home improvement.

One of the real problems of being a media scholar is that you quickly run out of any entertainment options which might in any way be described as "brainless." I try out tons of programs in the pursuit for something that doesn't really make me think, but sooner or later, I'm breaking down everything. I quit watching food television because I couldn't turn off the gender analysis. I've tried NCIS, but the stereotyping drives me insane. The list goes on.

My latest effort in my pursuit of "not thinking for at least a moment" is home improvement television. Now, I've watched tons of shows in my years. For a while, I could've been described as a Bob Villa junkie. I've seen every single This Old House and Hometimes, many of them multiple times. I enjoy it, but mentally, I already have paper after paper planned. Some of them would be quite good ones, if only I had time to write them...damn job that doesn't reward scholarship.

I try to go more brainless by delving into HGTV, but that doesn't help. Many of the shows feature people looking for new houses...these always drive my thoughts into the area of class warfare, as I have very little sympathy for anyone depressed over the lack of housing options under $650,000. I watch the design shows, and they only make me want to invent a new game: "Gay or Canadian"...because all the hosts seem to be...well, you get the picture.

Lately, I've been watching the Mike Holmes programs Holmes on Homes and Holmes Inspection. They're particularly interesting, because they reverse the standard home improvement narrative. These shows are certainly not telling you "yes, you can do it yourself." No, they make absolutely no attempt at claiming viewer empowerment. You watch this show, and you have no thoughts about your repair competency. Moreover, they don't even hint that professionals in the field might be competent...quite the opposite, in fact. I watch Mike Holmes, and I feel utterly depressed at the possibility of there being anything close to an honest, skilled professional anywhere. Except Mike Holmes himself, of course...he is, according to the show, the construction industry Jesus, albeit with a Canadian accent.

Today's episode was particularly brutal. The previous owners of the hell-house in question had apparently, before selling to the now shell-shocked couple, found massive termite and rot damage, all caused by the fact that the foundation was made of dirt...simple, unpacked dirt. Their solution? Just insulate and drywall over everything. The crew's fix wasn't so much a gut job as a "bomb and start over job." It was truly horrifying.

The critical side of my brain is still trying to process a home improvement show which argues most professionals are incompetent, some of them at levels bordering on criminal. Are they telling us that experts everywhere inherently suck? Is a home improvement channel really trying to dissuade me from ever becoming a home owner?

I would worry about this all that much more if I wasn't doomed to enough poverty to never escape being a renter...and might even make the swarm of bees seem a reasonable price.

Thank goodness for debt.

my random 83rd Oscar observations.

• King's Speech is a good and worthy film, but I really wish True Grit would've gotten some love.
  
• Whomever the male host was, he acted and looked stoned out of his mind...until, halfway through, it looked like someone had given him amphetamines.
  
• I really enjoy watching the Oscars. I don't care about the telecast in the slightest, really...but it's a wonderful excuse to have friends over, eat good food, and have a great time.
  
• The thing that bugs me most about the Oscars is the self-important "why does anyone watch this?" whining I hear online. I hear the same thing about the Super Bowl...which also bugs me. Hey, it's not a point of honor to not like something. It's not even a good conversational starter.
  
• I really, really, really hated the attempts to make the Oscars look hip...all of which boiled down to "oh, did you know there's such a thing as Twitter?"
  
• Do we really need to hear all the original songs? If you're gonna force us, then you should also, for the "best score" award, play every single second of every score.
  
• I really do not like how the presenters of each of the best acting awards directly address the nominees...it seems creepy and voyeuristic.
  
• If I was one of a few people to win an award, and if my co-winner hogged the mic the entire time, I would punch them somewhere very painful.
  
• If I was a winner of one of the minor awards and was only given 23 seconds for my speech, I would find the actor who was allowed to ramble for five whole minutes and punch them somewhere very painful.
  
• How depressing must it be to have to play the "we're glad you won, but shut up, so we can bring on someone else" music?
  

2009 in review: television

The best of the year's television:

1. Burn Notice—Could this show be any smoother? Could anyone look better than Fiona in tennis whites? Could you have anyone more awesome than Bruce Campbell?
   
2. Castle—Sure, it's fluffy. But the dialog is snappy, and both Nathan Fillon and Stana Katic tear into their characters. Some of the most fun tv out there.
   
3. Dollhouse—Consistently challenging tv that breaks the rules—no real “good guys” to speak of, morally repugnant behavior from most characters, long serial plots that only offer a delayed payoff—all mean that this was bound to be canceled. However, for those willing to stay for the ride, there's some great acting (particularly from Tudyk, Kranz, Glau, Lachmen, Williams, and Gjokaj) and some of the most thought-provoking television out there.
   
4. V—If there's anything that had the potential to mess up, it's this. The original is a classic that still holds up pretty well. However, whatever questionable politics this remake might have (too early to tell, really, but I have suspicions), this is undeniably good for its sense of dread.
   
5. House—Once again, House risks failure by completely and utterly disrupting its own status quo. On paper, is there a worse move than having House in therapy, cured of his addiction? But it pays off.
   

why culture scares me

In the course of doing other research, I ran across a listing of last week's cable TV ratings...and I am now officially scared.

Many things were not surprises. Wrestling still ranks high, as did the John & Kate "We're getting a divorce! Gee, why did having our entire lives filmed not work out great for us?" spectacle. Many original cable shows such as The Closer and the awesome Burn Notice also rank high.

However, there was one entry I've never heard of. The third most watched show of last week was some made for tv movie on Disney called (and I am not making this up) Princess Protection Program. The plot, according to its IMDB page, involves:

When a tiny country is invaded by a dictator, a young Princess (later known as Rosie) is taken into custody by the Princess Protection Program. She is whisked away to rural Wisconsin where she must learn the ins and outs of behaving like a normal American teenager. In the process of adapting to her new life, Rosie gives her new friend and roommate, Carter, a few lessons in how to act with royal aplomb...

Great. Because all we need as a culture are more Disney princesses. Also, the average American teenager is apparently a boy-obsessed cheese farmer or something...most certainly white, though. Heaven forbid a program speculate on the existence of urbanite ethnic others.

What's scarier than this, though, is that not only did this program crack the top 20, so did two separate replays. Yes, it was not just one but three of the most watched programs! Watched by over 17,378,000,000 viewers! And it says the average teenager is a white rural Wisconsinite!

Right now, I'm just glad I don't have kids who might try to make me watch this with them.

television, texts, and change

There might be a new way of doing things coming. It might completely change the way the media is made. It might alter the stories we can tell...or the stories we can be told. The effects could be momentous.

And it all started with a silly name.

When I first heard it, I have to admit that I fell victim to my own prejudice. After all, I had seen enough juvenile crap at the movie theater and had no real reason to waste any more of my time on something I just knew I wouldn't like. Really, how good could something called Buffy the Vampire Slayer really be? The name alone drove me off (as it would later drive off my parents, who refused to even consider the show in spite of (or maybe because of) my suggestion). I did hear that it was originally a bad movie, so its history also worked against it. But really, more than the name or its past, I realize now that it really was my prejudice that kept me away.

But graduate school in culture studies does strange things to a person. One of my own personal projects upon arriving in Bowling Green was to open myself up to new experiences, to overcome my prejudices. This is why I started watching the various Star Trek series, why I started to follow wrestling. I wanted to know what was going on.

Eventually, this led to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. One of the networks (TNT, I believe) was showing episodes, 2 a day. And my schedule was, at that moment, pretty flexible, so I started to watch. I was amazed at the level of depth, complexity, intricacy, and real-world applicability this admittedly weird horror series contained. I immediately indoctrinated the spousal unit, and we both became really big fans. And while I never reached the level of obsessiveness that some Buffy followers attain, this series (and its spin-off Angel, which I actually think is a better program) made me devout followers of their creator, Joss Whedon.

Whedon, for those of you who might not know, is more than the creator of these shows. He's more than an extremely good and experienced Hollywood writer (responsible for, among other things, the script for the Pixar breakthrough Toy Story). I think he's responsible (at least in part) for signaling a change in the way television works.

A bit of Media 101 background first. One of the most difficult (and seemingly counterintuitive) facts about broadcast television networks is that even though they provide a large volume of programming, spanning multiple genres and styles, they are not actually in the entertainment business. They don't make any money by showing (say) twelve episodes of American Idol each week (with the exception of some ancillary revenue such as licensing fees). No, they get most of their money by selling advertising. They are in the business of selling ad space. In that way, they are really more like a billboard company than an entertainment provider.

The programs are only really there in order to give us reason to watch television advertisement. Show of hands: who would sit and watch commercials on television if there were nothing else beside the sales pitch? And while I realize that some of you might share my obsession with bad infomercials, that's not what I'm talking about.

No, you watch the advertisements that come on television because they happen to interrupt your favorite program. But networks realistically care more about a good audience for advertising than a good audience for, say, drama or comedy. This is not to say that broadcast television does not lead to some great pieces of art; however, their ability to draw in the 18-25 year old male demographic is the real reason for the success of a particular program, not its level of quality or insight.

(This, incidentally, is why all television seems to be marketed towards the youngish...they are the ones with disposable income.)

Cable has obviously changed the landscape, because with cable television (or its sibling, the mini satellite dish), you do actually pay for the content you watch. However, most cable networks include advertising as well. You might pay for the right to watch Cartoon Network, for instance, but the network still operates on the broadcast paradigm.

There are non-commercial exceptions, of course, networks like HBO or Showtime. They have no commercials, but you do have to pay more for them (hence the name "premium channels"). However, the content is generally movies (a medium where the consumer does pay for content). And while they have always had original programming (at least since the early 80s, when I first encountered them), that programming was always more of a filler than a draw.

But then came The Sopranos, a gritty serial drama about a mob family. It was a television show on a non-advertising-based network which really became a "destination" show. People subscribed to the network specifically to watch the show. A television show became a product rather than just something to draw in advertisers, because there actually were no adversisers. And under these circumstances, it is much easier to do Art.

The Sopranos had a real effect on how television could be produced/consumed/perceived. There are a host of other premium channel programs now, and I have many friends who alter their television purchasing options based specifically on program schedules.

There are other things changing the landscape of television, such as the digital video recorder (perhaps my favorite gadget of the last decade). There's lots of work to be done studying the ramifications of DVRs, and this is something I would gladly both read and teach.

How does Joss Whedon fit into this? Well, two things.

First off, consider Whedon's third created program Firefly, a science fiction western. It is perhaps my favorite program of all time. Unfortunately, the network did not like the show that much at all, and it was canceled after less than half a season.

However, a weird thing happened. People who watched and liked Firefly were generally extreme fans of the program. DVD sales were very brisk, more than you'd think for a show that didn't even run a full year. Furthermore, upon the show's cancellation, a letter and e-mail campaign to bring back the program, aimed towards its studio, generated an avalanche of messages, so great that Whedon was allowed to bring it back as a movie, the 2005 release Serenity. Think of the momentousness of this for a minute; A broadcast television show, which never found its audience while on the air, generated so much commitment from its fans (which should, according to the broadcast model, only really be advertising demographics) that it was made into a motion picture. It went from something used unsuccessfully to sell advertising to a commerced piece of art unto itself.

This is not the only reason I believe Whedon's works are notable, though. Also important is the recent renewal of Dollhouse. Dollhouse has not had the highest of ratings, for several reasons; it is aired on Friday night (traditionally a low-viewership night), and it does have a rather complex and morally ambiguous story (it concerns humans who get imprinted with different personalities and leased to customers) which might throw off casual viewers.

However, Dollhouse was just renewed for a second season. What is interesting about this is the resulting press coverage. Many reporters have gone out of their way to note that Dollhouse is one of the lowest-rated television programs in recent memory to be renewed. The show does do a good job of drawing in viewers either via DVR or the internet, but those viewers do not see the accompanying advertising which the network is supposedly in the business of selling. So why, if it fails at its job of bringing a desired advertising viewers, is it being renewed?

While one article quoted a network executive jokingly suggesting it was a preemptive move to stop the expected avalanche of fan letters and e-mails, most of the articles point toward the possibility of high DVD sales...as all of Whedon's shows have done extremely well in that market.

This is, I feel, why Whedon and Dollhouse are both important. Dollhouse is still a broadcast television show, but the actual broadcast and resulting advertising revenue is perhaps its weakest point. Instead, it's become a valuable program predominantly for what would normally be ancillary revenue potential. It is not used to sell something else (the ads) but instead has become a commodity in and of itself, as a piece of art, in spite of being on broadcast television. In other words, it's breaking the traditional model of broadcast television and suggesting something much more text-centric, art-centric.

This feels notable.

(note: this may eventually morph into an academic paper, a class segment, or maybe nothing at all. If anyone has any insight, please let me know.)

wakeup call

Killing time before my conferences, and I've got the tv on. Flipping through channels, I just found out that Spike is playing repeats of The Shield...at the ungodly hour of ten am! Can you really think of a worse way to wake up?

N'awlins

I've been working on a paper dealing with the media, New Orleans, and Katrina. For a while, I've been waiting to view When the Levees Broke...I've been backed up on work, but mainly, I've known this would be a very hard watch.

I'm not even halfway through it so far, and I've lost count on how many times I've wanted to hit someone. I am so mad, frustrated, and shaking angry at so many people. The only thing that's more overwhelming is the amount of times I've been horrified or broke down in tears.

My hatred of our current federal administration is at a new high, and I sincerely hope that people pay for their horrible inefficiency, disdain, and utter uncaring stupidity. This is one of the most powerful television events I've ever experienced.

Update: 3:40 into this, and my god, someone make me laugh, please.

proof that my work is indeed relevant

I'm eating lunch while prepping for a phone interview, and I'm experiencing something horrifying on television....a History Channel show called History Rocks. The concept of the show is a combination of Pop-Up Video and the standard reductive pseudo-documentary tv is famous for...particularly this channel.

This one's on the eighties. They started off with a bit on Pac Man...yes, the video game is the most important thing about the decade to these guys. {ac Man was, incidentally, covered while "Everybody Wang Chung" played. They just finished doing Black Monday to the strains of Foreigner's "Urgent," and after the break, it's the fall of the Berlin Wall to Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It."

Ug. These people need me.

the rest of 2007 best of

FILM
Best Movies

1. Zodiac—David Fincher shows restraint and directs one of the best films of his career. Quiet, subtle, and deep.
   
2. Sweeney Todd—Tim Burton’s usual eye for amazing visuals is once again rejoined by plot, and the result is his best film since Beetlejuice.
   
3. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters—Surprisingly engaging, with frightfully strong characters.
   
4. No Country for Old Men—The Coen Brothers finally ignore mainstream standards and once again put out a brilliant film.
   
5. The Darjeeling Limited—Lilting, playful, and nowhere near as depressing as The Life Aquatic. Visually stunning.
   
6. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford—Perhaps the best looking film of the year, and Brad Pitt kicks ass.
   

Not Opened in the Area Yet, Salivating Over:

• There Will Be Blood

Horrific Disappointment:

• Spider Man 3—Five plot lines inadequately shoved into one film, and it doesn’t work. Also, why in the hell would you give Spider Man a happy ending? His whole character note is that his life sucks.

TV

1. The Shield, season 6—Took the intensity of season 5, ramped it up, and made it downright creepy.
   
2. House—Still fresh…the best mainstream television program today.
   
3. Dr. Who (repeats)—Brilliant sci-fi. Why doesn’t America produce characters this deep? I’m stuck on season 2, but it has been amazing.
   
4. Life on Mars, season 2—There has been no quality drop at all since the marvelous debut. Now, can we sabotage the upcoming American David E. Kelley-produced version?
   
5. Torchwood—Not at the Dr. Who level, but close.
   

COMICS

1. Docktor Sleepless—The “shrieky girl” segment was the best writing I’ve seen in years…in any medium.
   
2. Powers—Consistently brilliant and still working out issue one plotlines.
   
3. Fell—Sadly in hiatus, but it’s always brilliant when it comes. Issue one is available online, for free.
   
4. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 8—It’s early, but this is still as solid as the show.
   
5. Desolation Jones—This is only low because it’s been stalled for so long on issue 8…but that issue is one of the best things ever.
   

REASONS I HAVE FOR HOPE FOR 2008

• New Drive-By Truckers album!
  
• New Gary Louris album…AND an album with Mark Olsen!
  
• The Shield, final season
  
• Synecdoche, New York...a new movie starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman, written by Charlie Kauffman!
  
• Spike Jonze adapting Where the Wild Things Are!
  
• More Desolation Jones! Finally
  
• It could only be better than 2007

robots in space

Over at Wired, they have a photo gallery of behind the scenes images from Futurama. The show is back this week, starting with a direct to dvd feature which will be edited down for Comedy Central episodes. Frankly, this is long overdue. You bring back Family Guy before this brilliant show?

Futurama is everything good television should be: equally stupid and smart, escapist and political, approachable and unusual. Moreover, it's great US tv sci-fi (something I've ranted about before). My favorite aspect? The complete and utter disdain...no, active dislike...for authority and industry. Whenever tv shows go against corruption in society, that evil tends to be limited to government. Futurama would take on government (see the hilarious robotic Richard Nixon) but would equally skewer big business. Isn't Mom's Friendly Robot Company really just Wal-Mart in disguise?

If I wasn't so durn blame broke, I would be lining up for this.

I am increasingly arty

I came to the shocking realization that I am becoming an increasingly arty person...at least in my movie viewing habits.

The last three films I've seen (King of Kong, The Darjeeling Limited, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) have all been at the art cinema in town. I can't remember the last popular film I've seen.

Part of this isn't much of a surprise to me. After all, it's not like I go to see thousands of films (too busy and broke), so I'm naturally a little selective. However, I can't decide if I'm just stupidly anti-blockbuster (sorry, couldn't get excited over Saw 47) or turning into a film snob. I would like to just chalk it up to most mainstream movies sucking, but I'm not totally sure if I'm just doing that for my ego's sake.

My television viewing, however, still has dips of non-arty...although to be sure, I need to watch some more wrestling or something.

fall television review II--House season 4

Last year on House, the status quo changed nicely. This is something that this show is very good at doing. Season 2 ended up with House's shooting and "cure" of his bad leg. The leg went back to normal (meaning severe pain and disability), but the whole next season became about House's efforts to achieve normalcy in the rest of his life...through drugs, antidepressants, police harassment, and much else.

It ended cataclysmicaly, of course, with him losing his entire team. Rather than just applying the "quick fix" this season, though, the premiere promises to make "the quest for family/belonging and the haunting of the past" explicit themes for the rest of the year...but in a non-saccharine fun way, with sexual harassment and insults.

The episode ended with House auditioning a new team...out of 40+ candidates. This has the potential to stretch out for a while, and House does play well...albeit reluctantly...with groups. The "on next week's" segment brings back the old team, but in hallucinations...or alcoholic fever dreams, which I would prefer (imagine...if they were back but not really? for the WHOLE season?).

The writing was as sharp as ever. The House/Wilson interaction took on new levels, with House pulling the ultimate attack in a feud by breaking into Wilson's house and deleting tivo'd episodes of a reality show...personally, I'd kill whomever did this. And the House/Cuddy rivalry was also fun.

Line of the night?

Cuddy: Where did you come from?
House: Apes, if you believe what the Democrats say.

I need my House fix. I spent most of the summer working on a paper on this show, and even so, I was jonesing for the premiere...and it delivered the rush I expected, one I'm gonna have fun riding all season long.

fall television review I--Chuck

Last night, for professional reasons (no lie--I love being a Culture Studies guy), I watched the TiVo'd season premiere of the new NBC show Chuck. For those of you not in the know, it is about a computer techie for some big box store (an obvious Circuit City Geek Squad parallel) who somehow (don't ask) has the contents of Homeland Security's computer database implanted into his brain...and thus becomes involved in the whole spy game.

While it was watchable, there was absolutely nothing remarkable about the program. You have a tv show featuring a nerd character? This said nothing new or interesting about nerds. Guess what: they suck at dates! they play video games! they watch online porn! they're socially inept! Stereotypes, every single one of them.

The spy community didn't fare much better...you have the stereotypical hot lady spy and the slightly paranoid and violent guy spy. Also, this seems to take place in a Los Angeles devoid of either Blacks or Latinos...or any non-Caucasian ethnicity.

I object to a lot of the standard television output, mostly because so much of it is totally lazy, and this show was a typical example. There is very little thought going into this program. The characters are dull and predictable.

It's a shame, because it gives one the impression that all network tv is this unimaginative. This show does have potential, though...to criticize the "big box" store mentality, the geek stereotypes...let's hope they actually can follow through.

chopping down walls

The other day, I was watching American Chopper. For those of you not familiar, it's a reality/documentary show about an upstate New York family that builds custom motorcycles.

This didn't sound interesting to me in the abstract when I first heard of it, but my first show turned out to be a fascinating hour of television, and I am totally hooked. More than anything, it's a study of how machismo, family, and business interact. Hint: they express love for each other by yelling.

Anyway, last week's episode had a segment where the son/chief designer went back to his junior high and spoke to the kids who had learning disabilities. Paulie Jr. has them himself, had to get special help in high school, and he was there to give them a bit of inspiration and help them realize that in spite of their difficulties, they can become huge successes.

In what's usually an hour of machismo, it was quite brave and refreshing so see him admit to a disability. It also filled me with hope. If someone who's held up as a macho icon can admit to learning disabilities, maybe there's hope for society as a whole. We need to destigmatize and inform, and talking is the only real way we can do this.

on further contemplation

Maybe the whole quality of television thing I brought up in my Dr. Who post has to do with the sheer number of episodes a year they have to produce. There's usually around 24 episodes per year of a show, minimum. Can you produce that much stuff and not have it come out stupid?

Of course, there are great American shows that don't treat you like a moron...The Shield, Dexter, The Sopranos, and so forth. You only really get them on pay channels or cable. It's the networks that have to do wall-to-wall programming and, as a result, get so many episodes of each show that the quality has to suffer.

Once again, everything is the fault of the big businesses...and let me tell you, that makes me feel much better.

Doctor Who

After a very long delay, I've gotten back into Dr. Who... watched the first two episodes of season 2 this weekend. If you're not familiar, try either BBC America, SciFi, or get the back episodes on Netflix.

All I can say is, wow, why can't American television be this good? Dr. Who is very cool, and that's not just because it's a scifi television show...something our major networks never seem to attempt. What's remarkable about the program is the depth which they give the characters...all the characters.

The good guys all have some sad, pathetic, or scary side to them in addition to their standard hero tendencies. The bad guys also have emotion and depth. Everyone is sympathetic to some degree, even the people/creatures you end up loathing.

In short, everyone in the show is a well-rounded, 3-d character...kind of like in life. In our standard American tv shows, there is a firm reliance on moral binaries. The good guys are all very good indeed. The bad guys are all totally evil. If there's someone who is a hero, our shows want us to root for them 100%. If there are villains, our shows will make them totally unredeemable.

Why are they trying to brainwash us? Why doesn't our entertainment ever treat us like reasoning, logical adults?

public television and academic discourse

Earlier this week, I did something I used to do a lot of when I was much poorer than I am now...I watched PBS.

Now, I enjoy PBS. They do great programming, and their shows are usually intelligent and insightful. However, it's hard for them to compete with stupid, campy fun...what would you rather watch at the end of a long day, Nature or an American Gladiators repeat?

But I did catch a very good episode of Nova on Typhoid Mary. It was cool, and not just because they gave Tony Bourdain a long interview (he's my hero, and I'm contemplating ways to teach his book on Mary). No, it was cool, because it was truly interdisciplinary.

History? Sure it was, but it was more. It also went into the history of science, on how people used to think about diseases...we sometimes forget that antibacterial handsoap has not always been ubiquitous. It also went into class...because the working poor at the time had much greater pressures than the rich. Of course, it went into race...Mary was Irish, and this was at a time when everyone (including government officials) treated them as one of the lowest groups of scum. Damn straight that gender was an issue. And there was plenty of more stuff as well, more approaches.

It does go to show, though, that most of the academic divisions we normally use are fairly arbitrary. We divide disciplines for many reasons, but it's infrequently a neat or surgical affair. There is always overlap. You cannot talk about one thing without having to talk about many others.

And it addressed these issues in a forum available across the country, for free. Man, I need to watch more of this channel.

food television and the quote of the week

One of my old roomates came into town this weekend. We were watching Food Network for some reason, and we had a great conversation deconstructing how the network uses concepts from pornography in their programming.

Specifically, when you watch one of their cooking shows (as opposed to their annoying reality or travel programming), they have a lot of shots focusing on melting cheese, gooey deserts, or luscious sauces. This is the standard "let's get them drooling" approach which is also employed in food magazines and ads.

In particular, we were watching Giada De Laurentiis's program Everyday Italian, and, especially since that woman can cook, the food porn shots were in full force. They had gooey, melting ricotta cheese over pasta, close up, in slow-mo...the only thing missing was the "bom-chicka-bow-wow" music.

It was not, however, only the food shots...the host was definitely the subject of a porn gaze. Giada is an attractive woman, true, but she apparently likes to work in the kitchen in very low-cut tops, and the camera knows this...a good 2/3rds of the shots were centered on her cleavage. I'm not even gonna get into the food tasting shots, because they were bordering on "if I had kids, I wouldn't let them watch this." Suffice to say, I think there's another paper in all this, pornography and attracting the male viewer to cooking.

Anyway, Giada was doing the aforementioned great looking pasta dish, and she added some chopped herb to the skillet. The resulting conversation went like this:

former roomie, sounding unnaturally alarmed: "What was that?"

me: "Parsley."

roomie: "Oh, thank God. I thought she was adding cilantro."

me: "Are you a cilantro hater?"

roomie: "I have two rules about food. I wouldn't eat human flesh unless I was pretty certain it was procured in an ethical way...and I don't like cilantro."

I'm ten years retroactively hip

While I love heavy music, I've never been a fan of bands where people just shout or scream. It never seemed a positive step to me to abandon melody...in fact, it just seems to make the music more juvenile-sounding and amaturish. This is one of the reasons why I missed the boat on a lot of punk rock.

I know, for instance, that Black Flag was a tremendously influential band, and I realize that I should be a lot more cognizant of their impact. However, I tend to just not like them that much. The same can go for their former singer Henry Rollins' solo work, which to me sounds like a lot of yelling.

Hey, there's nothing wrong per se with yelling...I do it all the time. However, I never charge anyone to hear me screaming. Mike yells are definitively open source.

So although I don't like his albums, I am, however, a fan of Henry Rollins as a spoken work performer. I've seen him a few times and enjoyed it tremendously. I own a pretty cool cd compilation of his spoken word performances. I also have an anthology of his writing that I like (even if it is a little "over the top" at times).

When I found out that IFC gave him a show, I was happy. I managed to get my lovely spousal unit to watch, and now we are both regular viewers.

When the debut episode of The Henry Rollins Show season 2 came out the friday before last, we were tuned in. The guest was Marilyn Manson, and I said to the lovely wife, "this could be a trainwreck." I had no special feelings toward Manson, but he always struck me as a "button-pusher," merely out to be as creepy and controversial as possible, only for the sake of staying in the public's eye.

Boy, was I wrong. He was fascinating, intelligent, charming, and reflective. Both the spouse and I were riveted, and I even felt inclined to delve into his music.

That's how I found myself listening to Antichrist Superstar on the way to work. That's why I find "Beautiful People" stuck in my head. That's why I realize that if I were into this band ten years ago, it might've helped me connect with my students.

If I were to mention it to them now, however, they'd only say something like "that is so 2001." Bastards.

deconstructing food tv

Yes, I still don't have time for this (I haven't e-mailed my own mother in weeks, yet I post here), but Anthony Bourdain has a great take on the various Food Network personalities. Read it if you're as much of a geek for this channel as am I.