Britt's On

Last night I started watching the fifth and final season of Friday Night Lights. Can I first of all point out it's really nifty that they have it out on DVD simultaneously with the TV series premiering on NBC next week? As someone who owns (and lends out) the DVD series to everyone, I jumped on buying it instead of waiting week-to-week. Of course, this means I will get through the show faster, which is depressing after last night's heart-tugging opener.

I reflected that FNL had one of the best series premieres ever...and it got me thinking to the best series premieres of all time, and I realized that generally speaking, the shows with the best series premieres end up having the best first seasons. A show with a fantastic premiere (at least in its first season) rarely fails to live up to said standard. After the first season, it's a crapshoot. So instead of creating two separate lists of best premieres and best first seasons, I present my list of the best first seasons (and generally speaking, premieres) ever.


The OC - Remember when Mischa Barton was a fashion icon? And Rachel Bilson had curves? And Seth Cohen was charmingly self-conscious? And Luke had a gay dad? And Julie was a 'Real Housewife'-in-training? And Ryan's brooding desire to save people was sweet? And Oliver was a total psychopath? And the show was actually funny and shocking in equal parts? Sigh. Few shows, in particular teen shows, will top the glory that is the first season of The OC.


Lost - I was a latecomer to Lost, catching up on the first four seasons in quick succession literally days before the fifth one began. I'm kind of glad I did watch it on DVD so I could (somewhat) solve the confounded mysteries instead of being stumped for weeks. Few shows had as strong a premiere or first season as Lost - where characters were in constant peril, mysteries were piling on top of one another (but not to the hysterical levels they were in future seasons), and insight into each character's life was something to be savoured...and tied in very nicely with what was happening with their on-island selves. In retrospect, the first season is a little tedious compared to future ones (after all, they only thing they discover is the hatch and a whole lot of WTFuckery?) but I constantly hear complaints about s2's "Tailies" and s3's venture into the "Others" territory, so S1 really is a holy bastion of wonderfulness.


Friday Night Lights - I put up a serious fuss about watching FNL. I thought the actors looked smug on the cover. I didn't like the movie very much. I'd seen a clip on TV of Tyra's mom in the middle of a drinking binge and thought it looked lame. Alas, one day we popped season 1 in the DVD player and I was INSTANTLY hooked. The premiere is one of the most captivating ever, and the glorious full length of the first season allowed you to see many different facets of these humanly flawed characters. True, the series felt a little long compared to the length of an actual high school football season, but have 20+ episodes to play around with allowed for so much more than the protracted seasons we now have.


Desperate Housewives - I no longer watch DH because of this first season, and all that it stood for. A hilarious satire of soap operas, the show was whip smart, hilariously funny, and ooey gooey twisty turny. The women were a lot more entrenched in their archetypes - a good and bad thing - and we had some characters that added a lot of flavour to the show...Martha Huber, Edie, Paul, Rex (!), John to name a few. Plus it made sense for Mary-Alice to actually make guest appearances. Part of me thinks they blew their load (sorry, graphic) too early by giving up Mary-Alice's secret, and then following that same format year-after-year. The show was just so fresh, and the supposed cattiness of the stars (particularly come awards season) was entertaining fodder as well. Shame they've now become exactly what they were mocking in the first place - a big, stinky, soap.


Survivor - Talk about The Real World however much you want, this is when reality TV became part of the popular zeitgeist. I started watching about a third of the way through, I think on the episode when Gretchen was eliminated. My family and I quickly became hooked (and played reverse catch-up before the finale) and were surfing the wave of popular culture along with the rest of North America when Richard and Kelly went head-to-head in the much-watched finale. Watching the first season of Survivor now seems a little laughable. The naivete of the castaways is nearly infuriating, the props and challenges look amateurish, and even little details like the cheesy graphics or the fact Jeff doesn't have this catchphrases quite nailed down make for a charmingly docile entry for one of the genre's most resilient franchises.

Solid Contenders:

Pretty Little Liars - the first season just wrapped up and golly was it good...the show lacks (male) character development and one of their best actresses is, unfortunately, dead but the constant guessing game has made it into the teeny bopper version of Lost. Only with blind flute players instead of rampant polar bears.

The Walking Dead - in six little episodes this show blew me away. Again, it could use some work on character development, but you can only expect so much from a half-dozen episodes. Incidentally, if I were to make a 'best premieres evahhh' list, this show would easily end up on it. The fact it was like watching a little movie every week made for a completely enthralling tv-watching experience.

Mad Men - There was lots to like in Season 1. The near-weekly ad pitches (that were sadly absent for much of S2 & S3). Don's lothario ways weren't tired, and Rachel Menken was his most lovely dalliance to date. Betty's desperate housewife act earned equal parts raised eyebrows and empathy. Admittedly however, the pacing was a little slow (although it crawled in S2) compared to the punchier, zippier feeling of S3 & S4, where the show took that initial foundation and skyrocketed our characters to new levels before slamming them back down to earth.

Modern Family - Everyone keeps telling me that this current season isn't as funny as last season (I just caught up on them both over the last three months). I agree getting to know the characters and their funny little quirks - Cameron's a jock! - was funnier the first time around, as opposed to somewhat rehashing elements of their personality this season, but I'm not totally convinced that Season 1 is the best this show has to offer...Season 2 has still shocked and delighted me, and the first few episodes of S1 has some weirdness they've since dropped, so I won't peg their first season as the best ever...but I will say it's definitely one of THE best first seasons for a 30-minute sitcom.

- Britt's On

Ah it’s been awhile since I’ve updated in here, mostly because I’ve been buried in wintry weather and indulging in all manner of tv and movies, although I haven’t progressed much by way of my alphabetical movie-watching.

Starting on New Year’s Eve and concluding on Thursday, I spent my evenings watching the new HBO series Boardwalk Empire. As the cable channel’s answer to Mad Men, there were high expectations for this setpiece, especially with the dynamite cast they’d assembled and the glitzy era they were capturing. Since then, there have been uneasy whispers about whether the show really succeeded – specifically with the supposedly glacial pacing of the plot and character development, Steve Buscemi as a less-than-convincing half-a-mobster, and the less-than-subtle writing that tends to hit you over the head with ‘shadowed’ meaning.

I find my opinions of a show always shift a bit the more I read about it. Slate didn’t appear to have any commentary available, so I read Tom & Lorenzo’s fabulous blog recaps. T Lo was less than enthused about the show, at least compared to the lavish attention they heap on Mad Men.

In my own opinion, not being a seasoned HBO / Cable TV watcher (other than The Walking Dead, which I also enjoyed a mini-marathon of recently), and Mad Men), Boardwalk Empire is fantastic. I love Steve Buscemi to begin with, and it’s nice to see him sink his teeth into a role he seemed increasingly comfortable with as the series progressed.

I also love the intertwining of the three worlds – Chicago, New York, and Atlantic City. Too often, Mad Men can come off a little insular, so when a character visits say, California, it’s quite jarring. Here, the worlds are all quite interconnected and provide some of the most explosive moments of tension between characters. Rothstein, played by A Serious Man’s Michael Stuhlbarg, was quite possibly my favourite actor of the season – and without the NYC storyline, he might not have a place at all.

Margaret is definitely the proto-Peggy of Mad Men world. I always find her storylines and scenes the most entrancing, along with Nucky’s (Steve Buscemi’s) stuff surprisingly, because I don’t often enjoy the central protagonist quite as much. I also really enjoy Michael Pitt as an actor – he’s fantastic at toeing the line between angelic babyface and psychotic creepshow. The addition of Richard towards the end of the season was welcome, his lurking, wheezing presence adds a new level of creepiness, but also sympathy towards what the war did to these young men. Van Alden actually makes my toes curl for his awkward, stiff, zealot behaviour…but I give kudos to the actor that plays him. Tommy the toddler is also a major scene stealer. I was happy annoying Angela didn’t run off with him, I’ll say that much.

I didn’t find the problems the rest of the world had with the show to be that insurmountable to be honest. I recognize that Buscemi is an interesting choice for Nucky, but I think he pulls it off. Having the likes of Jon Hamm in that role would completely change who Nucky is, and I think Buscemi does a solid job of a smiling crocodile. The pacing was a little slow, but I’d prefer to use the term measured – I kind of enjoyed not flying through things, and really, each episode was generally set weeks apart, with the glimpses of action falling in line with the slow-boiling tension between the characters.

I think the series will only go upwards from here, as each character finds their roots and we do less expository background stuff. Plus we’re just dipping our toes into the roaring twenties and the rise of Capone – I can’t wait to see how things unfold, and I definitely have plans to read the book associated with the show!

- Britt’s On

It's funny that two of the best shows on television right now air in the summer, at least on network television for one of them (some might argue True Blood also stands strong as another summer entry, although Emmy voters may disagree). I'm talking about two programs that are inherently, dramatically different, yet find ties in their collective strengths.

The first just ended over the weekend, DirecTV's / NBC's brilliant Friday Night Lights. To be fair, the show is the more flawed of the two, often sacrificing realism for my most hated plot technique, 'slate wiping', but it's still one of the best things on the small screen these days. I honestly don't get why it doesn't have more of a following, particularly in the US of A - it's a show about football with plenty of hot dudes and dudettes to drool over! Regardless, FNL remains one of my most-looked-forward to programs on a weekly basis, and this last season still delivered with another tally in the 'W' column.

The other show is the much more publicly lauded Mad Men, which airs on AMC in the summertime and fall. Set in the 1960s world of advertising, the show plays out like a film, sometimes at an oppressively tedious and dense pace, although it still manages to provide plenty of watercooler chat every Monday. I've found the people that are the most fervent supporters of the show are the ones that watched early on - I caught up with Season 1 in a very short period of time so I could start watching Season 2 immediately. I've noticed many of the people who joined up for Season 3 (or afterwards, due to the hysteria around it) are less enthusiastic about Matthew Weiner's attention to minutiae, and how the show is really about more than just some pretty faces acting out dramatic scenes.

There are flaws to both shows to be sure, but they are ultimately two of the best written, best paced shows on television (I only wish they had a few more episodes each per season). But what does a show about present-day small town Americana have to do with a show that is diligently obsessed with 1960s culture set in the Big Apple? Plenty:

Ensemble Casting - this is a 21st century trend, to be sure. Over the last decade we've seen a plethora of shows flourish with the stream of thought that there is safety in numbers, a big turnaround from the earlier decades where stars named shows after themselves (translation: if a show aired called The Mel Gibon Hour, you probably wouldn't watch it). A few of the more famous examples include Degrassi: The Next Generation (a format they piloted in the 80s), Gilmore Girls, and Lost, and the failed drama FlashForward that was cited as 'too broad' of an ensemble. Both FNL & MM have thoroughly embraced the ensemble cast, or in the case of Gilmore Girls, the 'community' cast wonderfully.

On FNL, we have a core couple - Coach Taylor and his wife Tami Taylor - played with brilliance by Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton, both finally earning Emmy nods this year. From there the tendrils spiral outwards: football players on Coach Taylor's multiple teams and their families and their girlfriends and their friends, members of the cheerleading squad, pushy booster club members, school administrators, and even the city's mayor are all part of the narrative here, even if they don't all have major storylines. The show does an excellent job at providing you with a familiar cast of faces that populate the town of Dillon beyond a core cast, and make it seem more wholly realized (something Gilmore Girls 'Stars Hollow' did perfectly).

On Mad Men, we have the natural office setting for a range of core, mid-level, and fringe characters. Although Bert Cooper (one of the founders of the show's agency) has never had a standalone storyline, the show wouldn't make sense without him. Beyond the office we also get glimpses into the personal lives of the office workers (and even further beyond that through the eyes of leading female Betty Draper's relationships with friends, family, and various men). Matthew Weiner is smart though, as the majority of his storylines outside of the office still tie into what's going on in the office: Don Draper's constructed lifestyle is enabled by the very fact he is in advertising. Weiner demands you remember characters that may have only appeared once in the last few seasons when they randomly pop up again years later (as Anna, Don's pseudo-wife / sister did in this last episode).

Either way, both shows are fantastic at creating a pyramid of characters that don't hog the spotlight - they each get their times to shine while quietly developing their major moments with small moments episode to episode. FNL this past season struggled a little with letting their increasingly diverse cast have equal playing time, but overall I still felt a connection with the new characters while satisfied with the resolution of the old ones.

Moving Forward, Moving On - Another major hallmark of both of these series is their ability to let characters move on with their lives (and leave the narrow nexus of the show's focus).

Friday Night Lights stumbled with this a bit by having some of their early regulars stick around a year or two past when they should have presumably graduated high school, but for the most part, when you leave Dillon, they give you a nice swan song and goodbye. It's very much like real life - there are reasons why someone might come back to their small hometown, just as there are reasons we might not have seen the last of Smash, Jason, Lyla, Julie, Tyra, Matt, Tim, and Landry (the original cast of teens that have since moved on). Although the show strained against letting go of its stars early on, I give it kudos for working hard this transitional year to introduce new faces while saying a long goodbye to old favourites.

Mad Men is perhaps a more jarring version of this rarely seen phenomenon. When Sterling Cooper dissolved itself into Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, a slew of beloved second-tier characters were caught in the crossfires. Smug accounts man Kenny Cosgrove, second-rate creative guy Paul Kinsey, and closeted graphic designer Sal (among a few even more minor characters) were on the chopping block. In some ways, it's been a creative coup for Weiner - instead of chipping away and stringing out Sal's homosexuality, he was able to write him off the show with ease and relative legitimacy, while still providing a bookend to his primary storyline. Rather than ride out the tensions between an increasingly bitter Pete and chockful of goodness Kenny, the writers sagely let Pete prevail...for a day or two anyway.

Going back to my earlier point about Mad Men's community cast, some might argue it has a smaller cast of leads than FNL, and I would agree to a certain point - at the end of the day Don Draper takes way more prevalence over anyone else (unlike Coach Taylor, who is always present, but doesn't always have a lot to do). Weiner will let his regulars lapse (see: Joan in Season 3, who, as expected of her, quit her job when she got married only to find she really actually needed the money and disappeared for about half the season) for episodes at a time, because the real true focus is Don, and to a degree Betty, but even she can disappear, as she has so far in this season. The amount we see a character largely has to do with their orbit around Don Draper.

I could go on and on about the strengths and similarities between these two seemingly different shows - great casting, fantastic writing, authenticity - but at the end of the day, the two reasons above are what makes each show really special. They are willing to break the television rules - and while I doubt we'll ever see Don Draper leave and the show continue on (ahem, The Office), or that Tim Riggins will be a non-entity on next year's FNL, I don't doubt the creators will continue to entertain us by making surprising, sometimes hard choices and deftly deleting people from the lives of our stars...just like in real life.

Orbiting around,

- Britt's On

So tonight marks the second episode of ABC's new Lost-ish drama (despite the HILARIOUS Entertainment Weekly article to the contrary), FlashForward, and the boyfriend and I have been looking forward to it all week. We were actually apart all day Saturday and when we regrouped on Sunday morning, we both commented we'd spent that entire day thinking of the show. I'm crossing my fingers it a) doesn't get lame and b) doesn't get canceled as it's the first time in a long time I've liked a show this much off the hop (okay not a long time - I picked up Friday Night Lights and Mad Men in the summer of 2008).

Regardless...many people are wary of FlashForward because of its ties to Lost, and the slightly disappointing (there, I said it) way the show has turned out. As a Slate commentator pointed out in regards to the wholly different Mad Men's Don Draper, the more you shroud something in mystique, the more of a letdown the ending is bound to be.

The FlashForward is a relatively new technique being used increasingly enthusiastically by various television programs - but it's not always successful. Here's a quick breakdown of a few of the most famous examples, and my thoughts on each.

Lost - the show is VERY much centered on flashes forwards and backwards, and has been from day one. The backwards flashes were more successful in the sense they were wholly character driven vignettes that explained who this person was, how they ended up on the island, and why they were the way they were. The forwards were merely plot-driven, plodding scenes that focused almost entirely on returning TO that same island. That being said, the 'true' flash here occurs in the Season 3 finale, when it's revealed that several of the castaways make it back to their homeland, and manage to live there for three whole years before they get the itch to come back. This shock value made for possibly the best finale of Lost in a very shrouded, tricky episode (aside from S5's finale that made up for the rest of a very crummy season), but the execution was less than awesome, as mentioned.
Grade: B - great introduction, horrible execution. Bonus points for sticking to a human timeline (i.e. plane crash in 2004, flash forwards in 2004 - 2007).

Alias - JJ Abrams' first delve into the Flash Forward - keeping in mind I watched Alias after Lost, and was surprised to see him re-use this plot device in the latter show. At the end of a rather gripping S2 finale, Sydney wakes up in Hong Kong (or some equally busy, confounding city) and discovers she's been missing for two years, with no memory of her whereabouts - her father is in prison, her mother is in hiding again, and her former boyfriend is married - making for a very dark, very delicious Season 3 of the series. I wasn't that into Alias up until this point. JJ Abrams finally shocked the viewer in an unpredictable way (and this was having seen him do a flash forward in Lost dammit!) and didn't let things go as lightly as he tends to with other Alias plot lines - Sydney's two-year mind gap is the major focus for the first half of the season. It actually could have made for a season-long stretch (perhaps the argument made for why the flash-forwards in Lost were stretched out over two goddam seasons), especially after it was wrapped up so brusquely by none other than Terry O'Quinn's (Locke on Lost) character on Alias, and swapped in for a rather irritating double agent storyline with Vaughn's new wife.
Grade: B+ - The flash forward was used effectively here as a game changer. The world Sydney returns to is wholly different, and dark, and it was nice to see her on uneven footing for a change. As much as it was killing me to figure out wtf happened to her, it was also fascinating and awesome. I just wish the episode where they reveal all at once didn't happen - it was WAY too convenient and easy.

One Tree Hill - Say what you will, I think One Tree Hill made some very smart decisions when it came to the way they structured the show. The only downfall being the actors continually aging and looking increasingly distant from their fictional ages. The first four seasons were set in high school, and, realizing their fans would probably balk for four more 'school age' years with the characters split up at college & various career opportunities, they fast forwarded the show four years and a bit to all kinds of changes - Lucas engaged (but not to any major character)! Peyton living alone in LA working in the music biz (but not how you'd expect)! Brooke on top of the world in NYC (and feeling incredibly lonely)! Nathan's NBA dreams dashed (wheelchair)! And well, Hayley's a teacher with a normal, adorable child. The downside to this particular flash is the lack of acknowledgment of time. In one of the first episodes of S5, Luke is using an iPhone. Which makes you wonder...okay, when were the high school years set? What year did these kids graduate (I can't remember, nor do I remember any major signage indicating what year it was during their graduation episodes)? Did they actually graduate in 02 or 03 and the new season is set in 06 or 07? Now they've used the device again, jumping forward 14 months mostly to get past the awkward 'Lucas & Peyton are off the show but we can't write them out properly' debacle. Jury's out on how effective it is so far, other than I'm happy I didn't have to suffer through endless "Nathan reaches for his dreams!" episodes and Brooke / Julian continued 'You're never around' episodes. I've had enough of that in the first few this season.
Grade: A- If you can get past the time crunch, the fast forward was a welcome relief from the typically unsuccessful college years, and the resulting situations we find our heroes in have taken two seasons to resolve, if not longer in some cases.

Mad Men - Here's a show that uses a fast forward with care. It helps that it's a period piece that can actually use specific dates and times and historical events - and know the outcome - to mine their storylines from. Admittedly it's always a bit jarring to find yourself fast forwarded several weeks, months, years down the line at the start of each season, but Mad Men's timeline per episode is much wider than any other TV show I've ever watched. It really only helps add to the show's realism as characters move forward with their lives and careers independently of a typical television program.
Grade: A This is how fast forwards can be done - but keeping in mind that Mad Men has an unfair advantage of their show rigidly adhering to a timeline fifty years in the making.

Desperate Housewives - At the end of Season 5, perhaps to spice things up from waning viewers, the show fast forwarded five years in a OTH-style twist, completely unbent from time considerations, and even more annoyingly, age. The OTH characters benefited from the forward motion, looking more their fictional ages, but the DH ladies are now in cougar/menopause town, and it's hardly been acknowledged. Unlike OTH, which used the FF to avoid tedious storylines, DH wasn't really in that position, other than perhaps us getting to skip a ton of "Gabby's a stressed out horrible mom!" stories. When you consider the approximate ages of each character, they're all damn close to the 50 mark, but often comments on the show suggest the opposite. Plus the fun new developments - Gabby has two chubby kids, Lynnette's kids are finally teens, Edie has a new husband and is moving back to town - were severely underused. Last season fell flat, among the worst of the series in my opinion (along with S2's horrible Applewhite mystery), mostly because the untangling of the storylines from episode 1's fast forward didn't feel fresh, as Mark Cherry's likely intention, they felt tired and tried - and strained given the fact these ladies are five years older and still behaving like they're the spring blossoms that attracted sexy shirtless gardeners *NINE* "show years" (the first four seasons + the five-year fast forward).
Grade: C- Why bother with a flash if you're only going to give us a peek as to how it affects your characters lives?

That's all for now...cross your fingers with me the ultimate "forward" show holds true and keeps me thinking this week.

- Britt's On