OK, so today's post is not about a classic, nor even a show I really--what's the word for it?--like, but what better way to get the blog going again than by exploring a mystery? Last time I did a "Missing in Action" post, I wondered why the "Carol Burnett Show" was absent from DVD and from the airwaves, and since then Time-Life stepped up and delivered a big box set. The complete series "Gimme a Break" is available on DVD, but through a Canadian company (it was too polite to leave fans hanging after the first seasons) , and it never seems to turn up in national syndication these days. I'm not sure why.
It was well regarded enough to be a constant in the 1980s and 1990s and I am sad to say, I watched it a lot. I watched it an awful lot considering I never even really liked it, and in fact, I grew to despise it in its later seasons. Yet I watched it first run, I watched a bunch of the reruns, and likely saw many episodes more than once. Why? Well, because it was on. I'm not trying to weasel out of admitting past enjoyment of the series--after all, really how much "cooler" is it to confess to consuming a ton of episodes of a program I didn't even like--but rather I think I genuinely just kind of...absorbed it.
You remember this sitcom, right? It was a Nell Carter vehicle all the way, a showcase for the multi-talented star of Broadway and other mediums. Of course, there was nothing "medium" about her presence on the small screen. (Hey, at least I avoided a cheap gag on "broad"). I could be imagining this, but I recall Carter as one of those performers who was always described as a "force of nature." Ever notice how that term is invariably used to describe someone who is fat and/or loud? Isn't nature ever subtle?
"Gimme a Break" stars Nell as a live-in housekeeper/cook/all-around busybody who somehow managed to find herself in situations in which she has to sing every other episode (much to my annoyance). Someone should apply the prodigious statistical analysis we see in baseball these days to a study comparing Carter on "Gimme a Break" with Linda Lavin on "Alice" to see who gets more singing time and is therefore more (or less, depending on your POV) valuable to her sitcom.
I know what you're thinking--Nell is a force of nature, sings--she's just playing herself. Nuh-uh. See, she is playing a woman named Nell Harper, not Nell Carter. Totally different.
Nell shares the screen with an assortment of precocious kids and seasoned hands like John Hoyt as the grandpa, Howard Morton as a bumbling policeman/friend of the family, and Telma Hopkins as Nell's best friend and former bandmate who also managed to gets in a lot of musical numbers (again, much to my annoyance--tell me again why the hell I watched this so often?), but the co-star is Dolph Sweet as the widower cop who hired Nell. Sweet was a solid pro who did the crusty but good-hearted lug thing well enough, and I remember his sudden passing was a shock. On the bright side, we never had to endure sexual tension between those two.
On the even darker side, though, his absence paves the way for more screen time for Joey Lawrence, plus the eventual ultimate shark-jumping moves like relocating the show in New York and adding an even more precocious kid, Matthew Lawrence. Oh, and might I mention that Rosie O'Donnell joins the series in the New York era? I'm certainly not selling this as one we're all gonna rally around and get back on TV.
If it sounds very generic/sitcommy, well, it is. The only memorable aspects of the series to me are the two distinct yet equally sassy theme songs (sung by Carter herself, natch), both of which ARE IN MY HEAD THIS VERY MOMENT FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER FOR MY ATTENTION, and the scenes in the opening credits of Nell vacuuming a goldfish and strangling a scale after measuring her weight.
Still, my personal taste aside--and as I keep saying, I did watch the show--it ran for 6 seasons and well over 100-some episodes, and those kinds of successful sitcoms don't tend to disappear like "Break" did. I'm not surprised that it hasn't been on TBS or something like that in years, but there are a lot of outlets gobbling up cheap retro product nowadays. Maybe the show isn't up to Nick at Nite's standards, but as an ethnically diverse family sitcom, it might have fit in at some point. I'm surprised African-American cable network TV One hasn't given it a shot. Hasbro's HUB network aired "Facts of Life" for a while and might have tried this one. Even the black-oriented subchannel Bounce doesn't air it.
As "Break" was a Universal show, perhaps NBC Universal's new Cozi subchannel will add it eventually. I'm not sure why it's such a forgotten series (yes, even though a few paragraphs ago I just said virtually nothing about it is memorable). It doesn't have a specter of tragedy to keep it in the public consciousness like "Diff'rent Strokes," but is it really so much weaker than "227" or "Amen?" Just because I am not a fan doesn't mean it shouldn't be on somewhere.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
This is what I'm talking about: Entertainment Weekly disses Tom Wopat
Is it a good sign that yesterday I said I wouldn't be writing much about "Entertainment Weekly" and now my first post back is about "Entertainment Weekly"?
Well, remember that you can't spell "credible" without "l-i-e," and besides, I want to make an important point this morning. I am as guilty as anyone of offering snark for its own sake, but in my defense, I am not a major global print magazine with circulations in the millions, and plus I want to cut way back on that sort of thing. Here is what I don't want to do: Go out of my way to dis a celebrity just because he's not "cool" anymore. If he's a jerk or if someone else is being delusional about it, maybe, but if there is no harm, why call foul?
Case in point: The other day I looked at "EW's" Bullseye column, the regular back page feature in which it stuffs lots of pictures and smart-ass text into one infographic that purports to tell us what's HIP and what's NOT HIP at the moment. I know I shouldn't get worked up about this--it's just what "EW" does, after all--but at the bottom left of the page, and therefore on the periphery of pop culture--see, what's relevant is in the center of the page--is a picture of Tom Wopat's album cover with an accompanying wisecracking caption calling him "obsolete."
OUCH! Does the guy really deserve that? I didn't even know the album existed until they decided to rip it. It's not like we had to sit through a big Super Bowl ad hyping it right after kickoff. Really, what has Tom Wopat ever done to hurt anyone, apart from a DUI arrest and arguably a tacit endorsement of racism through driving around with the Stars and Bars plastered on his roof?
You know what? Come to think of it, IS he obsolete? He's a steady presence in stage and screen, including, you know, actual Broadway plays and stuff. He's in "Django Unchained," for crying out loud! But in spite of an ample and expanding post-"Dukes" resume--heck, post-"Cybill," for that matter--, someone thought it would be funny to take the cheapest of cheap shots and make fun of this work for existing because, hey, it's Tom Wopat, and won't that be a riot?
This is snark for its own sake. Do I, a blogger with an often sarcastic bent, want to take these kinds of potshots at hard-working celebrities?
Well, yeah, sure, of course I do!
The thing is I want to do it in conversation, maybe a private e-mail, the occasional one-and-done skywriting excursion...not on my blog. In short, absent a larger purpose of some kind, I don't want to rip Tom Wopat just for being Tom Wopat...unless he joins the staff of "Entertainment Weekly." Then he's fair game.
[SIGH] Here I am complaining about "EW" already. It's only a matter of time before I share a gripe about RTV's weekend schedule, isn't it?
Well, remember that you can't spell "credible" without "l-i-e," and besides, I want to make an important point this morning. I am as guilty as anyone of offering snark for its own sake, but in my defense, I am not a major global print magazine with circulations in the millions, and plus I want to cut way back on that sort of thing. Here is what I don't want to do: Go out of my way to dis a celebrity just because he's not "cool" anymore. If he's a jerk or if someone else is being delusional about it, maybe, but if there is no harm, why call foul?
Case in point: The other day I looked at "EW's" Bullseye column, the regular back page feature in which it stuffs lots of pictures and smart-ass text into one infographic that purports to tell us what's HIP and what's NOT HIP at the moment. I know I shouldn't get worked up about this--it's just what "EW" does, after all--but at the bottom left of the page, and therefore on the periphery of pop culture--see, what's relevant is in the center of the page--is a picture of Tom Wopat's album cover with an accompanying wisecracking caption calling him "obsolete."
OUCH! Does the guy really deserve that? I didn't even know the album existed until they decided to rip it. It's not like we had to sit through a big Super Bowl ad hyping it right after kickoff. Really, what has Tom Wopat ever done to hurt anyone, apart from a DUI arrest and arguably a tacit endorsement of racism through driving around with the Stars and Bars plastered on his roof?
You know what? Come to think of it, IS he obsolete? He's a steady presence in stage and screen, including, you know, actual Broadway plays and stuff. He's in "Django Unchained," for crying out loud! But in spite of an ample and expanding post-"Dukes" resume--heck, post-"Cybill," for that matter--, someone thought it would be funny to take the cheapest of cheap shots and make fun of this work for existing because, hey, it's Tom Wopat, and won't that be a riot?
This is snark for its own sake. Do I, a blogger with an often sarcastic bent, want to take these kinds of potshots at hard-working celebrities?
Well, yeah, sure, of course I do!
The thing is I want to do it in conversation, maybe a private e-mail, the occasional one-and-done skywriting excursion...not on my blog. In short, absent a larger purpose of some kind, I don't want to rip Tom Wopat just for being Tom Wopat...unless he joins the staff of "Entertainment Weekly." Then he's fair game.
[SIGH] Here I am complaining about "EW" already. It's only a matter of time before I share a gripe about RTV's weekend schedule, isn't it?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
What I plan to do here
As I wrote yesterday, it's been a long time since I posted here. I was just looking at some of the regular features I used to run, and some of them seem impractical now. I enjoyed writing about trips to the bookstore, for example, but I don't make it out there as much anymore, and, let's face it, the bookstore might not be around much longer. I used to write a lot about magazines--remember those? In particular I blogged often about how silly "Entertainment Weekly" was, but while I still try to read it, I don't subscribe, and I don't think I'll be mustering too many posts about that. I was trying to find a way to write about music, but I just don't listen to it as much anymore unless it's a song my kids like hearing over and over again in the car (and over and over...again).
I spent a lot of time discussing the retro-oriented digital subchannels like RTV, and though I don't have that one anymore, I do have new ones like Cozi, Bounce, and soon ME-TV. Yet I can't work up too much righteous indignation about them. We know what we're getting: Heavily edited/time compressed classics with a mix of inane lifestyle programs or--hey, hold that thought; I might be working up a post about that after all.
My main emphasis on Cultureshark going forward is gonna be on the older stuff. It's harder for me to stay as current on modern pop culture these days, and there are plenty of other places that obsess over what's out there now and give you that perspective. My goal is when I DO post about modern stuff, I want to at least offer a different take or something halfway interesting--no writing about, say, the Grammys just to write about the Grammys.
As far as the old school, I love the classics and the un-classics, and I'm fascinated that I enjoy things from, to pick a year, 1957 that I might well dislike were they to appear in 2013. So I hope to explore that and bring a little irreverence to the approach without contributing to the vast amount of "snark for its own sake" out there in the mainstream as well as the Blogiverse. I want to have as much fun writing about the stuff as I do consuming it, and if you have a little fun reading about it here, then I think we're all getting it done.
And of course you'll see all kinds of self-indulgent posts (he wrote as if this very post wasn't proof of that) such as Half-Assed Gourmet and musings on other things in my daily life.
In the blog's previous incarnation, I used the Shark Bytes section on the right to throw out brief comments and "reviews" that didn't warrant a full post; I still plan to do so, but maybe more of the wise-ass comments will go on my Twitter feed (@Cultureshark), which you can now also see on the right, and the Bytes will be more of the reviews and recommendations. Shark Bytes and Twitter will be where I'll put a lot of my thoughts on modern TV, movies, etc. I'll try not to duplicate those feeds.
I will not be posting daily, and sometimes it might be more like weekly, but I do plan to maintain a regular presence here and make it worthwhile to follow me or at least check back here every now and then.
My sincere thanks to readers past, present, and future, and please give me your suggestions, ideas, and your 100% honest feedback--as long as it's 100% positive, of course.
Next post here will be actual content! In the works are some new recurring features, plus the debut of the Cultureshark Hall of Fame. Stay tuned, and thanks for reading.
I spent a lot of time discussing the retro-oriented digital subchannels like RTV, and though I don't have that one anymore, I do have new ones like Cozi, Bounce, and soon ME-TV. Yet I can't work up too much righteous indignation about them. We know what we're getting: Heavily edited/time compressed classics with a mix of inane lifestyle programs or--hey, hold that thought; I might be working up a post about that after all.
My main emphasis on Cultureshark going forward is gonna be on the older stuff. It's harder for me to stay as current on modern pop culture these days, and there are plenty of other places that obsess over what's out there now and give you that perspective. My goal is when I DO post about modern stuff, I want to at least offer a different take or something halfway interesting--no writing about, say, the Grammys just to write about the Grammys.
As far as the old school, I love the classics and the un-classics, and I'm fascinated that I enjoy things from, to pick a year, 1957 that I might well dislike were they to appear in 2013. So I hope to explore that and bring a little irreverence to the approach without contributing to the vast amount of "snark for its own sake" out there in the mainstream as well as the Blogiverse. I want to have as much fun writing about the stuff as I do consuming it, and if you have a little fun reading about it here, then I think we're all getting it done.
And of course you'll see all kinds of self-indulgent posts (he wrote as if this very post wasn't proof of that) such as Half-Assed Gourmet and musings on other things in my daily life.
In the blog's previous incarnation, I used the Shark Bytes section on the right to throw out brief comments and "reviews" that didn't warrant a full post; I still plan to do so, but maybe more of the wise-ass comments will go on my Twitter feed (@Cultureshark), which you can now also see on the right, and the Bytes will be more of the reviews and recommendations. Shark Bytes and Twitter will be where I'll put a lot of my thoughts on modern TV, movies, etc. I'll try not to duplicate those feeds.
I will not be posting daily, and sometimes it might be more like weekly, but I do plan to maintain a regular presence here and make it worthwhile to follow me or at least check back here every now and then.
My sincere thanks to readers past, present, and future, and please give me your suggestions, ideas, and your 100% honest feedback--as long as it's 100% positive, of course.
Next post here will be actual content! In the works are some new recurring features, plus the debut of the Cultureshark Hall of Fame. Stay tuned, and thanks for reading.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Where I've been
It's been well over and a year since I posted regularly, and some of you might be wondering what I was doing. What was I doing? What was I doing? Oh, ho, ho, what was I doing...
*I didn't attend the Oscars, but I watched a lot of Oscar Madison.
*I didn't go the Super Bowl, but I watched it on TV. Well, I missed most of the first half, but still. And I ate a lot of wings.
*I didn't record a hit album, but I listened to a lot of music. Of course, most of it consisted of the same few songs repeated over and over for my children's enjoyment.
*I didn't make a movie, but I saw a lot of movies. I didn't see many in theaters, but, what, my TV's not good enough? (Sorry, didn't mean to get confrontational there.)
*I didn't write any garbage for the Internet, but I changed a lot of diapers.
*I didn't write any books, but I read a lot--real ones, some even without pictures, as well as e-books.
I think what I'm trying to say is I've been busy. The next few months of my life are going to be hectic as well, but I'm committing to getting Cultureshark going again and achieving its rightful status as THE premier pop culture site published my me on the Internet.
Up next: A brief look at what you can expect from the blog, and then soon after that, hopefully I'll get around to putting some actual content up here.
*I didn't attend the Oscars, but I watched a lot of Oscar Madison.
*I didn't go the Super Bowl, but I watched it on TV. Well, I missed most of the first half, but still. And I ate a lot of wings.
*I didn't record a hit album, but I listened to a lot of music. Of course, most of it consisted of the same few songs repeated over and over for my children's enjoyment.
*I didn't make a movie, but I saw a lot of movies. I didn't see many in theaters, but, what, my TV's not good enough? (Sorry, didn't mean to get confrontational there.)
*I didn't write any garbage for the Internet, but I changed a lot of diapers.
*I didn't write any books, but I read a lot--real ones, some even without pictures, as well as e-books.
I think what I'm trying to say is I've been busy. The next few months of my life are going to be hectic as well, but I'm committing to getting Cultureshark going again and achieving its rightful status as THE premier pop culture site published my me on the Internet.
Up next: A brief look at what you can expect from the blog, and then soon after that, hopefully I'll get around to putting some actual content up here.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Well, were you watching this space?
Perhaps you should have been.
"But nothing happened," you might say. That's a reasonable response. But let me tell you something specific that did NOT happen here: The Ravens winning the Super Bo--uh, the "Big Game." Had you been watching this space on Sunday, you would not have seen ME do anything entertaining--nor anything at all, really--but you also would not have seen the Ravens win the game, and therefore you yourself would have been a big winner.
I guarantee you that you will never see the Baltimore Ravens win a football championship on this blog. In fact, let this site be a refuge where we can all gather from time to time and maybe pretend it didn't even happen.
If you do keep watching this space, soon you will see something worthwhile. Ah, there I go making promises I don't know that I can keep already.
If you do keep watching this space, soon you will see something.
"But nothing happened," you might say. That's a reasonable response. But let me tell you something specific that did NOT happen here: The Ravens winning the Super Bo--uh, the "Big Game." Had you been watching this space on Sunday, you would not have seen ME do anything entertaining--nor anything at all, really--but you also would not have seen the Ravens win the game, and therefore you yourself would have been a big winner.
I guarantee you that you will never see the Baltimore Ravens win a football championship on this blog. In fact, let this site be a refuge where we can all gather from time to time and maybe pretend it didn't even happen.
If you do keep watching this space, soon you will see something worthwhile. Ah, there I go making promises I don't know that I can keep already.
If you do keep watching this space, soon you will see something.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
