Sunday, June 28, 2015

Art imitating art imitating life

One reason television is important is that it can tell us something about our reality.  It can remind us where our societal emphases really lie; it can tell us what people think they want or need; it can use metaphor to say what direct speech may make hard.  It can remind us of hidden biases and assumptions.  In the case of “reality” television, If we look carefully, we can see a bunch of things that we may not have realized we needed to know about ourselves. Here’s a few:
  • That we inculcate our kids with ideas of normative beauty and commodification of expertise far earlier than we might have expected (Toddlers & Tiaras; Top Chef Juniors);
  • That we still cling to the erroneous belief that size and normative beauty are matters of personal choice and that our national narrative tying thinness and health is a transparent, albeit very stubborn, lie (The Biggest Loser; The Swan);
  • That we buy into a narrative of the wealthy as “saviors,” and the poorer are objects of scorn or derision (Extreme Makeover Home Edition; Deal or No Deal; The Briefcase);
  • That female promiscuity or lack of control is a shameful spectacle while male promiscuity or lack of control is at worst, foolhardy (compare treatment of men and women on Jersey Shore or Party Down South; keep in mind there’s no “Bad Boys’ Club” but there is a “Bad Girls’ Club”);
  • That we care more about whether something looks good than whether it has depth or longevity (Trading Spaces; Monster House);
  • That we believe that the “best” deserve a shot at success, but that we are ok with the gatekeepers of that shot being incumbent elites (Idol, SYTYCD, The Voice, Shark Tank);
  • That if someone’s rich enough, they needn’t bother trying to have perspective or respecting other people (Kardashians, Apprentice, Housewives, and a zillion other documentary-style shows);
  • That people will do pretty much any indignity for money (Wipeout, Hole in the Wall, Fear Factor);
  • That today’s America romanticizes and commodifies marriage as a marker of adulthood, without which someone (and particularly, women) can never be truly successful (Bachelor/Bachelorette)
...I could keep going with these for days, but I’d rather hear what you have to say.  What hidden biases and assumptions do you find embedded in “reality” TV?

Of course, “reality” show is a misnomer—most reality sub-genres are actually highly manufactured drama.  But the fact that we live in a time when highly manufactured drama passes for “reality” is itself interesting, and tells us something about our conceptions of authenticity. 

Scripted television, in contrast, has an unusual ability to make actual reality interesting.  Trying to portray what Dar Williams called “the gradual rise and fall of a daily victory” isn’t necessarily interesting.  But finding, distilling, and highlighting the human drama in the everyday can be as interesting as it gets.  That’s a tough line to walk. (For my taste, Mad Men fell on the wrong side of it, and Friday Night Lights fell gloriously on the right side of it.)  Even more importantly, identifying and calling out what society values, and shining a light on its errors, ironies, and injustices is something that television, as a medium, is especially well-suited to.  Satire and historical drama, at their best, can show us a sort of hyper-reality, focusing in on elements that make us realize that something in our own world is out of place.

This season’s brought us some historical drama, some satire, and some shows that mimic “reality” television.  Do they live up to their potential?

Aquarius (NBC, new.  Period crime drama.)

Watched: first 3 episodes

Premise:  in 1967, L.A. police investigate the Manson family.  Fictionalized account based partially on real events.

Promise:  Gorgeous production mimics the time and place well, and although I was skeptical of the partially-fictionalized account, it allows the writers to tailor the pace and drama.  So the show has great potential to highlight the pros and cons of the culture clash of the time like UK period procedural Inspector George Gently does, but it pulls many of its punches—its old-school cop (David Duchovny, for whom this is very much a star vehicle) has too many modern sympathies to quite hit that mark.  It touches on changing times, deceiving oneself, and the slow menace of comfort, but it’s not quite about anything, which takes away what could be a really interesting drive.  To the extent the show is about changing times, it doesn’t quite get there—the show gestures at differences, but they’re largely superficial; to make the characters sympathetic, the show doesn’t push hard enough at the pernicious racism, sexism, and other assumptions that could really drive home a “more things change, the more they stay the same” point.

One thing the show does play around with a good bit is liberation and freedom.  A soldier goes AWOL only to find he’s chased by the military police.  Women express their freedom by running away or being sexually promiscuous, but find that puts them right back at the mercy of men—and malicious men, at that.  Women’s sexuality is a lever used to control them, with the threat of rape and the illusion of choice.  Here, men have all the power to make decisions for themselves and the women around them, but even then they don’t know how to use it—the only one who affords himself true freedom (constrained only by his psychosis) is Manson.  This is another show where men’s only emotional outlet is anger, and here (as in other shows I’ve discussed), it manifests in that sort of “sweeping stuff off the desk” petulant rage at the imperfection of a world they mostly—but not entirely—control.  It would be easy to take a “don’t try too hard, you’ll only lose anyway” fatalism from the show, although I expect it’s not intended.  A better lesson, although I expect also unintended, is  that men are deeply emotional, and that a culture that doesn’t allow them to display those emotions is one where men do damage to themselves and others. 

Verdict:  fine, but I’d rather it more actively condemned the lack of freedom that it portrays. 

Another Period (Comedy Central, new.  Satire.)

Watched: pilot

Premise:  Kardashian-style faux-“reality” show set in turn of the 20th century Newport, Rhode Island.

Promise:  The idea is to send up the excesses of the docureality genre and the air of affected superiority, inconsiderateness, and anti-intellectualism that its denizens portray.  And it does that, although it also devolves into slapstick quickly, and goes for easy jokes about appearance and disability.  Some of those jokes work, others fall flat.  It has a lot of potential to skewer the genre (just think, Keeping up with the Kardashians meets Downton Abbey) and although it had flashes of sharp wit, it didn’t quite get there.

Verdict:  I want to give it another episode or two, but I’m not encouraged by the promo of episode 2 being about a male servant being “ravished.”

The Brink (HBO, new.  Satire.)

Watched: pilot

Premise:  The U.S. stands poised for a war with Pakistan and an in-country functionary (Jack Black) and dissolute Secretary of State (Tim Robbins) struggle to prevent.

Promise:  This show has a great cast and some amazing moments.  I love the premise, which really highlights how petty and ill-informed international politics can be.  It points up the that the people with their fingers on the button are in many ways likely to be just as selfish, childish, and distracted as any other human.  And it has a good mix of jabs and uppercuts.  But the two main characters are too similar to each other—both are boozy (or druggy) immature womanizers who mean well and stumble into partial success through a combination of savvy and luck.  I would rather see Black’s character be hapless, or competent but trapped, or just too happy-go-lucky for his job.  Instead, he’s constantly staring at the backsides of pretty ladies…which is the Secretary of State’s schtick.  What I’m saying here is, let’s spread out the archetypes, as British satire so often does so very well.  The world is a funnier place when not every man is a womanizer.

Verdict:  It has some really glowing moments, especially when Black’s character is interacting with his driver (Aasif Mandvi) and when Robbins’ character is interacting with his aide (Maribeth Monroe).  I just hit it hit harder and had more variety. 

UnREAL (Lifetime, new.  Drama.)

Watched:  first 4 episodes

Premise:  Machinations behind the scenes at the production of a Bachelor-style reality show.

Promise:  Shiri Appelby skillfully portrays the main character, a producer of the show whose chief job—at which she is extremely, troublingly good—is to manipulate the contestants into making bad decisions (i.e., "good TV").  She’s sympathetic as a villain who knows, and regrets, that she’s a villain; a feminist who knows, and regrets, that perhaps her most valued skill is setting back the feminist cause.  The show is really all about the malleability and manipulability of human pride, and how easily humanity will allow itself to be commodified.  Our heroine, along with everyone else around her, is victimized by the system they perpetrate, and even when they know it they allow themselves to continue.  It could seem fatalistic, but it doesn’t quite, as if there’s a tiny sliver of self-discovery in each terrible decision, and a tiny bit of hope that the next decision will be a little better, or at least a little better-informed.  Ultimately, the show won’t continue to be interesting unless it moves the needle on the characters’ arcs of self-discovery, and in the first four episodes that needle moves very slowly.  I’d hate to see the show turn into a simple celebration of our heroine’s manipulative competence.  But I have some confidence it won’t.

On an interesting side note, I’m intrigued by the fact that the two Lifetime shows I’ve reviewed here, this one and The Lottery, feature women being manipulated into competing against each other for a questionable benefit.  I think there’s a deeper point to be made here—perhaps about how the “ideal” for women is illusory, and how society still manages to pit us against each other in search of it.  Maybe there’s a lesson in there about looking out for each other, even if the shows aren’t explicitly trying to make it.

Verdict:  This is exactly the sort of ironic, self-aware view of the Bachelor that I’ve always had in my mind when I’ve watched the original.  An entertaining complement to Burning Love, which skewers the genre through satire.  I’ll keep watching, at least for now.

In the Queue:  Proof, Dark Matter, Astronaut Wives Club, Complications, Killjoys, Mr Robot.

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Exotic Evil


There’s plenty of evil in the world.  Most of us spend our days fighting everyday evils of one sort or another—poverty, discrimination, unfairness, injustice, nasty coworkers.  But those things are difficult to explain and even more difficult to beat.  So perhaps it’s no surprise that summer television is presenting us with a bunch of exotic evils and exotic approaches to challenging evil.  Exotic evil is easier to explain than everyday evil—which makes it easier to beat, easier to treat like a game, and easier to compartmentalize from the ills of society.  And anything that makes evil easier to vanquish—even if it’s deeply silly and unnecessary—might make nice summer comfort food. 

I’m not against that—overcoming the forces of mysterious or supernatural evil is sort of a summer tradition, and I’m glad for it.  But TV has the power to make inroads against real everyday evil, too—by humanizing the different, demonstrating diversity, modeling justice—and it’s odd to me that the shows that vanquish exotic evil all too often ignore, or even perpetuate, the assumptions that give everyday evil its foothold.  Science fiction and the supernatural have great potential to reveal and subvert injustice by coming at social issues from the side rather than head-on.  But these shows don’t seem to hot on metaphor.  Or if they do, it’s not particularly helpful metaphor.   That doesn’t necessarily make them bad (although they may be).  But it is definitely lost potential.

Tatau (BBC America, UK/US simultaneous release, new.  Supernatural mystery.)

Watched:  first two episodes

Premise:  Tourist sets out to save a local woman after a drug trip shows him that she’ll be murdered in the future.

Promise:  The setup and tone feel closer to a SyFy original movie than what we’ve come to expect from BBC America, but that's really just a reminder that BBC America is the channel that gave us not only quality standouts like Orphan Black, but also supernatural interactive silliness like Hex and Bedlam. So:  this one is set on the Cook Islands, and is full of exoticism, with a white hero saving the native girl by embracing the island’s exotic mysticism.  In all other respects, though, it’s a relatively classic British mystery, with the sort of formula one would expect of Agatha Christie or Death in Paradise or Rosemary & Thyme.  If I found the hero less nagging, or if I found his sidekick best friend any less grating, or any of the characters more multi-dimensional, I’d keep watching, because I quite enjoy that sort of plain ol’ mystery.   

Verdict: I wasn’t willing to watch these annoying and/or flat characters go through the motions of solving the mystery.

The Messengers (CW, new. Supernatural drama.)

Watched: Pilot and first 10 minutes of second episode

Premise:  Five strangers are given angelic superpowers to fight the devil.

Promise: The premise is actually very unclear from the pilot, which is basically 5 disparate and deeply trope-filled stories that end with everyone coincidentally being on their way to Houston.  But the premise thrown at the viewers like a bucket of water at the top of episode 2.  Which is where I stopped watching it—to save it for interactive viewing with friends.  I think the show has genuine potential as interactive television.  Here’s the setup:  everything that happens in the show is based on coincidence, which they can pretend isn’t ridiculous because we’re conveniently told that there’s no such thing as coincidence.  The superpower lineup is equally ire-inducing:  A mom (healing touch); a teenage boy (super strength); an outlaw (mindreading); a televangelist (precognition); and a scientist (….really wanting to find her kidnapped son?  Because even scientist moms aren’t good for anything but being emotionally manipulable caring healers?).  A woman wakes from a coma and announces to them that they’re the “messengers of the Apocalypse” and they have to fight the devil.  Because I guess 5 people with superpowers is (a) necessary and (b) sufficient for that.

Verdict: YEP I’M ON BOARD FOR YELLING AT THE SCREEN ON THIS ONE.  (Or at least we’ll see how episode 2 goes.)

Stitchers (ABC Family, new.  Sci-fi banter procedural)

Watched:  Pilot

Premise:  Young, socially maladroit doctoral candidate is recruited into a high-tech government agency that hacks into the memories of dead people to solve mysteries and avert disasters.

Promise: This show has many of the same problems as Scorpion, equating intelligence with neuroatypicality or social unacceptability—in this case, the smart dudes are sexist assholes, and the smart women are socially and emotionally inept.  The heroine has a made-up condition called “temporal dysplasia,” which serves as an excuse to take away her social filter. The condition apparently makes her unable to perceive the passage of time, and the show never explains why that also makes her unable to foresee the consequences of her actions or unable to experience or perceive emotional cues.  I guess they made up a condition so they didn’t need to portray a coherent set of symptoms.  But if they’re going to assemble a random set of symptoms, you’d think they’d pick them for a reason.  Early on, our heroine learns that she’s uniquely qualified for this deeply strange job of inhabiting the memories of the dead. But no one ever explains why her condition wouldn’t make her worse at it rather than better. 

But I digress.  (Turns out this review is going to be long.)  The show is full of things like that—slapped-together moments that pull us out of the story to ask “why?” and observe “that can’t possibly be how it works.”  She’s inexplicably “suspended” from her Ph.D program for “academic sabotage.”  She’s thrown into an incredibly dangerous high-tech position with exactly zero training.  She’s given an investigatory job despite what appears to be a very high level of expertise in computer science. She’s forbidden from leaving the lab to conduct follow-up investigation.  And—here’s the real biggie—apparently they need someone to dive into the memories of the dead to find out totally publicly available information like “who was the dead person dating and where did she go to school.”  Perhaps it’s a good sign that I care enough to be bothered by these things.  Perhaps the pilot elided them so we could get to the procedural meat or the arc plot. 

I thought the show was going to embrace its camp, fun roots as soon as it put its sci-fi lab behind a secret door in a Chinese Restaurant.  But no.  The show has a couple of familiar SyFy channel faces I like, and the arc plot may actually be interesting.  But its tone is too serious to be campy fun, and it’s all banter with no emotional resonance behind it.  And I think there’s no way it can ever make me like the characters who belittle the CalTech-Ph.D-candidate heroine by calling her “emotionally vacant and relationshiply void,” call her “princess,” “fake geek girl” her  by demanding she name all of the actors who have ever played Doctor Who, and sexually harass her as she’s engaging in physically and mentally dangerous work. 

Verdict:  I was thinking I might watch episode two.  But now that I’ve processed my opinions into this review, I’m out.

The Whispers (ABC, new.  Supernatural drama.) 

Watched: pilot

Premise:  unseen forces (aliens?) manipulate children into killing their parents.

Promise:  Based on a Ray Bradbury story ("Zero Hour") that I haven't read, but the Bradbury roots actually explain a lot of my reactions to it.  All signs in the pilot point toward the idea that the unseen forces are trying to influence the course of American history and/or politics, and I find that disappointing.  It seems such a banal and small-scale use for such an amazing talent as manipulating the minds of children.  And in fact, much of the show feels like missed opportunities—the characters seem very conventional and the show seems determined to reinforce traditional ideas of what is normal.  Men are powerful and keep secrets. Mothers occupy a suburban and child-focused world, except the FBI investigator who specializes in crimes committed by children (I guess that’s a specialty?  And of course it’s ok for a woman to do because it’s about children). The Deaf child who regains his hearing describes it as being “fixed.”  I don’t mean to imply there isn’t something interesting here—the idea of manipulating the innocent, and of adults trying to understand that manipulation through their veil of assumptions about children—is intriguing. But the show could do so much more with it.  Just as Extant did (perhaps) too much with its fascinating premises, this show feels like it’s doing too little with a similar set of premises.  But we’ll see.

Verdict:  Too tropey, but not awful.

In the hopper:  Aquarius and UnReal.  Maybe others.