emmy ballot

This year's official Emmy ballot has been released. A few thoughts:

* I'm excited to see that Jemaine Clement is nominated for Best Actor for the side-splitting Flight of the Conchords, but isn't it a bit like Larry David being nominated as "himself"? How much acting is really going on? Alec Baldwin deserves to win again this year. And Patrick Dempsey is nominated for Grey's Anatomy? To use Shonda Rimes's word: Seriously? Also, I hope Emily Deschanel (Bones) wins for Lead Actress in a Drama. She can do comedy and drama better than anyone.

* If genre definitions are fading/blurring/becoming extinct, shouldn't genres be left out of the category? Entourage and Chuck as comedies? They both have pretty dramatic elements, so perhaps the category should be "Best Primarily Comedy Series" and Eli Stone can be nominated for "Best For-The-Most-Part Drama Series." In fact, I think David Boreanaz should be nominated as Agent Seely Booth for "Best Comedic Actor;" his show may be dramatic, but his character is hell-arious.

* Why are Josh Malina, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Chad Michael Murray, Zac Efron, Anna Friel, or Teri Hatcher even on the list? And short-lived Big Shots and Miss Guided are on the list...? And why is Nathan Fillion (as much as I love him) a Supporting Actor and not a Guest Star for Desperate Housewives?

* BATTLESTAR LOVE: Edward James Olmos is nominated (perhaps as the first atheist character to ever be nominated?), as is his other half, Mary McDonnell. (Note: Season 4's Mid-Season Finale airs tomorrow at 10pm on Sci-Fi!)

* I heart Adam Baldwin. He's why I watch Chuck (like with the "intimate moments" scene). Give him the Most Awesomest Awesome that Ever Awesomed Award. Also, Neil Flynn steals every scene he's in, so give him proper credit. Although Justin Kirk was pretty fantastic on Weeds... as was Jack McBrayer on 30 Rock... oh, no. This one's a tough call, but I really, really heart Adam Baldwin.

* Will Arnett should win for his guest spot on 30 Rock (his short robe should win its own award), and I do hope Kristin Chenoweth wins.

* How is the Special Series Finale of Extras in the Miniseries or Movie category?

my love for olive snook

Most concerns about Pushing Daisies can be summed up by the Prom Queen Syndrome, which is when the networks and television big-wigs are concerned that their star freshman vehicle will not live up to the hype. (Think Lost, Grey's Anatomy, and Desperate Housewives, all incidentally on ABC. Hmm.) Did ABC oversell the show? Is it perhaps too quirky for mainstream audiences? Who is the target audience? Luckily, Pushing Daisies is the closest to television perfection. What's not to love? Jim Dale's fairytale narration? The use of bright greens-yellows-reds-blues? Even the episodic storylines are fantastic. The second episode ("Dummy") really laid the foundation for future episodes and allowed for dark material to have bright and fantastical executions. The creative design team really outdid themselves with the color and futuristic design of that episode. Also, Lee Pace is quite lovable in a rather dull role. The premise of the show is clever (the two lead romances can't touch! almost inconceivable in modern television!), and the characters are unique and interesting. Also... what's not to like about pie?


But about the characters... I love Chi McBride's Emerson Cod. He has a sick sense of humor beyond mere sarcasm, and his delivery of lines is on par with the brilliant Adam Baldwin. The aunts could very easily have been two-note characters; they miss their niece and now don't leave their house. Oh, but... they're also synchronized swimming mermaids. That certainly sets them apart from the typical family role. But here's where Pushing Daisies fails... I can't stand Chuck. She's annoying. She's not bright, but she is pretty. She tends to put herself in compromising situations, but does television really need another damsel in distress? (I do keep in mind that the damsel in distress is a fairytale archetype necessity... but it doesn't mean I have to like her. Which I don't.) She reminds me of Kate from Lost. She has the sex appeal, but she's not very appealing. She's somewhere between an adult and a child, and her childish side comes off as, well, childish. In fact, the only times I like Chuck is during scenes with Olive Snook... but that is because Kristin Chenoweth carries the dead weight that is Chuck.


Olive Snook is a perfect blend of realism and fantasy. She is strong and confident (a bit nosy and lacking a sense of personal space), but she is also heartbroken and completely in love. She loves Ned, who loves Chuck, but she's not mean to either Ned or Chuck. This shows me that the Pushing Daisies writers aren't concerned about drama or ratings or shock but about developing dynamic multi-dimensional characters. She puts on a brave face and is good at heart (unlike Chuck, who I feel is selfish and not very understanding). And when Olive broke into an a capella version of "Hopeless Devoted," it didn't feel fake or cheap or obligatory (due to Chenoweth's Broadway fame), and I think the song really humanized the character.

BUT, although I much, much, much prefer Olive to Chuck, I don't want Olive and Ned together. Not yet, anyway. They would be a superior couple, so I hope that's something the writers hold out until the end of the show. Ideally, I would like to see Olive get a new man (perhaps the elixir salesman from last season?), which makes Ned see Olive in a new romantic light. This in turn would make Chuck jealous (and she'd throw a hissy fit, no doubt, and possibly disappear again). The whole idea that Ned would still be in love with the adult version of his old eight-year-old neighbor seems a bit strained, but Ned is an idealist and I could understand him taking time to grow up and realize how great Olive is. And I did enjoy the dynamic of these three characters last season, but next season needs to show change. Relationships need to shift. (Perhaps Chuck can befriend Emerson Cod? Who else does she have to talk to?) But Olive is perfect and well-written as is. I think female viewers need a female character they can really relate to (and not necessarily dream about becoming). Although Ned pursues Chuck (and that's a dream of many women), I think more viewers can relate to Olive because she loves someone who she knows does not love her back, and all women have experienced that type of heartbreak. Olive is the character to watch.

i respect katherine heigl

Katherine Heigl - the conflicting and inconsistent Izzie from Grey's Anatomy - has taken herself out of the Emmy race. And people are abusing their rights of misinterpretation to paint her as a bad guy. They (the media) did this last year when Heigl told Vanity Fair that she thought Knocked Up was sexist and also when she judged the adulterous decisions Izzie was making on Grey's. In her defense...

How monotonous have the Emmys become these past few years? Does James Spader really need to be nominated every year? Will Michael C. Hall ever get the recognition he deserves for Dexter? And why even have a Best Actor in a Comedy? Just give the award to Alec Baldwin for 30 Rock (and show highlights from his performances instead of wasting time by listing a bunch of underused actors). I think it's remarkably noble and adult of Heigl to note that her material this season hasn't been particularly meaty - for her as an actress, a lover of her art; not for her as an actress, a greedy spotlight hogging starlight. The death of Denny was the most heartbreaking moment of television in recent years, and I - who never cries - went through a box of tissues. Heigl's delivery of "I changed my dress three times. I wanted to look nice" won her the Emmy. Story-wise, Izzie risked her career and developed a strong relationship with a patient, and she was actually given varying degrees of emotion to portray throughout the season. However, this past season, Izzie was one-dimensional and took up an affair with her best friend that didn't play out realistically. I don't think Heigl is complaining or insulting her writers, and I certainly don't think she is ungrateful since Grey's landed her new success after Roswell. I think she was just being honest as an artist. She's already won an Emmy; why not let others have the spotlight? James Spader should take notice...


And I love Heigl for her honesty when regarding her characters. I think society wants actors and actresses (mostly actresses...) to remain mum on their characters in order to form judgments on their own. And while that is nice, I think there are too many people who confuse fiction with reality. How many times have actors playing 'bad guys' been spat on or yelled at on the streets? Watch The Tonight Show and watch how many actors share stories like this. For Heigl to come and judge Izzie's actions is like saying, "Although I play this character, I am not this character. I don't agree with or condone cheating, and I'm trying to find an understanding of how my character could do such a thing." Again, she's not insulting the writers (who maintain a post-show analysis blog) or judging anyone - other than her character. It's part of an actor's job to dig deep within a character in order to understand their motives. And if anyone thinks Knocked Up isn't sexist, well, you weren't paying attention. The females were high maintenance and complained most of the time, but the appropriate response is not "It's not sexist!" but rather "Well, the men didn't look too great either..." The male characters were mostly potheads! With derogatory language. And they were lazy.

Perhaps people are just threatened by Heigl. She's beautiful and smart. And she's not afraid of having an opinion. Finally. I've been looking for an actress I can admire.

ABDC: boogie bots

I think my obsession with America's Best Dance Crew lies in the fact that I ain't got rhythm. I know nothing about music beyond my inability to identify separate notes and to clap on beat (whatever that is). And in very many ways, I'm the jerk that hates rap music, hates bass, and hates bump-and-grind dance moves. But I love ABDC anyway. These groups are beyond impressive - although I'm sure something that seems difficult to me is quite easy for them. In Season 1, this show brought us JabbaWockeeZ and Kaba-Modern, two innovative groups that blew me away... to a point that my students would stay with me after class so we could look the previous shows up on youtube (which is no longer possible). I do wonder, though, what do the winners actually win? They don't go on tour or get a deal with a label (like on American Idol), so how do I get to see them again? Well, Season 1's winner - JabbaWockeeZ - made a nice little commercial for Season 2...


And this will do... for now. But Jabba needs to go on tour. So I can clap awkwardly to their master beats. Anonymously. From a distance. Perhaps wearing a mask as well.


So who were my favorite groups from the Season 2 casting special? Both of my favorite teams have the wittiest names of the bunch (with references to the greatest decade ever, of course)... oh, and their dancing is pretty good too. Boogie Bots takes the top honor, with Fanny Pak receiving the coveted I-Wish-I-Were-You honor. Boogie Bots had all the right dance moves - they were tight and hit their marks in unison; they isolated individuals; and they had personality. See? Aren't they cute? And beyond their name (which they attribute to Saturday morning cartoons from the 80s like Transformers), they actually listened to the judges. Which means... I am predicting they will be in the top three groups. They're clean and they care. That's the formula for winning my heart.



As for my other favorite group... oh, Fanny Pak. You are ridiculous. Ridiculously awesome. They will not survive for very long, but they know how to dress, how to impress, and how to press their hair. The whole robotic look is apparently out of style (who knew something so classic wasn't actually timeless?), but I love it and will always prefer it to the Look-Ma-I'm-Having-Sex-On-The-Dance-Floor-And-All-Body-Parts-Are-Hanging-Loose dance moves. I shudder at the mental image. I'm going to enjoy this group while they last. And I really loved their spokesperson for saying, "The 80s were unapologetic and so are we!" That's what I like to hear.

lost: an open letter of criticism

Dear Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse,

I have been a fan of Lost since Season 1, and I have done my fair share of recruiting other fans under the assurance that Lost was the greatest show on television. Unfortunately, you have lost that title to Battlestar Galactica (a title that previously belonged to Firefly). Season 1 showcased a wonderful display of contemporary binaries - faith vs. logic, leader vs. follower, male vs. female, passive vs. aggressive - and the characters were more realistic (which is ironic considering the characters had very little background in the beginning, a tabula rasa indeed). Whereas Season 1 dealt with the reconstruction of a civilized society (focusing primarily on self-assigned identity vs. culturally-defined identity - via Kate the Fugitive and Locke the Disabled), Season 2 focused on the protection of that society, giving the Losties a newfound 'togetherness' (as a single entity rather than individuals with specific archetypal duties) that was lacking during the reconstruction. Season 3 lost a lot of fans, but I stuck around because Michael Emerson is so frakkin' amazing and because it introduced the idea of time-travel through Desmond's clairvoyance. But Season 4 completely disregarded all that was set up in previous seasons... and here are the specific problems I have with the show:

1. Slow-Motion-Instrumental-Music-No-Talking Scenes.


Every week, Lost has a slow-motion-instrumental-music-no-talking scene. These three aspects loudly signify that the audience should be crying, and this method is used whenever someone leaves the Losties (Season 1 finale on the raft), returns or reunites with someone (seen often, but most recently used when the Oceanic 6 are reunited with their families), or someone dies (ha, so many to name... but Charlie's death stands out). Peter Jackson overused this cinematic technique in all LotR films, and now Lost is bludgeoning the technique. Why not use a close-up of a character, showcasing raw emotion (total despair or complete jubilation - which you only seem to execute with scenes regarding Desmond's relationship with Penny...)? I find it hard to believe that every character is happy/excited/sad/scared at the same time. Take the time to isolate certain characters during 'big' scenes like these. And get rid of the slow motion. Don't tell me to be sad... make me feel sad by honest development. No more tricks.

2. Does curiosity not exist on the island anymore?


Ben says the Orchid Station involves 'time-traveling bunnies' and Locke just says okey-dokey? The orientation video says not to put metal in the machine and Locke just (barely) mutters, 'Uh, huh, maybe you shouldn't do that...'? Really, Locke is going to be the new leader of the Others? He's not much of a leader. (And no, shooting Naomi on such little evidence does not make him a leader.) This aspect of the show has bothered me since the Losties met the Others back in Season 2 and Jack didn't ask Mr. Friendly any questions. No 'Who are you and what the heck is this place?' No 'How convenient that you speak English too!' It just seems like situations arrive and no one investigates. People know that something is amiss or that people are acting shady, but no one actually verbalizes anything. I really doubt that people would be so internal and quiet about their concerns. Kate goes to Jack with her concerns and he ignores her... so why doesn't she turn to someone else? Why are there 14 major characters and only half of them do anything? Bernard was given a gun last season; why isn't he asking questions? 'If Rose is happy here, then so am I' is fine (and romantic), but it doesn't mean he can't ask questions. Have people become accustomed to the Smoke Monster? Just because a few of the characters have seen it doesn't mean that the other characters are no longer curious about it. And I know you guys understand this problem because you use Hurley to wink at the audience. Like when Ben tells Locke's camp that Michael is his spy on the boat - Hurley says, "Yeah, we knew a while ago, dude.' That doesn't fix the problem. Hurley brings up major questions and just accepts a change of subject? Unacceptable.

3. The dialogue is remarkably unrealistic.


Why aren't people more upset about the deaths on the island? People hated Michael for killing Ana Lucia and Libby, okay, but upon seeing Michael again, no one thought he would kill them too? Michael set sail in a boat with his kid; why wouldn't the characters assume he was a bad person with flexible morals? In my opinion, Ben is the only character allowed to be vague. As a fugitive, I would understand Kate being secretive or talking in lies, but she doesn't and she's too in people's faces to be as passive as she is. Ana Lucia is the character Kate should have been. (FYI: I think Kate is the worst written character, the most inconsistent, and the most annoying... but that's an entire post on its own.) So Ben can be vague to Jack or Sawyer or Hurley or whoever... but not Locke! Locke is his successor so leaving out the back door without so much as crumbs is ridiculous. Jack - the only person to ever show concern for sustainability on the island - abandoned his original purpose by saying, 'Whatever Juliet says, I believe her.' Okay, trust is great and the friendship is sweet, but Jack can trust Juliet and still ask, 'Why were Charlotte and Daniel trying to gas us/save us?'

And how is Sawyer so knowledgeable? He makes wonderful cultural references that are fun to spot, but it remains to be understood how he knows so much - like, why would/when did he read Of Mice and Men? Was literary intelligence part of his training in the Art of Con? Why does Kate only say things that further the plot? Why doesn't she talk like a normal person having a conversation? The last time I saw a realistic conversation on the island was revolving Jin-Sun-Michael. It made sense that Michael's friendship with Sun would be misinterpreted as flirtation by her husband, his jealousy (and subsequent fighting) was justified. But when was the last time the characters were fleshed out so well? Now, I understand that the show is not entirely realistic - time travel, anyone? - but the characters are set up to be realistic, and so, even if their situations aren't realistic, they should at least have realistic dialogue. Instead, I feel as though the storyboard gets multiple rewrites and the dialogue passes on first drafts.

4. The Jack-Sawyer Switcharoo.


Jack and Sawyer switched roles. In the beginning, Jack was the leader (though not self-appointed) who put others before himself, and Sawyer was the jerk who made Kate kiss him if she wanted to know where Shannon's asthma medicine was. Am I to believe that Kate changed these men a full 180 degrees? Now, Jack is the guy who will do anything to get off the island and is blinded by his love for Kate, and Sawyer is jumping out of helicopters and protecting Claire? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, because it does; it's understandable that these characters would grow in these directions. I just don't understand why it happened. It makes sense that Jack would be so overwhelmed by his leader status that he would eventually become selfish... but he's still not selfish. He's just narrowly concerned about certain people. Because the show set up a close bond between Jack and Juliet, I thought those two would scheme on their own... but they haven't and they won't. Why set that up if it wasn't going to develop? (And why, in the future/present, does Jack want to go back to the island? Because of guilt? Because he sees the ghost of his father? Jack just isn't the type to break down... so they better develop that rather than just lazily assigning his breakdown to visions and guilt.) And it makes sense that Sawyer would become protective of Freckles, but Claire? He never had a close relationship with her, with Aaron, or with Charlie. (Speaking of Charlie, why was Hurley all of a sudden Charlie's BFF? Why didn't Desmond, who was the last person Charlie communicated with (big moment!), speak up after his death? Desmond was silent the whole Season 4 premiere.) Sawyer has always been a loner hero - but in a confident, arrogant, insecure kind of way. He didn't want others to help him because of his pride. But there was no reason for him to all of a sudden take Claire under his wing.

5. The Laziest Use of Freud and Philosophy.


It's not just that everyone has daddy issues - Hurley, Claire, Jack, Kate, Ben, Sun, Locke, and Sawyer - but it's that 'daddy issues' is the explanation for why these characters act like they do. It's as though the writers read Ch. 22 of Idiot's Guide to Psychology and based a MAJORITY of the characters off of ONE psychology term. Why can't a character just have a fear of intimacy? Why does that have to relate back to a missing father? Why can't a character just be arrogant and reclusive? Why does it have to be because his father was killed? Why can't a man just want to be a better man? Why does it have to relate back to his father challenging him rigorously? And at the beginning, the use of philosopher's names was cute (and it made sense because of how influential The Social Contract/noble savage and The Two Treatises of Government/human nature were) - and I felt intelligent for knowing who each of them were - BUT now it's just ridiculous. Rousseau and Locke were obvious but they were only two at the beginning. But then came Desmond David Hume? Jeremy Bentham? Mikhail Bakunin? And most of the time the characters don't relate to the names, or, if they do, it's a limited relation. And what's even the point of changing Locke's name to Bentham? Just to confuse the audience? Just to throw them off? It's just lazy. The characters can be summed up as "So-and-so is that way because of Daddy Issues..." and the use of philosophers is officially overkill.

Now, Luke Skywalker had daddy issues...