In Defense Of Twitter

Have you been to a news web site, read a newspaper or a magazine within the past six months? If so, you have no doubt heard about Twitter, a popular microblogging service. And yet, some of those stories don't get the point of the service at all. 

Take for instance, this column from LATimes.com. The fiery columnist -- who, to be fair and throw a compliment her way, is an excellent writer and writes a compelling column -- says this about the program in her conclusion: ". . . along with "what am I doing right now?" maybe it's time to ask "what the hell are we doing"?" Her take on the system is that the tweets bring people down to an idiotic, superficial level, full of uninteresting details on the mundane events of every persons right.

Before we go any further, I must disclose this: I tweet. A lot. So much so that I know what a hash tag is, I @ reply someone, I know what a DM is, along with a RT. My screenname is @charlesjurries. 

What these columnists, who no doubt need to find a ax to grind to meet deadline, fail to miss is that the "mundane" aspects of a persons life are what makes a person a person. Does everybody care that I was walking around downtown Grand Rapids? No. But some do. Maybe they haven't been in a while. Maybe they're expecting some pictures from that afternoon (sorry, the answer is "no"). Maybe someone didn't take me to be the person to spend an afternoon down in GR. 

Its those kinds of simple details that make us a complete person. Imagine if your random thoughts on your niches, and your life details, were each a piece of straw. Over time, your Twitter feed would give your followers a more complete scarecrow, a sense not only what this person does, but how they think. 

Does Twitter have some superficial people on it, full of just mind-numbing boring tweets? Yes. You don't have to follow them. You follow who you want, at your pleasure. If you find them interesting, if they give you a unique insight into their world, into others, that's why you'll go to them. People don't want to be bored. So they won't allow themselves to be. 

Another advantage Twitter has over traditional blog posts: It cuts right to the chase. While you can say a lot in 140 characters (their limit), it also limits you to creatively say what you want in a concise sentence or two. No bloating. No filibustering. You have to say what you mean, the first time. This amazingly forced clarity helps to improve communication (surprising, right?) and the exchange of ideas. 

Another thing... Twitter can be a conversation starter. By tweeting those fleeting - but momentarily important - thoughts, instead of forgetting them, you could (and I have) wind up talking about more conversation points than before. 

Does Twitter and the world of microblogging have a ways to go? Yes. In future years, Twitter could turn out to be the Xanga of this genre, the early adaptor that is improved upon by a better service. For what we have right now, though, its pretty good. And its good to know what's on your mind right now. Because it makes you more of a whole person. It allows me to pick what's on your mind. And you on mine. 

Go ahead and let the doubters doubt. They've picked on the negatives and refuse to see any positives, and chances are, will not allow themselves to. They've created Twitter to be this sort of terrible ideal, many times without columnists giving it a fair chance. (At times, I wonder if some writers have even signed up for the service at all, and instead are reading Ashton Kutcher's feed and coming to their own conclusions.) 

* Sorry if this post seemed a little disjointed. I was just writing down what was on my mind. (Oh, writer's snap!) 

What's a "Doctor Zhivago"?

According to BoxOfficeMojo's adjusted-for-inflation list of all-time domestic best-sellers, the 8th most popular film in domestic history is Doctor Zhivago. Released in 1965, this political thriller was surrounded by strong controversy. But I refuse to believe that this film could have ever been that popular, because up until today, I had never heard of Doctor Zhivago!

According to IMDb, the plot is as follows:

Set just before and in the years following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the filme follows the life of Zhivago as he marries, raises a family, has his life totally disrupted by first World War One, and then by the Revolution. Shown against the Epic of a world turned on its head, his life and freedom are torn from him as the new society makes demands.

That sounds like a good movie, no? Good enough to be 8th overall in an adjusted-for-inflation all-time domestic best-sellers list? I don't know. Because I've never heard of this film.

It even stars Omar Sharif and Alec Guinness! And Julie Christie, who I've never really seen much of her in, but she's got a familiar name, so, I must of seen her in a film before.

To get myself more acquainted with this apparent masterpiece and crown jewel of American cinema, I watched a trailer for the film on, where else, YouTube:



Well, who knew? I just learned about an extremely popular film today. Me learning about Doctor Zhivago today will be like, in forty years, having someone just hear about The Dark Knight.

That'll be odd.

Soap

TV superwoman Jane Espenson took a time out from her busy schedule as a writer/consultant/producer to delve into the world of daily television soap operas. As she explains in her post, producing five fresh hours of dramatic content every week means that making a daily soap is a very different beast from a prime time product. She explains:

"The production aspects are insane-- the show I visited doesn't shoot, as you might assume, an hour's world of material each and ev'ry blessed day. No. They do FIVE shows in FOUR days. So it's more than one standard episode every working day. With no hiatus, of course. Year 'round, I'm sayin'. Holy cats. A single actor might be in seven, nine, eleven scenes in one day. I was told of one case in which and actor, trying to clear their schedule so they could take a week of... that one actor shot over twenty scenes in one day."

Holy cats indeed! Can you imagine being on a writing staff, having to come up with five hours worth of material each and every week? Being an actor and having to memorize all those lines every day, in an instant, and act on them immediately, many times in just one take? Or being the directors, having to set everything up ahead of time just to cut down on valuable time?

If you have time, Espenson's post is a valuable look into this "foreign" land of continual drama.

"The truth ain't like puppies"

I was watching an episode of Pushing Daisies at ABC.com, and I heard one of those lines that you forget about, but once you remember you realize that you absolutely love it. I would embed the clip, but, ABC's player has yet to have a Hulu-like "embed what you want!" function. ABC is overhauling their video player late this year, so perhaps it will be available then. Until then, you'll have to do without Chi McBride's amazing delivery and settle for my dry transcript:

"The truth ain't like puppies, a bunch of them running around, you pick your favorite. One truth."

ShamWOW!

Greetings from the RoboPost! I'm still camping. And there may not be a Monday post. We'll see. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Have you seen the commercials for ShamWOW!^TM? It features this guy with a very active voice, talking about the virtues of this super sponge-like towel. At one point during the commercial, he says "are you following me, camera guy?" I know that may be part of a script the actor was given, but nevertheless, I kind of want to inflict physical harm whenever I hear that line. (I never would, don't worry. I hate killing spiders! I could never physically harm someone.) The camera guy has a job, and he is doing it, and doing it well. And you have a job, you do it well. Does the camera guy say, "are you following me, on-screen talent guy?" NO. There is no need to belittle the camera person. It does not make you relatable, unless you want to relate to a bunch of overbearing jerks.

The towels apparently leave behind streaks, too. ShamWOW!^TM? Just a sham, sadly.

Overheard on set

Sometime this year, I was a background actor for a movie. (Until I know for sure that shooting is done, I won't mention the name on this blog. It's a silly policy I have.) But I can share this unique observation.

The scene had a boyfriend and his girlfriend interacting with each other. In-between scenes, all the talent was sent away so the crew could work with the set. I overheard the actor playing the boyfriend talking to one of the stagehands about what porn sites each other goes to. And a couple minutes later, one of the crew is talking to the actress playing the girlfriend, talking about what church she went to that previous week.

How random.

Acting the role

Actors bring energy. They make a performance come to life. But each one brings something different to the table. Something unmistakable, something unique. After all the characters are created, it is up to casting to employ actors and actresses and have them embody these roles. And with so many talented people out there, each with a unique specialty, isn't it interesting to think of how movies and television would be different had there simply been one different actor or actress?

The 2005 summer blockbuster Mr. & Mrs. Smith famously starred Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, bringing the two of them together, leaving them inseparable (at least as of summer, 2008). But did you know that the original cast was to have Johnny Depp and Nicole Kidman face off as the bickering couple? And that Will Smith and Catherine Zeta-Jones were also considered for the roles? Pitt can play a straight face, Depp can bring an air of mystery and Smith can bring great comedic timing (not to mention the last name). Jolie plays the vixen well, whereas Kidman would definitely been great at playing up the "up tightness" of the character, as well as the comedy aspects. And Zeta-Jones, well, I saw Zorro 2 and I still like her, so, there's nothing she can't do well, in my opinion.

But see how everyone would have brought something very different to the table? That's what I'm talking about.

It is always fun to watch an entertainment program with an excellent ensemble. The Ocean's Eleven series features a dozen or so high-profile, impressive resume-wielding powerhouse thespians. And those movies have the perfect casts. The television show Lost features a bunch of actors and actresses, most of whom were not well-known before appearing on the show. And every role is seemingly cast perfectly. It is hard to imagine any other actor or actress playing the leads in either program. Imagine how much different the energy on Lost would be if George Clooney were the main character! How much moodier Ocean's Eleven would be if Matthew Fox played the ringleader.

Actors and actresses, each of them, are very unique and talented. And they all bring something incredibly different to the table. So when you are watching a project with the "perfect cast," thank the producers, directors, studios, and casting services, on a job well done.

The Dark Knight: A Dark Review

Last night I saw The Dark Night, the second installment in the Christian Bale series of Batman movies. This series of movies makes the criminals and heroes as realistic as possible, creating a dark and eerie atmosphere for them to work in. Instead of "Pow!" boxes, you might have moments where you jump out of your seat. These movies are more like the comics, rather than the live-action TV series, much less the other movies made. The Dark Night, whose fortunes know no limit at the box office, may be making a profit illegitimately, because: it just is not great.

The movie is good, mind you. Don't get me wrong here. I thought the story was mostly great, the characters believable and the audio and camerawork phenomenal. So why am I so serious?

For starters, the movie was too long. It tried to develop many characters: Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawson, Harvey Dent, The Joker, Lucius Fox, Gordon, and a mob lord. All in two and a half hours. Even the television show Lost, with it's insanely ridiculously large cast, focuses on about half those characters for a season. To try to give these characters a self-contained, fulfilling arc takes a long time. And while the movie handled it well, keeping the focus smaller and neater always works wonders. And that applies to villains, too. If the Joker is a menacing creature, show us him being a menacing creature, don't flank him with more villains. Show us just how evil he can be.

In relation to the paragraph above, the movie kind of pulled a Spider-Man 3. It tried to give us too many bad guys to feel scared about. When the movie started, we saw how devious and tricky the Joker could be. But then we were introduced to another section of the mob. (They were boring in Batman Begins and are still boring here.) Then we meet another villain, this guy being as big and menacing as the Joker himself. And that was kind of the problem. It took the spotlight off the real big villain and turned it onto this "newcomer," if only because of symbolism. The film took us many places, with many people. And with one or two less places and people, the film could have been excellent. It could have still been very emotionally satisfying, for both the characters and the audience.

Another complaint I have with the film is not the film's fault, but the hype surrounding the film. The film was not a non-stop roller coaster of intensity. There were many stops. You had time to walk around and get a soda between rides. There was also much talk about the late Heath Ledger's performance of the Joker as being "Oscar-worthy." While he personified a great character, and certainly took what he had and turned it into something very special, I don't know that I would find it to be an outstanding achievement in acting. Shoot, I feel like the city of Chicago added as much character and atmosphere to the movie as Ledger, if not more so. (The city was filmed beautifully.)

However, the movie was good. The movie tackled the question of vigilante heroes: good or bad? And it was not in a simplistic, Spider-Man kind of a "they're bad but he's cool so he can stay"-kind of a way. Even people who believed in Batman had to question if he deserved to be there or not. There were terrific character dynamics, especially the love triangle between Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawson. And there is one scene early on in the film where the Joker establishes himself as absolutely 100% terrifying. (When he first explains how he got his scars.) And, the first five minutes of the movie (bank robbery) is perhaps the best five minutes of cinema to happen in a long, long time.

I would probably give this movie an 8 out of 10. It's still good, and I'm glad I saw it. But it is not the type of movie I would necessarily see again, nor buy the DVD for.

Veteran actor speaks out against large paychecks

Hollywood is not glamorous. Sure, there are a few dozen people whom the tabloids love to photograph. Those people who grace the grocery store lanes every week. But what about the millions of other people who work in the industry? They rarely get any recognition. They do not get magazine covers, endorsement deals, And most struggle to meet the rent. Including actors and actresses. If you can land on a successful television show, for example, then you maybe get five years of financial stability before being jobless and in financial trouble once again. And once you've gotten one recognizable job, there is no guarantee you can get another one ever again.

It is to that end that I break one of my personal blogging rules and encourage you to read this very lengthy letter, by actor Peter Coyote, about actors and pay. The actor, whose IMDb I'm sure has at least one project that you've seen or heard him in, wants leading actors to use their power to leverage more pay for the acting professional. In his essay, he writes:

Also, let’s relate to the non-celluloid world for a moment. Once an actor reaches the six or ten million dollar mark for several months work, they are financially secure for life unless they are morons or have extremely bad habits. By the time they’re earning 15-20 million, some measurable percentage of those earnings is meaningless.

I cannot speak from personal experience on this matter, since I have not been a starving, penniless actor waiting tables while waiting for my big break (which is so true of most of the Los Angeles serving community), I've certainly heard enough and read enough to be sympathetic to their plight, and be slightly envious of the huge price tags given to the A+-list.

To clarify (my favorite phrase to say on this blog), I'm not saying that we need to set a price standard or make mandatory cap off salaries. But when you get people like Brad Pitt, who can make $20 million in just one year (see Forbes), you have to wonder exactly why these talented actors are being paid for as much as they are. They do a great job, the fair lot of them. But $20 million for one year? That is way too much money. As Coyote said, once you've hit six million, you are set for life. (I'd say for less even, but, L.A. is expensive to live in, so I'll give him that.)

Do you know what the main difference between a "star" and an "acting professional" is? A star will work for large sums of money. An acting professional will work because it is work. Just like most Americans will work for the sake of just having a job to carry out. The acting professional can relate to the gaffer, the grip, the lighting person, the electrician, the stage manager, and every one else who works on a production and makes just enough money to get by. They rarely make enough "cushion" money. They have no $20 million to fall back on. They have to pay rent, mortgage bills, student loans and the like. It takes dozens and dozens of people to make just show work. Have you ever sat through the credits for a TV show? Or how about a movie? You know how the credits for a film are about six minutes long? Every single person plays a vital role in making that movie. Without them, there would be no movie, just like without the actors there would be no movie.

And while the actor is the most visible and high-profile element of a project, that does not change the fact that there are people who work as hard, sometimes harder, and get paid a disparaging amount.

Most of the time, it is not the actor's "fault" that they get the paycheck that they do, it is their agent. But I think the agents and the movie studios, the people who bankroll any project, can help share the wealth, with at least the other actors on film.

Tomorrow: Product placement in television newscasts: crude, inevitable or both?

Picture This!

While watching The Middleman on ABC Family (whose best line this week was "it's like o'dark thirty in the morning"), I saw a commercial for a direct-to-DVD movie the network is airing. Understanding that the network's primary target age is teenagers and young adults, I can understand why they would take a "underdog at a new high school" movie. I do not fault them for that one bit. However, I do fault them for a bad combination of dialogue and casting.

The dialogue in question: "I don't have to be the most beautiful. I just like to be somebody... to you." Romantic, sappy and honorable, right? It is not anything I would say, but a doey-eyed high schooler in love? Sure, I can buy that. Especially the "I don't have to be the most beautiful" part. Unless those lines are delivered by...

Ashely Tisdale.

Yes, that smiling, gorgeous woman to the right. In this telecast, she is telling the love of her lift that she does not care if she is not the most beautiful woman in the world. I am sorry, Ashley, but if he does not think you are beautiful, you are better off without him.

Worse yet, the guy she is falling in love with appears to be some horrendous stalker who take photos from a distance, like he is a paparazzo and she's Britney Spears. And then he frames his favorite pictures of her. Guys, I am very serious about this.

Do you guys think I am joking about this movie? I am so not.



See? They give Tisdale glasses and supposedly she is not beautiful. The swimming king is also a megaton creep. And, honestly, would an Ashley Tisdale character be singing for a crowd if she were not beautiful? Would she be on Disney's payroll? They force America Ferrera into makeup to become Ugly Betty, but Ferrera herself is very pretty. She may not be Jennifer Garner (nor is miss Tisdale), but they are both very pretty people.

Another complaint: the outsiders try to beat the in-crowd by becoming popular. Hence they become the in-crowd, and then there are outsiders. Nothing is solved. We just switch roles. If the in-crowd is horrible, then it is horrible. It does not suddenly become fine, as long as it's the main character in the in-crowd. No. Not at all. They just become the enemy they thought they were fighting against.

Having this film to try to sell us on the fact that Tisdale's character wants to become more beautiful to impress the stalker photographer is, well, insulting. Now, I know I'm not really the target audience for this film. Nor did I ever have plans on watching it. But the fact that they have that line of dialogue, spoken by that pretty of a lady, just kind of offends me.

Top 5: Current TV openers

Television shows have long changed their stance on theme songs. Instead of a full minute of a catchy song, networks now prefer two-second title cards, in order to squeeze in another commercial. Now, unlike some TV romantics, I am okay with the title card. Many times having a song can be, in my mind, in the way of the rest of the show. But there are still some openers from shows on today that I enjoy quite a bit. Here they are, in no particular order:

ABC Family's The Middleman
A mix between something modern and a Bond throwback = genuis.

USA's Psych
The only actual song on my list. It's short, it's catchy and it is fun.

NBC's 30 Rock
Smart, unique and entertaining, just like the show itself.

NBC's Chuck
The stylish graphics blend perfectly with the light-hearted music.

ABC's The Mole
The narration kills it a little bit, but the music is still terrific

Choosing the right role

Last semester, I took an introduction to acting class at school. It was one of the most unique, relaxing, fun classes I have ever taken. We would start the session off with warm-ups (stretches, yoga, all that good stuff), then have some lecture, usually do some "improv" acting on the spot, rehearse our acting scenes, discuss how to break down a scene, and more. It was refreshing and a terrific class to take. And it was an excellent follow-up to a public speaking class. This class had public speaking, but it also had you with no notes, doing physical movements, impacting your scene partner, and dividing your attention. No easy feat. And if I took away one thing, other than more public confidence, is to choose your role carefully.

During the course of the class, I played Henry II from a scene in The Lion in Winter, and Polonius from Hamlet. Both were terrific roles, full of subtext, danger, intrigue, and hidden meanings. They also had very "ye olde English"-style dialogues. And the prose of Shakespeare - it was terrible to memorize! Both roles wound up being too much to chew off, especially for an intro to acting class. It is not that I did terrible. There were many elements that the class told me were good. But I would forget lines. Because they were tough. Very tough. And the characters were not exactly like me. I am not a spiteful old king, manipulating his estranged wife. I am not a conniving court jester hoping to wreak havoc. Having to step into those shoes further added to the troubles.

For our last scene, our teacher suggested that we get into groups. Everybody had to think of actors and actresses that inspire them, and why. What did they do? What makes them compelling? Why do we like them? Then we had to think of the types of character we would like to play. For our last scene, we would be doing monologues without a scene partner, so there was more flexibility in finding a role that was more suited for us. Finally, we had to tell our group partners what kind of character we thought they should play, and why. I was told that I seemed like the kind who would play an honest type who would be put upon a lot. Kind of a "Ray from Everybody Loves Raymond," someone who tried to keep things under control but things got out of control from underneath him. I left class that day, reflecting on those exercises and what that could mean for my acting roll.

As I was dwelling on those thoughts, I was flipping through monologue books at the school library. Many of the scenes were either too long (we had a time limit), or too boring. Too uninspired. Too controversial. Too unlike me. I picked up another book, opened it up and found it: my perfect role. The role I would do wonders with in class. The role that fit my criteria, that fit others criteria, the role that would be absolutely perfect for me:

Charlie Brown.

He is shy. Socially stunted. Afraid to try new things. He feels his life is terrible, unaware that he is the one making his life so burdened. It is a terrific character, full of irony and subtext, and had many entry points to which I could relate. I read over the role and it was perfect for me.

Performance day comes and I play my short scene as Charlie Brown. I am very nervous, which plays great into the character, who is made up of nothing but nervousness and worry. I can tell that the whole class is studying me, watching me. Which is great, because if they were looking away, I would know I was not giving a great performance. I get a couple laughs where I was supposed to, which is an amazing rush. It is the same rush you get from public speaking, only slightly more so. Seconds later, the performance ends. I get applause. And I get mostly terrific feedback. I got a couple compliments on choosing a terrific role, one that fit me well.

Life is kind of like that. We go through life, we try different things and hope to figure out what we do well at. We might bite off more than we can chew, absolutely. But through some patience, wisdom and guidance, we just might figure out what role we were meant to play after all. I don't think I quite know what that role is for me yet. All I know is that I'm pretty sure I'm looking in the right section. And I've had advice from people on what careers they think I'd be good at. And I've taken dozens of "what career is best for you" job placer tests and personality quizzes. Unless everybody and every quiz robot gave me bad advice, I'm on the right track. But I just have to find that right role. That perfect job, which may not get me as much applause as playing Charlie Brown did, but will give me an equal amount of satisfaction.

To Live or Die an Extra

I had the opportunity and privilege to be a background actor for the Grand Valley State University film project, To Live or Die in Dixie. The film is based on true events surrounding a murder at Dixie State University and the woman who tried to bring the accused murderer to justice.

The film crew, being college students, had the good sensibility to put out a casting call for extras on craigslist. After responding to the ad, I was contacted by the crew and given a time to show up to be in the film. The day was long, at least six hours, most of it standing around. This is common for movies. Television also, but less so. Movies move at a legendary slow pace, with everybody having to be patient as the directors, cameramen, sound people, engineers, electricians, lighting department, casting, producers, and everybody else figures out the next shot. Then you have to do a few practice shots, to make sure everything looks and sounds right. Then you do a few takes for the scene. And the scenes have to be reviewed before the director decides to end filming. It looks terrific on camera, but making a movie is perhaps the least glamerous experience you could ever embark on.

The above picture is a still from the movie. Grand Valley student will recognize that as being part of the lobby inside the fieldhouse. If you don't know me, that's me in the red striped polo, shaking the hand of the man in the yellow shirt. (Man in the yellow shirt is the accused murderer in the movie.)

That's me in the movie, again. I'm in the background, in the same shirt. In this shot, I was barely visible for just a second. The person I'm talking to, in the blue shirt, worked on the film. We came up with an elaborate story to tell each other for each take, as we mouthed "watermelon, oranges." As the story went on, we would start laughing. And I think at this point in the movie, we are just about to start laughing. A pity that the scene was missed.

I had the fortune to be called back for another scene in the film. This time I was a dignitary at a ribbon cutting ceremony, filmed on the Gilette Bridge in downtown Grand Rapids, MI. This scene took a few hours to set up and film, and was only in the movie for thirty seconds. (Again, that's how the business works.) You can see me in the shot, between the characters hugging in the foreground and the American flag waving in the background. We were asked to be happy and jubilant, and I tried. I really, really did. But when it was over 90 degrees outside, and you are wearing long pants, long sleeves and have been sitting in a warm holding room for hours, being happy was far from anybody's mind. The crew handled it like pros, though, and they made sure that everybody (including extras) had plenty of water to drink. We joked that the muggy weather was actually good, as it would be more "Dixie-like."

Grace and I were called in for another scene, set in the film's whites-only church. However, the camera angles did not include us in the frame. Again, that is also like the business; you may spend multiple days on a few scenes, only to have the director and editors cut those scenes out entirely.

All in all, it was a great experience and I was very glad to have been a small part of it, and to see a little bit of how a movie is made. I'll have another oppertunity to be a background actor in the future, but, that will be another blog post for another time.

What I learned about journalism from "NewsRadio"

Following up on this post, I thought I would spend some time to write about what could be gleamed about the journalism profession from the television show NewsRadio:

1. Anchors are mostly idiots (still): Television is not kind to our nation's broadcasters. Phil Hartman's portrayal of the vain Bill McNeal showed us a man who knew he was good, really good, but had no clue how uncool he looked to others. McNeal's replacement, Max Lewis, was always unprofessional and spent his time flirting with the secretary. However, the show had one sane anchor: Catherine Duke, whose energy was spent on biting one-liners rather than elaborate plots.
2. News directors are nice: If there was ever the anti-thesis of Lou Grant, it would be Dave Nelson. His Midwestern mannerisms stayed with him and he tried to be nice to the staff throughout the shows run. He may not have had complete control of his staff, in any way shape or form, but he would be the nicest boss you could ask for.
3. You will work with odd people: The self-confident and duct-tape wielding electrician, the lazy redhead secretary, the childish news writer and the academically-minded news producer. It sounds like the set-up to a joke, and for this sitcom, it kind of was. But in real life, you never know what assortment of people you will work with. And in a profession that attracts may big egos, that saying has more weight than before.
4. There's always time to do something: Whether it's covering the big story, sneaking in a make-out session or playing a prank on a co-worker, if you can manage your time efficiently, there's no end to what you can do during your office day.
5. You may wind up working in the background: Every now and then, NewsRadio would make some reference to the background actors and people who supposedly also ran the fictional radio station, but were never part of the cast. The journalism career involves thousands upon thousands of people who will extraordinary jobs who never ever get public credit or glory. People who go into any form of journalism or media need to go in expecting to do it for the love of the job, not to get famous. There are a handful of popular journalist, thousands more of terrific workers.

Has TV replaced fine literature?

Happy 4th of July! To celebrate, I'm going to talk about something said over in the United Kingdom. In fact, I'm going to take that something British and make it American. How very patriotic of me.

The control of fiction for the BBC, Jane Tranter, said something very interesting the other day. She was saying that the golden age of television drama wasn't "today, but neither is it yesterday. The golden age is tomorrow." She went on to claim that television drama his the "narrative of our times that gives our lives meaning and shape," just like novels did long ago.

While she was speaking more about programming across the pond, I think that comment translates very well to American television as well. And, by extension, makes her statement very true. It is not that books do not give a good and accurate reflection of someones life in varying stages, give great conflict and show us the muddy process these people have to go through to get a resolution. They do, and many do a great job of doing so. No, it is not so much debating one type of storytelling over another; it is which medium our culture has chosen to embrace. And that is television.

When The Sopranos ended, everybody knew the show ended with a sudden cut to a black screen. Even though the show aired on HBO, it seemed like every American knew about it, and did their own parody on YouTube. Lost attracts thousands of people online who sort through every clue and red herring given by the show, to find hidden symbolism and cryptic clues for the shows narrative. Even beyond that, even the most casual viewer who started to watch Lost but stopped watching because they found it so confusing (to which I say, Lostpedia!) knows the show's basic messages about striving for redemption and how we would start our lives over, if we were given a chance. Not to mention everybody knows there's a big smoke (sand?) monster that kills people.

Books are a very challenging art form. They allow you to give as much information as you want, usually without much page count restraint. (Usually.) It's not like you have to trim five minutes to get the show to fit to broadcast. But no matter how much information you give, how great a word picture you paint, the reader is going to draw from their experiences, their imagination and adapt it to what they want. This is fine. I enjoy this. Books are great. But what television can do is show you how others feel and adapt in a murky situation. You may not be able to use your imagination in television, per se, but a quality television show (Lost, The Closer, some season finales of House) can do is provoke your thoughts. They can make you think about the characters choices, what they will do, how impossible their situation is, what clues need to be pieced together - and how - and whether or not you could act in the same way as the character.

This is not, of course, implying that all television is great. There is still crap. Stuff like 24 and Heroes exist. Those shows throw out too much logic just to try to do too much, making for terrible television. (Jack Bauer can drive from LA to Santa Monica in ten minutes with no traffic? One character can have how many split personalities that were never, ever noticed before?) But terrible stories are terrible stories, no matter how they are told. A good story can transcend mediums, whether it be in books, graphic novels, movies, television, Internet videos, mobile content, or gas pump monitors. And those good stories are, in my opinion, currently on television right now.

Shows like Pushing Daisies, Samantha Who?, The Closer, The Middleman, Lost, House, Bones, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, 30 Rock, among others, all manage to tell captivating stories that shed plenty of light on a variety of characters in different circumstances, in a wide variety of believable situations. It is not that creativity in books is gone; it is just that there is such incredible creativity in television right now, giving is so many good shows. Good scripted shows.

So here's to you, Jane Tranter. You may have been talking about programming overseas, which include Doctor Who and the seemingly terrible special effects budget of $5/episode. You hit the nail on the head by stating that television is the "narrative" that shapes and defines our lives right now. This is also why there are so many "name" actors in television currently: it is no longer career suicide! There are good, good scripts for television, and television is viewed as a very respectable medium for media professionals. And until those writers shift to somewhere else, I know I'll keep on watching.

What I learned about journalism from "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"

I have been watching The Mary Tyler Moore Show on Hulu and have figured out the following about working in a television newsroom:

• Anchors are idiots: Ted Baxter thinks he is all that and a bag of chips, but he's just a few fries short of a full order. His truly unoriginal ideas, terrible dictation and inability to read complicated names are no match for his inflated ego. There's always been the stereotype that television news anchors are egotistical. Ted Baxter does not prove that wrong.
• Assistant producers have time to shop: I'm not exactly sure what Mary Richards does. From the episodes I've seen, the most work she's done is carry a clipboard and try to run election night coverage. In the meantime, she can take terribly long lunch breaks for all her dates, leave whenever Rhoda needs her and talk about the latest happenings in her life to Lou Grant. All while getting paid enough to keep her apartment.
• News directors are reclusive, angry bosses: Lou Grant is temperamental, tired of working with incompetent people and rarely gives an encouraging word to the staff. He has a soft spot for Mary, but that is hidden behind a alcohol-stained heart.
  
• Writers are under appreciated: Remember Murray, WJM's long suffering news writer and Mary's best co-worker? Took a minute, didn't it? While he may have had some of the best lines each episode, and his sparring with Ted Baxter was endlessly entertaining, news writing just is not that photogenic of a career. And that makes it forgettable and easily under appreciated.
• News networks keep their numbers down: There's a news director, associate producer, news writer, cameraman, set manager, weatherman, sports guy and anchorman. And then about two extras. There are rarely any reporters seen or heard from; the newsrooms guts consist of a few key people. And lest this half-joking post betray you, this point is very true. It takes a lot to make it in "the business," especially in today's new media age. There are only a few, good people who make a newsroom happen.
  

To spoiler, perchance

Hulu is adding something new every day this summer. And they put clues up for the upcoming week. Here's what I deciphered from their clues:
Monday: Lost Highway
Tuesday: Nutty Professor II: The Klumps
Wednesday: Men in Black
Thursday: Jerry Maguire
Friday: The Mary Tyler Moore Show, season 3*

* Funny story there. Best Buy had the first four seasons of MTM on sale. Hulu has the first two seasons up already, so I was deciding whether or not to buy season three of four. I eventually decided on season four, since it had Betty White's character, Su Ann, in it, and I had not seen a Su Ann episode yet. But that left season three "missing" from my existance. However, apparently, no longer!

The greatest hits are always anonymous, anyways

I decided I would make a playlist of 20 songs that I enjoy listening to on the current hits channels on YouTube. The problem I quickly discovered is that, simply put, I don't know names or artists for many songs. I managed to scrape together a playlist, but, I had to get out of this decade and go back some. (I did not want to repeat artists, either, which made my list more difficult.)

The Middleman

Have you caught The Middleman on ABC Family? It is a superhero show, paying major homage to older comic books. And it does it with terrific quips and quirky style. It's like if the old-school Batman TV series met The Gilmore Girls, with maybe a dash of Buffy thrown in. It is a very, campy show, but it knows it is a very, very campy show and uses it to it's full advantage. The show's budget is about what'd you would expect for a show on ABC Family, but the low-budget special effects add to the overall lighthearted feel of the show, which can only be a plus. The characters are well fleshed out and have sufficient motivation and drive. The stories are well-thought out and executed beautifully.

In some respects, the show is almost a Chuck, having someone thrown into unfamiliar situations and having to deal with them, while balancing their top-secret life with their own personal life. (Chuck, of course, being the comedy variation on Alias, which had the same premise.) Here are a few lines which struck me funny during this week's episode. Out of context, and without the (surprisingly good) actors giving their terrific delivery, they lose something. But, I typed them up anyways:

- "I'm as serious as a Hefty bad full of rottweilers."
- "We need to consult someone." "Who?" "Our consultant, of course."
- "I thought you solved your female problems." "I don't think 'female problems' mean what you think."
- "Roxie, this is the middleman. I'm in the middle of a sticky-wicky, so I'll get to it."
- "Can't kill the dead, can I?" "No. But you're funny!"
- "So, what now?" "We have all the time in the world if you'd like to have some sort of emotional breakdown." "Kind of numb right now, but I appreciate the offer."

Guys. The Mole. Is AWESOME.

I exaggerate the quality of television shows sometimes. But this current season of The Mole is so much fun. ABC.com has the entire season up for viewing - just two episodes right now! - so you can get caught up. I won't say who it is, but the person who I thought was the mole WENT HOME THIS EPISODE and now my mind is all confused. It's a detective/mystery/adventure/treasure hunting/exploring/strategy game! Watching The Mole put me in a great mood, no lie.