This week, the Pop Culture Club took on Bored to Death, HBO’s new comedy about a novelist who tries to break out of his post-breakup stasis by becoming a private investigator. In other words, it’s Raymond Chandler plus Woody Allen times Wes Anderson. The scene in which Jason Schwartzman takes a belt of whiskey to appear tough in a bar and then wheezes and nearly spits it up is straight out of Allen’s Play it Again, Sam; the whiny, affectless, overconfessional dialogue is all Anderson.
Set in Brooklyn, Bored to Death seems to be written solely for people who look and act exactly like the characters: self-absorbed, immature, overeducated thirtysomethings cozily snuggled up their own asses. I know this type, as I live in Brooklyn and walk among them. Ten years ago I was one of them, which is why I both feel close to the show, and yet can’t wholeheartedly embrace it: It feels a little too close. It’s the same reason I get squirmy when I see drunk twentysomethings loudly singing in the streets, convinced their exuberant whimsy is entertaining all within earshot — I flash back to a night in 1994 when I did the same thing, confident that passersby thought that a staggering Manhattanite howling “New York, New York” with his friends late on a Saturday night was a heeeeeelarious sight. Only in New York, folks! Yeah, only in New York, or any mall parking lot in America when Dave and Buster’s closes up for the night.
Wait, now I’m cozily snuggled up my own ass! So let me shimmy my way out and get back to the show, which had its moments: I did like the self-effacing mood of the show, as well as the interaction between Jason Schwartzman’s protagonist, Jonathan, and Zach Galifianakis’ cartoonist, Ray. (The “Raid on Entebbe” conversation was amusing and felt real…until they shouted out for a public vote on whether it was a common reference: that staginess felt a bit Friends to me.) But as much as I may have smiled, overall I found myself weary of Jonathan’s type. I don’t want to sound like a cranky old “In my day, when a woman broke our hearts, we didn’t yammer on about it; we went to work and only took occasional breaks to weep/curse in the men’s room!” type. But my patience for mopey navel-gazing is ebbing.
You may say, “That’s not a fair way to objectively review a show!” But I think the Pop Culture Club should be a way for us to discuss our personal reactions to a project. For example, personally, I find Ted Danson to be the most delightful presence a television show could ask for. And it is because of him that I will keep watching this show.
I have an unhealthy love for the show Cheers. Not sure why: it’s not like my mother used to breastfeed me while it was on. I just loved it, through high school and college, and I still get misty when I encounter a rerun, as if I just found some old home movies. To me, it’s a perfect sitcom. And Danson has evolved masterfully since then. In Cheers he was self-involved but dim, but over the past five years he’s carved out a niche with characters who are self-involved and brilliant. (This new direction actually started in 1999’s Mumford, but I don’t want to drop too much deep Danson knowledge on you.) This shift may sound small, but it’s not: now his characters are darker, more daringly unlikable. He was hilariously arrogant in the canceled-too-soon sitcom Help Me Help You, and chillingly egotistical in Damages. His Bored to Death role, the jaded magazine editor George, is like a combination of the two: He’s a wealthy, intelligent, but oblivious playboy, and he dines out on the role as hungrily as Norm would the Feeding Frenzy at the Hungry Heifer. I’ve seen the next couple of episodes, and he only gets better, especially in an upcoming adventure in which he gets a herpes outbreak.
Wow, for someone who complains so much about the self-involved, I sure did make this conversation about my personal likes and dislikes, didn’t I? Please, people, rescue me from myself! What did you think of Bored to Death? Did you find Schwartzman’s character endearing or annoying? Do you want to follow him on more cases? And is my love for Ted Danson unhealthy? But come on, I dare you to tell me he’s not awesome! I DARE YOU!
Okay, before we begin, let’s give out next week’s assignment: I’d like to continue with TV, since there are so many new shows out there now that we really need to sample them all. Julianne Marguiles’ The Good Wife came out of the box strong with its premiere ratings: What’s going on there? Let’s find out! It’s on Tuesday at 10 on CBS. And as she wasn’t on Cheers, I should be able to get some critical distance here.
Photo Credit: Paul Schiraldi/HBO
Comments (1-15) of 21 Add your comment
knowing that you mother May have breast fed you while watching Cheers is absolutely priceless- thanks for the info Josh! but I liked this show- i thought it was “cute”… its the best word i can come up for it… Ted Danson is what will keep me coming back though and I imagine him winning countless emmy’s for however long the show is on.
I liked the show. Solid cast. I’ll watch again.
love it! I share your love for Ted Danson. I know this show will grow on me and I could relate to the main character as I have functional-professional pot head friends that act just like that. Maybe Ill get a new perspective to understand them!
Oh, I’m so mad I missed the First Wife, damm it. Are you going to check out Modern family, it was on last night and it was GREAT. The best new show so far.
I meant the Good Wife
I happen to really hate this show. I was excited because of the buzz, but I hate self-absorbed whiny comedy. It does feel very Wes Anderson, like the show is perfectly made to be funny and pretentious. I thought it was crappy, whiny, and unfunny.
This show was much more charming that I expected. It had some moments of pathos and charm. I can’t get over the fact that Jason Schwartzman needed a haircut. Isn’t that terrible? I guess it’s part of the sad-sack persona. The shots of Brooklyn looked fantastic; it really made me want to live in a light-filled brownstone apartment and meet my friends for coffee. I will watch again without complaint. That’s probably the best I have to say.
I liked it. It was pretty much exactly what I was expecting. overall I think Swartzman is the weakest part of the cast, but still not horrible. Danson is hilarious and as expected, Galifinakis is great. I’ll def keep watching.
Josh, you mentioned before that you turned fourty this year. That means you were born in 1969. “Cheers” debuted in 1982. The fact that your mother could have been breast feeding you at age thirteen is …. too creepy to contemplate.
But I actually posted to share your love for Ted Danson. Especially for unlikable Ted Danson. Which is why I was astonished that you didn’t mention “Becker”. I had never seen an actor so completely disappear from his first sitcom character to his second one. It was this show that made me realize what a superb actor Danson was. Give it up for “Becker”!
It feels like heresy to say it, but I never got into Becker. I think I wasn’t quite ready to let go of Sam Malone, perhaps. Danson as cranky bastard didn’t work for me…I guess I just needed about ten more years.
What part of “it’s not like my mother used to breastfeed me while it was on” suggests in any way that it was possible that his mother was breastfeeding him? Call me crazy but it seems like it’s saying specifically she wasn’t. The only way it could suggest that is if the “on” at the end of the sentence is emphasized in some way through the use of italics or something.
You’re right, I obviously misuderstood what Josh was saying. I guess MacKenzie Phillip’s shocking autobiography influenced me more than I realized!
Loving Bored to Death. Josh- I have an unhealthy love for Galifianakis so I can admire your unhealthy love for Danson. Watched some of Good Wife and wasn’t really interested. Kinda hoping to see you eviscerate it.
Ted Danson rules, but the rest of the show doesn’t. I totally agree with this critique; the people the show is about will enjoy it a lot, while the rest of us will just feel kind of ‘meh’ about it. I like Jason Schwartzman, and I like the idea of the show (which is beautifully shot), but it doesn’t play on the film and lit noir mythology enough to be really entertaining. Maybe it will get there eventually?
Let me ask you all, though: I’ve seen that a few of you found it, like me, a bit too whiny. Why is it that we like watching characters with other traits that we hate (evil, conniving, etc.) and yet others instantly turn us off? Is it that evil characters are so unreal to us, whereas whininess is something that we encounter everyday so we have a far more visceral reaction to it?
Maybe it reflects the talents of the actor playing this potentially repulsive character. For example, Monica on “Friends” had a trait that I absolutely despise in real life: overcompetitiveness. So I always thought it reflected well on Courtney Cox’s skills that I was able to tolerate this attribute in her character.
Could it be because whininess is not inherently exciting? It may even actually be boring. Evil characters stir up the pot, they create dramatic tension, they blow things up! Conniving people (and here I’m thinking of reality shows), give us someone to root against (love-to-hate). But whiny people don’t *do* anything but complain. Not much to drive a plot with.
I love whiny and depressed characters. It is a real emotion and I love to see how writers portray it in their shows. Is the same thing with Merdeith Grey (Grey’s Anatomy), people hate that character because she is whiny, suicidal, always complaining,etc… I loved her! Well written and very emotional to watch.
Jason’s haircut was distracting and Josh,how could you not love Becker!!! That show was hilarious!
I guess that my problem with this show (which I didn’t exactly dislike, but I certainly didn’t love) is that I found nothing sympathetic in the main character. This is what always turned me off of Seinfeld, too. I would probably avoid Jonathan if I knew him in real life. Not so the supporting characters (Danson, Galifianakis). They are charismatic enough that I don’t care that they are loathsome “types,” I still want to see what they are up to. I know that the scene when Schwartzman finds the missing girl and her ex-boyfriend is supposed to be funny (he takes a hit with the man who was just trying to beat him up and ignores the fact that the girl is tied up behind him on the bed) but I just found it impossibly irritating. But I did like that she gave him a completely deserved (and pretty funny) withering glare afterward.
The greatest vibe to me wasn’t Wes Anderson but Woody Allen. I felt as if I were watching “Woody Allen in Brooklyn,” with Jonathan Ames (the character) conceding to the Israeli movers that he was a self-loathing New York Jew. The whole private eye thing was a little “Monk,” too, with the fussy not overly masculine guy going out to solve mysteries. I’ll have to see what develops with this show, as I really did like Allen’s early movies (up to about “Hannah and her Sisters”), and the real Jonathan Ames is a really good writer.
One thing was that was good right off the bat the indie rock soundtrack, with a healthy dose of Scotland new wavers Young Marble Giants.
The second good thing was Zach Galifinakis. His “wise slacker” comic book artist is HBO’s best laid-back confidante since Arj Barker’s Dave on “Flight of the Conchords.”
Not only did it not make me laugh, it didn’t even make me smile. I didn’t realize the title referred to how it would make viewers feel.
Loved it. Jason Schwartzman was pretty good and Zach Galifinakis was awesome. The part where he breaks into tears was hilarious! Love the scenery. Moving to Brooklyn in one week!