[{"blog_title":"Ken Tucker's TV Prime-Time TV commentary","desc":"Prime-Time TV commentary","url":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com","timestamp":1329951641,"post_title":"Arizona Republican debate review: Trying to stop the Santorum surge","permalink":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com\/2012\/02\/22\/republican-debate-arizona-santorum-romney\/","content":"

For much of the time during Wednesday night's CNN Republican debate, the candidates did their best to try and put the surging Rick Santorum on the defensive. Ron Paul called Santorum a \"fake\" when it comes to \"being fiscally conservative,\" and came down hard on Santorum having voted for the No Child Left Behind act. Mitt Romney provided a Santorum attack-sound-bite that sounded prepared in advance: \"While I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the 'Bridge to Nowhere.'\" <\/span><\/p>\n

Newt Gingrich, as often as not, took the fight elsewhere -- to President Obama. Again and again, he declined to criticize his fellow Republicans, opting to repeat variations on the \"disaster\" of the Obama presidency.<\/p>\n

If there was any doubt about the hot-button issue of the moment, that was answered when the question \"Which candidate believes in birth control?\" was met with resounding boos. Yes, the audience seemed to be booing the concept of birth control. The candidates used the question to stake out their standard positions, with Gingrich again roping Obama into his answer, saying that the President has in the past \"voted for infanticide.\" Romney took a little side jaunt, trying to run over the President for his \"attack on religious tolerance.\"<\/p>\n

As usual, Paul received the most mixed, often perplexed response from the audience. Aside from his supporters in the crowd, the rest of the Arizona spectators frequently didn't know whether to applaud or remain silent when Paul went into his no-foreign-intervention position, and when it came to the birth control question, he confounded many conservatives in the crowd by saying that one should not blame contraceptives because \"the pills can't be blamed for the morality of society,\" and equated the use of pills to the stock Second Amendment argument, \"guns don't kill people; people kill people.\" There was a flutter of claps followed by baffled silence. <\/p>\n

This 20th debate, moderated by John King, was a mix of questions from audience members, internet offerings, and King himself. There were gimmicky moments, as when an internet questioner asked each candidate to define himself in one word: Paul chose \"consistent\"; Santorum: \"courage\"; Romney: \"resolute\"; Gingrich: \"cheerful.\"<\/p>\n

The final question of the night -- what's the biggest misconception about you? -- provided the only moment during which Romney flashed that sense of privilege he's been working so hard to suppress. When Romney chose to respond instead with a spiel about his vision for America, moderator King tried to stop and bring him back to the \"misconception\" query. Romney shot back, \"You get to ask the questions you want. I get to give the answers I want.\"<\/p>\n

Well, no, Mitt -- that ain't the way it works. \"Fair enough,\" said King, probably more out of understandable confusion as well as politeness. But, no, it wasn't \"fair enough\": It was just an evasion, to one of the easiest questions of the night.<\/p>\n

Late-breaking news: After the debate, on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart<\/em>, the host got a well-deserved big laugh during a segment on Republican attacks on a second-term President by showing a picture of Obama with the caption \"PResident Evil 2.\" Why, that would be enough to make all<\/em> the opposing candidates characterize themselves as \"cheerful.\"<\/p>\n

Twitter: @kentucker<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n"},{"blog_title":"Ken Tucker's TV Prime-Time TV commentary","desc":"Prime-Time TV commentary","url":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com","timestamp":1329865845,"post_title":"'Parenthood' review: Crosby and Jasmine, Adam and Crosby, Julia and that baby: What happened here?!","permalink":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com\/2012\/02\/21\/parenthood-nbc-review\/","content":"

Talk about loading up an episode with character epiphanies: As it hurtles to a season ending, Parenthood<\/em> piled on twists, revelations, and betrayals this week. So, right off the bat: Crosby and Jasmine? In a tent? Together with Jabbar? I kept looking around for that irritating cellist, lugging her instrument into the tent to spoon with Crosby... <\/span><\/p>\n

Really, if there's one thing the often-subtle Parenthood<\/em> has really forced down its audience's throat, it's the unending love of Crosby for Jasmine. This, even after she's proven to be a self-centered twit who, in the guise of wanting Crosby to grow up (and who in this show doesn't, much as we who watch do not want him to grow up, it's why we love the maddening fellow<\/em>), has flitted off to be with Doctor Joe, whose similar degree of high self-regard would seem to make him ideal for her.<\/p>\n

But, no, Parenthood<\/em> is determined to get Crosby and Jasmine back together again -- for the sake of the child, the show's producers and a (small?) portion of the audience might tell you, but really because... well, there's no good reason, actually. As much as Parenthood<\/em> tried to bring Jasmine into the Braverman fold (inviting her to parties, trips, etc.), Jasmine really never fit in. Granted, Courtney Ford's needy cellist would not exactly have proven a big hit with, say, Zeek (I can imagine his cutting remarks about her flighty artiness), but the Jasmine-Crosby union, now inevitable with the proposal offered and accepted, will make Jabbar very happy but to me is an underwhelming anti-climax.<\/p>\n

Similarly: The idea of Sarah moving to New York with Mark? And\/or having a baby with him? How could Sarah -- whom we love for being so self-absorbed; self-absorption is what Lauren Graham has managed to turn into a charming art -- not see that this would be upsetting to Drew? Again, for the purposes of drama, it's a tempting avenue to explore, and logical if a bit loony given Sarah's dramatist past with the unreliable character Richard Dreyfuss played so well, but it strains credulity that, once poor Drew actually articulated his fear and pain, Sarah did not respond to her son more feelingly. <\/p>\n

It sounds as though I'm knocking Parenthood<\/em> for these plot developments, and I am to some extent, but of course it's also a measure of how much I have invested in this series that I feel so strongly about this week's developments, which is, you know, a good<\/em> thing, right?<\/p>\n

Which brings us, inevitably, to what became the biggest drag on the season: The adoption\/scheme to adopt\/why<\/em> was Zoe living with them a good idea? subplot about Julia and Joel's attempt to have another child. Oh my lord, did any character in this show not see that once that baby was born that Zoe was going to bond with that baby and Julia was going to Do The Agonizing Right Thing and let it go? Yes, we were sort of signaled that Parenthood<\/em> knew what it was doing when Joel told Zoe that she really had to commit to giving up her child because he couldn't bear to see his wife go through the pain she would if this arrangement fell through. But the inevitability of the scenario as it played out -- even for a blinkered control-freak like Julia (and I say that with affection, Julia), the notion of that baby becoming a Braver-boy and Zoe receding from the series always seemed untenable.<\/p>\n

I guess the overarching point I'd make about this season of Parenthood<\/em> is that it set up a number of story-lines (the ones cited above, plus Zeek's health scare) that, while paying off week-to-week as self-contained dramatic scenes and showcases for the excellent cast, have done little to add up to satisfying, fundamental forward momentum for the series. If I had to guess, I'd say that Parenthood's dodgy ratings may lead NBC to decline to renew it next season. Combine that with word that producer Jason Katims is working on a pilot for Jason Ritter, and suddenly Sarah's frustrating I-can-be-a-mom-and-a-NYC-playwright seems like an exit strategy. So does wrapping up Crosby's romantic saga in a neat Jasmine bow.<\/p>\n

I've left out what has become the show's most intriguing plot line, though. Peter Krause has been great this season in guiding the arc of Adam's unemployment and subsequent partnership with Crosby in the Luncheonette recording studio -- indeed, it's his entire wing of the family (Monica Potter's Kristina getting back into the work-force; Haddie's meticulously detailed growing pains; Max's difficulties in finding a friend and a place in his new school) that has been most satisfying and heart-wrenching in the best possible way. <\/p>\n

And so this week, I really admired the way the offer to buy out the Luncheonette from Adam and Crosby was presented. When a character on a TV show writes down the monetary figure for a business deal, you rarely see the dollar amount, so I was pleased to see Parenthood<\/em> go for it: By revealing that the brothers had been offered a million bucks, viewers could take sides -- was Crosby a noble idealist for turning it down? was Adam realistic in believing they really should accept? (I'll reveal my predilection: Sell, sell, sell<\/em>, guys!)<\/p>\n

Alas, Parenthood<\/em> didn't quite go all-in on full transparency: We didn't see the second<\/em> offer Adam was shown, the one that prompted the handshake deal and guaranteed future strife with Crosby. But for now, the fact that this element of the show is so fraught and poignant, because in agreeing to sell, Adam is also selling out his own<\/em> idealism along with Crosby's, that it reminds us all over again why we feel so strongly about Parenthood<\/em>. Because it's damn good at getting at the gray areas of not just parenthood, but also adulthood, and hopes, and dreams.<\/p>\n

On to the season finale! But first, let me know what you think of this week's many developments.<\/p>\n

Twitter: @kentucker<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n"},{"blog_title":"Ken Tucker's TV Prime-Time TV commentary","desc":"Prime-Time TV commentary","url":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com","timestamp":1329808866,"post_title":"The return of 'The Colbert Report': 'Are you ready to get these bastards?'","permalink":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com\/2012\/02\/21\/stepen-colbert-report\/","content":"

Stephen Colbert returned to The Colbert Report<\/em> last night after a week away, listing some of the rumors he -- \"the hub around which the Republic turns\" -- heard about his absence. They included that he was canceled by the FCC at the request of the Federal Election Commission because he was about to announce his candidacy, and that his show was canceled because he offended the Catholic church when he compared the Pope\u2019s \u201chat\u201d to a giant prophylactic.But then he added, \"Oh, one more thing. Evidently, having 11 children makes you tough as nails,\" a reference to his 91-year-old mother, Lorna Colbert, who is reportedly ill. (Colbert is the youngest of 11.) <\/span><\/p>\n

But Colbert then revved himself up to resume the show. \"Are you ready to get these bastards?\"<\/p>\n

In a report about the sudden surge of Rick Santorum's candidacy, he noted that he'd describe the Republican candidate as \"coming from behind,\" but \"Rick is morally opposed to coming from behind.\"<\/p>\n

In a segment about his fondness for Donald Trump, Colbert made a quick aside, summarizing the new cast of Celebrity Apprentice<\/em>: \"Cheryl Tiegs, 63, still primo tail; Lou Ferrigno, original Hulk, greenest of all the Hulks, we miss you, Bill Bixby...Clay Aiken, voice of an angel.\"<\/p>\n

His guest was best-selling author Ann Patchett, who's opened a bookstore in Nashville called Parnassus Books, after other book stores in her area had closed. \"Haven't we already had this battle?\" asked Colbert. \"In You've Got Mail<\/em>? You're Meg Ryan!\"<\/p>\n

It was very good to have him back. Sometimes I think he is at the very least the hub around which the Comedy Republic turns.<\/p>\n

All best wishes to your mother, Mr. Colbert.<\/p>\n

Twitter: @kentucker<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n"},{"blog_title":"Ken Tucker's TV Prime-Time TV commentary","desc":"Prime-Time TV commentary","url":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com","timestamp":1329692836,"post_title":"'Downton Abbey' season finale review: God bless us, one and all!","permalink":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com\/2012\/02\/19\/downton-abbey-christmas\/","content":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

The second season of Downton Abbey<\/em> came to a somewhat merry, certainly satisfying conclusion on Sunday night by wrapping up some subplots and leaving others dangling, tantalizingly. Abbey<\/em> is, at bottom, a work of pastiche. Creator-writer Julian Fellowes is using literary models that have worked for a long time, freshening them with his vivid characterization and (most of the time) crisply precise dialogue. What Fellowes has done so cannily is to render the servant-master relationship in two distinct modes: His models are Charles Dickens melodrama downstairs, and Anthony Powell<\/a> archness upstairs. <\/span><\/p>\n

The night commenced with a 1919 Christmas celebration, with a tree arriving by car. The only thing missing was Tiny Tim tied to a fender shouting, \"God bless us, one and all!\" Alas, the Lord seemed to have averted His gaze from Mr. Bates, on trial for murdering his ex-wife. By New Year's Eve (you can't say writer Julian Fellowes doesn't move things along briskly), Mary was confiding to Matthew, of Sir Richard Carlisle: \"The awful truth is, he's starting to get on my nerves.\" And ours: Richard has been a character misstep for Fellowes, I believe. He could have been an interesting figure, a working-class lad who'd worked himself up the social ladder via a disreputable but influential profession (newspapers; remember them?). But Fellowes has no feeling for this sort of striver character -- in his world, you're either a ruler or an obeyer. Consequently, Sir Richard, who at the least ought to have displayed some personality traits that allowed us to believe Mary could be attracted to him: a bawdy sense of sarcasm, perhaps, or a slightly sympathetic aspect to his ruthlessness, born of a fundamental insecurity about his place in society. Instead, Richard just became more stiff, more unconvincingly rude to the entire Crawley clan.<\/p>\n

The result was to make Mary's split with him blithely inevitable, and in this episode, almost beside the point. Because the real<\/em> source of Mary's agony was that she was \"damaged goods\" to Matthew for having slept with that Turkish diplomat. <\/p>\n

In other areas, this Downton<\/em> was far more satisfying. The trial of Bates was wrung for every tear and well worth it. (Life imprisonment will be a piece of treacle, if it means he can still gaze adoringly at Anna on visitors' days and mount a defense for early release.) The new maid Miss Shore was delightfully sniffy, our stand-in smirker for the ongoing, ridiculous innocence of Daisy. Nigel Havers turned in a very nice job indeed as \"fortune hunter\" Lord Hepworth, his character managing, unlike Carlisle, to exude just enough curiosity and charm to render it believable that Lady Rosamund would find him tolerable as possible marriage material.<\/p>\n

One of the charming things about Julian Fellowes is that he's shameless. Using the Ouiji board to trick the gullible and literally guide some of the action? Underscoring Thomas' villainy by having him steal Robert's dog<\/em>? Oh, the cur! (Thomas, not Isis.)<\/p>\n

Maggie Smith's Dowager Duchess Violet continues to risk devolving into a cartoon toff; going forward, she needs to be brought into the action of the plot more frequently, as she was here in a touching little scene dispensing advice to Daisy.<\/p>\n

The two most warming moments were probably the father-daughter talk between Lord Grantham and Mary, and the episode's final moments, with Matthew proposing to Mary amidst what looked like a flurry of old soap-detergent snowflakes. The advice Dad gave Daughter was exactly what a girl wants to hear from her father: You're a good girl, I'll always be proud of you no matter what you do, now go to America and find a good cowpoke to poke. Phrased elegantly, to be sure.<\/p>\n

Twitter: @kentucker<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n"},{"blog_title":"Ken Tucker's TV Prime-Time TV commentary","desc":"Prime-Time TV commentary","url":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com","timestamp":1329691683,"post_title":"'The Walking Dead' review: 'He won't stop'","permalink":"http:\/\/watching-tv.ew.com\/2012\/02\/19\/walking-dead-season-2-episode-9\/","content":"

<\/a>There was one shot in last week's episode of The Walking Dead<\/em> that suggested to me the series was on its way to improvement. It was a quick moment, when dead zombie bodies had been piled into a truck. Director Clark Johnson chose to film it from a slight distance. As the vehicle rumbled along, a stray arm fell off the truck, and Laurie Holden's Andrea hopped off to toss it back into the pile. A small gesture, to be sure, but so perfectly gross, yet, in the logic set up by the series, in keeping with the casual way this character and others now deal with the walkers. <\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, those opening moments of this week's episode that featured a zombie mindlessly trying to get at Lori, trapped in an overturned car, were hearty confirmation that The Walking Dead<\/em> has its wits about it again. When the series took its midseason break, it was still mired in the inaction that seemed to be weighing down Hershel's farm like a swamp. The endless talking, the tedious debates about rules, morals, and plans of action that never seemed to get taken; the drawn-out search for Sophia that, it turned out, hinged solely on the not-so-startling punch line that she'd become zombiefied -- ach, just typing it out makes me drowsy.<\/p>\n

But I was heartened by last week's episode, a rip-snorter that forced Sheriff Rick to shut up and shoot. And shoot some humans for a change: That confrontation with two hostile strangers, set in the bar where Hershel had gone to drown his sorrows, was shot like a good gunfight in a Western saloon. Yes, there were some boring moments with Rick debating Hershel. (Why was the former wasting his and our time arguing with a guy who was clearly too drunk to think straight? Because Rick will debate anyone<\/em>).\u00a0 In general, though, this week and last returned The Walking Dead<\/em> to its first-season early effectiveness.<\/p>\n

Which is to say, this is not a subtle series and it should not try to be. Its entertainment factor depends almost entirely on how low it will go in terms of trying to startle us. We do not come to this show to get \"invested\" in characters; we come to it to watch them get \"eaten.\" If anyone in the Walking Dead<\/em> cast is looking for an Emmy nomination, he or she would be wise to try and get bitten by one of the extras and released into the wild, to try thereafter to land a guest spot on Mad Men<\/em> or Breaking Bad<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Although I do think Sarah Wayne Callies came as close as anyone on The Walking Dead<\/em> has yet come to a great performance in the closing moments of this week's show. There was a wonderfully villainous way Lori cuddled up to Rick to tell him about Shane -- \"He thinks the baby's his... He thinks we're supposed to be together, no matter what... Shane thinks I'm his... He's dangerous, Rick, and he won't stop<\/em>.\"<\/p>\n

In other words, Lori is planting the idea that Shane is barely one step up from being a zombie in his lizard-brain obsession, and if she can plant the notion that he'll stop at nothing in Rick's head, Shane will, in the eyes of a jealous, protective husband, be a dead man walking. Callies' intensity here was shiveringly good.<\/p>\n

What'd you think of this week's Walking Dead<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Twitter: @kentucker<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n"}]