Arvin Sloane. Keith Mars. Possibly soon-to-be lovers. Now, I'm sorry if my bi-coastal shriek shattered your television set, but certain pair-ups just need to be celebrated as loudly as possible.
I don't know who on the "Brothers and Sisters" team pushed the idea of Ron Rifkin and Enrico Colantoni as lovers (here's hoping!), but such a couple would be genius on so many levels.
First of all, the two men are among the finest actors out there, with a history of amazing work behind them; my television crush on Colantoni began more than a decade ago with the sitcom "Just Shoot Me", and while I've only seen Rifkin in "Alias" and "Brothers", on his best "Alias" day Arvin Sloane could out-creep just about anyone. So these two actors have a demonstrated level of excellence in their work.
Which they will need, if they are going to play lovers on primetime television. Middle-aged gay lovers is probably not a network exec's dream couple, and while the creative team behind "Brothers" has more than proven itself, I also can't help but think of the many ways that this could go horribly wrong. So if the network steps in to interfere, or if the writers somehow bomb the storyline, you want actors who can do wonders with bad material, and I can think of few actors that would do a better job than Rifkin and Colantoni.
But more than all of this is the sheer compatibility of the match. Yes, Rifkin could have chemistry with a rock, and so could Colantoni for that matter, so it won't be surprising if they're compatible onscreen. But the fact that one is most famous as a diabolical spy, and the other is most famous as a do-gooder sheriff / private investigator - well, every time I think of them as lovers it just seems to fit.
And I haven't even mentioned the bonanza of meta-kinkiness that would be available to the writers.
So, as you can see, a Rifkin-Colantoni arc would be nothing short of heaven, both for the characters, the actors, and us. God knows Rifkin hasn't exactly been blessed with great material on "Brothers", and god knows a meaty role hasn't happened for Colantoni post-"Veronica Mars" either.
A storyline featuring them as lovers would change all that in a jiffy, and since these are two actors who've definitely earned the karma to good material, I'm going to be in the camp that's rooting for some middle-aged gay action.
Now, how do we wreck "Eli Stone" so we can get Victor Garber on board too...
"Brothers and Sisters" will hopefully be airing on ABC, on Sundays at 10 pm / 9 pm central.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Gay.com Column: Post-strike wishes for "Brothers & Sisters", "Lost", "Friday Night Lights" and "Lost"
With the guild writers set to return to work, our favorite shows could see new episodes as early as next month. "Lost" fans will probably get their 16-episode season, "Desperate Housewives" fans can stop turning to the ersatz housewives of Orange County, and "Brothers and Sisters" fans can look forward to a happy reunion with their TV family.
As for me, I'm just glad that I can soon turn on my TV without feeling guilty. Withdrawal has not been kind, and I don't know if I could have survived much longer without my weekly "Friday Night Lights" fix. (Yes, it's that addictive.)
That being said, I'm also secretly a little glad that the guild has had some time off. As much I love "Brothers and Sisters", "Friday Night Lights", "Lost", and "Battlestar Galactica", some developments on these shows have seemed a little odd to me; so I hope that the strike has given the writers time to do some tweaking.
Take "Brothers and Sisters", for example. Last we heard, our favorite lawyer was getting emails from his ex-boyfriend, leading to some very uncomfortable standoffs with his current boyfriend. How will the Kevin-Jason-Scotty triangle resolve itself, and will it be resolved? This fan certainly hopes so, since Kevin seems to be stuck in a character rut.
From Scotty to Chad to Jason and back, Kevin seems to be the character who has undergone the least development in the past season and a half. Each boyfriend demonstrated that Kevin has commitment issues, but none managed to push Kevin into truly exploring those issues. For a while there, it seemed minister Jason might be in it for the long haul, but then "Viva Laughlin" shit all over those plans, and we were back to square one.
As much as I appreciate the parade of hot men through Kevin's revolving door love life, I think I'd appreciate much more Kevin having a steady boyfriend. The guy's got plenty of other problems; pigeonholing him as The One Who Can't Commit seems a little lazy and shortsighted. So I say: let Jason and Scotty go mano-a-mano for Kevin's affections, but let the winner graduate from guest star to permanent cast member, at least for the rest of the season. Hopefully this is the writers' plan, because it's time to move on; at least give Kevin a chance to suffer and rejoice in the vicissitudes of a long-term relationship.
If the problem in "Brothers and Sisters" is guys who can't stick around, the problem of "Friday Night Lights" is guys who can't stick together. As much as it pains me to speak ill of a show that's one of the best things out there in TV land, the second season of "FNL" seems to have forgotten - just a little bit - what made it so great in its debut season: that is, a kick-ass main cast who stuck and fought together for each other.
Football is a team sport, but you wouldn't know it by much of the current season. From the unity of the first season we've come to this: Jason Street, the paralyzed golden boy, all but disappearing for large stretches; previous best-pals Landry Clarke and Matt Saracen barely having a scene together; 'Smash' Williams seemingly only hanging out with his new girlfriend; and Tim Riggins getting bounced from home to home.
What I liked about the first season was the sense that these characters were truly a part of each others' lives: from the unlikely friendship between bad girl Tyra Collette and coach's daughter Julie Taylor, to the brief but striking interactions between Smash and Tim Riggins, to that memorable scene where Tim Riggins, Smash, Matt and Jason were all together on the soccer field. I get that characters have to move on, but this season seems to have taken that dictum a little too far.
Thankfully, there are signs that things may be righting themselves. In the last few episodes we've gotten glimpses of reunions in the making: Buddy Garrity, Lyla's father, offering Jason Street a job; Lyla and Tim Riggins' long-simmering romance building to a head; an actual scene with Landry, Matt, Tim Riggins, and Smash all in attendance; and more. All good, and all - fingers crossed - signs of things to come.
Moving on from a show that's hopefully found itself to "Lost", we have yet another show that seems to be on the uptick. I've never been an obsessive fan of "Lost", and certain creative decisions over the seasons entirely bewildered me: the first six episodes of season three, the point of the Tailies, who have been all but exterminated one way or another, and the by-now predictable influx of new Other Other Other Others at the start of seasons.
To me, the show has strayed so far from its initial premise that it's almost unrecognizable. That being said, however, the introduction of an end-point for the series may have been just the thing the show needed.
While I could be cynical and argue that the endpoint is a ploy to re-hook exasperated fans, I'm willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt. The use of flashforwards suggest that the writers know what they're writing toward, and the 'how did the Oceanic Six get off the island?' big question going forward might be enough to sustain the show for its remaining seasons. For a show that's floundered since its initial burst onto screens, this new creative direction might just be the thing to save it.
Of course, I could be horribly wrong, and the writers could still be blowing smoke out of their asses. Therefore, my post-strike wish for "Lost" is this: please let me be right about something for once. And, I guess, while we're at it: no more shaking the rabbit scenes, please.
And, finally, we arrive at "Battlestar Galactica". I really only have one wish for this show: Don't stop! Please! Keep going!
(You know you agree with me.)
"Brothers and Sisters" will hopefully start airing again on Sundays, at 10 pm / 9 pm central on ABC.
"Friday Night Lights" will hopefully have new episodes on Fridays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on NBC.
"Lost" airs Thursdays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on ABC.
"Battlestar Galactica" returns in March, on the Sci-Fi channel.
As for me, I'm just glad that I can soon turn on my TV without feeling guilty. Withdrawal has not been kind, and I don't know if I could have survived much longer without my weekly "Friday Night Lights" fix. (Yes, it's that addictive.)
That being said, I'm also secretly a little glad that the guild has had some time off. As much I love "Brothers and Sisters", "Friday Night Lights", "Lost", and "Battlestar Galactica", some developments on these shows have seemed a little odd to me; so I hope that the strike has given the writers time to do some tweaking.
Take "Brothers and Sisters", for example. Last we heard, our favorite lawyer was getting emails from his ex-boyfriend, leading to some very uncomfortable standoffs with his current boyfriend. How will the Kevin-Jason-Scotty triangle resolve itself, and will it be resolved? This fan certainly hopes so, since Kevin seems to be stuck in a character rut.
From Scotty to Chad to Jason and back, Kevin seems to be the character who has undergone the least development in the past season and a half. Each boyfriend demonstrated that Kevin has commitment issues, but none managed to push Kevin into truly exploring those issues. For a while there, it seemed minister Jason might be in it for the long haul, but then "Viva Laughlin" shit all over those plans, and we were back to square one.
As much as I appreciate the parade of hot men through Kevin's revolving door love life, I think I'd appreciate much more Kevin having a steady boyfriend. The guy's got plenty of other problems; pigeonholing him as The One Who Can't Commit seems a little lazy and shortsighted. So I say: let Jason and Scotty go mano-a-mano for Kevin's affections, but let the winner graduate from guest star to permanent cast member, at least for the rest of the season. Hopefully this is the writers' plan, because it's time to move on; at least give Kevin a chance to suffer and rejoice in the vicissitudes of a long-term relationship.
If the problem in "Brothers and Sisters" is guys who can't stick around, the problem of "Friday Night Lights" is guys who can't stick together. As much as it pains me to speak ill of a show that's one of the best things out there in TV land, the second season of "FNL" seems to have forgotten - just a little bit - what made it so great in its debut season: that is, a kick-ass main cast who stuck and fought together for each other.
Football is a team sport, but you wouldn't know it by much of the current season. From the unity of the first season we've come to this: Jason Street, the paralyzed golden boy, all but disappearing for large stretches; previous best-pals Landry Clarke and Matt Saracen barely having a scene together; 'Smash' Williams seemingly only hanging out with his new girlfriend; and Tim Riggins getting bounced from home to home.
What I liked about the first season was the sense that these characters were truly a part of each others' lives: from the unlikely friendship between bad girl Tyra Collette and coach's daughter Julie Taylor, to the brief but striking interactions between Smash and Tim Riggins, to that memorable scene where Tim Riggins, Smash, Matt and Jason were all together on the soccer field. I get that characters have to move on, but this season seems to have taken that dictum a little too far.
Thankfully, there are signs that things may be righting themselves. In the last few episodes we've gotten glimpses of reunions in the making: Buddy Garrity, Lyla's father, offering Jason Street a job; Lyla and Tim Riggins' long-simmering romance building to a head; an actual scene with Landry, Matt, Tim Riggins, and Smash all in attendance; and more. All good, and all - fingers crossed - signs of things to come.
Moving on from a show that's hopefully found itself to "Lost", we have yet another show that seems to be on the uptick. I've never been an obsessive fan of "Lost", and certain creative decisions over the seasons entirely bewildered me: the first six episodes of season three, the point of the Tailies, who have been all but exterminated one way or another, and the by-now predictable influx of new Other Other Other Others at the start of seasons.
To me, the show has strayed so far from its initial premise that it's almost unrecognizable. That being said, however, the introduction of an end-point for the series may have been just the thing the show needed.
While I could be cynical and argue that the endpoint is a ploy to re-hook exasperated fans, I'm willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt. The use of flashforwards suggest that the writers know what they're writing toward, and the 'how did the Oceanic Six get off the island?' big question going forward might be enough to sustain the show for its remaining seasons. For a show that's floundered since its initial burst onto screens, this new creative direction might just be the thing to save it.
Of course, I could be horribly wrong, and the writers could still be blowing smoke out of their asses. Therefore, my post-strike wish for "Lost" is this: please let me be right about something for once. And, I guess, while we're at it: no more shaking the rabbit scenes, please.
And, finally, we arrive at "Battlestar Galactica". I really only have one wish for this show: Don't stop! Please! Keep going!
(You know you agree with me.)
"Brothers and Sisters" will hopefully start airing again on Sundays, at 10 pm / 9 pm central on ABC.
"Friday Night Lights" will hopefully have new episodes on Fridays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on NBC.
"Lost" airs Thursdays, at 9 pm / 8 pm central on ABC.
"Battlestar Galactica" returns in March, on the Sci-Fi channel.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Gay.com Column: "Make Me A Supermodel": The gayGayGAY one
Bravo's "Make Me A Supermodel" isn't a reinvention of the runway. Like the CW's "America's Next Top Model" and VH1's "America's Most Smartest Model", "Supermodel" relies mostly on a tried-and-true formula: fantastic-looking people + capital A Awkward situation = surefire drama. Witness the pairing of models who hate each other, the photo-shoots involving whips and other sexual festishes, husbands with wives back home, and et cetera.
But each modeling series has developed its own niche, and "Supermodel" seems to have chosen for its comfort zone the LGBT zip code.
I don't pretend to speak for the LGBT community, but in my opinion there's only one thing better than two hot smoking men, and that's two hot smoking men who are into each other. "Supermodel" seems to agree with me, because they've ratcheted up the homoerotic content.
Watching gay Ronnie and straight Ben do their dance around each other reminds me of the worst and best parts of high school and college: the instant attraction, the 'playful' friendship, the sinking knowledge that one can only ultimately 'play', if that, and the freaking out that gets piled on top of everything every part of the way.
Except, of course, this being television, everything gets dialed to eleven: instead of 'friendly' knee pats, we have R & B rolling around on a bed (albeit with the buffer of a woman), and instead of the stock girlfriend, we have a wife back home whose cheeks get redder every week. And that's where the problem lies.
There's manufactured drama, and then there's genuine drama for which reality show makers will sacrifice their children - and I bet the "Supermodel" producers shed tears every week for the blessings that are Ronnie and Ben - but the problem with genuine drama is that it tends to involve genuine trauma.
Pair two models who hate each other, and in the worst-case scenario you might end up with bruised egos and scratched faces. Put Ronnie and Ben together, however, and you end up with developments like married Ben supposedly telling Ronnie he'd experiment with a man if drinks were flowing. Or Ronnie saying he has real feelings for Ben. Both of which can only elicit one response:
Oh... no. No no no no no...
To quote the show's recapper on Television Without Pity: "I want to fly to New York immediately and rescue them both from themselves and each other. Ben, you don't want to be with Ronnie, you just like him a lot and he's hot and you really appreciate the sexual attention. Ronnie, you don't want Ben... Well, maybe you do, but there are so many other gorgeous gay fish in the sea who will not flip on you after six painful months of tearful confusion."
The show is only at episode four, but I'm already cringing at the possible ramifications of future Ben and Ronnie Epic Bromance installments. So much so that I was almost glad for the attempt at manufacturing gay panic drama in the third episode.
In that one, straight boys Perry and Casey were asked to pair up for a sizzling lingerie photo-shoot. A big bed was provided, as were briefs, handcuffs, and other props... including a lollipop.
Then, later, they were asked to give their runway interpretation of "equestrian with a fetish twist".
To both guys' credit, though, they rose above the gay panic drama bait in both instances, and acquitted themselves admirably. There was tonguing, tying, whipping, nibbling of ear lobes, pulling of waistbands, and all sorts of other collar-heating activity, but nary a bit of awkwardness or face-making (except the good kind. You'll see in the video).
Seriously, y'all. It's almost NSFW; that's how good those two were.
So, between this and the R & B Express Train(Wreck), I think I can safely say this: Miss Tyra, you better watch your back. There's another LGBT eye-catcher in town.
And to Ronnie and Ben: seriously. I love watching you guys, but please set some boundaries. Now.
"Make Me A Supermodel" airs on Bravo, Thursdays at 10 pm / 9 pm central, with repeats every day.
But each modeling series has developed its own niche, and "Supermodel" seems to have chosen for its comfort zone the LGBT zip code.
I don't pretend to speak for the LGBT community, but in my opinion there's only one thing better than two hot smoking men, and that's two hot smoking men who are into each other. "Supermodel" seems to agree with me, because they've ratcheted up the homoerotic content.
Watching gay Ronnie and straight Ben do their dance around each other reminds me of the worst and best parts of high school and college: the instant attraction, the 'playful' friendship, the sinking knowledge that one can only ultimately 'play', if that, and the freaking out that gets piled on top of everything every part of the way.
Except, of course, this being television, everything gets dialed to eleven: instead of 'friendly' knee pats, we have R & B rolling around on a bed (albeit with the buffer of a woman), and instead of the stock girlfriend, we have a wife back home whose cheeks get redder every week. And that's where the problem lies.
There's manufactured drama, and then there's genuine drama for which reality show makers will sacrifice their children - and I bet the "Supermodel" producers shed tears every week for the blessings that are Ronnie and Ben - but the problem with genuine drama is that it tends to involve genuine trauma.
Pair two models who hate each other, and in the worst-case scenario you might end up with bruised egos and scratched faces. Put Ronnie and Ben together, however, and you end up with developments like married Ben supposedly telling Ronnie he'd experiment with a man if drinks were flowing. Or Ronnie saying he has real feelings for Ben. Both of which can only elicit one response:
Oh... no. No no no no no...
To quote the show's recapper on Television Without Pity: "I want to fly to New York immediately and rescue them both from themselves and each other. Ben, you don't want to be with Ronnie, you just like him a lot and he's hot and you really appreciate the sexual attention. Ronnie, you don't want Ben... Well, maybe you do, but there are so many other gorgeous gay fish in the sea who will not flip on you after six painful months of tearful confusion."
The show is only at episode four, but I'm already cringing at the possible ramifications of future Ben and Ronnie Epic Bromance installments. So much so that I was almost glad for the attempt at manufacturing gay panic drama in the third episode.
In that one, straight boys Perry and Casey were asked to pair up for a sizzling lingerie photo-shoot. A big bed was provided, as were briefs, handcuffs, and other props... including a lollipop.
Then, later, they were asked to give their runway interpretation of "equestrian with a fetish twist".
To both guys' credit, though, they rose above the gay panic drama bait in both instances, and acquitted themselves admirably. There was tonguing, tying, whipping, nibbling of ear lobes, pulling of waistbands, and all sorts of other collar-heating activity, but nary a bit of awkwardness or face-making (except the good kind. You'll see in the video).
Seriously, y'all. It's almost NSFW; that's how good those two were.
So, between this and the R & B Express Train(Wreck), I think I can safely say this: Miss Tyra, you better watch your back. There's another LGBT eye-catcher in town.
And to Ronnie and Ben: seriously. I love watching you guys, but please set some boundaries. Now.
"Make Me A Supermodel" airs on Bravo, Thursdays at 10 pm / 9 pm central, with repeats every day.
Gay.com Column: "Torchwood": Time to add more fire to the show
There are gay-friendly shows that you champion, and then there are gay-friendly shows that you defend. To me, the first season of "Torchwood" was one of the latter.
The series - which returns January 26th on BBC America - had much going for it before it aired: it was a spin-off of the invincible "Doctor Who" series, it starred the immensely popular Who-niverse character Captain Jack Harkness, and it promised to be a darker and edgier show. All things considered, comparisons to the successful "Buffy" spin-off, "Angel", were not entirely unwarranted.
The series was also likely to attract LGBT viewers in droves, thanks to the openly gay and incredibly affable John Barrowman, who plays Harkness. Teasers that played up Harkness's 'omnisexuality' probably didn't hurt as well.
But premise is only half the equation of a good show, and when "Torchwood" aired it quickly became evident that execution was a problem.
The lack of a compelling villain, episodes that varied all over the place in quality, and a general aimlessness to the season: these hurt the show bad enough. But worse than all of these was the transformation of Harkness's character - the insouciant bad boy of "Doctor Who" seemed to have been lobotomized, and reappeared as a vastly more uptight and moody version on "Torchwood". It was as if he had taken the Addison Montgomery train in reverse.
The LGBT showpiece episode 'Captain Jack Harkness' was, in this viewer's opinion, also a massive disappointment. It features Harkness traveling back to the 1940s, where he chances upon his namesake, a closeted fighter pilot with whom he falls in love and whose identity he steals. Mind-imploding time-travel problems aside, the episode not only mimics trite gay melodrama, but also mimics trite gay melodrama badly. At the end of the episode, before he steps back into the time portal, Harkness damns it all and kisses his namesake in front of all and sundry.
Romantic? Only if you don't think about how implausible it is, even by "Doctor Who" / "Torchwood" standards. Furthermore, Harkness already knows that his namesake dies in a training mission gone wrong the day after they part, and yet doesn't make the (possible) connection between that and any overt display of love. Romantic? More like deadly moronic.
And I haven't even mentioned the cheesefest that is Original Harkness's farewell to Harkness v 2.0.
This episode is essentially why the series is difficult for me to recommend, and why I defend it instead of championing it. The mere fact that the show exists is cause for celebration, and the mere fact of its starring a gay actor in a lead 'omnisexual' role is cause for celebration. But - it's not a good show. There are good episodes, but it's far too hit-and-miss, far too beset by pacing problems, logic problems, and ultimately 'unlikeable character' problems. We can do better on television. We have done better.
Given the series's return in a few days, I hope to change my opinion of this series. I want to like the second season of "Torchwood", and the signing on of James 'Spike' Marsters gives me hope. That his character and Harkness are supposedly due for a "horny and violent" encounter also gives me hope. The last time Marsters played a horny and violent person was on "Buffy", so hopefully "Torchwood" is heading in that show's direction, minus the UPN seasons.
More than this, the check-signers on the show have indicated dissatisfaction with the first season change in Harkness's character, so we can all pray this means sly maverick Harkness is on the way back.
If both of these happen, "Torchwood" can count on me to champion instead of defend it. Indeed, if it at all improves from its first season it can expect me to champion it. So here's to the first few episodes, and hopefully a better season in store.
"Torchwood" premieres on BBC America on January 26th, at 9 pm / 8 pm central.
--------
This post attracted a lot of backlash; admittedly, I was unclear in parts and didn't advance a very cogent point of view. I ended up clarifying and expanding on the post in a comment, which is reproduced below:
--------
Hi, all:
First of all, thank you for posting your comments. I'm (obviously) not the biggest fan of the show, but I think it's great that you guys feel so strongly about it.
A few points have been brought up in the above comments that make a lot of sense; however, in the spirit of discussion I'd like to point out the following:
To the comment that the others were frozen by the portal opening, and hence missed the Jacks kissing: it's not entirely clear if the people are frozen when the two Jacks kiss. When the rift first opens, you can see the hand of the band's bassist moving. That suggests to me that the rift might not cause people to freeze.
And even if the people are frozen when the kiss occurs, it's clear from their reactions to the two Jacks dancing, that they do not approve. Remember earlier in the episode when George, one of the real Jack's men, punches our Jack because our Jack invites him to dance? That's a very clear sign of George's homophobia to me - homophobia that seems mirrored in the people's reactions to the two Jacks dancing.
And that, to me, is the biggest problem of all. It is true that our Jack tells us the real Jack dies in a mission ambushed by the Germans, but we have only our Jack's word for it, and our Jack wasn't there. Are we really to believe that people like George, who would punch a guy for asking for a dance, would still willingly follow real Jack after seeing him obviously in love with another man? What happened after our Jack stepped into the portal? There's too much left unanswered between the portal closing, and real Jack dying.
I'm not disputing that there was a mission and that it was ambushed by Germans; I'm just saying that it's the writers who brought up George's homophobia, and the other people's homophobia, and we don't know exactly what went down in the ambush. It's not entirely impossible that George et al wouldn't act as hard to save their captain post-our Jack's dance with him. In fact, in my opinion, with people like George, it's downright plausible. It's just that I think the writers didn't think this through. They wanted a romantic ending with the two men defying society to dance with and kiss each other. They didn't seem to think of any aftermath.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
The series - which returns January 26th on BBC America - had much going for it before it aired: it was a spin-off of the invincible "Doctor Who" series, it starred the immensely popular Who-niverse character Captain Jack Harkness, and it promised to be a darker and edgier show. All things considered, comparisons to the successful "Buffy" spin-off, "Angel", were not entirely unwarranted.
The series was also likely to attract LGBT viewers in droves, thanks to the openly gay and incredibly affable John Barrowman, who plays Harkness. Teasers that played up Harkness's 'omnisexuality' probably didn't hurt as well.
But premise is only half the equation of a good show, and when "Torchwood" aired it quickly became evident that execution was a problem.
The lack of a compelling villain, episodes that varied all over the place in quality, and a general aimlessness to the season: these hurt the show bad enough. But worse than all of these was the transformation of Harkness's character - the insouciant bad boy of "Doctor Who" seemed to have been lobotomized, and reappeared as a vastly more uptight and moody version on "Torchwood". It was as if he had taken the Addison Montgomery train in reverse.
The LGBT showpiece episode 'Captain Jack Harkness' was, in this viewer's opinion, also a massive disappointment. It features Harkness traveling back to the 1940s, where he chances upon his namesake, a closeted fighter pilot with whom he falls in love and whose identity he steals. Mind-imploding time-travel problems aside, the episode not only mimics trite gay melodrama, but also mimics trite gay melodrama badly. At the end of the episode, before he steps back into the time portal, Harkness damns it all and kisses his namesake in front of all and sundry.
Romantic? Only if you don't think about how implausible it is, even by "Doctor Who" / "Torchwood" standards. Furthermore, Harkness already knows that his namesake dies in a training mission gone wrong the day after they part, and yet doesn't make the (possible) connection between that and any overt display of love. Romantic? More like deadly moronic.
And I haven't even mentioned the cheesefest that is Original Harkness's farewell to Harkness v 2.0.
This episode is essentially why the series is difficult for me to recommend, and why I defend it instead of championing it. The mere fact that the show exists is cause for celebration, and the mere fact of its starring a gay actor in a lead 'omnisexual' role is cause for celebration. But - it's not a good show. There are good episodes, but it's far too hit-and-miss, far too beset by pacing problems, logic problems, and ultimately 'unlikeable character' problems. We can do better on television. We have done better.
Given the series's return in a few days, I hope to change my opinion of this series. I want to like the second season of "Torchwood", and the signing on of James 'Spike' Marsters gives me hope. That his character and Harkness are supposedly due for a "horny and violent" encounter also gives me hope. The last time Marsters played a horny and violent person was on "Buffy", so hopefully "Torchwood" is heading in that show's direction, minus the UPN seasons.
More than this, the check-signers on the show have indicated dissatisfaction with the first season change in Harkness's character, so we can all pray this means sly maverick Harkness is on the way back.
If both of these happen, "Torchwood" can count on me to champion instead of defend it. Indeed, if it at all improves from its first season it can expect me to champion it. So here's to the first few episodes, and hopefully a better season in store.
"Torchwood" premieres on BBC America on January 26th, at 9 pm / 8 pm central.
--------
This post attracted a lot of backlash; admittedly, I was unclear in parts and didn't advance a very cogent point of view. I ended up clarifying and expanding on the post in a comment, which is reproduced below:
--------
Hi, all:
First of all, thank you for posting your comments. I'm (obviously) not the biggest fan of the show, but I think it's great that you guys feel so strongly about it.
A few points have been brought up in the above comments that make a lot of sense; however, in the spirit of discussion I'd like to point out the following:
To the comment that the others were frozen by the portal opening, and hence missed the Jacks kissing: it's not entirely clear if the people are frozen when the two Jacks kiss. When the rift first opens, you can see the hand of the band's bassist moving. That suggests to me that the rift might not cause people to freeze.
And even if the people are frozen when the kiss occurs, it's clear from their reactions to the two Jacks dancing, that they do not approve. Remember earlier in the episode when George, one of the real Jack's men, punches our Jack because our Jack invites him to dance? That's a very clear sign of George's homophobia to me - homophobia that seems mirrored in the people's reactions to the two Jacks dancing.
And that, to me, is the biggest problem of all. It is true that our Jack tells us the real Jack dies in a mission ambushed by the Germans, but we have only our Jack's word for it, and our Jack wasn't there. Are we really to believe that people like George, who would punch a guy for asking for a dance, would still willingly follow real Jack after seeing him obviously in love with another man? What happened after our Jack stepped into the portal? There's too much left unanswered between the portal closing, and real Jack dying.
I'm not disputing that there was a mission and that it was ambushed by Germans; I'm just saying that it's the writers who brought up George's homophobia, and the other people's homophobia, and we don't know exactly what went down in the ambush. It's not entirely impossible that George et al wouldn't act as hard to save their captain post-our Jack's dance with him. In fact, in my opinion, with people like George, it's downright plausible. It's just that I think the writers didn't think this through. They wanted a romantic ending with the two men defying society to dance with and kiss each other. They didn't seem to think of any aftermath.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)