OTHER PROBLEM--LACK OF "NA NA NA NA, BATMAN!" THEME SONG: So much of Batman Begins is so good (the heroes, the villains, the film's smart and not-overly-heavyhanded political message) that the one misstep sticks out like a sore thumb. The problem? Katie Holmes. Holmes' character is supposed to be the last good, hardass, ADA in Gotham City, and slightly older than Bruce Wayne (who's 30). Given that Holmes' acting range is pretty much limited to "nose-wrinkling cute" and that she's not yet 27 (and looks younger still), she just doesn't work. I'm not sure if Natalie Portman would have been any better, though Sarah Michelle Gellar might've worked out nicely. (According to IMDB, they were finalists for the role.) Holmes comes off as convincingly as an ADA as Elisabeth Rohm did, which ain't sayin' much, but at least she doesn't ask if it's because she's a lesbian.

ALL THE COOL KIDS IN THE SENATE LUNCHROOM TOTALLY WANT TO SIT AT HIS TABLE NOW: In a makeover not the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Plastics took Lindsay Lohan under their tutelage, that skinny kid with the funny name now tops the list of the most popular U.S. Senators (which is, yes, a little like being the tallest midget given the current makeup of the Senate). Barack Obama has a 72 percent approval rating, just topping a group of four other senators (North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy and Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe), who come in at 71 percent.

Interestingly of the 12 senators in the top 10 (three tied for 10th place), nine are Democrats, while of the 12 senators in the bottom 10 (three tied for 89th place), nine are Republicans, including No. 100, John "Stinky" Cornyn.


edited to add: permalink fixed. --ab

I WONDER IF EMILIO ESTEVEZ WILL BE THE BEST MAN AGAIN: Nicole, Mimi, Penelope, and Chris--it's aList of the Past Loves of Cruise and Holmes. And given Tom's predilection for his co-stars, I'm betting he's announcing his divorce to Katie and subsequent engagement to Keri Russell around November.

SWEET AND SOUR: The central problem with the current Broadway revival of Sweet Charity can be summed up with one word-"-pop." This is precisely the sort of show that's supposed to pop off the stage, grab the audience by the lapels, and make the audience love it. There are moments when that “pop” happens, most notably in Denis O'Hare's performance as dweeby accountant Oscar and in the “I Love To Cry at Weddings” number. But Charity herself never pops, and that's where the show ultimately fails.

You've probably read or heard about Christina Applegate's travails to play the role of Charity. First, Marisa Tomei and Jane Krakowski had the part before her. Only asfter they dropped out did Applegate get a chance. Then, during the show's tryout run in Boston, Applegate fractured her foot, and it didn't look like she could open the show. The show was cancelled, but due to Applegate's efforts, got put back on the calendar. It was the perfect setup for a fairy tale ending if Applegate triumphed. Unfortunately, she doesn't. Her comic timing and physical comedy are (unsurprisingly) top-notch, and her dancing is technically very good, though not particularly interesting. The problem's with the singing. Charity has to be able to stand on stage alone and command the theatre with her voice and presence for the show to work, and Applegate just can't do that. She's not helped by her costume, a red dress that's obviously intended to pop, but due to lighting and staging, never does.

The show itself has several problems of its own--it doesn't really get going until the leading man appears in the last scene of Act I, the resolute ambiguity of the (apparently new) ending doesn't give the audience any sense of completion, and the Act II opener, “The Rhythm of Life,” has not aged well.

All that said, I still enjoyed myself. It's a show where people are clearly passionate about what they're doing, and I found it far better than the listless La Cage revival that beat it for Best Revival at the Tonys. I just wonder if there could have been a better show with someone else in the lead (I think Krakowski would have been great, and to suggest a Broadway couple--Amy Spanger as Charity and Michael C. Hall as Oscar).

Also, a couple of reality TV related notes. First, I saw a TAR on GSN cabtop on 8th Avenue, indicating that the airing will begin in a few short weeks. Second, on the A train downtown, there was a guy wearing his "Project Runway: Backstage Access" pass--perhaps filming has already begun.

TRUE, IT DID ALSO YIELD TIM MEADOWS: Some potentially good cultural news -- Lorne Michaels is looking for fresh talent in Chicago to restock SNL.

It was pretty much exactly a decade ago that I saw Rachel Dratch doing the Denise character at Second City. (If I saw Tina Fey during my three years -- and I went to SC shows fairly often, esp. the free late-night improv sessions -- she didn't make an impression.)

Given the Second City alumni track record, we can only hope for better things from 30 Rock this year -- so long as most of the current cast leaves, mind you.

$275,000 WOULD BARELY PAY FOR A WEEK'S WORTH OF BIZ-DEVELOPMENT RAILS A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLASTIC SURGEON BLOWS OFF THE FAKE BOOBS HE INSTALLED: I have serious problems with salary.com's list of the salaries of top TV dads. First, the top five are the heads of family-founded and principally family-owned businesses -- Carrington, Ewing, Drummond, Gioberti, Jefferson -- who would probably take low base salaries and make their money on stock grants or sales of previously-owned stock. Second, a guy who makes $527,000 annually doesn't live in a cheaply-built demo model house and drive a stair car.

THEY WERE THE BEST OF TEENS; THEY WERE THE WORST OF TEENS: Everybody who knows me knows I love teen culture (to be more accurate, I love the culture that fully-grown adults attempt to peddle to teens as if it were teen culture). TNBC, Cruel Intentions, Real World/Road Rules Challenge, slutty-era Xtina -- these are my specialties. My favorite slice of this genre is teen-oriented TV fiction, which shares a rigid set of rules with kabuki theater and full drag: stylized costumes and garish colors, characters that are little more than reified tics and impulses; exaggeration of emotion and certain human weaknesses; ritualistic pantomime and performance. The acting us usually pretty comically wooden too. I eat this stuff up.

Over the last couple of weeks, freed from obligations to supposedly better TV, I tuned in to two teen shows that I hadn't seen before. Superficially, these two shows -- Smallville and DeGrassi: the Next Generation -- bear a lot of resemblance to each other (and to another of my favorite teen dramas, Just Deal). They are shot cheaply in Canada with a lot of local actors and extras, and they follow -- frequently with a 10,000 Maniacs-like focus on the social ill of the week -- a bunch of teens around their high school.

Don't be fooled. These shows are the exact opposite of each other. DeGrassi shows teens as they are: pimply; frequently stupid; awkward; fucking up in ways glorious and mundane. Characters you're supposed to like do reprehensible things. You have to admire the balls of a show that builds a special Christmas episode around breakups of two long-term relationships after dual infidelities. That's the holiday spirit, Canada! I have two chief complaints. First, there are about 100 regular characters. Are there that many people in Canada? Second, the kids are not attractive enough for TV. I don't mean they're midwestern-state-fair ugly; just Canadian unattractive. (Have I ever mentioned that I have infallible Canadar?) That kind of look has its place (Canada), but I live in California, people! We have standards. It's a serious breach of the teen-kabuki rules.

In total contrast, as far as I can tell the principal plot arc in Smallville is that impossibly, unbelievably, mind-alteringly hot teens (or teen-ishes) bounce around until their clothes fall off. I cannot for the life of me explain what happened in the episodes that I saw -- something about magical Gatorade and forgiveness and turning people scaly with a kiss -- but I can say that Kristin Kreuk, ostensibly Canadian but looking like if she stepped on the set of DeGrassi it would instantly cease to exist out of deference to her magnificence, has huge green sad-clown eyes and rosy cheeks and should never under any circumstances try to act. Erica Durance's breasts flounce around solving mysteries, foiling malfeasors but being foiled -- barely -- by the valiantly straining threads of her tops. And lest you think the eye candy is only the fairer variety, Clark Kent has apparently joined a football team comprised of ambisexual A&F Quarterly models whose uniforms consist entirely of sweat and towels and who conduct all team business in an overheated locker room. In short, there is not a single actor from DeGrassi anywhere near hot enough even to play Ugly Bystander on this show.

So why is DeGrassi more watchable?