well-viewed's Open Salon Blog

Questions Raised by Teen Mom 2

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:02:54 -0500

I am currently obsessed with MTV's "Teen Mom 2." I didn't watch the first season of "Teen Mom 2," but I did catch some of the moms from "16 and Pregnant" who make up the "Teen Mom 2" cast, and so I couldn't help but wonder--like everyone else--what happens next.

Well, what happens next is basically a big train wreck. And this is not the funny, "Oh, I can't turn my eyes away from [insert reality tv show such as Real Housewives of Whichever County/City] trainwreck." This is a tragic trainwreck.

I know I am not alone in wondering these things, and I am sure if I did some research, I could find out some of the answers, but for now, I am left in a state of befuddlement about the following:

(1) Why do I watch this show? I might be suffering from a currently undiagnosed syndrome in which pregnant women in their late-20s to early-30s can't stop themselves from watching disturbing shows such as TLC's "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant" or any of TLC's other dramas re: child birth, child rearing, and/or any show involving the birthing, raising, or rearing of multiple children at once. With most of these shows comes a sense of relief--at least I know I'm pregnant. At least I haven't gone through that (yet). At least I have a plan for my future, a partner, an epidural in my near future. But that really doesn't completely explain the draw...there have been many times when my husband has literally yelled at me to turn off an episode of a show where, for example, a woman's epidural isn't taking and she is screaming in pain, or a particularly cheesy re-enactment of "IDKIWP." TM2 offers a different kind of viewing experience, however...one that makes me feel comfortable in my current state of being/mind/affairs because it makes me feel sorry for the poor teenage girls on the screen. Which leads me to my second question:

(2) Are these girls really poor, and should we be pitying them? Undeniably, they have made some really stupid decisions. But you have to admire the resolve of Kailyn as she refuses to move in with her boyfriend and instead opts to work a 2nd job so that she can eventually move out on her own and continue to go to college. Yes, you know her plan is doomed (just like her as*hole boyfriend tells her), but you have to admire the doggedness of her resolve. And all of the Teen Moms are struggling with money (except for the girl from South Dakota, whose Daddy continues to support her in spite of her inability to finish school or pick a non-abusive partner). But don't they get paid for this show? Does the show purposefully hold off from paying them until the end of the season so everyone can watch and pity/enjoy/sympathize/empathize with their financial suffering? I've heard the cast of the original "Teen Mom" gets at least $20,000+ an episode (or something along those lines), so watching Jenelle struggle to pay for college and an apartment or Kailyn struggle with 2 jobs seems strange, considering that their financial suffering is being filmed by one of the biggest networks out there for profit. Is that why we can bear to watch, because we know that there's at least a financial happy ending in store for these girls, even if their personal lives are crumbling around them? Which leads me to my final question:

(3) What is the long- and short-term impact of this show? Does the PSA at the end of the show urging teens to go to MTV.com to find out more about preventing teen pregnancy do its job? I've seen articles claiming that teen pregnancy is down, partially due to this and other similar shows. I've also seen articles suggesting that the show glorifies teen pregnancy and so is detrimental to reversing teen pregnancy trends in the U.S.

I don't think there are straight answers to any of these questions. I will continue to watch, and I will continue to be entertained even as I am puzzled and disturbed by my ability to be entertained by the sadness of these girls' lives. And I know I'm not alone in my watching (I hope).

**A few more random thoughts: Do the producers ask the girls to narrate in a monotone and without feeling, or is that just a coincidence? And why do none of these girls and their friends/boyfriends look at each other when they are fighting? Kailyn and Jo are the guiltiest parties when it comes to this, but it drives me crazy. Is this a function of them being uncomfortable while being filmed, a characteristic of their generation in general, or what?

Downton Abbey: Upstairs Meets Downstairs Meets Awesomeness

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:01:41 -0500

I recently watched the first two episodes of "Downton Abbey" on PBS. Luckily, these episodes are available for a limited time online at PBS since my Tivo has for some mysterious reason twice rebuffed my command to record what I tell it to.

If you liked "Gosford Park" (also created by Julian Fellowes), the reality show "Manor House," and/or the old school originator "Upstairs, Downstairs," then you will love this series, set in pre-WWI England.

The Crawley family resides at Downton Abbey (not DownTOWN, but DownTON) along with what seems like hundreds of servants. Like "Gosford Park," what's good and bad for the family is often bad and good for its staff. Class lines get periodically crossed, re-crossed, and double-crossed as the estate machine encounters a few cogs in the form of dying heirs, dubious suitors, and god-awful grandmothers.

There are also plenty of good looking English chaps and chapesses (what is the female version of chap?) to go around. And, unlike so many poorly written and conceived American TV series and miniseries, the characters populating "Downton Abbey" are actually three-dimensional people who have realistic flaws, contradictions, problems, and saving graces. This is a real feat, since it would have been all too easy to portray class distinctions "way back then" as simplistically as all too many U.S. television shows portray class distinctions "then" and "now."

"Downton Abbey," however, doesn't take the easy way out. Thank goodness for that.

Watch it while you can!

The Bachelor, Episode 2

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:01:04 -0500

I can't help myself. I just love "The Bachelor." Every season I say that I will not get sucked in (and I have friends who swear to the same thing), but it seems like every time, the inevitable happens. I watch five minutes of the war of the roses, and I'm hooked.

That doesn't mean that I have actually watched every episode of every season of "The Bachelor." I don't think I watched Brad Womack's first season, although some of the women from that season stick out in my mind, so maybe I did see bits and pieces. But that's the beauty of "The Bachelor": it doesn't matter. Every season is wonderfully the same and predictable. And every season somehow manages to maintain the requisite drama level, thanks to the women who are always a perfect mix of equal parts crazy, desperate, weird, sincere, and naive.

Last night's episode opened with a scene of Brad standing barefoot in the grass, gazing at Los Angeles from the porch of his millionare's pad (what's his "real" job, btw?). The only problem with this scene? He's rubbing his bare feet in astroturf. A fitting metaphor for "reality TV," don't you think?

Since I have no real memories of Brad's season, I can't really speak knowledgeably about his past as a bachelor. I will say that he seems (as he readily admits) to be trying REALLY hard (too hard, if you ask me) to prove himself to the women. He also seems to be made of wood and stone. Watching him and Ashley run through their own private, creepy carnival was a little much, but hey, he has to prove that he can have fun, so he will run stiffly through rides and eat cotton candy if the producers ask him to.

Yes, Brad's trying hard, but as we saw in last night's episode, some of these women really don't deserve how much effort he is putting into rehabilitating his image (I'm a cad no more, America!). Who are these undeserving women? Well, the producers tell us it's Michelle, the 30th birthday girl who has the I'll fake-cry if I want to blues (Brad better make me feel special!), Melissa the waitress with the made-for-tv wardrobe (boo hoo, women are bitches, Brad, boo hoo...haha, I have onion and sausage breath...boo hoo, Brad), and Rachel (mean girl incarnate). Of the three, only Michelle made it through, but after reading Brad's blog, I think he eventually wises up to the rose-dancing vixen's manipulative ways.

If these women are the devils, who is the angel of this episode? So far, it's Emily, who even I can't get snarky about. Emily's story is heartbreaking, and it looks like next week she will struggle to share it with Brad. I have to give it to her for not laying her story out on the table on the first night--if ever there was an ace in the hole, it's that story, but she is holding back until the "right time." And we've seen women share their tragedies way too early on this show before (Hi Brad, I'm ____. Did you know my Mom died when I was six, and I survived a deadly illness which only makes me stronger and more willing to love?). With Emily, I don't feel that desperation to use tragedy for gain. She really does seem "authentic" (God, I hate saying that, but it's true). Of course, she might be stuck with the "can't open up" story line this season (although I think Jackie might be stuck with that one, too). So, we shall see.

Either way, it will be fun to watch. I might miss a few episodes here and there, but my new Tivo will help me cut through the crap and get to the good stuff: oh, the drama!

"The Walking Dead" - "Days Gone By" (Episode 1)

Mon, 1 Nov 2010 22:11:11 -0400

What could be better than a zombie movie? A zombie TV show?

Maybe.

It's not yet clear whether "The Walking Dead" can successfully repackage the cult appeal of zombie movies for basic cable. I am guessing it's never been done quite like this before (we've had vampires aplenty, but I'm pretty sure no zombies). But from what I've read about the comic books the show is based on (one of the co-creators of the series, Robert Kirkman, is from Lexington, KY), this is the series to try.

And based on the premier--and my need to fill my now "Mad Men"-less Sunday nights--I am willing to watch and see.

Last night, I watched the premier with my husband and a friend who was over to help us hand out candy, carve a pumpkin, roast pumpkins seeds, and generally participate in some lame thirty-something halloween fun. As with most halloweens, the build-up was huge; I bought my candy two weeks ago, and I even got a discounted bee costume for my adorable dog so that he could welcome the trick-or-treaters in style.

This year, however, the pay off was not so great.

While I had a blast with my friend and husband, the trick or treaters were few and far between. Yes, our friendly neighborhood Iron Man, pimp, and princess showed up, but we had, at the most, about 20 kids come by our door. (Unfortunately, I am starting to think trick-or-treating will be a tradition of days gone by in 5 or 10 years.) Luckily, the food, drinks, and leftover candy were plentiful, we made a pumpkin with the best nose ever (thanks, husband), and we still had "The Walking Dead" to look forward to.

And it definitely delivered.

AMC prepped its audience by spending all day yesterday playing the five "Halloween" movies, "From Dusk 'Til Dawn," and the remake of "Dawn of the Dead." I caught the 2nd half of Halloween 2 (awesome) and Halloween 5 (awesomely bad), part of "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" (sorry, couldn't get into it), and bits and pieces of "Dawn of the Dead" (Ving Rhames is a badass, but I think I need to see the original). (Note, I am readily revealing my complete incompetence to write about this show, but I am writing about it anyway, just because I can.)

By the time "The Walking Dead" premiered, we were all on a bit of a sugar high, which added to the tension. At first glance, the show delivered what we expected, the requisite horror movie shots and scare tactics/cliches: a sweet little girl in the first scene turns around to show her nasty zombie face; a zombie hand claws between doors trying to escape, bodies lined up under white sheets.

But it also delivers an unexpected amount of, for lack of a better term, humanity.

At one point, after our hero, County Sheriff Rick Grimes, wakes from a coma to find the world gone to zombie and his wife and son missing (zombieland realism alert: how long was he out, exactly? and how did he not starve to death?). As the horror of it all sinks in, Rick breaks down completely. At that moment, I turned to my friend and husband, and was like, "Wait, isn't this show supposed to be scary? Why is it so sad?"

But I guess that's the point. This is not your typical zombie show.

"The Walking Dead" brings the tragedy: See the protective blanket Morgan throws over his son Duane as Duane sobs after spotting his now-zombie mom walking outside their hideout, or the tears running down Morgan's face when he can't make himself shoot his zombified wife.

"The Walking Dead" also brings the comedy: Duane gets down and funky singing, dancing, and shouting his dirt off during his first hot shower in forever, and the show ends with a bit of fun in the midst of fear, as Rick--trapped in an abandoned tank surrounded by zombies--hears a voice over the radio, "Hey you, dumbass . . . You in the tank. Cozy in there?"

And of course, "The Walking Dead" serves up the romantic drama/love triangle. Shane, Rick's former partner, is currently (quietly) shacked up with Rick's wife, Lori, in a camp of survivors outside of Hot-lanta. Hotness is sure to ensue when these survivors find each other and Rick starts asking questions about exactly where, when, and how Shane and Lori hooked up. The possibilities for betrayal are endless. Were Shane and Lori having an affair when Rick was reluctantly revealing his marital problems to Shane in their cruiser during the flashback at the beginning of the show? Did Shane, the best friend who brought flowers to the hospital, tell Lori that Rick was dead so they could leave him behind?

It seems, then, that this show has all the elements of a good TV drama.

But, of course, it has its moments. At times, I wondered why Rick wasn't vocalizing the obvious craziness of what was going on, for example, when he was eating dinner with Morgan and Duane. As they were eating beans, I was waiting for Rick to ask them WTF was going on, "Wait, so you mean these dead people are zombies? And they've taken over the world?" Instead, Morgan had to be like, "So, I guess you don't know what's going on" and drag Rick's ignorance out of him. And at times, as I mentioned earlier, the show's timeline pushes even the bounds of zombie plausibility.

Let's face it, "The Walking Dead" will never replace "Mad Men." Such a feat of television strength would be impossible. In the interim, though, I think it will be a good apples-to-oranges replacement.

"Glee" + "Rocky Horror": Kitsch, Meet Kitsch

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:10:18 -0400

Before I begin, I should confess that I have never seen "Rocky Horror" in its entirety. However, I bet I am not the only member of the "Glee" audience who finds herself in this position. And so, I will post my thoughts on the episode, even though I am sorely (un)qualified to do so because that's my right as a couch-potato watcher of crappy, kitschy television.

"Rocky Horror" should be the perfect fit for the glee club, because as Mr. Schuester said, it's all about misfits making their own way. But Mr. Schu kind of steals the clubbers' thunder by making the show all about his own not-so-secret agenda and his not-so-latent feelings about Emma. That kind of ruins it for everyone, including Sue Sylvester and her evil plot to kill "the arts" everywhere. But the show must go on, and so the glee club puts on what must have been an incredibly expensive production for themselves. Yeah, us! We rock!

Like I said, I have no idea whether or not the musical numbers pass muster when compared with the originals. They looked pretty good to me, though. My favorite was Mercedes' version of "Sweet Transvestite" even though I found the whole no-one-wants-to-be-the-tranny-so-let's-just-use-a-woman storyline to be tiresome and weird. (All of the songs can be streamed here.)

Speaking of weird, I thought Finn's body issues were odd, especially when one considers the irony of this story in the context of the recent furor over the "'Glee' Gone Wild" GQ photo spread. As the women over at Jezebel and other outlets have pointed out, Cory Monteith got to keep his clothes on, while Lea Michele and Dianna Agron were asked (and agreed) to bare all. The creepiness factor was upped by a photographer known for being, well, creepy, and the rest is history (or at least the story of the week).

The line being crossed was a little different in this week's episode, which was all about the man candy, including Sam of the golden shorts and "300"-esque abs; Mr. Schuester of the tie, long torso, and little else, and John Stamos (who cares about the name of his "Glee" character, Uncle Jesse's still got it) in tight black leather. Most of the male characters were up for being exploited at first, but eventually chickened out (to varying degrees). If only the girls in the photo shoot had had that option. As Quinn says early in the episode, girls get judged by men and women everyday for their looks, so why shouldn't the guys get a taste for once? Although the guys this week did kind of see what it's like to be used for your body, the writers couldn't convince me that the stakes are the same for guys having body issues as they are for girls (in the show or in real life).

That said, I challenge anyone to say that they were actually "surprised" by the photos in GQ. Not a publication known for its tastefulness, it's not as though anyone should expect any better from the editors of that least gentlemanly of magazines. Sex sells, and women dressed up as girls sells even more. Personally, I wish that Michele and Agron had refused to do what the photographer asked of them, but they didn't. Agron later apologized, and I can sympathize with the impossible position she and Michele may have been put in by their handlers and by GQ. To Agron's credit, she doesn't look all that comfortable in the pictures. But who knows, maybe they were both initially happy with the shoot? Who's to say they were "forced" to do anything? Michele seems fairly happy to be a tthe center of almost every shot (where she and her character seem to prefer to be).

If the show had actually taken on the idea of male body issues with any kind of real seriousness, I would say that this episode was a nicely timed (planned?) counterpoint to the GQ controversy. But, as I said before, the guys were allowed to bail on baring all during the show-within-the-show. And the character of Sam (played by the aptly named Chord Overstreet) will never convince me that his junk food has translated into love handles. Finn was a little more convincing in his desire not to be made fun of, and Monteith is so charming that he could tell me he is really a 40-year old and I would believe him, but again, the plotline rang kind of false for me.

But that's the point. It's not the show's job to take on these issues in any "real" way. Although "Glee" has gotten a reputation for taking on "hard" issues like religion, Britney Spears, and bullying, the only serious thing it's done somewhat well so far has been the storyline with Kurt and his father. And I know many people have issues even with that, arguing that the character of Kurt is too stereotypical or flamboyant.

So I am going to let "Glee" be "Glee," and not expect too much from the actors, writers, or director in terms of social commentary either inside or outside of the confines of the show itself. Instead, let's see the "Glee" phenomenon for what it is: a show that caters to an audience of people who enjoy watching the singing, dancing, and kitsching about of a bunch of 20-something actors who play teenagers way more sexy and talented than any high schooler has a right to be.

P.S. I liked Emma's little turn as a sexpot, but as quickly as she came out of her shell, she retreated right back in. As Margaret Hartmann at Jezebel pointed out, the whole scene was a little creepy, especially considering Brittany and Santana's spying, but I liked that Emma was given a brief spotlight. Her singing seemed a little touch and go--sometimes she was belting out and other times she was squeaking--but I think she did a pretty fair job of shimmying and sexing it up.

P. P. S. When my husband saw Finn's version of "Losing My Religion" he almost lost his, and I posted on Facebook that I wish I had taken a picture of his face. A friend recently took me at my word and posted a picture of her husband's look of horror while she was watching the show. I think we should start a movement--partners' faces of horror. Maybe it will give those who don't understand the "Glee" phenomenon a voice(less) way a of responding to what they will never understand.