MY SISTER IS WAITING FOR US IN CHINA. WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO HER IF WE DON'T GET HER? I've given Smash two episodes, and my basic reaction is this: who wrote this shit? Look: I'm a big fan of cliched backstage stories so long as there's some wit or self-awareness involved, but this is done so straight and predictably that I feel like I'm laughing at characters who don't know they're being laughed at. Really: when you tell us early on that Dev has a Very Very Important Dinner for which Karen Cannot Possibly Be Late ... and then she's late, and Dev reacts exactly the way you'd expect if this were a dumb and predictable show... one starts to believe this is, in fact, a dumb and predictable show.
As Alan notes, the show has a serious case of Studio 60-itis, in which the writers feel the constant need to have other characters tell us just how brilliant and wonderful everyone is (the scene with the adoption letter, ugh), with minimal evidence that the characters are, in fact, all that. Indeed, yet again, we've got an NBC behind-the-scenes drama that comes with much hype, and with talent behind the scenes and on stage whom we've liked in the past ... and the execution just isn't there. I may watch it just to laugh at it, but I'm certainly not enjoying it on its own terms.
I've just gotten into Slings and Arrows (another backstage show - totally worth it and free on many premium streamy things) and had finished watching episode 2 last night. When I clicked it off, I saw just a bit of the Smash episode. It suffered mightily from the comparison, not as much telling-in-place-of-showing that you're complaining of in that little part, but a lot of unsubtle allcaps SHOWING. But I liked the number.
ReplyDeleteI got Slings and Arrows for holiday time. I'm pretty sure I finished before New Years. Easily one of my favorite shows ever.
ReplyDeleteThe backstage stuff is predictable, but well done, and the musical numbers are pretty spectacular, but ugh, the entirety of the adoption plotline.
ReplyDeleteAlso, we've written an entire score (which is pretty decent, at least what we've heard of it) and still have no idea what the book/structure is beyond it being about Marilyn Monroe? Really?
Your post title hit the nail on the head, Adam. That scene with Debra Messing's son was gag-inducing. How old is this kid supposed to be? He looks like he's 15, and he's pulling "But I wanted a baby SISTER!" tantrums? The adoption letter scene was pretty bad, too - not to mention that she and her husband seemed to resolve this conflict by not talking about it at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we're on the subject - why isn't the husband working? And am I supposed to believe that they can afford this house they live in because she's an award-winning musical writer?
Plus, I seriously don't see that a director would work that closely with an actress on her callback - including renting studio space and bringing in three other dancers - to get her dancing skills up to the level of her competitor, especially not for a workshop. (Half the time, workshops don't even have choreography at that stage.)
I'll keep watching, because I'm a theater person and I like the talent behind the show. But it's gotta get better than this.
I haven't even seen Ep2 yet (an after reading this post and comments, may not), but what disapointed me most in the pilot was that we saw nothing of the process of actually writing a musical. It was just "a Marilyn musical sounds cool" and then "we have songs." What I thought the show was going to be was one that showed what the process of writing a musical was like from the inside, almost a TV drama version fo Sondheim's annotated lyrics books. (I mean process in the way that, for example, The West Wing showed the details and ins and outs of the process, not just the results. On the West Wing we didn't hear actual full speeches, but saw the angst that went into writing/approving them. Here we just see the speeches).
ReplyDeleteAgreed! Lots of things suffer in comparison to Slings and Arrows.
ReplyDeleteI thought episode 2 was better than episode 1. The production numbers have been great, and I loved Megan Hilty's take on Crazy Dreams at the close. I agree that the book needs some work, but I'm interested enough in the concept to stick with it.
ReplyDeleteI too was disappointed last night. Megan Hilty is such a great performer (this is my first introduciton to her), and I think her brilliance is definitely casting a shadow over McPhee (who is a wonderful singer, but can't belt it out Broadway style). I find the choreographer to be so over-the-top cliche. And I'm sure if McPhee's character said, "Can I just make a quick phone call?" he probably would have been fine with that (or am I being completely naive?). And I agree about the whole adoption plot...why on earth does this boy so desperately need a sister when he'll be heading off to college in a year or two? I can understand the family being disappointed, and he would certainly share in that, but that was a ridiculous scene. And the house...yes, the house! If her last name were Lloyd Weber, I'd understand that back patio. Maybe they live over the river and through a tunnel, but man...that house is way too big for any one in the tri-state area to afford on one "normal" salary, in a field where work isn't steady. I'll give the show a few more chances, but they may need to step up their game.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't seem like the same show last night. Everything got overwrought too quickly. The whole McPhee boyfriend getting wiggy? It didn't chide with anything they developed with that character the week before. I'm hanging in for one more week, and if it doesn't get better, I'm out.
ReplyDeleteI think the phone call thing was semi-realistic. That character would be so scared that even sending a quick text or call (much less asking for permission to do so) would be viewed as an affront and lose her the gig that I can see her not asking.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem we're having is that "Heaven and Earth" is apparently a pretty big hit, but they're having trouble finding financing for a new show?
<span>Just chiming in with some additional "Slings and Arrows" love. The show is an example of exactly what I want in a messy backstage story. I think they did an excellent job of having some classic moments of "Yes, those stereotypes are so true," mixed with a surprising turns and interesting character developments. The other thing that "Slings and Arrows" did very well was incorporating on stage performance moments that were good solid theater. They didn't have to </span>tell<span> us their actors were good; their actors </span>were<span> good.</span>
ReplyDeleteI've had the DVD set of Slings and Arrows for ages, but haven't gotten around to watching it. Guess I should! It'll be my next show after The Wire.
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched last night's ep, but I wasn't at all blown away by the first ep. And I've heard from twitter that the 3rd ep is the worst one, so consider yourselves warned. I hear it does improve a bit from there, but it's so annoying already. How anyone would choose Katherine McPhee over Megan Hilty for a Marilyn musical is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteI think I went from "I'm intrigued" to "I'm done" quicker than I ever have before. I agree with all the complaints here, but what that means to me is that I don't trust the show's writers enough to know when they're telling a story no one should possibly care about. And not just the adoption stuff, but most of the backstage stuff as well. I just don't care. I also don't like Megan Hilty -- I think she's a remarkably unlikeable presence in this show.
ReplyDeletePlus, we just saw MY WEEK WITH MARILYN, a movie that, even with its critical success, I think is underrated. I just can't see McPhee or Hilty as Marilyn so soon after Michelle Williams' remarkable performance. (I know the timing isn't the show's fault. But still.)
Having said all that, I DO like what we've heard of the score for the musical, and it seems like a show I'd love to see. Or, at least, a soundtrack I'd like to own.
Nothing really to add to the above - agree with all that's been said, just wanted to add my voice to the choir. Too bad.
ReplyDeleteRandom digression: Have we ever had a good old fashioned OMG WTF thread on changes in books/movies/etc. for region that don't need to happen? I understand that the guy who reads Harry Potter in Amurican is lovely and has won Grammys (and is actually a Brit, so you get the posh), but STEPHEN FRY reads it in the UK. I want STEPHEN FRY. And I think kids could have dealt with the fact that it says "jumpers" and "trainers" in the original and figured it out or used one of them fancy Internets that they're always on about. A Philosopher's Stone sounds fine and magicy to me, and if it had a meaning in the UK that we wouldn't have gotten, well it's not like a Sorcerer's Stone means anything in the US, so why change it?
ReplyDeleteI first encountered this when reading the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which was translated into American English for no reason (though that whole Belgium thing was cute and was solely in the US versions, originally it was a good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon word for copulation). Each time I this comes around I get more annoyed. Especially when it's done stupidly and for no reason - I'll give you the US version of Asterix, since that's all about little in jokes and gags and puns (though I'll still keep the UK version). But if a (unit of pop culture) comes from country X and has a character from country X, then importing it to country Y and making them talk like they're from country Y makes no sense if in the story they're still from country X.
This rant brought to you by the fact that in the lovely Slings and Arrows, we have something clearly set in Canada, with all kinds of details that tell you that PLUS a major character's obvious point of difference being that she's from the US, and you have some kind of functionary whose title is minister, but still when you have someone looking at a bill, they refer to the fact that it has a president on it when in the original (as I verified off of some youtube videos) they refer to the fact that it has a bird. Dear people: WE ARE NOT THAT STUPID. Love, sconstant.
Sorry, what I meant to say is: yes, everyone should watch Slings and Arrows.
Your sister is waiting in China? That's swell, kid, <span>but your little brother is standing in the middle of Afghanistan!
ReplyDelete</span>
I thought the dance stuff was weird, too. But I think one of the workshop dancers was Ellenore from Season 6 of SYTYCD. I couldn't tell for sure and she wasn't credited.
ReplyDeleteEpisode 2 was enjoyable enough, though I'm not that interested in McPhee and the Deputy Deputy Mayor. You know what makes the show enjoyable? Just fast forwarding through anything involving Messing and her well-acted but far-underwritten husband and that hideously acted son. There, you've shortened the episode by at least 10 minutes, avoided the adoption plot pain and you get to the Jack Davenport scenes all the quicker.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to bear in mind the amount of potential these guys are dealing with v. the fact that they made at least the first four episodes in a critic-free bubble. So, yes, they do need to shape this shit up, but they can -- it's just not going to happen right away.
ReplyDeleteThings that make me nuts:
- What adoption agency requires not one, but both parents to stop working to prove they're stable enough to have a baby? I feel like steady incomes are important.
<span>- "Stability" ≠ "Girlfriend-who-leaves-work-early-for-a-nice-dinner. " You can easily defend her by saying, "She's in a callback to play Marilyn Monroe on Broadway, so she might be stuck. We each understand that each other need to work late occasionally, it's what makes us a stable couple."</span>
- My wish to see Kat McPhee succeed in real life does not at all translate to me wanting Karen to win the role over Ivy, who has done not only the time on-stage and has the ability to learn moves (and therefore, run with changes) faster and more accurately, but is actually actively researching the role. I got into a conversation on the train once with a member of the tribe from Hair, and despite my intimate familiarity with its score, I was thunderstruck by the amount of research she had done on the piece -- memorization gets you as far as mimicry can allow, but true familiarity comes from digging a lot deeper. Still, I'm betting on the Norma Jean/Marilyn duality option.
Seriously, on the quitting jobs thing? I fast forwarded through every adoption bit so missed that insanity.
ReplyDeleteThe house is just a typical TV thing, I think -- most shows set in New York and other pricey areas have characters living in places far too big for their salaries (think about the apartments in Friends - not sure about current shows like HIMYM and Big Bang Theory, since at least they share apartments). Could Phil and Claire afford their house in Modern Family? Only shows like The Middle (not set in a pricey area, though) go for realism in their houses based on the characters' likely income.
ReplyDeletePlenty of things about the show bother me (though I'm sticking with it because I enjoy the music so much and like the backstage stuff even though it's not too realistic). But the house isn't one of them, since I always have to suspend disbelief on TV residences.
What made me the most nuts was the sitting in a circle and each parent reading their birth mother letter aloud. Who would make them do that? Why should the parents have to be directly compared to each other? Blech. "I wish I'd written that letter." "She wrote the best one." Blatant tell-not-show and terribly cringeworthy, all at the same time. The Modern Family version of this at least had them both working on the letter and reading parts to each other (and working on issues beyond "you are working hard so you must not really want to have another baby -- oh, you wrote a letter everyone says is wonderful, I guess you do want to adopt.").
ReplyDeleteI do want to know if Brian D'arcy James gets to sing sometime. Because why hire an excellent Broadway singer and never let him sing? Is this going to be like Mandy Patinkin in Yentl?
But given all the potential in this show, I'm sticking with it and hope they shape it up after all the exposition of the first few episodes.
Makes me think of the Britishest line on my iPod: "knackered Converse or tracky bottoms tucked in socks." It did take me a while, but I figured it out.
ReplyDeleteBBT I think makes sense - one could get a 2 BR, 1 BA apartment in Pasadena for $2k-$2500 a month, and they're both doing ok at Caltech. And given that the landlord still hasn't fixed the elevator, it's probably a little less than that.
ReplyDeleteAlex Wong from SYTYCD was in one number as well.
ReplyDelete