It's in your TV: American Horror Story

##Before I start the reviewing bit I want to give some explanation for the absence since my last post. I have been working on a few side projects, which initially started out great, but that at the moment have been put in “pending” status. I am hopeful that in the near future they will see the light of day and I will be able to share them with you all; I’ll keep you posted on their progress. (I’m also undertaking a Masters at the moment so that has also been keeping me busy, but I’ll try to post more regularly than before, although the 3 per week you are used to may not still apply).

So, I’ll get straight to it. American Horror Story is a show about a spooky house that does bad things to good people, or was it good things to bad people, or random things to anyone in the vicinity? It’s a bit hard to tell at first, but as the story goes on it becomes a bit clearer (but not by much). The main premise involves a family of three who have recently moved in: Dr. Ben Harmon, an adulterous psychiatrist whose best idea of mending the past issues in his life (i.e. cheating on his wife) is to uproot the whole family and move them to the suburbs – clearly he is awesome at his job, Vivien Harmon the wife… and that’s all you can really say about her at the start, no other qualities or defining characteristics (and later on she is characterised is the stereotype of the betrayed house wife, nothing more), and Violet Harmon the standard moody teenager, misunderstood by society (and her psychiatrist dad who seems oblivious to her distress), who finds solace in Tate, an eerie and morbid teenager who is being treated by her dad. There is also a hot/not hot maid and an even creepier next door neighbour with a tendency to pop by and bring poisoned treats for the family while constantly reminding everyone of how knowledgeable she is of how the world truly is and her cursed womb.

The story at first seems very cliché and unimaginative, but over time starts to branch out into multiple mini-stories, each having one of the main characters at the centre, while still managing to intertwine them quite well when the narrative requires it. I did find the first few episodes unnecessarily convoluted, which may put off some viewers, but if you manage to stick with it, it does improve, especially after some depth is given to the characters.

It should be mentioned that this may be the one of the few shows on TV at the moment that actually does suspense-horror properly (the other being the Walking Dead). It is usually a difficult balance that has to be achieved to make a horror show good; the characters must be interesting and well developed, as they are the ones we need to associate with and whose reactions and experiences make the show entertaining, and the shock, supernatural and gore value must not be exaggerated. Shows that fail at horror usually either focus too much on making the monster, poltergeist, whatever, too scary, or too detailed, or in-your-face that the audience habituates to it, and the story loses out. The other pitfall is over-developing characters, something that you can see on Supernatural, where any semblance of horror, suspense, or narrative seems to take a back seat to the drama of the protagonists’ lives. AHS hasn’t (yet at least) failed in this respect, as the show is now the characters are properly defined and given individual views on the event that are occurring around them, adding layers and depth to the story as a whole. That being said, it seems that when it comes to “giving depth to characters” the writers fail to separate “people” from “ghosts”, and if a ghost starts to be overly developed, any effect it will have on the horror aspect disappears. If a ghost talks, walks, eats, has sex and even (spoiler ->) makes babies, then what is the actual difference between people and dead-people?

The thing that annoyed me are the great differences between how the scenes progress, where sometimes the audience is flooded with information and important plot points, while at others there seems to be no relevance to a scene aside from creating a pause between the “good parts”. It could be argued that this is done intentionally, but the lack of fluidity at times severely affects the immersion process, without achieving any long term advantages.

A little tip that I have for fresh viewers of the show is to not imagine it being about the family and the event that occur to them, and view it more as the story of the house and the things that happened and will happen there. Also, try to ignore the ridiculousness of the maid, especially in scenes where she is in a room with both men and women where she gives the impression of being schizophrenic, shifting between lascivious and noble based on who she is facing.

Overall, the cinematography is well made, there is no overuse of special effects or trickery, and the acting in general is very good. The cast itself has great chemistry, having their interactions appear realistic and fluid. One issue is that they show tends to over-develop individuals that are only around for a short time, or that play minor roles. There are also plenty of references to other horror stories, urban legends, and tragic deaths in real life, some of which are subtle, but most are quite obvious. If you are a fan of horror you may appreciate the “classic” quality of the scare tactics, and the fact that the show does not shy away from brutal and extreme setups (e.g. at one point there is a rape scene with a guy dressed up in S&M-style latex suit), and for regular fans of TV you may find it refreshingly different than other current shows on TV.

It's in your TV: Teen Wolf

I don’t usually review, or even care about, shows intended for a teen audience; they all are generally horrendous, as if it was central to the genre for them to be cheesy, dull, filled with bad acting (if it can be called acting) and almost unwatchable. But after watching the first two episodes (and losing a significant amount of grey matter in the process) I decided to make an exception for this one as it is so incredibly bad, to the point where you start to ask yourself how this stuff gets greenlit.

As I was watching the show I wonder if the actors were truly self-aware of exactly how bad their acting was while they were filming it. I’m starting to suspect that what happens is that everyone on the set is in a state of denial, acting as a defence mechanisms in response to the level of suckiness seen on camera. The way I see it, the actors hear and see themselves then think “I can’t actually be THAT bad. It must be in my head, otherwise someone would have said something by now”. At the other end the producers are siting there listening and seeing the actors and think “the show can’t really be THIS bad, it must be in my head, I mean the actors or someone would’ve said something if it was as horrible as I think it is”. And so, due to this widespread state of denial, resulting from spectacular artistic failure, we get the new Teen Wolf. I’m starting to wonder if “acting skills” is still a requirement to play a role on a TV show, or if it has been demoted to the “other skills” section of an applicant’s CV.

I’m really not sure where to start with this show. The plot is bad, the acting is bad, even the visuals are dodgy. The only reason why it was on my radar was due to nostalgia, which is probably what the producers were hoping would draw in a crowd, as the show is inspired by the 1985 movie of the same name, starring Michael J. Fox - Because there is nothing that fans like more than someone playing around with a classic.

The plot is formulaic and unimaginative, as would be expected of this sort of show. It focuses on an adolescent boy, struggling through high school, leading an “average” life, bullies pick on him, no girls will give him the time of day, he has a geeky and socially awkward best friend, and then he gets bit by a wolf. Although we all know that the mysterious animal is actually a werewolf, they still decided to have the central actors, the protagonist Scott McCall (Posey) and his buddy Stiles (O'Brien), play the whole “self-aware of the silliness of the idea of a werewolf bite” routine, which was annoying to watch and pretty much destroyed any immersion in the story for the viewer.

Over the course of the episode the effects of the mysterious bite start to emerge, and true to the classics, the previously geeky loser is transformed into an incredible athlete, and gains the popularity he always dreamt. This is where I start to get annoyed. I never understood this conception of success being tied to popularity among people who obviously never liked you for who you are, and only accepted you after you start behaving like them. Not to mention that this dichotomy where the people who are athletically inclined are the group you should strive to emulate while the ones who are academically successful are looked down on and ostracised. It would have been nice if this remake was also a re-envisioning of the show with a shift from the classic and now stereotypical categorization of “jocks vs. nerds” used for the past few decades. So, in terms of plot there are no surprises and for the most part is badly written (even the cliché stuff is poorly executed).

The acting is almost indescribably bad, and it’s not only from the protagonist. No, it’s everywhere! Every line, every interaction is stale, unrealistic and emotionless. I kept getting the feeling they had a guy in the back holding up a card with their line but he forgot to add any punctuation, and it was the first time the actors (and I use the term loosely) were reading them. Special mention must be given to the protagonist, Tyler Posey, as he truly is the worst one of the lot. His reactions on screen where either unconvincing or surprising and they never matched the dialogue, not to mention that he only seems to have two facial expressions: confused and constipated.

            

           In the past the counter argument used to be that child or teen actors had limited experience and training, and should not be judged as harshly as their adult counterparts, but after the performance by Chloe Moretz of Kick-Ass, or even Maisie Williams and Isaac Hempstead-Wright from Game of Thrones, that argument is clearly invalid. There is simply no excuse for the complete lack of conviction and realism portrayed by the majority of the cast in Teen Wolf.

The more I watched the more pissed off I got. This show, and others like it, will end up ruining the entire genre. Coming of age stories, dealing with the turmoil of adolescence are difficult to make appealing to the individuals that would most benefit from watching them, especially if they mainly consist of long and boring monologues or heavy philosophical discussions. But, if properly executed, shows that add an extra element, like making use of a graphic and easily observable metaphor to describe these issue (in this case the werewolf thing), can result in excellent and captivating storytelling, making it appealing and relatable to teens (i.e. the indented audience) and nostalgic adults alike.

I’m hopeful that the viewers of this show will quickly realise how truly horrific it is and refuse to continue watching it, letting it wither away, as it should, making the point that allowing things like this on TV is unacceptable. But alas, we live in the sparkly vampire era of television and film, and I fear my critique/recommendation will fall on deaf ears. Where is Van Helsing when you need him.

It's in your TV: Outsourced

There is very little that can really be said about Outsourced, either good or bad. In terms of plot and comedy style it’s formulaic and unimaginative. The premise of the show involves an American sales manager, Todd Dempsy (Rappaport), who due to (vague and irrelevant) situational factors is forced to move to India to work at a call centre in the business of selling American novelties. Why he does this and how come uprooting overnight and leaving his current life behind was so easy will remain a mystery to the audience. 

I considered the lack of characterisation of the protagonist to be a major flaw of the show. If the writers can’t be bothered to give the main character a backstory, or at least explain the motivations behind his actions, how (or why) is the audience supposed to understand (care) about what he does or doesn’t do? I get that this is a light comedy show but the reductive characterization is evidence of poor and lazy writing.

            To expand a bit on my previous point, the main annoyance of this show that never goes away is the main character, not the actor, but the role itself. I don’t know if Todd’s lack of personality was intentional, to be a blank slate on whom the viewer can superimpose themselves, or it was simply bad writing (I’m inclined to believe the latter), but the results is the same. The nondescript, naïve but ever-learning protagonist adds a very obnoxious element of the show; they even gave the tall, silent guy more character.

That could be overlooked if it was the show’s only shortcoming, but it isn’t. The main (only) source of comedy for the show is the constant culture clash between Todd’s American way of life and Indian culture. A basic episode can be summed up as follows: Todd does/says something ignorant and insensitive (i.e. he sees his co-workers doing something different than what he is used to, therefore it is wrong and must be corrected), everyone is outraged, Todd tries to fix things only to make matters worse, after a two minute conversation at the end of an episode years of closed minded and prejudicial upbringing is undone, Todd learns something new and everyone is happy. Then they break into song! (kidding) 

The ever-present culture difference is also emphasized by Bader’s character Charlie Davies who serves as the in-house outspoken, ignorant, and occasionally racist best friend and Tonya [no last name] the overtly sexual and uninhibited aussie who serves to illustrate the difference in female attitude and culture (I also think she serves to fill a quota on sexual innuendos and mini-skirts; not that I’m complaining). 

Despite some bad press, I do not find the show to be overly offensive or blatantly racist with respect to the humour and stereotypes it portrays (although there have been some exceptions). My opinion is that this interpretation comes from the bland, boring, and basic plots which make it appear that way. The cast in general is made up of colourful, diverse and likeable individuals, who on occasion end up making a pleasurable and fun viewing experience. I’m inclined to believe that the sheer number of characters was done to balance out their vague and severely underwritten roles, but hopefully that will result in some on-screen flexibility regarding storylines.

Although the main theme has been the same throughout the show thus far, it does give clear indication that it is making changes based on the criticisms it has received, which it should be commended for as very few shows ever do this (successfully).

            This is the type of show that at the moment is right on the edge. It’s not terrible enough that I can make a firm assertion supporting not watching it, especially since there seem to be very few watchable shows at the moment, but it’s also not polished enough that is can give it a positive recommendation. My final pronouncement: it’s not bad, but it’s also not memorable.

It's in your TV: Mad Love

   The show is so cheesy you would think they had Larry Lackapants writes the jokes (obscure Cow and Chicken reference, ignore my geekiness).

   Yet another devastatingly bad relationship based sitcom, like there weren’t enough of those (>1 is already too many).

   So, where to start? Well the acting is dreadful. Biggs seems to have given up on being an actor on the big screen (not that I’m complaining, but this isn’t an improvement) and decided to stick to what he knows best – which apparently isn’t acting. Watching introverted, confidence-lacking, awkward guys as the leading role is NOT ENJOYABLE. Seriously, this is something that I may address in depth on one of my “Off on a Tangent” segments, but in short: shows using this personality type for their protagonist are painful to watch. In writing a leading character you should (only) have two options:  1.The overconfident, macho, ladykiller, like Sterling Archer or, 2. A pseudo-realistic portrayal of the average guy, like Jason Segel’s role in forgetting Sarah Marshall, anything else just turns out really bad.

   Labine seems to have kept the same character he is best known for, the overly confident and obnoxious best friend, which he does very well, but this draw-by-numbers type show isn’t a good fit for him (he was much better on “Reaper”). Judy Greer is too good of an actress to be in this show, and it will definitely be a setback in her career, not to mention that it’s an insult to her acting ability. Also somebody should really let her be the star of a show and stop casting her as a supporting role, especially since no amount of support can save the embarrassingly awful acting of the so called main female character, played by Sarah Chalke. I’m still uncertain if the audience is supposed to pity her character, find her likeable or attempt to relate to her, because really all she’s accomplishing is giving me a migraine. 

   Although not central to the main story it should still be mentioned that the character played by Sarah Wright is just uncomfortable to watch, not to mention insulting and condescending that the producers would think this would be funny or appealing in any way! Making fun of dumb people is not comedy, no matter what Desperate Housewives would like you to think.

  It should be said that whatever the actors could do with their roles was limited from the start, primarily due to the unimaginative, immature and overused comedy that the show is constructed on. Saying that it has absolutely no originality is a serious understatement. The jokes are painfully unfunny, and overall the show is simply a poor man’s HIMYM (and that should tell you something).

   Usually I watch more than a couple of episodes before I cast judgement on a show, but in this case I see no point in subjecting myself to more torture in hope that maybe they will change the monkey on the typewriter and some dramatic improvement will occur.

   I am sometimes inclined to give a show what I call the “neutral vote”, simply saying the show is a good example of its genre (e.g. Southland) and is watchable, but in this case I can’t even do that. The show is poorly written, the acting is subpar, and it becomes painful to watch after the first couple of jokes (and I use the term loosely). I have to award it a verso police and hope you never have to see it again.

It's in your TV: Archer

              “Television!  Teacher, mother, secret lover.” - Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

    I consider myself a connoisseur of the ’moving pictures box’. If somebody actually awarded people for the amount of TV they watch then the award would have my name. The issue in this day-and-age is that there is no shortage of things to watch and kill time with, and it seems that TV is the only medium that is not affected by the fundamental capitalist concept that competition and variety should produce quality products. 

    The increasing number of shows out there makes the quest of finding a new show that is good, and worth watching very difficult; you can’t watch the pilot of every new thing out there, let alone watch a few episodes to get a feel for something. So what happens is that you stay with the shows you are already watching, even if they start to go downhill (or were never that good to begin with). 

   That’s where I come in. In situations of such life altering dilemmas you can turn to your friendly internet Reviewer for guaranteed* viewing pleasure.

(*guarantee only applies if you possess identical neural pathways as me at the time of viewing.)

   The show that I want to introduce, although based on its ratings will probably be no great unknown, is Archer.

   Archer is a funny, edgy, and extremely entertaining show. The premise of the show, that of the macho, self-centred, superspy that would make James Bond quiver in his well fitted pants, working for the global espionage agency ISIS, which is run by his oversexed, parentally challenged mother, while having to work alongside his insanely violent, emotionally repressed ex-girlfriend, and other colourful colleagues, makes for a highly enjoyable 25 minutes. There are many things that can be pointed out relating to why the show is so popular: the witty, fast paced comedy, the hilarious re-envisioning of cliqued spy situations, to the weird and exaggerated, yet still plausible relationships and dynamic that the characters have with each other, etc. (<- watch the show to find out what they are).

   The show is already in its second season following the great success of the first, and during in this time it has managed to maintain the same level of comedic excellence throughout every episode; humour that is reminiscent of shows like Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law or Space Ghost Coast-to-Coast (two other great shows that you should see when you have the time if you haven’t already).

   I’m am not in the habit of making exaggerations regarding how good or bad something is for the sake of sensationalising it (calling me cynical by nature is an understatement, I mean my blood type is B-Negative! Get it? Really, no one is laughing?), so a review like this one will probably be very rare on this site. At the moment there are only about two or three other TV shows that I hold in just high regard (and I’ll get to those in upcoming reviews). I simply felt that it was best to start [It’s in your TV] with a ‘[the] Reviewer Seal of Approval’ so that you can start watching something decent while I discuss the plethora of horrendous shows out there that you should avoid or stop watching altogether. Enjoy the show and be careful entering the "Danger Zone!".