Master of My Domain

It's time to take this blogging stuff seriously. Not necessarily content-wise since I think I already do treat this as a semi-legitimate venue for musings and critiques. However, I'm looking to create something a bit more professional in appearance and accessibility. I may have to forego the Rube Goldberg moniker but that's down the road. Until then, I need to come up with a domain/site name that says "Hey! I'm talking about TV and pop culture here! Look at me, will ya?"

This is proving incredibly challenging. According to GoDaddy every single one of my ideas has already been taken. Of course when I go and visit these sites the screen is either "This has been parked by GoDaddy!" or just a splash screen that amounts to "Neener neener neener! This domain is mine, bitches!"

Not cool, yo.

I have a feeling landing a .com is going to be next to impossible unless I come up with a title that is incredibly obscure, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of putting out money for a bit more exposure. For some reason I have an aversion to .net, as if I'm getting the store brand, which is weird since I usually buy the store brand anyway. Wait a minute...dammit, wegmans.com is already taken.

The name I wanted was whatchawatching.com, since I think that does a pretty good job of encapsulating all the items I blog about. Both the .com and .net are taken, so I either have to go with .us (which isn't catchy) or come up with something else. huluhoop is taken, vastwasteland and thevastwasteland are both taken, even thehapps.org has been absorbed. I'm debating incorporating "WTF" (as in WTF Little House on the Prairie), but I feel like that might be shooting myself in the foot.

Help?

Read More......

Lose-Lose

I have a really complicated relationship with The Biggest Loser. On its face, the premise of the show is somewhat noble -- helping the morbidly obese regain control of their lives. There is also the added benefit that viewers are inspired to take control of their own weight issues.

However, this nobility encounters conflict since this is an elimination based reality show. This has been highlighted in this past week's episode...


Despite its title, The Biggest Loser is not a meritocracy. It is on finale night, but until the final weigh-in there is strategery afoot throughout the process. As someone who has struggled with weight issues, I have come to learn that extrinsic rewards are not the way to achieve long-term success. You need to have an intrinsic desire to succeed and keep the weight off. I love watching the contestants flip out with excitement when they lose double digits in a single weigh-in, but then when it gets to voting off a contestant the discussion turns into who is perceived as a "threat". What does that even mean in this context? The only definition that seems to apply is "this person has a greater intrinsic drive than me and therefore does not require the extrinsic reward that is my motivation."

I didn't start watching this season until my friend KDT tweeted: "I hate to feel this emotionally involved in The Biggest Loser... but I am." We then proceeded to have the following conversation about the contestant Tracey:

K: are you watching? I can't believe Trac(y/i/ie/ee) would do this to Coach Mo!
M: I just started watching...like, as soon as I read your tweet. There is nothing competing against it on Tuesdays. Help me.....
K: also, she totally shot herself in the foot. Ugh.
M: She does have crazy eyes...awesome. [...] She meaning Traceeee and Jillian.
K: indeed, sir. indeed.

From what I gathered from the repetitive nature of the two-hour episode (aside: really, NBC?) the theme for this week was "choices". Tracey chose to give up access to trainers for both her and her partner Mo to get a two-pound advantage at the weigh-in. Later, there was a temptation challenge involving cupcakes. Whichever contestant ate the most cupcakes in ten minutes would get to choose one person on each team to be that teams sole representative at the weigh-in. At this point meritocracy only applied to the green team who won this week's immunity challenge.

At the weigh-in, Tracey selected the contestants who were generally less successful during workouts for the week, including people that she assured she would not select. Frankly, the type of gameplay exhibited here is a rare occurrence on reality TV. The only other example that jumps to mind is Wendy Pepper from the first season of Project Runway -- utilizing whatever advantage or foothold becomes available because there is no talent or ability to hang their hat on. It is fascinating from a reality television drama perspective, but the consequences in this case go beyond winning a talent show. The people who are successful at achieving the aims of the show lose the game while those who lose are the ones who prosper.

That doesn't seem right.

Read More......

Hank-y panky

You saw the movie Memento, right? Fantastic film: I highly recommend it. For those who haven't seen it, the premise is that the main character is trying to solve the mystery of his wife's murder but he suffers from short-term memory loss.

Now, did you see the new Kelsey Grammer sitcom Hank on Wednesday? It is horrible. How bad? This afternoon I watched the pilot before my screenwriting class. In class today we watched Deliverance. There were more genuine laughs during that movie than during the 23 minutes I suffered through Hank.

What does Memento have to do with this?


Well, from what I could gather from the bad acting and clunky story (it is a pilot episode after all), Kelsey Grammer's character is perpetually a fish out of water. But not in the sense that the Beverly Hillbillies were fish out water -- they eventually adapted to their environment in certain ways. I mean that each scene revolved around Hank being discombobulated by the conditions of the scene. I think that could be an interesting concept, but that is not the premise of the show.

The premise is that Hank was ousted from the board of directors of some downsized New York company. For whatever reason he did not get a golden parachute, did not liquidate any of his assets, and for some reason is not able to get another job in the city. As a result he has to move his family down to Virginia near his brother. Sure, why not?

The thing is, Hank is only able to function in a corporate board room setting. For example, he instructs his wife to keep minutes at a family meeting. You know, The Simpsons stopped doing family meetings because none of the writers' families ever did family meetings and it seemed contrived. The family on this show felt the meeting was contrived and the (insane) laugh track makes the entire scene feel contrived.

The problems don't stop there. Due to their king size bed not fitting in the stairwell, Hank and his wife are stuck in a fire engine bed for the time being (yeah, I know). There were so many things that were just unsettling in this scene. First, there is zero chemistry between Hank and his wife. His complaint in the close quarters: "You're breathing on me." Unless halitosis or fire is involved, I don't think that is generally considered a bad thing, particularly if it is your spouse. Hank's wife (sorry, I don't remember her name and I am not watching it again) is also wearing earrings and what looks like a day-to-evening ensemble from Project Runway. As I tried to puzzle my way through the weird wardrobe selection, the couple spontaneously engages in a fit of passion. No organic catalyst whatsoever.

One of my friends in my program is doing a TV research project related to laugh tracks. I mentioned this show and he asked me how many episodes I think it will last. My answer: already at least half an episode longer than it should have. If only this could be erased from my short term memory.

Read More......

This Week in TRF

Here's a highlight reel of what was covered in class this week in TRF:

My law class:



More videos to follow...



My research class -- specifically my group's research topic:

http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?vid=162112

A preview of our next project in Multicam:

Good Cop, Baby Cop from Will Ferrell

And what I get to watch in Dramatic Writing (sans Kids in the Hall):

Read More......

YORRRRRR!

I'm really enjoying my Tuesdays this semester. I have my law class at 11 am and then I'm done for the day. Except for the Tuesday screenings at Thompson's office. They have been a bit of a mixed bag, which is kind of the point. The first screening (which I wasn't able to stay for much of) featured Walter Cronkite and Don Hewitt. Last week we watched the first and only episode of the 1986 version of the Jay Leno Show. That was horrendous. As far as we know Thompson has the only surviving copy -- even IMDB disavows any knowledge that it exists. Really, it is that dreadful.

Today we continued with the dreadful theme with a screening of Yor: The Hunter from the Future...


This movie almost defies description. The good news is there is a fan riff track available. Here's a preview:



The guy above is pretty chatty, but we were making our own comments throughout as well. Such as when the blind leader of the resistance movement from the future is introduced and shots are filmed from that character's point of view. Let me repeat: They filmed shots from the BLIND person's POINT OF VIEW. Then they showed him groping for the buttons on a control console later. At least they maintained continuity?

The best part was the theme song, which can be heard here.

I don't think this movie is helping in the cinePHAIL project, but it is giving me confidence that whatever screenplay I write this semester will probably be better than this. And this script was produced!

Read More......

Cinephail

If a "cinephile" is a person with a strong interest in film, I might best be described as a "cinephail". This weekend I TiVoed The Karate Kid and got around to watching it this afternoon. I actually enjoyed it. Of course, that last sentence implies that I have never seen the movie before -- probably because I haven't.

I further compounded this (now) apparent pop culture faux pas by mentioning this little tidbit on Facebook. In the comments that followed, I tried to excuse myself saying that the film is on my "I really should get around to it" list, along with:

Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Godfather I and II

This just seemed to cause more people to facepalm.

So what other movies would you recommend as required? I used to be a film buff...I just need some buffing.

Read More......

The Informant[.]

I guess it was inevitable that my being in a program called Television-Radio-Film would eventually force me into partaking the three media listed. TV I have covered and radio I do regularly enough but I have fallen out of the film habit. The prof for my writing class starts every session with the question "seen any movies lately?" and everyone is expected to answer. How dare he, right? He also wants us to venture outside of our comfort zone every once in a while, but I'm not quite up to that point yet. I've got The Karate Kid on my TiVo and we're watching Deliverance in class next week, so I'm going to stay in my zone for the time being. This week's movie: The Informant!

Spoilers likely, so proceed with caution...

As you can see in the title of this post, I wasn't exactly wowed or whatever reaction the exclamation point was supposed to draw out of me. The story is about Mark Whitacre, a VP for agriculture supergiant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). The company is involved in a price fixing scheme involving corn and Whitacre decides to work for the FBI to bring down some of the higher-ups. At first he professes to be doing it for the good of the company and his soul, but eventually it is revealed that he is trying to oust his superiors so he can become CEO. Whitacre is a pathological liar and we soon learn that not only was he trying to perpetrate this bizarre usurpation but he had embezzled millions of dollars while under the FBI umbrella.

The story, which is based on true events, is interesting in an "I can't believe that this guy really did that" sort of way but it isn't a very cinematic story. The events are all based around verbal lies and FBI surveillance of business, neither of which really action based. Also, financial chicanery and price fixing are not the sexiest crimes -- particularly for those of us who only have a vague understanding of the concepts involved. The film reached a point where you finally understand that Whitacre is a schnook but then the movie goes on for another half hour. The story stops building and his inevitable comeuppance doesn't provide much of a payoff (particularly since Whitacre is now a COO for some other company after a brief hiatus in prison).

The film was directed by Steven Soderbergh, an auteur I just can't get behind. His choices tend to distract me more than engage me and this film is no exception. The camerawork was steady, as opposed to Traffic and The Limey (both of which made me seasick) which was refreshing. However, he chose to give the film a 60's motif despite the fact that the events took place between 1992 and 1995. I think he was going for homage to double agents, but it was giving me an Austin Powers vibe. My other major issue involved casting choices. Matt Damon was alright as Whitacre, but I'm not sure what he brought to the role that was distinct. Not good, not bad, just nothing special. The supporting cast was where I found more distraction. Joel McHale played an FBI agent working with Whitacre, Patton Oswald played an attorney, and Paul F. Tompkins played an attorney. I'm not sure what the deal was with all the stand-up comedians, particularly since they were all playing against type. My theory is that it is a commentary about framing reality with how you tell a story, but the analogy falls flat since the reality framed by this story is not particularly engaging.

This film strikes me as a product of timing -- riding the coattails of populist rage against the giants of corporate America (one of the previews was for Capitalism, Michael Moore's new film). However it is a whistleblower (sort of) who is trying to slay Goliath, not the lay person. The timing seems off and the story doesn't get much beyond the conversation point of "oh, really? You don't say?"

Have you seen The Informant!? What did you think?

Read More......

Glee

The Fall Season has finally arrived. Hooray! There are quite a few programs I am looking forward to, both new and returning, and I would like to share my instant opinions after the first episodes debut.

First up: Glee!

Alright, so this is technically the second episode that aired tonight. I thought Fox did a brilliant job of creating buzz for this program by airing the pilot after part one of the American Idol finale. There have also been preview videos available on iTunes. Normally I don't go out of my way to check out promo stuff on iTunes, but I recently got a new computer that doesn't grind to a halt when playing videos so I decided to check them out. I think this may have been a mistake.

The video I saw was the "Gold Digger" rehearsal sequence. I like how the show worked the song into the story -- juxtaposing it after the house tour sequence and using it as a foil to "Le Freak". However, I found the sound quality in the sequence incredibly distracting. Part of the problem is that the audio does not match the environment, which makes it quite apparent that the cast is lip synching. I think this is where the single-camera format is actually hurting the show -- if the music sequences were shot in multicam, then the audio quality would match and create the feeling of a live performance. However, switching formats could greatly alter the overall aesthetic of the show, so I'm not sure if this is a viable solution.

There are other audio issues that can be more easily addressed. The audio for the "Say a Little Prayer" sequence did not match up at all. The acoustics were wrong and it sounded like more than three people were singing. There is no reason for such a mismatch and I worry that this will be a recurring issue on the show. Case in point: "Take a Bow". There are a number of noticeable breaths in this version of the song -- breaths that the character Rachel is not demonstrating. Again, the audio makes it sound like someone just hit "play" on a CD and told the cast to lip synch as best they can. It is not as bad as Viva Laughlin, but I am still concerned.

In terms of story, I thought this was a good second pilot for the show. Characters are still being developed and conflicts are starting to get a little fleshed out. I'm still not 100% sold that there is enough meat for a long-running series, but there is certainly potential. My hope is that the show will avoid the trap of ending each episode with a relevant pop song ("Don't Stop Believin'" and "Take a Bow") to wrap up everything in a bow. It smacks of Dawson's Creek and other late 90's teen drama and it seems somewhat cliche at this point.

What I do hope sticks around is the "mailman in the windshield" metaphor. It would be great if that just pops up in episode nine and the audience is expected to remember what that means.

Overall, I'm giving this episode a solid B and will keep this on the TiVo for now.

Read More......

Party

The other day, for no reason in particular, I was pondering one of the more bizarre aspects of my undergrad days. I lived in a housing co-operative my freshman year where all the students were responsible for cleaning, organizing activities, and basically running things with very little college intervention. Anyway, whenever the subject of house parties came up at house meetings there would be a discussion of logistics before voting on whether or not to have the party.

Typical logistic issues included the time, whether it is a house or campus party, and what bands we might be able to line up. My favorite topic was if we were going to adopt a "No Asshole" Policy. Basically, don't get so drunk you puke all over the living room, don't drink so much that you cause any fights, and if you bring any friends they need to respect the rules as well. What I love is that we always voted on if we were going to adopt the No Asshole policy. As far as I remember no one lobbied for an "Assholes Only" policy -- and this was at a school where many people use the phrase "just to play devil's advocate..."

Now for some social hygiene....

Read More......

Producer's Cut

The documentary is finished. Actually, it's been finished for a few days and we had our screening Monday morning. There are still a few glitches that I would love to take care of, but projects like this will never be 100% finished. I am at least 98% satisfied with this final product. I hope you are, too.

The video is behind the jump...

Read More......