Tv.com News

The Office S09E16: "Moving On"

Andy wouldn't be such a monster if everyone in the office wasn't so complicit to his tyranny.

I know that's like saying Tokyo would've been better off if they'd just ignored Godzilla. I'm not trying to blame the victim. But Pam, Dwight, and Angela's way of gutting the beast, by ignoring him and undermining his authority, is the only reasonable course of action. The man ditched work for three months and is now only sticking around because of a pass from a guy who doesn't deserve to run a business. Wallace kept Andy on because he owed Andy a favor? Logical but not reasonable.

Pete and Erin are feeding the monster, though. While everyone else in the office is ready to ignore or straight-up ditch Andy, these two pathetic souls feel like they owe the guy something for their not-so-clandestine relationship. How are you, Pete the girlfriend thief, going to offer advice to the man that you burgled?

Wait, that came out weird.

The show maybe, possibly suggested that Erin wasn't so much into Andy while he was gone, maybe, possibly so often that the storyline itself got so dull in its holding pattern that I could've sworn they were just repeating the same script every episode with regard to these two. With that, I don't think Pete was an actual "thief" of a person, although that would be how Andy feels. And, as a person in the awkward position of being too nice for his own good while feeling guilty about wrecking a man, I can see how Pete might feel compelled to give Andy some assurances about the relationship.

But I won't forgive Erin and Pete for providing Andy the only pathos he's had since the beginning of the season. When they both came in and tried to convince Andy to move on (which felt more like an excuse to bring up Alice, Pete's ex, than anything reasonable), I almost felt sad for the man. Here he was, enduring sanctimonious platitudes from the pair that conspired behind his back. Watching it, I was overcome by a feeling that I hadn't felt for the Nard-Dog in some time. "What is this? Sympathy?" I asked myself, disgusted.

Happily, that was enough to sic him to ravage the office. My sympathy melted in the conference room scene at the end. But none of it would have been possible without everyone involved being complicit to the monsterdom. Gabe's presence was easily explained because he's a weirdo and still in love with Erin (this possibly being the best version of Gabe I've seen—the insane almost-stalker) but everyone else just stayed in the room. Erin may have stayed out of guilt. Pete sticking around seemed out of character for him, particularly since he'd walked out on Andy's last tantrum, when Andy fired him. And Alice? Why didn't she just bolt when she found out there wasn't a marketing department?

I want to say this was a good cap to Andy's consistent villainy but he seems to get worse every week. He's on thin (vanilla) ice with Wallace, but what will it take to bring him down to earth again? If the writers were ever planning to restore Andy's underdog status or to make him at all sympathetic, could it possibly work with the height of antagonist he's become?

One of the best lines of the episode, and proof that Andy might be reduced to the poor whelp that he is, came from Pam as she departed for her episode arc. "Where are you going?" Andy asked. "Not on a three-month boat trip." Throwing how Andy shouldn't be qualified to sit on the throne of the Scranton branch in his face is enough to undermine him and maybe take the evil wind out of his sails, but not until he admits some fault. He hasn't done that at all since returning and it seems like that's the point. He will in no way be sympathetic until he admits some fault for splitting for three months with no repercussions. Maybe that's what makes us working stiffs the most upset with him.

But let's backtrack to Pam's arc a little bit because there was a bit of disappointment here, too. We didn't get the fight. Not even a snippet. Not even a mention. It was just Pam going for a job interview in Philly, leaving us to assume that the result of the fight was that the family should just pack up and move to Philadelphia. Not that the plan is a terrible one but I was hoping for some catharsis from the argument. Instead it looks like we'll have to wait for a while longer.

The beginning of the dinner was nice. Jim: "This is consolation champagne. It came from the part of France that immediately gave up to the Nazis." I think the worst part about Jim and Pam heading into Dullsville, PA, was the elimination of their banter. It's probably what made us fall in love with them the most outside of carefully choreographed will-they-won't-they scenes. I mentioned in an earlier review the phone conversation at the end of "Initiation" being important to the story of Jam. Most of it was about nothing: Sandra Bullock, having a number of kitchens, time zones. But that's the part of them that makes us understand why they belong together, that their conversations operate like a Swiss clock with timing and delivery that almost couldn't happen in real life but they make work because of their undeniable chemistry.

By the time they rolled around to the end of dinner, when Pam suggested that she maybe didn't want to do the thing we assumed they decided to do, we found ourselves at a crossroads. Again. It's like the fight never happened. So, to me, I'm going to assume it never did. At least we didn't have to see Brian.

We did, however, see Dwight and Angela kiss and it makes me happy to see that story progress. We know how it's going to end, but I'm looking forward to that specific journey. Especially if it'll provide a reprieve from Andy's reign of terror. A head who has been unquestionably blessed by a higher power but sits unjustly as ruler of everything he surveys, and terrorizes his subjects, even going so far as to (metaphorically) behead them. If you think about it, Andy is kind of like Joffrey Baratheon. Don't think about it too much.

– Well, there goes our theory that Toby is the Scranton Strangler. UNLESS HE STRANGLED HIMSELF AS A COVER!

– What a waste of amazing talent at the real estate office. Bob Odenkirk was wonderful, as you could expect, and played Michael Scott almost as well as Carell himself. But that he was only around for that one-off and that Michael Weston only had a single line is a crime. I also appreciate Odenkirk's, "I think they indulge themselves a little too much." It's like they know we know they know.

– No single document in the history of television has appeared as often as the relationship disclosure form on this series. Dunder-Mifflin Employees bone more often than at Señor Frogs in Cancun. (Full disclosure: I don't officially know anything about the inter-employee relationships at that particular establishment—it's fair to assume they bone less).

– Erin: "I've seen Pete's butt. It's sick."

– This was a good episode for the background characters: Meredith with floating kisses to the "fresh meat," Stanley feeling the same way about horny people that Phyllis feels about sad people, and even the coda with Oscar and the boots was pretty good (mostly for little things like Phyllis bringing Stanley some tea and not the contrived scenario that was only meant to bring about the mention of the documentary premiere). If The Office has done anything consistently well over the course of the series, it's make sure the bit players have decent material.

– God help us all if they do show the documentary and it turns out to be an excuse for a clip show. I despise clip shows.

View the original article here

The Big Bang Theory S06E16: "The Tangible Affection Proof"

Ugh, Valentine's Day, right? It sucks when you're single because it's just a big pink-and-glittery slap in the face to remind you of your lack of desirability. It sucks when you're in a relationship because of the intense pressure to wow your other half so thoroughly that he or she forgets how apathetic you are as a partner the rest of the year. And that's before you account for complicated relationships like Leonard and Penny's, where one half is getting his romantic ninja action on and the other is binge-drinking red wine like she's at a VD mixer at Delta House.

Still, change is in the air over at The Big Bang Theory, and has been since the show returned from its winter hiatus. There's always the chance that the show's current storylines are all just some experiment gone horribly wrong, but at the moment, their effects on the core characters are plentiful and generally awesome. So awesome.

But first, a bit more of the same. Enough of the same that I was ready to write off the first half of "The Tangible Affection Proof" as typical Big Bang Theory tropes jazzed up with some candy and hearts for the special occasion. Amy was stoked about the holiday while Sheldon enlisted Alex (HI ALEX!) to do his boyfriend work and buy Amy a gift. One of Penny's exes almost ruined everything. And Raj and Stu threw a singles party at the comic book store for "people who don't have dates," codespeak for "nerds." Cuz you know, nerds NEVER have dates on Valentine's Day.

Raj talked himself into an awkward hole when he pointed out that he and Stu would have "solved all their problems" if only Stu was female because they do awesome stuff like read comics and go the movies and play video games and we all know that women NEVER do those things. Ever. Under any circumstances. The payoff to Raj's storyline was pretty great, though. He's TOTALLY "that guy." You know, the one who rallies the troops to reject the holiday, preaching solidarity and positive self-worth beyond a romantic relationship, only to bail as soon as a girl agrees to get coffee with him. Typical Raj.

Typical Penny and Leonard, too, with Leonard like an eager puppy in his enthusiasm to take Penny out and Penny kind of bored and irritated by the whole thing. It must be so hard to be so desirable, Penny. Really. A nice dude is eager to buy you dinner on Valentine's Day. Your life is so hard. Though the idea that overeager Leonard could whip out another ill-timed marriage proposal was probably plenty to deflate that heart-shaped balloon floating over Penny's head.

But then The Big Bang Theory made fun of Leonard's penchant for proposing and it was glorious. And THEN, for a show that occasionally gets some flack for how it treats its women like plot points, TBBT handed the keys to the Leonard and Penny's relationship over to Penny. After an honest discussion about Penny's commitment issues, Leonard promised to never propose to her again and for a second there, I thought we had another break-up on our hands. Instead, he insisted that the next proposal must come from her. CRISIS AVERTED.

Sure, if we are so inclined to rage about how the whole system of the guy asking for the gal's hand is antiquated and sexist, we can. It's there. But at the moment, I'm not so inclined. It was such a great moment for Leonard and Penny, understanding each other on an intimate level and for once, rather than letting their insecurities tear their relationship apart, they just laughed about it. When Penny hopefully eventually gets to the point that she wants to marry Leonard, Leonard expects to be DAZZLED by the display. I'm thrilled that Penny's fake-out question, "Will you be my Valentine?" was just that—even if the line was kind of lame—because I can't wait for the eventual ACTUAL proposal episode... if TBBT sticks to its guns and goes there.

Please go there?

Across the hall, Amy and Sheldon also connected in a way that we don't often see with those two... or rather, haven't seen much of until lately. I mean, wow, when this show decides to stop screwing around and advance its characters already, it just dives right in and does it. Knowing that Amy would be putting her everything into V-Day—and I'm assuming she made sure there was a Valentine's Day clause somewhere in the relationship agreement—Sheldon assigned poor Alex to go shopping for the perfect present. Probably not the best approach, but still, good effort. At least he bothered, right? Right.

Sheldon hilariously dismissed each of Alex's gift suggestions crap, except for the awesome one he kept for himself, and faced with the dire prospect of not having a present for Amy, Sheldon actually managed to give her something sweet, personal, and very Amy-appropriate all on his own. Oh, it totally backfired for Amy because of course it did, but OMG her face when Sheldon told her he'd changed his employee paperwork to make her his emergency contact. HER FACE. The creepy oversharing about her sexual desires for Sheldon aside, all the woman really wants is to be a valued part of his life, and on some level, Sheldon got that. So much Sheldon-growth lately, you guys. I don't know what to do with it all.

But unfortunately for Amy, Sheldon is kind of a hypochondriac.

– One-liner of the night: "I know, I propose a lot." —Leonard

– I'm starting to realize that Howard and Bernadette are kind of boring now that they're married.

– Poll time! Who gave the best Valentine's Day gift?

View the original article here

When I first watched the pilot of The Mindy Project this summer, I thought it was a bust, and not just because the title sounds like everyone blew off the "naming our show is important" meeting. It was interesting, even a little dark for a sitcom, but during my first watch, the episode got broader and broader to the point of diluting its promising bit of originality. The trope of a woman who is a mess in her social life but amazing in her professional one is usually not irritating, but as of late The Newsroom has abused that dichotomy by employing a couple of hysterical savants. Many of the jokes in the pilot were tepid and, while it didn't turn me off from wanting to watch more, my promised perseverance was only in hopes that it would get better fast. Instead of being excited for a new show from a strong female voice, I'd basically started my countdown to the four-episode decision.

Then I finally got around to reading Mindy Kaling's book, Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (and Other Concerns). I don't want to sound like an infomercial so I'll just tell you it's good and funny and walks a fine line between candid and TMI, like you might expect from Kaling. But, more than anything, it made me reconsider The Mindy Project.

The show and the book are not supposed to be intentionally linked (I don't think), but it's hard not to draw on one to fill in the other. I'll recount the characteristics that reminded me of each in Kaling's own "pliest" style. In her book, that's how she describes essays "with a list-y quality." You might know it better as "80 percent of all professional blog entries."

Note: For all our sanity, I'll refer to Mindy the writer/actor as Kaling. For the character in the show (the OB/crazy person), I'll use her last name, Lahiri.

My first pass of the opening narration made me think of Carrie Bradshaw's "clever" meditations on the trivialities and tragedies of first-world life—if not in content, at least in tone and cadence. Kaling mentions in one of her chapters the grip Sex and the City had on the city of New York in the early aughts. How soon I forget that telling someone they were a Charlotte used to be a legitimate thing to say and not reason to stop a conversation.

So the book reinforced my initial reaction. My initial, such-a-boy reaction. After the pilot became available. I read that viewers, women specifically, felt Lahiri's asides and soliloquized quips reminded them of their own inner monologues. And while I feel that Carrie Bradshaw's columns weren't representative of women so much as embodiments of unchecked and often-encouraged evil, her narration is frequently considered part of that same conversation, a voice for a gender whose voice is so often misrepresented, ignored entirely, or reduced to nagging set-up for a fat man's punchline. That's not to say I think Lahiri is derivative as a character or that Kaling is copying the SATC model. Girls often gets unfairly saddled with that accusation. Putting Girls and The Mindy Project in the same sentence with SATC is more of a compliment to Lena Dunham and Kaling that there's room for the voices of confident women who inspire emotional connections in a female audience.

While it would've been easy and interesting for Kaling to set her show within the realm of her actual career, I understand the need to fictionalize a universe (because we don't want to follow Tina Fey all the way down the rabbit hole), and I thank Kaling profusely for sparing us a Hollywood-based sitcom. My first viewing of the pilot had me seeing the parallel between Lahiri's position of birthing children/holding the hands of women as they move into the next phase of their lives and Lahiri's own transition... but the impact was later compounded by knowing that Kaling's mother is also an obstetrician. Write what you know, sure. Write the life where you follow in a parent's footsteps? That's just good karma.

Kaling fictionalized the world of the show by changing a few key factors about her own life—her occupation, and making Lahiri essentially an ambitious Kelly Kapoor (who Kaling insists is not anything like her in real life). One important thing the author and the character share, however, is the way romantic comedies figure into their lives. Both the book and the show document how Kaling/Lahiri always made time for rom-coms, to the detriment of a social life. But the result of that life is where the personality and the character diverge. Look, I can only assume things about Kaling based on the media-spun interviews and PR-biased interpretation of her, just like I can only assume Olivia Wilde is the coolest, hottest humanitarian this side of Angelina Jolie who would be totally into a polyamorous relationship with me and my girlfriend. That's what I get from interviews, anyway.

But from Kaling's book you get the impression that her romantic perspective is hopeful, even naive at times, when it comes to the subject of true love. Lahiri, meanwhile, is jaded—spurned by the reality of storybook love not working out and surviving its existential aftermath. It's almost as if Kaling is exploring the other side, the Sliding Doors dark side, one where she emerges from the pain to find the perfect partner while Dido is playing somewhere.

Lahiri's best friend is a beautiful blonde woman named Gwen (Anna Camp). Kaling's best friend is a beautiful blonde woman named Bren. Not exactly revelatory.

Chris Rock visited The Daily Show a couple months ago to promote Two Days in New York (do you remember that was a movie?), and he and Jon Stewart discussed the constant need for new material in the age of YouTube, where people broadcast everything you say and there's a constant demand for new content. I see both sides of the issue: I've watched Eddie Izzard's Dress to Kill about 90 times, but if I saw him do it live tomorrow, I'd be a little disappointed.

So what I will say is this: While the jokes in the pilot were mostly asides or quick punchlines, they're jumping-off points in the book. The essays almost become footnotes or writer's commentary to the episode itself. It might be a little early in Kaling's celebrity to say they're "callbacks," but the one-liners that were supposed to elicit a chuckle in the pilot are actually the suggestion of deeper material. Which leads me to...

After Lahiri suffered her heart for nearly the entire pilot, the man you can only assume will be the actual, eventual love interest—Daniel—interrogated his coworker as to whether she thought her latest date was a boy or a man. In the book, Kaling dedicates an entire essay to this subject, saying how she used to be scared of "men" and would only date "boys." Kaling says that, once she crossed into the realm of the thirty-year-old, males who were "committed" and "entrenched" were more appealing than the kind of boys who still carry around skateboards for transportation.

The Daniel character is the Kaling voice of experience speaking with a Jersey accent. Watching the pilot alone, the speech might get diluted by both the fact that Daniel is obviously talking about himself as the perfect male specimen for dating and the possibility that the show is setting up sexual tension between Daniel and Lahiri. The book as a companion reinforces that this is honestly a step toward being all growed up. The transition from boys to men is a sign of Lahiri busting free of her arrested adulthood, the necessary turnaround to kick off the series. Although it's almost assured that none of the men Kaling discusses in the book would punch a dude at a Springsteen concert for wearing the wrong T-shirt, you get the idea.

All told, the episode came to life for me after reading the book. It was elevated from pedestrian and uneven; I made a connection to the episode through the celebrity persona of Mindy Kaling. Whether or not she considered the book to be a companion piece while developing her show is irrelevant. Providing a candid document as source material for a show that is superficially fiction is an interesting tactic to make a show more compelling. It makes you question what's real and what's completely fabricated. It contextualizes heartbreaking or ridiculous circumstances. Maybe most importantly, it connects the audience with the central character in a way that a 22-minute pilot can struggle to do. Mindy Kaling is your friend. And you want to watch your friend do well.

That being said, don't feel like you need to read the book to enjoy the show. The pilot itself may have been uneven, but the characters and series have potential. Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? isn't a Rosetta Stone necessary to fully understand Kaling's story. It's more like commentary, contextual winks that flesh out the thought process behind her televisual creation. No, you don't have to do homework to enjoy the show. I'm just saying it doesn't hurt to do some extra credit.

View the original article here

After initially sliding new comedy The Neighbors into the cushy* post-Modern Family timeslot during the Upfronts in May, ABC smartly realized that A) The Neighbors is going to fail and B) the timeslot would be better spent on a better show. Thankfully, this led to Suburgatory shifting into that 9:30pm on Wednesday slot, a move that should theoretically help the always-improving comedy in its sophomore season.

* You'd think that the timeslot right after one of the most popular shows on television would be beneficial and help other shows grow, but you'd be kind of wrong. Cougar Town, Happy Endings and Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 all did fine behind Modern Family, but none of them lit the world on fire, ratings-wise. Apparently people are so jazzed up by the casual racism and sexism of Modern Family that they can't bear to watch something on ABC right after.

Although timeslots and traditional flow between programs means less in the DVR age, it's still nice when good shows are given a chance to shine in important spaces of the schedule. Unfortunately, not every good show gets this opportunity. Here are five that deserve better.

Current timeslot: Tuesdays at 10pm

NBC has done a lot of stupid things in the past five years, but perhaps the most misguided call it's made is clinging tightly to the prestige of the 10pm drama series. It's a timeslot that NBC made waves with in the 1980s and 1990s but the realities of contemporary viewing habits—the 10–11pm hour is where a lot of DVR viewing happens—mean that the cultural clout isn't there anymore. NBC hasn't been able to make a 10pm show work on Thursday forever and for now four seasons, it's relegated one of the best shows on all of TV, Parenthood, to the same time on Tuesdays.

NBC's ratings woes and silly planning aside, Parenthood isn't "a 10pm show." It doesn't feature explicit language, violence, or sex. It's a family drama with great characters and an appealing storytelling engine. Tuesday at 10pm is typically an ultra-competitive timeslot anyway: CBS always has a solid performer there—this season we'll see if Vegas can make it work—and cable nets like USA and FX typically air big shows there as well, which doesn't help the Bravermans either.

Where should it be instead?
So many of NBC's early timeslots at the beginning of the week are dedicated to The Voice that it's tough to find a spot for Parenthood elsewhere. However, I think it could do well on Wednesdays at 8pm, or even early in the night on Sundays once football ends.

Current timeslot: Fridays at 9pm

I assume most people expected this list to include the likes of Fringe and Community, shows with diehard fan-bases that happen to be stuck on Friday nights. Frankly, those shows belong there. They've had four and three seasons respectively to become bigger performers and they haven't, so it makes sense to me that Fox and NBC would keep and/or put them on Fridays. The rabid audience follows well enough.

Nikita, however, is a show that hasn't been given as much of a chance. Yes, it aired on Thursdays behind The Vampire Diaries in its first season, but 9pm on Thursday isn't kind to new shows—especially new shows on The CW (see: The Secret Circle). Nikita did okay on Fridays last season and performs really well internationally (that's why it's still around).

Where should it be instead?
I think it could do well paired with a similarly themed show, like the upcoming superhero drama Arrow, on Wednesdays. Supernatural, which is moving from Fridays back to Wednesdays this fall, would do fine in returning to its old Friday slot.

Current timeslots: Tuesdays at 9pm and 9:30pm

ABC has an embarrassment of riches in its comedy slate at the moment and with a three-hour Wednesday comedy block out of the question, two sitcoms had to go somewhere else. The net has been trying to build a Tuesday comedy hour for a while (with shows like Last Man Standing, Man Up, and Work It, for example), so it's no surprise that Happy Endings and Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 are now an island there. While I think the two comedies fit together well stylistically and tonally, they are suddenly up against bigger, flashier comedy blocks from Fox (New Girl and The Mindy Project) and NBC (Go On and The New Normal).

Clearly the networks thought that the real estate at Tuesdays at 9pm was up for grabs, but at some point (probably pretty early on), these comedies are going to hurt one another. NBC's block includes Matthew Perry, a seemingly strong-at-the-start Go On and a The Voice lead-in. Fox's block features the sole hit of the bunch in New Girl (though its ratings dropped pretty far by the end of last season) and one of the best new comedies of the season in The Mindy Project. That leaves Happy Endings and Don't Trust the B----, which are sandwiched between the Dancing With the Stars results show and the always almost-dead Private Practice, on the outs, probably relegated to DVR or Hulu duty by most people.

Where should it be instead?
This one is tough too (revealing that deserving a timeslot often rubs up against the fact that there simply isn't room). If I had it my way, I'd just immediately cancel The Neighbors and let both Happy Endings and Don't Trust the B---- rotate in that 8:30pm Wednesday timeslot. They might have shorter seasons in that theoretical scheduling move, but they'd be tucked into a stable comedy block, away from the new comedy war on Tuesday (and other danger spots on Monday or Thursday) and be able to run straight through.

Current timeslot: Thursdays at 8pm

The Last Resort pilot is really, really good. Like a lot of folks, I'm not sure exactly how Shawn Ryan and company will sustain the narrative as a series, but I cannot wait to watch them try. ABC has done a fine job of marketing the show on ESPN and during sporting events on ABC in hopes of courting some men back to the network.

However, the 8pm Thursday timeslot is just as big of a wasteland is NBC's 10pm Thursday. Every season, ABC tries to launch an interesting series there, only to have it take almost immediately. Charlie's Angels BOMBED and Missing tanked there last season. My Generation died there the season before. It was FlashForward the year before that. And so on. Even if Last Resort becomes a great show, the chances it survives are slim, almost solely because of this poisoned timeslot.

Where should it be instead?
See, in theory I love the 8pm timeslot for Last Resort. But it's just that 8pm Thursday slot on ABC that is basically poison. Gun to my head, I'd probably try it out at 10pm on Monday after Dancing With the Stars. Castle is a veteran show that should be able to hold its own somewhere else. In fact, if there's any show that could probably withstand that toxic timeslot on Thursdays at 8pm, it'd probably be Castle. I thought ABC would try to put it there during the Upfronts in May, but the network seems terrified to move anything.

What shows do you think deserve a better place in the schedule? Vote on our picks here and list your own in the comments!

View the original article here