Posted on 01/06/2006 2:08:17 PM PST by madprof98
What used to be called "irreverent" is now called "edgy" -- and called it, and called it, and called it -- and "Arrested Development" finally pushed edginess over the edge . . . "The Book of Daniel" emulates "Development's" collection of zany, wacky family members, and the unintentional moral is that they ought to be arrested.
I cannot recall a series in which a greater number of characters seemed so desperately detestable -- a series with a larger population of loathsome dolts. There ought to be a worse punishment than cancellation for a show that tries this hard to be offensive and, even at that crass task, manages to fail.
But "Book of Daniel" just barely merits First Amendment protection, flaunting its edginess with such wince-inducing contrivances as a teenage daughter who stuffs her teddy bears with pot, a grandma with Alzheimer's who interrupts Sunday dinner to complain that her husband is "always showing me his penis," a wife whose lesbian affair with her husband's secretary started when the husband insisted both women join him in a threesome, and an Episcopal priest who pops Vicodins like Tic-Tacs and regularly converses with the living image of Jesus Christ.
Actually, they don't so much converse as swap jokes, with Jesus being a pushover for a bad gag and much too cool a guy to be judgmental about the deplorable pack of crackpots who make up the priest's family and friends. This is not sophisticated storytelling. It's more like running through the meadow with a butterfly net and swooping up whatever happens to be fluttering around. "Life is hard," Jesus philosophizes. "That's why there's such a nice reward at the end of it." If only that were the case with "The Book of Daniel."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Tom Shales didn't like this? Wow, his bad taste has had a momentary lapse.
This show may sound loathesome but small town America is now and has forever been "Peyton Place."
It's GOT to suck if Shales hates it. His type is their target audience.
"We never, ever watch television..."
Likewise.
If not even liberal Tom Shales likes this, it must be real swill.
And when it flops, they'll say "See - we tried, the yokels wouldn't tune in to our show about those nice Episcopalians. Back to the gay undertakers."
Right. Way to reach out.
Good lord. If the liberal Post thinks this, I can't imagine what my reaction to this show would be. Luckily we'll never find out because I have no intention of watching this filth.
I guess he was expecting some sort of useful attack on Christianity, like Nothing Sacred. Evidently this show is so badly acted and confused, even the envelope pushers can't stand it.
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.
"But "Book of Daniel" just barely merits First Amendment protection, flaunting its edginess with such wince-inducing contrivances as a teenage daughter who stuffs her teddy bears with pot, a grandma with Alzheimer's who interrupts Sunday dinner to complain that her husband is "always showing me his penis," a wife whose lesbian affair with her husband's secretary started when the husband insisted both women join him in a threesome, and an Episcopal priest who pops Vicodins like Tic-Tacs and regularly converses with the living image of Jesus Christ."
Same as "Bareback Mountain" being nominated for a bunch of Oscars even before more than a few dozen people have seen it.
Liberals will do anything to revive both of these abominations.
I live in a small town, and it is certainly not "Peyton Place." I also grew up in a small town, and it wasn't "Peyton Place" either.
The notion that there is a dark underbelly to every person and every community (particulary, of course, to those most of us regard as decent and honorable) is a Leftist invention. Its purpose is obvious: Convince people that virtue is nothing more than hypocrisy, and your own very public immorality will appear to be refreshingly honest and open.
I guess that's why "Little House on the Priarie" was such a flop.
Okay, I'll finally ping out an article about this vile tv show. Later.
HA!!! It's impossible to know where to begin refuting this, but the life of the Rt. Reverend Vicki "Gene" Robinson would be as good a place as any to begin.
Tom Shales on Mel Gibson: "Surely [Gibson's] parking space in Hell has already been reserved."
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.