8:45 pm - FRI 7/19/02
The Critic's Corner

Recently, I checked volume 2 of The Watcher's Guide out from work (This is the 2nd "official companion" to Buffy The Vampire Slayer).

(I've rarely checked things out from work--which is a pretty good "perk" of the job, in my mind--because up till now, it's been a somewhat cumbersome process, and I was afraid of messing the books up and then having to buy them. But they've recently streamlined the check-out process, and well, if I can't read a book without getting crap on it at this stage my life, how sad is that?)

Like the "musical" episode (I was very leery when I first heard that was going to be done, but was totally won-over by the results), reading The Watcher's Guide (Vol 2)--basically a plot synopsis of each episode, a collection of quotes, along with bios and interviews of various cast and crew members--has had the effect of re-energizing me about what it is I want to do with myself out here.

I don't know if I'm going to get to be on "Buffy" itself--It's probably nearing the end of its run, so I'd better get a move-on if I am (I have sent them a headshot)--but the idea of being a part of something so good, so well written and acted, something that isn't just run-of-the-mill crap you've seen a million times before...well, that turns me on.

And I think that's something for me to remember, and to keep remembering; I fantasize about fame and fortune and all that, of course, and I want people to see my work and think I'm a really good actor, but what really matters is getting to make great stories come to life. In my heart-of-hearts, what I want to spend my life doing is giving people the same feelings I get when I see a great movie or play or tv show.

Sometimes I think I feel a sense of guilt , an embarrassment over what I want to do, that I don't want to admit to myself. Maybe that's another reason--In addition to the "fear" thing I've hashed over again and again in here--that I haven't gone at the acting thing more whole-heartedly since I've made the big move to LA.

Who am I, anyway, to want an audience of millions to watch me do anything? And how embarrassing is it, to have such a grotesque, oversized need for attention and acclaim? (I know--It would seem like I've pretty much admitted by now that I have a way-above-average desire to be watched and approved of. But that doesn't mean I'm still not embarrassed and uncomfortable about it.)

I was thinking about this, and it's not the first time, just the other day; Does it matter what your motivation is, if what you want to do is essentially a positive thing, or has positive results? If you're nice because you want people to like you--or at least not hurt you--but being nice makes other people's lives more pleasant and enjoyable, does it still "count"? Or more to the point, if you want to entertain people for a living, does it matter if you're doing it for yourself, for them, or some combination therein?

Because really, that's what's going on here. I am a sad little child, ignored and unloved, saying "lookatmelookatmelookatmelookatme...".

But that's not the whole picture.

It's not just "lookatmelookatmelookatmelookatme...", because if it were, any attention would do, and I wouldn't for a second relate my feelings as an audience member to your feelings as an audience member watching what I do. I don't just want you to "look at me", not anymore; I want to show you something, I want to share something with you. Something of myself, something of the story I've chosen to help tell. I want you to laugh, to cry, maybe to think differently, to feel differently.

And that's nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about.

_______________________________________

I've seen Will and Grace a number of times now.

I don't like it.

I think, being as objective as I can be, that it's a well-written, well-acted show. I just don't like it, and I'd say the main reason is that the supporting characters actively annoy me (For that matter, I don't like "Grace" all that much either, though I think Debra Messing is very attractive).

I don't really know quite how to proceed here, because I don't want to create the impression that I think everyone on tv has to be a nicey-nice, goody-two-shoes character, cause of course that would be pretty boring; There's no drama (or comedy, for that matter) in watching pleasant people be nice to each other.

But I think what bothers me about Will and Grace, as I perceive it anyway, is that characters who should be being held out as foolish, tactless, and generally unpleasant people, people to be laughed at instead of with, are instead presented to us as if we should enjoy their...I don't know what to call it--"bracing honesty"?

And at the risk of seeming homophobic, I've never really appreciated the whole bitchy/queeny/campy thing. Probably because I feel like I'm more likely the potential target of that humor than the one who's "in on the joke".

But really, it's more than that.

I remember a running sketch, on Saturday Night Live a few years back, that I thought said quite a bit about the changing tone of American humor; The first one I saw was a parody of Norma Rae, the movie that had Sally Field as a poor single woman who tries to organize a union in a Southern factory.

In the sketch, the "Norma Rae" character is trying to get her fellow coworkers to join the union, and to go out on strike. But she's not really much of a public speaker, it turns out, and the longer she talks, the more foolish she sounds. The management starts laughing at her, the coworkers break up and go back to their jobs on the line, and that's about it.

Either I didn't get the joke, or else I got it and didn't particularly like it (I think the latter).

What I got from that sketch, and the ones that followed (This was around the time SNL started perfecting the art of beating a one-joke premise to death), was that it was now not only "okay", but actually funny to make fun of "the little guy".

(And I can immediately think of three or four other "continuing sketches" that have the same premise--basically that "regular people are stupid".)

I don't tend to find that kind of thing funny. I don't even think that's what humor is supposed to be about; It's like taking karate lessons so you can go out and mug defenseless old ladies (I'm suddenly brought to mind of Andrew "Dice" Clay some years back, the supposed "comic", patron saint of racists, homophobes, and misogynists).

Will and Grace I'm sure isn't about hating anybody, or being "against the little guy", exactly, but I just find it too "mean-spirited", with characters that are, for my taste, too shallow and unlikeable by half, to be something that I need to watch.

_______________________________________

I know I'm coming pretty late to this party, but since it went into syndication, I've become a big fan of Everybody Loves Raymond.

I don't think I've seen an episode yet where I didn't laugh out loud a number of times.

I like that it's a vehicle centered around a standup who's actually funny--and a really good comic actor, in my opinion--where everyone gets a chance to be funny (I'm especially partial to "Robert"--Brad Garrett--because, like Ray himself, he's just inherently funny, between his mournful voice, hangdog expression, and the great lines he gets to say). And my sense of it, as an outsider, a

"cultural anthropologist", if you will, is that this is a pretty good representation of how the people you love, your family, can just drive you crazy.

(Interestingly enough, the character I probably find least funny is the dad, played by Peter Boyle. But I don't think he's set up, by and large, as a character we admire for his "honesty"; I think we're supposed to be amused-but- appalled by him.)

_______________________________________

I probably shouldn't be commenting on this show, because I haven't even seen it, but I was thinking about American Idol the other day...

Basically, it's a talent show, where a panel of judges pick "finalists" each week, and eventually we get down to the big winner, who wins, I think, a cash prize and a big record contract.

So what's my problem, you ask?

It's another "sign of the times"; Unlike "Star Search" years back, which was just a cheesy talent show, the main thing I think we're supposed to get from American Idol is a vicarious thrill from watching the British record exec (I can't think of his name at the moment), viciously rip on the contestants/losers (You're hearing a lot more about him in the media than you are about any of the contestants/losers).

For me, the whole "reality" thing has ultimately been a big waste of time and airspace. And worse than that, just another sign that the world's going to hell-in-a-handbasket.

I watched the first season of Survivor and Big Brother, and it turned out I was more than a little naive; I actually thought that the first Survivor, for example, was going to be won by the best person, the one who demonstrated the most impressive combination of survival and "interpersonal" skills.

But beyond my obvious naivete, and my disappointment that all these shows seem to do is bring out the worst in people (And appeal to the worst in the viewing audience), probably my biggest problem with "reality" programming is that it's boring; Once I'd seen a season of Survivor, I felt like I'd been disillusioned enough by humanity and could skip the following seasons (It only takes one episode of certain shows for me to reach the conclusion that I don't need to see more. Jerry Springer and Fear Factor immediately come to mind).

I don't think you have to get a big "lesson" from everything you watch on tv, and I think there's a place for crap (Baywatch was not great art, by any stretch, but I don't think it really hurt anyone either). But I guess I don't want to watch tv and come away liking people just that much less than I did before turning on the set.

_______________________________________

Saw Road To Perdition this afternoon...

I thought it was a good movie. It was maybe the best-looking movie I've seen this year, one of those films where every frame is a wonderfully composed work of art.

And it's pretty hard to go too far wrong with your leads (After the movie, I found myself thinking, as I have before, about how easy Paul Newman makes it look. That's why it took so long for the Academy to pay any attention to him; If you make it look too easy--And in Newman's case, not just "easy", but effortless-- even people who should know better tend to say, "Oh, he's just playing himself...").

But while I thought it looked great, and was very well-acted by all concerned, I didn't think it was a great movie, because there just wasn't enough there there. The story line was very basic, there wasn't a second in the movie you couldn't see coming, and, for my money at least, the climax rang patently false (And I'd tell you why, but I don't want to spoil the "surprise" for you...though if you see the movie and are surprised, I'd have to guess that you're either not too bright, or else you've never seen a movie before).

I don't regret that I went, because I did enjoy the movie. But it's not nearly the "great" movie it wants to be.

_______________________________________

And that's about it from "The Critic's Corner" (I started thinking yesterday that I wanted to write an entry specifically about some of my thoughts on tv and movies...and here we are).

previous - next