Earlier this year, we lost Battlestar Galactica, but we had the consolation of Dollhouse. Now, we’ve lost that, as well. Dollhouse has been cancelled. According to news reports, the remaining episodes of the second season will air. I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, a network, especially a broadcast network, cannot be expected to keep a show on the air when its ratings share is tiny compared to that of other shows on the same network. On the other hand, Dollhouse aired on Fridays, the graveyard shift, a timeslot in which it could not be expected to deliver the numbers of a show like House. I give credit to Fox for allowing Dollhouse to have a second season, but then I take away that credit when I think about the fact that it wasn’t promoted…anywhere. If I hadn’t been seeking out Whedon/Dollhouse news, I would not have seen any ads for the show, in any medium. Contrast this with Glee, which got a HUGE publicity push before its premiere, and which continues to receive a lot of publicity for its soundtrack album.

The only silver lining in the whole business is the fact that filming is ongoing (they’re currently working on the 11th episode), so Joss may be able to finish the series properly. Unfortunately, I doubt that the narrative will fill in the gap between the present time and ‘Epitaph One.’ Add this to Firefly and Angel in the List of Joss Shows That Are Cancelled Before Their Time. Only Buffy got to end on its own terms; Angel ended wonderfully (it’s my favorite series finale ever for any show), but it could and should have gone on another season. Firefly hurt, and an argument can be made that it was better than Dollhouse, which got off to a rocky start, but I have to say that Dollhouse’s cancellation stings more than Firefly’s. It grew into a show that opened a discourse on subjects that were much more disturbing and intimate than Firefly. I also thought that its mythology had more places to go than Firefly’s, despite the latter’s multi-planetary scope. Though imperfect, Dollhouse was tragic, melancholy, smart, haunting, beautiful and a million other things. From an aesthetic POV, the show was gorgeous to look at; the Dollhouse set was one I loved to see week in and week out. The show will be missed, for what it managed to deliver, but more so for the promise of where it was heading, and its continued and significant improvement from a less than stellar pilot (lest we forget, the critically acclaimed Buffy had a not-so-great first season, before growing into a truly great series). I think Dollhouse would have grown ever more compelling, daring and complex, but that is something that we will not be allowed to see.

Joss posted a comment about the cancellation over at Whedonesque:

I don’t have a lot to say. I’m extremely proud of the people I’ve worked with: my star, my staff, my cast, my crew. I feel the show is getting better pretty much every week, and I think you’ll agree in the coming months. I’m grateful that we got to put it on, and then come back and put it on again.

I’m off to pursue internet ventures/binge drinking. Possibly that relaxation thing I’ve read so much about. By the time the last episode airs, you’ll know what my next project is. But for now there’s a lot of work still to be done, and disappointment to bear.

Thank you all for your support, your patience, your excellent adverts. See you again. -j.

My friends have started a theatre company, Coffee Black Productions, which will be putting on an evening of monologues (including one by Yours Truly) centered on the theme of addiction. Check out their page for more information on this and other upcoming shows in New York City. You can also follow them on Twitter and Facebook.

This Friday and Saturday at Radio City Music Hall, “The Fellowship of the Ring” will be projected onto a 60-foot screen while a 300-piece orchestra plays the film’s score. For some people (namely, those who enjoy awesome things) this is a concept that needs no justification. God could have come up with the idea. -NYU

On October 9th, I attended the first of two Lord of the Rings concerts at Radio City Music Hall. Unlike the Lord of the Rings Symphony, which had played in this area a few years ago, this live orchestra would play against the first film, The Fellowship of the Ring. Before the show, I lamented that this set-up would result in the audience missing out on some great pieces from films 2 and 3. On the other hand, I was glad to revisit a film that I had not seen on the big screen since its debut almost a decade ago. I was kind of taken aback by the thought that children in the audience (and the choir) were too young, or not yet born, when the movie first came out.

When we got there, we were glad to see that neither of the scheduled guests (Howard Shore and Billy Boyd) had pulled out. On the contrary, there would be a signing after the show with Mr. Shore himself. There was a beautiful program on display, which I bought, as well as various CDs of music from the trilogy, which I already owned. I was on the look-out for Doug Adams’s upcoming book The Music of the Lord of the Rings Films, but it has not been made available at this time. I did talk to Adams after the show, and he told me that they are looking at an April release date. We were also happy to see that several people dressed up, and there were Gandalfs, Eowyns and various other characters walking around.

Once inside, we were awed by the size of the screen, wherein a large high definition version of the movie would be playing. The orchestra and choir were huge, which we knew would add great power to the instrumentation and vocals. As I glanced through the program, I saw an ad for a Two Towers concert, which would be playing in England, and quickly cursed the English for getting such a great show (The Two Towers is my favorite film in the trilogy, and ties with The Return of the King for my favorite music). As I debated how far I would go to purchase tickets to England to see this show, the lights went down and the film began to play. Luckily, there were subtitles, since the event was purposefully staged to emphasize the music playing live, which meant that several of the sounds and dialogue in the film would be somewhat minimized. I say the subtitles were useful, but in reality, people who play $100+ for tickets to an event like this are really enthusiastic fans, so we all knew every word of dialogue in the film already. That is what made the evening such a great one. There were no people who wandered into this hall by mistake, or without the full intention of enjoying the show. This was an audience of fans, and they all cheered at every character entrance, whether Aragorn’s or Galadriel’s. They clapped at the major musical cues, especially the Fellowship Theme at the conclusion of the Council of Elrond. They rejoiced when Aragorn defeated the Uruk-Hai that had attacked Boromir. At various points in the film, I was tempted to take photographs of the picture playing, because it was so large and beautiful, but I refrained from doing so out of courtesy to the people sitting around me. Nevertheless, there were those who couldn’t resist, and photos were flashing during grand shots like The Balrog, The Argonath, and the close-up of Frodo at the riverbank as he prepares to leave behind the Fellowship.

Musically, the event was nearly flawless. Take it from someone who knows every beat in the film, the orchestra was perfectly in synch with the movie playing onscreen. The live orchestra brought out some musical moments that I had not focused on enough before this evening: like when the Hobbits are chased by the Ringwraiths as they head towards Bree. This moment is so tense and action packed that it is easy to overlook the great music playing with it. The orchestra really made moments like this one stand out. It also enhanced moments that were great to begin with, and made them that much more spectacular, like the Fellowship theme that concludes the Council of Elrond and the Ring Theme that begins each film in the trilogy. Personally, my favorite musical moments in Fellowship are the tiny bit of the Nature Theme that can be heard peeking out of the Isengard music during Gandalf’s imprisonment there (when he talks to the moth). Another sequence that I adore is the music of Moria: the beautiful melody that plays when the heroes behold Dwarrowdelf for the first time, and the chants of the male choir that crescendo when Gandalf confronts the Balrog. It was great to hear these great moments in the score played live. My only complaint, in regards to the music, is the Fellowship Theme that plays when the Nine walk into the Misty Mountains through a pass, one at a time. This is supposed to be one of the loudest and most resounding versions of the Fellowship Theme to play in the entire trilogy, but I felt the orchestra played it kind of low. Other than that, I felt that the vocalists and musicians delivered at every turn.

The cut of the film that was screened was the theatrical release, which runs at three hours. There was an intermission, right at the point when the Fellowhip comes together in Rivendell. As the credits rolled, there were cheers for all the actors and talent involved, especially Boyd and Shore, who were in attendance. The orchestra and chorus also received great cheers, especially conductor Ludwig Wicki and soloist Kaitlyn Lusk. In fact, the orchestra received a standing ovation that lasted somwhere between five and ten minutes. The credits were followed by a title card announcing that Radio City would host The Two Towers next year on the 8th and 9th of October, which sent all fans into a frenzy. The evening concluded in the most perfect way possible when Shore and Boyd were joined onstage by Frodo himself, Elijah Wood. As EW noted, the great thing about the people who work(ed) on this trilogy is their obvious affection for it, and the special guests truly seemed to be enjoying themselves. The audience couldn’t have asked for a better evening, although the Saturday audience was treated to a Q&A with Howard Shore before the concert. This now ranks as my all-time favorite film-going experience, along with the 2003 premiere of The Return of the King.

Lately in my reading, I’ve been leaning towards history (and by lately, I mean the whole of my life; history has always been my favorite subject). One thing that I’ve learned in my latest batch of books is that infamy almost always accompanies fame, especially if the subject in question is a woman. Since fame requires that one stands out from the crowd in some way, the resultant isolation from one’s peers can and does inspire both admiration and resentment. For a woman, whose traditional role was supposed to occur behind the scenes, fame invited even greater condemnation. Historically, if women were behaving, then they were not famous, and they did not make history. The following are three books about women who behaved badly.

Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire

Georgiana (ancestor of both Princess Diana and Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York) was born into a good, respectable family, the Spencers, and she married into one of the most powerful and influential families in 18th Century England, becoming the Duchess of Devonshire upon her marriage to William Cavendish. Always insecure, Georgiana strived to please her new family, even changing the pronunciation of her own name (she began calling herself Geor-jayn-a) to accomodate their preferences. Despite her efforts, her marriage was a cold one, as the Duke was not interested in his wife beyond her ability to bear heirs.

In an effort to entertain herself, and to leave behind the grief of several miscarriages, Georgiana embarked upon a public life. She became a vocal supporter of the Whig party, and she campaigned on their behalf, even going so far as to visit townsfolk from door to door in order to win their support. She became a leader in fashion and her outrageous ensembles placed her on the papers on a regular basis. Through her politics and her beauty, she became the most famous woman of her day. Her lavish parties were the hot ticket of the season, and her attention was sought by the royal family itself. Georgiana was a crucial and valued asset for the Whigs, their public face, and she schemed and debated with the most poweful politicians of the English Parliament.

Georgiana’s busy public persona masked a deep unhappiness in her home life. She was a compulsive gambler whose debt and careless spending was driving her husband ever deeper into debt. Though she finally produced a son, her husband took a mistress, Georgiana’s best friend Elizabeth “Beth” Foster. So great was Georgiana’s loneliness that she accepted William’s decision to keep Beth permanently in their home. William, however, was not so understanding when Georgiana decided to take on a lover of her own, and heartbreak soon followed.

Through meticulous research into the correspondence, diaries, and newspapers of the era, author Amanda Foreman focuses on the politics of the English aristocracy in the time of George III without falling into melodrama. Most importantly, Foreman’s most vivid portrait is of Georgiana herself, a complex individual whose role cannot be reduced to that of victim, despite what the recent film adaptation starring Keira Knightley would have us believe. Georgiana was both victim and victimizer, a creature with incredibly low self-esteem, full of self-loathing, who nevertheless demanded to be the center of attention. It is in her illustration of this complexity through her attention the the smallest details of Georgiana’s life that Foreman succeeds in bringing her subject back to life.

The Murder of Helen Jewett

In 1836, New York prostitute Helen Jewett (an alias for Dorcas Doyen) was found murdered in her bedroom on Thomas Street. The murder and the ensuing trial of Richard Robinson (one of Helen’s clients) captivated the media and ignited a national discourse of gender relations and public morals. Interestingly, the focus of the book lies not with the investigative technique, or even trying to solve the murder, although Cohen does put forth a suspect. Rather, the emphasis is on the perception of Helen and her trade in 19th Century New York, and how that perception differed in the rest of the nation.

The novel begins with the murder itself, or rather the discovery thereof. Found in a brothel in New York City, Helen’s case was quickly discovered by the rest of the nation thanks to the efforts of the penny press. Unlike the more respectable publications of the time, the penny press delved into the seedier side of crime, including sex crimes, and this case had all the elements of front page material: the prostitute was beautiful, the suspect was a “good boy”, and the killing was brutal. Interestingly, the New York press was sympathetic towards Helen, at least in comparison to the rest of the nation. In its reporting of the case, the NY press emphasized Helen’s beauty and good manners, her sense of culture and fashionable clothing. To a lot of people in NY, Helen’s murder was a tragedy. Not so with the rest of the country, wherein Helen’s murder became a convenient morality tale, a parable meant to teach an important lesson to good girls anywhere who were tempted to stray from the good path. In fact, several publications of the age focused on education as the cause of moral bankruptcy, though only as far as girls were concerned. According to this view, Helen’s education (and she was fortunate enough to get a good one) was the cause of her fall. Stories and reading in general made girls more willing to question their station in life, and to aspire to lives away from their families. Reading, in effect, was the gateway to infamy and lost virtue. The only appropriate reading material was the Bible.

From the various accounts of Helen’s life, Cohen tries to arrive at the person that Helen truly was. Helen herself was very creative in the retellings of her adventures, and she presented different accounts of her life to different people. She was not only beautiful, but very intelligent and strong willed, something surprising for a woman of her time and station. This was a woman who was willing to take men to court if they mistreated her, something that was due, in part, to the city itself, which was willing to hear a whore’s case just as easily as it would hear anyone else’s complaint (something that would change in the coming years, with the resurgence of religious reform, which looked down upon the idea of offering protection to prostitutes).

In addition to the exploration of Helen’s background, the book delves into the background of her accused killer, Richard Robinson, as well as the coverage that surrounded him in the national press. Robinson, a clerk, was judged by the nation to be a good boy who fell in with the wrong crowd, a naive young man who fell into the clutches of an experienced manipulator of the demimonde. He was a man in the wrong place at the wrong time, and with the only testimony against him being from prostitutes, it would be difficult to secure any kind of case against him. Of course, the testimony in question spoke of a dark and violent streak within Robinson, but the court was instructed to disregard it, and the nation soon followed suit.

Though the case was shockingly brief by today’s standards, lasting only a few days, it was very long by the standards of 19th Century jurisprudence. It was also a very high profile case, packing the courtrooms with hundreds of spectators and reporters. The nation was captivated by the scandal, and specifically by its sexual nature. Though quick to condemn the sexuality of the victim, the public delighted in the sordid details of the affair, and the case of Helen Jewett would go on to play a significant role in the history of gender dynamics as played on the national stage.

Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull

The American Suffragist movement, organized and galvanized to great strength during the 19th Century, was put on hold when the nation went to war over the question of slavery. During the Reconstruction that followed, women hoped that the support they had lent to the abolitionist cause would be reciprocated as the government re-considered requirements for citizenship and the vote. If the Constitution could be amended to to grant voting rights to blacks, women figured, why could it not be altered to grant these same rights to women? On this account, Suffragists would discover that they were wrong. Not only were the abolitionists unwilling to risk their chances at suffrage by aligning themselves with women, but the women themselves were divided on the issues at stake. The more conservative branch of the movement, supported by the likes of Catherine Beecher, advocated a soft entreaty for the vote, and only the vote. The more liberal branch, headed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, wanted to eradicate several forms of oppression against women, most notably marriage laws favoring the husband’s ownership of his wife and children. This challenge against the sacred institution of marriage tore the women’s movement into two resentful factions.

Enter Victoria Woodhull, Spiritualist from a family of con artists. Woodhull, who believed in and practiced the idea of free love, was an incendiary character who blazed to New York City after a life of poverty, prostitution, and communion with the spirits. In NYC, she allied herself with none other than Cornelius Vanderbilt and made a fortune for herself on the stock market. When she decided that wasn’t enough, Victoria tried to lead the women’s movement to Washington, D.C., where she demanded and received an audience from Congress, asserting that women would not be denied the vote. She founded a paper to spread her ideas, and submitted herself as a candidate for the presidency of the United States….all at a time when women could neither vote nor serve in a jury. Her controversial ideas on marriage, which she equated to institutionalized prostitution, and her peculiar living arrangements (she lived with both her former husband and her current lover) brought her into great conflict with the conservative New England branch of Suffragists, and into an alliance with the liberal NYC branch. Her refusal to back down also landed her in jail (several times) and plunged her into one of the greatest scandals of the 19th Century, one centering on one of America’s most pious families, the Beechers.

Author Barbara Goldsmith manages the incredible feat of introducing dozens of characters into the narrative and keeping them in play for hundreds of pages as they move inoxerably towards each other. Though her focus is Victoria Woodhull, Goldsmith places Woodull in the context of America’s Reconstruction, the corruption of the Gilded Age, the politics of the women’s rights movement, and the wave of Spiritualism that captivated the nation in the wake of the Civil War. It is not simply a tale about Woodhull herself, but about her interaction with the nation’s most famous personalities: Horace Greeley, Frederick Douglass, Mark Twain, Ulysses S. Grant, and especially the powerful Beecher family (Henry Ward, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Catherine). Woodhull’s life, as recounted by Goldsmith, is the story of a nation in the midst of chaos and change.

From Gothamist:

On October 9th and 10th, more than 300 musicians will gather onstage at Radio City Musical to perform composer Howard Shore’s award-winning score to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring live to Peter Jackson’s film. The ensemble is as epic as the movie, and includes Switzerland’s 21st Century Symphony Orchestra, the internationally-acclaimed The Collegiate Chorale, the Grammy Award-winning Brooklyn Youth Chorus, and renowned soprano Kaitlyn Lusk, all under the direction of celebrated Maestro Ludwig Wicki.

Before the concert, NYC Ringers can look forward to an event at the Paley Center with composer Howard Shore, actor Billy Boyd (aka Peregrin Took), and Doug Adams, author of The Music of The Lord of the Rings Films. Details on the Paley Center event can be found on the website. If you’re a fan of the books, the films, or both, I highly recommend this event. I attended a LotR Symphony Concert a few years back at NJPAC (Howard Shore was there) and this music, gorgeous though it sounds in the films, is designed to be heard in a grand venue, played by hundreds of musicians. I own all the soundtracks, and I listen to them regularly, but nothing is better than hearing them live, in their full majesty. The difference between the upcoming concert and the one I saw is that the first film is being screened at Radio City, with the orchestra playing to it. I know it will be grand to see the film this way, especially since I haven’t seen it on the big screen since 2001, but I do feel that the audience will be missing out on some great, great pieces from the other two films.

The Two Towers:

Foundations of Stone- the music the plays over the opening sequence of the film, when Galdalf battles the Balrog as they fall through the caves of Khazad-dûm.

The Riders of Rohan- this is the introductory theme of the Rohirrim, which plays in various ways throughout the TTT and RotK.

The White Rider-this theme plays when Gandalf returns as Gandalf the White in Fangorn Forest.

Forth Eorlingas-after the long battle at Helm’s Deep (actually called The Battle of the Hornburg), this theme plays as the heroes lead the Rohirrim in a charge outside the walls, just as Galdalf and Éomer bring re-inforcements.

Isengard Unleashed- the Nature Theme first heard in Fellowship’s ‘A Knife in the Dark’ comes back here in full force as the Ents charge Isengard.

The Return of the King:

Minas Tirith- this theme was first played very briefly in Fellowship when Gandalf went to research the history of the Ring, but here it plays majestically as Gandalf take Pippin to the White City for the first time.

The White Tree- this theme plays when Pippin lights the beacons that signal to Théoden in Edoras that Minas Tirith requires aid, and the sequence plays over gorgeous imagery of the snow-capped mountain ranges of New Zealand.

To become even geekier for a moment, if Billy Boyd is going to be there, wouldn’t it be great to hear ‘Pippin’s Song’, aka ‘All Shall Fade/Edge of Night’?

The Black Gate Opens- though The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is the centerpiece of the film, the climax of the trilogy is happens in Mordor. This song links the heroes once more as the warriors congregate at the Black Gate while Frodo and Same climb Mount Doom, reprising a very poignant and moving version of the Shire Theme from Fellowship, before launching into the Wagnerian ‘The End of All Things’ inside the mountain itself.

Much like the books and the films, the music of Lord of the Rings tells one story; it’s designed very carefully to convey its own narrative over the course of the three films, which means that, unlike a straight-out concert, we’re going to hear (and see) only the first part of a story. On the concert website, there is a video of a similar screening/concert for The Two Towers. Couldn’t we get that, as well? Along with The Return of the King, it could be staged as a three night event. Perhaps that’s something that they intend to do at a later date. In the meantime, one Lord of the Rings screening is better than no screening at all.

This year, Fox seems to be pushing its hit show House in a different, more insistent way than it has in past seasons, with a Caduceus-centered, pseudo-viral campaign designed to raise interest and curiosity in the show’s premiere. The Caduceus symbol, the centerpiece of the campaign, started as actor Hugh Laurie’s idea for gifts for the crew, and was adopted by the producers and network to push the show’s sixth season to the public. The campaign started with drawings of a cane within a Caduceus symbol that began to appear on other Fox shows, with no reference to the House title, but prompting viewers to visit the Snakes on a Cane website, which featured a countdown (fans of the show quickly realized that the site was counting down to the September 21st premiere). Posters also appeared in major cities. In the following weeks, the drawing turned into a more elaborate image, which then turned into a Caduceus on a black tee-shirt, which in turn was revealed to be Hugh Laurie himself, wearing the tee-shirt. In its final phase, the image revealed Hugh Laurie as House as the center of the Caduceus, with snakes wrapped around his body. Though the mystery surrounding the Caduceus campaign didn’t (and couldn’t) last very long in the days of such elaborate viral marketing as that which surrounded The Dark Knight and Lost, it nevertheless succeeded in conveying a sense of quirkiness that made it stand out from the rather bland publicity that preceeded some (though not all) of the previous seasons of House, as well as several other shows, for which the publicity focus is on the castmembers posing in front of nondescript backgrounds. House is not the only show that has received heavy publicity; with few shows premiering this fall, Fox has pushed its shows more heavily, especially Glee, but the push for House nevertheless remains surprising for a show that is entering its sixth season. One of the final steps in the campaign came about through Facebook (and only through Facebook), in which Fox offered a limited amount of tickets to an advanced screening of the premiere episode (“Broken”) on September 17th in New York and LA (the cast attended the latter).

Of course, House is important for Fox; not only has it performed consistently well through an actors’ strike and a cast overhaul, but it has just achieved the distinction of becoming the most watched drama in the world. On the other hand, it’s lost visibility against competition from the cable networks, as well as newer shows on the broadcast channels. Critically, it has lost some of the support that it enjoyed in its first three seasons, with its original cast. Despite this, the show still received Emmy nominations, including one for its long-overdue star. So, with this year’s increased publicity push, the question becomes: does the premiere deliver?

When we last left House, the show had pulled itself together after a slow start to season 5. In its last stretch, House’s 5th season saw one of House’s fellows, Lawrence Kutner, commit suicide, forcing the rest of the staff at Princeton Plainsboro to evaluate what, if anything, they could have done to prevent the tragedy. The unacknowledged guilt that Dr. House felt in regards to Kutner’s suicide was the straw that broke the camel’s back, compounding the guild that House already felt over his role in the death of another former employee, as well as his antagonistic relationship with his father, who also passed away. The toll of three deaths in the space of a year, in addition to House’s long-standing addiction to Vicodin, set of a wave of hallucinations that compromised his judgment as a doctor and the safety, not only of his patients, but of the people around him.

Season 6 picks up where Season 5 left off, with House checking himself into a mental institution, Mayfield Hospital. Breaking from the show’s regular formula, House is now the patient that needs healing, and his healing is less physical than psychological. The greatest deterrent to his recovery is his own unwillingness to let himself be treated (he has entered and resisted rehab in the past). If there is one thing that counterweighs his desire to get better, it is the fear that sobriety will make him a less effective doctor, since his leg pain is, without drugs, unbearable. Now that his medical license is at stake, he has his strongest ever incentive to get better. As he begins his stay at the hospital, House must forge a strategy to get a recommendation letter from the head of psychiatry, Dr. Darryl Nolan (Andre Braugher) in order to return to medicine, but this will prove no small task, since Dr. Nolan is not one to be swayed easily, especially in light of House’s unwillingness to cooperate.

The entire two-hour episode is set inside Mayfield, with no cuts to Princeton Plainsboro or the staff there. Other than Laurie, only one other member of the regular cast appears, and very briefly at that. The different location and different cast give the episode a feel that is completely separate from the rest of the series. Set over the course of months, it is almost a self-contained story, one that could have functioned as an inter-season movie. In a way, it will be a shame to go back to Princeton, since the residents of Mayfield were such very rich characters. In addition to Braugher’s Nolan, who is both healer and a damaged person himself, there is a stand out performance from Lin-Manuel Miranda (from Broadway’s In the Heights) as Alvie, House’s schizophrenic roommate, who tries his patience to its limit, but also becomes his most enthusiastic co-conspirator against ‘the Man.’ Braugher and Miranda are more compelling in these two hours than a couple of House’s fellows have been in years of being on the show, and I wish they would become regulars, or at least recurring. If there are any complaints about this season opener, they lie with the Franka Potente character, Lydia. She plays a significant part in House’s life and recovery process during his stay at Mayfield, where her sister-in-law is a patient, but the character doesn’t feel fleshed out enough to warrant the interest and attraction that House feels towards her. I like Potente in other roles, most obviously in Run Lola Run, but I found something lacking here, perhaps in the writing of Lydia. I found myself wishing that instead of Lydia, we got to see more of Megan Dodds (Ever After), who was sorely underused as Dr. Beasley, the poor doctor who is in charge of House’s therapy group.

All in all, I found this to be one of the strongest episodes of the show, and certainly the best of its season premieres. It shakes things up quite a bit and brings new energy to the show. It also sets House (both the series and the character) onto a possible new direction. Laurie, as always, delivers. In fact, in his sixth year playing this character, he has just delivered some of his best work in this season premiere, which he carries without the help of his supporting cast (which usually includes the excellent Robert Sean Leonard and Lisa Edelstein). This premiere is proof, if any was needed, that while House can boast a very strong ensemble, it is Laurie’s show all the way. Here’s hoping that he gets some award recognition this year.

So, to answer my initial question, the premiere certainly delivers. It’s rare for a show to deliver such strong material so many years into its run. Certainly, the show has stumbled along the course of the last couple of seasons, and it will be difficult to maintain the freshness of the premiere once the show returns to Princeton and to the regular patients there, but if the focus remains on House’s journey of recovery or self-destruction, then this sixth season of House has the potential to become one of its best. “Broken” kicks off the new season, airing this Monday on FOX.

Hugh Laurie’s 1996 novel, The Gun Seller, is an espionage thriller that, from England to Morocco, from the armed forces to a terrorist unit, follows the misadventures of a former Scots Guards officer named Thomas Lang. Lang starts the novel making a living through freelance work as a bodyguard and general tough guy, though he assures the reader that his reputation for toughness is greatly exaggerated. He’s the type of man who avoids confrontation at all costs, taking on only those assignments that he knows to be safe, and as far as he’s concerned, his tough guy act is precisely that, an act. He’s neither large of muscle nor brave of character, and prefers to spend his nights drinking in solitude. One day, he meets a man in a bar who, having heard of Lang’s past in the armed forces, requires his services for the assassination of an American businessman named Alexander Woolf. After turning down the job, Lang’s life takes an unexpected and unwelcome turn for the worse when his normally dormant conscience makes a decision to warn the target about the attempt that will be made on his life.

It is here that the novel begins, in posing the question that dominates the book: does Lang think that he is a good man? Lang would answer that he’s not bad, but he’s not particularly good, either. By avoiding conflict, he also avoids sides, and his darkly cynical view of the world is such that he doesn’t think that there is any moral merit in risking his skin for anyone. After his initial good deed, he is plunged into the world of weapons trafficking and espionage, against his will, and forced to make decisions that will determine whether or not Thomas Lang is truly good. This is one of the areas in which the novel, to me, sets itself apart from its genre: it takes into consideration the moral questions surrounding inaction as well as action, exploring the implications of that often repeated (and mis-attributed) saying, that “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Morality and ethics tell us that inaction is a decision, and it is Lang’s preferred method of non-engagement. He’s a man who prides himself on his clever avoidance of heroics, a really nice guy who simply can’t be bothered with good or evil, stances better left to less lazy people.

If the exploration of morality in the novel is one of its most unexpected strengths, its humor is its most overt selling point. It is no surprise to those who are familiar with Hugh Laurie’s comedy-centric background that the novel is funny. The surprise is just how it manages to be simultaneously tense and hilarious. Laurie is every bit as witty, funny, and cynical as the curmudgeonly doctor that he plays on tv. He concocts a novel that functions both as a satirical view on the spy genre AND a really suspenseful spy thriller. Don’t be fooled by the blurbs comparing Laurie’s novel to The Naked Gun; there are real stakes in The Gun Seller, and the characters face real danger. The laughs are mixed in with moments of shocking and effective violence. Though there is a tiny hint of Bond, Lang is closer to The Scarlet Pimpernel, a spy who is clever enough to hide how clever he really is. Lang (like his creator) is quite the smartass, and the book will make you laugh out loud with its observations about the absurdity of the genre, but it takes the characters and situations very seriously, so that the book is as thrilling as it is funny.

I must be honest; I picked up The Gun Seller because, as a fan of Hugh Laurie, I was curious about his abilities as a writer. I didn’t expect that the novel would be bad, but I didn’t expect to enjoy it, either, since I normally don’t read spy novels. What I found was a great read by an author that relishes in language, and delights in playing with words and situations that are usually treated with solemnity in most spy stories. For instance, as Publisher’s Weekly pointed out, Laurie and Lang engage in a fetishizing of weaponry, a theme common in the genre, but the self-referential nature of the narration comments on the genre as a whole. He recognizes the cliches and embraces them with both affection and irony. Laurie clearly loves the genre, and has fun playing with it, and he invites the reader to have fun with him, thereby establishing a give and take that is partly dependent on the reader’s own engagement in the material. It’s a delightful read, and the only shame is that Laurie hasn’t written anything since. A second novel, The Paper Soldier, has been in the works for a decade, and hopefully will see release soon.

Torchwood returns to BBC-America tonight. Instead of a full season of stand-alone episodes, the show will focus on one story, told over five consecutive nights. With the loss of half the Torchwood team regulars, and the adoption of the mini-series narrative style, the show takes a strong departure from its two previous seasons. In England, it has changed networks, and fans have wondered how, or if, this network change will affect the content of the series itself. The mini-series, which already premiered abroad, starts tonight on BBC-America. I haven’t seen it yet, but the show has not disappointed me yet, so I recommend tuning in. If you miss it, the R1 DVD is due for release on July 28th.

Visit the BBC Website.

Visit the BBC-America Website.

Have you ever had an impulse, one which has no foundation in logic, and which runs counter to our biological drive to hoard and be selfish? We admire heroes precisely because we recognize that our default mode is to be selfish, to care for ourselves and our loved ones before any stranger that may require our beneficence. We comfort ourselves with the notion that we’re not criminals, and therefore, at the very least, we are not actively making the world worse. Sometimes, we make ourselves feel better by throwing money at a cause. If we can’t ship out to South America or volunteer for the Peace Corps, perhaps we can send financial aid instead. Perhaps one takes a more cynical view, arriving at the conclusion that charity is in itself selfish, since those who do it are in it for the attention, or to ease their own gnawing consciences. Is there such a thing as a selfless deed? Nevertheless, isn’t it to our credit that we have those gnawing consciences? If our Darwinian drive dictates that we be selfish to protect ourselves and our families at the expense of others, then isn’t the fact that we feel for others, for strangers in far-off lands, a good thing?

The Philanthropist, NBC’s summer premiere about a billionaire-playboy-turned-humanitarian, may seem like too shallow a vehicle to tackle such questions. After all, what do the folks over in Hollywood know about human suffering on a global scale? Curiously, however, the show works, and it does so while feeling vibrant and human rather than didactic. James Purefoy stars as Teddy Rist, a fast-living, globe-trotting man who finds a moment of clarity in the middle of an African village. This brings us back to my opening question: the illogical impulse to do good, particularly when that good runs counter to our own well-being. In the midst of a hurricane, Teddy sees a poor boy and saves places him onto a safety raft, sacrificing his own place onboard. Upon returning home to NYC, Terry finds that he can’t put the boy out of his mind and returns to Africa in search of him.

With excellent production values, the show comes to life when Teddy is abroad. The exotic locations photograph beautifully, and even the impoverished towns that Teddy visits are a welcome respite from the monotonous settings of other tv shows. As a character, Teddy is but the last in a long string of rich boys playing heroes: from The Scarlet Pimpernel to Batman, the motif is a recurring one. Teddy measures up as a character because he seems genuinely concerned for the people that he is trying to help, and because he does it through charity, rather than violence. Teddy doesn’t don a cape and mask and beat up the bad guys; he tries to deliver vaccines to villages where they are desperately needed. This isn’t to say that the character (and the premise) are unproblematic. After all, Teddy seems to think that bribing people is a legitimate way of getting around the local systems of corruption. Furthermore, the people that he helps (at least in the pilot) are African, bringing forth racial questions to the tune of White Man’s Burden and Western Imperialism. Whether or not the show will tackle these questions remains to be seen, though the issue is briefly noted in the pilot.

In terms of casting, James Purefoy is an inspired choice. Having played bad boys in Rome (my favorite HBO show…ever) and Vanity Fair, James brings that Marc Antony-esque swagger and adventurous spirit to Teddy, but then he adds a deep sense of loss and empathy to the character that make Teddy more substantive and compassionate than Purefoy’s previous roles; he truly seems to care. If there is a problem with the show, it is with Teddy’s life in New York. Teddy’s turbulent background includes broken relationships and the loss of a son, all of which drive him away from his home in America. While I like the notion that Teddy is running from unhappiness, thereby bringing his motives into question, I find it too facile and reductive for the writers to give the rich playboy a dead son as the trigger for his quest to right wrongs. Can’t a person feel sympathy for a fellow human being without having anagolous experience in his/her own life story? I don’t need to have AIDS or see someone close to me die of AIDS in order to feel sympathy for an AIDS patient. It would have been more interesting to me if Teddy’s change were not so easily explained.

Teddy’s son is not the only problem he left behind in New York. He lost his former girlfriend Olivia (played by Neve Campbell) to his best friend Philip (Jesse L. Martin). Though Martin acquits himself well with very little to do in the pilot, Campbell seems out of place, and uninteresting. Lindy Booth, playing Teddy’s assistant A.J., has the same problem; she’s there to beg Teddy to stay out of trouble, and this gets tiresome very quickly. Perhaps these characters will get more development in future episodes? Do we even want to know more about them? The pilot itself is entirely about Teddy, and it works well, but I don’t know that it would, if centered on the other characters. In a previous post, I questioned whether the charm of Nathan Fillion would be enough to sustain my interest in Castle, despite its weak supporting cast and its uninspired writing. The answer to that is a resounding “No” and I gave up on that series. I think The Philanthropist falls more in line with House, as a series with a strong lead who has enough support from the other players and the writing to make me tune in time and again. Like House, The Philanthropist can choose to focus on one character alone, but the supporting players need to be strong enough to make that character’s world an interesting one. It could also go another way by becoming an ensemble piece, but I doubt that they will pull away from Teddy to make that happen.

As it stands, the pilot of The Philanthropist was very intriguing, fast-paced and surprisingly moving. It speaks to that gnawing conscience inside all of us that wants to alleviate the pain in the world. Put simply, it’s wish fulfillment, the desire to become the type of person who could rise above selfishness. Of course, it wouldn’t be fun if Teddy didn’t stumble along the way, but that’s what makes life (and tv) interesting: the flaws in the plan. I, for one, can’t wait to see what Teddy will be up to next.

The Philanthropist airs Wednesdays at 10PM on NBC.

I’ve been experiencing a crippling case of Writer’s Block recently (and by ‘recently’, I mean the last three months), so I figured there was nothing to do, but to come clean. I’ve added my Twitter link to the sidebar, since I’ve (thankfully) retained the ability to string together posts < 140 characters. I'm also following some cool peeps on Twitter. These are people who elevate Twitter beyond the tedious and mind-numbing updates regarding breakfast cereals or grocery lists (Do I really need to know when you're doing your laundry?). Not these guys; they make the best use of the limited space and make Twitter (dare I say it?) fun. Perhaps you'll find them interesting?

giagia- Self-proclaimed “science-groupie”, married to Physicist Brian Cox, consultant on films like Danny Boyle’s Sunshine, and host of the television science series Horizon. Gia always posts fun updates regarding Brian’s latest projects, as well as science in general.

feliciaday- Felicia Day first came to my attention as Slayer-in-training Vi on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but she has since developed quite the online following through her self-produced web series, as well as her leading role on Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. She’s a fan favorite on Twitter, with her regular updates regarding books, gaming and technology.

BrianLynch- Brian, a writer and pop/geek-culture enthusiast, single-handedly makes the case for getting a Twitter account. His posts are quirky, original and hilarious.

StephenAtHome- Colbert, aka the God of my idolatry, posts regular updates regarding guests that have visited his show, as well as his unique views on the news headlines of the day.

Those are the people I follow; not many, as you can see. Mostly, I wonder how long this Twitter fad will last. When the mainstream media reports on a fad, you know that it’s on its way out, and Twitter recently was featured on shows like The Today Show. Will this post be dated within a few months? Probably, but for now (and especially in light of that Writer’s Block I mentioned), we’ll go with the flow. If you have someone whose tweets are worth following, post the link below!