New Trend: Parents Playing Parents?

Article first published as New Trend: Parents Playing Parents? on Blogcritics.

Acting is a craft honed with many years of practice and a large degree of talent. But talent alone may not be enough if the actors have to work with other performers with whom they just do not have chemistry. One of the greatest challenges in casting a series is picking people who have the right fit with one another, who can make it seem like their relationships go back way further than the show's timeline.

Hollywood seems to have a new solution to that problem. Why fake a relationship, when you can use one that already exists?

In HBO's Enlightened, which just began its second season, the main character of Amy is played by Laura Dern. Amy's mother is played by Diane Ladd. What may not be obvious to those who haven't bothered googling the two women is that Ladd is Dern's actual mother. They don't look a lot alike, but considering that Ladd is the person who raised Dern, it's no surprise that they can pull off a great dynamic on screen.

Their characters are antagonistic towards each other in the series, and this isn't too far-fetched to believe. Dern once sued her mother for emancipation so that she could do a movie to which her mother objected. Clearly, the two have a rocky back story, and have some real life material to draw upon for their mother-daughter roles, and this isn't the first time they've played opposite one another.

Maybe they've worked past those differences; everyone grows up. Everyone spats with their parents; not everyone sues for emancipation, but not knowing the family, I couldn't say what what motivate such an action, or how it was received. Those of us on the outside can only guess at Dern and Ladd's actual relationship.

That isn't really the point, though. The point is, these two women, both terrific actors in their own right, have found a way to use their relationship in their careers. Being on set together gives them an opportunity to spend time together. It also gives them a very authentic feel for their characters.

I wonders how much of their real relationship goes into the parts? Do they work better if they keep the characters purely on a fictional plane, or do they have no trouble pulling things from reality, in order to make the scene even more realistic? This is personal choice, of course, and there is not formula that will work for everyone.

Thinking about how it would be to work with my parents, I feel like it risks quite a bit of unprofessionalism while filming. I mean, I can't see my parents willing to set aside the fact that they are my parents, even if they are happy to help and work together. It would definitely make for a different dynamic once the cameras stop rolling, and with Dern having some creative control over the series, does that cause any tension between them?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, whether this will work or not depends on the individuals, how they feel about one another, and what the established hierarchy is in the project. It's not a choice everyone can make, even if both parent and child happen to be in the same industry. But it works for others outside of acting, too, such as when a kid takes over a retiring parent's business, and spends years training to prepare for that day, so it's about time that this is tried in the world of television.

Dern and Ladd are not alone in this arrangement. Recently, after guesting once last summer, Martin Sheen has joined the cast of FX's Anger Management, which also just began a second season. He plays Martin, the father of real-life son Charlie's character, also called Charlie. Keeping the same names blurs the lines even more. Is this a play for ratings, or did the pair really just decide they wanted to work together? 


Not so long ago, Charlie (the actor, not the character) had a huge public meltdown, which few could have missed. Martin got involved then, too. This will only fuel rumors about why Martin is now on set, and what might be going on. It could also potentially be disruptive to the filming process down the line, so it seems like a tenuous pairing, especially on a television show committed to cranking out 90 episodes over the next two years, making for a high stress, very busy environment.

Then again, maybe it's not a problem. As I said before, we can't know for certain what their relationship is, and as long as their bosses trust that whatever happens will not interrupt the production process, and it works for the network, good for them. I am certainly enjoying both casting choices so far.

There are all sorts of implications if this should become a full-blown trend. Will it be one that works, making for better television and films. Or are these two pairings just anomalies, a footnote in the history books? Could one or both of them flame out miserably because adults don't always work well with their parents? Or will it lead to them having even better relationships and more respect for one another? These four could be a bell weather if others are considering the move.

Or I could be making something out of nothing.

Want to read some of my fiction? It's on my website, JeromeWetzel.com! Also, for the latest updates and article links, as well as commentary on episodes I don't fully review, please follow me on Twitter!

Romanticising Anger Management

After a great penultimate episode, in which Charlie's (Charlie Sheen) father, Martin (Martin Sheen), came to visit, the only thing certain about the FX Anger Management season finale was that it couldn't possibly be as good. But, as a series should in its finale, the focus was on the relationship between two of the characters, rather than a terrific guest star, making it actually pretty good.

Comparatively, that is. I'm not saying Anger Management is a wonderful show. It is much more watchable and enjoyable that Sheen's last sitcom, but it's hardly breaking any new barriers. The things it has going for it are a funny ensemble, humorous plots, and a fair level of heart. Charlie is a good guy, despite his screw ups, which is why "Charlie Gets Romantic" finds you rooting for someone you may have been booing off screen only a year ago. And, with such low expectations going in, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised, which is probably why I'm still watching.

In "Charlie Gets Romantic," Kate (Selma Blair) flips out when Charlie asks her to go to the movies after sex. Their physical relationship is supposed to be emotion-free, and she doesn't want Charlie screwing that up. Charlie, who realizes he does care about her, gently lets her see what no emotion between them is like, and is on board when Kate agrees to restore some feelings to the proceedings.

Does a friends with benefits situation work? Clearly not, according to Anger Management. If anyone could have this kind of thing and be successful at it, it would be these two characters. As they age, though, and realize just how much they like being around one another, they want something more, even if it's hard to admit it. This is completely understandable. Rather than set up a "will they, won't they?" situation, as most sitcoms do, this show presents a "they will in their own time" scenario, with a gradual progress that will probably take awhile longer.

Should Anger Management get it's back 90 pick up, and there aren't many reasons right now to suspect that they won't, that growth needs to continue. In ten episodes, there are some arcs for the characters. They start in one place, and they go somewhere else, even if it's not that far a journey. In the next 90 episodes, it might be tempting to set up a status quo and remain stagnant. This is not the way to go. Being given this many hours is a gift, and it should be used wisely to tell a complete tale. Hopefully, the team behind Anger Management realizes this.

My only real complaint about "Charlie Gets Romantic" is the lack of work many of the great supporting players got. Michael (Michael Boatman) and Brett (Brett Butler) receive nice moments, and since they were each only in half the episodes, it was good to see that. Jennifer (Shawnee Smith) also appears, hopefully lying the seeds for what could be a true, three-way romantic triangle with Charlie and Kate. But the therapy group (Noureen DeWulf, Michael Arden, Derek Richardson, and Barry Corbin), who deliver some of the best scenes in the series, are given hardly anything to do. They make it work, of course, but I would have liked to have seen more from them.

Anger Management ended up being a surprisingly good, not great, show. I look forward to its return soon. Assuming it gets picked up, which it probably will.

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter! Check out my new website, JeromeWetzel.com! Article first published on TheTVKing

Charlie Sheen returns in Anger Management

FX just premiered Anger Management, a sitcom loosely based on the film of the same name. The show is about a therapist named Charlie (Charlie Sheen, Two and a Half Men) who specializes in treating people with anger issues. This is appropriate, because Charlie also suffers from a rage affliction. He is seeking help in dealing with his own emotions from fellow therapist / best friend with benefits, Kate (Selma Blair, Kath & Kim), while trying to be a better father to daughter Sam (Daniela Bobadilla, Awake).

For all the Charlie Sheen haters out there, Anger Management is not as bad as you think it might be. One has to admit, Sheen is a talented performer, or he would not have gotten all of the projects he has done over the years, or created such a fervent following. Two and a Half Men is an absolutely horrible series with little redeeming value, with or without Sheen. Anger Management is not. That's not to say that Anger Management is great, by any means. But it's much better than his previous job.

The main problem with Anger Management is that it lacks a feeling of freshness or edge. There is an old, familiar formula in place here, of divorced dad failing to be there enough for his daughter, and regretting the past wrongs against his ex. The therapy sessions make it a little bit different, but not enough to set the show apart from its peers. This would not be a surprising effort on a network channel, but for FX, known for creative, groundbreaking comedies, Anger Management does not live up to the brand.

There are number of things Anger Management does right. It is funny. Whether Charlie is selling Kate on sex, or helping his messed up patients, somehow managing to keep from being judgmental, or chatting with bartender Brett (Brett Butler, Grace Under Fire), or being tortured by ex-wife, Jennifer (Shawnee Smith, Becker), the stories are amusing. A tongue in cheek opening to the pilot, "Charlie Goes Back to Therapy," which is a slam on Two and a Half Men, also works very well.

Thus, Sheen deserves the credit for many of the positive of the series. There is a huge, talented supporting cast, which also includes Michael Arden, Barry Corbin (One Tree Hill), Derek Richardson (Men in Trees), Michael Boatman (The Good Wife, Spin City) and Noureen DeWulf (Hawthorne). The second episode features a wonderful guest turn by Kerri Kenney-Silver (Reno 911!). But all of these other people revolve around the main man. In this role, Sheen balances likable with an authentic personality, admitting flaws, but working to be a better person. It's exactly the right message the actor needs to send at this point in his career, and this vehicle is perfect for him in this regard.

So will Anger Management be a triumph? It's hard to say. The ratings for the premiere will likely be inflated because of Sheen's much anticipated return to television. But will fans of his previous work stick by a tamer series? FX has a few short weeks to decide whether to order 90 more episodes or cancel the show. My gut says it will be the former, and, as weird as it is to say this, it might actually deserve to live on past these initial ten. I expected to hate it. That is amused and charmed me, even if not overly so, is a win.

Catch Anger Management Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET on FX.

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter!

Two and a Half Men meets Walden Schmidt

     With last night's episode, "Nice to Meet You, Walden Schmidt," CBS's Two and a Half Men leaves behind a period of bad press and upheaval, and begins to move on. No one could miss that storm that Charlie Sheen caused last year, and the ninth season premiere reveals that he has died. Sometime since the last episode, Charlie, the character, gets engaged. But his fiancé catches him cheating with another woman, and then pushes Charlie in front of a train. Excuse me, the crazy woman has nothing to do with it. Charlie "slips" in front of a train, or so the police apparently rule. The premiere finds Charlie's family and many of his exes (including some familiar famous faces) at his funeral, almost everyone not really sad at all.

     Sort of like how series creator Chuck Lorre feels about Sheen. While one can never truly know the relationship, other than the two men, the animosity between them has been a major news point. This funeral is a slap in the face to Charlie, with his own mother, Evelyn (Holland Taylor), more concerned about selling Charlie's house, then mourning over the loss of her son. Charlie's nephew (Angus T. Jones), whom Charlie took in, could care less. Perhaps it preserves the characters as they always have been, but only someone furious at Charlie Sheen would give his character such an un-touching send off. Not that Lorre isn't justified.

     The problem isn't that the funeral is out of character for Two and a Half Men, it's not, but that it completely fits the tone of the series. While popular in the middle of the country, Two and a Half Men has never been high quality entertainment, or really, even very funny. Charlie's bad behavior, and the careless way he treats women, is something to be scorned, not laughed at. That the women have grown bitter and feel the same callousness towards Charlie's death is a crying shame, not something to be celebrated. This crass, tasteless humor is what makes Two and a Half Men not worth watching in the first place.

     Only Alan (Jon Cryer) even begins to be sympathetic. He shows grief over Charlie's passing, and kindness to a stranger who shows up at his door after just trying to kill himself. Too bad Alan is whiny and weasel-like, which is why he gets neither woman and he and Walden pick up from the bar. Cryer seems to struggle mightily with making Alan a good guy, but has weak material to work with, and so only partially succeeds.

     The good news is, for fans of the series, it remains just as good as it was when Charlie was on it, which is to say, not very. Walden (Ashton Kutcher, That '70s Show) may be a different person, for now, but he's about as funny as Sheen is. Instead of being womanizing, though it appears he may turn into that soon, he is a lame, suicidal billionaire. There isn't anything in "Nice to Meet You, Walden Schmidt" that indicates Walden will turn out to be any deeper or likeable than Charlie. Sure, he is sad his marriage is breaking up. But then he casually buys a house of a recently deceased person, whose brother is still living there, and has a threesome, revealing his shallow depth concerning both women and money.

     The sole great moment on "Nice to Meet You, Walden Schmidt" comes as Evelyn shows off Charlie's house to two prospective buyers, who turn out to be from Lorre's previous series, Dharma & Greg. While not named, the hippie wife (Jenna Elfman) and stuffy husband (Thomas Gibson) are clearly meant to reprise their roles from that other show. Dharma & Greg was a much better series than Two and a Half Men, and their appearance, though regrettably short, is funny and welcoming.

     If you want to watch Two and a Half Men, something I cannot recommend you do, it airs Mondays at 9 p.m. ET on CBS.

     If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter!

The 1st (hopefully of many) Comedy Awards

     With awards shows often hiring comedians to host, and with comedy movies often getting overlooked at the major awards shows, it would make sense that Comedy take their own night to hand out kudos. What's more, since everyone involved is in the business of making people laugh, it is bound to be much, much funnier than other dreary, dragging award galas. It seems like such a no brainer. Yet, it wasn't until this past week that Comedy Central stepped up to host the first ever 'The Comedy Awards', which honored performers and shows from many channels, and aired on several other networks, too. It premiered on television Sunday night, though was filmed a couple of weeks ago.

     Well, of course, success was had! While there was no opening sketch or monologue, the people tapped to introduce and hand out awards were plenty funny. Even the In Memoriam segment showed some of the deceased's funniest moments on screen, celebrating what they did so well, rather than playing sappy music and bringing tears to eyes. Andy Samberg's Lonely Island and Akon performed "I Just Had Sex", which came off even more entertaining than the original Saturday Night Live digital short it was taken from. Jon Cryer also delivered a very classy, amusing bit, playing off current events.

     The sad part is, this show took place in New York, so while all of the New York people were in attendance (Jon Stewart, David Letterman, the cast of 30 Rock, etc.), many L.A. performers couldn't make it. This may be chalked up to first year stumbles, and if the show becomes an anual tradition, more effort to attend among the various nominees will hopefully be made. Because of this, a few major awards were shown only in brief clips, rather than as part of the live broadcast, as the winners were not there to collect them.

     Most winners chose to go for jokes rather than a serious, sentimental speech, which was welcome. Best acceptance speeches of the night go to: Honorable Mention: Kristen Wiig, who thanked several Lornes before getting to Michaels. 3rd place: Trey Parker and Matt Stone, remarking winning an award for South Park, a show that airs on the network giving out the awards, felt awkward. 2nd place: Ty Burrell, representing the mostly-absent Modern Family cast. 1st place: Stephen Colbert, accepting The Daily Show's win, after kicking the real victors off stage, on behalf of all the people sick of being beaten by them for the last eight years.

     Two really big comedy stars were honored with extensive air times. Eddie Murphy was given the Comedy Icon award, and his clip reel reminded viewers that once upon a time, he used to be very funny. Sadly, it appears his acceptance speech was not, as it was thoroughly edited down. Billy Murray presented Johnny Carson Award for Comedic Excellence to David Letterman. The audience went crazy for the elusive Murray. Letterman's speech, on the other hand, went too long and got boring. It's fitting that he won the award, but next time, remember this is a comedy show.
     Other winners included Louis C.K., Childrens' Hospital, Tina Fey, The Other Guys, and Auto-Tune the News for their Bed Intruder Song.

For frequent mini-reviews and occasional TV news, follow Jerome on Twitter.

 

Click here for an alphabetical list of all of Jerome's Current Season Reviews.

Charlie Sheen a mess on 20/20

Despite the Good Morning America and Today clips I caught, and radio plays of recent quotes, I tried to keep an open mind going into last night's 20/20 special interview with Charlie Sheen. Oh, who am I kidding? Like most viewers, I tuned in to watch a bright star's career crashing down in flames, and I am not disappointed.

Andrea Canning is tough, but fair. She pushes him when he avoids answering her questions, or gives her pat responses that reveal nothing. She keeps a straight face, and stays cool, never offending him. She asks the questions that the public want to know, but in a very news-y way, professional and straightforward.  Clearly a good journalist, despite the job being more TV junk than actual news stories. Kudos to her work.

Sheen may not be on drugs, as he keeps flashing around that negative drug test, but I don't believe the effects of illegal substances are done with him. On the contrary, he is talking like a crazy person. He doesn't look healthy, and he is chain smoking in sections. Among the things he says that don't make sense: When asked about rumors that he is bi-polar, he replies that he is 'bi-winning'. Because he is winning on all fronts. He is just one big ball of winner.

Modesty is not in evidence at all. Sheen claims to be tired of pretending he isn't special. He keeps calling himself awesome. He takes credit for all the success of his hit series, Two and a Half Men, seemingly thinking that no one else is responsible for any of the money it has made. He is even suing CBS because they 'hurt him'. I'd like to know how they hurt him. If it wasn't for Sheen's antics, they would have made eight more episodes of the show this year, which would have brought the studio lots of money.

Sheen also worries about supporting his family. Apparently, he hasn't been saving the nearly $2 million he makes for every episode of Men. He says he pays out over $100K of child support a month, which given his earnings, doesn't seem excessive. Even if taxes are 35-50%, as I don't know his personal situation, he still gets to keep the vast majority of his income. But illegal substances to tend to cost a pretty penny. As do supporting two live-in girlfriends.
Why do his 'goddesses' stand by him? I don't dispute that he cares for them, in some way. He even raises the subject to Andrea of marriage with them, before admitting with a chuckle that it would be polygamy. But he has a history of abuse. And while he claims he has an open ear, and they can say whatever they want, he also states that his elder age means that he is wiser than them. Funny, he doesn't apply the same principal to his father, who is reaching out to help him. Charlie wants no part of that.

My conclusion? Sheen has lost his grip on reality. His publicist recently quit, not knowing how to spin the things Sheen is saying. Sheen himself is clueless about how the public views him, which is not highly. He is in denial that he could possibly be the problem, or has done anything wrong. Which makes for fantastic television, but is leading him down the path to ruin and quite probably early death. Unless he really has kicked the habit for good, as he claims to have done.

What is our fascination for watching such a downward spiral with intense interest and fascination? In the past, I've usually rolled my eyes and tuned out to such spectacle. I think this time, due to my loathing of the series, and confusion as to how anyone can watch something I have tried to get into on numerous occasions, but found utter drivel, is a driving factor. As a reviewer and lover of great television, I want to see bad (but popular) television off the air to make way for better fare. If only Sheen could take all the reality junk and CSI / NCIS / Law and Order clones out while he is ruining Men.

What is everyone else's excuse? It could just be good old fashioned Schadenfreude, the German word for taking pleasure in the misery of others. People who are jealous of Charlie's wealth would like to see him lowered to more normal standards, or even below, paying penance for doing better than them. Or maybe it's the old urge to watch destruction. The ancient Romans satisfied it with lion battles in an arena. Lacking similar outlets, we'll get it anywhere we can.

Whatever the reason, it'll keep getting attention and high ratings until it ends one way or the other, as people wonder, What will Sheen say or do next?