Best TV of 2013

2013, it’s fair to say, has probably been a banner year for TV. Be that new shows making their way to our screens and into our hearts, or those we have loved dearly either getting better or beginning to wind down, 2013 was a year in which it’s been pretty easy to be excited by TV. Channel 4 decided to really get back to its rebellious roots as the ‘alternative’ by making some pretty risky moves, some of which paid of greatly (like airing the first fully subtitled drama on the Big 5 in The Returned or the fantastically beautiful Utopia which doesn't feature on this list but I loved greatly), some of which didn’t work at all, coming off more as a cheap stunt to raise controversy (let’s just forget the completely baffling Sex Box ever happened, OK?). 2013 also saw the rise and rise of Netflix, not just as an on-demand platform but as, in a way, its own little network, being the platform which aired David Fincher’s US remake of House of Cards when nobody else wanted it, as well as the fourth season of Arrested Development and the utterly fantastic Orange is the New Black. It also saw a number of fantastic sitcoms come to a close. 30 Rock and The Office finished their often sketchy but still brilliant runs on their own terms, wrapping up everything they could think of in ways that were pretty much perfect for those shows. Happy Endings and Bunheads, on the other hand, didn’t quite get the endings they deserved, particularly Bunheads which finally had the axe drop after months and months of waiting to hear news of whether or not it was to be renewed. Luckily, as those shows exit our screens, the likes of Brooklyn 99 are preparing to replace them on the throne in 2014. Without further ado, here are some of my highlights of TV in 2013, although I have taken some liberties here because I don’t follow no stinking rules!

10. Veep
Veep had a pretty good year by all accounts, in particular allowing Tony Hale to finally nab that Emmy he has been so deserving of for years. 2013 saw Vice President Selina Meyer and her staff thrown into the forefront of things. Whilst before she’s always been more of a figure than an actual presence in this fictional world of politics, too tangled up by bureaucracy to make an impact, here they're thrust right into scandals and front page news stories. This allowed Armando Iannucci to really let fly with the bewilderingly imaginative insults Veep and The Thick of It are so well known for while injecting a real burst of energy as the staff try to sort out these monumental fuck-ups. The season two finale, ‘DC’, sees the political winds changing every second, causing the entire staff to go into a frenzy, scrambling to find out what exactly is going on, in turn bringing the best out of this fantastic ensemble cast.

9. Orphan Black
Whilst BBC America is usually just a channel for airing BBC produced shows in the US, it does occasionally create its own original content. Orphan Black is the one that made a big splash in 2013, and it's all down to Tatiana Maslany in what is sure to be her breakout role/roles. The premise is utterly farfetched, there's no denying it, as outcast Sarah Manning discovers she is just one of many clones who are now being hunted down. Teaming up with the remaining clones, Sarah and herselves attempt to find out who is behind everything while trying to keep their own personal lives in tact. It's the performances of Maslany as every single clone that really sells Orphan Black, with each one having an entirely different persona: housewife, cop, science student, criminal. She manages to slip into each iteration with absolute ease, each one played with their little idiosyncrasies. Several of the best performances of the year all happen to come from one person in the same show. It becomes obvious that, without this central performance, Orphan Black could quite easily collapse in on itself as utterly cheesy. Thank goodness we have Tatiana Maslany then!

8. Hannibal
Bryan Fuller is no stranger to writing shows about death. His two biggest hits, Dead Like Me and Pushing Daises, tackled the issue of mortality in a light and often cartoonish way, to the point where the popping colours and fantastical set design of Pushing Daisies seem to be ripped straight from an actual Saturday morning cartoon. Hannibal, a prequel to the Hannibal Lecter stories set before his incarceration, is a lot, lot darker and yet it still retains that beauty, albeit a very morbid one. A disconcerting mood permeates even the most innocent-appearing scenes and everything is produced with such care and effort. With star performances from Hugh Dancy and Mads Mikkelsen, Hannibal is visually sumptuous and extraordinarily creepy, managing to avoid being a cheap cash-in for the franchise.

7. Dates
At the start of Summer, Channel 4 hosted the oddly named "Mating Season". A season of television based around the world of dating that, despite its awful name, it did manage to produce two of my favourite shows of 2013 (more on the other later). The first of these is Dates, created by Skins co-creator Bryan Elsley. Focusing on a series of dates set up on a online, Dates felt like the romantic equivalent of 1999's Tube Tales. Each episode saw a different couple go about their dates with, usually disastrous results, while the story of Oona Chaplin's Mia weaved its way through the series. The greatness of Dates is derived from both its realism, each one feels extremely naturalistic and not overly fantastical, and its super cast, made up of exciting and brilliant British and Irish actors, some well known and some up-and-coming. Each episode was superbly written with near perfect casting to compliment the characters; a masterpiece in original British drama which had that same freshness that Skins did when it was introduced to our screens way back in 2007.

6. Bob's Burgers
2013 was the year I discovered Bob's Burgers and I'm almost ashamed that it took me this long to get around to it. It feels like a nice replacement for those disappointed by the route The Simpsons has been taking in recent years. Despite its status as a cartoon, Bob's Burgers features one of the most realistic families on television today. Each character is so perfectly realised, doing away with the standard tropes you'd associate with each member of the family in your standard sitcom in order to actually tackle the struggles and dreams of each character rather deftly. The confusion and mixed emotions of being a teenager are wonderfully portrayed in Tina, the oldest child, who wants nothing more than to be seen as one of the adults while Louise, the youngest, tackles growing up and beginning to fancy boys. Though they often appear at one another's throats, the Belchers are a family who absolutely adore one another and, when the chips are down, protect each other with their lives. It's a heartwarming show that is constantly hilarious (one episode features Gene becoming friends with a talking toilet) with a wide array of brilliantly quirky characters, such as Teddy, that surprisingly never stray into the fantastical. It only seems to be getting better and better.

5. Fly on the wall documentaries
2013 managed to be a year packed full of really interesting fly on the wall documentaries that sound absolutely terrible on paper, most thanks to Channel 4. A one-off look at the day to day life in a Fried Chicken Shop that aired last year managed to get a full series this year and retained what made that one-off documentary so surprisingly good, taking a completely uncynical look at the vast array of characters that just really wanted some fried chicken and showing these often completely opposite people crossing paths and interacting which made for often extremely heartwarming viewing. Gogglebox, which features members of the ordinary public just watching TV is probably the worst sounding of the lot but, yet again, made for absolutely delightful viewing that often left me with a stupidly big grin on my face. It sounds cliched to say but, after a while, you begin to feel like you know these families and what makes them tick, to the point where watching retired teachers Leon and June, a couple that are clearly madly in love even if they're usually having a go at one another, discussing their own mortality brought tears to many eyes. It's probably also impossible to have got through 2013 without hearing someone talk about Educating Yorkshire, in particular that moment in which Mr Burton knicks an idea from The King's Speech to help Musharaf overcome his stammer. It really was one of those punching the air kind of moments which you'd only see in fiction. Yet here it was, occurring at a high school in Dewsbury. The whole show captured imaginations and raised public opinions of teachers and schools at a time when the education system is coming under fire.

4. Game of Thrones
Before you say anything, this is not just an excuse to use yet another photo of Oona Chaplin. Nope. Not at all. This year saw Game of Thrones tackling The Red Wedding, proof that George RR Martin really does like torturing both his characters and his audience. Any other author would place such a shockingly horrific twist at the end of the book. Not Martin, instead choosing to chuck it in when everything seemed to be going fine and dandy, with absolutely no warning of this horrifically violent wedding. HBO's adaptation deftly handled this scene which led to a whole other generation of Game of Thrones fans who hadn't read the books to have exactly the same shocked and beffudled reactions as those had read the books the first time they got to that chapter. While a lot of emphasis is placed on 'Rains of Castemere' as the stand out episode of this season, 2013 also saw Daenerys actually get to do something and become completely and utterly badass, and the almost buddy-comedy tales of Brienne and Jaime. With a lot more shocks in store for fans of the series, the year long wait between seasons wasn't exactly made easier by yet another stellar effort.

3. The Returned
Channel 4 took a hell of a risk this year in airing The Returned, a French drama about a town in which the dead start coming back to life. Subtitled dramas have always been the reserve of BBC4, aimed more at the high brow audiences who don't mind having to read along as they watch. It's fair to say that how well The Returned would do on a mainstream channel was anyone's guess. Luckily for us, The Returned is probably one of the most wonderfully intriguing shows to air this year. Focusing on how the families of the deceased react to the return of their beloveds, it became easy to forget this was, ultimately, a fantasy drama. The writing was on another level, deftly portraying the emotions of both the deceased and those alive as they tried to cope with what is happening. Even so, there was that fantasy element weaving its way in and out of the series which always remained intriguing, whether it was trying to figure out how these people had died, which were even dead in the first place, and why they were brought back. The finale brought us more questions than it did answers but I, for one, am extremely excited to see how the series progresses, if not just to hear more of the superb Mogwai soundtrack.

2. Breaking Bad
And with that, 2013 brought us the final few episodes of this superb drama and left us all in a slump once it was done. The final half season of Breaking Bad contained some of the best, most tightly written and directed episodes this show has ever produced, and, in some cases, some of the best episodes of television full stop. Each episode brought a new theory as to how Vince Gilligan et al were going to bring it to a close and each episode ramped things up even further, stand out 'Ozymandias' showing us that anything could happen and will happen, and that no-one is safe as Walter White's empire begins to truly fall apart. It has been an absolute treat watching Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul as Walter White and Jesse Pinkman transform both as their actors and as actors over the course of the show. While it might not have the extreme detail of The Wire, Breaking Bad still had some superb writing and acting that pushed it into the zenith of great TV. Emotionally dense, riveting, and often times absolutely stunning, Breaking Bad really made a mark on 2013 and probably on TV forever more. You might not want to marathon the final season, however. The tension of each episode on their own, with a week to calm down, was enough for me; I can't imagine how I might feel after watching them all in one go.

1. Orange Is The New Black
While House of Cards was riveting stuff, with a superb performance from Kevin Spacey, and the new episodes of Arrested Development were great when you got used to what Mitchell Hurwitz was actually trying to do, Orange Is The New Black is the one Netflix original series that made a real impression on me. Funny, emotional, and loaded with great characters, it was so easy to just fall down that "just one more episode" hole of on-demand TV. It is those great characters that really makes Orange Is The New Black the stand out show of the year. Each one is treated with such care that, although Piper Chapman is our window into the world of a women's federal prison, no character really seems to take centre stage, with the spotlight shone on each pretty equally. It feels a lot like The Wire in this sense in that even the smallest character is fleshed out remarkably well and with as much attention of the likes of Alex or Red. Orange Is The New Black is quite easily the most enjoyable, interesting, and exciting show of 2013; one that, upon finishing it in about 2 days, I wanted to jump straight back into.

Televising Glastonbury is not going to "ruin the world"

At Glastonbury this year, NME interviewed Two Door Cinema Club about what they thought about the festival. In the interview, lead singer Alex Trimble declared that he believed the over 250 hours of live footage provided by the BBC of the festival was stopping Glastonbury from being “as special”. That isn’t quite that high on the “Wiley-o-meter of ridiculous things said during Glastonbury weekend”, but it’s certainly on there, making a significant mark.

In all disclosure, I did not go to Glastonbury this year. I was unable to get tickets because, when they went on sale, I was on a train going through the countryside trying to use what little 3G connection I could on my phone to give it a shot. Obviously, I failed, though I did surprise myself and get shockingly close. I did end up watching a lot of the coverage of the festival live and kudos must be given to the BBC for the sheer amount of coverage they managed to put out online, on the radio, on TV, and on the red button. Sure, the quality was often not too great, with glitches here and there, but on the whole the coverage was pretty great.

But now back to Trimble’s comments. I can sort of understand where he is coming from. Although he doesn’t explicitly mention this, it could be seen that it is unfair on those that have paid full price for a ticket to the festival to then have thousands sat at home also experiencing the same live performances they are but for the price of the TV license and the electric bill. But he misunderstands the whole ethos of a music festival; the togetherness and the memories created. He even discusses how festivals are an experience shared with the people around you, the friends you make and the memories you create, but then argues that those watching at home “poke their heads in”, seemingly as a distraction or a deterrent from making these memories. This is a comment I don’t quite understand. I can’t grasp how exactly a group of people you can neither see nor hear, whose presence is only marked by the existence of the BBC at the festival, can impact your enjoyment of a festival. They’re not getting involved in your memories. They didn’t experience that time your mate got mashed on pills and started dancing with a bunch of hippie folks in Stone Circle as the sun went up. They didn’t experience that time you lost everyone in Shangri-La and so hung out with some girl and her friends that you met by the pizza van earlier in the day that you bumped into.

There’s nothing like experiencing an event first hand. It feels like I’m stating the obvious here, but there’s a huge disconnect between experience an event and watching it on TV. Watching it on TV, for me, was about watching bands I really like perform fantastic sets, but I don’t get swept up in the atmosphere of the crowd. I can see that the crowd are having a great time but it doesn’t have the same effect on me at home as it would if I were there. I can create a bit of atmosphere myself by turning out the lights, whacking on a strobe and necking several bottles of gin over the course of the day but it wouldn’t be the same. For people watching it at home, the broadcast is about the performances themselves; seeing moments like R Kelly hopping on stage during Phoenix’s set at Coachella or Nile Rodgers and Chic doing every amazing number 1 hit he’s ever had his prints on. For those actually at the event, there’s a whole other dimension to it. It’s the meeting people, the food (sometimes horrible, sometimes great), the plethora of other things to do if there isn’t a band on you fancy watching.

It’s still special in spite of the ability to watch it on TV, same with any live show that is broadcast. I didn’t feel a connection to the artist or the audience during my viewing, something I know for sure I would’ve felt had I been there live. Broadcasting takes very little away from the performance, apart from there perhaps being more cameras around. It sure isn’t going to stop ticket sales as I, and many others, having watched the broadcasts are perhaps more keen to experience it for ourselves. It’s a gateway for people at home to see a world that they did not manage to gain access to. This has no bearing on the people at the actual festival. Sure, you might have people when you get back taking the piss because they had a nice warm bed with access to nice food and a good toilet, but did they really meet as many interesting people as you did, or really experience the performances how they were meant to? The answer is obviously no. Broadcasting, put simply, does not reduce anything about the festival experience for those that are there. And to say it’s “ruining the world” is just ridiculously hyperbolic.

United States of Television review [May 13th 2013 in The Courier]

If you’re reading this section of the paper, you probably enjoy TV to some degree. Whether that’s simply in a ‘sit on the sofa with your flatmates and a cuppa’ capacity or in ‘feverishly marathon the entire Sopranos boxset in a weekend’ capacity, you’re all still fans of TV.

We’re definitely at another high point in TV right now. With the likes of Breaking Bad captivating audiences, New Girl and Happy Endings finally breaking the curse of Friends, and properly original shows that, although getting cancelled due to low viewers, at least shows writers are thinking about doing something different, leads me to argue that perhaps we are living in a Second Golden Age of TV.

The United States of Television is here to show you why TV is so bloody good. Originally airing on PBS in 2011, this re-edited version also features contributions from Alan Yentob. It is perhaps one of the cleverest shows about television to have ever aired, capturing why exactly we love TV while gauging how a square box has managed to change society in America and the world.

Split into four parts, each focusing on a different types of TV characters (The Misfit, The Crusader, Independent Woman, and Man of the House), the series looks at the history of these characters throughout history. Accompanied by talking heads from many of the people involved, both in front of the camera and behind, it not only gives us a great look as to how these shows came to be, but also how certain shows have influenced society, with I Love Lucy redefining the way women are portrayed on screen.

If you love TV in any way, I highly implore you to watch this show if not simply to add more shows to the list of things you need to watch.

New Girl review [April 29th 2013 in The Courier]

Zooey Deschanel is perhaps the most ‘marmite’ actress of the moment. Some find her ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ shtick wonderful and want to ride off with her into the eternal sunset over fields of roses and daffodils on bedazzled horses that smell of Lenor. Others want to run as far away as possible when a ukulele appears for fear they might be “treated” to an indie twee rendition of The Wire theme tune (cause that’s what the kids today do, right?)

Herein lay the problem with the first season of New Girl, it pushed Deschanel’s character Jess to the forefront while keeping the supporting cast far out on the periphery as simply characters she interacts with as opposed to primary characters in their own right. This is often a problem when creating an ensemble comedy, even more so when the character focused on is one that could polarise an audience. I’m somewhere on the fence about Deschanel; she does what she does well but it can get grating in large doses. What annoyed me more about most of the first season of New Girl was its squandering of an excellent supporting cast.

But something happened over the Christmas break. It seems as though Elizabeth Merriwether and her staff of writers realised that they were holding on to some real comic gems in Max Greenfield, Lamorne Morris, and Jake Johnson and suddenly they began to flourish. Things weren’t so focused on Deschanel as the show started to pair up the likes of loveable douche Schmidt and the try-hard Winston leading to a fantastic end to a shaky series.

Now that New Girl is back for a second season, this streak continues and shows no sign of dwindling. As Jess loses her job as a teacher, she’s thrown into an unemployed limbo. As she goes about her own thing trying to find a job while trying to find love, Schmidt is distraught to find Cece dating another man while Nick just goes around being Nick (meeting a version of himself from the future, consoling in a silent man in the park and dating numerous girls he meets in his bar). This is also a great season for guest stars, particularly in regards to parents. Jamie Lee Curtis and Rob Reiner are wonderful as Jess’s parents and Nelson Franklin is perfect foil for Schmidt as Cece’s new boyfriend.
If there’s one problem with this season is that Winston stays very much in the background until the return of everyone’s favourite nonsensical drinking game “True American” when he begins to get decent separate storylines.

The rest of the season really is something to look forward to, with a “will they, won’t they” story arc that might just be the true successor to Cheers’ Sam and Diane (sorry Ross and Rachel) and the discovery that Schmidt and Winston are the greatest comedy pairing the show has made so far. Never has my show on an opinion fluctuated so much from apathy to pure adoration, but I’m just glad it has!

The Final Countdown [April 29th 2013 in The Courier]

There’s something about watching or listening to something for the first time and knowing that it’s going to have some form of impact on your life. The minute it ends, you’re not only sad that it’s over but also that you’ll never experience that feeling you just felt again.

It’s a unique feeling that is only replicated by finding something with a similar impact. But there are certain things that, no matter how many times you watch or listen to them, they still feel extraordinarily fresh, even if you can predict when the jokes will hit, when the twist will be or what’s coming up next. For me, that list is quite short, mainly containing Monty Python’s Life of Brian, LCD Soundsystem’s Sound of Silver and Arrested Development.

I discovered Arrested Development in my first year of university. Recently in clover, or so I thought, thanks to discovering the joys of the student loan, I popped over to HMV for a regular browse with no intentions of buying anything (OK I lie, I was definitely going to buy something….) and spotted a wonderful boxset in the sale section. I’d heard about Arrested Development from a few people but just never bothered to get around to watching it. Sacrificing money that should really have gone towards that week’s food shop, I took it straight to the counter and rushed home to put it on. First episode over, I felt OK that I was going to having 20p instant noodles for tea instead of a salmon pasta. Second episode over, third episode, fourth episode, fifth episode; I quickly began to lose track of time.  But as I watched more, that sense of dread that I’d never have this much fun watching this show again began to creep.

Alas, I was terrifically wrong. Thinking about certain episodes, a smile cracks on my face making things a tad awkward when walking around thinking about George Bluth Sr’s lessons to his children with the assistance of his one armed friend J. Walter Weatherman or GOB’s short lived honey business. Revisiting some of my favourite episodes is one of the easiest ways to lift my spirits. It has an infectious quality to it. Seeing other people enjoy it, listening to other people talk about it or just seeing something about it in a paper or on the internet is exciting in itself.

The appeal of it seems to be that the show is atypically eccentric. It’s very difficult to think of another show anywhere within its radius. Sure, it’s base plot is very simple: George Bluth tries to keep his dysfunctional family together which includes an opulent, frequently drunk mother, a brother in law with a tendencies to slip innuendos in wherever he can without meaning to and a father who spends most of the show in jail for fraud. Yet it’s these eccentric characters and their eccentric adventures that make Arrested Development what it is. From Tobias Funke attempting to become a member of the Blue Man Group, to Steve Holt who shouts his own name often and loud, to Bob Loblaw, proprietor of Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog (say that 5 times after a few drinks), the show is so loaded with characters that the only show it really resembles is The Simpsons.

The jokes are equally ridiculous and attention to detail even moreso. Spotting little recurring jokes makes every viewing of an episode of Arrested Development (references to Charlie Brown, anything to do with Ann Veal, foreshadowing of an incident with Buster Bluth and a seal) with the show even ostensibly breaking the fourth wall, such as when Scott Baio’s Bob Loblaw is brought in to replace Henry Winkler’s Barry Zuckercorn as the family lawyer (Baio’s Chachi replaced Winkler’s Fonz in Happy Days) or when Barry Zuckercorn literally jumps over a shark, a reference to the now infamous Happy Days scene.

It’s very easy to go on and on about this show. For what seems like a simple sitcom, it is ridiculously layered which is what makes it a treat every time you watch it and it’s insanely quotable to boot. Luckily for us, Netflix are set to release 15 new episodes on May 26th, similar to how they released House of Cards, so we can experience new episodes 7 years after it was cancelled by Fox (which the show did end up referencing a lot in its final few episodes). They’ve definitely not made a huge mistake here.

The One That Potentially Ruined Sitcoms Forever [April 23rd 2013 in The Courier]

Fade In. Interior shot of a bar or an apartment. Sat around are a group of friends. They’re in their mid ’20s to early ’30s. Some might be related. Some might barely know each other. Some might be dating. They’re all together, however, and ready for some madcap hijinks as a group, probably with an animal involved somewhere. Which show am I talking about here? It’s pretty hard to tell these days as it’s a formula in sitcoms that seems as old as time.

Joseph Campbell in A Hero With A Thousand Faces laid out a formula that nearly every single story with an element of mythology can fall into; the monomyth, “A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” So while myths have an overarching template, so do sitcoms.
It’s one arguably pioneered by Seinfeld; old friends and neighbours hanging out in Jerry’s apartment getting into madcap hijinks in Chinese restaurants, open houses and laundrettes. Oh, and there’s always some problem with cats and dogs. Not to take away anything from Seinfeld, however, it was Friends that really cemented this formula as one that would crop up every pilot season. There have been more shows that have reflections of Friends than any other show. Happy Endings, New Girl, Rules of Engagement, How I Met Your Mother, Perfect Couples etc. They all share this post-Friends sitcom template. There’s nothing wrong with the template per se, but this oversaturation shows the lack of imagination in the writer’s room.

It’s hard to tell, however, whether it is really the fault of the writers or if it simply that Friends has done pretty much everything with the formula. Running for a full ten years between 1994 and 2004 with around 236 episodes to its name, it’s done everything. Introduced a monkey, brought in quirky side characters, hooked up and subsequently split up many of its primary characters (leading to one of the most memorable “will they, won’t theys” between Ross and Rachel since Cheers’s Sam and Diane) and put their characters in ridiculous flashback outfits, including Monica’s fat suit. New Girl has done pretty much every single one of these (the monkey one is a bit of a stretch, although in the episode “Models”, the models compare Jess to a cartoon monkey in a Russian advert for crackers). It’s this domination which really makes it difficult for shows to break out of the now tedious and monotonous formula.

But when a show that is focused on Formula F.R.I.E.N.D.S. breaks from this routine to do something different but in a similar vein, it becomes exciting. Skilled writers can take what could be another clone situation, and one which probably was designed that way initially to capture the success of Friends, and twist it into something truly unique and a joy to watch. Take Happy Endings, for instance. Its first season was disjointed and, at times, plain boring. The two leads, Dave and Alex (the latter of whom jilted the former at the alter), aren’t great comic actors, Elisha Cuthbert as Alex better known for playing Kim Bauer in 24, and the rest of the primary cast aren’t given chance to shine.
Yet, as the show progressed, it separated itself from the spectre of Friends by making their characters unique. Married couple Brad and Jane almost appear to be gender swapped, with Brad’s affinity for candles and Jane’s need to get “in with the boys” and Max is perhaps the best portrayal of a gay man in television; completely unstereotypical, he’s simply a regular guy that just prefers men to women, you know, like actual gay people not TV Land gay people. Each character carves their niche (with the writers finally getting to grips with how best to milk Alex and Dave) separate from their obvious Friends comparisons, with one episode even acknowledging that, previously, one member of the gang could be a Rachel and another a Joey.

It’s shows like Happy Endings and New Girl (the latter of which I haven’t talked much about, but will in my review of the new series next week) that bring hope that the curse of the Friends formula has finally been broken. Sure the formula does work, as we can tell by the success of Friends during its airing, but we really need to stop trying to create carbon copies and it is these shows that hint at executives finally doing this.

Parks & Recreation review [March 4th 2013 in The Courier]

It’s very rare that I properly fall in love with a show. Fall so hard that I want to scream its praises from the rooftops. I’ve fallen in love with shows such as The Wire but never while they were on the air, so I never got the excitement of waiting week by week to watch the new episode. But I have done just that with Parks & Recreation. Each week, I wait in anticipation of what the folks at Pawnee Parks & Recreation department have in store. I love this show.

It started out a little bit wishy washy, admittedly. Finally being brought to the UK, Parks & Recreation was initially seen as simply a clone of The Office US; a bunch of misfits in an office earnestly trying to go about their jobs while being filmed mockumentary style. Yet just like how The Office US’s first season was essentially a carbon copy of the UK Office, and suffered slightly as a result, Parks & Rec does too. Leslie Knope, the affable Deputy Director of the department, was just a female Michael Scott and the kind of stale, one-note storyline of trying to turn a pit into a park didn’t allow for any of the secondary characters to shine. But then, like The Office US, it found its own voice and blossomed from there.

What Parks & Recreation does so well is character progression. When it gives these characters the time to shine, which it fails to do in Season One, they really come into their own. “Practise Date” is the episode when it becomes less “The Leslie Knope Show” and more an ensemble comedy. As the gang dig up dirt on each other, the laughs just come thick and fast, particularly when Jerry (a constant source of fun poking) doesn’t want to play but has numerous dark secrets revealed. Watching these characters grow and grow to the point where they’re almost unrecognisable in earlier episodes is fascinating and exemplifies the strong writing this show has become known for. Ron Swanson in particular (who will become your new favourite TV character, I guarantee that) progresses from a brick wall of a man to a cuddly teddy bear yet still packs in so many one liners, you’ll have to pause the show to catch your breath.

Jokes aren’t entirely focused on the bureaucratic side of things either. From Aziz Ansari’s Tom Haverford setting up an entertainment business with the amazing (only ocassional) recurring character Jean Ralphio, to Andy’s adorable stupidity, none of the jokes are made with malice but are all absolutely hilarious.

Parks & Recreation is how comedy should be. It’s entirely uncynical and unpretentious. I liken it to The Muppet Show a lot because it’s a show about friendship and having fun, but with a bellyful of laughs along the way. Seriously, give this show a shot. If you don’t like Season One, please carry on anyway. Especially when Rob Lowe and Adam Scott are introduced, the show becomes something entirely unlike what it used to be, and it only gets better from there.

House of Cards review [February 11th 2013 in The Courier]

It’s probably best to begin this by saying that, as much as I think making the entire 13 episode run available immediately is a good idea in a world where we want things as soon as possible, I hope it doesn’t become the norm for the sake of my free time, spending most of it marathoning the episodes to get a proper review together.The pros and cons of this method of distribution is something best tackled another time because, regardless of how it is given to us, House of Cards is still very much within the television serial regulations to the point where each episode is around 50 minutes instead of whatever the producers decided it would be and so it should really be looked at as such.

A remake of the fantastic Ian Richardson helmed House of Cards, which hit the sweet spot by being almost too accurate in its portrayal of the leadership struggle after Margaret Thatcher stepped down which occurred at the same time the first episode aired. This House of Cards features many similarities with the original but, with the help of Beau Willimon (writer of The Ides of March) and the brilliant as always Kevin Spacey in the FU role, this time Underwood not Urquhart, it becomes its own beast.

Frank Underwood, despite all his hard work helping the President get into office, is rejected the position of Secretary of State despite a promise to be given it during the campaign. Alongside his wife Claire (Robin Wright), Frank slips further and further into murky territory to work his way up the political ladder devouring the campaign, as he so eloquently puts it, “one bite at a time”. One of those bites is Peter Russo, a congressman with a history of substance abuse and a love of prostitutes. Using this knowledge to his advantages, Frank uses Peter as one of his many pawns. Russo starts off as a bit of a wishy washy character but, as the series progresses, Corey Stoll’s performance is heartbreaking. Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) is also another pawn, a journalist at The Herald who Frank uses to leak stories to, helping her work her way to infamy in an almost Faustian agreement.
House of Cards is not a show of likeable characters. The closest you even come to anyone likeable is Russo. Everyone is ready and willing to backstab whoever they can to get to the top, regardless of their profession. It’s something that we’ve all seen before but watching Spacey’s Underwood navigate his web of lies with Machiavellian malice is extremely entertaining to watch.

Spacey himself is by far the best part of the series who, despite having some mediocre dialogue (there’s no real Sorkin quips here and the fourth wall breaking monologues aren’t quite as Shakespearean as Richardson’s), really puts on an excellent performance, making you almost root for him despite some of the dark (and I mean dark) depths he goes to to succeed. So too, as mentioned before, does Corey Stoll, giving some heart to the pawns who, in the original, were quickly discarded.
David Fincher, who directs the first two episodes, puts his mark on the series which is present throughout (he really needs to do more TV work) and, although it lags a bit in the middle to look into Frank’s past and the ending is a little unsatisfactory (although we have 13 more episodes coming soon). House of Cards is an entertaining watch, even just to see Kevin Spacey do what he does best!

Louie review [February 4th 2013 in The Courier]

Louis CK is a man who likes to do things by himself. He’s felt the heat of the writers’ room as a staff writer on shows such as Late Show with David Letterman and The Chris Rock Show, also penning Pootie Tang, the spin off movie to a Chris Rock sketch, but he’s had enough. He wants creative autonomy and with Louie, he very much gets it. Writer, director, editor, star, producer, guy who goes to get the crew their lunch, Louis is a jack-of-all-trades, master of, well, all of them.

At first glance you might think the “off stage comedian” sitcom is one that has been done already, and extraordinarily well at that in the form of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, so why do we need another? There’s something about Louie that puts it in a whole other place to Seinfeld or Curb.

This isn’t to say it’s better, it’s probably on the same fantastic level, but it’s something different. This might come down to the fact Louis CK does have this creative autonomy and a low budget which means he is answerable to no-one. Producers don’t want to look over scripts so there are no restraints on what the show does. There are often times where things just get quite surreal yet are not even questioned. Louie’s agent, for instance, is a teenager. In one excellently odd scene, Louie has a masturbatory fantasy in a lift that is interrupted by a Chinese man with a literal bag of dicks.

But alongside this inconspicuous surrealism is some true heart. The majority of the show is focused on the life of Louis’ on screen persona who is much like himself, a single dad of two. The show is at its greatest when focused on his relationship with his two daughters. He’s well-meaning but sometimes his daughters have the propensity to be really annoying, often seeing Louie flip the bird at his daughter behind his back. Yet you can still tell he loves these girls more than life. It knows when to be serious, and boy does it get a bit dark in places, and it knows when it can make a load of fart jokes. Mixing dates gone wrong escaping via a helicopter in the middle of the street with sentimental late night chats with his daughters, it shouldn’t work but it does and it does it well. It’s this fine high wire act that gives Louie that amazing appeal that is generational, much like Seinfeld.

Battle for the Crown: WinterSlam Rage In The Cage TV Drama Extravaganza (Legends Edition) [December 3rd 2012 in The Courier]

12 shows enter the ring, but only one can be crowned champion. We brought together a panel of The Courier writers to battle it out and ultimately decide who will bring the smackdown and take the title of Best TV Drama.

We gathered in a secret room from which no one could leave until the judging was completed, to debate and fight to the death to decide which of the shows should be awarded the title of Best TV Drama. Choosing which shows made it into the judging process was a difficult decision. We decided on choosing shows which had either finished its run (The Wire) or was established enough to be considered (Doctor Who), all mainly stemming from the 21st Century (with the exception of Twin Peaks) because, otherwise, we would have more shows than we know what to do with. Downton Abbey was a bit of a wildcard but, due to its almost world wide popularity, it was an obvious addition. Regrettably, this meant many shows were missed out including the likes of Homeland and 24. Now was to decide how exactly to pick who faced who. In a highly scientific process, we put the names of all 12 shows into a pot, which was named The Pot of Destiny by nobody, and picked out two shows at random. Now we have our shows, our judges and our “system”, let the battle commence!

Round 1: Breaking Bad Vs. The Sopranos

We kick off the proceedings in style. We don’t mess around in our judging. No one is safe (even though the first round was picked entirely at random). Debate kicked off with those in camp Breaking Bad feverishly defending its originality, its grittiness and most of all, it’s rock solid science (which has apparently been confirmed as definitely rock solid by someone on the panel). The Sopranos camp were equally as defensive with discussion of its groundbreaking dream sequences (they have talking fish in them!) as well as the fact that, without The Sopranos, Breaking Bad would probably never exist. In the end, the similarity of a certain bath tub sequence in Breaking Bad to something in 1997’s Lee Evans slapstick masterpiece MouseHunt, gives the edge to The Sopranos. The Sopranos takes the first round, but not without a fight.

Round 2: Twin Peaks Vs. The Sopranos

Not content with taking down the titan of our time, Breaking Bad, the veteran, The Sopranos, pops up again for the second round, this time facing David Lynch’s mindbending soap opera Twin Peaks. The Sopranos was feeling a bit tired after the first bout, so much of the second round belonged to Twin Peaks. Following similar arguments to The Sopranos in the previous round (that, without Twin Peaks, much of modern television would not exist) as well as picking up on the fact that it is often batshit insane, Twin Peaks looked to be leading the round. The phenomenon that surrounded it was of much discussion, leading us to discuss what it would have been like in the age of the internet and fans discussing theories more freely ala Lost. In the end, however, it was let down by the fact it had such an awful lull in the second series, in which it basically became Dallas but with David Duchovny in drag, and the threat of cancellation by the end forcing the writers to wrap it up as quickly as possible. The Sopranos took the punches but was too sturdy on its feet. An announcement that The Sopranos taught one panelist how to cook Italian food was the KO it needed. Twin Peaks only had cherry pie and damn good coffee.

Round 3: The West Wing Vs. Lost

Two entirely different competitors here, allowing The Sopranos to have a little break before its next bout. Round 3 was perhaps the most equal fight of the entire competition, despite the two shows being almost entire opposites. Things didn’t look too strong for Lost to begin with. Much was said about there being too much hype surrounding it, that ultimately let it down, as well as a dip in quality in the middle and an awful finale to the show. The problem of throwaway characters, particularly a certain couple named Nikki and Paulo, also allowed The West Wing to get a blow in. However, as discussion went on, we all found ourselves naming moments and characters we really loved, with general consensus being that Benjamin Linus could potentially be one of the best characters of the 21st Century. The West Wing was considered much less well known than Lost, but made up for it in witty and poignant dialogue, courtesy of a Mr Aaron Sorkin, that made it much more accessible for a show about politics. Points were made too that no character is merely filler and each one has a role to play, even if some romantic subplots were really bad. Plus, The West Wing has Martin Sheen in its corner, which is always a winner. Unfortunately for Lost, the fact it was, at times, so incohesive and packed with filler episodes was too much to ignore. The West Wing took this fight by a whisker.

Round 4: Doctor Who Vs. The Killing

The lightweight but experienced Saturday nighter Doctor Who went up against Scandanavian Dark Destroyer The Killing in this face off in a stark contrast of styles. Doctor Who showed its camp, almost playful popular appeal while throwing in a few sinister episodes here and there, particularly in the form of the introduction to the Weeping Angels, Blink. The Killing, on the other hand, was dirty and gritty, getting as much blood out as possible. It felt like quite an unfair battle, as Doctor Who is very much for its audience of those just sitting down with the family after their dinner. The Killing had been so influential in the future output of BBC4 and, in some senses, popularised subtitles on British TV. The popularity of The Killing led to the explosion of such shows as Spiral, a gritty French detective drama that feels like Law & Order with a shot or five of espresso, and Wallander. In this regard, and the fact that Moffat’s decision to throw twist upon twist at Doctor Who just to see what stuck led The Doctor into some stupid directions, meant The Killing took this round. You can’t fault their jumpers really!

Round 5: Upstairs Downstairs Vs. Downton Abbey

Downton Abbey came into this competition as a sort of wildcard. We didn’t hold much hope for the Yorkshire-bred aristocrats.  The similarities to Upstairs Downstairs let down in the originality stakes. Much like Doctor Who it relied too much on capturing that tired, post-Sunday roast crowd that just want something nice to watch. It did have a few hefty punches in the form of Maggie Smith’s performance, providing a much needed respite from the routine soap opera style stories. Mad Men, on the other hand, had a stylish flourish to it. Sure it was drunk and had probably just come from getting off with someone not their wife, the look inside the world of advertising in Cold War America is too interesting to pass up on. Witty dialogue and likeable (but also loathable) characters really makes Mad Men stand out. Plus, with Alison Brie on your side it’s hard not to take the round. Mad Men wins it, almost unanimously.

Round 6: Mad Men Vs. The West Wing

Mad Men had a relatively easy first round, against the altogether too soapy Downton Abbey, but things weren’t going to be so easy, now we’re in the latter stages of the competition. It has its merits, of course, with some excellent storylines, diverse range of great characters and stacks and stacks of style; there’s a reason why it’s the show that made AMC a channel to really watch for original programming in the US. But there was something about The West Wing that set it apart. They both have engaging and witty dialogue, nearly anything that comes from Roger Sterling’s mouth is…well…sterling, but Aaron Sorkin’s magic touch pushes The West Wing just ahead. Much was said about how Mad Men was very much style over substance, preferring to show off beautiful suits and gorgeous locations. The West Wing focuses a lot on the politics but it doesn’t shove it in your face. Mad Men is clear which side many characters fall on, with the Republicans being a little villainous. The West Wing lets you make your own mind up. Of course, you can’t really falter Mad Men for that, seeing as it is set in the 50s/60s, an entirely different time period but, ultimately, Sorkin’s touch on The West Wing just edges as the deciding vote sways in President Jed Bartlet’s direction.

Round 7: The Wire Vs. The Killing

As we went into this round, we could feel the room getting a little bit chillier. Unfortunately, our Scandanavian jumpers were not helping to fight the predicted destruction of The Killing by the first appearance of our star fighter, The Wire. Even after the spirited performance against Doctor Who, The Killing camp faltered against The Wire, mainly because everyone was unanimous that The Wire truly was a fantastic show. Both are impressive in scope, with The Killing not only focusing on those trying to investigate the murder like any CSI series but also taking into account the lives of the families, the school friends and even the politicians affected by it, and The Wire basically looking at everyone (and I mean everyone) at least marginally affected by the Baltimore slums. It was decided that the scope of The Wire, covering everyone from the drug dealers, to the police, to the media, far triumphed over that of The Killing. Cozy jumpers aren’t going to save you this time!

Round 8: Spooks Vs. The Sopranos

Spooks came in as another wildcard. Again, much hope wasn’t held for this plucky spy drama but a spirited performance made it seem as though, for a while, it might topple the titan that is The Sopranos.  Once the topic of Spooks came up, almost everyone had something to say showing that it really is a stalwart British drama that never really dipped in quality throughout its entire run. Everyone could point to a moment they really enjoyed; usually the death of a main character showing that no one in the show was really safe (a pretty ballsy move for the writers). But coming up against The Sopranos, it seemed to falter. The ultimately poor characterisations focusing more on the explosions and twists, lets it down against a show entirely devoted to family relationships. Much of the problem with Spooks is that it often reuses many plot lines, beyond the series arcs which, again, when coming up against someone like The Sopranos with emotive and original storylines. It took us 7 rounds, but we finally have our first round of judges abstaining, showing how much the people do quite like Spooks. Ultimately, however, The Sopranos sends Spooks to sleep with the fishes.

Round 9: The West Wing Vs. The Sopranos

The West Wing is right back out into the ring after its close shave with Mad Men in the last round. Unfortunately, it’s up against the 4 round survivor, The Sopranos. The debate was focused very much focused on the characters here. Both have a vast array of characters, none of which are really ignored. The West Wing gives plenty of screen time to the assistants, such as Donna Moss, as well as to those movers and shakers such as Toby Ziegler. The Sopranos gives as much focus to those being used by the Mafia as to those doing the shaking down. Each character is given as much focus as the next, in both shows, and no one is really wasted. No one is introduced if they aren’t of some importance. The debate brought out that, with The West Wing, everyone had a favourite character, be it CJ Cregg aka Flamingo or Jed Bartlet, Mr President itself. However, the fact that The Sopranos had no great single character did not work to its detriment as it might do elsewhere. Without one, something might not feel right, but they’ve brought together a cast which all gel well and it’s the strength of this cast that sees The Sopranos take this round.

Round 10: The Wire Vs. Buffy the Vampire Slayer

It has taken 10 rounds for everyone’s favourite high school ghoul butt-kicker, Buffy Summers, to emerge from the Pot of Destiny. And it couldn’t have had a worse time. Had it cropped up against something like Doctor Who or Lost, there is a chance it would’ve wiped the floor with the competition. But coming up again something as big as The Wire is not an easy task. Think David and Goliath but the rocks in the sling are just eggs; he’s not going down easily and he’s going to make a mess, but Goliath will still probably crush him. Discussion focused mainly on how groundbreaking it was. Much like most of Joss Whedon’s work, it takes a tired genre (in this case horror) and adds a new, often unlikely, element to breathe life into it. Buffy somehow successfully mixed horror with John Hughes-esque teen angst. With each monster being a metaphor for some aspect of teenage life, it showed a girl with already too much on her plate in life taking on the burden of killing monsters. Alongside this, courtesy of Whedon’s scripts, Buffy’s dialogue has spawned much of popular 90s slang, something not to be scoffed at. But despite the spirited performance from Buffy The Vampire Slayer it still was, after all, up against The Wire. It was a battle of language; Whedonisms against The Wire’s street slang. In the end, the meticulous attention to detail that was present in The Wire’s street slang, in its attempt to truly capture life on the Baltimore streets, really set it apart. The Wire is through to the final!

Round 11 (The Final): The Wire Vs. The Sopranos

So we’ve finally reached the final. After 10 rounds of totally scientific match ups and some often heated (but not quite to the point of fisticuffs) debate, we’re here. I think most of the judges had money on either or both getting to the final (unless both were picked out in the same round earlier on in the competition) so it was no surprise that the final contained the two juggernauts that pretty much dominated the competition. But now, here we are; the immovable object meets the unstoppable force. A battle of equals. Opinions intensified as we really got down to the nitty gritty of what makes these shows fantastic. The needle swung one way and then the other as consensus shifted with each person that spoke in favour of either one. There was no negative debating here; everyone understood that both The Sopranos and The Wire were fantastic shows worthy of their place in the final. Now it was a case of just seeing which one just edges ahead of the other. In each area we explored, both shows seemed to be on par.  Both had excellent casts, great storylines, each portraying a section of America as realistically as possible. It really was a tough battle between the two. What swayed the vote, ultimately, was the sheer scale of The Wire. With so many characters to cover, and so many areas of society, The Wire does a lot and, in that regard, should be applauded for its guts in doing so. However, it does a lot and it does it all so well. Where many other shows may faulter with the sheer scale, no one part of The Wire feels like a weak link. Smaller characters are as good as the main characters and all the different sneak peeks into different sections of society weave together so perfectly to create tapestry of life that holds no punches. It isn’t afraid to delve right into the deepest, darkest sociopolitical themes in order to get a more realistic picture. This is not to criticise The Sopranos, that also has a fantastic set of characters and storylines, allowing us an insight into immigrant culture in America as well as American family life, but The Wire just does so much more. It’s a tough, tough battle but David Simon’s HBO smash hit, The Wire, takes the crown as The Courier’s Best TV Drama, not that it’s all that bothered.