Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
You've heard a lot of arguments in this case--a lot of back and forth--but I submit to you that the prosecution has not proved its case. They have not proved that my client committed this murder. They have not even proved there was a murder! Maybe Mr. Jenkins accidentally stabbed himself 42 times in the head! Maybe it was suicide! Can we be certain that Mr. Jenkins is dead? Yes, there was a "funeral." Yes, there was a "cremation." Yes, there was a "scattering of ashes." But does any of this prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this proves "death"? Can anyone really say where life begins and ends? Hah? This question has vexed the greatest philosophers of the age! Are YOU smarter than the greatest philosophers of the age? I'm certainly not! I'm just a simple country lawyer! I'm not smarter than Plato! Are you? Are you smarter than Plato? What abouit Aristotle? Really?You seriously sit there complacently claiming to be smarter than Aristotle? What about Ludwig Wittgenstein? Because unless you can--unless you can claim to be smarter than Ludwig Wittgenstein--how can you presume to state definitively when life begins and ends and then pass judgment on my client? Are you smarter than Nietszche? Are you?!? Nietzsche?!? Really? Then how come you weren't smart enough to get yourself excused from jury duty?!? Heh, heh!. . . But seriously, folks. What IS the sound of one hand clapping? Who knows? Nobody knows, that's who knows! And yet you call yourself smarter than Plato?!? If you are a tree falling in a forest, do you make a noise? I don't know! Do you?!? And if you don't know the answer to these questions, I submit to you that you must--must!--find my client not guilty!
Thank you for your attention.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
The New Season
Half-watching some of the new TV shows this season. Initial impressions:
"Revenge" What a dreary waste of time. It does, however, nicely illustrate the old Klingon maxim: "Revenge is a dish best-served cancelled."
"Person of Interest" This looked a little more promising. The executive producers are J. J. Abrams ("Lost") and Jonathan Nolan, the lesser-known brother of mega-director Christopher Nolan, and a talented fellow in his own right; among other things, he wrote the story on which the film "Memento" was based. While not as bad as "Revenge," it suffers from its own issues, primary among which is a "Deanna Troi problem" with the premise.
On "Star Trek: The Next Generation," ship counselor Deanna Troi was a member of an alien race, "Betazoids," who possess certain psychic abilities. Troi's abilities, though, left something to be desired, possibly because she was only half-Betazoid.
(DIGRESSION: What is it with "Star Trek" and half-breeds? Spock, Troi--even the fully Klingon Worf was raised by humans. Doesn't anybody in the 23rd century stick with their own kind? Yee-haw! EOD)
To put it another way, Troi possessed just enough psychic ability to be virtually useless. Consulted by Captain Picard in the midst of a battle with Romulans, for example, Troi might offer such insight as, "I sense great anger and hostility, Captain." Great. Thanks.
Anyway, in "Person of Interest," Ray Finch (Michael Emerson) is a reclusive billionaire computer genius, who built a massive surveillance system for the federal government after 9/11. The idea was that, by monitoring everything--every camera feed, every phone call, every conversation held in a public space--the authorities could prevent the next massive attack. Of course, in addition to any potential terrorist threats, this monitoring system also captures gazillobytes (technical term) worth of meaningless chatter. Finch realized, though, that, within the meaningless chatter, one could find all sorts of information on non-terrorist crimes--murders and such--information that was of no interest to the Feds but could still be potentially life-saving. Finch recruits John Reese (Jim Caviezel), a former Army Ranger and CIA operative, who can kick ass in a variety of modalities, to help him prevent some of these "lower-level" crimes.
Here's the thing, though: Like Deanna Troi's psychic abilities, Finch's system provides just enough information to be effectively useless. See, the "chatter" picked up by the system can, somehow, identify the person who is to be involved in the next big catastrophe, but it cannot tell Finch anything about WHAT the catastrophe is or even HOW the person is involved: Victim or perpetrator? No one knows! Worse yet, there is no way of knowing WHEN the catastrophe will occur: Could be in ten minutes, could be in ten months. (Given television's known obeisance to the Aristotlean unities, one can assume the catastrophe will occur within a reasonable timeframe for a 60 minute melodrama, but that's about as much as we can conclude.) So basically each episode will presumably feature John Reese following around that week's "person of interest" until something--hopefully something involving lots of explosions--inevitably happens.
As I watched last night, I couldn't help but wonder how many other garden-variety crimes occur while Finch and Reese wait for something to happen. Wouldn't society be just as well-served, if not better, if the uberfighter just donned a mask and cape and went out looking for muggers on the mean streets of NYC?
Not helping the situation any is the fact that Jim Caviezel has all the charisma of a rock--and not one of those charismatic rocks, either, like agate. He's pure pumice, through and through. (If you want to see Jim Caviezel in something good, by the way, check out "Frequency.")
So far this season, then, I'm 0 for two. I have the new, American version of "Prime Suspect" on DVR. I'll let you know how that turns out.
"Revenge" What a dreary waste of time. It does, however, nicely illustrate the old Klingon maxim: "Revenge is a dish best-served cancelled."
"Person of Interest" This looked a little more promising. The executive producers are J. J. Abrams ("Lost") and Jonathan Nolan, the lesser-known brother of mega-director Christopher Nolan, and a talented fellow in his own right; among other things, he wrote the story on which the film "Memento" was based. While not as bad as "Revenge," it suffers from its own issues, primary among which is a "Deanna Troi problem" with the premise.
On "Star Trek: The Next Generation," ship counselor Deanna Troi was a member of an alien race, "Betazoids," who possess certain psychic abilities. Troi's abilities, though, left something to be desired, possibly because she was only half-Betazoid.
(DIGRESSION: What is it with "Star Trek" and half-breeds? Spock, Troi--even the fully Klingon Worf was raised by humans. Doesn't anybody in the 23rd century stick with their own kind? Yee-haw! EOD)
To put it another way, Troi possessed just enough psychic ability to be virtually useless. Consulted by Captain Picard in the midst of a battle with Romulans, for example, Troi might offer such insight as, "I sense great anger and hostility, Captain." Great. Thanks.
Anyway, in "Person of Interest," Ray Finch (Michael Emerson) is a reclusive billionaire computer genius, who built a massive surveillance system for the federal government after 9/11. The idea was that, by monitoring everything--every camera feed, every phone call, every conversation held in a public space--the authorities could prevent the next massive attack. Of course, in addition to any potential terrorist threats, this monitoring system also captures gazillobytes (technical term) worth of meaningless chatter. Finch realized, though, that, within the meaningless chatter, one could find all sorts of information on non-terrorist crimes--murders and such--information that was of no interest to the Feds but could still be potentially life-saving. Finch recruits John Reese (Jim Caviezel), a former Army Ranger and CIA operative, who can kick ass in a variety of modalities, to help him prevent some of these "lower-level" crimes.
Here's the thing, though: Like Deanna Troi's psychic abilities, Finch's system provides just enough information to be effectively useless. See, the "chatter" picked up by the system can, somehow, identify the person who is to be involved in the next big catastrophe, but it cannot tell Finch anything about WHAT the catastrophe is or even HOW the person is involved: Victim or perpetrator? No one knows! Worse yet, there is no way of knowing WHEN the catastrophe will occur: Could be in ten minutes, could be in ten months. (Given television's known obeisance to the Aristotlean unities, one can assume the catastrophe will occur within a reasonable timeframe for a 60 minute melodrama, but that's about as much as we can conclude.) So basically each episode will presumably feature John Reese following around that week's "person of interest" until something--hopefully something involving lots of explosions--inevitably happens.
As I watched last night, I couldn't help but wonder how many other garden-variety crimes occur while Finch and Reese wait for something to happen. Wouldn't society be just as well-served, if not better, if the uberfighter just donned a mask and cape and went out looking for muggers on the mean streets of NYC?
Not helping the situation any is the fact that Jim Caviezel has all the charisma of a rock--and not one of those charismatic rocks, either, like agate. He's pure pumice, through and through. (If you want to see Jim Caviezel in something good, by the way, check out "Frequency.")
So far this season, then, I'm 0 for two. I have the new, American version of "Prime Suspect" on DVR. I'll let you know how that turns out.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Insult to Injury
From the "This Again?!?" Department: The federal government may shut down at the end of next week unless Congress can agree on a new spending bill. What's holding things up this time? The highly controversial issue at the heart of the disagreement is whether to spend money to help the victims of things like Hurricane Irene and tornadoes in the Midwest. Yeah, I know, they were asking for it, but still. . . .
See, most House Democrats and a number of Republicans voted against a bill that would have authorized about $3.5 billion in disaster relief. The Democrats object that the bill is insufficient; indeed, a similar Senate bill, which has a certain level of bipartisan support, authorizes about twice as much.
What really riles Democrats, though, is the Republican leadership's insistence that any disaster funding be paid for by offsetting spending cuts elsewhere. In fact, the Republicans who voted against the bill objected that the measure didn't include ENOUGH cuts.
Do Republicans not understand that people have lost their homes? Do they really think now is the time to be playing budget games? And for anyone tempted to play devil's advocate--for anyone who says, "Well, look, we DO need to find a way to pay for these things! It's not like we can just PRINT more money! (Well,OK, we can, but still. . . .)"--consider that the same folks who are saying we must make cuts to pay for responses to unforeseen disasters are many of the same folks who saw no need to make cuts to pay for the foreseen disasters of the Bush administration. As Nancy Pelosi said, "We never paid for tax cuts for the rich. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Oh, sorry. I suppose I'm engaging in class warfare here.
See, most House Democrats and a number of Republicans voted against a bill that would have authorized about $3.5 billion in disaster relief. The Democrats object that the bill is insufficient; indeed, a similar Senate bill, which has a certain level of bipartisan support, authorizes about twice as much.
What really riles Democrats, though, is the Republican leadership's insistence that any disaster funding be paid for by offsetting spending cuts elsewhere. In fact, the Republicans who voted against the bill objected that the measure didn't include ENOUGH cuts.
Do Republicans not understand that people have lost their homes? Do they really think now is the time to be playing budget games? And for anyone tempted to play devil's advocate--for anyone who says, "Well, look, we DO need to find a way to pay for these things! It's not like we can just PRINT more money! (Well,OK, we can, but still. . . .)"--consider that the same folks who are saying we must make cuts to pay for responses to unforeseen disasters are many of the same folks who saw no need to make cuts to pay for the foreseen disasters of the Bush administration. As Nancy Pelosi said, "We never paid for tax cuts for the rich. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Oh, sorry. I suppose I'm engaging in class warfare here.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Don't Ask
Here's today's "sounds-like-an-Onion-headline-but-isn't":
"Marines Hit the Ground Running in Seeking Recruits at Gay Center"
Now that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is history, the Marines wasted no time and set up a recruitment stand at a gay community center in, of all places, Tulsa, Oklahoma. While all branches of the military were invited, only the Marines took advantage of the opportunity. According to the Times' reporter, "the Marines appear determined to prove that they will be better than the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard in recruiting gay, lesbian and bisexual service members."
I don't doubt the Marines' sincerity, but do they seriously think they can be gayer than the Coast Guard? Good luck with that!
(WOS: To any Coast Guard members out there, please, go easy on the Solipsist. Remember, he has a family of cats to support.)
"Marines Hit the Ground Running in Seeking Recruits at Gay Center"
Now that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is history, the Marines wasted no time and set up a recruitment stand at a gay community center in, of all places, Tulsa, Oklahoma. While all branches of the military were invited, only the Marines took advantage of the opportunity. According to the Times' reporter, "the Marines appear determined to prove that they will be better than the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard in recruiting gay, lesbian and bisexual service members."
I don't doubt the Marines' sincerity, but do they seriously think they can be gayer than the Coast Guard? Good luck with that!
(WOS: To any Coast Guard members out there, please, go easy on the Solipsist. Remember, he has a family of cats to support.)
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
You Say "Class Warfare" Like It's a Bad Thing
Ever since President Obama has (finally!) shown signs of taking a stand against Republican rapaciousness, the airwaves have been abuzz with cries of "class warfare." "Class warfare," according to GOP congressman Paul Ryan, "may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics."
Rotten economics? Worse than what we have now?
Here's a thought: If the Republicans and the uber-rich are so scared of class warfare, maybe they shouldn't have declared it. Because as anyone with a scintilla of sense--at least anyone not constrained by a desire to maintain the status quo--understands, class warfare was declared long ago.
It was declared by those who crafted major bailouts for obscenely overcompensated bankers without so much as a pinky-swear that these recipients of public largesse foreswear 7-figure bonuses or use a significant portion of these funds to help out beleaguered homeowners.
It was declared by those who clamor to repeal a well-intentioned if imperfect healthcare reform bill that aims to insure millions of people for whom even a curable disease may mean financial catastrophe, while enjoying a generous, taxpayer funded healthcare plan for themselves.
It was declared by the representatives of a party whose presidential candidates would not even agree to a hypothetical deficit-reduction plan that called for one dollar in revenue (tax) increases for every ten dollars in spending cuts.
Of course these people want to keep the general public from recognizing that war has been declared. Let's face it: They're hopelessly outnumbered. If people get angry enough to accept the declaration of war, what makes the superrich and their political lickspittles think they can actually prevail?
The only reason that there hasn't (yet) been blood on the streets is the stubborn belief among the citizenry--ingrained in us from our youth--that America is a "classless society." Sure, some people are rich and some are poor, but everyone is equal. The socioeconomic strata into which one is born is no more fixed than one's imagination. As long as people believe that, they don't want to engage in class warfare: They want to fraternize with the enemy.
But as millions of people--well-educated people, as well as the perennial "underclass"--find it harder and harder to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to stretch a paycheck beyond the bare necessities, to find gainful employment despite months or years of searching, they find it harder and harder to reconcile their misery with the ideal of a classless society. They--we--know we're struggling, and we know who is to blame.
Class warfare? They started it. Bring it on.
Rotten economics? Worse than what we have now?
Here's a thought: If the Republicans and the uber-rich are so scared of class warfare, maybe they shouldn't have declared it. Because as anyone with a scintilla of sense--at least anyone not constrained by a desire to maintain the status quo--understands, class warfare was declared long ago.
It was declared by those who crafted major bailouts for obscenely overcompensated bankers without so much as a pinky-swear that these recipients of public largesse foreswear 7-figure bonuses or use a significant portion of these funds to help out beleaguered homeowners.
It was declared by those who clamor to repeal a well-intentioned if imperfect healthcare reform bill that aims to insure millions of people for whom even a curable disease may mean financial catastrophe, while enjoying a generous, taxpayer funded healthcare plan for themselves.
It was declared by the representatives of a party whose presidential candidates would not even agree to a hypothetical deficit-reduction plan that called for one dollar in revenue (tax) increases for every ten dollars in spending cuts.
Of course these people want to keep the general public from recognizing that war has been declared. Let's face it: They're hopelessly outnumbered. If people get angry enough to accept the declaration of war, what makes the superrich and their political lickspittles think they can actually prevail?
The only reason that there hasn't (yet) been blood on the streets is the stubborn belief among the citizenry--ingrained in us from our youth--that America is a "classless society." Sure, some people are rich and some are poor, but everyone is equal. The socioeconomic strata into which one is born is no more fixed than one's imagination. As long as people believe that, they don't want to engage in class warfare: They want to fraternize with the enemy.
But as millions of people--well-educated people, as well as the perennial "underclass"--find it harder and harder to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to stretch a paycheck beyond the bare necessities, to find gainful employment despite months or years of searching, they find it harder and harder to reconcile their misery with the ideal of a classless society. They--we--know we're struggling, and we know who is to blame.
Class warfare? They started it. Bring it on.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Injustice!
In the NBA, the two coaches whose teams have the best records in their conferences as of January 31, receive the honor of coaching that year's All-Star teams. However, if the coach of a team with the best record coached the previous year's All-Stars, then the honor goes to the coach with the second-best record. This is known as the "Riley Rule," after Pat Riley, who, when he coached the Los Angeles Lakers in the 1980s, was so successful that he coached the Western Conference All-Star team something like 12 times in eight years.
The Academy of Television Honchos (or whatever it's called) needs to adopt a Riley Rule for the Emmys.
Look, I like "Mad Men" as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Matthew Weiner), but for it to be named Best Drama four years in a row is silly--well, silly and perfectly logical at the same time. If "Mad Men" was the best drama LAST year, why WOULDN'T it be the best drama this year (barring some major shake-ups in the production personnel)? Even allowing for the presence of new shows like "Boardwalk Empire" or "Game of Thrones," you have to figure that most people who voted for "Mad Men" last year will be inclined to vote for it again. And obviously, they were.
There's nothing inherently WRONG with a show winning multiple times, but this certainly detracts from some of the drama. And since the awards are largely meaningless anyway, what would it hurt to declare a show that wins the big prize one year ineligible for consideration the next? The same rule should apply to actors and actresses, at least insofar as their being nominated for playing the same role.
Which brings me to Hugh Laurie.
As much as I love "Breaking Bad," I was kind of happy that this year, because of scheduling issues, it was ineligible for Emmy consideration. The fact that Bryan Cranston was out of the running should have opened up the spot for the egregiously overlooked Oxonian to nab his first Emmy. But he was snubbed again!
(DIGRESSION: I just checked the Emmy website to see who-all had beaten Hugh Laurie in the past. I knew it was Cranston for the last three years--fair enough. But before that he was beaten out twice--TWICE!--by James Spader for "Boston Legal." Now, I've watched "Boston Legal"--well, one season of it at least. And as mildly entertaining as it sometimes is, anyone who thinks James Spader does a better job than Hugh Laurie needs to have their critical license revoked. EOD)
Last night, Hugh Laurie lost out to Kyle Chandler. Yeah, I don't know, either.
No, no. Kyle Chandler stars in the critically-acclaimed drama "Friday Night Lights." I have never seen the show, but I have been told by numerous well-meaning tele-yentes that I should. I probably will get around to it at some point. I'm sure it's great. I'm sure Kyle Chandler is great. Doesn't matter. Hugh Laurie does a better job.
Here's the thing: None of the other leading men in any of the other critically acclaimed dramas have to carry a show the way Hugh Laurie has to carry "House." "Mad Men," "Boardwalk Empire," and "Game of Thrones," while primarily focusing on one central character, are basically ensemble pieces. So were shows like "The Sopranos" or "The Wire." Even "Breaking Bad" depends less on Bryan Cranston than "House" does on Hugh Laurie: Walter White is the main character, but there are major storylines revolving around Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) and Skyler White (Anna Gunn).
"House" on the other hand IS Dr. Gregory House. None of the other characters matter except insofar as they provide foils to House. His "team" is of such minor importance that after the 3rd season, the producers replaced them, primarily, we assume, to give House the opportunity to screw with a new bunch of victims. Even the two other "major" characters, Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) and Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein) are eminently replaceable--just how replaceable will become this season when Edelstein will no longer be on the show.
More importantly, from an acting point of view, is the fact that Laurie not only carries the show, he carries it phenomenally well. Along with the writers, he has created one of the great characters in TV history: the likely number-one answer to the eventual "Family Feud" question, "Name a fictional television doctor." If you want proof of Laurie's greatness as an actor, check out the episode where House is in a psychiatric institution undergoing treatment for Vicodin addiction. Towards the end of the show, the residents perform a talent show. House, of course, wants no part of the festivities. His annoying roommate, though, a wannabe rapper, gets flustered while performing and can't think of a rhyme. House somewhat grudgingly shouts out a suggestion. The rapper continues, and gets stuck again. House helps again, a bit more readily. This goes on, and eventually House ends up on stage with his roomie, happily rapping away.
Sounds nauseating, doesn't it? But here's the thing: IT'S NOT! Because Hugh Laurie never--never--forgets the essential nature of the character he's portraying. Even when House is enjoying himself, having a rare moment of human connection, he is still the cynical, arrogant bastard we've all come to know and love. He enjoys the moment, but we can see the hint of an eye-roll even when he's fully engaged.
The only leading man who comes close to occupying as central a position on his show as Hugh Laurie on "House" is Michael C. Hall of "Dexter." But since "Dexter" is a thriller, it relies on plot to a much greater degree than "House," which is more of a character study.
Next year, Bryan Cranston will likely be nominated for his fourth emmy for "Breaking Bad." For Hugh Laurie's sake, I hope the Academy considers a Riley Rule.
The Academy of Television Honchos (or whatever it's called) needs to adopt a Riley Rule for the Emmys.
Look, I like "Mad Men" as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Matthew Weiner), but for it to be named Best Drama four years in a row is silly--well, silly and perfectly logical at the same time. If "Mad Men" was the best drama LAST year, why WOULDN'T it be the best drama this year (barring some major shake-ups in the production personnel)? Even allowing for the presence of new shows like "Boardwalk Empire" or "Game of Thrones," you have to figure that most people who voted for "Mad Men" last year will be inclined to vote for it again. And obviously, they were.
There's nothing inherently WRONG with a show winning multiple times, but this certainly detracts from some of the drama. And since the awards are largely meaningless anyway, what would it hurt to declare a show that wins the big prize one year ineligible for consideration the next? The same rule should apply to actors and actresses, at least insofar as their being nominated for playing the same role.
Which brings me to Hugh Laurie.
As much as I love "Breaking Bad," I was kind of happy that this year, because of scheduling issues, it was ineligible for Emmy consideration. The fact that Bryan Cranston was out of the running should have opened up the spot for the egregiously overlooked Oxonian to nab his first Emmy. But he was snubbed again!
(DIGRESSION: I just checked the Emmy website to see who-all had beaten Hugh Laurie in the past. I knew it was Cranston for the last three years--fair enough. But before that he was beaten out twice--TWICE!--by James Spader for "Boston Legal." Now, I've watched "Boston Legal"--well, one season of it at least. And as mildly entertaining as it sometimes is, anyone who thinks James Spader does a better job than Hugh Laurie needs to have their critical license revoked. EOD)
Last night, Hugh Laurie lost out to Kyle Chandler. Yeah, I don't know, either.
No, no. Kyle Chandler stars in the critically-acclaimed drama "Friday Night Lights." I have never seen the show, but I have been told by numerous well-meaning tele-yentes that I should. I probably will get around to it at some point. I'm sure it's great. I'm sure Kyle Chandler is great. Doesn't matter. Hugh Laurie does a better job.
Here's the thing: None of the other leading men in any of the other critically acclaimed dramas have to carry a show the way Hugh Laurie has to carry "House." "Mad Men," "Boardwalk Empire," and "Game of Thrones," while primarily focusing on one central character, are basically ensemble pieces. So were shows like "The Sopranos" or "The Wire." Even "Breaking Bad" depends less on Bryan Cranston than "House" does on Hugh Laurie: Walter White is the main character, but there are major storylines revolving around Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) and Skyler White (Anna Gunn).
"House" on the other hand IS Dr. Gregory House. None of the other characters matter except insofar as they provide foils to House. His "team" is of such minor importance that after the 3rd season, the producers replaced them, primarily, we assume, to give House the opportunity to screw with a new bunch of victims. Even the two other "major" characters, Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) and Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein) are eminently replaceable--just how replaceable will become this season when Edelstein will no longer be on the show.
More importantly, from an acting point of view, is the fact that Laurie not only carries the show, he carries it phenomenally well. Along with the writers, he has created one of the great characters in TV history: the likely number-one answer to the eventual "Family Feud" question, "Name a fictional television doctor." If you want proof of Laurie's greatness as an actor, check out the episode where House is in a psychiatric institution undergoing treatment for Vicodin addiction. Towards the end of the show, the residents perform a talent show. House, of course, wants no part of the festivities. His annoying roommate, though, a wannabe rapper, gets flustered while performing and can't think of a rhyme. House somewhat grudgingly shouts out a suggestion. The rapper continues, and gets stuck again. House helps again, a bit more readily. This goes on, and eventually House ends up on stage with his roomie, happily rapping away.
Sounds nauseating, doesn't it? But here's the thing: IT'S NOT! Because Hugh Laurie never--never--forgets the essential nature of the character he's portraying. Even when House is enjoying himself, having a rare moment of human connection, he is still the cynical, arrogant bastard we've all come to know and love. He enjoys the moment, but we can see the hint of an eye-roll even when he's fully engaged.
The only leading man who comes close to occupying as central a position on his show as Hugh Laurie on "House" is Michael C. Hall of "Dexter." But since "Dexter" is a thriller, it relies on plot to a much greater degree than "House," which is more of a character study.
Next year, Bryan Cranston will likely be nominated for his fourth emmy for "Breaking Bad." For Hugh Laurie's sake, I hope the Academy considers a Riley Rule.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
All Apologies
Just a brief note to plead exhaustion. I've been grading papers all day. This saps whatever bit of blogistic creativity I may have begun the day with. I shall return tomorrow. Maybe Pat Robertson will have spoken iut against puppies. Fingers crossed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)