What I'm Watching April edition: What We Do in the Shadows, Unorthodox, Kidding, On Becoming a God in Central Florida, Middleditch and Schwartz

What We Do in the Shadows (FX)-One of my serendipitous discoveries last year, this Taiki Wahiti adaptation shows no signs of losing its edge. The series premiere kicked off with Haley Joel Osment in a stroke of divine inspiration. By the third episode, there's some legitimate character development as Guillermo realizes that maybe vampiring has some negative side effects (i.e. humans getting the blood sucked out of them) in a revelation that parallels "The Good Place"'s Michael. While the show works episodically, it could go next level with an arc. Fingers crossed!

Kidding (Showtime)-Is Jim Carrey known as a sad guy? I don't know his biography but in the wake of Robin Williams' death, the publicity for Louie CK's instability, "Honey Boy" (which details the abuse of stand-up-comedian-turned-actor Shia LaBeouf), it's an increasingly common perception that comedians are dark people. Oh yeah, and there's "The Joker." While the show centers around a Mr. Rogers expy named Jeff Pickles who is losing his marbles and doesn't have the capacity to express it, it treads in the same "sad comedian" trope and it's surely no coincidence that Jim Carrey is cast here.

The basic synopsis of Pickles's problems is he lost his son in a car crash and the incident drove him and his wife (Judy Greer) to the point of his divorce. The beauty of the series is that his personality and affectations are so much more complicated: He can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to his desire to be kind, he represses his emotions, and his inability to creatively control his program is compounded with how much of a control freak he is. Joining him for the ride are Diedre (the ridiculously talented Catherine Keener) as his sister who is also a puppeteer for the show. She's not as far along the edge of dysfunction as Jeff and functions as an interesting counter-example for if Jeff dealt with his grief much better.

The show isn't afraid to blur the fourth wall in the show-within-the-show segments and there's a certain psychedelic mood. This is a show that feels like LSD was either involved in the making of it somehow or intended to play into the target audience. In other words, it's a show that's bold and that's something worth watching.

On Becoming a God in Central Florida (Showtime)-Anti-heroes in TV's Golden Age are generally built from the same Elizabeth Jennings or Walter White (or now Marty Byrde of "Ozark") mold: Master chess players who constantly have to answer with their back against the wall to various dangerous people who want opposite things from them. This show presents us with a protagonist who might succeed based on moxey and spunk alone but it’s equally likely she'll shoot herself in the foot first. Krystal’s lack of certainty makes for a show that’s sublimely unpredictable. 

Krystal Stubbs (Kirsten Dunst) is a water-park employee who becomes widowed in the pilot episode by a man who threw all their money in a pyramid scheme. She needs some form of financial relief and neither her water park employee, her misogynistic neighbor, her debt collector, or her late husband's pyramid scheme "family" is willing to give her much leeway. The first couple episodes show the glimmers of good news that are stretched between dark spells and that's a bit hard to watch. Tragedy is all well and good at the movies but when you're watching a character get beaten up week in and out, what's the point?

But when Stubbs tricks her husband's lackey into giving him stage time (locking him in a closet under the guise of seducing him; a strangely cathartic scene) at the pyramid scheme convention, she discovers she has the power to influence people. The problem is her foil (Ted Levine in a high water mark) has a scam of a company to begin with and she can't do much within his rules.

The show is set in the 1990s when pyramid schemes were at their most popular with period appropriate details. The FAM pyramid scheme is portrayed as a tragic cult (laid on pretty heavy) but, hey that's capitalism in a nutshell. At least that's the thesis of this series. 

Source: Time Magazine

Unorthodox (Netflix)-As someone who has spent time on the fringes of an Orthodox community in Richmond, Virginia, I have seen modern Orthodox Judaism up close and have had a billion questions about it but those questions are entirely different than the practitioners of the religion themselves. I've always wondered why these people are stuck to such a regimental lifestyle and if there are any potential dangers if they took such restrictions too far. The people I met were mostly concerned with how to best observe the Torah without critically going beyond that. Still, these people had connections to the outside world and choices. I had heard stories about communities in the American Northeast where the rules were even more rigid and that's where I had legitimate worry about how my own religion could have some messed-up consequences for the people born into it who might not want to participate at their parents' level of observance. In essence, that's what this series is about: The uglier side of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism and it's very effective at shaking up our doubts.

Source: Vulture

Middleditch and Schwartz (Netflix)-Ever go to a long-form improv and feel like it wasn't your thing? It's probably that you just didn't see the art form with people who know what they're doing. 

Thomas Middleditch and Ben Schwartz are freaking geniuses at this art form. They effortlessly switch characters; incorporate comic tics very early on so you're laughing sooner than later; and thing several steps ahead to where the story should go. It's not too far-fetched to think that they could write a sitcom pilot on the spot. Jesse David Fox wrote an excellent article about how this could resurrect the often maligned form of improv, but the problem is that most improv shows you see don't feature people with these abilities. 

Watching these two only makes me want to watch more of these two and their unique spin on the form. The only problem is that Middleditch and Schwartz only have three episodes. Doesn't Netflix give everything a minimum of six episodes? Were production costs that high for filming two people playing pretend on stage?

Modern Family's Affluence Problem

When "Modern Family" premiered 11 years ago, it offered a "modern" take on the typical American family: a May-December marriage, two mixed-race families, characters with disabilities (Luke), and characters on the LGBT spectrum. But for all its attention to align with the "modern" family today, "Modern Family" differs from the typical American family because the Pritchett-Dunphy-Delgado-Tucker clan's amount of disposable income isn't so average.

Consider that:
1) The family has taken vacations to Hawaii, Italy  and Australia in between spontaneous trips to Vegas, dude ranches, Florida and the Pacific Northwest

2) Gadget enthusiast Phil tends to buy whatever home improvement devices or toys he wants without a second thought

3) When Jay and Gloria have an accidental pregnancy, they don't consider the economic costs of it because it's presumably something Jay can handle
4) There are few discussions about out-of-state verse in-state college costs with Claire and Phil's kids. The logistical need to keep the show's child actors as main cast members rather than recurring cast members, but the decisions of the children to return home throughout college range from being expelled to not getting into college to getting homesick.
5) Characters like Cameron, Mitchell, and Claire have quit or drifted out of jobs to follow their bliss without considering economic consequences. Granted, they might have nest eggs or savings but these economic considerations aren't necessarily alluded to.

The disconnect between "Modern Family" and its audience on the wealth issue marks a desire to embody both sides of a TV contradiction that has gone on since the beginning of the family sitcom: 1) The need to be both aspirational (to show an upward version of the American family) that TV advertisers prefer and that is alluring to viewers and 2) the need to mirror the American family viewing at home. 

As a result, many shows like I Love Lucy, the Cosby Show, the Brady Bunch and Friends have had disparities between how the characters well off the characters should be verse what we're seeing on screen. So which TV shows have been the biggest sinners?  

The very first shows to attract a following in the late 40s and early 50s were actually focusing on the ethnic and poor. Shows like "Life with Luigi" (Italian-Americans), "Mama" (the Swedish community), "The Goldbergs" (the Jewish community) and "Amos n Andy" (the black community) documented ethnic or racial communities in America and highlighted their struggles (my friend Christine Becker has a useful link). Part of this was that some of these were holdovers from radio and part of this was inertia. 

The biggest show of that decade, "The Honeymooners" , followed in that template and so did "I Love Lucy" but the latter had a flaw: Ricky was somewhat of a B-list celebrity in-universe who casually knew Bob Hope and John Wayne, yet Lucy still had to manage a tight budget in a small apartment with no domestic help. 

When sitcoms focused on the WASP clans like "Leave it to Beaver" and later "Brady Bunch" they generally tilted towards the high life. In the former, the patriarch of the clan belonged to a country club and had his own secretary, and in the latter, the family had their own maid. A factor that was starting to play with TV sitcoms more than other genres is that the family sitcom directly reflected families at home so advertising wanted the shows to depict more inspirational pictures. The "George Burns and Gracie Allen Show" was sponsored by Carnation Milk and they went so far as to constantly remind the audience (with the subtlety of a mallet) in character of how they were having a great time enjoying Carnation Milk.

In the 1970s, social justice started to seep into the picture with "Good Times", "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" which resonated with an audience that was interested in seeing socio-economically imperfect families. The Jeffersons' theme song "Moving on Up" depicted upward mobility but the show also asked whether they belonged there and explored that class tension. More modern  examples that explore that race and class tension might include "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" and "Black-ish"

In the past twenty years, both formulas have largely worked with a different distinguishing factor of sorts. Family sitcoms generally have become endangered in such a competitive environment for eyeballs. The ones that have evolved are the ones with with strong voices.  In shows like "Raising Hope", "Everybody Hates Chris", and "The Middle", firm choices are made over what kind of universe the characters want to inhabit. 

"Modern Family" largely falls into this category too but because it's not really accounting for its characters wealth and financial privilege, there's something on-the-fence about it's approach to the issue. 

As for whether the show is the biggest sinner?
I would argue yes, because this show 1) exists in a more realistic era of TV or one and  2) This show has run in an era where we have a heightened concern about economic security. It debuted in 2009 at the advent of the housing bubble and restructurings of the economy in this decade have all been things Americans are more conscious of.  

Thanks to Sheri Ciscell for the research assistance

March-April Edition: What Am I Watching: Miracle Workers, Superstore, Tales from the Loop, etc

Shows I'm watching live:

1 Miracle Workers: Dark Ages (TBS). The first season was an extremely clever show from Simon Rich (Man Seeking Woman) who is an extraordinarily witty outside-the-box writer. It involved three angels (No offense, but I’m not counting Lolly Adefope’s character as part of the team, more of a last-minute convert) who are trying to work around the fact that God (Steve Buscemi) is an idiot. An errant decision of his dooms the planet Earth and the seven-episode season revolved around a two day clock. "Miracle Workers Dark Ages" uses the same sense of humor and cast but it's a completely different scenario.

Not only does the second season lack the stakes of a doomsday scenario, there’s a potential-squandering lack of direction here. Alexandra (Geraldine Viswanathan) wants to avoid the profession of her father (Steve Buscemi) Edward Shitshoveler. Within the first three episodes she leaves the profession twice only to land back at square one like a Road Runner cartoon. The next episode involves the difficulty of her brother (Jon Bass) in making friends and then there’s an episode that’s an allegory about dealing with political nut jobs at the Thanksgiving table that’s a little thin. It’s only in the last two or three episodes that an arc forms. Still, there are plenty of jokes that land and the characters are very likable. With the creative team behind this, I’m confident that this can be a great third season with a reset button.

Source: Time Magazine

2. Nora from Queens (Comedy Central)  The star vehicle for Awkwafina is about an immature late 20-something who has a really strong personality. Watching this makes me wonder how "The Farewell" could be considered a success when it squandered such a great comic talent.

Her comic personality is primarily one of childlike impatience and over-eagerness to spread her brand of fun to strangers, but she has a lot of gears she can go to. The central question of the show (it’s about a 27-year-old living at home and taxing her dad’s lifestyle) is about how to adult on your own terms. Also of note, Jennifer Eposito rocks an eccentric wardrobe and personality and shines in general as a love interest for Awkwafina’s father.

3. Superstore (NBC)-Business as usual. America Ferrera's Amy Sosa as the boss makes the show much better.

Credit: TV Line

4.Zoey's Infinite Playlist (NBC)-Jane Levy is a young computer coder who just got a promotion as a manager to a team of programmers including her best friend who has a crush on her (Skyler Astin, Pitch Perfect) and an engaged programmer she has a crush on. She also has misfortune at home because her dad (Peter Gallagher) had a stroke and is possibly terminally ill. Her chaotic home and work life are thrown for a curve when she discovers that she has the unique power to hear other people's emotions in song and that apparently the universe won't leave her alone unless she helps the people singing with their life problems. 

The show has a great cast with Mary Steenburgen as Zoey's mom and Lauren Graham as her boss. It's kind of ironic because 95% of Peter Gallagher's screentime is just sitting in a chair. Poor Peter.

The show isn't amazing and the love triangle is highly predictable (and problematic...Zoey's pretty casually ok with breaking up a marriage) but it's certainly watchable and like any musical, when the choreography and music works, it increases the rewatchability. 

6. Tales from the Loop (Amazon)-The show resembles "Wayward Pines" or "Castle Rock" in that it's a mysterious New England town [Correction: It's in Ohio, but seems very New Englandish and is actually based on concept art from Sweden] with conspiracies or scientific anomalies (in the case of the former or "Once Upon a Time") to uncover. It's mostly serialized with a "Twilight Zone" element. 

The show moves on a new level of slow and requires a conscious downshifting of gears on the part of the viewer to take it in. There's enough time to take in the scenes but there's a lot of dead space that isn''t necessary. Still, it can be chalked up to an apt stylistic choice.

"Twilight Zone"-type shows like this work through an Earth-shattering twist at the end that inverts your perception of what you thought you know and hopefully sparks a deep thought or two. The leisurely stroll of the show prevents such a dramatic twist. In the first episode, the twist occurs about halfway through the episode which is a major pacing mistake that causes the epilogue to drag on to mind-numbing lengths.

The second episode (in which two teens from different socio-economic backgrounds switch bodies) is a little more clever about misdirection but then all of a sudden a robot shows up which is neither here nor there. The main question of the plot was how the kids would react to their new lives (Answer: one of them would use it to take advantage of the other). Again, the epilogue is an answer to a question that the viewer never asked.

Slow shows take a while to click and the third episode seems to be where things fall into place. It builds on previous installment and there are multiple twists that are well-timed and build on top of one another. The third episode (two kids decide to make a forbidden romance a reality through the stopping of time) finally starts to get the hang of it.

7. Good Girls (NBC)-The first season and change had the problem of Rio being too powerful and Beth not having enough leverage. I say this often but tragedy has less of a place for my appetite in TV than in film: To watch the same character be beaten up over and over can be highly dispiriting whereas to see someone make the wrong choice and have them pay for it in a two-hour span is a fine bit of poetry. "Good Girls" started to get good when Beth started to figure out Rio and play as his equal.

For some reason, I fell off viewing this show and planned to catch up but it became more daunting as the increasing number of Season 3 episodes meant I would have to invest more hours. A week ago, I started randomly watching (because of the "Zoey's Playlist"lead-in) and found the show to be nice and easy to jump back into. The Beth vs Rio interplay is still there and grounded in a sense of healthy reality and there is sufficient side plot fodder for Annie and Ruby.

Motherless Brooklyn vs Richard Jewell and conservative and liberal slants

I recently watched “Motherless Brooklyn” and “Richard Jewell” which are both hot off the red box and they are a stark reminder of the way two films can hint at the ideologies of their makers and my evolution in reading them.

“Motherless Brooklyn” stands out primarily as a great film and showcase for Edward Norton who co-adapted the book and directed in addition to playing a starring role. Stylistically, the film takes its cues from film noir with a detective falling deeper and deeper into a well of obsession and that’s not an easy genre to re-capture, let alone put a spin on. On top of that, it’s a little “Chinatown” meets “Rain Man” as Norton’s character has tourette’s syndrome which takes guts: Imagine the potential this has to be disastrous both to film noir and the disabled community if handled sloppily.

Like one of the great neo-noirs, “Chinatown”, (the vast majority of noirs came out in the 40s and 50s and “Chinatown” was in the 70s, “Motherless Brooklyn” seeks to make infrastructure sexy. “Chinatown” explores how the city of Los Angeles was built through irrigation systems. “Motherless Brooklyn” derives from the story of Robert Moses who cut through a tremendous amount of red tape and created a series of bridges and highways that some say modernized New York and allowed connectivity between the five boroughs at an unprecedented level. 

At the same time, Moses wasn’t without his flaws: He bulldozed neighborhoods for urban-renewal projects and designed the highways on Long Island so that buses couldn’t travel. For those who are look at society and policy through the lens of racist verse not racist and want to disregard all the shades of blue in the middle, this makes him target for a certain negative revisionist history that’s becoming popular (even though classist doesn’t necessarily mean racist and a man’s views are a product of his time to some degree). Decisions to not build certain highways that could benefit poorer populations are now being characterized as racist because of the interchangeability of class and race.

Nonetheless, while there is room for critique about whether Moses or his policies were abnormally racist, as CityLab has artfully done, “Motherless Brooklyn” chooses to eliminate any nuance in the argument. By my tastes, it’s narrowly within the realm of artistic license, but the whole movie can definitely be classified as woke. The film has a black woman as a love interest for the character and celebrates intersectionality by suggesting the black community and disabled as fitting allies for one another. Additionally, the film’s moral universe might be seen as giving a bigger moral pass to the vices of the black community than the community to which Lionel comes from.

I generally argue that film makers have the right to tell the kind of story they want without getting politically skewered, so even if the film preaches a more woke philosophy than I generally subscribe to, I’m comfortable with the film though cautiously aware of its slant when comparing it to the real-life figures and times it is portraying.

The larger question, however,  is whether “Motherless Brooklyn” exists in a vacuum. If this didn’t exist alongside the Ava DuVernays and Spike Lees that see their mission as filmmakers to be synonymous with their activist views, I might be more ok with the film’s lean. Alternatively, the sphere of film critics out there lean heavily liberal and will take such messages about Robert Moses and use this film to write insufferable and likely factually incorrect essays.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have  film maker Clint Eastwood who is a popular figurehead for conservatism (especially around the time of the McCain and Romney campaigns).  His film “Richard Jewell” centers around the true story about a man who was accused of the Atlanta bombing he didn’t commit. Because the man was a cop and the FBI tries to latch onto the same aggressive tendencies any cop might have, the film aligns pretty heavily with the blue lives matter. The film’s implication (based pretty heavily on the facts) also is that Jewell was targeted because he was fat and ungainly so it also doubles as a weird kind of body-shaming PSA.

And here’s the odd thing: I’m not a conservative at all and I’d like to think my contempt for the current leadership of that party is well-documented. But in the cultural sphere? I’ve had a shift (also well-documented) and from where I’m standing it looks the more conservative of these two films is a more compassionate portrait of a historical event. Why? Eastwood’s film is about reconsidering preconceived notions towards a fairer view of reality. In contrast, “Motherless Brooklyn” is about finding comfort in sticking its protagonist (and audience) between familiar notions of good and evil even if they’re not particularly accurate. I never thought I’d live to see the day when I liked the film with the more conservative slant but there it is.