Sending tubes of lipstick to the NBC HQ may have temporarily staved off the cancellation of Brooke Shields' Lipstick Jungle. But no more. 'Tis the end of the road. The fat lady has sung. The end has arrived for the trio of Lipstick Junglegals. The show has been canceled.
But then again, the news stories about the show's stars jumping ship and joining the casts of other TV programs should have given us viewers a clue that the Jungle would not be resurrected . . . yet one more TV show about powerful women to be tossed to the scrap-heap.
Meanwhile, news about ABC's brand new show, In the Motherhood-- a comedy about three mothers, including Will & Grace's Megan Mullaly and Curb Your Enthusiasm's Cheryl Hines -- is likewise grim. The Los Angeles Timesreports that the original 13-episode order was cut to seven. Doesn't bode well, my friends.
I saw In the Motherhood's premiere last week. It was okay, nothing genius, but still, it had potential. I wish that ABC would give the show a longer leash and not be so trigger-happy to cancel and cut back. If all of comedies were cut off or put on notice so quickly, we wouldn't have been able to enjoy many years of Seinfeld, which wasn't exactly brilliant at the start. Just sayin'.
How great is that that we FNL fans don't have to wonder, as we've had to at the conclusion of each season, whether the season finale is actually a series finale?
The show has consistently provided gritty, realistic portrayals of life in a small Texas town dominated by high school football and populated by people who need a distraction from their lives. The disintegration of Buddy Garrity's life, including his recent estrangement from daughter Lyla, and the struggles of Tyra Collette to break away from a life where she's judged by her looks and whether she's got a good man, have been outstanding. The storyline for high school senior Matt Saracen, including how his demotion from the first string QB to back up has a negative impact on whether this kid will get a college scholarship, is one of the primary reasons why this is the football show that's not really about football.
Last week's scene where Coach Eric Taylor walked in on his daughter Julie in bed with her boyfriend Matt, made my husband squirm. Later, when Julie's mom Tami Taylor had a tearful conversation with Julie about how she wished she'd waited before having sex made me grab for the tissues. Gotta love the Taylors.
Raise your hands if, following the last scene of the recent episode of Lost, you either: 1) Gasped 2) Felt your brain melting 3) Yelled, "No WAY!" or 4) All of the above. (I went with number four.)
That last scene with Sayid/Little Ben just can't be what it seems. I'm of the mind that there's no way Little Ben will die from the gunshot wound. (Unless of course he does and I'm proven wrong. AGAIN!) Popular theories online about what will happen include: That Jack will save Little Ben again, as he did with his spinal tumor (without saying he's a doctor thus risk exposing himself, Kate and Hurley) or that the island will heal Ben and christen him as the island's chosen one so he can ascend to a leadership position in Dharmaville. Little Ben just couldn't have been fatally wounded, could he?
Was thrilled to have a Sayid-centric installment that weirdly paralleled a Ben storyline. How sad was it to see the manipulative Big Ben unceremoniously announce that, after Sayid executed his "last" Widmore associate, that he was all done with Sayid? The look on Sayid's face when Ben declared him to be a natural born killer was heartbreaking, as was the look on Little Ben's face when his abusive Workman dad slammed the then-12-year-old up against Sayid's jail cell.
While trying to absorb the issues raised in "He's Our You" -- topics ranging from whether you're born with the killer instinct or you develop one based on what happened to you as a child, to issues of the compromises one makes to maintain one's status quo (a la Sawyer/LaFleur) -- I watched ABC's latest Lost Untangled video. This was the funniest one yet. My favorite parts: The spoof on Juliet and Kate's awkward conversations, the refrain: "Sawyer, I mean, LaFLEUR!," the phrase "sexy Boba Fett" and the little bus, both the flaming and the non-flaming version. (Link to the video here.)
Your theories on the fate of Ben? Please, chime in.
What are we, a little more than halfway through one of Jack Bauer's very bad days on 24? Thus far in Jack's day we've seen:
Two commercial airlines were downed by terrorists. Hundreds are dead.
A chemical plant almost leaked deadly chemical into the air in the Midwest, however area residents and employees were saved by the quick thinking actions of the plant manager, who died from his exposure.
The First Gentleman was shot, kidnapped, rescued and then operated on. Now he's recovering in the hospital and has just spoken with his president wife on the phone.
A U.S. invasion targeting African warlords, who overthrew a democratically elected leader and brutally savaged their fictional country, commenced.
The democratically elected leader of that fictional country and his wife were abducted by the terrorists, then freed by Jack Bauer & Co.
The White House was infiltrated by terrorists who apprehended the U.S. president, whose face the head terrorist slapped. The president was forced at gunpoint to read a statement condemning the U.S. invasion over a live internet stream.
At least one White House aide was executed in front of the president, after many Secret Service members were killed.
Jack Bauer's good friend and former head of the disbanded Los Angeles Counter Terrorism Unit, sacrificed himself in order to provide cover for Jack so Jack could save the president. (How many presidents' lives has Jack saved? Anyone got a count?)
A key U.S. senator's chief of staff (a secret badie) was tortured, survived, was brought to the hospital then killed shortly before the senator for whom he was working was killed, both of 'em executed by an associate of the bigger cadre of bad guys who were funding the African warlords.
The president's chief of staff resigned because he thinks Jack Bauer killed a bunch of people he didn't kill AFTER the chief of staff let him out of custody.
A bio-weapon is now loose in Washington, D.C. in the hands of Angelina Jolie's dad, the head of a sinister company which runs a private, for-profit army, clearly meant to harken comparisons to the likes of Blackwater.
And now Jack Bauer -- who, during this one day has appeared before a Senate committee that was grilling him about his previous actions, has been put into the field by the FBI, was detained, then let go, then arrested, then let go, then fled and is now in custody again -- has been accidentally exposed to chemicals from the bio-weapon that he stole from the bad guys, but they got it back.
Phew! Just an ordinary day in the life of Bauer.
Some outstanding questions/observations:
-- Why, why is there another bad family member in the persona of the president's daughter Olivia running around? I had plenty of bad seed family member drama last season with Jack's father and brother.
-- Why does Larry Moss, head FBI dude, persist in leaping to wild assumptions that Jack has done wrong, gone mad and wantonly killed, when all day long he's proven his allegiance? Yet when the vice president ordered Moss NOT to enter the White House after Moss & Co. believed the terrorists had seized the president, he blew off the VP?
-- Do the characters of 24 experience some kind of special, miracle healing after they've been wounded, a la Lost's island? Otherwise, how do people like FBI agent Renee Walker, who was shot in the neck and buried alive, run around mere hours after sustaining serious wounds?
-- How many lives has Tony Almeida used up already? Is he on his last one yet? If you go by the promo, it seems as though he'll need it because Angelina's daddy seems quite agitated in the promo for next week.
Now we wait 'til Monday to see if Jack "survives" his exposure. But given the news this week that Kiefer Sutherland has signed on for an eighth season, I guess it's no big leap to guess that Jack'll be okay.
We frequently see articles about Hollywood guys helping one another and forming hard drinking or card playing entourages. Last year, we saw a great deal written about the Judd "Knocked Up" Apatow crowd who write for one another and act in one another's films.
The latest case in point for this phenomenon: Paul Rudd, who was in Knocked Up, is featured in Entertainment Weekly'scover story this week in an article that mentioned some of his high-profile Hollywood buds including Jon Hamm and Steve Carell.
However when I read this weekend's article about four women screenwriters in the New York Times, entitled, "An Entourage of Their Own," I realized it's not too often that we read about gal power in Hollywood, where behind-the-scenes female entertainment types support their peeps and form a tight bond. The article focused on four screenwriters who call themselves "The Fempire," whose members include Diablo Cody, who won an Oscar for Juno and writer for the Showtime dramedy The United States of Tara, and Lorene Scafaria, the writer of the critically acclaimed film Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist. The Times noted that well paid female film scribes are scarce saying "among the screenwriters who are in steady demand for major projects, only about 20 are women."
Describing "The Fempire" members as creative sounding boards and as close to one another as family, the article said, "In addition to testing out dialogue and story structure with one another, the four women say they plan to produce one another's work and would even like to form a production company."
This got me to thinking: If we want to see solid films which reflect authentic women's points of view, women scribes need better support systems, like the guys have. I hope that other female entertainment folks read the piece and decide that what we need are more Fempires.
*Warning, spoilers ahead from the recently-aired Desperate Housewives.*
Desperate Housewivesis getting . . . what's the phrase, too cute by half? ABC promised a "shocking" incident during the latest installment of the tales of the Wisteria Laners. Technically, they fulfilled their promise. Edie was literally shocked by a damaged power line after she smashed her car into a utility pole in an accident caused by the creepy Orson Hodge. (What's it with this guy and car accidents anyway? Does this mean DH will recycle an old storyline and have Edie be in a coma and lose her memory a la Mike Delfino?)
The official show web site says Edie was "electrocuted by a downed wire" so I guess we're supposed to take it that she's dead. Emphasis on the word "guess," because we all know Nicollette Sheridan is leaving DH at some point soon. But a New York Postwriter wonders if this is going to be a not-quite-dead-yet trick. God, I hope not.
I, for one, wanted BOTH Katherine Mayfair and Edie's characters to be shown the exits. I've grown tired of them both. Alas, I think we're still going to have Katherine Mayfair to kick around some more, unless of course psycho Dave "Dash" Williams decides he simply must forge ahead with giving Mike the ultimate payback for accidentally running down and killing Dave's wife and daughter. Hopefully, Mrs. McCluskey will come to the rescue, as the only other person who knows about the fact that Dave lost a child. She's the one character who's remained fairly consistent on this show.
As for the ski-masked Orson, to quote 30 Rock's Liz Lemon, "What the, what?" When we were first introduced to Orson Hodge way back when, I used to routinely refer to him on another blog I was writing at the time as "Creepy Orson Hodge." His whole odd marriage to Bree rested on a bed of lies and weirdness, until Bree discovered the truth (that Orson ran over Mike with his car and put him in a coma), and forced Orson to turn himself in. Post-jail, Orson seemed as though he'd been tamed, like a kind, family dog whose wild, stubborn ways had been curbed. He wasn't so creepy anymore. He was just a guy who would go out to the patio and grill for his guests while drinking a beer. Then the stealing began two episodes ago, (though preceded by an odd incident when he insisted Bree make him a roast in the middle of the night) after he inexplicably demanded to be paid like a partner and grew enormously jealous of Bree's success. Now he's back to being Creepy Orson again. Nice Orson was just a blip apparently.
I am growing weary of this back-and-forth. The Orson-Bree marriage seems to be on the brink of divorce all the time, that is when they're not having sex on the test kitchen's counter, as they did back at the beginning of the season. When Bree rebuffed his demand to sell her lucrative business in order to return to being a housewife (What financial sense does that make, considering the ex-con can't get a dentistry gig?), Orson's now going to run around Wisteria Lane wearing a ski mask and stealing trinkets?
The last item that bugged me was the whole Lucy-taking-over-the-office-like-a-maniac business. She demanded that everyone, including Carlos, start logging all manner of crazy hours, nights, weekend, in order to land a $10 million account. She told employees, like Lynette, that she didn't care what kind of family or non-work commitments they had, they had to cancel everything or forget about keeping their jobs. Meanwhile, Carlos, the boss, cowered and obeyed, putting a huge crimp in his home and sex life. Why? He was the boss. He could've said, "No." At least the writers were wise enough to have Gabby point out that he was repeating the work-a-holic behavior that ruined their marriage the first time around. Somehow, this comment -- plus witnessing lunatic Lucy in action deriding a janitorial worker -- snapped Carlos out of his haze and gave him the stones to finally say, "No" to 24/7 work days.
On a positive note, the best moment from the new episode: Gabby and Tom gossiping over coffee. Loved that scene.
Watched the Big Lovefinale on Sunday night and was really surprised by how UNpredictable it was. Normally I find season premieres and finales to be huge let-downs. They're so built up, the expectations for the ratings so high, that they can't help but disappoint. (Lost being an exception to that rule.)
Here's how I figured the finale would go:
Nicki would team up with Alby to wage war against Roman and Adaleen, to keep them off the compound and assume power for themselves. (There's always been a weird vibe between the siblings that could've made for good TV.) I figured that Bill's niece would be liberated from the barbaric Greens on the first attempt but that Roman would continue to evade the long arm of the law. I thought Barb had written off Nicki and that we'd be seeing a season of the polygamist-family-gets-divorced. Or quasi-divorced. A third divorced?
Finale plot turns that I didn't anticipate:
-- Nicki brought her 14-year-old daughter Cara Lynn -- born during Nicki's first, forced underaged marriage to the man who seems to be doing cameos everywhere on TV lately (including Heroes) -- back to the Henricksons'. With Barb's blessing. I get that Barb would want to save Cara Lynn from being placed into the "Joy Book," being forced to give up her schooling and be placed into a marriage, but to have her existence suddenly wipe Nicki's odious slate clean? What gives? Barb has put up with a great deal since entering into polygamy seven years ago, most recently losing her church membership, and Nicki's belligerent betrayal seemed like a deal breaker.
-- I did not expect that Margene would become an instant QVC star. How classic Margene was the scene where she went on air while holding her baby because she couldn't get a sitter? I had imagined that she'd be having jewelry parties a la Silpada or something along those lines. However while everyone else in the Henrickson clan seems to have come unhinged (Barb suggesting she and Bill "rent a womb"?), Margene, usually perceived as the flake, has been grounded and forward-looking since her mom died mid-way through the season. Margene has forged ahead, asserted herself and taken care of business, without asking for permission. It was quite the reversal to see Bill freak out in the finale after he learned she'd sold her car in order to buy clothing, while she remained calm, confidence unshaken. (Had it been Nicki, Nicki would've just charged everything, instead of raising the money her purchases.)
-- Poor, confused, wide-eyed Sarah proposed to Scott? I figured she'd run off with him and live in a city someplace and become hipsters while she went to college. She's been longing to break out on her own and get away from what she saw as her family's suffocating lifestyle, that having her take a pass on college and remain in the Henrickson home seems almost unbelievable. To have her get married at 18? Sounds like Juniper Creek.
-- Speaking of suffocating . . . Joey "smothered" Roman with a pillow, though the chances that Roman is actually dead are extremely low. Roman's too delicious of a rival for the Henricksons for the show's writers to kill off. Without him, we wouldn't have had such a creepy scene like the one where Roman kissed Bill in the finale. Betcha didn't see that one coming. And besides, last season Roman was mortally wounded. This seemed like a redux.
-- Bill declared himself a prophet, okay, he didn't use the word "prophet," but he declared himself the head of his own church. This, to me, proved that the character has spiraled far away from the guy he was in the Big Love pilot, and not for the better. At the beginning of the show, Bill was portrayed as a decent, responsible businessman who just so happened to be a polygamist, who just so happened to have added the family babysitter, 25 years his junior, to his marriage. Since then, Bill's become an almost power-mad, manic presence, darting from place to place, putting out fires and trying to fix things without even asking others what they think. Bill's no longer the nice guy next door with three wives. He's a new, 21st century, suburbanized Roman, only without a Joy Book, prairie-like duds, underaged wives and the lingering threat of violence hovering over anyone who doesn't follow his will . . . yet.
Big Love fans, what was your take on the finale? On the Church of Bill?
Clarification on the current Lost time frame issue: According to Lost Untangled, the castaways Sun, Ben, Lapidus, Locke, et al are in "the here and now." Whatever that means, 2007, I guess. Meanwhile, Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer/LaFleur & Juliet et al are in 1977.
The new ABC-generated Lost Untangled video, while not as snarky as the original ones, is still entertaining nonetheless, particularly when Ben's on the scene. (Link to video here.)
In other Lost news . . . in a story about books and their influence or reference on Lost and Mad Men, the Los Angeles Times' book blog Jacket Copy reported that Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof lists Alice in Wonderland as a major influence. When asked to name one book that influences the show more than others, Lindelof said: "To say there is only one is unfair, but we keep coming back to Alice in Wonderland thematically. That was a book that both [co-creator] Carlton [Cuse] and I remember very specifically as children. It was a gateway drug to sci-fi and fantasy in many ways."
This should come as no big surprise to fans of the show, particularly when one episode was called, "Through the Looking Glass." (Lostpedia has some good material on Alice and white rabbit references in the show.) I'm actually in the process of reading the book for the first time, if you can believe that. Never read it. Just saw the Disney movie as a kid. When I'm done, I'll weigh in here.
I don't know about you, but -- Lost and 24 aside -- I've really been in the mood for some comedic TV fare lately. With news outlets overflowing with stories about AIG bonus rage, back-tax-owing-federal-bailout-recipients and pass-the-buck-finger-pointing coming from the Obama administration and lawmakers, I certainly need to laugh at something other than 401K statements.
That's why I devoted this week's Pop Culture and Politics column on Mommy Track'd to TV's female comedians who are really delivering the funny these days. With the April issue of Marie Claire making the bold declaration that "funny women are having a moment," the timing couldn't be better.
Among the women I highlighted was 30 Rock'sTina Fey, whose kooky Liz Lemon's odd behavior consistently makes me smile . . . speaking of Lemon, tonight's new 30 Rock features the last installment of the Jon Hamm as Dr. Drew Baird story arc.
Random fact I learned after watching an excerpt of Fey's appearance on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon: That fabulous line, "I want to go to there" that Liz Lemon directed toward Jon Hamm's character was the genius of Fey's 3-year-old daughter Alice, uttered while Alice was looking at the Disney World web site.
It's 1977 for the following Lostcharacters: Sawyer . . . 'scuse me . . . Mister LaFleur, Jin, Kate, Jack, Hurley, Sayid, Miles, Juliet and Dan Faraday, wherever he is.
It's an indeterminate year for: Dead-not-dead-resurrected-Jesus-figure formerly known as Locke, Ben, Sun, Lapidus and the other people who had the misfortune of being on the Oceanic 6's flight. (Jeff Jenson from Entertainment Weeklysays these folks are in 2007, though I remain unconvinced that that's been clearly established.)
The obvious outstanding question is: Why? Why were the castaways -- those who got off the island and returned, as well as those who stayed behind -- separated by time, and is there any chance of them meeting up with one another at their current biological ages (or will we see Sun and Jin reunite in the future and do a Benjamin Button thing where one has aged and the other hasn't)?
After reading a couple of reader comments from USA Today's excellent blog Pop Candy's Lost thread, someone floated an interesting, but flawed theory: Maybe Ben Linus cannot return to the island because he's ALREADY on the island, only as a child, the bespeckled boy who gave Sayid the condiment-free sandwich. But that wouldn't explain why Locke, Sun and Lapidas wouldn't flash off the airplane and into the groovy year of 1977 like their Jack & Co. friends did.
Also, there's Christian. Or should we call him Jacob? Or the scary, killer black smoke/mist stuff? Or Jack's dad? Or dead-not-dead(?) Claire's dad? Or all of the above? What to make of him, the man who guided Locke into turning the island's wheel of time?
A couple of other observations from the last episode of Lost:
-- If there's anyone out there who thinks that Jack Shephard is going to sit back and be content to be "Jack, Workman" and clean toilets while Saw. . . Mr. LaFleur runs security and tells the doc what to do, I've got some shares of AIG to sell them. The mano-a-mano Jack-Sawyer blow out is coming. Sanctimonious Jack can't help himself.
-- And I so do not want the writers to go THERE and have Kate and Juliet battle over the greasy-haired Sawyer. That's too Gossip Girl for me.
-- Okay, the Oceanic 6 had to return to the island in order to save those friends they left behind, or so said the church lady, Eloise Hawking. Those who were left behind were "saved" from moving aimless about in time when Locke fixed the wheel thingie in the Orchid Station. So what kind of "saving" does the Oceanic 6 need to do? Preventing the Dharma Initiative purge which elevated bug-eyed Ben to King of The Others?
-- One other thing mentioned by a Pop Candy commenter: Where the heck are Bernard and Rose?
The more I think about the latest round of AIG bonuses -- of which, according to U.S. Rep. Cummings who was on MSNBC this morning, there are likely to be more -- the angrier I become.
The latest news from Bloomberg -- which reported, "American International Group Inc. . . . budgeted $57 million in 'retention' pay for employees who will be dismissed" -- was just icing on the cake.
Reading this New York Times piece this morning while watching Morning Joe, I could literally feel my blood pressure rising. Here are the main arguments for the AIG bonuses:
-- A contract is a contract. (Tell that to the auto makers whose employees have changed terms of their contracts in light of dire economic circumstances. Try to hand that line to the people who had contracts one day, then their companies went out of business, whose companies didn't receive federal bailout money, and those contracts became just worthless pieces of paper.)
-- We should support the bonuses for the smart people still working at AIG, so they won't go to another firm, because they might be able to get the company out of the mess it's in. (You mean the people who got AIG, and by extension, the taxpayers, into this quagmire in the first place?)
-- The government shouldn't be interfering with private contracts at a private company. (You mean the company that's now 80 percent owned by the federal government? The one that's received billions in taxpayer bailout money? The one that wouldn't exist without federal money?)
Bah humbug to all the naysayers who pooh-pooh this justified taxpayer outrage, label it simple-minded populism, and say that the bonus money only represents a tiny fraction of the AIG bailout money so we shouldn't be angry about the bonuses, but instead we should be steamed about the overall mega-bailout. (Me, I'm steamed about it all.)
That being said, Stephen Colbert's spoof on The Colbert Report about the angry, anti-AIG mob was very funny. (Link to the video here.)
So Desperate Housewiveslast night glossed over the absurdity that was the battle between the depressed Tom Scavo and his wife Lynette after their family pizzeria went belly-up over who should seek a PR/marketing job in order to support their family of four. They just pretended that the whole Tom-guzzling-the-beer-on-the-front-lawn-in-his-bathrobe never happened.
Okay. I'll go along with this just as long as we can pretend that the Lynette of the past two seasons never really happened. If the Lynette character can regain her previous mojo, I'm willing to forget the bad years. Whaddya say DH writers?
But the Orson-is-a-kleptomaniac storyline? I liked him better as a sad little sack of a husband trying to redeem himself after doing time in the Big House. I preferred the middle-of-the-road Orson to the creepy Orson from last season or this new disturbed Orson. What is it with Bree Van de Kamp Hodge that she attracts nuts, like the killer pharmacist and now Orson, who nearly killed Mike Delfino when he intentionally ran him down and has now resorting to stealing things from his neighbor to keep his control freak of a wife unhinged?
Speaking of crazy, please tell me that I didn't witness the foreshadowing of Katherine Mayfair's murder at the hand of Dave Williams on the camping trip? (It was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the forehead. However if the writers DON'T go down this road, I'll be pleasantly surprised.)
And, I feel compelled to comment on the much ballyhooed gal-on-gal kiss between Gabby Solis and Susan Mayer. What a publicity stunt. A cheap, disingenuous one at that. It reminded me of the misleading promo ABC ran for Brothers & Sisters when they claimed that during the show's two-hour extravaganza would feature a shocking death. That was technically correct, if you go to the Bill Clinton school of what constitutes the truth. Rob Lowe's character Robert McCallister did flatline during a heart attack, but he was revived in the Emergency Room. I felt totally sandbagged again by ABC last night. I think the DH writers are done a disservice by such disingenuous ABC promotions, using the "I Kissed a Girl" tune. . . maybe they need to hire Lynette.
On the subject of the obscenity that is the $165 million in bonuses AIG handed out to executives this weekend -- particularly given that U.S. taxpayers own 80 percent of the company after shoveling $170 billion into it to keep it afloat -- President Barack Obama is finally singing the same tune the rest of us were singing when we learned about the bonuses to which the company said it was contractually obligated to pay.
The president, who seems to be have taken on an overly ambitious agenda, said in a statement today that this an "outrage:"
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed. Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?
. . . This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values. All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules. That is an ethic we must demand."
The president said he's ordered the Treasury secretary to do everything he could to "block these bonuses." Administration officials also made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit and espoused the same line that this is an outrage. White House economic advisor Larry Summers echoed the president, using the same word "outrageous" to describe the bonuses while on ABC this weekend, but then made excuses by saying that a contractual obligation is a contractual obligation.
If this is indeed such an outrage, shouldn't those AIG folks who accepted billions in public dollars be morally obliged to the taxpayers first, instead of engaging in excuse-making, saying that their contracts, signed under vastly different conditions, should be honored? (The contracts wouldn't even be able to be honored but for the taxpayer money.)
Meanwhile, all across the country, groups of employees are taking voluntary furloughs (sometimes involuntary) in order to avoid layoffs. So why shouldn't those AIG employees who received the bonuses be shamed into NOT accepting that money? Or forced to give it back? What am I not getting here?
If ever there were a subject ripe for satire, it would be the experiences of small town local government officials. And that's the subject area Amy Poehler will be mining in her new The Office-like show, Parks and Recreation, debuting on NBC on April 9.
The show's creators have set up a web site for the city of Pawnee, Indiana where Leslie Knope (Poehler) is deputy director of Parks and Recreation. Looks promising. (Link to promo here.)
It was so brutal last night, when Jon Stewart absolutely destroyed CNBC's Jim Cramer's will to live during his Daily Showinterview that I almost felt badly for Cramer. Thought he'd burst into tears at any moment. He was reduced to a quivering shell. (The first part of the three-part interview is below, link here.)
Several interview post-mortems have called Stewart a new kind of fearless media critic who's doing the work that the "real" journalists won't do, which is holding pundits accountable for what they say on the air and for the impact of those words on others. In the case of the CNBC analysts (Cramer, et al), Stewart's point was that when they urge people to "Buy! Buy! Buy!" stocks in certain companies, people listen because CNBC bills itself as the place for insightful business news from experts in the field. But when their prognostications go awry, the commentators don't own the responsibility for their words . . . until Stewart skewers them, as was Cramer's case last night. THEN they finally admit that mistakes were made.
The Atlantic'sJames Fallows, author of a fantastic book on the media called Breaking the News, likened Stewart's interview with Cramer to interviews by the ground-breaking Edward R. Murrow, noting, "I thought Stewart, without excessive showboating, did the journalistic sensibility proud."
The New York Times' media reporter Brian Stelter observed: "Mr. Stewart questioned Mr. Cramer about the perception that CNBC acts as a cheerleader for the investment community. 'The financial news industry is not just guilty of a sin of omission but a sin of commission,' Mr. Stewart said. Mr. Cramer agreed that he made a number of faulty predictions over the years."
The Associated Press described Stewart as "hammering" Cramer and telling the commentator that the fall-out from his and his colleagues' bad predictions was no joke. AP reported:
"Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesmen, only The Daily Show is labeled as such. He claimed CNBC shirked its journalistic duty by believing corporate lies, rather than being an investigative 'powerful tool of illumination.' And he alleged CNBC was ultimately in bed with the businesses it covered -- that regular people's stocks and 401Ks were 'capitalizing your adventure.'"
This interview harkened back to Stewart's obliteration of CNN's Crossfire in 2004 where the comedian called the political pundits on the carpet for contributing nothing but negativism and bile to our national political discussions and asked them to just "stop." He was as ruthless then as he was last night. (FYI: The quality of the video below isn't great.)
I'm a regular viewer of political chat shows. Morning Joe. This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Fox News Sunday. Meet the Press (a shell of its former self from the Russert years). Hardball with Chris Matthews. But this particular interview, aired on COMEDY Central, was one of the toughest and on-the-money interviews I've seen in some time, even tougher than Katie Couric's Sarah Palin piece. When I turned off my TV last night, I was still stunned by what I'd witnessed.
Okay, I was wholly impressed when Jon Hamm (a.k.a. the dashingly smoldering Don Draper from Mad Men) rocked the house on Saturday Night Live earlier this year. He demonstrated some serious comedy chops, even with a bit as silly as Jon Hamm's John Ham.
Then I watched a new skit he did for Will Ferrell's web site Funny or Die, where he's a bald Lex Luthor asking the president for a federal bailout to help fund his continuing efforts to kill Superman. Wasn't that funny, but I think it was the material more than the delivery. I expected to laugh out loud, but perhaps my expectations were too high. I'd much rather see him as Superman.
The writers and creator of Big Love-- the HBO drama about a Mormon, polygamist family in Utah -- knew they weren't going to win any friends among followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they started airing the critically acclaimed show.
But now word has gotten out that the season finale will include a dramatization of a sacred Mormon ceremony which is supposed to only be seen by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
The show's staff said they researched the ceremony and consulted former Mormons for accuracy, but church members are upset by what they see as a violation, the Associated Press reported. In a statement, church leaders said, "Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding." HBO responded to the controversy by apologizing and saying: "In approaching the dramatization of the endowment ceremony, we knew we had a responsibility to be completely accurate and to show the ceremony in the proper context and with respect. We therefore took great pains to depict the ceremony with the dignity and reverence it is due."
Regardless of the hullabaloo over the temple scene (or scenes, I'm not sure it's one or more), Big Love is down to only two more episodes. And they're shaping up to be intense. The last one, where Nicki was finally unmasked as the manipulating liar she's been -- criminally undermining her father's prosecution by assuming a fake identity (Margene's) to work in the prosecutor's office and then having an emotional dalliance (unconsummated) with the prosecutor -- was one of the strongest episodes of the season, that and the road trip episode.
Any predictions for the last two episodes, other than controversy?
Let me first say this: I'm a big fan of Morning Joe. Love the camaraderie between Joe and Mika. Love the in-depth political conversations in which they engage that sometimes sound like discussions you might overhear in a bar at 12:20 in the morning. I'm a bigggg fan.
Last week, I laughed my fanny off at Jon Stewart's lambasting of CNBC -- Rick Santelli in particular -- for what Stewart saw as aggressive market cheerleading, urging people to buy stocks from companies that, not too long after the buy recommendations were made, collapsed.
When I heard Joe Scarborough yesterday morning talking about Stewart with CNBC's Jim Cramer (Joe felt Stewart was unfairly targeting his CNBC colleagues and cherry-picking prognostications just to make them look foolish), I knew it would get ugly. Cramer, who also appeared on the Today Show that morning, wasn't pleased with Stewart either.
Which, of course, only prodded Stewart to attack anew, and brilliantly, I might add, particularly the part at the end of the segment below (link here) where he had Dora the Explorer weighed in on the war between cable network personalities while Dora's pet monkey Boots offered to throw feces at Joe and Cramer.
Tangential question: Why is Jon Stewart doing the job that the news media should be doing?
Did your DVR breakdown some time last summer or fall? Did you miss any installments of Mad Men'ssecond, award-winning season? Well now you get a second chance.
AMC has begun re-airing episodes on Sundays at midnight, after Breaking Bad. They started last night with the season two premiere. After I watched it, I was again reminded that I have yet to pick up Frank O'Hara's Meditations in an Emergency, which comes up again, later in season two when we learn to whom Don Draper mailed the book.
Is there any one episode to which you're really looking forward to seeing again? I want to again observe Betty Draper slowly unravel and make Don pay for his indiscretions -- starting with episode 8, "A Night to Remember" -- knowing what I know now about what happens in season two's finale.
The Desperate Housewivescrew was back last night after a brief hiatus. The results were mixed.
The Scavos, once the highlight of my TV week, continue to disappoint. Sure Tom and Lynette had to close their family pizzeria amid a tanking economy and the scandal brought on by their no-good teenaged son who was accused of burning down his married lover's husband's nightclub. And now Tom is depressed. He's actually a cartoon character of depression, drinking beer while in his bathrobe, on the front lawn. It was left to Lynette to be pragmatic and take care of the family. Only, here's the thing: Why did Lynette spend so much time trying to get Tom a job when he clearly was in no position to handle the task? Why didn't she, a very experienced and well regarded professional, just get one herself a job and let Tom come to terms with the loss of the pizzeria?
The whole dinner at Bree's -- where Bree was trying to set Tom up to get a job with her PR guy who was looking for a new hire -- was preposterous, even by DH standards. Tom acted like a petulant child, pouting and carrying on, providing flip, clipped answers to a man who was trying to shove a lifeline into his hands. And Tom blew it, at a time when neither he nor his wife had a paying job. Lynette, seeing that Tom wasn't going for the job, made herself a viable alternative, tried to position herself for the post. Instead of continuing to sulk, Tom decided, "Well hey now! Can't have HER getting the job I don't want. Why don't I ruin her chance of getting this job too so we can both drink beer in the front yard while wearing our bathrobes?"
Lynette USED to be a strong character, so why the emphasis on babying Tom's fragile male ego? It was THEIR family business that ended, something for which Lynette sacrificed her high paying career. Why treat Tom like a hothouse flower who needs extra care and attention?
To later see Tom and Lynette laughing in their kitchen -- after Lynette told Bree's PR guy Tom had been fired and Tom said he hoped Lynette's cancer didn't flare up again while she were working for a new company -- that didn't resonate. Not at all. Sure, Tom and Lynette are screwed up, but for parents with four children to feed, clothe and house, this seemed ridiculous.
In other Wisteria Lane news . . . so Gabby did the right thing, demonstrated that she has a heart and chose to kind of come clean (actually she just refused to keep lying) about the fact that Carlos' boss was cheating on his pregnant wife, even if it did cost Carlos his six-figure job and hefty bonus. She's not the Grinch; we knew Gabby already had a heart. This was no big surprise. I want the paunchy, regular Gabby back, pretty please. She had more spunk. And no, I don't care if Carlos' boss' wife stuck a knife in the boss' back.
What DID I like about the recent episode? Surprisingly, I found Susan Mayer to be exceptionally gracious as her ex-husband moved in with Katherine Mayfair across the street from her, even if Susan did go rooting around Katherine's garage to prove that Katherine was a liar. I feel badly for Susan, not Katherine. Susan -- who'd been betrayed and humiliated by her first husband when he cheated on her -- lost her second husband's heart the moment they were involved in a fatal car accident which killed Dave Williams' wife and son (whose last names were Dash). Mike and Susan divorced because the guilt was too much. For Mike. Susan tried to save their relationship but he was unwilling to do so. Now Susan is the one who has to try to tiptoe around Katherine? I think not.
Which brings me to my last beef . . . Gabby and Susan kissing, as has been widely reported, as well as teased in the preview for next week's episode featuring the "I Kissed a Girl" excerpt, irritates me greatly. It's such a cheap and naked ratings ploy, no matter how it's written into the storyline. Desperate Housewives is consistently a top 10 show. They don't need a ploy.
Your thoughts on the recent Desperate Housewives' episode and the Susan-Gabby kiss they're heavily promoting?
The Colbert Report's Stephen Colbert lampooned professional media prognosticators -- the same ones skewered by Jon Stewart -- who've been aggressively advising President Barack Obama to be more positive about our dour economic situation, despite the negative Dow numbers and layoff notices.
So Colbert interviewed CNBC's Jim Cramer (who was smacked around in Stewart's 8-minute anti-CNBC barrage on The Daily Show) while images of puppies and kittens ran behind Cramer's head. Colbert said the footage -- puppies frolicking in a meadow, with giant bows around their necks -- would make people feel more "comfortable" and possibly stop shoving all their money under their mattresses.
I couldn't stop laughing. (Link to the video here.)
I, like, the rest of the informed citizenry, have been greatly distressed about the economic news as of late. It's so dire and bleak. It seems as though a huge black hole has opened up and all these solid American companies (or companies we thought were solid and would be around forever, like Ford), are hurtling into it . . . that's when those companies aren't being thrown lifelines worth trillions of dollars in taxpayer money with no guarantee that the money will stave off further disaster. (The New York Timesbreaks down the sordid amounts here.)
Even the normally optimistic Brian Williams is so down in the dumps these days that at the end of his NBC Nightly News broadcast last night, he put out a call for viewers to send in feel good stories about folks who are doing good things for others so that he could report on something positive for a change.
Yes, it's gotten that bad.
Columns like Maureen Dowd's yesterday, detailing the obscene pork (8,000+ items including funds for "pig odor research," "catfish genetics research" and a tattoo removal program for gang members) in the proposed federal budget -- pork which Senator Obama said he'd eliminate when he was campaigning for president, but now that he's the Commander in Chief, he and his people are saying that the pork in this proposed budget is President Bush's fault, not his -- just make things feel hopeless.
Then I saw Jon Stewart. Thank God for Jon Stewart. I don't normally tune into The Daily Show, despite the constant pleadings of my friend Gayle who's a major Stewart fan. I usually watch local news at 11 p.m. and then go to bed. But I digress . . . Jon Stewart was supposed to have as a guest the now infamous CNBC analyst Rick Santelli, he of the much-ballyhooed rant against the Obama administration's housing bailout proposal and how it would reward bad behavior and help people who bought more house than they could afford, people who Santelli called "losers" who made bad decisions.
But Santelli canceled his Daily Show appearance. And I'm so glad he did.
What Stewart & Co. aired instead was a damningly hysterical and tragic indictment of how business journalists, specifically from CNBC, blew the coverage of this economic crisis, how they cheered on large businesses -- which are now receiving mucho bailout bucks -- and that the CNBC staff are no better than the "losers" who made bad home loan decisions. (Video link here.)
Sure, we may not know what the future holds and just how bad this economy will get, but at least we know we'll have guys like Stewart to make us laugh through our tears.
I know this is going to make me seem unbelievably unhip and old and all, but I've been unable to stay awake to watch one of my favorite bands, U2, on David Letterman this week. For those who hadn't heard, they're the musical guests on Letterman each night this week aggressively promoting their new CD. I've just been too tired and haven't even bothered to DVR Letterman so I could fast-forward to watch their performances. I did make a valiant effort on Monday night though, but fell asleep before the first guest, Katie Couric, came on stage.
I haven't seen Jimmy Fallon's new chat show either this week. If I can't stay up to watch Letterman, definitely can't make Fallon. Last time I watched Late Night was when I had a baby in the house and that was some seven years ago.
Courtesy of YouTube, I saw U2 band mates doing Letterman's Top Ten list last night. It was mildly amusing, some funny in there, but it didn't seem like they were all that thrilled to be doing it.
Before you ask, no, I haven't yet downloaded the new U2 songs. I know, what heresy! Makes me not a "real" fan, yadda, yadda, yadda! (I'm sure my brother, a "dedicated" fan already downloaded the songs.) Whatever. It's not like the songs are going to be "spoiled" for me like a TV show or film's twists and turns could be ruined if you hear about them before watching.
For the U2 fans in the house, have you already downloaded the new songs? What do you think? Critics seem to be giving it mixed reviews and have been less than enthusiastic.
24 -- which has been getting some critical praise this season -- is airing a two-hour Jack-stravaganza tonight. (Guess Greg House & Co. are taking a break.) My DVR's in ready mode, lest I get delayed by any small people in my house who try to thwart my Bauer fix.
I was extremely surprised that the 24 writers wrapped up the Dubaku storyline so quickly and have already moved on to a different chapter of the seventh day, involving the possible targeting of the White House by angry terrorists and the president being held hostage. (Washington, and possibly the White House, are also potential targets in Heroes, which also airs on Monday nights. Interesting. Wonder what to make of that?)
The pacing, thus far, has been good, the tension deftly amped up. I've been impressed, considering the mess that was the previous season, however I thought it inane to see Dubaku hit the pause button on his bad ass activities in order to deal with his gal pal and discuss lasagna . . . but what do I know about the mind of the 24 bad guys?
I was unhappy to read the trial balloon floated in Newsdaythat creators are considering having Jack and FBI agent Renee Walker have some kind of romantic somethin', somethin'. Verne Gay quoted 24 producer Howard Gordon as saying that there may be something brewing between those two in the future. Maybe the recent face-slapping Renee gave Jack -- "Do you feel this?" -- turned him on. I just don't want to see Renee Walker turned into Audrey Raines. I'd rather watch Dubaku eating lasagna.
Took my twin 10-year-olds to see the dark, animated film Coralinerecently, and was thrilled to learn that my kids took a good message away from it: You should be grateful for what you've got, parent-wise. (At least they SAID that's what they took away from it. They could've been playin' me, who knows?)
The movie features an 11-year-old girl, Coraline Jones, who's frustrated that her work-from-home writer parents don't make her the center of their universe and are too busy working all the time. When Coraline's given the opportunity to visit an alternative world, where her mom and dad appear to be the perfect parents who dote on her and serve all manner of goodness her way, she learns that there's a sinister side to getting everything you think you desire.
