Monday Mornings, why?
Well, it's Monday morning and I'm tired, sore and just not willing to work right now, so why not a quick blog, right? Mr. Ricky, rebel!
So how was your weekend? Mine was okay. Hung with friends, saw some music and got nothing productive done. I'm slowly realizing that 1) I'm far more concerned with my friendships than my friends are; meaning I'm always over analyzing everything, did I make this person mad, hurt this one's feelings, not pay enough attention to that one's story, etc. I definitely think of what do to make someone feel special, then someone esle gets the credit cause I'm dealing with another friend's problem. Jealous, maybe a little, I did the leg work. 2) I don't have any close friends. That's a lie, I do, I suppose, I think I just don't let them in on all of me. Do any of us really let our friends in 100%, I hope you do, it's not much fun if you don't. I'll have to start heeding some of my own advice and work on that.
During a concert at a local venue, I noticed half the crowd was intently listening to the band, which you had to if you wanted to hear the lyrics over music. Seriously, I understand its cool to rock, and I enjoy a loud show, but really, what's the point of your four-chord song if your lyrics are a mumbled, barely audible mess? If you aren't sure of your words, rethink the song, especially if you aren't some kind of virtuoso who can pull off a fifteen-minute musical interlude. The other half of the crowed, was texting people that they were at the concert, etc. What was the world like before texting? A little more polite and lot less connected. I sent five texts while I was there, I'm a Hypocrite, I know.
Found a new website, well new to me, www.woot.com. They sell one item everyday, kinda like a daily special Overstock.com or something. They have a forum and stuff, great little site, never know what they'll have or how long quantities will last, so check in the morning if you're a deal hunter.
Weekend Television watching was reduced as my time for prime time is waning. Desperate Housewives was entertaining, still not sure if I'm really sold on this season, but it did make me LOL a few times. Following DH, I watched the new Brothers & Sisters, which stars Sally Field as the matriarch of family of dysfunctionals trying to make it through life and keep the family business afloat. The premiere was a bombardment of what's wrong with each of the kids and the family's tolerance, to some degree of each. Its a cornucopia of stereo-types and popular issues: One sister and brother help run the family produce business and find out their "Uncle Saul" and their father, played by special guest star Tom Skerritt, have done something with the pension fund money. The father dies before he can explain himself. Plot line #1. Oh, and Dad has a mistress. Plot line #2. Calista Flockhart returns to television as the conservative radio show turned talk show host who moves back to the west coast for a new job and the family tragedy. Sally Fields, the mother, has an estranged relationship with Flockhart that is thawing at best, and blames her youngest son's decision to join the army and do a tour in Afghanistan on her daughter. Plot lines #3 & #4. Let's see, there's also the requisite gay son, the responsible, can't settle down yet, son, the veteran with drug and emotional problems son, well, the list goes on and on and on.
What struck me as odd was the avalanche of information the audience was given in the first episode. There are literally so many things going on, I think I would have to take notes or watch the recap just to remember it all. The cast is top notch, I mean Sally Fields alone is reason enough to watch, but any show that can afford to use someone of Skerritts caliber for one show is pretty confident in the rest of the players. Thus, I'm confused why they would think they had to promise every character arc and dilemma they could think of would go on simultaneously and immediately. Apparently it’s the dynamic of this family and their interconnectedness we are really suppose to latch onto. I don't know that it’s a formula that's going to work, I sorta feel like they lit all their black cats at the same time. I'm intrigue to see how they balance all of it; the previews for next week looked like it should be the end of the season, yelling, crying, and a funeral...
SIDE NOTE: Sally Fields could read the phonebook and probably garner an Emmy, Oscar, Tony or the Heisman, wow; she is definitely one of America's acting treasures, I'll be watching just to see her. I hope this cast, though talented and experienced for the most part (Flockhart has a TONY, right?) realizes they are in the midst of greatness and takes notes.
I also watched Men in Trees, taped it Friday. I can't help it, I like the show, I tried not to like Anne Heche and I still think she could use a cheeseburger, but dang it, it's a good show, and I'll be recording it. I doubt it will make it to next season, its just going to burn through a lot of things this season, but its a great concept and written well. One of my favorite things, they have some issue with using live animals for some shots. If you get to see the raccoon let me know if you think its a cat or a dog, I think it's a cat in a raccoon suit. And the obvious string on the back of the skunk tai was hysterical. I think they must make it that obvious because one, the animals aren't intricate to the story and two, its hysterical to see the rigged up animal puppets instead of thousands of dollars of cgi or wrangled animals.
Well, that's pretty good for a Monday morning coffee break. Confidentially, I rather be at home, in bed, watching Sean of the Dead, but I got to get that check.
GOT SOMETHING CONFIDENTIAL? - overhear something great, need help with an issue, got the scoop on something? Let me know.
Email it to: centralarkansasconfidential@gmail.com if you need to keep it on the DL. [For all those who’ve been in a cave, that’s “down low”, it means to keep something on the “sly” or private. That’s you slang definition for the day”]





Comments
How funny--I posted last night about "Men In Trees," and why my Alaskan friends are so irritated with the writers.
Long story short: Alaska DOES NOT HAVE raccoons. At all. In the entire state. So that's a significant plot hole. My friends were also very irritated at the costuming on this show, and how the clothes are all wrong for the season. I lived in Alaska one summer, and she's right: If the scenery is green, the temps are mild...no giant fur hats would be called for.
Posted by: Belinda
|
September 25, 2006 07:47 PM
Oh, yeah...also not existing in Alaska? Skunks. Some fact-checkers need to be fired. Or maybe they need to hire some in the first place.
Posted by: Belinda
|
September 25, 2006 07:49 PM
Hmmm, not a skunk or a raccoon in the entire place, good to know, but I don't think a Kodiak in the bedroom closet works as well. The fir hat was for the noise while she was trying to write so maybe they got one thing right. Now is there snow on the ground at all times? In the pilot the lake is still frozen and the next episode she's running around in just a blouse... Suspension of disbelief I suppose.
Posted by: Mr. Ricky | September 27, 2006 09:11 AM
Well, I did a bit more research and it seems that there are a few raccoons on Prince of Wales Island, but that they are an introduced species. Nevertheless, they could have picked something that's common up here, like a porcupine or a fox. Not as cute, but ever-so-much more realistic.
Sometimes I hate the artistic license that television programs take. What exempts them from at least doing basic research what they write about? It's frustrating, but I guess that is the way it goes.
Posted by: Erin | September 28, 2006 01:21 AM
Well Erin, serialized television shows, especially those are not serious "real life" scenario dramas, i.e. Law & Order, aren't worried about the detail accuracy of the show because they are trying to sell the audience a story that would probably never happen in the first place. For instance, the scene to set up the leads in this show's pilot needed an "animal" that she would be too scared of to deal with herself, but also something a large part of the audience could relate to and wouldn't be terribly dangerous. The raccoon is a natural choice, almost everyone in America has seen one, they are cute, they are mischievious and the writers know what they can and can't do. A porcupine would never end up in your closet unless it got lost and a fox would be a little too dangerous to go in and capture with a pair of gloves and a cage. Thus artistic license, I'm sure the Alaskan consultants they have told them and the production team decided most of America wouldn't care.
That being said, your statement is right on target. I would think as a writer you would want to be as authentic and true to the scenario as possible for the integrity of the show and the story, and I'm wondering now if there was anything in Northern Exposure like this. Alas, its ficition, they aren't trying to provide any facts for the audience, just entertainment, so there nothing ethically, legally or probably socially wrong with making a fauna addition here and there. But it is frustrating and shows a lack of creativity on their part...
Posted by: Mr. Ricky | September 28, 2006 10:35 AM