happy birthday craig ferguson and dennis hopper

What's funny about this is that back in June 2005, I was in the audience of a taping of "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" (2005-present) and Dennis Hopper was the first guest. I wonder if they knew at the time that they have the same birthday. How interesting.

these "spirits" are even showier!

I only saw the second half of the Independent Spirit Awards last night, but I have a few observations I would like to share nonetheless.

1.) When Dustin Hoffman presented the award for Best Feature Film, was he on crack? Not only was he barely coherent, he made some ridiculous comments. For instance, before he got going with announcing the nominees, he stated that he fucked Javier Bardem and that Philip Seymour Hoffman was the product of that union. "Metaphorically speaking, of course." Everyone was howling with laughter, which made me feel so out of the loop. Is that funny, really? Even if it were possible for two men to make a baby, it wouldn't have been possible in this case. I mean, Javier's younger than Philip.

Dusty also said a vaguely anti-Semitic remark. Well, maybe it wasn't so vague. He wanted to point out something on the wall behind him that resembled, for him at least, the Star of David. He said something to the effect of: "That's there to remind us that not only do the Jews run Hollywood, they also run the Independent Spirit Awards. I'm not speaking metaphorically, either." Again, the crowd howled with laughter. Since I already dislike her, it was especially painful for me to watch Cate Blanchett laugh. Anyway, just imagine if a non-Jew had said that. Right?

2.) There was something about the first Robert Altman Award, which is handed out to the director, cast, and casting director of an exemplary ensemble piece, that struck me in a bad way. It was awarded to I'm Not There (2007). I agree that casting and this award is important, but I guess seeing the Blanchett standing behind director Todd Haynes, who was talking about independent film and casting, was a bit weird. I mean, of course big stars can transcend mainstream film and star in independent features (look at Angelina Jolie, for one, in A Mighty Heart [2007]), but the cast is filled with Richard Gere and Batman himself: Christian Bale. Just didn't sit right in my stomach.

3.) Speaking of A Mighty Heart, I absolutely hated how the Master of Ceremonies Rainn "Dwight" Wilson made fun of Michael Winterbottom's name. How lame can he get? (The film was nominated for Best Feature film and lost to the juggernaut called Juno [2007]).

4.) That leads me onto something else: the Ellen Page lovefest. More specifically, the waves of affection going back and forth between Page and director Jason Reitman. At one point, she even said, "I'm Ellen Page and I'm in love with Jason Reitman." I'm waiting to watch the story about their running off into the sunset together emerge in the headlines sometime soon. Keep your eyes pealed.

5.) Oh, and another thing that pissed me off about that Rainn guy. He wrapped up the show and then threatened Philip Seymour Hoffman with violence. He went into the crowd as soon as his "professional" duties were over and done with. Unfortunately for him, this gave Hoffman enough time to defend himself with his chair legs. Hoffman basically pummeled him, and I got to see the distinguished actor's plumber butt. I thought, "What is this? Some old Almost Famous (2000) rivalry?" (Remember, Wilson worked for Rolling Stone, and Hoffman was Lester Bangs of Creem Magazine.)

6.) Finally, Julian Schnabel, in case you did not know, is really weird. Awful acceptance speech, but at least it was entertaining. He won for Best Director, and his former lead actor Javier Bardem presented it to him. They hugged. Julian even thanked him, along with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's (2007) screenwriter Ronald Harwood and producer Kathleen Kennedy. No thanking of anyone else, especially not Mathieu Amalric. Sorry, but as a fan of his work, I feel cut by all of the gliding over of his contribution to the work. Contrary to popular belief, his role was not all voiceover. There was a fair bit of discomfort, I imagine. Hell, even his voice work had to convey a lot about Jean-Do's sense of humor, personal struggle, depression, imagination, and uplift. And I think even his body--and by that, I mean Mathieu's--did a lot for that.

OK. I am done ranting.

in defense of cavemen

I'm just going to come right out and say it: I love "Cavemen" (2007-present). I think it is one of the smartest shows on TV right now, a funny and engaging satire.

The show follows three cavemen roommates: Joel, the practical one with a homo sapien girlfriend and a job at an IKEA-like store; Andy, Joel's younger, impressionable brother; and Nick, a sarcastic grad student who's a bit of a separatist. Admittedly, Nick can be annoying, but he's the critical and cynical one of the group. Though he's sometimes wrong about other people, without his insights, you'd think cavemen really were stupid. He is, after all, the one who has to remind the others everything's about race, and without him it'd look like they never think about how they are treated in the media and in person-to-person interactions.

Now, about that controversy: I understand that the critics, who universally panned the show, reviewed a pilot that was not the same one that the general public saw when it premiered on October 2. I understand the makers, in response to the poor reception of the pilot, eliminated the racist jokes that implied the cavemen have experienced a history very much akin to that of African Americans. It didn't help that the original pilot set the scene in Atlanta. Now they're in sunny, Conservative-ladden San Diego. It's a good move, I think, though it sometimes feels more like LA than SD.

The critics didn't like this new refashioned show, from what I can tell, and no one I know besides my sister watches it. And I think the main reason why we like it is because it sophisticatedly engages in race studies, something we've explored due to being American Studies majors at university.

The four most recent episodes demonstrate this point best:

In "The Cavewoman," Nick dates an aggressive cavewoman called Heather who works in a frozen yogurt shop that resembles LA's Pinkberry chain. (Ah, but that is neither here nor there.) This episode is about masculinity caveman-style. Besides the fact that Heather is an utter bitch to everyone and completely dominates Nick, forcing him to put off breaking up with her as long as possible he's so scared, Heather makes the remaining two thirds of the trio feel less like (cave)men. She grills Joel on dating a homo sapien (something Nick does all the time), and she humiliates Andy for not calling her girlfriend for a date. Heather is the first cavewoman to be glimpsed in the show, appearing only in the third installment, and she stands in as a funny contrast to the cavemen, though presumably not all cavewomen are like Heather!

"The Mascot" is far more topical, as it relates to Nick's stint as a substitute teacher at a high school whose mascot is, you guessed it, a caveman. When he goes to the school's administration to explain why this is wrong and politically incorrect, he's met with, "Oh, yes, I know exactly what you mean." But the principal doesn't even care. In the end, Nick fights the oversized mascot, and in the process perpetuates the inaccurate stereotype by beating the guy with a (plush) log. Such a premise for this episode is meant to show how images of a (minority) group of people, accepted by the larger society, are at once challenged and reinforced by the minority group in question. What a vicious circle.

My favorite episode so far has been "The Shaver," which recalls narratives of racial passing (see either version of Imitation of Life [1934, 1959] for more info). While Joel becomes more and more under the influence of a crackpot motivational speaker, Nick and Andy seek to expose the crackpot as a hypocritical caveman because he has a strange all-over body stubble and protruding brow. Of course it all explodes at the end. The guy denies it and is caught saying something racist. He's a self-hating caveman! Plus, the trio's love of John Tesh, apparently the most famous shaver, and their willingness to forgive him for trying to pass as a homo sapien is just hilarious! "You really think they could let a caveman on TV?" Nick rhetorically asks Andy.

This past week's "Rock Vote" was about the guys trying to find an ideal candidate, the politician who will best represent them in the state assembly. Turns out Joel's ideal candidate was just using them to get votes from other cavemen. And Nick's candidate--a caveman himself--was a total wacko. Ah, but it all gets resolved in the end when they all vote for Witherspoon, who until the end was never considered by any of them. For Joel and Nick it's about their crush on Reese, and for Andy, who for so long followed in Joel and Nick's footsteps to find someone to vote for, it's because he knows Witherspoon has the best ideas for all people in San Diego.

I've heard the criticism that they do not look enough like cavemen. They aren't hairy enough, apparently. I think this is easy to write off because they've been around for thousands of years. Surely if they existed today they'd have adapted like the rest of us. They don't need such thick fur nowadays. Others have complained that the show is hard to watch simply because they're ugly and difficult to even look at. I disagree, but I must admit, however, that I wish they'd wash their hair once and awhile.

I really haven't done the show justice. It's far more nuanced. And I think the reason why the critics detested this one (what with the Chicago Trib going so far as to call "Cavemen" one of the 25 worst TV shows ever and all), is because they are not trained cultural critics. But then again, watching a TV show and recognizing the racial discrimination many people in contemporary society have historically faced isn't hard. It's so easy a caveman does it all the time.

up-to-date randomity

1.) Anyone else think The Primitives "Crash" should have played throughout the end credits of Crash (2004)? It'd have been funny, and perhaps we'd like something about the movie then.

2.) I just recognized there aren't many words with three Us in them. Isn't that unusual?

3.) Anyone else underwhelmed by the films currently out? Will the movie season get any better? Eh. I'm eagerly anticipating I'm Not There (2007) because you know how I hate the conventional biopic; Control (2007) because it's about Joy Division and I want to see how it compares to 24 Hour Party People (2002); and Atonement (2007) because... well, for obvious reasons.

4.) I came out as queer to a class I was teaching, about the diversity of LGBT people, cultures, and issues. My fellow Q&A panelists weren't expecting it, but I don't think they were shocked.

5.) I don't want to wait till next fuckin' summer for the second season of "Mad Men" (2007-present). Tuesday means the season finale of the other show I have been committed to watching since its premiere: "Damages" (2007-present). 'Bout time. It's a bit too drawn out. But I like it.

6.) "Pushing Daisies" (2007-present) is too cute for words. I want the complete series of "Wonderfalls" (2004) on DVD. Right now.

happy birthday steve coogan

If you remember, Steve Coogan is in the triumvirate of people who I really like to watch. That makes me sound like a big fat voyeur, like a perv, but film is voyeuristic. I don't need to get into any psychoanalytical theories of cinema. It's neither here nor there.

Anyway, Steve Coogan is fun to watch because he's funny. This is probably one of the most obvious things someone can say about him. That is, if they even like him and/or what he puts out into the world. However, it's a bit more difficult for me to articulate why I think he is so funny. It just seems to me that his sense of humor is much more layered, textured, than we are accustomed to.

If we look at his most famous creation, Alan Partridge (who, it should be noted, may be the result of a collaboration among Coogan, Peter Baynham, and Armando Iannucci), we see a middleaged radio disc jockey who used to be famous and who still thinks he is famous. At least he wants more than what he's got following the cancellation of his talk show. We might see that he's an idiot, a fool, a bit of a social retard, a racist, a sexist. I understand he is hard to watch for some people because he is so inappropriate, offensive, and stupid. In fact, it is his ignorance that is most offensive.

More than this though, there is something else going on with Alan. He's middleaged. Divorced. His wife is sleeping with a new, young lover. He has a son called Fernando (big ABBA fan) that doesn't like him. He lives in a hotel off the motorway for fuck's sake. His personal assistant is his only real friend and it's never certain that she even likes him. She can't possibly like working for him. He doesn't need a personal assistant, really. She's filling another void for him. The staff of the hotel enjoy ridiculing him behind his back while just barely tolerating him when they're face-to-face. I am not suggesting that the staff is morally reprehensible for being so two-faced, so disingenuous. He probably deserves it. But on top of all of this, he wants more than to be a radio personality In Norwich. He's not really fit for that sort of work anyway; his taste in music is questionable. Elitists wouldn't approve of his easy-listening playlists. But Alan's not fit for TV, either. But he doesn't get it.

And then there is this show we're watching, what someone might call a sitcom, though I would disagree with that label. Yes, there may be a laugh track and perhaps the subplot in the grand scheme of Alan's narrative arc resolves itself in 22 minutes, but it's just that: his narrative arc which I briefly described in the previous paragraph already gives Alan more texture than most sitcoms, which are loosely tied together episodes in the characters' lives. "I'm Alan Partridge" (1997, 2002) is more like a mini-series in that way. Plus Alan isn't confined to a set.

In any case, I've described a character that doesn't sound like he belongs in a comedy. But he is. And there's something to be said for painting such a depressing portrait of a man and ridiculing him. It's easiest to laugh at his stupidity, but really you just pity him. Brilliant. Which other character on TV is so simple-minded given his dark, complex circumstances?

So obviously, when I watch that particular show or anything else that Steve has done, I see Alan. Perhaps what is so interesting about Steve is how his gift for impersonations and character development sort of serves as an impediment to understanding "the real Steve Coogan." What I mean is that we so often mistake his characters for the actor, the performer, himself. For instance, there have been some who believe his brilliant turn in 24 Hour Party People (2002) as the late TV personality/journalist Tony Wilson was just him playing Alan again. I'm not going to get into the reasons why this is not true (I don't want to write a comparative study of "Alan" and "Tony"). Of course there is the possibility of seeing Alan in Tony. They're both played by Steve. His physical appearance, despite the assistance of some makeup and wigs, doesn't change all that much. Some mannerisms might be the same because, again, it's Steve. Both men are usually misunderstood, too into their own heads (and egos).

I appreciate Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story (2005) mostly for its being a rumination on celebrity, performance, and authenticity. Steve, of course, is not the only actor playing "himself" here. Rob Brydon matches him, but I'm not sure Rob has a history of celebrity quite like Steve's, so Rob playing himself doesn't come off the same way. And why should it? They're two different people. And even if their on-screen personas in this film are nothing like who they really are, it doesn't really matter. Their on-screen dynamic works. (Of course I should admit that when I watch Tristram Shandy, I see the rivalry between Steve's Tony Wilson and Rob's Ryan Letts from Party People play out, as a sort of background to their performances as rivals.)

Tristam Shandy may be about a film crew trying to adapt Laurence Sterne's unfilmmable though highly cinematic novel into a film. But there is more to it because it's about "the actor Steve Coogan." It glimpses him through various lenses: Steve as the gossip rag fodder, the actor known for his previous performances, the aspiring family man, the comedic rival, the artist philosopher, the man approaching middle age who has body issues and sexually frustrating encounters. Of course not everything here is true. It's the engagement of these themes from Steve Coogan's life that makes the film so interesting. Listening to the audio commentary by Steve and Rob on the DVD only adds more layers.

This is why Steve is fun to watch. As a chameleon who never quite sheds his skin completely with each new role, he defies being pigeonholed. He constantly tries new things (see Happy Endings [2005] and Around the World in 80 Days [2004] for more information). He constantly pokes fun at himself (in addition to Tristram, there is Coffee and Cigarettes [2003], and his conversation with Alfred Molina is the best of the little vignettes). While engaging with the constant construction of his persona, he seems candid, but he also keeps you as the viewer at a distance.

As an enigma, he's fun to watch. So happy birthday to him.

he's got a lust for life

Last week it was Hitchcock. Tonight it was Trainspotting (1996). Anyone else notice the very blatant references to that oh-so-favorite film of mine in the new, second episode of the very ridiculous "Chuck" (2007-present)? As if "Lust for Life" and running/chasing after someone (yeah, in the parking lot) weren't enough, they had to go and let Chuck fall back like Renton does in the very beginning. Only for Chuck it ain't heroin; it's the U.S. government's "secrets" that makes him fall back, straight down on his heels.

kick out your tv

Well, I have gone and done it. After months of talking about it, after weeks of sitting on the fence about it and feeling ashamed that it never looked like I was going to, I have moved the TV out of my room.

What? Were you expecting me to say that I got a tattoo?

Feeling daunted by all the reading I have to complete this week and realizing this amount of work is only likely to continue, I decided the only way I was going to get done what I needed to was if I simulated as closely as possible my room in England. No, I didn't move around any furniture, but I figured that if I could live/survive without a TV for eight months, I could do it here, too. After all, there are TVs everywhere in this house and I happen to live with two people who like to keep them on especially when they are not in the same room as they TV they profess to be in control of. Yes, this means that their noises might hamper my plans on having quiet, reading-full days. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I have resolved to limit my hours of TV to no more than a couple hours a day. And I really shouldn't watch TV during the day. Evenings can be for relaxation if I am productive during the day. Hopefully these plans will go so well that I will feel motivated to work on studying for the GRE and preparing grad school applications. (Where am I applying, first of all?)

I'll keep you updated on my progress.

mom is the new barbie doll

Wednesday afternoon I had nothing better to do than watch a "Project Runway" (2005-present) marathon. Season three. It was all leading up to the two-hour season finale, which originally aired just after I left for England. Even though I knew the outcome, I wanted to see all four of the finalists' collections. But that is neither here nor there.

Watching TV, of course, it goes without saying that I have to contend with commercials. (I don't have TiVo.) One of the most popular ones I saw that day was for the Home Depot. You know, the one where the daughter tells her dad they need to get a new refrigerator and set of kitchen cabinets. And then it's revealed that the mother paid the daughter to say such things. We can almost assume the daughter could give a shit about the aesthetics of the kitchen.

Anyway, the mother character was decked out in that ubiquitous "soccer mom" outfit: the high-waisted and sometimes tapered khaki pant, the solid-colored knit top, and the button-down long-sleeve dress shirt. It's always unbuttoned, too. Drives me crazy. I was just using the Home Depot commercial as an example; these "soccer moms"/housewives types all look the same in commercials. During the eight months in England, I never saw such caricatures in the media. Seeing these women again once I got home made me realize how much I didn't miss them. They're so tired.

So where does "Project Runway" play into all this other than the fact that I saw these commercials throughout the marathon? Well, I came up with an idea for the show. If the producers and/or judges have made the designers reinvent the United States Postal Service uniform, for example, then why can't they redesign the "soccer mom" outfit? I know what you're thinking: the women on TV aren't necessarily representative of women in real-life. Oh, yes they are (in some cases). In any case, the designers could even interview mommies, ask them why they wear that sort of thing. Probably for comfort and to hide their tummies, I'm guessing. And they want to look casual. They could do it, but now that I think about it, it seems like Stacy and Clinton are better suited for this sort of transformation.

you say valet, i say valet

I hadn't really watched a full episode of "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" (2005-present) in a long time before Monday night. Flipping through the on-screen TV Guide description of that day's show, I saw that he was going to have Timothy Spall on. I stuck around but instead it was Tina Brown. Promoting yet another book about Lady Di. Yeah, so I was disappointed. I am a fan of Spall's work, and to see him be interviewed on an American late-night chat show would have been, in the very least, interesting.

Last night, I was up round that time again. I saw instead that Tina Brown was listed as one of Craig's guests. I figured they must have done a switch-a-roo, so I stuck around to see Craig and Tim chitchat about Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman (2007). (Craig first interviewed Janeane Garofalo because she voices a character in Ratatouille [2007], but they failed to talk about how she put on Colette's French accent, a conversation I would have found interesting.)

In any case, I was left disappointed again. I imagine most of Craig's audience doesn't know who the fuck Tim is, and I would have preferred a conversation that consisted of more than just their discussing how Tim's actor-son Rafe, many years ago, accused Craig of stealing all the good chicken meat when Tim invited Craig to dinner at his family's house. What a cute anecdote they have, but really that doesn't educate anyone--including myself--about Tim as an actor. By the way, they spent a fair bit of time talking about Rafe--how he's come into his own as a supposedly handsome actor--but never once called him by name.

For the record, too, it's pronounced "Pier point." Not like the French. Crazy Brits.

i didn't consent to this

I just saw a commercial for the new wireless network. Instead of giving you the name of the company, I will just say that the one that was absorbed into the other lost its name but kept the Tucci. In any case, they used the instrumental of "Age of Consent." Made me cry. Not because the commercial was good, but because one of my favorite New Order songs was used in a commercial.

deja vu

Right now, I have "Not Your Average Travel Guide" (2007-present) on. The host is in London. He's doing everything I did with Stephanie in London. He's gone to the British Museum and looked at the Rosetta Stone and the Egyptian mummies. He's gone to Buckingham Palace, but I admit he at least saw the changing of the guard. He's gone to the Portabello Road street market. He's gone to the Tate Modern. He's gone to the pub to tap into that culture [pun intended]. But I must say he said something that offended me. He said that going to the pub is "a very London thing." Right. Only people in London go to the pub. And what about the title of the show? This is the most average travel guide! And no, I've never pretended that Stephanie and I went off the beaten path while in London.

And to introduce Indian food, he interviews people on the street about how multicultural the London population is. Of course that isn't inaccurate. It's just, I've heard this before. I've experienced it myself. Combined, all of this constitutes the first time anything on the Travel Channel--aside from the shows that profile Disney World--has just regurgitated something I have already done.

Let's hope it continues.

ink out the prejudice

I have been meaning to blog about this since Tuesday, when the third season of "Miami Ink" (2005-present) premiered. I have watched the show that follows the day-to-day of a tattoo parlor in Miami pretty much since its beginning. It profiles those who do the intricate designs--the five artists on staff--and those who walk in requesting them. Like any show that has a cast of colorful characters (seriously, no pun intended), I have a favorite. But that is neither here nor there.

Having established how far back I go with Ami, Chris N., Chris G., Darren, and Yogi (I miss Kat!), I must address something else about my relationship with the show. I dread the instances when my father may walk in on me watching it. I know. I feel like one of those kids who's embarrassed to be caught enjoying a porno. "Miami Ink" is no porno. It's just because every time my father sees the tattooed individuals, his voice has an immediate and very noticeable volume increase. He sort of whines, threatens to change the channel, and chastises me for wanting to watch the show because he finds tattoos appalling. I guess it doesn't help that long ago, I told him Stephanie and I were considering getting tattoos. (Oh, about that: I have since changed my mind, but not forever.)

I watch the show because, let's face it, it's ethnography. You hear the stories behind the tattoos, people's reasons for wanting to permanently mark their bodies. In this way, the show works to humanize the tattoo, which is an artform, I might add. The tattoo traditionally has been associated with "low-class," "dangerous," and maybe even "delinquent." Thus it once was taboo to have or even know someone who had a tattoo. Only recently has this perception of tattoos--and of those who wear them--changed. I wonder if the show is a part of this movement (for lack of a better word) or if the show is just jumping on the bandwagon of the tattoo being seen as acceptable, respectable, and admirable. And art.

The show even went so far in the opener to the third season to subvert another convention. An active 80-year-old woman who lives on her own went into the shop and asked for an "A" on her shoulder because her name is Annie. Her reason is a little bit wacky (with hurricane season coming, she says, she wants to make sure her body can be identified should anything happen to her), but she said that she has always wanted a tattoo. She doesn't care if her peers don't like it. To make a long story short, her "A" was more than just an "A." Ami added some color to it, red floating into yellow or yellow floating into red. She wanted some pizazz. So old people can get tattoos. I've seen old people with tattoos. Just reminds you they once were young.

A blind man even got a tattoo. An actor, he chose the masks of comedy and tragedy because that is what life is: a mixture of both. He brought along his daughter to act as his eyes, to judge whether or not the design was good, was placed properly on his body, and if it turned out well. His reasoning behind getting a tattoo was: Why should he not get a tattoo, even if he can't see it? He can't see a lot of things; how is this any different? Of course his oral narrative was much more eloquently put. I'm paraphrasing from memory here. From Tuesday, mind you.

So, no matter how much my father bitches and scritches, I will continue to watch the show. I won't let him change the channel. I will continue to try to convince my dad that tattoos are not disgusting. There's a story behind every one. And besides the joke of a man waking up with "Casey" engraved on his arm and his not knowing any Casey, there usually is a lot of thought that goes into the design process. Just watch the show and you'll see.

seeing, smelling, feeling

Men make me giggle. Here are some examples of why they do:

1.) At the cafe yesterday where I enjoyed some Earl Grey and a white chocolate fudge-covered biscuit, the Turkish man behind the counter asked which size I wanted for the tea: large or small. I asked to see them both to gauge the difference.

"This is large."

"OK. And what is small?"

And then he smiled, "Me." I immediately thought, he's not advertising himself well. English is not his first language I am guessing, but I would think in every language a man would rather be large.

2.) I smell like men's perfume. Some call it cologne. But let's face it, the guys who do not spray Axe/Lynx all over their bodies but spray something on them nevertheless like to smell pretty. I wouldn't call it musk.

Anyway, the guy next to me on the bus smelled a bit fruity. And just a half hour ago, a neighbor who is leaving today hugged me (shocker!) and basically smeared it all over me. I smell like him now. What a souvenir.

3.) On an episode of "Rome" (2005-2007) that I watched last night, Lucius Vorenus (Kevin McKidd) was complaining to friend Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson) about how his wife won't let him "couple" with her. Is she just angry at him? Is she not satisfied? To summarize, Titus suggested Lucius find the g-spot. But, as this is ca. 50 BC, there wasn't an exact word for it.

What is the best bit is the look Lucius gives Titus. "How do you know this about my wife?"

"Chill, Lucius, all women have them. Trust me."

i didn't kill my tv, i just abandoned it and found a surrogate

I'm procrastinating again because I really am fed up with exams. But I am preparing in some way for the exam by watching Diva (1981), which was critically panned when it first came out, but the audiences--especially the young ones--loved it. I don't love it. It has many flaws, but I think it makes for an interesting study of race and gender.

In any case, Diva is not the reason why I wanted to post. It came to my attention yesterday that I have in fact lived months without a TV. To paint a wider picture of what TV means: one of the reasons why I decided not to go to my dream school in Vermont, which has only 300 students on a campus 15 miles from the nearest town, was because I didn't think I could live without a TV (you can't even get satellite out there). The last time I really thought about not having a TV for so long was just before I came here. And almost immediately, I forgot such a thing existed.

While you might think this is not true because I have seen many British TV programs, I would argue that it is different. Streaming the video online is almost the same thing as watching it once it's been released on DVD because there are no commercials. Nothing interrupts the show. And let's face it, some shows are just made as filler for commercials. But that is neither here nor there.

Plus the fact remains: I do not have a TV and the only times I have ever been in a room with one was either while I was on vacation or in the pub (which is not often).

OK. So perhaps my seeking out the programs online means I couldn't live without a TV, but I didn't go looking for these outlets. People recommended them to me, so I checked them out. If I hadn't heard about them, I wouldn't have known they existed.

I think when I go home having a TV at my personal disposal will take some getting used to. I'll have to learn to be patient through all those commercial breaks, too.

there's a disparity here i just don't understand

So in my free time today, between taking that modernist literature exam (don't ask) and studying for the exam tomorrow on youth and political culture in 1960s Europe, I've watched two episodes of the British sci-fi show "Primeval" (2007-present). Of course it's ridiculous, but it's entertaining in its own way.

Professor Nick Cutter (played by the suddenly sexy Scot Douglas Henshall) is the leader of a mismatch of experts. Don't actually know the term for his specialty, whether it's archaeology or paleontology or a combination of both plus something else. Anyway, he's got his right hand man (a Stuart Townsend lookalike/twin), who's probably just a more useful and less-wise-cracking sidekick than similar characters in other explorer narratives. Then there's a zookeeper whose expertise is reptiles. She comes in handy when dealing with dinosaurs. (Yeah, I know.) And then there's one of Cutter's students, who's a nerd and a conspiracy theorist.

In any case, "anomalies" keep popping up all over Britain, these portals that afford anyone curious enough to walk through them the ability to transgress time and space. They explain how dinosaurs, other prehistoric animals, and ones completely made up (such as giant spiders and centipedes) wander through suburbia or in the London tubeway system. And also where Cutter's wife, who he thought either went missing or died on an expedition, has been hanging out for eight years.

Watching this show, I am reminded of British and European commercials. This show, along with most of the commercials I have seen, must use so many more special effects than do their American counterparts. I think it's ironic considering British cinema is driven by realism (see anything by Loach, Leigh, or Davies for more information), by performances. And here we have special effects that belong in an American sci-fi blockbuster appearing in a British hour-long serial. Interesting, no?

More than this though are the commercials. Commercials in the U.S., if I remember correctly, do not have many special effects, CGI or otherwise. But they certainly do here. Case in point: an advert showing the effect of hitting a child at 40 mph graphically portrays what happens to the girl. It starts off with her sitting on the side of the road, bleeding from the ear, her limbs twisted. Then in voiceover she explains that she has a very slight chance of surviving the blow at this speed. Then she is suddenly lifted to the middle of the street, where it is clear that she has, instead, just been hit at 30 mph. For this reason, she has "a 90% chance of living." And it shows because she gasps for air this time round. "It's 30 for a reason" is the lesson to be (re)learned here. How graphic, eh? Whether or not it's a successful ad campaign is lost on me because I am never in the car.

The commercial for a plasma TV, expressing the wide range of colors that come in full brightness because of the TV's technology, sees a highrise building splashed over with paints of all colors. It's visually stunning, and I've never seen anything like it before, especially not in the U.S. So these companies must be spending a lot of money to reach the European market and entertaining their TV-watchers. They're just leaving the long-term entertaining up to Hollywood then, eh?