Many recent films about friendship take as a given that the friends will be all male or all female – think Sex And The City, The Hangover, Grown-Ups and the whole Apatow-esque genre. While I have enjoyed some of these films, I find the single-sex friendship assumption strangely old-fashioned.
I'm not talking about the dang kids with their mixed sex preteen sleepovers and such. I'm talking about me and everyone I know. I went to a co-ed school. I live in a co-ed neighborhood. I belong to co-ed clubs and work in a co-ed office. It would be weirdly anti-social to befriend only women, or for the guys I know to befriend only men. And it's not just my generation. My dad's book club seems pretty well mixed, and they're all closer to the Greatest Generation than X or Y, or whatever we're up to now.
Still, these movies make money. Some of them make A LOT of money. Maybe my life and my dad's book club are weirder than I think. Or maybe we all secretly long for a bunch of guys to do guy things with or gals to do gal things with, even though most of our friend activities do not involve bachelor parties and shoe shopping.
Or maybe – and this is the reason I find most likely – we are so well programmed to expect romance when two attractive actors meet in a movie, that a writer who wants to focus on friendship has to set up an artificial locker-room world to keep things on target. Friends fall into romance off screen, as well – and it does play hell with the storyline.
That last reason explains why television shows seem to feature more realistic mixed-sex friendships. Television characters hang around for years; we don't expect them to pair off every ninety minutes. Sure, nearly everyone at the end of Friends wound up in a couple. But it took two hundred and thirty six episodes to get there – plenty of time for the writers to explore other themes.
Speaking of friends – and Friends – I enjoyed the first season of Cougar Town. I loathed the name and had to be coaxed into watching it, but I enjoy the show and its depiction of mixed-sex friendship, romance and everything in between. And that friend who convinced me to watch it? A guy. We went shooting a few years back for my birthday. With like, guns. 'Cause when you hang with me, it ain't all shoe shopping.
Though, some of it is.
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
6/20/10
1/10/09
A big ol' 2008 to 2009 omnibus post
I got behind on my posting over the holidays and a whole lot of things have passed without comment. In no particular order, here's comment...
1. There will not be a SAG strike.
SAG was the first union I joined, right out of college. I am no longer in any way active as an actor, but I will always treasure my old SAG card. The union meant a lot to me. I have read the AMPTP proposals and there probably should be a SAG strike, or at least a sturdy and undivided YES vote authorizing a strike. Such a vote might be the only way to force some sort of meet-in-the-middle provisions that could be acceptable to SAG.
But that vote will never happen.
SAG has been a hopelessly, viciously divided union for many years now. There is no way the current leadership could get enough votes from the opposition for a strike authorization. And though it is true that this leadership brought the hatred of a large proportion of the union on themselves by denying the merger with AFTRA in 2003 on political (if our side didn't propose it, we ain't gonna approve it) grounds, well -- get over it, people.
SAG is a great big powerful union. They should be able to speak softly to the AMPTP while holding one hell of a big stick in the threat of an industry-halting strike. Problem is, everyone knows there's no stick. So the current stalemate might drag on, and on, and on.
I don't know how this is going to end. I just know, there will be no strike.
2. NBC's managing-for-margins strategy is dead wrong knowing what little we know about the future.
The one thing we know with pretty damn good certainty is that consumers in the near future will have many more choices in where, when, how and what they watch. I've already said bye-bye to network schedules and television screens and hello to my DVR and Slingbox. The even-younger generation will laugh at the very idea of scheduled entertainment. My three year-old nephew gets super pissed-off when he can't rewind or pause something, or call it up out nowhere whenever he feels like watching it.
Which does not mean that networks won't matter. When faced with a widening array of choices, people are going to want some kind of gatekeeper -- a BRAND they trust -- as a starting point when making decisions. Everything in the future is going to be about the brand. Define it NOW. Polish it. Ensure that people know, "When I want to watch a quality show like XXX -- I need to tune to YYY.beamedstraightintoyourhead.com."
The cable channels are pretty good at this. The networks have made some weird decisions lately, but I still know, mostly, where to tune for what I like.
And very little I like is on NBC.
It's not that I don't like their choices. I don't expect everyone to program for me. Sometimes a premise isn't something that interests me. So what. I respect the quality of lots of shows that I don't myself watch.
But the premises of lots of the new NBC shows did interest me. I just didn't like the shows. Some of them might have passed muster on the old Saturday afternoon syndie Action Pack. But the quality wasn't even close to what I expect from a network show. They were made on the cheap and oh boy could you tell. So now, in my mind, the NBC brand stands for cheap, lightweight shit.
NBC claims to be crying all the way to the bank: cheap is good and the margins are working for them. I say, FOR NOW. A once-phenomenal brand is shedding lustre nightly and I'm not sure they'll have time to polish it back up before the whole television-watching paradigm shifts and leaves NBC behind.
Maybe NBC will surprise us with a slate of innovative quality programming for 2010. I hope they do. This network gave me Law & Order. All of you who think it's old-fashioned now, remember that when it started, Matlock and Murder She Wrote were on the air. And ER -- watch that first season again and remember nothing remotely like it had been seen on television before. And Friends, and...
Aargh. If NBC were doing Friends today it would be shot on the cheap as a Belgian co-production about five guys and the stripper they sometimes hang out with. But that's a whole other issue I have with NBC right now. Don't get me started.
3. The January season is upon us -- hooray! There are so many new and returning series out there. My Tivo and I are giddy with excitement.
I am, of course, looking forward to Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. Or hoping to look forward to it. Really, really hoping. Hoping SOOOO hard. But not expecting much. I know a lot has changed since the pilot script I read, but to me the changes sound like they've made the basic problem I had with the old script even worse.
A show about a personality-free character who takes on a lot of different cool roles makes for a neat hour-long script. And it was a NEAT script: short, sweet, exciting, full of lots of fun twists and great dialogue. But it's not a series. Imagine watching a second episode about a personality-free character who takes on a lot of different cool roles. And then a third. And then ten more. And then twenty-two next season...
The script hinted that they were moving toward lead character Echo developing her own personality and trying to find the truth about herself as the series progresses. I would have loved to see A LOT more of that in the first episode. But what I hear about the series now is that we're going to get even less -- and more about the Dollhouse itself and Echo's actiony adventures. Yawn.
There's no way I'm going to like a series about a lead character with no personality. It's just not possible.
Though, if ANYONE can make the impossible happen... I'm still hoping.
4. The Disney/ABC Fellowship
See how I buried the lead? Hmm. Wonder what that means...
I'm not a fellow this year. Sort of. Yet. At all. I don't know... I'm an alternate. If one of the actual fellows fails their background check I might get a call. If I do, I will not bury that lead.
One does wonder what a writer needs to do to fail a background check. Lying about a criminal background is the usual. But for writers -- is it more likely to be lying about HAVING a criminal record when in fact you don't? Didn't some writer just get in trouble for claiming gang-banger status when she turned out to be an honors student from Beverly Hills?
Whatever happens, the ABC people were quite wonderful and have promised that they will be in touch as they are planning to include me in some of the upcoming fellowship programs.
So, here's to lots more to write about in 2009!!
1. There will not be a SAG strike.
SAG was the first union I joined, right out of college. I am no longer in any way active as an actor, but I will always treasure my old SAG card. The union meant a lot to me. I have read the AMPTP proposals and there probably should be a SAG strike, or at least a sturdy and undivided YES vote authorizing a strike. Such a vote might be the only way to force some sort of meet-in-the-middle provisions that could be acceptable to SAG.
But that vote will never happen.
SAG has been a hopelessly, viciously divided union for many years now. There is no way the current leadership could get enough votes from the opposition for a strike authorization. And though it is true that this leadership brought the hatred of a large proportion of the union on themselves by denying the merger with AFTRA in 2003 on political (if our side didn't propose it, we ain't gonna approve it) grounds, well -- get over it, people.
SAG is a great big powerful union. They should be able to speak softly to the AMPTP while holding one hell of a big stick in the threat of an industry-halting strike. Problem is, everyone knows there's no stick. So the current stalemate might drag on, and on, and on.
I don't know how this is going to end. I just know, there will be no strike.
2. NBC's managing-for-margins strategy is dead wrong knowing what little we know about the future.
The one thing we know with pretty damn good certainty is that consumers in the near future will have many more choices in where, when, how and what they watch. I've already said bye-bye to network schedules and television screens and hello to my DVR and Slingbox. The even-younger generation will laugh at the very idea of scheduled entertainment. My three year-old nephew gets super pissed-off when he can't rewind or pause something, or call it up out nowhere whenever he feels like watching it.
Which does not mean that networks won't matter. When faced with a widening array of choices, people are going to want some kind of gatekeeper -- a BRAND they trust -- as a starting point when making decisions. Everything in the future is going to be about the brand. Define it NOW. Polish it. Ensure that people know, "When I want to watch a quality show like XXX -- I need to tune to YYY.beamedstraightintoyourhead.com."
The cable channels are pretty good at this. The networks have made some weird decisions lately, but I still know, mostly, where to tune for what I like.
And very little I like is on NBC.
It's not that I don't like their choices. I don't expect everyone to program for me. Sometimes a premise isn't something that interests me. So what. I respect the quality of lots of shows that I don't myself watch.
But the premises of lots of the new NBC shows did interest me. I just didn't like the shows. Some of them might have passed muster on the old Saturday afternoon syndie Action Pack. But the quality wasn't even close to what I expect from a network show. They were made on the cheap and oh boy could you tell. So now, in my mind, the NBC brand stands for cheap, lightweight shit.
NBC claims to be crying all the way to the bank: cheap is good and the margins are working for them. I say, FOR NOW. A once-phenomenal brand is shedding lustre nightly and I'm not sure they'll have time to polish it back up before the whole television-watching paradigm shifts and leaves NBC behind.
Maybe NBC will surprise us with a slate of innovative quality programming for 2010. I hope they do. This network gave me Law & Order. All of you who think it's old-fashioned now, remember that when it started, Matlock and Murder She Wrote were on the air. And ER -- watch that first season again and remember nothing remotely like it had been seen on television before. And Friends, and...
Aargh. If NBC were doing Friends today it would be shot on the cheap as a Belgian co-production about five guys and the stripper they sometimes hang out with. But that's a whole other issue I have with NBC right now. Don't get me started.
3. The January season is upon us -- hooray! There are so many new and returning series out there. My Tivo and I are giddy with excitement.
I am, of course, looking forward to Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. Or hoping to look forward to it. Really, really hoping. Hoping SOOOO hard. But not expecting much. I know a lot has changed since the pilot script I read, but to me the changes sound like they've made the basic problem I had with the old script even worse.
A show about a personality-free character who takes on a lot of different cool roles makes for a neat hour-long script. And it was a NEAT script: short, sweet, exciting, full of lots of fun twists and great dialogue. But it's not a series. Imagine watching a second episode about a personality-free character who takes on a lot of different cool roles. And then a third. And then ten more. And then twenty-two next season...
The script hinted that they were moving toward lead character Echo developing her own personality and trying to find the truth about herself as the series progresses. I would have loved to see A LOT more of that in the first episode. But what I hear about the series now is that we're going to get even less -- and more about the Dollhouse itself and Echo's actiony adventures. Yawn.
There's no way I'm going to like a series about a lead character with no personality. It's just not possible.
Though, if ANYONE can make the impossible happen... I'm still hoping.
4. The Disney/ABC Fellowship
See how I buried the lead? Hmm. Wonder what that means...
I'm not a fellow this year. Sort of. Yet. At all. I don't know... I'm an alternate. If one of the actual fellows fails their background check I might get a call. If I do, I will not bury that lead.
One does wonder what a writer needs to do to fail a background check. Lying about a criminal background is the usual. But for writers -- is it more likely to be lying about HAVING a criminal record when in fact you don't? Didn't some writer just get in trouble for claiming gang-banger status when she turned out to be an honors student from Beverly Hills?
Whatever happens, the ABC people were quite wonderful and have promised that they will be in touch as they are planning to include me in some of the upcoming fellowship programs.
So, here's to lots more to write about in 2009!!
10/20/08
Another review
I'm bucking the word on the street and admitting I liked the pilot for MY OWN WORST ENEMY. Thought it was fun. Thought it was nicely performed. Thought it had some genuinely interesting moments.
I'd say original moments, except I did notice a lot of the nifty bits involving communication and interaction between the two guys inhabiting one body seemed kinda similar to equivalent bits from Steven Moffat's JEKYLL. Really, really similar, even.
Though, lest you think "aw, she just prefers everything British," I actually didn't like Jekyll. I thought it had serious tone problems -- as in some minutes it was a straight-up comedy and some minutes a psychological drama. Now I love a little comedy in my drama and a little drama in my comedy (chocolate in my peanut butter, peanut butter in my chocolate), but this was like two different shows sharing the same commercial breaks. Hmm. I guess that was intentional. Appropriately Jekyll-and-Hydish. Just not much fun to watch.
I'd say original moments, except I did notice a lot of the nifty bits involving communication and interaction between the two guys inhabiting one body seemed kinda similar to equivalent bits from Steven Moffat's JEKYLL. Really, really similar, even.
Though, lest you think "aw, she just prefers everything British," I actually didn't like Jekyll. I thought it had serious tone problems -- as in some minutes it was a straight-up comedy and some minutes a psychological drama. Now I love a little comedy in my drama and a little drama in my comedy (chocolate in my peanut butter, peanut butter in my chocolate), but this was like two different shows sharing the same commercial breaks. Hmm. I guess that was intentional. Appropriately Jekyll-and-Hydish. Just not much fun to watch.
9/30/08
An update
Working on that pilot. Why does so much good stuff occur to me in the last few minutes before sleep and where do all the pens go that I used to have ready to record such thoughts?
I'm planning more research travel in the next month. That the travel might coincide with Hallowe'en again has nothing to do with anything. It's all research, baby, research. And some actual work-work on a book project that needs to be well underway before Christmas. So I'm busy. I'd love to spend some time discussing the new television season as I go through the digital mountains on my DVR. Soon. Right now I'm digesting on the fly.
Though I am looking forward to (god, I hope loving and not trashing) Life On Mars. The original was stunning. And though I had severe doubts about an earlier draft I read of the US version - much of the best, most thematically meaningful stuff removed and a bizarro cutesy lawyer added in its place - two of the greatest words I heard all summer were "Harvey" and "Keitel." Yeah.
I'm planning more research travel in the next month. That the travel might coincide with Hallowe'en again has nothing to do with anything. It's all research, baby, research. And some actual work-work on a book project that needs to be well underway before Christmas. So I'm busy. I'd love to spend some time discussing the new television season as I go through the digital mountains on my DVR. Soon. Right now I'm digesting on the fly.
Though I am looking forward to (god, I hope loving and not trashing) Life On Mars. The original was stunning. And though I had severe doubts about an earlier draft I read of the US version - much of the best, most thematically meaningful stuff removed and a bizarro cutesy lawyer added in its place - two of the greatest words I heard all summer were "Harvey" and "Keitel." Yeah.
6/28/08
A rave
For Doctor Who's latest two-episode festival of goodness. From the opening beats of Silence In The Library you knew you were in the capable hands of writer Steven Moffat. And that the next two hours were gonna be weird, wonderful, and leave you in tears. Good tears. Satisfied tears.
Also want to give props to the whole Doctor Who team for completely fooling me on the subject matter of these episodes. Even before the season started, they leaked all kinds of spoilers about how we'd be learning more about Who's private and (gasp) family life this season. And then they gave us the mildly crappy Doctor's Daughter episode. I felt a little gypped, you?
But no – it was all a fake-out. Silence In The Library/Forest Of The Dead were the real episodes dealing with Who's private life. And the wonderful/horrible problem of living forever while everything and everyone you know dies around you. Moffat spun a great two hours out of that theme. JRR Tolkien spent thousands of pages and a lifetime on it.
And hey, there's a cross-over: Moffat is also writing the screenplays for the Spielberg/Peter Jackson Tintin movies. Guess Peter Jackson liked his handling of the theme as well. Or vice versa.
Also want to give props to the whole Doctor Who team for completely fooling me on the subject matter of these episodes. Even before the season started, they leaked all kinds of spoilers about how we'd be learning more about Who's private and (gasp) family life this season. And then they gave us the mildly crappy Doctor's Daughter episode. I felt a little gypped, you?
But no – it was all a fake-out. Silence In The Library/Forest Of The Dead were the real episodes dealing with Who's private life. And the wonderful/horrible problem of living forever while everything and everyone you know dies around you. Moffat spun a great two hours out of that theme. JRR Tolkien spent thousands of pages and a lifetime on it.
And hey, there's a cross-over: Moffat is also writing the screenplays for the Spielberg/Peter Jackson Tintin movies. Guess Peter Jackson liked his handling of the theme as well. Or vice versa.
6/18/08
A rant
About contractors and the requirement that we all become experts in everything if we ever want anything done right. Or done to a barely acceptable level.
I've been helping my father move to his new condo. The move-in date has been shoved back three times in the last week. But that's nothing. The whole project began over two years ago. And was supposed to be easy. Ha.
Three contractors later, the end is finally in sight. The furniture is on the delivery truck and my dad's meager belongings are packed. Except, of course, the refrigerator is still in pieces in the middle of the living room, a fine new layer of sawdust is sprinkled over everything we moved in last weekend and large, sharp contractor tools are scattered across the brand new, delicate, cork floors.
That and the bathroom lights and plumbing are still gaping holes. Sigh.
Yet these are the contractors we LIKE. The good ones. So why do we still have to stand and watch every move they make and research every article they put up and know ourselves – even if we aren't going to do it – HOW to do it right so we can tell them how? Aren't these the people we're paying to know how to do things so we don't have to?
And why do I have to know which insurance is right for me? Isn't that my broker's job? And which medical treatments I need? And which tests I should get... and on, and on, and on.
Maybe this is the real reason I love television work. You'd think the arts would be full of flaky arts types who need to be constantly watched. But, no. Studios are full of professionals who KNOW THEIR JOBS. Better by far than you do. And they DO them. Professionally.
Which makes me so very happy.
I've been helping my father move to his new condo. The move-in date has been shoved back three times in the last week. But that's nothing. The whole project began over two years ago. And was supposed to be easy. Ha.
Three contractors later, the end is finally in sight. The furniture is on the delivery truck and my dad's meager belongings are packed. Except, of course, the refrigerator is still in pieces in the middle of the living room, a fine new layer of sawdust is sprinkled over everything we moved in last weekend and large, sharp contractor tools are scattered across the brand new, delicate, cork floors.
That and the bathroom lights and plumbing are still gaping holes. Sigh.
Yet these are the contractors we LIKE. The good ones. So why do we still have to stand and watch every move they make and research every article they put up and know ourselves – even if we aren't going to do it – HOW to do it right so we can tell them how? Aren't these the people we're paying to know how to do things so we don't have to?
And why do I have to know which insurance is right for me? Isn't that my broker's job? And which medical treatments I need? And which tests I should get... and on, and on, and on.
Maybe this is the real reason I love television work. You'd think the arts would be full of flaky arts types who need to be constantly watched. But, no. Studios are full of professionals who KNOW THEIR JOBS. Better by far than you do. And they DO them. Professionally.
Which makes me so very happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
