television

The Glee of “Grilled Cheesus”

Christian Buckley — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:10:17 -0700

First the admission – then the issue.

Admission – I watch Glee. I could make a litany of excuses, but suffice to say, I once played Sky Masterson in Guys and Dolls, have seen more than a few dozen (like 5 dozen or so) musicals/operas, am constantly amazed by the vocal ability of the actors on the show, and just plain like a good song sung well. I could do without the plots and dialogue and questionable moral choices, etc., etc., etc. – but I do like the voices and Lea Michelle is about as good as they come.

If you missed it, and you might have missed it, last week Glee did a show called “Grilled Cheesus” where one of the main characters cooks up a tasty grilled cheese (I like those too, with our without a song) and sees the image of Jesus burned into the bread. From there the plot unfolds and so do the offensive, dare I say blasphemous (praying over an image of Christ in the hope of fondling a girl’s chest), depictions of Christ and Christianity. If you want the full details you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grilled_Cheesus , or you can just trust me that the show went there and brought the atheist anti-dumb Christian perspective along for the ride.

So there I sat. On the one hand angry and offended and on the other hand wondering if that was the right reaction. The show eventually tried to pull it all together in some quasi “you’re okay I’m okay” ecumenical gay-straight-atheist-christian-jew hug fest; but the message was clear – intolerance is not to be tolerated and Christians are a bit silly.

A few stray thoughts:

1. Every time Christians are unfairly portrayed and vilified (if not mocked) on television – they are portrayed on television. Hard to imagine an episode of “Grilled Dali Lama” or “Grilled Darwin” making it through the first pitch meeting. You don’t bash what you don’t care about. You don’t discuss what is irrelevant. If we are trying to enter into a discussion with the world we should not complain when they throw out the first line – no matter how much we don’t like that line.

2. Anger v. Compassion. On the one hand I hate a show like “Grilled Cheesus” because it wounds my soul. I do believe in eternity and a compassionate God that has reached out his hand to us and when He is mocked it hurts. I am more than tired of the idea that everyone in human history that believed or believes in God (let alone the God of the Bible) is intellectually and morally inferior to those few individuals that “figured out” there was no God. But on the other hand, we have to rejoice in the fact that all over the world People are trying to figure out meaning and value and life. The fact that People are willing to fight of Christ means they still believe there is something worth fighting over and we, like the One who is mocked, must engage that fight with compassion.

3. If it’s on Glee – it’s on Campus. We can’t stick our heads in the sand and think that Glee represents something other than a bloated depiction of what is really happening on campus. Don’t hide from this reality.

4. Jesus matters – not Christianity. The picture on the sandwich wasn’t a bible or church or cross or religion – it was Jesus. If we make the fight about anything other than the eternally transformative truth of Christ crucified and Raised – we will lose. We should point people to Christ not us – whether on a sandwich or not.

Glee isn’t a good show. In fact, it isn’t worth watching. But the fact that about 12 MILLION kids and adults all over America heard the name of Jesus and were forced to consider His existence – that’s worth something isn’t it?

Quick Hits

Christopher Faris — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:06:33 -0700

It's been awhile since I have sat down to flesh out some thoughts regarding recent DVD releases and new films in the theaters, but I wanted to call attention to the films anyways:

I was hoping to give a full fledged review to Tim Burton's vision of "Alice in Wonderland," but I fell asleep during the film. I remember that it was colorful. That may be review enough...

"Date Night" was really funny and even deeper than one might expect. It's a great ride, but the strength of the film squarely depends on your feeling about its leads (whom I really like). Otherwise, the story and comedic territory will feel mostly familiar.

"In The Loop" is probably really funny - but seeing as I don't know the ins and outs of politics, I didn't appreciate it or get it like I probably should have. Also, I normally can stomach verbal vulgarities, but some of it was pointlessly strong in this one. A rental for the curious is recommended.

"Gentleman Broncos" had one of my favorite trailers of the year (surveillance doe's!), but was an unfathomably bad movie. I had a hard time believing all the bad reviews after having seen the trailer, but after having seen it it just goes to show how misleading those 2 minute clips can be. Remember "Garden State"? Anyways, Jemaine Clement is great, but the rest of this movie was as terrible as anything I've seen in a long time. Reliance on vomit and testical humor seem to further diminish the fun that could have been had.

Speaking of awesome movie trailers, "Black Dynamite" was another favorite trailer. Though I am not a blaxploitation cinema devotee, the film still delivers big laughs, kung fu, and a 100 dollar suit. See the trailer on youtube and give it a rent. It's what "Undercover Brother" tried to be, but instead of mimicking "Austin Powers," "Black Dynamite" aims to recreate the period - complete with music, film grain, and costumes. A scene about Little Richard had me in stitches. It's all about the wink and a smile.

Speaking of smiling but not much else, I think I am one of only several who appreciated "Couples Retreat." I'll agree that the humor is very "meh" and Vince Vaughn's presence is starting to feel stale. However, it was great to see a film where the couples represented a stage nearly all people in committed relationships can identify with. Worth discussing, but an overall missed opportunity.

I have now seen "A Serious Man" 3 times. Like the Coens previous work "No Country For Old Men," this is a movie that just keeps on giving. Repeated viewings have illuminated various themes and meanings, while leaving all of the wit and irony in its place. A most recommended film, but be prepared to talk about it afterwards.

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a great rental, but had it been directed by anyone else I doubt I would have cared. Wes Andersons stop motion world is indeed fun to take part in, and his OCD camerawork is given that much more control. However, the humor felt misguided. Maybe its just me, but putting The Rolling Stones in the soundtrack for this type of a movie feels like its trying a tad much. It's possibly my least favorite film of his, but hardly bad.

Speaking of Wes Anderson, here's my Wes ratings from favorite to least - Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, The Darjeeling Limited, The Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

On the TV end of things, "Mad Men" is the television show that just keeps on giving. If you haven't seen it, give it a go. Season 3 just hit your local retailer. Great writing, great characters, and great visual detail create a world I can't help but be curious with.

"Modern Family" is growing on me immensely, but the comparisons to "Arrested Development" are not even close. You see, "Arrested Development" is the greatest show in the history of mankind. There is no show in memory (and I'm thinking of Seinfeld too) that has tighter writing, consistent energy, and brilliant characters (I stress that I rarely use the word brilliant to describe something). But for what it is, it delivers lots of great laughs.

Speaking of laughing, I want to point out how thankful I am that "Flight of the Conchords" stopped. Season 2 was hardly the amazingness that was Season 1.

There's the fun if (incredibly) formulaic "30 Rock." It's enjoyable enough this season with plenty of laughs, but something about the proceedings feels too easy. Maybe its the fact that most of the jokes rely on a 3 step system, where one of the 3 stated things is going to obviously be a pun. And, for someone like Tina Fey who appears to have a disdain for "Family Guy," it seems odd to continue the stream of cutaways...

Speaking of the Griffin family, I have come to realize that "Family Guy" is the TV equivalent of junk food - a guilty pleasure that is hardly satisfying, usually indulged in as a result of cravings, and is often gross. Yet...I still consume.

I hear that the Criterion Collection is going to be releasing "The Darjeeling Limited" and "The Thin Red Line" on bluray, which gets me excited. Any chance we could pursuade them to take it further and give us Malick's first film "Badlands" and Swedish filmmaker Lukas Moodyson's "Lilja 4-Ever"?

What have you seen lately?

SHEER GLEE

Craig Detweiler — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:51:35 -0700

Perhaps American Idol’s fading star is attributable to the musical polish of GLEE. On this week’s episode, the poignant melodies of Burt Bacharach fueled some of the most memorable television I’ve seen in years. The late Luther Vandross turned "A House is Not a Home" into a powerhouse, show stopping production. But Glee added another layer of heartbreak when Kurt sang it as a tribute to Finn. Now, the ‘chair’ is much more than a chair. It is a symbol of the loss of a parent, the loss of innocence, the unrequited love of a male cheerleader for the class jock. That’s a lotta drama packed into one scene and song and show.

On the other side of the Cheerios cheerleading squad, body image became a highly charged issue.

With Sue Sylvester pressuring the team to lose ten pounds, Mercedes Jones faced an internal (and external) crisis. Teaching at PepperdineUniversity, I’ve been reintroduced to the pressures faced by teen girls to conform to unrealistic beauty standards and body sizes. It is a significant issue on our campus. And as a father, I have a very vested interest in seeing our standards shift to a healthier balance. So I was thrilled to see Mercedes belt out Christina Aguilera’s “Beautiful” as a protest anthem for plus sized women everywhere. Her background chorus of those who never quite fit in made for a rousing renunciation of Sue Sylvester.

Perhaps the reappearance of Amber (played by the remarkable Kristen Chenoweth) elevated everybody’s game this week. Will seemed genuinely moved to see her spunky energy emanating from a roller rink. Amber is so frank and unapologetic about her alcoholism and weaknesses. Their reunion at the rink brought real “Fire” to Bruce Springsteen’s pop song. It is so encouraging to see classic tunes ‘released’ by their publishers (and songwriters) to be rediscovered in primetime. The record companies are finally desperate enough to make the songs available to a new generation of performers, shows, and fans.

Amber and Will also provided my favorite TV moment of the year, their stirring duet on “One Less Bell to Answer.” Kudos to Glee’s director, Paris Barclay, for creating such a cinematic moment for the small screen. And how captivating to bring “A House is Not a Home” in for a reprise. The creators of Glee seem to have gotten inside the songs, recognizing the genuine pathos behind our finest, seemingly disposable pop songs. I can’t remember when I was so moved by such simple staging and unadorned singing. It generated sheer Glee. Anybody agree?

Some Screen Time for your Screen Time

Kristen Howerton — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:40:13 -0800

I may not be a cock-eyed optimist. But something about So You Think You Can Dance makes me feel a little better about the world. Who doesn't love a show full of fun dance numbers? It's part talent show, part eye candy, and part artistic expression: a reality show that isn't about celebrity or idiocy but rather about talent and athleticism; stamina and creativity.

I was so excited for the season to really start, because I am not a fan of the audition weeks' Parade of Freaks, and was ready for the top twenty to show their stuff. Now, I am a seriously sleep-deprived mom, and prone to a bit of the curmudgeondry as of late. but the new set on the show was sending me through the roof. To the point where, fifteen minutes in, I was already badgering my husband with, "Do you see this set? Are you SEEING this? What is with this, Mark? Whaaaat?"

So that set. The oval shape is annoying. The weird florescent elephant-tusks on the sides are distracting. But what is with the jumbotron behind the dancers? It was playing scenes of glittery graphics or mutating stock photos throughout every dance number. Because, why? We can't possibly be expected to watch just dancing? Has our collective ADD gotten so bad that we have to watch something on a tv set behind what we are watching on the tv set?

As I tried to analyze why this jazzed-up set was so under my skin, it dawned on me that so many of us are trying to actually reduce our screen time . . . to spend less time in front of the computer screen or tv set. Granted, this is still a tv show, and a reality show at that, but there was always something about it that seemed a little elevated. Just two beautiful dancers, on a minimalist stage, expressing joy and beauty and frustration with their bodies.

AND NOW IN FRONT OF A GAZILLION-WATT SCREEN PLAYING A GIANT SCREEN-SAVER GRAPHIC. Just in case you were getting bored.

But as I waxed philosophical about why this was so bothersome for me, I had a vague memory of thinking the same thing about some worship experiences I've had recently. At some of the churches I've attended, or camps I've visited, it seems like the new trend is to have the song lyrics projected in front of a moving vignette of pictures on the big screen. Some of the ones I've seen include a rapid-shot sunset in front of a cross, a glass of water being filled, or a page being filled with water-color brushstrokes. I recall thinking that it seemed a bit strange - did we really need to watch moving scenery during our worship? Was just plain worship no longer enough?

It's a tricky business, this relationship we have with our "screens". I'm sure in both instances, the powers-that-be are assuming that a little extra visual stimulation is necessary to hold the attention of a generation hooked on screen-time. The whole phenomenon makes me wonder if this shift to hyper-media has become a way of being relevant, even in the church. What do you think? Is more screen time just fostering our corporate attention deficit? Or is it a matter of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?"

Best TV of the 2000s

Brett McCracken — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:53:22 -0800

In 2020, will there be TV anymore? Who knows. But on the off chance that the death of television hasn’t been greatly exaggerated and is indeed imminent, we can at least celebrate the good twilight years that were the 2000s. In case TV fades into oblivion or merges with the Internet or something, this wasn’t such a bad decade to have ended on.

Here are my picks for the best TV shows of the decade:

1) Friday Night Lights (NBC, 2006-present): This show, based on a movie that was based on a book, became the best adapted television show of all time. More than a high school football show, FNL is beautiful rendered, stunningly mature look at Middle America. It’s close to perfect on almost every level and one of the great dramas of the contemporary network era.

2) Lost (ABC, 2004-present): There’s nothing else like Lost on TV, though there have been plenty of imitators. The Twin Peaks-esque sci-fi mystery show has gotten better in its five seasons, and its time-traveling, shape-shifting perplexities only get more interesting. This is to say nothing of the insanely perfect ensemble cast and memorable characters that have compelled audiences to truly care and watch, sans irony, for all these years.

3) Arrested Development (FOX, 2003-2006): This show might be the most tragically short-lived and under-seen on this list. But it’s also the best comedy. Hands down. If you haven’t seen this show (which launched the careers of people like Michael Cera, Jason Bateman and Will Arnett) you must get on it right away.

4) The Office (NBC, 2005-present): Though the British series is hard to top, the American version (which at 6 seasons is now a much more substantial body of comedy) quickly became one of the best comedies of the decade, capturing the zeitgeist of the YouTube era better than any other show on TV.

5) Mad Men (AMC, 2007-present): This is the show that got hipsters obsessed with television again. It’s a show that has so much indie cred: It’s bleak, sexy, fashionable, 60s lux, and on AMC! But it’s also just really great, nuanced, challenging TV. This show offers television what Don Draper’s vodka offers his martinis: Top shelf quality.

6) 30 Rock (NBC, 2006-present): As richly intertextual and self-reflexive as Arrested Development and with a cast equally as brilliant, 30 Rock just might be the comedy that saves NBC. It’s been a slow gainer since its low-rated first season, but it’s only gotten better with time.

7) The Wire (HBO, 2002-2008): I read something once that said that after watching The Wire, there’s no way anyone could watch CSI: Miami without stabbing their eyes out with a fork. And I think that’s about accurate. The Wire is HBO’s verite show about urban life in Baltimore, and though I’ve only seen the first two of its five seasons, I can understand why the critics frequently hail it as one of the best television shows of all time. It’s gritty, prestige TV of the finest order.

8) American Idol (Fox, 2002-present): This is the show that has dominated the decade in ratings and reality TV trends. After Idol came all the other dancing, performing, talent shows. But Idol’s contribution was also to the emerging landscape of “convergence” television in general—perfecting the art of audience interactivity, product placement, and trans-media storytelling (a live show, a concert tour, single available on iTunes, etc). It’s not Citizen Kane or anything, but it’s a ridiculously well-oiled machine of moneymaking pop entertainment. And I applaud that.

9) Friends (NBC, 1994-2004): Yes, this show was on in the 2000s, and while it might not have been the best years for the show, it was still pretty darn good post-Y2K. By the end the six “friends” had become icons getting $1 million a piece for each episode. The show was THAT huge.

10) Laguna Beach (MTV, 2004-2006): Before The Hills became a parody of the genre, there was the exquisitely rendered, truly original reality/soap hybrid Laguna Beach. Its celebration of conspicuous consumption and rich white American youth ushered in a new era for MTV and the youth culture at large. Real teens acting like actors playing real teens, driving Range Rovers and wearing Stella McCartney coats… GREAT TV.

Honorable Mention: The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Chapelle’s Show, Da Ali G Show, Dexter, South Park, Rome, Prison Break.

That Shoe Guy, Part 2

Barb Sherrill — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:26:43 -0700

So, I've been doing some more thinking about that Shoe Guy, Blake Mycoskie.

He's the founder of TOMs shoes, where for every pair they sell, they give a pair away to children in need. (I seriously never get tired of seeing his AT&T commercial.) I've been thinking a lot about how I could put into practice this 1-to-1 ratio of giving.

And I ran into something pretty simple just the other day. I had gone shopping with a friend, and I came home with two pairs of shoes, a sweater, and two pairs of pants (we had gone to the big city of Portland to shop, so it was shopping with a purpose!). When I got home and started putting the items away, Blake the Shoe Guy popped into my mind.

And I knew what I could do.

As I put a new pair of shoes into my closet, I found a pair to give away to my local Goodwill store. I did the same with the pants, the sweater, and the other pair of shoes.

And it wasn't hard at all...well, not too hard.

I'm an employed American. Odds are, I'm going to have more than I need in my closet--and I do. But this time I wasn't giving things to Goodwill because they had worn out to where I wasn't going to wear them anymore (but someone else might) or because I had forgotten they were hanging in my closet (and had been since 1997). In the spirit of the 1-to-1 ratio, I gave away clothes I liked (and still wore) and shoes I liked and still wore (I confess, that was harder than the clothes!). After all, TOMs wasn't giving loser shoes to these kids in need, so I shouldn't try to get away with giving loser items either.

Two good things have come of this little exercise.

First, it's good that giving should sometimes cost me more than I might really want to give--especially because of who might receive it. Someone who might never have been able to afford it in a department store is going to find a cool green sweater in Goodwill that's still going to look good this fall. When I look at it this way, it's a lot easier to give away things I love. Someone else can enjoy them too!

Second, I'm going to think long and hard before purchasing new clothes and/or new shoes from here on out--because something in my closet (and something I love) is going to have to go when I do. Slowing down my consumeristic tendencies is always good (don't tell the capitalists!).

So, thanks once again, Shoe Guy. You've shown me a better way.

What's Next? InnBeeSea?

Barb Sherrill — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:43:43 -0700

I can't keep quiet about it any longer.

Earlier this month, the SciFi Channel officially changed its name to SyFy.

What the...?

According to Dave Howe, channel president, "We made a commitment to grow into a global lifestyle brand....The new name positions us as having our own attitude and personality, which gives us permission to do a broader range of shows."

So, they link together four letters that mean absolutely nothing and still pronounce it "SciFi"? Hard to think that's going to be that effiective in broadening out the market into a global lifestyle brand.

Before, under SciFi, the target market just looked like a bunch of geeks.

Now, the target market looks like a bunch of geeks who can't spell.

We geeks aren't going to take too kindly to that.

I'm pretty sure SyFy is now the only television channel whose letters stand for absolutely nothing. HBO = Home Box Office. ABC = American Broadcasting Company. HGTV = Home and Garden Television. Oxygen = well, I don't exactly understand that one, but at least it's a real word.

I'm not sure what got their panties in a wad in the first place. So, they're the SciFi Channel. So what? That doesn't mean they can't go beyond scifi in their programming. Other channels certainly haven't let their monikers dictate what they broadcast. Honestly, when was the last time I actually learned something watching TLC? And since when does a reality show focusing on brutal murders, blood spatter patterns, and DNA evidence qualify as either "Arts" or "Entertainment" (Cold Case Files on A&E)?

SyFy, I think all you've done is manage to insult your core audience in this process, which is too bad. I think you've forgotten that science fiction has given us some of the most creative and intelligent (and long-running!) television on record, and it's delivered some of the most hardcore, tv-watching fans you'll ever find (which advertisers and product licensors love). We may be geeky, but we're not a bad demographic.

(SyFy's website is a lot more honest about the change: They could never "own" SciFi, and that was becoming a problem. You know, had their spokespeople said that from the start, we'd feel a little less insulted.)

Ah, well. I'll still watch. And perhaps that's what SyFy has known all along--its core audience of science fiction geeks don't care too much about branding and image (just take a look at the people attending any convention involving the words comic con or Star Trek, and you'll see exactly what I mean). We are who we are, and we're proud of it. Call the channel SciFi, SyFy, SighFi, or SemperFi--we don't care! As long as you're carrying our shows, we'll watch.

But I understand there are those outside the scifi world who wouldn't be caught dead in the scifi world, and, for those people, perhaps "SyFy" becomes more palatable, perhaps they'll give a show a try if they don't feel like they have to wear Spock ears and speak Klingon to be on board--a show they may very well end up loving. If that's the case, I'm for it. I don't want to keep people away from the genre I love--I want to invite them in.

Huh.

I wonder. Have we done the same thing with our Christianity? Kept people out just by how we choose to talk about it?

I'm not talking about changing the essentials of the Christian faith to make it more palatable (SyFy is still going to broadcast Stargate: SG-1 marathons, for example). I'm just wondering if we haven't sometimes made the image, the lingo of Christianity so insider that people would think it couldn't possibly be for them. Or, from what they've seen of Christianity, they wouldn't be caught dead in that world.

You know, I don't want to keep people away from the Jesus I love--I want to invite them in.

No Spock ears or Klingon language required.

THE WIRE: Small Screen, Big Picture

Craig Detweiler — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:54:46 -0700

Looking for a TV series to dig into this summer? Check out the five seasons of THE WIRE on DVD. Several of my friends have been blow away by the depth of characters and compassion generated by this riveting series. I write about it in a new book, SMALL SCREEN, BIG PICTURE, edited by Diane Winston. It chronicles how religious impulses are lived out on shows like The Sopranos, Lost, Deadwood, and Battlestar Galactica. I deal with David Simon’s acclaimed series, The Wire. Here is a small excerpt from my chapter:

Once upon a time, I cared about the inner city. Back in the 1980s, I started an urban Young Life program in my hometown, Charlotte, North Carolina. Our team of volunteer leaders joined the efforts of Progressive Baptist Church. Each afternoon, Reverend Charles Mack opened his church’s doors to the teenagers from Dalton Village, the public housing project across the street. We offered tutoring, games, and occasional field trips. The teens wore out the carpet and broke a few chairs, but Reverend Mack considered that a small price to pay for offering a safe haven from the street corners.

For a wealthy city with a booming economy, Charlotte had an alarming murder rate amongst the black community. I crossed over the tracks to tutor teens at Progressive Baptist in an effort to put my faith into practice. I remember joining a casual game of pick up basketball in the middle of Dalton Village. Beepers lined the court, signs of the players’ trade. When they weren’t shooting hoops, they were slinging drugs, just a beep away from their boss or a hungry client. They all seemed too young to be in business. They were flunking math in school, but practicing the economic law of supply and demand.
Yet, amidst such active drug dealers, I never feared for my safety. An assault or robbery of a white male would bring inordinate attention to the drug trade in Dalton Village. But how could an after-school program combat the systemic roots of a complex problem? Did I merely serve as a conduit for white guilt, an easy way for donors to feel like they were supporting the inner city? I positioned myself as a youth minister who demonstrated a different side of ‘the man.’ The teens feared the police, but welcomed me. While many in the white community considered my efforts to offer tutoring and friendship ‘brave’, the true courage came from young men and women who dared to get up in the morning and face another day on the court of life.
The endangered species on that basketball court was the young black male, guys like James Owens, who admitted, “I don’t expect to reach sixteen.” The basketball players shot fast, played hard, aware that this game of hoops was only a temporary respite from a much more brutal game they were playing in Dalton Village. Reverend Mack’s best efforts to shelter James proved ineffective. James never celebrated his sixteenth birthday. He may have played a prank on the wrong person, acted a bit too much of ‘the fool.’ Or James may have been guilty of nothing more than growing up in the crossfire of west Charlotte. He was the first of far too many Dalton Village teens I befriended and Reverend Mack buried. Success proved elusive.
The acclaimed television show, The Wire, delves into a similar neighborhood, rooted in the experiences of white cops and Anglo reporters, who covered the streets of Baltimore in the late 80s. It is an examination of the failed war on drugs, told with passionate, prophetic rage. It offers moments of genuine humanity amidst a sea of hopelessness. Religion offers scant comfort compared to the crippling effects of ‘the game’, the drug trade that threatens to swallow cops and robbers. Viewers searching for signs of life must look closely amidst a culture of death. Yet, the individuals treading the wire between law and order press on, despite the odds.

Variety suggested that, “When television history is written, little else will rival The Wire.” Slate magazine went even further, calling The Wire “surely the best TV show ever broadcast in America.” So, why has it failed to develop a broad following? Despite nearly universal critical acclaim, The Wire has attracted comparatively few viewers and no Emmys. Perhaps its vision of the American city is perceived as too angry, too negative or too hopeless. The Wire explores America’s shifting priorities from the costly ‘war on drugs’ to the post 9/11 ‘war on terror’. The Wire examines the collateral damage of these un-winnable wars amongst America’s underclass, specifically within Baltimore. The Wire chronicles the collapse of Baltimore’s ports, the rise of drug barons, the ineffectiveness of the educational system and the complicity of the media.

So get the book. And for a compelling introduction to the HBO series, check out Bill Moyers’ interview with series creator, David Simon here.

Hooray for Hollywood

Barb Sherrill — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:32:45 -0800

So, I'm not watching American Idol...yet.

Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about my second year with AI. I've been looking forward to it for months!

Will we have another David vs.David-like showdown this season?

Which fan favorite will drive Simon absolutely over the edge?

Will the music mentors be younger than my grandparents?

Oh, yes. I'm excited!

But I simply can't do the auditions. I just can't. I know for a lot of people, that's their favorite part of the competition--seeing the good, the bad, and the ugly of American pop star wannabes. And there is a part of me that would love to see the first auditions of those who are going to make it far on the show.

But nope. Not gonna do it. A couple of years ago, I happened upon one of those audition shows, and who did I see but Leopard Man singing his heart out.

I was scarred for life.

So, I'll wait for Hollywood, thank you very much. I'm not sure what that says about me and my inability to not feel completely embarrassed for people I don't even know, but I'm not going to read too much into it.

I'm just going to play my David Cook album for now and bide my time. Hollywood is coming.