Just a few post-Gg observations:
1) Lauren Graham apparently either got really pissed off at Alexis or
really prepared for the writers' strike because she's sure got another
commercial gig so suspiciously soon after Gg's indefinite hiatus
started. She's done the voiceover for the new American Express Plum
Card (for small businesses). Usually, commercial campaigns take quite
some time to air. Several months and sometimes even up to a year
depending on how big the campaign is and since it's AmEx, I'm figuring
that it's a fairly big campaign launch. I spotted the commercial
during Countdown and then thought it was hilarious that it *didn't*
air during Samantha Who?, especially since, well, that plum color is
pretty.
2) Okay, you know how it seems like Shondaland is becoming
Shondaland, as I noted to zap2it's TV Gal last week? (Sutcliffe and
Agena on Private Practice, Herrmann on Grey's). Well, those that
haven't made it to the promised Shondaland seem to be exiled to Monday
nights. Milo on Heroes, Patterson on (ugh) Aliens in America,
McCarthy (miscast) on Samantha Who? and Kirk -- err, Sean Gunn on
October Road. That would be five Gilmore Geeks on Monday nights in
2007 if you count John Cabrera (Brian) as one of Matt's staff writers
on Studio 60 last season.
3) Speaking of Melissa McCarthy: Okay, Heroes wasn't on tonight, so I
did watch my second episode of Samantha Who? tonight. The series
still shows promise but is stumbling with a huge case of tonal
inconsistency -- the character is supposed to be torn between polar
opposites, not the show. Samantha is a big, broad character as played
by Christina Applegate, and rightfully so. The character has
traumatic amnesia, she's *supposed* to be a basket case. But in order
for the story to work, it's got to be based in reality -- such as Tim
Tuvok Russ's droll reactions to her as the doorman to Samatha's
ex-boyfriend's hotel.
The problem is their misconception of McCarthy's character, Dina
(sp?). Essentially, this almost stalkerish character, who didn't come
off well in the pilot, appears to be the show's Kirk, the person that
they want to be the community oddball. WIth this being a half-hour
show in a very odd strike-ridden season, I think the show's makers are
either going to have turn Dina into an actual character or write her
out of the show. Samantha Who just doesn't have enough time to turn
the cartoon of Dina into their own Kirk. And to be honest, Kirk
doesn't even serve the same function on Gg. Dina is supposed to be
the thematic antithesis to Andrea and Bad Samantha whereas Kirk's
storylines on Gg generally paralleled or parodied something going on
between Lorelai and Rory/Luke/Emily or otherwise riffed on the theme
of the week. For instance, just how does the "Does the carpet match
the drapes?" joke have anything to do with the episode's variation on
the show's overall idea of Samantha learning that being too needy in
her shortlived relation****p is just as bad as its opposite, being a
cold ***** to her ex-, Todd?
But they're trying to eat their cake and have it, too by putting up
this false dichotomy between McCarthy's naiive, *theoretically*
angelic Dina and Jennifer Esposito's assertive, devilish playah,
Andrea. The problem is that Dina is being ****trayed not as angelic,
but as pathetic. Not because of MM's weight, which IMO, isn't the
issue, but something that somebody else would probably target (I'm
cynical about viewers), but because Samantha is so big and so broad a
character that the show needs the debate between the "angel" and the
"devil," so to speak, be a fair fight in terms of tone and
characterization. Esposito's Andrea is a relatively realistic take in
terms of comedy on her white-collar power-gal character (also
representing Samantha's past to an extent). Dina, however, as a
stalkerish naif is so broadly drawn, so grating and so eempty-headed
that it makes it look like MM is phoning in her lines even though she
isn't -- that there's really nothing there for Samantha to aspire to,
to be her future in the way Andrea is her past. Or to put it in
simpler terms: Andrea is a three-dimensional character and Dina is a
one-dimensional character. Even if they don't mean it, the show is
stacking the deck *against* both Dina as a character and the
angel/devil dichotomy in general.
Worse yet (for MM fans), the show seems to be losing interest in the
Dina character as *Andrea* served as the voice of reason, explaining
every lesson that Samantha needed to know about getting into her first
post-amnesia relation****p even though Samantha ignored everything she
said and lost the guy as the logical result.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
|
