Lana Parilla was indeed on Spin City – however she wasn’t in the series at the beginning as Michael J Fox’s girlfirend – she appeared in the first Charlie Sheen series (series 5). Michael J Fox’s short-lived girlfriend was a reporter played by the much-better known Carla Gugino. Josh’s lack of awareness of Carla Gugino is one of those things that makes me occasinallly want to slap him.

This has been your official “why Josh needs to be googled constantly” reminder.

Does this mean we’re going to get a ratings report from the man with a chicken, or possibly a Crap TV sometime soon?

Anyway, here’s some incredibly subtle product placement for you. Can you spot it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQYwFND7rHE&feature=youtu.be

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/01/the-big-story-is-television-the-new-cinema.html

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2012/01/the_entirety_of_the_new_battlestar_galactica_serie.php
(or)
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6683770/battlestar-galactica-rpg

True genius…

I’m not sure what to add but a very similar discussion has broken out with last Sunday’s screening of the first of the new Sherlock episode. (see it when you can!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat

I’ve seen complicated, flawed and interesting women characters on TV. The women in The Shield and The Wire all had their issues and dealt with them in their own ways. They were nuanced and treated with respect: defined by more than just their jobs, afflictions or sexual encounters.

The labels I used, “nutcases, sluts and whores” were part of a larger discussion about the bad story-telling in Homeland. The women are introduced as simplistic caricatures rather than complex individuals. For example, the question surrounding Carrie is the simplistic “Is she right?” rather than the more complicated, difficult and interesting “What drives this dangerous obsession?” The more interesting question is answered almost immediately.

Compare this with the mountains of intrigue around Brodie. If he turned, why did he turn? If he is really a hero then how did he survive? Unfortunately the writing suffers here too.

As I mentioned in the review within the episode, if we only witnessed the case from Carrie’s perspective, we might share her desire to be proven right and we might question what we think we know when she faces the same uncertainty. Instead we are given information to make us pass judgement on Brodie. There is no opportunity for empathy with Carrie because we can see Brodie doing things that she can’t see.

Which is all to say that the story-telling is poor in general but in particular it favours the male characters over the female characters in terms of well-rounded and intriguing introductions.

The ‘crazy’ label overlooks the complexity of the main characters struggles to overcome her affliction. When Mandy Patinkin suggests in the final episode, “You’re the strongest person I know”, I agreed with him. Danes’ character was a flawed hero, brilliant and troubled, much smarter than the rest of her CIA colleagues, but also more dangerous, more willing to live outside the rules.

It’s a shame that efforts to present complicated, flawed, interesting women in main roles can be so blithely dismissed as ‘crazy or slutty’. Especially when there’s so many questionable and corrupt men in HOMELAND we could be commenting on. Or do we just expect that from men? (Boys will be boys, but the rules for women’s behaviour are far more numerous and diverse.)

This kind of review sends a message to TV producers that it’s easier & safer not to run the risk of including women in main roles. Which, frankly, sucks.

I have to take you guys up on your “feminist reading” of the show. Firstly, it’s really really rare to have women in shows like this, and more than that, to have more than one key woman, if we get to that stage. In Homeland, there are a lot of women, even women in less significant roles where a man would normally have filled the role. Not only that, but the women are complex and varied. Yes there is a prostitute – one prostitute – but she is heroic, she risks her life for her country and she uses her position for power when it could have been otherwise.

As for “slutty” – other than the prostitute, there are the wives of the POWs. One remarried – kinda not slutty. The other, after her husband had been missing, and presumed dead, for eight years, got a boyfriend. A boyfriend who became a father figure for her kids. That’s not really slutty, in my book. And you know, even if it was slutty, she’s liberated in her sexuality. I’m glad that we can move beyond the slut shaming.

So that leaves us with “crazy”. And as far as I can see, there’s just the Danes character who is crazy. (She has a sister who seems like a steady, non slutty, non crazy person of stability for her family. Also there is the woman high up in the defense ladder who wasn’t crazy or slutty either). It’s interesting that you see the Danes “crazy” – a mental illness she has been managing since her 20s – as a character flaw when you don’t read the POW guy as similarly flawed even though he is clearly equally troubled with perhaps PTSD or similar after you know, the torture for 8 years. He is interesting, and complex, where Danes is not, according to your reading of the show.

I found Homeland a really interesting display of varied and diverse female characters within the limitations of reality of today. And I felt sad that you guys dismissed the number and variety of women at all, rendering that important step invisible, to then say, as Joanna Russ would suggest “yes, but look who they were” (paraphrased from “How to Suppress Women’s Writing” by Joanna Russ).

Thanks for another fantastic year of podcasts and introductions to some great shows (The Almighty Johnsons was my #1 this year ). Here’s to an even better 2012!

Mum would watch while multi-tasking sewing and reading the paper (loudly because they were big crackly broadsheets) because paying attention to one 40 minute TV show once a week was too much to ask, but she would always manage to criticise the female actors’ appearance and tsk at the criminal underclass. Dad would sit and watch quietly until ordered to go and make tea.

I don’t miss The Bill at all.

P.S. Sam Newman is the salmonella-ridden regurgitant you would find on January 26 on a discarded Australian flag left in the gutter.

Actually my point wasn’t (or shouldn’t have been) that one country is worse than the other, but that US TV has (at its best) gotten way better than it used to be (yay!), while TV from the UK has declined (which is disappointing.)

RE: DaveAA – I agree somewhat until your main point. Since the 1990′s the UK has produced some great television; The I.T Crowd, The Office, Extras, Peep Show, Mr Bean (back in the day), The Royle Family, The Inbetweeners, Skins, Absolutely Fabulous, The Misfits, The Vicar Of Dibley, Father Ted, An Idiot Abroad, Pride And Prejudice… the list goes on. Obviously not all of those are for everyone but it’s just ridiculous to claim that they haven’t made ANYthing great and the U.S have. The U.S disappoints me on a completely different level with their shite tv. In fact, a lot of the worst parts of television today have been taken from where it originated in the U.S.

But it’s like someone flicked a switch in 1990: the BBC cancelled Doctor Who and the US started making Twin Peaks and The Simpsons. Since then the US has made loads of great shows and the UK hasn’t made any!

Anyway, just saw the first episode of Fresh Meat and have to say I really liked it. Not as good as The Young Ones, This Life or even The Inbetweeners but good nonetheless. The girl who plays Josie or JC or you know, the nice blonde one is charming. The Scottish guy has a funny accent which will amuse me for quite awhile yet and there’s something interesting in the girl who gets bullied into writing essays.

It does awkward well though awkward seems to be the only joke in the UK in the past ten years.

But wasn’t there a ban put on Elliot Smith songs appearing in TV and movie soundtracks? There will be when I’m PM. Also buskers will be banned from using amplification or singing Hallelujah.

As youse were.

Done, done, done.

I provided Josh the research for this (verbally during the show).

Here’s one of the articles that I used for research if you’re interested.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704758904576188740968759616.html

I haven’t really answered your question but hope this helps.

That said though, great interview John and Brett, really well handled and super questions, you really got a lot out of Christos and will drive me towards watching more of the TV series (haven’t read the book, understand the concept, have seen about 30mins of Anouk’s episode).

Great stuff!

Granted, you Boxcutters do take one for the team and watch a whole lot more stuff so we don’t have to watch the crap stuff, but I rely on you guys providing your reviews by that rule…..

What I mainly took away from it was the bashing of the First Dude for being a cuckold, not a real man, pussy-whipped. Which seemed like a pretty cheap joke straight off of 3AW. The sweetness didn’t come through until later episodes. The dinner with Bob Katter and the independents was a redeeming feature, but I was not left hungry to see another episode.

I was initially interested enough to watch the first episode as it aired, but only watched the remaining three via download after the season had finished. The second episode made me want to keep watching, and the third and fourth were the ones I really enjoyed.

Still, this doesn’t vindicate the rule of three, which I don’t think even applies to this situation. In the typical US production model, this would translate as the rule of 7 or 9.

Sure, Telstra and the AFL are greedy bastards. You’ll get no argument from me on that count. But if TV Now is stopped in its tracks, it will be because it’s illegal under copyright law.

I’m also failing to see what’s so “brilliant” about the concept of TV Now – it’s not a new or novel concept at all. Just a prohibited one. People have been recording TV and distributing it via the intertubes for years.

??

2 thumbs up.

I’m ALWAYS ALWAYS (did I say ALWAYS ?) prepared to pay for my content; to the extent that I use US based computer servers and credit cards to pay for and download music from Amazon and other geographically retarded (aka ‘geotarded’) sites. But for those TV shows that don’t get to Australia or channel BT (usually, but not always, US and UK based political, satire, and current affairs shows), I have found a neat little service ….

http://unblock-us.com

I’m currently on the 7 day free trial, but I will definitely pay up my $5 a month. For example, I get access to both Hulu and the BBC’s iPlayer service. I don’t have any financial connection to whoever is behind this (I’m not even a paying customer yet), but I think the more we punish ars****s like Ch 9 for screwing us around, the sooner we will get better treatment from them.

Its so horrible it WILL give you cancer.

1) Get a wooden match
2) Cover just the head of the match in 1 layer of aluminium foil
3) Put a pinhole through the foil at the very end of the match head
4) Balance the match on the edge of the kitchen sink with the foil-covered head end suspended over the void.
5) Get another match, light it.
6) Hold the flame under the foil-covered head of the first match
7) Watch and be amazed!

I think you’re supposed to learn something about jet propulsion from this experiment … or something. Watch your fingers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdESHTLu45Y