Blog Trek

CSI--truth or fiction, or is it just bad acting?

I'm a fan of CSI.  Not the type that wants to watch a marathon, because there can only be so much blood and body fluids, even in the life of a mystery/suspense writer who also happens to be a healthcare worker (and definitely sees something of everything on a daily basis, although thankfully, not of the blood variety very often, working in home health Physical Therapy.)  I'm the type of fan who likes to watch weekly for the current season, and catches back episodes on the daily reruns from Spike TV.

That said, a couple of interesting notes are worth blogging about.  I read Parade again recently, and saw that in the opinion of the writers, David Caruso was the best actor.  This was vigorously disputed by readers who responded to a poll.  At 20 to 1, they were in favor of the original CSI's lead actor,William Petersen. 

I really wonder how the writers of Parade can say they even watch CSI.  To see David Caruso, week after week, posturing with the same tired old stances and whipping off his sunglasses before he confronts people, so he can look them in the eyes with his supposedly intimidating stare, is to see acting in its worst and most predictable form.  I'm amazed that this is the CSI most enjoyed by overseas viewers, but then, they also made Baywatch number 1, and to say that there was talent on that show is really stretching the word "acting" to it's thinnest limits ever.

During the last Fiction SIG meeting , the topic surfaced and all members had the same sort of comments regarding David Caruso and William Petersen.  CSI Miami has indeed become "The Horacio Caine Hour," with said HC stepping in at just the right moment every week to tell the suspect he or she is under arrest and take all the glory for bagging the suspect his team worked so hard to incriminate (although that process, too, seldom seems to have any depth to it.)  There are a lot of scenes of the great outdoors, which one SIG member informed us is actually mostly shots of Marina Del Rey, right here in So Cal.  The other male actors are tall and ugly, so Caruso, who is even more charismatically challenged, can avoid looking like the least attractive.  The only male that seemed to have some merit, Rory Cochrane elected to take his talent elsewhere after two seasons.  The women are all impossibly beautiful and do not look or act like any scientists I ever saw.

Speaking of that, what has happened to the character of Catherine Willows on CSI--LV?  She has morphed, and so have her hair and clothes, from fairly conservative and businesslike to arriving at a crime scene looking like she just came from a photoshoot.  Her necklines have descended to such a point that bending over to examine evidence is going to put out the eyes of the other surrounding members of the investigative team. 

At least the rest of the cast looks like they are capable of going down a sewer without being afraid they would ruin their outfits, even the fastidious males, Warrick and Nick, whose hair must have enough product on to render both their heads impenetrable even by trajectories of the sharpest and most lethal kinds. 

Sara could scrape up any residue and be comfortable with a handwash and a seat in a greasy spoon (although it would have to be one catering to vegetarians,) and certainly Greg would be along for the ride, sporting his latest haircut.  These people are not airheads, although they can pull up humor and carry it off in a purposeful manner, whereas the CSI Miami folk are all flash and seriousness, lest they come off looking like the actors they are.

My biggest beefs with all the CSI series, including NY, which I watch the least is that these technicians are interviewing witnesses and suspects, they are charging around with guns, as though they are much more than crime scene investigators, and they are the ones solving all the crimes.  At the Sisters In Crime conference last weekend, the seminar speakers were a united front against the reality of all these criminalists fighting crime on the front lines, instead of from the lab.  Only Grissom seems to keep the faith, plodding away methodically at the cases, using science instead of theatrics, and never, ever pulling out a gun and preparing to use it.

I realize entertainment is the name of the game, but the truth can only be stretched so far before the audience realizes the ridiculousness of the writing and tunes into another show.

Telling It Like It Is Or Making It Up As You Go Along

Why are the ads getting further and further away from truth and reality? 

First it was Sally Field, talking away about how her friend has to set aside one whole morning a week to take a pill to counteract Osteoporosis.  I have to wonder--how big is this pill?  Does it grow legs, run away and hide so she has to spend hours finding it?  Does she have to psych herself up from 7AM until 11:58AM, before she can force herself to pop it into her mouth and swallow it with a glass of water?  Is she so decrepid that it takes her the whole morning to get from her bedroom to the kitchen, where The Pill lurks?

Last week I heard a woman stating that she had to wait so long to get her new furniture that she forgot what she ordered.  Either she really didn't need furniture and had no interest in what she ordered, she's incredibly wealthy but stupid, or she has early Alzheimer's.  How could she forget if she ordered a couch, a dining room set or a bookcase?

Now today, I heard that our children are eating off the street when they eat off our kitchen counters, unless they are sprayed down with disinfectant.  I'm sorry, but even I, who do home health and enter many repulsive kitchens, have never seen one as dirty as the sidewalk, let alone the street.  There are things on those surfaces that would never, ever end up on a kitchen counter, even if 200 slayed chickens and a goat were left on it for a couple of hours.  I would be willing to bet that if the makers of that disinfectant were forced to choose between eating off a dirty kitchen counter and dining in the street, they would take the counter every time.

And honestly, how many people out there have Restless Legs Syndrome?  I've worked in healthcare over 25 years and I've only met one woman in all that time who had RLS.

I'm all for educating the masses, but give us all a break--we're not complete morons.

Memorable Lines

I just rewired a table lamp.  It was my first attempt, and even with the instructions, it took me a while to put the thing together.  At that point, I realized I had botched the whole job and thought about giving up.  However, I had already spent money and time taking the dull, boring and ugly shade to a higher plain with the addition of craft supplies, so I took a deep breath and tackled it again. 

I should mention that I have perceptual problems.  Parallel parking is excrutiating for me, and takes me several attempts.  I once put a microwave cart together backwards.  Reading instructions turns into something of a set of guidelines, because I can't follow the diagrams without several attempts.  My brain turns everything backwards.  Perhaps that's why I'm left-handed.

Anyway, I decided to ditch the instructions and use my common sense this evening.  Lo and behold, I completed the task in about ten minutes after I had disassembled the entire thing and started from scratch.

While I tackled the second round with the lamp, I watched "Supernatural" on the new CW.  I had watched several episodes last season, and enjoyed most of them.  This one was no disappointment, either.  The dark humor is reminiscent of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," only for a slightly older audience.  My favorite line of the whole show was when one brother asked the other if he had silver bullets in the gun.  "Enough to make her (the undead) rattle like a change purse," he replied.  Inspired.  One of those memorable lines that make series or movies unforgettable. 

I strive to create a couple in each of my own works. 

Is There an Understudy in the House?

I've really tried to be open minded and accepting of change regarding the new member of the "Today Show," but I'm running out of charitable excuses for her inability to stop fumbling lines, cutting interview subjects off mid-sentence and assorted other annoyances.  Blissfully, today she was out on assignment and I had the joy of not gritting my teeth and becoming tense every time Meredith appeared on-screen.

My daughter, who spends more time in front of the "Today Show" than even I do, started griping about Meredith after the first week.  I gave her one more, but improvements have not been made in either her delivery or her presence.  She may be great chitchatting with contestants on game shows or with the other women on "The View" but she seems incapable of delivering hard news, interviewing the average person on the street or celebrities and even doing an intro that doesn't include a flub and a giggle.

I don't remember how long her contract runs, but honestly, NBC needs to be looking for a replacement before their long devoted viewers all run for the hills, or the other networks.  I've been checking them out myself.  Lackluster, but at least the hosts can get through a 30 second segment without having to correct themselves at least once, and maybe even twice.

I watched Katie Couric on the CBS news this evening.  Flawless.  Appropriate in every situation. 

I miss her every morning at 7:00 A.M.

"Law & Order," anyone?

Dennis Farina is leaving "Law & Order."  I'm sure he's a fine man and an excellent actor, but he never has clicked with me.  I guess, as someone English by birth, I have a right to say he's just never been my cup of tea.  After being a fan of "L & O" from the first time it aired, I have to say that since Mr. Farina joined the show, I stopped watching. 

I really tried to go with the transition from Lennie Brisco to this new character, but his slightly sleazy, "is he a good guy or a bad guy" persona just didn't sit well with me.  I absolutely love Jessie Martin's character, and it hurt me to say goodbye to one of my favorite hourly vices, but I just couldn't do it.  I therefore got hooked on "CSI."  Losing channels thanks to one of Adelphia's frequent channel re-alignments and audits also contributed to my being unable to remain with "L & O," which was on one of the many channels that went bye-bye from my set within the last year.

I hope "L & O" regains its previous must-watch status for me.  I know I'll be tuning in as soon as the new episodes hit, as long as Adelphia doesn't decide that the networks shouldn't be included in the basic cable package, too.  Soon all I'll have left are the shopping channels and PBS.

What were those ad boys thinking?

I wonder if I am the only one who finds the Burger King ads disturbing? 

First there is the King himself.  Smiling, plastic, yet running around playing sports, and most creepy of all, peering in some girl's window (did no one on the ad campaign staff realize that Peeping Toms peer through women's windows?)  Then there is the new ad.  While some voice intones "Buckin' Chicken," which doesn't sound like "Buckin'," grown men stand around a corral while one of them rides a giant chicken.  Very weird and not at all funny, until the chicken actually chases the man at the end of the ad, right before a buckin' chicken sandwich bounds onto the screen. 

Makes me want to give Burger King a very wide berth.

Pulling the plug on shows I never ever saw

I read that the networks have been not been cancelling as many freshman shows as in previous years.  I had looked forward to watching the remake of "Night Stalker," but never saw any ads for it, never could find it, and now it has been cancelled.

I wonder how many other shows have suffered a similar fate.  Perhaps "Night Stalker" was a purely horrible remake and deserved to die an early death, but maybe also I was not the only one who couldn't even find it to see if it was worth following every week.  I had no trouble finding "Commander in Chief," which had ads, billboards and ballyhoo.  I would have needed only a slap in the face to guarantee I watched it.

Some shows go on forever, and I frequently wonder why (how many seasons can "The Crocodile Hunter" feature a plot that involves jumping on gargantuan crocs and roping them into submission before the audience takes naps?) but other shows only last a few episodes.  If they weren't worth putting on for an entire season, why did they get past the pilot stage in the first place?

And is it truly necessary to pull the plug on shows that may take a couple of shuffles in the schedule (but not constant scheduling, which annoys the audience, who can't ever find the show agaim,) and a season to gather momentum?  Not everything in life starts with a bang and then continues to thrill.  Many other relationships begin slowly, and build into something truly rewarding and comfortable. 

Perhaps it just all comes down to a question of money, but doesn't it cost more to replace a series than to finish out a season with it intact?

Limiting the possibilities

There’s a new series coming to ABC this fall.  COMMANDER IN CHIEF has Geena Davis playing the nation’s first female President.  Wonderful possibilities.  "A woman at the helm," all the blurbs and write-ups tote. 

What an opportunity to show what a woman might be able to do, given supreme power and four years (actually less in this case, because it takes the death of the current President to move this poor woman up from V.P., the most thankless post in the whole political system.)  But what I see from the most recent review is that instead of taking on the job of showing what effects this new C.I.C. could have in conflict negotiations, foreign and domestic policy, balancing the deficit and generally being one hell of a role model for the next generation of women as well as their mothers and grandmothers, the focus is purportedly going to be “on her personal life as a fortysomething wife and mother who must lead a superpower.”

Say what?

Are we going to be treated to the usual fare of a woman who must continue to function as chief cook and bottle washer while trying to hold down a job?  Will most of the conflict in this series be reduced to a whining husband and a ruder, obnoxious and positively ghastly gaggle of children (or even worse, one spoiled and self-centered child) whose interests must (and definitely should, according to all these predominantly-male series creators & male-run networks) be placed above her extremely demanding and in this case world-changing career?

Instead of encouraging women in the U.S. to reach beyond their current roles and strive to make a difference, is this series instead going to show them that they should be tying on an apron every evening to fire up a great, satisfying meal for hubby and the offspring, take part in monitoring the homework and for goodness sake, tell those world leaders that the summit will just have to wait, because there’s a soccer/baseball/football game or a dance recital or a school play that has to be attended?  Are the compromises that would lend real conflict and a chance to say "Now, how is Geena’s character going to solve THAT problem?" going to be perpetually watered down to place her back where she damn well belongs—home and hearth?

Don’t believe for a minute that I’m knocking all women who choose to place “h & h” above a desire for a career outside the home, but I guess in a way, maybe I am trying to raise their awareness and put them on notice.  These days, there is a lot of complacency amongst the Gen X crowd.  They weren’t able to appreciate or remember the changes that their mothers made, the sacrifices they took on, and the way they (we—I include myself in this) hoped to forever change the roles of women and give them the incredible opportunity to have something other than childrearing and grandbaby-sitting if they desired to have it.

I know men went through a whole lot of conflict themselves.  They learned to change diapers, give their children balanced meals instead of “Daddy Day” boxes of donuts that left their progeny bouncing off the walls, give up the chance for uninterrupted sprawling in front of the T.V., dragged  grocery carts all over stores even on weekdays after work and took time off their jobs to go to school conferences, dental and medical appointments and changed their schedules to accommodate drop off or pick up at day care.

What both sexes gained in the middle of all this strife and role-swapping was an insight into the other’s world that could never have been duplicated in any way, shape or form by another method.  Women marched for equal rights, they fought for equal pay and the chance to move up the corporate ladder alongside the men, instead of remaining in the secretarial pool, at the counter in the fast foods, waiting tables in the restaurants, etc., etc.  They learned how to deal with power and how they could indeed make a difference.  Not since the days of the suffragettes had this country seen such a grassroots movement in women.

The road wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t easy and I don’t doubt the Gen Xers felt the effects.  Perhaps that’s the reason they mistakenly believe they can take all the childrearing years off work and then come back as strong and as privileged as they were when they started.  The only way they are going to continue making inroads into this still male-dominated country’s thinking is to continue to push the envelope.  Fight for more on-site child care centers, flexible schedules, home offices, teleconferencing and telecommuting. 

Insist on better public transportation, year-round schooling and after-school programs that provide enrichment instead of children coming home early and sitting around with their phones, computers and T.V.s for company.  Initiate and demand paid vacations on a level with those in so many other countries, and take all paid time off that is already available.  Be adamant their spouses take that time off, too, and spend quality vacations that bond their marriages, renew their commitments to their families and give everyone a chance to rest and recuperate from the daily grind.

For a Sunday morning, I’m on a soap box, but I feel so strongly, that if I was a writer on that new Commander In Chief show, I’d have Geena Davis throw out the spatula and grab the position with both hands.  Surely a woman couldn’t make a worse mess of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the hurricane aftermath/rebuilding of New Orleans and the mounting national debt than any man?  This series could give the country an opportunity to see what changing genders in the White House might produce.  We could do with a good shake-up in the status quo.

It’s a mind-boggling opportunity, and the writers of Commander In Chief and the network heads at ABC shouldn’t throw that opportunity away.

Making the means justify the end

I watched an episode of NYPD BLUE this evening.  The character, Bobby, has had a rough day at the office.  While lying around naked in bed with his girlfriend, a reporter, he opens his mouth and tells her about a detective from another squad who has already been cut a deal to take a manslaughter rap, but who inexplicably has been allowed to go home to his family until he gets arrested in the morning.  Bobby even gives his girlfriend the man's name and his squad number.

In the morning, Andy goes over as arranged to be with the detective when he is arrested.  Of course, the man has a newspaper and a gun in the tub with him, where he has shot himself to death.  The newspaper has an article about him.

To say that this plot needed reworking would be an understatement.  What detective agrees to plead manslaughter and gets to go home overnight?  Wouldn't he be instantly arrested and whisked away to spend the night in a cell until he's arraigned?  Internal Affairs, the squad and the Assistant D.A. are all aware of his crime. 

Wouldn't he be on a suicide watch?  His career is over, he's facing jail time, where no detective would expect to have a picnic of a time with the other inmates, and if his family ever finds out somehow that he was associating with prostitutes and killed a pimp, his marriage is over, too.

Just to add icing to the cake, one of the arresting detectives blabs all the above information to his girlfriend, who is a reporter.  Why he would do that is beyond me.  Even if he thinks he can trust her, he wouldn't unload everything, including the detective's name and squad number.  In his profession, as with others, such as mine, there are issues of privacy, liability and ethics.  We don't go to bed and give our significant others more than name, rank and serial number.  We have more sense, and we've had more training.

When a plot uses such a blatant manipulation as this storyline, the writers, and in this case the director and producer/s need to be beaten over the head with the offending script.  If this came up before a critique group, the hounds would be dispatched and the writer would be running for the hills.  Contrived is a word that instantly comes to mind.  Laziness is another.  Finding a better premise would be a phrase on everyone's lips.  We all stretch the plotline as far as is reasonable at times to achieve the end result and tie up all loose ends, but the fraying of this particular segment had gone beyond the edges of the rug and created huge holes.  The offending result should have gone onto the scrap heap of bad ideas that couldn't and shouldn't be salvaged for any reason.

Poor Bobby finally 'fessed up to Andy that he felt he might be responsible.  Unbelievably, Andy's reaction was so understated that he must have snorted a snootful of something really strong before coming to work.  Usually so quick to lay blame at anyone's door, he mildly tells Bobby some garbage that has no real meaning and leaves the room.  Bobby gets a visit from his reporter lover that evening, and although she denies slipping the info. to her coworker, she does tell Bobby that he didn't say the info he dropped the previous evening was off the record.  There goes the relationship, and he shuts the door on her. 

I think the door should have been shut far earlier than the end of the episode.

Dr Who?

Dr Who took the U.K. by storm when I was maybe even less than a teen.  I still remember the music, the telephone booth that was the result of some mistake the good Dr. had made in disguising the spaceship, if I remember rightly, and the fact that everyone I knew, including my parents (who hated everything that wasn't World War II era) routinely sat down to watch the show every week.

Forget the infancy of special effects--these effects should have been laughed off the air, but no one cared--T.V. had taken a step away from the boring fare of variety shows and reruns of movies to take us where, decades later, Star Trek would go--where no one had gone before. 

The characters, the stories, the ongoing threat of discovery, death or worse, all brought all of us back week after week.  We wondered what it would be like to meet aliens, to transport from place to place, planet to planet, somewhat at will (the spacecraft always developed a glitch in its systems which resulted in yet another plot twist and an unexpected destination.) 

I learned the value of "What If" during those weekly installments, because the direction of the show never seemed linear, and imagination flourished. 

Now I see (thanks to the Hollywood Reporter) that Dr. Who is back on U.K. TV; so many years later that I don't even really want to know the date the first episode aired.  The good Dr. has been successful again.  Audiences have exceeded expectations. 

It just shows that a good idea never goes stale, if it's handled correctly, updated, but keeps the essence.

For me, the jury is still out on the new Kojak.  I like the show, the characters and the tone, but Ving Rhames doesn't even look remotely like Telly Savalas, and the "lollypop" doesn't quite fit.  Will he sound authentic when he says "Who loves you, baby?" and will the audience buy this remake? 

It'll be interesting to find out.