I'm pretty lukewarm about the new Bionic Woman in general, but this Isaiah Washington stuff isn't helping. Putting aside the homophobic Grey's Anatomy controversy, his character's just stupidly redundant. What purpose does he serve? Let's take a look at what niche his appearances-to-date suggest he might fill:

Teaching her how to fight and survive in the field? No, Will Yun Lee's Agent Kim has that covered.

Finding out what makes Jaime tick, and probably using that to manipulate her psychologically and emotionally? Sorry, but you'll have to get in line behind Molly Price's psych expert, Truewell

Someone to tempt her to the dark side? Were you not watching Katee Sackhoff's Sarah Corvus kick ass and take names at that in the past few episodes?

I've got it. He's the authority figure she can butt heads with! Er, no, that would be Miguel Ferrer's Bledsoe

I have to say, I'm at a loss. I watched last night's episode, and literally every spot where they used Washington's character, another series regular would have worked just as well, if not better. And it's kind of criminal to shove Agent Pope in my face and leave Miguel Ferrer with little more screen time than it takes to say "we'll clean up."

Mind you, I'm not opposed to new characters that serve a purpose. Kevin Rankin's ascerbic "bionic mechanic" role has become quite fun to watch. But that's because he brings something new to the table, instead of just keeping everyone else's character chair from getting cold.

Tags: commentary, sci-fi, tv

I've only seen about two episodes of Top Chef, but wound up sucked into last night's episode, mostly because of the "surprise" elimination challenge, with bonus misogyny.

The setup's rather uninspired: the contestants are told they have the night off, so they get all fancified for a night clubbing in Miami. Of course it's no surprise to anyone who's ever seen one of these shows that they find a challenge waiting for them at the club instead of the night of revelry they convinced themselves existed.

I don't really give a crap that people on a reality contest show were bamboozled, but here's the thing: when the female contestants object to having to cook in their club clothes, the judges (with a brief handwave from the only woman in the group) blow it all off. Especially repulsive was the dismissive "She couldn't cook because of her outfit?" that shot out of former Queer Eye dork Ted's mouth during the deliberations.

The fact is, I found the challenge quite obviously rife with inherent sexism. When your "surprise challenge" involves making sure your people are all dressed up for nightlife (and I wouldn't be surprised if the producers didn't go to whatever lengths necessary--off-camera, of course--to convince doubters this wasn't a hoax so they would dress up), your female contestants are automatically at a distinct disadvantage. Men can take off their jacket (or in one case, a whole dress shirt), roll up their sleeves, and they're essentially no worse off than if they'd been in their cooking gear from the start.

Otherwise-practical female chefs, however, have to cope with long hair which is now down, dangling jewelry, low cut tops, skirts or dresses, and (often open-toed) high heels. All of which are harder to navigate in, and most of which provide a very real safety hazard. There's fire and knives involved here, and you want people trying to balance on heels? Do reality shows not have any kind of OSHA responsibility?

It's a kind of misogyny which pretends at fairness: on paper, letting some but not all contestants change clothes means you're favoring someone. But anyone without penis-tinted glasses on could see that the opposite was the case.

Bad show, Bravo.

Tags: commentary, feminism, tv

Perhaps I'm the last one to see this, but I ran across CBR's Bionic Woman panel report from SDCC, and--in what feels to me like a buried lead--found the end of the article particularly disheartening:

It was noted to a negative audience reaction that the part of Jamie's deaf sister, Becca, played by Mae Whitman, had been rewritten and recast. Lucy Hale will now play Becca as a non-deaf "budding hacker" who may be able to reconnect Jamie and herself with their parents.

I suppose, plotwise, it might be expedient to have a supporting player who can chip away at a family subplot while the lead's busy beating people up, but I have to say, Jaime's deaf sister was actually the element of this show that got me interested in the first place.

It seemed to me the Bionic Woman concept was particularly well-suited to dealing with a deaf supporting player. In a normal drama, deafness strikes me as a great metaphor for communication breakdowns in a family. In this show, the added tension provided by Jaime with a super-ear while her sister can't hear at all is, it seems to me, great subtext. And when you consider the ongoing controversy in the Deaf community as concerns cochlear implants, it just feels like there's some great thematic elements to play with there.

But I'm sure Hacker is just as ripe with family strife subtext, and certainly there are so few of them in science fiction.

You can't hear me laughing in derision over the Internet, can you?

Tags: commentary, sci-fi, tv

So, this theatre thing means I have to tape my TV* and watch as I can. Got around to watching Monday's shows, and both of them turned somewhat sour for me near the end. While both events were different, they both had that smack of cliched male/female relational plotting to them that means I'm throwing 'em in one post.

Spoilers for both The Class and Heroes

( Why can't The Class just stay friends? )

( Heroes loves Gwen Stacy a little too much )

*No, I don't have a DVR. Seriously, I watch about three shows on TV right now, so I'm not laying out cash on a new machine and service plan just so I don't have to remember if the tape's rewound.

Tags: criticism, feminism, tv

This is what being a sci-fi geek and a musical nerd at the same time gets you: Every time I see Linderman's lawyer on Heroes, I giggle. I mean, Kevin Chamberlin's doing a fine job of playing sleazy, but he also originated the role of Horton the Elephant in Seussical: The Musical on Broadway.

So, yeah; hard to do anything other than cry out "Oh, Horton, what's become of you?" with sarcastic dispair every time I see him menacing someone.

Tags: anecdotes, theatre, tv

Spoilers for last week's Battlestar Galactica:

( BSG meets 'All I Need to Know I Learned at College Parties' )

Tags: reviews, tv

Dear WB network:

Please find whoever does your previews for next week's episodes and strangle them. While strangling them, please point out how effectively an episode is ruined when each week's preview shows the ending.

For the second week in recent memory, what was clearly intended to be one of the main tensions / climactic moments of a Gilmore Girls episode was pretty well robbed by the fact that the week preceding it had the WB showing the last five minutes of the episode. And, come on, the show's pretty light on tension anyway; it's just cruel to hamstring them when they actually set something up like that.

I seem to remember them doing this stuff with Smallville, too (in particular, I recall a preview warning we'd never expect the shocking ending. Of course, the preview showed the shocking ending, so I'm not sure how I wasn't supposed to see it coming).

Seriously, people, they're meant to whet the appetite, not spoil the meal.

Tags: commentary, tv

I just recently finished watching the Firefly DVD set. No real spoilers here so much as a more general wondering about some the themes / elements.

Specifically, I'm a bit conflicted about how Inara's supposed to function. Initially, Companioning seems to be about subverting expectations and throwing in some Whedonesque female empowerment.* It's the prostitute here who's bringing legitimacy, who is the most "honest" woman (or man, for that matter) on the ship.

The series in general often makes the point that in any exchange, it's the Companion who has the power. Potential clients have to present proposals to Companions, and anyone caught hurting (or even offending) a Companion can be blacklisted, no matter what kind of social station he or she has. So on that level, Inara as Companion seems to be a role of sexual freedom; it isn't about women being forced to sex but rather about them no longer being restricted by it.

But then you take and put the concept into the larger thematics of the series, and it looks very different. With the notable exception of the Companion profession, Firefly also works pretty hard to make Civilized Society something to be spurned. Mal and his crew aren't legitimate or respectable in the way Inara is, but most of the examples we get indicate we don't want them to be.

Again, the primary example here is female. River is both the product of the Alliance (which is largely used interchangeably with "civilization" or "legitimate"), and she's also quite obviously exactly what Inara isn't: her abilities come directly from her exploitation. The Alliance made her what she is against her will, and now they hunt her in the same way. They've hurt her (and if they have their way, will continue to do so) without any fear of retribution.

Maybe at this point, we're balanced. The same society empowers Inara and subordinates River. Societies are complex, of course, so maybe it's just a matter of "this part's good, this part's bad."

Only, then we have Mal. See, Mal and Inara, they have that whatever it is going on. Also, probably in part due to his hatred of the Alliance, he doesn't think much of her noble profession. And the thing is, the natural direction of their attraction would suggest that at some point they may get together. It's an eventuality I think we're very much meant to root for. But at that point, I'm pretty sure Inara can't be a Companion any more--if not due to guild restrictions, then due to Mal's own problems with the lifestyle.

That's where I get fuzzy. I think we're supposed to respect Inara's profession--possibly specifically as a counter-example to River's experiences in civilized space. So is it a good or a bad thing that we're simultaneously asked to support a character arc that means she gives up said profession, presumably along with whatever status and power that entails?

Of course, I suppose it wouldn't be an interesting dramatic conflict if there were only one good decision to make. It's entirely possible that the dilemma I'm outlining is exactly the question the character arc was eventually meant to deal with. Messily, and with lots of misunderstanding and angst and tears. Maybe some robberies and guns. Probably Reavers, too, 'cause what's a good soap opera without space cannibals?



* I'm fully aware there are those who don't find Whedon's women to be empowered, but I think we can safely assume his intent is empowerment, thus the "Whedonesque"

Tags: commentary, feminism, sci-fi, tv

I think this week How I Met Your Mother may have earned its narrator. I'm still not keen on the kids, or on the need to remind us "nope, that's not who he'll marry, either," but both of those were reduced mostly to blips this week. And in their place, the show's writers realized they had a first person narrator, meaning he's both unreliable and limited in pov. One of the running bits this episode was an "I wasn't there, but..." that let the writers to do some over-the-top stuff under the auspices of the narrator only having someone else's word for what happened. They get to provide daring, third-story window jumping and still claim they're a reality-based sit-com. Slick, that.

Tags: reviews, tv

I'm really starting to enjoy How I Met Your Mother. Back up and rephrase: I'm really getting a kick out of a lot of the characters in How I Met Your Mother. I like how neurotic Lily and Marshall are about their coupledom. Barney's not as scene-stealing as I think the writers want him to be, but I've had crazy friends like that--folks you hang out with and you just don't know why you do, but there they are. So, Barney is sort of a self-reflective train wreck kind of fun to watch.

That said, I was pretty much tired of the premise of the show after the pilot, and by this time I'm almost in earth-shaking snore about it. Each week we get the kids narrated to from off-camera, and each week they ask "oh, was that Mom?" and--non-surprise--it's not. These characters I like are stuck inside this frame that annoys the living crap out of me, because really I just don't care about the stupid kids' mom. So, while Ted's "I need to find a soul mate!" obsession is kind of funny, especially given how poorly it's going, it just keeps reminding me someone thinks they'll amuse me with the same stupid trick every week, and thus I groan.

When they announced the show, I had this hope that the title itself was a trick: what if there were an emphasis on the "your." I mean, any woman with a kid (now or in the future) qualifies, so the "you" could change all the time. Set that up in the pilot and you never have to come back to it, and thus you avoid having to get the kids to give up their ride home to fight off Venger one more time and the like. No such luck.

So, we'll see how it goes. I don't mind the Bob Saget narration per se, I just mind that it reminds me I'm going to have to put up with more shots of the eye rolling kids. If we can just forget about that part, I think I might be duly hooked.

Tags: reviews, tv