The HD Hegemony of DirecTV

I have been feeling dismayed by the new season of Project Runway. My dissatisfaction is not rooted in its recent network change or cross-country move to Los Angeles (not a fashion capital, but still adequately equipped with fabric and thread). Rather it's the picture. It's the picture that got, well, not small but fuzzy.

That's because Lifetime, its new network, is not offered in high-def (HD) on my satellite provider, DirecTV. It's a big problem because this is a show that features a lot of bright lighting with white backgrounds. Also, one that encourages a viewer to look closely at small details, such as a bit of trim on the cuff of a sleeve. After all, you need to know exactly why Nina Garcia is employing that certain frown, and not one of the many others in her arsenal.

But distinguishing much of anything is a challenge. Because the image is so soft and the color saturation is so poor. After an hour I've got a headache. And I can't understand why this problem persists. Why does a service that endlessly trumpets its myriad HD capability refuse to add many of the most longstanding basic cable stations?

I decided to investigate. By going to the DirecTV website, I took a gander at the HD channels it has added recently and what is and is not available in high definition. In the past year the overwhelming majority of new HD offerings have been sports channels and packages. In fact, of the 100-plus channels available in HD, more than 50 are sports-centered.

What's not available? Lifetime, Hallmark, WE (Women's Entertainment), Style, E!, Oxygen, Soap channel, etc... Is it me, or do most of these channels have something in common? Namely, they are programmed for and mostly watched by women. These customers don't seem to have the same value as baseball fans.

Another show I had to stop watching because it looked awful was Beautiful People on Logo--the only gay and lesbian-directed channel on the dial. It's certainly very lonely since the PTB at DirecTV banished all of HereTV's content without any sort of explanation. (Don't try to talk me into Bravo. It's gay cred defenestrated itself a while ago, and I refuse to accept that all those bitchy housewives annoy just one demographic.)

Still, is this an effort to disenfranchise non-straight, non-sports-loving, non-males, or is this just aimless whining on my part? Maybe no providers offer these particular channels, you may posit. Well, many do. DishTV, for example, the other major satellite provider, offers most of them in HD. It even has adjacent channels like the Lifetime Movie Network and Hallmark Movie Channel in high-def. Many cable services are also more friendly to women and gay folk, and so are A.T.&T's U-Verse and Verizon's Fios services.

I thought DirecTV really ought to be more accountable to the full range of its subscribers. So I wrote them a letter outlining many of the concerns mentioned above. The response I received from Joan M. was a dismissive, "We don't have any news about upcoming HD channels." But it was the P.S. tacked on to the email that was the real kicker:

P. S. -Football season is almost here! Catch up to 14 games every week this fall with NFL SUNDAY TICKET, now available at directv.com/nfl.

P. P. S. -Joan, you and your satellite company just don't get it. The ball I'm most interested in watching is the one you guys have dropped. Maybe you could pick it up soon.

Like reading, GOOP is fundamental

It seems we've reached a saturation point with celebrity controversy. Because now you really have to go looking for the ones that don't involve sex tapes or a combo of the phrases "Disney starlet" and "stripper pole." For example, I was researching some info about a literary agent and suddenly found myself knee-deep in a contretemps between Gwyneth Paltrow and the publishing world's bloggers.

It seems Ms. Paltrow's web-destination, GOOP, has been flagged for recommending books it oughta not be recommending. Ones that serve the self-interests of her friends.

Disclaimer: I am greatly fond of Ms. Paltrow's work as an actor. I wish she'd cut through some of the extraneous goop that surrounds her and find the gumption to make more movies.

But I disagree with the literati in their castigation of her website's summer reading list.

Some of it's just plain ridiculous. Halogen Life has a problem with the list's referral to a large number of works by Alan Furst. In response to this Christopher Roy Correa writes, "So, any book by this guy. That helps." Well, if you've never heard of the author, it is helpful. And it's not like Alan Furst is equivocal to Jackie Collins.

But it seems that's also the problem. Many bloggers are attacking the highbrow nature of the selections. Ms. Paltrow herself lists both The Count of Monte Cristo and As I Lay Dying. Apparently, more people wish the site would follow the dictates of mass media outlets and simply enumerate the same trashy, fun beach-reads.

But the one criticism every site alludes to, first originated on Jezebel in reference to agent Luke Janklow's picks:
"For starters, Janklow himself appears to represent Tilly Bagshawe, author of Sidney Sheldon’s Mistress Of The Game, and Jilliane Hoffman, author of Plea Of Insanity. Of Hoffman, Janklow said in a press release, “Jilliane made my job as her agent incredibly easy – she wrote a perfect book.” Three other authors on Janklow’s recommendations list — Alex Wellen, Gideon Defoe, and Rafael Yglesias, are represented by other agents at Janklow’s agency. Andrew Gottlieb is repped by somebody at Janklow & Nesbit, and thanks Luke Janklow in his acknowledgements. That means of the six authors on Janklow’s recommendations list, his agency represents… six."

Many of these sites now impeach Ms. Paltrow as a corporate shill, but at best she is friend to a corporate shill. Further, to my mind, even that is dubious. Why is it surprising that Mr. Janklow has had opportunity to read mostly his own agency's authors? As a lit agent his time is likely taken up reading unpublished work and the fiction that he and his friends are hoping to support. And it's not like the GOOP is trying to conceal his identity or job function.

At the end of the day it all seems fairly disingenuous for these writers and sites devoted to the book business and its readers to attack someone trying to help their bottom lines. After all, just because a woman falls in love with Shakespeare, it doesn't mean he's the only author she's allowed to cuddle up with in bed.

It's Okay to Be a Qwitter

My friends, I have come here to praise and also bury Ashton Kutcher. Praise because the full-time celebrity crier is actually surprisingly smart and witty. Bury because, though the picture above belies the fact, what he needs most is less coverage.

Everywhere I turn, he's there. Ashton talking about his new movie Spread. Ashton promoting the new series he's producing on The CW. Ashton leading the charge of Twitter Nation. So much twitterpation around Mr. Kutcher, and yet my interest level keeps dropping.

The problem is this: he needs to limit himself. Because it would be a shame if, just as we the people were deciding he's not a poor man's Topher Grace with a weird family set-up, his ubiquity made us not care a whit.

One appearance he should not eschew, though, is his panel presence on Real Time w/ Bill Maher. Here is where he shines most brightly, giving opinions that convey political acumen far beyond your typical Chad Michael Murray interview. He knows his stuff; he's well read and his memory for detail is near-eidetic. Moreover, he's capable of arguing a point with enough tact and good humor that he doesn't come off as self-serious.

Though I would caution him against letting his emotions sally too far ahead of his logic. His animosity toward Dan Savage last year (And I'm still not clear as to why.) came across as unwarranted and homophobic.

To sum up, Mr. Kutcher is proving himself to be an above-average actor, producer, and thinker. Yet he's still routinely placed in the company of mindless self-promoters like Paris or Lindsay. My advice is to stop telling so much and only show up when it's really worthwhile. Maybe then an Ashton appearance will be a welcome treat, not just one more silly tweet.

P.S. - In pointing out to my friend how I had grown tired of looking at Ashton Kutcher's crotch, I realized "Ashton Kutcher's crotch" is a fantastic tongue-twister. Go ahead, try to say it five times fast.

Say My Name- Or Better Yet, Spell It

I was recently considering the fortunes of poor Better Off Ted. Such a good show, yet it can't even seem to muster traction during the summer months while little of worth is being shown on network TV. And I pondered why. My conclusion was that Ted would be better off with a different name.

Here's my hypothesis: Cutesy or clever titles for shows do not make viewers propagate in Peoria. The same guy (Victor Fresco) who is responsible for Ted also created Andy Richter Controls the Universe. Another preciously labeled series that never found significant viewership. Like Ted, it was also a funny and surreal workplace comedy. So, what if it had simply been called The Office? Too late now, that name's taken (for several seasons so far).

Taking a gander at the various popular TV shows over the past twenty years or so, a pattern emerges--simple one word titles or official-sounding initials are best. The highest rated program of the 1990's: E.R. The most popular scripted show of the past decade: C.S.I. By far the most watched comedies of the same period: Friends and Seinfeld.

If you're a network looking for mass market love, short really is sweet. To this day I'm still shocked that a show as refined, urbane, and witty as Frasier was a big hit for so long. But then it wasn't called Frasier Crane: Nutty Radio Doctor.

Heroes' single moniker has somehow reprieved the show through two abysmal seasons. And the executives programming for the summer interim have certainly figured out the formula. What are the shows that are currently recurring again? Monk, and Psych, and Eureka, and Weeds, and Leverage, and (The) Closer are just a few.

Still, success is not exclusively limited by one word or initials. But if the name's longer, it should be bland or indistinct. Think Private Practice, not Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Something like Dirty Sexy Money was doomed from the start. The title made it clear that it was trying too hard--well, the title and every episode of the show.

The New Adventures of Old Christine is an interesting case. It's a show that's been on the bubble at the end of every season since it began. Now CBS seems anxious to rebrand it. In promos the show is only ever referred to as Old Christine or simply, Christine. On the same network, How I Met Your Mother (so cutesy) has endured a slow climb to moderate ratings.

Your title can't be too smart for the room. Pushing Daisies was cunning. The name was code for the occupation of the deceased, but also alluded to the Sisyphean task of loving something you can never touch. It was toast. The wordsmithery behind Arrested Development was better and more elaborate than any title for anything ever. In every episode the Bluth clan exhibited all kinds of infantile and regressive behavior while residing in the unfinished model home that symbolized their S.E.C.-seized real estate business. How this show managed to hang on for three seasons, I'll never know.

The exceptions: a name can be moderately clever if it immediately and succintly explains your show's raison d'etre (minus any double entendre). For example, Desperate Housewives or Ghost Whisperer. Or a name can sound clever but actually be nonsensical: Two and a Half Men.

The name game functions for reality TV, too. In my opinion So You Think You Can Dance is a product superior to American Idol. But the latter's audience dwarfs the former. Why? Well, American Idol sounds iconic, even nationalistic. So You Think You Can Dance sounds like some kids' variety program you would have found on Nickelodeon in 1989.

Let me be clear and say that I'm not endorsing all of this uncomplicated banality. CSI: NY, NCIS: LA, Bones, House, etc... These names are so pointlessly enigmatic that some dullard will very soon suggest a film where Nic Cage searches for treasure using clues from the weekly TV schedule.

Looking ahead to the fall, based on my scientific research, some of the shows that will do well include Trauma, Glee, Modern Family, The Good Wife, and Eastwick. Programs with less happy prospects are Accidentally on Purpose and FlashForward. Also, unfortunately, Cougar Town falls onto its own double-sided petard, by being a show featuring Cougars (a high school football team) and cougars (ladies a little too interested in the high school football team). I hope I'm wrong, as I love me some Courtney Cox (forever the most unfairly under-celebrated Friend). Community is either too twee or just perfect, only time will tell.

The biggest question mark is NBC's five nights a week show merely called Jay Leno. The name means nothing to me, but let's see if he's any better off than Ted.

The Ugly Truth: The Fairer is Not the Fainter.

There is nothing egalitarian about the interweb. The people who most often and most ardently speak their minds on its various sites are not prone to fairness or restraint. As a race they seem impetuous and cavalier, not interested in reflection or proofreading. And that would explain the rampant disuse of grammar rules; the sheer number of comment posts that misspell every word including "and" and "the."

One celebrity currently facing vicious and unintelligible attacks by net denizens is Katherine Heigl. The Grey's Anatomy actor has recently had the temerity to complain about something on a chat show. A seventeen-hour workday, to be precise. This caused Lucy on EW.com to angrily respond, "seriously there are ppl out of work that would love a 17 hour day of hard labor, let alone a cushy acting job."

This remark is representative of many others floating in the ether, and wow, is it ever stupid. Because it ignores the context of Ms. Heigl's comment--she was being flippant, not aggreived. Moreover, Ms. Heigl, while surely all-powerful, did not create our situation of vast unemployment. And, though I agree that many people would like to find a job, I don't know of anyone who would "love" an extremely long day of hard labor.

Piling on top of the public's newfound distaste for Ms. Heigl, two of her former co-workers, Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen, publicly unveiled their own contemptuous opinions this week. About a year or two ago, Ms. Heigl responded to a direct question asked by a Vanity Fair reporter. In her answer she admitted that Knocked Up (directed by Apatow, co-starring Rogen) was "a little sexist." Now, Mr. Apatow claims he is still miffed because her comment wasn't followed by an apologetic call to him.

If I were Mr. Apatow, I would call Ms. Heigl and apologize for expecting an apology. Not just because he's too smart not to realize that the actor was hedging her bets by not calling the film exorbitantly sexist (to women and men). But also because, in his three films so far, only she has come close to embodying a woman with a fulsome personality. In fact, he might want to use the phone call to inquire about her availability for his next picture.

Mr. Rogen was much less diplomatic. "I've got to say it's not like we're the only people she said some batsh-- crazy things about," he told Howard Stern. "That's kind of her bag now."

Putting aside the fact that I generally enjoy Apatow and Rogen's output, it amazes me that these two men are apparently so thin-skinned. Anyone who has worked in or around the Hollywood culture knows that this is a place where even so-called friendly colleagues will tender vile and unrepeatable opinions at point-blank range. I can only guess that Mr. Rogen's success has insulated him too well, because how else to explain his still nursing hurt feelings (over a mild, offhand remark) that he needs to share with a nation.

In any event, plenty of hostiles on various sites agree with him, choosing to affirm his venom and diagnosing his co-star as "insane" and "bipolar." I have no doubt that these commentors received their psychiatric degrees from fine institutions, but let's examine Ms. Heigl's craziness a bit.

Who has she attacked? Really, just Isaiah Washington. And that was in response to his making cruel and bigoted statements about her friend. Who has she offended? The writers at Grey's Anatomy (maybe). She said her storylines for a particular season were not deserving of an Emmy. As someone who watched that entire season, I would have to say she was very right.

So really, what crimes has Katherine Heigl committed? Well, she's answered questions honestly. She's stood up against gay-bashing. And she's been considerate enough to step aside so as to insure that another actor will deservedly reap a reward.

These things may not make her popular with the haters, but they sure do make her egalitarian.