Lunchtable TV Talk: The Grinder… Gold britannias and sovereigns

Standard

My firewall, S, informed me that actor William Devane appears in some ads on British TV trying to get people to invest in gold. S practiced for several hours to be able to perfectly imitate Devane saying, “…gold britannias and sovereigns“. (And, lucky girl that I am, he did it all just to make me laugh… and maybe a little bit to make himself feel like he could sound more like an American. Go figure.) In any case, I went looking for this ad on YouTube but it’s nowhere to be found. Unfortunately for me, Devane also advertises gold stateside, and the ads are laughably hideous, as you’d expect.

“Don’t you just love the feel of gold?” What the hell?

I started wondering about the motivation behind these kinds of ads (and there are a LOT of them – ads, that is, not motivations). I guess Devane is a working actor, but it’s not like he has been a top-billed leading man. If I need a reason, look no further than money.

I recently read that critically acclaimed actress, Dianne Wiest, was struggling to pay her rent. Not necessarily because she was financially irresponsible but because a working actor struggles as much as the rest of us. She cited a lack of steady enough work as the reason for her woes, and perhaps Devane found himself in similar straits (despite his assertion in the ad above that his dad told him to invest in real estate, he did and “did very well for myself, but now it’s time to invest in gold”). Maybe, though, he just wants a payday. Devane can shill gold all over daytime TV in cheesy ads, and I don’t care why. It gave me more than a few laughs.

And getting more to the point now. Devane (and Wiest) both appear in new sitcoms this season – Devane in the semi-promising comedy, The Grinder, with Rob Lowe and Fred Savage (who, believe it or not, looks exactly the same as he did in The Wonder Years), Wiest in the not-so-promising Life in Pieces. I’ve watched both (but we’re only two episodes in with each of them), but I can’t really assess whether Wiest will be able to pay her rent with this one or whether Devane can tone down the gold talk. So far, The Grinder is funnier and more engaging than Life in Pieces. And, to be honest, I could not even get through the second episode of Life…

My best guess is that Devane will be rolling in gold (although ratings have not been great for his new show, so he has plenty of gold to cushion his fall); Wiest will be unemployed again soon.

Lunchtable TV Talk: Israeli TV – Beyond Homeland

Standard

Homeland is probably the only well-known reimagining of an original Israeli TV program. Americans (or anyone, really) grabbing onto an existing show – and either bastardizing it (which in television is more like stealing a scene-for-scene replay without adaptation or creativity or even cultural consideration) or redirecting it not for the better but maybe for greater perspective on a similar theme – is nothing new. The UK and US bat their respective shows across the Atlantic to make and remake like so many shuttlecocks, but adaptations from further afield are beginning to inspire. That said, just because you can watch a remake does not mean you should avoid the original. In fact, the original is usually better. The original UK version of The Office lasted only two glorious seasons. When the US made its own version, it started off slowly and tried to make a scene-by-scene copy of the original. Only when the US started to use the concept but not the play-by-play sameness did the US version of The Office find its voice – and become its own show. Both are good shows.

Don’t get me wrong. I am a fan of (most of) Homeland. It is loosely based on Israeli program Hatufim (Prisoners of War), which is considerably more complex than Homeland. I am a bigger fan of Hatufim, even if it suffers from very different production values. It feels like a human story, much more than the edgy thriller Homeland aspires to be.

But Israeli TV has also offered up some adapted gems, such as the little-watched and often frustrating (in a good way) In Treatment. In it, Gabriel Byrne played a therapist and patient. Each night of the week, he would see a patient and on the last night of the week, he would see his own therapist (Dianne Wiest). The Israeli original was called B’tipul and introduced the concept of showing one episode nightly – each one representing one patient’s appointment, i.e. each Monday was the same patient, etc. It only lasted for two seasons, but it was engaging in a way that most shows are not. You would not imagine that a show in which two people sit, talk and engage in what are fairly realistic therapy sessions would draw you in. But somehow they did. Maybe not enough, though, because the show did not last.

Taking inspiration from an Israeli source does not always work – most likely when major American networks get their claws into the idea. The recent attempt to adapt Israeli program, The Gordin Cell, into a spy thriller, Allegiance, did not work at all. In this case, it seems it was less about trying to create a quality show and more about trying to capitalize on the critical praise heaped on The Americans. I assume NBC thought they could jump on the “Russian spy story” bandwagon, but it’s not as simple as that. Just as Mad Men’s popularity and critical acclaim did not transfer automatically to other 1960s period dramas with thin plots, like Pan Am and The Playboy Club, among others. Further evidence that major networks are usually followers, not leaders. Sometimes that works; usually it doesn’t.