 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
February 2010 Archives
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.
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.
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.
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.
--
[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.]
Late Night Prepares to Shift Again, And Ferguson Already Is Experimenting
February 24, 2010 6:08 PM
Monday evening, after the Olympics are over, Jay Leno will return to NBC's The Tonight Show, and is bringing a pair of Olympic medal winners with him on opening night. Meanwhile, as Leno plans to return with a big splash, another late-night TV host is quietly experimenting, with no advance publicity whatsoever...
Craig Ferguson, on Tuesday night's Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson on CBS, quietly tried something new. For him, anyway, though it actually was something old. He did away with the studio audience, and talked intimately with his guest (in this case, actor-writer-comic Stephen Fry) just as Tom Snyder had before him.
Leno first. The former and next Tonight Show host, after weeks of laying low, has used NBC's Olympic platform to trumpet his new late-night lineup. For anyone with Olympic fever, Monday's show, featuring Lindsey Vonn, is a big draw. Tuesday's is an even bigger catch, with Sarah Palin appearing -- and she gets to enjoy the added benefit of appearing opposite Leno's rival and her nemesis, David Letterman.
And later in the opening stretch, The Tonight Show offers a mock game show featuring certain cast members of MTV's Jersey Shore, including the infamous Snooki. No getting around it: That's three more reasons to watch Jay Leno, out of simple curiosity value, than he gave us the last few months of his prime-time Jay Leno Show.
Over on CBS, Letterman is presenting original shows, and featuring such guests as Jerry Seinfeld, who was leno's inaugural prime-time guest. But if Conan O'Brien is going to appear, even as a silent cameo, no word has leaked as of yet.
But offically, the latest round of the late-night wars begin Monday. Give it two weeks for viewership to find its own level, and for us -- and NBC and CBS -- to learn if, and how much, Leno's prime-time failure will cost him in his late-night rebirth.
Meanwhile, Craig Ferguson, without any advance fanfare, devoted Tuesday night's hour to a single guest with no audience. It had an intriguing feel, robbing Ferguson of his usual double entendre asides to the audience, but allowing for an even more free-flowing conversational path than usual. He and Fry talked about American vs. British attitudes, the success of Fry's old comedy partner Hugh Laurie, bipolar disorder and cocaine abuse, and so, so much more.
At the end, Ferguson confessed to being uneasy and awkward, especially at first. Yet many of his now-signature bits, including post-show loosed-tie wrapups and hand puppets, began as off-the-cuff one-shot experiments.
Ferguson would be unwise to scrap or revamp his talk-show format at this point for a no-audience version -- he's too funny for that. But it's a nice change, a distinctive wrinkle, and shows him off in a way that most of his rivals would be ill-equipped to emulate. Why not keep trying the no-audience thing for a while, but only once a week -- as, say, a series of Casual Friday specials?
On those production days when The Late Late Show takes two shows nightly, having one of them be audience-free could be a logistical boon as well as a stylistic shift and emotional lift. At least, at any rate, Craig Ferguson is juiced enough to try something new, and challenge himself.
Over the next few weeks, we'll see if that applies to Lay Leno as well...
"Under Our Skin" Documentary Deserves National TV Exposure
February 21, 2010 11:43 AM
It took Andy Abrahams Wilson four years to film the patients, doctors and controversies documented in his nonfiction film Under Our Skin, about the hotly argued sources and treatments of Lyme disease. Another year has passed since its first theatrical showing -- and it's time for a national TV program or network to step up and televise it...
Under Our Skin, produced by Open Eye Pictures, takes what seems to be a straightforward subject -- the spread and treatment of Lyme disease -- and turns it into a detective story, a romance, an inspirational drama, a conspiracy thriller and a science lesson, all in one.
Had writer-director-photographer Wilson selected his subject, swooped in, gathered evidence and left, his movie would have only a fraction if its power. By sticking around for years, and tracking both the degeneration and the improvements of certain patients, Under Our Skin presents a more complete case. And, in the end, an unforgettable one.
The science of Lyme disease isn't avoided or underplayed. Under the microscope, we learn of spirochetes and biofilms. In the woods, we walk with a Lyme expert who casually sweeps a white cloth along the ground, and effortlessly gathers male, female and nymph ticks. In newspaper and TV reports, we are reminded of the origin of the disease's name, and recent fights over the proper treatment and diagnosis of Lyme disease.
After a while, the overhead shots of idyllic autumn landscapes, whether unblemished forests or tree-laden suburbs, take on a tone that is less serene than sinister. And through home movies and years of Wilson's own photography, we get to know lots of people who insist they suffer from Lyme disease -- and see them at such polar opposites of health that empathy is unavoidable.
There's Mandy, for example, a beautiful woman whose wedding video shows a vibrant young lady -- but who, when we meet her, is reduced to floating in a swimming pool to get any sense of relief. Over the course of the documentary, she gets much worse -- then, after changing doctors and medications, much better.
Other patients are shown, and other doctors heard from. One of the things this documentary does so well is gather the shared experiences of all these patients into rapid-file strings of testimony, filmed the same way over a light grey background. Number of doctors seen? Different types of diagnoses? Total amount of medical costs? Persistent symptoms? They all answer the same questions, and their answers really add up.
One fascinating figure in Under Our Skin is Dr. Alan MacDonald, who has dedicated decades of his life to disproving the prevailing medical theory that Lyme disease is "easy to treat, easy to cure." In a makeshift laboratory in his home basement, he keeps looking for clues to prove his idea that Lyme is a chronic illness -- and, eventually, finds and publishes a report linking Lyme to such accepted, but as yet unexplained, chronic diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
And just when certain doctors are shown offering treatments which appear to help their patients with long-suffering Lyme symptoms, those same doctors are attacked -- accused of malpractice and judged by medical boards. The motives for these peer reviews may have something to do with insurance companies and health-care costs, which makes this documentary very timely, as well as quite infuriating.
The last third of Under Our Skin may, so to speak, tick you off. But it also is very heartening, offering hope merely by taking the time and effort to follow its subjects through years of controversial treatment. What happens to them should be seen by everyone.
As should this feature-length documentary. It appears to be a fine fit for Frontline, P.O.V. or Independent Lens on PBS, or as part of HBO's already impressive commitment to nonfiction filmmaking, or a good acquisition by any cable network looking to enhance its own schedule and reputation. Here's hoping, before long, you can see what I've seen, and be similarly educated and impressed.
Ricky Gervais Continues to Bat 1.000 on TV, This Time with HBO's "Ricky Gervais Show"
February 18, 2010 11:30 AM
Ricky Gervais, on television, has a perfect streak going. BBC's The Office, the original series in which he starred, and which co-wrote with Stephen Merchant: brilliant. HBO's Extras, the series featuring both him and Merchant on-camera as well as off: brilliant. Gervais' HBO stand-up special: brilliant. And now comes The Ricky Gervais Show, an animated HBO version of an ongoing series of conversational podcasts.
And guess what? It, too, is brilliant...
Gervais, and his special brand of humor, have been infecting pop culture for almost a decade now. Hardly anyone outside of British radio enthusiasts were aware of Gervais when the new century began. His only significant media experience came in the 1990s, with a show for London's Xfm radio, where he worked with an assistant named Stephen Merchant. Merchant left for the BBC, Gervais followed, and the two of them pitched and created The Office, broadcast in the United Kingdom to great acclaim from 2001-2003.
After the success of The Office, Xfm invited Gervais and Merchant back to do anything they wanted -- and what they wanted was to sit in a studio and talk. They were assigned a producer, a man named Karl Pilkington, and his strange take on the world, and everything in it, soon turned him into the show's secret weapon and breakout star.
The years of Xfm's The Ricky Gervais Show have long been available as podcasts -- but after the success of Gervais' follow-up TV series, Extras, HBO cut a deal to mount an animated version of Gervais' podcasts. The result, HBO's Ricky Gervais Show, begins Friday night at 9 p.m. ET -- and whether or not you've heard the podcasts, the TV version will leave you charmed.
Chalk it up in part to alternatively incisive and cruel questions by Merchant and Gervais, in part to Gervais' infectious laugh, and the rest to Pilkington, whose observations may have little connection to facts or reality -- but, in their deadpan delivery and skewed logic, are priceless. No one, not even Gervais and Merchant, could write the stuff that comes out of Pilkington's mouth, which is why they're so delighted by him.
Karl Pilkington is to Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant what Margaret Dumont was to the Marx Brothers -- a comic foil so blissfully unaware, everyone else is made funnier as a result.
The animation, at times, works perfectly, as when Karl confuses the evolution of man with information he's absorbed on The Flintstones. Other times, it's totally superfluous. It's the sound, not the sight, that makes this TV show so much fun... but as TV shows go, it's another home run regardless.
By the way -- next week I'm interviewing Gervais for Fresh Air. I usually don't have enough advance warning to ask this, but this time I do, so I may as well:
Have any questions you're dying to have Gervais answer? I'm not promising to ask any, but I'm open to all suggestions... and I'd also love to know what you think of The Ricky Gervais Show, so let me know.
GUEST BLOG #77: Cindy Ronzoni on the coolest February sweep of all -- curling!
February 15, 2010 7:22 PM
[Bianculli here: I'm keeping this column up for another day to promote both curling -- there are more games today (Wednesday), starting at noon ET on USA Network -- and our newest contributor. She's Cindy Ronzoni, who has decades of experience as a high-profile TV publicist and analyst - and, more to the point for today's column, also has actual, and enviable, experience at my favorite Olympic sport: curling...]
10 Reasons Why Curling Is Cool
By Cindy Ronzoni
If a group of spectators was asked which sport is the silliest, the hands-down answer would be curling. Curling is the Rodney Dangerfield of athletics -- it gets no respect. It's been that way in the USA for years. But in places like Canada and Scotland (where the sport originated), curlers are revered as rock stars.
And the heckling may soon stop in the U.S., thanks to NBC devoting more than 100 hours to curling coverage during the 2010 Winter Olympics. TV coverage begins today (Tuesday, Feb. 16) when the U.S. men's curling team takes on Germany (at noon ET on USA), while the U.S. women face Japan (at 5 p.m. ET on CNBC) -- two tough competitions.
Though curling made its Olympic debut in 1998, the sport came front and center during 2002's Salt Lake City Games, when NBC's networks featured more than 50 hours of coverage. Then NBC's 2006 Torino Games aired more than 80 hours of brooms on ice.
I know TV coverage makes a difference, because that's how I became a curler in Southern California. My parents had curled before moving from northern Minnesota, but the Los Angeles club closed in the late '60s. It wasn't until 2002 that a curling club was talked about in Southern California again, and it didn't stick until after the Torino Games. Fortunately, I was able to be a part of that 2006 start-up process, and from that, I was able to learn the game from scratch. We now have active curling leagues in Simi Valley, Van Nuys, Escondido and Westminster. Southern California has become a curling Mecca. Who knew?
But the sport is growing all across America. The United States Curling Association reports membership increased 27 percent from 2002-2009, as 20 new clubs started in places as unexpected as Arizona, Tennessee and Texas. The USCA now has nearly 17,000 registered curlers, with more than 16,000 additional junior curlers. And thanks to NBC's ever-expanding Olympics curling coverage, the USCA is expecting more growth. Our regular Learn-To-Curl event at the Hollywood Curling Club averages 30 new curlers, but last week's public event drew more than 140. Every curling club in America is getting ready to handle post-Vancouver crowds. Curling fever has definitely hit the U.S.
Why is curling becoming cool? Here's my Top Ten list of reasons curling is finally getting some U.S. respect.
10. Drinking is allowed. Drinking of alcoholic beverages for those of age is encouraged in this sport. There's even a name for it -- broom staking. The winning team traditionally takes the losers out for a drink of their choice.
9. Easy-to-follow. Curling is one of the easiest sports to explain, especially to those who know how shuffleboard or bocce ball is played. Curling basically is shuffleboard on ice. Points are made by being closest to the middle (the button).
8. One of the positions is called the Skip. Each team has four positions -- Lead, Second, Vice-Skip and Skip. The Skip is the quarterback of the team, and as such, he/she doesn't ever sweep, but is in charge of the strategy of the game. Who wouldn't love being called Skip?
7. Trading pins. Just like you see at the Olympics, pin-trading is part of the sport. Each club designs a curling pin and hands them out when playing other clubs. It's common to see curlers' hats and vests covered with pins from clubs all over the world.
6. Curling mixes competitiveness with socializing. At the start and end of every game, each curler shakes the opposing players' hands and says "Good curling." The game is about honor and good sportsmanship. And the teams come together again to share a beverage after the eight ends of play.
5. Delivery stick. How many sports have a delivery stick? For those curlers with bum knees or who are unable to crouch, a delivery stick can be used legally. This sport allows people to enjoy playing even when their knees give out.
4. Teflon-bottom shoe. Curling shoes allow top performance, but also insulate the feet when standing on the ice. The left foot is the proper sliding foot for those right-handed, and vice versa for left-handers. In order to slide properly, the sole of the curling shoe has a Teflon bottom, and when worn on ice, it's like stepping on a banana peel.
3. Hurry, Hurry, Hard, Hard. Curling has fun terminology, like the sweeping commands "hurry, hurry, hard, hard," instructing the sweepers to sweep hard and fast. Other cool terms include hack (the device you slide out of), take-out (bumping another stone out of the house), draw weight (throwing the stone to land in the house), and freeze (when the stone rests next to another).
2. Mainstream media have caught the fever. Curling has been receiving attention from such national outlets as HBO's Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel, NBC's The Jay Leno Show, Comedy Central's Colbert Report and numerous publications, including a front page sports story in the Los Angeles Times.
1. Marge and Homer Simpson say it's cool to curl. That's right. Fox's award-winning series The Simpsons featured curling in its special Winter Olympics themed episode last Sunday (Feb. 14). If The Simpsons thinks curling is cool, that's the best endorsement the sport could get as a barometer of what's truly hip in the world.
Curling may be the butt of jokes right now. And those who try it will land "on their butts" more than once learning the delivery of a 42-pound granite rock. But once I delivered my first stone, I was hooked. Gliding on the ice and controlling the speed of that circular granite rock was a rush I had never experienced, even as a collegiate volleyball champion. In my short curling tenure, I've competed in several bonspiels (tournaments) and become a certified instructor.
Who knows? If you start curling today, it might be you that NBC features in four years from Sochi, Russia.
--
Cindy Ronzoni -- a veteran Hollywood media-strategy executive for Fox and other networks -- began her curling career after the 2002 Olympic Games. She has been a member of the Hollywood Curling Club and San Diego Curling Club, and is now involved in the formation of OC Curling. When she's not on the ice, she's tracking media trends in public relations, social media and marketing. Read her observations at cindyronzoni.com.
NBC's 2010 Olympics: Off to a Tragic/Thrilling/Impressive Start
February 15, 2010 10:55 AM
The opening weekend of NBC's coverage of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games from Vancouver started tragically, ended thrillingly, and featured a lot of emotional and impressive moments in between. All in all, it was a strong start, establishing, once again, that the best - and worst - Olympic moments follow no set script...
Athletically, the best moment of the weekend came Sunday night, when Chinese pairs skaters Shen Xue and Zhao Hongbo (shown above) -- the first to take the ice -- set a standard so amazing, no other duo that evening came close.
Patriotically, the best moment of the weekend also came Sunday night, when moguls skier Hannah Kearney, who had won the first gold medal for the U.S. at these winter games, was shown standing atop the podium as the national anthem played. Her run the night before, stealing the gold from Canadian favorite Jen Heil, was a riveting high-speed display of both athletic talent and raw exuberance.
The same was true of Canadian moguls skier Alexandre Bilodeau, who managed to gain instant superstar status by ending his country's streak of not winning a gold medal when hosting a Winter Olympics.
NBC had better televise Bilodeau's medal ceremony tonight, when "O Canada" gets to be played before the home nation. Listening to other anthems, and watching the nationalistic pride of athletes from other countries, is one of the best parts of these games -- and perhaps the truest example of the Olympic spirit.
Other athletic events covered provided drama of their own. The luge contests, after the death during a Friday training run of Georgia athlete Nodar Kumaritashvili, were invested with a tragic sense of almost palpable tension.
NBC, forced to shuffle the broadcast schedule when inclement weather postponed most alpine skiing events, did not hesitate in shining a prime-time spotlight on luge.
U.S. Short-track speedskater Apolo Anton Ohno, this time, was the beneficiary of a literally last-second slip by two competitors, which allowed him to reach the podium, and gain a silver medal, in his first final of 2010. Had that not happened, though, he had been outskated in that particular race by three other athletes -- something NBC, at times, seemed to downplay.
The network did not, however, downplay the luge-track tragedy, and opening the Olympics with it was the right way to go. And overall, my favorite contribution by an NBC broadcaster came Sunday night, when Bob Costas remarked on the post-interview massive kiss planted on Canada's gold-medal-winning Bilodeau by his girlfriend.
"Judging by the scene with Bilodeau immediately after Tina [Dixon]'s interview," Costas said wryly, "this is going to be a very good Valentine's Day for him all the way around."
As for the opening ceremony, it was most definitely a mixed bag. I loved K.D. Lang's version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah," but the malfunctioning hydraulics at the end didn't help much. And the delay, in fact, resulted in the indoor Olympic torch (as opposed to the "real," permanent outdoor one lit a while later) being ignited four hours and 31 minutes into NBC's coverage -- seconds AFTER the opening-night coverage was scheduled to end.
And is it just me, or when anyone else saw that arctic bear constellation, rising from the ground during the opening ceremonies, did it bring to mind the giant Stay-Puft marshmallow man from Ghostbusters?
GUEST BLOG #76: There's Snow Way Diane Holloway Is Passing Up the Winter Olympics
February 11, 2010 11:18 AM
[Bianculli here: The 2010 Winter Olympic Games, whose Opening Ceremonies launch Friday night at 7:30 ET on NBC, is that network's much-needed injection of good news and large audiences. But do the Olympics still maintain their gold-standard appeal? I say yes, but I'm oddly addicted to curling. Contributing critic Diane Holloway says yes, also, and provides her reasons why...]
Looking Forward to
The Attack of the Flying Tomato
By Diane Holloway
Am I a sports-obsessed simpleton? Possibly. Probably. The Super Bowl was the highlight of my month so far, and I'm nearing hysteria over the arrival of the Winter Olympics.
Athletic endeavors just look so splendid on TV, don't they? Especially with the glorious spectacle of high-def and big screens. Add super-slow motion, and you've got visual poetry smack dab in your face. Bring it!
From Feb. 12 through Feb. 28, I'll be submerged in Olympic fun, drama and beauty. Although host Bob Costas can get irritating pretty quickly, it's possible to tune out the talking head and focus on the events.
The thought has crossed my mind that a big chunk of the country might be so sick of snow right now that the Winter Olympics will be repugnant. Instead of seeing a white wonderland, they may see reminders of another exhausting day of shoveling and shivering.
Not me. I'm primed and ready for the white stuff. Central Texas has been unusually cold this winter, but just last week we hit 65 degrees one day! I'm ready for some spinning and schussing. The Winter Olympics may not showcase the most popular American sports, but they're so much prettier than all that sweating and panting in the Summer Games.
Figure skating, of course, is custom-made for TV, from the gauzy costumes to the blurred spins to the leaping jumps to the flamboyant personalities and melodramatic life stories. Singles, pairs and dancers all seem to arrive with tales of amazing obstacles overcome and earlier dreams shattered. And while some die-hard super-patriots may care only about American skaters, competitors from around the world are riveting.
Of all the winter Olympic sports, figure skating has long been the most popular with TV viewers, and Vancouver should be no exception. Stoic Evan Lysacek and wacky Johnny Weir will draw enormous crowds, as well the young lady dynamos Rachael Flatt and Mira Nagasu. These Americans may not bring home the gold, but they'll definitely bring home the ratings.
Ditto speed-skating Americans Apolo Anton Ohno (even more popular since his "Dancing with the Stars" victory) and Shani Davis. Other Americans who appear headed for Olympic stardom include downhill skiers Lindsey Vonn and Bode Miller (will he finally live up to expectations?) and uber-hip snowboarder Shaun White (aka The Flying Tomato).
Skiing and skating are the top Winter Olympic sports, but hockey likely will be big, too. Do you believe in miracles? Maybe we should. NBC has hired former ABC Olympic hockey guy Al Michaels, who coined the phrase, so maybe we'll see another miracle on ice.
For those of us who are truly obsessed with the Olympics, the also-ran sports are equally entertaining. Although it makes my palms sweat to watch people zooming down a tube with their feet dangling unprotected, the luge competition is downright thrilling. Bobsled is fun, too, but the luge just looks ridiculously dangerous, doesn't it?
Ski jumping? Oh, hell yes. The learning curve for this sport has got to be near-fatal, but it's breathtaking to watch these athletes leap into the air and soar. Even if they splat rather than gently land, they're fun to watch. Not that we want to see injuries, because we don't.
Friends and family members know I will be "otherwise engaged" for the next two weeks, so they won't be asking me to do anything away from the TV. I'm a simpleton about the Olympics. Shamelessly obsessed. Vancouver, here I come!
--
Diane Holloway was the TV critic for the Austin American Statesman for 30 years, until the downturn in the newspaper business prompted her to take a buyout. She's now sniffing out other possibilities. Before newspapers, she worked in Washington for the Library of Congress, the American Film Institute and the National Endowment for the Arts. Maybe something entirely different is next. Or not.
Did Super Bowl XLIV Really Outdraw "M*A*S*H"? Not Necessarily...
February 9, 2010 10:08 AM
Both CBS and the Nielsen Company give credit to Sunday's CBS telecast of Super Bowl XLIV as the all-time most popular TV event, slightly beating the finale of the same network's M*A*S*H, a record that has stood for 27 years. But if you look at the statistics from a slightly different angle, that record STILL stands...
Certainly, Super Bowl XLIV was a huge deal, and drew a huge audience. It was helped by the presence of two hot quarterbacks, Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints and Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts. And by the dramatic story line of the team from New Orleans, rising from the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.
And, not incidentally, by a brutal snowstorm blanketing much of the country that kept many people indoors -- and by a close game, that wasn't decided until an interception by the Saints in the final minutes.
That all added up to an estimated average audience of 106.5 million viewers. That's not only the highest Super Bowl audience of all time, but, in terms of overall viewers, it slightly edges the long-standing champion, the 1983 "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen" finale of the CBS sitcom M*A*S*H.
But...
As they say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Come at those same numbers from another direction, and M*A*S*H still retains the crown.
Take, for example, one statistic, for TV households. Nielsen estimates that 51.7 million households watched all or part of Sunday's Super Bowl, making it more popular than that M*A*S*H farewell, credited with 50.2 million households.
Yet the Nielsen ratings themselves, which measure the percentage of all homes with television sets, credit Super Bowl XLIV with a 45 rating - quite impressive, but nowhere near the M*A*S*H rating of 60. Back then, nearly 77 percent of all homes watching television that night were tuned to Hawkeye and company. Even the top metered markets for Super Bowl XLIV averaged only a 68 share.
But here's the real perspective-changer. The United States population has grown by almost one-third since M*A*S*H was televised. So in 1983, when M*A*S*H drew 106 million viewers, the overall population was 233.7 million -- making the show's reach an astounding 45 percent of the country.
By contrast, the Saints-Colts game, with its 106.5 million, was playing to a nation of 315.5 million -- meaning that it drew, by comparison, a "paltry" 33.7 percent of the country.
M*A*S*H the numbers that way, and M*A*S*H is winner, and still champion...
GUEST BLOG #75: Diane Holloway Looks Forward to the Oscars... But Why?
February 8, 2010 8:23 AM
[The Oscars are a month away and counting... and contributing critic Diane Holloway is counting. In her latest column, she tries to explain why...]
Remembering the Oscars,
from Rob Lowe and Snow White
to Billy Crystal and Barbra Streisand
By Diane Holloway
Oscar nominations came out this week, and even if you haven't seen half of the (way too many) movies honored, you've probably already marked March 7 on your calendar.
You'll either watch the Academy Awards' interminable telecast in the semi-privacy of your home, keeping a scorecard, or you'll attend an over-the-top Oscar party in your best finery. Either way, you know you'll stay up too late and drink too much for a Sunday night.
If ever there was must-see TV, the Oscar telecast is it. Even if the production numbers are excruciating (remember Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White?), or the host not-so-hot (I thought Whoopi Goldberg was much worse than David Letterman), we'll watch to the bitter end and talk about it for days after.
Watch the Oscar "Lowe point" HERE.
What's the big deal about rich people patting each other on their designer-draped backs and thanking their families, God and the entire universe? Simple answer: Movies are glamorous, and live TV is alluring. (TV itself is not considered glamorous, which is why the Emmys don't do so well.) It's unpredictable and sometimes even exciting. (How else to explain the never-ending runs of Saturday Night Live and American Idol?)
The drumbeat to the Oscars always includes whispers about who'll be wearing what and who'll run into whom. Will the brilliant but fashion-challenged Meryl Streep listen to her Hollywood handlers and learn to steer clear of peasant skirts and chunky Indian jewelry? Will Johnny Depp over-fix his hair, and will he go just a tad lighter on the eyeliner? Please?
The Oscar host plays a sizable role, too, and for years we were the lucky recipients of Billy Crystal's brilliance. We looked forward to his musical opener, and we awaited his friendly slaps at the towering egos in the audience. Click HERE for a taste.
This year, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin are the odd-couple comedy duo sharing hosting duties. The co-stars of It's Complicated might play off each other brilliantly. Or they might try to upstage each other to the point where spectators feel left out. Click HERE for a fast taste.
Oscar devotees like me can recall specific moments from years or even decades back. Barbra Streisand in her see-through pantsuit. Billy Crystal making his host entrance as Hannibal Lecter. Halle Berry melting down with joy.
We always hope something unexpected will pop into the lumbering, nearly 4-hour marathon to make enduring the boredom worthwhile. The magic of live TV and the glamour of movies will merge once again, and even if they're less brilliant this year, we'll watch next year, too. It's must-see TV, whether we like it or not. It's the Oscars!
[If you haven't yet marked your calendar, this year's Oscars take place Sunday, March 7 at 8 p.m. ET in Hollywood and on ABC. The nominees list announced Tuesday can be found at the official Oscar web page, along with five years of red carpet photos and other video. See it all HERE.]
-----
Diane Holloway was the TV critic for the Austin American Statesman for 30 years, until the downturn in the newspaper business prompted her to take a buyout. She's now sniffing out other possibilities. Before newspapers, she worked in Washington for the Library of Congress, the American Film Institute and the National Endowment for the Arts. Maybe something entirely different is next. Or not.
"Undercover Boss": For CBS, A Smart Use of the Post-Super Bowl Slot
February 7, 2010 12:03 PM
After Super Bowl LXIV ends, and after the post-game interviews and final analysis, CBS will attempt to retain as many members as possible of that huge TV audience, and introduce them to a new reality series: Undercover Boss, a program in which the heads of corporation pretend to be new trainees, with cameras along to capture both their performances and their treatment.
As post-Super Bowl programs go, it's a pretty good fit...
The audience left, after a Super Bowl, is largely male and, to generalize a bit bluntly, largely drunk. Subtlety isn't exactly the best bait for this crowd. The best bait is something visual, something kinetic -- or, failing that, something extremely simple to grasp and comfortably easy to predict.
The ultimate post-Super Bowl offering may have been in 2003, when ABC presented a special episode of its series Alias, starring Jennifer Garner as a beautiful spy. For the Super Bowl crowd, this particular episode opened aboard a private jet, with Garner's Sydney going undercover as an escort, entertaining a rich client by sporting a whip and wearing nothing but panties, a bra and a stern expression.
Over the years, there have been more misses than hits in programming after th Super Bowl. The first game in 1967, before it was even CALLED a Super Bowl, was followed on CBS by an episode of Lassie. The first truly successful use of the post-Bowl slot was in 1983, when NBC launched The A-Team.
Since then, the Super Bowl has provided a launching pad to a few great TV series (ABC's The Wonder Years in 1988, NBC's Homicide: Life on the Street in 1993), but has spawned just as many instant flops (NBC's Brothers and Sisters sitcom in 1979, CBS's Grand Slam sitcom in 1990).
Mostly, what the time slot has done right is draw bigger audiences to already successful shows, as with the 1996 NBC "Super-Sized" episode of Friends and Fox's 2008 episode of House. But Undercover Boss, premiering tonight, is the first time the post-Bowl slot has been given to a new series since Fox presented a preview of Family Guy in 1999.
So how good IS Undercover Boss? The premise is perfectly timed in these days of economic strife: Let the big boss climb down from his executive suite, assume a series of menial jobs at the lowest level of his corporation, and listen closely as his trainers both explain and complain. Then, after the training period, comes the big reveal: the trainers are summoned to meet the boss, who rewards some and admonishes others.
What concerns me about this show, at least in the pilot episode shown tonight, is that the obvious presence of a camera crew -- explained to the participants as a documentary being made about the training process of new workers -- makes me question almost everything I'm seeing.
Even if the workers don't know they're dealing with an undercover boss, they ARE aware they're being filmed, and that their boss eventually will see it. So, quite possibly, they may be more patient as a result, or more pleasant -- or, in one case, invite the new trainee to their own house for a nice home-cooked meal. What we're seeing is entertaining. But, despite the name of the TV category in which the series has been placed, is it reality?
However, if you accept that caveat and watch skeptically, then Undercover Boss works nicely.. and stands a very good chance of being the first big new reality TV hit in years. If you stayed, and you watched, let me know what YOU think...
HBO's "Temple Grandin": The Best Telemovie in Years
February 5, 2010 7:40 PM
The latest offering from HBO Films, Saturday night's Temple Grandin (8 p.m. ET, HBO), isn't just a great telemovie. It's the best one in years, and a reminder about just how good television can be when all elements of a production are absolutely perfect...
Claire Danes stars in the title role, and just as she exploded onto the scene as a teenager in ABC's My So-Called Life 16 years ago, she vaults herself into another, Meryl Streep-like level in this new dramatic showcase. As Temple Grandin, a woman who battled and used autism while becoming an advocate for the humane treatment of animals and a designer of more gentle stockyard and slaughterhouse systems for cattle, she's nothing short of magnificent.
Of course, so is everything else about this drama, from the way writers Christopher Monger and William Merritt Johnson, working from two of Grandin's own books, shape her inspiring story, to the way director Mick Jackson helps us -- MAKES us -- experience the way Temple sees and hears the world. And the supporting cast is just as credible, touching and impressive as Danes. David Strathairn as Temple's sensitive science teacher, Julia Ormond as her persevering mother, Catherine O'Hara as her understanding aunt -- fabulous, each and every one.
But it's the fact-based story, above all, that's the star here. And instead of being overtold or oversold, HBO's Temple Grandin demands you accept it on its own merits -- just as assuredly, and effectively, as the real Temple eventually did.
The real Temple Grandin, by the way, is showcased on Friday's Fresh Air with Terry Gross, featured in a trio of interviews recorded with Terry over the years. And leading off the show, which I guest host, is my own review of HBO's Temple Grandin, complete with a clip that should sell you on both Danes and the telemovie. Listen to it, and read my Fresh Air review, by clicking HERE to listen, and HERE to read.
Temple Grandin is an amazing woman, and her story is told beautifully by HBO. Congratulations to everyone involved for a moving, unforgettable TV work of art. Don't miss it. You won't regret it -- and you won't forget it.
GUEST BLOG #74: Tom Brinkmoeller Wonders If "30 Rock" Is An Endangered Species on NBC
February 4, 2010 8:19 AM
[Bianculli here: Tonight at 9:30 p.m. ET, NBC presents a fresh episode of 30 Rock -- a delightful episode guest starring the equally delightful Jan Hooks. One week from tonight, NBC presents the final installment of the prime-time Jay Leno Show. Contributing writer Tom Brinkmoeller connects the dots, and suggests that as Leno leaves for later pastures, 30 Rock should watch its back...]
Thrill of the Chase? Not When It's Chevy
By Tom Brinkmoeller
Is Tina Fey the next to go?
Like Conan, she and her 30 Rock are Lorne Michaels proteges. That seems about as healthy, in today's NBC environment, as a three-pack-a-day habit.
But there's more reason to worry she'll be canned. Hers is the only intentionally funny series left on NBC. The same NBC that for many decades gave shelter and encouragement to classic comedy series.
(It's also the same network that grew wonderful drama series, from St. Elsewhere and Hill Street Blues to The West Wing and ER. But since it has so badly botched Friday Night Lights, Heroes and Southland, and just abandoned high-end series like Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, drama is deader than comedy there, and talking about its health is just moot.)
Community and Parks and Recreation are uselessly void of humor, and The Office ran out of gas a season or two ago.
ABC, which once produced as many laughs as a clown car full of Republican senators, now kicks butt with the season's best new comedies. CBS promotes and protects its reliably funny carryover comedies. But NBC only produces laughs when David Letterman talks about it in his monologue.
Which brings us back to Tina Fey and 30 Rock. Now that it's been shown, courtesy of Jay Leno, that a never-that-funny old guy can engineer a coup and retake the once-glorious nighttime palace, what's to keep the same from happening in prime time?
The threat, of course, is Chevy Chase, the gooey prototype for the later Leno model of the much ado about nothing product NBC now produces.
Chase, too, is out of place in prime time. He, too, once was anointed by NBC's executive wing of 30-watt bulbs as a cornerstone of its late night. Except for falling down a lot and coining the phrase "and you're not" (and I always was glad to hear that), he has no trophies to show for more than three decades in entertainment.
Chase, no doubt, has watched and drooled as Leno unseated O'Brien. And his attack, perhaps, is imminent. With Dick Wolf's many Law and Order offspring as his model, Chase just may use his leverage at NBC to spread even more Communities around the network.
After all, if a town has a fire engine and its own garbage trucks, it probably also is big enough to support a community college. Community: Altoona. Community: Toledo. Community: Cherry Hill. They all could be coming soon to TV listings near you.
And they'd be every bit as wonderful as the rest of the slop NBC now nurtures. And just think what they would do to improve unemployment prospects for third-tier actors.
And what about Tina Fey and 30 Rock? They'd not only be occupying a space which Community: Biloxi could use -- they'd be a too-painful reminder of the high quality NBC has flushed away. And who wants people remembering originality when the generic brand is so much cheaper?
Say goodbye to Liz and Jack and Tracy and the rest. The only long-term hope they have at NBC is to gain a whole lot of weight and try out for The Biggest Loser -- which, of course, is us.
--
Disclaimer: Tom Brinkmoeller holds no financial interest in NBC-Universal (he's done some dumb things in his life, but nothing that stupid), and he has no interests in nor prejudices against this country's many fine community colleges. Nor does he find them inherently funny.
What Did YOU Think of Last Night's "Lost"?
February 3, 2010 2:55 PM
Once it's been broadcast, I feel, it's fair game for discussion. So what did YOU think of last night's episode of ABC's Lost?...
My thoughts are available on Wednesday's Fresh Air with Terry Gross on NPR, or available after about 5 p.m. on the Fresh Air website, which you can hear, and read, by clicking HERE. But basically, I liked it, and was thrown by it in all the right places, and can't wait for next week's episode.
It's too early to tell if the country felt the same way. Overnight ratings for Tuesday's Lost estimated audiences at 12.6 million for the first hour, and less for the second. That's much less than the series has drawn at its peak during the early years, but it is significantly more than the 10 million that watched last season's finale.
Besides, Lost is one of the most popular shows in the plus-three category and other rankings that measure DVR recording and playback. So its audience last night could be closer to, say, 15 million. But more important than how many watched, really, is what they thought as this final season began.
So what DID you think? Does having two Lockes, and two timelines, work for you? What was the best surprise? Whose return were you most happy to see?
Post your comments, and we'll run it here -- in our very own TV WORTH WATCHING Lost and found.
The Beginning of the End: ABC's "Lost" Is Back, For One Last Lap
February 2, 2010 9:25 AM
When last we saw a first-run edition of ABC's Lost, nine months ago, Juliet was banging a nuclear device with a rock, hoping desperately to trigger an explosion that would, in theory, disrupt the existing time line and throw the island's inhabitants back to a time before its magnetic and mysterious forces drew them in.
The season ended with Juliet succeeding in sparking an explosion -- a blinding, brilliant flash of white (shown above.)
It was a brilliant flash in more ways than one...
Don't worry, Lost fans. I won't be revealing what happens in tonight's two-hour final-season premiere (9 p.m. ET). I can't, because ABC didn't show it to TV critics in advance. We were shown, via a special Internet press site, only the first five minutes... and I won't reveal any secrets about THAT, either.
What I can and will say, though, is that it's a goose-pimply perfect way to start this last lap of one of TV's most ambitious, intriguing and often confounding shows so far this century. A lot of people have dropped by the wayside over the years, and given up on this series or watched it sporadically or only on DVD -- but if you were there at the beginning, you will be rewarded by being there for the ending, beginning tonight.
I'll have more to say tomorrow, here and on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, once the sixth-season premiere has been televised. Meanwhile, all I'll insist is this: Broadcast TV isn't likely to give us many more shows like Lost, so you ought to be watching. I know I will be...
Meanwhile, CNN.com has posted a column I wrote for them about Lost. Read it HERE.
GUEST BLOG #73: Tom Brinkmoeller on the New Installment of PBS's "Frontline"
February 1, 2010 8:42 AM
[Bianculli here: Tuesday's edition of the PBS series Frontline looks at the impact of the Internet and digital media. Contributing writer Tom Brinkmoeller looks at it, too -- by not only previewing the program, but interviewing its producer...]
The Digital Revolution:
Good for Home Cooking, Bad for 'Moby-Dick'
By Tom Brinkmoeller
Some images from Tuesday's Frontline (9 p.m. ET, PBS; check local listings), called Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier, that probably will stick in the minds of many who watch it:
Young South Korean teens who hang out for hours, sometimes days, at the country's computer parlors to play virtual-reality games -- and the camps that have developed in that country to detox those young people from game addiction;
Under-draft-age kids spending lots of time and not a penny at the Army's $13 million, 12,000-square foot Army Experience Center recruitment facility in Philadelphia, where simulation lets them play in fantasy war conditions in which they can kill aplenty with no risk of getting hurt;
The truly eerie sight of a largely vacant IBM park of office buildings in Westchester, N.Y., where technology, not the economy, has emptied the offices -- so many employees telecommute that one has to wonder how much all of this unused real estate is pulling down IBM's ledger.
The Frontline program is almost overloaded with information about what the massive changes in technology over the last decade or so have done to the "natives" who were born into it and the "immigrants" who have to stretch farthest to adapt. Experts speak about, and examples point to, the good and the bad effects of this digital nation.
Two schools, one in the Bronx and one in New Jersey, have bought into the revolution and administrators are more than enthusiastic about the wonderful results. MIT students, who are nonstop-wired to handhelds and laptops, talk about the ease with which they multitask during almost every minute of their non-sleeping lives.
Equally comfortable with the changes is an Army officer connected with the Philadelphia endeavor who explains, "Here in the Army Experience Center . . . video games are never going to replicate the real thing. But it is a sampling experience to pique your interest and maybe. . . encourage you to go learn more, just as Apple is trying to do" (in its retail stores).
From the other side, a researcher's tests reveal the way multitasking slows the brain and the UCLA author of a "Brain on Google" study uses the word "addiction" to describe the conditions. An English professor tells how it's now not possible to assign a book that's longer than 200 pages and another academic says those who proudly claim citizenship in this new digital nation "have done themselves a disservice by drinking the Kool-Aid."
Is what's happening good or bad?
Viewers looking for a verdict won't find one. Rachel Dretzin, who produced this as well as a 2008 Frontline look into tech effects, Growing Up Online, said she gauges the success of her efforts by their ability to cause people "to turn off the television set and argue about it for an hour. I want them to talk about it.
"It's neither a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down," she said. "It's way too complex to come to a conclusion like that."
By generating conversation, she said, people can better examine the issue to uncover the good and scary parts of what has and is happening in the digital world growing around us: to point out "what it is that's important, that we don't want to lose."
She said the digital shift "is as big as literacy," and it's the responsibility of "the last generation who remember a non-digital world . . .to tell (those who follow) what they may not know."
But it may be difficult to function as a herald of a cultural heritage, Dretzin points out, when the the would-be messengers "are wrestling with and dealing with (these changes)" at the same time. Anyone familiar with the carefully stodgy image IBM built for itself during the 20th century can only wonder what kind of shifts people who worked under that former paradigm must have had to make.
The program also shows Air Force personnel who, stationed at a Nevada base, pilot drone aircraft over targets thousands of miles away. Drone-mounted cameras relay images of people and objects to screens, and when the images are targets, the pilots fire on and destroy them. When their shifts end, these same pilots drive home to have dinner with their families.
The program also offers a fun example of a "native" helping an "immigrant" find her way through the Digital Nation. Bayla "Bubbe" Sher, 83, worked for a bank until she was 73. Today, thanks to the savvy and collaboration of her grandson, she hosts a popular Jewish cooking show on the Web, Feed Me Bubbe, from her home kitchen. Watch it by clicking HERE.
The grandson, Avrom Honig, talked proudly of his grandmother's adaption to change: "The Internet, really, I have to say, it added years to Bubbe's life."
But even in a digital revolution, an old weapon can pack considerable punch.
"They grew up with it." said Sher. "To them it's like second nature. And it's easier for my grandchildren to go into e-mail -- I get angry at them sometimes, I say I'd like to hear your voice! I know you e-mail, and they sit down and type you out a little e-mail, and it's wonderful. But call me on the telephone."
--
Tom Brinkmoeller notes that the aphorism "The more things change, the more they stay the same" was written in the middle of the 19th century, making it even older than CompuServe.
