Preview! Doctor Who: The End of Time Pt 2

The conclusion to Doctor Who: The End of Time airs this weekend.  I'm anxious to see the conclusion but I'm also dreading it. I teared up watching the coffee shop scene in part 1, I expect I'll be bawling my eyes out in the end.

Here are two sneak preview clips:




I thought John Simm, David Tennant, and Bernard Cribbins were brilliant in part 1.  I didn't care for the Master's new superpowers and I thought the billionaire and his daughter's creepy incest vibe was strange to say the least. Bringing the time lords back was a pretty cool twist, but it was obvious to me right from the start based on the Part 2 previews BBCA aired throughout part 1.  Had those promos not aired it might have surprised me. 
 
Reviews/commentary on Pt 1:
Televisionary
What's Alan Watching
LA Times

VERY interesting article on where the franchise is going next over at airlockalpha
Click Here For Full Post..

Sherlock Holmes: It's all about the casting

Sherlock Holmes set a new Christmas day opening record, raking in almost $25 million dollars. 

My family joined the throngs for a Christmas day matinee.  The theater was packed. We were 15 minutes early and still ended up in the forth row.  (And this was in small town heartland America- my how times have changed.)

In spite of a weak script and director a little too enamored with fight scenes, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. 

Read my non-spoilery take on the film after the jump. 

Truly, it was all about the casting.  Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are brilliant as Holmes and Watson and they have fantastic chemistry on screen.  The best scenes those that feature just the two of them talking. 

After seeing the film TV critic Daniel Fienberg tweeted:  

Since "House" was inspired by "Sherlock Holmes," it's funny/appropriate how much the new "Holmes" feels like "House."  The dialogue/interactions between Holmes and Watson are pure House/Wilson. Funny, that. And circular.

I couldn't agree more.  There is a scene early in the film where Holmes is showing off his observational skills and goes too far, upsetting the woman he is analyzing, that feels like many a scene between House and a patient or staff member.

Downey's Holmes is a bit more bi-polar than House and a tad less misanthropic which makes him a more enjoyable character to spend several hours with.  And while I liked that they made both Holmes and Watson skilled fighters, these sequences were a tad too frequent and lengthy. 

I've actually never read any of the Arthur Conan Doyle novels or seen any of the earlier films so I had no preconceived ideas about how Holmes or Watson should be portrayed.  This was probably a good thing.  Two of the more negative reviews of the film I read were written by Holmes fans (particularly Basil Rathbone).

Mark Strong was appropriately menacing as Lord Blackwood, doing all he can with a character as a boilerplate villain as this one.  Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler is such a stereotypical femme fatale you can basically call her character arc from scene one.  I have a few other quibles, like the incredibly cliched setting for the final confrontation and the fact that anyone who's been to London before knows that Parliament and the Tower Bridge are miles apart.

But the strength of the two leads leads me to forgive a lot.  I'll watch it again on DVD and I'm looking forward to the inevitable sequel.  Hopefully they can bring on some better screenwriters.    

If you're looking for fan entertaining popcorn flick, I highly recommend it.  Keep your expectations reasonable and throw out your character preconceptions and you'll have a fun a time.       
Click Here For Full Post..

Karen's Worst of Television 2009

This list is an amalgamation, including worst episodes, plot lines, trends, and decisions.  There is some overlap (some worst episodes are a result of the worst plot lines, etc.) and it of course excludes *a lot* bad programming.

You'll find no Reality TV here for example because:
1. I don't watch it
2. Adding I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here to a "worst of" list seems redundant.
So really, this is sort of a "worst of the best" list.

Finally, like all such lists, it's completely subjective.  But if you agree or disagree with any of my choices please share in the comments! 

Promoting FlashForward as the next Lost

By heavily promoting FlashForward as the successor to Lost, ABC set the show up to fail.  (See this piece at TV Overmind).  If you show up expecting filet mignon and get served a cheeseburger you're going to be disappointed.

It also demonstrates that ABC doesn't fundamentally understand what made Lost a hit in the first place.  Lost was about the characters.  Dharma, The Others, Smokey, Ben Linus, Jacob, time travel, all of the mythology we now associate with Lost, were not in the pilot episode (at least not directly) and some, like time travel, didn't appear until last season.  Lost was, in the beginning, about the characters.  We slowly got to know who they were on the island and who they were before.  FlashForward is built around a central mystery and the characters seem like little more than pawns being shuffled around the board in service of the plot.    

House “Both Sides Now”

Turns out House's miraculous overnight detox was in his head (which was good, because that was a ludicrous idea) and he hallucinated having sex with Cuddy. So, after a good six months of having the producers hype the 'Huddy' consummation it wasn't real? LAME. Then, House humiliates her in front of half the hospital in a way that was cruel and not remotely entertaining.

The subplot about Cameron and Chase fighting about her dead husband’s sperm was totally out of left field and, really, I stopped caring about these characters ages ago. Only good thing about this episode was House realizing he needed help and Wilson taking him to the hospital.

Bones “The Hero in the Hold”

Bet you thought I was going to say "The End in the Beginning" didn't you? I didn’t actually hate that episode, though I was pissed about it at the time. I enjoyed seeing all of the interns and other minor characters making appearances (even if it did seem kind of like an AU crack fanfic) and the actors seemed to be having fun and the redressed set was cool. It was kind of a fun episode. What I objected to was having it as a season finale and the fact that the producers had been hyping Booth and Brennan having sex for six months and to have it be alternate reality characters was a cheap stunt (see below). Oh, and the amnesia bit at the very end was ridiculously soapy.

But, if we’re looking at the worst of TV last year then I think, “The Hero in the Hold” fits the bill. Part of it was an expectation thing. The Gravedigger was one of the coolest bad guys our heroes have faced and Brennan and Hodges ordeal in “Aliens in a Spaceship” is easily one of Bones’ best episodes. So when we learned the Gravedigger was returning and kidnapping Booth, fans were understandably excited. The result was a letdown.

I don't buy that Hodges would have stolen the evidence.  I think TJ Thyne does a great job of selling it, and I do believe that the not knowing would drive Hodges crazy, but the man works in a crime lab!  He understands the chain of evidence and that the evidence would be inadmissible, regardless of any conclusions he might have drawn. 

The Gravedigger loves complicated and convoluted death traps but the yellow submarine in the ready be to detonated old naval ship? I couldn't help but think of the Dr. Evil bit about sharks with lasers on their heads.

The reveal of the US Attorney as the bad guy was anti-climactic.  Had we seen this character in previous episodes, the reveal might have carried some weight.  Instead, we're just supposed to be surprised because she's a woman.  And on that subject, I don't see how she could have physically carried out the crimes, drugging and then moving unconscious bodies, extremely quickly, sometimes in broad daylight, all without being noticed.  I'm not sure I would have believed one man could physically accomplish that, let alone a small woman.

And finally, Teddy. David Boreanaz and Noel Fisher do a good job with these scene, and it's a nice little bit know where Parker got his name, but I'm not really sure what else these scenes accomplished. Booth still has some regrets and guilt about his actions in the military. Ok, I believe that, but why haven't these issues ever come up in the context of his therapy sessions with Wyatt or Sweets? Was it really necessary to rely on a hallucination/ghost? Teddy's function seemed to be primarily an expository tool so Booth could explain what was happening.  It might have been an interesting aesthetic choice to not have dialogue in those scenes.  The uncomfortably of silence would increase the tension for the audience.  Or if they really wanted some level of back and forth, why not just have another 'real' character there?

The part of the episode that I *really* hated was the final scene. In the context of the rest of the season, Teddy as a hallucination makes sense (I guess). But at the cemetery Brennan sees and speaks to Teddy which strongly implies that he was in fact a ghost. Given that Booth is clearly not watching their interaction, we can't even claim that the camera is just showing us Booth's perspective. To quote Supernatural, "This show has ghosts? Why?" Bones (the show, not the character) has always had an openness to religion, faith, and even the supernatural, but it's ostensibly a show about science and has always kept this stuff vague. Why change now? And what purpose does it ultimately serve?  

Smallville “Doomsday”

This messy season finale exemplifies all of the things wrong with Smallville.  Smallville has never been a great show.  Mostly, I accept this, but sometimes it's really frustrating because there are some obvious and simple fixes that would vastly improve the show. The biggest thing the show needs to do? Stop trying to be all things to all people!  Related to this, DC needs let the show be its own thing. 

Superman first comic book appearance was in 1938, making the character 71 years old as of 2009.  That's a 71 year history riddled with mutations and contradictions regarding origins, powers, allies, and villains.  The 1985-1986 series Crisis on Infinite Earths which used the concept of the multiverse to explain these competing narratives and resolved them by merging the different versions of Earth together to create one earth, and thus, going forward, one canonical DC universe.

To preserve this continuity, as well as the pending reboot of the Superman film franchise, DC has placed numerous restrictions on Smallville over the years from what powers Clark could manifest to what other DC characters could appear.  Smallville has also been wary of angering comic book fans by upsetting continuity.  And yet, there are certain changes and interpretations that are somehow considered permissible, though I'm often at a loss to see why.      

"Doomsday"'s failure as an episode can largely be attributed to these behind the scenes factors. 

Doomsday is the only supervillan to ever kill Superman (he comes back) in the 1992 Superman comic series The Death and Return of Superman and the iconic scene of Lois holding Superman's broken body is familiar to some non-comics fans.  As a result, Smallville team had to tread lightly in bringing the character into the show. 

And it seemed like they were doing a pretty great job (leaving aside the whole retconning of 'two boys came to earth that day').  Instead of having Doomsday be just the huge, mindless killing machine they decided to take a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde approach by having Doomsday be an alternate side to mild mannered paramedic Davis Bloome (played by the talented Sam Witwer). Davis was interesting, attractive, and highly sympathetic, making him a far more compelling character than he otherwise would have been.  But, "Doomsday" manages disappoint.       

1. Way to many subplots that were more about setting up next season than concluding this one.

The guy from the Legion shows up with another ring and makes a big pronouncement that Clark will die. Clark leaves a superpowerful time traveling ring *laying around* at the office.  (Clark is such a moron sometimes).  The orb goes missing and Lois and Tess have a smackdown (which was well choreographed, but screamed fanservice to me).  Lois vanishes to the future.  The Justice League betrays Clark.  Jimmy finds out about Clark.  Black Kryptonite.  Zod appears. And so on, and so on.  Too much for a one hour episode. 

2.The big "showdown" with Doomsday lasts about 5 seconds:

To preserve Superman's future death, Clark has a blink or you'll miss it, cheesy special effect fight with Doomsday before he buries him under a power plant.  We've spent the whole season waiting for this confrontation. Very anti-climactic

3. Davis kills Jimmy.

So Davis (absent Doomsday) the nice guy that we'd come to care about turns out to be a psychotically jealous killer? Really? I guess having Doomsday be a part of him corrupted him? Or was that always part of him? I don't know, but killing off your most interesting character in years doesn't seem like a smart move.  I did like to see Jimmy Olsen get to be the hero though. But that brings me to...

4. Jimmy isn't really Jimmy

The Jimmy Olsen we've gotten to know and love apparently wasn't the 'real' Jimmy Olsen he was Henry James Olsen and his little brother is likely to be the Jimmy that grows up to befriend Lois and Clark at the Planet.  (Which is a total retcon since Jimmy gives his full name in an early appearance and it wasn't Henry James).  Superman purists had raised a bit of a ruckus when Jimmy was first brought into the show, but after so many years he'd been largely accepted and making him 'not the real' Jimmy seems disrespectful to the character and the fans.

Sam Witwer (Davis) and Aaron Ashmore (Jimmy) both sounded disappointed in interviews discussing what happened with their characters.

The one thing I did like in this episode was the phone call between Lois and Clark (as the Blur)

Prison Break “Killing Your Number”

Prison Break should have ended one season. Seasons 2 and 3 were a complete mess. The first half of season 4 was actually quite enjoyable, if implausible (Hey, Sarah’s not really dead!). FBI agent Don Self (Michael Rapaport) captures most of the gang and, in exchange for their freedom, they agree to work on a top secret off the books project to steal Scylla (a McGuffin who’s function and purpose changes so often I couldn’t even tell you what it was in the end) from the shadowy and elusive Company.

So, for the first half of the season consists of a variety of fun Ocean’s Eleven style cons and thefts designed to facilitate the retrieval of Scylla. But once that is accomplished and Don Self is revealed to be a bad guy our boys go on the run again and the plot becomes confusing and increasingly ridiculous (Michael’s mother is still alive and she’s a bitch! The son of the Indian prime minister is assassinated at an energy conference… for some reason…).

Having gotten sucked back in to the fun of the first half of the season and knowing the show was ending I felt compelled to finish it. In the finale “Killing Your Number” Michael clears their names, ridiculously quickly and easily given that he’s been trying to do it for four years and has committed numerous other offenses during that time.

And then he dies.

Really??? I’m all for dark and bittersweet endings for deep shows where I really enjoyed the journey but for a show like this that was such a freaking mess most of the time I just wanted Michael and Sarah to ride off into the sunset together. I didn't feel like they earned this ending if that makes any sense.  Only good parts of this finale were the return of Kellerman and Sucre, and T-Bag going back to jail.

Stargate Atlantis “Enemy at the Gate”

Stargate Atlantis had a lot of problems over it's 5 year run.  The storytelling had gotten a bit stale, for one, but this is also the series that brought us "Michael" one of the best hours of the Stargate franchise and great characters like Todd the Wraith.  So this series deserved a better finale "Enemy at the Gate".

Things I liked about it: tying in the AU episode Vegas (which is on my best of 09 episode list), inclusion of Todd, Earth being threatened, inclusion of SGC and SGC personnel, the newest ship is named after General Hammond.

What I didn't like: It was so rushed, for such a big action packed story they really needed a minimum of two hours.  The funky new wraith ship that's bigger, badder, and faster than anything we've seen appearing suddenly in this episode.  And in a similar vein...

The magical, mystical Wormhole drive THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MENTIONED is somehow invented and utilized.  I get that they wanted to get Atlantis to Earth, and it's kind of a cool idea, but it's so out of the blue and clearly only to service the plot making it seem really, really lazy.

Reviving Ronan.  Stargate rarely kills off cast members, especially not main ones and Ronan's death at the hands of the wraith in this episode was a shock and got me all teary.  And then he was brought back and the momentary 'death' felt like nothing but a cheap stunt.  It's not that I have anything against Ronan and I'd have probably missed him in the movies (assuming they ever get made) but I wish the Stargate producers had the strength and conviction to make those kinds of dark choices.

Battlestar Galactica “Deadlock”

This episode of BSG was still better than 98% of everything else on television this past year.  But, for an episode of BSG, particularly in the home stretch, this one was a real disappointment. I really wasn't that interested in Baltar's storyline and it felt like it was only there so that we didn't forget he was around since he would have a role to play in the final chapter. Adama looks at the cracks in the Galactica hull (for the 100th time). 

But the biggest problem I had was with the characters.  Ellen's return to the fleet causes characterization to be thrown out the window.  First, we have Ellen, who has been cool, calm, and awesome since her resurrection, reverting back to the shrewish harpy she was before.  While this does make sense, seeing Saul again and finding out about Caprica would cause her to fall back into old behavioral patterns, it's still disappointing. 

It's also an issue for me to foreground Tigh & Caprica's "love" because I never bought that particular storyline.  I didn't buy for a second that Tigh loved her and I while I could maybe believe that Caprica could have deluded herself into thinking she was in love, I don't think she was.  (And given that we never see them again after this episode clearly they weren't really that emtionally tied together.)  So, the whole Tigh caught between his pregnant girlfriend and his back-from-the-dead wife seemed a bit silly and soap opera-esqe to me.

The there is the cylon vote about splitting off from the fleet. Of course Saul and Anders would vote to stay and Tory would vote to go, that's completely fitting with their characters. I was so-so on Ellen voting to leave, given her rhetoric since her resurrection, but I could go with her doing it out of spite.

What I absolutely, 100% did not buy was Tyrol voting to go. Yes, he'd been embracing his cylon-ness and learning about cylon tech and culture, but we hadn't seen anything to suggest he would ever turn his back on humanity. Plus, he still thinks his son is half human at this point. This is one of the few moments in BSG where the characters are clearly acting in service of plot.

I do love the end of the episode when Adama grieves with Tigh for his unborn son and when Roslin realizes that the wall of the dead in the Galactica hallway now includes cylons as well as humans.

Life on Mars “Life is a Rock”

I get that they wanted to do something different than the British series and there is something admirable in that. But where the British series finale was a melancholy meditation on fantasy vs. reality in everyday life, the US series was apparently all part of a glitching virtual reality simulation for an astronaut on a mission to Mars. Imagine investing several years in the show only to find out that nothing you watched mattered.  That would have sucked.  Oh, and that closing image?  Cheesy as hell. 

Dollhouse “Ghost”

Not the worst episode of Dollhouse, but it still sucks.  This shoddy pilot, especially in comparison to the original unaired pilot, is a prime example of what happens when network executives make creative decisions.  If you haven't seen the original unaired pilot netflix the last disc of season 1 (which also includes the excellent unaired "Epitaph One").  Then watch "Ghost".  You'll be appalled.

Dollhouse “Stage Fright”

Echo is imprinted to be a backup dancer with a desperate need to protect her lead singer from a crazed fan.  In skimpy clothes.  Lame. Just really, really, really, lame.

Fake pregnancy on Glee or, really, almost any scene with Teri Schuster 

One of the unfortunate side effects of Glee's production schedule was that the first batch of episodes was basically completed by the time the show aired in the fall.  This didn't allow the writers and producers to make any adjustments based on audience reactions. And there is one thing that all Glee viewers agreed on, Teri and the fake pregnancy storyline sucked.  The storyline has mercifully ended, but what the show will do with Teri remains to be seen.  They maybe able to rehabilitate her, but given that she has no connection to the school or Glee club, it's hard to see how.

Jim’s promotion on The Office

Jim isn’t funny as a boss. Plus, it's depressing because season 1 Jim said, "Right now this is just a job. If I advance any higher in this company, then this would be my career. And uh... well, if this were my career, I'd have to throw myself in front of a train" (1.03 "Health Care"). 

Guess what Jim?  It's a career.  

Hyping fake sex/Misleading your audience in interviews

The sex fake-out (it was a fantasy! dream! body swap!, etc) sucks for audience members. But what makes it ten times worse is having your producers hyping it up in every interview for six months leading up to it and deliberately misleading viewers in these same interviews. 

Take Shonda Rhimes saying flat out that Izzie did not have cancer (except she did).  Or Bones' Hart Hanson- "I know it’s semantics, I know it’s splitting hairs, but I didn’t lie about the finale. All I said is that they would have sex (they did) and it wouldn’t be a dream (it wasn’t)."  Um, except the AU characters that had sex weren't Bones and Booth and it was a *coma* dream.  People only use the "it's semantics" excuse when they're trying to back-peddle.

Open advice to all showrunners for 2010:

1. Just let your characters f!@#$ already!  Or, if you really don't want to go there, either because you buy into the old Moonlighting myth or you don't have confidence in your ability to write couples interestingly, then just back off.  Fake sex isn't cute, or clever, or mollifying, it's annoying. 

2. When speaking to reporters either tell the truth or don't say anything at all.  Lying or skirting the truth just leads to pissed off fans.  And you've seen what pissed off fanboys/girls are like on the internet.

Fox moving Fringe to the overcrowded Thursday at 9/8 EST/CST slot

Fox took the time to nurture Fringe giving it a plum post-AI time slot in the spring and the creative team really found their footing in the back nine, leading to one of the season’s best finales (certainly the most shocking).

But moving the show to stuffed to the gills 9/8 pm (EST/CST) time slot has been a near disaster. The show’s numbers have dropped significantly. Viewers interested in procedurals tune into the more familiar and accessible CSI and Supernatural's small rabid fan base includes the very sort of people who are willing to sign up for a mythology heavy show but never at the expense of the Winchesters (that's the reason I've personally fallen behind).

I had been vocally advocating moving the show back to it's original Tuesday night slot but ABC's decision to move Lost to that time (smart move designed to avoid breaking up the new comedy block) makes the Tuesday option much less appealing given the overlapping audiences. 

House's bizarre obsession with Foreteen & the continued mismanagement of the supporting cast 

The writers of House are, for some strange reason, completely obsessed with the character of Thirteen.  I don't hate the character or her portrayer Olivia Wilde, but that's not the reason I tune into the show.  I also think that there isn't much chemistry between Thirteen and Foreman, so the continued foregrounding of the relationship seems odd.  (Frankly, I find the character of Foreman to be a complete bore.  Nothing against Omar Epps, I just think that as written, Foreman is only useful in expositing on the patient of the week.) 

Also strange- keeping Jennifer Morrison's Cameron as essentially an extra for a season and a half, only to let her go now, when they've finally worked in a legitimate reason for her to return to the team.  (Yeah, don't even get me started on all the quitting, hiring, firing of team members.)

I was pretty much done with House at the end of last season, but I really enjoyed Broken and decided to give it a couple more tries.  But it was quickly apparent that Broken was a one off and once the show returned to Princeton Plainsboro it was business as usual.  Sorry House, but I've quit you.    

ABC trying to bring Scrubs back & not being able to support Better Off Ted

Scrubs was past its prime and should have been allowed to go quietly into the night, especially given it's emotional and fitting send off.  Had it not been for Better Off Ted we probably wouldn't have gotten Scrubs 2.0 and if it weren't for Scrubs 2.0 we probably wouldn't have gotten a second season of Better Off Ted.  ABC couldn't really have one without the other. 

Ted is a very funny show that unfortunately ended up on the wrong network.  ABC finally managed to build a successful comedy night with shows like Modern Family but Ted doesn't really fit with those shows tonally.  It looks like the network is burning off the Scrubs & Ted episodes in the next few weeks.  Ted would fit best with quirky NBC comedies on Thursdays so if I worked for NBC or Ted I'd be putting feelers out.  I'm not holding my breath but stranger things have happened...

Two words: Ghost. Sex.   (Grey's Anatomy)

I get loving Jeffery Dean Morgan, I'm a Supernatural fangirl after all, but bringing his character back as a ghost, oh sorry, hallucination (cuz that makes it better?) to have sex with another character?  Ridiculous.  Lame.  Stupid.  Insane.  Shonda should have let poor dead Denny rest in peace. 

Now if Kripke wants to bring back Papa Winchester I could be ok with it because it *could actually make sense* within the logic of the Supernatural 'verse.  Watch the Denny/Grey's parody clip "this show has ghosts?"

The Jay Leno Show

aka NBC destroys what little credibility they had left.

Renewing Southland only to cancel it before Season 2 starts

I didn't watch Southland though by all accounts it was a pretty good show with good potential (shows about cops, lawyers, and doctors/nurses have to be amazing or have something really special to get my attention at this point).  NBC renewed it and early reports were that Season 2 was looking good.

Then NBC canceled it without ever airing an episode saying that it was "too gritty" for an earlier hour (the network having ceded the 10/9 CST hour to Leno).  The about face not only made NBC look stupid but it was a slap in the face to veteran producer John Wells who had a long and profitable history with the network.  Regarding the cancellation Wells told The Hollywood Reporter "I'm disappointed that NBC no longer has the time periods available to support the kind of critically acclaimed series that was for so many years, a hallmark of their success."

Jeff Zucker still has a job, and seems likely to keep it

Yes, the cable properties are successful, but that is largely a result of Zucker keeping his hands off, while his total mismanagement of NBC has taken the peacock from the #1 network to the industry laughing stock alienating both viewers and creative talent in the process.  Hopes were high that the Comcast buyout would put an end to Zucker's tenure, but that doesn't appear to be in the cards. 

Click Here For Full Post..

Identity in the Age of Social Networking

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
       - Walt Whitman "Song of Myself"

"The self, then, as a performed character, is not an organic thing that has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature, and to die; it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented, and the characteristic issue, the crucial concern, is whether it will be credited or discredited."
       - Erving Goffman The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959, pg 252-253)

Who are you? How do you define yourself? How do others define you?

Do you find that a difficult question to answer? I know I do.

[Read my philosophical ramblings on the subject after the jump]

The 'self' is, as Goffman argued, a performance. When we are with our families our identity is often very different than when we are with our friends and that may be different still from our interactions with co-workers. This is not to suggest that the one of these identities is authentic and the others mere artifice. Instead, we are as Whitman described, made up of multiple and sometimes contradictory selves.

Identity then, has always been a moving target, but it used to be contained in a a much narrower frame of reference.¹

People we born, raised, married, and died within a fifty mile radius.² When you grew up you became a wife and mother if you were a woman and men often followed after their fathers occupationally. If you started your career with a company you could very well end up working there for 40 years and earning that gold watch upon retirement.³ You were defined by your sex, your occupation, your community, your church. All of these factors added up to an identity that was relatively stable over time.

A variety of economic, cultural, and technological factors have changed how we cultivate our sense of self and how we perform that identity for others. In some ways, our identities are more performative than ever. Our mobility allows us to 'reinvent' ourselves over and over. We modify and adorn our physical bodies as part of our performance. My hair is short, spiky, and dyed an almost unnatural red. I have two cartilage piercings and a tattoo. These trappings signify something about my 'identity', particularly in the conservative financial services sector where I am now employed.

Online we are divorced from the physical body. How do we perform identity online? On sites like Twitter and Live Journal, icons are one of the primary ways we do this. Our wallpapers and blog headers serve a similar function. What is fascinating is the level of abstraction that is sometimes involved.

Take my current twitter icon for example. It is John Simm as the Master in Doctor Who: End of Time. My using this image I'm identifying myself as a Doctor Who to those who are capable of recognizing it thus, creating a point of identification and possible conversation topic for those who follow/friend me. But by just identifying myself as a DW fan I'm saying something about myself. I'm identifying as a sci-fan and as an anglophile. If you see me posting on Twitter about Doctor Who, Torchwood and Primeval, you would reach these conclusions.

You might then extrapolate further characteristics from this. Clearly if I'm a huge fan of these shows, I have no problem with accents, which means I'm probably not one of those ignorant Americans who thinks everybody should just "speak American." And this, probably suggests something about my politics. We use pop cultural ephemera as a shorthand for the self.

Online, we form large communities and extensive relationships based on these cultural artifacts (i.e. a television show) or even just a tiny sliver of the artifact (i.e. a specific 'ship' or relationship between two characters). Social networking sites (which for purposes of this discussion includes blogs/journals, twitter, facebook, etc) serve to both fracture the 'self' and bring us together. They require us to actively manage our identities externally even as we may struggle to reconcile them internally.

On this blog, I'm a TV fan, amateur critic, and former academic. On Twitter, I'm an amateur TV critic and Supernatural fangirl. In the Supernatural fandom I'm a Dean!girl. I have a facebook profile but I've never actually set it up or friended anybody. These identities sometimes overlap with each other.

I have to work to actively maintain all of them and, sometimes, work to keep them separated. I haven't set up facebook, in part because of the time commitment to create and maintain it. There is a reason why college students are the most prolific social networkers, it's because they have the resources and time necessary to maintain it.

I apologize for the lack of clear thesis for this post, but I've had all these ideas bouncing around my skull and I needed to get them out on (virtual) paper.

---

Footnotes:
1. I'm theorizing about identity in Western developed nations in general and the US specifically for the purposes of this discussion. ↑

2. For an interesting and accessible discussion of the dislocation of identity and place I recommend Pico Iyer's The Global Soul: Jet Lag, Shopping Malls, and the Search for Home↑

3. It's a dense read, but economist David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change is a brilliant examination of the economic transformations of the latter half of the 20th century and how it impacted social interations.↑

Click Here For Full Post..

Getting ready for The End of Time

Doctor Who: The End of Time Pt 1 airs on BBC America, Saturday, December 26th at 8 pm CST. Here are some links and vids to help you gear up. If you've got other links, leave them in the comments!

Alan Sepinwall has the transcript of an interview with David Tennant at ComicCon in which he looks back at becoming the Doctor.

simmspotting has a copy of a Doctor Who Magazine interview with John Simm on being the Master

BBCA has a video of Russell T Davies discussing EOT

BBC The End of Time Trailer:


Preview clip of EOT Pt1:
Click Here For Full Post..

5 Gaping Plot Holes Hollywood Knows You Won't Notice | Cracked.com

This is totally frakking hilarious- 5 Gaping Plot Holes Hollywood Knows You Won't Notice from Cracked.com
Excerpt:

Go to Google Maps, pick a random state, then a random city and street name. We'll wait. Back? OK, did you end up on the street that we randomly selected (Oak Street in Starke, Florida)? Of fucking course you didn't. But if you were written by JJ Abrams you would have.

and another Cracked gem- 6 Baffling Mistakes Every Movie Criminal Makes
Excerpt:

Ads like to describe these crime movies as something like, "a thrilling cat and mouse thriller, guaranteed to thrill." This assessment might be accurate if mice were known to run in front of cats telling them exactly where they are, where they will be in the future, and what they plan to do once they get there. But they don't do that, because mice are smarter than that. Movie criminals, not so much.

Click Here For Full Post..

"The Waters of Mars": A Time Lord Victorious

BBC America aired Doctor Who "The Waters of Mars", Saturday night, just over a month after it aired in the UK.* This Saturday night they will air "End of Time, Pt 1" only one day after it airs overseas.

I thought the movie was, on the whole, brilliant. David Tennant was fantastic and the story was classic Russell T. Davies, both creepy and controversial.  Discussion with spoilers after the jump.

*As I told some of my international Twitter friends, every time I start to complain about their lag in scheduling I have to kick myself for being an entitled American because the rest of the world deals with this all the time.


The basic plot of "The Waters of Mars" is nothing new to sci-fi fans in general or Who fans specifically. Strange alien life form infects trapped crew, picking them off one by one. But there are two general principles that RTD employs here and in all of his strongest stories: less is more and characters matter.

The alien in this episode is water and it 'infects' the crew members. This allows the audience to more easily identify with the characters than if they were being chased by the men-in-rubber suit aliens we sometimes see. I really loved this quote from the Doctor:

Water is patient, Adelaide. Water just waits. It wears down the cliff tops, the mountains, the whole of the world. Water always wins.

The movie also took the time to establish the family ties of characters on the base giving us an immediate point of identification even though the characters themselves were not as fleshed out as they could be. And you've got to love RTD's politics. The kick-ass commander of the mission is a *grandmother*, the cast is ethnically diverse, and one of the men casually mentions his brother and his husband.

I'm glad that BBCA aired the "Inside the Tardis" special before the movie as I think it was very nice reminder of some of the issues that this doctor has faced.

Ten has always been a little manic. He's cheeky and zany and fun, but there has also always been a darker side to him, a ruthlessness that could be shocking. This was evident in his first episode, "The Christmas Invasion" when the leader of the Sycorax attacked him from behind he killed him saying, "no second chances", and then at the end of the episode he brings down Prime Minister Harriet Jones.

And he's lost not only his planet and his people, but many of his human companions as well. Rose is off in the parallel reality living happily ever after with his half human clone. Martha and Jack are busy protecting earth with UNIT and Torchwood respectively. Having to strip Donna of her memories may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. For Ten, the human companions have been vitally important for as Donna says in "The Runaway Bride", "sometimes I think you need someone to stop you."

And that is the context for "The Waters of Mars". The destruction of the Bowie station on Mars is a fixed point in time and space and, as a Time Lord, the Doctor needed to let the events play out. But something is broken in the Doctor. Knowing that his "song is ending soon" coupled with all of the emotional losses leads the Doctor to go to far.

He tells Adelaide Brooks (Lindsay Duncan in a very strong performance):

Yes, because there are laws. There are laws of time. Once upon of time there were people in charge of those laws but they died. They all died. Do you know who that leaves? *Me!* It's taken me all these years to realize that the laws of time are *mine* and they will obey me

In these final Mars scenes the Doctor is clearly unhinged and Tennant's performance frightening in it's intensity.

The Doctor's hubris is further revealed when they return to Earth:

Adelaide: [Backs away from the Doctor] You should have left us there.
The Doctor: Adelaide, I've done this sort of thing before. In small ways, saved some little people. But never someone as important as you. Ooh, I'm good!
The Doctor: Little people? What, like Mia and Yuri? Who decides they're so unimportant? You?
The Doctor: For a long time now, I thought I was just a survivor, but I'm not. I'm the winner. That's who I am. A Time Lord victorious.
Adelaide: And there's no one to stop you?
The Doctor: No.
Adelaide: [Noticeably angry] This is wrong, Doctor! I don't care who you are! The Time Lord victorious is wrong!

And then Adelaide Brooks enters her home and shoots herself in the head. The Doctor realizes that he is responsible for this woman's suicide and realizes just how far off the reservation he's gone.

These final scenes really evoked the Torchwood: Children of Earth mini-series. In both we have our brilliant and charming heroes face down the enemy, appearing to have the upper hand only to have the rug pulled out from under him, and the result is death. And while Brooks' death is certainly not as emotionally devastating as Ianto's, it is shocking and very dark for the family friendly Who, and, like the finale of COE we see our heroes make controversial choices that we may not be able to forgive.

That makes for amazing television, if not always happy fans.

I'm a huge fan of John Simm and the Master (I think the Utopia/The Sound of the Drums/Last of the Time Lords trilogy is some of the best Doctor Who we've seen). I'm eagerly awaiting "End of Time" even as I'm dreading saying goodbye to David Tennant.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Matt Smith does with the character, but I think Ten will always be my Doctor.

Recommended reading:
Jace over at Televisionary on Time Lord Victorious
And for a non-Who fan take on TWOM see Cultural Learnings



Click Here For Full Post..

Dollhouse "The Attic": Frak me!

I spent my Sunday getting caught up on Dollhouse.  I really enjoyed the December episodes and on the whole they were very strong.  Enver as Topher was the funniest thing I've seen in a very long time.  If I was a casting director I'd be snapping him up in a heartbeat. 

Then there was "The Attic", which was a total mind-screw.  I really need to watch it again but I had to post a couple of initial thoughts/questions. 

SPOILERS for "The Attic" after the jump.


These thoughts are kind of a random jumble:

"The Attic" was creepy, horrifying, confusing, informative, emotional, and, at a couple of rare points, funny. Let's start with the last one.

Funny- lots of great deadpans: from Echo when talking to the Japanese man, Tony's reaction to Priya's nightmare (they're having sex and then he turn's into the rapist she killed), Dominic (yay!) telling Echo he's glad he never killed her, etc. The creepy Arcane turns out to be a little British man named Clyde (played perfectly by Adam Godley who played Jonas in the recent Merlin two parter Beauty and the Beast).

Creepy/Horrifying- the way the dolls are floating in blue goo with electrodes in their head, but the most terrifying part to me was the way they were saran-wrapped in. I'm claustrophobic so watching them struggle against that made me very uncomfortable. Then there was the Japanese man with his missing legs. That was creepy, but then in the kitchen where they were being diced? Whoa. I'm amazed that made it past the Fox censors.

Emotional- Tony stabbing Priya and then waiting for the zombies to attack, it had a very Romeo and Juliet feel to it and, knowing Whedon's penchant for killing off characters, it makes me very worried about their chances of surviving and getting their happily ever after. Topher agonizing over bringing Ballard back. He knows that Ballard would probably rather be dead than be a doll but they need him. Loved seeing Dominic stand up and stay behind to try and help.

Informative- this episode reminded me a little bit of the BSG "No Exit" when Anders remembered the story of the final five in that it was a bit of an info dump, but it didn't matter, you were totally absorbed in the story. So the attics across the globe are all networked and the minds of the residents are being used as processors. Fascinating. Clyde has calculated that there is a less than 3% chance that the apocalypse will be averted.

Questions that remain:
1. How exactly did Echo manage to die and then revive herself and how did she know she could do it? Was it a matter of just not being afraid?

2. Has Adelle been a 'good guy' all along? Was the betraying Topher and acting like a drunk all part of an elaborate scheme? Seems like handing over Topher's plans got her back into control of the house which was probably a necessity for moving against Rossum.

3. Does Rossum actually trust Adelle and the rest of the LA staff? Give how nefarious and paranoid they seem I kind of doubt it, and it would be very Whedon like for one of the characters to be a mole, and have our heroes know it and use it to their advantage. Maybe Ivy? It seemed a little strange for them to include her in their plans. Speaking of Ivy...

4. Why did Ivy tell Topher not to touch her?

5. What did they 'take' from Ballard? His feelings toward Echo?

6. What is Boyd's big secret(s)? What 'personal' matters was he attending to? Something to do with Whiskey/Dr. Saunders? Boyd is mysterious enough that I feel like they could turn him into a bad guy, but I really hope not.

7. Who was Clyde's partner? It seems like it has to be someone we've met, but I kind of don't feel like we know any of Rossum suits we'll enough to care when they are revealed, and I'm not sure I'd buy it if one of our other characters is revealed as such.

8. Is it possible that Alpha was at one point imprinted with Clyde's consciousness? Alpha's knowledge of the technology and his skills surpass Topher's and maybe this is how?

9. Does Epitaph One actually take place in the 'real world' future or is it part of the virtual reality created by Clyde's consciousness???

I feel like I need to watch the two episodes side by side, but I'm kind of thinking it would make sense that it's in the VR. In EO Caroline is supposed to hold the key to preventing imprinting and in "The Attic" it's said that Caroline is able to id Clyde's mysterious partner. What if this knowledge is the same thing? What if id-ing the partner is what ultimately prevents the apocalypse?

Am I totally reaching here? Maybe. Whatever happens I'm excited to be along for the ride.
Click Here For Full Post..

"I know, I know!" 10 Shows I Feel Really Guilty for Not Watching

It's that time of year- everybody is putting out their top 10 lists. I've been casually working on mine but I'm not sure I really need to add to what's already out there.  Instead, I thought I'd do this unusual little list.  

I love TV (really, it borders on unhealthy) and I love *quality* television. Sure, I've got some guilty pleasures here and there, and I love a lot of genre shows that don't ever feel the love come awards time, even though the television critics may approve.

I'm a champion of under-appreciated television and I take great pride in having convinced friends and family of the genius of shows like Battlestar Galactica and Supernatural.

Despite this, I have some glaring gaps in my TV repertoire and at the risk of losing my street cred I'm going to share with you the top 10 shows I feel guilty for not watching. Some of these shows are still on the air, some aren't. They are all excellent shows (I even talk them up to other people!) and I *will* watch them all someday, I swear! 

See my fail list after the jump.



1. The Wire (HBO) 2002-2008
What's it about? Baltimore drug scene from the perspective of both the players and law enforcement
Why I haven't watched it: I've never had HBO and it never got much press in the beginning. I didn't start watching it when it first came out on DVD because the plot didn't jump out at me. I haven't started watching it now because that's a lot of seasons to commit to.
Why I know I should: It's at the top of just about every critics list for top series of the decade and I agree with critics more often than not.  Fantastic cast. 

2. Mad Men (AMC) 2007-present
What's it about? Life at a prestigious ad agency in NYC in the 1960s.
Why I haven't watched it: I was really excited about it when I first heard about it, but I missed the first season because of a lot of crap going on in my personal life and I just never took the time to get caught up. 
Why I know I should: I know I'm absolutely going to love it.  Everyone who watches it absolutely loves it.  Amazing cast.  

3. Friday Night Lights (Direct TV/NBC) 2006-present
What's it about? Life of a small town football team in Texas. 
Why I haven't watched it: Initially I didn't watch because I don't care for sports movies and my interest in teen melodrama has waned a little in recent years.  Also, I actually did the whole small town championship football team, dating the popular quarterback, etc thing in high school so I didn't really feel the need to relive it on screen.
Why I know I should: Critics love it and the fan base is very passionate.  Sounds like the football plots ended up being secondary to characterization and it avoids melodrama.  The adults are important characters as well, it doesn't just focus on the teens. 

4. Breaking Bad (AMC) 2008
What's it about? A high school chemistry teacher becomes a meth dealer when he learns he has cancer. 
Why I haven't watched it: Purely a timing thing.  I really wanted to, I just missed the first season and haven't found the time to catch up.  
Why I know I should: I *love* Bryan Cranston in everything.  I've always thought the premise was great.  Critics love it. 

5. Chuck (NBC) 2007-present
What's it about? Chuck is a tech support nerd at a big box store who accidentally downloads a top secret government program into is brain. 
Why I haven't watched it: I actually watched the first half of the first season and while I liked it, I didn't like it more than the CBS comedies or House so it was really just a victim of limited satellite receivers.  [Because we live in the country and the cable and telephone companies refuse to run lines in our area, our only option for high speed internet is satellite as well, and they place stringent "fair use" download limitations on us so we can't just stream shows on Hulu.] 
Why I know I should:  I adore the cast, especially Adam Baldwin (who'll always be Jayne to me).  The fans and critics all really loved season 2 and I think I've quit House for good, so I'd kind of like to get caught up before the show comes back.  I was really happy the show was picked up, I even went to Subway in support of them. 

6. Freaks & Geeks (NBC) 1999-2000
What's it about? A group of misfits navigate high school in the 1980s.
Why I haven't watched it: Timing largely, I was in my second year of college and was pretty busy, and not too interested in getting into a new show about high school.  Also, for some odd reason the show reminded me of The Wonder Years, which I was never a big fan of.  
Why I know I should: I really adore Jason Segal and John Francis Daley and like James Franco and Seth Rogen most of the time.  I really enjoyed Apatow's other canceled series about college Undeclared (2001).
Lots of critics are putting it on their best of the decade lists.  I wonder if the show would have done really well had it came on in the last year or two when geek chic was really en vogue.  

7. The Sopranos (HBO) 1999-2007
What's it about?  Life of mob boss Tony Soprano, as he deals with personal and professional issues.
Why I haven't watched it: Never had HBO.  Watched a few episodes here and there but never really connected with it, probably because I didn't start at the beginning and at this point starting from the beginning is a major time commitment. 
Why I know I should: Critics loved the series as a whole.  It's an important cultural artifact, ushering in a golden age of premium cable programing, as well as shift to grittier and darker programing and the anti-hero protagonist.  

8. Deadwood (HBO) 2004-2006
What's it about? Life in the late 1800's in a small western town of Deadwood, North Dakota where corruption and crime are rampant
Why I haven't watched it: I've never had HBO and I don't like Westerns (unless it's got a sci-fi twist like Firefly). 
Why I know I should:  Great cast (I especially want to watch for Jim Beaver).  From a philosophical standpoint, I think that looking at this sort of stylized representation of "The Old West" will be fascinating.  (Need to pull out my copy of Jim Collins' Architectures of Excess: Cultural Life in the Information Age.  He has an interesting analysis of the postmodern western using Back to the Future III.)

9. The Middlemen (ABC Family) 2008
What's it about? A struggling artist is recruited by a secret agency to fight against evil forces. Based on the graphic novels by Javier Grillo-Marxuach and Les McClaine.
Why I haven't watched it: Debuted in the summer of 2008, right when I started my new job so I wasn't watching much TV.  Didn't know much about it when it first started. 
Why I know I should: It's supposed to be awesome.  I haven't read the novels, but it sounds like something I'd love.  I follow Javier Grillo-Marxuach on twitter (@OKBJGM) he's really cool. 

10. Sons of Anarchy (FX) 2008-present
What's it about? Sons of Anarchy, aka SAMCRO, is a motorcycle gang that operates both illegal and legal businesses in the small town of Charming.
Why I haven't watched it: It's about *biker gangs* not exactly something an overeducated woman like me would immediately identify with. Critical reviews of season 1 were mixed. 
Why I know I should: Critics have been absolutely raving about season 2.  Great cast.  Love the idea of doing a Shakespearean classic like Hamlet this way.  Creator Kurt Sutter is fucking awesome.

Honorable Mentions:
The Shield (FX) Supposed to be great.
Damages (FX) Glen Close is amazing
Dexter (Showtime) season 2-4:  Loved season 1 (I have it on DVD) but I don't get Showtime and just haven't caught up.
True Blood (HBO) season 2: just finished on HBO which I don't get

So, do you have any shows you feel guilty about not watching? Or, if you don't feel guilty, how about just some shows you don't watch that you are thinking about watching?

If I'm going to attack this list, which one do you think I should start with?
Click Here For Full Post..

Diagram of Geek Culture - Twitterfeeds von Ibo

This fabulous Diagram of Geek Culture was tweeted today by one of the Big Bang Theory writers (which in and of itself is geeky).  Click on the image to enlarge.

Click Here For Full Post..

The 67th Annual Golden Globe Nominations

I remember the exact moment I lost faith in awards shows.

It was the 2001 Academy Awards and Ellen Burstyn was nominated for her amazing work in Requiem for a Dream and she lost to freaking Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich. Anybody who had actually seen Requiem for a Dream could never have voted for Julia Roberts in good conscious.  (Seriously, Julia Roberts?  I don't know that I could *ever* vote for her in good conscious). 

I was 21 years old and it was time to grow up and put away childish things. 

Yet, I still slip back into that young idealist who rails at the injustice of it all when the Emmys, Golden Globes, and Oscars roll around.

Today the nominations for the Golden Globes were announced and I've got to vent about a couple of the television omissions and inclusions.

(There are probably some issues with the film nominations too, but unfortunately I'm really out of touch with film these days). [EDIT: I just saw Sandra Bullock is nominated TWICE. Seriously? Ok, The Blind Side is supposed to be good but The Proposal? Are you kidding me??? End rant.]

My take on the nominations after the jump.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Jeremy Piven, "Entourage"

Neil Patrick Harris, "How I Met Your Mother"

William Hurt, "Damages"

John Lithgow, "Dexter"

Michael Emerson, "Lost"

This one really got my blood boiling.  Jeremy Piven?  Seriously?  Even the stuffy old Emmys had the good sense to omit Piven this year and recognize the comic genius of Jim Parsons.  This supporting category is a combination of Drama and Comedy, which is rather ridiculous, but Jim definitely deserved Piven's spot here.

Best Television Series - Comedy

"30 Rock"

"The Office"

"Glee"

"Modern Family"

"Entourage"

While I'm very excited to see the inclusion of Glee and Modern Family, the inclusion of the tired and stale Entourage is frustrating.  That spot should have gone to Big Bang Theory, which is one of the most consistently funny shows on television.  Also acceptable here would be How I Met Your Mother which, again, even the Emmys recognized this year. 

Best Television Series - Drama

"Mad Men"

"True Blood"

"Dexter"

"Big Love"

"House"

Clearly an example of people voting for the same old thing.  Anyone who actually watched House this past year would leave it off this list.  With the exception of the fantastic "Broken", House has been a creative mess for a long while now.  Lost would have been a much more appropriate selection.  True Blood is fun, but seems more "guilty pleasure" than Best Drama so this seems like an example of the Hollywood Foreign Press' HBO fetish.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama

Jon Hamm, "Mad Men"

Hugh Laurie, "House"

Michael C. Hall, "Dexter"

Simon Baker, "The Mentalist"

Bill Paxton, "Big Love"

I admit, I don't watch The Mentalist, but I have a hard time buying that Baker is more worthy of a nod than John Nobel of Fringe for example.  Hugh Laurie deserves the nom strictly for his work in "Broken."

I haven't even bothered to watch the Globes recently, but with Ricky Gervais as host I'll definitely be tuning in.  Then I'll have to write another post ranting about the winners.   


For the complete list of nominations: The 67th Annual Golden Globe Nominations - HitFix.com
Click Here For Full Post..

Tiger Woods- Anatomy of Scandal? Privacy, Gender, Violence and "Journalism"

Kind of hate to feed the frenzy, but since this is a blog about the media I felt like I should comment on the Tiger Woods scandal coverage, and once I started writing I realized I had a hell of a lot to say.

What I find intriguing about this case is not the Woods' family issues.  It's the cultural attitudes toward the private lives of public figures, gendered attitudes about domestic violence, and the continued blurring of "hard news" and tabloid journalism.
My thoughts after the jump




On the Privacy & Forgiveness of Public Figures: 
Scandals involving public figures are bright and shiny objects that distract the media from anything else that might be of importance (like, say health care?).  We are all guilty of indulging our prurient interests and slowing down to look at traffic accidents, and hey, this scandal is a two for one.

Yet, it seems to me that once it was established that Tiger was not seriously hurt and the basic facts of the case were revealed public interested waned.  Until he canceled on the police three times, which stirred interest again.  Then he finally released his statement and the voicemail came out, but after another few days people were kind of over it and ready to give Tiger and his family some privacy. 
Why are we as a public willing to let this one go?  First, Tiger has never made public claims about morality and family, like the politicians we consistently see.  So we don't get to revel in the downfall of a hypocrite. 
Second, Tiger has never been a media whore.  Yes, he's gotten a ton of press, but it's generally related to his career and he hasn't exposed much of his private life to the press.  These two factors make it difficult to continue our invasive interest in good conscious.

Gender and Domestic Violence:
It sounds like Tiger's wife attacked him and/or his car with a golf club.  It's widely believed that the story about her breaking the car window to "rescue" him is a cover to prevent her from facing legal charges.  Popular opinion seems to be he got what he deserved, and even I'll admit that was my first thought.

But what these responses highlight is that despite being in a so-called "post-feminist" era, our responses to domestic violence are still heavily gendered.  If Tiger had been the one with the golf club we'd be calling for his head, regardless of how many affairs she may have had.  We'd be insisting she stop covering for him and tell the police the truth.  We'd have experts all over the airwaves discussing "battered wife" syndrome and analyzing their history for any signs of a pattern of abuse.

Instead, we treat the whole thing as a joke.  Even worse, we don't even see the issue with it.  SNL was so tone deaf to this that they aired a skit where a battered Tiger secretly pleads for help during a news conference on the same night that *Rihanna*, the poster girl for domestic violence, was the musical guest.  Seriously?  Nobody on the SNL team or NBC staff saw this as problematic?  At least by crossing the line into poor taste SNL draws our attention to the fact that we don't treat domestic violence the same way when the gender roles are reversed.  You can watch the sketch here if you like: 
 

So why is this a big deal?  Because domestic violence is domestic violence and by not treating violence against men seriously, we make it difficult for men to come forward or get help when they are being seriously abused by their girlfriends/boyfriends or wives/partners.  A comparison of the rhetoric of the Rihanna/Chris Brown case and the Woods' case would be very interesting and, I think, very revealing. (I also think that looking at the ways that race plays into the coverage would be fascinating as well.)   



Tabloid Journalism, also called, Journalism:  
Several days after the Woods incident, NYT reporter Brian Stelter tweeted "On Fox News, a reporter outside Tiger Woods' home holds up the Natl Enquirer story, cites the TMZ report. Interesting."  This little scenario is representative of what passes for journalism these days. 

That's not to say that there isn't some decent journalism out there, but absolutely none of it is on 24 hour cable "news" networks.  When these organizations rely on tabloids, corporate press releases, and citizen bloggers/twitterers they aren't even bothering with the pretense anymore.  I could go on and on about this, and I'll definitely return to this issue again, but in the meantime, Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert do it every night on Comedy Central. 

So what do you think?
Click Here For Full Post..