I remember when I used to be a big fan of Fox programming. "The Simpsons," "Married with Children"...The network promoted itself as an edgy alternative, and it really was! It was so edgy and alternative that I sat through shows that weren't either of those things, like "Duet," and didn't hold it against anybody. Now that I think about it, this outfit also brought us off-Showtime versions of "It's Garry Shandling's Show" and "Get a Life." Man, it's no wonder I used to love Fox.
Years later, after enduring hours of annoying sports coverage and witnessing the "American Idol" and Seth MacFarlane takeover, plus the slow decline of "The Simpsons," I don't really watch a lot on that network. When I do, it gets retooled and ruined--see "The Human Target"--or just plain canned--see "The Chicago Code." So while don't see a lot of "Arrested Developments" on the announced fall schedule, I don't see "Chicago Code," either, and that kind of angers me. So I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for this lineup.
The biggest deals are "X-Factor," a talent show deal from Simon Cowell, and "Terra Nova." If I never got into "Idol," why would I get into "Factor," and as for Steven Spielberg's "Nova," yeah, it's being hyped already, but I can't quell my own irrational suspicion that it's never going to actually air. I also have a more rational suspicion that even if it does, it'll stink.
"Raising Hope"? Pass. "House"? Pass. "Glee"? Throw a 50-yard bomb into the Atlantic Ocean and don't give it a life preserver.
There are a few new sitcoms, too, but I'm at the point now where I almost don't want to give comedies on Fox a shot. I mean, all the half-hour shows they've tried in recent years, some of them promising, and "Raising Hope" is the one that sticks? So even though one of them has Cutty from "The Wire," I'm not too eager to try the new comedies.
So, Fox, good luck and all, but your hits are aging, and it's been a long time since you really enthused me. And by the way, I still think you're not a true network until you try to program the 10:00 hour.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Brooks on Books: Tennis, Anyone?
I consider myself a casual tennis fan these days, someone who hasn't played in way too long but wishes he did and someone who constantly wishes he followed the sport a little more closely than he does. Here are a few book recommendations for you fans to check out in between French Open matches:
Hardcourt Confidential by Patrick McEnroe (with Peter Bodo) sounds like it's going to tear the lid off professional tennis, but it's not really that kind of book. P-Mac is candid and willing to criticize players like Serena Williams where it's warranted, and he does offer an inside look at the game, but it's not a gossipy tell-all.
Instead, it's a fine blend of memoir, analysis of the sport, and in-depth look at certain aspects of tennis that don't get a lot of mainstream media coverage. Most significant is McEnroe's exploration of the Davis Cup. Drawing on his experience as a player and captain, he really covers the competition from all angles. His stories about managing players and personalities offer a side of tennis I hadn't read much about. Since I have fond childhood memories of watching USA Davis Cup performances on ESPN, I loved that the book spent so much time on this subject.
McEnroe also covers his own career as player, broadcaster, USTA official, and, yes, he talks plenty about brother John as well. He doesn't air out much dirty laundry, but he does offer glimpses into what it's like to play in John's shadow and also to play against him and with him in doubles. I even enjoyed reading about his stint as a regular on Don Imus' radio show. Throughout, possibly aided by noted tennis writer Bodo, he comes off as a straight shooter and a heck of a guy, and this book should delight aficionados of the game, though fans more casual than myself might not get as wrapped up in the Davis Cup stuff. It saddens me that the event doesn't mean more right now in this country, but I'm just saying.
A Terrible Splendor by Marshall Jon Fisher is also pretty hardcore tennis from a historic perspective. Speaking of Davis Cup, Fisher tells in great detail the saga of an epic 5-set semifinal match in a USA vs. Germany contest played at Wimbledon in 1937. Fisher does not merely relate the story of this particular event, though he does cover that in exciting fashion. He offers mini-biographies of players Gottfried Von Cramm and Don Budge (you can probably guess which guy represents which country), offers basic overviews of tennis history and especially Davis Cup history, and, oh, by the way, takes us into the turmoil created by the rise of Nazi Germany.
It's testament to Fisher's skill that he combines all these aspects while maintaining the narrative suspense and building up to the conclusion of the match. There are basically 5 chapters, "Set One, Set Two," and so on, and Fishers uses each set as a springboard to go back and fill in all of the other stories. The event itself is a big deal, as it means a lot to all the participants and their home countries. Davis Cup was a much bigger part of the national consciousness in 1937, as Fisher shows. And while it may be overstating things to say Von Cramm was "playing for his life" against the legendary Budge, well...I don't want to give much away, as I think the story is more compelling if you know few of the details, but Von Cramm certainly felt the pressure of essentially representing the Nazi regime, and the lengthy "Aftermatch" section of the book is just as engrossing as the rest.
My quibble with "Splendor" is that because Fisher jumps back and forth in time, the text confuses sometimes. I grew up loving and studying baseball history, so I can follow an account of, say, the late 1970s when the Yankees seemed to face the Royals and the Dodgers ever year in the playoffs, and not feel my head explode. However, the highest levels of the 1930s featured many matches with the same players going at each other in similar circumstances, and while Fisher does his best to differentiate and lay it out with clarity, it is easy to feel a little bogged down when reading and going to this Wimbledon or this Davis Cup with these same guys playing in the semis or in the finals or whatever.
Another interesting thing is that even as Fisher makes Von Cramm and Budge come alive, the most interesting figure in the book remains Big Bill Tilden, who plays a surprising but key part in "Splendor" and steals the show, especially if you're not familar with the particulars of his life. You come away wanting to read a more in-depth biography of THAT guy--"And guess who wrote a big bio of Bill Tilden," said Frank Deford with an evil twirl of his mustache!
McEnroe's book reveals his love of and respect for tennis and shows his commitment to it, but it does sometimes feel a bit breezy; Fisher's work just feels weightier. After all, we have Nazis and politics and history and everything. Each book deserves a big recommendation for serious tennis fans; the more casual ones may want to be a little more careful. I'll say this, though: If you're interested enough in the sport to want to read a book about it, you should get a lot out of each one. Fisher's has enough general and social history to perhaps be of more interest to those who aren't huge fans, but it is loaded with enough detail to satisfy those who are.
Hardcourt Confidential by Patrick McEnroe (with Peter Bodo) sounds like it's going to tear the lid off professional tennis, but it's not really that kind of book. P-Mac is candid and willing to criticize players like Serena Williams where it's warranted, and he does offer an inside look at the game, but it's not a gossipy tell-all.
Instead, it's a fine blend of memoir, analysis of the sport, and in-depth look at certain aspects of tennis that don't get a lot of mainstream media coverage. Most significant is McEnroe's exploration of the Davis Cup. Drawing on his experience as a player and captain, he really covers the competition from all angles. His stories about managing players and personalities offer a side of tennis I hadn't read much about. Since I have fond childhood memories of watching USA Davis Cup performances on ESPN, I loved that the book spent so much time on this subject.
McEnroe also covers his own career as player, broadcaster, USTA official, and, yes, he talks plenty about brother John as well. He doesn't air out much dirty laundry, but he does offer glimpses into what it's like to play in John's shadow and also to play against him and with him in doubles. I even enjoyed reading about his stint as a regular on Don Imus' radio show. Throughout, possibly aided by noted tennis writer Bodo, he comes off as a straight shooter and a heck of a guy, and this book should delight aficionados of the game, though fans more casual than myself might not get as wrapped up in the Davis Cup stuff. It saddens me that the event doesn't mean more right now in this country, but I'm just saying.
A Terrible Splendor by Marshall Jon Fisher is also pretty hardcore tennis from a historic perspective. Speaking of Davis Cup, Fisher tells in great detail the saga of an epic 5-set semifinal match in a USA vs. Germany contest played at Wimbledon in 1937. Fisher does not merely relate the story of this particular event, though he does cover that in exciting fashion. He offers mini-biographies of players Gottfried Von Cramm and Don Budge (you can probably guess which guy represents which country), offers basic overviews of tennis history and especially Davis Cup history, and, oh, by the way, takes us into the turmoil created by the rise of Nazi Germany.
It's testament to Fisher's skill that he combines all these aspects while maintaining the narrative suspense and building up to the conclusion of the match. There are basically 5 chapters, "Set One, Set Two," and so on, and Fishers uses each set as a springboard to go back and fill in all of the other stories. The event itself is a big deal, as it means a lot to all the participants and their home countries. Davis Cup was a much bigger part of the national consciousness in 1937, as Fisher shows. And while it may be overstating things to say Von Cramm was "playing for his life" against the legendary Budge, well...I don't want to give much away, as I think the story is more compelling if you know few of the details, but Von Cramm certainly felt the pressure of essentially representing the Nazi regime, and the lengthy "Aftermatch" section of the book is just as engrossing as the rest.
My quibble with "Splendor" is that because Fisher jumps back and forth in time, the text confuses sometimes. I grew up loving and studying baseball history, so I can follow an account of, say, the late 1970s when the Yankees seemed to face the Royals and the Dodgers ever year in the playoffs, and not feel my head explode. However, the highest levels of the 1930s featured many matches with the same players going at each other in similar circumstances, and while Fisher does his best to differentiate and lay it out with clarity, it is easy to feel a little bogged down when reading and going to this Wimbledon or this Davis Cup with these same guys playing in the semis or in the finals or whatever.
Another interesting thing is that even as Fisher makes Von Cramm and Budge come alive, the most interesting figure in the book remains Big Bill Tilden, who plays a surprising but key part in "Splendor" and steals the show, especially if you're not familar with the particulars of his life. You come away wanting to read a more in-depth biography of THAT guy--"And guess who wrote a big bio of Bill Tilden," said Frank Deford with an evil twirl of his mustache!
McEnroe's book reveals his love of and respect for tennis and shows his commitment to it, but it does sometimes feel a bit breezy; Fisher's work just feels weightier. After all, we have Nazis and politics and history and everything. Each book deserves a big recommendation for serious tennis fans; the more casual ones may want to be a little more careful. I'll say this, though: If you're interested enough in the sport to want to read a book about it, you should get a lot out of each one. Fisher's has enough general and social history to perhaps be of more interest to those who aren't huge fans, but it is loaded with enough detail to satisfy those who are.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
First Impulse: What the networks are doing this fall: The CW
For the next week or so, I'm going to share some quick initial reactions to the news coming out of last week's upfront presentations, when TV networks shared their plans for the fall. What shows are coming back? What news shows can we expect? I don't intend to provide any kind of comprehensive report on that. Instead, here are some things that stand out for me.
I start this series with the CW, and the reason I start with the CW is because I can fill post space with my introductory spiel and not have to fill it talking about the "almost a real network" network. I don't take the CW seriously, not being a teenage girl, but if you do, hey, no offense. I just don't watch any of its shows regularly and haven't done so for years. And though I am indeed a boy, I'm not a fanboy, at least not of the "Buffy" variety, so the presence of a new Sarah Michelle Gellar show ("Ringer") does not interest me.
Among returning shows, well, apparently everything is returning. What does it take to get rid of some of these stalwarts? "One Tree Hill" will surpass "Gunsmoke" and "Law and Order" as the longest-running primetime network TV show this year, while "Supernatural," of course, has already broken the record for longest-running show about brothers investigating stuff, beating "The Hardy Boys" and "Simon and Simon."
There's a new show coming called "H8R," in which celebrities are paired with and try to win over civilian detractors. What a terrible idea. The only way I'd watch this is if the celebrities totally acted like jerks and tried to show up the "regular folks" using the advantages of their fame and wealth. And of course, I hate this show already just because of the title. I see enough license plates on my commute to work without seeing them in the TV listings, too.
I start this series with the CW, and the reason I start with the CW is because I can fill post space with my introductory spiel and not have to fill it talking about the "almost a real network" network. I don't take the CW seriously, not being a teenage girl, but if you do, hey, no offense. I just don't watch any of its shows regularly and haven't done so for years. And though I am indeed a boy, I'm not a fanboy, at least not of the "Buffy" variety, so the presence of a new Sarah Michelle Gellar show ("Ringer") does not interest me.
Among returning shows, well, apparently everything is returning. What does it take to get rid of some of these stalwarts? "One Tree Hill" will surpass "Gunsmoke" and "Law and Order" as the longest-running primetime network TV show this year, while "Supernatural," of course, has already broken the record for longest-running show about brothers investigating stuff, beating "The Hardy Boys" and "Simon and Simon."
There's a new show coming called "H8R," in which celebrities are paired with and try to win over civilian detractors. What a terrible idea. The only way I'd watch this is if the celebrities totally acted like jerks and tried to show up the "regular folks" using the advantages of their fame and wealth. And of course, I hate this show already just because of the title. I see enough license plates on my commute to work without seeing them in the TV listings, too.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
"Easy A" and "Salt" (now on Instant Watching, I might add)
Recent additions to Netflix streaming and to Starz as well (no coincidence, that, due to the deal the two companies have) are these two female-fronted 2010 movies. I really liked one, and the other--well, I could barely stay awake for it.
That's not necessarily an indictment in and of itself. Since the birth of my newest child, I've found myself dozing off in my easy chair even during movies and TV shows I love. So if something is weak or just bland, well, it hardly stands a chance.
Let's start with the snoozer first, Angelina Jolie's "Salt." Well, Philip Noyce directed it, but the movie is all about her, right? That's how it was marketed, too. I used to be a big fan of Angelina Jolie, Action Star--hell, I paid to see BOTH "Tomb Raider movies." But now--forgive me--she just isn't what she used to be for whatever reason, and she is no longer the credible ass kicker (OK, credible in a movie way) she used to be. Nor does she have the "Hey, ogle me" aura she did then.
So, yeah, when I sit down to watch "Salt," I'm expecting a good story, and it just never comes together. I somehow guessed a major plot development, one that's supposed to be a big deal, very, very early, and I'm never good at that sort of thing. I don't think it makes the movie terrible per se, but discerning it so early lessened my enjoyment of "Salt." Just a generic action/thriller that barely--and I mean barely--kept me awake. Come to think, it wasn't the movie that kept me awake as much as the beverage.
"Easy A," however, is a delight, a testament to the charm and charisma of Emma Stone. Stone is a highlight of films like "Superbad" and "The House Bunny," but here she proves she can carry a movie. I look forward to seeing more of her in these kind of light but intelligent roles.
Not that "Easy A" is the most sophisticated of screen comedies--it kind of beats the "Scarlet Letter" connection over your head so you understand the inspiration for the plot, for one thing. I found myself straining to buy that plot, in fact, in which Stone agrees to let a fellow student claim he had sex with her, but then escalates it as other credibility-seeking boys make deals with her to get her approval to say that they did it. There's probably some commentary in here about why guys can get away with this but Stone's character is labeled a slut, but the story is much more straightforward than a treatise on social mores. Stone IS ostracized, though, in a way that doesn't really ring true with me. More importantly, it's hard to believe Stone would take this as far as she does.
Straining to accept the story is worth it, though, because there is a lot of humor in the screenplay as well as a solid effort, often successful, to infuse heart. Some of the adults are as misguided here as the kids, and I like the way the movie sort of attempts to show the messiness of relationships and sexual politics. Stone's parents, played by Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson, are almost but not quite over the top in their kindness and accessibility, and it's nice to see them have fun as a loving couple that stands in stark contrast to some of the other selfish men and women who populate the movie.
It's funny, ultimately you feel good about most of what's going on, and Stone is great. I saw "Easy A" on video, but it's probably the kind of movie you can revisit on cable, or Netflix, with ease and get something out of it each time.
That's not necessarily an indictment in and of itself. Since the birth of my newest child, I've found myself dozing off in my easy chair even during movies and TV shows I love. So if something is weak or just bland, well, it hardly stands a chance.
Let's start with the snoozer first, Angelina Jolie's "Salt." Well, Philip Noyce directed it, but the movie is all about her, right? That's how it was marketed, too. I used to be a big fan of Angelina Jolie, Action Star--hell, I paid to see BOTH "Tomb Raider movies." But now--forgive me--she just isn't what she used to be for whatever reason, and she is no longer the credible ass kicker (OK, credible in a movie way) she used to be. Nor does she have the "Hey, ogle me" aura she did then.
So, yeah, when I sit down to watch "Salt," I'm expecting a good story, and it just never comes together. I somehow guessed a major plot development, one that's supposed to be a big deal, very, very early, and I'm never good at that sort of thing. I don't think it makes the movie terrible per se, but discerning it so early lessened my enjoyment of "Salt." Just a generic action/thriller that barely--and I mean barely--kept me awake. Come to think, it wasn't the movie that kept me awake as much as the beverage.
"Easy A," however, is a delight, a testament to the charm and charisma of Emma Stone. Stone is a highlight of films like "Superbad" and "The House Bunny," but here she proves she can carry a movie. I look forward to seeing more of her in these kind of light but intelligent roles.
Not that "Easy A" is the most sophisticated of screen comedies--it kind of beats the "Scarlet Letter" connection over your head so you understand the inspiration for the plot, for one thing. I found myself straining to buy that plot, in fact, in which Stone agrees to let a fellow student claim he had sex with her, but then escalates it as other credibility-seeking boys make deals with her to get her approval to say that they did it. There's probably some commentary in here about why guys can get away with this but Stone's character is labeled a slut, but the story is much more straightforward than a treatise on social mores. Stone IS ostracized, though, in a way that doesn't really ring true with me. More importantly, it's hard to believe Stone would take this as far as she does.
Straining to accept the story is worth it, though, because there is a lot of humor in the screenplay as well as a solid effort, often successful, to infuse heart. Some of the adults are as misguided here as the kids, and I like the way the movie sort of attempts to show the messiness of relationships and sexual politics. Stone's parents, played by Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson, are almost but not quite over the top in their kindness and accessibility, and it's nice to see them have fun as a loving couple that stands in stark contrast to some of the other selfish men and women who populate the movie.
It's funny, ultimately you feel good about most of what's going on, and Stone is great. I saw "Easy A" on video, but it's probably the kind of movie you can revisit on cable, or Netflix, with ease and get something out of it each time.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
My wife reads "People" so you don't have to
If there's one issue of "People" magazine I look forward to reading by accident only because my wife left it laying around as opposed to actually sitting down and deliberately perusing it because, hey, I never do that, it's the "Most Beautiful Person" issue. This year, I stumbled on the mag, which anointed Jennifer Lopez, and was prepared to go through and take exception to their ratings.
Only there is no ranking. It's J-Lo is the Goddess, and here are some features on other beautiful women. I guess I was confusing "People" with "Maxim," and let me tell you, sometimes I wish my wife would confuse the two because often I'd rather see the latter in my house, BUT she never does.
So I really have nothing more to say about this year's edition.
However, I also accidentally read the May 2 issue, and I took note of the upbeat profile of legendary soul diva Aretha Franklin, who appears to be on the mend after suffering from unspecified "serious health problems" last year. Aretha is still mum about what major surgery she had--she denies the gastric bypass rumors--but she is lighter, healthier, and rarin' to go. Why, just look at this quote about her bucket list that closes the article:
"And she jokes about one last entry on it: sticking around long enough to make the 'Today' show's centenarian segment. 'I'll be at least 100,' she says, 'and Al Roker will be bent over there, showing my picture!'"
Putting aside the horror of reading any sentence including the phrase "Al Roker will be bent over," I think we should applaud the Queen of Soul. It's an inspiration to all of us that at her advanced age, after everything that this woman has accomplished, she still has such lofty goals.
Only there is no ranking. It's J-Lo is the Goddess, and here are some features on other beautiful women. I guess I was confusing "People" with "Maxim," and let me tell you, sometimes I wish my wife would confuse the two because often I'd rather see the latter in my house, BUT she never does.
So I really have nothing more to say about this year's edition.
However, I also accidentally read the May 2 issue, and I took note of the upbeat profile of legendary soul diva Aretha Franklin, who appears to be on the mend after suffering from unspecified "serious health problems" last year. Aretha is still mum about what major surgery she had--she denies the gastric bypass rumors--but she is lighter, healthier, and rarin' to go. Why, just look at this quote about her bucket list that closes the article:
"And she jokes about one last entry on it: sticking around long enough to make the 'Today' show's centenarian segment. 'I'll be at least 100,' she says, 'and Al Roker will be bent over there, showing my picture!'"
Putting aside the horror of reading any sentence including the phrase "Al Roker will be bent over," I think we should applaud the Queen of Soul. It's an inspiration to all of us that at her advanced age, after everything that this woman has accomplished, she still has such lofty goals.
Monday, May 23, 2011
I sure showed THEM
So I believe it was at the beginning of the second season of "Chuck" or thereabouts when I saw the weak ratings for the show and bailed on it. Why invest an hour a week in a series that wasn't gonna make it till the end of the year? My wife kept up with most episodes, but I haven't seen a full episode since.
Well, here we are in 2011, NBC just announced its fall schedule, and look what show is returning for its fifth season: "Chuck."
Yep, I really showed NBC a lesson by refusing to watch the show they were gonna cancel. And it's a good thing I didn't wrapped up in it and sit through all those dozens of episodes only to have the rug yanked out from under me a mere 4 years later!
In fairness to myself, the ratings for the show remained weak and still are; only NBC's general ineptitude has kept "Chuck" from a proverbial dirt nap. Also, from what I understand, the show has made enough changes and emphasized enough things I'd rather it wouldn't, that I'm really not broken up about "missing out" on the last few seasons of what I considered an entertaining series but never appointment television.
Still, I do feel kind of foolish.
Well, here we are in 2011, NBC just announced its fall schedule, and look what show is returning for its fifth season: "Chuck."
Yep, I really showed NBC a lesson by refusing to watch the show they were gonna cancel. And it's a good thing I didn't wrapped up in it and sit through all those dozens of episodes only to have the rug yanked out from under me a mere 4 years later!
In fairness to myself, the ratings for the show remained weak and still are; only NBC's general ineptitude has kept "Chuck" from a proverbial dirt nap. Also, from what I understand, the show has made enough changes and emphasized enough things I'd rather it wouldn't, that I'm really not broken up about "missing out" on the last few seasons of what I considered an entertaining series but never appointment television.
Still, I do feel kind of foolish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
