TV Review: Pan Am

So far, in the battle of similar shows for the fall season, we have our first real winner and loser. In the competition for "60's era throwback hoping to cash in on some of Mad Men's appeal", Pan Am is the clear victor, The Playboy Club the obvious casualty.

On the surface, and based on the promotional campaign, Pan Am seemed like a lighter-than-air send up of 60's fashion and an age when flying was glamorous and not the never-ending quest to smuggle 3.2 ounces of shampoo in your carry-on. And back when the thought of a pilot didn't bring you to the nauseating mental image of Jake from The Bachelor? Ah, the halcyon days of yore... To a certain extent, Pan Am definitely fulfills that promise, creating an atmosphere of the 60's that I gladly got swept up in. It all had a shiny, polished Catch Me If You Can vibe that was surprisingly well done and convincing. Beneath the shiny surface, however, the pilot establishes its four heroines as interesting women leading complicated lives, ranging from affairs to broken engagements to international espionage. Yeah, that last one came as the real surprise. When the pilot first began to establish the storyline, I was a bit skeptical, but as the pilot progressed, I was definitely on board. The show's international capabilities and historical flavor made the espionage angle exciting and believable, giving the show a sense of mystery and and intrigue that I genuinely didn't see coming. Espionage is always such a lovely surprise, isn't it?

Beyond the twisty or romantic plot points, it's the characters who are the core of the show. The show did an outstanding job of establishing quite a few different characters in a very short amount of time, relying on well-integrated flashbacks to flesh out each of their back stories. In spite of the number of people involved, it didn't feel rushed or forced. Indeed, the direction was very good and the pilot flowed naturally, keeping an entertaining pace throughout, all the while covering a lot of exposition. Not an easy task. Indeed, by the end of the pilot, I was kind of bummed that it was over. I got so swept up in the people, the the fabulous 60's locations around the world (I thought the special effects were quite good), and the storyline that I never once checked to see where I was in the episode and was a little surprised that 43 minutes had flown by so quickly. (I'm suddenly realizing how many unintentional puns are littered throughout this sucker. Just go with it.) Amid the personal and professional plot exposition, an ongoing storyline involving Kate's first spy mission kept me on my toes throughout, worrying that she'd be exposed, that the mission would fail, etc. It gave the pilot a nice air of suspense. I found myself really getting invested in each of these people and was genuinely dismayed at the end when it was revealed that Kate was actually replacing the elusive Bridget as the new intelligence agent. Where's Bridget? Is she dead? Why is she being replaced? What exactly did she do for them? The fact that I wondered these things at all and was so invested in the answer speaks highly of the show and bodes well for its future.

All in all, there's very little to complain about with this stylish, romantic, exciting new series. The onscreen talent is strong across the board, with each of the lead actresses bringing something unique and interesting to her role. In spite of the number of very pretty people to keep track of, I never mixed anyone up or got confused, and I walked away feeling like I have a real understanding of these women, their lives, and how liberating the job of stewardess was in some ways and how restrictive in others. The Playboy Club claims that their bunnies were the women with all the power back in the 60's, but I think it's the ladies flying 35,000 feet over the bunnies heads. In spite of the strictly-enforced uniform, complete with girdle, the restrictions and requirements, the ogling eyes of the passengers, these women got to see the world and live independently. It was an escape for monotony, from marriage, from parents, from whatever. At the end of the episode, the pilots are discussing the fact that they're different from other women, and that they're evolved. "There's more to life than primordial ooze," one pontificates. There certainly is for these women. While The Playboy Club hardly sold me on the power and independence of its bunnies, Pan Am made their case and won. I'm sure the job wasn't as glamorous as the show makes it seem, but it sparkled onscreen. In terms of perceptions of women in general, the role of stewardess doesn't seem like much a "votes for women!" step in the right direction, but taken in context of the era, it gave women a lot more freedom than many of their more traditional counterparts, and for that, I heartily approve.

All you can really ask of a pilot is that the audience wants to know more. Not only do I want to know more, but I already feel like I have an awful lot. When discussing the show at work, I was able to recount all the main characters' names without even trying. Beyond names, I feel like I have a fair grasp of who they are why they're doing what they're doing. That's a tall order for 5 episodes to fill, let alone one. Kelli Garner does a particularly nice job as novice spy Kate, but she's in good company with fine performances all around. The show created a cohesive universe and milieu for these characters to exist and it allowed the actors to really craft their roles. There were a few minor elements that I quibbled with, but when stacked up against all the show has going for it, they're hardly worth mentioning at all.

Pilot Grade: B+

ABC Pilots 2011: Volume 1 (fall dramas)

Just when you thought NBC was the only major network with major problems, along comes ABC which had nearly as horrendous a development slate last year and a very real problem with aging serieseseses like Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives. Brothers & Sisters finally bit the dust, and it's looking like GA and DH will soon follow. Bearing that in mind, ABC really needs some hits this fall to replace the dinosaurs. Their new slate has some promising pilots, but ABC's schedule doesn't exactly lend itself to hit-making these days, so even the best and brightest are likely to struggle.

After canceling everything but Body of Proof and Happy Endings, ABC has a lot of new shows for the coming year. As with all the other networks, some of the promising options are being held till midseason, but ABC has a good foot forward this fall, Charlie's Angels notwithstanding. Oy.

Here's how the schedule is stacking up for fall (new shows are in caps and the times are Eastern Time):

MONDAY
8/7c Dancing with the Stars
10 pm Castle

TUESDAY
8 pm LAST MAN STANDING
8:30 pm MAN UP
9 pm Dancing with the Stars Results Show
10 pm Body of Proof

WEDNESDAY
8 pm The Middle
8:30 pm SUBURGATORY
9 pm Modern Family
9:30 pm Happy Endings [new time slot]
10 pm REVENGE

THURSDAY
8 pm CHARLIE’S ANGELS
9 pm Grey’s Anatomy
10 pm Private Practice

FRIDAY
8 pm Extreme Makeover: Home Edition [new time slot]
9 pm Shark Tank [new time slot]
10 pm 20/20

SUNDAY
7 pm America’s Funniest Home Videos
8 pm ONCE UPON A TIME
9 pm Desperate Housewives
10 pm PAN AM

They've made some peculiar scheduling choices, I must say... Placing new thriller Revenge after a block of comedies seems like a odd move to me and having new show Charlie's Angels anchor the night on Thursdays rather than feeding off a Grey's lead-in is a bit perplexing. I guess Grey's is in even more trouble than I thought. It's an interesting strategy... whatever it may be.

At any rate, here are the dramas slated for fall:

REVENGE

Description: Stars Emily Van Camp (Brothers & Sisters), Connor Paolo (Gossip Girl), Nick Wechsler (Roswell), Josh Bowman (Make It or Break It) and others. Mike Kelley (Swingtown) wrote the script and will executive-produce.



First Impressions: When the new slate was initially announced, this show had a different, less interesting promo. Based on the new one, I have to admit I'm intrigued. This show is billed as a modern spin on The Count of Monte Cristo, a book I loved, so if they can do the story even partial justice, they're probably in the right ballpark. It's not a literal enough translation to be annoyed by any heavy-handed or missing parallels, it seems, so hopefully they capture the spirit of the thing and play off the beats from the book without pulling everything. I'll cop to being an Everwood fan, and even though Amy was fairly annoying on the show, Emily Van Camp brought as much likability to an unlikable role as she could. I'm not sure she has the gravitas to carry a series like this, but I'm hopeful. The supporting cast looks solid and is populated by the kind of actors you recognize, but don't remember their names. Marc Blucas will only be sucking the life out of every scene in flashbacks, so that's a big help. All in all, I'm not sure how this will work as a multi-year series, but its base concept, at the very least, has me interested. I assume that once the The Count of Monte Cristo elements have been revealed a whole host of other mysteries and scandals will rise up (assuming the show has long enough to get there), but it's hard to tell. It'll be interesting to see how long they draw out the reality of her identity at the very least. With a reputable source material for the foundation of the show, hopefully the writers will have enough of a guide that they can really pull this off and keep the soap opera elements in check. So far, I'm in.


CHARLIE'S ANGELS

Description: Stars Minka Kelly (Friday Night Lights), Rachael Taylor (Grey's Anatomy), Annie Ilonzeh (General Hospital), Ramon Rodriguez (The Wire). Original series producer Leonard Goldberg, Drew Barrymore and Smallville's Miles Millar and Al Gough are all producing.



First Impressions: As much as I loved Friday Night Lights and want to give Minka Kelly the benefit of the doubt, this completely unnecessary reboot looks like a substance-less waste of time. I point this out in case "Executive Producer Drew Barrymore" didn't tip you off the probable quality of the show. As with Hawaii Five-O before it, this show appears to be a lot more concerned with looking cool than with telling a good story. It's a cast of beautiful people in a fabulous location with lots of guns and car chases and explosions and crap... which is a set-up that appeals to a whole lotta people. I can see where this show could do pretty well, because there are a lot of viewers out there who are looking for this kind of thing, but I seriously doubt I'll make it past the pilot. I can see where programming that is easy to watch and requires no effort whatsoever has a certain appeal. Sometimes you just don't want to have to try. I get it. But for me, not trying at all generally equals not caring at all. Even my lowest commitment shows tell a good story, even if I don't have to work very hard to watch. From the trailer alone, I'm already bored with this tired routine and the cheesy dialogue. At least Hawaii Five-O has Scott Caan to bring some actual depth and acting ability to the table. Minka, I love you dearly, but this just isn't the role for you, methinks. I honestly don't even want to screen the pilot, I'm not going to lie. I will, of course, but not without bias. I have my fingers crossed that this is secretly excellent, but I'm not holding my breath.


ONCE UPON A TIME

Description: Stars Jennifer Morrison (House), Ginnifer Goodwin (Big Love), Lana Parrilla (Swingtown), Robert Carlyle (Stargate Universe) and others. From from Lost scribes Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz who will produce and write.



First Impressions: Um, wow. VERY intrigued. I can't quite tell if this is going to be an amazing and beautiful exercise in literary structure or a disaster, but count me in either way. From what I've heard from people who've seen the pilot, it's definitely the former. I loves me a good fairy tale and this looks like a theatrical blend of fantasy and reality told in a stylized way. It kind of has a Pushing Daisies bent to it, but with a darker lining. Unlike Grimm, NBC's stab at the the blurring of lines between the real world and the storybook, I think Once Upon a Time will actually pull it off. While Lost certainly had its ups and downs, no one can argue that it didn't play with convention in a successful way, so with any hope, the creative team really brings their A-game and makes this work. The cast is excellent, with erstwhile House underling Jennifer Morrison and the always delightful Ginnifer Goodwin (taking a break from her SYTYCD run) at the helm. It'll be nice to see Morrison in a role that doesn't suck. She's a wonderful actress, but often misused or underused. Goodwin is a pure delight anyway you slice it and already looks like she was plucked from a fairy tale, so, win-win. I'm more willing to suspend disbelief and go with a concept than a lot of viewers out there, so I can see where this show might struggle, but if it can find a core following, I think it's going to be a whimsical, fascinating, and exhilarating ride (those sword fighting scenes looks stylish and exciting). If nothing else, this is a concept that I haven't ever seen before, so even if it has problems, at least it's not another crime procedural or medical drama. It's anchoring the night on Sunday, so it might be in for a challenge, but here's hoping. Why ABC is having these new show up first for the evening, I simply don't understand. Not that they have any returning shows that would really do this show a ton of favors, but even Grey's is better than nothing.


PAN AM

Description: Stars Christina Ricci (Monster), Michael Mosley (Justified), Kelli Garner (My Generation), Jonah Lotan (CSI: NY) and others. Jack Orman (ER) wrote the pilot and will executive-produce with Tommy Schlamme (The West Wing), who is also directing the pilot.



First Impressions: I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Holy shit, that's Christina Ricci?!" Wow, unrecognizable. With that out of the way, this looks like a much more successful foray into a Mad Men-ish vintage setting than NBC's The Playboy Club. So, after these last two reviews, I think the moral of the story is, both ABC and NBC picked a lot of similar-ish set-ups, but ABC's invariably look more promising. The big difference here is that the creative team totally speaks to me here. I was a quite the ER devotee and Tommy Schlamme is an absolute pro. At first blush, I thought this would be a light, soapy romp set in the 60's, but the trailer portends a lot more depth and intrigue. In just the two-minute promo, it raises a lot of questions and social issues, ranging from the rights and roles of women in the 60's to international espionage to the overall experience and security of flying. As with any period piece, setting a show in a different era gives the writers a different rubric within which to work. It's sets up different rules and restrictions and makes the narrative seem fresher. The creative team seems to be having a lot of fun with the concept without sapping it of substance. At the same time, the cast seems very solid and gives a lot of strong female actresses an interesting set-up to work with. My only concern would be the apparent lack of minority actors involved. I'd be more critical, but based on the profession at hand and the era they're in, it makes sense. There won't be any male flight attendants either. Anyway, this looks a lot better in execution than it did on paper. I'm not sure it's the kind of thing that will be a firestorm in the ratings department, but it should certainly appeal to the same demo as Desperate Housewives, so that should prove an effective pairing (that is, assuming anyone still watches DH--I'm hearing this will be the last season though, so maybe that will spark more interest). I'm not saying this will be a perennial favorite for me, but it looks like a true contender for fall.