Couch Potato Report

Let’s be honest: people love TV because it’s escapism at its finest. It is a form of entertainment where even reality isn’t real and we’re asked hourly to put aside our skepticism and employ what TV people call “the suspension of disbelief”. Without it, no one would watch shows in which a car crashes, hurtling end over end, only to have the driver walk away with nothing more than a small cut on his forehead (yeah, I’m lookin’ at you, ChiPs). Or how about the popular scenario in which the crime fighter tussles with the criminal and emerges victorious not only with the bad guy in handcuffs, but also with neatly pressed clothing and perfect hair.

I was thinking of this the other night while watching Remington Steele with hubby. It’s a favorite weekend activity of ours, to watch old TV shows on DVDs we receive from Netflix (greatest invention since the DVD player). Remington and Laura got themselves into a bit of a scrape, as usual, and had to swim to shore, clawing their way through the sand to escape the bad guys. A beat later, they’re running down a sidewalk and Hubby remarks, “His clothes are way too clean.” I agreed – Pierce Brosnan was well coiffed and neatly dressed, which disappointed me, especially when I took a good look at Stephanie Zimbalist. In contrast to her co-star, she was mussed and muddy. The people behind Remington Steele didn’t usually make such glaring errors, and it got me thinking about many of the other shows we watch.

Most of our favorite programs are pretty good at walking the fine line between believable and outlandish. If they didn’t, if they asked me to hold my disbelief in suspension beyond its breaking point, they wouldn’t be my favorite shows. I wouldn’t waste my time, which is why I’m so disappointed when one of my shows crosses that line and forces me to take action.

That’s right, I’m calling shenanigans – on CSI: NY.

In the final episode of last season, a drive-by shooting shattered the heartfelt moment shared by the cast as they drank a toast to fallen NYPD detective Jessica Angell (Emmanuelle Vaugier). We found out in the opener for the current season that CSI Danny Messer (Carmine Giovinazzo) had been shot, and that he was unable to walk. In fact, we were told he had no sensation below his chest.

Much drama ensued for both Danny and his wife, CSI Lindsay Monroe (Anna Belknap). I like a good, angsty storyline, so I was riveted.  I even remarked to Hubby that this was a genius storyline, because Danny told his wife (and all of us) that the doctor did not have high expectation for his recovery. My feeling was that they could really use this for the entire season, or at least half of it, and potentially reach a whole new segment of their audience who deal with issues of mobility and accessibility.

I envisioned Danny having problems when arriving at crime scenes and finding no ramps or working elevators. I imagined Mac Taylor (Gary Sinise) figuring out ways to make the labs more wheelchair-friendly so Danny could still do his job. I believed this was an opportunity to tell the story of life encumbered by injury, recovery and the frustration that comes with “disability”. I figured this was forward-thinking on the part of the writers and, if portrayed accurately, could bring awareness to those of us who have no idea what life is like when confined to a wheelchair.

Apparently, the people behind CSI: NY weren’t aiming for any of these lofty goals. They simply wanted some drama for Danny and Lindsay to deal with, now that baby Lucy has arrived. So the wheelchair arc lasted all of five episodes. At breakneck speed, we went from Danny doubting he’d ever walk again to strolling around the lab, doing his job as if he’d never been injured at all.

Oh, CSI: NY. Why did you waste so much potential? Were you afraid viewers would lose patience for a storyline that actually had teeth? (As opposed to another lame serial killer arc – I mean, seriously, are all the world’s serial killers based in NYC? And if so, why is Mac Taylor the only one who can catch them? This seems very Horatio Caine to me, and CSI: NY – you’re better than that.)

I’m not a doctor. I don’t even play one on TV. But I suspect that it takes much longer in real life for a person with Danny’s injury to recover and be able to walk naturally. I have a strong feeling that were this not a TV show, Danny would still be in the beginning stages of his physical therapy and not standing next to his daughter’s crib, rocking her to sleep in his arms.

CSI: NY, I call shenanigans on you for asking me to suspend my disbelief beyond reasonable limits and for wasting the opportunity to tell a compelling story that speaks to the experience of a segment of our population that is rarely represented by a major character on a television series. You had so much to work with but you took the easy way out. I’m disappointed, and it’s way too early in the season for that.

My wife was curious about Patrick Swayze’s last acting job — his role in  The Beast, a show about the FBI set in Chicago.  I’ll let her talk more about his performance if she cares to, so all I’ll say is this: one review she read me called his performance (and I’m paraphrasing here) “the best performance of his career”.  I’m not one to argue.  I think it’s damn good.  If you enjoyed Swayze’s character in Road House and/or enjoy Michael Westen (Jeffrey Donovan’s character) in Burn Notice or any interesting gritty cop shows, you’ll enjoy The Beast.

One of the things we marveled about The Beast was how, by shooting entirely in Chicago, they made it not only the backdrop but also a central character.  I don’t think there’s ever been a TV show that gives such an honest portrayal of the city my wife and I call “home.”  I’m usually a little hesitant to speak for her on this blog, but I think I can speak for both of us when I say it’s the best portrayal of Chicago we’ve seen on the small screen.

The Beast embodies Chicago.  In one episode, their cover is Turano Bread delivery men.  Chicagoans see Turano Bread trucks every day.  In another episode, there’s a tanker truck involved that bears the logo for Gas City, a popular Chicago gas station in the south suburbs.  Also, they do not just include the cliche locations you’d expect, like Grant Park, the Lakefront, the “El”, the Loop, etc.  One location (that I suspect might eventually be on that  list) is the mesmerizing reflective sculpture in Millennium Park known as “The Bean”.  The scene shot there is one of the best uses of Chicago art in a TV show or movie ever (except for Seurat’s “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte” in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off).

A lot of the show is filmed in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago, which is easy to spot through the architecture and neighborhood businesses.   There’s a scene that takes place at a greasy diner called “Steak N Egger”, which is a real place.  We bet they filmed it at the Pilsen location.  When Barker (Swayze) or Ellis (Aussie actor Travis Fimmel) meet Conrad (Kevin J. O’Connor), it’s usually in an iconic Chicago location.  Finally, one small detail many Chicago-based shows fail to capture:  the hats that Chicago Police officers wear have a checkerboard boarder.  I was watching another show this season supposedly set in Chicago, and the police uniforms were close except for that telling detail.

ER did a nice job portraying Chicago, including the police caps. New ABC drama The Forgotten handles it decently, though they rely heavily on the dialogue to remind us (the characters are often saying things like, “It’s a block from the Loop” or “That place is on Diversey” or “The cops nabbed him in a liquor store on Wabash”, which are meant solely to placate those of us paying attention to the Chicago details).

Seeing Chicago showcased intelligently, and because it’s Patrick Swayze’s tour-de-force swan song, The Beast gets an A+ from both him and her.

The cast of Community

When my wife and I decided to give Community a shot on Thursday nights, I wasn’t sure either of us would like it.   With The Soup’s Joel McHale and Chevy Chase, I expected a snappy, edgy comedy that would utilize both comedic actors’ talent to the max.  (Think Joel Mc Hale’s comments on The Soup and Chevy’s “I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not” smarm from his SNL days.)

But what the show delivered was a different brand of comedy than one might expect from McHale and Chase.   The episodes have a sweetness to them that I didn’t expect and that I like very much.   The show has been pitched to viewers as something akin to the John Hughes movie The Breakfast Club and so far, that’s an apt description.

The cast is a melting pot of students from different backgrounds, ages, races and life experiences.  They’re all thrown into this shared experience at a community college and each week, they end up learning about each other through the course of  time spent together in  “study group” (reminiscent of the time The Breakfast Club kids spent in detention in the library).

It would have been simple to present one-dimensional,  stereotypical characters that make up a community college and rely on the physical comedy of Chevy Chase and the sarcastic wit of Joel McHale to drive the show without bothering to define the other characters.  Community doesn’t do that, which not only makes the show work but imbues it with a subtle and unexpected sweetness.

The show has gone to great lengths to present multi-dimensional characters and paint a picture deeper than the former HS football star trying to find his way, the fast talkin’ lawyer who’s back in school because his law degree was revoked, the dropout with something to prove, the pop culture junkie,  the perfectionist,  the divorcee with kids, and the guy who thinks his life experience has given him all the wisdom in the world.

Chevy Chase as Pierce, at times showing vulnerability (by deeply wanting to be liked and respected), is a character I didn’t think we’d ever see Chevy Chase play.  And Joel McHale as Jeff Winger does a great job of balancing smarmy with a genuine affection for the people he unwittingly befriended in the first episode.   His interactions with Britta (the 28-year-old dropout played by Gillian Jacobs)  effectively showcase the struggle between Jeff’s fast-talkin’ cool guy routine and his desire to be real and open around her.

While Joel McHale and Chevy Chase are the heavy hitters on Community, by no means do they make the show.  It’s definitely an ensemble cast, and each character is important.  In fact, out of four episodes, two have focused heavily on other characters.  One, on the pop culture junkie Abed and the other on the divorcee, Shirley.  Every ep gives a good dose of McHale and more than a little bit of Chase and Jacobs, but it’s great to see the show is spending some time on the other characters.  Also, at the end of each show Abed and Troy get screen time as a fun little bonus.

In addition to the acting and writing, the show does an excellent job with  playing on the stereotype of a community college, referencing popular culture (especially with regards to Generation X), and poking fun at the various eccentricities of college professors and administrators as well as the general stereotype of young college students.

All these things make Community a fun show to watch and add a breath of fresh air and a bit of sweetness to Thursday night TV.

The rumors are official: there will be a crossover between all three CSI series this fall.   CSI’s Dr. Raymond Langston (Laurence Fishburne)  will appear on each of the three CSIs in a single week,  wrapping up on November 12th.  I stopped reading the article in the Chicago Tribune after learning this information because I don’t want to spoil the episodes for myself.

I think when shows like the CSI franchise, or the Law & Order franchise, do a crossover it can be pretty neat.  It can be even wilder when two shows you enjoy do a crossover, such as Law & Order and Homicide back in the day.  It can also be kind of a bummer when two shows crossover, one of which you don’t watch.  (For me that was CSI and Without A Trace.)

We just started watching the original CSI: Crime Scene Investigation again this season.  In fact, we spent a lot of time catching up on last season’s episodes during a Spike marathon last weekend.  I like Langston, and he certainly fills Grissom’s shoes very well, but there’s still part of me that thinks Catherine and/or Nick should get to grace the shores of Miami and New York in lieu of “the new guy.”  Of course, the point of the crossover might be to get skeptical fans that checked out with Grissom to check back in.

I think skeptical fans will be pleasantly surprised. Langston is as cerebral as Grissom, but very different. He’s certainly not a cloned character.  On the whole, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has done a nice job of evolving their characters, introducing new characters and retaining a familiarity that makes me want to watch it.

No question, there is such a thing as too much information. Nowadays, we’re not afraid to let someone know we’ve heard enough – all we have to do is write, speak or text the letters “TMI” and the recipient knows they’ve gone a little too far. So, in the spirit of those three liberating letters, I’d like to send out a great, big “TMI” to the media.

Yes, I know “the media” is a broad term, so I’ll be more specific: Hey, media outlets who feel it necessary to give us every little behind-the-scenes detail – put a freakin’ cork in it! You’re ruining it for me. Stop now before you go ahead and ruin it for everyone.

I’m not opposed to articles in EW that give us the inside scoop on what might happen next week on Desperate Housewives (as long as they preface it with “SPOILER ALERT”) or television shows that take us backstage and show us the green room where the performers hang out before the show (“Hey – they really do hate the brown M & Ms!”). My ire is directed at those who reveal stuff that ruins the fun, like the fact that, as I read earlier today, Tom DeLay’s broken bones may actually be 30% injury and 70% publicity stunt.

I don’t need to know what the ratings are for any given show at every given moment. Frankly, I don’t care to hear that a show I care about is falling behind others that are less important to me. That doesn’t inform me so much as make me nervous; no one wants to entertain the possibility that their favorite show might be dumped because of bad ratings. Let me just enjoy my show without worrying about how many other households are (or aren’t, as the case may be) enjoying it, too.

I unknowingly stumbled upon such information about DWTS because the article was advertised as being about Tom DeLay’s feet. I wanted to know how he was feeling and ended up reading that the producers may have played up his injury for the sake of the ratings, and when that didn’t work, they pushed him out the door. See, now, information like this just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I wish I could unknow this, but obviously I can’t, so now when I watch the show I’ll be asking myself about the validity of all of it – the voting, the drama, the little disagreements between the stars and their pro partners. Is it all a stunt? Is any of it real?

I understand the media feels the responsibility to report the truth. I admire that, especially when it comes to politics, war and the economy. But this is television – can’t the fourth wall remain intact, even in this information overloaded society? I don’t need to know the truth about everything on television. The great thing about watching a magic show is that you don’t know the secret behind the illusions, and moreover, you don’t want to know. You just want to sit back and be amazed and entertained.

So, I feel compelled to offer a solution for those of us feeling like we’ve been subjected to TMI: don’t make it so easy. I’m not opposed to the information being out there, but let us go in search of it. The internet is available to just about anyone, and it probably only takes a few keystrokes and a visit to Google to get ratings information, as well as the scoop on who’s pulling the strings behind the scenes. It doesn’t need to be screamed from every roof top, the lead story of an entertainment report or the fodder for Hollywood gossip rags.

Knowing everything about everything isn’t much fun. It kills the wonder (“How did they do that?!”) and limits our interest, which may just be the reason why the ratings for some shows are suffering. Let us stay in the dark a little longer, with nothing but the warm glow of our television screens and delighted smiles on our faces.

Tonight’s episode of  The Office was pitch perfect, as far as episodes of The Office go. It had a reliable and yet satisfying mix of the awkward, humorous and sweet moments that have made it a consistently entertaining program.

What was most right about tonight’s ep was the sweet and tender handling of Jim and Pam’s wedding. Sure, there were the usual crude jokes, awkward confessions and idiotic ramblings (most of it from Michael Scott alone) that we’ve come to expect from The Office.  But when it came time for Jim and Pam to say, “I do”, the episode shifted subtly into greatness and lovingly united one of television’s most functional and fun-to-watch couples in holy matrimony.

I’ll admit it — I’m a sucker for love stories, and I’ll weep during just about any wedding episode of any show. But this one? This is one for the history books, my friends. There were no surprise guests, no old boyfriend showing up to shout his objections, no drunken priest or natural disasters. No — there was just a couple in love, so obviously meant for each other (nothing could have sealed that more than what Jim did to his tie), sneaking off to have their moment to remember and then rushing back to do it all again for their families and friends.

My hankie is damp with happy tears, my heart is joyful for Mr. and Mrs. Halpert and my hat is off to NBC for getting this TV wedding exactly right.