GOAL!

Be forewarned, this story is really only funny if you know my mom. As such, read at your own peril (you know, of boredom or whatever).

When you watch as much television as I do, it's necessary to have rules and boundaries established for appropriate viewing conduct. These guidelines have changed and morphed over the years to suit everyone's (but mainly my) viewing needs, taking into account the quirks of fellow viewers and the technological advances (the godsend that is my DVR) that affect the viewing experience. These rules, if strictly observed, allow for the glory of television to be enjoyed as it was intended.

There are numerous rules which are observed, but none so important as raising your hand when you have a question. It may seem juvenile and petty, but believe me, given the two people with whom I watch most of my shows, it's absolutely essential.

You see, when you watch television with people who are easily confused (particularly for shows that involve complex storylines and lengthy story arcs), the only way to stem the tide of questions and not allow for such questions to ruin the viewing experience is to stop the show, call on the raised hand, answer the question, and move on. Otherwise, you (meaning "I") miss the next few minutes of show, thereby leaving me as confused as the question-asker. It quickly spirals down into an irritating session of the blind leading the blind and then no one enjoys anything at all.

Henceforth, the rule was imposed. It was first initiated during Alias, then codified during Veronica Mars--two shows that inevitably led to a hell of a lot of questions. I swear, it's a good thing Alias ended, because if I had to respond to, "Wait a minute, I thought she was dead/evil/Sydney's aunt/mother/cousin/former roommate/accountant..." one more time, I think I'd have killed myself. Please also bear in mind that my mother is the kind of person who will watch the opening scene of a movie, see a man on screen walking down a street, and lean over to me and ask, "Who's that?! Where is he going?!" To which my usual response is, "We don't know yet! I promise they'll tell us." So you can see where Alias and VM were just asking for trouble (read: annoying questions). My brother, while not quite as bad as my mother, also joins in on the question asking, although his confusion generally boils down to him not paying attention rather than jumping the gun on storylines.

The rule actually started out that they could only ask questions during commercial breaks (you know, back in the dark ages when we still had to watch commercial breaks) or that they had to raise a hand to get me to stop the tape and answer a question. You have no idea what kind of pressure it puts on me as a viewer to know that I'm going to undergo a comprehensive quiz every 8-10 minutes. It's always felt like one of those god-awful reading comprehensive tests that we had to take back in school. I'm forced to pay attention to the minutest of details, keep story arcs straight over several seasons, and basically predict the future when questions such as, "So, is he a bad guy?" arise and I have to base a theory on the previous dozen episodes.

It's taxing, believe me.

But also pretty funny a lot of the time.

So the other night my brother, mother, and I were watching ABC's Castle, which is a actually quite good, so you should totally check it out (it's a good, no pressure, little commitment kind of show). Anyway, about two minutes in, my brother raises a hand, I stop the DVR, and field his most frequently asked question, "So, what is this show about?" Easy enough to address when the show is in its third episode and has a very basic premise, but when he comes in half-way through the second season of Burn Notice, it's kind of ridiculous.

Anyway, about a half an hour later, Rick Castle (aka Nathan Fillion aka Malcolm Reynolds aka Cap'n Hammer), says that from the ancient Greek, the word "tragedy" literally means "goat song." I couldn't help but to crack up at my mother's reaction. Rather than raising a hand and asking me for the complete history of ancient Greece and it's linguistic origins, she threw both hands up in the air in what can only be described as, well... "GOOOOOOOAL!"

Unable to contain my delighted curiosity, I stopped the show, saw the look of enlightenment on her face, called on her, and got this as her relieved, awestruck, triumphant response, "I read some stupid book in college called Goat Song and I never knew why it was called that!" It was as though a tremendous burden had been lifted and she could finally go on with her life. I could practically see the lightbulb above her head.

Apparently the book was in fact a tragedy, so I guess the title is appropriate.

This is a woman who can't remember what movie she went to the night before, but somehow Goat Song lingered somewhere in the back of her head for over 40 years. Wow.

I think it's kind of like when you see a movie when you're a kid and then again as an adult and suddenly everything makes sense. There are few events more satisfying than, "Ohhh, so that's what that meant!"

Kudos, Castle. Kudos.

Heavy-Handed Metaphors, party of, like 17 at least...

For a show as grandiose and magisterial as NBC's new drama Kings, it was really begging for reviews titled "Epic Fail" in the event that it sucked, but fortunately for the show (and the viewers of the 2 hour 'movie-event' pilot), it has definite potential. While I'm not completely sold on the show yet, the pilot was encouraging and I'm compelled to give it a few more weeks to really find its feet.

The series centers around the royal family of the alternate reality country of Gilboa (it's basically New York City) and the war with neighboring country Gath (which if Gilboa is NYC, then Gath would be... New Jersey? (Oh, the humanity!)). It's basically a construct of the United States as ruled by a monarch (which, in case you didn't believe me about the rampant, and often overbearing metaphors, the family symbol is, wait for it, the monarch (butterfly)--yep, the monarch is represented by a monarch. It doesn't get much more straight forward than that (except that it totally does)...and we haven't even gotten to the transformation/rebirth aspect of that symbol yet).

The monarchy sets the scene, but it's the painfully overt David and Goliath theme that's most elemental to the narrative. And in just case you happen to be performing brain surgery, writing a concerto, and creating your own perpetual motion machine while watching the pilot, the writers have conveniently named the David-like character "David," and the huge, evil, Gath tanks "Goliaths," in case you somehow managed to have missed it. I was a little annoyed at the cheeseballishness of this move, but in actuality, the Goliath that David (whose last name is Shepherd, lest we go 2 minutes without a ham-fisted metaphor/aptonym) is opposing is King Silas himself (at least for now), so eye-rollingly obvious imagery and metaphor aside, I think ultimately the concept has merit. I get that they're modernizing Biblical themes here, but I would have appreciated a little more subtlety. I like it when parallels and references sneak up on you, rather than being thrown at you. Which isn't to say the show isn't good, it just didn't appeal to those particular sensibilities as I would have hoped... The writers have undertaken a huge task and have largely succeeded with it, snarky comments notwithstanding. Also, by putting the thematic influences out there so blatantly, it manages to largely prevent criticisms that the theme was borrowed because they flat out tell you it was borrowed. Anyway, if you're into biblical themes and epic presentation of said themes, well then hot damn! We have a winner!

As is predictably the case when using biblical themes, royalty, and war as your central elements, the tone and appearance of the show are very grand, magisterial, and even Shakespearean--all of which is clearly reflected in the production values of the show. I don't know what the overhead for this show is, but I can only imagine how high the viewership will need to be to keep it on the air. The two-hour pilot was, to say the least, impressive to watch. Like most other shows, the pilot has a lot more budget to work with than a regular episode and it was clearly apparent in Kings' premiere (and which I'm not sure will translate very well to week-to-week budgetary constrictions). The quality of the sets, costumes, effects, and everything else were pretty much beyond reproach. The writers recognized that presenting an alternate universe (albeit very much like our own) would be a hard sell and they went to expansive lengths to make the viewer believe it. And at least in my viewing experience, they succeeded. There were decisions I wouldn't made and things I would have changed, but overall, it was effective.

As compelling as the backdrop and underlying (well, overlying, really) themes were, the characters themselves were equally engaging, for the most part. I was a little irked at the lack of diversity in the cast, what with 90% of the cast being white men, but I'm going to assume the show is making a commentary on the underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in the political arena today... I kinda doubt that was their intent, but it makes it much less annoying to see the majority of women and faces of color acting as extras, sitting silently around the table while the white guys get to talk. There are notable exceptions, of course, the queen and princess filling the female quota, and Reverend Samuels (who is an excellent addition to the cast) serving as the only minority with a major role, but I would have liked to have seen a lot more diversity. Seriously, the writers had the option to create an alternate universe here and they chose all the same conventions of the actual world. I'm assuming that was their intent, and I'm hopeful something fruitful comes of it, but it's still irksome.

Anyway, alighting from my soapbox now, the cast, albeit largely white and male, is superb. The acting was convincing across the board, and given the gravity of the subject matter at hand, that's really saying something. I'm not kidding when I say the show should be in iambic pentameter. It felt like one of Shakespeare's histories pretty much from beginning to end, but the cast (much of which being a very young cast) was able to make it work. Although both King Silas and David, as the central conflict in the story, were well cast and effective, I found myself most intrigued by the prince and, quite surprisingly, the queen, who had very little screen time compared to the rest of the cast.

The fact that Prince Jack is played by Sebastian Stan (aka Carter Baizen on Gossip Girl, aka real life boyfriend of Leighton Meester (aka Blair Waldorf)) was not lost on me, but it colored my judgment of the his performance in a way I didn't expect. I was never particularly enthralled by his role on Gossip Girl, but in Kings, he has a much meatier role to work with and he really brings his A-game. I was expecting to see Carter Baizen (particularly given the ostensible similarities in the characters), but was rather pleasantly presented with a much more complex, well-rounded, and darker character than I had envisioned. The pilot crammed a whole lot of twists and turns into one episode (which is kind of a shame--I think it would have been better to roll them out over time), so even the mental and emotional progression of his character over just two hours was pretty impressive. The scene with King Silas completely crushing his son's perceptions on the steps of...whatever that place was supposed to be... was the most emotionally resonant scene of the pilot for me. And yes, I'm taking into account David's soliloquy on the battlefield. David's speech was all epic and sad and everything, but seeing the prince's face as his father calls him out on his secrets and undercuts his notions about everything was much subtler and more compelling. I thought Stan did a particularly impressive job conveying the course of the prince's emotions, even while not saying a word. Long story short, Stan's performance in Kings is kind of making me like Carter Baizen more... and that's a tall order to fill.

Perhaps subtlety just appeals to my sensibilities more than grandiose speechifying, but I think the queen is going to be one of the most pivotal and intriguing characters of the series. It seems silly to focus my review of the pilot of any set of characters other than King Silas and David, but here we are. King Silas and David are both interesting enough, and compelling in a very straight forward, "hey look! it's our central characters" kind of way (and David's naivete in the big bad world should play out nicely), but that's discernable from even the briefest trailer for the show. The whole David and Goliath conceit will be pervasive and front and center for a good long while to come, and I think that's where I'm a bit complacent about them...

Anyway, they're both fine and good and obvious, and therefore not as compelling as the queen. As long as I'm putting things in Shakespearean terms, I got the impression from the pilot that the queen will serve as the fool of the series. The queen actively pretended not to care about politics, even stating as such, but, like the fool, I got the impression that she's the slyest one of all. She puts on a facade of political apathy and of having only the simple tasks of a politician's wife to attend to, but it was clear to me that she plays the game as well as anyone, if not better. Unlike her rivals, she has a certain invisibility that comes with her innocuous facade which allows her much more power and influence than others. Her love for her son being a key factor in her political manipulations, I think she and the prince will be the most devious and quietly powerful players on the board. That she has such potential makes the lack of women in the cast a bit more palatable, but only if the writers exercise that potential to the fullest. The queen has a real opportunity for subterfuge and political domination and I'm hopeful she plays her cards right in this regard.

The pilot set a whole cavalcade of storylines, mysteries, character arcs, and plot twist into motion. I would have liked to have seen a lot of what was put in the pilot slowly rolled out over the course of the season, but I might have been bored by the pilot if they had. In spite of the length, I was genuinely interested for the entire pilot and am excited to see more, if for no other reason than this show is an English major's dream...slash nightmare. The heavy-handed imagery and metaphors are so patent that it makes it kind of un-fun to recognize them, but it's still interesting to see how the writers have translated such old themes into a more modern context. The tone was necessarily severe, but I would have liked to have seen some levity in the mix. The relationship between David and the princess (yeah, yeah, more themes, we get it) was fairly light-hearted, but still kind of grave. Given the intensity of the rest of the pilot, I think the pair acting like giddy school kids would have seemed disingenuous and out of place, so I think it was a good call on the writers' part to keep it subdued. The actress did a pretty good job with the role and the pair has decent chemistry, so it all worked pretty well.

All in all, Kings has a hell of a lot of potential, but I'm not sure it's going to find an audience. I think the two-hour premiere was a misstep, albeit a necessary one. Even as dedicated a television viewer as I am, two hours of intense drama was enough to wear me down. I think a little levity would have gone a long way, but I still don't think that would be enough to generate high enough viewership to justify the production budget. I would really like to see this show do well, and lord knows Sunday night needs something worth watching, but I suspect the show will struggle. I've hear that the next few episodes are excellent and that as a viewer, you'll be totally invested after 3 or 4, so I'll definitely be tuning in for at least that long.

If you missed the premiere, I'm sure it's available online, and honestly, I think it's worth your time. In spite of the gravity of it all, it's a very well-made show that kept me interested from start to finish. The pacing is excellent, so it doesn't get bogged down, and there are enough twists and turns to keep you on your toes.

Plus, in the event that you do get bored, you can play the heavy-handed metaphors drinking game. You'll be plastered after about 20 minutes. Trust me.

I've gotta have one! [warning: post contains pretty much nothing but adult language]

Okay, I'm warning you right now that the clip below using adult language. A lot of adult language. We're talking every third or fourth word here, people. But, it totally cracked me up, so I'm posting it for your amusement... or the total corruption of your values. ;)

Those with sensitive ears should proceed no further... even though all the cool kids are doing it.

Those with the vocabulary of a drunken sailor, on the other hand, please enjoy. :)


Sony Releases New Stupid Piece Of Shit That Doesn't Fucking Work

Harmless Fluff, starring Nathan Fillion

Yeah, so there's no big mystery as to why I watched the Castle premiere last night... All I (or countless other Whedon fans) needed to know about the show was that Cap'n Mal/Hammer was at the helm.

I'm not going to spend much time on this review because frankly, the show was neither fantastic nor unwatchable, so it eliminates all the fun and satisfaction of ranting or raving about a show. But, where Nathan Fillion is smarming or cheesing it up, I'll probably be there, so here are my thoughts.

First off, I appreciate a show that is billed accurately. From what little I heard/read about this show prior to its premiere, I went into this show expecting a "romantic dramedy," and true to its word, that's exactly what I got. There's nothing more irksome than being told to expect one thing and then being presented with something else. When the show puts it's premise out there and is honest with itself from the beginning, it makes the cliches much more bearable and much less corny. The show's writers/producers set out to make a light-hearted procedural with a central love-hate romance, so when that's what shows up on the screen, it comes off as intentional and not quite so eye-rollingly trite.

So yeah, Mal plays a mystery novelist (Rick Castle, which I have to assume is a bad pen name--either that or he's Johnny's cousin (heh)) who gets pulled into a murder investigation when a seeming serial killer begins mimicking the death scenes in his books. The serious, straight-laced, and unrealistically attractive detective working the case will be playing the central love interest for the show. Again, insanely cliche (hard-nosed, earnest cop gets a fun-loving, slightly bumbling free spirit as a partner--I know, right? Wacky!), but at least they're upfront about it. I got the feeling throughout that the writers absolutely intended to make this kind of show with this kind of dynamic and this kind of tone, and that made all three much more palatable. After I accepted that this was the concept and this was the intent, I just decided to go with it.

Anyway, Nathan Fillion was his usual cheesy, smarmy, charming self and the woman playing the detective, actress Stana Katic, was enjoyable enough, so for what it was, it all worked pretty well. The detective's hard-nosed "I don't want this hooligan messing things up" shtick was pretty heavy-handed, but again, that's kind of the point. I'm not familiar with the Katic's past work, but she did a good job with what she was given and even gave it a bit more charm and humanity than you'd usually get from such a character (at least at first). I'm sure as the series progresses, Castle's charms will wear her down to reveal a much more layered, sensitive creature (as is standard for this kind of arrangement), but I did appreciate that they didn't make her totally cold to begin with. Case in point, she's a fan of Castle's work, and there were moments where her inner fangirl showed itself, and I think that sets up a more interesting dynamic than one would usually expect. Castle is apparently tight with the mayor, so when he decides his new character will be a tough, savvy female detective, our female lead has no choice but to let Castle tag along while he does "research" for the character. It's a cornball concept and a hackneyed conceit, but that doesn't mean it's awful and doesn't mean it can't be successful.

The supporting cast leaves much to be desired at this point (the floozie mother character seems particularly pointless and yet alarmingly common lately), but I'm hopeful the writers will recognize this fact and either eliminate them or give them something substantive to do. I actually didn't mind the daughter too much, which is really saying something these days. She at least serves a purpose. The mother was just a gimmick... and not even a good gimmick. They seemed to be aiming for Lucille Bluth, but totally missed the mark.

For what it was, Castle wasn't half bad. That Castle helps out with investigations because he's creative enough to think of crime scenarios that aren't at all straight-forward was kind of fun to watch and different than the totally cornball "I have some unique ability to {insert law enforcement-related skill here} so I can solve crimes better than anyone else" conceit that's all over the air right now, so that was refreshing. Castle has no preternatural ability or sixth sense, he just has an active imagination, and when that imagination is wielded by Nathan Fillion, it's enjoyable to watch.

Long story short, it wasn't anything spectacular, but it was kinda fun. Harmless fluff through and through, but at least it recognizes this fact and doesn't try to pawn itself off as something it's not. It knows it's fluff and doesn't take itself too seriously, so neither does the audience, and that's totally fine.

Given that it's in an uncrowded timeslot, I'll keep up with this one for a while and see if it turns into anything more. For now, it's just something mindless to entertain my work-addled brain at the end of a long Monday, and that's just fine with me.

Just bored enough...

I saw this on Kati's and Annie's blogs and figured I'd give it a shot. My brain turned to mush about an hour ago, so I'm pretty sure this is all the thought I can handle right now.

Google "{your name} likes to" (with the quotation marks) and see what the first 10 hits say about you.

1. Lacy likes to swim.

2. Lacy likes to put on great fights.

3. Lacy likes to roll up his sleeves, cock his fists and draw a line in the dirt with his toe.

4. Lacy likes to color, play with her dolls and to have someone read stories to her.

5. Lacy likes to sleep on or near me.

6. Lacy likes to take a handful of notes and deliberate over them, letting listeners share the tension in each choice and then breaking into lilting melody.

7. Lacy likes to hang around with her family and be where the action is.

8. Lacy likes to ride this. (Apparently "this" is a bicycle.)

9. Lacy likes to hide under the bed to make ball playing more fun.

10. Lacy likes to tip, not hip you.

And in case there were any doubt that I have a truly terrible name, responses 1, 5, 7, and 9 were in reference to dogs and cats with the same name. Super. Although I guess that's better than the only other alternatives for my name. You know, obvious answers like: Lacy likes to pole dance. Lacy likes to strip.

Great choice of name, Ma. Truly inspired.