TV Worth Watching

My "Breaking Bad" Interview Breaks Today on NPR's "Fresh Air"

March 9, 2010 11:45 AM

Today on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross, I interview Vince Gilligan, the creator of AMC's fabulous, and delightfully unpredictable, drama series Breaking Bad. It reminds me, all over again, why I love being associated with Fresh Air...

Breaking Bad stars Bryan Cranston as a high school science teacher who is told he has terminal lung cancer, and decides to leave a nest egg for his family -- his pregnant wife and their teen son, who has celebral palsy -- by doing something drastic. He uses his knowledge of chemistry to manufacture crystal meth, and teams with a former student, played by Aaron Paul, to sell it. It's a dark series, and a dark role, for which Cranston, the former sitcom star of Malcolm in the Middle, has won back-to-back Emmys.

Season two of Breaking Bad comes out on DVD next Tuesday, and season three begins on AMC March 21. To discuss the previous season, and get a preview of the coming one, today I interview series creator Vince Gilligan. His previous credits include being a writer and producer on The X-Files, but Gilligan isn't yet a household name.

Which is why I love Fresh Air so much. What matters isn't the popularity, but the quality. I was able to interview Bryan Cranston, when Breaking Bad first started, long before he won his first Emmy Award for the role. And just last week, I interviewed Ricky Gervais, whose TV shows are as original on the comedy side as Breaking Bad is on the dramatic side.

Terry Gross, of course, interviews fascinating people about fascinating subjects every day. Because of my day job as a college professor, I don't get many at-bats -- but when I do, I get to play ball with people whose work I truly respect. For me, it's as much fun as it is work, and I hope it comes off that way.

After 5 p.m. ET or so, you can hear or read my interview with Vince Gilligan by clicking HERE.

Meanwhile, you can hear or read my Ricky Gervais interview, about his new HBO series The Ricky Gervais Show and other things, by clicking HERE.

And just for fun, you can also hear my February 2008 interview with Bryan Cranston, seven months before he won his Emmy for Breaking Bad, by clicking HERE.

And meanwhile, as I type this, I'm teaching TV History and Appreciation II at Rowan University. I'm showing the premiere episode of 1971's Columbo, written by a young Steven Bochco, and directed by an even younger Steven Spielberg.

Work CAN be fun. Honest.

Comments (1) | Permalink

2010 ABC Oscar Telecast: Twice the Best Picture Nominees, Twice the Hosts, but Not Twice the Value

March 8, 2010 9:01 AM

The number of Best Picture nominees was doubled, from five to 10. The running time expanded, too, with ABC's telecast running more than 30 minutes over schedule. So with Monday's Oscar telecast, if less is more, is more less?

More or less...

There's always something to complain about with the Oscars, and this year there are two major complaints.

One is with, as always, the fat. Yes, they cut down on the original song performances -- but whatever time was gained by that exclusion, was lost by an interminable dance number. Or numbers. It went on so long, it must have been more than one. And that salute to horror movies? Even Freddy would have slashed that one in a heartbeat.

Another major complaint, but one for which the program producers can't be blamed, is the predictability. Until we got to the final major award, most of the prizes went to the predicted, favored winners: Mo'Nique in Precious, Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds, Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, and certainly Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart.

But even with the Bullock and Bridges wins, their moments were preceded, and somewhat diluted, by a manner of presentation that brought out friends and colleagues for all five nominees, who took turns extolling the virtues of the actors. It was part celebration, part tribute - but also a bit creepy, like somewhat of a funeral.

And speaking of funerals, the In Memoriam section continues to be Hollywood's last, worst popularity contest. Even after you're dead, your peers get to pass judgment on you one more time, by applauding -- or withholding that applause -- as your name and image scroll by in a montage of artists who have died in the past year. I know it has to be done, and should be... but couldn't the black-tie audience be told to withhold applause until the end?

There were, however, some nice moments. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were affable as hosts, though their opening comedy bit seemed to single out everyone in the first five rows. It was nice when Barbra Streisand was able to present the award for Best Director, which went, for the first time, to a woman -- Kathryn Bigelow, for The Hurt Locker. But that, too, seemed predictable. Hence the pairing.

It was nice when Tom Hanks, announcing the winner of Best Picture, noted that the last time there were 10 nominees in that category was 1942, the year Casablanca won. Good bit of trivial. Yet much less trivial, but nonetheless ignored, were the names of the 10 films up for Best Picture in 2010.

They had been saluted individually throughout the evening -- but by the time their moment rolled around, around midnight, not even the movies' titles were read or displayed. Only the winner, Hurt Locker, was announced.

Something wrong there.

Two final notes, though peripheral to the telecast.

One: ABC's special Oscar promo for Modern Family was funnier than most sitcoms. They staged a quick game of Charades, in which Sofia Vergara's Gloria was trying to interpret clues thrown by her husband, Ed O'Neill's Jay.

To start, he held up one finger. "The finger!" she shouts. "The pointy finger in the sky!" Then she makes a connection:"Cloudy with the chance of the meatballs!"

Exasperated, Jay tooks at his upraised finger and says, "This means one word." Instantly, she screams, "Meatballs!"

Then, after the Oscars, there was Jimmy Kimmel Live, on which the host noted Bigelow's Best Director wn over former spouse James Cameron by calling her "the first woman ever that beat her ex-husband in front of a billion people."

Then he provided a lengthy, very funny video, in which he plays the unpopular president of the Handsome Men's Club. That one's so funny, you may as well see it for yourself. Watch it HERE.

Comments (7) | Permalink

After Leno's First Week In Late Night, What's Happening? Lots -- But Not in Late Night

March 5, 2010 6:42 PM

Jay Leno has had a week to reassert himself in late night, and NBC has had the same week to re-establish itself in prime time. So who's doing better in this first phase of reshuffling? In late night, Leno is dominating the ratings, but not doing anything impressive to earn his viewers. In prime time, on the other hand, NBC is trying an interesting thing or two. Or three...

On Fridays (tonight at 8 p.m. ET), NBC is launching Who Do You Think You Are, a genealogical series that takes our personal interest in discovering our roots -- an interest that helped 1977's Roots become the biggest miniseries in TV history -- and tapping them for a new feel-good reality series in which celebrities discover their family stories.

It's the same basic idea as the current PBS series Faces of America with Henry Louis Gates Jr., but tricked out with a bigger travel budget, incessant feel-good (or feel-SOMETHING) music, and annoying "moments" in which said celebrities are given air time, and "private" space, to absorb their familial discoveries.

But despite all that, and despite the obvious on-air plugs for an online family-tree-finding service, Who Do You Think You Are? is... interesting. In the opener, Sarah Jessica Parker eventually learns that one of her ancestors was part of the Salem Witch trials. But was she an accuser, or an accused? And, in either case, what happened to her?

In a future episode, Lisa Kudrow traces her past back to an even darker period of world history, with even more surprising results. Strip away the sappy veneer, and there are strong stories being told here. So I recommend you watch this show, to try it out for yourself.

The same goes for The Marriage Ref, another of this week's new NBC prime-time entries. The overly condensed Olympics-night preview wasn't that good, but Thursday's one-hour installment -- featuring Jerry Seinfeld, Eva Longoria-Parker and Tina Fey as panelists -- flowed much more naturally.

Yes, the "arguments" are meaningless. But so were the $50 grand prizes on What's My Line? and other long-running prime-time panel shows, where the real entertainment was in watching celebrities speak, unscripted, and goof around. That's less rare now than it used to be -- but when The Marriage Ref can assemble a panel, yet to be televised, featuring Larry David, Ricky Gervais and Madonna, there's no WAY I'm missing that.

As for Parenthood, the one scripted new entry from NBC this week, it's not great -- and, at times, it's grating. But at other times, most of them including Lauren Graham, it lives up to the potential of the original film, and is quite watchable.

And, like the other shows mentioned, it's infinitely better than The Jay Leno Show, which used to gobble up five weekly prime-time NBC hours.

As for Leno on The Tonight Show, more on that later. But when the best part of week one was a monologue by a guest -- Sarah Palin -- the host himself didn't come off as either reinvigorated or particularly impressive.

Comments (2) | Permalink

GUEST BLOG #80: Tom Brinkmoeller On Tom Brokaw's CNBC "Boomer$"

March 4, 2010 7:54 AM

[Bianculli here: Contributing writer Tom Brinkmoeller not only watched an early cut of tonight's CNBC special by Tom Brokaw, but spoke to its executive producer. His report follows. But first: a personal, unrelated preface: Tonight at 7 ET, the Marlton, NJ Barnes & Noble, my neighborhood bookstore, is hosting a presentation/reading/signing where I'll show rare Smothers Brothers clips and, for one of the last times, push my book. If you're in the area -- Route 70E in Cherry Hill, just west of Route 73 -- please pop in. And now, to Tom's column about Tom...]

Brokaw Special Chronicles the Fizzle of Baby Booming

By Tom Brinkmoeller

With at least a couple of weeks of winter left and a ruthless jet stream that doesn't seem to want to back down, a lot of Americans must be thinking they're seen more snow than ever. But those blizzards may seem mild compared to an avalanche right around the corner: The first of the generation born between 1946 and 1964 turns 65 in January. Around 78 million baby boomers later, the last will retire.

That scary statistic, around for more than 40 years, has taken on a darker hue since the start of the recession. A feared, but expected, stress on the country's economic health has been trumped by unemployment, foreclosure, bankruptcy, spent savings and the recession's many other unwanted side effects. As a result, those people who once hoped for a better version of the golden age experienced by their parents happily now would settle for a chrome-plated later life.

In the '90s, Tom Brokaw spotlighted the greatest generation and more than justified that designation in his books and television specials. In 2008, in his book Boom!, he took a long look at how the greatests' children put their stamp on the 1960s. Tonight at 9 ET, he anchors a two-hour CNBC news special that takes a long, close look at what's coming for many of those who outspent their earnings and will outlive their savings. It's entitled Tom Brokaw Reports: Boomer$, and what it talks about is much more substantial than what the hokey use of the dollar sign in the title would suggest.

Just don't look for the answer to a problem that has years yet to unfold and don't expect to end the two-hour investment of your time with a feel-good glow. Unlike the hours of junk-food programming featured on its higher profile NBC cousin, this program isn't under a mandate to deliver empty calories. That undoubtedly is a reason the special isn't being shown on the big network -- where two straight hours probably hasn't been devoted to reporting since the end of the O.J. Simpson trial.

It's a small, not-very-seaworthy ship boomers find themselves in. Those who want to know a little bit more about sea conditions and where the life jackets are will find spending two hours in front of the set an educating experience. (CNBC will rebroadcast the program March 6 at 7 p.m., March 7 at 9 p.m. and March 8 at 8 p.m. -- all times ET.)

The luxury of more time helps to better lay out the issues and add depth through interviews with a wide range of relatively unknown to famous boomers. Former President Bill Clinton and actor Tom Hanks represent the latter group. Among the lesser-known but just as interesting are a Marine who was one of the last Americans to leave Saigon during the Vietnam War and who, at age 57, remains involved as a reserve officer; war protester David Harris, who went to jail over his beliefs, and the parents of Denise McNair, who was 11 in 1963 when she and three other children were killed in a KKK-engineered bombing of a Birmingham, Ala., church.

The program's senior executive producer, Mitch Weitzner, explained the cross-section of interviewees: "We were very careful to not paint (the generation) with too broad a brush. . . That they were all made from the same mold."

The program's predominant theme is uncertainty. There's the man who lost his six-figure job in 2008 and has only been able to get three interviews since. A cross-section group of University of Michigan 1973 graduates who talk with Brokaw about how their lives have changed from charmed to jinxed in the decades since graduation. There is a look at how debt, especially debt that arose from buying homes three times larger than the ones they grew up in, has played a significant part in revising the retirement rainbow.

"Never assume things will be better tomorrow than they are today," is a sentiment expressed by one participant. And when it's projected that as more baby boomers morph to geezer status, a third of all the money spent on goods and services will be on health care, that statement seems more like a warning than a regret.

When an interviewee asked Brokaw how he would characterize boomers, he answered "Unrealized."

The program ends with a hint of promise, or realization. Many boomers first made a big noise in the '60s, when their idealism clashed with established ways and ended up challenging and helping improve civil rights, equal rights and global politics. After two hours of chronicling the shift from "social activism to chronic consumerism," interviews show age and economics are shifting some boomers to reorder their priorities and put more value on families and relationships again. Just like their parents' generation did.

--

Tom Brinkmoeller, who was born just months before the start of the boom, will happily realize a goal characteristic of the times in a few weeks, when he turns 65 and finally can afford health insurance again -- more exciting, in perspective, than when he got a driver's license at 16.--

Comments (5) | Permalink

GUEST BLOG #79: Diane Holloway wants Betty White on 'SNL'

March 3, 2010 9:35 AM

[Bianculli here: Contributing columnist Diane Holloway's latest pet cause is one with which I couldn't agree more... Drafting Betty White as a guest host on NBC's Saturday Night Live. And in our enthusiasm for the White stuff, we're far, far from alone...]

Live From New York -- It's Betty White!

By Diane Holloway

Who doesn't love Betty White? Seriously, show me someone who doesn't love Betty White. And I'll show you a very grumpy person -- or an alien from a planet devoid of humor and adorable mischief.

By the time you read this, Betty White, who turned 88 in January, may be booked to host Saturday Night Live. A Draft-Betty movement recently launched on Facebook, partly as a result of the ageless octogenarian's hilarious Super Bowl ad (and maybe her recently televised Screen Actors Guild life achievement award), but also because, well, everybody loves Betty.

From the minute White morphed into tart-mouthed, surprisingly sexy Sue Ann Nivens on The Mary Tyler Moore Show in 1973, people have howled at her seemingly against-type performances. The perky, dimpled White looks as sweet and innocent as June Cleaver -- but she is more than willing to shatter that image.

Happy homemaker/homewrecker Sue Ann, who had a penchant for married men (OK, all men), bore no resemblance to real-life White. She was happily married for nearly two decades to TV host Allen Ludden, whom she met as a guest on his game show Password. He died in 1981, and she still tears up when she talks about him.

White went from sexy to simple, as clueless Rose Nylund on The Golden Girls, and then somehow made Boston Legal's murderous Catherine Piper good for a few belly-laughs. More recently, in last year's big-screen offering The Proposal, White cracked up audiences and star Sandra Bullock with her perfect timing and that gut-busting scene in which she searches for Bullock's boobs in an oversized wedding dress.

In real life, White, who loves all animals, also loves to toss out one-liners meant to shock. With that sweet smile and a twinkle in her eye, she can fire off four-letter words that would make some folks blush. She can be unexpectedly and hilariously snarky, and she seems to delight in the reaction she gets. The older she has gotten, the more fans she has acquired -- from her contemporaries in the senior sect to young people who can't believe that someone grandma's age can get away with such stuff.

So at some point around Christmas, the movement to convince Lorne Michaels to have White host SNL started to bubble. (By this weekend, the Facebook page had signed up nearly a half-million fans.) As I'm writing this, NBC is said to be close to putting together a co-hosting team of funny women that would include White. We don't know whom her co-hosts would be, but Tina Fey and Amy Poehler have been mentioned.

I don't care if NBC pairs White with Sarah Palin or Meryl Streep. Give her the stage on SNL and turn her loose -- we don't want to miss this golden opportunity.

----

Here's a bonus clip of White carping about Palin to Craig Ferguson (pretending she's a McCain aide):

And here's White long before The Mary Tyler Moore Show, in her own 1957 sitcom about a young married couple, Date With the Angels:

Comments (5) | Permalink

Jay Leno Returns to Late Night, Leaves Prime Time to "Parenthood"

March 2, 2010 11:57 AM

Jay Leno reclaimed his NBC Tonight Show throne Monday night, a month after vacating his prime-time slot. Filling that spot tonight? The premiere of NBC's new midseason drama entry, Parenthood. Reviews of both shows follow...

Jay Leno opened his comeback Tonight Show installment with a sepia-tinged taped sequence, in which, like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, he awakens from a dream to find himself back home. Leaning over him, instead of the Cowardly Lion and Tin Man, was bandleader Kevin Eubanks and Ross the intern.

Dorothy, of course, had traveled to a vivid, imaginative world, where she had triumphed over the Wicked Witch and earned her way back home. For Jay, the world of The Jay Leno Show was dull and lifeless, and his return to late-night was prompted not by success, but by its polar opposite.

"I'm Jay Leno," he said to open his return-night monologue. "I'm your host -- at least for a while." Over on CBS, his once and future 11:35 p.m. ET rival opened HIS show by boasting, "Welcome to The Late Show. My name is David Letterman. Same time, same host."

A pretaped piece, in which Jay knocked on residences in neighboring Burbank in search of a desk he could use on The Tonight Show, was an early highlight. Unfortunately, it was the ONLY highlight. Jay may have gotten a desk back, but he didn't improve his interviewing skills any. His Jamie Foxx interview was unfocused and uncontrolled, and his interview with Olympic gold medalist Lindsey Vonn was worse.

Vonn was there, showing off her beauty while detailing her skiing achievements, while Jay merely waited to spring his pre-written punch line. After pointing out that Vonn's husband also was her skiing coach and trainer, Jay asked. "Does that work in all aspects of the bedroom?"

Even the audience sounded taken aback by the question, and Leno apologized. "I don't know how to answer that question," Vonn replied. So she didn't, and left with her dignity intact.

What sort of questions will Jay fire, or lob, at Sarah Palin tonight? It's anybody's guess -- but Palin's appearance tonight, and the Jersey Shore cast's Wednesday night, will draw in the crowds. It'll be next week, when the guest roster finds its normal level, before we know what audience slippage Leno will experience because of his temporary prime-time debacle.

But just as Conan O'Brien can claim to be a victim of Jay Leno's desire to reclaim his late-night spotlight, so can Jimmy Fallon. This week is the one-year anniversary of Fallon's arrival on Late Night, replacing O'Brien -- but with Jay's Tonight Show returning the same night, who noticed? And, on NBC, where were the promos?

There were, however, tons of promos, all during the Olympics, for Parenthood, the second TV remake of 1989's wonderful ensemble comedy-drama Ron Howard film. Premiering on NBC tonight at 10 ET, this version, though twice as long as the first TV attempt (back in 1990, starring Ed Begley Jr.), isn't twice as good. But it does show some promise -- especially when Lauren Graham, Craig T. Nelson or Erica Christensen are front and center.

There's a scene, in the second episode, when Graham's character is attempting to enter the workforce, after more than a decade off, and is winding up a job interview with a much younger man. "I really want this job," she tells him, with such convincing raw honesty that it breaks your heart a little. And Nelson's patriarch, when he shows little patience for the children and grandchildren around him, generates similar waves of sympathy. It's hard not to agree with him.

Some of the dramatic plot lines are hit too hard, some of the comic ones too softly. But there's a lot of heart and not a little promise here -- and if this isn't nearly as good a family drama as Friday Night Lights, it comes from the same producers. And right now, they're about the only games in town...

Comments (5) | Permalink

Post-Olympics Reprise: One More Look at Theresa Corigliano's On-the-Scene Olympics Report

March 1, 2010 10:56 AM

[Bianculli here: Our newest TV WORTH WATCHING contributor, Theresa Corigliano, filed her first report straight from the Olympic Games, where she compared a lifetime of Olympic TV viewing to her weeks of being there in Vancouver. Her piece was posted for a few days just before the Olympics ended -- but for those who didn't catch it, it deserves an instant reprise. So here it is...]

Watching Olympics With Help from TV Osmosis

By Theresa Corigliano

The first Olympics I clearly remember was Grenoble, 1968. Instead of pictures of Monkees or Beatles in my high school locker, I had pictures of Peggy Fleming and Jean-Claude Killy. I wanted to marry Killy.

I dreamed about bumping into him somewhere in the mountain town of Val d'Isere. I can still see the bright green of the skating costume that Peggy Fleming's mother sewed for her when she won her medal, and recently found the Life magazine I saved all these years with Peggy on the cover. I keep it because a friend told me Peggy and her husband own a winery in Northern California and sometimes host private dinner parties at their house to talk about their wine. If I ever get to go to one of these soirees, I am going to bring the Life magazine. I visited their wine shop in Los Gatos, CA. Framed, on the wall, is the skating costume, and her skates and her medal. I cried when I saw it.

That's how much the Olympics have always meant to me. For all these years, I have watched the Games obsessively. I always weep when they end, and think to myself: Four years. That's forever in human years. I always think with a chill, how will my life be different four years from now?

Of course, it is always different in ways I could not have imagined, some good, some bad. But the joy I feel when it is time for the Games to return is unparalleled, compared to anything else I anticipate watching. And I am a TV girl. I love TV. I work in TV. I watch TV. But the Games are the kind of drama you cannot make up.

The sacrifice these people make to participate moves me. I was always a sucker for ABC's "Up Close and Personal" peeks into the athletes' lives (though now that I know better, I sometimes wince at the clumsy reach of some of these stories, so the networks can build excitement where there is none: Lindsey Vonn's shin! Russian ice dancers' aboriginal costume controversy! Bode Miller, from disgrace to redemption! Please!)

To my mind, no one did the Olympics better than ABC. There was no better voice of the Games than Jim McKay. But maybe that's because you never forget your first. When I sometimes see clips from these long-ago games, they look like kinescopes compared to how they unspool in my head. In fact, the Innsbruck Games, which I dimly recall, were broadcast in black and white, but those memories of mine -- they are in Technicolor.

So when I had the opportunity this month to go to my first Olympics, as exciting as it was for me to realize I was finally in a position to make it work, I also was a little worried. Maybe that sounds ridiculous, but it occurred to me that it could feel like looking down the wrong end of a telescope, a much narrower perspective. Would I miss feeling that feeling, as a TV viewer, of being omniscient?

Having just returned from Vancouver, still glowing, I can honestly say, it was specific, and different, and challenging and exhausting -- and it also was the experience of a lifetime. It was one of the happiest weeks of my entire life.

I smiled constantly -- I don't know, maybe being Canadian is contagious -- and every event I got to participate in was a thrill.

The Opening Ceremony, where we were given drums to play, and ponchos to wear (to everyone who asked, yes, we were wearing pale blue paper ponchos, the better to make us into the background where the light spectacular could play), and two different torches to flash and swirl.

The normal hill ski jump: a three-hour journey to Whistler, where we sat with happy Poles and Germans and Norwegians, and saw only the thrill of victory moments. The short-track night: when the Koreans went down like bowling balls and Ohno found himself just one medal short of his new nickname -- Apolo 7. The pairs skating, the men's short. With no commentary to rely on, I made sure I read newspapers and magazines even more obsessively and more intently for information. Who was injured? Who was favored? With no expert in my ear, I had to be my own color guy.

The irony was that some of the venues were offering little radios with an in-house commentary network for $20, but it was so poorly publicized around the arenas, or I was so immune to whatever ads there were, I didn't hear about it until the last event I was at. But it turned out to be a good thing.

Here's what happened instead. I found myself talking to my friend Marie about the high jump, the body position of the athletes over their skis. I heard myself critiquing the pairs' teams and the men figure skaters for my friend. I talked about toes pointed in boots, finishing a jump, doubling a jump rather than tripling it, the speed and leg position in the spins.

I knew that when a speed skater is in last position it means nothing for the champions; it's a strategy. I remembered athletes of games past and what they had done up till Vancouver. I knew my Olympics history. Marie said, "How do you know all this?" -- and that's when the two-word answer came to mind: TV osmosis.

I realized I know what I know because I have been watching and listening closely for over 30 years, and it stuck. Everything Dick Button has ever said, or Peggy Fleming or Sandra Bezic, or Scott Hamilton, Keith Jackson, Curt Gowdy or Chris Schenkel has stuck with me, and it stuck because I loved it. I realized I didn't need TV to enjoy the Games, but having watched the Olympics on TV all these years made it possible for me to have had the wonderful experience I had last week. TV didn't rot my brain; it anchored me.

What I did miss most, of course, was the aforementioned overview.

When you are at the Olympics, you're lucky to fit in one event a day, and pretty much have no idea what else is going on or what the results are. The one day we tried to do two events (ski jumping at 9 a.m., over at noon, and speed skating at 5 p.m. -- sounds doable, right?), we barely made it to the second event. When you're at the Olympics in this post 9/11 world, the start time of the event has no bearing on when you have to get there. Factoring in travel and security checks, we were often at a venue three hours before it began. That can cut into your day.

olympics 10 georgia-nodar-kumaritashvil.jpg

You would hear things in passing about other competitions (food station lady to souvenir sales clerk: "We won the gold medal!"), or the horrible news about the Georgian athlete who died while training. So I still counted on the late night Olympic wrap-ups on NBC, or CTV's saturated coverage of the Games for a rundown of what else had happened that day.

In truth, I couldn't wait to see the Opening ceremony on TV, because sitting in BC Place, we not only had no idea how all the special effects looked, we also had no idea till we watched television that there was a fourth post to the Olympic cauldron that didn't rise when it was supposed to rise. We couldn't tell the difference. The replays of the skating performances showed nuances that the naked eye can't possibly see, which is why the judges and commentators rely on their screens at the venues.

And as far as soaking up the atmosphere of the Games, we asked everyone we met where we should go in Vancouver; with no Today show to tell us the must-sees, we found our own.

We were out in the world, with the world, and that is something that television cannot communicate. Turn around at an art gallery, there are the Czech hockey coaches. Who are those guys buying pins? It's the curling team, in their pop art golf pants. Is that Sacha Cohen sitting next to us, in worse seats? Yes, it is, right next to Evan Lysacek's combustible sisters.

The Russian lady sitting next to me at the men's short waves two flags, because her husband is Canadian -- and she tells me conspiratorially that Evgeni Pluschenko was persuaded to un-retire by a concerned Soviet Skating federation, who feared their skaters, for the first time in years, might be shut out of the medals.

We were truly LIVE at the Games, and I am here to tell you, that is the remarkable difference you don't truly understand until you are living it -- and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. When London rolls around, and Sochi, I may be watching the Games on TV as I always have done, but Vancouver's Olympic flame will burn in a different way for me ... because I was there.

[Go to the original posting, GUEST BLOG #78, for previous comments -- then add your own here. -- David B.]

--

[Theresa Corigliano, our newest regular contributor at TV WORTH WATCHING, has an eclectic background in book publishing, sportswriting, and primarily, for the last 20 years, television -- as an executive, screenwriter and reporter.]

Comments (0) | Permalink

I Don't Usually Do This, But You MUST Watch This Keith Olbermann Segment from MSNBC's "Countdown"

February 27, 2010 11:38 AM

I've seen lots of captivating TV the past few days -- Olympics skating, curling and hockey, ABC's Lost, and so on -- but nothing quite so riveting, and unforgettable, as Keith Olbermann's passionate commentary on Wednesday's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC...

Normally, I would spend a few hundred words describing just why it impressed and moved me so much. But this time, I'd prefer to let the entire 13-minute piece speak for itself, as Olbermann speaks, clearly from the heart, about a very personal subject.

Television like this, and honesty and passion like this, is as rare as it is impressive.

When I saw it, it blew me away. If you haven't seen it yet, click HERE and watch "An American Cry for Help" to see the clip in its entirety -- then let me know YOUR reaction.

Comments (11) | Permalink

GUEST BLOG #78: Theresa Corigliano on The Olympic Games -- From the Point of View of Having Been There

February 25, 2010 4:50 PM

[Bianculli here: Please welcome our newest contributor, Theresa Corigliano, who just returned from the Winter Olympics in Vancouver -- and offers a wonderful column about what it's like to watch the Olympics both on and without television. "Having watched the Olympics on TV all these years made it possible for me to have had the wonderful experience I had last week," she says. "TV didn't rot my brain; it anchored me..."]

Watching Olympics With Help from TV Osmosis

By Theresa Corigliano

The first Olympics I clearly remember was Grenoble, 1968. Instead of pictures of Monkees or Beatles in my high school locker, I had pictures of Peggy Fleming and Jean-Claude Killy. I wanted to marry Killy.

I dreamed about bumping into him somewhere in the mountain town of Val d'Isere. I can still see the bright green of the skating costume that Peggy Fleming's mother sewed for her when she won her medal, and recently found the Life magazine I saved all these years with Peggy on the cover. I keep it because a friend told me Peggy and her husband own a winery in Northern California and sometimes host private dinner parties at their house to talk about their wine. If I ever get to go to one of these soirees, I am going to bring the Life magazine. I visited their wine shop in Los Gatos, CA. Framed, on the wall, is the skating costume, and her skates and her medal. I cried when I saw it.

That's how much the Olympics have always meant to me. For all these years, I have watched the Games obsessively. I always weep when they end, and think to myself: Four years. That's forever in human years. I always think with a chill, how will my life be different four years from now?

Of course, it is always different in ways I could not have imagined, some good, some bad. But the joy I feel when it is time for the Games to return is unparalleled, compared to anything else I anticipate watching. And I am a TV girl. I love TV. I work in TV. I watch TV. But the Games are the kind of drama you cannot make up.

The sacrifice these people make to participate moves me. I was always a sucker for ABC's "Up Close and Personal" peeks into the athletes' lives (though now that I know better, I sometimes wince at the clumsy reach of some of these stories, so the networks can build excitement where there is none: Lindsey Vonn's shin! Russian ice dancers' aboriginal costume controversy! Bode Miller, from disgrace to redemption! Please!)

To my mind, no one did the Olympics better than ABC. There was no better voice of the Games than Jim McKay. But maybe that's because you never forget your first. When I sometimes see clips from these long-ago games, they look like kinescopes compared to how they unspool in my head. In fact, the Innsbruck Games, which I dimly recall, were broadcast in black and white, but those memories of mine -- they are in Technicolor.

So when I had the opportunity this month to go to my first Olympics, as exciting as it was for me to realize I was finally in a position to make it work, I also was a little worried. Maybe that sounds ridiculous, but it occurred to me that it could feel like looking down the wrong end of a telescope, a much narrower perspective. Would I miss feeling that feeling, as a TV viewer, of being omniscient?

Having just returned from Vancouver, still glowing, I can honestly say, it was specific, and different, and challenging and exhausting -- and it also was the experience of a lifetime. It was one of the happiest weeks of my entire life.

I smiled constantly -- I don't know, maybe being Canadian is contagious -- and every event I got to participate in was a thrill.

The Opening Ceremony, where we were given drums to play, and ponchos to wear (to everyone who asked, yes, we were wearing pale blue paper ponchos, the better to make us into the background where the light spectacular could play), and two different torches to flash and swirl.

The normal hill ski jump: a three-hour journey to Whistler, where we sat with happy Poles and Germans and Norwegians, and saw only the thrill of victory moments. The short-track night: when the Koreans went down like bowling balls and Ohno found himself just one medal short of his new nickname -- Apolo 7. The pairs skating, the men's short. With no commentary to rely on, I made sure I read newspapers and magazines even more obsessively and more intently for information. Who was injured? Who was favored? With no expert in my ear, I had to be my own color guy.

The irony was that some of the venues were offering little radios with an in-house commentary network for $20, but it was so poorly publicized around the arenas, or I was so immune to whatever ads there were, I didn't hear about it until the last event I was at. But it turned out to be a good thing.

Here's what happened instead. I found myself talking to my friend Marie about the high jump, the body position of the athletes over their skis. I heard myself critiquing the pairs' teams and the men figure skaters for my friend. I talked about toes pointed in boots, finishing a jump, doubling a jump rather than tripling it, the speed and leg position in the spins.