As part of my fall cleaning efforts, I am viewing every returning show with a critical eye: should this show stay on my very crowded television schedule? It was with that attitude that I went into last night’s episode of Pushing Daisies. Forty-two highly stylized minutes later, I have my answer, and it is a very firm “I don’t know.”

Really, there is no other show on television about which I feel so divided as this one. I know that, for most people, it falls into the love-it-or-hate-it camp, and most PV readers seem to be quite firmly on the “love it” side, but I just can’t ever commit to one camp or another. I am firmly straddling the Daisies fence. Does that sound dirty to anyone else?

Last night’s return was everything we’ve come to expect from Pushing Daisies. Every quirky trick they’ve got up their sleeve, it was in this episode. If ever there was a time to judge an episode as representative of an entire series, this was it. And yet, I still can’t decide if I should keep watching.

My indecision is frustrating. This is not a show that I like in some ways or dislike in others. No, I either love it or hate it, and my reaction can change in seconds.

The sets, for instance, are breathtaking. They are cinematic in scope, fantastic and beautiful and unlike anything I’ve ever seen on TV. But, just as I’m starting to get caught up the glorious world created by the set designers, the damn voiceover kicks in, with so many self-conscious tics that it qualifies as the narrative version of epilepsy. Every time the storyteller announces the exact time, down to the second, or reminds us that Chuck is “aka someone else,” I visibly wince. It completely takes me out of the moment.

The plots don’t help the matter. I have no problem with the always silly mystery of the week, and always enjoy the way that each new mystery provides a new world to explore. The newly created Betty’s Bees, for instance, was an absolute visual treat. I have fewer kind words for the B-plots, however, which range from frustrating to downright asinine. The show is piling secret on top of secret, asking the viewer to not only keep track of each newly revealed hidden truth but also to care about them, and I just don’t. I don’t understand why half these things need to be secrets at all. Considering that Olive already thinks Chuck faked her death, is there any reason why Chuck couldn’t come up with a good cover story that would work for her aunts as well? Every week, she, Ned and Chuck whip up preposterous covers for their mystery solving, but they can’t think up a way to reunite her with her aunts? Really? The secrets aren’t compelling, and so I plain don’t care what happens, and begin to wonder if I should even bother tuning in next week.

Then, just as I’m reaching the frayed end of my patience, Emerson Cod opens his mouth, expressing all the frustration I’m feeling with his trademark deadpan snark, and I’m in love again. Ned sits awkwardly on a bench like an adorable, oversized puppy, and my heart thaws a bit. Olive…well, Olive appears onscreen, and everything is a little brighter. And then, for a few minutes, I love this show, and understand why everyone else can’t get enough.

At least, I do until the damn narrator opens his mouth again.

What did you think of the show’s second season premiere? Are you in the love it or hate it camp?

Revisiting Pushing Daisies

Up on my iPlayer, and also airing on BBC3 this week, is the spoof documentary Summer Heights High, the Beeb’s latest Australian import. This show, which, in the best tradition of The Office, presents itself as a fly-on-the-wall view of a typical Australian high school, has been fairly universally panned by British TV critics.

But screw them, I loved it.

The show is written, directed by, and largely played by one man - Australian comic Chris Lilley. It focuses on the lives of three central characters at the school: Jonah, a thirteen-year-old, under-achieving bully; Mr G, a megalomaniacal and ridiculously camp drama teacher; and, my favourite, Ja’mie, an exchange student from a private school who is at Summer Heights for a semester to see how the underprivileged are educated. Her verdict so far: ‘public schools are so, like, random!’

All three of these main characters are played by Lilley, and it’s a tribute to his skills that I didn’t actually realise this until it occurred to me that Ja’mie was quite mannish-looking. But, like, The Office, the scripting is tight, the staging is complete, and the three main characters are brilliantly and outrageously believable.

My favourite moments from the first episode included Mr G (who once put on a musical entitled Tsunamarama - the story of the 2004 Tsunami set to the music of Bananarama) demonstrating inappropriate touching on a boy with Downs Syndrome. I also particularly enjoyed Ja’mie’s address to the kids of Summer Heights High, which included such inspired lines as, ‘Wife beaters and rapists are nearly all public school educated. Sorry, no offense, but it’s true.’ This diatribe was rounded off with the announcement that ‘I’m up to 1000 friends on MySpace but I could always take more!’

The only character I was slightly disappointed with was Jonah, who just looks too much like a thirty-year-old man in a bad wig to really come off convincingly as a troubled thirteen-year-old bully. But I have high hopes for Summer Heights High. Tune in next week to find out how Ja’mie does at making friends with ‘povvo kids’, whether Jonah will get kicked out of school for drawing penises on the principle’s car, and how Mr G will cope with being promoted to acting head of the drama department.

Summer Heights High airs on BBC3 at 10.30pm every Tuesday.

Welcome to Summer School

ABC Family is also trying to get into the action with The Middleman, a show that is earning far better reviews than it has any right to. It’s all part of the channel’s efforts to rebrand itself, an effort that had surprising success with the frat house comedy Greek. What makes Greek so successful is that, despite having the feel-good exterior with a warm creamy center necessary for a family channel, it is also well-written and surprisingly original. The show takes some of the most easily stereotyped characters in the history of TV — the party guy, the rich guy, the gay guy, the nerd — and gives them depth and layers. It’s actually an intelligent show underneath it all.

The Middleman, unfortunately, does not succeed on the same level. Based on a graphic novel, the basic premise centers around the titular heroes, who go around secretly saving humanity from various bizarre things that defy rational explanation. This is a common sci-fi trope for a reason — it’s a whole lot of fun — so I won’t say anything mean about that. Yes, I can forgive a lack of originality if it amuses me. I’m fickle that way.

In fact, overall, the show should work. It’s whimsical, but not self-consciously so. Matt Keeslar is entirely charming as the veteran hero, and Natalie Morales, playing his newly recruited assistant is…fine, I guess. Her line readings are a bit forced at times, but she sufficiently embraces her character’s geekiness for me to overlook that flaw. In the end, the program suffers by trying to be young and hip AND a family show. Every time it succeeds with the former, the latter pulls it right back down. Just as I start to enjoy the ridiculously quick-paced banter or the stylized production, up pops the “family” from the channel’s title. We’ve got a robot that looks like a cranky schoolmarm and a gorilla that thinks it’s a gangster. I’m fairly certain that I saw those when I was seven and watching The Wonderful World of Disney. It’s not fresh, and it clashes noticeably with the parts of the show worth watching.

It’s not a bad show, by any means. If I stumbled across it while flipping through channels, I’d probably watch it. It’s a pleasant enough way to kill an hour. But, since iTunes gets a pound off me every time I watch a show, I’m going to pass on this one…and keep waiting eagerly for September.

Did anyone out there watch this, or do you tend to forget that you even have a channel called ABC Family?

Stuck in the Middleman

When Weeds first aired in 2005, I had absolutely no interest in watching the show. After all, it was on Showtime, and three years ago everyone knew HBO was the cable channel with all the good shows (my, how times have changed — take heart, little CW!). Plus, it was about a pot-dealing mom in suburbia. Having a) grown up in suburbia and b) spent many years in college being bored to death by wannabe philosophers stoned out of their gourds, it didn’t exactly trigger any excitement in me.

Then someone loaned me the first season DVDs, and I was hooked. Instantly. Each show is only a half hour, so it was remarkably easy to sit through an entire season in one long, sofa-tastic binge. Seasons 2 and 3 quickly followed. Somehow, I’d come to care about these wacky stoners and the loving mom that fueled their habits.

In case you also failed to get on the Weeds train early, here are a few reasons you should start watching now:

(more…)

The Addictive Properties of Weeds

Here is what you won’t get from watching Monday’s US premiere of The Secret Diary of a Call Girl: a thoughtful exploration of sexual or feminist politics in regards to prostitution, or a sociological inquiry into the class disparity between prostitutes and their johns and the accompanying power dynamic. It ain’t there. You won’t even get particularly good sex tips, unless you are surprised to learn that men tend to like dirty talk, lacy black underwear and fellatio. The show has its charm, but in no way does it serve as an instructional text.

What it is, however, is a light-hearted bit of fluff with some clever writing and very pretty people, and if you don’t mind that the show glosses over some fairly loaded issues, you will likely enjoy yourself.

(more…)

Dear Diary: Confessions of a Call Girl

(more…)

Seeing Through The Invisibles

I’m always late to TV shows, since I prefer to watch TV on DVD. I’ve only seen the first season of Ugly Betty, but I knew after a couple of episodes the show was a gem and I was ready to follow America Ferrara and her gang wherever they would take me. In anticipation of the show’s return this Thursday, I present a celebration of some of the things the show does really well.

1. It blends multiple genres successfully. Ugly Betty may be a comedy, but it’s a smartly written one that can also tug at the heartstrings. It satirizes the fashion industry and the people in it, has elements of mystery and intrigue and doesn’t stick specifically to one genre or follow one character. Even though the show revolves around Betty, each of the major characters are given backstories and their own plots, helping to create a multi-layered show.

2. The characters are fully fleshed out with moral gray areas. While the show is ultimately about Betty Suarez, the admin assistant from Queens out of her element at a Manhattan fashion magazine, the cast includes a number of characters with multiple facets. Daniel Meade, Betty’s boss, is a charismatic womanizer who struggles with his family and the roles of his job. Ignacio Suarez, Betty’s dad, is a chef who loves his children and grandchild to bits, yet must overcome his dubious past. Wilhemina Slater, the queen bitch of the show, struggles with her loyalty to her daughter, her assistant Marc, and her need to dispense a little kindness once in a while. Alexis Meade, the transsexual who reappears from the dead, struggles with her hatred of her father while wanting to remain loyal to her mother and brother.

3. The show is not afraid to take risks by including unconventional characters.

• Transsexual woman (check)
• Twinky nephew who loves musicals, fashion and gossip. (check)
• Main characters who are proudly Latino and speak with accents (check)
• Numerous gay characters (check)
• Illegal immigrant (check)
• Accountant love interest who wears dorky glasses and spouts trivia (check)

4. The show has several recurring themes in its first season.

• People struggling out of their element (Betty at Mode, Santos with his musical loving son Justin)
• Struggles between siblings (Betty and Hilda and Daniel and Alexis)
• Contrasts between families and family connections (The Meades vs the Suarez family)
• The constant struggle for the work/life balance (Mostly shown by Betty as she tries to negotiate her stressful life at Mode with her family in Queens)
• Truth and loyalty vs lies and deceit. This theme pops up in almost every episode, and makes numerous comments about competition, loyalty, loneliness and the need for friendship, and how people can draw strength or support from those they least expect to.

5. The writers constantly include jokes about the fashion industry and pop culture. Watch for thinly veiled references to Tom, Katie and Baby Suri (aka Tim, Chloe and Baby Chutney), Martha Stewart, Donatella Versace, Anna Wintour, and Wal-mart. The show also makes references to the sizeism in the fashion world, the fickle nature of fashion, and the ridiculousness of garments designed in the name of high fashion.

What about you? What makes Ugly Betty beautiful for you?

Alexis is a Canadian author and journalist with a love for apples and loose leaf tea. Visit her on the web at www.alexiskienlen.com.

Beautiful Things About Ugly Betty

Britain’s ITV has a strange habit when it comes to drama. They’ll happily trundle on for years producing undemanding Sunday night ‘family’ viewing, then suddenly drop something rather original and special into the mix. They launched the two-hour drama show with Inspector Morse (then followed up with Prime Suspect) and went all sci-fi with Primeval. Now, they’ve delivered something very odd indeed…two shows for the price of one.

The idea behind Moving Wallpaper/Echo Beach isn’t at all bad. The first tells the behind-the-scenes story of a popular ’soap’ drama, while the second shows the actual drama itself, a teen-filled Home & Away style show set in Cornwall. We’ve seen something along these lines in The Larry Sanders Show and Rob Brydon’s Annually Retentive, where the off-camera material is woven into the supposed ‘real’ show and the madness of TV gets played to the fore.

So what’s the difference this time? Well, put simply, the show that’s meant to be getting mocked, Echo Beach, is better than the show doing the mocking. The supposedly satire-laden, madcap glimpse behind the scenes isn’t satirical, madcap or indeed funny. Ben Miller, as noxious TV producer Jonathan Pope, heads a cast of characters as thin as the walls on Prisoner Cell Block H in a series of heavy-handed, sub-The Office workplace scenes that actually make the fresh air, smart dialogue and sharp writing of Echo Beach something to look forward to. I’ve no doubt the idea was to create a ’so bad it’s good’ soap, but despite the deadening presence of ex-Eastender Martine McCutcheon in a key role, the (real-life) producers have roundly failed to fail.

My prediction? Echo Beach will live on long after this Moving Wallpaper’s been painted over.

TV’s Latest Double Act: Echo Beach and Moving Wallpaper

• There are some potential, thoroughly unconfirmed developments in the writers’ strike. Rumor has it that the Director’s Guild of America has reached an agreement with the AMPTP. If this is true, the deal could serve as a template for the WGA. In addition, the WGA has hinted that they will refuse to grant a waiver for the Grammy Awards, suggesting that no SGA talent will be attending. How would a dearth of actors affect a music awards ceremony? Variety sums it up rather neatly:
  

  This year also has a substantial number of nominated musicians who have appeared in films and on TV. Chief among them are Justin Timberlake, Queen Latifah, Tim McGraw, Beyonce, Jack White, Jon Bon Jovi, T.I. and Fantasia. Among the nominees who have historically not crossed picket lines are Bruce Springsteen, the Beastie Boys, Joni Mitchell, John Mellencamp and Steve Earle.

  Someday, I will write a tidbit about the strike without overuse of the words “rumor”, “if”, “could” and “unconfirmed”. Sadly, today is not that day.

Tidbits for January 15, 2008

It looks to be this season’s love-it-or-hate-it show, but with my typical contrary nature, I’m somewhere in between. I’ve spent the last 24 hours or so trying to figure out if I actually like the show or not.

It’s from the creator of Wonderfalls and shares the magical realism sensibility of that show, though it lost the forced cynicism that made that one so annoying. It’s good…but I’m not sure that it’s anything as special as it seems to think it is. Still confused, it became clear that a pro/con list was the only way I would sort this one out. (I’m telling you, a good pro/con list could solve all the world’s problems. The minute we can convince the UN to create a proper pro/con committee, world peace would break out, global warming would cure itself and Paris Hilton would finally disappear back into the fame-whore ether from which she first emerged. Trust me on this.)

Pro: It’s gorgeous. It uses fairy tale conventions as its framework, and the sets capture that other-worldly sense brilliantly. Plus, it takes the story-teller’s perspective, which I’m bound to love. The leads are extremely likable and even, at times, adorable in a cute puppy sort of way, and that goes a long, long way to selling a show. At the very least, it helped remove the faint stench of Moonlight that was still lingering around my television.

Cons: The narration is a bit intrusive and frequently a bit too self-consciously precious. Yes, you’re quirky. We get it. You don’t need to name the travel agency the ‘Boutique Travel Travel Boutique’ to get that point across (and having the Darling Mermaid Darlings synchronized swimmers is overkill — yes, we all learned about repetition in English class and no, it does not always improve the writing). Some of the non-lead characters (the aunts, the pie-girl whose name I have already forgotten and don’t care enough about to even look up) seem pointless at best, pretentiously annoying at worst).

Verdict: it’s a tie. And while I could watch the second episode and try to come to a more definite opinion, I think the real fault of the show is that I feel no desire to do this. The first episode was a lovely, self-contained story. It was a gentle fairy tale that ended exactly as it should. And, for now, that’s good enough for me.

I know lots of other people love this show. What tips the scale in favor of must-see viewing for you?

Pushing Daisies: The Debate