Tonight’s episode of House: Foreman reads Cameron a scathing rundown on how her previous, short-lived marriage to a previous, short-lived husband wasn’t really commitment because she knew he was dying going in. Then the money quote:

“Cameron. I wasn’t criticizing you. People who avoid commitment are people who know what a big thing it is.”

Event: The Grey’s Anatomy flap over Isaiah Washington’s alleged sexual slur against costar T.R. Knight has, predictably, landed Washington in “treatment” for his “behavioral issues.”

Problem: This latest brouhaha came not because he supposedly called Knight the name, but because he denied doing so. He was fatuous enough to use the word in question in public again when he denied the orginal cause of complaint and is now installed for the de rigeur reprogramming of public figures who publicly use words deemed unacceptable by the self-appointed hate-crimes police.

Subsequent to his use of the word after the Globes, costar Katherine Heigl, according to the AP, “characteriz[ed] the incident as one that should be handled privately among the show’s cast and crew.” If she thought that, she was the only one of the three who did. The same article reports that Knight went flogging the incident on Ellen DeGeneres’s show, repeating the word in public yet again (no charge when it’s one of the wronged group doing it!).

Two words, neither of them beginning with an F: Grow up. Don’t call your costars names. And wronged costars, challenge him to take it outside, or hell, leave it inside, but why would you want to continue fostering disunion on the set, discomfort where you work, by dragging the whole world into the problem? Oh yeah–because if you didn’t, you couldn’t get GLAAD to do your dirty work for you by dragging the guy off to “rehab.”

Allah got a Christmas wish answered when The View re-aired James Brolin coming thiiis close to espousing truthernut conspiracies. To me, the link is less important for that than for this quote of Brolin’s:

We were Americans. Now we’re split and arguing. So whose fault is that, and what’s going wrong, and think about the issues.

The main trouble with people like Brolin, and it gives rise to their willingness to swallow crap like 9/11 truthernut salad, is that they know absolutely no history and nothing whatsoever about human nature. Splits and arguments among Americans, nasty ones about heavy, anguishing issues, date right back to 1776 and the argument over whether we should even become Americans or not.

This is not new. It is not new to our era. There is vicious infighting over every major issue that comes our way, and we are pushed to the point of being “all Americans” only when the evil of the day and its danger to us are so clearly delineated that even the doviest among us can clearly see the choice between fighting and being subjugated, as in WWII, presumably the start date of that elusive “we were Americans” period Brolin burbled about. It’s all well and good to say now that Britain had no right to rule us and the Revolution was correct even at the price, but it wasn’t so clear at the time. Ditto the preservation of the Union, 1861-1865, ditto the 1930s run-up to WWII. Evils are frequently not so clearly delineated as Hitler was eventually revealed to be. People of Brolin’s ilk would apparently prefer that nothing controversial were done until a few millions had been shoveled into furnaces so that they would not have to whine about splits and arguments at home. Or they would rather find the evil at home, spreading the monstrous idea that the freely elected president of a modern republic killed 3K of his own citizens, than believe that either saving or stopping anybody outside our borders could be worth those 3K lives twice over.

It’s your fault, Brolin. It’s your fault for lacking even basic realism, any common decency, or a smidge more than the “little learning” that we’ve always been warned is so dangerous. Pick up a book like Modern Times or John Adams and then tell me whose fault it is. You prig.

Cross-posted at Electric Venom.

I’ve been justifiably hard on Studio 60 since its premiere, and I slogged through episode after episode yelling at the TV, grumbling after it was over, and hoping the next episode would pull up. Aaron Sorkin finally proved, with December 4th’s “The Christmas Show,” that he’s still got it. An episode with all the snap of the best of Sports Night, a taste of some of the worthier political posturing of The West Wing, and a dash of (gasp) character development. I finally realized that’s been the problem all along–the characters exist merely to rant about Sorkin’s political opinions, much like a multi-million dollar human version of the blogs Sorkin seems to hate. In “The Christmas Show,” though, he actually seemed to allow the characters to let down and develop some on their own, even unbending enough to acknowledge that the opinion of an anonymous consumer could be a reasonably important thing in the marketplace of television and movies. Romantic subplots were advanced, something I always like to see, Jack the Hardass Executive became a sympathetic human being, and Jordan the Female Executive is going to be dealing with a pregnancy and child. It always concerns me when shows take up motherhood as a theme, but it beats most of the alternative ways of addressing the possibility of pregnancy for a single woman on TV. I’ll take it.

So, Merry Christmas to the cast and crew of Studio 60; Merry Christmas, Mr. Sorkin, from a quasi-anonymous blogger. I’m looking forward to your New Year. Finally.

Sarah Ferguson on Dancing with the Stars? Works for me, but Emmitt is a tough act to follow.

I watch Grey’s Anatomy, and I don’t apologize for it [she said defiantly]. True, almost every other character is more interesting than Meredith Grey, although I keep thinking she should have some potential in there. But anyway. Thursday’s show included a child whose nanny backed over her with an SUV because her mother sent the nanny to the store and then didn’t keep the child corralled in the house while the nanny left. Nanny gets fired, but child, in her injured, drug-sleepy state demands nanny’s return relentlessly, despite her mother’s constant presence: “Where’s Anna? I want Anna. Where’s Anna?” Nanny eventually returns.

The mother had a throwaway line that got me fired up. She seemed to be saying that her husband disapproved of her working outside the home (the character is a lawyer) for that very reason–that her child became more attached to the nanny than to her. Mother’s line (paraphrased): “I’m great at my job. I’m not so great at the mommy thing.”

Well, pray tell: who is?

Man or woman, who could possibly be better at stay-at-home parenting than at a job that affords you a level of control not available to moms and dads? I suspect it’s only a lucky few who feel they are better at parenting than at the job they loved and left behind to stay at home. Not a week goes by when I don’t think, perhaps not in so many words, how much better I am at editing–and how much easier editing is!–than at stay-at-home mommying. And why wouldn’t I? When I cross out a word with my red pen, it stays crossed, by gum. Whereas just because I tell my son something doesn’t mean it happens.

But don’t confuse “I was better at [X]” with “I’m a bad mother” and allow it to overly influence your judgment. The two scales–how good you were at your job vs. how good a mother you are–cannot be directly stacked and compared. I chose to stay at home with my son because I felt his mother’s presence would be better for him and for me than the alternatives. All stay-at-homes have our frustrating days, but let’s do ourselves this favor: remember that worse is better. Worse than you were at your other job is still better for your kid, if you’ve made that choice. Please don’t misunderstand: I have nothing negative to say about moms who work outside the home; it’s a choice each family makes in their own situation. But if you’ve made a considered decision to stay home, give yourself a break for not being as great at it as you were at going to the office. It’s a totally different scale, and fortunately, our kids judge on a yet another scale than we would. If your kid understands how loved he/she is, then you’re doing much better than at your old job. Go with it.

Cross-posted at Electric Venom.

Emmitt and Cheryl won.

I have been a wee little bit too invested in Dancing with the Stars the last couple of weeks, as it came down to the wire between Mario Lopez and Emmitt Smith. For a long time I was okay with both, thinking “Mario’s the better technical dancer, so that’s fine, he deserves it …” but in my little fangirl heart, Emmitt had it locked up. His earnestness in devoting himself to an unfamiliar discipline, his running back’s grace and footwork, his gorgeous smile, and his laid-back charm, dubbed “The Big Easy” by the judges, totally won me over. Mario is good, but everybody loves the underdog–Mario had a dance background and a little too much defiance in the early going. But what really tore Mario’s chances with me was his mimicking of Michael Jackson a few too many times. Dude, I know you grew up in that era; I did too, but please understand, Michael Jackson is done, forked, and totally disgusting, and idolizing him doesn’t win you points with any sensible fan.

But back to Emmitt. As good or better than watching him become an accomplished dancer, for me, was finding out a little bit about the person he is. I’ve grown to expect so little out of sports figures, and knew so little about Smith going into this show, that it was really nice to see that the career rushing champion is a genuinely good guy, a hard worker, and yes, a good role model. And major kudos to his partner, professional dancer Cheryle Burke, for making the most of his strengths and showing them off.

Nice work. And good show.

Letterman had O’Reilly on last night, and my respect for Bill went way up. Dave’s game plan, apparently: depart from format of “funny show, have a good time with guest promoting his/her work,” go straight from “How ya doin’?” to “Your work sucks” without leaving guest time to answer even innocuous “How ya doin’?”, have unfunny, quasi-serious political discussion in which you come off earnest but a bit lacking. Bill’s game plan, apparently: Keep cool, sit back and see how much rope Letterman’s willing to pay out. Answer: not too much; just enough to put an edge on the discussion. The Associated Press got it wrong, surprise:

“You’re putting words in my mouth,” [O’Reilly] told Letterman at one point.

“You’re putting artificial facts in your head,” Letterman responded.

It was actually Letterman who said O’Reilly was putting words in his mouth, following Bill’s only misstep: accusing Dave of repeating the “Bush Is Evil” mantra when Dave said nothing like it. Letterman responded, “You’re putting words in my mouth. Just like you put artificial facts in your head.” But Dave’s answer to O’Reilly’s question, “Do you want America to win in Iraq?” was bass-ackward. Paraphrased Dave: “What I would like is for Americans to stop dying over there and for there to be stability in the region. If that means an American victory, okay. But I don’t know if it’s possible to have stability over there now with or without an American presence, so I’d do whatever it takes to stop Americans dying.” Even more paraphrased Dave: “It’s okay with me if Iraqis go back to dying the way they did under Hussein, if that’s what happens when we leave, as long as no more Americans do.” Which is a valid point of view, but fails to even consider the possibility that an American victory could be the cause, rather than the result, of his nebulous idea of stability over there.

Come to think of it, I guess my respect for Dave went up a bit as well, despite his rather childish treatment of O’Reilly, simply because he didn’t devolve into the “Bush Is Evil” mantra I’ve come to expect from so many mindless bots who won’t rid themselves of the horrifying but fascinating possibility that they might live under the most evil government since the Third Reich. Some people are too desperate for drama. I don’t think Dave’s one of them; he came across, for the most part, well intentioned and even “thoughtful,” but a little lacking.

Bill’s assertion that people would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than read the news out of Iraq hurt, though. Hey Bill: news is depressing. ‘Twas always thus, and always thus will be. I defy anybody to squash down a big ol’ grin of delight while watching Emmitt Smith deliver a killer mambo. He and his partner Cheryl are the most genuine and likeable people on the show–my only “reality” TV weakness. It’s less reality and more an actual contest with objective standards and rules, which is why it makes the cut. Anyway, back to the grin: watch and squash if you can.

I’m a fan of Aaron Sorkin. I loved Sports Night from the very beginning, and though it took me a bit longer to warm up to The West Wing, warm up I did. They were witty, intelligent, occasionally gripping shows, basically nothing somebody else hasn’t said long ago somewhere else, so I won’t rehash them here. I quit watching WW shortly after Sorkin’s exit; I didn’t want to stop, but I just didn’t enjoy it any more. I’ve never been an ER girl, and ER in the White House is exactly what it became.

With all that, I expected to enjoy, if not immediately fall for, Studio 60. Matthew Perry, for pete’s sake! Always one of my to-die-fors from Friends, the idea of Matthew Perry speaking Sorkin lines had to be a sure-fire. Bradley Whitford, fresh off the stale WW and, hopefully, just fresh.

Alas. Fresh seems to be the last thing Sorkin’s capable of producing right now. Old inside jokes and self-parodies, knee-jerk liberal platitudes and Bush/Christian/conservative bashing are Studio 60’s mainstay so far. Surprisingly, it’s not even who/what he’s bashing that I mind. It’s that it’s so done. There is no longer anything new, brave, smart, clever, or stylish about whinging (no, I don’t mean “whining,” I mean “whinging,” pronounced to rhyme with “binging,” see also Firefly) about Republicans, calling Christians stupid, ignorant, naive, and extreme, or tipping the wink to your old shows, to the amusement of those shows’ fans and nobody else. And new, brave, smart, clever, and stylish used to be Sorkin’s hallmark. There were a few hat-tips from West Wing to Sports Night, but the latter was on only two seasons and had few viewers, so those inside nods were gracious and felt good to us diehard fans who hated to see SN go. But WW was on so long that you’d have to either have no TV or have no workplace water cooler … or no blogs, a category Sorkin recently added to his shit list, judging by a rant Perry gave in episode two … not to see the copying. And memo to Thomas Schlamme: Sports Night lines delivered under West Wing lighting are not working. I-knew-it-when, so when the Studio 60 character Harriet Hayes marches in to unleash the fury of the woman scorned on Perry’s Matthew with a speech straight out of Sports Night, I’m hearing Felicity Huffman but watching Allison Janney, who tonight will be played by Sarah Paulson. It’s disturbing.

The worst part about Sorkin’s kneejerking is that it’s contagious. When he spends two or three episodes nonstop bitching about stupid Christians (and guess what, I know there are plenty out there. Plenty of stupid people of all philosophic persuasions out there, folks) and conservatives in general, he makes me think “bullshit” when he trots out a story about Grease and The Crucible at a Missouri high school—the latter having been cancelled “because it portrays Christians in a bad light” after uptight Christians complained about the former. But it’s a true story, of course, because as Perry’s character, again, said, when slurring Liberty University in Virginia (founder Jerry Falwell being one of Sorkin’s true hates, from SN right on up), “I don’t want to get anything wrong.”

Well, Sorkin, you’ve got it wrong. Quit your bitching. It’s annoying. It’s far more self-righteous and whiny than it ever was in the faux White House, which is saying something, since the pontificating found a far more appropriate venue on Pennsylvania Avenue than it ever will on the Sunset Strip. Your players are working hard for you. I was worried about Perry, who seemed deathly nervous in episode one and whom Sorkin wasn’t helping out by alternately writing him as a total screw-up one minute and the grown-up in the creative partnership with Whitford’s character the next, but he’s settling down and might make a fine grown-up nonChandler. Whitford I never worry about. Paulson is sweet and totally entertaining–her Holly Hunter impression is ear-poppingly accurate–and the rest of the cast, notably D.L. Hughley, are working hard to make it look easy, and it’s effective. Amanda Peet is keeping it low-key; she’s a wait-and-see for an emotional moment for her character, but the one who’s impressing me the most is Steven Weber. He’s a great foil for Peet’s character, and who knew he could do that if, like me, you’d only seen him being goofy on Wings?

I will say there is one aspect in which I would like to see Studio 60 emulate The West Wing a little more: Timothy Busfield, you are sweet and charming. Please regrow your beard. Thank you.

I love TV. I watch a lot of it. For me it’s stories and more stories, an addiction I’ve carried since childhood when I read everything I could get my hands on at every spare minute. For me, TV is an extension of reading–more stories, told in a different format. I think that’s an unusual perspective; it’s more the norm to hear TV bemoaned as a replacement for reading, but I’ve always had the reading thing down pat and am in no danger of having my brain rotted (I think …), so I enjoy as much TV as I can. Something I’ve noticed recently, but particularly this year, is the trend towards instant gratification in the relationships portrayed on TV. It’s not a wholly unexpected phenomenon, but I don’t think it’s working out as well as the TV execs could have hoped.

Remember the shows you watched when you were a kid and a young adult? If you were a … what’s that term the kids use nowdays? … shipper, like me, you rooted for the romance and the happy ending for the leads, whether it was the girls on The Facts of Life, Angela and Tony in Who’s the Boss? (yes, all right, I watched it in syndicated reruns after school. Sue me.), or later, Mac and Harm in JAG, Scully and Mulder in The X-Files, or more modern examples like Donna and Josh in The West Wing or Casey and Dana in Sports Night. You rooted for it, and it never happened–at least, not until the show was about to end (I actually don’t know what ever happened to Donna and Josh; I quit watching WW when it started sucking). There was a reason for that–the tried and true formula dictates that sexual tension is what drives the relationship between the leads and that it evaporates as soon as they get together. It’s dead true. It worked. It kept us watching.

But the last couple of years, instant gratification has really taken over. How many shows have I started watching last year or this year in which the leads get together right way or even are already together when the show starts? **SPOILERS AHEAD** for anybody who prefers to watch their television later, in DVD batches.

(more…)

Haven’t been in a very writey place this week, but here are some of the things that have occupied my thoughts:

1) Worst news I’ve read all week. I hope these guys don’t come to rue the day, but I believe America will. H/T and video: Allah. Naturally.

2) Funniest thing I’ve read all week. Thanks, See-Dubya.

3) Bonus See-Dubya: Best Word Use of the Week: Pulchritudinous. Note the first sentence in See-Dub’s post: He didn’t give a damn about ABC’s 9/11 miniseries until the stink began to rise off the party of free speech. Neither did Allah. Neither did I. But the brilliant Dems, instead of being content to set the facts straight themselves, ask that the facts be set straight in the mini, or any other such sensible course of action, have, by their despicable thuggery, ensured more viewers for this–if it airs–than ABC could ever have gotten on its own. Which they were trying assiduously to do, by–of course!–sending advance copies to obscure right-wing bloggers. Justin, Patterico! What are you doing angering the socks?!??

4) My friend the hurricane sent me this. That guy didn’t get any for a good long while after that.

5) There must be a middle ground between parental sacrifice and it’s all about me-me-me. Alas I don’t think I’ve yet reached it.

6) And speaking of parenting, let’s not let our … analysis … of Brad Pitt’s moronic statement regarding gay marriage blind us to his sterling qualities as a parent:

“I try not to stifle them in any way,” he says. “If it’s not hurting anyone, I want them to be able to explore. Sometimes that means they’re quite rambunctious.”

Brave words, Brad. But sadly for Zahara, Maddox, and Shiloh, actually he’s reduced to simply warning the poor kids when they’re about to be stifled:

“And always give them a heads-up before you jerk them out of something. You need to tell them, like, ‘You have three more minutes.'”

Father on, Mr. Pitt. Father bravely on.

Numb3rs actress Diane Farr has a rather unusual business venture. If you can make light of your bad or awkward news, these cards are for you … and some of them are damn funny. I particularly like the one Diane herself used when her first engagement went bad: (Outside) Single. (Inside) Picked the wrong guy. Gave the wrong finger. Thanks for your support.

… what Ace said. Mike Lief tells me that the show skews to the right in that Jack’s nemeses are usually foreign terrorists, but this year the enemy is the President of the United States and the Academy suddenly goes nuts for it? I definitely question the hell out of the timing. The cliffhanger led us to believe the Chinese will be on the seat next year. We’ll see. Congratulations to Kiefer Sutherland, but I was really hoping Jean Smart would take home the Outstanding Supporting Actress Emmy for her role as the president’s wife. She was fantastic.