Herc’s Seen NBC’s New Dramedy BOOK OF DANIEL!! Is It The Next ED Or The Next LAX??

Ain't It Cool News ^ | 1/6/06 | "Hercules"

[Reaganesque]

Herc’s Seen NBC’s New Dramedy BOOK OF DANIEL!! Is It The Next ED Or The Next LAX??

I am – Hercules!!

“The Book of Daniel” is an hourlong about a pill-popping Episcopalian priest with a pot-dealing white daughter, a gay white son, a randy hetero Asian son, a martini-slurping wife, and his own personal Jesus. When I saw Jesus in the promos I confess my interest was piqued. The Denis Leary character on FX’s “Rescue Me” also has an imaginary Jesus who likes to sit in automobiles and have conversations while the main character is motoring. Some of the Jesus stuff in “Daniel” isn’t bad, but when it doesn’t work - as when Jesus and Daniel start laughing at each other’s lame parodies of Episcopalian self-help book titles – it’s ruinously off-putting. (The pretend-Jesus conceit works considerably better on “Rescue Me.”)

Because the show’s Jesus character doesn’t look too disdainfully upon homosexuality or pre-marital teen sex, conservative Christian groups are screaming about it, generating much badly needed publicity for the series. Bob Waliszewski, of Focus on the Family's teen ministries, tells the Associated Press that the show portrays The Christ as a "namby-pamby frat boy who basically winks at every sin and perversity under the sun."

“Daniel” comes from the brain of homosexual sitcom vet Jack Kenny (“Dave’s World,” “Caroline in the City,” “Titus,” “Wanda at Large”). One (perhaps cynically) comes to suspect that Kenny got the job running an NBC hourlong in part because the last time a gay sitcom writer was given an hourlong to run, it turned out to be the ABC megablockbuster “Desperate Housewives.” Also, “Book of Daniel” has a kind of “Let’s make fun of the way people acted in 1950s sitcoms” feel to it. At least two characters in the two-hour opener – the minister’s wife and the minister’s father - use the word “perspiring.” Sitcom logic abounds. The 23-year-old gay son inexplicably agrees to be set up on a date with a girl so his grandfather (an Episcopalian bishop) doesn’t learn that he’s gay. Since the gay son is already “out” to the rest of the family, one wonders why he’s wasting everybody’s time, including his own.

More bizarre is a hospital waiting-room scene in which the WASPy fortysomething mother of a teen girl explains that she doesn’t want her daughter getting serious about the handsome Chinese-American boy she’s been kissing on. “I have no intention of watching little Oriental grandchildren running around my Christmas tree,” she announces soberly to (get this!) the minister’s wife, whom she knows to be the adoptive mother of the Asian kid. Who outside of a Klan rally blurts out a statement that rude and racist in a public place - to the mother of a minority teen?

But what matters Herc’s opinion? He has yet to laugh at “Desperate Housewives” once!

The Hollywood Reporter says:

… a well-intentioned drama with a few comedic quirks but without depth or greater purpose. … the minister here scarcely prays or questions. Instead, Daniel just muddles through one situation after the next, trying to comfort where he can, sort of like "Father Knows Best" with a collar. … The closest Daniel comes to a higher plane of thought is his frequent conversations with Jesus (Garret Dillahunt), whom no else can see. And what would Jesus do? Who knows? All Daniel gets from Jesus are insipid platitudes ("Life is hard, Daniel, for everyone. That's why you get a nice reward at the end of it.") At the very least, Jesus should be telling the reverend to stop lying to his father about Peter's sexual orientation. Then again, that's something that should be obvious to the minister to begin with. …

Variety says:

…Whimsical and busy, "Daniel" is overly ambitious but highly watchable, with an interlocking web of smart-ass, squabbling but ultimately loving characters. … Jack Kenny has laid the soapy elements on thick and still managed to create an appealing little world … The snarky banter among the kids, in particular, at times feels too precious, but there's plenty of life, surprisingly, in Daniel's regular exchanges with Jesus ("Deadwood's" Garret Dillahunt), who offers cryptic advice but stops short of proffering solutions. When Daniel asks if he's privy to these sessions because he's "chosen," Jesus brightly assures him, "I talk to everybody." …

USA Today gives it three and a half (out of four) stars and says:

… Whatever else you may have heard about The Book of Daniel, it is first and foremost a show about a true-to-life, loving, complex family. It is also witty, earnest, intelligent, overdone, overly ambitious, wildly entertaining and superbly cast … Daniel was created by Titus' Jack Kenny, and like that underrated sitcom, it offers a deft and dense mix of humor and drama, sometimes broad, sometimes grounded. … Like Desperate Housewives, the serialized Daniel is packed with plot — more, at times, than one hour can hold. Some twists are a bit much, and the show has to be careful not to use Jesus' visits as a convenient crutch. But it already shows great skill at handling problems to which we can all relate …

The Buffalo News says:

Ohmygod, nothing is sacred in the first three episodes made available for review, which are overloaded with plot developments that range from the slightly ridiculous to the outrageous. … "Daniel" is always interesting but far from perfect. Unfortunately, the religious audience most likely to be initially drawn to the series might be the ones most offended by its liberal use of story lines involving sex and drugs. The temptation is to write off the quirky "Daniel" as destined to be nothing more than a noble failure that will be included in the good book of critically acclaimed series that the public ignores. I'm no fortune teller, but it deserves a better fate.

[Reaganesque]

Decidedly mixed reviews. Although, most seem to think that it's not very good but hope that it survives because it offends Christians. This too will die a quiet death and there will be claims of "censorship" in an attempt to bolster ratings but in the end, most will not watch this show because of it's obvious, calculated intent to offend.

[ladtx]

The temptation is to write off the quirky "Daniel" ...

Wonder why the truly offensive is always characterized as being "quirky"? (Yes it's a rhetorical question.)

[ClearCase_guy]

an imaginary Jesus

I've been noticing this in quite a few write-ups of this show. Let me state clearly that I have no interest in watching this show, since it's clearly got an anti-Christian bias, and that offends me. But let me just point out that Jesus is not a figment of someone's imagination. Ministers talk to God. And God talks to people. Maybe not all the time. And maybe not in a voice that can be heard by others. But "God" or "Jesus" is not a synonym for "my imagination".

[mnehring]

Whatever else you may have heard about The Book of Daniel, it is first and foremost a show about a true-to-life, loving, complex family...

Please someone, anyone, show me how this is true-to-life? Maybe only in Hollywood.

[Reaganesque]

I had the same reaction to that statement. What a warped sense of reality.

[11th Commandment]

I went the to Episicap Church website to get their reaction. It referred to a blogsite where people can post their thoughts: Here is the intro article:


January 06, 2006
Daniel debuts tonight
The Book of Daniel has its debut tonight at 9 EST on NBC. I have to say I have mixed feelings as I await the first two episodes.

On the one hand, I would really like the show to succeed. As the Rev. Susan Russell says “How cool is it that a progressive Episcopal priest has a shot at being a prime-time drama protagonist. How surprising might it be to many who tune in to find out there actually is a church where women can be bishops – clergy can be human – and there’s enough good news around to extend to everybody?”

If that is what the show is going to accomplish, I am all for it. But, I'm not certain the show can pull this off. I haven't seen a single episode, but I've read eight scripts (Disclaimer: At one point a publisher had shown some interest in a study guide, and I was recruited as a possible writer. It didn't work out, but I did get to see the scripts.) and I have my doubts.

The characters are more a collection of foibles in the early episodes than they are fully fleshed out human beings. And the bad habits are of the sort already overrepresented on television. This changes some as the season progresses and we begin to learn more about the Websters, but there are so many pathologies packed into this family's life that there just isn't time to unpack them all with any sensitivity. This over-the-top approach to plotting could work if it is played with a kind of cockeyed brio, but it could end up seeming simply calculated to shock. And if that is the case, I think it will offend people (other than those who make thier living by taking offense. And we've already had an earful from them.)

My larger concern is that Daniel will damage the cause of progressive Christianity by perpetuating the myth that people become "progressives" because they do not take matters of faith and morality seriously enough: They can't live up to God's standards, and so they set about softening them. This is a pernicious myth. Most of the people whom I know on the religious left have come by their convictions through hard experience, serious study and deep prayer. They manifest this in lives of service and compassion. That doesn't necessarily mean their lives aren't a mess, or that they don't fail more often than they succeed, but these characteristics are not something on which liberals hold an exclusive franchise.

Reading "Daniel" as opposed to watching it, I couldn't be certain whether the characters' faith would seem essential to their existance, or simply idiosyncratic. And I couldn't tell if the notion that faith informs--indeed, impels--action was developed with sufficient depth.

With all that said, I am eager to see the first two episodes tonight, and eager to hear what people have to say about them here on the blog. I think I will simply post an open thread along abut 8:45 and people can chime in with their reactions.

[poobear]

I saw a preview last evening, when I saw Ellen Burnstyn (sp) was playing a priest, bishop or something to that effect I knew then I wouldn't be watching. She's a real flaming lib and constantly voices here political leanings to the left as pure religion. No thanks Hollywood.

[CharlesWayneCT]

A publisher was trying to market a "study guide" related to a fictional TV show, and an official of the episcopalian churc (I presume she is, since she is posting on the official web site) was seriously considering it?

If that doesn't show what is wrong with the "progressive" movement in the episcopalian church, I don't know what will.

Her complaint that the show makes progressives look bad is funny -- because that is probably the most realistic part of the show.

And while I'm at it, I think studies show that talking to your imaginary jesus while driving can be hazardous -- maybe we need a congressional hearing about this.....

[Reaganesque]

That's just it. For Liberals, Liberalism is a religion. Their politics are their religion since they are diametrically opposed to most of organized religion's traditional beliefs. It allows them to feel spiritual and strokes their egos while not participating in the "foolish traditions of their fathers." That is why they react so angrily when we question their politics, we are literally blaspheming their deity. When the Lord said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," this is the type of thing He was referring to.

[martin_fierro]

The temptation is to write off the quirky "Daniel" ...

Quirky "barbecue".

[Restorer]

My larger concern is that Daniel will damage the cause of progressive Christianity by perpetuating the myth that people become "progressives" because they do not take matters of faith and morality seriously enough: They can't live up to God's standards, and so they set about softening them. This is a pernicious myth. Most of the people whom I know on the religious left have come by their convictions through hard experience, serious study and deep prayer.

I have yet to see a liberal or "progressive" admit even the possibility that conservatives arrive at their convictions through a similar process.

Conservatives can only be such because they are either stupid, uneducated or malevolent.

[GSWarrior]

“Daniel” comes from the brain of homosexual sitcom vet Jack Kenny (“Dave’s World,” “Caroline in the City,” “Titus,” “Wanda at Large”

What a stellar track record!