank

Related posts:

1. The Personal is Political on “All American Muslim”

Is a television show “quality” because it has narrative complexity and psychological realism? Or is quality more about challenging, confronting and provoking the audience? Pay networks like to market themselves as the home of quality TV and certainly shows including “The Sopranos” or more recently “Homeland” would make the grade for most people. Rarely, would a reality TV series be considered. So what I’m about to argue may be surprising: “Bering Sea Gold” is a quality show and one you should be watching.

The quality of Discovery Channel’s “Bering Sea Gold” lies in its ability to document the drive, desire, ambition, anger, desperation and joy involved in a dangerous and fascinating occupation in a way that captures both the complexities of relationships and the hardships of making a living when everything is at stake.

The men and women featured on the show risk their lives dredging the bottom of the waters off Nome, Alaska for gold. Similar to “Deadliest Catch,” the show about Alaskan crab fisherman, this latest addition to what cable networks prefer to call “docuseries,” focuses on several boat crews. Here, gold replaces crustaceans while hoses and sluice machines replace steel cages and holding tanks. The boats are smaller and most are hand-built but the drama is just as intense.

With little space on deck, two and three person crews take turns slipping into thick wet suits attached to air and hot water (to prevent hypothermia) before diving into the freezing sea. They work for hours wrangling a hose that sucks the ocean floor topside into a sluice machine that separates the gold flakes from rocks and sand. Along with the small boat operators is one larger crew who work from a big dredge ship where the owner, an experienced land gold miner, has ingeniously attached a backhoe to the deck. It digs buckets of ocean dirt and swings them to the sluice, thereby eliminating the need for divers. But whether they are large or small, the crews are tested by the weather, machinery failures and physical and mental exhaustion.

When the action returns to shore, the dredgers must carefully sift and dry their gold haul and prepare it to be weighed. More flakes than nuggets, it looks like glitter in glass vials but with gold selling at an all time high, ounces of this glitter are worth thousands of dollars.

The three month summer mining season means the dredgers have a brief window to make money. For those who are in serious debt, finding gold will literally save them from financial ruin. With stakes this high, you can’t help but empathize with their situation. In terms of what makes a show quality television, perhaps this is the characteristic that matters most.

“Bering Sea Gold” is on Friday on Discovery Channel at 10pm E/P.

Technorati Tags: bering sea, discovery, gold

Related posts:

1. To: The Parents Television Council
2. To: Reality Television