Let's throw in the Meredith-Shepherd romance on "Grey's Anatomy" (9 p.m. Thursdays on ABC), shall we? A big portion of the show rides on the appeal of these two characters, and even though one of them is, technically, a cheating husband and the other is a wishy-washy Ally McBeal-esque skinny Minnie who tosses back shots of liquor with all of the conviction of wimpy Marissa from "The O.C.," the romance between them works. Meredith, however wispy and lispy, remains somewhat likable, or at least we can put ourselves in her shoes in lusting after McDreamy, who is, for all of his smugness and repetitive machismo, undeniably dreamy in every sense of the word.
The lady-focused soft porn of "Grey's Anatomy" consistently impresses me, most of all, because creator Shonda Rhimes clearly knows what women want, what we're confounded by, what we struggle with. Most of the female characters are interesting or smart in their own way, but more important, we understand the appeal of their men, from Dr. Burke to the smarmy hot guy Shepherd's wife cheated with. Hell, even Chris O'Donnell, who strikes me as a dull preppy in any other setting, seems appealing on this show.
And we care about these romances because they're just the right mix of flirtatious and angry and annoying and eternally not-quite-perfect. So why are they so right, or at least so consistently entertaining, when that thing between Matt and Harriett of "Studio 60" is so very wrong?
Harriett seems too bratty and coy to give a crap about, for one thing. But the main problem is that "Studio 60" feels so aimless that it's tough to tell if this one romance is going to be one of the main events or not. And if it is the main event? Snore. If it isn't, then why do we have to spend so much time with these two people and their dumb, predictably hostile workplace romance? How many times can we rewarm that old love/hate Cybill Shepherd/Bruce Willis thing from "Moonlighting"?
The answer? Endlessly, really. We just have to care about the characters first. I'm on board with Matthew Perry's character, and I'm liking Amanda Peet's character more, now that she has been revealed as a former reckless drunk, so why not pair those two up instead? Or better yet, maybe we can wait a few weeks and see some other stories go down that don't feel like much ado about nothing.
Is Aaron Sorkin modeling through it already?
Shark week
James Woods certainly isn't. His show, "Shark" (10 p.m. Thursdays on CBS), somehow manages to take the old curmudgeonly, self-serving lawyer formula and make it feel fresh and interesting.
At first glance, "Shark" is just a drier, less cutesy, less soapy version of ABC's "Boston Legal." That's not all bad, of course -- you can't argue with David E. Kelley's casting choices, which include James Spader, William Shatner and Candice Bergen. Still, Kelley certainly has a knack for creating outrageously harsh, odd characters and then, slowly but surely, making them bore the living hell out of us. If I hear the words "Denny Crane!" one more time ... Well, it's like the pet frog on "Ally McBeal." The cute, repeated joke eventually turns into a torture device.
"Shark" could wind its way down the same ill-fated path, but so far, the show bounces along with mean-spirited conviction. Giving Sebastian Stark (Woods) a team of hot young lawyers to boss around makes lots of sense. The hot young lawyers themselves aren't particularly interesting, but they're really a sideshow attraction to the main event, which is Woods being a general-purpose jerk and bending the law to get the verdict he wants.
So why is that any different from "Boston Legal"? Well, "Boston Legal" is filthy with tiresome flirtations, for one thing. Who wants to see Alan Shore (Spader) greasily come on to yet another co-worker? Who but Kelley could make James Spader excruciatingly dull?
Fresh out of the gate, "Shark" is smart and has a nice kick to it. The cases are interesting and unpredictable (although they have featured a few too many easy confession scenes so far), and each scene is fast-paced, concise and dynamic. Whether it will hold our interest depends largely on the writers' ability to get us to enjoy and empathize with Stark in ways that Kelley fails to do with his irritatingly repetitive characters.
Closing remarks
Let us join hands, now, and close our eyes and focus on all that we've learned here today. As Mother Tyra once showed us, sometimes, when we have limited resources and can't quite find our inspiration, it's important to model through it. But remember, fair flock, modeling through it should be used only as a temporary, stopgap measure, to be employed until inspiration returns.
Sadly for us, many television producers and writers will continue to get massive amounts of cash deposited automatically into their accounts regardless of whether they're continuing to tell vibrant stories. It is up to these people to set the bar high, and to keep our televised entertainments fresh and exciting, but so many of them choose, instead, to model through it. They surround themselves with highly paid stooges and yes men, and they see their expensive lifestyles as a sign that they're talented and wonderful and they need not ask themselves, occasionally, "Does my TV show, once heralded far and wide, now suck?" or "Have I been writing the same episode over and over and over again so that I can continue to cover my mortgage? Worse yet, have I hired stooges to write that same episode over and over while I fly off to Cabo for cocktails and cocaine and high-priced whores?"
Little lambs, go forward, love one another, and continue to set the bar high for yourselves, even if it doesn't bring you extravagant, drug-fueled jaunts to Mexico. And no matter what you do or where you go, remember that the catwalk to hell is paved with good intentions.
About the writer
Heather Havrilesky is Salon's TV critic. She also maintains the rabbit blog. You can find more of her columns in the I Like To Watch directory.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)