Glee-Yes/No

I've missed Glee more than is altogether ok for a show just as sloppy, choppy and annoying as it is. Luckily for me, we got started this week with an episode that inspired a level of enjoyable irritation and anger that only Glee can provide.

I have two main issues with the episode and they are most suggestive to what the shows main issue is at this point.

1. Will Shuester is the worst.

Not just I-don't-like-him-as-a-person-if-he-was-real-we-wouldn't-get-on the worst. I mean real honest-to-god the worst character ever, because he's not one, a character that is. I'm not sure when it happened but it's happened alright. He doesn't work narratively, he doesn't work emotionally, in fact the weirdo doesn't even work at doing his televisual job properly. Why does anyone think its ok that not only does he enlist his students to help him propose to his girlfriend but he seemingly has so few (if any) other friends that they're the only people he tells and in fact asks one of them to be his best man. If Finn Hudson has taught you more about being a man than anyone else and he's the only person you can think of to be your best man, then I suggest there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM with your life. Maybe that's what the show is really about, not a story about kids singing their heart song but more what it's like to be a depressed, useless, friendless high school spanish teacher. Well I mean it could be if they bothered to give him something more to do than stand at the front dressed stupidly, looking stupid and writing words on the board. In this episode Emma told Will something like “You know how we're always talking about moving toward marriage?".....ermm no Emma I don't because we only see the two of you interact when it's directly linked to the plot. I don't remember seeing you talk about marriage since Asian F and in that episode Will was less than keen. So forgive me for not giving a flying fuck that you and Will are getting married. I know the episode was clearly designed with it in mind that we'd care as much as the kids about these nuptials. What has actually happened is a total of lack of understanding the audience, Ryan Murphy. If you have to tell us that a relationship is progressing a certain way instead of showing us, you're doing t.v. wrong.

While I'm on Will just want to talk about the proposal scene. It was fun and well done, in terms of staging. If it was linked to a different storyline I would have loved it. Well in all honesty everything that didn't feature Will on screen I did love. But it was an odd choice of proposal song (not as odd as Moves Like Jagger in fairlness) but a terrible proposal method. What does synchronised swimming have to do with anything ever? To quote the reviewer at Vulture Lidy West :“Because every girl dreams of being proposed to at work while surrounded by wet teenagers who are her adult fiancé's best friends! Rrrrrrrromance!” I won't even mention the walking on water bit because....yeah I'm planning to go with the idea that it never happened. Also on the list of things that never happened the fact we saw Will do the slow mo spinny dance thing twice, TWICE dammit. Awkward. Side note if one is playing a high school teacher, wife beaters should be banned as a clothing option, at all times.

Another thing, is it just me or was everything he said to Emma in regards to her OCD spectacularly offensive/degrading. It's actually not just me the aforementioned reviewer at Vulture describes his proposal speech perfectly:“how even though Emma is broken in her brains, it’ll be okay because he wants to be her babysitter who also has sex with her sometimes.”It's a perfect description not a perfect proposal, clearly, it's a total complisult of a proposal: offensive while trying to seem loving.

2.Award for Couple-I-Don't-Care-About goes to Mercedes and Sam.

I know I've talked about this before but it clearly needs repeating. You can't make us care about a couple we never saw. Yes Summer Lovin' was fun in a kitsch kind of a way, but it just made me hyper aware at just how manufactured this relationship is. Also since when has Mercedes boyfriend been called Shane, I swear it was Marcus. Well actually I wasn't sure but that would have been my bet if I was a betting woman. Lucky I'm not I guess. It was also awkward that during The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face all the others got to have nice meaningful shots of them and their significant others and Mercedes got a bunch of stupid shots of her and Sam staring at in a field. It was just a direct contrast between couples that have an actual scenes of them developing an emotional actual connection. At least it isn't as awkward as it would have been if they had done it with shots of her and“Shane”because they never even pretended to develop him as a character. Her whole breakdown just seemed a little hollow because it does not make sense or have any real meaning given the little we've ever seen them interact.

So this brings to what I see as the biggest issue with Glee, the writers will fuck a character over for the sake of “plot” or “message”with little more than a second thought. This means a total lack of consistency in characters behaviour and motivations. It also means it's pointless to care about the characters too deeply because you can never guarantee that a character won't suddenly do a total u-turn so they can do something to serve the creators random plot ideas and supposedly high minded messages.

Two small examples of them suddenly adding a character thing with little explanation to serve something else. First Tina essentially breaking the forth wall to tell us that Artie's likes making films so we can set him us a director type for the musical, christmas special * shudder* and maybe next years Glee club ? Secondly did anyone else feel bad that Beiste didn't even get her own wedding storyline just a hastily put together elopement scenario to kick start the tedious Will and Emma thing. On talking about Beiste can we please stop making jokes about how much she eats? its not funny it's unpleasant and speaks volumes about the true sensibilities of the people behind it. I realise I phrased that as a question, it's not a question its a demand.

Things I liked in this episode.

The talk between Kurt, Rachel and Finn about the reality of future and how it's fucking scary to suddenly realise that life is crazy uncertain and not a wish granting factory. Although I didn't enjoy that after it happened Rachel have to sing some stupid little song about having emotions, or some crap. This was an oddly high Rachel sings episode for one that didn't really involve any direct storyline about her. Apart from the last thing I guess....more on that later.

Burt and Carol are always worth the price of admission. Carol talking about Finn's dad was nice and that whole storyline had real potential to be good. However because this is Glee and next week we have a Michael Jackson Tribute episode, it was given all of half an episode. Half an episode! For serious at least try and give a story enough time to develop and become an interesting story with some emotional power. But no because Michael beckons and we wouldn't want anything to get in the way of spectacle.

Lots of the music worked well on their own, not so much always with the plot they were meant to be aiding but we can't have everything can we.

I like Artie calling the gang out on being pissy judgy bitches about him hanging out with Beckie. For a group all about being Born This Way they don't half spend their time being judgmental and superficial. Not saying that teenagers/people aren't but most people don't project a holy-than-thou we're above this bullshit mentality. I also quite liked Helen Mirren doing Beckie's inner monologue although I'm completely aware you could defiantly be seen as a suggestion that she would never want to have an inner monologue that sounded like a person with downs syndrome. But I think it just about stayed on the right side of that issue, mainly because the exchange between her and Sue at the end was nice.

Something I neither liked or disliked because it was so totally out there and left field and insane. Finn proposed to Rachel. So yeah, because that's a good idea. I mean really is it that show now? I don't get it why is this happening? Also It might just be me but deciding that your life has nothing going for it apart from your girlfriend isn't the best reason to propose.

To end I just want to side track some what and congratulate the makers on New Girl on remembering the best joke from the pilot and bringing the Douche-bag jar back. I, for one, have missed it. 

A Tale of Two Christmases

Isn't timing a bitch? Ever since the internet told me that the Glee Christmas episode was going to feature a rendition of Do They Know It's Christmas sung to homeless kids (or similar) I knew watching it was going to be a trial. However I didn't count on Community doing a Christmas themed episode heavily spoofing Glee within the same week. When comparing the two it's difficult not to cry yourself to sleep over the fact that Glee has been nominated for Best TV series music/comedy Golden Globe AGAIN and Community has been snubbed AGAIN. (Seriously though Hollywood Foreign Press Association's have you seen Remedial Chaos Theory/Paradigms of Human Memory? Have you seen Pot' O Gold/Asian F/anything other than The First Time?). One is magnificent one is not.

For such different shows as previously discussed on this blog I thought it was interesting that in some ways they both addressed a similar idea within this episode. Well perhaps better expressed that they they approached the obligatory true meaning of Christmas shit that all christmas themed episodes MUST address from a similar angle. To demonstrate this here are two quotes. One from Extraordinary Merry Christmas (Glee) and one from Regional Holiday Music (Community).

“It's the sad things that make you realise what's really important”

“Maybe forcing things to be bright just makes the darkness underneath darker”

The first is said by Sam to Artie when Artie wants their televised special to be Extraordinarily merry. Artie wins out in terms of the special although I think we're meant to think Sam wins in the end, I don't really care. The second is said by Abed about the disaster that is the Christmas pageant (“Oh Britta's in this?”-Classic Dean) and the revelation that Mr Rad killed the last glee club. Side note who can totally see Will doing this at the end of season 3? I have an image of him riding off into the sunset wearing Rachel's head as a hat! Sorry diversion, back to quotes, these sentiments seem to show the differences in the two show attitudes and the Community one seems to point out one of the massive issues with Glee, both its approach to Christmas and life in general. However much Glee wants to make it a show about young people having fun singing about discovering the meaning life and their place in it. Their almost never ending happy positiveness just makes the fact it's meant to be based in real life ever more laughable. Sometimes shit doesn't work out singing about it won't change this or make it better all the time. I'm not dissing music here, music is great and very important but it can't solve all ills. This focus on everything being cheerful and fun also means when they try and do deep moving shit, eg this weeks charity is awesome message, the show can't shake the glossy shiny happy time surface. This sanguine veneer it spend so much time on means that any deeper meaning is often curtailed or half baked. Another issue is the the overall attitude seems to suggests that just by acknowledging the darkness, it makes it all better. It doesn't Glee and trying against all odds to be happy doesn't mean we can't see through it. In reality a hefty chunk of these people would not leave Lima and definitely wouldn't become the stars they dream of. That's another issues despite all their “selflessness” this week we all know they are essentially the same self obsessed people they've always been. Community has always been very good at dancing between a funny light hearted show and one that's saying something about these people and without over stating it, the human condition. Within the 20 minutes Community has it does funny, moving, clever and manages to be christmasy without being cliché or obnoxious. With Glee's 40 minutes it manages none of these things but does end up being sanctimonious, confusing and nauseating in equal measure.

If I needed anymore proof I feel posting the links to the ending moments of both episodes speak volumes. Granted the Glee clip isn't actually the last scene of the episode but the last last one isn't on youtube. It's basically Rory(remember him), Sam, Finn and Rachel trying to raise money or some shit. What we have here is the last song the aforementioned Do They Know It's Christmas. Notice how there is a cut to a shot of a black kid while singing about Africa....awkward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXuY9GjOSO4

Here is Community's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLV_N2DnSmg&feature=related

Yes, it's just some friends hanging out watching terrible TV and no they're not giving presents to the homeless, but to me the Community entry is about 5 millions times more moving.

I could talk more in detail about the actual plots of both episodes but that doesn't really seem necessary. Community did a mash up (Glee term- see what I did there!) of christmas show, a Glee spoof and a horror movie and made it awesome! Glee told me I should give to charity (but only at Christmas because lets be honest it's difficult to care ALL year round) while making me sick to my stomach. What it also did was freak me out, which brings me to the little bit I do want to discuss: the Christmas special within a Christmas special, aka the black and white section. I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a funny homage thing, but I've never seen the Judy Garland Christmas or whatever it was meant to be based on so the level of hilarious reference was lost on me. Already being one down and given that Glee has, for so long, abandoned its self-aware-comedy-hat I wasn't sure what I was meant to be doing/feeling. Should I have been laughing or crying? Are they being clever or stupid? Is it meant to be knowingly terrible or is it all accidentally terrible? Impossible to tell. So I just sat there agog at the insanity I was witnessing. I genuinely looked around my empty room open mouthed every now and again to check I hadn't slipped into an alternate reality. What the fuck was all the chat about Global warming and the end times? I'm still trying to deconstruct the whole thing. It was the single most confusing television experience of my life. I don't what to do with myself to properly cope with it. 

I think its probably best to leave this post on a better, less confusing note so here is another Community song. Well in fact it's two because I couldn't pick a favourite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ue_Dj2GXk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn5PCKBRXLg&feature=related

If this has to be the last time we ever get a new Community episode at least it went out on such a ridiculously amazing string of episodes. As I type that sentiment I was already regretting typing it. So no I want to take it back, I refuse to be ok with that situation if NBC really does Britta this whole situation. I demand more Community.  

Capitalism in Action.

So I saw New Years Eve, it was AWESOME. I'm joking in a big way. Obviously. But it was interestingly terrible in a way I wasn't expecting.

So the characters were dull, I mean really really dull. Afterwords we were talking about the various different couples and we forgot a fair few. This was literally minutes after we saw it and I forgot all about Halle Berry and Common at war. That is a less than a good sign, lets be honest. I also was able to predict almost every plot 'development' hours before it happened. But I'm not getting down on it for this because I a) expected this, and b) as discussed, would kind of been pissed at it if it wasn't the case. It would not have been half a fun experience if 'Hessica' had not started crying with laughter when Lea Michelle began singing Auld Lang Syne. Seriously, on what planet are we meant to believe that they would let a random Bon Jovi back-up singer sing that, in Times Square, at midnight, on New Year's Eve. Yes, I know his character wasn't called Bon Jovi but I care not a bit- he was essentially playing himself so I never bothered to learn his character's name.

My main issue with the film, however, was surprising and it didn't hit me till the last couple of minutes as Jessica Biel gave her final stupid little voiceover about the importance of love and the purity of the season. While we got this drivel, we were treated to a shot of the clean-up of Time Square and a final tracking shot up to the fallen ball. On the left of the screen is a building-high poster of Robert Downey Jnr. in Sherlock Holmes 2:The Game of Shadows, which can be seen soon in a cinema near you. In fact, the trailer for it showed before New Years Eve. It then hit me like a freight train- this was an act of mindless selling and consumption. Most of the crowd scenes had thousands of people waving inflatable tubes with Nivea branded on them. Of course I understand we live in a capitalist world so I'm not expecting New Years Eve to be a communist propaganda piece but it just felt so overt and unrelenting.

Sure, any film where Time Square is featured as a prominent location is going to be visually bombarding its audience with adverts for films and products but this seems so much more than that. The selling and consumption binary is being taken to its ultimate level under the guise of entertainment. The main aim of this film is not to tell a story that means anything real, it's not trying to edify its audience. Yes, it's trying to entertain its audience but with utterly insidious primary desires. It's selling everything, not just skin care products and future films; it's also selling the actors in it, the city of New York, the commercial synthetic idea of this random day of the year and, most effectively, the reductive and simplistic idea of love that Hollywood has been pushing on us for years. We, the audience, by sitting in our seats are being treated to a three course meal of popular culture and commercialism. Watching this film made me think about Josie and the Pussycats and the whole idea of subliminal messages in music and television which seems near enough to truth for that film to be not so much satire as documentary.

Edward Murrow said in his RTNDA Convention Speech in 1958:

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it's nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

He's talking about television but film surely has the same potential, whether we choose to use it or not. This film is using its considerable armoury to promote truncated, prescribed ideas about the way people should act, look, love and, most importantly, what they should spend their money on.

On an unrelated note, I need to go buy some Nivea Body Pure and Natural Body Lotion.

Glee-"Hold on to Sixteen"

This week I'm going to try a different method. Instead of watching Glee and then writing stuff about it, I wrote notes as I watched it. I am now going to type them out verbatim. It's an interesting read. What I think is going to be best about it is it's going to mean that if you haven't seen it, you can guess what was happening.

• Rachel said something sensible? What the What? Note: perfect take down of Quinn.
• It's less than a week till sectionals, why are we only now looking for songs. Reason Will is shit #987.
• Since when did Sam Evans have star power?
• “You Smell of Craigslist”.
• Why were Dalton's and McKinley's sectionals different dates this year?
• Sam=White Chocolate. That's not terrible in any way.
• Yay for stripping? No wait; yay for judging stripping!
• Puck's hair is still in that 'Nazi Fetish Bar' phase I see.
• Acknowledgment of Band, Win!
• Red Cup song- Is this an actual thing?
• I agree with Kurt's mouthing to Blaine “ What's wrong with you?” but I am saying it to everyone.
• Quinn/Shelby look off. Ha!
• Quinn's mental breakdown is complete! Why is no one concerned?
• In America you don't have to declare your major when you apply. Why don't the writers of Glee know this?
• Tina exists, who knew!? God she's a bitch
• Blaine wearing socks. CRAZY.
• I like Artie's Jumper.
• Blaine vs. Sam FIGHT about dancing.
• Blaine's a boxer? Since when? “I started the Dalton branch of Fight Club which I obviously can't talk about” Ha!
• Glee guys you can't make us care about: Mercedes and Sam. We never saw them together to we don't care.
• Chang Sr. vs Tina. I just don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care. “Honour his gift”- I'll honour his gift Tina, all over your face.
• Oh, the band guys are pretending to be signers, makes sense.
• Mike and Tina have a disappointment-off, sad faces!
• Sugar Motta's respond to the clown was good.
• Rachel is devastated, sad faces 2.0.
• Lindsay is back. She only has one face and it's the worst.
• Will didn't count on something, I am shocked, he never does that!
• Again Rachel is sensible. I am almost literally reeling.
• Shelby vs. Quinn. Everybody's wrong. In other news, apparently, people age but pretty people never stop being pretty.
• The Trouble Tones dresses could be more flattering, they look like tin foil.
• One again another great mash up- Glee is really good at them.
• Finn/Blaine terrorist fist bump-Noice!
• Dance moves are a bit weird but fun.
• ABC-Tina gets to sing, what did she have to do to get this.
• I see that the boy band dance moves won, not the sexy ones.
• This is nice without Rachel, everybody gets to sing their own little bit. No Rachel crooning away; she should commit voting fraud move often.
• Sebastian gah! go away. Nobody cares. Also, where are the rest of the Warblers?
• Kurt's jumps=great. Talk bit=Weird. Oh Sexy dance is here. That was painful.
• Damn this is fun.
• Control start is a bit weird.
• Again everyone is getting their moment to shine, down with Rachel
• Man in the Mirror; Finn is trying to be sing with emotional face.
• Seriously though guys- EVERYONE IS GETTING TO SING. THIS IS WHAT IT SHOULD BE LIKE ALWAYS.
• I've just noticed that New Directions only have two ladies now (I originally wrote one but I forgot that Quinn existed-awkward).
• This is great too.
• Oh just noticed that Rory hasn't got to sing- even more awkward. (Well the band guys haven't ever got to but that doesn't count).
• Will looks all proud, he really shouldn't. That smug look needs to be wiped right off his face. Useless fuck
• Mike's “Make the Change” was the single most stupidly hilarious in a not-meant-to-be-funny-at-all thing ever.
• Quinn has bipolar- for serious.
• Oh Chang Sn's on Side. Thank heavens I was worried about what way this was going to go. NOT.
• Tears-Tina is a sneaky fucker.
• New Directions Win! We all saw that coming- only way it could gone.
• Again with Will smug face. Also, his look to Emma in the audience was the sickening.
• Trouble Tones' lights-off-we-didn't-win thing was odd.
• Quinn waits for people in random offices.
• Quinn is all better now? Apparently she wants to go to Yale- yeah that's going to happen. Has she noticed how shockingly bad the quality of teaching is at her school? She needs to get on some anti-psychotic meds asap.
• Oh Quinn's suddenly ALL grown up. So wise so quickly, little one.
• Did Mercedes not notice how everyone got to sing in the the thing. It's no longer the Berry show, because she's a convicted criminal (ish) and it's never been the Blaine show (here are least).
• Oh Rachel's back, Damn.
• Her and Finn's flirty look was gross; I don't need to see that in my life.
• Another nice jumper Artie!
• We Are Young- this is less fun than the others. This is weird, I don't understand what I'm meant to be getting from this.
• Kurt's rocking the Victorian Orphan look, good call.
• Is everyone on this show bipolar? They jump from being mortal enemies to  BFF's in the blink of an eye.
• GROUP HUG!

I actually really enjoyed this one. It was Will-lite, the songs were fun and we learnt that Dalton has a fight club. What more does anyone need? Was it just me, or what this episode funnier than others have been in the past? Maybe the writers remembered they're making a COMEDY!

Also sorry if this review wasn't as "good" as normal, I'm lacking time this week.

Cultural Musings

I have been told to blog by a person who shall remain nameless, but her name rhymes with Hessica. I'm not sure what she wants me to blog about. 'Something I've watched' was her suggestion, seems legit.

Is it weird to watch a show/film that makes you angry because it's so terrible? On the way to class today I was thinking about the benefits of terrible film, this is indicative of the fun things I think about when I'm doing nothing. Me and a couple of friends are going to see New Years Eve on Thursday. That's right, we are going to see a film that thinks this poster is a totally appropriate way of advertising a film.

Look at the photo of Ashton Kutcher- that's just a shot of him in his real life, that's not anything to with the film. I could make a better poster if I still had photoshop on my computer. To quote Hessica- “That's a GCSE Media studies project”.

I don't expect this film to be good. In fact I will be seriously disappointed if it's even remotely passable as a piece of cinema. I'm going to see this film to laugh in its face! I am genuinely considering taking some paper to make notes about all the snide comments I want to make. Because, despite all my bitchiness, I do realise that it's not polite to shout “Are you seeing this, beggars belief, I've been sick in my mouth” in the middle of a screening; some people might be there for a deep emotional experience. So yes, notepad needed I think.

But here's the thing. The class I was walking to, when I was having my Wow-I'm-Going-to-See-a -Terrible-Film-Soon-Thought-Party, was about Triumph of the Will. For those not up to date with Nazi cinema, its a documentary/propaganda film about the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremburg. Obviously watching it now is quite difficult. Yes, Reifenstahl has made significant efforts to avoid any explicit references to the anti-semitism already prevalent in National Socialist policy, but the fact is we all know how that rhetoric ends- spoiler alert: it's not good. All that said, it is generally considered to be one of the best and most effective documentary films ever made. So despite the utterly contempt abled ideals, cinematically it is a very well made film.

What does this have to do have with the sequel to Valentines Day everyone thought we didn't need? The fact is one of these films is well made/good in technical terms and emotionally involving, one will not be (I've put will because I do realise I haven't seen it but I'm pretty sure). However which one would I rather spend two hours of my life watching? Clearly New Years Eve. It's not a perfect comparison because obviously they are totally different types of films. But make the set up the same but with Melancholia instead of Triumph of The Will, I still pick New Years Eve. Melancholia won best movie at this year's European Film Awards in Berlin; New Year Eve might win an MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss. Again this isn't a perfect because I'm really not convinced that Melancholia is all that good, although I never saw the end because it induced travel motion nausea and I had to leave to almost be sick in the toilet (In case you were worried I wasn't). But that's my point; what does it matter that the institutions think its good? What does it matter that it's technically inventive/proficient? It needs to be enjoyable at least a little. Even if that enjoyment is found in relishing its sheer awfulness. We use this word 'good', but what does that even mean, surely there's millions of ways of being good. Some formal and some linked to how much it achieves its aims. New Year's Eve will achieve its aims if its audience enjoy it, even if the enjoyment is ironic.

There was an interesting piece in The New York Times in August about among other things, why Phineas and Ferb is better than Treme: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/magazine/mag-01Riff-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Doing History of Art, I find that I spend most of my time taking everything very seriously, culturally speaking. It all matters, it's all important, it's all good and deep and the like. Sometimes I want to stand up and shout- IT'S A PAINTING! But I can also already find myself slipping into that mode of thinking, without really trying. I can already feel the weight of my cultural capital sitting guiltily on my shoulders. I just linked to The New York Times for fuck's sake and also I've made reference to Pierre Bourdieu, French sociologist, anthropologist, and philosopher. For those looking for that reference, it's in this paragraph. When did I become this person? Cultural knowledge can so often be used to legitimise and perpetuate social inequality, am I in danger of becoming like that? Rational me says no of course you're not, you are socially aware and tuned into establishment bullshit. But the little nagging voice in my head says that to assume that shows ridiculous amounts of misplaced self belief; a holier-than-thou attitude. Hopefully the fact I'm sitting around on my sofa worrying about it will stop me even if it turns out I'm not above it all. I think the fact I'm listening to Lonely Island's I Just Had Sex is a good sign! Although, really, the very idea that I'm going to see a film to laugh of it because I understand “REAL” culture goes against that. Ah fuck it, I'm doomed!

This have nothing to do with television I realise, it turned into something weird along the way.

To summarise for those a little confused:

-New Years Eve is a good film in that it will succeed in giving me what I want from it.

-I'm worried I could slip and slide into cultural snobbery.   

Glee-I Kissed A Girl

I'm not really sure what to say about this week's Glee. Granted I watched it while lying in bed in a cold-induced haze of tissues and Malteasers. A haze I am still in so, in the interests of full disclosure, this might not make the most sense (for a case in point see the next sentence).

What happened this week, let me think. Stuff, did stuff happen? I think stuff happened, yeah, no it did, well done stuff- good job on the happening.

Santana and all that lady kissing stuff

Let's start with the whole Santana thing which seemed to read, for most of part, an excersize in forcing people of the closet. Yes, she shouldn't be ashamed or, in fact, anything other than completely ok with her sexual preference but, if she isn't ready to come out just yet, then let's not force her- yeah. I'm looking at you Finn, you foetus face. I thought that the whole thing with her Grandmother would have been 8 times more effective if we had ever seen her and her grandmother interact before or at least heard Santana talk about how important her grandmother was in her life. The fact that this was not the case seemed odd, especially as this is a story line that's been playing out since at least midway through season 2; could they not have thought ahead and laid some ground work. No, sorry, as I wrote that I realise I seem to have forgotten that this is Glee I'm talking about; the show that only seems to think about a week ahead plot-wise. Here's a novel idea, Ryan Murphy and co, before you start writing a season sit down and plot out what characters are going to do and what the endgame is for those aims. Then, set up steps which will enable getting the various characters to those endpoints in a gradual and sensible way, developing the story-lines bit by bit over multiple episodes. You know- be bloody professional about it, you're writing a television show not creating a work of abstract art by throwing character decisions at a felt board to see what sticks.

All that said, the grandmother scene was pretty well done and was a lot better than the whole I Kissed A Girl incident. If I was told I had to pick a song to be sung by a newly outed Lesbian and her straight female friends as an act of defiance against the world, something that was meant to suggest that being gay not only isn't a choice but even if it was would be a totally valid and legitimate one, do you know what would be quite literally at the bottom of the list? I Kissed A Girl. Surely anyone who has given the lyrics even a moments thought knows that that song provides nothing if not a spectacularly reductive depiction of lesbianism. It says that it's a thing straight women do when drunk and it is something, at least in part, designed for the titillation of straight males. This last point was only added to by the reactions of the male characters, especially Finn and Rory, who spent the whole number looking like the cats who got the cream with their own private peep show. Not the point Glee, not the point even a little. I know they chose this song because it's popular and they've had success with Katy Perry before, but that doesn't mean its ok to pick a song that totally and completely undermines and belittles the point you're trying to make.

Kurt, the election and Rachel.

This story line involved my favourite exchange of the week

Finn- “What were you thinking Rachel?”

Rachel- “I wasn't thinking”

Me- “You never think Rachel, its kind of your thing. ”

(Not a completely accurate transcription of the exchange- a third character, coincidentally called Me, was added)

Leading on from this there was a joke (I think it was a joke) this week, in which Rachel, while talking about why she was unhappy that Kurt might not win, said that the worst bit about it was that it might mean she wouldn't have her “best gay” to help her in New York. And by “help”, she meant do emergency make overs and make soufflés. For a show all up on the GLAAD lists, it's really doing a shoddy job this week on portraying homosexuality as anything other than an outdated cliche. The reason I said I was unsure if it was a joke was because it seemed so obviously self-involved and ridiculous that I couldn't believe that it wasn't a hilarious meta joke about how the character was perceived by many amongst the sentient audience. But given that Rachel's a character that up to this point has displayed as much humour and self awareness as a humourless un-selfaware thing (Good metaphor, Pebbles dear, not shit at at all) it's probably not a joke. So yeah, maybe it was just Rachel being the little shit she always is.

Right on to Kurt; I felt bad for him, he has to deal with having the terrible thing that is Rachel as a friend. But also he's freaking out about not being good enough/being able to jump through the arbitrary hoops to do things you want and that is something I can totally get behind. This was an odd moment for me because I know I'm meant to emotionally commit and emphasise with the struggles the Glee kids go through but I never do, so it's always fun when the show fills the role its meant to. I quite enjoyed the song he sang with Blaine, especially as it got further in. It seemed odd that Santana didn't like it but was bought to tears by Finn's acapella Girls Just Want to Have Fun. That was better to listen to than it sounded on paper, but it sounded super terrible on paper so that's not saying much. Also what does that song have to do with anything?

Quinn, Puck, Shelby.

I kind of want to make it a thing that I don't talk about this whole kerfuffle although I enjoyed Puck pointing out just how 'damaged' Quinn is; something that the show has always done a less than perfect job at pointing out/addressing. Remember when we talked about how they'd never be able to undo her behaviour of late but I looked forward to watching them try; well tonight I think they tried. It was a lot less fun than I had anticipated but, luckily, it was just as unsatisfactory as I had envisioned so it wasn't a total disappointment. Basically we heard her say “Trying to take Beth back was a bit overkill” or something similar, which was then added to by “So lets make another replacement baby”. Er no, how about some counselling or something similar.

Beiste, Sue and Glee kicking itself in the face.

I love Beiste but I can't help feel sorry for her as a character. She has story lines that at times are meant to suggest that Glee is being all supportive about difference and acceptance and how difficult it is to not fit the typical idea of what people are meant to be and look like. When they're not trying to shove that obvious message down our throats they're busy making her out to be a figure of amusement. We, the audience, are meant to get an unpleasant guilty pleasure out of laughing at how much she eats and the look on Will and Emma's face when Beiste talks about doing weights, but they think she's talking about sex. “Ewwww gross, there is nothing worse than unconventionally attractive people having sex” is what Glee is telling us; now there's a great message.

Am I the only one who is pissed Burt won the congress election? Not because I don't want success for him, I do, I love that man. It's more that I refuse, and I mean straight up REFUSE, to believe that a “write-in” independent candidate with a brain-dead, useless Spanish teacher/Glee coach with no political experience as a campaign manager could have won. If it was a Best Mechanic In The Greater Lima Area or a Most Awesome Television Dad Competition then I totally believe Burt could win, provided that Will wasn't involved because, as we've covered, that man ruins everything. Congress race? No. He couldn't. Don't be stupid.

There are two issues I want to present to end with (but don't have the energy to talk about properly):

1. This show often has big emotional/singy moments about how much of a supportive family these kids are to each other. This is all well and fine, but I'd like to see them spend a lot more time being nice to each other the rest of the time. They just aren't that nice to each other if the scene isn't specifically about how much of a family they are.
2. I like how Rory won a 7 episode guest arc and we're now 4 episodes in and outside his introductory episode he's had all of what one line? Awkward much? Although I guess it could be worse, he could be Tina. Remember how Tina is a regular whose been in it since the beginning? What she's had to do this season? Lets think, one sex based monologue, and one throwaway racist comment. Ideal. This again shows a lack of planning by the writers. Also, she apparently drew “Junior” in the raffle the writers held on their “How old are all our character's day!” so surely they should be pumping up the ones that are going to have to hang around next year, so we don't have a situation where all the ones anyone can even pretend to care about fuck off. I realise they are probably going to conceive some ridiculous how-can-we-make-them-all-stay-because-we've-realised-the-error-of-our-terrible-character-development plot points a la Gossip Girl, but that's going to suck and they shouldn't try. They totally will though, damn it.

My final point is this: (I need say nothing more, it needs no introduction or explanation of why it is here. Which is good because words fail me...)

Ok here's another just for kicks, I think Blaine is praying his boyfriend never EVER wears anything that horrible ever again. EVER.

and a third so you can all see the back:

Affection Reflection: This time its serious.

I was watching an episode of New Girl the other day and I realised something a little awkward. There have been 6 episodes and I have laughed once. A whole one joke has made me laugh and frankly for a show that's meant to be a comedy those odds really suck. I also don't really actually care about the characters on an emotional level. If they kill one of them off or, as perhaps is more likely, took one in a completely different direction I'm not sure how much I'd care. It doesn't challenge me on any intellectual level. Given all that and the fact that there are only so many hours in the day why, then, do I bother to keep watching?

The metaphor I used in my discussion of the pilot was that watching it was like eating milk and cookies. In retrospect that still seems like a damn fine description of it (Well done past-me, knocking it out of the park yet again!). It's not hilarious, not that clever, and not that emotionally challenging but it's warming and comforting. Thinking about it, what New Girl does give me is a strange sense of familiar calm. Yes, I don't fully care about the characters but I feel affection for them none the less. The reason for this is, perhaps in this case anyway, the lack of true involvement. I can't get angry at the characters because of my lack of emotional investment, which also means there is no stress in watching the show; I'm not worried about plot developments. It might seem strange to say not caring about characters helps a show be watchable but with New Girl it works.

This made me think about other, supposedly comedic, shows that I like but aren't necessarily that funny in a traditional sense, but attachment keeps me coming back. The best example I could think of is Parks and Recreation. This is a very different case because a) I really do care about the characters and b) It's just a better show (It doesn't send you into a twee-induced coma for a start). But while the show is funny, and I do think it's very funny, its not laugh out loud funny in the way shows like Archer is. It's also very hard to define bits in the show that work as stand alone jokes, for me the humour is derived from a basic affection for the characters. Sometimes watching the show is like sitting round with a group of friends watching them bicker between themselves. Again its the sense of familiarity that it provides me that matters and is integral to its appeal. I know these people, I feel at home in the world they are in, I just get it.

Television works very differently than film in terms of audience participation. With a film you have 90 minutes (well nowadays, its more like 120) to make an impact. That impact can be to scare you, educate you, charm you or have you rolling in the aisles. Sure, in an ideal world it wants you to like it enough to buy it when it comes out. But in that situation you are still buying what you already know. The purchasing act is an acceptance that you want to relive what was made as a one-off experience. This is a totally different action to tuning in every week to watch a TV show which requires a continued investment in the concept. This means that the needs a television has to fulfil for an audience are much more complicated. As may be apparent from the beginning of this post, what seems to me to be crucial in this more complicated relationship is the concept of affection. Why would anyone bother to repeatably spend half an hour out of their week watching something they haven't even the slightest sense of attachment to. I'm not saying television shows can't challenge its audience but it has to do it in a much more subtle way than film. People aren't going to want to keep watching a show if it's having a go at them. Films are much more able to preach to it's audience, whereas for a weekly serial to preach is risking alienating its core audience and as discussed in a earlier post, given the way American television works, it's really crucial that a show doesn't do this. The fact that shows are in production as they air the episodes they've just finished means that if they fail they can be cancelled mid-season. This means there is a significant impetus to keep the momentum going, week after week. Whereas a film just has to win you over once, a television show has to win you over again and again. This is where affection is important, if the audience has enough devotion towards the show, then at least some of the creator's work on that episode is done for them. Mistakes, or a less good episode, are forgiven where without affection they might cause someone to stop watching. For example, I didn't really like episode 3 of season 6 of Doctor Who, but because I have a deep love for the whole thing it didn't matter half as much as it would have if I'd just started watching or wasn't as involved in the show emotionally.

All this makes me think that making a successful well-received television show is a lot more difficult than making a successful well-received film. Which is interesting since I think it's pretty well established that we hold film actors and makers in higher esteem than those on or in TV. Actors are always thought to have made it once they have lead roles in films. I can name you a lot more film screen writers than I can television ones (especially If I take away ones that are also actors!). It seems unfair that for an arbitrary reason we judge people on the size of the screen they're working on not by the challenges they face.