TV Review: This is definitely not Ibsen's "A Doll's House"

Anyone who has read earlier posts knows that I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon, creator of compelling, smart, and entertaining TV like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, the sorely mistreated Firefly (damn you, FOX TV), and most recently, Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog. Even with this track record, I watched the first episode of Whedon's new series, Dollhouse, with some trepidation.

First, the story -- young woman agrees to 5 years in the employ of a mysterious organization that wipes her memories and replaces them with those of other people with other skills as the request of wealthy clients -- just struck me as creepy and unpleasant (hey a TV show about human trafficking and an organization pimping out the perfect prostitutes...Must See TV!!). Secondly, the star of the show is Eliza Dushku who played psycho Slayer Faith on Buffy and, in her younger years, the 14-year old daughter in peril in True Lies. While Dushku's flat presentation was fine as Faith, I questioned whether she had the acting chops to play new, varied characters every week and make us care about her, especially hard because she is playing a different character each week.

After watching the premiere, my questions remain unanswered. Dushku either walks around with a blank, airy look when appearing as the memory-wiped Echo or walks around looking and sounding like Eliza Dusku in sexy librarian glasses while playing a hostage negotiator (I was never really clear while a billionaire would go to the Dollhouse for a hostage negotiator in the first place). And my concerns about the basic premise? Still there as the first character we see Dushku inhabit (albeit briefly) is a motorcycle-racing sex kitten who spent three days giving a rich kid his ultimate weekend for his birthday. The only signs of life are from her conflicted handler, Boyd Langdon (played by Harry Lennix) and FBI agent Paul Ballard (Battlestar Galactica's Tahmoh Penikett) who is convinced that the Dollhouse exists in the face of pushback from his supervisors.

It's still early days yet (episode 2 awaits on the DVR) but so far I'm not sold on Dollhouse, not matter how good Whedon's track record has been so far.

TV Review: The two best shows not enough people are watching

Thankfully, the writers' strike last year didn't kill off two of the best new shows to come out of the 2007 TV season – "Chuck" and "Life". It came close but both were renewed, much to my delight. Of course, not a lot of people are watching them so there's no telling how long they'll last but until someone at NBC pulls the plug (please don't!), they've become must see TV for me.

No, this isn't going to be a rant about how if you don't watch these shows, you're a fool and contributing to the downfall of civilization. I seem to recall some of those from people I know who watched "The Sopranos" and "The Wire" and swore they were the greatest TV shows ever. That may be the case - I haven't watched enough of either of them to pass judgment but I am one of those people who, when told I absolutely have to read a specific book or watch a specific show because it's soooo good, will dig my heels in and not do it, just to avoid being one of the herd. Maybe that's a lingering aftereffect of being told that I absolutely must read "The Prince of Tides" many years ago and when I finally broke down and did, I hated it. Oh well.

So anyhow, this isn't going to be one of those rants. It's merely a suggestion that if you want to watch some well acted and entertaining TV, you could do far worse than "Chuck" and "Life."

"Chuck"

So here's what it's about – The CIA and NSA intelligence databases, known as the Intersect, are downloaded into the head of Chuck Bartowski (Zachary Levi), Stanford dropout and leader of the Nerd Herd at a southern California "Buy More" electronics store into his head by mistake while the computer containing the real Intersect is destroyed, leaving Chuck the sole respository for this key information. As a result, he becomes an unwilling secret agent with a gorgeous CIA agent (Yvonne Stahovski) posing as his girlfriend and an NSA agent (Adam Baldwin...not one of the Baldwin clan but the talented other Baldwin who also starred in Firefly and Serenity) as a fellow Buy More employee while keeping his activities secret from best friend Morgan, sister Ellie, and her fiancee, Captain Awesome.

Of course it's an outrageous premise (the CIA and NSA working together? Nah, never happen...) but the casting is great, the balance between saving the world and surviving life at the Buy More is really well done with just enough of an absurdist touch, and the writing is crisp and very funny. The homage to "Grosse Point Blank" a few weeks ago in "Chuck vs. the Cougars" was brilliant. Plus there is plenty of trendy gizmo commentary ("Morgan, do we have any Rush CDs in the store?" No, but don't worry, dude. I've got them all on my Zune." "You have a Zune?!" "Are you kidding me? I'll get my iPod.").

The pop culture riffs are also often aimed right at my "I was a young geek" phase (not to be confused with my current "I'm a late 30s geek" phase). A perfect example -- "Chuck vs. Tom Sawyer" in which Atari's Missile Command console game that we all played in the 80s has the code to stop an actual missile strike from a secret satellite but the only way to reach the legendary "kill screen" to play the game with Rush's "Tom Sawyer" providing the appropriate tempo for the necessary moves and score enough points). All in all, it's tremendous fun.

"Life"

"Life" is a bit darker - longtime LAPD officer Charlie Crews (the stellar Damian Lewis of "Band of Brothers") is convicted of murdering his best friend and his friend's wife and sent to prison for life. 12 years later, his conviction is overturned, he wins a $50 million settlement from the City of Los Angeles, and returns to life as a homicide detective. Partnered with recovering alcoholic Dani Reese (former Dallas Cowboy cheerleader and "L Word" supporting cast member Sarah Shahi) whose ex-cop father may or may not have been involved in a bank robbery and framing Charlie, Crews deals with the murder of the week stories while pursuing his friends' actual murderer (wrapped up last season) and now the people in the larger conspiracy (this season's arc) with the aid of friend and former cellmate Ted Early (Adam Arkin).

Certainly, the mysteries of the week are entertaining, not to mention creative (cancer researcher with lung problems is killed when his oxygen tank is swapped for a tank of liquid nitrogen). But the real thrill of watching this show is Damian Lewis and his take on Charlie Crews, a man who now takes a Zen approach to life as a means of controlling the rage he feels over the death of his friend and the 12 years stolen away from him. His passion for fresh fruit (a scarce commodity in prison), his curiosity about new technology (trying to figure out how a motion-activated water faucet works), his continuing love for his now remarried ex-wife, his dedication to Dani Reese (see the episode, "Powerless" in which she is taken hostage in her own home by a rapist she met in an AA meeting and finally comes to lean on and trust Crews), and his unique leaps in solving cases -- all of these things make Charlie Crews a fascinating character. Hopefully, "Life" will have a long and healthy lifespan on TV. It's absolutely worth it.

Punditry Part II

OK, I'll admit to being somewhat surprised this morning when I logged in and discovered that J. Peter Freire, a focus of Sunday's New York Times article on punditry, had posted a comment in response to my entry last evening. When that alert popped up in my e-mail, my first thought was "hmmm...did he write because I thoroughly pissed him off?" I was pleased to find that wasn't the case at all so first off, thanks very much for reading yesterday's entry, Peter. I hope you found it worth your time and I appreciate the fact that you took a few minutes to post your thoughts.

I understand and agree with a number of the points he makes. However, from the perspective of an outsider (albeit one who has dealt with producers, reporters, and bookers as a company spokesperson and PR guy), I think that some of the distinctions he makes are lost, or worse, obscured by the shows and the networks. For many watchers, those distinctions might not exist at all anymore.

"I'm a journalist, though I do engage in opinionmaking while also reporting. I'm frequently put on television alongside a party operative who can go on straight talking points. I cannot endorse a candidate, nor would I want to because I'm not interested in partisanship. But the other guy, he has no problem doing it.

"So I'm already stuck. If I raise points against him, he'll go back to talking points. Worse, they'll call him a news analyst, when he's done work for the party."

I think he strikes at the crux of it – the party flack is often given a comparable billing to a journalist or an expert witness, unless the flack is clearly ID'd as a representative for a campaign a la David Plouffe or the delightfully painful-to-watch Tucker Bounds and Nancy Pfotenhauer. The result is that the same weight is applied to the person paid to relate those talking points and spin as to someone whose focus is on providing feedback on the news through a (hopefully) informed opinion.

The lack of transparency with regard to who these people are, their expertise and qualifications, and their connections to the issue at hand all lead to a sense of cynicism and a sometimes not-so-vague unease that we're not hearing the truth. For example, in April, the New York Times exposed the close connections between the Pentagon, the White House, and many military experts who served as on-screen commentators presenting positive stories of the war in Iraq. Would viewers of these shows have been less likely to buy into this spin if they knew that the pundits were in bed with the Pentagon and the Bush Administration? You'd certainly think so!

The result is a blurring of the lines as to what's news, what's legitimate commentary, and what is spin, manipulation, or party rhetoric. It's a state exacerbated by the increasingly partisan evening news blocks, headlined by Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann where the reporting of "news" is in fact a heavily biased presentation of select details designed to provoke ire, angst, or pleasure, depending on where you fall on the ideological spectrum. It gets more confusing and more blurred when the pundits on these shows are viewed as doing much the same thing.

It's an unfortunate situation, especially for guests who do truly seek to educate and illuminate through informed opinion. Both the flack and the voice of experience are painted with the sweeping brush of "pundit" by the viewing public. When one is seen as presenting nothing but speaking points and spin, then a cynical viewing public will tend to discount all pundits that have not built up a reservoir of goodwill or the gravitas that NYT's Ashley Parker described in her article this past Sunday.

On the other hand, building up that goodwill overcomes what some might see as youth and inexperience. Christopher Beam of Slate.com is a good example - I enjoy reading his commentary on Slate. Do I care that he's only 23 or 24 or will I discount his appearance on a TV news program due to his age? Nope, because I've learned that he's a reliable resource who clearly gives thought to what he writes.

On the other hand, some guests on news programs are so partisan that it is very difficult for me to listen to them anymore (James Carville, for example). That partisanship and the strong feelings for and against that they engender are, of course, why these people get booked on TV news programs. It helps a show's ratings when there are fireworks to be seen (see: Novak, Robert). I'm not naive.

Cable TV news and its need for pundits are the journalistic equivalent of Major League Baseball and the lack of good pitching. While there may be the same number of outstanding pitchers now as there were 15, 20, or 30 years ago, they are far more thinly spread following the expansion of MLB to 30 teams. In response, teams have no choice but to fill starting and bullpen roles with mid-level pitchers who wouldn't have made the major league cut 15 or 20 years ago. In the same fashion, news programs are now relying on a broader, thinner, more compromised, and occasionally less capable stable of pundits to fill the ravenous hunger for 24 hour news coverage.

"As for the gravitas argument, that'll probably get fixed as soon as networks don't need to have a new guest every 5 minutes. And as soon as there are fewer networks. And as soon as the bookers are older."

Sorry, Peter, but I don't think these networks and their expanding rosters of news and opinion shows are going anywhere. As a result, I think you'll get your money's worth from that training program. The market continues to look rosy for the TV pundit growth industry. Invest now and make sure your suit doesn't blend into the green screen.

It's growth industry – Punditry on Demand

One political article in particular caught my eye in today's Sunday New York Times though it was not to be found in the front section or Week in Review. Nope, it was in the Fashion & Style Section and no, it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin's wardrobe. Titled "At Pundit School, Learning to Smile and Interrupt", it opens:

J. Peter Freire is at school, learning to be a better pundit.

He is being trained to carve his conservative philosophy into bite-size nuggets — preferably ones that end with a zinger — and to avoid questions he doesn’t like. He is discovering the right way to attack opponents (with a smile) and to steer a conversation in his direction (by interrupting).

Journalists once had to achieve a certain gravitas before appearing on television as a political expert, but not anymore. Thanks to the 24-hour news cycle, a riveting presidential election and the proliferation of cable channels, people like Mr. Freire, who is 26 and has been managing editor of The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, since January, are finding themselves in hot demand.

While the lack of experience on the part of many of these pundits calls into question just what they're doing on my TV set, what I found most fascinating in this article is the apparent acceptance of the concept of pundits as extensions of the campaign and a movement. It's the latest step in the continued transition of news from a theoretically objective venue to one with a veneer of objectivity and an overflow of rhetoric (except for FOX News, which crossed over into full propaganda mode years ago). Sadly, for those of us who follow all of the political coverage, it also means that we suffer through an unending, overwhelming cascade of pundits who generally add very little to the mix (see: "The Decabox" and "Who the F@*k is That Guy?" on The Daily Show if you need an example).

It all brings to mind another article, "Top Yeller", in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, that profiles Billy Mays, ubiquitous TV pitchman, and defines his appeal as "a celebrity endorser whose celebrity is based entirely on having endorsed things." Is it such a stretch to believe that many of the pundits spawning on our TV sets are nothing but the political equivalent, hawking political positioning instead of the WashMatik, the Ultimate Chopper, and OxiClean to bored TV watchers around the country?

However, in these tough economic times, it is nice to know that if you're out of a job because your advice led to your candidate getting crushed in the polls, you can always pony up $75 for a basic lecture on how to be an effective pundit. If you do, God knows someone will pay you to be on TV.

The Daily F-Bomb

While I turn to The Daily Show for a bit of humor and perspective, it seems that Mr. Stewart and his merry band are dropping a growing number of bleeped out f-bombs every evening. I suppose after two years of election coverage, the writers have got to be getting a bit burnt out (not that candidates aren't gift wrapping new material every day) so perhaps those bleeps are simply a sign of comedic exhaustion. It's an easy laugh because that's one of those words that still isn't allowed to appear on basic cable or broadcast TV after 11 PM.

On Tuesday, it was Stewart going off on the "pro-America/anti-America" statements from Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Nancy Pfotenhauer, leading to a rousing "What the phuck?" Tonight it was a segment called "Who the f*@k is that guy?", a look at the growing ranks of interchangeable political pundits and strategists for hire on the news programs.

Don't get me wrong. I'm as much a fan of a well-timed and well-placed f-bomb as the next person and I've been known to let one fly when appropriate. It's an extraordinarily versatile word (listen to this brief language lesson if you want proof). However, its value comes from the shock of its appearance.

I remember seeing Beverly Hills Cop as a kid and thinking it was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen because you never knew when Eddie Murphy was going to hit you with another bomb or other swear in some totally inappropriate situation. The second time I saw it...not funny at all. The shock value was gone. I knew when the bombs were going to explode, and it just didn't work anymore.

And so it's going with The Daily Show. So to the writers at The Daily Show, I beg, "Don't get lazy, folks! We depend on you to puncture the inflated, to expose the absurd, and to help keep us somewhat sane as this interminable election season slowly, painfully grinds to a weary end."