And another show reaches its winter hiatus. After this week, all we’ll have left are Scrubs and the final two episodes of Journeyman (probably ever– why can’t these time travel shows stay on the freakin air!) Damn you, winter break! This mid-season finale has, as creator Bryan Fuller put it, “thrown a lot of balls in the air”– let’s see if we can’t figure out how they might land.
1. The episodic stuff: I’d say this week’s mystery was the worst and most boring of all 9 episodes. No fun guest star as the deceased or accused (unless you count the neighbor from Big Love who played the crazy Wish Lady), the mystery wasn’t mysterious or intriguing, and I didn’t care at all about that kid or his mom. Whatever. I was glad to see a nice switch in serialized/episodic ratio this week. Where this show is usually 50/50, last night’s episode was about 75% serialized, maybe even 80%. Now that’s what I’m talking about!
2. On to more important matters: Olive — It seems as if the love triangle between Olive, Chuck and Ned is completely dissolved. I trust that the writers have an endgame in mind, but I don’t like the fact that they’ve closed the door firmly on any future romance between Olive and Ned. He is 100% not into her, and lately, she hasn’t (well, the narrator hasn’t) mentioned her feelings for Ned at all. I guess it’s over, which is too bad, because it added a really nice, unpredictable element to the show. The more possible conflict and relationship dynamics a series can explore, the better. So I don’t know why, after only 9 episodes, they’ve already eliminated a possibility of love between the Pie-Maker and his lovely assistant. Perhaps they’ll prove me wrong…I doubt they will.
3. Ellen Greene/Swoozie Kurtz — Ok, so I don’t know the character names (Crazy Aunt #1 and #2?), but I certainly LOVE the characters and the actresses playing them. I think these two are a very underrated aspect of this show. The two women are perfectly cast and they contribute the perfect amount of wacky/warmth that this show needs from them. Also, we had a nice bomb dropped on us– Swoozie is Chuck’s mama! Um, who cares? Am I the only one who thought this wasn’t an interesting plot twist? Maybe it will provoke Chuck to come out of hiding, which would be cool, but the stakes just aren’t high enough for me to find this compelling.
4. Emerson Cod — Dude is funny. Seriously funny. I didn’t like him in the pilot, but I like him more and more every week. Plus, he’s got a daughter! Um, who cares? Am the only one who thought this wasn’t that interesting a plot twist? Unless his daughter is a) dead or b) magical like Ned, she doesn’t matter to me.
5. Chuck & Ned — Blah blah blah blah. Who cares about Chuck’s dad? I think this storyline is a huge, huge misstep. Digging up issues from the past is NEVER a good formula for compelling television. Why? Because it’s IN THE PAST. Ned loves Chuck. Chuck loves Ned. Is this Dad thing really going to change that? As the end of the episode showed us, no, it won’t. So why does it matter? Give me a pressing, high stakes issue to fret over, not something 20 years in the past that can never be changed. And dammit, I don’t care if Chuck dies — I want to see these two kiss! It’s like Dawson and Joey all over again (note: I did not watch Dawson’s Creek religiously. Only 3 or 4 episodes, I swear to God.)
Here’s the bottom line: Everything I said about the structure of this show still stands. Where is this show going? What’s at stake? Where is the conflict? Heroes: We need to save the world. Prison Break: We need to bust out of prison (like 8 times). Desperate Housewives: We need to find happiness in our middle age suburban paradise…and destroy each other! Pushing Daisies: ?? We need to wake up dead people? We need to not kiss each other? We need to make pies? What’s the deal here?! Right now, the drama couldn’t be more low stakes. Who or what is at risk? What do Ned and Chuck stand to gain or lose, other than each other? For me, the only viable tension is Ned’s inability to touch Chuck. This is the only element that engrosses or frightens me because it would directly result in Chuck’s eternal slumber. What else is there to worry over? Ned and Chuck are going to stay together, Olive seems totally satisfied to play third wheel/peon, the crazy aunts might swim again (this is by far the least compelling storyline), Emerson is Emerson, and Paul Reubens is Pee Wee Herman. Did I miss anything?
There might be a lot of balls in the air. Hell, there could be 1000 balls, but if we don’t care about any of them, what’s the point? This show needs to come back from the hiatus with a new sense of urgency. The show feels stagnant and nonchalant, as if they have 10 season to get the good stuff, so they’re taking they’re sweet ass time. Television doesn’t work that way, and unfortunately, if Bryan Fuller’s past shows are any indication, this is not a lesson Fuller can comprehend. All of his past shows have taken this relaxed, all-the-time-in-the-world approach, and all of them got canceled before you could say “Wonder Falls is totally overrated!” Unless Pushing Daisies (which, by the way, is the single best primetime show to watch in HD. If you haven’t gotten the chance to watch this baby in High Def, go to a friend’s house in January and do yourself the favor) ratchets up its intensity, pacing and can deliver some high stakes narrative arcs, my adoration of this series, as well as the series itself, will probably go the way of the Killa Killa Wish Wish lady.
Grade: B-
Season so far: B
6 Comments
December 13, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I am honestly intrigued, Maven, by your distain for the show’s lack of “high stakes drama.” Well, scratch that, I kind of understand why you might personally feel this way, but I’m not sure how that rates as an indictment of the show from a dramatic or comic perspective.
Maybe it’s just me, but the show you want Pushing Daisies to be is awfully conventional: “high stakes!”, “Risk!”, “Intensity!” are all buzzwords that I’d expect Jon Peters to solve using a giant spider. The show’s laid back quality is, in my books, its greatest one: the series’ ability to provide a fresh glimpse at crime stories by being just that little bit morbid (Snowmen made of corpses, Woman chopped in half by truck, etc.) is what allows it to stand out.
I’ll be honest with you, I am actually kind of appalled at your assertion that unless Emerson’s daughter has magical powers or is dead she doesn’t matter. I don’t know how anyone watching an ensemble dramedy can sit back and say “Pfft, who cares” to something that can assist the show in fleshing out its characters. Not every “revelation” needs to be a plot twist: things can be introduced that simply add depth without trying to be “high risk.”
And really, were you surprised that we’re spending time in Chuck and Ned’s past? The very premise of the show is that they’re living in the past at all times: they’re getting a second chance at making it work, and as a result the whole “I Killed Your Dad” thing was an elephant in the room. Personally, I’m impressed that they got rid of it as soon as they did, which to me shows they are committed to moving forward. Lily (Swoozie, fyi) being revealed as Chuck’s mother isn’t just another way to live in the past, it’s another complication to what is a complicated and intricate present. To ignore that in favour of “high stakes” is obviously not in Fuller’s long-term plan; however, I don’t know how you ever expected it not to be.
I love the Aunts storyline because it’s honestly touching: the “Morning is Broken” scene was perhaps one of the show’s most well-executed thus far. I don’t know how you can go from saying “This is totally an underrated part of the show” to “This is by far the worst storyline” in the span of a single post, but it adds something.
While this is already long and I apologize for its passive aggressive tone, I’m just kind of unsure as to why you seem convinced of the fact that Pushing Daisies would be infinitely better if it was entirely different. You don’t have adoration for the series, you have adoration for a completely different series featuring [some of] these characters and their quippy dialogue – there’s a difference.
December 13, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Great comment, Myles. You bring up a lot of great points. I think with Daisies, I also write a little bit too harshly– its one of those things that I enjoy very much in the moment, but it always ends up coming out negative the more I think about it.
“Disdain” is a harsh word, and “entirely different” is not what I want either. I don’t need Ned and Chuck to be risking their lives or something every week. But I need them to be risking something. It can be their love, their friendship, their future– anything! But there’s really nothing in danger at all here. No tension, no conflict.
As for the aunts, I can love the characters without loving their storyline. I don’t care if they never swim again, but I love the way they interact– with each other, with Olive and with Ned. And for the record, I too liked the “Morning is Broken” sequence. I liked it for its emotional impact, as you mentioned, but not for its relevance to the narrative or for its actual implications for the future of the sisters.
I don’t think asking for tension or conflict or high stakes is asking the show to changes its colors or to be more “conventional.” Without conflict and tension, you don’t have a narrative. You need a hero, a want, what stops the hero from getting what he wants (the conflict) and a resolution. And my big issue is the want: what is Ned’s want? And if there’s no clear want, how can there be a clear conflict?
And I also don’t see the entire show as living in the past. The way that Ned and Chuck have to maneuver through their unique love, with Olive also in the mix at times, is rooted firmly in the present.
As for Emerson, it’s one thing to introduce a new character. It’s another to simply drop the existence of said character without any hint as to when or why she might appear. I have a daughter! And?
Just because I find a lack of urgency in the show doesn’t mean I don’t like the show for what it is. I love its sweetness, its colorfulness, its totally unique tone, and the characters. But I just don’t know where it’s going. ABC isn’t huge on the procedurals, and this show really isn’t one because it’s more about the characters than the mysteries they solve (unlike a CSI type show).
So while I appreciate and welcome your point of view (as always!), I think you’re reading more negativity in my words than I meant to convey. I DO like this show, very much. I just tend to demand the most out of projects that I see as having the most potential to be the very best. I think this series is good as is, but with a bit more direction, it could be truly great.
December 13, 2007 at 9:10 pm
You raise a good point, Maven: I am clearly reading what I consider to be underlying negativity, or at the very least a strange omnipresent skepticism, that seems to permeate your Pushing Daisies criticism.
Your concerns over narrative are valid, but also particularly frustrating as I sit writing an essay about how a desire for that type of narrative has destroyed every single adaptation of Malory’s Morte Darthur (It’s an odd coincidence). I think that the series ultimately existing in a reality parallel to our own, but also (obviously) fundamentally different. I think that the series deserves time to be able to explore that universe and its effects on these characters for what is, after all, less than half of their 22-episode order.
While I think that this movement towards serial narrative is all well and good, and I think it’s tremendously important, I also think that there is a reason that Desperate Housewives’ second season was an out-and-out disaster, and the same goes for Prison Break: ultimately, that type of television can only last so long before things fall apart.
Which is why I like that Pushing Daisies is taking its time: unlikely Housewives, which was based on soap opera tradition and a common knowledge of suburban living, Pushing Daisies is not directly relative. It has distinctive codes of ethics, a strange sense of reality, and is populated with characters that are not all there. I think that the show both deserves, and requires, an opening period which focuses on not only structuring a narrative but also about structuring the characters and the locations in which this narrative will take place.
I think that your desire for high stakes is something that I worry about for a single example: House basically falls apart during every single one of its high stakes arcs: Tritter? Chi McBride, even? They kill the show dead. All of the fun of House, of his interaction with his team, just gets sucked out of the room when it’s all about some renegade cop (A Robot Renegade Cop…couldn’t resist) trying to bust him for…something.
Thus far, Pushing Daisies has been able to deal with heavier subjects (See: this week) without forcing the series as a whole to get bogged down by it. I personally don’t want to see “The Evil Health Inspector Shuts down the Pie Hole” as a recurring storyline because I really don’t think it would be very interesting – it might form a narrative, and have a structure, but I like to think that the world of Pushing Daisies is not subject to the same boring, cliched roadblocks to success as 24 or Prison Break.
Yes, things need to shake up, but I’ve yet to see the series be unwilling to do that: they have left Paul Reubens in play, they left Molly Shannon alive and well, and the series has yet to have an episode that I think was poor because of an avoidance of stepping outside the box as opposed to simply a weak murder mystery.
I just think that if you prescribe Ned a want (Whether it be financial, or personal, or professional), the show could become too focused on that idea – the current premise of Emerson’s greed is running thin, and the tension of not being able to touch seems to have largely subsided, but we’ve reached a turning point. While I am perhaps less apt to provide the show conflict I think would feel forced within the show’s universe, I will agree that something needs to give.
I just don’t want it to be the show’s sense of whimsy.
December 13, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I agree with you 100% — the show’s fanciful tone is its most endearing element, and I wouldn’t want anything to interfere with it. And I also wouldn’t want to force some lame “Pie-Hole being shut down” as a main source of tension.
I think I should define a little better what I mean by “want.” I don’t mean a specific, material want: Ned wants to open a second pie store, or something like that. I mean a more general, metaphysical want: Ned can’t get over the fact that he killed his own mother and Chuck’s father, and so he is stuck in a vicious cycle of trying to save people who cannot be saved, at his own personal expense. Something like that.
Right now, there’s nothing really anything motivating these characters other than some very simple cliches. Emerson? Money. Ned/Chuck? Love. Olive? Human decency, I suppose. But that’s just not enough to really suck me in.
Yes, this is only episode 9, and since I like so much about the show, I’m certainly willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. But I’m just nervous that, as with Fuller’s past shows, time isn’t the issue– an inability to imbue the show with a true direction and urgency, even in a full 24 episode season, is my biggest worry, and could be the show’s downfall, if they don’t try to introduce some stronger overall narrative at some point in early 08.
Fingers crossed…
Thanks again for some very stimulating comments!
December 14, 2007 at 12:06 am
What Fuller shows are we talking about here, precisely? I say this not as a way to continue that argument (We’ve gotten to a point of agreement on the narrative question, really), but rather out of curiosity.
Since Dead Like Me was taken away from Fuller so quickly, that really only leaves Wonderfalls as the other example. I admittedly fell in love with the series when I watched it over the summer, but I have a feeling this is what you’re referring to. At this point, with the 22-episode order, this is the furthest an original Fuller series has gone. It should be interesting to see how he does over 13 episodes – he’s really untested with these types of narrative questions.
December 14, 2007 at 2:18 am
Hey Myles– Yes, I’m referring to Dead Like Me and Wonder Falls. I watched Wonder Falls last spring– I loved the first few episodes, then got completely bored as the show was going nowhere.
And yes, this is new territory for Fuller. That’s my whole point– if he wants to avoid Wonder Falls-esque stagnation (granted – I like Pushing Daisies WAY better than Wonder Falls), he needs to make some adjustments.