Notes from the Decaying Underbelly

The Times' Arts section today provided both a sour note as well as a surprisingly welcome bright spot on this very rainy April day (how rainy? so rainy I'm typing this instead of playing golf). I've all but stopped reading the A section because the minute I see anything involving "car" or "bomb" or any combination of the two accompanied by a photo of a crying Arab man, my eyes glaze over and I pass out. The last time this happened I fell face first into a bowl of my Flaxplus and nearly drowned. How's that for desensitization?

In the tradition of Turbo, first we'll mention the negative. There was the annoyingly told you so-ish "This Time, the Shock Jock's Sidekick Couldn't Shield the Boss." It's actually a decent article, illustrating a producer's role on an occasionally controversial radio show and the fine line involved in a host's proximity to his material. The reason I list this as a negative is that I am so beyond sick of hearing about Imus and the latest melody in this on-going argument. We get it. Please, let's stop. I don't even have the energy to argue either side. I. Just. Want. It. To. Stop. Just draw and quarter Imus and whoever else and then we can finally celebrate the end of all racism or at least wait until someone else says something that someone else can sink their fangs into. I just want to say that my thoughts and prayers are with those brave women, and that I really hope this issue is the main platform during the next election.

Moving right along, our favorite gal pal, Virginia Heffernan made a major move towards paying off the debt she owes me for all the time and energy I've wasted hating her writing. She wrote a great (if blandly titled) article today on the new network shitcom Notes from the Underbelly that actually made me chuckle a bit. The article begins:

“Notes From the Underbelly” is a revolting sitcom about pregnancy. Watch and you’ll lose your appetite for life.

Virginia! Look at you! Perhaps it's my admiration of the word "revolting" and appreciation for how well the first sentence rolls into the next with all the foreboding and knowledge of a much warier, much more seasoned television reviewer.

Normally I'm used to seeing her review "American Idol" or YouTube videos with this odd, unsettling mixture of smarmy condescension and ironic appreciation. It's frustrating and, yes, revolting. Part of the problem is that it wastes valuable space in the shrinking arts section, because for every 500 word review of "Laguna Beach" that is one less valuable article we'll actually get to read. Besides, do the editors (or Ginny) really think the readers of the Arts section even know what most of these shows are? And why do we need reviews of it in the first place? It's like reviewing what happened in your office last week.

But most of all, her articles always seemed to lack a real point of view and a pair of balls. It's easy to write a cutesy pap smear about a video parody on YouTube, or on a harmless reality show that is gosh-darn-silly-but-it's-cute-and-I-can't-help-watching-it-because-it's-on-after-Grey's-
and-who-cares-if-it-signals-the-end-of-society-as-we-know-itidontcare, but what about the (admittedly few) shows that matter? Or their contextual relevancy?

Finally, finally, finally, with today's article, she steps out of the cutesy dorm-room viewing darkness (the one that always left me picturing her eating a frozen dinner, alone, in front of the TV wishing she was hit by a car and Dr. McDreamy/Steamy/Roofie fell in love with her while looking after her but then she dies and he kills himself and then they have tender angel sex) and into the territory of pissed off, not gonna take it anymore criticism that we get in glimpses from Manohla and even the milquetoast A.O. Scott.

She continues:

“Notes” has one of those pushy set-ups in which a noxious central couple is supposed to be normal, while their friends are wacky and desperate. Just turn it off and forget, for the evening, that you have ever heard of television. (It starts tonight on ABC. Forget that too.)

Ki-yah! I am so proud.

Granted, the rest of the article loses it's fangs as she ends up writing about how good the performances are, and even though I'd rather see her tear the show apart and decry the state of the television networks she loves so much, I have to say, I am very pleased with her today.

After today, I feel like I have a better-informed idea of who she is. She's just a sad little lady who likes to watch TV and keep up with celebrity trends and is really nice but lonesome. Also, I'm thinking that she's just so happy to be on the "inside," receiving screeners, getting the scoop before anyone else, that she fears being critical without asking permission first might get her kicked out of the club. She's lost a bit of weight since her pay checks started coming in a little more frequently and with more heft, but she'd still like to lose more. She doesn't really see herself moving beyond the Times or writing, and if she was young enough, she would be writing a lot more messages on her friends' Facebook walls.

So, Ginny, tonight, you go ahead and eat that pint of Ben & Jerry's, you've earned it.