RSS Feed

Category Archives: Television

In Treatment: The best show on TV?

Posted on

In Treatment, HBO’s adaptation of award-winning Israeli series Be’Tipul, is a fascinating window into the relationship of a therapist and a patient.

Now, three weeks into its third season, I’d consider it one of the best shows on TV.

The show, which airs four (formerly five) days a week featuring a different patient each day, is unlike any show I’ve ever seen.  It’s utterly exhausting to watch, yet more intimate and well thought out than anything else around.

The interaction between therapist and patient is voyeuristic and addictive. For anyone who’s ever been in therapy, it is somehow validating to see how frustrating and painful the experience can be.  Therapists are annoying – not just when they’re right about something you don’t want to admit to, but when they completely misunderstand what you’re trying to say.  In Treatment is like having a friend in therapy to relate to, without having to give anything of yourself up.  It’s painful, frustrating, emotionally draining, and incredibly comforting all at once.

Gabriel Byrne is Dr. Paul Weston.  He’s consumed by his patients, yet troubled by his own life.  His wife (Michelle Forbes) and kids are mostly neglected, he has daddy issues, and trouble with boundaries.

But what makes the show even more interesting is to see Paul’s sessions with his own therapist Gina (Dianne Wiest) in seasons one and two, and Adele (Amy Ryan) in season three.  Because therapy relationships are so one-sided, patients rarely have any inkling that it really may be a situation of the blind leading the blind.  Therapists are messed up people too.  And as anyone who’s ever given advice to a friend knows, it’s always easier to fix other people’s problems than it is to fix your own.

I started watching the show in reverse order – starting with Season 2 – because it was on TMN and I figured why not?  I was immediately obsessed.

I related strongly to Allison Pill’s character, April, as a young, independent, responsible girl who feels compelled to carry the burden of everyone’s happiness on her shoulders.  She wants to be loved, wants to help, and is incredibly empathic, yet appears tough and cold to outsiders.

The show isn’t perfect, of course. Season one apparently follows Be’Tipul – almost word for word at times – which means that the flaws were adapted.

Paul’s charater in therapy is too angry, and too irrational to be believable – though this gets better as the show progresses.  While it is interesting to see how differently a therapist might act when faced his own problems, I don’t believe he could work as a therapist for so many years without any introspection, or without any understanding of how therapy works or even of the process.   The situation improves in season two, and is off to a good (yet still confrontational) start in season three.

The other major flaw of the show is that the characters in season two very strongly parallel the characters in season one.

Sophie (Mia Wasikowska) and April, though very different story lines, are effectively the same character.  They are young, and Paul reacts and cares for them like they were his daughter (despite not reacting to his own daughter that way).  They both have strong, independent personalities, and are smart yet distrustful.  They both need, or have had the perceived need, of  taking care of themselves because the adults in their lives don’t.  Both also have enormous responsibility at a very young age (Alison Pill with her brother, and Sophie with her gymnastics.

Laura (Melissa George) and Mia (Hope Davis) are desperate for Paul’s attention (can you say “daddy issues”?) yet confrontational –often demanding personal details — in order to feel like they are being heard and validated.

Alex (Blair Underwood) is a navy pilot with a school bombing on his conscience and Walter (John Mahoney)  is a high-powered executive.  Different, right? But they’re both brash and full of bravado, both show people their importance be making people feel unimportant, and neither has any awareness of their feelings yet know deep down that something isn’t right.

Do similar character types matter? Maybe not – not everyone watches TV with such a critical eye, after all.  And the show is still compelling, well written and directed, and completely unique.  But when a show is so close to perfect, I expect more of it.

But even in its worst episodes, In Treatment sure comes close to perfection.  And if the amazing start to season three is an indicator of the rest of the season, you should definitely watch it.

Christina Hendricks takes it off.

Posted on

The weight, that is. Well maybe. She might be thinking of it. Or something.christina-hendricks-london-fog1

Which leads me to ask: Can we please stop talking about Christina Hendrick’s weight? When I google “Christina Hendricks weight” I get 266,000 results. It sounds like we need to change the conversation.

To what?

Well, for one, who made Hendricks the poster child for plus size women in Hollywood?  She certainly didn’t.  In fact, she’s said numerous times that she doesn’t like when people talk about her weight because it makes her self-conscious. So maybe we should talk about our obsession with women’s bodies as their entire value? Or perhaps we need to talk about our need to fetishize women who are different, while at the same time tearing them down?

And let’s stop pretending that we’re actually OK with “real” looking women in Hollywood (ignoring that Hendricks is far from the average “real” person). If we were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I get that we like to live vicariously through women like Hendricks: “If she’s OK with her body, then maybe I can be too.” But self-hate comes from within. It sure is nice to see healthy women on TV, but that’s not a solution.

Now someone out there is surely screaming “I don’t hate my body, you jerk! I just like that Hendricks is good role model.”

Great. But instead, let her be a role model for controlling her own body not for maintaining an idealized weight.  Because bullying a woman into maintaining a plus size so she can be your role model is just as bad as bullying her into being skinny.

 

Colbert at Congress

Posted on

I want to have Jon Stewart’s babies.  It’s no secret.  And when it happens, I’d be willing to let Stephen Colbert be their Godfather because kids need a little satire in their lives.

But I’d have to shut things down when he started making jokes that went way over their head, much like he did at the recent congressional hearing on America’s farms.

Congress really isn’t the place for Colbert’s schtick.   He knows it.  They knew it.

Most of the testimony was out of place and awkward to watch.  The punch lines were funny – though the room mostly remained silent – but a waste of time in a five minute testimony. By the looks on many of the faces, people didn’t take him seriously either.

That’s too bad.

His celebrity brings attention to the issues (I, for one, have never watched C-Span on my own) and his right-wing character brings to light the ridiculousness of racist politicians and American citizens.  But where he is most effective (like Stewart) is when he drops the act.

He made some really important and powerful points – like the fact that the jobs are just being sent to Mexico anyway, that these jobs are really hard work, and many “Americans” (in the legal sense) aren’t exactly pounding down the door to get them.

Maybe we could offer more visas to the immigrants who, let’s face it, will probably be doing these jobs anyway.  And this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse if they’re abused.  And it just stands to reason to me that if your coworker can’t be exploited, then you’re less likely to be exploited yourself. And that itself might improve pay and working conditions on these farms and eventually Americans might consider taking these jobs again. Or maybe that’s crazy . . . The point is, we have to do something.

So go on celebrities, testify.  Just leave the schtick at home and show us why we spend so much time making you rich.

Dear Shonda: The emotions of Grey’s Anatomy

Posted on

(SPOILER ALERT)

Grey’s Anatomy has never been dull. That’s the problem.

There was a time when tv shows left you hanging in suspense when the main character was in a tragic car accident, or mysteriously got cancer. We held our breath as we waited to learn the fate of our beloved.

But then the audience wised up and figured that the main characters didn’t get killed. So then we had the big switch where main characters could die.

(If you’re curious, here’s a website that has taken the time to list a bunch of people who have died on TV.)

And then there’s Shonda Rimes – creator of Grey’s Anatomy, Private Practice, and her most profound piece of work, Crossroads.

She can’t resist the drama, even at the expense of good writing.

In the season finale of Private Practice — the show I left Grey’s for because it was less stressful — Maya and Dell get into a car accident.  After a tearful goodbye to his daughter (whose mother died earlier in the season) Dell dies on the table.

It was sad, and predictable.  Because that’s Shonda Rhime’s style.

Also in the finale Addison and Sam finally hookup, and Violet and Pete finally reunite.  That sounds great in theory, but unfortunately it was completely obvious 7 episodes ago.  We knew Addison and Pete’s relationship couldn’t last – it was too heavily focussed on the baby, and avoiding the people they truly wanted.  So when things fell into place it was anti-climactic, to say the least.  It was also lazy writing.

And then there’s Grey’s Anatomy.  I unsuccessfully tried to quit the show after last season.  It was always stressful and I couldn’t handle it.  I thought that meant that there was something wrong with me, that I was a wimp.

But when I saw the previews for tonight’s 2-hour season finale, I realized it wasn’t my fault. It was Shonda’s.

There was a shooter in Seattle Grace hospital.  The previews revealed Meredith’s pregnancy – a fact which not only insists that the audience to care 10 times as much, but guarantees that Meredith or Derek would get shot.

Yes, it was very intense, gripping, and totally watchable, but still somehow empty.

It’s disappointing because Rhimes really is a good writer, she just tries too hard and doesn’t know how to create subtle drama.

Chandra Wilson, who plays Dr. Bailey, said this when asked if someone would die on tonight’s finale: “Of course. It’s Grey’s Anatomy!”

At least I’m not the only one who wasn’t surprised.

Good shows need to be able to keep my attention and Grey’s Anatomy does that.  But it’s a bit like being in a stale relationship: If there’s nothing new, no surprises, and you always know what’s going to happen, why bother?

Idol Top 3: Jumping out of the woods

Posted on

Well thanks a lot for ruining my prediction, Lee Dewyze! When everyone was just sufficiently boring, you had no chance of winning and I thought Casey would skate through on good looks.  Then you had to go and be awesome.  You were trending on Twitter for Christ’s sake and you weren’t singing with Bieber!

That being said, Casey, you were surprisingly good too. Just when I was ready to quit you.

Mad at Mad Men

Posted on

Mad Men Barbies
Season 3 Spoiler Alert

I’ve had a hard time with Mad Men from the very beginning. After watching the first episode I was so overwhelmed by the “boys club” dynamics and the way the men treated the women that I had virtually no interest in the show.

But after having a few more episodes on in the background as I was at my desk I became curious.

Overall, it is incredibly well done.  It’s a show about over-indulgence, boredom, and the failure of the American Dream, but the writers don’t feel the need to hit us over the head with it.

Everything looks great: It’s authentic (as far as I can tell) and none of the details are overlooked.  The writing is generally strong, and most of the actors are phenomenal.

There are some intriguing characters. Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss) is feisty and thrives in an environment she shouldn’t. Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks) is smart, tough, and in control. They’re both complicated, but that’s what makes them interesting.

But I’ve never been able to appreciate the men.

Though they may be well written, they’re simply vile personalities.  They’re disrespectful and rude, they cheat on their wives and back-stab each other.

While Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is the only one who gets much of a back story (and a convoluted and mysterious one at that), his present story is  full of philandering and lying to his wife – just like the other guys’.  Draper, with his classic good looks, gives most people an orgasm just for walking on screen, but I can’t stand him.  His damaged past doesn’t make him any more appealing to watch.

While it bothers me that the men of Sterling-Cooper seem to be incapable of monogamy, that along doesn’t make me hate the show.  It does, however, make it incredibly hard to feel engaged because I dislike the majority of the characters.

But what I can’t understand is the rape.

The first instance was a particularly disturbing scene in season two when Joan’s boyfriend, Greg, gets jealous and rapes her in Don’s office.  It was extremely hard to watch, but I was convinced that it would be resolved before the end of the season.  It wasn’t.

Even if spousal rape wasn’t illegal (it became illegal in US States between 1975 and 1993) women knew it was wrong. In season three Joan and Greg’s relationship is deteriorating. By making their problems about Greg’s general bad attitude instead about the abuse, it suggests that women in the sixties were willing to put up with anything if it meant marrying a doctor.

I haven’t finished watching season three yet, so maybe there’s a consequence for Greg still to come.  But as far as I’m concerned, it’s already 10 episodes later and would be too little too late.

If this wasn’t bad enough, Pete Campbell has become a rapist too.

Campbell wasn’t a particularly good guy for much of the first two seasons.  He cheated on his wife, toyed with Peggy’s emotions, and attempted to blackmail Don.

But by season three he seemed to be getting his act together.

That is, until a neighbour’s au pair needed help after she ruined her boss’ dress.  The girl feared she would deported so Pete offered to help her out.

He got the dress replaced, returned it to the girl, and asked her on a date (his wife was out of town).  The girl refused.  Later, Pete got drunk, went to the girl’s apartment and told her that she owed him for his help (and as such for helping her keep her job and her US residency).

He insisted she let him and model the dress. She reluctantly did.  When they got to the bedroom, he closed the door and forcefully kissed her.  The sex is implied, but not shown.

The scene played out more like one of Pete’s seduction scenes instead of what it really was: Rape. He might not have held her down, but he might as well have.  After all, for consent to mean anything there needs to be a balance of power.

This is very different than Joan’s rape, and is clearly not meant to illicit the same sort of reaction.

The next day the girl’s male boss confronts Pete.  The girl had spent the day crying.  I was expecting the man to, at the very least, punch Pete.  I wanted a reaction. I wanted a consequence.  But he only threatened Pete and told him  to stay away.

When Pete’s wife, Trudy, returned home, she figured out that Pete had “cheated.”  She was temporarily upset.  Luckily, any pain the perceived cheating caused her was fixed when Pete insisted Trudy not go on vacation anymore without him.  Clearly Pete’s actions were Trudy’s fault.  We all know that men can’t help themselves, right?

I always feel really upset by rape in a story line.  It seems to happen so frequently now that I have come to expect it.

In many cases it is just lazy writing.  It is a plot device that can only be used against women and as such is usually used to demonstrate their weakness.  There are few times when it adds much to the story because the motivations for rape in movies and books often don’t fit true motivations: Violence, power and control.

As much as I was disturbed by Joan’s rape and am upset that it doesn’t appear to have had a significant impact on her relationship, at least the motivation made sense.  Greg was jealous and wanted to assert his masculinity and power.  I don’t like it, but at least viewers won’t forgive him.

But in Pete’s case, it appears to have been about loneliness.  We know that rape isn’t about sex, and yet this scene was.  Not only does this undermine the victim’s experience, it tells audiences that this kind of rape isn’t real rape.

By creating any sort of hierarchy in understanding what rape is, we’ll never be free of it.

Idol Final 4: Spoiler

Posted on

Ok. So Aaron Kelly went home.  I’m totally OK with that, but I am surprised. I thought he’d coast along like Archuleta or that guy who won last year that no one can remember. So much for boyish good looks.

But lets be honest here: No matter who wins this season, no one is really going to care anyway.

Let’s call this the RuClayTasia factor. Boring.

Are you watching Glee? Could you let me in on the joke?

Posted on
Photo By watchwithkristin on FlickrPhoto By watchwithkristin on Flickr

If you’re not familiar with Glee by now you must be living under a rock.  After all, the hit TV show has not only garnered a huge fan base, but has spawned albums and a tour.

But I don’t get it.

I don’t just mean I dislike it, though I do, I really have no idea what the hell it is supposed to be.

Is it inspirational? A musical? A comedy? If you’d agree with any of the above, we must be watching different shows.

I’ve heard the writing described as “smart” and “funny.”  Jane Lynch is funny, but Jane Lynch is the only one who knows she’s on a comedy. And because Lynch’s character is so over the top, everyone else is just underwhelming.

If you look at a show like The Office or Parks and Recreation, you see a cast full of weirdos, being really weird.  They’re hilarious and really well done.

But Glee feels like an after school special.  I am half expecting them to suggest “Hugs Not Drugs” – or at least I would be if they weren’t so preoccupied with trying to cover pop songs.

I don’t hate musicals like The Guardian’s Stuart Hedge.  In fact, I really like good musicals (Grease, Wicked, Chicago, The Sound of Music, and Mama Mia even).  But Glee isn’t really a musical, it’s a karaoke show based on a bunch of kids who are supposed to be misfits… or losers… or something (they’re no Breakfast Club).  I guess I’m supposed to be able to identify with them, but I don’t.

And yet, with the exception of the general musical haters, I seem to be mostly on my own on this.

Needless to say, I was pleased to see the dissent starting from gossip blogger Lainey:

They just sing at each other. And look really great doing it. But when you break it down, really, it’s just one long music video with Sue Sylvester occasionally flinging a zinger.  . . .  what’s stopping me from listening to the original versions of every song and saving an hour of tv time in the process?

The masses might not have been with me at the beginning, but at this rate they’ll be with me in the end!

My American Idol Crystal Ball

Posted on

Casey James is going to win season 9 of American Idol.  I’m calling it.

If you had asked me a few weeks ago I wouldn’t have said that.  I have no idea what I would have said because I have felt mostly disengaged this season.  Since the end of Hollywood week, this season has been incredibly dull.

So why Casey?

He is ridiculously beautiful.  Casey James is the reality TV version of Smith Jared from Sex and the City.

Casey James and Smith Jared Comparison

That’s not to say he’s not talented – he is – but his beauty is distracting. He’s also had a creepy perma-smile for almost the entire competition which, coupled with his beauty, made him appear rather plastic and disconnected from his music.

But a few weeks ago he had a stellar performance that really made be take him seriously.

Then tonight he sealed the deal with his rendition of “Jealous Guy” by John Lennon.  He didn’t sound like a guy in a cover band (don’t get me wrong, I LOVE cover bands. But I don’t want to buy a cover band CD when I could have something original and special), he sound like a legitimate musician.

James gets better every week.  He’s had a impressive voice all along, but his performances are finally matching his voice and his face.  The whole package.  Winner.

And what about the losers?

Crystal Bowersox is by far the most talented person on the show.  She would be a great folksy-pop-rock-country king of singer-songwriter – someone like Bonnie Rait.  She’s cool, and a hippie, and really pretty when you don’t look at her teeth.  She’s also consistently good, and on a different level than some of the other contestants.

But there is something about her consistency that isn’t holding my attention.  There are no surprises.

I think one of the most compelling parts about Idol is watching contestants grow as the season progresses.  Young contestants like Jordin Sparks from season six or even Katie Stevens from this season make really interesting TV because they have untapped talent.  Watching them change helps me to feel like we’re going on a musical journey together.

But Katie isn’t ready yet.  She has a lovely voice, and did really well this week, but she is just too inexperienced for a season with this many talented singers.  Also, she’s dull.

I think it is possible that Lee Dewyze that is going to sneak up and get really good. He has an amazing voice, and this week he was phenomenal with “Hey Jude” (and I loved the bagpiper).  But in general he looks awkward on the stage.

“Big Mike” did a great performance of “Eleanor Rigby” this week.  It was the first time that I actually gave a damn about him – he was edgy, powerful, dark and in control.  But the people of America didn’t vote for him and he would have gone home.  The judge’s save makes for good TV, but I’m not convinced that people just forgot to vote for him this week.  He’s talented, but people don’t like him enough.

And finally Siobhan Magnus.  Sometimes she’s amazing, and sometimes her voice is grating.  She’s got talent and I think it is likely she will have some sort of a career.  But she’s polarizing, and inconsistent.

As for the rest of them? Not worth the effort to type.

Take note, Taylor Swift

Posted on

Didi Benami doing “Rhiannon” on idol last night.

And if you dare, Taylor Swift and Stevie Nicks at the 2010 Grammy Awards.

My Unusual Olympic Fury

Posted on

**Disclaimer: if you really love the Olympics and all that comes with it, don’t bother reading this.  It will only piss you off.

Normally I don’t care about the Olympics.  Not even a little.  But all the hype leading up to it, and the coverage during the games has turned my apathy into anger.

I’m not irritated for the more “obvious” reasons, ranging from complaints about stealing First Nations land, huge municipal costs, and wasted money that should have been spent on social problems – mostly because those problems exist outside of the Olympic games too.

And I don’t have anything against athletes, or the state sponsoring athletes (unless the State is Russia, but that’s a different story).  In fact, though I have little interest in most sports, I truly admire the things that Olympic athletes can accomplish.

But what I really can’t stand is the ridiculous lead up and inescapable manufactured patriotism.

I Believe“, the gag-worthy CTV Olympic theme song that seems to get played every three minutes during the games, and several times a night leading up to the games, is still number one on iTunes (Canada). “I believe in the power that comes from a world brought together as one, I believe together we’ll fly.”  Somehow this translates into Olympic victory?  Maybe if I believe hard enough, Canada will win.

The images of previous Olympic victories demonstrate the very real emotion the games can bring out in the athletes and the spectators.  But the lame lyrics, and images of children’s choirs and waving flags turn clips of a highpoint in those athlete’s lives into cheesy propaganda.

Since the hype on TV (not to mention the giant clock in Vancouver that’s been counting down to the games for several years) is enough to keep me disinterested, I usually don’t watch any of the events unless they happen to be on.  But this past weekend I was out of town visiting friends who are Olympic fans, so we watched the Men’s Mogul event.

As good luck would have it, that was the event to watch.  Alexandre Bilodeau’s gold medal victory was the first of its kind on Canadian soil.

Bilodeau was ecstatic.  So was his brother, Frederic, who we would later learn was Alex’s biggest inspiration.  I felt happy for Bilodeau, despite not giving a damn about mogul skiing.  I felt happy, and then I wanted to move on.  But CTV wouldn’t let me.

Instead of switching the coverage to a different event so that I could be happy for another athlete, I was stuck watching 20 minutes of CTV “analysis” of the event — not about skill or even about the sport, just force-fed feelings.

They re-played footage of his run, and panned the crowd and the excited faces of spectators.  I saw Bilodeau’s disabled brother Frederic’s cheering face no fewer than 5 times, followed up by a segment called “The Difference Makers” — a pre-arranged interview with both Bilodeau boys about Alex’s success.

If it hadn’t been given the cheesy title of “Difference Makers” and I hadn’t been told repeatedly that Frederic was his inspiration, I would still have been very touched by their story.  It was a very lovely story.  But instead, all the clutter distracted me from the message.

So instead of appreciating Bilodeau’s win and story, I’m pissed off at the artificial nature of the whole thing.

As a viewer, I wasn’t trusted enough to feel emotions about the story on my own.  I don’t appreciate having my intelligence questioned – certainly not by a cable network.

Let’s put aside the question of why it is so much more important to win events on Canadian soil and how that makes other gold medals seem so much less important.  I want to know why this fabricated nationalism needs to be shoved down our throats in order for us to support athletes?

I don’t doubt that many people were very excited for this win.  But I wish that as a country, we were given the opportunity to be excited, or even not excited based, because of real feelings, not because a newscast was manipulating our emotions.

Good journalism reports facts and events, it doesn’t create them.  The games, and Bilodeau’s win were events worth watching and reporting on.  The extra features don’t add to the story, they detract from it.  And they piss me off.

Speak Often, Jon

Posted on

I don’t really know why huge facets of the American media are so unreasonable (also sensationalist, racist, ignorant, inaccurate, and irresponsible). I also don’t know why Jon Stewart speaks brilliantly, so infrequently.

Stewart joined the ranks of the right in their den at Fox News — to Bill O’Reilly’s show to discuss the state of America, and his thoughts on Obama. Watch the video here (but be prepared to buffer!)

Jon Stewart is a very smart man, though you wouldn’t necessarily know it if you’ve only seen his show occasionally. While it clearly takes a good brain to  make thought-provoking jokes, it’s often difficult to take Stewart seriously when he’s criticizing a president, or a news organization in a stupid voice.

But then there are those brilliant times, like this time with O’Reilly, that I really have to stop and catch my breath.

I’ve reached a point where reasonable, intelligent words coming out of American media hosts is completely unexpected. Sure, not all of them are nut-bar, Teabaggers, but it is extremely rare to see anyone making points, whether positive of negative, without a hidden agenda.

Maybe I have low-standards, but Jon like this makes me swoon.

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

The Day That CBC Broke My Heart

Posted on

It has been just over a week since the finale of Being Erica. It has taken me this long to calm down enough to be able to compose some “intelligent” thoughts about how I feel about it.

“Feel? Really Lizz? But it is just a TV show!” Sure. But if TV shows had no effect on your emotions then they’re wouldn’t really be doing their jobs. Even reality TV makes you think about something – albeit maybe just how much you don’t want to eat cow brains.

But back to Erica.

It wasn’t just the bad acting, indulgent story lines, or overall bad writing – all of which is true and I will get to – but mostly I was just so completely offended by the plot that it actually drove me to tears of anger. This was the big story, the one we’d all been waiting for: Leo’s death. The preview for this episode had been scrolling on the website for many weeks before, and Dr. Tom told us in the very first episode that Erica couldn’t go back and save Leo. And yet, they went there anyway.

What I was so incredibly offended by is that this episode was written like all the other episodes – as if saving or not saving her brother was the same as telling the truth about her party at Casa Loma or being bold enough to fire a bad writer at work. Leo’s death, which is hyped up as a pivotal moment in Erica’s life – was reduced to a lesson about …. well actually, I’m not sure. Either way, the trauma of sending Erica back to watch her brother die was never given the power it so obviously deserved.

Let’s back-track a bit.

Summary: It is the anniversary of Erica’s brother Leo’s death. We sit through 15 minutes of superfluous indulgence where Erica and Ethan gush about how happy they are, how stressed Erica is about the anniversary, and how her parents react every year. Next, in an odd attempt at curing her family’s collective guilt for Leo’s fiery death, Erica suggests they rebuild the barn he died in. Blah, blah, blah, her mother finds Leo’s cigarette case and falls apart in a tremendous display of bad acting. Enter Dr. Tom.

Ordinarily Dr. Tom is entertaining enough. He spouts out quotations that you know some eager writer has been scouring the Internet for daily, tells Erica what she is doing wrong and what the lesson is she should have learned. In this case, Dr Tom gets hyper and gloomy (if those can really happen at the same time) and tells Erica she can go back to the time of Leo’s death if she PROMISES not to try and save his life. She promises. She just wants to help her family get over it.

So let’s stop right here. If the point of this was that Dr Tom actually knows that she will fuck up and save Leo – as any human on the planet would do if they knew their brother (or anyone I’d hope) was about to die- and the lesson was that her years of guilt were unfounded because shit happens, then great. The trouble is that apparently Dr. Tom was turned into an idiot, sent her back to do something he knew she couldn’t do, then got ANGRY with her for doing that thing she couldn’t have done. Setting aside all the reasons it is inaccurate, and offensive to have her therapist be angry at her for sending her to complete an impossible task, it was all just an awkward set up for a new, higher-up “therapist”. If you write the end of the story before the beginning then there is no natural flow.

Then it turns out that Erica is actually a bad person if Leo doesn’t die when he’s 21 – which I guess means the whole show about fixing her unambitious, aimless life is useless since the whole reason she didn’t “go anywhere” was just because Leo died. The show also falls into the butterfly effect category that it has managed to avoid all season. This show was special because Erica’s time traveling actions were about self-discovery and improvement, rather than being a typical change the past/future show where everything inevitably falls apart because you have messed with the space-time continuum. The beauty of this show was always that it wasn’t about the time traveling itself, it was about the lessons learned in it. Apparently some over-zealous writer forgot that, or maybe didn’t know that to begin with. But this is still not what really bothered me.

Leo dies again in the butterfly effect life. So then Erica must go back to the original time to let him die how he was supposed to (I guess so that she could stop being the bad person she is in the new life). She goes back, encourages Leo to write a letter (which magically solves her family’s guilt problems despite having nothing to do with the fact that they couldn’t get him out of the fire) and then stands in front of the burning barn with a tear running down her face as her brother burns alive.

Is no one else disturbed by this?! She watches her brother burn alive! BURN ALIVE! Then in real time she gets back up on the horse, delivers Leo’s letter, and tells Ethan about how good the weekend is.

There were all sorts of poorly-acted emotions from the entire cast, but none that reflected the trauma of watching your brother die. Not even to mention the trauma that follows when her therapist, with whom she had spent months building up a relationship of trust with, abandons her because she failed. What were they thinking?

Someone over there at CBC better clean up their act and decide what kind of show they are trying to make before they even think about writing a second season. If not, I hope they set Erin Karpluk free to pursue well written shows where her acting ability isn’t the only thing holding it together.

Which L Word is it?

Posted on

The L Word – everyone’s favourite show of overly-dramatic, over-sexed, crazed lesbians. But I mean those as good things. On Tuesday night (in Canada) the show ended after 6 seasons.

I’ve been a big fan of the L Word – watching quite religiously for the entire series, but at the end of the show on Tuesday night I wasn’t sure how I felt about it ending. I’ve often had mixed reactions when shows I’m into end. Usually it is because they started out fabulously (or my standards were lower) and gradually, or in some cases drastically, went down hill. I quit the OC before the last season because while it was bad to begin with, it lost its fun. I quit Lost last season because I just didn’t have it in me to make it through another extreme season of madness. But when I finished the last season of 6 Feet Under (despite being totally bummed out by the last episode) I felt satisifed. I felt like we had just been on a lovely journey together and now it was our natural time to part. There were no hard feelings, no frustration with fallen storey lines, extreme characters, or shark-jumping. It was just right. So while I do not hold the OC to the same standard (because it wasn’t intended to have standards it was meant to be entertaining), I do hold The L Word to a higher-standard.

Now my reasons for watching the L Word are likely different than some. Unfortunately, being straight, I wasn’t watching it just to be on the afterellen bandwagon. I’m really not bold enough or clever enough for that. I watched it because it was a good show. It was a good show about women, and the good and fucked up things women did.

Over the series it obviously had some ups and downs – Alice went crazy, Max was a weird addition to the club, and Tina went straight I guess just to show that she could. But nothing drove me crazier than the new Jenny.
Jenny started out as a sweet, artistic and likable character and turned into a crackpot narcissist that didn’t even remotely resemble the original character. Why? Why was it necessary? Why do writers think that drama isn’t interesting unless you can make it completely absurd and never ending? As if it wasn’t bad enough that Jenny’s Hollywood persona last season was irritating and silly, this season she just seemed to be schizophrenic. She was mean, and conniving, and bordering on evil. The worst part is is that they appear to have over done her evilness just so they could feign a mystery surrounding her death.

Jenny’s death was revealed in the very first episode. I was happy she was out because her character was so very painful last season. Then I discover that the entire season is going to be the lead-up to her death. The trouble with this is not only that it spoils the surprise at the end, but that the episodes didn’t seem to unfold naturally but instead were forced toward a pre-established goal. What’s more is that the episodes that had goals weren’t very good, and the finale where this was all to come together was rushed and confused.

I didn’t even know I was watching the series finale until I realized everything was being revealed really quickly and they were forcing together happy, emotional goodbyes with a whodunnit murder mystery (the worst of which was the police interrogations that would have been better suited for a sleepover party). Everyone has a clear motive because Jenny was so completely hateable, but at the end they reveal the murderer. Sort of. Well kind of. They lead us to believe that Nikki is the killer because she hid in the bushes and I guess was obsessed with Shane. Considering all the well-crafted motives of everyone else, couldn’t they have given us more than a one-line scapegoat? Better yet, they could have left it as a mystery. I hate cliffhangers, but I could have dealt with that one because it would have been demonstrative of the complexities of all of their relationships..

I got where they were coming from but they failed. And it hurts me. It hurts me deep inside. Because I expected more.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers