Opening Credits: Quotes of the Week
I love historically relevant jokes about popular culture
During the most recent episode NBC’s 1960s drama “American Dreams,” Meg Pryor (Brittany Snow) is sitting in a coffeehouse talking to her friend working and she noticed a performer with an odd, screechy bluesy sounding voice singing on stage. Puzzled and largely annoyed, she had this to say to her friend:
“Is she supposed to sound like that?”
Later in the scene, her friend told her that it was some woman named Janis Joplin singing on stage
* * * * *
Simon vs. Ryan
Has anyone else noticed that “American Idol” host and resident pretty boy, Ryan Seacrest, is getting pretty tired of Simon Cowell and his nasty ways? Ryan seems a lot more likely to stand up and say something against the crotchedy judge if he’s displeased with a particularly demeaning comment towards a competitor. Well, the two have a little bit of a slightly friendly war of words going on. That includes this zinger Simon delivered after Wild Card contestant Suy Vulaca provided the audience with her rendition of Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive.”
“I hear that song every time I go over to Ryan’s house.”
Gotcha!
* * * * *
Because it’s funny
Seth Cohen, everyone’s favorite dorky, lovable, rich kid on Fox’s “The OC” is always good for a weekly quote. Too bad the show is on hiatus until March 24th
“What’s up with this AC? My Jew fro is frizzing out. I look like Screech (from the teen hit show, “Saved by the Bell”).”
(Thanks to Zap2it‘s TV Gal column for that one )
TV HEADLINES: Dish Network, “The Practice,” Martha, Omarosa, an orgy, and The Donald
Dish Network pisses a lot of people off
Several loyal readers asked me about the messy legal and financial situation taking place between Echostar Communications (and satellite company, Dish Network) and media giant, Viacom. Anyone watching a Viacom television network (MTV, VH-1, Comedy Central, Spike TV, BET, Nickelodeon, and Nick at Nite) has seen the scrolling message at the bottom of their TV screens stating that Echostar/Dish is threatening to take away those networks from their viewers. In addition, the message stated that customers upset about that should call and complain about the potential loss of channels.
Unfortunately, that distracting message didn’t do much good because at 3:00 AM EST on Wednesday, March 10th yanked all Viacom properties from the airwaves, affecting 9.4 million customers and also pulled CBS (another Viacom property) from 16 cities affecting 1.6 million subscribers.
The obvious question is “Why?!”
Well, thankfully, this is just a foolish dispute about monetary compensation as opposed to Echostar being completely unaware of the popularity of the Viacom properties and will likely just be a temporary problem. While that may be true, one concern is the term “temporary” has a very vague definition as this could be an extensive battle between two giants in the communications industry.
Echostar pays Viacom for the right to include the media company’s wide array of channels (including CBS). While it hasn’t been openly discussed how far apart the two companies are in renegotiating a deal, Echostar claims that Viacom is demanding a 40% increase in fees over the life of a new contract.
In an article published March 10th, Bill Carter and Geraldine Fabrikant of The New York Times talked to business analysts and concluded, based on those comments, that initially, the financial impact could be minimal for both companies. This tells me that the battle between the two could extend a long period of time since neither are losing much money in this painful process and it has gotten fairly nasty in the press. However, Carter and Fabrikant noted that the two companies are back negotiating and may settle this soon enough.
The two reporters noted that this situation resembles a similar predicament ABC and Time Warner were involved with in 1999. Time Warner removed the network from the cable feed due to a comparable dispute that Echostar and Viacom are experiencing now. However, the cable provider reinstated ABC’s signal within a matter of days due to public outcry.
This also reminds me of the long battle between cable provider, Cablevision, and New York Yankees owner, George Steinbrenner’s YES network. The Yankees’ Owner started the YES network and moved Yankee broadcasts to that network taking it off the universally broadcast, Madison Square Garden (MSG) sports network. This wouldn’t have been a problem if Cablevision, the only cable provider of most of New York City and parts of New Jersey, signed a deal with YES to include in their cable package. It took more than a year before the dispute finally was resolved and New York could view the games of its beloved Yankees.
Will that happen here? Well, amazingly, the day after I wrote this portion of the column, all the speculation and questions asking “When will this end?” were put to rest when EchoStar and Viacom settled all of their differences and the network feeds were reinstated to Dish Network customers. It’s amazing what corporation executives can do when they put their minds to it.
In a surprise to no one Martha’s done
In case you haven’t heard, Martha Stewart was found guilty of securities fraud and is facing jail time. Frankly, I’m not sure HOW you could miss the story since the traditional media has been beating this story with a stick. Even if you only watched the Cartoon Network, MTV, and your local UPN affiliate, you’d STILL KNOW what’s going on with this story.
Anyway, in a television related development, all Viacom owned television affiliates (CBS and UPN stations) have pulled “Martha Stewart Living” from their schedules and it’s expected that other stations independent of Viacom will likely follow suit. That news starts at the top with CBS 2 in New York City and continues all the way down to the smallest market.
However, all is not lost for Martha’s television career since it’s also been reported that the Food Network will continue to broadcast episodes of “From Martha’s Kitchen” while executives attempt to figure out which way to go.
How the mighty have fallen, huh? She can’t serve as the head of her media and consumer empire which has a bottoming out stock price anyway, she’s resigned from the Revlon Board of Directors, no one wants to see her on television. Hell, even a recent episode of NBC’s “Today” showed outtakes of how mean and nasty she can get when the camera is not on.
While I readily acknowledge that the term “too much press coverage” doesn’t even begin to describe how much the media has focused on this story, I’ll also say that it is pretty fascinating that a celebrity known for her domestic expertise and worth hundreds of millions of dollars is now facing jail time at a federal prison in Danbury, CT.
It’s official after all “The Practice” is done
Last week, I talked about the vague reports coming out about ABC’s “The Practice” getting shunned off the air in favor of another legal drama with a few of the same characters from the current show (Paging James Spader Paging James Spader Your presence is being requested ).
Well, that speculation turned into a big, fat fact when ABC announced on Wednesday, March 10th that the May 16th season finale of the long running legal drama would actually be the SERIES finale. In addition, the network also revealed that Kelley will pen a new legal drama that will be a spin off from the current show and likely center around James Spader and his portrayal of the ethically challenged, yet remarkably brilliant, attorney, Alan Shore. Seeing as Spader has created a lot more buzz to the show and has also increased the coveted 18-49 age demographic by a significant 20% (according to E! Online and Yahoo), the move makes a lot of sense.
Considering the scuttlebutt surrounding this story, these developments aren’t overly surprising, however E! Online’s Kimberly Potts has uncovered more to the story that will answer some questions that might arise.
The new show that Kelley is developing will be getting away from criminal defense law firm and move to a large, prestigious, civil firm. In addition, Potts stated that the industry buzz is there will likely be several characters making the move including law student/paralegal and potential Alan Shore love interest, Tara Wilson (Rhona Mitra) and young associate primarily known for her startling good looks, Jamie Stringer (Jessica Capshaw). Meanwhile, mainstays Steve Harris, Camryn Manheim, and Michael Badalucco will be left without a show just like Dylan McDermott and Lara Flynn Boyle were at the end of last season when creative and economic cuts were made.
(SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!)
In addition, the beginning of the new spin-off series will actually make its presence known in episodes being aired March 14th and 21st. The storyline will begin when Eugene Young (Harris), the head honcho at Young, Frutt, and Berlutti decides he’s had enough of Shore’s “maverick” ways and fires him despite the fact he is winning cases and securing large payouts in the process. Shore then hires prestigious firm (this is where William Shatner’s role will become more involved) to file a wrongful termination suit against his former employer. Shore himself will then join the firm and, while it hasn’t been reported, I believe he will probably take Tara (Mitra) and Jamie (Capshaw) with him in the storylines (and in reality), leaving his ex-bosses and colleagues struggling. This will set the stage for the new legal drama to debut this fall on the alphabet network Isn’t it nice when things wrap up nicely like that?
Say Goodbye to the Orgy
I am waiting for either a TV critic or some other media personality to come up with some sort of catchphrase related to the “decency downfall” of the exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast during this year’s Super Bowl halftime show. Since we’re trying to get away from “Boobgate” or something similar that’s less dignified, here are a couple of other suggestions: Maybe it’s the “Jackson movement?” That sounds like it could appear in a history textbook. How about the “Janet Upheaval?” That would make a great headline for the front page of a New York tabloid. Maybe even “The War Against Nudity and for Televised Decency (WANTD or “wanted” for short)?” After all, acronyms are friendly to media people
Either way, the hammer has fallen again on a televised broadcast with UPN’s “America’s Next Top Model” the victim of the decency police. In order to get more people to pay attention to her rather dull and bland reality TV concept of seeking to find “America’s Next Top Model,” Executive Producer and Host Tyra Banks has been fairly candid about a graphic sex scene that took place on her show. Essentially, four of the female’s contestants and four men they met in Milan, Italy and then a word that rarely makes appearances in mainstream media peeks out to describe the night’s events: orgy.
Banks, obviously being no dummy, realizes this will likely get all sorts of people to tune in and check out her show. However, there is a problem. Viacom is the media company that oversees UPN (the network Banks’ show is on). The media giant also runs MTV, the Super Bowl halftime’s show producer, and CBS, the network that aired MTV’s halftime show. So, with Congress and assorted decency groups breathing down the neck of the television industry, it was ordered that Banks cut out portions of the infamous “orgy scene” set to air on March 18th according to the New York Post‘s Don Kaplan. Since it’s broadcast television, no sex acts were part of the show, but enough was set to air so it could be easily identified exactly what happened. Apparently, what was set to air was still too racy for everyone’s liking, so the scene had to be paired down even further.
This is either really horrible or really sad
This week, it was reported by several media outlets, including the New York Post‘s Michael Starr that Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, a recently ousted contestant from NBC’s “The Apprentice” has accused another contestant of using a racial slur against her during the taping of the highly rated reality series.
While appearing on ABC’s “The View,” Omarosa came forward and claimed that another cast member called her the dreaded “N” word while she was on the show and it was one of the “worst experiences on that show.”
I’ll be honest I have two polar opposite views to this story. First, I’ll take the side of Omarosa and state the obvious. I find it deplorable that people in 2004 still feel the need to use the “N” word as a derogatory term against African-American people. I will never understand the thought process of those who think it’s OK to use that disrespectful, despicable, and disgusting term against another human being. African-American men may call each other that, but I believe that’s their own business. I, as a Caucasian male, have no right to ever utter that word for as long as I live. I don’t mind saying f*ck, shit, asshole, and cosksucker. Those are completely different in my opinion though. Therefore, to hear that Omarosa had to deal with this kind of intolerance is nothing short of mind boggling
HOWEVER
The other side of me simply doesn’t believe Omarosa and doesn’t believe anything like that ever happened. During the taping of a reality show like the one for “The Apprentice,” the cameras are always on recording just about every single relevant moment taking place. They may not get what’s happening when the contestants are sleeping, showering, or getting dressed, but just about everything else is captured for video posterity. If one contestant did verbally abuse Omarosa in that sense, I do believe that SOMEONE, whether it be a producer, a camera man, or even another contestant would have said something of that magnitude, would have heard it and done something about it.
The idea of the show is that Donald Trump is supposed to find the best person to pay an obscenely high salary to run one of his companies. If he got word that one of the contestants felt that way about African-Americans, there is NO WAY IN HELL he or she would be allowed to participate further in the show. Trump just doesn’t need the aggravation when he would have thousands of qualified people tripping over themselves to work for him.
So, combining this personal theory with the fact that Omarosa had a knack of being dramatic and getting out of certain tasks (like that piece of plaster hitting her on the head during the apartment renovation project), I am not sure I should believe her. How do we know she isn’t just trying to extend her “15 minutes of fame” into 20 or 25? I firmly believe it’s possible and that’s why I am not so firm in my belief that she’s telling the truth.
***Quick Hits ***
***RIP Eldin – Robert Pastorelli, best known to fans as housepainter and confidante, Eldin, to Candice Bergen’s title character on CBS’ “Murphy Brown” was found dead in the bathroom of his Hollywood Hills home. It is unknown how Pastorelli died but he has publicly discussed his ongoing battle with substance abuse and the coroner in the case noted that there was drug paraphernalia present in the house.
In addition to “Murphy Brown,” Pastorelli performed on several other short lived television shows and had roles in the movies Dances with Wolves, Michael, and Eraser. He was a fun, accomplished character actor and will be missed.
***An Oscar nominee could be headed to “CSI” – Several sources, including Zap2it, have reported that former Oscar Nominee and accomplished film actor, Gary Sinise, has been in discussions with CBS to headline the upcoming second “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” spin off, “CSI: New York.” According to The Hollywood Reporter, talks have been “on-again, off-again” but are still ongoing now.
Zap2it noted that since the show will be spinning off from original “CSI” spin off “CSI: Miami,” the network needs some preliminary casting taken care of since they will need to tape the episode to be aired before the season ends in May. It should be interesting to see if Gary Sinise ends up starring in the new “CSI.”
***The Donald heading to late night – In a move that shouldn’t be terribly surprising, Donald Trump will be hosting the April 3rd episode of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”
There are a great many factors contributing to why Trump is a pretty good host for this show. First, NBC would love the additional publicity that Trump could provide not only to the Thursday night reality sensation, “The Apprentice,” but also “Saturday Night Live” too. In addition, it’s been pretty obvious that Lorne Michaels and NBC have been unafraid to let non-actors/comedians host the show since athletes like Michael Jordan and politicians like Rudy Giulanni and Steve Forbes have all taken their turns in that role. Getting someone like Trump to be involved could peak the curiosity factor as TV viewers may ask themselves “Can he be funny?” Also, “Saturday Night Live” has always seemed to pride itself on staying “hip” and up with the trends in popular culture at a certain time. After all, today, you’ll never see an episode with Corbin Bernsen hosting and Tears for Fears as the musical guest. Therefore, since Trump’s “The Apprentice” is one of the hottest shows on television now, “SNL” is ready to hop on board and “be relevant.”
***Dear Abby, My husband Homer – It’s a TV story coming to real life! At least that was almost the case until a faithful editor did the honest thing and intervened. I think poor “Dear Abby” would have looked pretty foolish if this slipped by
An e-mailer with some perspective
Jason Mis sent me an email this week about the March 6th Groove Tube Update and had quite a bit to say which gave me quite a bit to respond to. Jason’s email said:
You mention a study showing my demographic is moving away from TV for video games, then demonstrate that there’s nothing to watch except detective and reality shows, both of which I hate. You suggested extending “Raymond” by, of all things, having someone have a baby. Every show you wrote about just made me think “When is Metal Gear Solid 3 coming out?”. (By the way, I would submit that Kings/Lakers is the best rivalry in sports. But I don’t care about baseball, so take it for what it’s worth.)
I feel like I’m rebelling in my TV choices.
I like Gilmore Girls and Joan of Arcadia. Enough pandering and filth. Give me shows with some thought put into them. I wish Janet Jackson would be permanently banished from entertainment. If she just serves as a catalyst for a return toward decency, and stops the affront to my intelligence that is 90% of current programming, I’ll be thrilled. Not only has she refused to own up to what she did, now she’s going on SNL to make light of it. This whole thing just happens to have had the side effect of reminding us she exists in the first place. Her brother’s negative attention doesn’t sell albums, and it won’t work for her either. I hate the networks for making me sound like some crusty old Republican with this rant. I’m very relieved that my peers are starting to revolt against this trash.
One last thought: Networks now have a lot to gain by portraying video games in a negative light, don’t they? “Don’t let video games turn little Johnny into a criminal. Instead, let him watch one of our fine detective programs about serial killers and rapists!
Thank you for the thought provoking email Jason. Allow me to respond.
1. I think Jason is a textbook example of some of the problems with the television industry and the study Sony completed that illustrated one of the primary predicaments: reaching males in the 18-34 demographic. While I, as someone in that targeted, hard to reach demographic, like or want to study almost all television, including reality television and detective shows, there are many others who DON’T feel that way at all. Detective shows are geared towards older adults and reality television is, in my opinion, more popular among females because of the soap opera type storylines. Since television is morphing into formulaic crime dramas and reality shows, the young males lose interest. Where does their mind go? To Metal Gear Solid 3.
2. Jason points out that I think “Everybody Loves Raymond” would be better if one of the two female lead characters had a baby. Seeing as I felt that most television skewed against young males enough as it was, he appeared to vehemently disagree with me since young men aren’t interested in pregnant television characters. When I wrote that portion of the column, I was thinking of what might be worthwhile for the television viewing public IN GENERAL, not necessarily just for the male demographic. The point of that rant was to show that losing one of the few consistently funny, great family sitcoms left on television would be a real shame and that there are new, interesting, and comical stories left to tell.
3. In regards to “permanently banishing Janet Jackson from entertainment,” I really believe Jason is barking up the wrong tree here. Yes, hers and Justin Timberlake’s little stunt was inappropriate and she deserves to be punished for her wrong doings, but the decency problem goes beyond one breast that was on camera for less than three seconds. Much of what appears on MTV, VH-1, and some broadcast network shows completely panders to the animalistic side of people whether it’s sex, gossip, or blatant celebrity worship. After all, I’ve seen Britney Spears’ new video for her single “Toxic” and frankly, I find her various gyrations and striptease type moves to be MUCH MORE indecent than a three second block of nudity during the Super Bowl halftime show. If you’re worried about decency in television, start looking at MTV and stop worrying about Janet Jackson.
However, I will say that I’m not that affected by it either way. While I believe the “MTV Culture” plays a bigger role in the indecency argument than Janet Jackson does, I’m also not demanding that MTV immediately eliminate the T & A aspect of its programming. The reason for that is I only consider myself a television “advocate” when it comes to the elimination of all creativity in the industry and when “family shows” stop being “family shows.” If a show like the WB’s campy Christian drama “7th Heaven” stopped focusing on family and started featuring more shots of topless women, I might take a stand up and take notice.
That’s not me wussing out of a serious topic debate in the world of television and popular culture. That’s me saying I’d rather report, analyze, and comment on the debate than get involved with it. I’d rather talk about the lack of good comedy on small screen today or the saturation of reality shows in the industry than Janet Jackson’s breast. I don’t work for any right-wing organizations or believe in any crazy causes. All I know is I root for the television industry to sort itself out and not leave people like Jason with such a nasty, negative attitude about people like Janet Jackson, or those associated with “Saturday Night Live.”
4. I also don’t really agree with Jason’s assessment of the television industry “portraying video games in a negative light.” If anything, I believe that television executives are trying to counter the fact that video games have become so immensely popular by opening their arms to the phenomenon rather than shutting it out. Take these two examples: a) UPN’s new prime-time show, “Game Over” is a show about a suburban family (the Smashenburns nice ) living in an alternative video game reality and deal with assorted monsters and cartoon characters in the process. Is the concept lame? Perhaps. However, it’s an attempt to incorporate the video game culture into the world of television. b) Consider the new programming strategy for the Game Show Network. Instead of showing repeats of old game shows, the network is going to rename itself after its initials (GSN) and not only air various game shows, but repeats of reality shows and programming devoted to the video game industry. This shows an obvious attempt to work WITH those affiliated with video games and not against them
Thanks for the email Jason now you understand why I wanted to respond in my column rather than in a personal email.
Closing Credits: “Law & Order” goes to Mr. Coogan’s law school!
I took an “Issues in Popular Culture” class in the Fall of 2002 at Syracuse University. The professor, the esteemed Robert Thompson, essentially broke down elements of our popular culture that we tend to ignore — like swearing, fast food, and various fashion trends — and explained their significance by looking at their history. One topic we spent more time on than any other was the history, development, and eventual decline in popularity of the radio. Dr. Thompson talked about some radio shows being on the air for 20 or in some cases 30 years. He cited that radio shows enjoyed that type of longevity because the characters on many radio programs don’t have to age because no one is seeing them, it’s all a matter of how the radio consumers see what is happening in their own eyes.
Thompson noted that in the age of television, this is hardly the case. We can look at a show like “Friends” for example and see that when the show debuted during the 1994-95 season, it was about six twenty-something friends living, laughing, and loving their young lives in New York City. But, nine years later the show is more about the lives of six thirty-something characters. Also, instead of focusing on the dopey things that twenty-something people do when they are dating, the stories focus more on the dopey things that thirty-something people do when they are married and/or have a baby to care for (unless you’re Joey Tribbiani, in which case, things never change).
This happens all throughout television and is the primary reason why shows rarely last any longer than 8-10 seasons before they’ve run out their welcome. After all, the three boys from “Home Improvement” experienced growth spurts and developed Adam’s Apples so quickly, I think the writing staff had to change scripts by the day accounting for the fact that the boys were starting to “develop into young men.”
We can also look at a show like “Family Ties” and ask the question, how long can those three kids live under the same roof as mom and dad? (Yes, it was four, but Andy was too young to be moving anywhere when the show ended). Not only that, but is it me or did Tina Yothers not age very well? She was a cute pre-teen but once she hit that growth spurt well it wasn’t pretty. As much as we loved those characters, the production staff picked a good time to pack up shop and call it a night. This phenomenon is evident in many other successful television shows of the past. However, one particular group of programs sticks out as a show that could go on forever and not age one bit: The “Law and Order” franchise.
For those that aren’t aware, this franchise started with humble beginnings when the original “Law and Order” premiered during the 1990-91 season on NBC. Set in New York City, the plot of every show is essentially following the thought process of a group of detectives attempting to find who committed a crime (usually murder). Once the detectives find them and make the arrests, the second part of the hour-long show is devoted to the two assistant district attorneys attempting to convict the criminals that allegedly committed the crimes. The continued success of this show led to two spin-offs for NBC: “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” (or “Law and Order: SVU”) and Law and Order: Criminal Intent.”
One certainly could argue that the detectives and lawyers age just like every other human being on the planet and eventually the people that play them now will eventually retire or move onto other projects. The beauty of that likelihood is it doesn’t matter. While, at times, the writers and producers explore the personalities, thoughts, and feelings of the main characters, they are primarily there for one of two reasons: 1) Find out who committed the crime in question and arrest the perpetrator(s) or 2) Convict the SOBs that did commit the crime once they are in custody — and it’s just as interesting now as it was back in 1990 when it started. I know when I am channel surfing, and I come up to TNT and see an episode of “Law and Order,” I usually get hooked, even if it is from the 1992-93 season.
I’m revisiting this topic (I’ve written about these shows before) for a couple of reasons. First, with a fourth “Law & Order” protruding the airwaves this fall, I thought I could review and attempt to differentiate the three that are already on the air. Second, I’ll be able to give you, the reader, an opportunity to decide for yourself if my opinions about dramatic, crime television to be largely formulaic or not. I’d love to hear your opinions, so email me at coachcoogan@hotmail.com.
For this exercise, I decided to stick with the “law” theme by pretending we’re in law school. As I understand it, only a certain number of people get the A’s and everyone else gets the lower grades, so that will apply here too. One show gets the A and the other two won’t. Let the examination begin:
“Law and Order: Criminal Intent” (NBC – Sunday nights at 9:00)
Debuting during the 2001-02 season, this show departed from the style that its two predecessors employ. Instead of the viewer not knowing who committed the crime in question until the second half of the show and whether or not he would be convicted at the end of the show, the introductory segment generally allows the viewers to see what crime was being committed, and exactly who did it. At that point, it becomes a “cat and mouse” game of sorts where the audience sees the detectives chasing the perpetrators and those people running away or covering their tracks so they aren’t found and arrested.
While this is definitely an interesting and different twist compared to the previously established shows, I have to say that I don’t like this show as much as I like the others. When the viewers see who “did it” in the first segment of the show, even before the credits appear on the screen, it takes away the audience’s efforts to figure it out for themselves “Who did it?” the same way if we were reading a good mystery novel and the last few pages accidentally ended up in the front. When that happens, I’d ask “Why bother reading the rest of the book?” Once it is established who commits the crime, the show becomes less about the mystery and figuring out what happened, but strictly about the process of detaining the offender and getting him/her to admit the wrongdoing. While I enjoy that process, I enjoy it more when the audience and the investigators find the clues at the same time.
Looking at the cast of this show, I definitely have to say that this set of characters is my least favorite of the three. Vincent D’Onofrio (Mystic Pizza and Men In Black) and Kathryn Erbe (The sexy and seductive child murderer, Shirley Bellinger, in HBO’s “OZ”) are the primary characters playing detectives Robert Goren and Alexandra Eames (respectively). My main problem with them (and Courtney B. Vance’s character District Attorney Ron Carver, too, for that matter) is they seem to over-act. This is especially true in regards to D’Onofrio’s performance as Detective Goren. In addition to being some sort of genius who knows it all, he acts like it as well, a trait that’s annoying when we meet someone on the street and equally so in a television character. In addition, Goren shows an unnecessary overwrought intensity in his work. We understand that all of these detectives are supposed to be serious and convey a considerable amount of intense emotion, but in my opinion watching them makes me think of a guy pouring too much Drakkar Noir on himself it’s just too much. While it’s hard to “take a step back and smile once in a while” during a murder investigation since this isn’t exactly a comedy show, I do think they should take a step back and perhaps watch how their counterparts on “Law and Order.” act serious and intense without over-acting. I don’t see why D’Onofrio and Erbe can’t. Final Grade: C
“Law and Order: Special Victim’s Unit” (NBC Tuesday nights at 10:00)
This show follows the original “Law and Order” format in that the viewers follow the detectives as they attempt to solve a crime. However, this particular show is quite different in that the crimes that the detectives are trying to solve are generally sex crimes such as rape, child molestation, or murder that might have gone along with other related offenses. For example, check out this description of the 100th episode from the NBC website:
When a subway commuter is mutilated during his evening commute, Detectives Benson (Mariska Hargitay) and Stabler (Christopher Meloni) scour the subway platform, believing the attack to have been perpetrated by a territorial transient. However, when the station surveillance tapes reveal the attacker to be a women, the detectives discover their victim has been abducting women and forcing them to live in his dungeon for several years, pointing their suspicions to one of his victims.
I think “unbelievably intense” is a light of a description for that storyline. I’m pretty sure many people would need to take a shower to clean themselves up after watching a storyline like that. What is remarkable is that almost every episode of this show provides an interesting, albeit f*cked up, story just like the one noted above. I am not sure I could stomach an all-day marathon of this show on the USA network, but watching one or two episodes at a time is A-OK.
This show also has a very interesting cast. In addition to Marsika Hargitay (“ER”) and Christopher Meloni (Chris Keller from “OZ”) playing the key detectives, Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler respectively, Richard Belzer reprises his character Detective John Munch from “Homicide: Life on the Street” in this show and Dann Florek, formerly of the original “Law and Order,” brings back his character Detective Donald Cragen. Last, but certainly not least, the cast member first time viewers are most likely to recognize is rapper/movie star Ice-T, playing Detective Odafin “Fin” Tutuola. It definitely a good mix since all the characters bring a certain intensity and style to their roles, but not so intense where I smell Drakkar like I do with the “Law and Order: Criminal Intent” cast. In addition, they aren’t so stylish that I feel like I am watching “Miami Vice.”
The only knock I have on this show is that while it employs the courtroom drama as part of the program led by supporting character Assistant District Attorney, Casey Novak, currently played by Diane Neal, it does so sporadically at best. There are some episodes where we see a significant amount of the action unfolding in the courtroom, and others with none at all. I enjoy the courtroom conflict just as much as I enjoy watching the detectives “find their man.” For this reason, I have to knock the show down a bit on the law grade scale. Final Grade: B
“Law and Order” (NBC – Wednesday nights, 10:00)
As is the case with many movies that spawn sequels, I have to say that the original “Law and Order” is the best. I find that the writers and producers attempt to hold true to the nuts and bolts of the show: the Detectives finding out who committed the crime, and District Attorneys trying to put them away. In the meantime, Mr. Wolf is deviating from that formula with the other spin-offs.
For the most part, I like what the original “Law and Order” brings to each case. It allows the viewers to get a taste of what it’s like to be a New York City cop investigating murder, but it doesn’t spend the entire hour dragging it out like ABC’s short lived reprise of “Dragnet” did. In addition, this show gives the audience a chance to see what being a District Attorney is like but doesn’t focus entirely on the process of law like another ABC show “The Practice” does. It’s definitely a good mix and they work better together than they would separately.
The current cast of “Law and Order” is definitely my favorite as well. Jerry Orbach (“Daddy” from Dirty Dancing) and Jesse L. Martin (recurring roles on “Ally McBeal” and “The X-Files”) play Detectives Lennie Briscoe and Ed Green respectively. Of all the “Law & Order” characters, I love Orbach’s character the most primarily because he brings a certain sarcastic humor to his investigations. He knows when to keep his mouth shut when he has to, but when he doesn’t, he’s got something to say about everyone just like most New Yorkers do. In the meantime Martin’s character pretty much plays Orbach’s “straight man”, maintaining a serious tone when needed.
Sam Wasterston (playing A.D.A. Jack McCoy), Elisabeth Rohm (as the younger, less experienced A.D.A. Serena Southerlyn) and former U.S. Senator and Prosecutor Fred Thompson (as the recently elected D.A. Arthur Branch) comprise the legal team that prosecutes the criminals that the police bring in. They don’t have the sense of humor that the detectives do, but they bring a certain charm to their roles that makes you want to root for them every time out even if you don’t necessarily agree with all of their arguments. The viewers definitely get the impression that these characters appreciate what they do for a living, and might even see the satisfaction these actors get out of playing these characters. Coupling this aspect with the storylines of the show is why in this law school class, the original “Law and Order” gets the best grade. Final Grade: A
In the mean time, as I wrap this up, I’ll say that no matter what “Law & Order” it is, I hope you
Enjoy the Show!
(and email me at coachcoogan@hotmail.com)
— Coogan
