I'm back!

After a very long break I am back! I apologise for being gone for so long. The short explanation as to why I've been gone is that I was spending nearly all of my free time applying to jobs, and after spending hours writing applications I just didn't have any thoughts in my brain. Also, I wasn't really watching much television, which is a problem for a blog about TV. As for why I have now emerged the easy answer is: I found a job in London. So, while I be working a full-time schedule, my free time is now mine again. Finally.

I have so much TV to catch up on, and my goal is to be caught up by the time the Fall Season starts in the US. This is probably too ambitious, but my goals generally are. (Remember that one where I was going to blog more often?) Anyway, here is my list of shows to catch up on (I will also take any suggestions if one of your favorites is not on the list):

Fringe
Chuck
Dollhouse
30 Rock
The Office
Ashes to Ashes
Mad Men
Scrubs
True Blood
How I Met Your Mother

Watching these will of course depend much on how easily I can access them, as well as how much time I ultimately have. I love television, but I won't spend ALL of my free time watching it. At least, it won't be healthy for me to do that.

The two shows I have been able to watch are Lost (I've seen the whole season) and Battlestar Galactica (just three more episodes in the series to go for me. I think I haven't finished them as I don't want it to actually be over). So, I will be writing some thoughts on those, most likely making me the slowest blogger on television in the land. I have some other posts in the works as well, and I hope to do my part in making this an actual working blog.

Thanks for your patience.

The Best (or Worst) of British, (or in this case Australian on British), TV: Summer Heights High

No offence, but the best show I've seen lately is Australian. To be specific, Summer Heights High, which is a fabulous faux-documentary from creator, writer, actor, and all around funny man, Chris Lilley that is playing in London right now. Summer Heights High tells the 'story' of one term at the high school of the same name, specifically focusing on three characters: Ja'mie, Mr. G, and Jonah.

And here is where it gets funny. Lilley plays all three characters, and he plays them to perfection. Ja'mie is spending the semester at Summer Heights High in an exchange program with an exclusive private school. In Ja'mie (pronounced Ja-may, btw) Lilley has perfected that popular girl, "I'm better than you" stereotype. Her favorite phrase is, "no offence, but...(insert totally offensive phrase such as, "private school kids are smarter than public school kids") and "That's so totally random."


Mr. G, has been newly appointed as the Head of Drama, ahem "Head of Performing Arts, spread it" and he is over-the-top. He thinks he is teaching the most important subject, and is the most popular teach on campus. Please don't confuse him with the truth. He is currently producing and directing a play he wrote on an unfortunate death of a student, Annabelle Dickinson, due to a drug overdose ("She's got a bad habit, a bad habit for drugs"). Although he could barely remember her, he found that "the character of 'Mr. G' has become a larger role in the musical than originally planned." He also owns a little Pomeranian, prances around talking about the Centre for Performing Arts he wants to build (multi-million dollar, glass windowed, state-of-the-art, facility), and reserves the gym at all hours of the day, making him not the favorite person of the P.E. teacher.

Jonah is a "troubled Pacific Islander" who has been expelled from several schools. He's the 'smart but not living up to his potential' character, from a minority and marginalised group. He meets with the counsellor on a regular basis, and has written his own "behavioural contract," which he always breaks. Jonah has some of the most awesome lines, including "Puck You" and "Are you on your period, miss."

Lilley has captured typical high school life in Australia (which is similar to what I remember from my high school life in the U.S.) and has in the spirit of Arrested Development (because you know I had to go there) taken it to the extreme. Ja'mie regularly cracks me up at just how self-centered she is, and yet there is much truth to her relationship with the girls at the public school. The story line where Ja'mie was trashing the 'bogan' public school girls to her private school friends via MSN, and the ensuing fight, was eerily reminiscent of my high school years. It also shows the weird kind of power the leader of a group of girls has over her 'posse,' for whatever reasons. Mr. G, is just the poor, self-centered, over-confident, soul who is teaching drama instead of performing on Broadway, but he makes the best of it by being the cattiest teacher out there. Jonah is actually the most realistic portrayal, the way he lowers his eyes when not telling the truth, acts out when he is uncomfortable, and is always causing problems. All three characters make me laugh out loud, and I can't say that I have a favorite, though I know I have a soft spot for Jonah. I just want him to get it together, and be loved. And to answer your question: yes, I know he is fictional, and that if he actually got it together he wouldn't be half as funny.

Lilley is extremely talented and previously produced the television series We Can Be Heroes where the character of Ja'mie was introduced. (As soon as I can get my hands on that series, I'm sure I'll be writing about it too). I have to thank my Aussie flatmate for pointing out the series that has become "Sara's Latest Obsession." Summer Heights High is currently being aired in England, at 9:30 pm on Mondays, on BBC3, and in the United States, at 9:30 pm central time, on HBO. I wanted to include a clip montage of all the characters, but I couldn't really find one that was appropriate. I've embedded one of my favorite Jonah exchanges, from the first episode, which has the "I said puck you, miss, with a p." I will warn you that this clip is unedited and contains some choice words that sound like puck, but begin with a different letter.

On an unrelated note, I really must apologise for the total lack of posting in the past month or so. I've been having a tough time work wise and just simply didn't have the energy for posting. Things are calming down in that regard, and I really hope I'm through the worst. So, that coupled with the imminent return of Lost, means more posting for Sara.

Ok, enjoy Jonah, and go watch (however you can, I don't judge) Summer Heights High. And, "spread it" to all your friends. Otherwise, and "no offence," but "puck you."

Is the "Life on Mars?"

I hope you will forgive me for the bad pun that is the title, and if it hasn't made you roll your eyes too much, I hope you will continue reading.  I do also realize the title is in reference to the David Bowie song not the red planet that is our neighbor in this universe, but not being one to pass up obvious puns, I just couldn't help myself.  

What follows is a fairly lengthy post that covers generally the first two episodes of the U.S. Life on Mars. It isn't too spoilery, but if you don't want to know anything about the second episode please proceed with caution.

We are now two episodes into the new Life on Mars staring Jason O'Mara, Harvey Keitel, and Grethen Mol.  Oh, and that Soprano's Guy. This has been the new show I have been most excited to watch, and in the interest of full disclosure this is partially because I loved the UK Life on Mars.  And, despite my best efforts to NOT compare the two, I realize that was sort of impossible. (Just like if the UK decided to do a TV show called Lost about survivors of a plane crash, there is no way I couldn't compare it to you know,  Lost).  So, I decided to stop fighting this desire to not compare.  Hopefully, I have at least compared on merit and not because it isn't the UK Life on Mars. 

In answer to my title, yes I think there is Life on Mars.  If you are not familiar with the story line the gist is that a modern-day New York City cop, Sam Tyler,  is somehow transported back to the early 1970s after a car accident.  The first episode was nearly a carbon copy of the original, but it was done well.  The one part near the end,  that was not a carbon copy is a very interesting change; I am withholding judgment on this change until later in the season to decide if this change is indicative of a larger one in the overall premise of the show.  For now I will file it under the "Things that make you go hmmm" category, and I  promise to revisit it at a later date.  

Life on Mars is well shot, well-acted, and at least so far, well-written. I have not had any moments where I thought something happened too conveniently or was used as a plot device. In short, it as all seemed very organic.    I liked it and I want to see more.  

At the basic level this show is about relationships; the crime of the week is a way of examining the relationships Sam has with people both present and past (or present and future depending on how you want to look at it).  The most interesting and important of these, in my opinion,  is the one that develops between Sam and Gene Hunt, the Lieutenant in charge of the 125 Division. They are certainly a ying and a yang; Sam is meant to be more nuanced and a thinker, Gene is more simply brute force.  That the technology (or lack thereof) of the 1970s dictates a different way of policing than it does in late 2000s has a lot to do with these basic differences. Sam and Gene are at first very antagonistic toward each other, but as shown in the second episode, are growing to respect each other.  Gene's character is very revealing of Sam's inner-character in the UK edition, we'll see how it is in this one.

The other relationship I was most drawn to in the UK series is that of Annie the 1970s woman who wants to be in the force at a time when women were not doing this.   As a feminist, I always loved Annie's character, and was often frustrated at the obstacles she had to face.  Sam, being from a world where women are very involved (if not yet completely equal) in the force, more naturally believes in Annie's abilities. They grow quite close and I will be interested in to see where this relationship goes in the new one.    

There are two major differences I have found between the editions, outside of the fact that the original is only a little over 20 episodes total.  (I've already talked about what this means for UK shows versus American ones, so I won't bore you again.) The first is the character of Gene Hunt. Phillip Glenister has done a wonderful job of portraying this man first in Life on Mars and now in the current series Ashes to Ashes.  Gene Hunt is the only character I've really ever seen this actor in, so for me he is Gene Hunt.  This makes it difficult for me to form an opinion of Harvey Keitel's portrayal of Hunt.  First off, being more familiar with Keitel's resume and the type of characters he plays, I find it hard for me to warm to him.  After the first episode it was sort of difficult for me to see how Sam and Gene were going to build the relationship they had in the UK edition. The lines were the same in the two editions, but the feeling was different. However, I was much more pleased with how he was written and played in the second episode, and I am slowly getting into the new Gene Hunt. In the interest of not writing off anyone who is not Phillip Glenister, I am trying to keep that mind open. 

The other major issue is not so much a fault of the show as it is an overall problem I have with Hollywood, which is the need for everyone to be so good-looking. I love John Simm, the original Sam Tyler, and certainly he is attractive. However, he is no Jason O'Mara, he of the piecing blue eyes and strong jaw. Similarly, one of the areas that I most loved about UK Annie (Liz White) is that she was a very attainable beauty.  Good looking, but not Hollywood.  But, the U.S. had to go and make her blond,  and skinnier, and more glamourous.  Now, I don't have a problem with Gretchen Mol, I think she has done an admirable job. In fact, she is in her later 30s, which I find to be refreshing over all the 20-something young things out there.  But, every single cast member is more conventionally attractive in this cast, (than the other one) and I am sort of over Hollywood's narrow idea of beauty, especially in women. I think deep-down I always knew that the actress playing the UK Annie would never have been cast in that role in the US, and I suppose I was just disappointed to have that theory proven.  

There are other small differences, including a new character that did not exist in the first, but these don't detract from the show at all.  I love seeing 1970s New York. There was another pilot done for this show, with a mostly different cast that was set in Los Angeles.  I have to say that the choice to change the location to New York makes so much sense to me.  I think all of us can be in agreement that 1970s NYC is more interesting than 1970s L.A.   

To end a really long post, Life on Mars has stayed on my list of American shows I will make an effort to watch in the U.K.   Considering how much effort this sometimes means this is tantamount to "two thumbs up."  I'll be back mid-season to discuss it some more.  In the meantime, please (please please) tell me your thoughts in the comments section.  

  

The Best (or Worst) of British Television: Lost in Austen

Welcome to the first edition of The Best (or Worst) of British Television, starting with the series Lost in Austen, which recently aired on ITV here in the UK. This column is the beginning of a semi-regular look of the happenings of British television. I will cover both series currently airing and plan to delve into the annals of British TV (covering such gems as The Office and Coupling, amongst others). There might even be a guest columnist or two on this topic. Before I begin it may be helpful to point out a few differences between British TV v. American TV. The major one being that unlike in American TV, most seasons of television that air across the pond usually consist of, at most, 13 episodes. They also tend to have less seasons, with the exception of the soap-style dramas, which go air each night and go on forever, just like our soaps. These two facts lead to tighter stories than perhaps happens in American television. Another fun fact is that the Brits call their seasons, series, such as Series One of Lost rather than Season One of Lost.

"I'm having a truly post-modern moment."-Lost in Austen

Lost in Austen is the tale of a modern-day London-ite, Amanda Price, (who lives in Hammersmith, where I work!) who is in love with the novel Pride and Prejudice. She is suffering at a job she doesn't like, and stuck in an unfulfilling relationship. She escapes into her tattered copy of Pride and Prejudice, and loves the fictional Mark Darcy. Her boring life changes in a big way when Elizabeth Bennet shows up in her bathroom. Yes, you read that correctly, her bathroom. As is true with fantasy/sci-fi dramas, one must just accept the premise without questioning too much, because otherwise one may get bogged down in reality.

What follows are four episodes that grow increasingly stronger in the story telling. I must admit that after the first episode I was a bit skeptical of where the story was heading. There was something a little contrived in how Amanda just happened to be reading Pride and Prejudice when this story began. [Again, though, for the purposes of storytelling, it necessarily has to be this way.] Nearly everything that happened in that first episode was fairly predictable (would you be surprised if I told you the boys of the novel were falling in love with the wrong people? I suspect not.), and had many classic "fish out of water" scenes. The one where Amanda curses and smokes when a lady of that time does not and one where she tries to figure out how to brush her teeth. One of the best moments in the whole series however, is when a certain scene from a very famous Pride and Prejudice movie is recreated. I won't spoil it for you, but if you want a clue read Bridget Jones's Diary.

The show began to shine when it moved away from what we "know" from the books and fleshed out the characters into real people. To wit: we all know the creepiness that is Mr. Collins, but we didn't know he had three equally as creepy brothers! Or, if you are familiar with the novel (and really that is who this series is made for), you know all about the dishonorable character of Mr. Wickham. But Lost in Austen manages to make Mr. Wickham more real and nuanced, and we learn there may be more to Mr. Wickham; I would even bet that the audience might even like him. Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy do not disappoint either. It is quite fun to see more of these characters and even though Amanda admits that Jane Austen must be turning in her grave at some of the things happenings, but I hope Jane would enjoy these versions of her characters.

A show based on such a loved and read novel is most likely always going to be inherently predictable, and admittedly, Lost in Austen in the end is predictable. To its credit, I was not entirely sure how it was going to end. While the ending may not be surprising, the writers had at least laid out a few different options, so it did not seem completely obvious. I do feel the ending was perhaps a little bit rushed and while things are pretty much tied up, I would have like a little bit more. Still, I quite enjoyed the series despite some of the inevitability in it, and definitely recommend watching it.

I won't give away the ending, because I suspect it may show up on BBC America sometime soon. If you don't want to wait, start here, and I trust you can figure out what to do after that. After you watch it let me know what you think and if you agree of disagree with my assessment of it.

One more Olympic post...

After a long break, I am back, and I promise to start posting with a vengeance, so watch out! I've finished up some things and now have time and a television. Whee.

As the new fall TV season is just getting started in the U.S. I don't have too much to say on American television. Yet. But, I have a list of shows I want to give a chance, and a color coded schedule will be coming soon. But, I have been watching some stuff here in Great Britain--namely the Olympics. I know this post is a little outdated since the Michael Phelps Games (ahem, the 2008 Summer Olympics) finished about three weeks ago or so, but I hope you will indulge me for just one more Olympic post.

I did most of my watching via the internet, which I think is the wave of the future (or, I guess the wave of the present). There were several things that I liked, both about watching on-line and with the BBC broadcast. The obvious one being that it was great to be able to watch the Olympics without owning a television, because I had been worried about that, as I am AN OLYMPIC FREAK. The other nice thing about watching on the internets was that I had several different streams of sports available to me at any given time, and I could watch highlights (of say, the swimmer boys) over and over if I wanted to. Not that I did, of course.

Specifically to the BBC broadcast, first and foremost were the English, Scottish, and Irish accents. Seriously, that was fun. I also got to "meet" athletes that weren't American or have the required sob story needed to make it on American coverage. There was still plenty of "American" action, and Michael Phelps was covered in great detail.

The parts that I didn't enjoy so much included:

Losing the element of surprise. Events were shown live around 3 am in the morning and generally I woke up, opened my computer, and found the results are displayed all over my screen. I have to say, the events I managed to not know the outcome (such as the Men's 4x100 Medley Relay) were much more exciting than when I did know the results. (such as which American gymnast won the gold). I also missed not getting to see American athlete interviews: I admit it, I am a homer. I root for Americans (often, though not always) and I like to hear what the athletes have to say. Even if it is just so I can make fun of them.

The idea of showing events live is an interesting one, and I get that generally this is a good idea, but I'm not sure about it in practice. Beyond what I mentioned above, doing this meant that sometimes I only got to see highlights: if I didn't catch the event live or on rebroadcast, I didn't always get to see it, if the BBC decided not to upload the full coverage.

I do think, however, that this practice points to a more general difference in the BBC experience versus the NBC one. In the U.S., it is all about ratings, and we are fed one feature story after another, barely seeing athletes or events that aren't either American or high profile, and have lots of commercials, albeit cool ones. The Olympics are a "viewing event" so to speak, much like an extended Super Bowl. Here the Olympic coverage is much more practical and no-nonsense. Because it isn't all about ratings (as the BBC does not need commercials or ratings to survive) there isn't the sense that one needs to pull out all the stops. I saw literally, no features stories, and no commercials. I can't necessarily say that one is better than the other, as I think they both have their good and bad points. I suppose the perfect experience would be somewhere in the middle, with some features, and more events and athletes shown. Maybe in 2012 I will broadcast Sara TV with this combo of coverage.

There is just one other point I'd like to mention, mainly because I find the contrast interesting and discussion provoking. If anyone watched the diving events, and more specifically the Men's Platform Final, you know that Matthew Mitchum from Australia won. It was a very emotional victory and his final dive was beautiful. Throughout the competition, the British commentators mentioned that he had recently been through a rocky time, and that was mainly due to the fact that he had recently come out as a gay man. This was said in a very matter of fact tone, and as part of the general info on the diver, but it was pointed out doing this has been the cause of a lot of pressure on him. I remember wondering at the time if this fact was mentioned on the U.S. broadcast. I did some digging after the event and found out that this little fact was not mentioned, but other athletes' heterosexual relationships were mentioned. You can read about it here if you like, from Yahoo Sports. I am not writing this to stir up things, but because I found the contrast interesting. I'm not entirely sure as to all the reasoning behind this, but I would wager that part of it is because NBC relies upon adverstisers and high ratings to survive.

Anyway, that was my Olympics. If anyone is reading this, let me know what you think, and what you thought of your Olympic viewing experience in whatever country you are in.

I'll be back soon with many thoughts on the new Fall TV season, one of my favorite times of the year!

My first Olympics away from home

Before I get going, I must say in the interest of full disclosure, I LOVE THE OLYMPICS.  I love everything about them: the sports, the athletes, the outfits, the cheesy commentary, the tear-at-your-heartstrings features, the commercials...literally everything.  But, for the interest of a blog about TV, I am going to focus (as much as possible) on the television aspects of the Olympics and the overall viewing experience.  

One of the big differences that experience this year, more so than ever before, is the proliferation of streaming internet video.  I have to say it makes it so much easier for someone who does not have an actual TV set to stay connected, and it also gives quite a bit of choice on what to watch.  Obviously the jury is still out on how effective it will be, but it definitely adds a new dimension to the event.

For me most importantly, this is the first time I will ever watch the Olympics from a different location than the United States. Here in London all the coverage is from the BBC--and there is a great deal of it--especially since London will be the host in four years. The city (and country) definitely have Olympic fever. As eager as I am to see the Olympics from a different perspective, I will cop to the things I will miss: the NBC Olympic theme, Bob Costas, and the Chevy Olympic Moment they do every night.  What I won't miss--the blatant focus on American athletes at the expense of other interesting people from around the world. 

So, on to my thoughts, which is mainly a comparison of what I am used to and what I see now. The first major difference so far is that the main coverage is shown between 2 pm and 6 pm each day.  I've been trying to work out why this is done, but I haven't figured it out.  I thought it was maybe so events could be shown live, but I think China is 8 hours ahead of London, so I don't think that is why.  Since I don't know when the coverage has traditionally been shown in the past I'm not sure if this is typical or not. What I do know is how unusual it is for me!  I am used to the U.S.-style of coverage where all things important are shown in prime time.  Lucky for me I am able to watch the coverage (for the most part) during the day, but I think I would be quite frustrated if I was working full-time.  Then again, if this is how it has always been done, other people probably don't give it a second thought.

When watching the Opening Ceremony  the coverage was pretty similar to what I am used to, with the major exception being the British accents (don't you know the Olympics are being held in Chiner?). Though Michael Johnson, he of the 1996 Olympics, Nike golden shoes, and two gold medals in the 200m and 400m, is a commentator so I did get an American accent fix.  Also, I think I was sort of expecting there to be a heavy concentration on Great Britain and its athletes, but not so much. Of course during the Parade of Nations there were quite a bit of discussion on the team, but there was also as much discussion about President Bush. Granted this is a very controversial Olympics, but still it constantly amazes me how often American culture, politics, and people are mentioned in international broadcasts.  I'm not sure this is entirely a good thing, and sadly, our coverage never reciprocates. I mean seriously, can you imagine the U.S. coverage having a British person on the commentating team talking about all the British athletes and their chances. No? Me either. 

The other major difference I noticed, thus far, is the absence of the "special features" so to speak.  We are all aware of those Olympic Moments (the ones I love) and how they are designed to make you cry.  Or manipulate you, depending on your perspective and willingness to cry. And how you can't really get through an entire night of coverage without at least two of these stories. I didn't see a single one of those in the 4+ hours of coverage I saw.   But, I am actually totally okay with that.  It doesn't seem like a very British thing to do, and my tear ducts will enjoy taking some time off.

What I am excited for is the chance to see athletes that aren't American participate in events. I have already seen more gymnastics coverage of British athletes in a short 6 minute video than I probably have seen in all of my other Olympic gymnastics viewing; and believe me I have spent many (many) hours watching Olympic gymnastics.  I am excited to hear different commentary and different points of view and hear different anthems.  

As the coverage goes on I will try and talk about the similiarites and differences some more and let you know if anything else exciting happens, by way of the TV.  So please enjoy the Olympics! I know I will. 

To Love TV From Afar...

Of all the complaints I may or may not have about the United States, one thing is for sure: we make great television.  From writing, acting, execution, location, down to the general look we have definitely set the standard of TV.  Don't misunderstand (or is that 'misunderestimate?') me.  I like television from other countries, BBC America for one, has shown some of the best of British TV (Life on Mars, Dr. Who, Coupling, etc).  I certainly don't like American TV at the expense of other TV...I am an equal opportunity television watcher.  

But, what's difficult, is trying to watch that great, well-made American television when you are in a foreign land, without actually owning a TV. Yes, my friends,  a (new) television blogger without a TV.  I swear it is not because I'm one of those people (you know the kind) who say, "I don't watch TV" or "I have no need for a television."  No, it is because I am a poor graduate student living in London, who can't afford that TV.

So, I've been forced to be creative in how I watch television--and it generally involves watching it on my 13" Mac computer.  I was able to watch all of Lost, for example, thanks to iTunes.  I downloaded each episode as soon as it was available (which was never as fast as I liked). Unfortunately, that has been the exception to my general experience here.  I would be more than happy to watch episodes streaming from network websites like NBC, ABC, etc, but those are, sadly unavailable to customers outside of the US. Oh, what about Hulu you say?  Again, I'm still waiting for Hulu to allow people outside of the United States use it. But, it looks cool.  [I can't even watch clips posted on other websites from Hulu!] I would have also gladly paid to get my Battlestar Galactica fix on iTunes this season. But, thanks to Universal/NBC yanking all their shows from iTunes, I couldn't do that.  I even tried Amazon Unbox, but what do you know?  You not only have to have a PC (which I could have worked around as annoying as it is), but you guessed it: you have to be in the United States.

My point being: I have explored all the known legal ways to watch these shows, outside of watching them on a regular television. And, since at this point I can not only not afford a television here in Britain, but I can't afford the cable it would require to watch American-network TV imported, I have had to resort to the more "gray area" of streaming video. Honestly, I don't know all the copyright rules, if they are valid in different countries, or if what I am doing is actually shady; frankly I'd rather not know--I figure if it works it's fine, and if it's not fine, it will stop working.  

This route is frustrating. Often times links are dead, or don't load, or only work on this browser or that browser.  I just think it is kind of weird that someone who wants to watch TV , has tried to do it in an up and up legal fashion, and is even willing to (sometimes) pay has to even worry if he or she might be in a legal gray area.  There seems like there must be a happy medium between honoring the right to sell a product, having things be a bit more available. At least one would think there could be. [And the studios claimed they make no money from the internet when the were fighting with the Writers Guild.] 

On the plus side I now have access to the BBC iPlayer, so I get to watch lots of new television that has been previously not only unavailable but unknown to me. So, um, don't be surprised if I blog about a lot of British TV.   

Despite all the troubles I have managed to watch a fair number of the shows I love; not all of them, but I am trying to catch up.  I do wish there was a way for me to do it right, so to speak, but I'll just have to make due.  So,  don't worry come fall I'll be watching and commenting on all the great TV.  (Just don't ask me how i watched it.)