Television

Tony Soprano’s female trouble

Will David Chase ever free his female characters from their sitcom-bound chains?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Tony Soprano's female trouble

“I believe in America.” Those are the first words of Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather”; from there, the director leveraged his story of an immigrant Italian mob family against the American dream, the American way of life and the American way of death. The first scene of David Chase’s audacious HBO TV series, “The Sopranos,” carried a different message: We saw the virile James Gandolfini, curious and apprehensive, shot from between the thighs of a nude bronze female statue.

Tony Soprano was born from between the legs of his vindictive, joyless mother, Livia; and he was caught, when the series opened, in the vise of several other women as well — his dissatisfied wife, Carmela; his increasingly disdainful daughter, Meadow; his volatile 24-year-old Russian girlfriend, Irina; and his rather unconventional shrink, Dr. Melfi.

That opening shot summed up the show’s mischievous intents and some of its limitations. Coppola saw the Mafia as a metaphor for American society; Chase sees it as a metaphor for the American family, a more insular (and less persuasive) construct.

“The Sopranos,” one could argue, is merely the darkest sitcom you can imagine, and Tony is just another henpecked husband, all but mugging for the audience, rolling his eyes in exasperation at the demands of his shrill loved ones. The zany hook is that he gets a demanding female psychiatrist to add to his troubles — and his wife is jealous of her. One of these days, Carmela …!

If you haven’t seen “The Sopranos,” which this Sunday will conclude its third season, you’re missing something extraordinary. It’s arguably the cleverest and most entertaining extended drama that’s ever been on TV. Tony is expertly played with a gruff masculinity by Gandolfini; his emotionally and morally compromised wife, Carmela, is done to a ruined turn by the infinitely expressive Edie Falco; mother Livia, now departed with the death of actress Nancy Marchand, exhibited oceans of pain and scorn in a massive, equine face; proud and bitter Uncle Junior (Dominic Chianese), forced to cede power to his nephew Tony, is a study in aging gracelessly.

Tony’s crew of goodfellas is played to a thuggish T. It includes Tony Sirico as the charming but lethal Paulie Walnuts; Steve Van Zandt, a shade too cartoony as the mugging caricature Silvio Dante; a smoldering Michael Imperioli as Tony’s hotheaded, potheaded nephew Christopher; a stylish, ponytailed Italian import, appropriately named Furio, played by Federico Castelluccio; and an older, Morris Levy-style mobster, Hesh, played by Jerry Adler. Tony’s kids are the resentful Meadow (Jamie-Lynn Sigler) and the anomic Anthony Jr. (Robert Iler). There is his chaotic, devilish sister, Janice (Aida Turturro). And finally there is the cultured but buttoned-up Dr. Melfi, all shrouded insecurities and false bravado as played by Lorraine Bracco.

The joy of “The Sopranos” is the furious pace of the storytelling, its shotgun approach to narrative, its carefully doled-out violence. Chase, who rarely writes or directs anymore but who presumably still oversees the show from week to week, is a master of looming problems and red herrings. Characters rise out of the muck and achieve ominous proportions, only to fade away — that is, when they aren’t dispatched in more operatic fashion.

Good guys die and bad guys win in “The Sopranos”; Chase clearly is not about reassuring his audience that they live in a just and moral world. He walks a fine line between keeping his cast compulsively watchable and deeply repellent. He makes this clear early on, when we see Tony run down a former associate with his car and then emerge to give the unfortunate man a thorough and unattractive beating; a few episodes later he garrotes an informer in spectacularly brutal fashion. We see the wire cut into the victim’s neck and into Tony’s own hand, and — after our hero finishes the job with a final energetic tug — we see an arc of spittle come shooting out of Soprano’s mouth. “Sopranos” fans learn to identify with Tony at their own risk.

Building a TV series around such an alternately fascinating and loathsome hero was a bold and brilliant stroke. And while each season’s dazzling episodes have been followed by less inspired ones, its high production values, droll humor, loopy sense of life’s absurdities, knack for vivid characters, gift for dialogue and refusal to romanticize make virtually every episode worth watching.

Chase’s attention to artistic detail even extends to his music selection. He and his team emotionally punctuate each episode with the most serious and rigorous use of pop music that’s ever been heard on TV and perhaps in any movie. From Johnny Thunders to Nick Lowe, R.L. Burnside to Eurythmics, from gospel and R&B to drum ‘n’ bass and alt country, Chase and his music advisors find, time and again, unforgettable songs to anchor key scenes, particularly the closing ones. Last season Chase and company dug up an obscure Eurythmics song, the plaintive and powerful “I Saved the World Today,” to underlay the queasy engagement party in honor of Tony’s sister Janice and the reptilian Richie Aprile. “Everybody’s happy now/The bad things gone away,” Annie Lennox sang, with an oblivious irony.

The song was reprised at the show’s end, carrying a even more poignant message as Tony and Carmela silently confronted each other in an emotional standoff. Sometimes Chase and company do more than scavenge stuff, they concoct their own, as they did with the ferocious “Every Breath You Take”/”Theme From Peter Gunn” mix they used in this season’s premiere.

“The Sopranos” is also cleverly self-aware, referencing other Mafia movies and mob history in subtle and comical ways. Perhaps the funniest such moment came in the first season, when Imperioli as Christopher was still new to us; upset about not getting enough respect, he goes off on a kid at a pastry shop, blasting him with his gun. “You shot me in the foot!” the kid screams. “It happens,” Christopher replies, walking out the door. Imperioli, we then remember, was the kid in Martin Scorsese’s “GoodFellas” whom the even more temperamental Joe Pesci shot — in the foot.

But if “The Sopranos” is a television masterpiece, it falls short of the grandeur of “The Godfather.” The domestic drama at the heart of the show — a strong but neurotic modern man navigating his way through a world of unhappy and complicated women — seems slight in comparison with the tragic themes of Coppola’s classic.

The TV show’s greatest strengths and weaknesses are demonstrated in its depiction of women. Chase’s female creations are not simplistic or stereotypical: Carmela and Dr. Melfi, in particular, are particularly nuanced, wonderfully drawn blends of strength and pathos. But none of the women have Tony’s power or sense of agency.

Melfi is completely unnerved by Tony. Those shapely legs sliding down from those too-short business skirts say yes even when her dour expression is saying no. Her office, with its dark, heavy-curtained recesses, is more like a boudoir — with reason, since she’s never been able to articulate a professional reason she continues to administer to a violent felon. (Melfi certainly doesn’t seem to read the local paper, which one would think would carry some sort of notice of the weekly Soprano-associated carnage around town.)

Melfi is clearly drawn to Soprano as a man’s man. The other men in her life are all epicene and overly cultured. They rail impotently about this or that, while Tony takes action. Melfi’s horrifying rape in a parking-lot stairwell earlier this season could have been a dream, a metaphor for her attraction to the disturbingly violent Tony; but it wasn’t. It was, instead, payback from an odd God who gives Tony a pass but has it out for Dr. Melfi and her sex fantasies.

As Chase conceives him, the chesty, scowling Tony Soprano is a babe magnet. No sooner did Soprano start work in a new office last season, in an attempt to lay low and act legit, than he was banging the office secretary — billed as a born-again Christian no less — doggy style over his desk. The only woman completely immune to his charms is Charmaine Bucco, wife of the milquetoasty chef Artie. Cassandra-like, she darkly warns her husband of the dangers of associating with the malevolent Soprano and his crew. But she is presented as a one-dimensional harpy and harridan.

We side with Tony instead of the truth-telling Charmaine not only because he’s more charming but because Chase has invested him with a code of honor, especially toward women. Tony may be a murderer, a torturer, a thief and an adulterer, but we never see him behave unforgivably toward women. When fellow mobster Ralphie Cifaretto beat his girlfriend to death in a gruesome scene earlier this season, Tony even broke his brotherhood’s rules by exploding in fury at Ralphie and punching him in the face — and Ralphie a made guy! While Tony causes the women around him pain, it’s almost never intentional. When he’s confronted by the women in his life over his betrayals, he lapses into a little-boy act, one that Carmela — and Melfi, for that matter — always falls for.

In last week’s episode, the penultimate one of the season, Tony roughs up Gloria, his va-va-vooomy but unstable mistress, almost choking her to death. But she basically asks for it — first, as Melfi points out primly (and self-righteously), for being attracted to dangerous men, and second by pulling a “Fatal Attraction” move on Tony and threatening the sanctity of his family. (Note to self: Don’t pick up women in psychiatrist’s waiting room!) In short, the women around Tony catfight over his fleshy physique and increasingly get what’s coming to them, while he somehow manages to maintain a veneer of gallantry.

The last two shows of this season have been terrific. “Pine Barrens,” directed by Steve Buscemi, slyly paid homage to “Fargo” and Samuel Beckett as Christopher and Paulie get lost in the snow-covered wilds of New Jersey after a hit goes bloodily awry. They were left to freeze nearly to death and given a chance to contemplate overnight their place in a cold and white moral universe. (The strict attention to character detail in “The Sopranos” dictated that the wiry but much older Paulie suffer even more painfully than Christopher, with his trademark slick “wingtip” hair and his sense of self-assurance in frantic disarray by the time they were rescued.) This story line was nicely set off by Tony’s activities in his own particular hell, attacked by an unrelenting swarm of various angry women.

In last week’s show, “Amour Fou,” mistress Gloria goes nuts and Tony demonstrates that therapy has given him some useful insights into dealing with suicidal narcissists. Jackie Jr., the wayward young son of a late mob boss, makes an ill-advised move to get himself a reputation as a tough guy — was he misled by Ralphie Cifaretto, the sociopath who’s now sleeping with his mother? And as for Carmela, she’s having another bout of conscience, and finds herself confused by a curious priest who dispenses some good medical recommendations but curiously relativistic moral advice. With its taut pacing, spectacular violence and ethical weirdness, “Amour Fou” ranks with the very best “Sopranos” episodes.

All Chase has to do on this Sunday’s show (which is apparently only one hour) is tie up about 15 loose story lines. Will Carmela’s crisis reach critical mass? Could she actually leave Tony? And what’s wrong with her medically? The doctor told her there’s nothing wrong, but she’s a little young for menopause.

And by the way — who slashed Gloria’s tires?

What about the case the feds are building against the Sopranos? What of Uncle Junior’s cancer and his legal troubles? And how about the waterfront development, complete with Museum of Science and Trucking, and the ominous move to Jersey by New York boss Johnny Sack? An uncertain fate hangs over Jackie Jr. as well as Paulie, after his own big mistake with the angry and dangerous former Russian commando.

And, finally, what will be the requisite sanguinary finale for a very bloody TV show?

What Chase needs to do in Sunday’s episode — and during the next season, which may be the last — is take “The Sopranos” to a place truly original, one that says something that Americans haven’t thought about before, rather than ultimately reinforcing stereotypes we’ve had drilled into our psyches since Ricky first bawled out Lucy. Then the show will become something more than a sophisticated “Married … With Corpses” and take its place in a pantheon next to “The Godfather.”

Bill Wyman is the former arts editor of Salon and National Public Radio.

Ernest Hemingway made silly

HBO's unintentionally hilarious "Hemingway & Gellhorn" gets everything disastrously wrong

  • more
    • All Share Services

Ernest Hemingway made silly Nicole Kidman and Clive Owen in "Hemingway & Gellhorn"

Here’s something you should consider doing before watching HBO’s inadvertent comedy “Hemingway & Gellhorn,” a disastrous two-and-a-half-hour CliffsNotes on the passionate, dysfunctional love affair between Ernest Hemingway (Clive Owen) and his third wife, the war correspondent Martha Gellhorn (Nicole Kidman), which airs Monday night. Find some Hemingway — take it off the shelf, download it to a Kindle, load a page of “The Sun Also Rises” onto your computer via Google books — and leave it within arm’s reach. You are going to want to read from it at fairly regular intervals to remind yourself that though he may have been a drunk, a brute and a womanizer, Ernest Hemingway was not a complete and total idiot. And then you can also use it to shield your eyes from the movie’s myriad crimes against sepia, its extensive use of what appear to be Instagram photo effects, the hot pink blood, Metallica’s Lars Ulrich in a beret, and the scene toward the end of the film in which Kidman’s face is superimposed over real footage of emaciated bodies at Auschwitz and Dachau.

Hemingway and Gellhorn met in Florida in 1936, when she was 28 and he was 37, already famous and married to his second wife. The two covered the Spanish Civil War together, then lived with each other for a few years, married in 1940 and were divorced by 1945. Despite the fact that Gellhorn covered every major conflict between the Spanish Civil War and Vietnam, she is best known as Ernest Hemingway’s third wife, a designation she bridled at both in real life and in the film. “Hemingway & Gellhorn” purports to rectify this. She, not Hemingway, is the movie’s protagonist and narrator. It begins on a close-up of Kidman, in old-age makeup — she looks good wearing all those wrinkles she’s fought so tirelessly to erase — speaking to a documentary crew in a smoky, deep contralto about her life. But though the film pays lip service to making Gellhorn more than, as she put it, “a footnote to someone else’s life,” it chooses to do so by focusing only on the period of time in which … she was that footnote. With friends like these, better they not be filmmakers.

At least Gellhorn does not come across quite as badly as Hemingway, who brays and screams and generally behaves like an overgrown child. When we first see him, he is drinking, smoking and cackling maniacally while reeling in a marlin, the Not That Old Man and the Hunter S. Thompson Outtake. It gets more Gonzo from there, as in when he and Robert Duvall, playing a USSR general, clench a red scarf between their teeth and threaten to play Russian roulette before Tony Shaloub calms them down with vodka.

Clive Owen has been stripped of all sex appeal — future directors take heed: Wire frames and a mustache are Clive Owen’s sexual kryptonite — despite having lots of sex. (I can imagine Corey Stoll’s incredibly dashing Hemingway, from last year’s “Midnight in Paris,” pointing at this version of Hem and cackling.) As for his writing, though he is occasionally seen standing up, typing away, and floating his pages into the trash, of the two lines of writing we hear, one is plagiarized from an earlier conversation and the other is “If a man can stand he can fight” — the sort of stereotypical stinker of a Hemingway line that makes people hate Hemingway.

But the disaster of “Hemingway & Gellhorn” isn’t on Owen, who gives this silliness his all, or Kidman, who devotes herself and even, occasionally makes it work. In almost every instance, the script and direction settle for the simplest, dullest explanation of its main characters’ behavior, even when that’s in direct contradiction of something mentioned earlier. (Philip Kaufman, who in an earlier life made “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” is the director here, and he keeps insisting on inserting Kidman and Owen into real historical footage like he’s Forrest Gump with access to iMovie.)  In the very first scene, the older Gellhorn narrates that she never liked sex, a comment she made in real life as well. But every time she and Hemingway bang in this movie — in one endless sequence, they screw while actual bombs are going off on the street outside — she seems as into it as the most gifted porn star.

In this movie, when Gellhorn saddles up to Hemingway at a bar in Key West, all sass and ass, it can’t be because he cuts such a dashing figure — after all, he’s drunk, covered in blood, and a dead ringer for Groucho Marx — but because he’s Ernest-effing-Hemingway. Martha Gellhorn was a major, ballsy, charismatic operator, a woman driven and brave enough to crash a boys club and go to war, time and time again, but the movie ignores all the hundreds of spiky, complicated, difficult, even selfish reasons that a person as interesting, intense and ambitious as Gellhorn might want to be with someone of Hemingway’s stature. (When Gellhorn insists on leaving Hem to go cover the end of WWII, Hemingway cheats on her. In real life, Gellhorn cheated too, but that detail didn’t make the cut.) Instead, Gellhorn loves Hemingway, but she can not shirk her duty to bear witness to world events. Hemingway loves Gellhorn, but he needs to be the center of attention.

At the end of the movie, the documentarian asks an older Gellhorn about her relationship with Hemingway, and she bristles. The man has been dead for nearly 40 years, she’s moved past him, and she’s lived a plenty interesting life on her own terms, she says. Then the crew leaves and she goes directly to her desk to read a letter from Hem, because, whatever the movie pretends, it doesn’t believe her.

Continue Reading Close
Willa Paskin

Willa Paskin is Salon's staff TV writer.

“American Idol”: Riveting despite itself

We all knew Phillip Phillips would win. Yes, the judges are nuts. So why did I feel real emotion anyway?

  • more
    • All Share Services

The final episode of any season of “American Idol” is always a smiling show of force, a confetti-laden massacre of time. After a nearly 40-episode season, along comes the gargantuan finale, an enormous spectacle that contains exactly one minute of real content — when the winners are announced — and two-plus hours of filler. Last night’s episode was nominally about who would be declared the winner of the 11thseason of “Idol” — Phillip Phillips, the humorously named yet handsome guitarist with a twang in his voice and shirts cut to display exactly the appropriate sliver of chest hair, or the huge-voiced, personality-less 16-year old Jessica Sanchez. But sleepily good-looking white guys (and Scotty McCreery) have won the last four seasons of “Idol,” and Phillips was pretty much a lock before the night even began. And so it is a commendation to the near-military professionalism of “Idol” that somehow, for the last half-hour or so, I was riveted to the screen.

The beginning went by in a busy, boring blur. Ryan Seacrest in his tuxedo informed the crowd that 132 million votes had been cast this year (the number of votes cast in the last presidential election: 129 million. Though that doesn’t count teenage girls voting over and over and over again for a guy named Phillip Phillips.) John Fogerty and his mop top of dyed dark hair clanked his voice against Phillips for a while. One of this year’s contestants kept distracting me from the group numbers with her uncanny resemblance to Florence Henderson. Chaka Kahn flirted dangerously with camel toe. Steven Tyler was filmed playing with a three-toed sloth, revealing that he and a three-toed sloth have the exact same hairdo. Jennifer Lopez performed a medley in a sparkly dhoti.

And then Ryan Seacrest invited former contestants Diana Degarmo, who was 16 when she was the runner-up in Season 3, and the long-haired Ace Young, a contestant in Season 5, up onstage. They waved hello, and Young said, “This has always been home to us, and I felt this was the perfect place to ask a simple question.” Ryan chirped, “Dim the lights!” And then Young proposed to a surprised-looking Degarmo — with the help of David Webb jewelry. (Never forget your sponsors.) “I love you to death, you’re my best friend, and I will do anything in my power to have the most unimaginable, amazing life together, if you’ll have me. Diana Nicole DeGarmo … will you … marry … me?” he asked on bended knee. She nodded yes, the “Idol” theme music swelled, and these two newly engaged people, having significantly boosted their chances of getting some reality show company to pay for their wedding, embraced onstage as the show hurried mercilessly, ceaselessly on, this time to the thematically appropriate duet  “You’ll Never Walk Alone.”

A wave of emotions crashed over me. I realized I had been screaming at the television. (“Nooooarghhhahaahaeeeee” or something like that.) While this was, on a human level, so ill-advised — what is wrong with doing private things in private???— it was also undeniably entrancing television. The “Idol” machine had struck again. What if these two kids had chosen to get engaged off camera? In the relative privacy of, say, a Cheesecake Factory? Would we, the audience, have been forced to watch a supercut of Steven Tyler’s most lascivious comments instead? One of Jennifer Lopez saying sweetie over and over again? Or just more commercials? When I thought of it this way, I could almost appreciate the utilitarian sacrifice of Degarmo and Young’s privacy and dignity: The entertainment of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

But this engagement was not the highlight of this episode. No, the ever crafty “Idol” had waiting in the wings a tactical tour de force: Jennifer Holliday, the Tony Award-winning actress who originated the role of Effie in the Broadway production of “Dreamgirls,” and so is the ur-performer of “I’m Telling You I’m Not Going,” that canonical musical competition song and a number the teenage Jessica Sanchez  has been singing for nearly her whole life. Holliday and Sanchez came onstage to do a nominal duet of the song, which turned into an extended solo. (Sanchez’s willingness to let Holliday steal this number right out from under her is the most likable thing she’s done all season.) Holliday, who looks like she can dislocate her jaw on command, and at various points seemed poised to inhale Sanchez with no need for chewing, absolutely destroyed this song, and did so in such joyful, reckless disregard for what she looked like while doing so  — here are some gifs of her in the act — that it almost wiped out the sourness of the engagement sequence. Here was a public act, one that was meant to be public, performed with such passion, it felt private: Who can possibly know what is going on inside of a person’s body or mind when they are as possessed by anything as Holliday was by this song?

When Ryan Seacrest finally told Phillip Phillips he had won, after 10 o’clock at night, he picked up his guitar and began to sing. Ever since Kelly Clarkson cried her way through “A Moment Like This” in the show’s first season, the winner is expected to perform their new single at the end of the show.  But halfway through “Home,” Phillips broke off, to sob. The background singers kept singing, and the confetti kept falling, but Phillips didn’t even try to get back on the mic. For about a minute, he stood on stage, quiet music playing in the background, trying to pull himself together, to do what was expected of him. He couldn’t. He didn’t sing again. Instead, he walked offstage to his family, who pulled him into a big group hug, inadvertently hiding his face from the cameras. At which point, I think that I got something in my eye.

Continue Reading Close
Willa Paskin

Willa Paskin is Salon's staff TV writer.

More sex and disasters, please

TV season finales used to be about crazy couplings and exciting explosions. Where did the fun go?

  • more
    • All Share Services

More sex and disasters, pleaseGabriel Mann and Emily VanCamp in "Revenge"

There are a few times of year when network television can typically be relied upon to be as interesting as cable: The fall, when the networks vomit out dozens of new programs; February, when the networks cough up a dozen or so more; and May, when all the series that have survived the year try to end in spectacular fashion. During this last period, season-finale time, couples couple, get married and have babies; characters quit, get fired and die; disasters occur; buildings explode; guns blaze; hatches are discovered and protagonists are left dangling off cliffs, both actual and metaphorical. It’s the TV equivalent of blockbuster season, and like blockbuster season, it can and should be fun. Though in recent years cable shows have been responsible for a disproportionate number of the “Holy crap, did that just happen?!” finales (hello, Gus Fring and his brand-new face!), network shows are usually good for at least some insanity, some drama, some transcendent event that will get people talking around the storied watercooler. Not this year. Nope, this year, season finale season has been a bust.

The dearth of enjoyably over-the-top finales both is, and is not, a coincidence. Some of the shows that went big in the past opted to take a more low-key approach this May. Last year “The Good Wife” ended with Alicia and Will finally smooching outside a hotel room; this year it ended with Kalinda sitting in her apartment, gun in hand, waiting for her front door to open. Last year, “Community” wrapped up with its balls-to-the-wall, two-part spaghetti-western paintball extravaganza; this year it ended with a relatively understated episode about Evil Abed, leaving everyone to talk about Dan Harmon’s firing instead.

What isn’t a coincidence, is that there are very few good, tentpole network dramas, and it’s those dramas that usually provide the crazy come finale time. The two long-running series that ended this year, “Desperate Housewives”  and “House,” both ended quietly, which is to say in exactly the mediocre fashion they’ve been plodding along in for years. For either of these shows to have had must-see finales, they would have had to wrap up seasons ago, before they got creatively stale. Meanwhile, many of the new shows that started the season with the sort of mythologies that tend to make for the most memorable finales flamed out in one way or another:  The mediocre “Alcatraz” and “Terra Nova” were canceled, “Person of Interest” exists in the CBS procedural ghetto, and very few people watch “Awake.” The only show left that could plausibly deliver a juicy season-ending event is ABC’s super-soap “Revenge,” which finishes tonight. Its creator has promised someone “important” will die. My fingers and toes are all crossed.

Even the shows that have heeded the command of finale time — go big — have felt flat. On “Castle,” the show’s longtime will-they-won’t-they couple finally fornicated, following a very by-the-numbers “here I am on your doorstep all wet from the rain, at long last ready to have sex with you” moment. Last year had an equivalent event, when “Bones’s” longtime will-they-won’t-they couple Dr. Brennan and Booth paired off, but in a stranger and therefore more interesting way. Without so much as an on-screen kiss, Brennan told Booth she was pregnant with his baby. As far as twists go, surprise baby trumps emo sex against a wall.

One show that did bring its A-schlock game to its finale was “Grey’s Anatomy,” which stranded six major characters and a pilot in the woods after a serious plane crash, and crushed one to death underneath the fuselage. (At the time the episode was written, the cast members had yet to re-sign their contracts. Presumably, had they failed to sign, there would have been more fatalities.) This amount of carnage would have been a lot more stupendous if extreme violence wasn’t a staple of “Grey’s,” which had a grieved and crazed gunman shoot up the hospital and its staff two finales ago. The characters have long since taken to calling their workplace “Seattle Grace Mercy Death,” a joke about the number of horrible coincidences that have befallen them there (car accidents, fatal bus crashes, shootings, suicide attempts, exploding bombs, etc.). At this point, I wouldn’t bet against a dirty bomb showing up in next year’s finale. Which, come to think of it, sounds just insane enough to be spectacular.

Continue Reading Close
Willa Paskin

Willa Paskin is Salon's staff TV writer.

As Kristen Wiig departs “SNL,” what’s next for women?

"Saturday Night Live" says goodbye to a star -- and leaves late night without a queen

  • more
    • All Share Services

As Kristen Wiig departs Mick Jagger and Kristen Wiig during the season finale of "Saturday Night Live"

What, you didn’t get to dance with Mick Jagger, hug Jon Hamm and be serenaded by Arcade Fire the last time you left a job? I guess you’re not Kristen Wiig.

After seven years on “SNL,” Wiig said goodbye on Saturday night’s season finale that will go down as one of the sweetest, most choked-up moments on the show since Steve Martin said goodbye to Gilda Radner on the day of her death almost exactly 23 years earlier.

Even without an official announcement, Wiig’s twirly, teary departure is enough to make even the most casual fans of the show crank up the Adele and mainline a tub of Edy’s Grand. It doesn’t matter that fellow castmates Andy Samberg and Jason Sudeikis have reportedly moved on from the show as well. They leave behind established male cast members like Seth Meyers, Fred Armisen and Bill Hader. Wiig, on the other hand, blows a gaping hole in the show’s female lineup. The 24-year-old Abby Elliott, who moves up the rung to the show’s senior lady cast member, is now its biggest female star. But she’s yet to display that versatility or command the clout that Wiig has. Kate McKinnon may yet bust out into full-blown “SNL” stardom, but she’s only been on the show for five minutes.

And so, after years of cultivating a stunning roster of formidable female talent — Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler and Wiig — the show is, for the moment anyway, back to a state of relative desolation it hasn’t seen since the ’90s, an era that reached its nadir when Janeane Garofalo bailed midseason. It’s a strange, disconnected moment for “SNL,” right as women are making grand enough strides in television and film comedy that we’ve magically attained “labia saturation.” And though Wiig will no doubt continue to dominate in movies as a writer and performer, it’s sad that she leaves behind no true heirs on a show that, especially in an election year, remains so influential.

Visibly emotional and flanked by current cast members as well as the likes of Chris Kattan, Rachel Dratch, Steve Martin and Chris Parnell, and an especially rollicking Amy Poehler, new alumna Wiig didn’t depart “SNL” alone. She took with her Gilly,  the tiny-handed Judice,  Target Lady, Suze Orman and even Tan Mom. Why were so many people red-eyed on Saturday? Because on the stage that night stood a woman with incredibly big shoes to fill – and one very small hat.

Continue Reading Close
Mary Elizabeth Williams

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.

What’s “Community” without Dan Harmon?

Less ambitious shows might survive losing a creator. But firing the prickly showrunner bodes poorly for next season

  • more
    • All Share Services

What's Dan Harmon (Credit: AP/Matt Sayles)

A recent episode of NBC’s “Community” floated the possibility — debunked by episode’s end — that the seven main characters had not spent the previous three years navigating life, each other and paintball fights at Greendale Community College, but instead, had only been imagining them. In the episode, the recently expelled Greendale Seven found themselves in a group therapy session with a nefarious shrink, keen to keep them away from their college using any psychological means necessary. The therapist temporarily convinced them they had spent the previous years in a mental institution and that everything they remembered happening at school, except their friendship, had been a collective fantasy, a “shared psychosis” dreamed up in the asylum.

As I was watching this episode, “Curriculum Unavailable,” I remember calmly thinking something like, “Huh. That would really explain Leonard.” The possibility that “Community” might be about to “St. Elsewhere” its audience (“St. Elsewhere” ended on the reveal that everything that had happened in the series had all taken place inside the mind of an autistic boy) was not particularly alarming to me. Group psychosis explained a lot about the show’s extremely dark psychology, and, anyway, on “Community,” stranger things had happened.

As of late Friday evening, when “Community’s” creator and showrunner Dan Harmon was abruptly fired by Sony from the show he obsessively oversaw, I’ve realized that the real reason I was unphased by “Curriculum Unavailable” was because I was already very comfortable with thinking about “Community” as the figment of someone’s feverish imagination. That someone was just Dan Harmon.

Writing about “2 Broke Girls” recently, I noted that there is a fault line running through television where art rubs up against commerce. I should have saved that metaphor, because this “Community” situation is like an 8.0 on the art-commerce Richter scale. Consider the aftershocks: The perpetually low-rated, but fanatically beloved “Community” was just renewed by NBC for a fourth, 13-episode season. Why renew it just to fire the guy responsible for it? To escape the bad press of canceling a critically acclaimed series? Or is it the opposite impulse — to make enough episodes to get the show into syndication?

Harmon is an infamously — and self-proclaimed — difficult guy to work for and with. Earlier this year, he got into a public fight with “Community’s” Chevy Chase after Harmon played an incensed voice mail from Chase at a public event. Harmon apologized, though not to Chase, and a few weeks later was back to calling him a jerk on Twitter. If Harmon’s behavior was bad enough to get him fired, it was also the same crazy mentality that made “Community” one of the strangest shows to ever air on network television. How badly behaved does a great artist have to be to get kicked off his own creation without so much as a phone call?

Speaking about “Community” last week, before the news about Harmon was public, Bob Greenblatt, the head of NBC, said “Shows lose showrunners all the time and do well.” This is and isn’t true. Workaday TV shows, procedurals, sitcoms, long-running dramas, change showrunners all the time. But for the growing number of auteurist series driven largely by one personality — everything from “The Sopranos” and ‘The Wire” to “Louie” and, yes, “Community” — a showrunner change is not common, and is usually about as imaginable or advisable as Matt Weiner getting fired from “Mad Men” and that show soldiering on without him. It happens — Aaron Sorkin left “The West Wing” after four years, for example — but the shows are never the same.

“Community” seems to me particularly poorly designed to continue without Harmon. If “Community” were a more standard comedy, the new showrunners — two writers from “Happy Endings” — would just have to take the seven characters and make them funny. But causing belly laughs seems secondary to “Community’s” précis, which emphasizes being exhilaratingly clever, formalistically inventive and impressively bonkers over being laugh-out-loud hilarious. Harmon’s approach to television has always been almost athletic: With each episode, he sets out to break his previous record for genre bending, to outdo what everyone else has done before. To make “Community” “Community” then, the new writers don’t just have to tell jokes, they have to maintain its outdo spirit. They have to outrun or at least keep pace with Dan Harmon’s brain.

And because of his “let’s boldly go where no TV show has ever gone before!” ethos, Harmon has long since made his brain a major, off-screen character on “Community.” More than most other showrunners, even the great ones, one can feel Harmon in each episode, egging the show on to new heights, exposing the mechanics of the genre. I could watch Troy and Abed do their secret handshake 1,000 times a day, but I don’t watch “Community” for Troy and Abed, adorable besties that they are. I watch for the episodes with multiple timelines, for Dungeons & Dragons games come to life, for claymation Christmas specials, and for “My Dinner With Andre” and “Die Hard” spoofs. I watch for Dan Harmon’s unmatched and, now it seems, unsustainable ambition. Oh, damn it. I guess I mean watched.

Continue Reading Close
Willa Paskin

Willa Paskin is Salon's staff TV writer.

Page 1 of 499 in Television