On 12 Mar, 18:20, "David E. Milligan" <david...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/c/a/2008/03/11/DD2IVH...=
>
> Review: 'Return of Jezebel James' infantile
> Tim Goodman
>
> Wednesday, March 12, 2008
>
> =A0The 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
Je=
zebel James" on Fox is a
> prime example and, as a bonus, it illustrates how networks do business.
(B=
adly.)
>
> 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
wonde=
rful actresses: indie
> movie queen Parker Posey and "Six Feet Under" alum Lauren Ambrose. Can't
f=
ail, right?
>
> See first paragraph above.
>
> To begin with, though "Gilmore Girls" had a wonderful early run, it
suffer=
ed steep creative
> declines brought on, one can assume pretty confidently, from
Sherman-Palla=
dino believing too much
> of her press. A gifted writer of snarky, fast-paced comedy but, more
im****=
tant, blessed with Lauren
> Graham as a lead actress, Sherman-Palladino was able to make "Gilmore
Girl=
s" a real revelation on
> the WB in 2000. It was fresh, inventive and brought a new kind of
mother-d=
aughter relation****p to
> television (the mom, played by Graham, was really the child, and the
entir=
e 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
supe=
r-funky attire, including
> wacky hats that scream "trying way too hard" instead of "eclectic") got,
t=
he 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
alway=
s a talent - the
> three-strike rule being a close but not definitive example of how often
yo=
u're given chances after
> failing. So Fox liked Sherman-Palladino's script for "The Return of
Jezebe=
l 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
w=
omen.
>
> 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
edito=
r, can't have children,
> so she asks her estranged sister, Coco (Ambrose), to carry it for her -
bu=
t most of the other
> details vanish.
>
> For example, Sarah appears to work for a book company owned by a
semi-grum=
py woman with a cute
> granddaughter. In the second episode, she works for HarperCollins (which
a=
pparently 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
l=
ives 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
mi=
ght be a lawyer. In the
> next episode, he'll be Sarah's "boyfriend" - and also her colleague at
Har=
perCollins.
>
> Yes, a lot changes from pilot to second episode (if Fox chooses to
actuall=
y 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
watchab=
le, but not exactly
> interesting.
>
> The problem, unfortunately, appears to be that Sherman-Palladino both
wrot=
e 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-Palladin=
o directed Posey to be
> scatterbrained and flippantly witty, it just came off as ditzy. (In one
sc=
ene, we're supposed to
> believe that not only has Sarah lost one of her high-heeled shoes and
bare=
ly noticed but also that
> she was wearing them on the wrong feet most of the night. That's not
charm=
ingly eccentric, it's
> stupid.)
>
> The Posey element is rectified, thankfully, in the second episode, where
s=
he'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
en=
ough - 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
Fo=
x 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 ****ft is remarkable,
wi=
th 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
situatio=
n. 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
ima=
ginary friend from
> childhood) never connects.
>
> So what can we take away from this failure analysis? For starters, a
serie=
s that seems funny as a
> script can go terribly sideways if the direction is bad and the star is
as=
ked to do something she's
> not fit for. Second, the responsibility of the network rests in fixing
wha=
t 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
ton=
e is just not acceptable,
> even if you want to play the fiscal card. It looks as if "The Return of
Je=
zebel James" was a
> casualty of the writers strike. Fox didn't want to pay to reshoot the
pilo=
t 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.
>
> --
> Davidhttp://geocities.com/daviderl31/GilmoreGirls.htm
> =A0LORELAI: What is right anyway, you know?
> Who defines right? And if eating cake is wrong, I don't want to be
right.
> =A0FRAN: =A0I'm bringing out a mocha crunch cream.
> =A0LORELAI: So, ethics?
> =A0RORY: Highly subjective and completely overrated.
> =A0LORELAI: That's my girl.
So you don't want anyone to watch this show
|
