I’ll admit some of my reasons for writing this post are rather selfish. Parks & Recreation has quickly become my new favorite comedy (I’m sorry Community. I still love you), and I want others to understand its awesomeness (or at least give it a fair shot). Regardless, the show has a lot of good traits that I think are worth talking about. So here I give a few thoughts on what makes this show so fantastic.

Leslie Knope is Awesome!

I am not the first to fall in love with the charming, good-hearted, optimistic Deputy Parks Director. I could tell you what makes her so amazing, but others have said it so much better. Sady, over at Feministe.com, wrote a list of why she loves Leslie and it included things such as “You invented Galentine’s Day” (an annual celebration during which Leslie tells all the women in her life how much she loves and appreciates them), “you love your job without shame or reservation,” “you have a best friend, and she’s a GIRL!” and “you care.” Sady expands on all these ideas in her post, and she also takes some time to explore the differences between Leslie Knope and Liz Lemon.

Liz Lemon, the oft-discussed lead on 30 Rock has been the subject of much debate. Is she a feminist icon or not? What do we do with her? Sady suggests Leslie Knope may be a less frustrating alternative to serve as fictional feminist role model, and she offers a lot of convincing support. I recommend you read it if you haven’t. But then I recommend you read an article written by Kate Dailey on Newsweek.com. She echoes a lot of the same sentiments Sady expresses and offers some her own reasons for admiring Leslie. Dailey points out that Leslie is competent, and admired and supported by her colleagues. Leslie is also concerned with more than weddings and babies and the relationships she has are mature and genuine and they end just because they’re not right for each other, not because either party is crazy or neurotic. Many of these things are brought up specifically because they are the opposite of what we see from Liz Lemon, so Dailey takes things a step further and asks the question, “So what would Leslie Knope think about Liz Lemon?” and I think her answer is awesome;

That’s the best part, and the most telling: Leslie would be proud of Liz’s accomplishments. She would respect her desire for a husband and baby, and admire her career achievements. She’d encourage her efforts to get more respect as a female executive, while encouraging Lemon to reach out to the other women in her office. Leslie Knope understands that women’s advancement is about the advancement of all women, and that women need support from one another just as much—in fact, much more—than they need approval and access from the men that surround them. She might get frustrated with Liz; they may butt heads or disagree on certain points. But at the end of the day, Leslie realizes that she doesn’t need to compete with “Liz Lemonism,” and she’s not interested in besting Liz, shaming Liz, or proving Liz wrong. Instead, Leslie wants for Liz exactly what Liz wants for Liz: the freedom and confidence [to] make choices, the ability to command respect, and the opportunity to achieve all her goals.

Because Leslie Knope, overambitious dreamer that she is, believes that all women deserve those same advantages.

The other characters rock too

Leslie’s boss, Ron Swanson doesn’t care at all about his job, but he supports Leslie. He gives her a Woman of the Year award that an organization gave to him as a media stunt because Leslie was more deserving. In the finale he even refuses to let some budget slashers fire her, because despite his love for cutting budgets, he knows that Leslie needs this job, and more importantly Pawnee needs Leslie.

Tom Haverford wants to be the kind of guy that could grace the cover of GQ and as a result is a smarmy womanizer who is (not surprisingly) quite bad at actually appealing to the ladies. At first glance he seems like an obnoxious pig, but the more you see him the more you see of his heart. He’s a little lost puppy who keeps trying to pretend to be a purebred because he’s sure no one would have any interest in a mutt.

Ann Perkins, although occasionally cynical and frustrated with small town government, is a great friend to Leslie. And Mark Brandanowicz (who won’t be returning as a regular next season) encouraged and defended Leslie every chance he got, realizing how capable and well-meaning she is. April is a cynical, apathetic teenager whose cold demeanor is warming the more time she spends with her zany coworkers and as begins to fall for big-hearted Andy, Ann’s formerly selfish, lazy boyfriend who throughout the second season has seamlessly evolved into a character whose intentions are so sweet and naive you can’t help but forgive his unintentionally rude or offensive remarks.

When it gets down to it, all the characters are so fleshed out and so real that I understand their faults, and I’m excited to see them change and stumble into new situations, and I’m more than happy to welcome them into my home every week.

The show represents a shift in television comedy

Lately I’ve been considering some of the shows that are on now and the way they collectively show a shift in American comedic sensibilities that I think is also reflective of the general way people approach each other. In other words, we’re going from snark, irony and cynicism coated with absurdity to a much more positive, lighthearted acceptance of everyone’s weird quirks. Seinfeld was near the beginning of snark curve, but you see it in other shows including The Office. The humor comes from the audience or one of the characters being above someone else. We laugh because the close-talker is so awkward and so unaware. We laugh at Michael Scott because he’s so ignorant and embarrassing. The humor comes from us being better than other people. Not that that makes these bad shows…

But now we’re starting to see sitcoms that are much more positive, where no one really has the upper hand, or at least that’s not where the humor comes from. Community, another great show on NBC (which has unfortunately replaced Parks and Rec reruns for the rest of the summer) is a great example because the entire premise is based on it. Everybody is weird and neurotic, but they all recognize the role each plays in their little community, and the one character that thinks he has the upper hand is often forced to re-evaluate his life or rely on these other people he thinks he’s so much better than.

Parks and Recreation continues this trend. All of the characters have their own brand of crazy, but their most obnoxious (yet ultimately harmless) qualities are overlooked and they’re recognized instead for what they have to offer to everyone else. Due to the changes in the show after the first season you can practically see the shift in comedic sensibility from laughing at to laughing with just by watching the show from the beginning. It can be seen in the slightly awkward characterization of Leslie and in the softening of some of the more negative and cynical characters. Some of the people behind the show say part of the reason for the shift in Parks and Rec was because they realized how much more fun it is to watch Amy Poehler smile than to watch her squirm. As Chris Pratt (Andy) said in an interview, “Maybe it’s not that funny to watch her be uncomfortable the way it is with Steve Carell, but it’s so goddamned endearing when she smiles. And you see her and when she’s enjoying herself, so is the audience.” He’s totally right, but I wonder how much of it is Amy, and how much of it is America getting sick of laughing at everybody else.

I feel it necessary to acknowledge that Parks and Rec isn’t perfect, although my only real complaint is that I wish they’d lay off the Jerry-bashing. At least it was acknowledged in one episode that he’s more or less okay with it, but it still makes me sad whenever someone laughs at his expense. Other than that, though, I love it.

While watching the show I’m constantly reminded of something one of the people behind the The Office (and now Parks and Rec) said in a Q&A I attended a few years back (I think it was Ken Kwapis, but it might have been Greg Daniels). He said the tone of the office was “vaguely depressing.” That was what they were going for, and I think that’s what they’ve nailed. But now I keep trying to come up with a similar phrase that captures the tone of Parks and Rec. The best I can think of now is “pleasantly optimistic.” The creative minds behind the show have crafted a ridiculous, hilarious little world in which a kind-hearted, well-meaning group of people have ample room to participate in all sorts of crazy humor-filled shenanigans for years to come. I just hope NBC lets them.

Back in high school I occasionally watched the first couple of seasons of Everwood on the WB. I found it enjoyable but when I moved away to college my tepid devotion to the show got lost in the transition. Due to a summer without work or school I’ve recently rediscovered the series, and I’ve found particular enjoyment in watching the relationship between bumbling but well-intentioned womanizer Bright Abbott and sweet, unassuming book worm Hannah Rogers. And lately with all the talk of body image on the site, I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at an episode that deals specifically with that topic; the season 4 episode “Getting to Know You.”

By this point in the series high school senior Hannah and 20 year-old community college freshman Bright have been dating for a few months. Their relationship began after a year of the two developing a friendship. Hannah spent much of that year pining after Bright and suffering through some awkward dates with her first boyfriend, and Bright spent most of that year sleeping with every eligible woman in Everwood and getting fired twice for sexual harassment. They were certainly not the most obvious match, but that’s part of what makes it so interesting.

“Getting to Know You” begins with Hannah helping Bright study for a psych exam in a restaurant where she watches him check out a waitress. We learn later that this stresses Hannah out, and she explains her feelings to Bright (you can watch this scene and Bright’s later reaction to it here);

Look, I know I’m not as pretty as the girls you used to date…. I’m okay with how I look. You know, to be honest I never really thought about it much before. I figure there’s no point in getting upset about it since it’s not like I can do anything to change it…. I’m not beautiful, and it’s okay, because I’ve got other stuff, and, and eventually I will remember what that stuff is and, and why it’s more important. It’s just taking longer than I thought.

The intent of Hannah’s monologue is to explain why she’d rather not go to a party hosted by one of Bright’s female classmates whom Hannah is sure she’ll feel inadequate next to, and Bright, seeing the discomfort Hannah is feeling agrees to forego the gathering. But he also wants to do something to help her improve her self-esteem and body image. After reading Our Bodies, Ourselves and learning about the impossibly high physical expectations established by Barbie dolls, Bright takes action.

When Hannah comes to his place to go out for dinner, Bright locks her in his bathroom; ”Don’t worry. It’s clean in there. I spent all afternoon scrubbing stuff. I’d like you to pay close attention to how clean that mirror is. You’re about to use it.” He then begins explaining to Hannah just how beautiful she is. He makes a distinction between girls like the one at the restaurant (and likely many that he’s dated) and Hannah, calling the others “typical” and pointing out, “Yes, I used to go for that kind of thing. But you know what a girl like that looks like at 3 in the morning? Craptastic. Requires way too much maintenance. You on the other hand, you have all this other stuff that is so important.” He continues to explain what makes Hannah special; “You are truly beautiful. You know what I think about when I’m kissing you. I think about your skin. I think about your eyelashes, how long they are when they’re, like, touching my face. I think about the dimples you get when you’re laughing. I think about how cool it is that, like, I might be the only person out there who knows how hot your body is. And I bet you at 3 in the morning, I bet you you look amazing.” He then insists she give herself a good look in the mirror. “You need to see what I see when I look at you. So, go, look into that mirror right now. Just keep looking until you face the truth that you are truly beautiful. Do it.”
The scene takes a strange turn of events after that considering what we know of the characters. Hannah stares into the mirror for a few moments before starting the shower, stripping off her clothes and asking Bright to join her saying, “If I’m going to see me the way you see me, I want you here with me.”

The whole thing is adorable to watch. As someone who has felt the way Hannah’s feeling it was nice to see her explain her feelings and the conflict that exists when you know in your head that there are more important things than the way you look but your heart aches when you see the world doesn’t always operate under the same understanding. And Bright’s earnestness, both in his desire to help and in his choice of words is the kind of thing designed to make viewers swoon.

As sweet as it might be to watch, however, if you’re like me, you feel like crap afterward. You remember that these are fake characters that exist in a totally constructed world. The actors are cast, dressed, styled, and made up to appear as a hot jock and self-conscious wallflower, respectively. In reality, even the “ugly” characters are played by the same people we judge ourselves against. The next time you leave the house you look around you and are reminded that in reality the Brights of the world don’t associate with the Hannahs, and now that truth somehow seems more severe because TV showed you how sweet and adorable it would be if it were possible.

What’s interesting about this Everwood example is the distinction that Bright brings up. He doesn’t say that Hannah is better looking than the girl in the restaurant, he says that the girl in the restaurant is constructed. He points out that she puts a lot of energy into looking like that, whereas Hannah just goes along being Hannah, occasionally putting a little more effort into her hair, or donning a little lip gloss. That doesn’t make Hannah more genuine than the girl in the restaurant, but rather suggests that the two women put emphasis on different aspects of themselves. It’s a twist you don’t always hear, but it’s something that’s important to remember. Each of us could probably look like those people in the magazines, if we spent as much time working out, deprived ourselves of all our favorite foods, had stylists primping us and photo artists airbrushing our imperfections. Conversely, those same faces in the magazines would blend in with ours on the street if they didn’t spend an hour and a half in make-up or have wardrobe people tailoring clothes to their specific shape.

It’s interesting how much attention and emphasis is put on one of the most dynamic and changeable aspects of a person. I mean, just look at the unemployed, couch potato turned shoe-shiner Andy Dwyer on Parks and Recreation to see how different Bright can look just three years later. Everyone changes, and many of those people we’re constantly comparing ourselves to simply spend more time invested in their looks. It doesn’t make them better people (nor does it make them worse–and it’s important, but sad, to remember that many of them have the same feelings of inadequacy and negative body image we do). The problem is it’s really hard to remind ourselves that living up to societal understandings of physical attractiveness isn’t the most important thing in the world when the only people who seem to be aware of this fact are a few fictional characters on random episodes of television shows produced by the same people that are constantly feeding us their skewed definitions of beauty.

But, as always, I would love to hear some other opinions. Are there any other Brannah fans out there? If so, how do you feel about the way Hannah’s body image issues were addressed? If you never got into this particular show, what are other examples of TV shows or episodes (good or bad) that deal with similar issues? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has recently appointed actress Geena Davis to a state commission aiming to promote women’s equality.  Sweet!

According to Wikipedia:

In 2004, while watching children’s television programs and videos with her daughter, Davis noticed what she thought was an imbalance in the ratio of male to female characters. From that starting point, Davis went on to sponsor the largest research project ever undertaken on gender in children’s entertainment (resulting in 4 discrete studies, including one on children’s television) at the Annenberg School for Communication of University of Southern California. The study, directed by Dr. Stacy Smith, shows that there are nearly 3 males to every 1 female character in the nearly 400 G, PG, PG-13, and R-Rated movies the undergraduate team of Annenberg students coded.

In 2005, Davis teamed up with the non-profit group Dads and Daughters to launch a venture dedicated to balancing the number of male and female characters in children’s TV and movie programming.

It’s nice to see someone with power, and with a background in the entertainment/film industry no less, acknowledging that this is a problem worthy of attention and taking steps towards change.  Let’s hope that Geena is able to really get the ball rolling and that change starts to happen!

(Check out Alethea Joy’s post on research inspired by Ms. Davis.)

It’s been discussed to death, and I haven’t read everything that’s been written (I don’t have that kind of time), but I want to make a few comments about the Daily Show/Jezebel/Olivia Munn situation.

I take that back. I have nothing to say about Olivia Munn. I’ve never seen her perform and while I’ve read some quotes attributed to her that rub me the wrong way, I also realize I read those quotes in a very negatively biased context and thus I’m slow to make any sort of judgement based solely on them.

What I would like to respond to is the original Jezebel post written by Irin Carmon, and the response by the women of The Daily Show.

I’m a big fan of questioning what part of the story I’m missing, and there were many times while reading the Jezebel piece that I wondered what part of the story was being left out. For one it seemed as though no one who has worked there within the last seven years was involved in the piece. Not to excuse any negative behavior or experiences of the past, but seven years is a long time, and there may have been some important changes in attitudes or how things are run.

Another thing that struck me was the connections that were made. One person interviewed said that the real Jon Stewart is nothing like the guy on TV. The guy in reality “runs the show with joyless rage.” Also included in the piece is an anecdote about Mr. Stewart throwing a script in the face of an executive producer. While I don’t want to condone any such behavior, I am left wondering if that type of behavior is directed solely at women. If he really runs the show with joyless rage where is our evidence that every writer hasn’t at some point had something hurled in their direction? And was there perhaps something that instigated the script-throwing behind the fact the victim was a woman? It is not good behavior, certainly, but it is also not necessarily sexist.

What really stuck out to me about Carmon’s piece, however, is that what I thought was the best observation of the sexism was more or less disregarded in order to attack The Daily Show specifically. I realize the hiring of Munn has angered some people, and I also understand that some people have very intense positive feelings for The Daily Show, but I have trouble understanding why it’s any different than any other late night show. A point made by Madeleine Smithberg (the same woman who reportedly had a script thrown at her) points out the distressing fact that affects all of comedy;

I don’t think Jon is sexist. I don’t think that there is a double standard at the Daily Show. I do think that by the time it gets to the Daily Show it’s already been through the horrible sexist double standard of the universe. You’re not hiring someone right out of school. By the time they get to the candidates of the Daily Show, the herd has been thinned by the larger societal forces.

This years Emmy nominations were announced today. Look at the list of writers nominated in late night. You’ll notice a dearth of women in all shows (SNL seems to have the most, but they have the most writers overall).

Maybe all late night comedy shows are sexist. Or maybe it’s something else. Maybe fewer women are going into comedy in general. Or maybe fewer women are seeking out positions at shows that air when most of the world is going to bed. Maybe the women that are at Second City and UCB aren’t super great friends with the other guys so their networking ties aren’t as strong. There are any number of reasons why women aren’t being hired at the same rate as men.

Does that excuse the shows that are not hiring women? I would argue, a little. That doesn’t mean these shows shouldn’t seek progress, but they shouldn’t be labelled as sexist any more so than the rest of reality. The fact that The Daily Show is actively seeking women should be applauded. Did Olivia Munn only get hired because of her looks? I don’t know. But I do know that the Daily Show airs on Comedy Central. And I know that Comedy Central has a certain amount of power over what happens on the show, and I know that Comedy Central skews male in terms of viewership (if you have any question about that just turn it on at midnight and count the number of ads for male enhancement drugs or Girls Gone Wild videos). While one could hope the network be less shallow, one can hardly blame a show for appeasing the people that allow it to exist.

That last paragraph may have suggested I’m just transferring the blame, when in truth I have no idea how each individual decision is actually made at the Daily Show or anywhere else, but I do oppose negative portrayals of people and shows without giving credit to the larger forces. “[The Daily Show is] a boys’ club where women’s contributions are often ignored and dismissed” is pretty strong language, and after reading the piece and considering everything else I know about comedy and the way television works, it’s language that I find to be misleading and harmful.

I enjoyed reading the response provided from the women at The Daily Show. (This snarky rejoinder, however, I found needlessly disrespectful). This part particularly stuck out to me;

And so, while it may cause a big stir to seize on the bitter rantings of ex-employees and ignore what current staff say about working at The Daily Show, it’s not fair. It’s not fair to us, it’s not fair to Jon, it’s not fair to our wonderful male colleagues, and it’s especially not fair to the young women who want to have a career in comedy but are scared they may get swallowed up in what people label as a “boy’s club.”

While I’m all for thoughtful criticism and pointing out problems and asking for solutions, I don’t feel like I’ve seen a lot of that throughout this kerfuffle. Rather than taking one show to task, we should be looking at the bigger picture, calling attention to the larger problem. We should find out when the system has worked, when woman have gotten hired, and ask how to make that happen again. But throughout it all we shouldn’t name-call or finger-point or attribute a world of injustice to one or a few individuals that are also a victim of it.

Thanks to Ms. Wizzle for a lot of good links!

LOST has reached its end, and whether it was a fond or a furious farewell for you, here are some other perspectives on the show and its treatment of (in particular) its female and POC characters.  As I (unfortunately) have not yet seen the 2.5 hour finale, none of these links have any finale spoilers, but other season 6 spoilers abound, so be warned if you were waiting until you could binge on the whole season at once now that it’s over.

TelevIsm: The Numbers–Lost and Race and Death Off the Island [bitch]

Portraying marginalized people in the face of a mostly white slate of network television shows is great, but it’s only a start. Painting these lives comes with responsibility: to not play into racist stereotypes, to create new and interesting portrayals and stories, and to build on the promise of a main cast that is only a little over half white.

LOST Has A Mommy Track [the sexist]

Claire’s most interesting story line was having a baby and a boyfriend. Sun’s most interesting storyline is having a husband and a baby. Kate’s most interesting story line is having two potential boyfriends, between whom she cannot choose, and also a baby eventually. Juliet’s most important storyline was that her boyfriend might have thought for 1.5 seconds about liking another girl so she had to fall down a mine shaft and explode three times on screen.

TelevIsm: The Disappointing Case of Kate Austen [bitch]

I really loved her at the beginning of the show. She was so capable yet so compelling, and she totally seemed to have an inner life. And now she’s just useless. She does whatever the dudes do, or quite frequently, whatever they tell her to do. Whenever she manages to form a unique opinion of her own, it pretty much always ends up not really mattering in the end and being overruled.

Farewell, Kate Austen: We Won’t Miss You, And That’s Too Bad [jezebel]

Austen isn’t the only problematic female character on the show; the fates of the majority of the women on the show are tied directly to the male leads, and women who have been left on their own (Ilana, Claire, Danielle, Jacob’s mother) tend to end up either dead or crazy… Penny’s fate is always tied to both Desmond and her father, Alex’s fate is always tied to Ben, Sun’s fate is always tied to Jin’s, and motherhood is always presented in an odd and frightening way and never seems to end well for anyone.

Friday Night Lights is an amazing TV show, and if you’re not watching it, you should be.

I’ve been in love with the show since about halfway through the first season. I, like many fans, grew a little concerned as the early part of second season brought in some elements that seemed out-of-place, but I chock that up to the network getting involved and since those few missteps the show has returned to being one of the most sweet, gut-wrenching, beautiful, raw, poignant and genuinely optimistic shows on television. While I can try to articulate its awesomeness, however, I know others have already said it so much better…

“Friday Night Lights is delivered with the precision and manner of ethnography — it never condescends…. [It] both compellingly honors conservative codes of family values, and doesn’t: the discrepancy has perhaps nowhere been clearer than it seems to be this season. The two-parent family is idealized, but at the same time religion is understood as an unreliable savior, and sex as a consistent comfort.” (source)

“While Friday Night Lights is about a football coach and his team, it’s about so much more than sports — small-town politics, race, class, family and romance, among other topics — and it’s a shame that the title and setting scare away so many viewers who would love the show.” (source)

“This extraordinary drama lets us peek inside the lives and the minds of people who aren’t any different than we are, who are struggling with the mundane and major problems of real life. And it’s done with such subtlety, surprising wit and grace, that at the end of every hour, I devoutly wish it wasn’t over.” (source)

“In fact, the whole show works because of its deep respect for its characters, whom its writers paint with a nuance and depth rarely seen on network television. In situations ripe for caricature, FNL manages instead to convey the complexity of relationships, dreams, and desires, and the casual ways in which simple interactions can have lasting, if not cataclysmic, effects…. appealing, interesting, well-rounded characters flesh out FNL’s story, all of whom go about trying to lead their lives the best way they can, given their circumstances. The show’s obvious affection for each of them, and its willingness to treat them with both humor and gravity, makes FNL one of the most human, humane, radically humanist shows around.” (source)

“This is about the classiest show on TV I think since My So Called Life.  I know that next season will be the last, but it is going down as one of the best….  This show is so full of what can best be described as “heart,” and because that is missing from most of TV nowadays when you see it and feel it, it kind of takes your breath away.” (source)

“For a great series about football, it also has some of the most authentic, intelligent female characters on TV…. Shows like Lipstick Jungle– which FNL has replaced on the NBC schedule– are supposedly about the great bonds of female friendship and represent how far women have come in terms of career, choices, relationships, etc. Yet truly those characters are far more cartoonish and stereotypical than the women on FNL. In fact, Lyla and Tyra are fiercely fighting against the roles small town Southern society is trying to foist on them. And Tami has always been a character who is smart, sassy, yet a devoted wife and mother.” (source)

“This is what the show is all about–decent people … put in hard positions by life’s unexpected occurrences.” (source)

The show isn’t afraid to touch on difficult topics, but it doesn’t preach about them. It starts with stereotypes and formulas and then fleshes them out into complex people and real situations. It features some of the strongest and most interesting female characters on television, it delves into class and race issues (and the ways they are often intertwined). The show features characters who are disabled, gay or poor, but doesn’t force those labels to define them. That’s not to say the show is 100% perfect, but it’s about as close as network TV has ever gotten, and it’s a shame more people don’t watch it.

So I implore you to give it a shot. The first three seasons are available on DVD or for Instant Viewing on Netflix. The fourth season has already aired on DirecTV and will premiere on NBC on April 30th. Check it out, and then tell me what you think.

If you’ve already given it a shot, I’d love to hear what you think, even if you disagree with my glowing praises.

I’m struggling with what to think of Lipstick Jungle, NBC’s failed primetime soap chronicling the lives of three of New York’s wealthiest women.

The show was based on a book by Candace Bushnell, the same author behind the book that inspired Sex and the City. The show is different from SATC, however, if only in the fact that it was produced for network television, limiting some of the content and requiring constant breaks for commercials.

The three women in the show are Wendy Healy, President of Parador Pictures; Nico Reilly, editor-in-chief of Bonfire magazine; and Victory Ford, fashion designer. Each of the women struggle with running their own companies, maintaining their friendships, and dealing with the men in their lives.

Where Sex and the City had a more revolving cast of love interests, each of the women of Lipstick Jungle has more-or-less one man. Shane is Wendy’s musician husband who was essentially a house-husband until Wendy’s professional situation changed. Joe Bennett is an incredibly wealthy businessman that pursues and financially invests in Victory Ford. And Kirby Atwood is Nico’s younger, poorer, flame who, despite being featured prominently in every episode, only joins the main cast in season 2 (methinks they weren’t expecting him to stick around so long).

Only 20 episodes were produced, so it didn’t take me too long to make it through the entire series, but I don’t know that I ever fell in love with it. I never outright hated it either.

The thing that bugged me most continuously was the appearances of the various female characters. Just about every woman in the show wears way too much make-up. I think they could have saved a bundle if they had invested in making the women look human rather than coating their faces in many, very noticeable layers of make-up. Secondly, they all dress crazy nice, and in heels, at all times. Now I know I haven’t met a lot of women in the social strata these women occupy, but one thing I have noticed about pretty much all New Yorkers is a sense of practicality. Sure people try to look nice, but not at the expense of their health and sanity. There’s one scene where two of the women are moving a piece of furniture and talking about how difficult it is to do it in heels. If they knew they were going to be moving something, why wouldn’t they dress appropriately? Because they totally would. Or do they only own $1000 pumps?

That aside the whole show was like a roller coaster. My feelings towards different characters and stories evolved throughout the show, making it difficult for me to offer a generalized critique.

For example, I really wanted to like Nico. She’s strong, independent, and fiercely concerned with feminist ideals (often spouting them out like a mini-lesson) and yet she makes ridiculously inappropriate and unprofessional choices which lead her to be on the defensive end of a sexual harassment suit.

Similarly I actually did really like the character of Wendy. Her character often struggled with feeling like an inadequate mother because she worked so much, but for much of the show she lets her daughter treat her incredibly disrespectfully in a way that seemed uncharacteristic and just plain annoying.

Lastly Victory, who I think was my favorite character by show’s end, fell in love with a guy that essentially treats her like an object. The first time Joe meets Victory he rambles on his phone (in part about her physical appearance) while she just sits and listens. When he does eventually speak with her he informs her he can’t waste his time because it’s worth $5,000/minute. Apparently he’d rather spend $5,000 worth of time talking about Victory than actually spending time with her. Classy, dude.

Most of those complaints were more-or-less done away with by the end of the show: Nico’s personal and professional lives were made more distinct, Wendy starts actually parenting her daughter, and Victory gains more independence and Joe loses some of his arrogance, but even as that happened I never felt able to truly like the show.

I think the biggest thing is how false so much of the show feels. The stories revolving around Parador Pictures and Bonfire often reference real people, but more often they make them up. It’s necessary, but it makes some of the other things, like unprofessional behavior and the many happy coincidences and quick fixes, stick out more. These women live in a completely different world than any of us do.

The show is clearly aspirational. These women deal with exaggerated versions of problems some real women might actually encounter, but they do so in a world where nothing can ever go too wrong. They’ll still have perfect little apartments, and plenty of free time to go cavorting in Central Park and eat at fancy restaurants. And they’ll always have plenty of time to do their hair and make-up. While that can be fun to watch, I don’t know that it does anything to further the feminist cause, and I think NBC made the right choice in canceling it.

Yes when it comes to the world of Lipstick Jungle, it’s far less of a “jungle” than the real world I live in, but there certainly is more lipstick.

Lately I’ve developed an affection for TV shows that aired on ABC between 1989 and 1993. Doogie Howser, and the Wonder Years have been faves for some time, and nostalgia has led me to add thirtysomething and Life Goes On to my Netflix queue. Most recently, however, I’ve fell in love with a show I’ve actually been hunting down for years: Homefront.

Homefront aired on ABC from 1991-1993. Its short run means it was rarely syndicated and no one has gone through the trouble to release it on DVD, so creative googling and luck are necessary to hunt down VHS recordings. It was rather critically acclaimed during its initial run but failed to pull in the ratings necessary to guarantee renewal. It seems a very similar story to my favorite show on TV these days, Friday Night Lights. Kyle Chandler stars in both, but whereas Homefront died due to lack of viewership, Friday Night Lights had the advantage of being produced in a more flexible era of television, allowing it to live 5 (short) seasons–for which I am eternally grateful.

But back to Homefront. It’s an evening soap that revolves around a town, River Run, Ohio, at the end of WWII. The first episode begins with the young soldiers returning home from overseas and begins to explore the early post-war era.

The show, as I mentioned, is a soap, which means it includes the usual melodramatic story-lines. There are lies, secrets, and a myriad of love stories. The whole show seems rather chaste, compared to current fare, however. After all, this is an era where a woman was expected to skip town or get married if she got pregnant, so there’s more discussion of sex than actual sex. In fact, the primary will-they/won’t-they couple of the series has sex in the fourth episode and then spend the rest of the series trying to suppress their physical urges while they attempt to establish a relationship that won’t force either party to give up on their professional dreams.

Because the show tells all these stories in a different time period, however, it is able to explore things in a unique way. It presents a view of the past while commenting on the present, and it deals with a number of issues pertaining to diversity and politics in interesting and engaging ways.

There’s one character, Caroline, who’s married to a man that has always dreamed of a large family. She, however, has been using spermicide without his knowledge. This raises interesting discussions of choice and family planning (although the whole thing is a little… fishy. Caroline is kind of an opportunistic liar, so although she makes some valid points and is quite convincing, the viewer’s always super suspicious of her motives).

One episode confronts the religious notion (that plays into more general cultural double standards) that men are inherently sexual, more so than women, and it is the woman’s responsibility to be moral guardians when it comes to sexual relationships.

Women in the workforce is confronted as a young woman, kicked out of her factory job to make room for the returning soldiers, seeks to find work but is faced with sexism in many different forms. She eventually becomes a union leader, determined to fight for fairness in the workplace.

There’s also racial conversations. In one episode Charlie (a white man) and Robert (a black man) are asked to work together. Charlie is well-intentioned but has heard a lot of rumors about African-Americans, and because he’s never met one (and he’s not the smartest guy) he doesn’t know what to believe. Robert, on the other hand, expects negativity and doesn’t know how to respond to Charlie’s rather unintentionally derogatory comments. The juxtaposition of two sides of the raise struggle is interesting to see. To top it off, the scene ends with Charlie being confronted by his wife Caroline and their roommate Gina regarding his ignorant racism. He points out British people (like Caroline) believe the Irish drink like fish. Gina (an Italian) points out all Sicilians get into fights. They end the conversation by agreeing that Germans are all horrible people. Seems everyone has their prejudices.

Other storylines involve a new union fighting for equal rights, a red scare, polio and religious differences.

The show isn’t perfect (I have yet to see one that is), but it’s entertaining, engaging, and the soap elements exist within a more grounded, socially aware framework that makes for a fun viewing experience.

As I mentioned before, Homefront isn’t available on DVD and most people I talk to haven’t heard of it (granted most people I talk to were about 6 when it premiered), but if you can hunt it down it’s worth your time. And if you got the time go put in your vote at TVShowsOnDVD or show your interest on Amazon.

There was something about shows on ABC in the early 90′s. They interacted with social issues without losing the fun, juicy narrative elements that keep people tuning in.

Star Trek: Enterprise – the final episode “These are the Voyages…”

Original Airdate: May 13, 2005

The final episode of Enterprise doesn’t quite seem as epic as it could have. TNG and Voyager both ended with a look ahead to the future as well as a nod to the past. DS9 left everyone parting ways with a farewell that served the characters and audience equally well. Enterprise, however, falls flat.

The episode takes us 6 years into the future (from the perspective of the last episode, 10 years after the pilot). The Enterprise is returning to earth where it will be decommissioned as the new, faster fleet comes to take its place. Captain Archer will give a speech honoring a new charter between humans and a handful other alien races. A hitch in the trip home comes when a former acquaintance, Shran, shows up. Apparently Archer owes this guy a favor, so the Enterprise helps him get his kidnapped daughter back.

(Click the link to check out the rest of the entry, but I’m putting SPOILER ALERT on this post. If you ever plan on watching Enterprise you might want elements of this episode to remain a surprise. The episode itself actually spoils those moments early on, but, well… I’m warning you anyway.)

The crew of the Enterprise helps Shran successfully get his daughter back, until the mean guys that initially kidnapped the daughter show up on the Enterprise itself and threaten to kill Captain Archer if he doesn’t turn over Shran to them. Trip, worried the Captain will be killed, jumps to action. He tells the mean guys he can lead them to Shran as long as they don’t kill the Captain. Captain Archer reprimand’s Trip’s behavior and tells him to calm down and stop getting so worked out, so Trip tells the bad guys to knock Captain Archer unconscious with the butt of a gun so Trip can defy his superior officer’s authority more easily. Trip leads the bad guys to a conduit that he says is a comm unit, but is, in fact…. Well, I’m not sure what it is, but Trip tells the bad guys to go to hell and then connects two cords causing an explosion that takes out everyone in the general area, including Trip. That’s right. Apparently someone decided that the most hated Star Trek series ever should kill off a main character in the last episode for no apparent reason. Because if you’re going to go down in history as the lamest in the franchise, you might as well go all out.

The Enterprise then makes its way back to Earth where, upon arrival, most of the crew whine about their bad seats and T’Pol and Phlox wish their captain good luck with his speech. After a heartfelt hug between Archer and T’Pol (the only successfully sentimental part of the episode), Archer heroically approaches the podium to give an important speech to hundreds of listeners about the new charter. The speech apparently is so epic that schoolchildren centuries later are still encouraged to memorize it in school. We in the viewing audience, however, never get to hear it.

This whole story (which is really uncomplicated) is framed as being part of the shenanigans of a couple characters from The Next Generation, primarily Commander Riker. Actually, nothing of what we see is actually real. It’s merely a holographic simulation Riker is running to help him make a difficult decision. Riker is in the 7th season of TNG, in the episode “The Pegasus.” Counsellor Troi occasionally joins him on his holo-viewing.

“These are the Voyages…” was super controversial when it first aired. Many in the cast publicly expressed their distaste. Jolene Blalock, avid Trekkie, supposedly even intentionally delivered her lines strangely as a form of protest against the ridiculous ending. I haven’t found any hard evidence to support this, but it would explain why T’Pol, a vulcan, seems uncharacteristically super emotional throughout and in her last shot on the show shakes and grooves like a weed in the wind as Archer makes his epic farewell.

For the most part, I must say I agree with the dislike. The whole episode seems a little contrived and Trip’s death seems totally nonsensical. He and Archer had gotten out of worse scrapes before. Additionally, it did seem more like an episode of TNG than Enterprise. There were the appearances of Riker and Troi (and a voice cameo by Data) as well as various shout-outs to the earlier series. Reed remarks “All good things…” uttering the name of TNG’s series finale, and at another time Riker offers a toast “to the next generation.” Also I haven’t heard it mentioned anywhere else, but there also seemed to be a lot of shout-outs to Quantum Leap with mirror shots and such, but I digress.

Back to the point… let’s see how this episode measures up.

What Made Me Happy:

• I never cared for Counsellor Troi much during The Next Generation. She always seemed highly dramatic and a little… boring. I love her, however, in everything in which she has appeared since TNG has gone off the air, including her appearances on Voyager and here. Although I think this episode’s reliance on TNG is lame, I do love that the awesome, laid-back, fun yet professional Troi is along for the ride.
• We don’t see a lot of Archer’s behavior in terms of his relationship with other races, but it seems there’s been some improvement. He and T’Pol are now great friends, and Archer is clearly one of those behind a charter that will eventually lead to the Federation where multiples species and cultures live together in peace.
• No decon chamber!

What Irked Me:

Other than the most ridiculous main character death in television history and the fact that this whole episode only exists on the holodeck, there’s not much in this episode that really bugs me.

Final Score: 7

Improvement Score: +2 (good, but not back up to DS9’s high of

Final Thoughts:

Next in the series I’ll review the new movie, but because movies are different than TV and the franchise is basically being started anew with new people behind it, I figure now is the time to reflect on the franchise up to this point.

I’ll be the first to admit my scoring was incredibly arbitrary and subjective, but it’s quite obvious that Star Trek as a franchise improved substantially over the years. That’s to be expected, however, given its 40 year run. There were some small steps back (Seven’s catsuits), and some larger ones (the decon chamber), but all in all Star Trek has been rather reflective of the changing role of women in American society, and occasionally has been a little ahead of the curve. Although, that didn’t stop them from reverting back to the original “where no man has gone before in the last 30 seconds of the show…

In the end this is all my own personal opinion. What do you think? Am I being too hard on Enterprise? Thinking too highly of DS9 and Voyager? Overlooking subtle progressive messages in the original series? I’m interested to hear your thoughts. I can’t be the only Trekkie around here.

CBS doesn’t want America to think about Choice, so we have to do it virally.  Here are some awesome counterpoints to the anti-choice rhetoric that is being crammed down our throats with Doritos and beer this SuperBowl Sunday, starting with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards explanation of the meaning of Choice:

For a multitude of reasons I will not be watching the SuperBowl today, but welcome any tips on who the winners and losers in advertising are this year.