http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/11/DD2IVHMSC.DTL
Review: 'Return of Jezebel James' infantile
Tim Goodman
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Return of Jezebel James: Sitcom. 8 p.m. Fridays on Fox.
Viewers can learn a lot from shows they shouldn't watch. "The Return of
Jezebel James" on Fox is a
prime example and, as a bonus, it illustrates how networks do business.
(Badly.)
This series was one of those classic looks-great-on-paper ideas that goes
horribly wrong. Take Amy
Sherman-Palladino, acclaimed creator of "Gilmore Girls," and add two
wonderful actresses: indie
movie queen Parker Posey and "Six Feet Under" alum Lauren Ambrose. Can't
fail, right?
See first paragraph above.
To begin with, though "Gilmore Girls" had a wonderful early run, it
suffered steep creative
declines brought on, one can assume pretty confidently, from
Sherman-Palladino believing too much
of her press. A gifted writer of snarky, fast-paced comedy but, more
important, blessed with Lauren
Graham as a lead actress, Sherman-Palladino was able to make "Gilmore
Girls" a real revelation on
the WB in 2000. It was fresh, inventive and brought a new kind of
mother-daughter relationship to
television (the mom, played by Graham, was really the child, and the
entire thing had a hipness
that extended from the pop culture references to the soundtrack). But the
more successful the
series became, and the more acclaim Sherman-Palladino (who's prone to
super-funky attire, including
wacky hats that scream "trying way too hard" instead of "eclectic") got,
the worse the show got.
Ultimately, "Gilmore Girls" spun out of control, and the final season was
done entirely without
Sherman-Palladino before the show was canceled.
But, in the television business, once you're a talent, you're almost
always a talent - the
three-strike rule being a close but not definitive example of how often
you're given chances after
failing. So Fox liked Sherman-Palladino's script for "The Return of
Jezebel James" and then,
incredibly, the filmed pilot as well.
That pilot was supposed to air tonight after "American Idol," which would
have given it a huge
boost. Instead, the pilot will air Friday. That's not altogether bad news
for the show because
women are the target of this series, and Friday nights are geared toward
women.
The problem comes with the actual pilot. Not many women will want to come
back after seeing it
because the first 30 minutes are a complete and utter mess. Not only that,
but the pilot is also
pointless because by the second episode (at least the one sent to
critics), everything's different.
The main hook is there - Sarah (Posey), a successful children's book
editor, can't have children,
so she asks her estranged sister, Coco (Ambrose), to carry it for her -
but most of the other
details vanish.
For example, Sarah appears to work for a book company owned by a
semi-grumpy woman with a cute
granddaughter. In the second episode, she works for HarperCollins (which
apparently bought or ate
the lady and the kid). Also, in the pilot, Sarah lives in a cramped, homey
place - left alone there
by her boyfriend, who seems to have gone gay. In the second episode, she
lives in a huge, hip loft
and there's not much mention of a boyfriend. In the pilot, we meet Sarah's
"no strings attached,"
"no talking about personal issues" man friend Marcus (Scott Cohen), who
might be a lawyer. In the
next episode, he'll be Sarah's "boyfriend" - and also her colleague at
HarperCollins.
Yes, a lot changes from pilot to second episode (if Fox chooses to
actually air that as the second
episode or at all). But there are some positives, too: The second episode
sent to critics is much
better than the pilot, which upgrades the show from unwatchable to
watchable, but not exactly
interesting.
The problem, unfortunately, appears to be that Sherman-Palladino both
wrote and directed the pilot.
In it, she manages to make Posey chew more scenery and act more painfully
daft than anyone could
imagine, given Posey's many creative film triumphs. Where
Sherman-Palladino directed Posey to be
scatterbrained and flippantly witty, it just came off as ditzy. (In one
scene, we're supposed to
believe that not only has Sarah lost one of her high-heeled shoes and
barely noticed but also that
she was wearing them on the wrong feet most of the night. That's not
charmingly eccentric, it's
stupid.)
The Posey element is rectified, thankfully, in the second episode, where
she's more likable,
funnier, less scattered and better able to deliver the goods.
The presence of Ambrose as Coco is a welcome relief in the late minutes of
the pilot, and she
continues to be strong in the second episode. Unfortunately, that's not
enough - mostly because the
pilot does immeasurable damage to your willingness to return, and once you
do, it's an entirely new
series. And not one ready to earn your forgiveness. That's probably why
Fox cut the episode order
of "The Return of Jezebel James" from 13 to seven and moved it to Fridays.
It's tempting to think that if Fox had just redone the pilot, or killed
it, the fixes we see in the
second episode would make a better show. The tonal shift is remarkable,
with Posey being funnier
and more confident, Ambrose playing the little sister as a slacker counter
to Posey's uptight,
successful editor. That's the hook, is it not? Two very different sisters
who have barely spoken
through the years are brought together in this contrived birthing
situation. Not wholly original,
but Posey and Ambrose could nail the material if it were right.
But it's not, and "The Return of Jezebel James" (a reference to Coco's
imaginary friend from
childhood) never connects.
So what can we take away from this failure analysis? For starters, a
series that seems funny as a
script can go terribly sideways if the direction is bad and the star is
asked to do something she's
not fit for. Second, the responsibility of the network rests in fixing
what it couldn't see on
paper - but what it should have plainly seen in the pilot.
An argument could be made that Fox did fix the show going forward, but its
decision to air the
original pilot despite its barely matching the next episode in look or
tone is just not acceptable,
even if you want to play the fiscal card. It looks as if "The Return of
Jezebel James" was a
casualty of the writers strike. Fox didn't want to pay to reshoot the
pilot because it lost faith
in the series' potential (which is also why it cut the episode order).
Since the network is going to win the season anyway, why not burn off the
series as is? Who knows,
maybe it'll work, right?
Well, now you know that it doesn't work. And why.
--
David
http://geocities.com/daviderl31/GilmoreGirls.htm
LORELAI: What is right anyway, you know?
Who defines right? And if eating cake is wrong, I don't want to be right.
FRAN: I'm bringing out a mocha crunch cream.
LORELAI: So, ethics?
RORY: Highly subjective and completely overrated.
LORELAI: That's my girl.
|
