On behalf of all of those who have stood together in their shock that Tony Harris is a major newscaster in the United States (see the long list of comments), I would like to officially welcome Stephen Colbert to the club.  Apparently Tony Harris was appalled that Colbert had a treadmill in the space station named after him (THAT appalls him?).  Colbert’s response is great.   Go to the last 30 seconds to see the Harris bit.

In the spirit of summer, I’ve been trying to catch up on television shows that I’ve ignored for the past year (or two?).  By far the most pleasant surprise has been Mad Men.

For the uninitiated, Mad Men is about the advertising executives of Madison Avenue.   It’s about their jobs, their secretaries, their wives, their “other” wives, their addictions, the end of the 1950s, the changing of the guard, capitalism, and arguably most importantly, feminism.  Of course I’d be remiss to not mention the star of the show:

I’m serious.  Scotch should get an Emmy in this show.

But more importantly, the women of Mad Men really make this show interesting.  You’ve got Don Draper’s wife Betty (played by January Jones), who we get to watch play out the dilemma of the 1950s housewife entering into the 1960s: She has two beautiful children, a huge home outside New York, and a wealth and successful husband.  But of course everything isn’t perfect - she’s lonely, bored, and her husband is clearly not perfect and not supportive of her desire to step out of her classic role.

Similarly, the women at the office, Joan and Peggy, both struggle to assert themselves in the male-dominated office.  Joan is a particularly enjoyable character to watch through two seasons - she’s the curvy redhead, played wonderfully by Christina Hendricks, who begins the series as the sex-pot who seems bent on finding the wealthy husband.  But her slow, and completely believable development to something more, to a gradual awakening of her self-worth and intellectual ability, makes me excited to see how Season 3 treats her.

And lastly Peggy, played by Elisabeth Moss (you probably know her as Zoey Bartlet from West Wing) quickly becomes the poster-child of feminism, as she struggles to get accepted as an equal in an office where women get the coffee, hang up coats, and graciously accept the leers of the men at the office.  Without giving spoilers, for those who have yet to catch the series, the dynamic between Peggy and Don is particularly intriguing, as they both entrust the other (willingly or not) with secrets.

Season 1 took place in 1960, Season 2 jumped to 1962, so it will be interesting to see where the writers situate Season 3.  As the world changes around them, Mad Men keeps getting more and more interesting.

This track is genius.  I love that Eminem just lays out all of his personal stuff in his songs, pre-empting anyone who wants to retaliate against him - “if I’m embarrassing me I’m embarrassing you.”  It seems like Mariah has a lot more to hide than he does…

I don’t know how many of you have recently watched the 1964 claymation classic “Rudolph, The Red-Nosed Reindeer“.  It was on TV recently, and I don’t know… it’s, well, it’s really creepy.  Did I not realize that when I was young?  The claymation is terrifying, there’s a strange shrill noise when Rudolph’s nose lights up, and all of the characters aren’t so much lovable, more like menacing.  Call me scrooge, but I think the movie-makers were on a drug trip.

Hermey attempting to get Rudolph to try Meth

It’s being reported that Hugh Jackman will host this year’s Academy Awards.  They claim it’s a new look for the Oscars.  

I guess he’s “classy”, but I’m kind of partial to the idea that the host is funny and, well, entertaining?

Hugh Jackman fans:  feel free to defend him.

Just in case recent google ads on this site left anyone confused about whether this site had a certain political leaning, here’s our candidate:

The New York Times ran a story this weekend on Angelina Jolie titled “The Mommy Track”.   The article discusses her menagerie of children, the “Brangelina” effect, her upcoming Clint Eastwood-directed movie “The Changeling”, but also her strange place in Hollywood.  Citing her ability to become an A-list female actor without doing any romantic comedies, the author wrote: “Nobody is ever likely to call her America’s Sweetheart”.  

When I’ve had discussions about Jolie with people I’ve been surprised at the vehemence of some of the reactions.  Mostly the argument seems to be whether she has created and manipulates the media machine around her, or whether it’s far beyond her control.  Personally, I think if she and Brad can auction off some pictures of their Bennetton-like family with proceeds going to a charity, then more power to them.  Of course, I don’t think you get to their status without some large egos helping you get there, but still, they seem relatively genuine about their various causes, and the article makes it sound like being a parent is more important to Jolie than being a movie star.  Or is it all just to sell movies?   Thoughts?

It’s been awhile since we’ve posted here, but I’m back to watching tv so I might as well share some thoughts on what I’ve been watching. I’ll start with what I consider the most frustrating new show of the season, “Fringe” by Lost creator J.J. Abrams.

I keep watching it, convinced that it really should be good, but each episode it disappoints me.  The premise of the show is that stange, unexplainable things, referred to as “the Pattern”, are happening (although only around Boston, it seems). These involve mind-reading, flesh-melting viruses by clones, and strange super-fast ageing babies. (Seriously, I couldn’t make this up on my own).  Called in to assist is super-special FBI Agent and quiet talker Olivia Dunham, assisted by crazy old scientist Dr. Walter Bishop (who, as far as I can tell is actually responsible for developing all of these twisted phemenona - Nuremberg Code anyone?).  Assisting Olivia in dealing with his mad scientist father, and providing a slight bit of sexual tension, is Peter Bishop, played by good old Pacey from Dawson’s Creek, a.k.a. Joshua Jackson.  Rounding out the cast is Olivia’s boss, played by The Wire’s Lance Reddick.

So it has a relatively good cast, good creator pedigree - why does it kind of suck?  There’s an overarching “bad coorporation is at the root of everything theme”, but J.J. Abrams has said he doesn’t want to make Fringe the type of show that has to be watched from every episode.  He wants each episode to be “complex and accessible”.  The result, in my books, is a show where you want to know more about the overarching theme, but they spend the first 15 minutes of each episode recapping it, then they offer you a very very tiny piece of it at the end.  Completely unsatisfying.  Am I being too hard on it?  It just doesn’t strike me as quite as smart as it thinks it is.