Good TV

If anyone out there is looking for some good, edgy British comedy, I highly recommend a little number called Peep Show that I just watched obsessively for about a month.

My friend Stu (illustrations to right) brought a bunch of episodes while he was visiting in September and quickly got me hooked.

In fact, I’m tempted to say that Peep Show is the best incarnation of the “odd couple” premise that I’ve ever seen. Jez is the crazy, hedonistic slacker while his roommate Mark is the play-by-the-rules, socially awkward type. It’s got solid acting, unforgettable characters, and creative scripts.

It’s also kind of technically innovative. The camera gives a first person point of view, and whenever the audience is looking from Mark or Jez’s perspective we are allowed to hear their internal monologues. (Think Mel Gibson’s “What Women Want,” only raw, funny and less anti-Semitic).

Anyway, if you want to laugh your arse off, go buy or rent as many episodes as you have time for. You Tube also has a pretty good selection if you're interested in more clips. Until then, here’s a bit from the first episode of the first season to give you a taste.

And a warning: though Peep Show is not nearly as adult as the title suggests, it can at times be somewhat crass and profane.

Enjoy.

The Presidential Debates: A Modest Proposal

Here’s a little secret:

I’ve never been a huge fan of watching the Presidential debates.

I do it, but I'm not always happy about it. I find them to be, by and large, unsatisfying. A bit like eating empty calories or staying at the bar too long.

I wasn’t always this way. When I was younger I kind of romanticized them as some super important civic duty that all intelligent adults participated in. All the adults would watch the debates, judiciously weigh the merits of the arguments, and then cast their ballots for the candidate most fit for the job.

What a bunch of mature, democratic participants they all were. I couldn’t wait.

But now that I’m all grown-up, I know (like most people) that the debates are mostly bullshit. They’re two candidates bandying about worn-down-to-the-nub talking points for a bunch of people who have already made up their minds who they’re voting for. If all goes well, the candidate you are cheering against will make some sort of horribly embarrassing linguistic misstep and the candidate that you are cheering for will make the audience laugh.

Don’t get me wrong, the debates aren’t all bad. In fact, some of the weaknesses of the whole production also produce some of its strengths.

You know how we always have a graph to see if the audience is reacting positively or negatively to a candidate? That’s great. I love that kind of stuff. We find out all sorts of sociological stuff about how an audience reacts to speeches. Or at least how they say they react. Or, at the very least, how they think the should be reacting.

We're also able, luckily, to find out all sorts of things about the candidates themselves. Like if they’re attractive or sweat a lot on stage or speak with a funny voice.

Which is fine. We’re not really there to break down a wide range of complex policy issues in a couple hours. If that's what you’re about then roll up your sleeves, go to the internet and start doing your research.

But debates aren’t for that. Debates are, for better or worse, all about rhetorical ability, eloquence, stage presence, facility with language, likeability, tone, and, most importantly, the ability to make quasi-factual policy arguments that most of us have already heard a number of times before in past presidential debates.

Let me reiterate. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Given the relatively negligible policy differences between the Democrats, it’s for exactly some of these reasons (attractiveness, eloquence, je ne sais quoi, etc.) that I supported Barack Obama in the caucuses. Since the American people eat this stuff up, I felt like he was probably the best positioned of the lot to implement a left-of-center platform.

And, of course, the pageantry part of the race is actually quite fun to hash and re-hash. Who looked more presidential? Who seemed overly aggressive? Overly-passive? Who shouldn’t have answered question #1 so quickly but should have definitely taken a respectful little pause before launching so quickly into #2? Who got more laughs from the crowd? Who was more comfortable?

If you don’t have answers to any of these questions yet, don’t worry. You’ll have them formed for you as you watch the next two days coverage of every national news outlet in the country.

Although some of the qualities listed above may be important for evaluating such things as consensus building and diplomacy, many of them are not of critical importance for evaluating the merits of the different policy positions of a specific candidate.

So, as we arrive at the day of the first presidential debate of the year -- one that may or may not take place-- I’ve been thinking: is there a way we can evaluate all of these qualities in a more creative and viewer friendly way?

Which leads me to my idea.

If the debates really are all about things like quick-wittedness and poise (they are), why not strip the whole charade of its faux-gravitas and make it more transparent. Let’s make them debate something completely inconsequential.

Like a favorite color.

Here’s how this would work:

Jim Lehrer:

“Colors are a very important part of American History. They bring life to our films, make our surroundings more livable, and allow for ambiguity in a political environment which, as we are learning more every year, is not so black and white. Which brings me to the first question of the night. . .(dramatic pause)

Which color do you prefer: green or orange? And why?

Senator Obama, you have one minute to respond.

Obama:

Jim, first of all thank you for moderating this historic debate and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the American people about the important issues that we’ll have to face in the future (audience experiences first feelings of self-importance. Audience poll approval up 2%).

Now let me begin by saying this: I understand that there are many, many supporters of orange out there in the audience tonight and also across our great country. Orange has played a vital role in how we understand ourselves. It is the sun in our sky that brings warmth to this earth, the basketball on the court where our children play, the citrus crop that grow in fields across our great nation. . . especially Florida (mild laughter).

That being said, I choose green. And no, it’s not because I want you to vote green (more mild laughter from audience). That gave us the last 8 years (wild clapping at Bush-slam, audience approval up 2%). And it’s not because, as my opponent wants you to believe, that I myself am a little green (cocksure grin, laughter). Because, as I’ve said before, I’ll have the experience debate with anyone.

It’s because green is the color of growth. Green is money. It’s using that money to build an economy that works for everyone. Green is sustainable growth and an energy policy that doesn’t rely on archaic, fossil fuel technology.

Jim: Mr. Obama, you’re time is. . .

Obama: Just a second Jim, it’s an important point I’m making here about colors. And I think it’s important for the American people too. The American people know that I respect orange and realize that orange has many contributions to make. Orange certainly gets a seat at the table, no doubt about that. But green is my choice. And I ask you this to conclude: have you ever seen any growth without a little bit of green at the root? (Audience approval up 2% for confusing, money-growth-environment tie-in on the fly).

Jim: Senator McCain, you have 30 seconds.

McCain:

Frankly Jim, I was raised thinking the most important colors in this country are red, white, and blue (pause for audience laughter, wild applause, admiration, and an 8% increase in audience poll approval). And while I appreciate the question, I’m just not willing to believe that green and orange are the only two options.

And that might not be what the people want to hear, but, I’m sorry to break it to everyone, the President of the United States isn’t always going to be able to tell the people what they want to hear (audience approval rating plunges 12%).

Jim: Mr. Obama, a 15 second rebuttal.

Obama:

I’m sorry Jim, but this is politics as usual, implying that because I didn’t mention red, white and blue that I’m somehow not as patriotic. Enough is enough. Mr. McCain’s refusal to answer the question outright I think exhibits a sheer unwillingness to face the real problems that our country is facing. We don’t always get to answer the questions we WANT to; sometimes, we have to answer the questions that we HAVE to. (Audience appreciation and corresponding 4% rise in audience approval rating, all of whom are fickle idiots).

So that’s how it would work. Pretty cool right?

And you know what’s so great about this type of format?

We'd still discover all sorts of things about the candidates’ attractiveness, poise, sense of humor, public speaking ability, and ability to form arguments. We could evaluate it all. And at least we’d be honest to ourselves about the bullshit that we’re evaluating.

Of course, variations of this format could go on ad infinitum. The next debate could be the “Would you rather debate?” (E.g. --Senator McCain, would you rather be Spiderman or Superman? And Why?)

And the one after that could be the Rorschach inkblot debate (“Right-side-up it kind of looks like Hope, but upside-down it looks more like Change”).

But I’ll let CNN work out the details.

Unless they think this whole idea is just a bunch of bullshit.

Which, of course, is exactly what it is.

Sharing Funny Stuff

I was recently rewatching some of the hit web television series "Wainy Days," starring David Wain. I almost forgot how funny that show was. It's the kind of funny that you just want to share with the world.

Here are two of my favorite episodes. They only last about 5 minutes a piece. Enjoy.

(The episodes contain both adult language and situations, so if that kind of stuff doesn't interest you, please refrain).

A Follow Up: My Favorite TV Shows Ever

So Stella is great, but where does it rate on my FAVORITE TV SHOWS EVER?

Seeing as I love lists, I decided to spend a few minutes creating a list of my top ten favorite TV shows ever. A quick note on criteria. I considered 5 factors in determining the relative quality of these shows. The factors are:

1. Peak Performance. How good was a show when it was running on all cylinders?

Obviously the writer's strike version of the Daily Show is facing difficulties that they did not when they had their full contingent of idea generators.

2. Average Performance. If I select a show at random from a series history, how good is it likely to be?

Here, the basic point would be not having many "bad" episodes. Simpsons at its best might be unimpeachable, but who knows when you're going to get one of the down episodes?

3. Output. Did the show entertain people for years or did it fizzle (even if it was funny) after 6 months?

A show like the aforementioned Stella wouldn't score well in this category because of its regrettably short lifespan.

4. Formative influence on Nick Gregory. How important was the show to me during different periods of my life? What kind of formative effect did it have on my own comic sensibilities?

David Letterman is a good example here. Though I rarely watch his show anymore, when I was in High School I assimilated his every word and gesture.

5.. Innovation. Was the show fresh and funny? Did it make us see comedy in a way we hadn't seen it before?

Most the shows on my list were innovative in some way. A notable example would be something like The Real World, which, despite scoring extremely high in this category, suffers in some of the others and therefore didn't make the cut. Colbert has that same thing going now.

I didn't assign a numeric value in all of these categories or anything because that would be really tedious. But that's just an idea of some of the things I'll be taking into consideration. That being said, here is the list of Top Ten TV shows in the World According to Nick Gregory:

1. Simpsons-- It is impossible not to place this show first: 19 seasons, millions of laughs, a cultural revolution. Rarely do I pass a day in my life without citing and/or having a Simpsons episode cited to me.

2. Seinfeld-- Took the cadence of the stand-up routine and morphed it into the cadence of friendly banter. Seinfeld, along with the Simpsons, provided the one, two Fox syndication knockout punch that made (and continues to make) coming home from school so pleasurable.

3. The Late Show with David Letterman-- Invented college humor and nurtured me when I was young.

4. Daily Show w/ John Stewart-- Finally, the smart kid sitting at the back of the class cracking jokes also turns out to be a hard worker, an incisive interviewer, a subversive, and a vital component of our democracy.

5. The Colbert Report-- Why isn't this show listed higher than the Daily Show? I don't know, I can't explain it either. It's funnier, and Colbert at his best is better than Stewart at his best. Maybe it's the 100's of hours I've spent watching The Daily Show. Maybe it's the fact that Stewart created Colbert. Colbert 1 year ago might have been in the top 10, but barely. Now he's threatening Stewart for a Top 4 spot. I have never seen a comic who can do what he does as well as he does it. Brilliant.

6. Stella-- See below

7. Blind Date-- This is probably the selection that people will disagree with the most. I have never met anyone in the world who has defended this show over the years more than I have. I think the main problem that people have with Blind Date is that they confuse it with all of the other dating shows that are really awful. Take MTV's Fifth Wheel for example. Fifth Wheel is a mean, pointless show that encourages people to be incredibly rude to each other in competition for the affections of some lame guy/girl. In Blind Date, the people might be rude, but it's at their own peril, because they're trying to win the affections of the only other person on the show. It doesn't matter how you slice up the participants: 2 lame people on a date, one cool person and one lame person, 2 cool people, stupid people, smart people, funny people, boring people, posers, gentleman, badasses, wisecrackers, egomaniacs, basketcases, limelight seekers, . . . it's ALWAYS fun to watch. Add on the incredible writing (in the form of blurbs and fake dialogue) and you've got both a hilariously funny/heartwarming show and a thoughtful meditation on the bizarre and inexplicable world of the human courting ritual.

8. Curb Your Enthusiasm-- I almost feel kind of like a poser putting this on here because I haven't even come close to watching all of this series. But maybe I'm just being a extremely neurotic and hyper-obsessive. Like Larry David.

9. Dr. Katz-- Along with Stella, probably one of the most underwatched Comedy Central shows ever. It successfully mixes the stand-up, observational humor of Seinfeld, with the visual flexibility of the Simpsons (it's animated), and the obsession with psychotherapy of a Woody Allen film. I remember once in high school catching an episode and immediately trying to watch it whenever it was on (which wasn't very often). About 18 months ago I finally got the full first season and have never looked back.

10. Conan O'Brien-- In many ways I feel like, had several circumstances been different, Conan could have been sitting in David Letterman's #3 spot. Out of everyone on the list, Conan O'Brien is the only person who I've seen in person, making a trip to see his show during a week-long theater binge in NYC. So he's go that going for him. He also might be the most naturally funny person in the world. You know that part in Seinfeld where George is asking Jerry not to be funny and then everyone decides that it's not possible for him? That's not true. I've seen Jerry be unfunny. I've never seen Conan not be funny. I think the main problem for Conan, as it has always been, is scheduling. If he was on just one hour earlier. . .


Notable Omissions:

A lot of people might be wondering where the hell some of their favorite shows are. Keep in mind that this is just a snapshot of a single moment in time. Like I said, last year the order would have been different. The world of preference ranking is an inherently mutable place. Plus, some of the criteria (formative influences on Nick Gregory's life, for example) is going to make this an inherently personal list. That being said, these are just a few of the exclusions which might cause so much discord that I feel like I should probably explain.

1. South Park-- I've never taken to South Park in the same way that some of my friends have. When it first arrived on the scene I remember it being self-consciously crass, artificially subversive, and studiously "controversial." These are some of the exact same concerns that I have with Family Guy. Over time I have warmed to its (what I still consider to be) hit and miss genius. A good friend calls me up frequently to relay plot synopses to me and I find the plots to be creative, novel, and hilarious. But then again, I find my friend to be creative, novel, and hilarious, so maybe South Park deserves less credit for that than I originally thought.

2. The Office (British version)-- This was the hardest show for me to leave off. I watched all the seasons straight through and it has had an indelible impact on my life. I'm going to stop talking about it or I'll have to find some space for it in the Top 10.

3. The Office (American version)-- Incredibly solid counterpart to the British version, but lacks points in the "innovation" category because I came across the British version first. As Dwight would say: Question: will this show, after repeated and more intense viewing, ever make it into my Top Ten? Answer: only time will tell.

4. Arrested Development-- Something tells me that if I watched the entire series, first episode to last, of this masterpiece, it would be included in the list. As it stands, I've only seen the entire third season of this show, which at the time was as good as anything on TV. It's like looking at the Sears Tower on a really cloudy day. I'm pretty sure its one of the tallest buildings in the world, but I'd still need to see it unobstructed by clouds before I start singing its praises to the world.

That's my list. At least until I'm convinced otherwise, which I invite you to try to do. Feel free to add your own two cents or your own top ten list.

Stella: What I'm Currently Pushing

Those of you who talk to me with any kind of frequency have probably listened to me rave about the television show Stella, which was pulled after one season on Comedy Central.

Two days ago I received my very own copy of Stella in the mail. It was a very thoughtful and generous Christmas present given to me, Nick Gregory, by me, Nick Gregory. It was long overdue.

If you are unfamiliar with the show, allow me explain. Three men-- Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter, and David Wain -- put on suits and ties and do nonsensical things during the course of nonsensical plots for 1/2 hour. They also say funny things in funny voices and break into spontaneous song and dance numbers and/or perform open heart surgery.

What's not to like? It's comic genius.

Though the show was critically well received and probably one of the funniest and innovative shows to ever air on television, it was, tragically, canned after ten episodes. (Note: this is all the more tragic considering the show of unwatchable quality that replaced it in the time slot: Mind of Mencia).

For those of you who would like to watch all ten episodes that were created before the show was pulled, feel free to contact me. For those of you who'd like to get a taste of the style and humor of this troupe of comedians before making such a commitment, I found an assemblage of clips on YouTube that should help you out.

Keep an eye out for Janeane Garofalo, ally of Cornucopia, who makes a cameo as an author at the bookstore in the clip.

Enjoy!

All I see are Weeds. . .Please Stop The Pain

I am itchy and bed-ridden with poison ivy. I cannot do or think of anything but rashes and weeds. Luckily, I just watched the season premiere of the television show Weeds the other night, so I’m able to channel this myopia into a post for the day.

Though I loath weeds in general right now, the one playing on Showtime happens to be quite agreeable. Here’s why. . .

Parker vs Parker, or, Waiting for Odysseus: Why Weeds is one of the best shows on TV

In Sex and the City, Sarah Jessica Parker’s character Carrie Bradshaw is widely believed to be pretty cool and sexy. She always walks around with stylish handbags and writes an edgy column dishing out romantic advice to love-struck women. And when she sits down to blow out the candles on her birthday cake she only has one wish left: to be just 1/10 as cool and sexy as Nancy Botwin, Mary-Louise Parker’s character in Weeds. This woman’s cool sexiness (or sexy coolness if you prefer) is so effortless and natural it’s almost scary.

If you’re not familiar with the plot of the series, here’s an executive summary: single widow mother, whose husband has died, needs to find way to care for her children and maintain the standard of living to which she has grown accustomed. She decides to sell pot in her quiet little suburb. Let the fun begin.

To over-simplify the series: Parker is all that matters. Sure, there are lots of kooky/frightening plot twists and hilarious characters, but they all float around in a zany, peripheral hurricane. Parker is the eye of this chaotic storm, calmly resolving one crisis after another as her world tries hard to fall apart around her.

I’m most intrigued by her romantic life, which plays out like The Odyssey, but told from the view of a strong, smart, and faithful Penelope. Her husband has disappeared, her son is causing problems, and the hordes of suitors and would-be lovers have appeared on her doorstep, clamoring to be let in and given a chance to win her beauty. But romance seems to be next to impossible for a woman like Botwin. Sure she has her flings, but her heart usually isn’t in it and her relationships usually come off as something less than authentic.

It’s not just that it’s hard to imagine any of the cast of characters being able to live up to her expectations; it’s hard to imagine ANYONE being able to live up to her standards. Anyone, except of course, for her former husband.

Which begs the question? What kind of demi-god built such an idyllic life for himself (big house, pool, beautiful/capable/lovable wife, adorable and reasonably well-adjusted children) only to pass away so mysteriously? He has left his Penelope for good and, barring some soap-opera type plot twist, will not be coming back. She’s going to have to learn to fend for herself, (read: deal marijuana), which is ok, because we love watching her do it.

Janeane Garofalo Watch

Janeane Garofalo, last seen on this blog making Bill O'Reilly look like a simpleton, has reportedly accepted a role on the popular real-time television drama "24." Cornucopia, the Horn of Plenty wishes her luck.

Read more about her new role here in the Hollywood Reporter online.