Intelligent, observant, and thoughtful analysis of the film, TV and the entertainment world. DAVID BARUFFI'S ENTERTAINMENT VIEW AND REVIEWS! Includes Random Movie Reviews, Cannon of Film blogs and Critical essays on the latest goings of the entertainment world and culture. Check it Out!
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT: DavidBaruffi_EV
As much as I love both “The Millenium Trilogy,” movies and books, it’s clear to me that Lisbeth Salandar is a fictional character. A fantasy character who just happened to have the ability to be an expert at computer hacking and have a photographic memory so that she can get at all the men who physically and mentally abused her over the years. In another world, she might have turned out like Aileen Wournos, a prostitute who started murdering her johns after one of them raped her, eventually getting the electric chair. Patty Jenkins’s film “Monster,” came out to rave reviews, and Charlize Theron’s performance was a revelation. Nothing she had done before prepared anybody for her performance in this film. It wasn’t just the Tony G make-up or the thirty pound weight gain, she seemed to channel a performance of a woman who was unable to live in the world surrounding her. It’s probably more surprising that Theron’s Oscar-winning performance was the film’s only nomination. Christian Ricci’s supporting work was overlooked in a crowded year, and the film didn’t get noticed for the screenplay, directing, picture, not even make-up. Those who watched the film however, knew it stood out. As a character study, as a tragic love story, a crime story, and a story of two characters who get into a scenario that’s in over both heads. Lee (Theron) had been hooking since she was 13, and was thinking of killing herself until she met Selby (Ricci), a very young lesbian who her family in two states was trying to straighten out. The two meet and talk, and begin to fall in love. One of the most romantic scenes in any movie is the two of them falling in love at a roller rink as Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing” comes on the radio. Is Lee a lesbian, or just falling in love with the person? Does Selby understand or realize that she killing people to get the money to support her? These are two characters inexperienced with love and the feeling of having being wanted by someone else. They live off emotions, Lee’s a young tomboy who’s not that educated. Combs her hair with the accurate precision like John Travolta used to in “Saturday Night Fever,” or smoking her cigarettes like a twelve-year-old boy trying to be cool. Selby is pretty, young, shy, so unsure of her own identity she practically mimics Lee when she’s not around. It’s tragic that she finds the love she’s always looking for but too late for her to be anything but a serial killer, whose time is closing in. Jenkins’s directing career has suffered a standstill after this film, only getting work occasionally directing TV shows, and she hasn’t written anything afterwards. This was a passion project for her though. I’m not sure what if anything she plans or wants to do afterwards, but it’d be hard to top “Monster,” even if she tried.
One of the few people I haven't gone after for their part in forcing bad reality TV down our throats is the tabloid entertainment news shows. You know, "Extra," "Access Hollywood," "Entertainment Tonight," "The Insider," "Inside Edition", they're the biggest offenders. They're also just completely unwatchable. Not that they were ever really great. They always leaned towards the sensationalism (As much of the news media leans towards nowadays as Jon Stewart has famously pointed out, but these people were one of the first). They really peaked, I'd say during the O.J. trial in the early '90s, and the first thing I really remember was "Hard Copy," airing the Tonya Harding sex tape, and, boy am I dating myself there. They do generally talk about Hollywood in the most boring and cliched ways possible. There's rarely any legitimate reviews or P.O.V.'s and if you want to know anything that's in the trades, like who's switching to which agency, or who the new showrunners are, they're fairly useless. The last time I remember watching them on a regular basis, was during the first season of "Desperate Housewives," where, and I remember this, "Access Hollywood," spent weeks at a time, devoting the first 15 minutes of the daily episode to "...Housewives", every night. They should've, it was clearly the biggest thing in TV, and in the entertainment world at that time, and I, among others, couldn't get enough of them. (And they should've won the Emmy that first season, instead of "Everybody Loves Raymond," big Emmy screwup that year.) The reason I'm bashing them now, is first of all, they're just unwatchable in general; and if anybody ever wants to counter-program them with an entertainment news magazine show, that covers entertainment similar to the way the Hollywood Reporter does, or the way Variety, does, I'll be first in line to watch, but the main thing I want to knock them on, is how they've basically become promotional vehicles for those bad network reality shows that I have been railing against for a while now. Yes, I've been criticizing "American Idol," mostly, partly 'cause of it's high ratings (I should be talking about the most popular thing(s) happening in the entertainment industry as much as possible, or I'll seem out of touch), but some of the other shows are just worst, and worst yes is that, they're tailor-made news filler for these shows. Week-long analysts of who did what on "Dancing with the Stars," and "American Idol," or "America's Next Top Model," and it's mind-numbing. I mentioned that Philip Phillips and Jessica Sanchez were one-two on "Idol," this year in my last blog, and it took me a couple days, but then I thought, "Wait, I didn't watch "American Idol," this year, how the hell did I know that?", and the answer is, that it's because of these tabloid entertainment shows completely giving themselves over to the shows. They're covering these things as though the outcomes have some real significance, and really, they are just TV programs, most of them, highly-rated ones, I grant you, but just because they're easy to cover because of their built-in weekly drama and popularity with the audiences means ratings, doesn't mean they should be covered like this. I understand sensational journalism to an extent. I mean, if Woody Allen marries his daughter, you can't frigging ignore it, I get that, but it's tiresome and boring, and even with the extended coverage of the reality shows, the shows are basically long advertisements telling people to go read the entire story/interviews/etc. on their website. They've all but taken over the entire 6-8pm syndicated TV blocks here in Vegas, and have pushed sitcom reruns to past midnight here, and it's kinda ridiculous, and by the way, they lose badly in the ratings to reruns of "The Big Bang Theory," and "Jeopardy! and "Wheel of Fortune", and they should. Oh, and "Entertainment Tonight", that set is atrocious! Yes, it's entertainment, but it's still news, and you're not a fucking disco ball. The lighted steps, those blaring colors, you know, occasionally, you have to report a sad story like somebody's untimely death, and you all still look like you're waiting for Rod Roddy to tell the next contestant that she's going to be playing "Plinko". Most watched entertainment show, my ass, and by the way, there's no basis for you guys to make that claim, but for Christ's sake, do it on somthing that marginally resembles a set that people could take seriously. (Oh, "Access Hollywood," your set sucks too, I'm not forgetting about you, but you're still miles ahead of "E.T.", so you got some time. Oh, and fire Billy Bush, nobody likes him. That's not because of his family either, he's just annoying, even outside of that. Let him executive produce, he's good at that, but as on-air talent, he just... ugh.)
You'll notice up until now, I've missed one show, in this rant, and that was on purpose. "TMZ," is the only one of these entertainment news shows I watch, and frankly, I don't think it should even be compared to the other shows, I don't consider it the same genre. No, it's not exactly the hypothetical "Hollywood Reporter,"-type show that I'd prefer, and yes, there's paparazzi-lead style of interviews can be somewhat morally questionable, but from everything I can tell, yes, they're looking for a story to break, but I detect no mean-spiritedness with their forward tactics. Their tactics are journalistic in nature, and have given them credibility as a news organization, most notably, being the first to confirm Michael Jackson's death, an hour before everybody else had the story. This was on their website, where they combine serious investigative entertainment journalism with the more low-key and random celebrity encounters and news that peppers their TV show. They do head out, and search for celebrities most days, but their primary focus is to portray celebrities as the people that they are. The one thing that's really interesting about celebs isn't who their with, or what rumors are abound, but the people who they really are. Most of the time, the celebrities seem rather friendly, others aren't, sometimes they're caught in a bad mood or something like that, some take more offense than others to the paparazzis, all of these emotions are understandable, and we get to know them a little better. If anything, the newsroom atmosphere of the show, along with the satirical segments of their own scoops indicate that they're as surprised at what they are genuinely covering as breaking entertainment news. Justin Bieber seems to be a constant good example, as they continually parody his twitter postings, and his young age et al, and luckily, he seems to be able to get the joke. They cover the more sensational material, but it feels done in an appropriate, and often respectable manner, and if there's disagreement on that, it's often shown by having the staff in the room arguing, discussins and debating their subjects, and what to think of them. It's format is truly unique. Dare I say, it is the opposite of sensationalism. They do sensationalize, if that's what the news gives them, but they don't go creating stories, or jumping on reality-show bandwagons just because they're popular. If anything, with their overly-produced, usually comical segments, they seem to be mocking their competition that does choose sensationalism. I don't think they go for satire in these bits; they're not "The Daily Show...", they are a news organization, and they take it seriously, at least as much as they can. Actually, seriously is the wrong word, actually, the word is realistically, which is the one thing that the other shows severely lack, any realistic portrayals of the news of the day. They say a lot, but among other things, they say what we're thinking, or at least, what they're thinking. The other shows are sensational, but they're overly-serious about their sensational celeb and entertainment news, and that makes it all the more annoying. "TMZ"'s goal seems to be to report on the entertainment and celebrity news, but then to take a step back, and to see these celebrities for what they are, human beings. It's not a radical or even a unique approach, but it's done well, and it's approach, while not the approach, I would take, it's the exact right approach for them.
Harvey Levin, and all the folks at "TMZ," have successfully carved out a unique new niche in a tired, boring oversaturated genre; they're the only thing interesting in this genre in fact, and frankly, I'm tired of sitting through all the other entertainshow news show crap just to get to TMZ. There's too many of them, all on at the same time, and that was already after more local and national news shows than I think anybody can take, (Seriously, 4 o'clock news, 5 o'clock news. 5:30 news, 6 o'clock- what the hell's happening every five minutes that I need another news show for it?) they're all followed by these entertainment news shows, and it's overwhelming, and frustrating. Pick an entertainment news show, just one, then let it be, and then put on a rerun of "Friends" or something to kill time. There was an episode of TMZ recently where even they starting complaining that it was just too slow of a news day, and they were right then, hell, they're right now, (Why do you think I'm even talking about this, I had to come up with something to write about this week) and frankly, the ten-hours of real news is annoying enough, at least that's informative and occasionally important, why we need al this flashy glitzly paper-thin entertainment news after it, I don't know. Consider this a memo to all local station affiliates and especially their programmers, one half-hour of entertainment news, is enough. Pick one to compete with the others, and move on. Buy a syndicated sitcom or something for the rest of the time. That's why we like celebrities to begin with, because they're amazing entertainers and performers (Cast of "[INSERT STUPID CABLE REALITY SHOW HERE]" not withstanding), they're amazingly creative and talented people, and that's why we want to know more about them to begin with, even if they're the latest casted-off flavor-of-the-week, reality show contestant.
Well, it's not my most amazing prediction to ever come to fruition, in fact, the writing was pretty much on the wall from the beginning, but it's official now, "American Idol", has finally fallen from #1 on the Neilsen ratings, for the first time in seven years. What beat it, you may be asking? Well, it wasn't "The Big Bang Theory," or "Modern Family," or "30 Rock," or anything really of substance, but it lost to NBC's "Sunday Night Football". Doesn't sound as shocking, surprising or big, but it's had an impact. It's already being reported that the deal that Jessica Sanchez, who finished second to Philllip Phillips this year on "...Idol", (And I still can't believe his parents named him that) won't be getting the same kind of 2nd place prize normally afforded to "American Idol" finishers. In the past, the 2nd place finisher would get way more prize money, plus a record contract of his/her own, that's not going to be given to her Sanchez this time. Not her fault, or "American Idol"'s actually, the show recieved less ratings, so naturally, the prizes which can and are subject to change according to most reality show contracts, are lessened. (The first time I remember seeing/hearing that was when on the first season of "Big Brother", [and the only one I ever tried to force myself to watch] the prize money went from a million to half a million dollars, for the winner! something which I would've been pissed at if I had to spend all that time in a house for money, but the ratings did suck, so....) That's a tough break for Ms. Sanchez, but she's only 17, and 2nd on "...Idol" has proven to not be too shabby. Adam Lambert, for instance just hit #1 on the Billboard charts the other week, becoming the first openly gay artist to have the honor, by the way, congratulations to him for that.
Anyway, back to the Neilsen, and what are we really looking at here? Yeah, "...Idol", falls to 2, not exactly a drastic fall from grace, but for them it might as well be, but it's not like NFL football earning big ratings is shocking or worth noting either, although one note came out of it that was interesting, NBC, because of football, actually jumped from 4th to 3th place, in the network battle for ratings, because of it, so they're officially out of the gutter for the first time since "Friends" went off the air. That's a minor achievement, but hardly an Earth-shattering one. For those who care about scripted TV, "NCIS" took home the #3 spot, the highest rated of the scripted series. I'm not gonna defend "NCIS," it's a terrible cliched procedural of a TV show, with a popularity that is absolutely befuddling, but..., well are these show actually that popular? You know what, I'll get to that in a second, more importantly, why do we still compare these shows? Anyone else thinks it's odd that the number one Neilsen show has been shared by such divergent shows as "American Idol," NFL football, "Seinfeld," "ER," "The Beverly Hillbillies," "The $64,000 Question," and "60 Minutes", to name a few. These shows aren't really comparable. Does the fact that Football beat out "American Idol," mean that less people want to see amatuer singing competitions or that more would rather see football, or has the "...Idol" audience simply decided that now prefer to watch a Cowboys game? All those questions are absurd and ridiculous. They don't compete with each other; they're not in the same genre, and people don't think like that anyway.
Look, anybody can look up the problems with the Neilsen ratings in numerous articles online, but the simple fact is that they are typically inaccurate. Does that mean more people actually watched "American Idol," or "NCIS," instead of football, not necessarily, but I know most of the shows that I watch, and that most of y friends watch, hardly ever correlate with the Neilsen ratings, and there seems to be less and less correlation, than ever before. Let me put this in perspective though, cause there are a few ways that this should be looked at. Number one, although they do keep statistics on cable and the networks have figures on internet downloads, and other alternative viewing methods, but Neilsen's doesn't consider that, and they certainly don't consider cable numbers. Especially pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime, at best, a show like "Boardwalk Empire," probably gets about a million viewers per episode according to Neilsen, and that's considered a hit for HBO. The reason is not because HBO doesn't have that many viewers, they have a lot more than that for most of their original programming, but because they don't have advertisements, which is the real key to the Neilsen ratings. Now, their was HBO, and a limited number of cable channels, in 1983, but most Americans still only had the three major networks, NBC, CBS and ABC at that time. Now, you're asking, why am I comparing this to 1983. Up until two years ago, the highest rated single TV program in American history was the final episode of "M*A*S*H", in 1983, depending on how you want to count, it had at least 105million viewers, and as many as 121million who watched it. The last two Super Bowls however, have both passed that number. The Colts/Saints Super Bowl broke that record. At least, that's how it looks, and if I were to point out that the majority of the highest rated programs in American history, according to viewership were Super Bowls, and other sporting events, you would think that would mean that this country, must really love watching sports, more than anything. It does technically have more viewers, but it only had 47% of the country watching it. Less than half of all televisions being watched at the moment of that Super Bowl, were actually watching the Super Bowl. Compared to the series finale of "M*A*S*H", where, 3 out of every 5 people in the country, 60% of the country, watched it that night, and that's just the whole show, the share of that viewing, is through the roof, over 75% of the country watched it at some point during the broadcast, and only an Oscar telecast has that number beat. (And that Oscars, that had a higher share, had only half the overall viewer ratings as "M*A*S*H".)
There's a couple obvious reasons for this. One, less options on TV; two, "M*A*S*H", like many Super Bowls, was a historic and culturally significant program, people wanted to see it, but third, and the key one, less people in the country back then. Let's do the math, 105million = 60% of America in 1983, = 175million people in America in 83. Now, Super Bowl, 112million < half of America, in 2010, let's guesstimate a bit here, 230million in America right now, and that actually feels light, it should be closer to 300 million, but let's go with 230. so, 21million saw the "Idol" finale this past year, their lowest rating ever, and BTW, no single "American Idol," is anywhere near the top of this list, none in the Top 50, so were looking at, fewer that 1/12 of America watched it, that number averages out over all there broadcasts this past year, so let's figure that, it could be, maybe half of that, watched every episode, so you get that average, realize that football beat it overall, and suddenly, I've turned maybe the two biggest passions in American history, NFL football and "American Idol," into programs with significant core cult following, only. The point being is that, it takes a lot fewer people to make a show a significant Neilsen hit than ever before. In fact, close followers of the networks have been showing less and less overall interest in the Neilsen ratings than ever before. They're still apart of the language of television however, and they're the critical aspect that determines a show's worth in terms of ad-dollars, so they have to continually be considered, as well as, rated. That's honestly, the only real reason that I'm reporting on them now. (Well, demographic analysis by the Neilsen's is also critical in determining a show's worth, that shouldn't be ignored either). Ratings have no effect on my TV viewing habits, but they do effect the program options I have to choose from. They can be read in about a million different ways. For instance, is a show winning it's time slot because it's a good show, or because the rest of the competition it's up against is lackluster and people watch something by default. Quick, what day and time does "NCIS" go on the air every week? Better question, what was it up against? Don't look at me, I have to look it up myself; I don't know it offhand. Considering I don't have the options of cable, I was probably either watching a rerun on a classic TV station like METV or AntennaTV, or not watching television at the time. I do know that "Modern Family," was often up against "American Idol," in their respective Wednesday time slots. It usually beat "Modern Family," but the next-day result show, struggled against "The Big Bang Theory," most weeks, although both beat "Community," which has a lesser, but an arguably more rabid fan base than both those shows, especially with key demographics. Does a good number against "...Idol" keep a show on the air, or does the show also need that cult fanbase, or possibly critical acclaim like Awards to stay on the air? That seems like a ridiculous question, but it's exactly the kinds of considerations that network executive and programmers have to consider, everyday. They don't particularly want to, but they do, so I have to as well. If I want to keep a show on the air, that I really like, I have to watch it, when it first airs, on TV. Until some system gets adapted that makes the Neilsen's system not just obsulete, (It already is obsolute), but also unnecessary, it will remain the main tool with with networks use to program. That really is the main point; if you like it, watch when it's on TV. Not on hulu, not on youtube, not TiVo'd for later, but when it's on TV. For whatever reason, the fans of NFL football, "American Idol," "NCIS," and other shows that top the Neilsen ratings, make it a point to watch their shows, when they're on the air. What that means to the networks, is that, the fans of that show are the most devoted to that show, (Not true), that they're more of the fans of that show, than other shows (That is somewhat true), and that they know, the audience will be there, so that advertisers can advertise during those shows, and they can make a lot of more money from the ads than other shows. (BINGO!)
So, whatever your favorite show's are, and you want to keep them on the air, ( then, be sure to tune in, whenever it's on, whenever you can and everytime. (Well, if it's a good show. If you're favorite show is a piece of crap, than stop watching it, you're ruining TV for the rest of us. Watch your piece-of-crap shows on hulu.com)
Ugh! First, let me start out by saying, extremely sorry for the delays this week. I mentioned before that my family is currently in the middle of moving into a house, and we're almost finished with that, thank God, but that has taken up much of the time that I'd rather use writing my reviews and thoughtful opinions here on the blog, an for that I have to apologize. As to this week's long-delayed movie reviews, I'm just gonna warn you all now, I'm still watching movies as you'll read, but this week sucked! It was depressing to watch movies this week. I don't think I've written this many negative reviews yet, and it was painful. Believe me, I could've used a good film or two this week, and frankly I didn't get enough of it in the movies that were released in theatres this week. It just depressed me, and I struggled through this set of reviews. So, before you guys read them, I'm gonna tell you what I have been watching that was quite good and worth your time to search for instead. I've been diving into some HBO programs on DVD recently, I'm finally catching up on "Boardwalk Empire," for instance, and that is a great show, and their TV, as it almost always is, is of the highest quality around, but they also do some wonderful films, and recently I watched a couple of them. One, is the Todd Haynes miniseries of "Mildred Pierce", many of you know the classic film, which won Joan Crawford an Oscar many years ago, Kate Winslet is in the role here of the great James M. Cain heroine, here; it's a five-part miniseries but it is so worth so your time. It's rich, and fulfilling and it's just so refreshing to see such incredible actors, Winslet I already named, Guy Pearce, Evan Rachel Wood, Melissa Leo, to name a few, just work and with such incredible material and characters. After watching some of these films this week, you can't imagine how life-affirming something like "Mildred Pierce," can really be. Todd Haynes, wonderful director, the man behind this project, he made "Far From Heaven," years ago, that great reimagining of Douglas Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows", and he's reinventing another great, classic Hollywood film, it is just superb. As good as "Mildred Pierce" is though, I also want to showcase "Thurgood". It's a taping HBO did of the one-man play that Lawrence Fishburne starred in on Broadway, where he plays Thurgood Marshall, the legendary American litigator for the NAACP, he won the Brown vs. Board of Education battle that eliminated Jim Crow Laws, and he eventually became the first African-American Supreme Court Justice. There's nothing complicated here, they didn't add anything, they just shot the play as it was being performed; if you love theatre, you'll love watching "Thurgood", and you know, Laurence Fishburne is one of those actors who we just tend to forget how great an actor he really is. He's been in a lot of movies of course, recently he was on "CSI" for the last couple years, he just left that show, you don't really get to see, just how great he is most of the time, he won a Tony Award for this performance, you really get an appreciation of the craft of acting, watching him, in front of an audience, an hour and, forty-some-odd minutes, engulfed in this performance, it is just spectacular. Go watch one of these things on HBO some day, you're just gonna really feel the different level that their programming, even way more than Hollywood produces, It great craft meeting great projects, and you don't just get enough of it some days, and believe me, I was very happy I sat through these amazing pieces of art this week.
Now, after I've said my peace, unfortunately, it's now time for this week's Random Weekly Movie Reviews! Atleast they're well-written, which is more than I can say for most of the films!
THE IRON LADY (2011) Director: Phyllida Lloyd
1 1/2 STARS
I'm not gonna pretend that I like Margaret Thatcher. Actually I can't stand her, for most of the reasons people who can't stand her, can't stand her, which are also ironically many of reasons that other people love her. But of all the ways to make a movie about her, why in the hell would you focus on her today. She's rarely seen in public anymore, old age has gotten ahold of her, and is in 24-hour care, but occasionally Ms. Thatcher (Meryl Streep in an Oscar-winning role) sneaks out to go buy a pint of milk, and complain about it to her loyal husband Denis (Jim Broadbent), who is long dead. Not that I particularly care about what Margaret Thatcher would think of a portrayal of herself, but this can't possibly be where she would imagine, or where anybody would imagine focusing on in a portrayal of her. She's one of the most strong-willed leaders of the 20th Century. Her nickname of "The Iron Lady," is accurate. She was not afraid of unpopular decisions, in fact, I think she often thrived on it. She won an unprecedented three terms as Prime Minister, yet she was soon overthrown by her own party before the third term was up, many of whom despised her non-negotiating positions. We see a few of these scenes, which really are mainly glorified career highlights without any real common thread tying them together. What exactly brought about her decision to cost several thousand lives to keep the Falkland Islands? She's determined in her thoughts, and those who oppose seem extremely weak. (Although I don't find it that hard to believe that people would buckle under her presence)She writes letters to the parents of the fallen soldiers, reminded them that she is also a mother. She doesn't seem like much of one. Her son is in South Africa, about as far from her as he could be, and is never seen outside of a single home movie. Her daughter Carol (Olivia Colman) occasionally comes to visit, but that's it. I can't remember a biopic of a parent with such little emphasis on the kids. There's one moment where Thatcher, during a doctor's physical, complains about how the world is run by feelings, instead of ideas. That, is maybe the one great line that does conceivably describe Margaret Thatcher, and her view of the world. That's it though. There's way more bad dialogue, especially for Alexandra Roach, who portrays a young Thatcher, fresh out of Oxford, determined to win a seat in Parliament. Streep won an Oscar for her performance, her third, making her and Jack Nicholson the only living 3-time Oscar-winning actors, and only Katharine Hepburn, with 4, has her beat. It's not a bad performance at all, but it's in a movie that fails it miserably. It's director Phyllida Lloyd's 2nd feature after the musical "Mamma Mia!" which is one of the worst musicals I've ever seen. I watched that movie and felt sorry for ABBA. (I mean, how would you like someone to take your life's work as inspiration, and come up with something as thin and weightless a film or a piece of art like that?) I don't know how when or where or who was involved when the conversation took place that made someone think, "Maybe the "Mamma Mia" director, should make the Margaret Thatcher film," and I don't wanna know. Meryl Streep was one of the few highpoints of "Mamma Mia!", maybe it was getting her that brought Streep to the project, or vice-versa. Either way, the end, result, and I can't believe these words are coming out of my mouth, made me feel sorry for Margaret Thatcher, that they couldn't make a movie that'd do her justice. Little pieces and snippets of "The Iron Lady," are somewhat entertaining, but almost of none of it is good.
REAL STEEL (2011) Director: Shawn Levy
2 STARS
I had the worse time trying to take "Real Steel" even remotely seriously. Apparently, this film was based on a short story by Richard Matheson, who sci-fi ideas also included "I Am Legend". For some reason, I think they took some liberties with the original story. As I watched it, I had about a dozen one-liners describing the absurdity of "Real Steel," but now, the only one I can remember is, "'Real Steel,' is 'Rocky,' as portrayed by Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots. I know, I had better ones than that, but it's accurate enough. In the near future, boxing will become virtually non-existant, not because of the growing popularity of the UFC, but because the rise of robot boxing, which technology now offers more extreme and explosive violence without the disadvantage of actual humans getting hurt, I guess. I've watched some of those robot fighting competition before on TV, Battle Bots, and stuff like that, they're never as entertaining to me as they sound like, but than again, they haven't evolved to ones like this. Despite that however, former boxer Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is broke, on a helluva losing streak, and keeps pouring money into any robot he can, and putting him up at any fight he can find, including one time, having to fight a bull at a rodeo. It's around this time, when he finds out his ex-wife has died. Reluctantly, he takes in his long-estranged son Max (Dakota Goya), who's got a childlike fascination with the robot fighters. One of them saves his life at one point, an early prototype model that was used originally only as a sparring bot, but the kid thinks he might have the makings of a champion. With a few adjustments and montages, he starts to win a few underground fights, getting the attention of the world champion Zeus, well, his people anyway. (Do robot boxers call their people, "Posse"?) The special effects earned "Real Steel," a surprising Oscar nomination last year, and I can why. They used a lot of different combinations of CGI, animatronic puppets, and motion capture to create them. Yet, "Real Steel," ultimately is a couple recycle plots brought together by special effects and bright flashy colors, and not much else. And I have a particular bone to pick with two casting choices that were practically pointless. The aunt and uncle of Max, are a well-off couple played by Hope Davis and James Rebhorn, and I have to ask, why in the hell, are these two amazing actors casted in these roles. They're not bad in them, but them in these roles, in this movie, is one of the biggest waste of acting chops I can remember. They're- they're barely characters. They basically have two functions, one of them is to show up and cheer in the crowd scenes at the final big match, which is of course, a shockingly close match with Zeus, the World Champion, and to be some kind of obstacle for Charlie to get to be with his son, and they don't even get that part. There's a scene in this movie, where Charlie knocks on the couple's door to try and convince them, and Max, to help him out for one last fight. I swear to God, they must've cut Hope Davis out of the scene. Max opens the door, there's some awkwardness, Ms. Davis's character shows up, sees what's going on,... and says nothing. Now this father hasn't seen his son, for literally his whole life, except for the last couple months, where he took their nephew to numerous underground boxing matches that looked like the stadium scene from "A.I. Artificial Intelligence", and even after her sister's died, he doesn't put up a fight to even try to have custody of his son, and this woman has nothing to say to him when he knocks on her door? Are you kidding me?! There's about 30 types of conflict that could occur in this scene, and we get none of it. These characters have the personality of doormats, and as bad as that is, why then, would you cast two of the best character actor alive for these roles. These parts were the ones that should've been played by robots, if they were gonna do that. Hope Davis, James Rebhorn, I hope you guys got a really big check for this film, 'cause these people have no idea how to use you two, and you should be compensated for putting yourselves through that. This film was directed by Shawn Levy, who, while he occasionally can be competent enough to let great actors do their thing like he did with Steve Carell and Tina Fey in "Date Night", he's basically been a hack go-to director whose biggest career triumph are the inexplicably popular "Night at the Museum" movies, his early work came from Children's television shows like "The Famous Jett Jackson," and "The Secret World of Alex Mac," (Although I was a fan of the latter.) the way he used those actors just screams of incompetence of him, or by somebody, the writer, the editor, or the script supervisor at least, and the fact he didn't see it, scares me. If he did, something, with those characters, potentially I might have given "Real Steel," an average review, something corny and cheesy but just bright and fun enough to keep you 5-year old's attention span without wanting to throw the DVD player out of the window, but now, instead of this strange, outlandish, ridiculous film, we don't even get a strange, outlandish, ridiculous film, that's made well. Oh, I forgot, Evangeline Lilly's in the film too.
THUNDER SOUL (2011) Director: Mark Landsmen
3 STARS
"Thunder Soul," is a mildly interesting documentary to those like me who come into it, without knowledge of what or who the legendary Kashmir High School Stage Band is. It might be of more interest and fascination to those who may have heard of them however, and it seems like a lot of people did. Back in the day, Kashmir High School produced a stage band, that rearranged some of those old big band standards, and wrote some of there own music, to create a funk band that could discussed as being as good as band as many professional bands. They won every award against schools, and against professional competition, would travel with their music as far away as Europe, and even before this movie came out, years after they had stopped performing and playing together, one of their live albums reached #3 on Amazon.com. Perhaps, this one is my bad; I think I should've heard of them before this film. Produced by Jamie Foxx, "Thunder Soul," not only documents the success of the Kashmir band, but it also shows the band today, as they try to wipe the dust off their old horns, and come together for a special concert for their leader and teacher, Conrad "Prof." Johnson. Prof, because he was their professor. Now, sickly at age 92, and clearly on his last legs, he's hanging around just to see this performance. The band reuniting, has a few interesting moments, especially when it becomes clear that they have a lot of practice to get back to their old performing ability. Some of the old footage of the band and of Prof. is more interesting. What really works for the movie is the music. Their's a lot of it, and their damn well should be, but more importantly, it really is top quality jazz funk soul music. It's amazing that teenagers can produce such amazing music. They singlehandedly revolutionize what a high school stage band could be. Many of the members have now started touring as the Kashmir Alumni Stage Band, a little older, but, man they sound great. As a documentary, I don't know, it's somewhat lackluster to me, despite getting a Independent Spirit Award nomination last year, but the music sells it for me, so it'a recommendation, although I think I'd prefer to either have a live album, or see them perform live than see the movie again, for since I don't have much opportunity for that, I'll take the film.
BURNING PALMS (2011) Director: Christopher Landon
1 STAR
How come people think that if they can't write anything more that caricaturish characters, that you can get away with it by saying, "They're L.A. people"? I've seen a few movies try this, but "Burning Palms" by far, is the worst offender so far. It's a so-called "comedy", anthology, where we get five separate short tales, each taking place in a specific area of Los Angeles, and yes, they are as cliched as humanly possible. The stereotypes of the people you think of when you ponder who lives in South Central or West Hollywood or Beverly Hills, are exactly the kind of people who are in this story. Writer/director Christopher Landon, thinks he's writing a sharp satire, and that it's okay to resort to absurd cliche stereotypes, if he's making fun of them. It's not. At certain points in "Burning Palms," is downright offensive, and worse yet, it's not funny. The third scene was the one that really pushed it over the line. It involves the most stereotypical flamboyant gay couple I've ever seen in a movie, Tom and Gerry (Anson Mount and Peter Macdissi) who are adopting a child, mostly because they seem to think of her as the latest gay chic accessory. The young African girl, who doesn't speak but they named Mahogany (Tiara McKinney), keeps escaping from them to hide in a tree. It turns out, that she's from a place so deep in Africa, that she's basically lived a Tarzan-like existance until now. This scene alone demonstrates that Mr. Landon knows nothing about homosexuals, adoption, and Africa apparently. I seriously considered shutting the damn Netflix stream right after this scene, and I probably should've 'cause the last two scenes are a complete blur to me. They could've been the missing footage of "The Magnificient Ambersons," and I wouldn't have noticed. Up until that short, I had some hope that like most anthology films, that "Burning Palms," would at least be just a typical inconsistent hodgepodge of stories. The first one was somewhat interesting, although not great. The second one was actually quite good. It involved a young couple couple Ginny (Jamie Chung) and Chad (Robert Hoffman). They're good together, and in love. Chad wants Ginny to finger his asshole during sex. (I thought about using a euphemism there, but this film isn't worth it.) She eventually does, reluctantly. However, she continues to come to believe that the fingers keeps smelling like shit. She makes numerous attempts at washing the finger, and many other extremes, but it's no use, she keeps smelling the shit on her finger. There's a few references of her being asian, but the core of the comedy in it is that it's universality. We all know what it's like to do something you might not have wanted to do, and to feel the shame and/or discomfort with the act, sexual and otherwise. It's taken to an excessive extreme, where she ends up in a psychiatric hospital, and goes to Hitchcockian measures to rid herself of the shit-smell of her finger, but it works because we're already on board with the situation. It's not even a L.A. situation, that scene could've happened anywhere. It's a great little comedy short. It's a tragedy that it's tucked in the middle of this some other shorts that aren't as insightful or thoughtful on the human condition.
ELEVATE (2011) Director: Anne Buford
2 STARS
"Elevate" has incredible potential to be a great documentary, but it feels a little too much like, the first part of a story, that really could last a lot longer. It doesn't help that "Elevate" not only tackles the sports documentary, but it's also about youths trying to make a career in basketball, so no matter how innovate a take on the subject, it's gonna get compared to "Hoop Dreams". That's unfortunate, but the reason "Elevate," is getting a negative review is because it doesn't do enough. "Elevate" follows the story of some very talented Senagalese youths, many of them, very tall, maybe over seven feet, as they train at this prestigious basketball academy and how some of them are able to go to America in high school for some prestigious prep schools, and hopefully get a college scholarship. They all would like to make the NBA, but they're refreshingly ideal for their realization of how difficult that could be. They have an idol in a former Senagalese ballplayer who's a major scout in the Dallas Mavericks organizations. Many of them are quite smart, but still have some troubles when they go to a U.S. High School, where they're supposed to both perform on the court and in school. One of the kids is pressured to keep his grades up to go to Princeton by his coach. Yes, they have a prestigious basketball program, but I can't think of a McDonald's All-American who's even listed an Ivy League school on his wish list. They have some trouble, but it's actually interesting how little obstacles they have. Not entertaining per se, but interesting. I would've like to have seen a little more actually. What do these predominantly Muslim kids think about America, other than the difficulty of avoiding pork in the cafeteria line. One of them ends up playing for the National Senegal team, and gets to run into some of his old bunkmates, who are playing in America. They all go off to colleges. One of them ended up in Idaho, where he sees an America he never knew existed. "I always think of New York City, and this...." The movie's only 82 minutes, and it was stretching. There's a good subject matter hear, but not enough of it to make an interesting movie.
LA SOGA (2010) Director: Josh Cook
1 1/2 STARS
I've spent the last twenty minutes trying to remember what the hell happened in "La Soga". I watched it over two days on Netflix, and I can't remember much about it. I couldn't explain to you what the hell was happening in it. I watched it, I payed attention, or tried to, but all I can remember is gunfights and violences separated by occasional scenes of dialogue involving, all of the reasons why all this violence and gunfights should and can be stopped by more gunfights and violence, or something like that, their might have been a woman involved, maybe a kid even. I wish I knew which; I wish I cared, but ever 5-10 minutes or so, there was more violence and gunfights and murdering of people and occasionally animals, that was all I could tell happened in "La Soga", a Dominican Republican film written by Manny Perez, who also plays the main character. He's a cop who works against his country's corrupt government to find justice on a case. At least that's the description on the imdb.com website for "La Soga," That might have been my guess, but I couldn't explain which one was even the good guy after watching this. It might have been but everytime I calmed myself to try and catch up with what I was watching, there was more killing and violence. This movie was, mush. It really was. This movie was in one ear and out the other, I forgot it as soon as I watched it, it was boring on top of that. (Frustrated scoff) You know what, next movie, next movie.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2004) Director: Peter Jackson
2 1/2 STARS
Well, as I promised in an earlier blog, I have finally completed "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and I've come to a few conclusions. One, "The Return of the King," is the best of the three, because it has the best continouos driving action, on, most of the fronts, not all of them though, and I am convinced that a good movie, and maybe a series of movies can be made based on "The Lord of the Rings". Saying that, the movie is just like the book, everytime I think I'm getting a hold on the world of Middle Earth, suddenly, the movie completely undermines what I thought I knew. Why is Gandolf (Ian MacKellan) asking about Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin)? Can't he just go and look, he's a friggin' wizard? You know, I think I've figured out why this attempt of Tolkien's myth creation doesn't work. The first thing, is obvious, Tolkien never created a science in the world of Middle Earth and isn't interesting in keeping any consistencies, but to tell a larger metaphorical story. (A story which I don't think works) He was creating mythology, I get it. I know it's fantasy, I get that. But look at the mythology that does work. Think of the Greek Gods, looking over Odysseus on a similar epic story. They clearly know the eventual outcome, and there's something devilish about forcing these humans to go through some grand predestined tortures and journeys. There isn't a character like that in "LOTR", and so, we have to look to the characters, the elfs, hobbits et. al. to help us understand this world, and they're all confused and experience this as it goes on, and I find frustrating. It seems like some know certain rules, and not others, and maybe they do even. nObody ever seems to know, and it's frustrating. Still, I don't blame Tolkien anymore for this series. I blame Jackson. He had been muddling over this for years, why was he so stingent on re-telling Tolkien's vision as much as possible. If there was ever a tale that might have been better told by starting in the middle, this might have been it. Sam and Frodo, traveling epic terrain long distances, and I'd tihnk, "What the hell is this?", and now I'm intrigued, and then learn the backstory that was "The Fellowship of the Ring", which is easily the worse and least interesting of the three films. I just think Jackson could've and should've done better. The movie is beautiful, but it's also for simply diehard fantasy fans, who are going to like the genre no matter how poorly constructed or overblown it is. That's okay, I guess for them, but ultimately, it's just confusing and frustrating to me. I'm nine hours in, and I don't know why there is so much power in a king returning to this throne, do you? If you do, that's great, but you had to be paying attention for that. Yet, I payed close attention, and found nothing but more bafflement and confusion, so maybe I shouldn't pay such close attention. I find the cinamatic aspects of "The Return of the King," better and more interesting than the first two, but not enough for me to be convinced that this was the best and/or correct way to tell this story.
CHRONICLE OF AN ESCAPE (2007) Director: Adrian Caetano
4 1/2 STARS
I mentioned in a review of another powerful Argentian film awhile ago about how I need to learn more about recent Argentina history, especially during the reign of this dictatorship, and unfortunately I have to pathetically say that again, here. "Chronicle of an Escape," details the story of Claudino Tamburini (Rodtigo de la Surna) who suddenly went from being a local pick-up soccer goalie, to being detained for months on end under suspicion of consorting with revolutionaries, and attemtpting to overthrow the government, and other such made-up crimes. They're left handcuffed and naked, while they're tortured, and they remain locked in a house called the mansion, even long after it's become clear he doesn't know anything or anyone. It's an intense film. Without proper context, I'm probably missing a lot, but I got the message. At it's core, we get a great escape film. Not a heroic one, but an escape of essentialness and desperation. It takes time, to figure out how inept their captures are, and some of the people who put Claudio's name up as an aggresor to the government, are right there with him. They'd thought by naming names, they'd get released. The mansion was burned down after their escape, and the remaining survivors, the ones they could fine, testifies years later to the tortures they recieved to the International court. This was a terrible week for me watching movies, but "Chronicle of an Escape," or "Cronica de una Fuga," was the one highlight. It was hard to watch at times, but as they amazing films about this vicious regime keep coming out, I have a feeling we're only gonna get a lot more great ones in time to come, as these stories are just now getting told. "Chronicle of an Escape," made me imagine more viscerally what it would be like to be trapped and tortured for a prolongued period of time, better than any movie I've seen up until now. The fact that this movie ends happily is a creation of skill and luck, but also a reminder that this is just a tale of the survivors. The ones who didn't, they may never get told.
One of the blogs I like to follow is Ken Levine's. He's currently a baseball announcer working for the Seattle Mariners, but before to that, he was a writer, producer and showrunner for shows like "M*A*S*H", "Cheers," "Frasier," "Wings," to name a few. Recently, he discussed in his blog about how the material sitcoms are based around has changed drastically. The link to the blog is below, you guys should chekc it out:
The main thing he pointed out was how drastically television's taboo subject matters have changed, but the idea originated when he showed a group of film students a scene from "All in the Family," which shocked a film school crowd, because they were amazed that such language and controversial subject matter could be said in a sitcom. (The episode, the famous one where Sammy Davis Jr. was a guest star, and involved a character saying the word, nigger) While, I'm personally distraught that there's an entire film school full of students in the United States, who apparently haven't seen "All in the Family", he makes a few comparisons with modern television shows, and how, while they don't talk about subjects like race anymore, he noted that they seem to be allowed to talk more freely about things like sex, and he noted a scene from "2 Broke Girls," in which the word "vagina" was used five time in less than a minute. "2 Broke Girls," broke ground earlier this year by becoming the first network sitcom to make a joke about anal sex. I personally wrote a blog a couple weeks ago, where I outlined a trend in network sitcoms where I talked about how too many shows have characters constantly talking about smoking marijuana. If marijuana was ever discussed on a sitcom back in the '70s, or even as late as the '90s, it always surely involved some kind of two-part, special message episode. Anyway, to a certain extent, Mr. Levine makes a very good point, most sitcoms will just not touch controversial subject matters the way they used to. Saying that, what are the controversial subject matters of today? Shows like "All in the Family," took place and/or were made in the '70s, where things like Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy's assassinations and Woodstock and Women's rights and Vietnam were at the forefront of our mind, and were on the TV news everyday. (People forget that, but Vietnam was pretty much televised back then, a mistake the U.S. Government has gone to painstaking detail not to make again, even and especially with Afghanistan and Iraq.) With all due respect, and I mean no belittling to those who it effects, but considering we live in a world where a major civil rights victory is a President endorsing gay marriage, I'd say our world has vastly improved since then. (An African-American President, no less) I think we've progressed from those issues, which TV was shockingly bold enough to tackle in the '70s, and while it is disappointing that sitcoms don't things like, rape, eh-gaybashing, race, abortion even..., (and the ones that do, are animated series like "South Park," and "Family Guy" which seems unusually immune to controversy) they are tackling subject matters that are current and prevalent to our world today. Mainly sex, actually. Yes, we have President's endorsing gay marriage, but the reason that's a seminal moment is because the opposition, which so drastically fought against it and other such issues, which instead of civil rights, they've rebranded "family values", like pro-2-parent household, anti-divorce, anti-abortion, anti-condoms, anti-stem cell, anti-science, anti-anything remotely sexual in nature, they seem to fight it, anti-homosexual included, but it is more, anti-sex. We are a country founded by Puritans unfortunately, and it's taken us a little longer to evolve on this than, say, everywhere else in the world, but we are getting there and television reflects that and tackles that issue, and they've been fighting it since the beginning, even before a so-called 'moral majority' existed. I'm posting a clip below from youtube.com, it's a scene from a TV show called "Soap". It's one of my all-time favorite shows, it ran in the Late '70s. (this would've been, after the episode of "All in the Family," keep that in mind for comparison) Now the scene you're about to see is a seminal moment in modern sitcoms; something occurs in this scene that previously, had never happened on TV before. I'll tell you what it is in a few moments, but if you can, I'd like you all to watch it and see if you figure out what it is exactly that's just occurred, that makes it a historic television moment.
That's a funny scene, even out of context, isn't it? Did you figure it out though? I don't blame you if you didn't, especially younger readers, but here it is: This was the first time on television, where someone said the word, "horny"! That sounds strange actually, but that's a fact. Well, look how TV's evolved since then. "Cheers," wouldn't have happened without this scene. "The Golden Girls," "Friends," "Sex and the City," yes that's HBO, but now every show on basic has borrowed from it. Hell, the basic TV sitcom plot, is that two characters, have to overcome numerous obstacles in order to eventually, have sex with each other. Almost every show now has at least one character who constantly has multiple sex partners, and not like how Fonzi use to, they dwell on all the little nuances and issues regarding sex, sometimes in pretty extensive detail, and most shows have multiple ones, male and female, and gay and straight. ("Soap" was also the first show to have an openly-gay regular character.) If there are those of you who wonder about the cultural mindset of America, this is the way to look at it; we were okay hearing the word "nigger" on television, before we were okay with "horny". Right there. We first, evolved to Nigger, than to Horny, and now, Vagina is okay.
In that sense, and taking a look at sitcoms and modern society today, I think a good argument can be made that television actually still tackles the hot-button issues of the day. No, we're never gonna get another "All in the Family," or a character like Archie Bunker today, but why would you want one? I'm serious, it wouldn't be believable today, certainly not in a sitcom; even if it is on HBO, nobody would buy it. The closest we have is Eric Cartman on "South Park," and you'd have to be an immature animated 8-year old to have those points of view in today's society. Archie Bunker was of his time, the same way that TV shows are of their time now, and they're still taking on the most critical cultural issues of are time. Yes, I mentioned I complained about the numerous marijuana jokes on TV, but guess what, never in the history of this country have more people been in favor of legalization, and that includes me. Once upon a time, a woman would be a game show contestant, and be asked by the host, what her husband did for a living; and the sad part is that a lot of the people fighting these social changes of today, wish that was still the case. The main culture war today is over sex, in every aspect of the word. TV reflects that, and takes a stand. Gay married couples, gay parents, sexually-active teenagers, step-parents, mixed-race relationships, old man-younger woman relationships, and that's just on "Modern Family". It's strange to consider it, but in it's own way, TV sitcoms still reflect and examine the hot-button political issues of the day, and they continue to do so. Sure, it's not the way Norman Lear would've imagined it, but, that film school class aside, we've seen Archie Bunker already, we don't need to see him again. We're still political but, I think his time has gone, and maybe what we really need are shows about adults having to share apartments with strangers as they struggle to pay rent, and tell vagina jokes to get through the day. That might seem like a step backwards for television, and content-wise, maybe it is, but look closely and you'll realized that it means we live in a society, that's moving forward. As far as I'm concerned, tell as many vagina jokes as you want.
Since the second season of "The Voice," ended, I started watching the UK version of the show, "The Voice UK", on youtube.com. Why, have I started doing this? Curiousity, is of course a major reason, but the real reasons is that, it was available on youtube, and I wanted more of "The Voice"! I hadn't had enough. Sure, I'd prefer if Juliet Simms had beaten Jermaine Paul in the finals, but I voted for both of them, and Chris Mann in the final; they each gave three great performances the night before and they were all incredibly deserving. (I liked Tony Lucca too, but didn't vote for him because I thought his version of "99 Problems," was not one of his strongest performances, and oddly it had nothing to do with any of the Christina vs. Adam rumors/controversy) I told this to somebody the other day, who laughed at me, since, even after seeing "The Voice," he believes the show to be another copy of "American Idol" and "The X-Factor, " which he hates. As many loyal readers will note, I also don't like "American Idol," and I absolute hated "The X-Factor", and in one of my earlier "Good On TV?" blogs, I outline all the major distinctions between the three franchises, and I stick by that article. To me, saying that "The Voice," is just like those other shows is like saying that "The Bob Newhart Show," and "In Treatment," are exactly the same, because both shows involve a main character that's a psychiatrist.
Now, I grant you, that I am the person who analyzes and looks at those slight differences more than most people. Some people just see a reality show or a reality show concept like a singing competition, and immediately will look away, or they'll look towards it, and the same really goes with every genre and subgenre, and that's across all literary mediums, but especially with television, you're able to see firsthand the major differences every week. Personally, I think it pains me more when I see that a lot of people are watching (or in many cases, critics ravings about) a TV show, that's not very good, even more than when people like a movie or a book that's really bad. Especially when their are so many shows on TV, that essentially seem to be copying each other. You know, somebody did the math at one point, and I might off on the numbers by a bit, but I remember hearing a statistic that said that since the '50s, there has been an average of 18-19 hours a week of TV programming in primetime, devoted to crime solving shows, police shows. You can take a look at the Network TV landscape now, and every channel, has their own police procedural or five or six, and yet, the differences are minor, but they're important. They're small, but they're the reason why "Law & Order: SVU," is worth watching every week, and why "NCIS," is pretty boring every week. I've lost count of the amount of TV sitcoms I've seen now with six leads, 3 young males, and 3 young females, since "Friends" went on the air. Most of them suck though. Occasionally there's a "Happy Endings," that, doesn't suck as much, and on rare occasions, you'll see the British version of "Coupling," which I think blew "Friends," right out of the water. (The American version of "Coupling," we don't ever need to discuss) I'm a little amazed that their hasn't been some pieces out there discussing the similarities and differences between "2 Broke Girls," and "Don't Trust the Bitch in Apt. 23" yet, cause those two shows have basically the same plotpoints and storylines, and yet, the differences between them are night and day. (Hold on. [Talks into tape recorder] Ideas for a future blogpost....)
So, what's the small distinction that keeps making me come back to "The Voice," in multiple forms even, while I can't even give "The X-Factor," a look without frantically searching for the remote. "American Idol," and "The X-Factor," (Well, the latter tries to anyway) and most of the other similarly structured reality shows are about who wins. They're about the contestants.What song are they gonna sing, who has the best story, did they pick the right song, were they unable to pick the song they wanted..., their focus has always been on the contestants themselves, so much so that, it's as much about their image, as it is about their singing ability. It's not, what are they thinking, it's more about, what we think of them, and the one that's the more people like, wins. Yes, there's that part of "The Voice," but it's not as prevalent, and frankly, comparatively the audience has very little say into anything that goes on. This is a key difference, cause "The Voice," isn't so much about the contestants as it is the judges, and more specifically the thinking process of the judges. On the other shows, essentially, the judges are like me, a critic. I see something, and then I write about how I perceived it, in their case, they say it. Some judges, for-lack-of-a-better-term, hold back, while others, let their true feelings be heard. I do that too sometimes in my reviews. I try not to, but it happens sometimes. On "The Voice," first-of-all they're coaches, not judges, and there's a big difference, second, the talent level on the show, and I can't stress this enough, is so high. I mean, the Finalists on "...Idol," right now, would barely break the Top 20, maybe on "The Voice," in any country, so for one thing, there's no need for anything antagonistic to be said, at least not to the contestants, but we get something more interesting, we get glimpses into these judges' thinking process. Take for example, the blind auditions. They're all good singers, but which ones do you turn around and take? It's not easy, they only have a limited number, and if they pick one, who is even, remotely 2nd tier to the other contestants, what's that say about them. Their credibility is on the line. Your looking for certain things, other things. The almost-pressing of the button, says as much about what they're looking for as when they do, and also, when they press it, is of critical importance. Early in the song, late in the song? on a note? Is this guy a one-song wonder, or is this guy even a guy? I already have two soul singers, should I let this one go, or do I hit my button to make sure Blake doesn't get him. These are just some of the questions that must go through their minds as those blind auditions go on. There's no psychological chess like this going on "...Idol," it's sing, and if you're good, we'll let you on, and if we let you on, and we hate you, the audience might like you anyway. It's a tough job narrowing your team to ten or whatever, and then, you have to pair them up and battle. What if you pair two great singers together, one of them is out, or two lousy singers and you have to keep one of them? Who wants to make that choice? I don't. What song do you give them? What if, the person you know is a better singer, and has a better chance to win, has a lousy battle round, against somebody who I don't like? All these little nuances and differences, have found a rare forum where the most famous people in the world at their one personal musical genre, essentially have their thoughts processes on display. You know the real intrigue in Howard Stern's joining of one of these reality shows as a judge, isn't so much that somebody as outlandish as Howard Stern is doing it, but instead, the real intrigue is that, we're going to get a rare glimpse into the real, off-air, Howard Stern, that we've only heard about and rarely seen elsewise. We know the character he plays, but the real interest is the person we don't see, the real Howard Stern, the one that's off the air, has a wife, goes to a shrink, watches reality TV, the one that needs to star in his own biopic. He's a major public figure, the self-proclaimed "King of All Media", and 98% of what we know about him is the act he performs, and now suddenly, we get another aspect of him, by just him suddenly doing "America's Got Talent". On "The Voice" we get to see four superstars of that level, their personal selves, every week on "The Voice", whether it's how they work/don't work with their contestants, judging talent themselves, or in their attempt to organize their talent, and how they help/guide them, and who they help/guide the best. These dynamics are unpredictable really (and since these professionals have reputations to protect, very dangerous to some extent), but every little choice and action they do, gives us new insights into people we previously, only thought we knew. No other show gives us that. That's one thing reality-competition shows don't give us enough of that, and they very easily could.
Let's face it, anybody can put a sign that says "Singing Competition," and people will sign up for it. You can put up a sign that says "Biggest Hemorrhoid Contest" and people will sign up for it. Maybe I'm the only one, but I expect more than that out of primetime television, even in these reality-competition series. You don't believe me, or don't want to bother with the genre, go ahead, and I understand. Believe me, I can get turned off very easily at overexposure to a lot of crap. Lots of reality TV, lots of reality singing competition, and most of them are crap. I've only compared two, there's been more on cable, (and that "Duets," that ABC's advertising, that looks, maybe worse than all of them.) but "The Voice," is a perfect example, of how even, what seems like the slightest distinctions of the formula, really can make such a huge difference.
