I’m sitting in a local coffeehouse frequented by Yalies, and I’m a bit creeped out by the guy sitting next to me.
He’s sipping a latte, staring at people. He’s not listening to an MP3 player or reading a book. He’s just sitting. And I think this is what creeps me out. But why should it be creepy to be tech-free? Why should it matter that he doesn’t have an iPod? Even if most people here are either on a computer or listening to music, there’s no reason someone shouldn’t be able to do that. And someone should be able to sit and not read.
Maybe it’s the combination of the staring, the (faux?) leather jackets, and the menacing Aryan features. But I don’t think those would matter if he just had an iPod or a computer.
Although less vocal about it, I’ve been just as concerned about the future of NBC’s Chuck as the professional TV critics and major TV bloggers. It is the very peak of television entertainment right now. There are certainly better shows, by the standards of quality that apply to television, but there is none that is at a relatively high quality and so enjoyable to watch. (I love Breaking Bad but still haven’t finished the first season, because it’s a tough show to watch. I have to get just as prepared to watch Mad Men or Friday Night Lights, any of which could claim to be the best show on TV right now.)
One thing that has stumped a lot of people is why this show isn’t more popular. It’s incredibly funny and grounded with emotionally compelling dramatic moments. It’s easy to pick up what’s going on in an episode if you’ve never seen it before, but it also has major plot arcs that keep you interested in where the creators are taking the story. It’s got extremely talented and good-looking actors. Americans usually love spy movies and some spy TV shows have been very popular. So why not Chuck?
I think there are a few reasons.
A popular theory is that it’s in a really tough time slot, with stiff competition. This is true, but this doesn’t seem like enough. This show should be very, very popular and there aren’t many “freebie” time slots out there or sure-thing lead-ins.
Is it poorly advertised? I have to admit having no interest in it when bombarded with ads on NBC two summers ago. Nicole talked me into giving it a try, and I quickly got hooked. I didn’t start to love the show until this season, when it became much more consistent and much funnier. Does NBC need to rethink its marketing?
Here’s a big problem: It’s on NBC. And people just don’t watch NBC. I’d love to get viewers of NBC’s The Office and 30 Rock to watch Chuck, but even those shows are pretty weak overall (but fairly strong on DVR numbers and in 18-49). Five bucks says ratings would go up by at least 10% if this show were on ABC and 15% if it were on CBS. NBC has lost its domination over the hearts of my generation, who grew up watching Seinfeld and Friends on NBC. Now, we’re given Deal or No Deal, and soon 5 nights of Leno. Ugh. But how do we get 2 or 3 times as many people to watch this show?
Here’s another big problem: The sort of people who would like Chuck don’t watch TV. If they do, they watch it on a DVR, like I do, or they watch it on Hulu or iTunes or less legal means. But people under 30 have migrated away from television. Chuck is just a byproduct of a larger trend.
People just don’t like it. Let’s face it, we don’t all have the same taste in television. Perhaps those of us who see Chuck as a should-be-huge hit are just way off the mark. Maybe, but that doesn’t really explain why it’s not a hit.
But the single biggest reason why I think that Chuck isn’t more popular is this (and it’s related to the above points): Families don’t watch TV together. Although it’s littered with pop culture references in a very ‘00-style, Chuck is fundamentally an ’80s show like MacGyver or The A-Team or Quantum Leap. It’s fun, and funny, and there’s something for adults to appreciate (okay, maybe not on The A-Team) and something for kids to find incredibly cool. And it’s a mostly clean show that a whole family can sit down on watch together. But nobody does that any more. With the proliferation of media, an entire family can be watching TV, but each member watching something different and in different places. A show like this can’t exist in that environment. Apart from some very vague sexual references and some underwear scenes, this is a show that you can watch with your grandma and your eight year-old. But nobody watches television with their grandma and their eight year-old. If they are, they’re watching American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which require absolutely nothing from the viewer (beside the cost of the occasional text).
If you are not watching Chuck, it’s not too late to start. Gather the family ’round and watch it together.
UPDATE:
I realized I left one other suggestion off the list. Last year, NBC decided not to bring back most of its shows after the writer’s strike. Across all networks, shows that ended their run early were hit much harder than those that came back for a few episodes in the spring. This certainly contributed to the decline of Chuck as well as the wonderful Pushing Daisies on ABC. Again, that’s not enough to explain its low rating overall, though.
Also, my wonderful commenters have gotten me to thinking that there is perhaps more limited appeal to this show than I initially thought. Part of the problem with Chuck might be that it’s the female lead who is the competent spy and the male lead might be just too nerdy. While I love the Seth Cohen-Sidney Bristow dynamic, that playful take on the spy genre might be off putting to people who want their spies to be manly men. Other shows with intense followings were never going to be big hits: many people have no interest in shows about teenagers (Friday Night Lights and Freaks and Geeks) and some comedies have too many in-jokes (Arrested Development) or are in genres people don’t care for (Battlestar Galactica). I thought that as a funny, sexy spy show that Chuck would be immune, but maybe people really want a show called Captain Awesome?
Over this past weekend, Yale’s first (annual?) Environmental Film Festival ran. Although there were a number of films we wanted to see, we were only able to make it out on Sunday, when we saw Disneynature’s Earth and an independent production called Saving Luna.
Disneynature’s Earth (not to be confused with BBC’s Planet Earth, whose success it is clearly hoping to cash in on) contains some pretty interesting moments. Think of your favorite Discovery Channel or National Geographic special. Perhaps something with a cheetah in full stride or a baby kangaroo looking for its mother. Earth takes that to the proverbial eleven. It works on the thesis that if watching a great white shark jump out of the water in slow motion and catch a seal in its mouth is cool, seeing two of those in a row is twice as cool. Think a helicopter shot of going over a waterfall is cool? Then three of those in a row must be three times as cool. Think time-lapse shots of a plant growing is cool? Then eleven of those in a row must be eleven times as cool. (Eleven is not an exaggeration.) Disneynature’s Earth is essentially a YouTube video of Earth’s Greatest Hits. Of course, it’s only a greatest hits if you agree with the filmmakers that amphibians and insects are uninteresting and play no part in understanding our planet. Also, I found James Earl Jones’ narration fell flat. Made me wish for the British release with Patrick Stewart. (”Engage.”) The only emotionally engaging moment in the film is one where a polar bear, having been adrift on an ice flow, returns to land too exhausted to kill a walrus and too hungry not to try. For the first moment in the film, the predator-prey relationship becomes one where you want both sides to succeed. (In true Disney fashion, all bloody moments happen offscreen.) Moments that will make you “ooh” and “eww”? Got ‘em. A movie you will care about at all? Not unless you think global warming is conspiracy among scientists, journalists, and liberals to indoctrinate your children to become vegetarians and Gaia worshipers.
For a movie you will care about, try Saving Luna, a film lovingly made by journalists called to Alaska for a three week assignment on an orca whale separated from its pod. They stayed for three years documenting Luna, who apparently bonded with the a small fishing community in a sound that its pod doesn’t frequent. The story quickly evolves from “look at the killer whale coming to play” to a story of the struggle for the orca’s care among the townspeople, the loggers, the Canadian government, and the local First Nations tribe. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll question what you believe. The film provides a lot to think about, including our conceptions of wildness, friendship, and the differences and similarities between humans and other animals. I’d especially recommend it as a counterpoint to Wernor Herzog’s Grizzly Man. Both films engage the question of the wall the separates humans and wild animals, and whether this is a wall that should be maintained. Your assignment is to consider whether the positions advocated are compatible. That may be hard, since Saving Luna currently has no DVD release and it’s only been distributed in Canada, but watch the Saving Luna website for updates. You’ll be glad you did.
Let me take this opportunity to plug one of my favorite bands of the moment. Since they are getting a lot of buzz right now from places like NPR Music and are back at SXSW, it’s time to give them their due. I’m talking about the gloriously folky, countrified rock of The Avett Brothers. They are some of the best songwriters out there right now, putting fascinating ideas into beautiful melodies. They write ballads you’ll be singing for days, and mix in the occasional punk rock breakdown.
I first discovered them about 2 years ago, but starting this fall they’ve been a frequent request in our house. For Nicole, they’ve gone from being “that ‘Die, Die, Die’ band” to quite possibly her favorite band. They’re near the top of the list of bands I most want to see live. (I was sick when they came to New Haven this fall, and we sadly didn’t see them. I won’t be sick next time.) Here’s a (disappointing) video of one of my (not disappointing) favorite songs.
And for a better sense of the whole band playing together, here’s another music video. (Be warned: this may lead to compulsively watching live videos of them on YouTube.)
In listening to the new U2 album, I decided to record my reactions to each song as it was playing. You’ll get my initial reactions, including the rating I gave the song in iTunes. (Note: I constantly re-rate songs in iTunes, so these numbers will change. Also, iTunes ratings for me often have less to do with how good I think a song is and more to do with how often I want them to show up in my smart playlists.) My reactions below the fold.
That’s the headline from an article in yesterday’s New York Times. Reading those words makes my skin crawl.
Starting salary for a college professor in the humanities is somewhere around $45,000. Alex Rodriguez earned $28,000,000 last year to play baseball, and I need to justify the existence of what I do? Charles Prince, former Citigroup CEO took $10,400,000 in bonuses last year (in addition to his seven-digit salary), the same year he resigned for mismanagement, and I need to justify the existence of what I do?
Even if we forego all the arguments about how the humanities contribute to a life well lived, the progress of civilization, the important exploration of all things aesthetic, ethical, human … If we leave all that aside and just talk about what humanities professors are worth as educators, the idea that I have to justify the worth of someone who earns .16% of Alex Rodriguez’s salary is absolutely ridiculous. Times are extremely hard when it comes to finding a job teaching in the humanities, as the article briefly points out. Why the nation’s premier newspaper would harp on the existence of a profession so badly hit by the economy yet so in demand by the students paying tuition is absolutely mind-boggling. (In case you were wondering, this is why people become Marxists.)
[For the record, the article that follows this headline doesn't make much sense. For instance, it begins with the catchy idea that whatever America needs now, it sure won't find it in the humanities. There's no reason given for this claim, other than that there is an increased urgency to ask this question "in a complex and technologically demanding world." Now, one might think that in a complex world, "the critical thinking, civic and historical knowledge and ethical reasoning that the humanities develop" which the author praises in the humanities would be a useful thing, so useful that their instrumental worth is obvious. Just not obvious to a journalist, apparently. Then the journalist consults a law professor and two administrator in asking the question of what justifies the existence of the humanities, and talks to two professors in the humanities about enrollment figures. Let me humbly suggest that those questions were asked to the wrong individuals.]
Nicole had off work for the past week. (In Connecticut, schools have a one-week February break and a one-week April break, which seems nice until you realize that the school year runs into late June.) After a week of low-key sitting around, we went to New York for a couple nights this weekend. (Only after we took Panther to the vet to get the last couple shots she needed to go visit the other dogs at the very nice kennel for a couple nights.) I got a good deal for a nice hotel on Priceline. (The upside to a crappy economy is great deals on hotels in touristy areas.)
The trip was built around my idea to take Nicole to see the Broadway revival of Guys and Dolls, a musical I had once seen performed by a friend’s high school. (This was a small, private school where about 8 people had to play all 20 roles, and ever since I’ve felt a special attachment to this show.) I had bought Nicole the Brando-Sinatra film version for Christmas, but we hadn’t watched it yet. As a fan of Gilmore Girls, I thought Nicole would enjoy seeing Lauren Graham in her broadway debut. Tickets for the show run from about $125-$250, but after a little investigation I found we could get student rush tickets the day of the performance. So for $26.50 each, we had fifth row seats on the far right of the Nederlander Theater, a theater so small it’s hard to believe it counts as Broadway.
The set design on the cramped stage was astounding, using the whole height of the auditorium, from above the curtain to down in the orchestra pit, and a giant video screen provided depth for the musical numbers and the elaborately staged dance routines. The performances were really excellent (with a big knock on Craig Bierko, who only found every fifth note on his solos). Oliver Platt makes a good hood, Lauren Graham’s Miss Adelaide was winning (and who knew she could sing? in her character’s voice?), and Kate Jennings Grant was perfect as Sgt. Sarah Brown. The revival stays true to the original, with no cloying attempts at updating that fall flat on their face. (I’m looking at you, Yale Opera version of The Magic Flute.) The only part that struck me as different was that “Sit Down, You’re Rocking the Boat” was extended with a humorously over-the-top breakdown.
Nicole and I are already trying to come up with excuses to see it again.
The trip was built around my idea to take Nicole to see the 