I've recently discovered a superb new comedy from the UK, The Catherine Tate Show. Much different from my other favorite, Peep Show, this show features a strong female lead and POV--Tate stars in every skit.
Catherine Tate is the best comedic actor (or actress) from the UK that I have seen so far. She's head and shoulders above my former favorites, Mitchell and Webb.
Catherine Tate's humor has a more innocent and apolitical character than Peep Show or That Mitchell and Webb Look. The writing isn't terribly sophisticated. In fact, I'd wager she writes the material herself.
Catherine Tate knows how to win over an audience and have them eating from the palm of her hand. Whether her material is funny or not, she makes it funny with the strange magic that she has. She may be a witch. At any rate, Mitchell and Webb require excellent material to be funny. Catherine Tate doesn't require anything at all. She just has to assume one of her odd, quirky characters and she gets plenty of laughs.
Showing posts with label video reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video reviews. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
South Park Will Disapprove (Again)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone will soon be writing another South Park episode blasting Hollywood celebrities. Nothing irritates them more than a celebrity meddling in politics.
Recently those Hollywood celebrities have been testing South Park's patience once again. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have spoken out against human rights abuses in the diamond mines of Zimbabwe.
This is certain to provoke Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
According to South Park, celebrities should shut up about political issues and never speak out. They have made this point enough times that it has become a standard South Park theme.
For my part, I think it is refreshing when celebrities speak out about real issues impacting real people that might otherwise get buried in the latest news about a politician's extramarital affair. South Park is never going to talk about real issues, other than to cast cynical derision upon those that do.
Recently those Hollywood celebrities have been testing South Park's patience once again. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have spoken out against human rights abuses in the diamond mines of Zimbabwe.
This is certain to provoke Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
According to South Park, celebrities should shut up about political issues and never speak out. They have made this point enough times that it has become a standard South Park theme.
For my part, I think it is refreshing when celebrities speak out about real issues impacting real people that might otherwise get buried in the latest news about a politician's extramarital affair. South Park is never going to talk about real issues, other than to cast cynical derision upon those that do.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Daily Show and Newt Gingrich
I'm an avid fan of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
The May 19th, 2009 episode was something special. Jon Stewart interviewed Newt Gingrich once again. In previous interviews, I have felt that Newt got the best of the interview, subverting the tone of the conversation to his gain.
Jon Stewart is more than a match for most of his guests. He is the most fast-witted television personality alive today. He is learned on history, science, and politics, and knows much more than people might assume by his buffoonery. Jon plays the fool but is wise far beyond his years. I never watch Jon without concluding that he may be right, even on such few occasions when my original opinion differed from his own. He speaks to the better nature in all men, although he does have a markedly cynical wit, and sometimes seems clownish. He has the rare gift of making people laugh.
Gingrich is an ideal guest for The Daily Show, because although he is a diametric opposite on most political issues of the day, he is--unlike much of his tribe--close to being Jon's intellectual equal. But he's not quite there. Remaining cloistered within his bland tribe has retarded whatever brilliant spark might have been there long ago.
However, for a politician, Newt is very cunning and fast-witted, and his physical size, a factor of psychological intimidation, is rather greater than Jon's. In addition to this, Newt possesses a steadiness and calm, and his voice conveys a higher level of discourse, as one associates with greatness--such figures as George Washington. However, he is always cunning, and he delights in making false statements seem reasonable. Some minds take a perverse delight in ripping people away from truth and into the liar's personal constructions of reality. They are repressed artists who really wanted to create something of beauty, but instead went into business or politics and began weaving webs of intricate and fantastic lies, which to their mind are magnificent to behold and bring them much pleasure.
But in the May 19th, 2009 episode, Jon was prepared. Watching these two great minds spar was like watching a prize fight. Newt got in some good licks himself. He made my heart frown on socialism--how dare Obama be socialist? But then Jon pointed out that the military is a socialist organ, among many other segments of society. Socialism is just a word designed to press a button in people, putting them in mind of the U.S.S.R. or Red China.
I was intrigued by their body language. Newt seemed to intimidate Jon in some way. Jon crouched, not looking Newt in the eyes. Was this by design, or unintentional? I suspected that Jon had a few surprise punches in store for Newt, and I was right. One thing I'm sure about is that the show was unscripted.
Inviting Newt on the show was a great idea, because it attracted Republicans to the show. Just preaching to the choir will never gain any converts. On the other hand, Newt benefited, too, by getting the opportunity to flog his new book. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say in show biz.
The May 19th, 2009 episode was something special. Jon Stewart interviewed Newt Gingrich once again. In previous interviews, I have felt that Newt got the best of the interview, subverting the tone of the conversation to his gain.
Jon Stewart is more than a match for most of his guests. He is the most fast-witted television personality alive today. He is learned on history, science, and politics, and knows much more than people might assume by his buffoonery. Jon plays the fool but is wise far beyond his years. I never watch Jon without concluding that he may be right, even on such few occasions when my original opinion differed from his own. He speaks to the better nature in all men, although he does have a markedly cynical wit, and sometimes seems clownish. He has the rare gift of making people laugh.
Gingrich is an ideal guest for The Daily Show, because although he is a diametric opposite on most political issues of the day, he is--unlike much of his tribe--close to being Jon's intellectual equal. But he's not quite there. Remaining cloistered within his bland tribe has retarded whatever brilliant spark might have been there long ago.
However, for a politician, Newt is very cunning and fast-witted, and his physical size, a factor of psychological intimidation, is rather greater than Jon's. In addition to this, Newt possesses a steadiness and calm, and his voice conveys a higher level of discourse, as one associates with greatness--such figures as George Washington. However, he is always cunning, and he delights in making false statements seem reasonable. Some minds take a perverse delight in ripping people away from truth and into the liar's personal constructions of reality. They are repressed artists who really wanted to create something of beauty, but instead went into business or politics and began weaving webs of intricate and fantastic lies, which to their mind are magnificent to behold and bring them much pleasure.
But in the May 19th, 2009 episode, Jon was prepared. Watching these two great minds spar was like watching a prize fight. Newt got in some good licks himself. He made my heart frown on socialism--how dare Obama be socialist? But then Jon pointed out that the military is a socialist organ, among many other segments of society. Socialism is just a word designed to press a button in people, putting them in mind of the U.S.S.R. or Red China.
I was intrigued by their body language. Newt seemed to intimidate Jon in some way. Jon crouched, not looking Newt in the eyes. Was this by design, or unintentional? I suspected that Jon had a few surprise punches in store for Newt, and I was right. One thing I'm sure about is that the show was unscripted.
Inviting Newt on the show was a great idea, because it attracted Republicans to the show. Just preaching to the choir will never gain any converts. On the other hand, Newt benefited, too, by getting the opportunity to flog his new book. Any publicity is good publicity, as they say in show biz.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Finished Watching "Universe"
I finished watching the four-dvd set of "Universe," a ten to twelve hour-long documentary about the origins, composition, and nature of the Universe.
Everyone is familiar with the story of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis. It's all wrong, of course, like much else in the Bible. The documentary never quite says so in words, but the implication is there for anyone with a mind to think.
The actual story of the Universe is that everything, including our bodies, originated from a singularity, a single point in space. During the Big Bang, the singularity began expanding like a balloon. The expansion never ended. Today, all matter is accelerating. The Universe is not static, but is increasing in size as it expands. Every object in space-time is in a state of motion. Eventually, the velocity will become too great, and matter itself will disintegrate.
This implies that there was a finite beginning, and will be a finite end, to the Universe as we know it. We do not, however, know what caused the Big Bang, the singularity, or what happened prior to the Big Bang. It may be that the Universe is in a constant state of contraction followed by expansion. This notion appeals to me on an intuitive level because it reminds me of a bullfrog puffing up with air, croaking and then beginning again. It also supplies a neat answer to the ticklish question of what happened before the Big Bang.
Helium was the original element, and during the Big Bang, hydrogen formed and continues to form inside of stars, along with other elements created from helium by the extreme heat and pressure of stars. Apparently, all the elements of the Periodic Table derive from helium, including hydrogen, gold, and oxygen. The substance of the human body derives ultimately from stars; we are stardust, as is much of the planet. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, helium the second-most common.
What bothers me about documentaries like this are the scary implications. One gets a strong sense of the insignificance of humankind, and of planet Earth, when contemplating the vastness of the Universe. I believe I remember hearing that there were 125 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, and our galaxy is just one of many, and our planet is a relatively young one. The implication is that there is probably intelligent life at many other locations around the cosmos. We just have not encountered it yet. Sooner or later, these alien civilizations will receive the radio signals that we began beaming into space in the 1930's. The prospect of a planet as wonderful as ours may be quite tempting. I am sure that any race more advanced than ours would want our planet for their own, and make quick work of us, one way or the other. To them, we would seem about as advanced as ants. The only thing really protecting us, or rather buying us some time, is the vast distance between our world and everywhere else.
Oh, another worrisome thought is that the Andromeda galaxy, twice the size of our own, is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Maybe the Republicans should muster up a "Coalition of the Willing" to fight against the Andromeda galaxy. How much aid should we give to Poland, so that they will send a lab tech over to NASA to help with the counter-measures? And how, exactly, do we stop the Andromeda galaxy?
The footage, in part computer-generated, but with some actual footage from NASA spacecraft, reminded me that everything in the Universe of a substantial size--whether a star, planet, or moon--seems to be round. This is probably due to gravity. For this reason, the perfect symbol for a religion would probably incorporate a circle somewhere. The symbol for Wicca comes to mind, or possibly Taoism.
I don't understand life. Why does life exist? How did it begin? Why should it be necessary? No world religions provide satisfactory answers to this question. Instead, world religions appeal to the selfish ego, telling man what he wants to hear: that he is the central most concern of a loving God who watches over and protects him. A comforting and consoling thought, but false, because dreadful things, as we all know, happen quite easily. And we also know that once a person dies, they stay dead. The dead do not visit us. If they did, we would certainly be busy entertaining them, because there are more dead than living.
From what we know, life is unnecessary in the ordinary running of the cosmos. The cosmos takes care of itself without any help from life. Why should molecules join together and, over the course of evolution, develop a certain brand of self-awareness?
One idea that has occurred to me is that life may create the universe, rather than the other way around. Our thoughts and actions may influence the nature of matter, time, and space, in some way that we don't understand. I've read about similar themes in articles concerning quantum mechanics. But I don't know. This sounds suspiciously New Age to me. But the Universe is not a place where things tend to happen for no reason. Why should life be a thing separate and distinct from non-life? Maybe reality is more like television, and less like reality as we perceive it. The Universe could be unreal. Maybe a virtual reality is closer to the truth--sort of like "The Matrix."
How self-aware are we, anyway? Maybe we are more like robots than like actual thinkers, as we prefer to believe. Much of what we say or do could be predicted, could it not? I have always been of the opinion that human beings are nothing more than elegant computer programs, predictable in every way, shape, and form. Moods can be programmed into a computer. You simply assign values to variables that influence programmatic behavior. Ideas can be programmed into a computer, as can beliefs, opinions, degrees of certainty, and degrees of ambivalence. It's just a matter of time, probably about thirty years, before AI develops a computer that thinks as well as humans do about all subjects. All indications point to a world where computers will be superior to humans. This means all workers will be obsolete and expendable. War will result--the haves versus the have-nots. The very rich will decide that the poor need to die, that the rich will have more space and end the harms caused by pollution to "their" environment. This means me, you, our neighbors and about 99.8% of all humans will be liquidated, because they can be replaced by droid-slaves, which work for free, never complain, and are better than we are.
The future looks like a scary place. I'm kind of glad that I don't have to be there. By the time AI gets good enough to pose a risk, I'll have used up all my time on this world already and be food for worms. But for younger people, they have a future of increasing temperatures, declining wages, increased violence, increased warfare, widespread radioactivity from nuclear war, and severe weather.
In the short term, I would like to know whether there is life on Europa, which orbits Jupiter, or Titan, which orbits Saturn. Of the two, Europa seems the most promising. Although the surface is cold and radioactive, beneath the surface there may be oceans of liquid water. It is very interesting that planet Earth is not the only large body, even in our tiny solar system, with large amounts of water. If water is as widespread a phenomena elsewhere as it is here, then the chances of life improve considerably.
Everyone is familiar with the story of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis. It's all wrong, of course, like much else in the Bible. The documentary never quite says so in words, but the implication is there for anyone with a mind to think.
The actual story of the Universe is that everything, including our bodies, originated from a singularity, a single point in space. During the Big Bang, the singularity began expanding like a balloon. The expansion never ended. Today, all matter is accelerating. The Universe is not static, but is increasing in size as it expands. Every object in space-time is in a state of motion. Eventually, the velocity will become too great, and matter itself will disintegrate.
This implies that there was a finite beginning, and will be a finite end, to the Universe as we know it. We do not, however, know what caused the Big Bang, the singularity, or what happened prior to the Big Bang. It may be that the Universe is in a constant state of contraction followed by expansion. This notion appeals to me on an intuitive level because it reminds me of a bullfrog puffing up with air, croaking and then beginning again. It also supplies a neat answer to the ticklish question of what happened before the Big Bang.
Helium was the original element, and during the Big Bang, hydrogen formed and continues to form inside of stars, along with other elements created from helium by the extreme heat and pressure of stars. Apparently, all the elements of the Periodic Table derive from helium, including hydrogen, gold, and oxygen. The substance of the human body derives ultimately from stars; we are stardust, as is much of the planet. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, helium the second-most common.
What bothers me about documentaries like this are the scary implications. One gets a strong sense of the insignificance of humankind, and of planet Earth, when contemplating the vastness of the Universe. I believe I remember hearing that there were 125 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, and our galaxy is just one of many, and our planet is a relatively young one. The implication is that there is probably intelligent life at many other locations around the cosmos. We just have not encountered it yet. Sooner or later, these alien civilizations will receive the radio signals that we began beaming into space in the 1930's. The prospect of a planet as wonderful as ours may be quite tempting. I am sure that any race more advanced than ours would want our planet for their own, and make quick work of us, one way or the other. To them, we would seem about as advanced as ants. The only thing really protecting us, or rather buying us some time, is the vast distance between our world and everywhere else.
Oh, another worrisome thought is that the Andromeda galaxy, twice the size of our own, is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Maybe the Republicans should muster up a "Coalition of the Willing" to fight against the Andromeda galaxy. How much aid should we give to Poland, so that they will send a lab tech over to NASA to help with the counter-measures? And how, exactly, do we stop the Andromeda galaxy?
The footage, in part computer-generated, but with some actual footage from NASA spacecraft, reminded me that everything in the Universe of a substantial size--whether a star, planet, or moon--seems to be round. This is probably due to gravity. For this reason, the perfect symbol for a religion would probably incorporate a circle somewhere. The symbol for Wicca comes to mind, or possibly Taoism.
I don't understand life. Why does life exist? How did it begin? Why should it be necessary? No world religions provide satisfactory answers to this question. Instead, world religions appeal to the selfish ego, telling man what he wants to hear: that he is the central most concern of a loving God who watches over and protects him. A comforting and consoling thought, but false, because dreadful things, as we all know, happen quite easily. And we also know that once a person dies, they stay dead. The dead do not visit us. If they did, we would certainly be busy entertaining them, because there are more dead than living.
From what we know, life is unnecessary in the ordinary running of the cosmos. The cosmos takes care of itself without any help from life. Why should molecules join together and, over the course of evolution, develop a certain brand of self-awareness?
One idea that has occurred to me is that life may create the universe, rather than the other way around. Our thoughts and actions may influence the nature of matter, time, and space, in some way that we don't understand. I've read about similar themes in articles concerning quantum mechanics. But I don't know. This sounds suspiciously New Age to me. But the Universe is not a place where things tend to happen for no reason. Why should life be a thing separate and distinct from non-life? Maybe reality is more like television, and less like reality as we perceive it. The Universe could be unreal. Maybe a virtual reality is closer to the truth--sort of like "The Matrix."
How self-aware are we, anyway? Maybe we are more like robots than like actual thinkers, as we prefer to believe. Much of what we say or do could be predicted, could it not? I have always been of the opinion that human beings are nothing more than elegant computer programs, predictable in every way, shape, and form. Moods can be programmed into a computer. You simply assign values to variables that influence programmatic behavior. Ideas can be programmed into a computer, as can beliefs, opinions, degrees of certainty, and degrees of ambivalence. It's just a matter of time, probably about thirty years, before AI develops a computer that thinks as well as humans do about all subjects. All indications point to a world where computers will be superior to humans. This means all workers will be obsolete and expendable. War will result--the haves versus the have-nots. The very rich will decide that the poor need to die, that the rich will have more space and end the harms caused by pollution to "their" environment. This means me, you, our neighbors and about 99.8% of all humans will be liquidated, because they can be replaced by droid-slaves, which work for free, never complain, and are better than we are.
The future looks like a scary place. I'm kind of glad that I don't have to be there. By the time AI gets good enough to pose a risk, I'll have used up all my time on this world already and be food for worms. But for younger people, they have a future of increasing temperatures, declining wages, increased violence, increased warfare, widespread radioactivity from nuclear war, and severe weather.
In the short term, I would like to know whether there is life on Europa, which orbits Jupiter, or Titan, which orbits Saturn. Of the two, Europa seems the most promising. Although the surface is cold and radioactive, beneath the surface there may be oceans of liquid water. It is very interesting that planet Earth is not the only large body, even in our tiny solar system, with large amounts of water. If water is as widespread a phenomena elsewhere as it is here, then the chances of life improve considerably.
Monday, June 15, 2009
What I Like About "Impromptu"
Impromptu is my favorite movie of all time. I have watched it at least nine times, possibly more. It never fails to entertain.
What makes the plot unique among films is that Chopin and George Sand are portrayed as sexual inverts; that is to say that George Sand is a woman with the psyche of a man, whereas Chopin is a man with the psyche of a woman. Instead of developing homosexual orientations, as one might expect, they fall in love with each other. Although this seems at first confusing, almost bewildering, the story proves to be beautiful.
It is a historic fact that Chopin and Sand lived with one another for many years, mainly on the island of Majorca, the site of George Sand's ancestral lands. However, their union produced no offspring and ended badly. Sand was more or less a groupie. Once she had her fill of the prestige associated with Chopin, she shrugged him off. He represented just another trophy for her collection of famous lovers. History avenged Chopin, however, because today his music is more alive than ever, whereas no one reads Sand anymore, and with good cause because her novels were insipid and verbose.
What makes the plot unique among films is that Chopin and George Sand are portrayed as sexual inverts; that is to say that George Sand is a woman with the psyche of a man, whereas Chopin is a man with the psyche of a woman. Instead of developing homosexual orientations, as one might expect, they fall in love with each other. Although this seems at first confusing, almost bewildering, the story proves to be beautiful.
It is a historic fact that Chopin and Sand lived with one another for many years, mainly on the island of Majorca, the site of George Sand's ancestral lands. However, their union produced no offspring and ended badly. Sand was more or less a groupie. Once she had her fill of the prestige associated with Chopin, she shrugged him off. He represented just another trophy for her collection of famous lovers. History avenged Chopin, however, because today his music is more alive than ever, whereas no one reads Sand anymore, and with good cause because her novels were insipid and verbose.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Beria Wacked Stalin
After watching a Timewatch documentary upon the subject, I am persuaded that Lavrenty Beria wacked the former Soviet Union Premier Josef Stalin. If so, at least Beria accomplished one good deed in his otherwise abominable life. Stalin was certainly comparable to Hitler in terms of ruthlessness and paranoia.
Timewatch documentaries have had a uniform excellent quality so far. I highly recommend the show.
Timewatch documentaries have had a uniform excellent quality so far. I highly recommend the show.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Five Old Movies That Might Have Escaped Your Notice
I imagine you hear quite enough about the latest and greatest movies just released. The following films aren't as old as McCain, but they are off the radar so to speak, although in the case of TLOTR, just by a few years. This is my short list of the best films of all time, ranked in order of preference.
1. Impromptu, an Australian comedy/romance starring Judy Davis in her best performance as George Sand, wooing the classical composer Chopin.
2. The Princess and the Warrior - Besides the very moving scenes that will raise goosebumps on anybody with a pulse, what I love about this film is the originality and meticulous care and planning that went into every aspect. I have never seen a movie remotely like this. The language barrier (German) was rapidly overcome by the expressive acting, so universal that a person of any land can understand. The nurse (the same actress who played in "Run, Lola, Run", a good film also) is easily among the best actresses in the world.
3. The Lord of the Rings, 1-3, Extended Edition. The Extended Edition is better than the original and makes the whole series worth watching again. I still can't get over the fact that the bean counters cut so many worthwhile minutes of film from the theatrical release. The Extended Edition is the definitive version of TLOTR for me.
4. Maurice - this has to be one of the best gay historical dramas ever, portraying a novel by D.H. Lawrence.
5. Harold and Maude - a comedy from the 1970's about an odd friendship between a teenager and an elderly lady who believes in anarchy and free love.
1. Impromptu, an Australian comedy/romance starring Judy Davis in her best performance as George Sand, wooing the classical composer Chopin.
2. The Princess and the Warrior - Besides the very moving scenes that will raise goosebumps on anybody with a pulse, what I love about this film is the originality and meticulous care and planning that went into every aspect. I have never seen a movie remotely like this. The language barrier (German) was rapidly overcome by the expressive acting, so universal that a person of any land can understand. The nurse (the same actress who played in "Run, Lola, Run", a good film also) is easily among the best actresses in the world.
3. The Lord of the Rings, 1-3, Extended Edition. The Extended Edition is better than the original and makes the whole series worth watching again. I still can't get over the fact that the bean counters cut so many worthwhile minutes of film from the theatrical release. The Extended Edition is the definitive version of TLOTR for me.
4. Maurice - this has to be one of the best gay historical dramas ever, portraying a novel by D.H. Lawrence.
5. Harold and Maude - a comedy from the 1970's about an odd friendship between a teenager and an elderly lady who believes in anarchy and free love.
Eight Shows That You Must Watch Before You Die
These shows are ranked in order of quality.
1. Daily Show with Jon Stewart - the first popular talk show ever that addresses real issues with a hard, smart, funny edge coming from the left wing with pride. An ongoing and much-needed critique of the mainstream television media--FOX news in particular, CNN, NBC, et cetera. Jon does something rare. He brings humor to liberal politics. I'm not sure anyone pulls it off as well as he does. He's better than Carson, Leno and all the rest. Those guys are good, but Jon hits on real topics and digs deep.
2. Mad Men - fans of retro will love this show about ad agencies in the 1960s. This is well-written drama at its finest, mildly subversive, and has plenty of sex appeal.
3. Peep Show - this comedy gets low ratings in the UK and is not well known in the USA. However, DVD sales are very high, which has resulted in the show's contract being renewed for a sixth season. Don't pay attention to ratings--this show features the best writing on television, period. I explained why here.
4. That Mitchell and Webb Look - featuring the same actors as in No. 3. A British variety show little known in the USA, this is one of the funniest comedy shows around.
5. Little Britain - a hilarious but decidedly unintellectual comedy that gets laughs on its abundance of humor concerning gays, fat people, old people, the handicapped and transvestites. Despite the potential for causing offense, this show comes across as light-hearted and not mean-spirited in any way and is very funny. However, it has received criticism from some in the media that may not discern the subtle messages in the humor. My advice? Lighten up. These guys are poking fun at themselves for the most part. Think about it. As for the criticism over the vulgarity, well, yes, the show is quite vulgar. Don't let your grandmother watch it unless she is down with that.
6. Torchwood - a science fiction fantasy drama based in Cardiff, Wales, concerning the heroic work of a group of independent agents invested with the task of defending Earth from aliens. I know what you're thinking. This is better than it sounds. For one thing, it's sexy, whether you're straight or gay. There's a little something for everyone, or rather a lot of something. Also, the writing is pretty good, and the lead character is a tough, bisexual, good-looking stud, John Barrowman. This show is closely related to the Doctor Who series and has co-opted much of the Doctor Who plotline. In fact, Doctor Who and related characters make occasional appearances in this show.
7. Beautiful People - here is an example of something I never thought I would see in my lifetime, a comedy about a gay thirteen year-old! I wish television had shows like this when I was growing up. It would have made my life about ten times easier, just knowing I wasn't the only one! The show is not perfect--its script isn't top-notch like Peep Show. But it's a refreshing novelty from the UK, where so many good shows originate.
8. Doctor Who - I rank this at the bottom only because of its inconsistency. Some shows are outstanding, while others, about 25%, are mediocre at best. This show is targeted to children, and the plot tends to be super-cheesy, whereas Torchwood's plot is merely cheesy. However, it's worthy of mention, and its relatedness to Torchwood merits a watch. I was disappointed when David Tennant replaced the former Doctor Who, Christopher Eccleston. Tennant's face, while prettier, seems to only be capable of one expression. I preferred Christopher Eccleston, a better actor by any measure. The departure of Billie Piper as the Doctor's companion was a major loss, because she injected much-needed sex appeal into the show.
1. Daily Show with Jon Stewart - the first popular talk show ever that addresses real issues with a hard, smart, funny edge coming from the left wing with pride. An ongoing and much-needed critique of the mainstream television media--FOX news in particular, CNN, NBC, et cetera. Jon does something rare. He brings humor to liberal politics. I'm not sure anyone pulls it off as well as he does. He's better than Carson, Leno and all the rest. Those guys are good, but Jon hits on real topics and digs deep.
2. Mad Men - fans of retro will love this show about ad agencies in the 1960s. This is well-written drama at its finest, mildly subversive, and has plenty of sex appeal.
3. Peep Show - this comedy gets low ratings in the UK and is not well known in the USA. However, DVD sales are very high, which has resulted in the show's contract being renewed for a sixth season. Don't pay attention to ratings--this show features the best writing on television, period. I explained why here.
4. That Mitchell and Webb Look - featuring the same actors as in No. 3. A British variety show little known in the USA, this is one of the funniest comedy shows around.
5. Little Britain - a hilarious but decidedly unintellectual comedy that gets laughs on its abundance of humor concerning gays, fat people, old people, the handicapped and transvestites. Despite the potential for causing offense, this show comes across as light-hearted and not mean-spirited in any way and is very funny. However, it has received criticism from some in the media that may not discern the subtle messages in the humor. My advice? Lighten up. These guys are poking fun at themselves for the most part. Think about it. As for the criticism over the vulgarity, well, yes, the show is quite vulgar. Don't let your grandmother watch it unless she is down with that.
6. Torchwood - a science fiction fantasy drama based in Cardiff, Wales, concerning the heroic work of a group of independent agents invested with the task of defending Earth from aliens. I know what you're thinking. This is better than it sounds. For one thing, it's sexy, whether you're straight or gay. There's a little something for everyone, or rather a lot of something. Also, the writing is pretty good, and the lead character is a tough, bisexual, good-looking stud, John Barrowman. This show is closely related to the Doctor Who series and has co-opted much of the Doctor Who plotline. In fact, Doctor Who and related characters make occasional appearances in this show.
7. Beautiful People - here is an example of something I never thought I would see in my lifetime, a comedy about a gay thirteen year-old! I wish television had shows like this when I was growing up. It would have made my life about ten times easier, just knowing I wasn't the only one! The show is not perfect--its script isn't top-notch like Peep Show. But it's a refreshing novelty from the UK, where so many good shows originate.
8. Doctor Who - I rank this at the bottom only because of its inconsistency. Some shows are outstanding, while others, about 25%, are mediocre at best. This show is targeted to children, and the plot tends to be super-cheesy, whereas Torchwood's plot is merely cheesy. However, it's worthy of mention, and its relatedness to Torchwood merits a watch. I was disappointed when David Tennant replaced the former Doctor Who, Christopher Eccleston. Tennant's face, while prettier, seems to only be capable of one expression. I preferred Christopher Eccleston, a better actor by any measure. The departure of Billie Piper as the Doctor's companion was a major loss, because she injected much-needed sex appeal into the show.
Monday, February 23, 2009
What's Wrong with South Park?
Looking over my blog, I became concerned lest it degenerate into one of these apolitical, ha-ha, always merry pieces of fluff that one sees throughout the media. This is what's wrong with South Park: writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone have no ideals and no values. They just have a hankering for gay sex and drugs. Although I find some South Park episodes funny, most leave me feeling cold inside. I have watched their show for a long time and used to like it in the beginning, until I realized that the writers are evil. Evil is not funny.
South Park tackles only the stupidest, most meaningless hot button issues of the mass media, mainly celebrity gossip and the concerns of Hollywood. They shy away from anything with real meaning and importance in the world. I kept waiting in vain for South Park to do a show about the Iraq war, global warming, genocide, or the decline of U.S. manufacturing. I kept waiting for a show that demonstrated awareness about the lives of the middle-class and the poor around the world. On the few occasions when they did cover global warming, it was only to mock the scientists and celebrities concerned about it. Anyone who displays any concern with real issues, such as Al Gore and Sonny Bono, comes in for cruel mockery.
For a long time, I didn't understand why they raked Sonny Bono over the coals for caring about Africa, while giving George W. Bush a free ride for years. After watching a few seasons, I connected all the threads of their beliefs. Trey Parker and Matt Stone believe compassion is idiotic, and selfishness is the only ideal, an evil philosophy that can be traced to Ayn Rand. Their viewpoint is consistently upper class Republican, with two exceptions concerning gays and drugs. These two shrewdly selected political issues account for their popularity among journalists. Without gays and drugs, South Park would not have won an Emmy and promptly defecated upon it in the next episode. The only lesson they took from the 1960's has to do with what we insert into our own bodies. That's good, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far, does it?
I've read interviews with South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, and they claim that they don't feel prepared to express views on real issues, like the Iraq war, because they feel ignorant and uninformed. That's not much of an excuse, and I don't believe it anyway. They are wealthy and possess every opportunity to educate and inform themselves. At best, South Park provides an example of what a good comedy show could be--funny and irreverent with a creative technique. All that's needed is some soul.
The one comedy show that does have both soul and wit is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I find it very funny and can watch the show without guilt. The Daily Show makes a conscious effort to touch on the heavy issues of the day instead of tip-toeing through the tulips in order not to offend their corporate masters. South Park would be well-advised to do the same, but I don't see the show ever changing, now that they have hit upon a formula that gets them what they want--money, the only thing in the world they care about.
The pernicious influence of South Park permeates our culture now. Even gay conservative Andrew Sullivan appears to be a regular viewer, as revealed by his comment in the Atlantic Monthly, referring to Sean Penn's acceptance speech for the Academy Award for his performance in "Milk":
Where do you think that Sullivan borrowed the imagery for a "cloud of smug that rose and hung in the air last night - reaching cyclone levels over the head of Sean Penn...?" Why, South Park, of course, season 10, episode 2, "Smug Alert," concerning the smugness of San Francisco for daring to care about air pollution. I'm a bit surprised that Sullivan didn't even give his heroes Matt Stone and Trey Parker credit for the phrase.
Why should Sullivan chastise Hollywood for caring? This is the sort of thing South Park does on a regular basis. If caring is wrong, what is right? As to whether the celebrities are smug or not, who cares? I'm not personally interested in what celebrities do, unless they are attempting to do some kind of good in the world, and if so, good! At least they are promoting gay rights instead of war as they have done so often the past. I also don't buy even for a second Andrew Sullivan's implication that Sean Penn is a homophobe. Sean Penn has been a pretty consistent political liberal as far back as I can remember. I can't even recall a movie Penn starred in (besides Milk), but I do recall his purchasing a full-page ad in the New York Times and several other major newspapers for a personal essay that he wrote in opposition to the Iraq war. He received much criticism at the time for doing so. I would be willing to wager that Sullivan disapproved of this as well, being a conservative in matters not related to sexuality.
Andrew Sullivan obviously gets plenty of his ideas from television shows, including South Park. That would explain why Sullivan is so concerned with Hollywood instead of Washington. Instead of holding Hollywood celebrities to such a high standard, how about holding conservative politicians, CEO's and rich owners like Rupert Murdoch to a high standard? They are the ones with real power. Yet you will never see a South Park episode make the slightest bit of fun about Rupert Murdoch. Why? Maybe you should ask Stone and Parker that question. Instead, it's U2's Sonny Bono and Al Gore, who have no power at all, that they choose to serve up for ridicule.
South Park tackles only the stupidest, most meaningless hot button issues of the mass media, mainly celebrity gossip and the concerns of Hollywood. They shy away from anything with real meaning and importance in the world. I kept waiting in vain for South Park to do a show about the Iraq war, global warming, genocide, or the decline of U.S. manufacturing. I kept waiting for a show that demonstrated awareness about the lives of the middle-class and the poor around the world. On the few occasions when they did cover global warming, it was only to mock the scientists and celebrities concerned about it. Anyone who displays any concern with real issues, such as Al Gore and Sonny Bono, comes in for cruel mockery.
For a long time, I didn't understand why they raked Sonny Bono over the coals for caring about Africa, while giving George W. Bush a free ride for years. After watching a few seasons, I connected all the threads of their beliefs. Trey Parker and Matt Stone believe compassion is idiotic, and selfishness is the only ideal, an evil philosophy that can be traced to Ayn Rand. Their viewpoint is consistently upper class Republican, with two exceptions concerning gays and drugs. These two shrewdly selected political issues account for their popularity among journalists. Without gays and drugs, South Park would not have won an Emmy and promptly defecated upon it in the next episode. The only lesson they took from the 1960's has to do with what we insert into our own bodies. That's good, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far, does it?
I've read interviews with South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, and they claim that they don't feel prepared to express views on real issues, like the Iraq war, because they feel ignorant and uninformed. That's not much of an excuse, and I don't believe it anyway. They are wealthy and possess every opportunity to educate and inform themselves. At best, South Park provides an example of what a good comedy show could be--funny and irreverent with a creative technique. All that's needed is some soul.
The one comedy show that does have both soul and wit is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I find it very funny and can watch the show without guilt. The Daily Show makes a conscious effort to touch on the heavy issues of the day instead of tip-toeing through the tulips in order not to offend their corporate masters. South Park would be well-advised to do the same, but I don't see the show ever changing, now that they have hit upon a formula that gets them what they want--money, the only thing in the world they care about.
The pernicious influence of South Park permeates our culture now. Even gay conservative Andrew Sullivan appears to be a regular viewer, as revealed by his comment in the Atlantic Monthly, referring to Sean Penn's acceptance speech for the Academy Award for his performance in "Milk":
That acceptance speech was superb. I'm glad I caught it (even though I was in a restaurant at the time). But again: what courage does it require to stand up for gay rights on Hollywood night? And I'm sorry, but the script for "Milk" was mediocre at best. The cloud of smug that rose and hung in the air last night - reaching cyclone levels over the head of Sean Penn - was close-to-suffocating. (Penn is best buddies with rancid homophobes like the Castros). And then you notice the near-total absence of openly gay male actors in the movies and you realize what really motivates that industry: money and cant, packaged in smug.
Where do you think that Sullivan borrowed the imagery for a "cloud of smug that rose and hung in the air last night - reaching cyclone levels over the head of Sean Penn...?" Why, South Park, of course, season 10, episode 2, "Smug Alert," concerning the smugness of San Francisco for daring to care about air pollution. I'm a bit surprised that Sullivan didn't even give his heroes Matt Stone and Trey Parker credit for the phrase.
Why should Sullivan chastise Hollywood for caring? This is the sort of thing South Park does on a regular basis. If caring is wrong, what is right? As to whether the celebrities are smug or not, who cares? I'm not personally interested in what celebrities do, unless they are attempting to do some kind of good in the world, and if so, good! At least they are promoting gay rights instead of war as they have done so often the past. I also don't buy even for a second Andrew Sullivan's implication that Sean Penn is a homophobe. Sean Penn has been a pretty consistent political liberal as far back as I can remember. I can't even recall a movie Penn starred in (besides Milk), but I do recall his purchasing a full-page ad in the New York Times and several other major newspapers for a personal essay that he wrote in opposition to the Iraq war. He received much criticism at the time for doing so. I would be willing to wager that Sullivan disapproved of this as well, being a conservative in matters not related to sexuality.
Andrew Sullivan obviously gets plenty of his ideas from television shows, including South Park. That would explain why Sullivan is so concerned with Hollywood instead of Washington. Instead of holding Hollywood celebrities to such a high standard, how about holding conservative politicians, CEO's and rich owners like Rupert Murdoch to a high standard? They are the ones with real power. Yet you will never see a South Park episode make the slightest bit of fun about Rupert Murdoch. Why? Maybe you should ask Stone and Parker that question. Instead, it's U2's Sonny Bono and Al Gore, who have no power at all, that they choose to serve up for ridicule.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Peep Show, the Best Comedy on Television
Although the ratings are poor, DVD sales are high for Peep Show, a Channel 4 sitcom featuring Robert Webb and David Mitchell. How do I feel about the show? I have watched all thirty shows three times apiece. In my opinion, this is the best comedy show on television anywhere in the English-speaking world right now. No one can make me laugh like the Webb and Mitchell team.
The most novel innovation in Peep Show relates to how the camera is employed. Instead of watching all the characters on the set, we see the world through one of the character's eyes, literally, because the camera is mounted upon that character's forehead. The second innovation relates to the frequent narration by one of the two main characters, revealing their base hidden motivations and interpretations.
The writers do not shy away from getting intellectual on your ass. Historical, philosophical and academic references are on the menu. Expect witty dialog packed with maximum drama and strange asides that will leave you thinking. While there are countless references to homosexuality, heterosexuality, recreational drug use, casual sex, and monogamy, none of it is offensive, mean-spirited or didactic. Instead everything progresses along a natural arc with a focus upon the feelings and motivations of the characters. The stars and the supporting cast all meet the challenge presented by the brainy writing. My favorite characters? I like them all very much, even the most minor characters who appear in the show only once or twice. However, after Webb and Mitchell, I really like Olivia Colman, who also stars in the gay-friendly sitcom "Beautiful People," which I also recommend. But she shines brighter in Peep Show, where she represents a more sympathetic and believable character.
David Mitchell and Robert Webb also produce a show called "That Mitchell and Webb Look," which is just as funny as Peep Show, but in a completely different format, being a series of short, unrelated sketches. I recommend both of these shows and hope that these actors enjoy a long career in show biz, because I intend to follow their productions from now on. The five seasons of Peep Show already completed are destined to be classics, because they have broken exciting new ground in the art of television comedy.
I never laughed so hard. Thank you to England for producing superb comedy!
The most novel innovation in Peep Show relates to how the camera is employed. Instead of watching all the characters on the set, we see the world through one of the character's eyes, literally, because the camera is mounted upon that character's forehead. The second innovation relates to the frequent narration by one of the two main characters, revealing their base hidden motivations and interpretations.
The writers do not shy away from getting intellectual on your ass. Historical, philosophical and academic references are on the menu. Expect witty dialog packed with maximum drama and strange asides that will leave you thinking. While there are countless references to homosexuality, heterosexuality, recreational drug use, casual sex, and monogamy, none of it is offensive, mean-spirited or didactic. Instead everything progresses along a natural arc with a focus upon the feelings and motivations of the characters. The stars and the supporting cast all meet the challenge presented by the brainy writing. My favorite characters? I like them all very much, even the most minor characters who appear in the show only once or twice. However, after Webb and Mitchell, I really like Olivia Colman, who also stars in the gay-friendly sitcom "Beautiful People," which I also recommend. But she shines brighter in Peep Show, where she represents a more sympathetic and believable character.
David Mitchell and Robert Webb also produce a show called "That Mitchell and Webb Look," which is just as funny as Peep Show, but in a completely different format, being a series of short, unrelated sketches. I recommend both of these shows and hope that these actors enjoy a long career in show biz, because I intend to follow their productions from now on. The five seasons of Peep Show already completed are destined to be classics, because they have broken exciting new ground in the art of television comedy.
I never laughed so hard. Thank you to England for producing superb comedy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)