If frat houses are homoerotic, imagine how much more so football clubs are. Frat brothers only live together; football players practically sweat on each other. Why else would the locker room be the symbol du jour of raging man-on-man action?
So when you take a football club and make it one of 24/7 horny teenagers, you'd expect a little between-brothers experimenting, right? Sadly, for a season and a third, "Friday Night Lights" has steadfastly denied us that plotline.
That doesn't mean, though, that the past three episodes haven't given me cause for hope.
First there was that melt-my-screen hot scene from three weeks ago, between Jason Street, Lyla Garrity, and the ever-smoldering Tim Riggins. Lyla kisses wheelchair-bound Jason, then floats over into Riggins's arms, then kisses Riggins while Jason watches them, smiling. It was such a "Y Tu Mama Tambien" moment that I actually physically shivered, sure that the next scene would be the three of them slow-dancing their way onto a bed. It wasn't, but I like to think that's what happened anyway.
And there was the episode two weeks ago, when star player Smash Williams invited Riggins over for dinner. It was purely platonic, Smash's pretext for some football talk with Riggins, but the exchange put a smile on my face nonetheless. When Riggins replied: "Are you asking me on a date, Williams?", my instinctive reaction was "SAY YES, DUMBASS". If you don't understand this reaction, I direct you to any Riggins-centric scene; actor Taylor Kitsch could have sexual chemistry with a rock.
But if the Jason-Lyla-Riggins threesome was eyebrow-raising only by implication, and if the Smash-Riggins encounter was purely my wishful thinking, last Friday's locker room scene was explicit on its own terms.
As Lyla and bad-ass bad-girl Tyra Collette busted into the locker room, you could clearly see the half-naked guys horsing around. It lasted only fleeting moments, of course, before the guys behaved themselves in the presence of women, but that's what the 'rewind' button was invented for. And, in any case, that was peanuts compared to the later mass dance.
Guided by Lyla and Tyra's ingenious choreography, the Dillon Panthers put on a performance for the annual 'Pantherama'. Said performance included the stripping of clothes, the stripping of pants, and a whoooollle lotta boxers-only male bodies inches from each other. To give you an idea of how inneundo-laden all of it was, this was my straight friend's comment: "How many rehearsals did they have, again?"
Indeed. So there you have it: three episodes, three scenes of varying homoeroticism. It may not ultimately lead to anything, but we can always have hope, yes?
And in the meantime, there's always that 'rewind' button.
Catch the boys - all right, and girls - of "Friday Night Lights" on Fridays, on NBC at 9 pm / 8 pm central.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Gay.com Column: "Brothers and Sisters": Rob Lowe's Shiny New Flaw
With all the attention that's been showered on Matthew Rhys, you'd think that there were no other guys on hit show "Brothers and Sisters". But no more. Enter Exhibit A: Rob Lowe's Senator McCallister.
"Now wait a minute," I bet you're gonna say. "Hasn't the guy been on the show for like, forever?" And you would be right. Rob Lowe - and Robert McCallister - have been on the show for like, forever (and ever). But it wasn't until the past two episodes that the character became interesting.
As much as it pains me to complain about anything on "Brothers and Sisters", Robert McCallister was possibly the most boring character on television. He was so perfect that he wasn't remotely human: dream boyfriend, dream fiance, and dream Republican, he charmed the socks off everyone on the show and looked immaculately hot doing it. And every time it seemed like there was some scarlet letter in his past, it turned out instead to be a bleeding badge of honor:
As a teenager, he might have knocked up a girlfriend and dumped her afterwards? You got it aaaalll wrong. She cheated on him, and he not only forgave her but helped her have the baby (and helped her give it up for adoption). Isn't he a saint?
People think that he cheated on his wife? Ah, but they're wrong, you see - (again,) she cheated on him. He just didn't want the divorce to get any uglier in public.
He voted against stem-cell research? Only because he thought it was a decision best left to the states. Had nothing to do with any ethical beliefs either side of the fence.
He voted against same-sex marriage? But he has a gay brother! (And, really, he reversed his vote later on, so it's a total wash.)
His ex-wife accuses him of being emotionally withholding, and of always going it alone? Where did that plot thread lead to, again? Completely disappeared in the Kitty-Robert puppy wuv? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Maybe he didn't actually save all those people during the Gulf War? Are you kidding? He's just reluctant to talk about it because he's modest and doesn't believe in cheap grandstanding.
And so forth. Is it any wonder that the character bored me to tears? Not even considering the impossibly naive McCallister's Big No-No's in Politics, the character wasn't a human being: it was as if, in the writers' desperation to make the Republican Character Actually One of the Good Guys, they hit a massive blind spot that stretched all of twenty episodes.
Thank goodness they've finally stopped giving McCallister an Unlimited Free Pass.
In the past two episodes, Robert McCallister has been so much more relatable. Now engaged to eponymous 'sister' Kitty Walker, the couple suffered the tragedy of a first trimester miscarriage. Only, as it turned out, McCallister was already having misgivings about another child. Father of two children already, he thought he was done adding little ones to his life. And now, with Kitty oblivious to this and wanting children with McCallister, the stage is finally set for some depth to the McCallister character. How will this affect the two's relationship? Whether McCallister gives in or resists, there's bound to be bad and un-ignorable repercussions, which means that he'll finally get down and dirty on this show.
To which I can only say: Amen. And maybe: it took you long enough, show, but I forgive you.
Of course, this development has to happen on the cusp of an indeterminate hiatus, so I hope you'll forgive me for leaving now to go curse a blue streak.
"Brothers and Sisters" airs Sundays on ABC, at 10 pm / 9 pm central.
"Now wait a minute," I bet you're gonna say. "Hasn't the guy been on the show for like, forever?" And you would be right. Rob Lowe - and Robert McCallister - have been on the show for like, forever (and ever). But it wasn't until the past two episodes that the character became interesting.
As much as it pains me to complain about anything on "Brothers and Sisters", Robert McCallister was possibly the most boring character on television. He was so perfect that he wasn't remotely human: dream boyfriend, dream fiance, and dream Republican, he charmed the socks off everyone on the show and looked immaculately hot doing it. And every time it seemed like there was some scarlet letter in his past, it turned out instead to be a bleeding badge of honor:
As a teenager, he might have knocked up a girlfriend and dumped her afterwards? You got it aaaalll wrong. She cheated on him, and he not only forgave her but helped her have the baby (and helped her give it up for adoption). Isn't he a saint?
People think that he cheated on his wife? Ah, but they're wrong, you see - (again,) she cheated on him. He just didn't want the divorce to get any uglier in public.
He voted against stem-cell research? Only because he thought it was a decision best left to the states. Had nothing to do with any ethical beliefs either side of the fence.
He voted against same-sex marriage? But he has a gay brother! (And, really, he reversed his vote later on, so it's a total wash.)
His ex-wife accuses him of being emotionally withholding, and of always going it alone? Where did that plot thread lead to, again? Completely disappeared in the Kitty-Robert puppy wuv? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Maybe he didn't actually save all those people during the Gulf War? Are you kidding? He's just reluctant to talk about it because he's modest and doesn't believe in cheap grandstanding.
And so forth. Is it any wonder that the character bored me to tears? Not even considering the impossibly naive McCallister's Big No-No's in Politics, the character wasn't a human being: it was as if, in the writers' desperation to make the Republican Character Actually One of the Good Guys, they hit a massive blind spot that stretched all of twenty episodes.
Thank goodness they've finally stopped giving McCallister an Unlimited Free Pass.
In the past two episodes, Robert McCallister has been so much more relatable. Now engaged to eponymous 'sister' Kitty Walker, the couple suffered the tragedy of a first trimester miscarriage. Only, as it turned out, McCallister was already having misgivings about another child. Father of two children already, he thought he was done adding little ones to his life. And now, with Kitty oblivious to this and wanting children with McCallister, the stage is finally set for some depth to the McCallister character. How will this affect the two's relationship? Whether McCallister gives in or resists, there's bound to be bad and un-ignorable repercussions, which means that he'll finally get down and dirty on this show.
To which I can only say: Amen. And maybe: it took you long enough, show, but I forgive you.
Of course, this development has to happen on the cusp of an indeterminate hiatus, so I hope you'll forgive me for leaving now to go curse a blue streak.
"Brothers and Sisters" airs Sundays on ABC, at 10 pm / 9 pm central.
Gay.com Column: Fischer on the strike: "End the strike for Riggins!"
I heart Pam Beesly. Always have. The only sane woman working in "The Office", Beesly makes normalcy look so attractive I want to make sexy time with her.
Given that, it's a relief that real-life Beesly is a sweetheart too. Actress Jenna Fischer has always struck me as one of the proverbial good guys, but you can honestly never tell with those L.A. types (Ellen Pompeo on "Punked", anyone?). With Fischer, however, I'm glad to say that there's definitive proof of her basic decency.
It's not just the advice and encouragement that she pours out to aspiring actors. It's also that, in this time of strikes, she makes a damned good spokeswoman.
Even though she's only a fledgling writer, she certainly understands what's at stake. In posts on her blog here and here, she makes an intelligent, articulate, and impassioned argument for why the strike is necessary. When you consider that the strike isn't doing her any favors, and that it's in fact cutting to nada her steady "Office" income, it's even more obvious that this is a woman with a good head on her shoulders. A cynic might think that she's just looking out for her future earnings, but I think her track record more than speaks for itself.
Besides, she's a fan of "Friday Night Lights", so she must be on the side of the angels. And her call-to-arms that we must "End the Strike for Riggins!"? Easily the best motivator that I've heard.
Ah. Screw that. Easily the best motivator, ever.
"The Office" has officially stopped production, so there will be no new episodes until the strike ends.
"Friday Night Lights", however, is still on NBC, on Fridays at 9 pm / 8 pm central.
Given that, it's a relief that real-life Beesly is a sweetheart too. Actress Jenna Fischer has always struck me as one of the proverbial good guys, but you can honestly never tell with those L.A. types (Ellen Pompeo on "Punked", anyone?). With Fischer, however, I'm glad to say that there's definitive proof of her basic decency.
It's not just the advice and encouragement that she pours out to aspiring actors. It's also that, in this time of strikes, she makes a damned good spokeswoman.
Even though she's only a fledgling writer, she certainly understands what's at stake. In posts on her blog here and here, she makes an intelligent, articulate, and impassioned argument for why the strike is necessary. When you consider that the strike isn't doing her any favors, and that it's in fact cutting to nada her steady "Office" income, it's even more obvious that this is a woman with a good head on her shoulders. A cynic might think that she's just looking out for her future earnings, but I think her track record more than speaks for itself.
Besides, she's a fan of "Friday Night Lights", so she must be on the side of the angels. And her call-to-arms that we must "End the Strike for Riggins!"? Easily the best motivator that I've heard.
Ah. Screw that. Easily the best motivator, ever.
"The Office" has officially stopped production, so there will be no new episodes until the strike ends.
"Friday Night Lights", however, is still on NBC, on Fridays at 9 pm / 8 pm central.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Gay.com Column: Solved! The Mystery of Shirtless Peter on "Heroes"
The two biggest mysteries since the beginning of the season: how did Peter Petrelli, played by the sizzling Milo Ventimiglia, end up shirtless in a shipping container? And, more importantly, how can we get him to do that again?
It turns out that the answer to the first question involves a black man and memory wiping. And the answer to the second? A trip to Flashbackland, Heroestopia.
Unlike last season's flashback episode, yesterday's episode revealed the answers to many questions. It revealed the connection between Peter and the mysterious Adam (they were both taken prisoner by the Company, and escaped together), it revealed how Peter and Nathan survived Peter's explosion last season (Peter regenerated, and used Adam's Claire-like DNA to regenerate Nathan), and it revealed how Peter ended up (shirtless!) in Ireland (when the Company tried to recapture Peter, the Haitian helped him get away, and wiped his memories to give him a new life).
All in all, it was a fine episode. A better than fine episode. It was a great episode, a big neon sign that said "Heroes" was back, baby. And not a moment too soon. After too many sprawling, unfocused episodes, the season finally has a sense of purpose again, a grand scheme summarized by David Anders's delicious line as Adam: "Shall we save the world?"
Hell yes.
But more than that, the episode also gave fans two more reasons to continue watching: for the fifth time in just eight episodes, Shirtless! Peter was on display again. That officially puts the hit-rate at over fifty per cent, which can only mean one thing: the writers are deliberately using Shirtless! Peter as a shameless advertising tool.
Which, as you can tell, is totally okay by me. It makes following his scenes a little difficult, what with the constant drool-wiping, but that's really a small price to pay.
Besides Shirtless! Peter, however, yesterday's episode also threw Peter and Adam together, played by two fine guys with a hotness sum much greater than its individual parts. While it was previously unthinkable (for me) that the unholy pairing of Milo Ventimiglia and Adrian Pasdar could ever be surpassed in fineness, it turns out that it very much could: with some finagling on the part of the writers, I'm sure a Peter-Adam-Nathan get-together can be contrived. Seriously, the heat graph would be exponential; I don't even care if they meet as enemies, or as the trio that saves the world, as long as they do. And if the meeting involves a return to the strip/hose-down room of the HAZMAT facility? So much the better for all of us.
The best part of that scenario? The fact that it's very probable - the three's meeting, that is, if not the HAZMAT fantasy. I can't imagine that the season will go by without a Petrelli sibling reunion, and since Peter and Adam seem to be likely partners, a round-up of the three should be in the cards sometime.
Add to that anticipation the twin plotlines of the murdered Elder Heroes and the Shanti Virus, and it's never been a better time to be a "Heroes" fanboy.
"Heroes" airs on Mondays on NBC, at 9 pm / 8 pm central. As if you didn't know.
It turns out that the answer to the first question involves a black man and memory wiping. And the answer to the second? A trip to Flashbackland, Heroestopia.
Unlike last season's flashback episode, yesterday's episode revealed the answers to many questions. It revealed the connection between Peter and the mysterious Adam (they were both taken prisoner by the Company, and escaped together), it revealed how Peter and Nathan survived Peter's explosion last season (Peter regenerated, and used Adam's Claire-like DNA to regenerate Nathan), and it revealed how Peter ended up (shirtless!) in Ireland (when the Company tried to recapture Peter, the Haitian helped him get away, and wiped his memories to give him a new life).
All in all, it was a fine episode. A better than fine episode. It was a great episode, a big neon sign that said "Heroes" was back, baby. And not a moment too soon. After too many sprawling, unfocused episodes, the season finally has a sense of purpose again, a grand scheme summarized by David Anders's delicious line as Adam: "Shall we save the world?"
Hell yes.
But more than that, the episode also gave fans two more reasons to continue watching: for the fifth time in just eight episodes, Shirtless! Peter was on display again. That officially puts the hit-rate at over fifty per cent, which can only mean one thing: the writers are deliberately using Shirtless! Peter as a shameless advertising tool.
Which, as you can tell, is totally okay by me. It makes following his scenes a little difficult, what with the constant drool-wiping, but that's really a small price to pay.
Besides Shirtless! Peter, however, yesterday's episode also threw Peter and Adam together, played by two fine guys with a hotness sum much greater than its individual parts. While it was previously unthinkable (for me) that the unholy pairing of Milo Ventimiglia and Adrian Pasdar could ever be surpassed in fineness, it turns out that it very much could: with some finagling on the part of the writers, I'm sure a Peter-Adam-Nathan get-together can be contrived. Seriously, the heat graph would be exponential; I don't even care if they meet as enemies, or as the trio that saves the world, as long as they do. And if the meeting involves a return to the strip/hose-down room of the HAZMAT facility? So much the better for all of us.
The best part of that scenario? The fact that it's very probable - the three's meeting, that is, if not the HAZMAT fantasy. I can't imagine that the season will go by without a Petrelli sibling reunion, and since Peter and Adam seem to be likely partners, a round-up of the three should be in the cards sometime.
Add to that anticipation the twin plotlines of the murdered Elder Heroes and the Shanti Virus, and it's never been a better time to be a "Heroes" fanboy.
"Heroes" airs on Mondays on NBC, at 9 pm / 8 pm central. As if you didn't know.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Gay.com Column: This Week This Happened: What do "30 Rock" and "Heroes" have in common?
It's been a bad week for television. From reports of shows running out of episodes earlier than expected, to irrelevant guest stars on network blockbusters, the theme this week is capital D Downsizing, both quantity- and quality-wise.
The only good D news this week? A possible trimming of cast fat on the hopelessly bloated "Heroes". A massacre of meaningless characters that would make everybody happy. A return to a happier time when every character had a serious part to play.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
First up, the December farewells of more than ten network shows. Although previously thought to have enough episodes to last until January, many shows will in fact be forced into permanent hiatus soon, some as early as the first week of December. And these are not all second-stringers either.
The last new episode of "Desperate Housewives" will air on December 2nd, with new "Heroes" episodes drying up the day after that. "Pushing Daisies", "Ugly Betty", and "Grey's Anatomy" also only have four new episodes each, although judicious scheduling may stretch them to January. "Brothers and Sisters" will also say goodbye soon. As for the hilarious "How I Met Your Mother" - that will be gone by the end of the month.
For some of the early retirees, the timing really couldn't be worse: "Housewives" has had a creatively resurgent season so far, while this week's "Heroes" showed that its sophomore slump was finally over. But because production has shut down, both series will now only have four hours: four hours to win back and create new viewers; four hours to make sure those viewers come back after the strike - however long that lasts. With no resolution to the dispute in sight, the 'come back' part of the deal might be a very tall order indeed.
But for some of the other shows, an extended break might be better for all involved. I'm thinking specifically of "Bionic Woman", whose ratings have fallen faster than a roller-coaster on the downslope. As of this week's episode, this Woman has gone from a roaring premiere to a whimpering cry for any attention. It has the most-watched premiere of all the new shows, and yet has managed to lose more than half of that audience. Something is obviously very wrong, and - if it doesn't get canceled outright - this extra time to fix and repair will hopefully get it going again.
But it's not the only show that could use an extended time-out. To that list I would add "30 Rock", "Ugly Betty", and "America's Next Top Model". Don't get me wrong; "30 Rock" is still consistently brilliant, "ANTM" consistently whack-on-crack, and "Ugly Betty" pretty consistently fabulous. But the guest stars on these shows, on the other hand... let's just say that some people need to be threatened with pay cuts.
Just this week alone, "Ugly Betty" hosted Victoria Beckham, "ANTM" Enrique Iglesias, and "30 Rock" guest-'starred' David Schwimmer. I'm sorry; when did we time-travel back to the '90s? And Victoria Beckham? Really? When there's her infinitely better other half David Beckham on tap? Isn't showrunner Silvio Horta a gay man? Who chooses Victoria over David? The man is a god. The woman is bumps on a stick.
For "ANTM" and "Ugly Betty" these choices might not be that egregious; they are after all established shows, and should have no problem staying on the radar even without more enticing guest stars. But I don't think "30 Rock" has that privilege. Its current season is already due more to acclaim than actual numbers; and with the writers' strike threatening to pull it off the air in January, now is the time to grab some strangers with eye-and-promo-catching cameos. Now is not the time to make them go, 'David Schwimmer, huh'.
For a prime example of how to capitalize on its remaining episodes, "30 Rock" should take a look at the strategy of "Heroes". The shows have superficially opposite problems, but essentially those problems are the same: supporting characters that, however good for the story, aren't helping the show get viewers. But while "30 Rock" continues to cast the same downsized cameos (see: Seinfeld, Jerry; Fisher, Carrie), "Heroes" is taking the opposite tack, by out-sizing its problems and correcting them.
Besides the very public mea culpa, the creators of "Heroes" have also shrewdly hinted at some of those supporting characters' demises. This TV Guide interview is perhaps the most explicit, with producer Jeph Loeb promising a "housecleaning" in the December 3rd episode, the last episode before the show goes off the air. Retooled as a quasi-finale to deal with the strike, anticipation of those unpopular characters' deaths will undoubtedly help send the ratings sky-high. And, with any luck, those tuning in will be back for Volume III.
"30 Rock", on the other hand... I love the show to bits, but I also loved "Veronica Mars" to bits. And on that show, brilliant writing, great acting, critical acclaim, and a rabid fan-base didn't prove enough in the end. "30 Rock" needs something splashier, and if an extended hiatus can help it secure more ratings-friendly guest stars, then the strike might be a bonus after all.
So what's the moral of this week's happenings? Downsizing can have its benefits, but it's mostly bad for all involved. Upsize the writers' deserved payments, upsize the episodes of our favorite shows, and, please, dear (any) god, upsize the viewerships of shows that deserve them. Down with downsizing, and up with upsizing!
The only good D news this week? A possible trimming of cast fat on the hopelessly bloated "Heroes". A massacre of meaningless characters that would make everybody happy. A return to a happier time when every character had a serious part to play.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
First up, the December farewells of more than ten network shows. Although previously thought to have enough episodes to last until January, many shows will in fact be forced into permanent hiatus soon, some as early as the first week of December. And these are not all second-stringers either.
The last new episode of "Desperate Housewives" will air on December 2nd, with new "Heroes" episodes drying up the day after that. "Pushing Daisies", "Ugly Betty", and "Grey's Anatomy" also only have four new episodes each, although judicious scheduling may stretch them to January. "Brothers and Sisters" will also say goodbye soon. As for the hilarious "How I Met Your Mother" - that will be gone by the end of the month.
For some of the early retirees, the timing really couldn't be worse: "Housewives" has had a creatively resurgent season so far, while this week's "Heroes" showed that its sophomore slump was finally over. But because production has shut down, both series will now only have four hours: four hours to win back and create new viewers; four hours to make sure those viewers come back after the strike - however long that lasts. With no resolution to the dispute in sight, the 'come back' part of the deal might be a very tall order indeed.
But for some of the other shows, an extended break might be better for all involved. I'm thinking specifically of "Bionic Woman", whose ratings have fallen faster than a roller-coaster on the downslope. As of this week's episode, this Woman has gone from a roaring premiere to a whimpering cry for any attention. It has the most-watched premiere of all the new shows, and yet has managed to lose more than half of that audience. Something is obviously very wrong, and - if it doesn't get canceled outright - this extra time to fix and repair will hopefully get it going again.
But it's not the only show that could use an extended time-out. To that list I would add "30 Rock", "Ugly Betty", and "America's Next Top Model". Don't get me wrong; "30 Rock" is still consistently brilliant, "ANTM" consistently whack-on-crack, and "Ugly Betty" pretty consistently fabulous. But the guest stars on these shows, on the other hand... let's just say that some people need to be threatened with pay cuts.
Just this week alone, "Ugly Betty" hosted Victoria Beckham, "ANTM" Enrique Iglesias, and "30 Rock" guest-'starred' David Schwimmer. I'm sorry; when did we time-travel back to the '90s? And Victoria Beckham? Really? When there's her infinitely better other half David Beckham on tap? Isn't showrunner Silvio Horta a gay man? Who chooses Victoria over David? The man is a god. The woman is bumps on a stick.
For "ANTM" and "Ugly Betty" these choices might not be that egregious; they are after all established shows, and should have no problem staying on the radar even without more enticing guest stars. But I don't think "30 Rock" has that privilege. Its current season is already due more to acclaim than actual numbers; and with the writers' strike threatening to pull it off the air in January, now is the time to grab some strangers with eye-and-promo-catching cameos. Now is not the time to make them go, 'David Schwimmer, huh'.
For a prime example of how to capitalize on its remaining episodes, "30 Rock" should take a look at the strategy of "Heroes". The shows have superficially opposite problems, but essentially those problems are the same: supporting characters that, however good for the story, aren't helping the show get viewers. But while "30 Rock" continues to cast the same downsized cameos (see: Seinfeld, Jerry; Fisher, Carrie), "Heroes" is taking the opposite tack, by out-sizing its problems and correcting them.
Besides the very public mea culpa, the creators of "Heroes" have also shrewdly hinted at some of those supporting characters' demises. This TV Guide interview is perhaps the most explicit, with producer Jeph Loeb promising a "housecleaning" in the December 3rd episode, the last episode before the show goes off the air. Retooled as a quasi-finale to deal with the strike, anticipation of those unpopular characters' deaths will undoubtedly help send the ratings sky-high. And, with any luck, those tuning in will be back for Volume III.
"30 Rock", on the other hand... I love the show to bits, but I also loved "Veronica Mars" to bits. And on that show, brilliant writing, great acting, critical acclaim, and a rabid fan-base didn't prove enough in the end. "30 Rock" needs something splashier, and if an extended hiatus can help it secure more ratings-friendly guest stars, then the strike might be a bonus after all.
So what's the moral of this week's happenings? Downsizing can have its benefits, but it's mostly bad for all involved. Upsize the writers' deserved payments, upsize the episodes of our favorite shows, and, please, dear (any) god, upsize the viewerships of shows that deserve them. Down with downsizing, and up with upsizing!
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Gay.com Column: "The Amazing Race": The Groundbreaking Lesbians
After eleven seasons, 268 racers, and countless ratings grabs, you'd think there would be little that could surprise a seasoned "The Amazing Race" watcher. But when the new teams for the twelfth season were announced, there was one configuration that I certainly hadn't expected.
With the kickass chyron of "Married Ministers", lesbians Kate and Pat quickly became for me the season's most interesting team (the 'Goth' team be damned). Not only was there just one lesbian in the past seasons of "TAR", but such a partnership had never before been seen on reality TV.
Add to that their religious background, and you had the ingredients for an incendiary reaction.
But one episode into the popular reality program, the team has seemingly drawn no flak or homophobic backlash. While there are anecdotal stories of ex-fans now boycotting the show, there have been equal anecdotal stories of converts because of the couple. More importantly, there has been no reaction at all from the mainstream or online press corps.
This might be in part due to the angle of their "TAR" journey thus far. In the premiere, the lesbian ministerial couple were portrayed sans 'Lesbian!!!' or 'Ministers!!!'. Aside from a few throwaway lines about their religion, the two were depicted as any other couple.
A large part of the press corps' silence may also be due to "TAR" history. While Kate and Pat may be the first lesbian couple, "TAR" has traditionally been good to the G in the LGBT community. From the first season's 'Guidos' Joe and Bill, to the fourth season's winners Chip and Reichen, to the tenth season's boyfriends Tom and Terry, to the many more unmentioned, "TAR" has gone out of its way to include gay contestants in its casts. So while a lesbian couple may be a little late, Kate and Pat's inclusion is not that surprising in hindsight, considering the G-leanings of "TAR" history.
But despite both of these highly plausible explanations, I can't help but hope that the non-buzz is caused by another reason: that it's not Big News because of a growing majority maturity. This, to me, would be the best reason of all.
However, having said that, I hope that this casting does create some waves - not on the part of audiences at home, but on the part of television writers and producers.
This is because the casting exposes a glaring and embarrassing imbalance: the paucity of lesbians compared to gays in mainstream television.
While gay men have had it fairly good in terms of mainstream TV roles - besides "TAR", a few other big names include "Desperate Housewives", "Brothers and Sisters", "Will and Grace", "As The World Turns", et cetera - I'm hard-pressed to think of many substantial lesbian roles. "The L Word" is canceled out by "Queer as Folk", and episode arcs on "Nip/Tuck" don't exactly scream exposure. Neither am I impressed by the fact that lesbian kisses are still sweeps or finale stunts (see: "The O.C.", "Dirt", et cetera).
So more than just an inspired choice on the part of "TAR" producers, Kate and Pat represent to me a big step forward for lesbians - and I certainly hope that others in power pick up on this example.
But, in the meantime, I'm glad that this couple is a team that I can root for without feeling guilty.
I didn't expect them, but I do like them, and even if they're not the definition of 'efficient', at least they seem to genuinely love the race and each other. Their interview quote that "TAR" is a "love letter to the planet" may also be the best summation of the show that I've heard.
So here's to unexpected and likable teams making it as far as they possibly can. And if they pave the way for other lesbians in television, so much the better. I look forward to the day when I won't be surprised by such casting.
"The Amazing Race" spans the globe on Sundays on CBS, at 8 pm / 7 pm central.
With the kickass chyron of "Married Ministers", lesbians Kate and Pat quickly became for me the season's most interesting team (the 'Goth' team be damned). Not only was there just one lesbian in the past seasons of "TAR", but such a partnership had never before been seen on reality TV.
Add to that their religious background, and you had the ingredients for an incendiary reaction.
But one episode into the popular reality program, the team has seemingly drawn no flak or homophobic backlash. While there are anecdotal stories of ex-fans now boycotting the show, there have been equal anecdotal stories of converts because of the couple. More importantly, there has been no reaction at all from the mainstream or online press corps.
This might be in part due to the angle of their "TAR" journey thus far. In the premiere, the lesbian ministerial couple were portrayed sans 'Lesbian!!!' or 'Ministers!!!'. Aside from a few throwaway lines about their religion, the two were depicted as any other couple.
A large part of the press corps' silence may also be due to "TAR" history. While Kate and Pat may be the first lesbian couple, "TAR" has traditionally been good to the G in the LGBT community. From the first season's 'Guidos' Joe and Bill, to the fourth season's winners Chip and Reichen, to the tenth season's boyfriends Tom and Terry, to the many more unmentioned, "TAR" has gone out of its way to include gay contestants in its casts. So while a lesbian couple may be a little late, Kate and Pat's inclusion is not that surprising in hindsight, considering the G-leanings of "TAR" history.
But despite both of these highly plausible explanations, I can't help but hope that the non-buzz is caused by another reason: that it's not Big News because of a growing majority maturity. This, to me, would be the best reason of all.
However, having said that, I hope that this casting does create some waves - not on the part of audiences at home, but on the part of television writers and producers.
This is because the casting exposes a glaring and embarrassing imbalance: the paucity of lesbians compared to gays in mainstream television.
While gay men have had it fairly good in terms of mainstream TV roles - besides "TAR", a few other big names include "Desperate Housewives", "Brothers and Sisters", "Will and Grace", "As The World Turns", et cetera - I'm hard-pressed to think of many substantial lesbian roles. "The L Word" is canceled out by "Queer as Folk", and episode arcs on "Nip/Tuck" don't exactly scream exposure. Neither am I impressed by the fact that lesbian kisses are still sweeps or finale stunts (see: "The O.C.", "Dirt", et cetera).
So more than just an inspired choice on the part of "TAR" producers, Kate and Pat represent to me a big step forward for lesbians - and I certainly hope that others in power pick up on this example.
But, in the meantime, I'm glad that this couple is a team that I can root for without feeling guilty.
I didn't expect them, but I do like them, and even if they're not the definition of 'efficient', at least they seem to genuinely love the race and each other. Their interview quote that "TAR" is a "love letter to the planet" may also be the best summation of the show that I've heard.
So here's to unexpected and likable teams making it as far as they possibly can. And if they pave the way for other lesbians in television, so much the better. I look forward to the day when I won't be surprised by such casting.
"The Amazing Race" spans the globe on Sundays on CBS, at 8 pm / 7 pm central.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Gay.com Column: This Week This Happened: All You Need Is Faith
A lot can happen in seven days, so let This Week This Happened point you to the best and most exciting news. This week, the organizing theme is good ol' faith: who got it, who lost it, and who's in desperate need of a little.
Kicking off is my man Joss Whedon. Creator of cult favorites "Buffy" and "Angel", Whedon is set to return to television after a nearly three-year absence. It turns out that all he needed was a dose of Faith - and he got it in the lovely form of one Eliza Dushku.
Most famous for playing Faith the rogue Slayer in "Buffy" and "Angel", Dushku will team up with Whedon to present the new series "Dollhouse". Advertised as a cross between "Quantum Leap" and "Alias", Dushku will star as Echo, member of a cadre of 'human chalkboards'. Upon receiving their assignments, these blank agents are imprinted with special skills and memories, then wiped clean afterwards and returned to the 'dollhouse'. Through the course of the first season, Echo will gradually gain self-awareness, and struggle to discover her pre-dollhouse past.
Sounds like an excellent premise to me, and I'm already looking forward to its fall '08 premiere. Anything with Whedon or Dushku will already get my vote, so one with Whedon and Dushku? Consider me sold and sold again. (And I'm certainly not the only one, if this website is any indication.)
The only fly in the ointment might be the network involved. And that's - cue ominous music - the dreaded network Fox. Any Whedonites worth their salt will remember the great "Firefly" fiasco, wherein Fox destroyed the series with its inept scheduling. While Whedon has obviously forgiven if not forgotten, I'm taking with a grain of salt the PR reacharounds. Much is riding on this new series, and if it fails because of Fox, you can be sure I'll be one of those picketing the network.
Moving on from my personal god, if Joss Whedon finally got some good ol' Faith, network NBC lost theirs in a big way this week. Their faith in "Heroes", that is. The show that enjoyed super ratings last season has taken a mighty tumble, with numbers freefalling through the weeks since its sophomore premiere. And instead of publicly displaying a show of support, NBC has chosen instead to spread a message of doom.
Yes, that's right - "Heroes: Origins" has been unofficially canceled.
Envisioned as a way to stem viewership falloff in the hiatus, "Heroes: Origins" was supposed to introduce a new character each week, with viewers able to vote for their favorite at the end of the six-week run. The winning character would then be integrated into the flagship show. With big names like Kevin Smith and Eli Roth already on board, the spinoff was supposed to be NBC's big midseason splash.
Was supposed to, was supposed to. With the current (bad) situation with "Heroes", and with the looming writers strike, NBC bigwigs decided to pull the plug - for now, they say. Officially, "Heroes: Origins" is not actually canceled, only "indefinitely postponed".
I believe in networkese that means 'we'll have to see how the original show does first'. Which is a fair position for a business to take; I only wonder why this was not publicly said: with "Heroes" rapidly losing fans, this might have been enough to persuade those on the fence to give the struggling series more time. Done like this, the announcement only makes NBC seem like a heartless boss. And not only that, but a heartless boss with egg all over its face.
Having said that, let's move on to the final item for today: if NBC has lost some faith, it's definitely not the only one to do so. The Writers Guild of America has officially called for a strike to begin. Details of the strike are not yet forthcoming, and rumors put its actual start-date between this coming Monday and next January. But regardless of the strike details, it's clear that there is much bad blood between the writers and the entertainment industry at large.
Most of it stems from the previous contract, which gave writers a disproportionately small percentage of the spoils. That contract ended this past week, and so the WGA is angling for a new and more equitable replacement. Whether it will materialize, and how long the process might take, is beyond anybody's guess at the moment.
What is certain, however, is that when this strike occurs, it will cause much disruption to television. With the quick turnaround time on television programs, much of this season's scripted shows have not yet been fully written - and they are the lucky ones. With at least six to eight episodes already likely written, they will have enough material to last until January. Late-night talkies and similar programs, like "The Colbert Report" and "The David Letterman Show", however, will face difficulties immediately, since their content is generated on a daily basis.
What does this mean for TV watchers like you and me? It means one very horrifying thing: more reality television.
It's almost enough to make anyone lose their faith in any god. Networks big and small are already priming their reality and game shows, and in case you are expecting those to be of the caliber of "The Amazing Race", or even of the wickedly entertaining "America's Most Smartest Model" - I'm afraid I have bad news for you.
Upcoming titles include: "My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad", "Farmer Wants A Wife" (I am not kidding with this one), and "Jingles". While some of them will probably be somewhat watchable, hands up if you're with me in wanting our lovely writers to return.
I realize that there's probably little that prayer can do at this point to stop the strike, but if prayer can magically force those suits to come to a meeting point, then by golly I am going on my knees.
And on that note, with your hands up and my knees bent, this brings us to the end of the first installment of this roundup. And if you haven't already guessed who's the one in desperate need of a little faith - it's me.
Kicking off is my man Joss Whedon. Creator of cult favorites "Buffy" and "Angel", Whedon is set to return to television after a nearly three-year absence. It turns out that all he needed was a dose of Faith - and he got it in the lovely form of one Eliza Dushku.
Most famous for playing Faith the rogue Slayer in "Buffy" and "Angel", Dushku will team up with Whedon to present the new series "Dollhouse". Advertised as a cross between "Quantum Leap" and "Alias", Dushku will star as Echo, member of a cadre of 'human chalkboards'. Upon receiving their assignments, these blank agents are imprinted with special skills and memories, then wiped clean afterwards and returned to the 'dollhouse'. Through the course of the first season, Echo will gradually gain self-awareness, and struggle to discover her pre-dollhouse past.
Sounds like an excellent premise to me, and I'm already looking forward to its fall '08 premiere. Anything with Whedon or Dushku will already get my vote, so one with Whedon and Dushku? Consider me sold and sold again. (And I'm certainly not the only one, if this website is any indication.)
The only fly in the ointment might be the network involved. And that's - cue ominous music - the dreaded network Fox. Any Whedonites worth their salt will remember the great "Firefly" fiasco, wherein Fox destroyed the series with its inept scheduling. While Whedon has obviously forgiven if not forgotten, I'm taking with a grain of salt the PR reacharounds. Much is riding on this new series, and if it fails because of Fox, you can be sure I'll be one of those picketing the network.
Moving on from my personal god, if Joss Whedon finally got some good ol' Faith, network NBC lost theirs in a big way this week. Their faith in "Heroes", that is. The show that enjoyed super ratings last season has taken a mighty tumble, with numbers freefalling through the weeks since its sophomore premiere. And instead of publicly displaying a show of support, NBC has chosen instead to spread a message of doom.
Yes, that's right - "Heroes: Origins" has been unofficially canceled.
Envisioned as a way to stem viewership falloff in the hiatus, "Heroes: Origins" was supposed to introduce a new character each week, with viewers able to vote for their favorite at the end of the six-week run. The winning character would then be integrated into the flagship show. With big names like Kevin Smith and Eli Roth already on board, the spinoff was supposed to be NBC's big midseason splash.
Was supposed to, was supposed to. With the current (bad) situation with "Heroes", and with the looming writers strike, NBC bigwigs decided to pull the plug - for now, they say. Officially, "Heroes: Origins" is not actually canceled, only "indefinitely postponed".
I believe in networkese that means 'we'll have to see how the original show does first'. Which is a fair position for a business to take; I only wonder why this was not publicly said: with "Heroes" rapidly losing fans, this might have been enough to persuade those on the fence to give the struggling series more time. Done like this, the announcement only makes NBC seem like a heartless boss. And not only that, but a heartless boss with egg all over its face.
Having said that, let's move on to the final item for today: if NBC has lost some faith, it's definitely not the only one to do so. The Writers Guild of America has officially called for a strike to begin. Details of the strike are not yet forthcoming, and rumors put its actual start-date between this coming Monday and next January. But regardless of the strike details, it's clear that there is much bad blood between the writers and the entertainment industry at large.
Most of it stems from the previous contract, which gave writers a disproportionately small percentage of the spoils. That contract ended this past week, and so the WGA is angling for a new and more equitable replacement. Whether it will materialize, and how long the process might take, is beyond anybody's guess at the moment.
What is certain, however, is that when this strike occurs, it will cause much disruption to television. With the quick turnaround time on television programs, much of this season's scripted shows have not yet been fully written - and they are the lucky ones. With at least six to eight episodes already likely written, they will have enough material to last until January. Late-night talkies and similar programs, like "The Colbert Report" and "The David Letterman Show", however, will face difficulties immediately, since their content is generated on a daily basis.
What does this mean for TV watchers like you and me? It means one very horrifying thing: more reality television.
It's almost enough to make anyone lose their faith in any god. Networks big and small are already priming their reality and game shows, and in case you are expecting those to be of the caliber of "The Amazing Race", or even of the wickedly entertaining "America's Most Smartest Model" - I'm afraid I have bad news for you.
Upcoming titles include: "My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad", "Farmer Wants A Wife" (I am not kidding with this one), and "Jingles". While some of them will probably be somewhat watchable, hands up if you're with me in wanting our lovely writers to return.
I realize that there's probably little that prayer can do at this point to stop the strike, but if prayer can magically force those suits to come to a meeting point, then by golly I am going on my knees.
And on that note, with your hands up and my knees bent, this brings us to the end of the first installment of this roundup. And if you haven't already guessed who's the one in desperate need of a little faith - it's me.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Gay.com Column: Now this you should watch: "Cambridge Spies"
The British really do some things better. From the depictions of homosexual sex, to the comfort of the male leads with their naked bodies, "Cambridge Spies" achieves a level of gay frankness not even "Brothers and Sisters" can get away with.
Made in 2003, the BBC miniseries fictionalizes the infamous 'Cambridge Four', British spies who betrayed their country during World War II and beyond. If all that history sounds boring in print, you'll have to trust me that it's not so on screen.
That's because, rather than focus on the world-changing events, the miniseries instead concentrates on the four men's relationships. Although two are gay and the other two straight, and each has a distinctly different temperament, the miniseries-makers apply the same scrupulous attention to all. And if some storylines seem rushed and cramped, the actors go a long way towards excusing that.
Between Toby Stephens, Samuel West, Rupert Penry-Jones and Tom Hollander, there's a man to suit every stripe, and each actor brings his considerable talent to bear on his meaty role. Stephens's Kim Philby is a rough-and-ready Englishman, Penry-Jones's Donald Maclean is a pretty-but-straight scholar, and West's Anthony Blunt is the gentleman who holds the four together.
But the breakout star of this enterprise is undoubtedly Tom Hollander. Probably most famous stateside as the evil Lord Beckett in "Pirates of the Caribbean", here Hollander plays the role of the exuberantly gay Guy Burgess. Always ready with a witty quip, and never failing to command admiration, Hollander's Burgess is like the kid in school who did and got away with everything (and almost everyone).
But if Hollander's the one most likely to appeal to a wide swath of gay viewers, each of the other actors also deserves no less accolades. Together they elevate the miniseries from mere eye-candy to arresting, whether it's Blunt showing the strains of leadership in the group, or Penry-Jones struggling to decide whether to confess to his wife.
Also, in most other series the cheesecake sex scenes would be the shows' whole purpose, but here they are only the icing on an already substantial cake. In other words, you won't have to feel too guilty when you rewatch certain segments - over and over again.
So if you'd like to learn some history while watching gorgeous men, the four-part "Cambridge Spies" is likely to hit both spots at once. Add to that the British accents that say sexy in every syllable, and how can you actually refuse to watch this show?
"Cambridge Spies" is available on Netflix.
Made in 2003, the BBC miniseries fictionalizes the infamous 'Cambridge Four', British spies who betrayed their country during World War II and beyond. If all that history sounds boring in print, you'll have to trust me that it's not so on screen.
That's because, rather than focus on the world-changing events, the miniseries instead concentrates on the four men's relationships. Although two are gay and the other two straight, and each has a distinctly different temperament, the miniseries-makers apply the same scrupulous attention to all. And if some storylines seem rushed and cramped, the actors go a long way towards excusing that.
Between Toby Stephens, Samuel West, Rupert Penry-Jones and Tom Hollander, there's a man to suit every stripe, and each actor brings his considerable talent to bear on his meaty role. Stephens's Kim Philby is a rough-and-ready Englishman, Penry-Jones's Donald Maclean is a pretty-but-straight scholar, and West's Anthony Blunt is the gentleman who holds the four together.
But the breakout star of this enterprise is undoubtedly Tom Hollander. Probably most famous stateside as the evil Lord Beckett in "Pirates of the Caribbean", here Hollander plays the role of the exuberantly gay Guy Burgess. Always ready with a witty quip, and never failing to command admiration, Hollander's Burgess is like the kid in school who did and got away with everything (and almost everyone).
But if Hollander's the one most likely to appeal to a wide swath of gay viewers, each of the other actors also deserves no less accolades. Together they elevate the miniseries from mere eye-candy to arresting, whether it's Blunt showing the strains of leadership in the group, or Penry-Jones struggling to decide whether to confess to his wife.
Also, in most other series the cheesecake sex scenes would be the shows' whole purpose, but here they are only the icing on an already substantial cake. In other words, you won't have to feel too guilty when you rewatch certain segments - over and over again.
So if you'd like to learn some history while watching gorgeous men, the four-part "Cambridge Spies" is likely to hit both spots at once. Add to that the British accents that say sexy in every syllable, and how can you actually refuse to watch this show?
"Cambridge Spies" is available on Netflix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)