US TV

Third-episode verdict: Life

The Carusometer for Life2-Partial-Caruso

Life is here and it’s pretty much as it”s always been. All TV detectives need a niche: Columbo was the working-class detective; Morse was the crossword-solving detective; Richard Griffiths was the pie-eating detective; and so on.

Life, looking for its niche, has opted for an amalgam: on the one-hand, Damian Lewis is the Zen detective. He doesn’t necessarily want answers, since there are no answers, only questions. But on the other hand, he also wants to kick the asses of those m*th*rs who framed him and put him in prison for over a decade.

It’s an odd hybrid, no?

It’s also a little slow. Much like the Comic Strip Presents…‘ gourmet detective (two recipes and a murder each episode), we have one crime (usually a murder) and a little bit of the over-arching “kick their asses” plot each episode. The crime, like Raines before it, is never that spectacular but is instead supposed to make you think about life, victims and so on. The “kick their asses” plot is very much a drip, drip endeavour, with bare minimum amounts creeping out each episode.

There are a few of sparks of life in it: Adam Arkin continues to be of interest as the comedy relief former prisonmate who now handles Lewis’ books – it’s good to have some sort of personality to the show, when Lewis is busy trying to destroy his own; Lewis’ occasional relapse into prison behaviour; and the show’s general smartness, with the episodes all at least pleasantly thoughtful.

However, much like a long dose of meditation, it’s very possible to fall asleep during Life, something that almost happened to me during the third episode, which crossed from thoughtful into merely boring. So you’re going to need to be in your happy place to find joy in it, I suspect.

The Medium is Not Enough declares Life a two or “Partial Caruso” on The Carusometer quality scale. A Partial Caruso corresponds to “a show with two walk-on cameos by David Caruso as Buddhist detective. After unnecessarily shaving his head, he’ll snarl all his koens, eventually trying to ad lib the phrase ‘What’s the sound of one finger pulling a trigger in the woods?’. Fortunately, the producers confuse him by telling him that ‘Water which is too pure has no fish’, forcing him to leave the set while he tries to find a salmon and a Brita water filter and leaving them the chance to hire someone else.”

Third-episode verdict: Moonlight

Sophia Myles might not be coming home just yet. Despite an exceedingly poor first episode, Moonlight has been steadily improving over the last few episodes and its ratings have been holding up, too. There are a few touches of originality creeping in and the format is still undergoing plenty of mutations.

So The Carusometer and I are holding off until the fifth episode for now. We’ll let you know the final verdict in a fortnight.

Film

Odd film marketing: Sweet Home Alabama

Not exactly the most recent film, I know, but for some reason, the movie crossed my mind this weekend and I just thought I’d draw your attention to the odd way Sweet Home Alabama was marketed in France. Here are the US poster and French poster for said movie. Click to make them bigger.

Sweet Home AlabamaFashion Victime

The movie was about a New York fashion designer, originally from Alabama, who returns home and finds love. The name is a cash-in on a well-known song by litle-known band Lynyrd Skynyrd. The US tag line is “Sometimes what we’re looking for is right where we left it.”

In France, the movie had something of a revamp. It got a new name, Fashion Victime, presumably because the song was unknown in France. But you don’t need me to tell you it means either “fashion victim” or potentially “victim of fashion” if you take into account the rest of the poster, which suggests something quite different.

We’ve also lost the original US tagline in favour of “no boys allowed” in a lipstick kiss and “The romantic comedy number one at the US box office”.

So on the left, we have a fashionable woman returning home with her bags and dog to find love; on the right, we have a fashionable woman with shopping bags, luggage and a dog, doing girly things. We’ve gone from a movie that’s a sort of a rom-com but basically a vehicle for Reese Witherspoon to a bit of on-screen chick-lit allegedly about a shopaholic.

Trouble is, the movie didn’t change for French audiences, so they still got the original movie, even if they thought they were going to see something a bit more frothy.

Incidentally, the “number one at the US box office” tagline that gets inserted on so many posters is meaningless. I’ve seen in on posters for movies that haven’t even been released in the US yet. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Next time, I’ll try to hunt down a copy of the UK promo poster for Long Kiss Goodnight, which had some of the worst Photoshopping ever. Geena Davis’s head wasn’t even attached to her body!

News

Monday’s dirty beast news

David TennantDavid Tennant again

Because you need it



Doctor Who

  • Torchwood goes filming in the Rhondda
  • Peter Davison “too tubby” to wear his original costume for Comic Relief
  • Mackenzie Crook willing to take over from David Tennant if asked

Film

Invasive intrusions into people’s personal lives

British TV

US TV

  • Lipstick Jungle recasts: Paul Blackthorne now Brooke Shields’ husband
  • David Simon to make HBO series about musicians in New Orleans
  • Old people ejected from Jericho
  • Al Gough discusses things coming up on Smallville [spoilers]
  • First ep of Women’s Murder Club does well in the ratings
  • George Lucas looking for writers for Star Wars TV series
  • TV Land to stream Andy Griffith, Gunsmoke and Leave It To Beaver
  • Parker Posey’s new show cut from 13 to seven episodes
  • Patrick Swayze to star in A&E pilot, The Beast, about unorthodox FBI vet. No, not that sort
  • Will Smith turning Hitch into a sitcom
US TV

Third-episode verdict: Dirty Sexy Money

The Carusometer for Dirty Sexy Money2-Partial-Caruso

Does a show that aspires to be intelligent need to have a message? Does the author/auteur behind it need to tell us something about life, the universe and everything and does that need to be something we probably wouldn’t have worked out for ourselves?

There’s a considerable camp that thinks the answer to both questions is ‘yes’. Is it true though? Can’t we just enjoy a show without being told something? If the audience is looking for intelligent drama and therefore likely to be composed of intelligent people, is there likely to be a message that an intelligent drama could bring to the audience that it doesn’t know already?

It’s a vexing issue, probably best solved by a man of letters such as Christopher Hitchens, rather than me, someone who’s watched too much television for his own good and has probably got brain rot by now. I can tell which cycle of America’s Next Top Model is on Living TV, simply through the set decoration and end theme music of the episode. Mr Hitchens I am not.

I think it’s also fair to say that the producers of Dirty Sexy Money are not peers of Christopher Hitchens either, because they’re not sure of the answers. They’re fudging the issue. They want to imply there’s a message to the show. Maybe it’s that rich people are complicated and weird and different and spoilt. Maybe it’s that they’re just like you and me. Maybe it’s learn to accept yourself and others’ eccentricities if you want to achieve nirvana.

Whether they’re pointing they’re finger like gawpers at a trust fund freak show or simply Buddhist playwrights in disguise, the producers are hoping that by sticking with some of the conventions of intelligent drama and hoping we’ll stick around while they try to work out their message or lack thereof, that they will be producing an intelligent drama that smart, advertiser-friendly, affluent people want to watch. As Hannibal Lecktor used to say in Manhunter, if one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is – that is, if you act like you’re producing an intelligent drama for long enough, you will actually end up producing an intelligent drama. Of course, good old Hannibal was talking about killing people because God clearly enjoys doing it so much Himself, but the principle applies.

Whether Dirty Sexy Money is actually an intelligent drama or not is unclear. It’s certainly not stupid. It has a good cast, with Donald Sutherland particularly fine as you’d expect, BrianPeter Krause doing a good job of holding everything together, and William Baldwin now scaring me with how similar he is to his brother Alec when playing rich people. It has relatively interesting plots, even if does seem like each episode is like a serialised version of Treasure Hunt, with BrianPeter Krause getting a new clue at the end that takes him off on another exploration of his dad’s possible murder the following week. It’s also quite funny, with good dialogue and the occasional twist of farce.

But I’m just not sure if there’s much point to it. None of the characters are ones you can really identify with, with the possible exception of Krause’s. They’re not really representative of real rich people or in fact any other human beings on this planet, as far as I can work out. And as of yet, there’s no real exploration of these fake people anyway: we’re just supposed to marvel at their antics, rather than find out what truly makes them tick.

It’s like a comedy-drama sudoku, a puzzle that needs to be solved for no real reason other than it passes the time. It’s a well-executed puzzle, but it doesn’t really grab me emotionally. I’m probably going to carry on watching for a while, since I like BrianPeter Krause and I like sudokus, but I could quite easily drop it from schedules without missing it, I suspect.

So it turns out there needs to be a point to drama, but only as long as it’s because you don’t care enough about the characters to watch because of them. Blimey. I am Christopher Hitchens after all. Where’s the gin?

The Medium is Not Enough declares Dirty Sexy Money a two or “Partial Caruso” on The Carusometer quality scale. A Partial Caruso corresponds to “a show with two walk-on cameos by David Caruso as a family lawyer. However, when faced with a cast that includes transgender prostitutes, adulterers and professional divorcees, he will storm off, citing ‘creative differences’ and claiming that he ‘thought ”family lawyer“ meant something else’.”