The Theory of Everything

My overall impression of this film: holy cow, there’s so much packed into one story! It feels like each scene could be it’s own movie. How to dive into this film?

First, a quick synopsis. For those of you who don’t know, Stephan Hawking is a famous cosmologist who has done some groundbreaking work on black holes and theories of time. The Theory of Everything ostensibly follows his quest find a formula that would be the succinct explanation for the existence of everything in the universe. What we really get is the story of a passionate, complicated relationship between two incredible people: Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane Hawking. They meet at a New Years party in 1963 shortly before Hawking’s diagnosis with ALS. Jane refuses to leave him, and they marry in 1965. Jane supports him through twenty years of marriage, groundbreaking research, and two children. Stephen supports Jane through twenty years of caretaking, two children, and a pseudo affair. I won’t say more because I don’t want to totally spoil the movie (if you’re like me and aren’t current on Hawking history, there are some twists here).

The Theory of Everything is very moving in all the predictable ways. Still, this inspiration story is well told, and manages to pack some surprises into the details. For instance, the treatment of the relationship between Stephen, Jane and Jonathan (Stephen and Jane’s aid, and object of Jane’s affection) is amazingly tender, careful and full-hearted--totally unexpected in this traditional drama, and completely welcome. By the same token, the film was very even-handed with Stephen’s relationship with his nurse. No one is written off here, or painted as a villain. Everyone is human and developed, even if the central inspiration plot is something like a Hollywood fable.

The acting is superb, and Eddie Redmayne is fantastic as Stephen. But I kept thinking, who really deserves the Oscar here? Felicity Jones’ portrayal of Jane is so complicated, deep and studied, I was consistently fascinated by her. In many ways, Jane’s journey is darker and more surprising than her husband’s. It’s easy to identify with Stephen and empathize with him, and that is what the movie and the audience expect and count on. Put in his place you’d almost definitely follow the same path, if you could find his strength. Whereas step into Jane’s shoes and there are no easy answers or obvious choices. No two people, in Jane’s place, would make the same decisions or have the same reactions. The film doesn’t just gloss over her journey, but spends a surprising and welcome amount of time ruminating on her dilemma. Jones had a much less straightforward job to do, and knocked it out of the park. I hope she isn’t overlooked next to Redmayne.

Despite my (maybe admittedly feminist-y biased) greater interest in Jane, the truth is Jane and Stephen are curled around each other like night and day, and this is a truth the film fundamentally understands. You need one to understand the other. They are each of them superior and handicapped individuals. The thread that runs through their relationship is Hawking’s search for a unified theory of the universe, and we watch as they dance around this life goal, pushing and pulling, supporting and tearing each other down.

There is an interesting intersection between Jane and Stephen, and why I think they are so attracted to each other. Jane believes in God, while Stephen is a committed atheist. They both understand life as a mystery, but they cope with unknowing in opposite ways. Stephen is analytical, scientific, a cosmic sleuth. He deals with the uncertainty of the world by writing rules for it, and occasionally mocking it. Jane deals by reacting, accommodating, worshipping. Stephen orders his world around himself. Jane orders herself around her world.

These opposite personalities drive every point of the film. The first third of the movie, the true love story, seems cold and a bit off. As I was watching, I was confused by how awkward their first kiss was. How wrong it felt that Stephen basically ordered Jane around and decided when they would talk and how fast their relationship progressed, etc. And she just let him. But now I think this slightly wonky origin story of their relationship is a careful addition to the film. This old fashioned cliché of a romance is there to establish Stephen’s character—which is not nice. Brilliant, but not particularly compassionate. The audience must view Stephen as a developed individual, so later when he is trapped behind an almost frozen face, we can see him for the thinking, feeling, agent of his own will that he is. We must know his personality so we see him as a person, not an object, which he so very much resembles after his disease renders him immobile.

Jane’s trajectory, on the other hand, is opposite. Light and dark, as Stephen’s father quotes in the film, yin and yang, they are constantly at odds. Jane begins as an object, as a pretty thing that Stephen seems to look at as a new toy to be acquired. She happily sustains this impression, allowing Stephen to advance their relationship (or not, as he sees fit). That is, until his illness. This is the first time Jane objects to anything Stephen decrees. The first time she breaks any of his rules. He tells her to go, and she refuses. He tells her to go again, and she tells him that if she does, she’ll never come back again. She is no longer at his beck and call, there for him to summon or banish. She is no longer an object to be owned or controlled. And from there, as Stephen descends further and further into dependency, becoming more and more object-like, less and less animate; Jane becomes powerful, emotionally and physically strong, his and her own advocate. Where once he dominated, she grows to carry them both.

Beneath the traditional inspiration fable, The Theory of Everything is a commentary on the illusion of objectification. As women, as disabled people (and as people of color, which are admittedly sorely lacking here), we often feel acutely disenfranchised by our own community. But our differences and our trials don’t have to silence us. Our fates are not bound by stereotypes, prejudice, or pity. You don’t have to be controlled by the story people tell about you. You can tell your own. Stephen Hawking was given two years to live in 1963. He is still alive.

What truly elevates The Theory of Everything above standard Hollywood inspiration fare is it’s careful depiction of the plodding monotony of resistance. This is also what makes it truly inspirational. It shows us the grim work of surviving adversity, joys and tragedies and dead ends all included. After the wild idealism of their courtship and marriage, Stephen and Jane coped with his illness every single day. The fight was not over with one bloody, fantastic, super human battle. The problem wasn’t solved with one difficult and brave decision. Resistance is a series of tiny choices, small losses and victories, a daily battle called living that wears you down like water dripping onto a stone for a hundred years. And yet Stephen Hawking is still alive and pursuing his life’s work. Here is a lesson for us, we who fight small battles a hundred times a day: You don’t have to push boundaries so much as sustain the will to keep your hand outstretched against them. Stereotypes, predictions, even scientific theories are weak. They control us by convincing us that they are sacred. Have the courage to reach out and just touch your walls. This is easier and also harder than making one giant decision. Keep touching your boundaries, no matter what happens. Eventually they will crumble like stone before water.

Reggie Watts

Why am I writing about a real person on a blog dedicated to fictional things? I know my devotion to the "hook" of this thing is probably annoying at this point, but bear with me here...

For those of you who don't know, Reggie Watts is a comedian/musician/beat-boxer/actor/professional disinformationalist. He currently costars with Scott Auckerman on IFC's Comedy Bang Bang. He also tours around the country with a killer stand-up/improv show. If you can't make it to a show, you can catch his work on Netflix in his special Reggie Watts: Why $#!+ So Crazy? He was also just featured on a Flight Facilities track Sunshine and starred in the music video. Fair warning: you will play this song on repeat for days.

Reggie's performances are unlike anything I've seen. Aside from his immense musical talent (he creates songs on the fly using only his voice and a looping machine), he's got this intense, totally unique energy. Watch him for five minutes and you'll understand what I mean. Where other performers try to ingratiate themselves with the audience, or at least seek some sort of connection even if that connection is hostile, Reggie keeps his audience at arms length. It's like he intentionally sabotages any attempt to relate to him, to get inside his head. As soon as you feel like you've got your bearings, he's off in a new direction, and not even checking to see if you've followed. His performance is so unexpected, so random, that it is impossible to get him, to put yourself in his shoes. Performers usually get big, become popular, by becoming your imaginary best friend. Reggie leaves you cold. He's in his own head. Most times, he seems barely aware there's an audience there at all. If he notices you, he usually just spouts gibberish, daring you to look for meaning in his set.

So how come he's so much fun to watch? How can a show that tries it's darndest to logically confuse you feel so emotionally fulfilling?

Because Reggie Watts is a fictional character. (A-ha! there's my lead--buried as usual)

One of my boyfriend's favorite things to say about Reggie is, "we don't even know what his real voice sounds like!" That's Reggie in a nutshell. What's real? Maybe nothing. But what is real anyway? On stage, in your imagination, it's all real. And maybe that's his point.

There's a clue that he's written into one of his songs, called Fuck Shit Stack (obviously, warning for gratuitous swearing).

I like to create a buffer memory of incredulity 
So y'all motherfuckers could never get near to me
I'm a cartoon character
You'll never be able to be like me

This barrier between himself and the audience, the way he intentionally confuses, his impulsiveness, his sabotage of any real human connections, makes himself--makes Reggie Watts--unreal. This unrealness makes it possible for the audience to just go with it. You know that feeling when you're watching a standup teeter on the edge of bombing, and the desperation just makes you want to vom? That feeling when you change the channel because you're embarrassed at how earnest Dancing With the Stars is, and how hard it's failing? When you identify with someone onstage, when you see the humanness, when you see yourself up there, it's hard to watch. It's hard to trust that they're going to be good, because if you were up there you'd be shitting your pants. (or maybe this is just me? I'm pretty sure it's a thing...)

With Reggie, there's none of that. He is so alien and unreal, you can just sit back and watch. You don't have to be holding your breath waiting for him to fuck up. He was never even interested in not. He doesn't even get the concept of fucking up. As much as we don't relate to him, he doesn't relate to us. The wall protects us both equally. It frees him up to quit worrying about the audience, and just go with it.

This lack of intimacy is some how more intimate than a standard performance. Because it gets you deeper. And to a state many of us have forgotten how to visit. The state of play.

To watch a Reggie Watts show is to return to childhood, in a sense. Everything about it says, relax man. Let's just play. His lack of distinction between truth and fiction, his improv based sets and songs, his run-on sentences and elaborate stories, they're all somehow nostalgic, because it's how you used to process the world. Seven year olds do this all the time. Make up epic Shakespearian stories for Barbie and Ken on the fly, compose songs, become best friends with strangers. The thing that makes Reggie so appealing is he's just like, let's play man. Like kids that just met in Chuckie Cheese and both like the ball pit and pizza, because we're best friends. When you're seven, that's all you needed. Remember?

He lacks social cues, those pesky things that ruined your life in middle school. There's no expectations, no projections, no anticipation. He's just doing his thing, and you do yours. He is one half of an adult social experience--which is really just two people peering out from their own little worlds, judging each other. But if you want to play, if you can let go of your expectations and judgements, you can get into his world. And it's a trippy place.

Reggie doesn't joke, not directly. He plays with the world and perception. He says things you know aren't true, but they feel true. Or he says things you think are jokes, but turn out to be deep personal expressions. He comes at the world from unusual angles. He forces you to improvise, to have authentic reactions to things you thought you knew by rote. Often, he'll be scatting in a song, singing nonsense, for minutes at a time, and then finally you realize he's actually saying words, and maybe has been for awhile, and the words mean something, and you agree. He gives you little, precious moments of connection that emerge from the sea of sound and color like moments of sudden lucidity. And you laugh with surprise and delight, like a baby playing peek a boo.

What he's really doing is taking you on a trip. He's dulling your senses, your inhibitions, your boring and fucking suffocating everyday expectations about life and what a performance is and what is funny. He's a drug. And his brand of comedy is a little bit addicting.

Let's deal with some pretentious freshman semiotics for a second: a thing is defined by what it is not. A girl is not a boy. An opera is not a play. A death is not a birth. Isn't it refreshing to get back to a space where the nots don't exist? Where definitions aren't important? Where your baggage and your walls and all the things that hold you back aren't?

It's addicting, remembering who you were before you.

that's deep man...

What If (Dan Radcliffe was a good actor?*)

Look at how cute they are!

What if guys and girls could be just friends? Ridiculous, I know! Wallace and Chantry (yes, Chantry) meet, make cute, and strike up a relationship. The only teeny tiny problem is that Chantry has a serious boyfriend of five years, Ben. What follows is an hour of will they/won't they, and then they...well, you know. It's a romcom. 

That said, this movie is sparkling. The banter between Wallace and Chantry is relaxed and very funny. You feel like you're a fly on the wall peering into two people's lives. Or the creep at a party watching interactions from across the room (not that I ever did that...). 

The secondary characters bring a lightness to what could be overly sentimental, pulling focus from the central drama and adding layers to the formula. Chantry's sister Dahlia is a little over the top, but their closeness and shorthand is hilarious. At one point the sisters are sunning themselves on the beach, and Dahlia shows Chantry how pregnant she can make herself look. I've done this. I appreciated seeing two skinny female leads do it on screen. 

Wallace's best friend and former college roommate Alan is a joy, as Adam Driver always is. He's hilarious and seems at first to be the one-dimensional party friend. When he meets his (future wife) Nicole, they spend the whole night making out on the couch. Hook-up culture! But then they get married and fights happen (off screen of course) and even this hilarious wing man is fleshed out and allowed to grow. 

Even though this is a romantic comedy and ultimately about two particular people, it feels more like an ensemble. Or at least, if this makes sense, it doesn't seem as if Wallace and Chantry are the stars in their own heads. It's more like you're looking a group of people, focused on two people in the center of that group, but other characters could just as easily be a different center. 

The progression of the plot also feels more realistic and developed than the typical fare. Even though you pretty much know what is going to happen, the film really shows these characters making hard, studied decisions. It doesn't just throw them into the thing you know they're going to do because you know what's going to happen so what more do you want?? Instead it lets characters get there for themselves. And besides, knowing how a movie is going to end is what makes it so satisfying. If this movie ended and they didn't get together, most people would leave the theater feeling ripped off (and, incidentally, it wouldn't be as commercially viable). Audiences don't go see a romantic comedy to see how it will turn out. We go to see how it will turn out - literally how it will unfold. We know the beats. We want to see how the writer, director and actors make up the transitions, the new steps they invent, how close and real they can make this known story. 

What If also does an excellent job of making the dilemma real, even for the audience. Chantry's boyfriend Ben is not just some throw-away two-dimensional villain type that Chantry is devoted to for some unthinkable reason. Ben is a fully-developed person (thanks in large part to Rafe Spall's performance). He's smart and likable and really loves Chantry, and neither she nor the audience can easily write him off. It makes the inevitable decision bittersweet, which contributes to making this formula feel fresh and real. This decision is like life - there's no choice that will get you an A, because there is no A in life. It's messy, and sad, and hard. You hope the results are worth it.

That's where this movie stumbles just a bit. The ending, after the big decision, is kind of a let down. It's inevitably how I personally feel - speaking as someone who is in a long term relationship, watching a five year relationship fade away without a squeak was unsatisfactory and unrealistic to me. All of a sudden we flash forward 18 months into the future and everything is hunky-dory and Wallace and Chantry are totally happy. Back in the theater, I missed Ben, and my heart hurt for him. But I suppose in a 90 minute run time there's not enough room to be truly egalitarian with every character. So even though this is a con for my movie-going experience, it's a necessary evil to make this movie go. 

One other tiny qualm: one of the movie's main theses appears to be that your soul mate should be a version of yourself. At one point some Chantry's friends joke that Wallace is the male version of her - "Mantry". They think alike on most things, and one time they accidentally get each other the exact same present. I get that this is film language short hand for compatibility, but it is disappointingly simplistic. For a film that presents studied, realistic characters (at least in Chantry's case, Wallace is a little more straight forward), I wish the relationship was deeper. In real life, in my experience at least, couples that are exactly alike don't last that long. Here's the thing: I'm not that crazy about myself. I mean, I don't hate myself, but most of the things that drive me crazy in this world are things that I do. Dating me sounds like a fucking nightmare. I don't know how my boyfriend does it. In real life, the thing that makes relationships strong are the differences between people. When I'm annoying, you are graceful. When you're going crazy, I stay calm. Humans are attracted to the dyad situation (not just because of our puritan, religious roots) because a see-saw is easier to weight than a balance beam. A strong couple balances out, with one person on each side, switching sides according to the situation. You need to be close enough to be in the same situation, mentally. But different enough to not be on the same side of the situation. 

Anyway, dating a male version of myself sounds exhausting. And I would have liked to see more tension between Chantry and Wallace. It would have deepened their relationship. We only get two real fights. The first one is just blowing off steam because they're angry at their stupid friends. The second one is the inevitable emotional climax of the film, when it looks like all their hopes are dashed and they'll never get together (one of those formulaic beats I was talking about earlier). We don't ever see them managing each other, or compensating for each other. We just see them in 100% synch, or totally opposed. I'm telling you from experience, that gets boring. 

All that said--I loved it. You have to remember, I'm a complainer. For what is it, What If pulls off an entertaining, realistic-ish, funny and touching 90 minutes with a flourish. 

I saw it twice in theaters. 

*I rag on Dan because of Harry Potter, but that's not really his fault. Only so much you can do playing "The Chosen One." He's really great in this! 

**This post brought to you by the What If soundtrack, composed by A.C. Newman!!! 

Fall (aka next week) TV preview!

There’s a lot of random crap coming out this season. I suppose that’s always the truth, but some of the new offerings this autumn are really weirding me out. As always, it is impossible to tell what will be a hit and what will miss by a mile, but let’s try anyway! Here are my (completely off-the-cuff, uninformed, and very much first impression-y) fall TV predictions!

Let’s go by network (I’m only investigating the big 4).

NBC (ugh)

A to Z

This romcom tries to be clever by copying what all the other romcoms are doing lately: include some of the actual relationship, not just the ecstatic build up. Because everyone wants to see what happens after they kiss! (spoiler alert: not really). The show follows the relationship of Andrew and Zelda (Zelda? Really?) (parantheses 2: A TO Z, GET IT??) from, well, A to Z. Beginning to end, people. Please let me stop flogging this dying horse now.  This show sounds like it will be exhausting to watch, with all the flash backs/forwards of 500 Day of Summer. What works well in a neatly engineered 2-hour plot usually doesn’t bode so well for television. Remember, I don’t care who the mother is. I also probably won’t care how Andrew and the adorably named Zelda break/broke up. I don’t want complicated plot from a half hour sitcom; I want jokes. I don’t need a ridiculous premise that the show will now be trapped in for the next NINE seasons. You already had Andrew and ZELDA, you can still have your ridiculous title, can we leave the flashbacks to the filmmakers please?

However, this does star Mad Men’s Ben Feldman, with whom I am in love.

VERDICT: I’ll probably watch the pilot + a few eps before it fizzles.

Bad Judge

Oh god, no. Why did you do this to yourself Addison?

VERDICT: hard pass

Constantine

Based only on the title, I know this is about a demon hunter. Based only on this picture of Matt Ryan, I hate that trench coat, even though I’m sure it looked great in the comics. Based only the HORRIBLE tag line, I think I can miss this.

VERDICT: No thanks. I’d rather watch old episodes of Supernatural.

who's that blurry guy in the background?

Marry Me

Created by David Caspe of Happy Endings, Marry Me stars Penny from Happy Endings (Casey Wilson) and the firefighter from Burning Love (Ken Marino). I’ll just say it: I DO! But I watched the trailer and it seems like the entire premise of this show is that these two lovebirds keep fucking up their marriage proposals to each other. HILARIOUSLY. Not. It’s very awkward and weird to watch two insanely funny people be forced through the motions on flat out NOT funny material. Wilson basically reprises her role of Penny, but without her friends to play the straight man, so Marino is forced into the straight man role that he was born to run far far away from. He basically has no character. And he is SUCH a funny man. It’s really a shame. I love these two, so I will definitely watch this, but my hopes are pretty much dashed. My one shining light is Parks and Recreation. That show was decidedly not funny in season 1, but once it found it’s feet, it was/is a shining gem of hilariousness. So hopefully Marry Me will grow up and figure out how to commit to some real jokes.

VERDICT: I’m pulling for ya!

The Mysteries of Laura

Grace just isn’t worth it without Will. This is another female-centered show that NBC is doing a bang-up job of making totally misogynist. Can Laura be a cop and a mother? Can she really HAVE IT ALL?? I don’t care. No one cares. Please find a gay man to put on Messing’s arm. Until then, I’m really not interested.

VERDICT: Besides all this, it’s also a cop procedural on NBC. PASS.

State of Affairs

NBC! Look at you! Three for three on the sneaky misogyny! You see, it looks like you’re buying into the current popularity of female stars (Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Jennifer Lawrence, ladies are killing it right now), but you’re really just putting us in our place. The tagline for this Katherine Heigl vehicle is “All the President’s Men are nothing compared to her.” LOOK AT HER! She’s a woman!! Doing a MAN’S job!! She might be really good at it, but she’ll always have a vagina, and that will always the most important thing about her! Also, did NBC miss how completely unlikeable Heigl is? She’s basically shot herself in the foot (and any other appendage) at every press opportunity, and now I’m pretty sure no man or woman is interested in watching her try and do a poor-woman’s Claire Danes. Just watch Homeland. That’s also insufferable, but definitely better than this will be.

Is the president supposed to be a black woman? overwhelming GIRL POWER.

VERDICT: Ugh

So that wraps our NBC preview: two sitcoms I hope against better judgment will be good (but maybe I’m a BAD JUDGE); one drama I’m completely ambivalent about; and three for-sure pieces of crap driven by women who NBC is really hoping are still popular. Poor NBC.

ABC

wave to the white people honey!

Black-ish

This is just the black version of Modern Family, right? It’s probably funny, because Anthony Anderson is funny. But it makes me sad that the only way network executives could spin a black family sitcom (in 2014 people, jesus) was to make the show about being black. My hope is that the pilot will blow its load of racist jokes, and then we can just have a funny family sitcom.

VERDICT: Meh

Cristela

I know nothing about Cristela Alonzo, and in commitment to this article being off-the-cuff (read: un-researched and probably useless to you), I did not google her! Apparently she plays a law student who takes a job at a firm where she is often mistaken for the help. Get it? Because she’s Mexican! Hahaha! And her family’s Mexican too, and sometimes she talks to them. I am 110% in favor of minority representation on network television. But why do they always make Latinos look so white? You only really get that she's Mexican because of the *fun* font. Also, is this ABC’s version of Mindy Lahiri? That chubby brown girl is doing all right – give this chubby brown girl a show! Networks.

VERDICT: I’ll bite. I’ve never heard of her, but I’m always looking for new fun female comics.

Forever

Look at this hot guy! He’s a medical examiner, so we can have a procedural format. Also, he’s immortal. HE WILL ALWAYS BE THIS HOT! It co-stars that guy that I loved in Bones, so I’ll almost definitely watch at least the pilot. I’m getting Castle, I’m getting the Mentalist, I’m getting House…it’s a medical/law procedural with a supernatural twist! Could be awesome! Could be awful!

VERDICT: Unknown. Just gotta watch it. For that face at least.

How to Get Away with Murder

The bus ads for this got me very excited. I like Viola Davis, and what fun font! Then I found out Shonda Rhymes created it. Of course. Shonda is the only one allowed to write “serious” shows about black women, how could I forget! Davis plays a law prof who has her own firm, and presumably there’s a murder she has to get away with. She’s probably good at it. Just look at her hair.

VERDICT: I couldn’t even get through the pilot of Scandal so this is probably not for me. But it will do well of course. Shonda doesn’t need my sorry ass.

Manhattan Love Story

This show is built on voice over. Game over. This doesn't even warrant a picture.

VERDICT: MLS will last four episodes (that I will not be watching). 

Selfie

Here’s my standout prediction from this list: Selfie is going to be awesome. Yes, the title is abhorrent. But so was Don’t Trust the B---- in Apartment 23. And that was some of the funniest dang television I’ve ever seen. Selfie stars Karen Gillian of Dr. Who fame. The only DW I’ve ever watched were a few of her episodes, and she was adorable and funny, so I have high hopes for her. Basically her character is a self-absorbed internet star who realizes (GASP) that facebook friends are not the same as real friends. So she hires a marketing guru to help her…find real friends? Because that’s what marketers do. Heh. Anyway, that guy is played by John Cho, who is also amazing. I have strong faith in this one, just based on ABC’s proven record of putting funny shit on the air that they don’t totally understand and have no idea how to advertise. “Selfie” sold this concept. Hopefully there’s more to it than the cultural zeitgeist that got it through the door.

VERDICT: I’m actually really excited about this one. Definitely will watch.

I couldn't find a good pic, so take this adorable one of
Karen channeling Sinaed (in a good way)
 after Guardians of the Galaxy

So ABC, how’d you do? Lots of diversity here, but hopefully the talent can shine through all the whitewashing. In general though, this is looking to be a pretty solid line up. I’ll probably watch all of them except Murder, which doesn’t need me anyway; it’s all but guaranteed to be Scandal’s popular successor.

CBS

Madam Secretary

CBS jumps on the (never ending, so boring) bandwagon of “can she have it all???” Tea Leoni (hi, I love you, I missed you!) plays a Secretary of State who shakes things up in Washington, and has a family. There’s a (slim) chance this could be good. But seriously. Can we end this conversation, and just create cool women characters because they’re great, not because they’re a fascinating cultural phenomenon?

VERDICT: I’m going to bite my tongue and watch this one because I’m getting shades of House of Cards and I love Leoni. At least for the pilot.

GO SPORTS!

The McCarthys

I guess CBS missed the memo that Boston is so over. This is about a family of Bostonians who live in Boston and just do downright Boston things! Like watch sports and have accents! There’s a black sheep, of course, who probably hates Boston and doesn’t have an accent. This black sheep and his dad have to coach a little league team together. How Boston!

VERDICT: Wicked pissah! I mean bad.

Another beautiful day of murders!

NCIS: New Orleans

More exploitation of “hot” locales. Everything I’ve seen about this show just makes it look like the cutest! Forget the dead body bleeding out over there. Do I need to say much about this? It’s NCIS. We all know the drill.

VERDICT: Not even for you, Scott Bakula. I’ll just wait for the next season of Looking.

even this promo pic is horrible

Scorpion

I’m over Katharine McPhee. Scorpion is about a group of nerds who band together to save the world using their enormous brains. Katharine McPhee is the dumb (girl) waitress who keeps them grounded. This is Big Bang Theory minus the jokes. In other words, bad.

VERDICT: Was I ever under Katharine McPhee? Pass.

Stalker

I definitely thought based on photos that this was a continuation of Hostage, that mega-promoted show that died with a squeak last season. But sadly no. Stalker follows a division of the LAPD that tracks stalkers, voyeurs, etc who target mostly women. You see, in the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous. In LOS ANGELES, the dedicated detectives who investigate these stories are DYLON MCDERMOTT. This is his story.

VERDICT: I’ll probably watch syndicated episodes of this when I’m sick two years from now. If networks last that long.

just gonna leave this here...

CBS wrap up: so much blah! Tea Leoni is the only weakly glimmering light. The network continues to pander to the lowest common denominator with the safest, lamest, most procedural options possible. No wonder it’s number one!

ben's bored

FOX

Gotham

More Batman. Enough Batman already! It’s not even creative Batman. Gotham is the origin story of Detective Gordon, who let’s face it, is the most boring character from that franchise. I don’t think even Ben McKenzie can save this one.

VERDICT: But he’s so pretty!

so tortured, so ugly

Gracepoint

Jeez, FOX is so serious. A young boy is found dead, and two tormented cops try and solve the murder. This feels very the Killing. Which I also didn’t like. It stars David Tennant, and it’s based on a British show Broadchurch, so maybe it will turn out to be amazing. Here’s hoping. I’m just so bored with murder shows. Is anyone else bored with murder shows?

VERDICT: Mehhh maybe

guys, it's 1992! LIKE ME!

Mulaney

I’m actually very sad about this one. I love John Mulaney. He’s a great stand up. His show looks awful. The things that make his routine work are the cadence of his voice and the pace of delivery. He’s good at talking. The jokes don’t exactly translate into an ensemble comedy. They seem to fall flat, from what I’ve seen. But again, this might just be a case of a show needing to grow into itself. Even Seinfeld (which this so badly wants to be) wasn’t very funny in the beginning.

VERDICT: I’ll watch season two, if it makes it.

Red Band Society

God, this looks awful. It’s about a group of kids that are sick an in a hospital? And there’s a magical black fairy godmother nurse who looks after all of them? And it’s narrated by a kid in a coma? Looks like FOX is going for Glee + cancer. I just. I can’t.

VERDICT: No. Please no.

When do the songs start?

FOX roundup: surprisingly, I am strongly not excited about of these. Maybe FOX is doing too well with existing shows, and just didn’t feel the need to try very hard?

So there we have it! Avery’s decidedly flaky fall TV preview. The top three I’m excited about are:

- Selfie

- Forever

- Marry Me/A to Z, whichever lasts longer

That’s a pretty sad list. Two female secretary of state shows! Literally the exact same show. These bad ideas aren't even creative! No wonder good content is leaving television. The internet is the way! Networks can’t green light their way out of a paper bag. And who can blame them really? Remember: CBS is number one.